Talk:Eleazar ben Pedat

Eleazar vs. Elazar

There was a recent edit (May 16) introducing an inconsistent spelling of Elazar, claiming that it is not spelled Eleazar in English. This seems not exact. Both are valid spellings. What may be going through this editor's head is that with that "e", it would correspond to the similar name אליעזר. However, the distinction is in that we use an "i" for the chirik yud. Also, the last vowel is an "e" rather than an "a".

To explain the confusing spelling, consider that Greek Biblical translations render אלעזר as Ἐλεάζαρ. Note the epsilon ε. Standard English translations such as King James render the name as Eleazar, corresponding to how we pronounce Elazar. Joshwaxman (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Land of Israel vs. Syria Palaestina

A user with an edit history involving pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel work, with a note of "Applying consistent contemporary geographical terminology" changed "Israel" to "Syria Palaestina". Though I consider that edit to be a level of politically motivated defacement, I am leaving it in, but also am also putting "Land of Israel" back in the article at the top.

The justifications are manifold, but include:

• the article elsewhere discussed Rabbi Eleazar's love of the Land of Israel. Taking it out at the top, as where he lived, obscures this relevant connection.
• that is how it is discussed in modern sources, such as the Hebrew Wikipedia version of the page, Eretz Yisrael
• that is how the people in Rabbi Eleazar's own time labelled the place, e.g. Ketubot 111a, עוּלָּא הֲוָה רְגִיל דַּהֲוָה סָלֵיק לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, "Ulla, who was accustomed to leave to the Land of Israel"

Joshwaxman (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The body says he emigrated to (Syria-)Palestine, and the Jewish Encyclopedia calls him a "Palestinian amora" - this is just the correct academic language for the time period, no more, no less. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is some reading for anyone thinking this is defacement. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on your other Wikipedia contributions, yes, it is likely politically motivated, to try to strip out reference to the Land Israel as a political entity and likely promote Palestine as the same. Pointing to a HaAretz article doesn't change the context, or your likely motivations.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article is from (1901–1906), when such language was the scholarly standard. It preceded the foundation of the modern State of Israel. Yes, the (inconsistent) body also carries such language, lifted from the Jewish Encyclopedia article. Joshwaxman (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Careful on the WP:NPA there. That aside, you are confusing political entity with a literary concept. Syria Palaestina was an actual Roman jurisdiction, hence the political entity of the day, while "Land of Israel" is a term expressly derived from Jewish religious literature, and yes, a term with recurring currency in literature, but not a temporal term for the land, or a useful delineator of space, except as a very, broad hand wave at an area defined, again, by the aforementioned religious texts. An analogy would be avoiding the term "Roman Britain" or "Britannia" in favour of Albion, a similarly Romanticized and archaic literary term. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joshwaxman: Come now, what is this sillyness - the Jewish Encyclopedia article itself, of which this entire page is basically a copy paste, uses "Palestine" - I have used Syria Palaestina for the sake of accuracy, but if you prefer, Palestine would also be fine. As for the deletion of the page link to the main article about academies during the period, please could you explain? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

First off, the one who did the original copy-paste was me, years ago, after I fixed the article. That is outdated but acceptable language. (Compare the Hebrew version of this and many Amoraic pages, which use the term אמוראי ארץ ישראל.)

I've looked at your many edits, which include creation of pages about the Ongoing Nakba and a list of companies that do business in the occupied West Bank. I've noticed a pattern of edits.

This article now longer mentions that he was Jewish! And you want to add that he was Palestinian. This would fit in with a seeming agenda to de-Judaize Jewish History and Jewish connection to the land of Israel.

The list to the main article about academies you managed to sneak in later in the article, amidst many other minor edits. It is fine there. That page *used* to be called "Talmudic academies in the Land of Israel" but I see that somewhere along the way you edited a change, so that it is now "Talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina". And now you are linking to that article prominently, and trying to introduce that language, and that idea. Unilaterally, without consensus. And in a way that damages the readability of the article. A great many readers will be utterly confused by Syria Palaestina.

