Talk:Hanukkah/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Aggressive and unnecessary tagging

Mhossein has been going through this article and tagging items not needing a tag. So I ask here, what references are needed for a name? Mhossein tagged entire section of Maccabeas, which is just a list of names. He also tagged list of battles. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiability, which is an English Wikipedia policy, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." You can simply find sources for the materials in the section. For example, how do you know that Battle of Beth Horon (166 BC) was a "key battle" between "Maccabees and the Seleucid Syrian-Greeks"? --Mhhossein talk 17:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is a list with the main article right above and each item hyperlinked. There is also a policy of over tagging, which is what you're doing. Again, there is a list of names, such as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, what ref do you want? That's his name. Again, you are overzealous and the tagging is unnecessary in this list. If you want to know about the items on the list, click the main article or the individual item on the list. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of your tags would be WP:BLUE and as I mentioned elsewhere, I am trying to AGF but the way you are aggressively tagging this specific article is a little off. I've never seen someone go through an article and nitpick as you have done here. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No, we don't have a policy for the so-called "over tagging". As NeilN said how can you prove that Matityahu the High Priest "played a central role in the story of Hanukkah", "Judith. Acclaimed for her heroism in the assassination of Holofernes," or "Jonathan the Maccabee" is "also referred to as Jonathan Apphus"? IMO, all of the lines need a reference!--Mhhossein talk 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You tagged, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Explain. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I told you the policy and it applies to every material used in the article, so no need to further explanation for all of the tags. As per you question, which source says "Antiochus IV Epiphanes" was a "Characters and heroes" of this article subject? --Mhhossein talk 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I really wish the two of you would stop squabbling like children. I had to overcome three different edit conflicts to get my reply above on this page, and yet another to get this here.
  • @Sir Joseph: At a certain level, Mhhossein is correct about policy. If material's verifiability is really being challenged, then citations can be demanded. So, for example, the word "key" that Mhhossein cites above represents a judgment that legitimately demands a reference.
  • @Mhhossein: On the other hand, based both on WP:BLUE and WP:AGF, you should not be challenging the verifiability of everything, especially one-line descriptions that are linked and elaborated elsewhere. Take, for example, "Mattityahu ... was a Jewish High Priest who, together with his five sons, played a central role in the story of Hanukkah." This is well-known and accepted within the conventional understanding of the holiday—and these characters are mentioned repeatedly elsewhere in the article. You could request "...is said to have played ...", I suppose, but to demand a citation there, when both Mattityahu and Maccabees are linked elsewhere, is just hostile and unnecessary.
I am going to suggest the following as a compromise point of view for the time being with regards to these two sections.
  • Battles of the Maccabean Revolt: Replace "key battles" with "selected battles" as a more neutral description. Beyond that, this section is the equivalent of a list article, and list articles generally do not require in-line citations as long as the listed items are linked. On the other hand, some of the linked articles have no sources. So the {{cn}} tags can remain wherever the linked page has no sources, but should be removed elsewhere.
  • Characters and heroes: Again, this is the equivalent of a list article.
Judah correctly has (and needs) a source, because "one of the greatest warriors" is a claim that is (a) a judgment and (b) not solely related to the Hanukkah story. Hannah is probably better off with a source nevertheless, because her story (and its relationship to Hanukkah) are not really elaborated anywhere else here. Judith I could go either way on, because most of the description of her role is below this point in the article, not above it. I'd add a one-liner to the listing of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But none of the other items require a source here, because the only things being stated right here are cognomens that are easily found in the linked articles. And every single linked article in this list is (reasonably) well-sourced.
StevenJ81 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment StevenJ81. Is "list articles generally do not require in-line citations as long as the listed items are linked" part of a policy or guideline? Per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." You should imagine that a reader with little knowledge regarding the subject is reading the article, so sentences like "Mattityahu ... was a Jewish High Priest who, together with his five sons, played a central role in the story of Hanukkah," of course need to be supported by at least one reliable source. Same thing applies for the rest. --Mhhossein talk 17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

