Jump to content

Talk:Hanukkah/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Historical Source

The celebration of Hannukkah is cited in 1 & 2 Maccabees of the Catholic(also Christian) Bible, thus I am offended by the author's obvious bias or oblivious ignorance. He speaks of the Septuagint as if it were common everyday verbage and completely fails to even mention that the Bible of more than half the world's Christians, the Catholic(Christian) Bible's Old Testament is derived from it. Simultaneously, calling the Protestant bible the "Christian" Bible, immediatly implicating any other bible as non-Christian.

Additionally, the Catholic term used, "deuterocanon", does not equate entirely with the Septuagint. You see, books such as Maccabees 3 & 4 and others of the Septuagint are NOT part of the Catholic Old Testament deuterocanon books.

The author might want to note that the Hebrew Scripture Canon is really strictly the Rabbinic Judaism's(though most of today's Jews) canon as Ethiopian Jews still utilize the Septuagint as their version of the "Hebrew" Bible.Micael 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The author would probable like to include that the holiday is also mentioned in the Christian text of the Book of John. Chapter 10 verses 22-23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.8.35 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of Hanukkah

When the Nazis seized power in 1933, they suppressed Hanukkah by burning menorahs and candles, and abolishing the game of Dreidel. They even destroyed and vandalized synagogues that provided Hanukkah services. Wasn't that terrible. - Vahe Demrijian. 12:01. 19 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

most beautiful NPOV

where it is written the three different customs of lighting, it mentions the third to be the most beautiful. Not only is this personal research, it is not quantifiable, therefor not a fact. no opinions on the wiki!. changed. 72.66.249.231 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)matthew

Does this make sense? Please clarify

Can someone please clarify this for me? The article states: "Friday night presents a problem, however. Candles must be lit before the start of Shabbat and inexpensive Hanukkah candles do not burn long enough to meet the requirement. A simple solution is to use longer candles, arranging them in a straight line and setting the shamash candle apart and above the rest, or by using the traditional oil lamps."

If you light the candles on Friday at dusk then they are already lit before the Shabbat (which is Friday dusk to Saturday night) So why would we need the candles to burn longer than a half hour? Are the candles supposed to burn continuously from the time we light each one each day?(it doesn't state that in the article.) I don't understand what is meant by what is written there. Please explain it to me in more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.5 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Jewish law, dusk or twilight, the period between sunset and nightfall (when the stars are out) can be considered either day or night depending on the circumstances. For shabbos both the Friday twilight, and the Saturday twilight are considered shabbos (so shabbos is really 25 hours not 24). Shabbos starts at the latest when the sun has set (before dusk), and the shabbos candles are traditionally lit 18 minutes before that. On a weekday the Hanukkah candles are be lit at nightfall (after twilight) and stay lit for a half hour. As twilight can be 45 minutes long, and the shabbos starts 18 minutes before that, the hanukkah candles must last a long time in order to be lite for 30 minutes after nightfall. Jon513 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Vandalism Of Hanukkah / Possible Temp Protection?

There's been 'non-stop' rampant, malicious vandalism of Hanukkah. Maybe its only during the period of Hanukkah, which is now, but the article is being ruined. Maybe some interested parties could get a temporary restriction on editing especially by people without user accounts -- just for the time of Hanukkah. If this is not the appropriate or best place for this note, then please move and or copy it to a more appropriate place. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.13.47 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

its also a jewish Holiday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.179.144 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think it has to do with the season, probably a bunch of anitsemites or just ignorant people deciding to change it for fun.--12.164.197.120 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Redwolf24's law in action. (The amount of vandalism an article receives is directly proportional to the amount of readers it gets, which is proportional to how fast the vandalism will get reverted.). Jon513 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone put the date of Hanukkah this year at the top of the page?

Like many people, I'm wondering, when is Hanukkah this year? So, my family being non religious in the extreme, I don't have a clue when Hanukkah is. In order to find out, I have to read through several pages of wikipedia. Simple basic info should be at the top for folks like me looking for a quick answer.

jbrave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.55.200 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The sidebar thing on the right would be the most sensible place to put it 87.194.30.174 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody figure out for the general public what is the earliest and latest Hannukah could possibly be?
Something like, "Because of the different calendars Hanukkah could start in different years on Nov29? to Dec24? and end as last as Jan3?" (not real dates)
Temblast (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Correct the Rules for Dreidel Game

The rules for the dreidel game are incomplete. I'd like to edit the rules, but I don't have access. The rules don't point out that when the pot is empty or only has one item, all players should immediately add another item to the pot. I tried it the way described, and most of the time the pot is empty and it not very interesting. After researching, I found this site which has this rule I'm suggesting be added. Also, in its variation, Shin means to give everything you have into the pot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epabst (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please change "deuterocanonical" language

"Hanukkah is mentioned in the deuterocanonical books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees."

