User talk:Hillel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just curious...why didn't your restore to the sourced correction that I had provided? --AustinKnight 22:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind...I see what you're referencing now. This is a second-hand description, and one not consistent with the original Hebrew version of Genesis that I referred to. If the Tanakh calls it, directly, an angel, I'll defer...but second-hand descriptions will necessarily be erroneous...no offense intended. --AustinKnight 22:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
To review the source for the original (and free, by the way) Hebrew version of Genesis (an interlinear translation is provided...you do not need to read Hebrew) see the link. Cheers, --AustinKnight 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter, really, of agreement or disagreement. The source document, i.e., the Tanakh or the original Hebrew Old Testament -- with a direct translation -- can solve this pretty quickly. I'm fine with either one, but would gladly defer to the Tanakh for obvious reasons. Using some 3rd-party's read into this, on the other hand, is not ideal...especially when the true source documents are readily available. This is truly a very simple sourcing issue. If Genesis is not being used for the source, then the Tanakh should be referenced. --AustinKnight 22:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Lo and behold...Wikipedia has the following in the Jacob article: "...a mysterious being ("a man", according to Genesis 32:24, or "the angel", according to Hosea 12:4) appeared and wrestled with Jacob until daybreak."
In other words, this will boil down to a choice, in the Tanakh, between the Torah and Genesis, or the Nevi'im and Hosea.
Do you have a reason for picking Hosea over Genesis...? --AustinKnight 23:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The NYT
Why did you go to the effort of removing the capital "The" from The New York Times link in The Washington Post article? It is part of the paper's official name, right on the masthead, which is why "The" is part of the article name. - DavidWBrooks 11:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rebecca J. Nelson
I've unearthed a bit more information about this person, you may want to change your vote on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_J._Nelson. Thanks. Crypticfirefly 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Main Page
How's the issue with the user from Es:Wikipedia coming along? Do we know what's going on yet? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Siddique Katiya
You have contributed to Memons page. The Siddique Katiya has created a duplicate article of Memon as Memons. The Memon article deals with Memons and the Memons page was a redirect. Siddique Katiya removed the redirect tag [1] on 18:50, 9 May 2006 and created a duplicate article. I have requested a merge of both articles. But this tag was removed. I want these articles to be merged and make Memons page again a redirect as it was on [2] 7 May 2006 or it should be deleted. Siddiqui 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
I'm sorry, but are you not aware of the use of quotations marks (in North American terminology); inverted commas [" "] in UK terminology? These are symbols to indicate that the material occurring between these symbols is directly quoted from the source. You should not change material that appears in quotation marks (or inverted commas, if you prefer). Mrs Roosevelt's written comments used the ampersand [&] and because she is directly quoted -- that is what we use quotation marks (or inverted commas) for. So it is not proper to change the ampersand to "and" as you have done. Of course if the material were being indirected quoted, and without quotation marks (or inverted commas), it would be proper to make the change you made. The use of quotation marks (or inverted commas) is quite well understand among native speakers of English, whether they are in North America or the UK. It is generally something that is taught in school to children at around age 10, and perhaps it would be better if you did not interfere in this manner: I am assuming that you come to the English language as a relative newcomer. Masalai 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Apologies
On further reflection I extend my apologies for the above: I must have seemed patronising in the extreme, whereas I have a great deal of sympathy and admiration for those who come to English as a second language. My congratulations to you for dealing with the English-as-a-second-language issue so bravely. And good luck to you. Masalai 20:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