these aren't stand alone lists. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @SarekOfVulcan: Your edit was certainly against our TP discussion. For example, being a "Key battles" is a claim which should be supported by RSs, or "Lysias has success in battle against the Maccabees, but allows them temporary freedom of worship" also needs at least one RS. Did you read our comments and before reverting? --Mhhossein talk 18:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm in broad agreement with Steven's analysis. The threshold for "is likely to be challenged" is not "one editor feels like challenging it" or "one editor does not have personal knowledge of it". The sort of things being tagbombed here are not "likely to be challenged." The roles of key figures and battles which are well established do not necessarily need explicit, direct, citations here. There's not a single reliable source that would claim that Maccabees do not figure heavily in the Hannukah story, and such statement is not likely to be challenged, doubly so when the CN tags are being applied to short statements that are already confirmed by cited statements elsewhere in the article. Such tagbombing seems indiscriminate and really should not be done. --Jayron32 18:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
...but as Steven, whom you already agreed with, said "the word "key" that Mhhossein cites above represents a judgment that legitimately demands a reference." --Mhhossein talk 18:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
....But indiscriminate tag bombing is not the solution. There are other, more readible, ways to resolve the issue. Steven proposes, for example, changing the wording so as to avoid having to demand citations by removing superlatives like "key". The issue here is not the judicious requests for necessary citations, it's the indiscriminate nature of it. Whether or not you were doing this, it gives the appearance that you're just going through the article and slapping a "cn" tag after every sentence which doesn't already have one; if that is not your intention then you probably should change your approach because that's the impression you are giving. --Jayron32 18:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the civil response! As you noticed some of the tags are replaced by a source and some others are still there. Btw, was it indiscriminate to ask for a citation for sentences like "Elazar the Maccabee is killed in battle. Lysias has success in battle against the Maccabees, but allows them temporary freedom of worship"? There are some similar sentences, too. Another question, total reverting of the tags, which was done by some users here, were "judicious "? --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I think what's being forgotten here is that it's not necessarily about "challenging a fact", it's about a reader who (like me) may not be an expert in Jewish holidays wanting to understand how Wikipedia arrived at its conclusions and its (sometimes hyperbolic) prose about heroic warriors etc. I'm sure the facts are right, but they simply not verifiable, and that's all some of us wanted to see addressed before this got a free pass on the main page to avoid yet another bout of supposed anti-religion rhetoric. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That is why there is a main article, for example, Maccabees, and then there is just a list of characters, with a hyperlink. This is not a stand alone list and it does not need a reference on every line. What Mhossein was doing was basically indiscriminately tagging the article. As others pointed out, BLUE applies as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We can't just construct articles based on links to Wikipedia articles. That's obvious, or at least I thought it was until I met these kinds of discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody said Wikipedia is a reliable source, but if you want to know about Antichus IV, then click and read about it. In this list, the purpose is to give just an outline of people involved, same as the list of battles. These are not stand alone lists. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall stating these were standalone lists, I remember suggesting that the material we submit to our main page which has nearly 20 millions visits per day is verifiable. Relying on Wikipedia articles for verification in any article is foolish and bad practice. Rushing this sub-quality article to the main page was a mistake, and one which we shouldn't repeat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why both editors and admins are ignoring policy. First, WP:BLUE is not a policy, WP:V is. Second, WP:BLUE applies to common knowledge. As the name suggests, anyone can look up and see for themselves the sky is blue. Anyone can see for themselves a normally-formed human has two eyes. Editors talk about facts being well-established and this is just a list of names and "one editor does not have personal knowledge of it" is not a reason for tagging. The first assumes a knowledge of the subject - we provide cites so that readers unfamiliar with the material can verify the content. Second, Sir Joseph's assertion that the material is just a list of names is just as incorrect as his assertion that this isn't an edit war. Anyone can see there is explanatory/descriptive assertions within the list. The third point is a red herring unless you believe that only one English-speaking reader does not have personal knowledge of 2,000+ year old