The word "deuterocanonical" is a Roman Catholic and Eastern Christianity term, and indicates that they are canonical, which is not held by protestant believers (or by those in the day of Christ, for that matter.

I suggest that this sentence be modified to say:

"hanukkah is mentioned in the deuterocanonical or apocrypha books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees."

This way, the beliefs of both Catholics and Protestants are included and thus, the sentence becomes void of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.244.202 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for pointing that out. Jon513 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Protect again?

Should this article be semi-protected again? I just restored a large block of text that was deleted by a vandal and not caught due to two acts of vandalism in a row. This has the possibility of causing real, lasting damage if it continues. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

naming of the article

אני רוצה זה להיות חנוכה עם ch לא עם h. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.238.90 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

translation by Jon513: "I want this to be chanukkah with a 'ch' not an 'h'".
There is no perfect way to create a "ח" sound with English letters. Both 'ch' and 'h' fall short of perfectly transliterating the word. I understand that some have a preference for one version over the other but I don't really see a reason to get worked up over it. There has been ample discussion about this already and unless you can add a strong reason that hasn't been said already I don't see a reason to revisit this issue. Jon513 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need a section on "Matzah balls]]

Matzah balls are popular American Jewish parties held on or near Christmas, and linked to Chanukah as well, ofter singles events. This terminology is very widely used in the American Jewish community, and this phenomenon probably deserves an article of its own. There should be some mention of this in the Matzah Ball article, primarilly for disambiguation, and here as well. If there is an article on Jewish dating there should be some link to that as well.

Matzah Ball parties set for 6

MatzoBall official website

Matzo Ball® Party is a project of the Society of Young Jewish Professionals. Now in its 21st year, the Society of Young Jewish Professionals, commonly known as SYJP, Inc., is the nation's largest and most successful membership organization for Jewish professionals, ages 21-49. SYJP,Inc. offers men and women the opportunity to meet in an environment conducive to developing networking opportunities, long lasting friendships and romantic relationships. We have sparked over 1,000 marriages and thousands of friendships thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

"Fifteenth Matzo Ball brings Jewish singles together for Christmas Eve" The Boston Herald; December 24, 2001 15 Matzo Balls brings Jewish singles...

"Matzo Ball draws thousands: Christmas Eve parties becoming a Jewish..." Sunday Gazette-Mail; December 24, 2006 ; The Associated Press Matzo Ball draws thousands...

"Matzo Ball set for Christmas Eve" Washington Jewish Week; December 6, 2007 Matzo Ball set for Christmans Eve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.179.40 (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have semi-protected the article until December 30, as there has been nothing but vandalism over the past few days and, if '06 and '07 are any indication, things will only get worse as the holiday approaches. However, if anyone believes the article is best left unprotected during the holiday, please feel free to ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP (or unprotect the article yourself). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra meaning of Hannukah

Can someone confirm for me whether or not Hanukkah may also come from the Aramaic word "Hanuk", which means to strangle? The meaning behind this is that the Jews felt themselves "strangled" and oppressed under the regime of the Polytheistic Seleucids and so rebelled for freedom. Gabr-el 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The root is H-N-K, to train or dedicate, not H-N-Q, to strangle. -- Zsero (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you have a huge selection Hanukkah pictures, can someone please add this link at the external links? or any other link to Hanukkah pictures to direct people to more about Hanukkah? (BTW, i think that the older picture of the menorah was better on top, rather than this rabbi lighting candles. This illustrates the rabbi more than Hanukkah...) --Alzuz (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright on those images? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably the photographers who put their pictures on this site, but i found this link as a great source for Jewish pictures of all kinds, and the issue is not to copy pictures or any break of copyright, just a link to rich the knowledge's of Hanukkah. A great thanks! :) --Alzuz (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read your initial post carefully enough. For some reason I thought you were advocating posting the images themselves in the article. There would be no copyright problem with posting links to those images, but I don't know if the link would satisfy WP:EL or WP:NOTLINK. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly against it. It seems to clearly violate WP:NOTLINK #4, as well as WP:ELNO #5, as it is solely a commercial site selling stock photography. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. They don't seem to illustrate a whole lot other than candles in menorah's- pictures we ourselves can just as readily provide. l'aquatique |Happy Hannukah!| talk 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo in second paragraph

Near the end of the second paragraph "As such, if one were to read from the lights – something prohibited – then it's not clear whether the light one's reading from was from the Hanukkah lights of the shamash light."

'of' should be changed to 'or' so the sentence reads: "As such, if one were to read from the lights – something prohibited – then it's not clear whether the light one's reading from was from the Hanukkah lights or the shamash light."

