Talk:Hassidic Jew
Latest comment: 5 years ago by -sche in topic RFD discussion: January–February 2019
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
SoP: Hassidic+Jew.—msh210℠ 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It’s a set term. Keep. —Stephen 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Keep. bd2412 T 08:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
See also archived discussion of January 2009.
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This was RFD'd many years back and kept as a "set term", but I don't think that's sufficient to justify it. It's a set term because there's no other way to say it, but that doesn't mean it isn't still SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is it SOP or a pleonasm? Is it possible to be a Hasidic non-Jew? Does being a pleonasm rescue a term from being SOP? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Re "Does being a pleonasm rescue a term from being SOP?": I don't know if there are cases where it could rescue something, but it certainly doesn't automatically rescue things, given that I doubt we want an entry on google books:"dead corpses". (Note that most uses are pleonastic, but it's possible some are contrasting dead corpses with reanimated corpses and thus avoiding pleonasm.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a pleonasm: while all Hasidim are, indeed, Jews, not all Jews are Hasidim. I grew up on the edge of a Jewish neighborhood and I've met and spent time with very many Jews, but none were Hasidic (I remember one breakfast at a Jewish friend's house where I was the only one not eating bacon- I was on a diet). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what definition of "pleonasm" you're working from, but plenty of sources describe tuna fish as one, even though not all fish are tuna. That all Hassidim are Jews may suffice for Hassidic Jew to be considered pleonasm. (That said, it seems the main reason people talk about tuna fish is that the fish part seems redundant to them — you can just say tuna — whereas Hassidic Jew doesn't have the same part of speech as bare Hassidic. I doubt anyone would advocate saying Hassidic person to avoid the redundancy of Hassidic Jew.) —RuakhTALK 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, OneLook says no one but us considers this an entryworthy term, and I don't believe being pleonastic rescues it from SOPpiness, so delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was the nominator last time and still maintain that it's SOP and deletable. But this nomination is inappropriate, I think, in that nothing new has come up since the last RFD AFAICT. We don't re-raise RFDs under such circumstances, do we? (I mean, then we could just keep re-raising them until we get the audience we want happening to pay attention.) For that reason, I now say keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Msh210: We should not, IMHO, require that new information comes up before a new RFD is started. It should suffice that the discussion had only few participants (1 for deletion, 2 for keeping), and that multiple years have passed (6 years). Thus, I think you should feel free to vote delete, on the same grounds on which you nominated the entry back then. What one could courteously do is count the previous participants here as well. The pro-keeping editors were Stephen and bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I no longer remember my thought process in voting to keep last time. I was probably thinking that, if you refer to a person who was Hassidic, you would almost always say "Hassidic Jew" as opposed to any other phrase. bd2412 T 14:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Eh. I suppose counting them (no longer BD, as he seems to be recanting) in this 'vote' is good enough.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Msh210: We should not, IMHO, require that new information comes up before a new RFD is started. It should suffice that the discussion had only few participants (1 for deletion, 2 for keeping), and that multiple years have passed (6 years). Thus, I think you should feel free to vote delete, on the same grounds on which you nominated the entry back then. What one could courteously do is count the previous participants here as well. The pro-keeping editors were Stephen and bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- A Jew with a low pH? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Wonderful! @Metaknowledge, -sche, Chuck Entz, Ruakh, Angr, Msh210, Dan Polansky, BD2412: A discussion about deleting the member of a distinct group of people without a single WT:CFI attestation added. What has changed since the last RFD in 2009? Is there any new evidence presented other than
I don't think that's sufficient to justify it
? Compare catholic v Catholic v Roman Catholic. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)- @BoBoMisiu It doesn't look like you understand how this process works. We don't need attestations to demonstrate that this is SOP or pleonastic, and the fact that they are a "distinct group of people" really has nothing to do with it. We also don't need new evidence; we are a different set of people than were around 6 years ago, and it is reasonable to put this entry up for review. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge It matters since WT:CFI was different then this revision. If something was accepted by an RFD under those conditions, that should be grandfathered in. Everyone then was in in good faith and the process was concluded. Nothing different is presented now. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re: "If something was accepted by an RFD under those conditions, that should be grandfathered in": Absolutely not. Like, we should not keep all already entered nonce words only because CFI once supported them; now that CFI has changed, nonce words that fail the new CFI are in the process of being removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is about WT:SOP, which is the grounds for so many discussions on this page that no one bothers to mention it. The question at hand is whether Hassidic Jew provides anything that's not available at Hassidic and Jew. After all, adherent of Hassidism means the same thing as Hassidic Jew. Not every phrase describing something merits a dictionary entry: it has to be considered a single unit by speakers, and by our rules it has to mean more than the sum of its parts. There are differences among participants here about exceptions to the above in some cases, and we're not always consistent about application- but that't the core of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Wonderful! @Metaknowledge, -sche, Chuck Entz, Ruakh, Angr, Msh210, Dan Polansky, BD2412: A discussion about deleting the member of a distinct group of people without a single WT:CFI attestation added. What has changed since the last RFD in 2009? Is there any new evidence presented other than
- A Jew with a low pH? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Still SOP. The last RFD was derailed by pointless considerations about the validity of the RFD procedure. Per utramque cavernam 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. If kept, we should also include Hassidic Rebbe, Hassidic village and Hassidic wedding, to name just a few. And of course Askhenazi Jew. --Lambiam 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC) - Is there any difference between Hassidic Jew and Hassid? I can't think of a good reason to keep the entry. No lemming in “Hassidic Jew”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Talk:free variable probably does not apply given the examples provided by Lambiam above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (and the redirect(!) at Hasidic Jew). - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)