Talk:Vilna Gaon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Vilna Gaon is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions! |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
| Comments | Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
Shalom all!
I'd like to discuss modern developments & studies of GRA.--Fivetrees 19:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Page move
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request:
[edit] Elijah ben Solomon → Vilna Gaon
Simple issue of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Many Jewish sages have been known primarily by something other than their 'full and correct' name.--Pharos 15:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- support. He had dozens of other names but this one seems to have stuck. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- support, I think this is the single name he is best known as. Rje 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- support. "Elijah ben Solomon" is used in academia, but "Vilna Gaon" is the common name. The Google test says "Elijah ben Solomon" gets 3,100 hits, whereas "Vilna Gaon" gets 17,500. The six to one ratio is pretty compelling imho. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose The redirect works fine as it is...it is not like Vilna Gaon is redirecting to some other guy known as the "Genius of Vilnius." Secondly, we don't move Albert Anastasia (Umberto Anastasio) the boss of Murder, Inc. to an article titled by either of his nicknames Lord High Executioner and the Mad Hatter (both of which appeared in the headlines of the New York Times more often than his actual name)...nor do we redirect Dwight Eisenhower to an article entitled Ike, John F. Kennedy to JFK or philosophers like Roger Bacon as a redirect to Doctor Mirabilis . Though, in these examples, the nicknames (as is the case with "Genius of Vilnius") were just as ubiquitous if not moreso. —ExplorerCDT 18:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- support under the "name most commonly used in English" principle. Jonathunder 02:17, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
-
- Have you looked through the 17,500 google responses for "Vilna Gaon" to see if all of them are English? I take it that you haven't as a summary of the first 1000 (I like 100 results per page), shows quite a few pages of transliterated Hebrew and Lithuanian. Google test shouldn't be the basis for everything, and should be taken with analysis...the proverbial bucketloader of salt. —ExplorerCDT 02:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- When I searched on it, google returned about 16,900 English pages for "Vilna Gaon" and only about 2,020 pages in English for "Elijah ben Solomon" Jonathunder 02:38, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Adereth Eliyahu (one of the Vilna Gaon's works)
Translating this title as "The Splendor of Elijah" or something similar is OK, I suppose, but like many titles of rabbinic works, this one makes a play on words. Its meaning recalls most forcefully to someone who knows the bible in Hebrew "the cloak of Elijah" in the book of Kings (the words for that phrase are identical to the title: "adereth Eliyahu"). I think more Hebrew readers think of that than of any other meaning for this title. It may make sense, then, to mention the pun in addition to the translation given.
66.135.106.50 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Cy
[edit] Small vs. regular size references
What is the issue here? Why is one preferred over the other? Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- For this particular case, I find it of textural benefit in having them footnote-sized. This is how I originally authored it here, and having not seen a convincing reason (which is to say, any) for why they should be changed, I reverted to the original. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 17:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- It seems that the vast majority of articles have regular size references, and small ones are harder to read, especially if someone is visually challenged. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've had this argument before, Jay, more than once, and to reiterate my answer: if footnote-sized is considered too small for references, then the same would be true for footnotes, thus, more fundamental changes wrt these (& wiki code) would need to be implemented. As it stands, footnotes are used in Wikipedia in that size and I have not heard any such complaints to that effect directed towards (the embedded size of) footnotes, only references. The way I see it, it's (informally) within the guidelines of the MoS. As for the visually impaired, they can increase the text-size or use other tools, but again, this is a problem they will encounter just the same in footnotes — and we're both in agreement, I'm sure, that Wikipedia articles need more footnotes, and more references, in general. That said, if two editors revert me, I'll probably back down, which would not however be the case for other, lengthier reference sections where a footnote-sized reference section makes a significant difference in terms of the size of the respective section viz. the body and the rest of the article. In summary, if you, as a 2nd editor, disagree with its use in this particular article, by all means, remove the small tag, I will not revert or object (though, again, this might not be the case for other articles). Hope that clarifies my position. El_C 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- It seems that the vast majority of articles have regular size references, and small ones are harder to read, especially if someone is visually challenged. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The small tag should not be used at all. Apart for obvious formatting issues, such as the 2 in O2, there is no argument to insert additional code for this. If all footnotes should be small, which I would disagree with, the template should be edited accordingly. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Following that logic, one would have difficulties distinguishing between O2 and O3 — you can't have it both ways, Jfdwolff... El_C 10:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. I'm putting in a request for comments on this, as you cannot force consensus on formatting on one single page. Your response about oxygen/ozone is just silly. My point is not readability, my point is that there is no consensus to format footnotes in the way you are doing it. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. I did not format footnotes here, nor am I forcing consensus. [1] El_C 11:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
El C, you are being annoying. Using the rollback button when I offered a good reason for removing the "small" tags is not very polite[2]. The manual of style says nothing about making footnotes/endnotes small, and consensus appears to be that footnotes are not made small.
