Talk:Golem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Golem is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Template:-type This page is a .

Contents

[edit] Yiddish IPA

The Yiddish pronunciation depicted in the opening paragraph is non standard, and non IPA. We should either put a template warning about non-standard pronunciation description (if only I knew which and how) or correct this (if only I knew how to use IPA on the internets). User:John1987

What is the normal pronunciation in English? Is the O pronounced as in "goal" or as in "Gollum"? SpectrumDT 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty much pronounced like the Lord of the Rings 'Gollum'. JRRT even writes in one of the introductions (FOTR, I think) that the name is related to Golem. Ashmoo 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split into separate articles?

I'd say that the use of Golem in a Hebrew-language publication is of more significance than your average entry under 'the Golem in popular culture'. It returns the Golem to his original mythical position (in the stories of the Prague golem, at any rate) as a defender of Jews against a dangerous world, thus reconnecting the myth with Jewish ideas of vulnerability. That's why I put it in the history section. If no-one has a problem with this justification, I'll put it back. Nomist 11:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of this. >50% of the article is again about popular culture. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It's an unfortunate aspect of wikipedia that every fanboy wants to add a line about some game, movie or novel that contains a reference to the subject of an article. I don't know if there is any established guideline for it. But, does a reader who comes to the Golem entry really need six lines describing a Terry Pratchett novel that includes a golem and a list of every console game that has a golem in it? Ashmoo 02:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
A little while ago I actually removed the whole lot on grounds of diminished notability (heh), but it rapidly reaccumulated. Where do we draw the line? I'd say the Golem has to be a major player in a film/book/game to be worth mentioning here. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest splitting off the list of popular culture references into a separate article with an appropriate title. Then put all of the relevant material from this article into one called something like 'Golem (cultural history)', and leave the main 'Golem' article as a disambiguation page. Any objections? Nomist 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Split. There might be a relation between the 'historical' Golem and his modern namessakes, but not in one article. I suggest that this be the main page, and this section split off into a seperate article. I do not suggest a disambiguation page. --Shuki 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Split. There are enough monsters called golem in games and literature that bear only superficial similarity to the mythical Jewish golem that they deserve a place in a disambiguation page, but not a place here. The Final Dream 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I made trouble when I inserted a reference to Golem (Mega Man Zero) earlier. There's no disabiguation page for golem, so I simply inserted the link via sentence format in the respective section. -ZeroTalk 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, I misspelled. There is a diasambig page. I belive it not productive to split the page though. What will that do...? All the rest of these Golem descriptions scarcely make up a pharagraph or two. Certainly no need for a seperate article. -ZeroTalk 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Section moved to Golem in popular culture in line with other 'XYZ' in popular culture articles. --Shuki 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Can we get consensus on what popular culture references are notable? I'm inclined to slash a lot of them. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Slash away! Actually, the whole article should be upgraded. As is the case with many tales, the golem notion has hundreds of offshoots and one can draw many parallels (e.g., "My Fair Lady")… but this is not the right container for all that. Instead, the article should review how the legend gained its current prominence, summarize the vicissitudes of the several themes underlying or derived from the legend, and link to serious external resources. The article should not mention every variant and derivative in an uncritical, unstructured and exhaustive listing. Myron 14:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you help identifying which ones may be notable? JFW | T@lk 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Eek! It's gotten even worse. Someone has add a large list of computer games that mention golems, along with line after line of descriptions of the golems in the game. They've also add mention of the Scarecrow etc from Wizard of Oz. If every fictional simulacra gets a mention, this will be a long article. We really need to pare it down, and maybe put a notice on this discussion page, outlining the reason, for all future editors. Ashmoo 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ashmoo, you're a star. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The real golem legend?

