Talk:Jehovist

message: Please DO NOT REMOVE the original entries. These are valid definitions. If you wish to modify or add to these definitions, please feel free to do so, but do not remove them unless you replace them with improved definitions along the same lines.
The following entry was added by another author, rudely replacing what was there, but I found it too criptic to include, and retyped the original definitions. Please clarify:
Jehovist or Yahwist is the name given in Biblical criticism to a postulated author of those non-Deuteronomic portions of the Hexateuch in which the divine name is rendered Jehovah or Yahweh as opposed to Elohim.
If you add definitions, please mark it under a separate number (... 3., 4., 5., etc.)
----
Is definition 1 synonymous with a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses? DJ Clayworth 13:47, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

message: Restoring the definition that can actually be found in a dictionary, and removing those that can't. I suspect these are "specialized" uses, used by only certain people. Please specify which people they are used by and what dictionary they might be found in if they are indeed used and such a reference can be found. A Jehovist is:
#One who holds to the calling upon the name of the Jewish (Hebrew) God, Jehovah (the Latinized version of the Tetragrammaton, יהוה), as a central tenet of faith.
#One who uses the name "Jehovah" in referrence to God. There are also those called "Yahwists" who hold that the pronunciation of "Yahweh" must be upheld over the Latinized version.. I'll dumb it down, since it seems tohave perplexed. -- Someone else 18:47, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... you were defining "Jehovist", not "Yahwist", and the citation you give says nothing about holding a given name as a tenet of faith. Does "Jehovist" appear in "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged dictionary of the English Language"? It doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary ONLY in the sense of the postulated author. I suspect you are elevating a jargonistic use (is it one prevalent among Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps?) to a general one, without pointing out that it is not the generally understood meaning of the word. -- Someone else 02:03, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Please do ask for arbitration. Inserting idiosyncratic definitions that you cannot provide references for, in preference to established meanings is misinformation, and this is not the Misinformationpedia. This article would surely benefit from the attentions of others. -- Someone else 02:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: I'm deleting misinformation, not information. I've now added a factual accuracy warning label to the page. You have yet to supply a dictionary that indicates that "Jehovist" means (or even 'almost means') "Jehovah's Witness". -- Someone else 06:59, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: If it is a definition, as you seem to admit Corey, then it should be moved to Wiktionary. Alex756 10:12, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Isn't the history and use of a word part of the definition of the word? I think the use of Jehovist as a concept is covered in the article about the documentary hypothesis. Having the alternate definitions of the word in Wiktionary is useful, but there is no reason to have the history of a word on Wikipedia; that would seem to belong in Wiktionary. An encyclopidia is not about the history of words, it is about the history of subjects. Alex756 10:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving this to wikitionary is neither here nor there; what seems more crucial is that misinformation about the meaning of the word is being inserted as if true. I don't know if they are more or less diligent at Wikitionary than here (more, I would hope), but continued insertion of a meaning and claiming it is in "common" use when it cannot be found in any dictionary needs to stop. Finding one or two isolated websites where the word could be construed in the manner desired does not prove common use: that is what dictionaries are for. -- Someone else 11:46, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message on Wiktionary's village pump asking for advice from Wiktionarians on this. Angela 13:13, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
In response to Angela's pleas on Wiktionary's Beer parlour, I have reviewed the issue. The Jehovist article that we find here has ample reason to stay. It does seem to me that there is more to the subject than just the word "Jehovist"; the story of the two schools of thought about Biblical interpretation are worth while encyclopedic material. In Wiktionary I tend to favour articles that are far more succinct than what is now on the Jehovist article.
As for the usage that relates to the Jehovah's Witnesses, I find nothing encyclopedic about that at all. It does, however, merit mention in Wiktionary. It does appear to be a pejorative usage, but that does not disqualify it from mention. Nor does the fact that it may never have appeared in any other dictionary. Every dictionary word had to have a first time. I believe that dictionaries should be more descriptive than prescriptive. 
I'll see what I can do about putting this word in Wiktionary. Thanks also for bringing to my attention that there was a page of words that should be moved to Wiktionary. ☮ Eclecticology 02:20, 2003 Sep 15 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for discussing this issue further. I guess Eclecticology exemplifies my view of dictionary definitions. I concur that there is no necessity that the "Jehovah's Witnesses" mention be in this particular article, but I think that it deserves mention in a dictionary, at least, under the "pejorative usage" clause that he mentioned. It needs to be mentioned somewhere because it is in common usage, whether a single person likes it or not.
I have intended from the beginning to expand the article to include the two sides of the Jehovist/Yahwist issue mentioned above. However, recent events (issues) has side-tracked me from this endeavor. Other events in my personal life will now prevent me from having time or opportunity to continue the research and I would invite others to contribute to the article in that respect. To start, I would suggest that someone determine whether the Jehovist/Yahwist issue has a specific name (I cannot recall that it has such a name).