This page is now on requests for comments, so I think you should not have reverted but rather awaited community input. JFW | T@lk 12:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- You feel I am being annoying is a more diplomatic way to phrase it. I, for one, am of the opinion that you should not have reverted then issued the RFC. There was no harm in using rollback once (the first and only time) since all you said was "References - no <small> in references." You can count my singular rollback, then, as a "References - yes <small> in references," no? And yet you call that edit summary a reason? The way I see it, a reason would involve a because, not merely be limited to a description of the action per se. Furthermore, there is no consensus to enforce size uniformity for those sections, I belive you grossly misunderstand the purpose of the MoS in this case. Finally, you should not get so upset over such a minor an issue —it seems to me that the only other participant in this discussion, Jayjg, found it minor enough not to adopt a position either way. Note what I said to him "if two editors revert me, I'll probably back down." Sheesh. That is all. El_C 12:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that references should be regular sized, but I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise, and in any event am not willing to edit war over the issue. I do think that use of the administrator revert is best reserved either for cases of vandalism, or for cases when the original editor made no comment as to the reason for the edits. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I seem to recall, Jayjg, speaking in your defence in a certain bogus Arbitration case, arguing that the rollback counts as a normal edit revert (since your accuser saw it very differently, and I don't believe vandalism was involved). Perhaps my memory is failing me (it's likely), but regardless, let me be clear: if I feel like reverting someone and their edit summary only depicts their action (which, once again, isn't a reason, let alone, a "good reason," as was claimed), I will save the time of copying and pasting and writing out the edit summary "rv," and I will use the rollback function for that as I see fit (unless I know in advance that that person find it objectionable). One bothers to change something, whether they choose to explain why, is their preogrative; it's nice that they describe what they did, but I can see that in the diff anyway. As for small, I am certain that if it ever becomes a factor, it can be added to the MoS, relatively effortlessly for that matter (I don't see it being that much of a difficulty to gain the consensus for that). At the event, I'm pretty sure the only time I add small is when I am sole author of the reference section in question. In some articles it remains, in some articles it was reverted by more than one person and I let it go, and others I will not so easily. All in all, it isn't such a big deal to begin with, and I don't like how people consider any revert quantitatively as a 'war,' without looking at the qualitative aspect —quantitatively it's just a click of the mouse and a couple of k of info sent (and the same, in that sense, goes for rollback), with a maximum of 3 per day (And yet there's all this tensions, as if it is necessitated by proceduralism alone). I also don't like how I feel the need to clarify something this trivial at such length and with such precision. El_C 07:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- When I was a new administrator I made liberal use of the rollback feature, and was admonished for it. I know that people tend to see rollbacks as insulting, so I was telling you the circumstances under which I will typically use them, which is, when someone has obviously vandalized, or when someone has made an obviously POV or otherwise policy-violating edit without a comment (particularly if they mark it as minor and in fact they turn out to be major). My comment was not meant as rebuke; I was just sharing my own views (admittedly unasked for) as to more generally accepted uses of the rollback, and (indirectly) why someone might take umbrage. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. At the event, it was a minor edit, and I still don't see why anyone would be offended by it (it dosen't sound as if it would have offended you). Oh well, I'll keep that consideration in mind, but otherwise, I stand by my aforementioned comments. El_C 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- When I was a new administrator I made liberal use of the rollback feature, and was admonished for it. I know that people tend to see rollbacks as insulting, so I was telling you the circumstances under which I will typically use them, which is, when someone has obviously vandalized, or when someone has made an obviously POV or otherwise policy-violating edit without a comment (particularly if they mark it as minor and in fact they turn out to be major). My comment was not meant as rebuke; I was just sharing my own views (admittedly unasked for) as to more generally accepted uses of the rollback, and (indirectly) why someone might take umbrage. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- I seem to recall, Jayjg, speaking in your defence in a certain bogus Arbitration case, arguing that the rollback counts as a normal edit revert (since your accuser saw it very differently, and I don't believe vandalism was involved). Perhaps my memory is failing me (it's likely), but regardless, let me be clear: if I feel like reverting someone and their edit summary only depicts their action (which, once again, isn't a reason, let alone, a "good reason," as was claimed), I will save the time of copying and pasting and writing out the edit summary "rv," and I will use the rollback function for that as I see fit (unless I know in advance that that person find it objectionable). One bothers to change something, whether they choose to explain why, is their preogrative; it's nice that they describe what they did, but I can see that in the diff anyway. As for small, I am certain that if it ever becomes a factor, it can be added to the MoS, relatively effortlessly for that matter (I don't see it being that much of a difficulty to gain the consensus for that). At the event, I'm pretty sure the only time I add small is when I am sole author of the reference section in question. In some articles it remains, in some articles it was