Talk:Beth Medrash Govoha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sedorim times

Those sedorim times are incorrect. Talk about the yeshivas acceptance policy (twice a year)and rename the article.

So tell us what's correct and we'll change it. Shkoyach. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been a student at the Yeshivah for over 7 years and those were the soderim times, they are posted on a small note in a locked up bulletin board that is located in the main beis madrash (it might not be ther anymore but was there when I was still there in 2004). If they are not correct then please by all means corrcet them.
I do plan on writing up the acceptance policy and procedure, just give me some time. --Shmaltz 05:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sedorim times
Sedorim times
I managed to take a photo from the offical times as posted on the official locked bulliten board in Yeshivah.--Shmaltz 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Shouldn't the article be under "Beth Medrash Govoha" since that is the actual name of the yeshiva? Not the popular name - "Lakewood Yeshiva"

Agree - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree JJ211219 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename / change existing to redirect Alansohn 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion about naming yeshivas

There is no "one best way" to name any yeshiva on Wikipedia. There is an unresolved debate on Wikipedia about how to name yeshivas, see the long discussions still underway about this issue at Talk:Telshe yeshiva#Best name for the institution and this article. Thanks. IZAK 08:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are few enough to handle on an individual basis. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How about a redirect?--Shmaltz 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Tell us how you want the primary article to be named tho? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it makes any difference. --Shmaltz 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If it makes no difference then why bring this up in the first place? IZAK 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say it makes no difference with one is a redirect. But I do think that there should be called Beth Madrash Govoha or at least that Beth Madrash Govoha should be redirected. --Shmaltz 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] faucets

The following makes no sense:

And the following is a very insignificant fact:

    • Special faucets for hot drinking water, for tea and/or coffee.


I think they should be removed (I tried to yesterday but my change was reverted).

      • OK, done. Please don't remove bunches of text without any explanation whatsoever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


While I might agree that the hot water faucets is an insignificant fact (I don't realy agree since if/when you see it you can't but wonder about it), I do disagree about the faucets that don't require ones hand to activate them, as it is very noticable when you have a washing room with more than 20 faucets and none of those allow you to use your hands to operate them. --Shmaltz 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming poll

Lakewood yeshiva - or Beth Medrash Govoha?

  • Please vote here. Poll will close IY"H on August 1, 2006.
  • Proposed by - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakewood yeshiva supporters

  1. I like this name because it is so widespread and it in no way detracts from its greatness. When was the last time anyone heard of a yeshiva bochur saying he was learning in the "Beth Medrash Govoha." In any case, these kind of votes can swing in both directions at any time, and since the editors who have worked on this article so far have given the article the "Lakewood yeshiva" name it should be left alone for now. IZAK 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Don't have a strong view on the merits either way, but agree that when in doubt, principle that editors should not be interfered with too unduly should control. Also, the Yeshiva is almost certainly much more notable in the English-speaking world by its English colloquial name than by its Hebrew one, especially since this Yeshiva has spawned a whole approach. The "Lakewood point of view" is a well-known term, and I've never in my life heard of the "Medrash Govoha point of view." I imaging many notable yeshivas in the English-speaking world are more notable by their colloquial English names. --Shirahadasha 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. More well-known name. Who ever heard of Beth Medrash Govoha? Aside from that, that name is a pretty inaccurate version (it's British-style) of the name. I always oppose that. When did you hear any mention 'beth medrash'? It's 'beis', not 'beth'. Anyway, that's not the issue here, since 'beth' is their official name I guess. In any case, I vote for 'Lakewood yeshiva'. --Daniel575 07:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (Basically for the same reasons as everyone above)

[edit] Beth Medrash Govoha supporters

  1. Official name - we must honor that I think. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree JJ211219 03:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Rename / change existing to redirect Alansohn 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rename to Beis Medrash Govoha - a simple "Lakewood yeshiva" redirect should suffice -- Nesher 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree, the official name should be the WiKi name. Yossiea 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Whoever is proposing this "poll" has not signed their name with the four tildes ~~~~ so that it can be asked if anyone agrees with him/her? Perhaps there should be a a "poll" to know if a poll is needed here? This vote is premature and it is probably a bad idea. Is Wikipedia now going to decide what the world's yeshivas should call themselves or should be called by the world at large, within a deadline yet? IZAK 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I was bold in proposing this poll. Anyone who wishes to uphold the status quo and objects to the poll may express s/his displeasure by voting for Lakewood yeshiva. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi Crz: "Being bold" is not the same as "being anonymous" and it certainly does not amount to having the right to leave important proposals unsigned. Editors have the right to know who is behind any proposed anything on Wikipedia. IZAK 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "IY"H" should not be used on Wikipedian communications, this is not Frumpedia. IZAK 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Harsh... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Nope, and please don't tamper frivously with my edits. Thanks. IZAK 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't understand this poll, since both Beth Medrash Govoha and Lakewood yeshiva work, and take you to the same article, whats the point? The only difference I can see is that non redirects show up first on Google, which is not significant enough to create a poll.--Shmaltz 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're both saying, in essense, I should have just moved it unilaterally instead of asking? I don't understand... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If thats how you read my comment, sure I don't see why not. That is if this is an issue. --Shmaltz 03:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concluding the naming poll

