Talk:Holocaust (sacrifice)

message: Article merged: See old talk-page here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have proposed renaming this from Holokauston to Holocaust (sacrifice).
Details of this proposal are on the Holocaust (disambiguation) talk page, under the section Talk:Holocaust (disambiguation)#Holokauston versus Holocaust (sacrifice). Lawrence King 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename page

message: In Greek and Roman pagan rites, gods of the earth and underworld received dark or golden animals.
What is a "dark or golden animal"?
I asked about "dark animals" over at Talk:Names of the Holocaust too, although Names of the Holocaust mentions only dark animals and not golden animals.  I have no idea what these terms mean. Pfly 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark animal

message: It seems that there are currently two semi-contradictory introductory paragraphs. Shouldn't they be merged? --Nick, 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Hasn't the word Holocaust ever been used when describing the atonement ? It was certainly used in ancient Jewish ritual, but I think some writers have also used the term Holocaust when describing Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. Furthermore, the doctrine of the unique sacrifice would mean that there is only one legally valid Holocaust, which is Jesus Christ / Jesus Holocaust. The term notably appears in Catholic eucharistic doctrine when refering to the holy host in divine liturgy. ADM (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Christ as Holocaust

message: What does this sentence mean? 
:"Some of the Jewish sacrifices specified by the Torah, the olah was completely burnt."
Should it be: "Unlike some of the Jewish sacrifices specified by the Torah, the olah was completely burnt"?
Or should it read, "One of the Jewish sacrifices specified by the Torah, the olah was completely burnt"?
--Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter is good, I've changed it. Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An incoherent sentence needs fixing 

message: For the record:
:A.
* (cur | prev)  04:52, 24 February 2012‎ Jayjg (talk | contribs)‎ (7,465 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by In ictu oculi (talk): Unexplained reversion. (TW)) (undo) 
:The restoration of deleted content is explained twice
:-(i) in the request above 01:14, 24 February 2012 please not to delete a third time.
:-(ii) in the previous edit summary (cur | prev)  01:08, 24 February 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ (10,207 bytes) (Undid revision 478449521 by Jayjg (talk) merge proposal since 08:13, 22 February 2012‎) (undo)
:B.
* (cur | prev)  16:47, 23 February 2012‎ Jayjg (talk | contribs)‎ (7,465 bytes) (Undid revision 478341812 by In ictu oculi (talk) - please do not revert content fixes for unrelated technical reasons - and there was no proposal extant) (undo) 
:-(i) Presumably "was no proposal extant" means at 17:04, 22 February 2012‎ rather than 23 February 2012‎ but in either case evident from the timings of the previous edits that there was a proposal extant on (cur | prev)  08:13, 22 February 2012‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ (10,189 bytes) ( merge from|Korban Olah) except that there is little new content there that is not cut paste dupl of this article) (undo)
:-(ii) preemptive deletion of half the article that has been standing for a year immediately after a merge proposal is not usually what one would consider "content fixes for unrelated technical reasons", as good as that sounds.  
:::However,
:::I'm not going to restore Jayjg's pre-emptive delete of half of the article in support of the fork even though his action goes against discussion. Hopefully anyone who wants to discuss the merge proposal will look at the page from Dec 7 2010 when it was duplicated to 08:13, 22 February 2012 when the proposal was made. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a tag on an article is not the same as making an actual proposal. I clicked in the link in the merge tags, and neither actually led to any proposal. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is still no existing proposal to merge the articles. If there is, please provide a link to the discussion. Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, I think you will have to refer me to the WP policy that says if a merger proposal is placed visibly on two articles, and both are tagged with an invitation for discussion, that the appropriate action is not to follow the invitation and to discuss but unilaterally delete half of the original article three times and leave the edit summaries as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're saying, but when one makes a merge proposal, one should also create a section on the relevant article's talk page for the notice to link to. In that section one should explain what one wishes to do, and the rationale for it. Just adding a tag to a page without the accompanying discussion section explaining the tag is drive-by tagging. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries