Talk:Hanukkah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Commons

If anyone has time, could they please go expand the gallery on the commons at: commons:Hanukkah?

Thanks --evrik ^(talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

Since apparently no one has commented on this matter, at least as it pertains to this article, I will. It is more logical and in better taste, I think, to use BCE (before the common era) rather than BC (before Christ) in an article concerning a Jewish holiday. For the most part, it appears that BCE is, indeed, used in this article, and the "Historic Timeline" close to the end of the article does exclusively use BCE. (I have not read the entire article, but I have skimmed it.) The very first sentence, however, concludes: "...of the 2nd century BC...." My guess is that someone has changed an original "BCE" to "BC." If that kind of thing is happening, then articles where this is a possible problem should be watched carefully, or editing should be prohibited.

On the general principle of using of BCE and CE, rather than BC and AD, I have seen no better rationale than that given by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in Wikipedia itself, in the article on "Common Era" at:

"Proponents of the Common Era notation assert that the use of BCE/CE shows sensitivity to those who use the same year numbering system as the one that originated with and is currently used by Christians, but who are not themselves Christian.[80] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan argued, "[T]he Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures – different civilizations, if you like – that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era."[81]"

Except in articles about Christianity itself, Kofi Annan's advice and recommendation should, in my opinion, be followed in Wikipedia. Of course, in articles where it is clear that the dates are in the common era, the usual practice of merely giving the numerical year, without appending identifying letters at all, is just fine. The entire Wikipedia article on "Common Era" is so enlightening concerning the history of the writing of dates that, I believe, it should be read by anyone thinking of commenting on the matter. Wikifan2744 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The earliest version of the article I can find that uses an era designation uses BCE. It's also a Jewish topic. Per WP:ERA, it should all be BCE/CE. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees

Please see Talk:Eleazar Avaran#Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees. Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanksgivukkah

Someone with rights to edit should add to the Dates section the reason why Thanksgiving and Hanukkah don't coincide again for the next few dozen millennia. The Hebrew calendar uses a 19 year cycle lunar calendar with several leap months intended to account for the 365.25 day year. The Gregorian calendar used in America (and most of the world) drops 3 leap days every 400 years (all years divisible by 100, but not 400) to correct for the fact that 365.2425 is actually a closer approximation to the length of a year. Because of this discrepancy, the two calendars slowly drift out of sync. It averages 11 minutes a year, but it is only really noticeable when the Gregorian calendar skips a leap year. The next time that happens will be 2100.

Currently, in the 19 year Jewish calendar cycle, the earliest Hanukkah can occur is November 28th, which is also the latest day that Thanksgiving can occur in the 28 year Gregorian calendar cycle (7 days in a week times 4 years to a leap year). Hanukkah only occurs on the 28th once in a 19 year cycle, but Thanksgiving occurs on the 28th 4 times in a cycle, so that means that the two would occur on the same day 4 times every 532 years, averaging once every 133 years. Except that every century (other than years divisible by 400), the 28 year Gregorian calendar loses a day and so the next time Hanukkah occurs on the earliest day in the Jewish 19 year cycle and that day is a Thursday is the year 2108. But instead of being on November 28th, it is November 29th. Hanukkah won't happen on Thanksgiving again until they start adding corrections to the Jewish calendar like they do with the Gregorian calendar or until the Jewish calendar gains a full year on the Gregorian calendar and Thanksgiving happens on the latest day that Hanukkah can occur in that year.

The Jewish calendar is notoriously hard to calculate, but I believe this will occur about November 22, 46029, give or take a couple of centuries. I'm not sure where the 70,000+ figure comes from. But given that agriculture is only about 10,000 years old and modern man is only about 100,000 years old, the odds we will still have those two holidays by then is kind of low. http://blog.joelmhoffman.com/2013/11/20/why-hanukkah-and-thanksgiving-will-never-again-coincide/ http://www.jewfaq.org/calendr2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.161.63 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange editing on 3rd paragraph 4.2

Good article and very informative, but I suggest someone looks carefully at the sentence fragments in 4.2 (Candle-lighting time) paragraph 3 "However, they must remain lit until the regular it is time for you to use longer candles, or the traditional oil lamps." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuriogram (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Shamash - Attendant