There is no "real" golem legend. Even many stories put into written form in antiquity have come down to us in several variations. In the case of the golem stories, the idea of someone creating a living creature appeared here and there in old Jewish tradition, but didn't really generate what we nowadays think of as the golem legend until some time in the 1500s, and the story was set in Chelm and later moved to Prague, where it became associated with Rabbi Jehudah Löw ben Bezalel ben Hayim. It was later elaborated this way and that as suited various individual authors. In other words, it was no longer a legend passed along by oral tradition and subjected to evolution by common folk. It had become a vehicle used by various professional artists to express their own ideas. In the earliest stories, the man-made creature was an animal to be eaten. The earliest human-like golem just performed menial duties. The notion of protecting a Jewish community arose considerably later and probably did not arise from oral tradition. There is no constant description of animating and disabling the Golem: a name of God or Hebrew word for "truth" may or may not be used and may or may not be written on a piece of paper and pushed into the Golem or may be directly inscribed in the Golem's forehead or erased. The Wikipedia article should not select one version of the legend/story as the "real", main or central one.

The Wikipedia Golem article should not discuss all the artistic works that were or might possibly have been based on, inspired by or influenced by the "original" legend. That is a matter for literary criticism or some other discipline, not for an encyclopedia. Here the telling of the story should be as basic as possible, perhaps with some mention of the earliest variations as well as the first printed version, the first play and first movie. It should not include juvenalia or video or other games, popular songs, nor works (even venerable ones) vaguely resembling the legend, such as Frankenstein, "RUR", Pinocchio, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" "Pygmalion"/"My Fair Lady" or the various manifestations of The Incredible Hulk. Myron 00:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"In the earliest stories, the man-made creature was an animal to be eaten." I have no idea what this guy is talking about. Golem made to be eaten? Perhaps he is confusing it with the man-made chickens or the calf mentioned in the Talmud..none of which is referred to as a Golem. But I agree, most of the Golem-makers made use of pieces of paper with holy names NOT writing directly on the golem's head. I shall edit thusly.

[edit] Golem in Revelation

I removed the mention that there may be a reference to a golem in the book of Revelation. I think a cite is needed for this to be included, along with an explanation of who believes that there is a ref. to a golem. As it stands it the sentence sounded like one wikipedian intrepretion of a scripture that is open to millions of interpretations. Ashmoo 01:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On a personal note

I resemble a golem in the morning before my coffee. Howzat for inclusion into the article? JFW | T@lk 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a visual reference or photographic proof is necessary before inclusion into the article

[edit] Another book

There's a book by Norbert Wiener, named God and Golem, Inc.. I forgot what it's about, but should it appear somwhere in this article?--Niels Ø 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

Although you guys seem to be having alittle trouble controlling the popular-cultural references to golem, I'd say that overall this is an excellent article. It provides a comprehensive overview of the etymology, history, and meaning of the term golem, as well as giving various theories on its popularization, to cite some aspects of the article I like. you guys deserve a gold star, and i thought i'd throw some good vibes at you. Keep up the good work! Shaggorama 09:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture Policy

In an attempt to keep the popular culture section at a manageable level I'm going to chop anything that doesn't meet the following criteria. If anyone thinks I'm being heavy-handed, please discuss it here to work something out.

Books, comics

  1. The entry should explain how the golem is used in the work. Is it the Golem of Prague, a golem with 'Emet' on the forehead or just a robot called golem?
  2. Don't mention any details that aren't related to the Jewish golem in some way.

Computer games

  1. I've pared the list down to 3 representative examples: Nethack (the original text based dungeon crawl), Final Fantasy (arguably the acme of the party-style mission based genre) and Magic: The Gathering (the best known CCG). Don't add other games unless they are notably different or the golem plays an important role in the game.

Regards, Ashmoo 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

New fans will come by this page and add their favorite info again and again and again. A compromise that would limit the harm done would perhaps be to include a section entitled e.g. Use in popular culture without explicit relevance (or reference?) to the jewish Golem. What do you think?--Niels Ø 11:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Dragon Quest golem plays a more prominent role in the games than the Final Fantasy golem, so I'm going to make that switch.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepper2000 (talk • contribs) .

