Talk:Hebrew Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

55 very core users ?! where did you get this number ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.200.111 (talk • contribs)

Contents

[edit] HA

Shouldn't it be Hehofshit, not Hahofshit? Mo-Al 00:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In some cases the definite article HA can change its vowel, but very few people actually know these rules and in the spoken language everyone says HA. In this case i am quite sure that it should be HA even in the official written language, although i'm not an expert. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As modern Hebrew is normally written, the vowel of the article isn't specified at all, but from what I know, I agree that [hexofšit] would be more of a pseudo-Biblical pronunciation, while [haxofšit] is usual modern Israeli Hebrew. AnonMoos 13:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but I'm pretty sure that although it is not used colloquially, he is the officially correct form, right? Mo-Al 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what "official" really means here. The pronunciation [hexofšit] is in more accordance with the old Tiberian niqqud (orthographic vowel diacritic symbols), but Tiberian niqqud doesn't establish an official standard for modern Israeli Hebrew -- the only thing which could do that would be the Academy of the Hebrew Language. I have no idea whether it has issued an official pronouncement on the matter (it seems to be more concerned with spelling and vocabulary), but if it has, it's swimming against the tide. In previous decades, there were some individuals in Israeli broadcasting who tried to keep closer to Biblical forms, but I think that battle has been lost for a while now... AnonMoos 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the word החפשית appearing one time in the bible: Kings 2 15:5:

וַיְהִי מְצֹרָע עַד-יוֹם מֹתוֹ, וַיֵּשֶׁב, בְּבֵית הַחָפְשִׁית

As you see, the vowel is clearly an A (patakh).

The meaning of the word in this context is completely different (it referes to a kind of hospital for lepers), but i think that the same vowel rules apply. --Amir E. Aharoni 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's ha there (and in 2 Chronicles 26:21) because the pataħ to səgōl rule applies only before ח with usual long qames ([ā]) or with ħateph qames (weakened short [ǒ]), but not before ח with qames ħatuph (ordinary short [ǒ]). AnonMoos 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that it isn't usually he in the Torah, but we are talking about Modern Hebrew, and in Modern Hebrew he is the correct form, is it not? Mo-Al 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the definite article takes səgōl very often before the consonant ח in the Bible (as you could easily see if you had an alphabetical list of all the words occurring in the Hebrew Bible). However, Aharoni has pointed out that there's an exception to the exception, whereby the definite article would not take səgōl in the Bible in the particular case of [ħofši].
I really don't think that official "standard" modern Israeli Hebrew tries to be more Biblical than the Bible. However, it seems that the only way to fully and authoritatively satisfy your doubts on the matter would be to personally contact the Academy of the Hebrew Language. AnonMoos 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, i think that i have a decisive answer.

Even-Shoshan Dictionary, 2003 unabridged edition, volume 6, page 2152, §19-ג:

Before ח with kamatz gadol or khataf-kamatz and before unaccented ה and ע with kamatz ה has the segol vowel: הֶחָכָם, הֶחֳדָשִׁים, הֶהָרִים, הֶעָשִׁיר. However: הַחָכְמָה, הָעָרְמָה. (Here ח and ע have kamatz katan).

Explanation: These are the cases in which the ה has a segol. It is not the case with חָפְשִׁית, because in this word the kamatz is neither khataf nor gadol - it is a kamatz katan. However i didn't really understand why does the ה in הָעָרְמָה have a kamatz ...

There are more rules governing the nikkud of the ה article. Thanks to you i learned some of them now :) . It makes me different from about 99% of Israelis. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs update

According to the banner image on Hebrew wikipedia main page, Hebrew wikipedia seems to have reached 50,000 articles. AnonMoos 13:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Multiple reverts over paragraph concerning controversy and opposition to Hebrew Wikipedia policies

[edit] "Movement"

There was indeed some movement which was actively promoted by no more than three users. For some reason the guys who set it up even tried to draft me and a few other users, but no-one except those three was very enthusiastic.

Seriously - I really don't think that this thing is anywhere near being important enough to be mentioned on this article.

Wikipedia:Esperanza was a comparable movement in the English Wikipedia. It was quite different in its goals and its attitude was far more positive; it was also much, much bigger. Nevertheless it was eventually discontinued, even though some people on en-wiki weren't happy about it. Despite its size and despite the fact that the closure disappointed some people, it is not mentioned on the article English Wikipedia and it's probably for the better.

Take a look at some other articles about non-English Wikipedias. Some of them have similar issues - unhappy users that come to vent their frustration about their local WP community. Check Japanese Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia for examples and if you are really bored, check the history of Czech Wikipedia.

