Talk:Holocaust (sacrifice)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) =[reply]

Proposal to rename page[edit]

I have proposed renaming this from Holokauston to Holocaust (sacrifice).

Details of this proposal are on the Holocaust (disambiguation) talk page, under the section Talk:Holocaust (disambiguation)#Holokauston versus Holocaust (sacrifice). Lawrence King 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This move is now complete. Lawrence King 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark animal[edit]

In Greek and Roman pagan rites, gods of the earth and underworld received dark or golden animals.

What is a "dark or golden animal"?

I asked about "dark animals" over at Talk:Names of the Holocaust too, although Names of the Holocaust mentions only dark animals and not golden animals. I have no idea what these terms mean. Pfly 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

It seems that there are currently two semi-contradictory introductory paragraphs. Shouldn't they be merged? --Nick, 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize?[edit]

Shouldn't this page at some point mention the Greek apotropaic sacrifices which originally bore the name of holocaust? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even a page on general greek sacrifices, or even a section in Animal sacrifice. I think it is very silly to start to deal with one greek sacrifice before addressing them in general. If and when that article is created I think it would be great if it were linked to in the disambig header on the top of the page. Jon513 (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I think it is great to compare and contrast different rituals (so long as it is not original research) it doesn't make sense to do so in a small sub-topic (in this case a particular kind of sacrifice) while not addressing greek sacrifices at all in a more general way. I think that the readers can best be served by having an article (or at least a section in Animal sacrifice) devoted to the topic of Greek sacrifices, and not lumping them all together in a confusing way. Jon513 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the original meaning of the word; the use for Hebrew sacrifices is secondary. This should be expanded, renamed, or deleted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or this page can move to Ohal or burnt offering or another possibility, and the Greek concept can be moved here. I am open to suggestions on how we can name the article better.
I think that we have to be smart about how be add and organize information. Often talk page discussion can be too myopic and focus only on this one article. This article is part of a series of four articles on Jewish sacrifices (did you know that they are only four types of sacrifices in Judaism, each with many sub-types). To dilute these articles with other would not be in the best interest in the encyclopedia, and it would be harder for a reader to understand Jewish sacrifices.
At the same time there is little or no content on Greek sacrifices. Having the information scattered around a dozen articles makes it harder to find and understand that information. Why should one type of Greek sacrifice be dealt with before we even started dealing with the main topic?!
I have absolutely no problem with having this article state at the top where to find information on other kinds of burnt offering, for those that are looking for that information. Or to make the page Holocaust (disambiguation) link to two different pages. Jon513 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the class of sacrifice which originally bore - and still bears - the name of holocaust from holocaust (sacrifice) seems to me without justification. If the article is moved, I would recommend burnt offering - we should prefer English titles; this should be primary usage against the magazine, which is in any case differentiated by capitalixation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have no problem moving this article and putting information on the Greek holocaust in its place if there is content to be put in its the place. Are you interested in writing it? If you create the stub in your userspace and give me a link I cannot preform the move (as an Admin it is easier for me to do it).
And while I think it is foolish to create an article on one kind of Greek sacrifice before dealing the topic in general, I don't really care enough to write something on it myself. Jon513 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The present first four paragraphs should work as a stub. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ as Holocaust[edit]

Hasn't the word Holocaust ever been used when describing the atonement ? It was certainly used in ancient Jewish ritual, but I think some writers have also used the term Holocaust when describing Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. Furthermore, the doctrine of the unique sacrifice would mean that there is only one legally valid Holocaust, which is Jesus Christ / Jesus Holocaust. The term notably appears in Catholic eucharistic doctrine when refering to the holy host in divine liturgy. ADM (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An incoherent sentence needs fixing[edit]

What does this sentence mean?

"Some of the Jewish sacrifices specified by the Torah, the olah was completely burnt."

Should it be: "Unlike some of the Jewish sacrifices specified by the Torah, the olah was completely burnt"?

Or should it read, "One of the Jewish sacrifices specified by the Torah, the olah was completely burnt"?

--Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is good, I've changed it. Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (i.e. deal with duplicate POV fork created Dec 2010)[edit]

The part of this article relevant to burnt offering (Greek "holocaust") in Ancient Israel was moved to a separate article under a romanization of the Hebrew term (counter to WP:Title) for burnt offering in Dec 2010. A merge proposal has been put on that article to possibly merge what is non-duplicate, notable and sourced (if any) back to the original article. The solution to that merge proposal is not to delete duplicate from the original without discussion as here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "merge proposal" is simply a re-packaging of Talk:Korban Olah#Requested move, a failed proposal. I've made reasonable and helpful fixes to often incoherent and duplicated material. Please don't revert helpful edits for purely technical reasons. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting duplicate content of a fork from the original article twice after a page merge tag has been placed is not a reasonable or helpful fix. If as an editor you wish to make a cogent case per WP guidelines on POV, FORK, COMMONNAME etc. for a fork and deletion of half of the original article then please feel free to contribute. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does your statement even mean? There are two articles, this is the summary, the other is the detail. The material here was poorly written, duplicated itself, often unsourced, and confusing. It has been summarized and made coherent. If your "proposal" to merge the other article into this one gets consensus, then it can be done at that time. Until then, please stop making unhelpful edits. Jayjg (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These two separate types of sacrifice connected by similar terminology. Merging them would only be proper if one lacks in notability enough to required the creation of a culturally neutral article to take the merger. That doesn't appear to be the case and this is the second time this issue has failed (it has been over eight months). Merge templates removed.
—Sowlos (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

For the record:

A.
  • (cur | prev) 04:52, 24 February 2012‎ Jayjg (talk | contribs)‎ (7,465 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by In ictu oculi (talk): Unexplained reversion. (TW)) (undo)
The restoration of deleted content is explained twice
-(i) in the request above 01:14, 24 February 2012 please not to delete a third time.
-(ii) in the previous edit summary (cur | prev) 01:08, 24 February 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ (10,207 bytes) (Undid revision 478449521 by Jayjg (talk) merge proposal since 08:13, 22 February 2012‎) (undo)
B.
  • (cur | prev) 16:47, 23 February 2012‎ Jayjg (talk | contribs)‎ (7,465 bytes) (Undid revision 478341812 by In ictu oculi (talk) - please do not revert content fixes for unrelated technical reasons - and there was no proposal extant) (undo)
-(i) Presumably "was no proposal extant" means at 17:04, 22 February 2012‎ rather than 23 February 2012‎ but in either case evident from the timings of the previous edits that there was a proposal extant on (cur | prev) 08:13, 22 February 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ (10,189 bytes) ( merge from|Korban Olah) except that there is little new content there that is not cut paste dupl of this article) (undo)
-(ii) preemptive deletion of half the article that has been standing for a year immediately after a merge proposal is not usually what one would consider "content fixes for unrelated technical reasons", as good as that sounds.
However,
I'm not going to restore Jayjg's pre-emptive delete of half of the article in support of the fork even though his action goes against discussion. Hopefully anyone who wants to discuss the merge proposal will look at the page from Dec 7 2010 when it was duplicated to 08:13, 22 February 2012 when the proposal was made. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a tag on an article is not the same as making an actual proposal. I clicked in the link in the merge tags, and neither actually led to any proposal. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is still no existing proposal to merge the articles. If there is, please provide a link to the discussion. Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I think you will have to refer me to the WP policy that says if a merger proposal is placed visibly on two articles, and both are tagged with an invitation for discussion, that the appropriate action is not to follow the invitation and to discuss but unilaterally delete half of the original article three times and leave the edit summaries as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying, but when one makes a merge proposal, one should also create a section on the relevant article's talk page for the notice to link to. In that section one should explain what one wishes to do, and the rationale for it. Just adding a tag to a page without the accompanying discussion section explaining the tag is drive-by tagging. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (sacrifice) → Burnt offering – More straightforward English title Jheald (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise some Google Books evidence for your comment on Talk:Korban olah. The evidence in Google Books seems overwhelming that "burnt offering" not "korban olah" is the English for the burnt offering in Ancient Israel. We are supposed to pick titles following what English sources actually use, this requires search results. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I link to this article regularly from topics such as October Horse, di inferi, and supplicia canum. Holocaust is a Greek technical term for a kind of sacrifice in the Greco-Roman world that is distinguished from the normal animal sacrifice resulting in a communal meal. I don't want to be sending readers to some kind of vague target article that's a potential magnet for any kind of offering that involves burning. Greek usage in the Septuagint arises from cultural contact, and the presentation of these two religious traditions together has a historical basis. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: "Greek usage of the term," I mean: was not implying influence from Greek practice on Judaic. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons offered by Cynwolfe. Dimadick (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: can you please check your comment on Talk:Korban olah, the proposal there is not to move to Burnt offering but to move from Hebrew to English Burnt offering (Judaism). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_(sacrifice)&oldid=1207629088"