Happy Holidays, Blarney Fiddler (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input. By the way, I hope you realize that it is very easy to do things like this yourself. For the full story, you may read the "how to edit" guide. But much of that you will probably find you already know since you were able to edit this page, by making the entry to which I am responding right now. If you need any help, let me know on my talk page -Seidenstud (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The page is semi-protected, so he could not have done it himself in this particular instance. Thank you for asking on the Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Added new section Modern Perception

Please discuss any suggestions and issues here. Thanks and happy holidays.--Xenovatis (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in section "Kindling the Hanukkah lights"

The last sentence in the first paragraph of this section states, So all together, excluding the shamash, two lights are lit on the first night, three on the second and so on, ending with eight on the last night, for a total of 36. (including the "shamash" is a total of 44). This should be one light is lit on the first night, two on the second etc. Traax (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Steven J. Anderson (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

direction of candle-lighting is wrong in this article

This article incorrectly states that the Hanukkah lights are light from right to left when they are actually light from left to right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweiss4119 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it actually said that, but it was kind of unclear. I've added another sentence to more clearly explain what's going on. AJD (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

section: See also

That's absurdly trivial and doesn't belong in this article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nayrot?

What about Nayrot? I have found some information about it, but I have no idea how reliable it is. Is any of this verifiable?

Kalbasa (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Utter speculation. -- Zsero (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
When reverting my edit, you commented that it's "unfounded" and "self-published". It's neither. I give references, to which I am unrelated. I do not say with certainty that this is true, but that Sherwin Wine claimed this. I even wrote that I could not find a historical basis for the Nayrot claim.
While I agree that the historical accuracy is questionable, I still think that Nayrot, with disclaimers about accuracy, should be included in the article. Perhaps in a different section than where I originally included it would be better? See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Kalbasa (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It is unfounded speculation, not on your part but on Wine's. Wine's book is self-published, so it is no more reliable a source than he himself was. There is no evidence that any such festival ever existed, or that Chanukah descended in any way from a solstice festival. Wine's agenda, of course, is obvious: if one is to build an atheist Judaism it would be useful to have some sort of tradition older than a few decades to hang ones (figurative) hat on, and one can write almost whatever one likes about Temple-era Judaism without fear of being contradicted by anyone but those obscurantist Orthodox types, and really, who pays them any attention? -- Zsero (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Deep breath... Most agricultural cultures have a solstice/winter festival (in fact, Divali is even referred to as the festival of lights). The issue is if this effected the timing of Chanukah, and if it was a replacement (a claim made for many, many xtian holidays WRT pagan holidays). The meta issue is if it's worth documenting. And if it can be done calmly. (given the jewish propensity for hypergraphia, that last one is particularly important. FiveRings (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Judaism isn't most cultures. In the case of Xian festivals such as Xmas, there is overwhelming evidence for its descent from Saturnalia/Calendaria; in the case of Chanukah there is no such evidence at all. Xianity and Judaism have taken radically different views of syncretism; Xianity has historically all but openly embraced it, while Judaism has treated it with revulsion and disdain. The idea that Chazal turned a pagan festival (for whose existence there is no evidence) into a Jewish one is ludicrous; it explicitly goes against everything they taught. On the contrary, everything we know about them tells us that had there been a pagan festival on that date, they would have deliberately moved Chanukah to some other date, just so as to avoid the appearance of syncretism. -- Zsero (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Add to these arguments the fact that there is another Jewish holiday that falls at about the same time, that gets much less attention, and the fact that Hannukah itself was an utterly minor holiday until xmas celebrations became the norm. However - the question isn't if it's a worthy claim, the question is if it's worth documenting. Would the average English-speaking human benefit from having information available that wasn't from Wine's book, or an ad on the side of a bus? FiveRings (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a fringe theory, and not even a significant one. If this were a widespread belief, documented in multiple reliable sources, then it would be worth discussing, and presenting the evidence for and against. But unsourced speculation that has not attracted a significant following needn't be mentioned at all. -- Zsero (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize Wine's book is self-published. According to Amazon, it's published by Ktav. [5]. Anyway, I would be interested in any other sources besides Wine. If he is the only source, that might be problematic. --Kalbasa (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I was going by the citation you supplied, which gave the publisher as "the Society for Humanistic Judaism", i.e. Wine himself. If KTAV published it then it's not self-published, but it doesn't change much, since the notion that KTAV would have fact-checked a claim like this is utterly fantastical. -- Zsero (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Captn Cohen.

get him away from this page. there is no need to associate this jewish holiday to the american imperial army. do you want a second holocaust? i'm taking this picture away. 79.216.173.175 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I cant take the picture away. Do we have any administrators not conspiring with the MIC to do it?79.216.173.175 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not your place to personally determine what pictures are appropriate and what pictures aren't. (Though I grant this one looks a little demonic). The other two pictures of people lighting menorahs are of hassidic rabbis. This is certainly not a typical representation. Good to show some diversity. (Now, how about a picture of a woman lighting one surrounded by her children? That's actually typical).FiveRings (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the subject of the photo; I just wish it weren't so dark. Chanukah celebrates a military victory against a tyranny, so it's especially appropriate to show someone still engaged in another such war, lighting the menorah to remember this ancient victory. -- Zsero (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hanerot Halalu