reverted by more than one person and I let it go, and others I will not so easily. All in all, it isn't such a big deal to begin with, and I don't like how people consider any revert quantitatively as a 'war,' without looking at the qualitative aspect —quantitatively it's just a click of the mouse and a couple of k of info sent (and the same, in that sense, goes for rollback), with a maximum of 3 per day (And yet there's all this tensions, as if it is necessitated by proceduralism alone). I also don't like how I feel the need to clarify something this trivial at such length and with such precision. El_C 07:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- I feel that references should be regular sized, but I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise, and in any event am not willing to edit war over the issue. I do think that use of the administrator revert is best reserved either for cases of vandalism, or for cases when the original editor made no comment as to the reason for the edits. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
You started reverting. You are introducing more formatting than is strictly necessary. Uniformity is the whole purpose of the MoS, and the absence of instructions to make footnotes small should be taken to mean that they are to be the normal size. You still haven't given a good reason why they should be small. JFW | T@lk 12:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Again, Jfdwolff, I urge you to adopt a more diplomatic phraseology. 'No reason which you feel is good.' And this is not related to necessity, is my argument, in fact. As mentioned, I consider it of relatively minor import. Really, I suggest you relax wrt this; it isn't such a big deal, I have argued these same points before, always under far more calm cirscumstances. As I said in my very first comment, if one other editor agrees with you, I'll back down. So you issued the RFC, I, therefore, instruct you to follow your own advice and wait for input. Either that, or opt for more collegial, less tense approach to discussing this. El_C 13:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd rather not get involved in the debate about Wikiquette & reverts & the rest, but I must admit that I don't like the use of the 'small' tag; it can indeed make text difficult to read for users with smaller monitors, or whose eyesight is poor, and I think that readability should be paramount. Looking above, the only reason that I can see for making them small is "textural benefit", but that's a bit too vague to be useful. I agree with El C that it doesn't seem to be an issue worth getting angry about, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have no further argument here then (and I limit myself to here, depsite the borader comment of dislike). I will note, though, that this is not the end of me employing <small> for footnotes and references, esp. when these are of considerable length. I do not accept Jfdwolff's argument wrt to what is presumably implicit in the MoS. If he wishes for me to subscribe to his view, let him gather consensus and note explicitly in the MoS that, unlike in scholarly articles, where the convention is for footnotes and references to be denoted in print smaller than that of the body, in Wikipedia this is prohibited (accept for O2, etc.). El_C 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- El_C stop being difficult. While small size refernces may be more aesthetic, they are damned nuisance to read. I support keep[ing] WP acessible by avoiding small formating whenever possible. Klonimus 18:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Klonimus should be made aware that until I (and Mel, for that matter) am offered an apology, I shall refuse any interaction with him unless it is absolutely necessary. Luckily, the matter is already resolved here (we got a 2nd editor to voice an opinion, Klonimus is 3rd, an hour after my sel-revert), so I direct him to gain the consensus and change the MoS in accordance with the standards he favours. El_C 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- El_C stop being difficult. While small size refernces may be more aesthetic, they are damned nuisance to read. I support keep[ing] WP acessible by avoiding small formating whenever possible. Klonimus 18:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have no further argument here then (and I limit myself to here, depsite the borader comment of dislike). I will note, though, that this is not the end of me employing <small> for footnotes and references, esp. when these are of considerable length. I do not accept Jfdwolff's argument wrt to what is presumably implicit in the MoS. If he wishes for me to subscribe to his view, let him gather consensus and note explicitly in the MoS that, unlike in scholarly articles, where the convention is for footnotes and references to be denoted in print smaller than that of the body, in Wikipedia this is prohibited (accept for O2, etc.). El_C 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus, the point of an RfC is to get other editors to come in and try to help sort out and perhaps defuse the situation, not to ask them to barge in throwing insults at one or other of the disputants, which really doesn't help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ayil Meshulash
I'd like to have a source that the Gra composed Ayil Meshulash in the loo. It is probably encyclopedic, as it is a common explanation when Rabbis publish secular stuff, but to have it sourced is better (which may be hard). As for Cramer's rule, this is not by him. If it has been attributed to him, this attribution should ideally be sourced as well. JFW | T@lk 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, I am coming over from Cramer's Rule. Someone attempted to insert this attribution ("some people say ...") to our article as well. I have never heard of this being attributed to Vilna Gaon. I have, however read a reproduction of the book in which it was first formulated: Cramer, G. "Intr. à l'analyse de lignes courbes algébriques." Geneva, 657-659, 1750. Does anyone have any evidence that Gaon mentioned this at any time prior to 1750? S.N. Hillbrand 03:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Ayil Meshulash was composed in the loo. Firstly, such is not the philosophy of the GR"A. I think Ayil Meshulash is not a secular book. Secondly, the GR"A encoded Secrets of Torah in Ayil Meshulash, particularly in Sha'ar 10.
