This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Someone editing from IP address 24.186.172.5, on 1 March 2013, made a series of edits that I suspect are vandalism. The word Purim was changed to Lichter, and it was suggested that the curse might be applied to "any other Lichter-like specimen". I cannot find any especially notable enemy of Judaism named "Lichter", so my guess is that this is just someone taking a personal dig at someone he knows. The series of edits made by 75.99.50.122 also appear to be vandalism, and also attack "Lichter". So I am reverting to the last version by Astros4477. I'm not going to redo the Wikidata stuff — if anyone cares about that, please go ahead. --Trovatore (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya, are you joking? It seems like you were ignoring that “the average person does not know who שבתי צבי was” is still valid, and therefore it is inadequate to remove the link to the article about him (and to undo everything else I changed at the same time). If you look at the article about him, you will see several ways of spelling his name, including the one from the footnote. Should that not be enough? Otherwise, what do you suggest? To add to the footnote that there are various ways to spell שבתי צבי in Latin script, referring to Scholem’s book about him? It is definitely not acceptable that you remove the link to the article (it is actually vandalism), so we have to find a way for that. --132.187.85.182 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
As you have not replied (which you haven’t really done the first time), I have undone your vandalism and edited the footnote according to my suggestion; besides, I have now added more material which includes other spellings of the name. I am sure it would have been enough to add a note referring to Scholem to an existing footnote, but you obviously preferred to go on with your vandalism instead of really discussing. I will report you if you will go on with that nonsense, so you better come up with an idea after reading the talk page and the summaries instead of undoing my whole edit again. --132.187.85.182 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
References
In the words of Rabbi moses Hagiz: "It is their custom to argue that with the arrival of Sabbatai Zevi, the sin of Adam has already been corrected and the good selected out of the evil and the 'dross'. ... "
Jayaguru-Shishya, you have once more proven that you know nothing about about transcription or transliteration (see section about שבתי צבי above); if you did, you would see that yimmaḥ šəmō (weziḵrō) is perfectly acceptable (ask any scholar) and therefore did not need to be explained by the person who added that to the article. Besides, even someone who cannot read square script will notice that the spelling vezikhro does more justice to וְזִכְרוֹ than ve zikhro does. Keep your fingers away from the article if all you can do is undo useful edits (which is vandalism, see former summaries). --132.187.85.182 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
References
yimach shemo! 'May he be cursed! Literally, 'May his name be blotted out!' Also, yimach shemo vezichro!, plural, yimach shemom (vezichrom). (Literally) 'May his name and memory be blotted out!' Used after an individual's name, as in Haman yimach shemo!
Do people ever say "Yimakh shemah" in reference to a woman or "Yimakh shemotav"/"Yimakh shemoteha" in reference to multiple people? Or is "Yimakh shemo" the fixed term no matter what? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)