Talk:Dinah

message: I removed the sentence, "The tale thus presents a negative attitude towards intermarriage, but it also attacks honour killing." I am not a Biblical scholar, but I did some research into Dinah's story after reading The Red Tent (which is loosely base on her story). I don't know how "the tale" could present a negative attitude towards intermarriage when Jacob, the head of the tribe, actually agrees to the marriage. It is Simeon and Levi who get angry and slaughter all the men in the city. Also, the story does not condemn honour killings because God protects Jacob and his people after the slaughter in the city. The townspeople are angry, but "the terror of God fell upon the towns all around them so that no one pursued them" (Genesis 35:5). When Jacob prayed to God, God blessed him, told him to change his name to Israel, and said, "A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body" (35:11). God doesn't say anything about the entire city of men Jacob's sons have killed. This section of the Bible does not mention any punishment for Simeon or Levi, and they go on to father huge families. I don't know about what land they hold after that, though. You can read Dinah's story in Genesis chapter 34 and 35 --Fang Aili 05:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Jacob agrees to the marriage, none of his children, the progenitors of the Israelites, do. Although God protects Jacob afterwards, the children are nethertheless rebuked for carrying out their actions. --User talk:FDuffy 15:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does it say that Jacob agrees to the marriage? Are we reading the same Bible? Yoninah 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable content

message: Dear FDuffy, thank you for organizating the material better.
I have a few questions for you:
*What does this mean?: Dinah is alluded to only briefly in the Bible; a passing mention in a couple of locations, and in a story known as The Rape of Dinah.
She is mentioned in the Bible, as you said in the first paragraph. Why the need for this extra paragraph? And what in the world is "The Rape of Dinah?"
::The "Rape of Dinah" is the main name used for the story of Dinah's rape by Shechem (this should be fairly obvious). --User talk:FDuffy 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not fairly obvious to readers of the Torah in the original Hebrew. It seems to me that much of what you present as fact is in fact inference from a superficial reading of the text. Yoninah 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a place to put ANYTHING encyclopedic to do with the word "Dinah". Whether or not they have any connection whatsoever to the biblical character. That the biblical character is the main content of the article does not mean that it is the only content. --User talk:FDuffy 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I imagine you're going to put in all the women named Dinah in the New York phone book, too. Why stop at that? How about every slave named Dinah, every movie star, chef, you name it... Yoninah 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: From my reading of the story, Dinah is not mentioned after the initial rape. I have deleted the phrase "and rescue Dinah" until a citation is added with it. --Fang Aili 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rescue Dinah"

message: I am removing the section on biblical criticism on the sources of the story because
Most contemporary Bible experts do not agree about which particular passages belong to which of the four principal sources, or even whether the original sources were written documents.Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
Also Friedman's departures from Wellhausen have been criticized by his professional colleagues on several grounds, not least for ignoring all other models and all advances in scholarship outside his preferred documentary model
:I'm reverting your reversions, because your reasons are wrong on every point. Please learn something about biblical criticism before editing these matters. PiCo (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the source says--Java7837 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us the quote please (here on this page)? I think you must be misunderstanding something.PiCo (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary hypothesis

message: It has been proposed that the article Dinah in rabbinic literature be merged into this article. Please leave views below.
*I support merging Dinah in rabbinic literature to the Dinah article.
If the Dinah in rabbinic literature section grows extensively I would like it it was made into a separate article again. --Java7837 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge with Dinah in rabbinic literature

message: In the extant (currently known) version,[further explanation needed] it is clear that rape took place; the verb translated as "humbled" or "violated" in chapter 34 can also mean "subdued".[4]
Edit  appears to have been the addition suggesting that reference [4] (Rofé, Alexander (2005). "Defilement of Virgins in Biblical Law and the Case of Dinah (Genesis 34)"), now a dead link, specifies that it is clear that rape took place.  I cannot access or verify the reference, unfortunately, but we can see that this edit was a later addition on the text which previously reflected the reference.
I won't remove that text myself though, hopefully someone who's more familiar with the reference or related scholarship can decide.  Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [further explanation needed] 

message: The sources clearly establish that in th 19th century, "Dinah" was a slang for an African slave woman, but they don't establish any connection of any kind to the Biblical story of Dinah, and the nature of the connection (if any) is not at all clear.
While this is an important part of American black history, it is not clear why it is in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The name Jemima is Biblical name, one of Job's daughters (Jemima (Bible)), but as far as I know it was not used generally for black women, just the specific character Aunt Jemima. Dinah, in contrast, was very specifically a generic name for a black/slave woman. I assume the link came about because the biblical Dinah was carried away from her 'tribe' by force, as were African women, but as so often with the history of name-choices, it's not all that easy to find documentation of reasons why they became widely used, or their rise and fall from favour (I've never found out why "Sheila" became a generic name for women in Australia). I can't see how this can be usefully separated from the article, even though the connection to the Biblical character is not clear, that's from where the name directly derives. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with American Slavery and Bible Unclear 

message: , why is rabbinical literature not a RS?  Just wondering. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The blog is not a RS and should not be promoted here. I accidentally deleted too much. Sorry about that. Fixing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't with the Dina List is an RS, the question is whether it is mentioned by reliable source so as to deserve inclusion in the article. While the list is known in some Jewish circles, it doesn't seem to be written up in Jewish newspapers, etc. ProfGray (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbinical literature 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dinah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061004094918/http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl86/Bib86Ani04.pdf to http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl86/Bib86Ani04.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The opening of this article gives the pronunciation of the name as . In my own education, I've always heard the name pronounced , and this is also the pronunciation given on Wiktionary. Are these both acceptable pronunciations, in which case both articles should likely be edited to include both variants, or is one or the other erroneous and in need of emendation? Is there perhaps a dialectical difference, in English at least, that affects the pronunciation? For what it's worth, my own -favoring education was in a Canadian English context. 192.252.236.179 (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Btw, consider to mention the fact she was 6 at that time, what changes the agenda. It's not sure, but not her existence or all the facts here either. IKhitron (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age