Talk:Hillel the Elder

message: In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1121108530&oldid=1120885055 I added the original text and translation
 to a citation originally given as an external link.
In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1124100227&oldid=1121565598, Lisa changed the  to a translation different from that in the text. That edit also added quotation marks around .
In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=next&oldid=1124100227, I reverted the change with the comment .
In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&curid=313892&diff=1125022169&oldid=1124176915, Lisa reinstated the change with the comment 
I contend that to include in a citation a translation different from the one in the text is WP:OR and misleading. If an editor believes that the translation in the text is incorrect then the appropriate action is to cite a different translation from an RS or to suggest an alternate translation in the body of the article. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your argument.  However, the translation by Taylor is one of very many different translations, none of which is more authoritative than the other.  So I'm going to revert your edit again, because the text literally does not include the word "only", and including it is an interpretation, rather than a translation.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be relevant if the translation was in the body of the article. However,  is for the text as printed, with redactions noted, and, in addition, the translator put brackets around only to indicate that it was not in the original text. I believe that it is time to go to arbitration.--Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Users are permitted to provide literal translation and it is not considered OR. However, when there are several free translations available, it is usually better to use one of them. It doesn't take a very advanced understanding of an ancient language to find "non-literal" elements in any published translation, but very often the professional translator was reflecting an idiom, an unusual meaning, a parallel text, an emendation, etc, of which the amateur is unaware. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether a free translation is permissible, but where it is permissible. Placing it in the , as opposed to the body of the article, falsely attributes it to the editor or translator, flasely attributes the translation to the editor or translator. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR]] in citation 

message: First of all, one needs to go an read the original entry on him in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is still the best researched and most comprehensive existing encyclopedia entry on him.
On the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopaedia [entry] on him does not have Hebrew dates at all. The dates it gives for his activity are just (c. 50 bce–early first century ce). Mind you, this is the Jewish Encyclopedia!!! So, this whole matter still needs to be researched better. And, the possible addition of some approximate Hebrew dates in the end, does not add any significant historical knowledge to Wikipedia, in my view. But, we'll see... Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 23:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The assumed dates for his birht and death 

message: Several places in the article cite the Wikipedia Pirkei Avoth article instead of the text of Pirkei Avoth. I'm not sure whether to replace them with discrete  templates or to add it to #Sources and use . The latter has the disadvantage that it doesn't support quotation or section parameters, so I'm inclined to the former. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is not [[WP:RS|RS]]