Okay, Shamash on one page is described using the words helper or servant while on this Hanukkah page attendant is being used. Just caught the attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.158.10 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew is misspelled

"Hanukkah" is misspelled in Hebrew. It is currently written as חֲנֻבָּה and should be written as חֲנֻכָּה — that is, you need to replace the bet with a caf. 128.135.100.107 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Zooming in on it, it looks like a caf to me. AJD (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: @128... you need to say where in the article. But searching for the two text strings gives three hits for your "should be written as" version and none for your "currently written as" version, so I believe Ajd is right. --Stfg (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Since Hebrew contains no double consonants, as far as I know, I dispute the double K used in this spelling. Kha- nu- kah is as close as English can come.memphisdan (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanukkah vs. Chanukkah (or Chanukah)

I've noticed some discrepancies here. The name of the article is H-a-n-u-k-k-a-h. This is also seems to be the excepted spelling of the name of the festival in mainstream Judaism. There have been some editors changing the name throughput the article to C-h-a-n-u-k-k-a-h. I assume that is their mistake and they really intended on changing it to C-h-a-n-u-k-a-h. Either way, there must be one uniform spelling for the festival throughout. I propose it be called Hanukkah, as is the title of the article, and as has been the spelling till recently. All other variations of spelling are mentioned in the lede.TM (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, and with your opinion that it's slightly astonishing to see the name change around before one's eyes. However, this reminds me of something Henry Louis Gates says about "African-American"/"Black"/"Negro"/"colored"; he tries to cycle between them, rather than stick to one and imply all the others are offensive. This situation might call for the same approach. I grew up with "Hanukkah," but it's a transliteration, and no respelling will cause English-speakers to produce the right sounds.

MOS:HE section 3.4.4 notes "Hanukkah" as an example of a word with a "common Anglicized name...[which] will keep [its] common transliteration in accordance with the first part of the guideline and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)." Google Books (hanukkah -inauthor:"Books, LLC") confirms that "hanukkah," not "chanukah," "chanukkah," "chanukka," "hanukka," etc., currently has a solid plurality in actual usage. Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names says alternative names may be used "where more appropriate". This suggests a higher standard for use of "chanukkah" etc. than "because it's also a legitimate transliteration," but per the Skip Gates principle I think it would be fine to keep them all.

What about you, Talk Page Reader, what do you think? Let's get this settled before a few weeks from now when all the goyim come to remind themselves about Jewish Christmas. (No offense intended to anyone.) FourViolas (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really that funny. As I said, I think there should be one spelling for the festival throughout the article. The other spelling can be included in the lede and in other sections. Any other thoughts before I change them? Thanks. TM (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

order of placing and lighting candles

They are placed from right to left with one more on each night. But they are kindled from left to right after the shamas has be kindled first. Text has been modified to suit.

In the translation the use of the word "light" as a verb is better translated as "kindle".Macrocompassion (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanukkiah vs Hanukkah menorah

This is bordering on ridiculous. The image is of a "Hanukkiah"...the definition of which is a "Hanukkah menorah". http://www.hanukkahfun.com/578/what-is-a-hanukkiah/

It's actually not. A hannukiah is the more modern name for the menorah. The traditional term for it is menorah, or hannukah menorah, in modern hebrew a word was coined to differentiate it from the traditional menorah and hannukiah was borne but outside of Israel, 90% of people do not know the term. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joeseph,

  Hanukia is in fact the correct term (you can speak to a rabbi in person if you think I am incorrect), menorahs and Hanukias are two entirely different things.

They are commonly— yet incorrectly— called menorahs due to similarities in physical appearance. You claim that it should say menorah, because it is more commonly known by that term. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is used to learn. You told me on my page I may be banned because it isn't constructive, but it is constructive in the fact that it will help correct people who don't know what's correct. Instead you are undoing my corrections and are continuing to teach people information that just isn't true. I am not breaking the rules in any way. You are, I recommend rereading the Wikipedia Guidelines, everyone needs a refresher every once in a while. I hope you do some researchers on the topic, and then return. I have never changed anything on Wikipedia, not even punctuation, without checking at least three trusted resources beforehand. In the meantime, keep it at the way I have left it. Jordandlee (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

what is the term used in the shulchan aruch? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Sir Joseph , I have been a certified rabbi for 32 years. I am afraid you are mistaken. Jordandlee has been correct all along. Menorahs hold seven candles, Hanukias hold 9: that is an easy way to tell the two apart. I kindly ask of you to put the page back to how Jordandlee had it.

