Talk:Tzniut

message: I'm curious why you've chosen the spelling tzeniut as opposed to tzniut.  To my knowledge, tzniut is equally close to the correct pronunciation and is the more common transliteration. 
--WikiGnome 19:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tzniut redirects to Tzeniut, so it's no problem. But you've got a good point there. Maybe it's to make the word easier to read for a broader audience? -- Daverocks 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: A reference, Ben Cherney's article 'kol Isha', was deleted. It's a perfectly good primary source and an Orthodox one, although it happens to discuss lenient as well as strict perspectives. Deleting sources inconsistent with ones POV is against WP policy. --Shirahadasha 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You already used the same article as a reference, and I retained that reference. You can't have it both ways. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherney Article 

message: Why the need to twist this article's views when dealing with Orthodoxy, to convey the views of a minority from the Orthodox Feminist Alliance when the teachings of the rest of Orthodoxy are not like it in any way, shape, size or form on the subject of tzeniut especially regarding kol isha (female voices) in Halakha? IZAK 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore what? Majority views and minority views are supposed to be in proportionally sized sections. The Mishna B'rurah, for example (a majority view, not the only one). One the other hand, there appears to be a broad variety of opinions here, expecially among the Dati L'umi (equivalent to Modern Orthodox in the U.S., more or less) in Israel. On the other hand, there is a sign at Mercaz HaRav. There is probably more variation in this issue than anywhere else.Mzk1 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Modern Orthodox Feminist Alliance view vs everyone else in Orthodoxy

message: BS"D
I though that a mechitza had to be taller than the tallest woman. And, unless I am much mistaken, shoulder hieght was a Psak from a modernish posek. Could someone clarify, Please. Shaul avrom 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Hakoros Hatov. Exactly how do I do that?? --Shaul avrom 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechitza, Shoulder height??? 

message: I'm sure the irony of the following sentence early in the article isn't lost on anyone:
"The Talmud boasts that humility is one of the characteristic traits of the Jewish people. (Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 79a.)"
Perhaps a rephrasing would be appropriate?
I think a section should be added about the historical practices of modesty among Jewish men and women as mentioned in the Talmudic literature... which I see no where mentioned on this site.  I have already added a bit about this in the Modesty article under the Jewish section.  I believe this is important due to apprently mass ignorance about the high level of modesty many of even our not so distant ancestors kept.  Throughout practically all non-European communities the same level of modesty in dress was observed up unto this last century - just as it is mentioned in the Talmud BEFORE the rise of Islam.  Some examples of a small minority which still practice such levels of modesty are some of the most traditional individuals among Yemenite Jews and Ethiopian Jews.  The particular aspect of traditional tzniut among these various communities concerned use of the radheedh.  I already wrote a little about this in the Jewish section of the article on Modesty.  There I kept it short.  Is anyone willing to put together a similar section concerning tzniut in the Talmudic period unto the Middle Ages and/or on tzniut as observed in the majority of non-European communities up unto this last century?  I believe this information must be included somehow in this article... Omedyashar 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: the ark is covered by the parochet a curtain to hide the scroll definitely worth the trouble because it's holy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.249.30 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the ark covering (parochet) 

message: Writing "ground rules", especially extra-stringent ones, is just plain inappropriate. Ankles must be covered? Nobody holds that to be the law. Sleeves must cover the wrists? Wrong, only the elbows. Not a single hair may be visible? Wrong again! A tefach of hair may be showing according to most poskim - covering everything is only a stringency. The other points are subject to argument, so I won't go into them now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.204.163 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'e right about wrists. Ankles is a different story. In any case, I think we need to copy the whole section here (to talk) and work on it until everyone is satisfied. I have to go now, will see about it later on. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it finally not because of whether or not it was stringent, but because it was unsourced, and it provided how-to instructions. If there was sourced information in the article stating that some people follow these stringencies, that would not be a problem. Xyz7890 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The appropriate way to dress