Meanwhile, that he eventually became head of the academy, for an undetermined period of time at the end of his life, is not what I'd consider the core of his identity and what should be in the short summary. (Though it allows a link / prominent placement of Syria Palaestina, which you seem eager to include.) It promotes this detail while omitting that he studied under Rav and (somewhat) Shmuel; that he is the plain Rabbi Eleazar in the Talmud when an Amora, and that there is another plain Rabbi Eleazar who is a Tanna, Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua. All these are more important.

I did inaccurate / inartful editing, and at the time wanted to preserve the correct link while shortening it to just academy. I will try to fix. Joshwaxman (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to de-personalize this and get your facts straight, otherwise this will become a behavioural dispute that I will be taking to ANI. I did not move the Talmudic academies page; that was another editor. I merely added the link here, which you turned into a red link, which is why I raised it. On the more pertinent points here, as we can all agree, this page is a copy paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but the lead currently diverges on key details from what the Jewish Encyclopedia actually says. Palestine is where he lived, that is what the source says, and the version of Palestine in which he lived was Syria Palaestina. This is both stated in the source, and WP:COMMONSENSE, because that was the jurisdiction in which Tiberias was sat in this time period. This is basic stuff. Exchanging the language that is used in the source, and which is also blatantly common sense, for religious language is POV editing and unacceptable. I am sorry that you are confused by Syria Palaestina, but it is accurate. If you would prefer to link to Syria Palaestina, but have it read "Palestine", per the source, that would also be acceptable. You choose. But if you keep up with either editorializing beyond what the sources state, or making personal attacks, I will simply be raising this dispute as a behavioural, not content one. The source clearly states that he "loved the Land of Israel" (in a conceptual sense), but that he emigrated to Palestine. Pretty straight forward. I did briefly add that he was Palestinian, and then removed it again, not because it is inaccurate with respect to the source, but because it could cause more furore and confusion than necessary, and MOS:ETHNICITY could be argued to weigh in against it. As to the other terms describing the subject, the one used in the source is amora, which is obviously a Jewish scholar, as the page for that term states. Talmudist is something of a synonym here I believe, and "Jewish scholar" is a just a more general description for both. The lead does not particularly need the same thing stated thrice (possibly not even twice). There is obviously no such thing as an non-Jewish amora or Talmudist, so whether you need to state that an obviously Jewish scholar is Jewish is a stylistic, not substance issue. Meaning-wise it is entirely redundant and tautologous. Like how you don't really need to state that a Sufi is a Muslim, since a Sufi is an Islamic mystic, by definition, or that the pope is a Christian, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The original short summary preceded the current source, and IIRC I left that in place when I bulk-copied the rest to fix up a severe mess up -- conflation of Eleazar ben Pedat with Pedat ben Eleazar.

"Palestinian" is a word that has changed in its meaning over time. It is not me who would be confused, as I copy-pasted the article including Palestinian, and have sometimes employed the term "Palestinian Amora" in my own writing. Under the British Mandate, Jewish people would travel to Palestine / Eretz Yisrael, and so this was clear. The implication of that word has changed.

Such usage nowadays would confuse the typical reader scanning the short summary, and has all of the aforementioned negative side-effects and potential for confusion. Joshwaxman (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And you are correct about renaming the Academies page. I looked more closely and Oncenawhile renamed it; you just changed the capitalization later. Joshwaxman (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps in place of the "who lived in ...", we can use "who flourished during the 3rd century in the Roman Province of Syria Palaestina", which should provide clarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That would not provide clarity. It adds convoluted language, adds Rome, Syria and Palestine in order to avoid the relevant "Land of Israel", which is presently fairly common in both Hebrew and English Wikipedia. The typical reader, who is coming here to understand the Talmudic personage, will still be likely confused, and that shouldn't happen in the short summary. Joshwaxman (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We have different understandings of clarity here. By clarity, I mean accuracy. "Flourished in" is standard language for scholars whose birth and death dates are unclear. Here the subject was born in Babylon, and moved elsewhere, so saying that they lived solely anywhere is incorrect. However, they flourished in Palestine, per the source. For the geography, we must be A) accurate and B) follow the sources, not simply use imprecise names that we think will simply please 'typical readers', whoever these might be. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Saying they lived in X is not "incorrect" since he did in fact (also) live there, especially as elsewhere in the summary it mentions being born in Babylonia and studying their in your youth. Did he flourish in the Land of Israel and not flourish in Babylon?