 Shalom, 

Rabbi B Asher (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome. Secondly, if you are a certified rabbi, you would know that hannukiah is mostly unknown outside of Israel and outside of traditional religious texts. It is not called a hannukiah at all in the shulchan aruch or by any of the responsa dealing with menorahs,etc. It is also not known by that by the general public which is why the standard is for it to be included in Wikipedia as a Hannukah Menorah, and indeed, in many places, can't say all because I am not certain, it says Hannukiah in addition to hannukah menorah. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You and Jordandlee are both right in someways. He is correct in saying that 'Hanukia' (or however you prefer to spell it) is the proper term. You are correct in saying that most people only know of the term 'menorah'. Although it technically isn't a menorah, over time the term spread due to confusion of the two, which are both candlebras. But the picture at the top is a hanukia, not menorah. I think this is what the cause of your disagreement is. I hope I helped you both.Rabbi B Asher (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why it doesn't say menorah, it says hanukah menorah, which it technically is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

First Sentence

I am not Jewish so I will not try to edit the article but I would have thought the first sentence would have gone something like this.... Hanukkah is a Jewish holiday that celebrates a miracle that occurred.... or something like that in lieu of a bland uninteresting gibberish about how it is supposed to be pronounced. I thought the first sentence was supposed to get to the heart of the matter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.173.129 (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bimuelos

Is there a reason this word is capitalized? Ehgarrick (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Some think that all foreign words need to be capitalized. However, this is not so according to MOS:FOREIGN. It should probably be a regular letter. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Chabad POV

I reverted the part about Chanukah becoming more famous because of the Rebbe. Not everything in Judaism is because of the Rebbe. I appreciate that Chabad has emissaries, but the rest of Judaism does not revolve around Chabad. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is claiming that "everything in Judaism is because of the Rebbe." Look at the sources. You seem to have an ax to grind. TM (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you seem to constantly push the POV, and just to let you know that others have gone to ARBCOM and if you continue to push you can go as well. I don't have an axe to grind, but putting the Rebbe in the lead in an article of Channukah is just too far. I know that Chabad loves PR, but you need to be realistic. First you claim that the Rebbe had a hand in the DOE and now he made Channukah into a holiday? What next? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

My claim? Look at the sources. Don't just assume and delete. That is not acceptable. TM (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I replied regarding this issue at your WT:JUDAISM post. In short, I agree with TM that your edits are unacceptable, for several reasons. Please consider yourself warned, per the ARBCOM case you mentioned, that insistence on your point of view without obtaining prior and clear consensus, will lead to your imminent blocking. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph you have not explained why you deleted sourced information. I will cite just one news article from this week, published on Dec 5, in the San Diego Union-Tribune with Sunday circulation of 409,796: Widespread awareness and celebration of Hanukkah became particularly popular in the 1970s, when Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a Russian-born rabbi considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of modern times, called for awareness and observance of the holiday and encouraged the lighting of public menorahs. He died in 1994 in New York City. Who has the POV here? TM (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The article mentions Chabad lighting public menorahs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So everybody is happy now? Debresser (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking you what the article mentions or not. Nor am I asking about the lighting of public menorahs. Sir Joseph has been exposed to have a knack for deleting documented information for no other reason other than his personal hatred to the Rebbe and Chabad. There are statements quoted above, that were cited on the page, sourced to several notable publication that he just kept deleting with no explanation. Is there something about this sentence that bothers Sir Joseph: Widespread awareness and celebration of Hanukkah became particularly popular in the 1970s, when Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a Russian-born rabbi considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of modern times, called for awareness and observance of the holiday. TM (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why "Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a Russian-born rabbi considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of modern times"? Just "the Lubavitcher Reebe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson" should be enough. The rest can be found in the link. Debresser (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a quote from a news article. Definitely no need to quote it entirely, nor was I suggesting that. I was only pasting the full quote from the news article here so that Sir Joseph, and perhaps others, could see that it is actually a published and documented fact. This is sourced to numbers other places as well both journalistic and academic. I strongly believe that such important documented information, i.e., "Hanukkah became more Widespread in the 1970s, when Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson called for public awareness and observance of Hanukkah, and encouraged the lightning of public menorahs" should be in the lede. It's the documented explanation as to why Hanukkha has become so popular. TM (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if there were a ton of sources establishing it, mentioning a single movement in the lead article is totally NPOV, especially as it's about that man and his followers. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