Jewish history. SarekOfVulcan's invocation of BLUESKY here is frankly mystifying. I would be willing to wager a good sum of money that the majority of English-speakers in the world would not know those facts. I would be willing to wager a lesser sum of money that the majority of English-speakers in the world would know that the traditional mainstream Christian Christmas falls on December 25th yet we cite the heck out of that. Putting it another way, if I changed "concludes on the 2nd or 3rd day of Tevet (Kislev can have 29 or 30 days)" to "concludes on the 4th or 5th day of Tevet (Kislev can have 31 or 32 days)" would the average educated reader be able to spot the false information? If not, then it's not WP:BLUE. As for tagging names themselves, based on what I've seen during my years here, there's no community standard. Most lists consisting of only names are unsourced or randomly sourced (names on a controversial list tend to have a good number of inline cites). I went through about thirty random featured articles and few of them have lists. Those that do tend to have an introductory sentence with a source that contains all the names in the subsequent list. --NeilN talk to me 01:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@All Let's just see what we can source here, and make this article great again. ;-) Debresser (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: You and I have worked together before, and I admire your work. So please take the following in that context.
On the whole, I think the fact that you are assuming that everyone was ignoring policy is, in and of itself, a real lack of assuming good faith. What I think happened here is that some people were taking a little bit of a more expansive view of policy than you do, to some extent out of honest belief and to some extent out of expediency. But I think you're a little harsh in your criticism here, and I think the series of tags that were inserted here were, in fact, excessive.
Understand, first, that I don't for a minute dispute that in an ideal world it would be better to put sources into some or all of the places where there were tags. The question, though, is not that one, but rather: were the tags (and sources) unequivocally necessary in those places? and was the article (for that reason) really so defective that a link from the main page for a single day was inappropriate?
I was a little surprised to read above that people were taking my points about a proximate link to suggest that by implication Wikipedia was being treated as a reliable source. I do see now why people would think that. Yet, that is not the only possible interpretation by a long shot. My assumption is that if the description is brief and factual, and is suitably backed by reliable sources on the target page, the sources don't necessarily need to appear separately on both pages. My suggestion above absolutely retained the {{cn}} tags where the target page was unsourced. But I assume that if the page on a battle, or a cognomen, or what have you, is suitably sourced that is really sufficient. Remember that to some extent our firm insistence on reliable sources in part protects us because we do not have editorial review like, say, Britannica does. But as long as the trail for the source is clear, there is no reason we cannot assume that meets policy.
Now, you're going to argue, I imagine, that policy arguably says that possibly every piece of information in every location it appears should really have a source. Fine. Again, in an ideal world, I agree. On pages where I have been the primary author, I try to do so. But remember that Wikipedia is having a real problem retaining editors. And one reason it has a problem retaining editors is that many contributors are frustrated with experienced Wikipedians trying to enforce an excessively draconian view of quality on them. If a slightly more lenient approach to citation, at least ex post facto, will make contributors less frustrated, there is something positive to that.
Note that I said ex post facto. One of the other problems in this situation—and this is something I have said before—is that the process of tagging and the process of fixing are quite asymmetric. It takes no time to tag a problem; it potentially takes a lot of time to fix a problem. And this is why I said "expediency" above. If I look at an article a week before its target date (I did, at User:Sir Joseph's suggestion) and see things need fixing, then I should fix them. About four days before the scheduled appearance date, it looked like we were headed to a place where there would be 6–10 or so {{cn}} tags. And on a page with over 100 endnotes, that's a perfectly legitimate quality level to allow a non-GA page to appear nevertheless on the front page. But if all of a sudden another 1–2 dozen tags appear 3–4 days before the scheduled apperance, I run a real risk of not being able to fix things in time, even if I want to. And this becomes especially frustrating when the tags are placed against copy that had been in place for 2–3 years without a fuss.
I'll grant that some such tags are absolutely necessary anyway. But I'd also state that in some cases, an alternative approach to satisfying policy is sufficiently valid to make mass {{cn}} tagging unnecessary, especially when the date is that close to the scheduled main page appearance. (In this case, in particular, the battle cases were at worst borderline. The cognomen cases were really unnecessary.) And most of all, it seems to me that people should not start mass-tagging copy that has been in place for 2+ years without discussing the need for the citations on the talk page first.