- It was a bit odd, and I have not come accross a reliable source for this. I've removed the whole "loo" statement for now. JFW | T@lk 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Like you guys, I've read that the Vilna Gaon made tremendous contributions to secular studies, and while in the bathroom (where Torah cannot be studied) he developed Kramer's theorem, a major underpinning of modern math. What I can't find (no matter how much I google) is what Kramer's theorem IS. What is it? What is it related to? If his connection to this theorem is a myth, what did the Vilna Gaon contribute to science? I know it was something big. I'm just curious as to what. NickDupree 08:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) NickDupree (User talk:NickDupree)
- You seem to refer to Cramer's rule. I have heard this attributed to the Vilna Gaon, but I am unaware of a reliable source refuting the attribution mentioned in the Cramer's rule article. The Vilna Gaon was indeed a formidable mathematician (and he produced the mathematical work Ayil Meshulash), but it seems less likely that he developed Cramer's rule. HKT 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the link for now. There is no credible source that the Vilna Gaon was the source of Cramer's rule. Yossiea 14:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kramer vs Kremer
Is there any reason to prefer one over the other here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Google say Kramer is more popular; the Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum uses Kremer. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Question on Family
Did the Vilna Gaon marry and have children? If so, did any of his descendents become notable? This info should be added. Dinopup 16:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- He did indeed have children, but none are particularly notable. JFW | T@lk 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
He did have a notable son Rabbi Avraham who authored many works.
[edit] Kramer?
Modern research has found that the Vilna Gaon did not actually go by the last name of Kramer, nor did/do his descendants. A notable ancestor of his was Rabbi Moshe "Kramer". However, Kramer was not Rabbi Moshe's surname but rather a nickname (meaning "shopkeeper". His wife was a shopkeeper). Some descendants of a brother of the Vilna Gaon did adopt that nickname as a surname, but Rabbi Eliyahu did not. This has led to some confusion for some of those claiming descent from the Vilna Gaon. (See the book "Branches of Eliyahu", about the Vilna Gaon's genealogy, by researcher Chaim Freidman. [3]) HKT 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yet almost every biographical resource mentions this name, making it worthwhile to mention it. If you want you can state (using Freidman as a source) that he never used this surname. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. Edit my new revision as needed if you find it unsatisfactory. HKT 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
HKT: What exactly is "modern research"? It is obvious that during the era of the Vilna Gaon, the usage of surnames was not yet common. It was in the aftermath of Napoleon and his armies, and their "laws", that Jews were required to commence taking surnames, which for Litvaks was usually connected to their family's work or trades, thus while the Vilna Gaon may not have had any real use or much reason to use the name Kremmer (the Lithunaina way of saying "Kramer") nevertheless it is accepted that that was the family name that was associated with him/his family in Vilna and which he/they presumably used. Otherwise why would the name have any connection to him/them? Do you think that there were "who's who" publications or "VIP" directories, published in those days? If there is a widely accepted mesorah that the Gaon's family name was Kremmer then why should good Jews doubt it just because some "modern researcher" decided to dig into realms of information that are in all probability not suited for "modern research" in the first place? Unless of course the non-Jews kept records of Jewish names that can be traced to the Gaon, which seems unlikely for Lithuanians. IZAK 12:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't confuse common conception with mesorah. Mesorah is never determined by common belief. The name "Kramer" was not associated with the Vilna Gaon, and most of his descendants (even direct-line patrilineally) did not adopt that name. The name apparently became associated with the Vilna Gaon for the reason given above (see the link to the shemayisrael.com article). Feel free to find another qualified researcher who explicitly disagrees with the Friedman. Numerous mentions of "Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer" simply demonstrate that it is a common conception that the Vilna Gaon associated with the name Kramer, though a common conception hardly amounts to a well researched conclusion by someone devoted to researching the Gaon's genealogy. HKT 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Panentheism
It is sort of odd to say that Chassidim accept "Panentheism," since that term is predated by the Chassidic movement's foundation. I would be shocked indeed if anybody could produce a document in which that word was used to describe something other than Chassidism or Kabbalah. Given tha the word essentially means "what Chassidim believe," to say that Chassidim accept Panentheism becomes a little circular.--Meshulam 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Meshulam: Tell us what Sefer Tanya teaches about teva ("nature"). Thanks. IZAK 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] question about opening of volozhiner yeshiva
is there any proof that the vilna gaon requested from his disciple r' chaim volozhiner to open an academy (yeshiva). i've heard several times that when r' chaim (v.) initially approached the gr"a about the issue, the gr"a frowned upon the idea. only a little later (half a year or so) did the gr"a acquiesce and condone r' chaim's notion to open an academy (yeshiva). Adam 08:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Adam
