Talk:Hanukkah/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Assertions in the lead about Jerusalem

the recapture of Jerusalem in the year 164 BCE, and subsequent rededication of the Second Temple This is of course the traditional view as spelled out in the Maccabees. But according to historians, Antiochus IV rescinded his edict in the spring of 164 BCE before the temple was rededicated in December 164. See for example Maccabees and Method. ImTheIP (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with you this time. Previous version was more general and less controversial.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It is the most plausible view of history we have, spelled out in both Maccabees and in Josephus "The Jewish War". Jona Lendering is only one "historian", not "historians" plural. And according to this one Lendering, Antiochus V Eupator is the one who rescinded the decree while acting as co-regent. He refers a letter dated April 11th,164BCE from Antiochus V Eupator, but does not cite it or tell us where to find it. His only citations are two secondary sources. When he refers to 1st and 2nd Maccabees at length, it is to allege minor differences in chronology between them, and he does this without citing chapters. Also, his claim that 1 Maccabees is apocalyptic is a mischaracterization; on the contrary 1 Maccabees has very little theological speculation, and no prophecy, no first person voice, no personal stories; and is nothing like the book of Daniel in style or content. That is why it wasn't included in the TaNaK. It is history, not prophecy. In short, this particular article doesn't meet the standard of professional history. It does not seem to have been peer reviewed or published in a history journal, and isn't a more reliable source than Flavius Josephus, or the sources it casts doubt on.Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, even if the claim were true that Antiochus (both of them) rescinded the decree prior, it would still be true that the Maccabees recaptured Jerusalem (albeit without a siege), and subsequently rededicated the temple. Or would you prefer "re-occupied" Jerusalem? Or would "re-take", or "return" to Jerusalem be better? Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the letter Lendering is referring to, is the proclamation in 2 Macc 9, in which Antiochus IV lays dying of a painful and humiliating bowel disease, on his return from Persia in defeat after trying to rob temples there. I wish Lendering would give better citations rather than making me go hunting. Apparently, on his way to sack Jerusalem, he fell sick, and in an attempt to appease God or the gods - or whomever or whatever he worshiped other than himself - he rescinded the decree, declaring Jerusalem at liberty, its citizens of equal privelege with those in Athens, and promised to restore all the golden vessels he had looted and to personally fund the sacrifices. This would have been spring or summer 164 BCE. Lendering doesn't say where he gets the date April 11th. Does anyone know? I don't think it matters. Anyway, Antiochus died a miserable death. Immediately after, 2 Macc 10:1 recounts this: "Now Maccabeus [Judah] and his company, the Lord guiding them, recovered the temple and the city: .. " (KJV) He describes pulling down the altars, cleansing the temple, praying and beseeching the Lord for mercy, and then on 25th Kislev rejoicing with the feast of tabernacles. And ordaining it as a common statute for future years. No mention of the miracle of the oil, which is only mentioned later in the Talmud. 1 Macc doesn't record this proclamation rescinding the decree. 1 Macc 4:41 records that Judas Maccabee and his band went up to the temple and saw that it was in disrepair, and mourned, and then he "appointed certain men to fight against those [macedonians] who were in the fortress [that Antiochus had built earlier], until he had cleansed the sanctuary. So he chose priests of blameless conversation ..." There is very little said about this fight compared to the earlier ones against the armies of Gorgias and Lysias, and they didn't oppose the entry of the Maccabees into Jerusalem, and its not mentioned at all in 2 Macc. I think we can conclude that it wasn't a significant battle, so using the word "re-capture", while technically accurate in a broader sense, may mistakenly imply that there was a seige or a great battle for the city, which isn't attested in either source. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that "recaptured" is better; because the wars and intrigues continued for over 20 years until Simon Thassi won autonomy in 140 BCE. Clearly they were still belligerents. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Reconsidering, I'm convinced the KJV & RSV translation "recovered" Jerusalem and the temple is better than "re-captured". Hopefully this addresses the concerns of ImTheIP and Watchlonly, that we were overemphasizing human agency in the miracles of the early military victories at Emmaus and Bethsura, by implying that Judah Maccabee and his fighers "re-captured" Jerusalem, whereas both 1 & 2 Maccabees emphasize fasting, prayer, supplication and divine agency in enabling the victories, the second book more so. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, ImTheIP and Watchlonly, you are editing in sequence of each other on the Hasmonean Dynasty article, and from a single POV, the same one expressed here - that Maccabees is unreliable - and that the region should be anachronistically called Palestine. I don't see any constructive edits recently to either article, from either of you. Should we treat you a single entity? Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was baffled by the doubling and then deleting of the 70kb. I do see two constructive edits in addition to your disagreement over source admissibility, the addition of a reference citation and the addition of the History of Palestine infobox. I have no problem with that - it is a shared history; Just please don't change "Israel" or "Judaea" as it occurs in the article text into an anachronistic "Palestine", ImTheIP, especially not w/o an edit summary, or people may stop assuming good faith. In 1 & 2 Maccabees, both "Israel" and "Judaea" are used, the former more often in reference to the people, and the latter more often in reference to the territory. "Palestine" is appropriate for late antiquity, medieval and thereafter. We should discuss this on the other talk page, where it was an extended discussion in 2011 and 2012. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