AddMore der Zweite, can't you agree that my edit, which swapped the long text in the lead with the short text in the section, brought the necessary balance to this issue? I think that was a good compromise. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be better, but it still doesn't belong in the lead of the article. It can be mentioned in the article but it should not be in the lead, that is indeed NPOV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, your words "that man and his followers" are major POV. What if it was a different man with different followers? You too have managed to successfully exposed yourself. If its established and published by a wide variety of academic and journalistic sources, by what guidelines are you making this POV? Because you don't like "that man and his followers"? It should certainly be in the lead. This the documented explanation as to why Hanukkha has become so popular. TM (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Good, I'm jolly. There's the little thing of WP:UNDUE; if we'll match the proportion given to your stuff with other, much higher quality sources, the article would be very long and that Chabad stuff will remain marginal. Therefore, it is advisable to remove it from the lead and flaunt it less. A sentence or two, maybe a short paragraph, and in the most neutral tone possible. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Which "other, much higher quality" stuff and sources do you have? Is there another, as widely, documented and undisputed reason as to why Chanukah became so popular? If it's really significant and will improve the page, why not bring it? But this belongs in the lead, in full accordance with WP:UNDUE, and in the most neutral tone possible. TM (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Six Day War Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is indeed undue. If the article would have more than one paragraph about the public menorah lightings of Chabad, it would be another story, but with only one relatively short paragraph somewhere in the middle of a section, this is indeed undue. Mind you, if there would be more information about the public menorah lightings of Chabad, it would have to be restored. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, would it be possible for me to rename the page to "Chanukah", as it is properly transliterated? I would also go through the rest of the page and change it. The page should still show up when searching for "Hanukkah", right? Thanks! Jonahpoke92 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say that "Chanukah" is the proper transliteration? Debresser (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it is... The original Hebrew is "חנכה", with a hard, guttural "kh" or "ch", not an "h" as in "hat", or "heart". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahpoke92 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not an answer. It can be, and per WP:HEBREW this is indeed the case, that the "h" stands for a guttural. It is a matter of convention. Moreover, in English, "ch" is pronounced as "tch", like in "to chase". You'll have to admit that if you were to pronounce the "ch" in "chanukah" like in "to chase", it would not be the same festival. :)Debresser (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hanukkah(8 letters)/Chanukah(8)/Hannukah(8) is an eight-day(8) festival(8)

Hanukkah is the most common English spelling although Chanukah is quite common. I have never seen 'Hannukah' until coming across it in this article. These three spellings - Hanukkah, Chanukah, and Hannukah - all have eight letters which is symbolic of it being an eight-day(8) festival(8).

A coincidence, since the name of the festival was originally written spelled in Hebrew, where it has five letters. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Shamash (Sun) as the 9th lamp in the Hanukkiah(9 letters)/Chanukiah(9)

The 7 lamps of the menorah (Temple) mystically represent the sacred 7 Luminaires known now as the 7 Classical planets: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. At the time of Judas Maccabeus and the Hebrew revolt of 164 BC, it was not known that there were 8 planets in this solar system. But later when it became learned, the Shamash was added as the 9th lamp in the Hanukkiah(9 letters)/Chanukiah(9). 'Shamash' was the ancient Hebrew & Sumerian name for the Sun. It's very symbolic that the shamash is used to light the other lights (planets) of the Hanukkiah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.85.207.34 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, but in any case original research. 16:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Add hyperlink to menorah

"The story of Hanukkah is preserved in the books of the First and Second Maccabees, which describe in detail the re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem and the lighting of the menorah." Is there a reason why "menorah" here does not link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple)?238-Gdn (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. AJD (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ashkenazi males

