Talk:Masekhet

message: I've Merged this to Nasreddin as current article is on Afd.    Dlyons493 Talk  12:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This intriguing post refers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tractate, after which this content was merged into Nasreddin. Apparently because said content was a short piece of literature. This article was recreated half a year later, 3 March 2006, first as a redirect to Tract, and only over a year later, on 28 December 2007, as a redirect to Mishnah. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: is edit warring about an incorrect edit, namely saying that the "Tur Shulchan Aruch" is an alternative name or a work by Jacob ben Asher.
Jacob ben Asher's major opus is called the Arba'ah Turim, (Tur) in short. Rabbi Joseph Karo's major work is called the Shulchan Aruch. "Tur Shulachan Aruch" is simply an edition which combines them both, so is not identical to the Tur and is not a work by Jacob ben Asher. The last sentence of Arba'ah Turim#Later developments shows my point, as does the name "Tur Shulchan Aruch" = "Tur" + "Shulchan Aruch". There is no possible justification for keeping that incorrect information in the article, and Boruch Baum must stop his edit warring to this effect. Debresser (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring about incorrect edit 

message: Both  and  are violating WP:3RR but I thought protection would work better. I have never heard of either the Tur or Shulchan Aruch separately referred to as Tur Shulchan Aruch because they are different works. The volume I own by that name has both the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch for the section of Yorei Dei'a dealing with Basar be-Chalav. The abbreviation is used in the Ein Mishpat in on the daf of the Gemara when it refers to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch as a combination. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit war was yesterday. We have both been reported at WP:EW/N. I, for one, have already stated here, already yesterday, that I am not going to continue the edit war. I think you can safely remove that protection. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I might leave it for another day or two. I would be more reassured if there was some consensus as to what we were going to say. JFW | T@lk 13:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm ok with referring to it in parentheses as the "Tur", but I do prefer using the term "Tur Shulchan Aruch": 1] becuase it evokes the more commonly used derivative work, and; 2] the disambiguation page has been around since 2007 for good reason in my personal experience. The purpose of the sentence was to illustrate that the tractate method of organization is hardly universal. Let's get consensus and agree on a solution before opening this up again. I'm ok sending this to another dispute resolution forum. —Boruch Baum (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that all agree, at least implicitly, that the Tur Shulchan Aruch is not written by Jacob ben Asher. A very easy way out would be to add the Shulchan Aruch as a separate entry. We could then simply write "Major examples of literature which does not would be the Mishneh Torah, Arba'ah Turim and the Shulchan Aruch. We could keep the names of the editors, but they are actually a bit superfluous, since the works are linked and the respective articles already tell us who the authors are. By the way, it should be Mishneh Torah, another mistake which I attribute to ignorance. WDebresser (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of these works need mentioning by name here. This article is about tractates. As a compromise, could I suggest the Shulchan Aruch (generally deemed more important than the Tur) as the only example of a really canonical work that does not follow the tractate structure of the Talmud? I have unprotected the article. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I think the examples are a good idea. I would keep the Mishneh Torah as well, together with the Shulchan Aruch. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: The word "tractate" can refer to other writings rather than just rabbinic writings (see Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). I wonder if this is ever going to be more than just a dicdef.
The paragraph under dispute is actually largely irrelevant. It discusses works that are organised differently from the Talmud. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There does exist a disambiguation page for tractatus, which includes a link to Wittgenstein's book, but not a reference to tractate or a discussion anywhere of what a tractatus or tractate is, only a list of books that have the word in its title. —Boruch Baum (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of this article 

message: Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about including commonly used name of a text):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Tractate and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
-
style="padding-left:0.6cm"
My opinion is that the best action is to join together to develop a quality encyclopedic article.  Write for a general population with no background knowledge of Jewish literature, someone who wants to learn.  Anyone may arrive at this Tractate article from the random button on the Wikipedia main page.  Instead of gaining knowledge when I read the article in its current state, I was confused.  For example, in the last paragraph about Rabbinic literature, is that literature sometimes organized into tractates?  Formally?  Informally?  Please explain, with examples and wikilinks.  Improve the article so that I or any of the hundreds of millions who know nothing about Judaism will learn.
I know nothing about Jewish or Mishnaic literature so I have no opinion on the original question about common name.  After reading the article, looking at its history and many of the links, I judge that the article does belong in main space.  It does need improvement, specifically:
*Some in-line citations of source documents is needed.  Textbook, published student thesis, article in scholarly journal or whatever, references are essential.  Without some, this article is likely to appear in articles for deletion as original research sometime in the future.
*The lead paragraph needs improvement to provide context, clarification and explanation.  As written, it says "an organizational element of Mishnaic literature" such as "Baraita" but that article says "designates a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah. 'Baraita' thus refers to teachings 'outside' of the six orders of the Mishnah.".  Is the Baraita organized into tractates or not?  I'm confused.
*A Etymology section is needed.  How did a Latin word end up organizing literature written in Hebrew and Aramaic?
*Make Major tractates and Minor tractates separate sections for clarity.  Are divisions of the Tosefta and Beraita the "minor tractates"?  Or am I even more confused?
*Hatnotes are needed to deal with the old disambiguation.  I will do that if you prefer.
Your collaboration can make this stub become a valuable addition to our encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One question I can guess the answer to. The first editions of the Talmud were printed by Christians, and in an age when they needed approval by the Christian censor. That is likely the reason the Latin word "tractatus" got involved with Hebrew literature. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Another opinion