Talk:Passover/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

short description

why do you think the short description should be "Jewish holiday" instead of "Jewish holiday celebrating the founding myth of the Israelites"? Your description does not distinguish it from any other Jewish holiday @Editor2020:

The holiday was originally an agricultural holiday which was re-purposed to be about the Exodus myth. I haven't figured out to put that a short description, so I decided to go simple and explain it in the article.Editor2020 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

okay I'll just leave it as what you put. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

myth

@Wallyfromdilbert: The sources indicate that it is a myth Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit of lead

I just did a copyedit of the lead. Fajkfnjsak reverted for "removal of sourced info". The only information removed was "wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan, the Promised Land", which was replaced by "their freedom as a nation under the leadership of Moses", which had been from a previous version of the article. I am fine with either one of these descriptions. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I already said that I just didn't see that. It looks like you just moved everything around, so as to bury the word myth. The intro sentence in your new lead would make it seem as if the Exodus were a historical event, which the sources are clear that it is not. I started a talk page section - see above. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The introductory sentence I reinserted was the same one used for years, while your recent additions to the page are the new content. The version I inserted does not imply historical fact at all as it clearly says the events are "as told in the Hebrew Bible". There is no need for inserting the word "myth" repeatedly into the lead. Also, the word "myth" is not "buried" in any way, as it is in the next three paragraphs and starts the third paragraph. Finally, I suggest you WP:AGF on Wikipedia, as that is a core policy. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You did not AGF when you ran here to tell on me instead of talking to me, reading my edit summary, or responding to my talk.

Your new lead is not the same as the lead before I started editing - see page history.

You clearly moved the sourced statement I added about the lack of evidence 3 paragraphs down. And conveniently left out the word myth, which is also sourced and has academic consensus. Leaving out the single word myth, does not reflect the sources (ie academic consensus). Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: Using the talk page is how Wikipedia works. I did not "tell on you", and you made your edit while I was typing my talk page comment. As for the content of the article, the sentence before you started editing was:

Passover, also called Pesach, is a major, biblically derived Jewish holiday. Jews celebrate Passover as a commemoration of their liberation by God from slavery in ancient Egypt and their freedom as a nation under the leadership of Moses.

and my edit was:

Passover or Pesach is a major Jewish holiday that commemorates the liberation of the Israelites by God from slavery in ancient Egypt and their freedom as a nation under the leadership of Moses as told in the Hebrew Bible, especially the Book of Exodus.

Almost this same sentence can be seen going back to when the article was started. The main importance of an article on a religious holiday is not that is based on a mythical event. Also, the word "myth" is already used three time in the lead, and you want to add it twice more. Wikipedia does not need the word "myth" added to the first sentence of every article that mentions the Exodus. It is already adequately addressed. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with Wallyfromdilbert. There is no reason to append the word myth to every mention of the Exodus. It's explained here and elsewhere adequately.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

See your first post - you just said what I did in 3rd person, did not ping me or ask me anything. - see my talk section above where I pinged you.

You made more significant edits than that. You clearly moved the sentence about the lack of evidence 3 paragraphs later and moved up a bunch of other content. In addition to removing myth from the mention of the Exodus, it seemed like you were trying to move down that info (ie "bury"). Its not like you just deleted the word myth.

I am not trying to adresss the mythology here. It is addressed in the Exodus page. I just want it referred to as it is, the Exodus myth as opposed to the Exodus. Its just 1 word and there is clear academic consensus, so why avoid the 1 word? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors are not required to ping other editors on talk pages where they presumably will receive notifications of discussions. In addition, you haven't addressed Wallyfromdilbert's question: why are you insisting on adding the word "myth" to every time the Exodus is mentioned. It is not how it is discussed in WP:RS, even where the Exodus's historicity is discussed. Furthermore, you may as well go around and change every mention of Jesus' resurrection to "the resurrection myth" or of Romulus to "the Romulus myth". It's completely unnecessary.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I addressed his question a few times. see my comments. Never said he was required to ping me. Just saying its rude to tell on someone instead of confronting them. ie what you just did.

Please stop following me around and inserting yourself into our discussions (the part between us) - but I am fine to have your opinion on the actual topic of how to write the Passover article. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussions on talk pages are open for all editors to comment on. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That's why Wallyfromdilbert posted it here.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you even saying this? No one asked or is debating this. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You said "Please stop following me around and inserting yourself into our discussions (the part between us)". That obviously suggests that you don't think I should be commenting on it.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: I did send you a ping in my first comment, which was addressed to all editors, including you. Discussions about content are not between only particular sets of editors. You may want to review WP:CONSENSUS. Also, the vast majority of academic sources, including the ones you added to this page, do not refer to it as "the Exodus myth". What are your reasons to support your change to longstanding descriptions? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to guess what I suggest. You literally just quoted the explanation. (the part between us). You intentionally left out the other part where I said I'm fine to have your opinion the actual topic of how to write the Passover article (ie the content). Just stop following me around to insert into the part you don't belong in (dispute about why he would not just ask me why I made an edit, instead of referring to me in the 3rd person- ie telling on me).