message: User:Haroldsultan has made edits which suggest that tzniut should be more leniently interpreted than what is currently described, on this page, as the normative Orthodox position.  I think that editing a page such as Tzniut is more serious than many people give it credit for, because Wikipedia editors can make real contributions to Jewish outreach.  They usually don't get to see the contributions they make, but people they might not expect are reading the pages.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jewish people are likely to view the Tzniut page in the near future.  In practice if not in Halakha, English Wikipedia's pages are some of the most authoritative Judaism related pages on the Web, because Wikipedia is so many people's first stop for research.  For example, I was directed to this page as part of the independent Judaism related study I am doing, connected to an organized program I participated in.  The perceived stringency of Orthodox Judaism alienates many Jews from the religion as a whole, and if a more lenient view than what is described in the articles exists, presenting it on Wikipedia will help to combat that perception.  I, for one, was happy to see the lenient view.  The last thing we want is for Jews to become angry with Judaism because of what they believe is over-restrictiveness--and people really do use Wikipedia as a source for their Jewish knowledge.  --AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with what you write regarding the importance of the accuracy of Wikipedia. However, it's a simple fact that Haroldsultan is wrong. There are plenty of sources. Since I currently work approximately 50 hours per week I don't really have time to bring a lot of sources. However, any normative Orthodox Jew can tell you that Haroldsultan is completely wrong. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree he is plainly wrong. And that is sourced with three references already. I can find additional written, contemporary sources without a problem, but it seems that the IP editors who led to the two week protection of this page and now User:Haroldsultan insist on interpreting sources in ways that are not representative of Judaism. I am not sure this section warrant more sources, and in view of the above doubt they would be helpfull. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem isn't that he's "interpreting sources in ways that are not representative of Judaism"; it's that he's interpreting them in ways that are not "representative" of themselves!  If the Talmud passage cited could be interpreted two ways then he'd be entitled to present the alternative interpretation, at least with suitable cautions; but it can't.  He can still argue that the law doesn't follow this passage, because there is some other passage elsewhere that is more authoritative; but he can't deny that it says what it does. -- Zsero (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The sources that support what WP now says are already there.  What the Talmud says is sourced directly to the appropriate page in the Talmud; if you can read it you will see that it says exactly what the article says it says.  The Rambam is similarly sourced directly to his words, which are linked.  The statement that the halacha requires hair-covering is sourced to a secondary English source that is linked, and that you can read for yourself.  More sources might be nice just to bolster the case, but aren't actually needed.  As for Haroldsultan, if he believes what he is writing it can only be because he has never looked at the Talmud himself, and is probably incapable of doing so in the original, but is relying on tertiary sources of dubious integrity.  In particular, his claim that dat does not mean "law" has been refuted in detail above. -- Zsero (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I added a few more references, including the Shulchan Aruch and a 1989 halachic work. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It took some time before I could have a good look at the subject, but once I did, I was able to make the following, rather astounding edit. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Only once we get deep into the halacha, do we understand it clearly. I have seen so every time. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what's so astounding about the additional sources Debresser added; the Rambam's opinion has been there (and linked to the original) for quite a while.  But more sources do bolster the case.  I still have to go through R Broyde's Techumin article to find the more lenient sources and add them for completeness.  Learning the sugya is definitely a prerequisite for discussing it, though, and it's clear that Haroldsultan did not do so (e.g. he seems unaware of the gemara on the next page that explains the word kolanit in the mishna). -- Zsero (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  PS if you like we can make a shiur.  Any particular subject interest you?  -- Zsero (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I live in "Yerushalayim d'America", AKA Brooklyn יע״א.  But with the wonders of modern tech we can compass the globe.  And I'm Orthodox.  -- Zsero (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text: To get back to the subject. The "astounding" part of the edit is that "dat Moshe" is the same as  "Biblical" (mi d'oraita). Debresser (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that neither one necessarily means literally de'oraita.  For instance, dat moshe includes causing him to eat food that is only rabbinically forbidden.  That's only de'oraita in the sense that all rabbinic laws are included by reference in lo tasur. -- Zsero (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (fixed) That is completely right. The main point is to avoid the implication that "dat Moshe" is something that is less than "mi d'oraita", while in reality it includes both biblical and rabbincal precepts. Even guidelines of behavior that have become distinguishing for the Jewish nation and have thereby received the status of law to such an extent that a man may divorce a woman who does not keep them without paying her the amount promised at the time of their marriage, and that is called "das yehudis". Debresser (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you're conflating dat Moshe with  dat yehudit ("the law of a Jewish woman", not as Haroldsultan translated it), which is a distinct category. For instance, going out in the street with her hair covered only by a basket is a violation of dat yehudit but not of dat Moshe.  "Guidelines of behaviour" do not seem to count as dat Moshe. -- Zsero (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a look at Even Ha'ezer 115, and you'll see that I am not confusing anything here. It's all explicitely in there as I say. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm looking at it right now, and I don't see what you say.  Where exactly should I be looking?  -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. That was "das yehudis". I'll fix the paragraph above. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why finding sources that verify (or discredit) the edits made by User:Haroldsultan is a mitzvah: An argument