debresser The previous version was uninformative and unnecessarily obscure. The current version reflects current consensus of primary sources, scholars and is controversial (of course) only with respect to the WP:Fringe theory that until the 20th century, there has never been an autonomous Jewish state centered in Jerusalem. But maybe we should take the assertion out of neutral WikiVoice and attribute it to "1 Maccabees" and "Josephus"? Jaredscribe (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The same thing is written in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2 p. 289-290:

In accordance with this scheme, Antiochus IV issued his letter to the gerousia of the Jews and the rest of the people, proclaiming an amnesty for all rebels who returned to their place of residence and took up their previous occupation before the end of Xanthikos 148 S.E. (about March 164 B.C.E.). Furthermore, all Jews were allowed to 'use their expenditures and laws as previously', which presumably means that, besides religious freedom, the old system of taxation with a fixed annual tribute collected by the Jews themselves was reestablished and the proportional land-tax from 167 B.C.E. abolished. ... Emboldened by a series of successes he finally, towards the end of the year, felt strong enough to enter Jerusalem and restore the defiled Temple.

In accordance with what scheme? It sounds like the cambridge history is contemplating various theories. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. "In accordance with this scheme" refers to the previous paragraph in which Antiochus policy towards the Jews are described:

According to the other letter at our disposal, the further negotiations with Antiochus IV were entrusted to Menelaus, the high priest, who presumably travelled east to meet the king. The choice of Menelaus clearly indicates that the Seleucid government did not intend to reverse its policy in Judea completely, but hoped to establish a modus vivendi between the Hellenizing Jews, who had maintained their loyalty to the king, and the Jewish insurgents. Lysias' plans were undoubtedly that the Maccabean rebels should return to their allegiance to the Syrian king on the assurance that they should not be punished for their rebellion and should be left free to perform their religious rites according to the Mosaic laws. On the other hand, Menelaus was to retain the office of high priest and his position as the representative of the central government. When peace was established, the direct intervention of Seleucid military forces would no longer be needed.

ImTheIP (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note the chronology: first the edict then the restoration of the temple. Peter Schäfer in The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World (pp. 47-48) also places the rescinding of the edict before the restoration of the temple. Jona Lendering is, fwiw, an accomplished historian so attacking his article is no use. But you could reread it because the book he claims is apocalyptic is Daniel not 1 Macc.