I am not saying that "Land of Israel" is an imprecise and inaccurate name but use it anyway. I am saying it is a correct name -- yes, you disagree, but I laid out multiple reasons above, such as that this was the language these people themselves used, rather than the name imposed by Roman occupiers for a larger area -- and one which will not mislead and introduce confusion in readers. Joshwaxman (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well the only source this page uses disagrees with you, and our policy is the follow the sources, so do you have any others or not? I also proffer: Judaism in Late Antiquity, Brill, 2001, p.193: "the story is in part a Babylonian critique of the actions of Palestinian rabbis. It disapproves either of specific individuals (Yohanan, Resh Laqish, and Eleazar ben Pedat) or of Palestinian Amoraim in general"; The Wall Separating God and Israel, Jewish Quarterly Review, 1983: "Pedat, a 3rd century Babylonian emigre to Palestine"; Some Observations on Rabbinic Reaction to Roman Rule in Third Century Palestine, Hebrew Union College Annual, 1992: "Those rabbis who were living in Babylonia and who came to Palestine ... contact throughout this century between the two great Jewish communities, that of Palestine and that of Babylonia ... Eleazar ben Pedat, the third century scholar who lived in both Palestine and Babylonia"; etc.: "Rabbi Eleazar, who lived in Palestine"; etc. What do you have to offer? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

These are instances of Palestine, rather that Syria Palestina. I know and have said such usage of “Palestine” exists. Meanwhile, I offer:

In Hebrew:

• The words of Amoraim of the Land of Israel themselves (e.g. Ulla) as detailed in the Talmud itself, e.g. Ketubot 111a, “Ulla was accustomed to travel to the land of Israel”, עולא הוה רגיל דהוה סליק לארץ ישראל
• Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat’s title as described in the Talmud, on Gittin 19b, Niddah 20b, “mara de’ar’a deyisrael”, “The Master of the Land of Israel”. The Jewish Encyclopedia article describes associates this with his native country, thus: known in his native country as the "master [i.e., legal authority] of the land of Israel"
• Longstanding practice in Hebrew scholarly literature to call them Amora'ei Eretz Yisrael, which literally translates to Amoraim of the Land of Israel
• These include scholarly works such as that of Aharon Hyman, from 1910, Toledot Tannaim vaAmoraim, https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%90/%D7%A8%27_%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%96%D7%A8_%D7%91%D7%9F_%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%AA where he calls Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat a second and third-generation “Amora of the Land of Israel”
• the same all across Hebrew Wikipedia

In English works, there has been a gradual movement to include “Land of Israel” as where these Amoraim lived. This is likely partly due to the semantic shift in the word “Palestine”. Development of language is gradual. But, there are indeed examples in the relevant literature. These would include, based on just a superficial search of Google Books and Google Scholar:

• Jacob Neusner (see his Wikipedia page to see his prominence in the field) and Avery Peck, The Routledge Dictionary of Judaism, 2004, “Amora: Rabbinical teacher in the Land of Israel and Babylonia in Talmudic times (ca. 200–600 C.E.).”
• Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan Ben Zakkai, 1960, “R. Zakkai , was known to have emigrated to the land of Israel , where he became chief lecturer at one of the leading academies”
• David Weiss HaLivny (also extremely prominent, check his Wikipedia page), The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, 2013, pg 135, “This Babylonian Aramaic formulation is certainly not that of R. Akiva, the Tannaitic Sage who lived in the Land of Israel more than five generations before the Amora Rav Yosef.”
• The Nehutei as Traveling Agents and Transmitters of Cultural Data between the Torah Study Centers in Babylonia and in the Land of Israel during the Third and Fourth Centuries CE”, article title in Mediterranean Studies (2015) 23 (2): 125–148. (Note that the article will refer to an Amora as Palestinian but will also refer to travel to the Land of Israel. Aside from the title, the abstract refers to “travelers and transmitters of Torah knowledge who traveled between the two main centers of Torah study, in Babylonia and in the Land of Israel”, and the article notes that “While sages did travel between the Land of Israel and Babylonia”.)
• “Marital Bond and Genealogical Anxiety–Reaffirming the Schism between Rabbinic Texts from Babylonia and the Land of Israel”, Moshe Lavee, 2020, Journal of ancient Judaism
• Purity Of Lineage In Talmudic Babylonia, book chapter In: Manières de penser dans l’Antiquité méditerranéenne et orientale, by Aharon Oppenheimer, 2009, “Ze’iri, an Amora who went up from Babylonia to the Land of Israel in the middle of the third century, came to learn Torah from Rabbi Yohanan bar Napha”
• (" An Epistle Came from the West"): Historical and Archaeological Evidence for the Ties Between the Jewish Communities in the Land of Israel and Babylonia During the Talmudic Period”, Ze’ev Safrai and Aren M. Maeir, 2003
• Encyclopedia Judaica, volume 2, 2006, entry Amoraim: “AMORAIM: designation of the scholars in the Land of Israel and Babylonia who succeeded the tannaim and preceded (in Babylonia) the *savoraim and geonim.” This is a later Encyclopedia than Jewish Encyclopedia.
• Indeed, in the Encyclopedia Judaica entry on Eleazar ben Pedat, in the public domain so available at encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/elazar-ben-pedat we read “ELʿAZAR BEN PEDAT was an amoraic authority of the third century. Of Babylonian origin (J.T., Ber. 2.1, 4b), Elʿazar made his career in the rabbinic academies of the Land of Israel, chiefly in Tiberias.”

Joshwaxman (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

We can dispense with primary religious texts and religious works, which are not independent, secondary sources. The focus here should be on the recent scholarly sources, and here again, we need to consider the relative independence of the sources with respect to the subject, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Jacob Neusner and David Weiss Halivni are both rabbis themselves, for instance, so their academic impartiality is far from guaranteed. What are your three best sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That is playing a ridiculous game. And you know how to play the Wikipedia rules games well. The primary work in question, the Talmud, is a religious work. Using such a criterion, you could erase claims in the article, one by one. He was a Babylonian by birth, with claims that is it "Yerushalmi Berachot 2 4b; Yerushalmi Shekalim 2 47a" was the first, and it goes from there. and of priestly descent -- Yerushalmi Berachot 5 9d; Moed Kattan 28a. In his native country he was a disciple of Samuel -- Eruvin 66a; Bava Batra 82b; and more especially of Rav -- Bava Batra 135b; Hullin 111b.

Claiming that major respected scholars in the field, with many students and much impact in how to academically approach the text should be dismissed because of religious influence is a bit astonishing. They / their approaches were not generally popular with the Orthodox communities, because of how they approached the text (HaLivny's source-critical approach, or Neusner's questioning of attributions.) They they were also ordained as rabbis, which often corresponds to / reflects deep knowledge of the underlying sources, and is like a degree from an institution (like a masters or PhD), even though they did not practically run synagogues and functioned as academics, is not something that makes them biased. This is also a clever mechanism. Meanwhile, they were not generally treated as rabbis within the religious community, as much as academics.