By the way. Before it was decided to reintroduce this page, I was beginning research on words on this site that contain articles on the histories of words in similar vein to this one, and I found "A" and "Contre-jour". I do not have time to find other examples, but I did find a bunch of articles that were strictly definitions. These are: AA, Index, Aaron's rod (which should simply be made into a disambiguation page), Ab, Aba, Abaddon (which demonstrates, not that it, alone, is acceptable to use at Wikipedia, but that other encyclopedias use definitions as the sole descriptions), Abatement (Each of the descriptions mentioned in this article could be extended into their own articles, but stand, at present, as no more than definitions), and Abatis. You'll notice that these only include mostly the "A" catagory, because I didn't get to complete the research.
See you on the flip side. — Corey 23:26, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: One who uses the name Jehovah in referrence to the Hebrew God in worship or in Biblical transmission (writing or translation).
The word Yahwist was first used in 1756 by a physician by the name of Jean Astruc (1684 - 1766) in regard to the writer of a particular portion of Genesis that he supposed, according to earlier speculations, was likely written by a different author than the first chapter. Over time it evolved into the German Jahvist, then the English Jahwist, then the modern English Jehovist, in relation to the Latinized version of the name of the Hebrew God, rendered "Jehovah".
Astruc's use of the word "Jehovist" in his formation of the documentary hypothesis apparenty comes from his intent to describe the writer of the document that came to be known as "J" (for "Jahwist", 1822, F. Bleek; "Jehovist", 1853, H. Hupfeld), as one who used the name of Jehovah in his writings. It is thereby applicable to anyone who uses the word "Jehovah" as the name of God, whether in worship or in Biblical transmission (writing or translation).
Later the term was used openly in regard to worshippers of the Deity. Afterward, the term came to be used to indicate a supporter of the translation of the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", and those who cling to its pronunciation as "Yahweh" as "Yahwists".
It seems that since 1935, when they adopted their name, the term has become almost synonymous with reference to Jehovah's Witnesses, though no dictionary appears to site this definition. Neither does this mean that it is exclusively applied to them, as the majority of its use applies to the issues above.
===Examples of Use===
http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Indices/Yahwist%20Archive.htm
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch08.htm
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.page.sh?PAGE=798
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0105g.html
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/je/jehovist181426.html</blockquote>
----
I agree you need to find someone to arbitrate this, but I don't think that person should be me as I try not to get involved in contentious topics on Wikipedia, particularly religious ones. If "no dictionary appears to site this definition", why are you so intent in adding it here? Angela 09:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Doesn't the page documentary hypothesis cover the meaning of Jehovist and Elohist? Is an additional page that defines the word needed? Remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps this needs to be removed to Wiktionary. Alex756 09:51, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a definition, as you seem to admit Corey, then it should be moved to Wiktionary. Alex756 10:12, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Isn't the history and use of a word part of the definition of the word? I think the use of Jehovist as a concept is covered in the article about the documentary hypothesis. Having the alternate definitions of the word in Wiktionary is useful, but there is no reason to have the history of a word on Wikipedia; that would seem to belong in Wiktionary. An encyclopidia is not about the history of words, it is about the history of subjects. Alex756 10:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving this to wikitionary is neither here nor there; what seems more crucial is that misinformation about the meaning of the word is being inserted as if true. I don't know if they are more or less diligent at Wikitionary than here (more, I would hope), but continued insertion of a meaning and claiming it is in "common" use when it cannot be found in any dictionary needs to stop. Finding one or two isolated websites where the word could be construed in the manner desired does not prove common use: that is what dictionaries are for. -- Someone else 11:46, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message on Wiktionary's village pump asking for advice from Wiktionarians on this. Angela 13:13, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
In response to Angela's pleas on Wiktionary's Beer parlour, I have reviewed the issue. The Jehovist article that we find here has ample reason to stay. It does seem to me that there is more to the subject than just the word "Jehovist"; the story of the two schools of thought about Biblical interpretation are worth while encyclopedic material. In Wiktionary I tend to favour articles that are far more succinct than what is now on the Jehovist article.
As for the usage that relates to the Jehovah's Witnesses, I find nothing encyclopedic about that at all. It does, however, merit mention in Wiktionary. It does appear to be a pejorative usage, but that does not disqualify it from mention. Nor does the fact that it may never have appeared in any other dictionary. Every dictionary word had to have a first time. I believe that dictionaries should be more descriptive than prescriptive. 
I'll see what I can do about putting this word in Wiktionary. Thanks also for bringing to my attention that there was a page of words that should be moved to Wiktionary. ☮ Eclecticology 02:20, 2003 Sep 15 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for discussing this issue further. I guess Eclecticology exemplifies my view of dictionary definitions. I concur that there is no necessity that the "Jehovah's Witnesses" mention be in this particular article, but I think that it deserves mention in a dictionary, at least, under the "pejorative usage" clause that he mentioned. It needs to be mentioned somewhere because it is in common usage, whether a single person likes it or not.
I have intended from the beginning to expand the article to include the two sides of the Jehovist/Yahwist issue mentioned above. However, recent events (issues) has side-tracked me from this endeavor. Other events in my personal life will now prevent me from having time or opportunity to continue the research and I would invite others to contribute to the article in that respect. To start, I would suggest that someone determine whether the Jehovist/Yahwist issue has a specific name (I cannot recall that it has such a name).