I see that now, yes, Lendering holds Daniel to be apocalyptic not 1 Macc. I also see that he is an accomplished historian. I wish the citations in his article were better. I remain skeptical of his work because dis despairing conclusion to the article basically gives up on history. The value of the study of antiquity lies not in the reconstruction of facts, which, after all, only have a currency in the eyes of nationalists, religious cranks, and other quack historians. Nor is the historiographic discussion important. If this is his philosophy of historical research, it is absurd and defeatist and assumes (incorrectly, I think) that historians who disagree and believe, as the majority do, that facts can be known, and that they really are important, are quacks. There are some things that we can discern with probability or plausibility, others with relative certainty, and many others that we simply don't know. That is no reason to give up. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, hedging your bets by writing "as recounted in the Books of the Maccabees I and II, and The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus" is not acceptable since it contradicts scholarship. It also incorrectly defines what Hanukkah commemorates, which is the rededication and purification of the Temple, not "an early victory in the Maccabean revolt" (hence the name Hanukkah which means "dedication"). ImTheIP (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is really simple. The festival of Hanukkah was instituted by the rabbis to commemorate both the re-capture of Jerusalem and the re-dedication of the Temple. Which is precisely what the new version says better than the previous. Other problems can be resolved otherwise. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? ImTheIP (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? Try reading Hanukkah#Hanerot_Halalu and Hanukkah#Early_rabbinic_sources for starters. I mean, this is basics. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The sources I have consulted do not state that Hanukkah was instituted by rabbis to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem. They state that Hanukkah was instituted by the Maccabees themselves (or their supporters) to commemorate the rededication of the temple. ImTheIP (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that to be a source. I was referring you to that information for your knowledge. Because you asked such a basic question, that I understood you need some background. For some sources, see below. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the sources cited in this Wikipedia article are. You are being asked to do the due diligence to read the sources cited in the main article.Jaredscribe (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It was instituted by the Maccabees themselves as a common statute (1 Macc 4:59, 2 Macc 10:8) not as a torah statute. It was re-instituted (or codified) as a rabbinic statute when the Talmud was compiled. During the long continuum between these points, among the pharisees who observed through the oral law, it gained the status of mitzvah d'rabbanan. This is what happens over time. Things reoccur, and traditions consolidate. Its not a contradiction. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The sections Debresser referred to does not contain reliable sources. In my opinion, using Bible books, apocrypha, or the Talmud as a source for history is about as intelligent as using Donald Trump's Twitter feed as a source for information about his presidency. Unfortunately, it seems to me that neither you nor Debresser will ever "get it" so I don't think we'll see eye to eye here. ImTheIP (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That Hannukah celebrates the miracle of an improbably military victory (among other miracles) is found in the Al HaNissim prayer. And Debresser is referring not to the wikipedia article, but to the sources given in it, especially the citation given in footnote 26 for the Al HaNissim prayer: the Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 28a. Of course, you don't have to be a talmud scholar to know this; you can find the prayer in any Jewish siddur, or prayerbook. Every Jewish child knows this. "For the miracles ... You fought their fight, You judged their judgment, You avenged their cause; You delivered the mighty into the hands of the weak, the many into the hands of the few, the impure into the hands of the pure, the evil into the hands of the righteous .. etc." In short, Hannukah is a celebration of miraculous military victories, but it is attributed to the Almighty working through the Maccabees, not to the Maccabees themselves cum Jewish warrior nationalists. I think it is this latter emphasis that ImTheIP is (correctly) insisting on, despite his other misunderstanding. Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the worst possible version. Even assuming that Josephus or the Book of the Maccabees are reliable as historic documents (which I don't necessarily dispute), it's pretty obvious that the sages didn't have in mind those sources when they added Hannukkah to the Jewish calendar. In rabbinic sources it's only mentioned briefly in tractate Shabbat (as a beraita, not even as an integral part of the masechet), and it doesn't give out too much information, but it focuses on how to light the Hannukkah Menorah. The Scroll of Antiochus goes on details, but this is even more problematic than the book of Maccabees and appeared long after Hannukkah was already instituted. In my opinion, the previous version in lede was more general and less problematic. It mentions the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple during or at the time of the Maccabean revolt, it doesn't specify dates or historic controversies. I really don't understand why Jaredscribe had to change that. If there's no consensus for a new version, I'm planning to restore the old one. It always happens the same around a Jewish holiday. People go on Wikipedia to change a perfectly good article talking about the current holiday (which explains it in a general and neutral manner) and end up messing everything for the sake of "improving" it.--Watchlonly (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

See for example {{Cite web |url=https://www.chabad.org/holidays/chanukah/article_cdo/aid/102911/jewish/What-Is-Hanukkah.htm |title=What Is Hanukkah? |publisher=Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center |quote=In the second century BCE, the Holy Land was ruled by the Seleucids (Syrian-Greeks), who tried to force the people of Israel to accept Greek culture and beliefs instead of mitzvah observance and belief in G‑d. Against all odds, a small band of faithful but poorly armed Jews, led by Judah the Maccabee, defeated one of the mightiest armies on earth, drove the Greeks from the land, reclaimed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and rededicated it to the service of G‑d. ... To commemorate and publicize these miracles, the sages instituted the festival of Chanukah.}} Stress on "these miracles" plural. Will copy this source into the article. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"There miracles" refers to the fact that the oil lasted a whole eight days, hence eight candles. "It's a miracle!" they said after the first day when they noticed that the oil lasted. "Another (part of) miracle!" after the oil hadn't run out even after the second day, and so on. Here is the quote from chabad.org without the ellipsis:

When they sought to light the Temple's Menorah (the seven-branched candelabrum), they found only a single cruse of olive oil that had escaped contamination by the Greeks. Miraculously, they lit the menorah and the one-day supply of oil lasted for eight days, until new oil could be prepared under conditions of ritual purity. To commemorate and publicize these miracles, the sages instituted the festival of Chanukah.