The point is that the term has been used (aside from in the original source material) in the field of academic Talmud study, in both Hebrew-language material, and in English for many decades with a growing share (likely because of the semantic shift in "Palestine") across a good many books and papers in the field. I am NOT going to select three papers / books for you from the many many existing works demonstrating the trend, so that you then find reasons to dismiss each one. It is not your JQR article from 1983 with Palestine vs. the JQR article with Land of Israel I could cite from 2002 (by Hayman). Both are articles in the same peer reviewed academic journal, and its use establishes a growing purchase of the term within the field. Joshwaxman (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The page is not actually based on any primary religious works directly; it is based on the summary of them by the Jewish Encyclopedia, a tertiary source. Referring directly to any primary texts would be a step backwards, clearly. Please name/link the JQR piece by Hayman. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You can find it yourself in an instant, but it is "From Tiberias to Meḥoza: Redactorial and Editorial Processes in Amoraic Babylonia". Ze’ev Safrai and Aren M. Maeir above, (" An Epistle Came from the West") is also from JQR.

Don't take these as my naming my champions. I am just providing more proof for the shift in the usage of this term. Joshwaxman (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to take this up. I don't think we need descriptors about Eleazar ben Pedat himself, rather than that the term "land of Israel" for where Amoraim live has continued and probably greater share as time goes on, for the aforementioned reasons.

However, if we did need to see that it is used by scholars in discussing Elazar ben Pedat in particular, here is a small list of four examples. There are others:

1) Swimming against the current, edited by Shaul Seidler-Feller, ‎David N. Myers · 2020

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Swimming_against_the_Current/OwbcDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22pedat%22+%22land+of+israel%22&pg=PT60&printsec=frontcover

"perushim (blows of the Pharisees) mentioned in the mishnah. This account cites a ruling issued by (another) Rabbi Eleazar (presumably R. Eleazar ben Pedat, a second- to third- generation amora from the Land of Israel) that is distorted by male orphans in order to cheat the widow of Rabbi Shubbetai (a first- to second-generation amora from the Land of Israel)"

2) The Wisdom of the Zohar, Isaiah Tishby,  1989, pg 75:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Wisdom_of_the_Zohar/VG1vEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22pedat%22+%22land+of+israel%22&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover

“an event in the life of  Rabbi Eleazer ben Pedat, a second- to third generation amora from the Land of Israel)

3) The Cambridge History of Judaism - Volume 3 - Page 294

William David Davies, ‎Louis Finkelstein, ‎William Horbury · 1984

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Cambridge_History_of_Judaism/AW2BuWcalXIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22pedat%22+%22land+of+israel%22&pg=PA294&printsec=frontcover

“knew each other's opinions and quoted and discussed them. We hear again and again of Babylonian scholars travelling to the Land of Israel and resuming their teaching there, for example, Rabbi El'azar ben Pedat, who came from Babylonia and succeeded Rabbi Yohanan as the leading teacher of the Academy at Tiberias. He was also referred to from Babylonia on halakhic matters."”

4) Who's Who in Jewish History - Page 125

Joan Comay, ‎Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok · 2023

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Who_s_Who_in_Jewish_History/IcyAAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22pedat%22+%22land+of+israel%22&pg=PA125&printsec=frontcover

“ELEAZAR ben-Pedat (Lazar) 3rd century. Amora. Eleazar was born in Babylon where he studied under SAMUEL MAR SAMUEL and RAV. He went to the Land of Israel and continued his studies under …” Joshwaxman (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've just realised that none of the English language works here are about the subject; they are all about other amora (bar encyclopedia.com), so these are in fact simply not viable sources of any kind for this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are amazingly trying to win here by narrowing the scope of available evidence to almost nothing. At issue is not whether one can describe one particular Amora, Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, as living in the Land of Israel. At issue is whether the usage of an Amora living in the Land of Israel, or being an Amora from the Land of Israel, is found in recent scholastic literature. And, if it is, these it might be termed "correct" in the same way that "lived in Palestine" in earlier literature is deemed "correct". Any journal / academic which used the quoted terminology for one Amora would deem it equally valid to use it for this other Amora, Eleazar ben Pedat.