I've written many times that it is academic consensus that it is a myth. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to explain why you would like to bury the lack of evidence quote 3 paragraphs down? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What academic sources begin their discussion of Passover with the historicity of the Exodus? The sources you provided do not. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This wikipedia article begins with a discussion of the Exodus myth. So the academic consensus should be addressed there.

And I do not see why the 1 word, myth, is such a big deal, when it is academic consensus anyways. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What sources describe Exodus as a myth when beginning their discussion of Passover? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You already asked that. I answered above. Since wikipedia article starts with it, it should be addressed there.

Or at the very least, include the single word, myth, in the beginning, and discuss the historicity later. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: You have provided no sources on this talk page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

why would you ping me? We're already here talking. I already posted multiple sources in the lead that we are discussing. Feel free to look at them Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: This comment is directed towards you. None of the sources you added to the article discuss Exodus as a myth in connection to Passover or use the term "Exodus myth". This article is about Passover, and the historicity is already discussed later. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

all of our comments are directed to each other. Why are you starting to ping now? We have not been pinging each other.

The listed sources, all refer to the Exodus as a myth. The Passover article already mentioned the Exodus before I got here. If you're going to write the Exodus myth into the lead it should be addressed there.

Why don't we just settle at this: lets put the 1 word, myth, for which there is sourced academic consensus in the beginning? We will move the lack of historical evidence quote to later in lead where you want it. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no academic consensus for using the term "the Exodus myth". Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is however, academic consensus that the Exodus is a myth, a founding myth to be specific. So why don't we leave it as "the Exodus, the founding myth of..." We will move the lack of historical evidence quote to later in lead where you want it. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources the begin a discussion of Passover that way. What is your argument for changing the article's longstanding phrasing? "It just one word" is not a good reason when it goes against all the sources and the article's whole history. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources are talking about Passover. They're about the Exouds. I've said this a few times, you keep taking us in circles - I did not put the Exodus at the beginning of the Passover article, it was there before I got there. I added the myth to "Exodus myth", the "founding myth" part, and the lack of historical evidence part because it is relevant academic consensus. You would like to move the lack of evidence to later which I am fine settling on. Since you still want the Exodus mentioned in the beginning, the appropriate description as "the founding myth of..." should be stated, as it is academic consensus. You wanted the Exodus myth excluded which I am agreeing to do as well, as long as we put "the Exodus, the founding myth of...".

and it does not go against the sources at all. I've said this a few times too, they clearly label it as a founding myth. "the Exodus, the founding myth of..." reflects the academic consensus. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide an academic source that discusses the Passover as being a celebration of "the Exodus myth" and not simply of "the Exodus"?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you actually are interested in this topic Ermenrich, and not just trolling me everywhere I go, see my comment directly above yours for my answer. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't respond to the request in that comment: show me a source about Passover that says "the Exodus myth". The question is not whether there is an academic consensus that the Exodus is a myth.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

wow, actually read my response. Read to the end - where I describe a different suggestion than the old one you're fixating on. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: None of the sources about Passover discuss Exodus as a myth, which is why it is inappropriate and undue to make your additions to the first sentence. Your fixation on adding the word "myth" to religious articles is the problem and is becoming disruptive. Please let it go. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am free to discuss edits on talk page. If you don't want to, feel free to stop.

The Exodus is well established as a myth. There is overwhelming academic consensus. If you're still looking for sources, as I've said, look at the many sources I've put on this article and the others you're apparently watching.

I put in good faith to giving you a middle ground compromise, edit that will reflect academic consensus, while keeping the bulk of your desired changes - see/read my comment above. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No one on this talk has debated whether or not the Exodus was a real event or a myth. The fact is that you have not provided any sources that say that Passover is a celebration of Exodus as a myth. If you do not have a source that connects Passover to as Exodus as a myth, then combining sources that talk about Passover with those that talk about Exodus as a myth is WP:SYNTH, a type of original research that is not permitted on Wikipedia. For the past 15 years, the lead sentence and paragraph have never discussed the historicity of the Exodus because it is an irrelevant topic there. If you cannot find a source to support your position (discussing Exodus as a myth as it relates to Passover), then your changes will need to be removed. (Indeed, your addition of the historicity of the Exodus really should not be in the lead at all, as the lead should summarize the article and that is not discussed in the main body. Making the whole first paragraph about the historicity of Exodus is entirely undue unless you can find sources that discuss Passover in the way that you want. You should be happy to have your content in the lead at all based on the current sourcing.) Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No one on this talk page has said that Passover is a celebration of the Exodus as myth. I said Passover is a celebration of "the Exodus, the founding myth of..." or "the Exodus, the myth of..."

Passover is clearly a celebration of the Exodus. Exodus is a myth. There is no change in information or implication. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

sentence fix

"which during" makes this sentence sound awkward:
Passover was a spring festival which during the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem was connected to the offering of the "first-fruits of the barley", barley being the first grain to ripen and to be harvested in the Land of Israel.[9]
can someone think of how to reword it? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The ENTIRE population WENT to Jerusalem three times a year!