"During or after the lights are kindled the hymn Hanerot Halalu is recited" As far as I know Hanerot Halalu is supposed to be started after lighting the first light. What is the source for saying it after the lights are kindled? Yydl (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Shulchan Aruch OC 676:4. (See Shaar Hakolel 46:3) -- Zsero (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Never knew that. Thought everyone held one way... -- Yydl (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

I believe protection of this page to be in violation of wikipedia policy seeing as it isnt mentioned in the talk page and it in inconsistant to preemptively protect pages--209.181.16.93 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection is not mentioned on the talk page. The current protection was activated on December 11th due to vandalism and expires on December 19th. --NeilN talk to me 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The protection was not preemptive; it was in response to several incidents of vandalism on the 11th. However, it is common practice to semi-protect holiday articles for the duration (as has been done with this article for the last four years). If you have a suggestion for improvement, you can make a request here on the talk page. If you want to edit semi-protected pages yourself, you can create an account. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of the so called vandalism was actually good faith edits (sure there was some vandalism but every artical gets vandalised) also just because it happens a lot doesnt make it within policy. Also I have an acount its just a paiin to login every time i want to make an edit and it doesnt keep me logged in when i log in--209.181.16.93 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What policy are you claiming forbids semi-protection in response to vandalism, or even preemptive semi-protection in anticipation of vandalism? -- Zsero (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you're referring to but most of the IP edits on the 11th were straight up vandalism - enough to be called "sustained" vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I am refering to semi-protecting because its a holiday being against policy not because of vandalism. And i would say the worst vandalism was from a logged in user at that time frame. But what I am saying is some stuff was stated to be vandalism that wasnt so it seems to me that some people are pov pushing and calling it reverting vandalism as often as it is vandalism (even if it isnt intentional POV pushing as some people see their POV as definitive fact)209.181.16.93 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Which policy would that be? -- Zsero (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:PP and WP:ROUGH 209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing at either link to support your claim. (And ROUGH is not a policy). -- Zsero (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If a policy states when to do something and those events havent happened then it is against the policy as for rough not being a policy it still explains a policy --209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the policy against preemptive semi-protection. Preemptive full protection is specifically forbidden, but preemptive semi-protection is not. -- Zsero (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
User:NeilN states it was protected because of vandalism and as my count shows below it was 50% of anon edits so I am conceding that point but as for the preemptive which it is not I would say is against policy because its not a time stated as allowed but because as User:NeilN states its not related to the reason for the protection that is irrelevent . And For mentioning the DIFFs i looked into it and saw my error --209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, the article was protected because of vandalism. It will be unprotected on the 19th. To request unprotection sooner, go here: WP:RFPU --NeilN talk to me 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[6], [7], [8], [9] - what do you call these edits? --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I didnt say there was none just that there was good faith edits that were marked vandalism as well209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Would help if you provided a few diffs. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Every Anonymous Edit Dec 10

Under good faith 14 could count as one or two good faith edits making for about 50% vandal 50% good faith Vandalism Edits: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Good Faith and Constructive Edits [18][19](middle edit is presumably a typo for good faith edit by same person as second edit in this diff)[20][21][22][23][24]--209.181.16.93 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the "good faith" edits were reverting vandalism of other IP edits. Not sure what you want us to do here. We've told you why the page was protected. To request unprotection go to WP:RFPU. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't change that they were good faith edits I was just putting a count because you asked for diffs and of course I am conceding just explaning what gave me the conclcusions I drew initialy and then in my concession up there why it changed.--209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the protection expired some days ago but evidently anonymous users can't edit this article in a constructive way. So it's semi-protected again, for 2 weeks now. That takes us into the new year and by then all these bored vandals will have found something else to focus on instead. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone please change "Apocrypha" language

"The story of Hanukkah is alluded to in the book of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees of the Apocrypha"

Considering 1.5 billion of the World's Christian population considers 1&2 Maccabees part of the bible(vs ~500 million Protestants) not to mention Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) I think its is only fair to at the very lease conscede the following "The story of Hanukkah is alluded to in the book of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees of the Deuterocanon scripture/Apocrypha " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.107.88.130 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the article is about a Jewish subject, and there is no question that these books are not part of the Jewish canon, I think "Apocrypha" is appropriate. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Considering that the article is about a Jewish subject" very well stated Zsero.