Here is a description of Hanukkah from [[1]]: Hanukkah, or the Festival of Rededication, celebrates the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem after its defilement by the Syrian Greeks in 164 BCE. ImTheIP (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean "These miracles"? What do you want to say? You are proposing some other interpretation of the text on the Chabad.org website? Debresser (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The "miracles" was that the oil lasted for eight days. Here is another take:

As it is told in the Talmud (Shabbat 21b), when Judah Maccabee entered the desecrated Temple, he discovered only a small vial of oil which had the seal of the Kohen Gadol (the High Priest) certifying it was sanctified for ritual use. There was only enough oil for one night, and yet it burned for eight. And that is why, three times daily during Hanukkah, we add the Al Hanisim—for the miracles—prayer to the Amidah, which begins by speaking of the military victory but ends by saying: “…Your children came to Your holy abode and…purified Your Temple and…kindled lights in the courtyards of Your holy place. And they established these eight days of Hanukkah in order to give thanks and praise to Your great name.” In short, this prayer makes a distinction between the means and the end. The military victory was the means, which we do not celebrate, because the means are not the point. Instead the prayer explains what the military victory is pointing to—and the answer is spiritual renewal.

ImTheIP (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is true, Talmud Shabbat 21b records that. And here is what Talmud Shabbat 21a records:

For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the kohen gadol (high priest), but which contained sufficient [oil] for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein, and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving."

The miracle of the oil, and the miracle of improbable military victory, are BOTH celebrated and remembered on Hannukah. The Al HaNissim thanksgiving prayer emphasizes the military victories - giving thanks to the Almighty for these, and the story in Shabbat 21b records the miracle of the oil. There is no contradiction here. Both of these are aspects of the holiday observance. That is why both should be mentioned in the lead of the article. Thats why the Chabad website tells vignettes about both of these miracles, as does almost every tertiary Jewish source and children's picture book. Its why debresser is correctly insisting on it. Thank you for reading this far. I hope we all learned something. Happy Hannukah! Jaredscribe (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? The above is written by Alan Morinis, a quite famous dude. He specifically writes: "The military victory was the means, which we do not celebrate, because the means are not the point." ImTheIP (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, I don't think we should revise what has been celebrated for many, many years.

Here is but one instance showing that Channukah celebrates a military victory. [2] or here if you prefer Huffpo. [3] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

We also shouldn't change stable versions of articles when there is no consensus to do so. The longstanding version of this article read: "Hanukkah is a Jewish festival commemorating the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire." It was Jaredscribe who changed it so that it now includes "the recovery of Jerusalem and subsequent rededication of the Second Temple".

Also, both your articles claim that Hanukkah is not about a military victory. Jonathan Sacks writes From being the festival of a military victory, Chanukah became the festival of a spiritual and civilisational one. and HuffPo: Harvard’s Cohen said he believes that the rabbis of the Talmud came up with the miracle of oil in order to “demilitarize” Hanukkah. “It gave the rabbis, who were uncomfortable with the Maccabees, a way to say they respected Hanukkah,” Cohen said. ImTheIP (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, that may be partially true, but as the articles point out, it celebrates a military victory. Later on, the focus became the rededication of the Temple. I'm not terribly concerned with the prior version, I think that is basically OK. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As the articles you linked to points out, the rabbis changed it so that it no longer was about a military victory. Their religion, their choice. :) ImTheIP (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaredscribe Why did you change "recapture" to "recovery"? I am not a native English speaker, but I would say that "recapture" is the better choice here. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

debresser Scroll to the top of this discussion, to see my answer inline. TLDR, Maccabeus and his company "Recovered Jerusalem" is the phrase used in 2 Macc 10:1 (KJV and RSV) to describe the event. Both 1st and 2nd Maccabees accounts have them entering Jerusalem and the temple unopposed: Lysias and the main army had returned to Antioch, and Maccabeus and his company had only to clear out the garrison in the tower; there was no siege. The main early battles were Emmaus and Bethsura. Not that this diplomatic victory of Jerusalem, in any way diminishes the significance of the early military victories - of the weak over the strong, of the few over the many, as the prayer Al HaNissim puts it. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

And yes, these miraculous military victories, attributed to the Almighty working through Maccabeus and the Hasidim, are commemorated in the holiday of Hanukkah, along with the miracle of the oil, according to all the sources, and not just the Chabad.org site, or the childrens' picture books I alluded to, or the many contemporary articles by R. Sacks and others quoted by Sir Joseph: The books of the Maccabees, Josephus, the Talmud, the Siddur, and Mishneh Torah - I've added several citations from these in the main article. A Wikipedia article is not its own source, but editors should do their due diligence to research the sources cited there, before making further demands on the talk page. Further requests for citations on this question are probably either WP:tendentious or uninformed. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Jaredscribe Maybe that is my English, but "recovered" sounds wrong to me. Even f they didn't have to fight for it, but any territory that was recovered - as you say - during a military campaign, I would call "recaptured". In any case, I don't feel strongly about this.

