Talk:Beth midrash

Comments

I have made some corrections, but this article clearly needs a refreshed focus: this article could potentially give a reader information about the architecture and use of study halls

1)the words structure, insitution, serves are used improperly 2)is a "characteristic" BM supposed to be a typical one? Most BMs have far more books than that 3)the comment about the probable location of study in the time of the Mishna is conjecture 4)this is a dictionary entry? the part about yeshiva is unnecessary. The reference to BMs changing roles is an anachronism, at least in the US. That is more reflective of the situation in pre-WW2 Europe. 5)should Jewish laws about the study hall be included?

Econapl 19:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Should it not be writen "Bait Midrash" or like the ashkenazi pronounciation "Bais Misdrash" Actictecture is nonexistent, as many have been set up basments, and in shuls they have no real design. Bais Midrash have as many book as they can afford, from a few chumashim two tweny sets of shash. THe laws are not inportant, as many are obvious.

Bait, Beit, Beis, Beth -- Discuss. -- Avi 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit midrash, clearly. Having no prejudice against the Ashkenazi pronounciation, this spelling is the most commonly used, as a Google search reveals. The current spelling is archaic and hardly used today in non-historical contexts.--DLand ^TALK 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beit midrash common Hebrew pronounciation spoken my most Hebrew speakers, not a dialect. Beis is only spoken by ashkenazi (of which I am) and frankly, a minority in the world of Hebrew speakers. --Shuki 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beis Medrash is more commonly used when speaking, seeWP:NC(CN)--Shuli 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems kind of irrelevant, seeing as the two of us are the only ones discussing, but regardless - you have no source that "Beis medrash" is more commonly used colloquially. It seems clear to me that the opposite is true: "beit midrash" is more commonly used when speaking (specifically by most Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionist Jews) and I have Google on my side. (And just to point out that I have no conflict of interest as I suspect you do, I personally say "Beis medrash") --DLand ^TALK 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beis/Beit midrash is fine with me. Both are better than the current version. I personally prefer 'beis', but I have to agree with DLand. Most of the world, unfortunately, does not use Ashkenazi Hebrew. In any case it is 'ei', not 'ai'. --Bear and Dragon 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is really nothing wrong with the present title. These debates about the 'correct name' are quite sterile. Let's leave things as they are. (Personally I say beismedresh—so what?) And, what most Hebrew speakers say is totally irrelevant, since this is the English Wikipedia, not the Hebrew WP! --Redaktor 22:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with the current title is that it is archaic and unused. "Beit midrash" is what most English speakers say/write. Personally, I say "beis medresh" as well - that doesn't change my opinion of what is appropriate for Wikipedia.--DLand ^TALK 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you you possibly know what most English speakers say/write. I would actually dispute that statement, when you consider that chareidi publications (which cannot be counted by Google) do not write Beit midrash, and indeed many of the uses of Beit Midrash on the web are institutions far removed from those described in this article. --Redaktor 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's possible theoretically, but you can't show that definitively. When the sources that exist are incomplete, you have to go by what does exist, not by speculation. Either way, I think we can agree that the current title is not the best one.--DLand ^TALK 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it at Beth. Most common latinization IMO. -- Y not? 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beis/Beth midrash

L'fi WP:COMMONNAME the page should be Beis Medrash, There were at least 200,000 more google hits for Beis Medrash than for the closest runner up. --Shuliavrumi (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual beth midrash

TheZoomTorah, your edits are not in accord with Wikipedia's encyclopedic style; please read WP:MOS. I reverted your last edits because matzav.com is not a reliable source; it copies from other websites. If you feel this is a legitimate topic, please use reliable sources from newspapers, books, and magazines. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that yoninah, i didn't know how to talk here. I have read your reference, please note the following within your selection.

"Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Do you contest the fact that the creators said so?

Also: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Please revert your edit yourself.

Thank

p.s. i hope you aren't insulted.

@Yoninah: Should we go for a conflict resolution?TheZoomTorah (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah:I see your point on the link, see what i wrote you on amakuru. In regards to the edit please see [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations]]

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." As such matzav.com is a source for what the creators of that app said. Please revert your edit or go to conflict resolution. And please No 'you', blaming is not the way of a jew nor of a wikipedian!TheZoomTorah (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Since i see you didn't reply, should i assume you agree? TheZoomTorah (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of comment is that? We are all volunteers at Wikipedia, and I don't work here day and night. In fact, I'm running around shopping for Rosh Hashanah, if you must know.

Regarding your new section, if you think that "virtual beis midrash" is a thing, then you must source it adequately. The website that you have chosen to verify your claims is basically reprinting a publicity piece for the app. This is not considered a reliable source. It also doesn't make sense that However they generally they don't provide for the Chavrusa style learning that is typical of a bais medrash study hall. I'm sure that videoconferencing can handle the chavrusa aspect as well. I suggest that you look up "virtual beis midrash" on Google, Google Books, and any other newspaper or magazine sources and then write this section based on what you read. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]