Unfortunately, you do not realize that is precisly the overall point, it is a "Jewish subject"! Deutorocanoncial scripture respects, the historical as well as biblical (see Beta Israel) basis of Hanukkah. The fact that not all Jews(Phasaic-Rabbinical Jews) accept them as canon does not remove its historical or scriptural significance to other Jews and even Christians as they accept Hebrew history and traditions as part of their faith even though not necessarily by race. Sadly, the faith of fellow Falashah Jews- or other sects within Judaism- are not acknowleged or respected in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.133.45 (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Even if the "Beta Israel" are descended of Jews, they certainly have no Jewish tradition: they have completely forgotten the oral torah, and their scriptures are copied from the Ethiopian Christians. Chanukah is a Jewish holiday, and there is no question that the books of Maccabees are not part of the Jewish bible. -- Zsero (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The article on Hanukkah is simply not the place for this debate. The sentence as it is does not say the books are part of the Jewish canon. It doesn't say they aren't. It just says that they mention the holiday. If it were mentioned in some other book - the Bhagavad Gita, for instance - we wouldn't have to specifically point out that the book was not part of the Tanakh. Whether it is or is not is irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant whether or not Christmas is mentioned in the Christian scriptures. If anyone is curious about the status of Maccabees they can read those articles. Does that help? Kafziel Complaint Department 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, I am a bit surprised at your commentary regarding Falasha Jews, to say that their scriptures are copied from Christians is quite absurd. Its is rather, evident you have not read 1&2 Maccabees for their are pure Jewish in context whether Rabbincal Jews accept them as scripture or not. Perhaps you should take some time reading the books as Chapter 4 of 1 Macc:

8 But Judas said to his men, Don't worry about the size of their army, and don't be frightened when they attack.9 Remember how our ancestors were saved at the Red Sea when the king of Egypt was pursuing them with his army!10 Now let us ask the Lord to have mercy on us. Let us pray that he will honor his covenant with our ancestors and crush this army when we attack today.11 Then all the Gentiles will know that Israel has a God who rescues and saves them...
36 Judas and his brothers said, Now that our enemies have been defeated, let's go to Jerusalem to purify the Temple and rededicate it.37 So the whole army was assembled and went up to Mount Zion.38 There they found the Temple abandoned, the altar profaned, the gates burned down, the courtyards grown up in a forest of weeds, and the priests' rooms torn down.39 In their sorrow, they tore their clothes, cried loudly, threw ashes on their heads,40 and fell face down on the ground. When the signal was given on the trumpets, everyone cried out to the Lord...
52 The twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, the month of Kislev, in the year 148 was the anniversary of the day the Gentiles had desecrated the altar. On that day a sacrifice was offered on the new altar in accordance with the Law of Moses. The new altar was dedicated and hymns were sung to the accompaniment of harps, lutes, and cymbals.55 All the people bowed down with their faces to the ground and worshiped and praised the Lord for giving them victory.56 For eight days they celebrated the rededication of the altar. With great joy they brought burnt offerings and offered fellowship offerings and thank offerings.57 They decorated the front of the Temple with gold crowns and shields, rebuilt the gates and the priests' rooms and put doors on them.58 Now that the Jews had removed the shame which the Gentiles had brought, they held a great celebration.59 Then Judas, his brothers, and the entire community of Israel decreed that the rededication of the altar should be celebrated with a festival of joy and gladness at the same time each year, beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Kislev and lasting for eight days.

Also, it is silly to believe Falasha Jews received books from Christians, as Gentiles had no understanding of Jewish history or literary traditions. For how is it that Falasha Jews received books as Enock, Jubilees, Tobit, Ben Sira(Sirach), or Baruck (Letter to Jeremiah) from Gentiles yet they are also found in pre-Christian Jewish communities of the Essene Jews of the Dead Sea Scrolls...or do you also consider them less-than-worthy (non-Rabbinical/Pharisaic) Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.129.46 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

fact tag

I put a {{Citation needed}} tag on a section of apocrypha and have made it clear in my edit summaries that I am questioning that they are infact apocrypha and want a citation for that so I do not understand why people are removing a citation request when you can only remove them if there is a citation or one is added--Shimonnyman (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an easy fix. Though sources abound for that statement, the article is about Hanukkah, not a place to debate the apocrypha. Since the books are linked themselves and it doesn't directly relate to the topic, I just removed the apocrypha bit. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. The source for the statement is in the books themselves; the exact citation is given in the article. The article isn't claiming that what the books say is true; it just says that Chanukah is referred to in these early books, which shows that the authors had heard of it. What fact is Shimonnyman challenging with his tag? -- Zsero (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As i have previously stated multiple time I was asking for a citation on them being apocrypha( as opposed to cannon) but Kafziel came up with a solution for it--Shimonnyman (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

Hi, The first two paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Modern_perception are phrased/presented as though they are showing two different points of view, but both seem to be saying roughly the same thing. Is it possible these can be re-phrased to illuminate the contrast a little better? Jjk 13:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC) {Is it 3 ~'s or 4? I can never remember! )

What makes you think they are supposed to be two different opinions? -- Zsero (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I just read it it says on the other hand at the begining of the second paragraph of that section hence two opinions/ideas--209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Take another look. The "on the other hand" line is a quote supporting the previous statement. See the sentence right before it, where it says "According to Joseph P. Schultz:" and note the colon. They are not two separate paragraphs; it is a paragraph with a quotation set apart from the rest of the text. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesnt look like a quote the way it is formatted--69.146.158.34 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done I've removed the quote altogether. It adds nothing at all to the main text, and already appears in the footnote if someone really wants to see it. It's not as if this Schultz guy were particularly notable, so that a quote from him would carry particular authority. -- Zsero (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are pictures with people only have orthodox jews?