Please stop changing "In some Ashkenazic families, every member of the household" to "In Ashkenazic families, every male member of the household". This carries the implication that all, or nearly all, Ashkenazi families who light Chanukah hold by this practice, and no evidence has been put forward to support that claim. The cited source says "there are Ashkenazim who follow" this opinion, which is very different from saying "Ashkenazim follow" it. (And of course, it is trivially clear to me that the "all" implication is false.) No source whatsoever has been put forward to indicate that, in the typical family that does hold by this practice, it is only the men who observe it. Obviously to begin with, not all Ashkenazim consider women to be excluded from certain mitzvot; and even for those who do, Halachipedia (presumably not itself a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes) states "it seems as the minhag is that Ashkenzic unmarried girls also light." AJD (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Added two sources that say that the prevalent Ashkenazi custom is that only the males in the house light Hanukkah lights. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of women not lighting their own. Perhaps by chassidim they don't but the general practice is for girls to light their own. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with a sentence saying so explicitly, with a source. I readily admit that I may not know all customs. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that Ajd aptly mentions that "it is trivially clear ... that the 'all' implication is false". I agree, and I think we should couch such assertions in language that allows for the inevitable exceptions. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying "some" is asking for trouble, because 1. that sounds like it is a minority 2. that begs to tag the statement with all kinds of tags like "vague" and "who". Better an implied (not explicit) "all" than that, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted this edit but reasonable minds may disagree. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know if I've seen very convincing evidence that it's not a minority.... Well, I dunno, I'm just coming at this as an Ashkenazi who's never heard of this as a custom, so of course I'm doubtful about it. AJD (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop Good edit.

@Ajd What is the custom you are familiar with? Debresser (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It should be "many" not some since it's not a fringe custom. It might not be done in chassidic homes but in most litvish/yeshivish and of course MO homes, all single girls light. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The custom in my Ashkenazi family is that the whole family lights a single menorah, taking turns lighting candles (i.e., one person lights the first candle, someone else lights the second, etc., once there are enough candles to do so). AJD (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ajd That surely is not an official minhag. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was; I just said it's what we usually do. My point here is to dispute the claim that the minhag of one menorah per person, or the related minhag of one menorah per male person, is "universally" observed among Ashkenazim, and express my skepticism of the claim that it's even particularly widespread. The sentence we're arguing about here is phrased as a descriptive statement about what people do. 13:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That your family does differently doesn't negate that it's the "universal" custom among Ashkenazim to light their own menorahs. This is all the argument from the "yadlik/madlik" difference in the halachic text. The Rambam says yadlik, which is why by Sephardim only one menorah is lit. Among Ashkenazim, the basic halacha is "madlik" and that is why you have multiple menorahs, regardless how some families may do it. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It does negate that it's the "universal" custom. That's what "universal" means. AJD (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's universal among halachic texts, that your family does differently doesn't mean anything. Ashkenazim all light, Sephardim only one light. You may always find people who do things differently but that doesn't make it worthy of singling out. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in the article appears to be a descriptive claim about practice, not a normative claim about halacha. The cited source that purports to be descriptive implies (but doesn't state) that this practice is not actually particularly common among Ashkenazim. AJD (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding that some may do differently, normative practice is that in Ashkenazic homes, all men (And some girls...) light. That is backed by the sources. It's irrelevant that you do differently, besides which, the source clearly states it's a universally accepted custom. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