And then, the other factors come to play, that one ties in well with other aspects of his character and statements, while the other serves to confuse the typical reader. Joshwaxman (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a page about Eleazar ben Pedat, so using sources about Eleazar ben Pedat is not "narrowing the scope"; it is using applicable sources. Using sources on other figures is just WP:SYNTH and a poor attempt at dodging the issue that the sources fail to support you. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I am obviously not as proficient at citing various rules to win my argument on Wikipedia. But this does not seem like "synthesizing sources" as given in the example, taking source A and source B and drawing conclusions.

This was part of a digression as to whether the term "Land of Israel" was correct as a descriptor for an Amora. None of your sources about Eleazar ben Pedat, meanwhile, use Syria Palestina, yet you used it as a "correct" term. What makes it "correct" is its expanding usage in the academic community. Joshwaxman (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As I have said several times, and if you want to be pedantic, I am quite happy to say just "Palestine", which we usually just link to Palestine (region) because yes -- other than the blindingly obvious fact that the time period referenced here is pertinent to Syria Palaestina as the governing entity at the time, I can't stand up "Syria Palaestina" specifically, so you can certainly push for just "Palestine" if you prefer, and do say based on my sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Joshwaxman, please leave out the editorial commentary--"Often, confusion arises when Rabbi Eleazar, a Tanna, is mentioned with no patronymic". You need to use secondary sourcing for practically everything you do in that article. And what are you doing in this edit? That link was already cited in the previous paragraph--and there's everything wrong with it: you're using bare URLs, there's no dates or author, it's all full of typos. But worst of all, it's not the Encyclopaedia Judaica you are citing, it's not even The Jewish Encyclopedia--it's Encyclopedia.com! The Jewish Encyclopedia entry is here--you should read it. Anyway, it's all such sloppy work. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Encyclopedia Judaica was channeled into encyclopedia.com. according to the Wikipedia page for encyclopedia judaica, so reflects its content. Please read that Wikipedia article to see this. "As of 2022 most of the entries of the 2007 Digital Second Edition of the Encyclopaedia are accessible by searching the Encyclopedia.com search engine. At the head of some entries "updated" appears." https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Judaica

The "editorial commentary" is present in Hebrew Wikipedia:

הוא הנקרא בתלמוד בשם הסתמי רבי אלעזר (כאשר מדובר באמורא. ואולם, בלבול מסוים נוצר לעיתים מכיוון שישנו גם תנא בסתם רבי אלעזר והוא רבי אלעזר בן שמוע)

It is also prominently present at the link I provided from the other encyclopedia, because it is important for those reading the Talmud and encountering a statement with no patronymic. Thus, " Because both Elʿazar ben Pedat and the rather earlier Elʿazar ben Shammuʿa are frequently cited without their patronymics, some uncertainty about ascription is attached to traditions bearing their names." That is why I provided a link for that one, to show that it wasn't my own editorializing.

Of course I read the Jewish Encyclopedia article. I was the one who first copied its content here many years ago.

If you feel Iskandar is right, why not weigh in on the talk page explaining why?

If this is an edit war, why should the person well outside the field of specialty, seems to have some activist motivations, made modifications prior to talking about it, and who in August has modified the longstanding text of the page be the whose edits prevail? Why not first come to a consensus? Joshwaxman (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it speaks for itself if a relatively unattended page about a 3rd century scholar has to find itself under an ARBPIA arbitration template (which it very soon will have to given the vehemence of this discussion, as well as clearly politically motivated, zero consensus article edits across the whole category).

Happy to pull admins in on this. Otherwise, keep it civil, and institute no further changes until there is significant and diverse dialogue and consensus on this matter.

And note to editors taking consistent advantage of low traffic pages and instituting unilateral changes on potentially sensitive topics: your edit patterns are fully noticed and will be elevated for arbitration if continued. Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid at this point of making further edits soon, lest I get blocked for participating in an edit war.