By the way. Before it was decided to reintroduce this page, I was beginning research on words on this site that contain articles on the histories of words in similar vein to this one, and I found "A" and "Contre-jour". I do not have time to find other examples, but I did find a bunch of articles that were strictly definitions. These are: AA, Index, Aaron's rod (which should simply be made into a disambiguation page), Ab, Aba, Abaddon (which demonstrates, not that it, alone, is acceptable to use at Wikipedia, but that other encyclopedias use definitions as the sole descriptions), Abatement (Each of the descriptions mentioned in this article could be extended into their own articles, but stand, at present, as no more than definitions), and Abatis. You'll notice that these only include mostly the "A" catagory, because I didn't get to complete the research.
See you on the flip side. — Corey 23:26, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovist 

message: http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/arc/Indices/Yahwist%20Archive.htm
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch08.htm
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.page.sh?PAGE=798
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0105g.html
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/je/jehovist181426.html</blockquote>
----
I agree you need to find someone to arbitrate this, but I don't think that person should be me as I try not to get involved in contentious topics on Wikipedia, particularly religious ones. If "no dictionary appears to site this definition", why are you so intent in adding it here? Angela 09:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
Doesn't the page documentary hypothesis cover the meaning of Jehovist and Elohist? Is an additional page that defines the word needed? Remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps this needs to be removed to Wiktionary. Alex756 09:51, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a definition, as you seem to admit Corey, then it should be moved to Wiktionary. Alex756 10:12, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Isn't the history and use of a word part of the definition of the word? I think the use of Jehovist as a concept is covered in the article about the documentary hypothesis. Having the alternate definitions of the word in Wiktionary is useful, but there is no reason to have the history of a word on Wikipedia; that would seem to belong in Wiktionary. An encyclopidia is not about the history of words, it is about the history of subjects. Alex756 10:23, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving this to wikitionary is neither here nor there; what seems more crucial is that misinformation about the meaning of the word is being inserted as if true. I don't know if they are more or less diligent at Wikitionary than here (more, I would hope), but continued insertion of a meaning and claiming it is in "common" use when it cannot be found in any dictionary needs to stop. Finding one or two isolated websites where the word could be construed in the manner desired does not prove common use: that is what dictionaries are for. -- Someone else 11:46, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message on Wiktionary's village pump asking for advice from Wiktionarians on this. Angela 13:13, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
In response to Angela's pleas on Wiktionary's Beer parlour, I have reviewed the issue. The Jehovist article that we find here has ample reason to stay. It does seem to me that there is more to the subject than just the word "Jehovist"; the story of the two schools of thought about Biblical interpretation are worth while encyclopedic material. In Wiktionary I tend to favour articles that are far more succinct than what is now on the Jehovist article.
As for the usage that relates to the Jehovah's Witnesses, I find nothing encyclopedic about that at all. It does, however, merit mention in Wiktionary. It does appear to be a pejorative usage, but that does not disqualify it from mention. Nor does the fact that it may never have appeared in any other dictionary. Every dictionary word had to have a first time. I believe that dictionaries should be more descriptive than prescriptive. 
I'll see what I can do about putting this word in Wiktionary. Thanks also for bringing to my attention that there was a page of words that should be moved to Wiktionary. ☮ Eclecticology 02:20, 2003 Sep 15 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for discussing this issue further. I guess Eclecticology exemplifies my view of dictionary definitions. I concur that there is no necessity that the "Jehovah's Witnesses" mention be in this particular article, but I think that it deserves mention in a dictionary, at least, under the "pejorative usage" clause that he mentioned. It needs to be mentioned somewhere because it is in common usage, whether a single person likes it or not.
I have intended from the beginning to expand the article to include the two sides of the Jehovist/Yahwist issue mentioned above. However, recent events (issues) has side-tracked me from this endeavor. Other events in my personal life will now prevent me from having time or opportunity to continue the research and I would invite others to contribute to the article in that respect. To start, I would suggest that someone determine whether the Jehovist/Yahwist issue has a specific name (I cannot recall that it has such a name).
By the way. Before it was decided to reintroduce this page, I was beginning research on words on this site that contain articles on the histories of words in similar vein to this one, and I found "A" and "Contre-jour". I do not have time to find other examples, but I did find a bunch of articles that were strictly definitions. These are: AA, Index, Aaron's rod (which should simply be made into a disambiguation page), Ab, Aba, Abaddon (which demonstrates, not that it, alone, is acceptable to use at Wikipedia, but that other encyclopedias use definitions as the sole descriptions), Abatement (Each of the descriptions mentioned in this article could be extended into their own articles, but stand, at present, as no more than definitions), and Abatis. You'll notice that these only include mostly the "A" catagory, because I didn't get to complete the research.
See you on the flip side. — Corey 23:26, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of Use

message: Hmm... This discussion seems to have been on hold for over a year, and the article still contains the disputed accuracy tag. Can we try to find a solution that will allow the removal of the tag? As it stands, no one is likely to make any substantive changes. Can we open the page to the collective knowledge of the community? -Rholton 06:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalled discussion