i feel like we're talking past each other. I keep saying 'the sentence in the article does not seem to be about normative practice', and you keep saying 'normative practice is...'. What normative practice is is not directly relevant to a sentence that's not about normative practice. (And which source is "the source"? The source I cited implies that it's relatively rare.) AJD (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The OU source states that it's a universal custom among Ashkenazim that every male lights. Furthermore, the Halhipedia says: "The Ashkenazic minhag is that each individual lights for oneself," Further down it again says: "However, Ashkenazi Minhag is for single children to light themselves even at home and certainly when not sleeping at home" 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the OU source states (obviously falsely) that it's "universal". On the other hand, the Ajdler source states merely that "there are Ashkenazim" who follow that practice, implying that it's not particularly common. AJD (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And we go by verified RS, not necessarily "the truth" or anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, the Ajdler source is opinion. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly correct that what I've been saying is mostly OR and not fit for inclusion in the article! However, remember that WP:Verifiability is meant to be a stronger criterion than truth, not a weaker one; I don't think WP should state something known to the editors to be false, if it can be avoided, even if there is a source that asserts it. (And, I should note, WP is not currently doing that; the article does not state or imply that the custom is universal, so I have no quarrel with that at the moment.) I don't know where you get the impression that the Ajdler source is "opinion"; no statements of opinion are made (other than that it is "interesting" that some Ashkenazim light one per person), and it seems to be a well-researched, factual article. AJD (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's his opinion that only some Ashkenazim follow the Rambam. The Remah says all light, not just one. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In what way is it an opinion? It's a statement of fact. (And obviously the Remah, writing in the 16th century, is not a reliable source on the frequency of a practice in the 21st century.) AJD (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in WP:The Truth. Speaking only for Chabad, we have the minhag that only men light. In any case, I think we can safely conclude that it is a widespread minhag. As I said above, I feel that we should avoid trying to specify how widespread (some, may, all), just keep it general. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think then we can change "tendency" to "almost universal" custom. That is as close to the truth as you can get. It is indeed almost universal that all men light their own. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid generalizing from the practices of Chabad to the practices of all Jews. "Almost universal" is unjustified; "widespread" seems reasonable. AJD (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Chabad. Ashkenazi Jews mostly follow the Remah. That and the OU cite which says it's a universal custom. There is no reason why "almost universal" is not correct. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We've got conflicting sources. One states (obviously falsely) that it's universal; the other indicates that it's rare enough to be noteworthy. AJD (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And here's a source that says in Ashkenazi homes, all light: [1], and since we love spreading anecdotes, I've never met a family where some of the men don't light and not only that, I've also never met a family where the girls don't light. Universal, or "almost universal" custom is to follow the Remah and that is how it should be in the article, if you do differently that is fine, but it is not the way of the Remah and universal Ashkenazi practice. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That source states that the tradition exists, but not how widely it is followed. AJD (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"In Ashkenazi tradition, each person lights his own menorah." How much clearer can you get. That is the "almost universal". I will give you that some don't, which is why we don't need to say "universal" but it is quite clear that it is an almost universal custom that all men light the menorah. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why we're letting one journal entry override reliable sources that Ashkenazim males all light, some/many girls light, etc. That some do differently is OK but for an encyclopedia we should report RS, and that is that Ashkenazim follow the Remah who says all light. See here how the HE wikipedia writes it, that it is the custom: "

המנהג שהתקבל בתפוצות ישראל הוא שכולם נוהגים כמהדרין מן המהדרין[13] אך ישנם שני פירושים לכך. על פי הרמ"א מנהג המהדרין מן המהדרין הוא שכל אחד מבני הבית החייבים במצוות מדליק וממצוות חינוך גם קטן המגיע לגיל חינוך מדליק[20]. בעדות המזרח נהגו על פי פסקו של השולחן ערוך שכל בני הבית יוצאים ידי חובה בהדלקת בעל הבית[21]." 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Also notice that the Ramo write "bnei habayt", which can well be interpreted to mean only the men. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

regardless, it's more than a tendency. And again, the hakirah is not a reliable source. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 22:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What is your reason for regarding Hakirah as a non-reliable source? AJD (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it satisfies the requirements. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 05:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not?

By the way, I realize this is OR and certainly not suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but I'm just trying to shake your confidence in "nearly universal": Because I was curious, I did an informal poll on Facebook and got responses from 20 Ashkenazim, and 11 of them said they do one menorah per household. (5 said one per person, and the others verious quantities in between.) AJD (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And like I said before, I've never known any family where everyone doesn't light. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. So it seems like there's a wide range of variation. I said I'd never heard of the minhag of everyone lighting their own menorah, you said you'd never heard of anyone not doing it that way, so we've both learned something from this discussion. AJD (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hanukkah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121207031405/http://www.torah.org/features/holydays/originchanukah.html to http://www.torah.org/features/holydays/originchanukah.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