By a 5-4 squeak, we have decided to move the article to Beth Medrash Govoha, which shall be done forthwith. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

I don't think this detailed article should be classified as a stub. Remove stub template?--Jms2000 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next time feel free to be bold and just remove it with explanation. Worst case, someone will revert you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy house

Enough of this, Shmaltz. Ad kan with the OR. - crz crztalk 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Shmaltz, you should be aware that even if you know something to be the truth, it does not mean that it can be included in wikipedia. I am sure you are not the only beginning editor who feels frustrated by this. However, bear in mind that if anyone could edit articles based on personal witness or whim, wikipedia would be a wasteland of chaos.
P.S. By the way, I studied in BMG for many years, in fact I dormed in the facility on Clifton. Regardless of what you say it is called, wikipedia prohibits inclusion of Original Research.68.198.236.57 19:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any consensus? It seems clear that including this constitutes OR. Other votes?38.117.213.19 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Shmaltz has agreed with me privately (offwiki) that it's OR. I think we're all agreed not to reinstoduce this thing until and unless we can adduce a WP:RS reliable source in support of this fact, like a newspaper article or a book or something, which is to say, never. - crz crztalk 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As crz notes I agree that it shouldn't be included until RS is interduced, however I did not agree to the never, I actulay told him that this might make me go out of my way to find the RS. --Shmaltz 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I edited the article per consensus. I'm actually pretty impressed. The last time I looked at this article (a couple of months ago), it had almost no information. I believe we have shmaltz to thank for the current article. s'is zayer ah fineh. 38.117.213.19 06:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you--Shmaltz 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==

[edit] Tumul(t?)

Tumult means "The noise as made by a crowd." or "A riot or uprising.". Though I can believe that the discussions are noisy, I assume the day is not named after the noise generated therein, but by the tumel created by tumelers. And due to the lack of mention of riots in the article, I'll also assume that that sense of tumult is not meant either.

In short, I think that the day is probably known as "Tumel day" - using the Yiddish word, not "Tumult day". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.168.67.112 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

As far as I know, the word tumel from yiddish is just the translation of the english tumult.--Shmaltz 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but my impression was that the connotation of "tumel" is more like a hullabaloo "An uproar or fuss" (the usage example given in Wiktionary would fit: They made such a tumel about the change that the authorities were forced to change it back.). That is somewhat less serious than a "tumult" which has an connotation of being, well, more tumultuous.
Any other thoughts out there?
Actually, you are correct in the sense that it is called "The Tummel" and not the Tumult. However after checking around, it seems clear that the Yiddish Tummel is merely a yiddishised version of the english word tumult.. I will edit the article to reflect this. 38.117.213.19 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Both tumul and tumult are correct forms of Yiddish. Tumul is a verb, as in "er macht a tumul" ("he is 'noisy/yelling'") and tumult is a noun, as in "genug mit dem tumult" ("enough with the 'noise'"). But sometimes they are used loosely and interchangeably, as in some of the examples above that are confusing people here. The English word "tumult" could have been taken from the Yiddish or is just a shortened version of "tumultuous" as one finds many words that English may share with other languages. At any rate, the yeshiva bochurim at Lakewood are not Yiddish professors and they apparently do refer to that day as "tumult day" so let's leave it at that and not make a mountain out of a molehill, or a tumult out of a tumul. IZAK 09:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by your erudite comment. You seem to imply that the "bochurim"- not being professors- are incorrectly using the word "tumult" when it should be "tumul". However, if indeed "tumult" is the noun form, then surely it is the bochurim who are displaying encouraging signs of future tenure, and you who are incorrect? 38.117.213.19 18:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/t/Talk%7EBeth_Medrash_Govoha_c534.html"