First, the courtyard of the temple could not possibly have held everybody, but god made a miracle and everyone had enough room to get down on the floor and spread their arms and legs out; nor would there be enough inns to provide rooms to the entire population,instead people stayed at other peoples homes. Second, it would take many of them a week or more to get there and a week or more to get home if they lived outside of Israel but everyone lived close enough that it took at the most 6 days there and back.

Most ancient Israelis could afford to have a place to live, clothes to wear and food to eat - and that was about all they needed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:24D6:1C37:7FAB:C872 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Samaritan references

Hi Ermenrich; removal of Samaritan references have been transferred to Passover (Samaritan holiday). Chesdovi (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok Chesdovi, as long as it's properly linked. What about the removal of Beta Israel references?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I put that in at Pascal lamb: [1] as it is not directly linked to the Jewish observance. They are different religions. Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ty for reminding me to link new article. Will do now. Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Haggadah 2021 Reformulate the Lede

The lede has no mention of the Haggadah, Matzah, or the Chag haMatzot, the "feast of unleavened bread" (which actually redirects here), nor the month of Aviv, nor the counting of the omer. Each one of these is a major omission. I added them on 13 Nisan 2021, but was reverted. For people who know the subject matter, this is WP:SKYBLUE, but maybe there is tertiary or secondary source that can be linked to explain it to ben tam and ben she eino yodea l'shoel.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What is passover?

It can refer to the paschal lamb, to the pesach seder where it was eaten/is remembered, to the event recorded in Exodus where the angel of death "passed over" the houses of the Israelites during the tenth plague on Egypt, and to the week long feast of unleavened bread that follows it. Passover is all these things, and they should all be reflected in the first sentence or two of the lede, IMHO. Do we need a reference for this?Jaredscribe (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Date and duration

The following sentence under the heading "Date and duration" seems to be at least partially wrong: "In 2009, for example, Nisan 15 on the Jewish calendar used by Rabbinic Judaism corresponds to April 9. On the calendars used by Karaites and Samaritans, Abib or Aviv 15 (as opposed to 'Nisan') corresponds to April 11 in 2009.". It is true that the Rabbanite calendar gave "9 April" as the equivalent date of "15 Nisan" in 2009 C.E., and it is also true that the Qaraite (observational) calendar considered "day 15 of the 1st month ('month of the Aviv')" to correspond to "11 April" in the same year. But it is not true that the Samaritan calendar, which counts days from the astronomical conjunction (or an approximation of it), gave the same date; most probably the day they considered as "Abib 15" corresponded to "10 April" in 2009 C.E. (compare e.g. "The Samaritan Update" on https://shomron0.tripod.com/2009/janfeb.html). Better examples would be the last two years. In 2021 C.E., the Rabbanite calendar gave "28 March" as corresponding to "15 Nisan". The Qaraite calendar instead considered "29 March" to be corresponding to "day 15 of the 1st month", but the Samaritan calendar gave "26 April" (about one lunar month later) as "Abib 15". This year, in 2022 C.E., the Samaritan date for the "First day of Unleavened Bread" will be on "15 April", the Rabbanite date on "16 April", and the Qaraite date (most probably) on "17 April". Both the Rabbanite and the Qaraite calendars do have thirteen months in the current Hebrew year, but the Samaritan calendar has only twelwe months in this Hebrew year; therefore the Samaritans have been able to "catch up" by one lunar month. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.202 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Was “It is finished” spoken by the temple priests when last lamb was slain?

Was “It is finished” spoken by the priest when the last sacrificial lamb was slain? 2600:6C58:607F:1598:8073:9081:5A38:B41B (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

The section titled "Morning of 14th of Nissan" is missing the following information. This should be added in this section:

Morning of 14th of Nissan Even Kosher for Passover matzah cannot be eaten all day Erev Pesach. This restriction begins at the crack of dawn (72 minutes before sunrise). Many people refrain from eating matzah beginning on Rosh Chodesh Nissan or even Purim. Even on Erev Pesach, a youngster under the age of six may eat matzah. Baked matzah meal products, such as matzah meal cake, are not permitted to be consumed throughout the day on Erev Pesach. Cooked kosher for Passover matzah meal products may be eaten until the 10th Halachic hour of the day, or three halachic hours before sunset.

https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/seasonal/357/the-busiest-day-of-the-year-the-laws-of-erev-pesach/ Sophiaahdoot (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That source does not look particularly reliable, and after nearly a month, it does not appear there is a consensus for this edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The information presented is absolutely 100% acurate. The star-K is a major kashrut supervising agency in the United States, and is considered to be one of the one most reliable hechshers out there. As an Orthodox Jew, I can also personally vouch for the information presented here, which can also be found, for example, in https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Erev_Pesach Which also gives the primary sources for the halachas in the footnotes --gejyspa (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)