I would like to point out (even though I'm not a registered member of wikipedia) that golems and other simulacra are the predominant theme of White Wolf's game Promethean: The Created. I thought this warranted a footnote in this article, as it is the only example (that I know of, at least) of a pop-culture roleplaying game where the protagonists take on the roles of golems and Frankenstein-esque monsters. Regards, Neil K., unregistered user. 64.6.42.20 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the Golems of Promethean actually do use the Loew story as one of their origin tales. 71.76.218.40 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

above section copied to Talk:Golem in popular culture --Shuki 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another book worth considering

Bruce Chatwin's novella 'Utz' discusses the concept of the Golem with relation to a (Jewish?) Czech porcelain collector's passion for his subject (making something from clay). Perhaps this could be included somewhere?

86.133.116.70 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)estragno

Is it historical or fictional? Is that work considered authoratitive? JFW | T@lk 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The hubris theme

I added a section called "The hubris theme", combining material that was removed in an earlier edit. Removing all references to Frankenstein and The Sorcerer's Apprentice seems inappropriate to me. Of course, they might go into a "See also" section, but I think the paragraph I added has potential to be a better solution, though it still needs attention, esp. reference and year for the particular version of the narrative it mentions.--Niels Ø 08:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

also known to be a dæmon

[edit] The Golem as seen from outside

Re NUMBERS. The article states the American view: Ten characteristics are in a learned person, and ten in an uncultivated one. In Switzerland, where I come from, we see it very similarly. Only the numbers differ. Instead of ten and ten, we have four in the learned and four in the uncultivated. But we also see the uncultivated as the Golem, just as the American Wikipedia.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re PRAGUE VERSIONS. Wikipedia is to be highly recommended for focussing on the Prague versions with their Golem that can be controlled and stopped if necessary, a Golem created in the city of learning by intelligent men. The Golem of the earlier versions, on the other hand, can be safely ignored: A Golem with nothing that can be removed to stop him, a Golem created in a village that nobody has ever heard of, a Golem built by hicks who think they are smarter than our Lord, what kind of Golem would that be? Totally unrealistic!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the pop culture thing

for all the good talk about getting rid of all the extraneous "who cares" notes on every appearance of a golem in entertainment ever, there sure are a lot of references to stuff like monster rancher and magic the gathering on the page.

[edit] Picture

The current picture does not look like the traditional image of the golem, which was a man made out of clay rather than a dinosaur-like creature. --Folantin 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This image should be transferred to the Golem in popular medium. The replacement looks like a Ninja Turtle.--Drboisclair 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altneuschul redundancy

The following appears under the "The classic narrative" heading:

(According to legend, the Golem of Prague's remains are stored in a coffin in the attic of the Altneuschul in Prague, and it can be summoned again if needed.)

The same appears under "The Golem in the Czech Republic"

It is said that the body of Rabbi Loew's golem lies in the attic where the genizah of the Old-New Synagogue in Prague is kept.

These two should probably be consolidated (as they make the article read poorly, and refer to the Altneushcul by both its english and yiddish(?) names), although I'm not sure what the best way to do so would be. 71.146.130.162 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] אמת as "real" in adjective form

Someone more familiar with the background of the Golem story may disagree, but stating Emet as simply "truth" seems a little vague in its connection to giving life to the Golem (although it is literal translation). It may be worth noting that the word "real" is from the same root, and historically is only different from "emet" by adjectival voweling and a hireq yod suffix. (modern renderings give it two hireq yods, but that is for ease of reading without vowels). Anyway, its not a huge addition but it may help to illustrate why inscribing emet should make any sense for bringing it alive in the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatar82 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Popular culture trivia dump

Recently, the standalone article Golem in popular culture was deleted following a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golem in popular culture. I was thinking of nominating it for a deletion review because although it was full of trivia, something good could be strung together from it. Then, a user dumped all the trivia back into the main article. I think that is just asking for trouble. The better way is to dump the trivia here into Talk, and scratch off items not up to snuff or move items to the main article or to Golem (disambiguation) as required. To see the hidden list, just click on Show.