Add (* What is Hanukkah? BimBam Jewish Animation) to the end of the article under the "External Links" section. This is a link to a website for the company BimBam that provides informational videos in animated form about a variety of Jewish topics. This specific video describes the essence of Hanukkah. Jewishnerd (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Jewishnerd has been adding BimBam videos to a number of articles. I'd suggest holding off until other editors have had a chance to vet the videos and see if they're worth including. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hanukkah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006034939/http://joi.org/bloglinks/JTA%20NEWS%20Chanuka%20Chabad.htm to http://joi.org/bloglinks/JTA%20NEWS%20Chanuka%20Chabad.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1260447411124
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jpost.com/International/Jerusalem-school-hit-by-arson-attack-creates-menorah-for-White-House-Hanukka-event
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546797524&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131128174911/http://coejl.org/advocacy-and-policy-issues/pastcampaigns/cfl-installation-hanukkah/ to http://coejl.org/advocacy-and-policy-issues/pastcampaigns/cfl-installation-hanukkah/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

In the picture at the top of the page which shows the dates, Could you please delete the dates from 2014, 2015 and 2016 and add the dates for 2019, 2020 and 2021? Please. 2602:304:5D4E:5E89:8987:8FD3:57FC:9513 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the dates from 2014 and 2015 from the infobox and added 2019 in a hidden comment that can be revealed once this year's holiday has passed and 2016 is removed. Maybe someone else will disagree, but I think more than 3 listed on the infobox is excessive. More previous and future years are found at Hanukkah § Dates. – Rhinopias (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hanukkiah image caption

@Debresser: does this edit help clarify the distinction between Menorah (Temple) and Menorah (Hanukkah)? Rhinopias (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

My point was to restore the word "hanukkiah" to the caption. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. I didn't realize Menorah (Temple) existed, so I was just creating ambiguity with the first attempt. Rhinopias (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: and @Rhinopias: I believe it does not make as much sense to link a caption of a Ḥanukkah Menorah to the article about the Temple Menorah, as they are two different concepts, albeit similar. True, a Ḥanukkah Menorah (a.k.a. ḥanukkiyah in Modern Hebrew) is based on the idea of the original Temple Menorah, but it's not a Temple Menorah in and of itself. By way of analogy, a Renault Model car (just to pick the first example illustrated on that page) is not an actual Renault, but a representation based on the original. Where this analogy gets tricky is that the model is now being used for a secondary function. The Temple Menorah could not have been used for Ḥanukkah observance, and a Ḥanukkah Menorah could not be used in the Temple. Feel free to disagree if you see a problem in my logic; I did not revert the edit to the caption, but I believe the original link to Menorah_(Hanukkah) would be accurate. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

All I wanted is to see the word "hanukkiah" in the caption again. I also felt discomfort with the link to the regular Menorah article instead of to the Hanukkah Menorah article. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Arabicas.Filerons: links to both articles are in the caption now, with Menorah (Hanukkah) at the beginning. I think it makes sense if the hanukkiah is derived from the temple menorah, which I believe is what both Menorah (Hanukkah)'s lead paragraph and Menorah (Temple) § Hanukkah menorah imply. If it is somehow not, or the caption could be clarified further to avoid confusion, then please edit the caption appropriately. Rhinopias (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts about ref headers

@Jayron32: This is the article we recently discussed, that's why I pinged you. Would you mind shedding some light on Sir Joseph's reverts ([2], [3])? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not commit those reverts, so I am the wrong person to ping. If you want to know why someone did something, you need to ask that person. I cannot read the minds of others; that is not one of the tools they give admins. --Jayron32 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I use the edit summary for this very reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Sorry for the interruption but I pinged you per this edit of yours, as I found you the one who had already checked the article. Of course I know why he did it and that you "cannot read the minds of others" or "that is not one of the tools they give admins." I had pinged as a third opinion. Anyway, thanks for responding. Good luck! --Mhhossein ^talk 16:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Verfiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• And they are verifiable. You have the main article where there is a nice "see main article" and you have each item individually linked to that article. You don't need anything else. You can stop being so aggressive already, it's off the main page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Attribution to other pages of Wikipedia

@Diannaa: Does this edit mean that the section don't need inline citations for prayers? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. The citation needed template is still present. Please add citations if you have them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Can you please take care of that? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan did the job! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Spelling as a separate article?