And since this is a relatively obscure page, with hardly anyone else weighing in as of yet, I don't see how I am going to reach consensus with Iskandar. So at least for now, what I personally feel to be vandalism is going to win the day. Joshwaxman (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are free to feel that, but I don't think anyone here is going to agree with you. Please mind WP:AGF: you are making way too many accusations and personal attacks here. And if a source provides editorial commentary, what you can NOT do is simply copy that without attribution and indication whose comment that was. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Attribution was what I thought I was doing when I provided the footnote, after your initial revert, to comply with your "without verification" aspect.

I also had changed the text from what you are citing, "Often, confusion arises when Rabbi Eleazar, a Tanna, is mentioned with no patronymic" into " (If a Tanna, it refers to Rabbi Eleazar ben Shammua. Confusion can therefore arise when it is unclear whether it is an Amoraic or Tannaitic statement.)" to try to make it less of an editorial comment. Perhaps "confusion can arise" is what makes it an editorial comment. Would you say that "Because both Elʿazar ben Pedat and the rather earlier Elʿazar ben Shammuʿa are frequently cited without their patronymics, some uncertainty about ascription is attached to traditions bearing their names." is also an editorial comment? Just trying to get a feel here. Joshwaxman (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is what is verified, I suppose. Supplying a footnote does not tell the reader "this person said it"--attribution needs to e explicit. "According to..." etc. But this whole "comply with your 'without verification' aspect"--it's not my "aspect"--it's the essence of what we do here. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This can be resolved easily with a hatnote. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I was citing your edit comment, so that is what I meant by "your". Please don't read more into it.

Sorry, this is still unclear to me.

(1) What do you mean by "if that is what is verified"? That a hyperlink and naming of the source would count as attribution? So it needs to be in the text -- "according to such and such". This is well known by basically all those who study the sources, and there are not those who dispute this idea, that it is unclear. Wouldn't making it some lone scholars opinion make it sound otherwise. Perhaps, "as X observes"?

(2) What specifically about the character of each of the three - my first version, second version, and the Encyclopedia.com / plausibly Encyclopedia Judaica Digital Edition version makes it an editorial comment? Specifically, is the last an editorial comment? Joshwaxman (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is already what I think is a hatnote about Eleazar ben Shammua, that plain Rabbi Eleazar directs there. And that one could look for the differently named plain Rabbi Eliezer (note the vowels).

This cuts more to what one should know about him.

1) He is often the plain Rabbi Eleazar, without patronymic, when an Amora.

2) Because of difficulties in the material, many attributed statements (including ones that might presently or might eventually be in the article) associated with him or ambiguous. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And, the hatnote just added by Iskandar323, "Not to be confused with Eleazar ben Shammua." does none of that.

Unlike the one by plain Rabbi Eleazar (ben Shamua), there is no mention of redirection from plain. Why should one think he would be confused? There is no mention that across the Talmud, the way his name appears extremely frequently is without patronymic, so that he is a candidate (out of three people -- very occasionally, based on other participants, it would be Eleazar ben Arach) to be the referent. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, @Mistamystery Iskandar has just jumped the gun, and without discussion or consensus, removed the extremely helpful hatnote at the top of the Eleazar ben Shammua page. Removed it entirely.

This seems inappropriate to me. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, and aspersions, again. I disambiguated Rabbi Eleazar in advance, based on the revelations above, and then removed the then by that point needless hatnote at Eleazar ben Shammua as needless. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You could telegraph on the Talk page what you are doing, before doing it.

If a hatnote is relevant here, it is relevant there. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this is still not the same as plain Rabbi Eleazar, and the information of how his name appears in Tannaitic and Amoraic sources. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've covered that too. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You "covered that too" with an edit before discussion.

Writing "For other early Jewish rabbis with the same name, see Rabbi Eleazar." doesn't help. That page includes Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who I did not list as one who appears without a patronymic. I'm not sure that he does. Often, the ambiguities in the text arise because the authors assumed you could disambiguate based on context, so two people in the same scholastic generation won't typically both be without name.