As a secular Jew, I'm offended by the fact that only orthodox Jews are shown as celebrating Hannukah. This holiday is celebrated by the vast majority of Jewish people around the world, religious or not. It has great traditions, and is celebrated by most families. You should find pictures of more, let's say, "common looking people", celebrating the holiday, shouldn't be difficult at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.104.37 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a good photo with a free license, or can take one, please go ahead and add it. Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I changed a number of photos in the article, as well as the layout and captions. Parts of the article were much too crowded before, so I did remove some and added others in other sections. It could be improved still further. Jonathunder (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Jonathunder, I see you have a good eye for pictures. I agree with 89.139.104.37 — to a point. As fun as lighting candles and frying latkes may be, Hanukkah is a rabbinically-mandated Jewish holiday and as such has specific observances that make it "kosher". The choice of pictures of Hanukkah menorahs with candles positioned in an arc rather than a straight line, the little girl lighting who looks like a miniature version of Santa Claus, and the now total absence of Rebbes who cut quite a striking look as they light their ornate, indoor menorahs, seems to downgrade the religious significance of Hanukkah. When I have time, I would like to fill in the absence of certain halakhic guidelines for Hanukkah, but as of now, I think the pictures detract from the original meaning of the holiday. Yoninah (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I also think the picture of the "Santa Claus" girl (as Yoninah put it) is especially bad. From that angle she could be lighting almost anything; the girl herself is clearly the main focus of the photo, distracting from the subject, which goes against the image use policy. I think that one should go. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It is gone now, and I agree it wasn't a great photo, but it was the only one I could find on commons of a child participating in a Hanukkah tradition at home, which is something I think could improve the article if we can find a better one. Perhaps children playing the dreidel game? Jonathunder (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this photo File:Hanukkah-US-Military-GITMO-Dec-28-08.jpg?--agr (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for the inclusion of that. I think it is a very good image. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I would vote on this one too, and possibly to replace the "Chaplain Andrew Cohen" photo. I agree with Yonina that we should only have photos of "Kosher" Hanuka Menorah's on this page, and the photos of round Menorah's removed. Shlomke (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a very good picture, and I recommend it replace the Chaplain Cohen picture too. I'm afraid I'm the one responsible for choosing the Cohen picture, as I was searching around Wikimedia Commons for something appropriate. This one is much better, clearer, and shows people lighting menorahs, which is what 89.139.104.37 suggested. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I would go along with that too: the above image to replace the "Chaplain Cohen" picture. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I made the switch.--agr (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of shamash

The second introductory paragraph states in part "An extra light called a shamash (Hebrew: "guard" or "servant") is also lit...". Under Kindling the Hanukkah lights the same statement appears. I know that shamash is a common Semitic word for the sun (and an Akkadian sun god), so I wonder whether "servant" is a later connotation, or if there are simply two unrelated homophones in use here. Either way, an authoritative reference would certainly help! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

According to worldlingo, they are unrelated. The Hebrew root Shin-Mem-Shin came from an Egyptian word for "follower". Jonathunder (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized I cited a Wikipedia mirror. Hopefully, we'll find a better source. Jonathunder (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have attempted to clarify the definition of the word Shamash as it is written and defined in "Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary", Hayim Balstan, Wiley Publishing 1992, ISBN 978-0-671-88991-3. However, I have been unable to update the linked reference which leads to a reference source that doesn't actually define the name Shamash at all. Any help in updating link #1 to instead use the actual Hebrew dictionary reference would be appreciated. (Nov 4, 2010). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Channard (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 November 2010

Pronunciation

Do you think it would be possible to add an audio file with the correct pronunciation of hanukkah? i think it would help a lot. thanks! 189.178.66.170 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maccabees problem

The article needs to clarify the issue of the Books of Maccabees. These books are not part of the Jewish canon, not even as "apocrypha". They have the same role (religiously) as the the plays of Shakespeare (ie None). They are not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The festival is only found in the Talmud, and here it is mainly by comments on the details of candle lighting. The Karaites, who follow only the Bible (Jewish canon) do not recognise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Chasof z'roa

Please could someone add in details about the last verse of Ma'oz Tsur? It was an addendum written at a later date to the rest, and by a different author, but I can't recall the details. Also, a translation of the whole thing would be nice :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.40 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2005