Loads of Popular Culture Trivia

--Canuckle

Excuse me, Canunckle, I did not DUMP the material back here. Why don't you see how to make this material interesting to our modern culture by including how it influenced it rather than making this article like a dry, boring paragraph buried in a dusty old tome. If you had kept the separate article, that would have been fine, but now you simply want to delete information and oppose further research and study.--Drboisclair 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. If you bothered to read the deletion discussion, you would see that I voted to Keep Golem in popular culture, and as stated above, I was exploring whether I could appeal the decision to delete. It is hardly accurate to blame me for deleting that article (as per your comment "if you had kept the separate article"). Contrary to what you say, I do not "simply" delete information and "oppose further research and study." Actually, I moved it to this Talk page so that editors could discuss it without having undue clutter on the actual article. See Talk:Medusa and gorgons in popular culture for such an example. You did "dump" the material here because you initally placed a huge list of unsourced, loosely-associated information without additional clean-up. Yes, I could invest time and energy in making it benefit the article. But in case you hadn't noticed the Kill Pop Culture Cult has been on a crusade recently and there are no end of candidates for saving and improving. I'm interested in helping out but not if it means engaging in multiple pissing matches between editors who should share common purpose. Canuckle 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I further edited the material, so you can delete the stuff here if you want. I did not dump the material back. I resent that charge, Sir. What I also resent is an elitist attitude on the part of some here who pontificate on what is and what is not "data" in their opinion. I also wonder who is behind all of this rating business. That is arrogant.--Drboisclair 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you edit it then cross it off the list above. That's its purpose. If you want to yell at someone, go yell at User:Eyrian for his anti-pop cult essay and crusade. Canuckle 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. When i said the material got "dumped", I was referring to this edit [1] and not to any of your subsequent edits to improve the material. Canuckle 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I guess that this essay that you refer to is having its way to delete everything contemporary, and make this website like a dry dusty tome. I think that they should have a mention of the Meyrink (sp?) movie and other popularizations of the Golem, but proper sourcing is also necessary.--Drboisclair 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not about the age of the references, it's about how important they are. Classical references tend to me more important, because they have had a more obvious role in shaping perceptions. But they, too, must be cited. Modern works are far less likely to be important, and thus generally get removed. --Eyrian 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What if they are properly sourced and not OR? Who is going to presume to arbitrate this? As long as material is properly sourced and it is germane to the article, it should not be removed simply because an editor judges it not important to be included. One has to remember NPOV policy.--Drboisclair 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If the importance of a reference is reliably and independently sourced, I most certainly wouldn't remove it, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, either. --Eyrian 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) That is all I am concerned about here. I appreciate this clarification.--Drboisclair 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the AFD. Now I see that we are going to start all over again and mess this article up. I would have voted to keep the 'Golem in popular culture' article but if that failed, then the info there should not be 'dumped', yes, 'dumped' back into here, and then thinned down either by some POV/OR. None of the current mentions in that section are N beyond anything else that was in the original split article. I can only expect that the section will merely get filled up again over time with more junk. Delete all examples. --Shuki 17:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
At least the Meyrink work should remain. Material should remain that shows the impact of the subject on contemporary culture. I think that we can keep the "junk" out. How a topic makes its appearance in the present time shows how people become aware of it, and it spurs interest. I did NOT dump the material; I returned the article back to the original state which it had before the split into two artilces. --Drboisclair 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern culture reference

I saw that there was a video game reference to the modern culture references. Tit for tat, I think there should be a reference to the X-Files episode where a golem was employed for revenge. The year of that episode was approx. 1997 (Sorry, I just deleted the episode from my DVR!). Lighthead þ 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I just checked it out right now the episode is Kaddish if anyone ever wants to take out the time to input that into the article. I might do it myself if I ever have time. Lighthead þ 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other wikiprojects

If the article goes on to explore Golem's influence in Prague and in German Expressionist film and in science fiction, would it be appropriate to add those Wikiprojects to this article?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Golemwiki1920.jpg

Image:Golemwiki1920.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gollum?