And nothing in the hatnote mentions that the ambiguity would arise because that is how he is referred to in the relevant underlying literature. It is exceptionally useful for one studying Talmud to encounter Rabbi Eleazar and know -- this is either Rabbi Eleazar ben Shammua or Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, based on context. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The situation on Wikipedia is now markedly worse than it was before, IMHO.

In the past, someone would encounter Rabbi Eleazar in the Mishnah or Talmud. They might Google it or search in Wikipedia, and they had a 50 / 50 chance of being redirected to the right person. Now, they get a disambiguation page, which isn't weighted between the three Tannaim (which should primarily, like 99%) be ben Shammua, and have to guess with no information. They don't know that these two (ben Shammua / ben Pedat) are the likely candidates of the four.

This seems like something that could be discussed first, rather than unilaterally performed, by someone who doesn't have a deep background in Amoraic and Tannaitic literature. (I personally am somewhat in the field of Talmudic biography; I don't think you are.) And the many people who maintain these whole set of pages might have weighed in, on what the best compromise would be. Because unfortunately, a redirect -- which is extremely useful -- can also pose problems if there is another. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll just add that there are about 75 "Rabbi Eleazars" in the Talmudic literature, with various patronymics. That is how we distinguish between them. Joshwaxman (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

75? Clearly all the more reason for a disambiguation page at the base name. Fyi, I for sure did run a check on "Rabbi Eleazar" as a title and Eleazar ben Shammua was far from dominant in what turned up. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, editing a URL from /Rabbi Akiva to /Rabbi Eleazar would bring you to the right person. That is how I typically do it.

Adding the 75 names in Mishnaic Talmudic literature, plus many many more in post-Talmudic times to the present would bury any help this could provide. Now a user looking for bare Rabbi Eleazar has 75 from many more to choose from.

But there is a difference between people typically referred to as bare Rabbi Eleazar, and the 72 others who appear with their patronymic. I think this made Wikipedia worse. And those no one else is commenting, I do imagine that others, in the know of the literatures and how lookups would happen, would agree. But this seems like something to be discussed among the people who have a stake.

And this is also why simple hatnote is not sufficientת IMHO. Joshwaxman (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about this. See Rabbi Eleazar (disambiguation) Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, your search on Google Scholar turned up a bunch of people with patronymics or last names.

The top hit is: Rabbi Eleazar Horowitz. The next is Rabbi Eleazar Schach. The third is "Rabbi Eleazar's Peruṭah" as an article title. This is a reference to Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, our person under discussion, and his practice of giving a coin to a pauper prior to praying. Thus, the very first one without a patronymic is one of the two candidates. And the author of the article knew that the audience would likely know this, because it is plain Rabbi Eleazar. Joshwaxman (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is an overall aggressive tone and feeling of hostility surrounding what should be a joyous and pleasant encyclopedic task - i.e. expanding articles on scholars and scholarship - and it would be really nice if we hit reset here and tried to reset the temperature and maybe get on the same page regarding some overall attention needed to this category of articles.

There is no rush to insert edits, and all items should be discussed to achieve consensus on the appropriate neutral result. (Also please pull more editors into the conversation, this is not a two person show)

Also a reminder to all parties to keep cool, preserve civility, and refrain from bad faith or activistic edits. Admins have previously expressed hesitance to apply ARBPIA arbitration rules and extended protection to historical articles not directly connected to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, but the debates (and a troubling number of unilateral edits) are starting to make it seem that there is an unhealthy extension of that contentious topic into articles that shouldn’t be included. I would really like not to have to elevate this troubling trend to arbitration and administrators, and caution all parties from unilateral edits on topics that *may* seem to be sensitive or contentious.

There must be a way to include both the Roman Provincial term as well as the Jewish designation appropriately in the title and header. Just a reminder that the British found a solution here during the Mandatory period that may not have been acceptable for everyone, but was functional. I’m sure we can figure out something here.

Mistamystery (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)