Numerological speculation

Part of the article speculates about the mystical significance of the number eight. Eight, being one step beyond seven, represents the Infinite (as an eight turned on its side). What place does this numerological speculation have in an encyclopedia? What sources can be cited to back it up? Did the ancient Jews use a modern arabic numeral 8 turned on its side to represent infinity? Did the similarity of the numeral 8 with an infinity symbol inspire them in their understanding of Hanukkah? That section needs to be cleaned up. — 38.115.151.134 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have any source offhand, there are authentic Jewish sources that mentions the idea that 7 represents nature (7 days of creation) and 8 is supernatural. It has nothing to do with the shape of the number. Jon513 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
First, any 'numerology' regarding G-d and scripture is to be referred to as sacred numerology. Second, lest we not forget about G-d commanding there to be 8 humans on the Ark: Noah, his three sons, and their four wives. - Genesis 6:10, 6:18, 7:7. The fact that today the #8 on its side represents infinity is symbolically significant! - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 64.136.26.22 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New Template

I've created a new template for Hanukkah. Let me know what you think.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 December 2007

Holofernes served in the Babylonian, not Assyrian, army

The article is incorrect when it says "the Assyrians were defeated" in the story of Judith. Holofernes was an Assyrian general, but serving in the Babylonian army despatched by Nebuchadnezzar.
Wikipedia would do well to include this correction, for the sake of accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2008

Christian Bible refers to Jesus & Hanukkah (John 10:22)

The Christian Bible refers to Jesus being at the Jerusalem Temple during "the feast of the dedication and it was winter" in John 10:22-23. - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 75.74.156.102 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is in the article, in the other ancient sources section. Jonathunder (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
So? FiveRings (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Date problem

Someone changed the date of the beginning of Hanukkah 2010 from sundown on 1 December to sundown on 2 December. Although I think this would be correct in Europe (for example, UTC), it will probably create confusion in North America, where Hanukkah begins on 1 December. Is there anyone with Hebrew calendar expertise who could put in some sort of explanation? Ardric47 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Europe vs. North America makes no difference because the holiday begins at sunset local time no matter where you are. Sunset on Dec. 1 in London is Dec. 1. Sunset on Dec. 1 in New York is still Dec. 1. Those were probably just people doing what we call subtle vandalism, making small changes to dates that they think won't be noticed. This page confirms that Hanukkah began on sunset of December 1, 2010. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Historic Timeline Errors?

According to his Wiki entry, Antiochus VII besieged Jerusalem in 134 BC, and died in 129 BC, dates differing from those noted in this locked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.27.241 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Our timeline had Antiochus besieging Jerusalem after his death. I'll correct the dates according to the Antiochus VII Sidetes article which seems backed up (at least on the death date) by the Jewish Encyclopedia. It also does not sound as if Antiochus VII's attempts at besieging Jerusalem were all that unsuccessful; I'll reword that. Huon (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bible citation problems

I just edited the "Historical Sources" section to mention that the rededication narrative appears in 1 Maccabees 4:16 and thereafter. This is already mentioned below in a different section, but with a citation to a broken link (currently ref [16]). Is there a canonical way to give links to Bible verses in Wikipedia? I've seen a few of websites referenced, some more reliable than others, some Wikipedia authors just give pointers to the Wikipedia article on the book itself and leave out chapter and verse. Thanks. Dominic Widdows (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern creation?

There is a school of thought that the Hanukkah we celebrate today is a modern creation, in imitation of Christmas. It used to be a minor holiday but was elevated in importance to become the Jewish Christmas, for commercial reasons as much as religious ones. I've seen this in many sources, most recently this WP:RS. Some rabbis object to that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577101241593280750.html?mod=ITP_AHED

DECEMBER 17, 2011

Hanukkah Boosters Light a Fire Under Holiday Acrobats, Heavy Metal Join Celebrations; 'Vodka and Latkes' Parties

By STEPHANIE SIMON And ANN ZIMMERMAN

...

Hanukkah is actually a minor holiday on the Jewish religious calendar. But enterprising entrepreneurs have long seen its potential.

Back in the 1870s, when Christmas was just starting to come into its own as a mass-market cultural phenomenon in the U.S., two Cincinnati rabbis looking for a way to cheer up Jewish kids who felt left out—and bring more young families into synagogue—launched the first big Hanukkah festivals, with games, music and plenty of good food. The concept was wildly popular and soon spread across the country, says Dianne Ashton, a religious scholar and author of the coming book "Hanukkah in America."

--Nbauman (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call the 1870s "modern". But something on the history of the holiday itself would surely not be amiss in the article. In contrast, I doubt we need all of the Maccabean history we have in the article. In particular, the entire "Historical timeline" section seems partly irrelevant, partly redundant to the "Story of Hanukkah" section. Huon (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
See Modern era. This refers to everything after the middle ages, or from the 16th century onward. I'm in favor of including anything we can source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

English gematria

I am just as puzzled by the discussion of "Simple English Gematria" in the section on Spelling Variants. Or maybe "discussion" is too strong a term. Is the application of gematria to English spellings something anyone seriously does in connection with Jewish topics? Are we supposed to derive some sort of guidance as to how to romanize Hebrew based on the numerical values of the English spellings that result? --Haruo (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(Thought I replied to this but I must not have saved.) It shouldn't have been there. It was added over a year ago by someone who was adding similar imaginary material to a number of articles. It was quickly deleted, but I am ashamed to say that I re-added it in a sloppy revert that undid several edits. I have now deleted it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditional View

In this section, a paragraph reads as follows:

The version of the story in 1 Maccabees states that an eight day celebration of songs and sacrifices was proclaimed upon re-dedication of the altar, and makes no mention of the miracle of the oil.[16] A number of historians believe that the reason for the eight day celebration was that the first Hanukkah was a belated celebration of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret.[17] During the war the Jews were not able to celebrate these festivals, when lamps were lit in the Temple (Suk.v. 2–4).