Hanukkah is not the only word that lacks a sound in the standard Latin alphabet used in English.

An article on the subject of alternate spelling itself could mention using tools to determine the normative spelling, rather than citing all the possible spellings. For example the intro as written to this entry presents the rarely used Ḥanukah spelling (with a dot under the H) as though this these are equally common, "a transliteration also romanized as Chanukah or Ḥanukah."

These tools allow a writer to select the spelling most prevalent in a corpus (usage database for a particular language):

Corpus of Contemporary American English - https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/

Each of the tools restricts usage to a certain number of times per day unless one obtains an account on the hosting site.

OK. It also looks like there already are articles related to spelling standards (but not variable use):
Romanization includes

• this Romanization#Hebrew, which links to
• this Romanization of Hebrew

MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@MichelleInSanMarcos: As you discovered, we don't need a separate article on this, though it might be worth putting a "see also" to Romanization of Hebrew there.

My own opinion/belief is that there is a reason that the two/three most common transliterations (outside Israel) are what they are.

• Hanukkah/Ḥanukkah (not the single-k version, usually, and I'm not going to fuss about the bar version vs. the dot version): These basically follow Hebrew Academy and ISO 259, doubling the k because of the dagesh. Most common language to transliterate to (these days) is English, and in English-language countries people do not readily use diacritics. So it's easy enough to understand the dropped diacritic on the h.
• Chanukah: This article, as well as the article on Romanization of Hebrew, are actually kind of Anglocentric in their coverage, and maybe someday I'll do something about that. The truth is that much of the earliest modern work at transliteration went through German first, sometimes by way of Yiddish. When one transliterates Hebrew/Yiddish to German, many rules are different—for example, שׁ > sch (instead of sh), and ב/ו (without dagesh) > w (instead of v). But as more speakers of Yiddish (and Ashkenazi Hebrew) arrived in the US (and other Anglophone countries), some of those rules (including the two above) readily evolved to be consistent with the English phonemes associated with the Latin letters.

On the other hand, ח/כ/ך (without dagesh) > ch as a correct mapping of the sound in German. Because English does not naturally map this sound—and because Hebrew/Yiddish do not use the ⟨t͡ʃ⟩ that ch normally represents in English—ch settled in comfortably as the early transliteration of choice for ח/כ/ך. And since Yiddish/Ashkenazi Hebrew never geminates, we get Chanukah (Ch, one k).

More rarely, nevertheless, one sometimes gets both Ch and kk.

• In Israel, it's usually Hanuka (occasionally kk, but usually no final h).

It's hard to justify most other versions (especially those with nn or q) linguistically, which is not to say that people don't sometimes use them anyway. Still, there are over 20 alternate-spelling redirects here!

One does sometimes kh for ח, though in my experience it's rarer in initial position than elsewhere.

I have occasionally seen x used for ח. This stems from an academic transliteration system that tries to keep 1:1 correspondence so that online lookup will be less ambiguous. The reason x (sort of) makes sense here is because the sound of ח is /x/, and that is the sound of the corresponding Greek and Russian letters. But I think mostly that transliteration system either never really became successful or is only used in very specific library/database settings, not in ordinary usage.

Hope that helps. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yivo's transliteration would be a kh for the cheth. See https://yivo.org/Yiddish-Alphabet It would be interesting to find a corpus that has an instance of that romanization. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@MichelleInSanMarcos: Fair enough. If you happen to see this before the end of the holiday on Wednesday evening, have a look at the Yiddish Book Center web site. Scroll down a bit until you see "Focus on Chanukah". Three spellings ("Hanukkah", "Chanukah" and "khaneke") can all be found there. ("Khaneke" is inevitably transliterating Yiddish, as opposed to either [a] transliterating Hebrew or [b] using a transliteration/transcription to represent the word as fully borrowed into English. And, of course, just about no one but a YIVO-based Yiddish translator is going to put the first e there instead of the unstressed u that's the proper vowel.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References