Thank you for listening. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the frustration on timing is in regards to holiday/observance articles because they are ideally included in OTD every year. In previous years, I usually gave a little extra leeway to observances just so they could be included, but in 2017, we really started making an effort to enforce quality for OTD inclusion and issues that were previously ignored are now being pointed out. If it's a regular blurb, then tagging it shortly before the day it might appear isn't as big of a deal because it can be considered as if it were simply out of rotation that year. Ideally, editors would be proactive and look ahead to upcoming holidays to ensure that those articles are up to snuff long ahead of when people like myself, Mhhossein, and TRM get to checking them. No, they don't have to be GA class to get included, or even A class, but we are expecting no major issues and not a lot of CN tags relative to length. —howcheng {chat} 17:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Howcheng: I understand that. (I also understand that Hanukkah was kept on the page this year, so I'm not complaining, in that sense. And we've worked together often enough, you and I, that I have complete respect for your comment.) In this case, though, given that many of these tags were applied to text that was stable on the page (for years), many of us wouldn't even have assumed that such things were potential problems, even if we looked at the page a month ahead of time. And that's especially true because (I argue) many of those tags were outright unnecessary, or at most were applied to borderline cases.
Overall, I don't have a problem with your trying to enforce quality better. I do have a problem when things are tagged that are reasonable within a slightly broader interpretation of the quality guideline, especially when those items are tagged close to the event, and especially when those tags are applied to text that has appeared to be satisfactory in past years. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has an issue with tagging of articles to make it better. The issue in this case was how the tagging was done. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
And how was that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
It's the very first sentence in this section. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Well subsequent discussion has demonstrated that to the majority of us, the tagging was just fine. You can assume all you like about the readers' knowledge of Jewish festivals and make easy dependencies on blue-linked articles but WP:V is a policy, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; your ardent refusal to accept that is unfortunate, as is your ardent refusal to accept that some of us are just trying to make Wikpiedia articles of reasonable quality, especially those which are featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
P.S. claims like especially when those tags are applied to text that has appeared to be satisfactory in past years (by StevenJ81 for example) are also irrelevant. Just because we've posted guff to the main page in the past, it certainly doesn't mean we need to continue to post it, especially if it's been called out as plainly sub-standard. It's not a "quality guideline" we're talking about, it's a site-wide policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, The Rambling Man, you seem to have missed my point entirely. NeilN and Howcheng basically say, "Be sure to start looking at these articles well ahead of time to make sure they are of appropriate quality." Fair enough. That's appropriate. So I look at these articles at somewhere between T-2 weeks and T-1 week, and I look at these lists. And I say to myself, "This text has been stable for two years, so it is presumably within policy. Moreover, it's true that some of the supportive sources are on the target pages, but they're there, and they're close at hand, and they're more directly germane to the target pages than to this page, anyway. So it may be a slightly more generous read of the policy, but it's still within a reasonable read of policy." So I think the pages are therefore fine. I don't even think there is something to fix there. And then someone comes in at T-2 days, tells me that only the stricter interpretation of policy is acceptable, that this page fails that interpretation, and that I have 48 hours to fix everything. And that is what I have a problem with.
All that having been said, it is clear that only the strict, narrow version of this policy is going to be acceptable going forward. And so we will have to live with that somehow, and do our article reviews on that basis. Fine. I'll do that, whether I personally like it or not, because I'm committed to the project. But if you really want to know why Wikipedia is losing contributors, one reason is because people like you only see things in black and white, and can't acknowledge the possibility of a gray zone where different interpretations are allowable. I wish you the joy of your convictions. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you, I’m sure you understand why we must keep the quality of the main page as high as possible, of course there are grey areas but not usually when it comes to policy. Thanks for your note though! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017