I think this paragraph needs further work, particularly the last sentence, which is bit unclear. Lamps are also lit in homes during Sukkoth. Also were the priest able to light lamps in the Temple before the Assyrians were defeated? Hadn't the Temple been profaned? I hope that someone more knowledgeable than me could improve on the details for the paragraph. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The Assyrians were long gone when these events took place; how are they relevant? I believe services in the Temple had been disrupted in 168 on Antiochus IV's orders, and Hanukkah is the re-dedication celebration after the Maccabees had won the ensuing war. During that war, before the re-dedication, the festivals supposed to be celebrated in the Temple could not be held. We might make the last sentence read "lamps were supposed to be lit" to clarify that the Jews did not light lamps when they could not celebrate the festivals. Huon (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled - Judith/cheese and milk

The text of the Book of Judith makes no relevant reference to cheese or milk, only drunkenness. --Dweller (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell us what that has to do with this article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Hanukkah#Judith_and_Holofernes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yup. That's what I'm asking about. Anyone know the answer? --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
According to what's in our article here, she plied him with cheese and wine. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the book of Judith doesn't mention cheese. That's my point. --Dweller (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the whole thing doesn't seem properly sourced to me. The Judith and Holofernes story takes place during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which was a couple of hundred years before the events of the Hanukkah story. Of course that doesn't mean the tradition of eating cheese doesn't exist. But no source that I can see says it does. WP:JUDAISM would probably be a good place to take this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Try this. Some versions of Judith include the part about the cheese. The Kol Bo says Judith was the daughter of Yochanan Kohen Gadol, which would make her a (much younger) sister of Matitiyahu. As far as Nebuchadnezzar goes, it was common in ancient writings like this to use the name of a different king in order to avoid trouble with the authorities. There are references to Nevuzaradan that are clearly referring to Titus, for example. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

<-Thanks, helpful. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2011

please add this pic to the entry: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Hanukkah-candle07_.JPG thank you!

שלמה (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that image would add anything to a reader's understanding of Hanukkah above and beyond the images we already have. Huon (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling of Chanukah

This holiday is consistently misspelled by people who don't know hebrew. In hebrew, the first letter of this holiday is a "chet," giving a pronunciation like the "ch" in Loch, like Loch Ness. The correct spelling is NOT "hanukah," but rather, a word that has the consonant sounds of "ch","n","k", and the aspiration of "h." In current jewish culture, both variants are used, but more and more, the "chanukah," is replacing "hannukah," as people wise up to the error of their ways. The title of this page should be changed to reflect the correct spelling. To avoid doing so, is a form of cultural destruction.

--non-logged-in random corrector dude (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is no one "correct" spelling for Hanukkah in English. This article uses the most common romanization. If you think it should be changed, there's a process for achieving that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Steven J. Anderson: Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the most common English name, not a supposedly better but less common transliteration of the Hebrew name. Huon (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
On what basis was it decided that "Hanukkah" was the most common? I've seen both "Hanukkah" and "Chanukah" with fair frequency. It seems to me like we should go with the more "correct"/"standard" choice (and yes, guidelines do exist); I'm more inclined, however, to transcribe as close to the IPA as possible while still allowing for English orthography rules. Thus, 'ch' for [χ], 'ah' for [a] at the end of a word (as opposed to [ə]), and a single 'k' to keep the 'u' long (i.e. [u], not [ʊ] or [ʌ]). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're seriously interested in moving the page, the place to seek consensus for that is at WP:RM. Bear in mind that the current spelling is the result of a prior consensus and the likely result of a new discussion is that that consensus will be reaffirmed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
See this prior discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Hanukkah" outnumbers "Chanukah" on Google Scholar and Google Books at a ratio of about 2:1, and vastly more so on Google Web. I'm aware Google search results are not the ultimate truth regarding frequency of use, but the sources using "Hanukkah" seem also to be the more reliable ones; see for example articles published by the Israel Sociological Society or the Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha. Huon (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Chanukah is an 8 day festival not a 9 day festival. Also the Chanukiah (menorah) is 8 branched lit i for each of the 8 days of Chanukah. The center candle is called a Shamash and is used to light the others.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanukkah/Archive_2&oldid=1099620046"