I seriously believe that the Hebrew Wikipedia is one of the best, although not without faults. That's what the article should be about - not about some utterly unimportant "movement". --Amir E. Aharoni 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

exactly what I have ment to say. for a sec I was sure Amir E. Aharoni can do the Snape thing and read my mind (only joking). תחי מדינת ישראל 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • While I don't mind going on record as having stated that personally, I too find the atmosphere over at the Hebrew Wikipedia highly unpleasant, and I'd rather not edit than have to interact with some of the abrasive personalities that seem to dominate the project, I feel that the current edit war over this article is lame. Even if the complaints are legitimate, listing them in the text of this article is about as effective as spraying graffiti on the street: it may briefly give you the illusion that you've acted, but it's not really going to lead to change. Even without that paragraph, the Controversy section of this article hints to some of the unpleasantness going on at the Hebrew Wikipedia. The rest is ongoing politics, and arguing over the write-up here is embarassingly provincial. Just drop it, please. --woggly 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
we are not in any disagreement here. however, Im active in he.wikipedia and i can assure you that this so called "movement" has done nothing and all they did was talking all day. surely you wont approve of listing here all the arguments in he.wi? thats absurd and the space on the servers isnt that big. תחי מדינת ישראל 22:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, should have been obvious from what I wrote. --woggly 22:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
so we are in agreement. good. תחי מדינת ישראל 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad... I eventually reached the same conclusion that it wasn't notable enough, however, when I get back from my vacation I will add some of the criticisms that were published by reliable sources as well as anything else I find in some of the newspaper articles that have been published on Wikipedia over the years. Yonatan talk 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. As long as you keep asking yourself, are you just venting your frustrations, or are you contributing real information that may be useful or interesting to outsiders. --woggly 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, although it may seem that way, I'm not really venting my frustrations, as I wouldn't be contributing to that project if I'd been so frustrated with it and I didn't add that paragraph in the first place. Yonatan talk 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... what neutrality concerns do you see in the article? Yonatan talk 23:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately, i must disagree. you have a lot of arguments un he.wiki about deleting articles. I will check your edits in the future to ensure thr article will not suffer from neutrality problems like now (even now it has severe NPOV problems and I placed the tag).
what problems? lets see... what about false template:fact about things that are a common fact? if you have a problem with the policy of he.wiki this is not the place to complain. 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm... first of all your whole comment reeks of assuming bad faith, please read WP:AGF. Secondly, I dunno what constitutes a lot, but I don't think I get in too many arguments. Thirdly, I didn't add the whole "Wikipedians for Change" thing to the article and I thought it deserved a place there because it was quite notable at the time - and I dunno how you could judge its notability seeing how you've only recently become active. You're welcome to check my edits and I'll be happy if you correct any errors I make. The policies of the Hebrew Wikipedia are irrelevant. If there's a sentence in an article that's not referenced and I add {{fact}} to it, it should be removed once you've added a source. There's no such thing as "common fact" as what is common to you may not be common to me, and you going around checking categories and seeing which one has more articles and then deducting that it's because he.wp focuses on that field is original research. You're welcome, however, to add the percentage of Israel, Judaism or history-related articles to the article if it's relevant. Adding {{fact}} is not a neutrality issue and if that's the only issue you have with the article - it probably doesn't have a place there. Yonatan talk 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
what i meant and you probably didnt read, is that he.wp has an unofficial policy about writing articles related to judaism. for example: category:חצרות חסידיות, in almost every country that has a good article there is at least a peragraph about the local jewish community. in some cases there is an entire article about the jewish community, and it doesnt stop there. another thing: from about 550 fa's, 25% are about israel or jewish history. and thats only what i have founded in a quick scan of the Portal:Featured Articles (פורטל:ערכים מומלצים).
by the way, since when almost 6 months is recently? תחי מדינת ישראל 00:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any "unofficial policy" - people write about things that interest them, so for systemic bias reasons, there'll be more info about Judaism. It's nice that the Hebrew Wikipedia writes a lot about Judaism-related subjects, however, I don't see where that is stated in the article (and if you add it, please make sure it's properly sourced and not original research as the border between what is and isn't OR passes right around this area). Six months is pretty recent, considering when the events took place - it's all relative. Yonatan talk 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
then thats a sign that you are not so active in he.wp because it is well known there. anyway, i will talk with some of the more active users and we will see what can we do in order to give you what you want. by the way, it would have benn much more effective if you have posted a question in the ויקיפדיה:מזנון or ויקיפדיה:דלפק יעוץ. תחי מדינת ישראל 00:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm active enough to know that there's no such "policy" but either way, we're digressing. I dunno what you want me to post on there and I don't think canvassing other users to come here and support a certain opinion is a good idea, if that's what you meant. Here's something you can state in the article: "The Hebrew Wikipedia has x articles that fall under the category of Judaism[link to tool that helped you figure this out]. In comparison, the English Wikipedia only has x featured articles that fall under the scope of Judaism." (I dunno if that's true)... or if you find an article that compares the two you can write the comparisons here with a link to the article. Yonatan talk 00:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

The Hebrew Wikipedia has been the subject of countless news articles and also of several academic studies. --Amir E. Aharoni 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)