Remove citation "A modern-day scholar Reuvein Margolies suggests that as the Mishnah was redacted after the Bar Kochba revolt, its editors were reluctant to include explicit discussion of a holiday celebrating another relatively recent revolt against a foreign ruler, for fear of antagonizing the Romans.[11]" Davidneilg (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Davidneilg:  Not done. We need a reason for removing this. CityOfSilver 19:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Story / Background

Please review the two dates in this passage. They would seem to be out of sequence.

However, in 175 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus III, invaded Judea, at the request of the sons of Tobias.[23] The Tobiads, who led the Hellenizing Jewish faction in Jerusalem, were expelled to Syria around 170 BC when the high priest Onias and his pro-Egyptian faction wrested control from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.117.37 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Updating

Could you please update the dates section on the chart to the right of the page by deleting the dates for 2016 and 2017, and adding the date for 2020? Please. When you add 2020, hide it until that date comes. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D4E:5CA9:29A0:CE68:7E77:8C07 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hanukkah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

Could you please update the chart to the right at the top of the page by deleting the dates for 2017 and earlier, and adding the date for 2020. When you add 2020, hide it just like the 2019 date.

Thank You! 2602:304:5D47:EC19:59BB:6EEA:5517:9E67 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I deleted the 2016 and 2017 dates, and de-commented the 2019 date, but I did not add 2020. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation header

Is the distinction at the head of the page really necessary? I would think Hanukkah and Hanaka are sufficiently distinct names are sufficiently distinct for people to be able to tell them apart, unless I'm to simply assume that, as a group, people are decidedly less able to spell than in the recent past. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and removed. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Fact and miracles

The use of the word 'fact' in this entry is wrong. 'Fact' cannot be combined with discussions of miracles. "A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws" Miracle. "A fact is a statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence" Fact. These are in diametric opposition.Rickogorman (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)rickogorman

I beg to differ: a fact can be interpreted as a miracle. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2018

Could you please add in the Dates section of the page dates from 2021-29? Please. And start from 2017 or 2018. Please. 2601:401:C400:357:C1BA:3A34:AF6C:8E8 (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I would note that this IP user (2601:401:..., though the trailing part changes) gets obsessive about date information in these articles. I'm a Hebrew calendar geek myself, but feel this user wishes to include far more information than is ordinarily necessary. To be specific for this article: There is no way that this article needs to show the Gregorian calendar date for Hanukkah that far into the future. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with StevenJ81 on this. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Outdated Information (Request made 2 Dec 2018)

The sidebar still lists the dates for the observance of Hanukkah in 2017. Maybe those should be excised? I mean, 2018 is almost over now. Why retain outdated information? I don't think a time traveler is going to need to check Wikipedia for last year's Hanukkah date, y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunebat (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

All Jewish festival articles have one year back and two years in advance. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Berlin" picture is actually from Kiel

I strongly suspect the referenced image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#/media/File:A%2Bmenorah%2Bdefies%2Bthe%2BNazi%2Bflag%2B,%2B1931(1).jpg (Caption: "Chanukah Menorah opposite Nazi building in Berlin, December 1932.") is actually from Kiel, a smaller town in Northern Germany. See video at https://www.theyeshiva.net/jewish/6085 for reference and background story to this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaakovN (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Hello, can you please add to the current information of the Hanukkah Infobox to the following below:

I happen to be a Messianic Jew and I celebrate Hanukkah due to its reference in the Gospel of John 10:22 of the New Testament. Cmw5746 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

So far editors have opposed the addition of Messianic Judaism at that place in the infobox, as lending undue attention to a minor group. Another argument could be that just like we don't specify all the denominations of Judaism that keep the holiday, stating simply "Judaism", likewise Messianic Judaism is included. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see the centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Messianic_holiday_IP_user???. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

grogion calander is not correct 203.57.210.187 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hanukkah(8 letters)/Chanukah(8) - an eight-day(8) festival(8) like Passover(8). The Hanukkiah(9)/Chanukiah(9) has 8 lights + the Shamash - the REAL MIRACLE!