message: Howdy!  I do understand AFriedman's comments above that many people turn to WP for authentic knowledge and it is a powerful tool for kiruv.  That being said, kiruv can not be the goal of any WP article as it is inherently a POV perspective and in violation of soapboxing.  If we are creating an article on tzniut than it should present the facts.  Statements like:
Conservative and Reform Judaism do not regard these rules as applicable.
means (IMHO):  Understand that these are the rules.  C & R Jews do not follow them.  This is POV-pushing.  A few lines later in the article:
Conservative and Reform Judaism chooses not to follow...
Anyway, you get my drift.  Kiruv is great, but this is not the place.  Joe407 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, and good edit. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually it is the case that Reform, at least, does understand that these are the rules and chooses not to follow them.  Reform doesn't dispute what the halacha is, it just regards the entire system as optional.  -- Zsero (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was under the impression that Reform holds that the rules have been changed. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps both alternatives exist? In any case, AFriedman was right to add a Citation needed tag. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious POV 

message: I think this article is conflating three separate topics:
Modesty (character and dress)
Separation between men and women (avoiding emmisions)
Separation between men and women (avoiding going too far)
I am not suggesting removing or splitting anything, only putting a statement at the top that issues of separation of men and women are included. Is there another article on this somewhere?
Also, shouldn't the article be titled Modesty in Judaism, and redirect from Tzniut? English, you know.
Finally, the Observances section is a mishmash. It shouldn't be too hard to go through the Shulchan Aruch (one chapter, there), check the commentaries, and write something more specific. Every basic work, starting from Maimonidies, has more or less the same chapter. I would think it qualifies as a secondary source. (One problem with Judaism articles is that a lot of things are too obvious to someone in the inside to be written about.) Mzk1 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken. I have deleted those sections that do not belong here. They should be links in the See Also section. The proof is when you look at those articles (such as Negiah), no where do they claim that shomer negiah is a subsection of tzniut.Narc (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although that would still be true, in the broader sense of the term, namely modest behavior. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noted that you disapprove of translating "tsniut" as "discretion" and prefer "modesty"; however, the source that I cited today, R' Dovid Kamenestsky's translation of the 4th Ch. of Sukkah (Artscroll) is arguably among the most scholarly translations available, so I hope this settles the matter unless someone comes up with a better (or equal) source for the translation (per []). "Modesty" is indeed a common translation, but it's inaccurate.Narc (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you left "modesty" in place, which is the most common translation (and may I refer you to WP:COMMON), I have no problem with your replacement of "humility" with "discretion". "Humility" would be "ענוה" in Hebrew, which is quite closely related, but not the same. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

text:  I may agree that the word "modesty" is not a perfect translation of the word "tzniut", but in the context of "tniut behavior" and "tzniut laws" it is perfect, and the most common used translation in English, which is two good reasons to keep it. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this all really Tznius? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tzniut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703023811/http://www.imj.org.il/exhibitions/2014/dresscodes/en/home/ to http://www.imj.org.il/exhibitions/2014/dresscodes/en/home/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204223903/http://www.chabadtalk.com/go/ph/ph-7.htm to http://www.chabadtalk.com/go/ph/ph-7.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215033509/http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0099.pdf to http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0099.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: please see above spelling re +2022 Nuts240 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling(s) 2022