Talk:Shiva (Judaism)

message: In any of the paragraphs that being with "traditionally", bear in mind that the customs may vary wildly between communities and families. Binba 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the word "tradition" and "traditionally" need to be used only under particular circumstances. I think this article could use more information about how a shiva might look different depending on the branch of Judaism the family belongs to and how reformed or conservative they are. If there are no fundamental differences then maybe make note of that as well. Emilyrd98 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with the concept that this article is not written to standards.  Many, many items from ome community are presented as world-wide facts, with no references or sources.  For example: which foods must be eaten during Shiva.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:8D27:D671:8D79:C339 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Tradition

message: The original version was very wishy-washy, ommitted many crucial concepts, and gave a lot of emotional baggage inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I have stuck to the facts.
The references were not actually being referred to, so I removed these. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an ancient copyvio, identified by Raul654 but reinserted by the anon; source. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I suggest renaming the article "Shiv'ah", since that is the spelling usied in the article itself. Any objections? Michagal 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a Hebrew point of view, a much less accurate representation. The "ah" is actually the laryngeal letter Ayn, and taking out the stop wanders further away from the word. Literally, "Shiva" gets close to "Sheyva", a totally different word. However, I don't know how English-speaking Jewish communites tend to write the term. Binba 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English it is usually written "shiva" or "shivah". It is not a scientific transcription or transliteration, but an accurate representation of how the word is pronounced in English. --Thnidu (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides now it is an almost English team and should be written accordingly and not in the Hebrew proper transliteration --Rashba (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming the article

message: There have been a few occasions where I've heard the term "sitting Shiva" used as a general expression and not necessarily a direct reference to the ritual. An example of this can be found in (of all places) the movie Men in Black II where a talking dog (don't ask) uses the term in the apparent context of "You OK?" It's possible the film might be misusing the term, but if it is sometimes used as a general expression that might be worth noting. 23skidoo (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of that before... Regardless, it sounds like an original thought. ask123 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use as an expression?

message: I remember seeing in Babylon 5 commander Ivanova sitting Shiva for her father -- don't remember episode, just that it was in 1st season. 76.167.180.208 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: Is "sitting seven (days)" correctly written Shibeth Sheba (שֶׁבֶת שֶׁבַע)? Or might one use the alternate word for seven Shibath (שִׁבְעַת)? Or Shabath (שָׁבַת)? Is there any evidence that the common sounds of shibeth and shibath are the origin of the practice? And consequently, that Sitting Shiva is anciently related to Jubilee (49)? Or Shabua (שָׁבֻעַ) (Feast of the 49 weeks)? Original research, I know, which is why I'm asking on the talk page. Anybody? Anybody? -- TheEditrix2 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought shiva meant "to sit", but the article says it means seven. I thought I remembered learning in Hebrew school that saying "sitting shiva" was redundant for that reason. I havent practiced Judaism for a long time though and just curious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.249.33 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Sitting" part of "Sitting Shiva" 

message: Has anyone ever considered possible historic cultural links between Jewish shiva and the Hindu god Shiva? As I understand, Shiva represents death and destruction, among other things. So there is an obvious functional connection between the two shivas beyond just the similar-sounding words themselves. I really don't know if there's anything to this. Nojamus (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there probably isn't ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sh..va of Sheva Brachot means seven; Brachot means blessings. It marks seven days, saying seven blessings each of these days following getting married, the opposite end of the spectrum for which "sitting Shiva" occurs. The word Shiva, which perhaps can be spelled/Anglicized as Shiv-ah, is simply the number seven in Hebrew. It has nothing to do with destruction.   Pi314m (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Shiva links to Hinduism?

message: I doubt we need three separate sections, one after the other, defining "Shiva" to mean "Seven."  The initial reading of the word (with Hebrew writing) might be overlooked, or not connected to the concept, so it might make sense to leave one more in, but we don't need that third. Kilyle (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple Definitions? 

message: Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View, replacing God with "G-d" is unencyclopedic, it shows a reverence that violates NPV. If this is done again, I will report the editor for violating wikipedia policy, which may result in editor's editing privileges being blocked. 73.166.250.111 (talk)
:Just curious, is there a specific guideline that indicates the spelling G-d is non-neutral, or is that your own reading of NPOV? Ibadibam (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I truly believed the spelling of God was best to be kept as G-d. It is stated clearly that one should not erase God's name, and the easiest way to prevent doing so is to avoid writing it entirely. In Judaism, this is done out of respect, and that was my only intention. I have fixed all spellings to God - I am not trying to start a fight. My apologies. Estherdvorkin (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several details  within Neural Point of View, which is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies that supercede all other policies and content guidelines. The first I can point out is that the policy states "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". Estherdvorkin states that her and Judaism's intent in spelling "God" as "G-d" is "done out of respect," so as "not to erase God's name". This respect is a form of reverence, even stronger than sympathy for the god of Judaism. Also, by using this Jewish convention of reverence, the article is written from a Jewish point of view, which is not a neutral point of view. Second, the policy states that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Writing "G-d" out of reverence for that deity is not impartial, it endorses Judaism's point of view that God's name should not be erased. A third detail comes from the NPOV section on Religion: "Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view". Scholarly articles published on Jewish religious practices write out the full word "God" all the time, therefore we should not avoid it here. Then there is Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It says "Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah." It does not say anything about spelling "God" as "G-d" if a religion does so. Furthermore, in the same section, it says "Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures." This demonstrates Wikipedia's intent NOT to follow the very specific practices that religions use to show respect for their deities in writing. 73.166.250.111 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing God with "G-d" in "Mirrors" section 

message: The fourth sentence states “Shiva is considered the third stage” (of what the second sentence states are the “five stages”).
Given the listing of stages that appears in the section "Stages of bereavement," it is not clear how shiva could be third of the five, unless the five are understood as Aninut, keriah, shiva, sheloshim, and yahrzeit (or yizkor). However, the section “Stages of bereavement” suggests keriah is a part of Aninut.  If so, keriah would not be a separate stage, and shiva would not be the third stage.  Furthermore, the section “Stages of bereavement” itself states “Following Aninut is shiva...” and that would make shiva the second stage and not the third stage. It seems either the statement that “Shiva is considered the third stage” needs to be changed or the other content needs to be clarified.!WEAbshire (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear designation of shiva's place in the stages of bereavement

message: There should be an added section of the importance and custom of consoling the bereaved which is lengthy explained in various Jewish sources --Rashba (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nichum Aveilim