Hanukkah(8 letters)/Chanukah(8) - an eight-day(8) festival(8) like Passover(8). The Hanukkiah(9)/Chanukiah(9) has 8 lights + the shamash - the 'attendent candle'. The temple menorah(7) is 7 lamps representing the sacred '7 Luminaires' - the '7 Classical Planets' with the Sun in the middle like the word 'menorah'. Miraculously, the Hanukkiah's 8 lamps represent the solar system's 8 planets that receive light from the 'Shamash' - the Mesopotamian Sun god. 73.85.203.37 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sunset vs. Nightfall

The page states that Hanukkah falls during “Sunset, 28 November – nightfall, 6 December” in 2020. To a casual reader (including me), sunset and nightfall are roughly the same thing. The same wording is used in several places in the article. Is there a distinction being made between the two words? If so, it should be explained. Neutron Jack (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between the two. Even in plain English. No need to specify this in the article. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019

In the last section of the page there is a reference to the Bar Kochba revolt.

Some Jewish historians suggest a different explanation for the rabbinic reluctance to laud the militarism. First, the rabbis wrote after Hasmonean leaders had led Judea into Rome's grip and so may not have wanted to offer the family much praise. Second, they clearly wanted to promote a sense of dependence on God, urging Jews to look toward the divine for protection. They likely feared inciting Jews to another revolt that might end in disaster, like the CE 135 experience.[136]

There should be a link to the page on said topic. Chaimsussman (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hanukkiah in Brussels

Public Hanukkiah in Brussels 2020

Hello, this morning I made a photo of the public Hanukkiah in Brussels, next to the Berlaymont building, the headquarter of the European Commission. Perhaps it may be interesting to put it into the article? Unfortunately, the article is protected and I am not able to edit it. Salut, --Goris (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Chanukiah vs Menorah

The article says …

"Most Jewish homes have a special candelabrum referred to as either a Chanukiah (the modern Israeli term) or a menorah (the traditional name, simply Hebrew for 'lamp')"

This is incorrect, Chanukiah and Menorah are completely different items, and only a Chanukiah is used during Hanukkah

David Thrale (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

But it is still true that many people by mistake call it a menorah. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It's false that people "by mistake" call it a menorah. AJD (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean? It is a fact that it happens, and it is a fact that it is incorrect. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not incorrect. Menorah is a standard English word for the device that holds Chanukah lights. The fact that other words, such as the recently-coined chanukiyah, also exist doesn't make menorah, the long-standing traditional word, incorrect. AJD (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I can agree with what you say in English. However, in Jewish tradition as well as in modern Hebrew, the correct word was alwaysis Hanukiyah, not Menorah. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia itself, the Hebrew word חנוכייה was invented less than 150 years ago. It is definitely not the case that "in Jewish tradition... the correct word was always Hanukiyah". It's a modern word. AJD (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I struck part of my comment above to reflect your comment. I understand, however, that you agree with me that User:David Thrale's concern is unfounded? Debresser (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. AJD (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with Christmas

"This in parts mirrors the ascendancy of Christmas, which like Hanukkah increased in importance in the 1800s, becoming a federal holiday only in 1870"

As the source given indicates, there were no federal holidays prior to 1870. The way this is phrased suggests that if Christmas had been more relevant it would have been made a federal holiday prior to 1870.

Ackshually... (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the second part of that sentence, which IMHO was not needed anyway, and think that resolves the issue raised. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanukkah/Archive_4&oldid=1136785906"