Talk:Lashon hara

message: Interesting that the article wikilinks to ru.wikipedia article Злословие? I'm guessing that what happens is someone on he.wikipedia linked to Russian "gossip" (or vice versa) and then en.Wikipedia picked up the link by Bot. Either way it indicates how universal the concept of the evil tongue is. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Russian article, not a bot. Take a look, it's about the same topic. Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I already looked, yes I saw it's the same topic, though Злословие (ивр. לשון הרע‎, Лашон а-ра) is somehow odd isn't it? I'm not sure what to think generally. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Злословие 

message: Is this concept distinctive enough to justify a specifically Hebrew language article? It may be. But it should certainly link to the same concept in other languages.
Following content restored, but into the etymology section:
: The noun lashon, "tongue", is followed by the definite article ha and adjective ra, "evil." The term corresponds to the idea of an evil tongue in other cultures, such as the Latin mala lingua A Commentary on Catullus - Page 19 Robinson Ellis - 2010 re the Virgilian motto: " "baccare frontem cingite, ne vati noceat mala lingua futuro" .... would seem to show that the notion of witchcraft was originally that of the evil tongue (mala lingua) rather than the ." , the French mauvais langue, John A. Lent -Third World mass media and their search for modernity Page 179 1977 "Lewis, writing about the features of West Indian society that make it more traditional than modern, delineated a number of interpersonal communications traits: Passion for intrigue; malicious gossip, the famous Trinidad mauvais langue Caroline Sweetman Men and masculinity - Page 50 1997 "... to less acceptable but more aggressive methods of power enforcement such as spreading malicious rumours or mauvais langue."  and the Spanish mala lengua Cuban-American literature and art: negotiating identities - Page 24 Isabel Álvarez-Borland, Lynette M. F. Bosch - 2009 "The difference between the two organs is that whereas the diseased body is put in the care of medical specialists, responsibility for the ailing tongue, for la mala lengua, rests with the speaker alone. The only treatment available to ..." Cassell's Spanish dictionary: Spanish-English, English-Spanish Edgar Allison Peers - 1968  Speaking for themselves: Neomexicano cultural identity Doris Meyer - 1996 "An article entitled "La lengua" [The tongue], appearing about the same time in El Nuevo Mundo [May 18, 1899], begins with the traditional equation between moral character and probity of speech. The image of a "mala lengua" [evil tongue] " In ictu oculi (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not the place to go into specific about the concept of evil tongue in other languages. A mere mention of the concept (including the redlink) should be enough here. This article is only about the Jewish concept. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't overweight (the above is blown up with footnotes in text), the comment only occupies 1 sentence in etymology, I would have thought it's relevant. Not least because I imagine (looking at the French, Spanish sources) that the French and Spanish are probably derived from Hebrew Bible usage rather than Virgil. Hebrew language isn't an island. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I am sure that this dissection of the term is superfluous for many. But I don't mind. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Debresser, I guess you mean "many" who would read the specific 4 or 5 articles where the term is linked. Possibly, but all the same, seriously, what % of Wikipedia users as a whole should be expected to know anything about Hebrew grammar? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant, what percentage of readers would be interested in Hebrew grammar? :) Debresser (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Debresser, well, maybe it's just me, but I'd assume that a substantial proportion of non-Hebrew speakers interested enough to read an article about a Hebrew phrase would like at least the option of knowing what it means, ... otherwise someone could easily assume that lashon is the Hebrew for evil, and hara is the Hebrew for tongue. After all, that's how mala lingua, mauvais langue and "evil tongue" work, why would Hebrew be any different? Just trying to make the article more user-friendly, that's all. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology section is wrong. Firstly, the expression "the evil tongue" in Hebrew would be properly rendered הלשון הרעה, 'HaLashon Hara-ah' - firstly, because "evil" is an adjective, and the definite article in Hebrew attaches to BOTH the noun and the adjective, and secondly because "Lashon" (tongue) is a feminine word, so the adjective should agree with it. The usage that we have today - (לשון הרע, Lashon Hara), has been the subject of intense argument among Hebrew grammarians. One idea is that it is actually a 'smichut'-form, a compound noun. This would make it mean something like "Evil's tongue", with Evil as a definite noun. Another explanation is that it's just a back-formation from Psalm 34:14 (see the main article). Either way, it's more a problematic phrase than the etymology section of the article suggests Ariehkovler (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it usefully informs non-Hebrew speakers that's fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too always considered "lashon hara" as a smichut meaning "evil's tongue". Debresser (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the following, but into the etymology section 