Regarding what you say that editor's should do their job before removing information or making demands, I strongly agree with you. Unfortunately, the letter of the law says that the burden of providing sources for contested information is on the editor who want to include that information. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Many Christians observe Hanukkah

More than just Messianic Jews, many Christians observe Hanukkah since Jesus did, and since the events commemorated are part of the shared history of Christians and Jews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.219.145.224 (talk • contribs)

Just a note to say that "Messianic Jews" are Christians by definition. They might have been born Jewish but, by believing in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, they are automatically Christian. There are several authentic Jewish sources on the web which explain why Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. The passages in the Hebrew Bible that supposedly presage the coming of Jesus, commonly cited by missionaries, are post facto Christian interpretations. For a Jew the Messiah has yet to come. Dori1951 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Spelling - Chanukah

Whilst I appreciate that there are a number of spellings in the Latin alphabet, even just in English, I think that "Chanukah" is not as minor as suggested in the main article. Many words in Hebrew starting with 'chet' are rendered "ch" in English. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary lists it.

It would be good to add this spelling to the options at the beginning of the introduction to the article, but I cannot see how to do that - perhaps somebody can help? I have not amended the body of the main article, for now, anyway... Dori1951 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Mattathius "the High Priest"

Responding to edit summaries: although there is no other historical evidence that Mattathius was a High Priest, a baraita (qt. b. Megilla 11a) and a number of later texts, including the popular liturgy Al HaNissim, do refer to him as "Mattathius the son of John the High Priest." GordonGlottal (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a list of more sources: Sefaria Search Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation for miracle of oil widely regarded as a legend

Citation 58, in the academic sources section is used to justify "The miracle of the oil is widely regarded as a legend and its authenticity has been questioned since the Middle Ages." This citation cites Skolnik, Berenbaum, Fred, Michael (2007). Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9. Granite Hill Publishers. p. 332.

I was looking for the original source, and found the whole PDF of this 2007 volume online here: http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia%20Judaica,%20v.%2009%20(Her-Int).pdf. Page 332 talks about German occupation, and has nothing to do with Hanukkah nor this miracle. I found no mention of this miracle anywhere in the encyclopaedia. Ofek Gila (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Solution: it is in volume 8 at the specified place. Quote: "All these stories seem to be nothing but leg- ends, and the authenticity of the “oil cruse” story was already questioned in the Middle Ages." I'll fix the typo. Zero^talk 09:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

On this subject, the history section should be expanded with information about the scholia to Megillat Taanit. (I'll try and do it this week, but if I forget.) GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Feast of Booths

Feast of booths seems to be a messianic or Christian term (the reference listed is to Catholic translations) and it feels incorrect to reference it so frequently on a post about a Jewish holiday Emeeel (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

parenthesis or dashes

I cannot see any contribution of User:Agasirt to this article so far, but quite a few of User:Debresser. I actually think User:Agasirt is simply continuing this edit war, and his contribution should get reverted, and he deserves getting seriously blamed for his contribution of this edit war, and he should get hindered from continuing this edit war.--XYZ2023 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2023 (CEST)

Thank you. I had already given up. Maybe the use of dashes is something American? In Dutch, my mother language, I don't remember it. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

But this here is not "THE American wikipedia", this is the "wikipedia in English". I doubt, that User:Agasirt should simply get away with his brute force style of continuing that edit war by "creating facts". He does not even bother participating here.--XYZ2023 (talk) 15:17, 01 May 2023 (CEST)

Alternative Spellings

Do we really need a whole section discussing the difference between ‘Ch’ sound and ‘H’ sounds? This is not adding anything specifically about the festival. It belongs somewhere else. IMO, it just needs 2 lines: “It can be spelt Hanukkah or Chanukah, with Hanukkah being the most common” Agreed? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. It is simply unnecessary. 21:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Would it be worth mentioning that this represents a glottal sound not present in English? Real question, not rhetorical. IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I changed my mind. The section may be a bit oversized, but it is noteworthy, and has quite a few sources. About the "glottal sound not present in English", that is there already, and should be kept, as being one of the most important sentences in that paragraph. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel that whatever could be said about that paragraph, it is a good idea for the whole article to consistently use one of the two spellings. The current situation where both are used is just confusing. Plokmijnuhby (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)