What relation does Gollum have to a golem? Aside from the sounds of the name, nothing thats just speculation and original research. Gollum is in fact the name he goes by, infact if you click on the Smeagol there you go to a page called Gollum, and does not describe his nature but rather a cough like thing he does with his throat. There is also nothing to suggest that ghola from Dune is really connected to the golem, nothing that is not original research and opinionated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.35 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gollem ? retort

Just because you SAY it isn't so doesn't negate strongly valid arguments presented. The Ghola aspect from Dune couldn't be much more clear. Duncan Idaho is created, cloned from a bit of DNA, and programmed. He's referred to as an abomination, etc. The reference from LOTR? THAT is laughable. No one with authority ever said that the name refers to the sound he makes in the films. Meanwhile, once again we have an unnatural recreation. Now what axe is it you'd have go grind that would have your unsigned post objecting to that others have used the idea of a Golem in their fiction? --JT 13:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this has all been covered many times here. Tolkien's Gollum is totally unrelated to the Jewish Golem (he is not 'created', he can talk, he doesn't have writing on his head, etc). The authority for the name Gollum being based on the sound he makes is Tolkien himself. I'll try to dig up the quote and reference.
And as for ghola from Dune, it is more likely that Herbert based it on the Arabic word ghul ( الغول ) which is a type of zombie like creature, as he based many of the names in Dune on Arabic words and the universe itself is based on the Middle East. PS. CHOAM = OPEC, spice = oil, Fremen = bedouin.
Either way, there are absolutely no sources, so it all violates WP:Verifability. Ashmoo 22:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert, Signatures, and Personal Biases

I've reverted the article, removing the unnecessary edits performed by the unsigned party. Dune and Lord of the Rings characters are being used PRECISELY as the Simpsons golem referenced - artificially created creatures being employed for personal gain. The other changes likewise seemed to be random, and were not justified here in Talk, so I'm putting them back.

If that Editor reverts this again, we'll be in a edit war and I'll call staff in to put a stop to it. --JT 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golem in popular culture, redux

The section is once again being turned into a dumping ground for any mention of the word Golem in the last hundred years. I suggest removing them all and leaving only the introductory paragraph. I can't see the need for mentioning each appearance in a cartoon or video game spell. --Shuki 16:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien

GOlem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.2.11 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owning and Activating Golems

In the article as it stands it is stated that golems could not work on the Sabbath lest they go beserk.

This seems to me false: my impression is that the Golem of Prague was activated precisely to act as a Shabbas Goy, i.e. a friendly non-Jew who helped Jews by doing work, e.g. lighting the candles at the synagogue, which Jews could not do on the Sabbath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLJ (talk • contribs) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Funny, FWIW

Two of the most important and productive intellectuals in modern Artificial Intelligence are Marvin Minsky, co-founder of the MIT AI Lab, and Terry Winograd, an MIT graduate who is now a professor of computer science at Stanford, among his many other accomplishments.

In the folklorique literature, Minsk and Winograd are the home of two of the most imposing golems.

<End funny. You may larf now.>

In AI technology Marvin was for some years the main exponent of the homunculus- or perhaps Turing-oriented style of artificial intelligence, and Terry's very impressive PhD thesis consists of a machine acting plausibly like a very intelligent human child moving blocks around. Once he had his PhD, however, Terry denounced this style of AI research, with such power that it affected the entire field.

For a generation, then, maybe 1970 to 1995, that style of AI pretty much vanished -- with the result that genuine artificial intelligence became very prevalent throughout our lives: much smarter Blackberries in the hands of doctors; traffic lights which acted in "sensible," as opposed to mechanical, ways (e.g. by switching to let ambulances through); huge increases in the amount of self-diagnostic machinery in the world, and hence a decline in the number of ways a careless tool and die maker could get an arm chopped off by a hundred-ton press. Etc.

Ironically, there was then a turn-around: because of the huge amount of witty research that came out of Winograd's apostasy, the earlier dream of humanoid robots became much more practical than it had been in the days of Turing, Asimov, and the AI labs of 1954~1973.

Today we are seeing Aibo (the Sony dog, whose name is the amusing "love a stick"); Japanese clothing models who/which are not merely mechanical, that's part of the job, but are in fact metal and plastic machines; and kids at MIT are trying to get their PhD's out of making old style heads with reflective faces, connected to fangriferous computing power, in the hope that they might be useful in medical diagnosis, if not in promoting chewing gum at the corner store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)