message: In the 2nd paragraph of the section 'Source' Talmud (Erchin 15b) is referenced. When I followed the link Erchin, it returned a page about a commune in northern France not a tractate (book) of the Talmud. Furthermore, when I followed the link Talmud I could not find 'Erchin' any where in the table listing all 6 orders and 63 tractates of the Talmud nor does a tractate by that name appear in the Complete Soncino English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud
Udvarias (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add that, just corrected it. Should have been written Arakhin not Erchin. Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason being that in the unofficial vernacular of yeshivot, "arakhin" is often called/pronounced "erkhin". I have fixed another two instances on Wikipedia. ,  Debresser (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of links 

message: I believe this work is a more-or-less direct adaptation of Sefer Chofetz Chaim, not Shmiras Haloshon.Mzk1 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guard Your Tongue 

message: "Hotzaat shem ra is worse" 
This statement appears to be directly contradicted by the page to which it is linked where is says "The gravest of these sins of tale-bearing is lashon ha-ra". 
130.225.26.33 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you see a link? Debresser (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation 4, linked page's section "Tale-Bearing", sixth (6th) paragraph.  Other anon is right.  2601:602:9200:279C:0:0:0:CC45 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now sourced the statement as it stood. I understand the point of the previous source, but after all is said and done, such is not the prevalent opinion.Debresser (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The book "Chafetz Chayim" by the Chofetz Chaim says that the most serious transgression is motzi shem ra: אזהרה למוציא שם רע שהוא חמור מכל מפני שהוא דבר שקר. Don't have it in English, but its part 1, chapter 1, paragraph 3. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth and Falsehood 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lashon hara. 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/20070927223335/http://jsafe.org/pdfs/Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.pdf to http://jsafe.org/pdfs/Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223335/http://jsafe.org/pdfs/Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.pdf to http://jsafe.org/pdfs/Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.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) 04:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand why this is here. If "a person’s intent in sharing negative information is for a to’elet, a positive, constructive, and beneficial purpose that may serve as a warning to prevent harm or injustice", then by the definition in the lede, it is not lashon hara. Likewise for "spouting lies and spreading disinformation". Oornery (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is "derogatory speech about another person", and that can be true even if the intent is e.g. to warn somebody about the other person. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lede says "Speech is considered to be lashon hara (detraction) if it says something negative about a person or party, is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and is true." (emphasis mine). That contradicts the "Exceptions" section. Oornery (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point. That looks a bit like the issue of the egg and the chicken. If it is negative it is loshon hara, but if it is meant to improve some situation it is allowed. Whether that means it stops being loshon hara or just becomes allowed although it is loshon hara is a matter of semantics. In any case, I think the first is true, which would mean the part of the sentence you bolded is incorrect. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exceptions" section 

message: Shouldn't it be "Leshon hara"? The Nikkud is  with a shwa (in Smichutform), thus it is [e].--komap (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "שני הצירופים לָשון הרע ועַין הרע נתפסים כצירופים סמיכות שגויים (במקום לְשון הרע ועֵין הרע). ניסן ברגגרין מסביר כי הצירוף הראשון הוא צירוף של שם (בזכר) ותוארו, על דרך 'יום השישי'. את הצירוף השני הוא מסביר כגררה בעקבות הצירוף לָשון הרע, ולדעתו אין לפסול אותו." האקדמיה ללשון העברית Debresser (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lashon or Leshon?