New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Additional Info About Girl Name, Jubilee...
in reply to a message by LMS
I stayed with the existing format. That is why it looks similar. You previously claimed that I gave too much information.
The important changes are:
1. This name is chosen among Christians specifically in reference to
The Jewish Year of Jubilee (with a very short summary).
It is not picked for the more general
"celebration, rejoicing" or "any season or occasion of rejoicing or festivity..." that this article currently proposes.
2. Having both
From the Middle French jubile, from the Latin jubilare meaning 'to shout or sing out joyfully' or 'rejoice'.
and
Middle English jubile, from Old French, from Late Latin iúbilaeus, the Jewish year of jubilee,
alteration (influenced by iubilâre, to raise a shout of joy), of Greek iobêlaios, from iobêlos, from Hebrew yôbêl.
in the same article is redundant. The latter of the two is more complete, especially if you tack on (lit. "trumpet-blast").
3. The headings, BIBLICAL ENGLISH and POPULAR CULTURE, separate the two name sources better.
4. Adding (created in 1989) is relevant to the second source.
As an editor, you surely understand the value of these changes. I made it so you could copy & paste the body of the article to keep it in its original format.
The important changes are:
1. This name is chosen among Christians specifically in reference to
It is not picked for the more general
2. Having both
and
alteration (influenced by iubilâre, to raise a shout of joy), of Greek iobêlaios, from iobêlos, from Hebrew yôbêl.
in the same article is redundant. The latter of the two is more complete, especially if you tack on (lit. "trumpet-blast").
3. The headings, BIBLICAL ENGLISH and POPULAR CULTURE, separate the two name sources better.
4. Adding (created in 1989) is relevant to the second source.
As an editor, you surely understand the value of these changes. I made it so you could copy & paste the body of the article to keep it in its original format.
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 12:25 AM
1
Replies
1. Yes, and the reference that the name derives from the word relating to the Jewish year of jubilee is already in the original submission. "Middle English jubile, from Old French, from Late Latin iúbilaeus, the Jewish year of jubilee,
alteration (influenced by iubilâre, to raise a shout of joy), of Greek iobêlaios, from iobêlos, from Hebrew yôbêl." I don't need a wikipedia-like entry to describe what the Jewish year of jubilee is, thats easily google-able.
2. I know that having both of them is redundant, I just hadn't gotten around to fixing it yet because I have been looking at other things you have been mentioning and well, I also have a life.
3. We don't have to add headings. It may look more precise, but Mike C changes how everything is written before he puts it on this website anyway so adding a heading really isn't that helpful because its obvious that the meaning of the names as used by Christians and Jews is different than its use in Pop Culture.
4. Adding that a comic book was created in 1989 is not helpful. It might be helpful if the name first came into use in 1989.
"I stayed with the existing format. That is why it looks similar. You previously claimed that I gave too much information."
I realize that, but the only changes you did make on top of the original submission either aren't relevant or redundant.
"As an editor, you surely understand the value of these changes. I made it so you could copy & paste the body of the article to keep it in its original format."
This is exactly the point I am trying to make and I'm getting frustrated because I feel like I'm being made to beat a dead horse. I could have copy and pasted if your second submission had anything in it that was relevant and also wasn't already a redundancy from the original submission. But. There. Isn't. As evidenced by the previous responses and this response.
I did more research on my own, irrespective of your commentary and this is what I've found:
alteration (influenced by iubilâre, to raise a shout of joy), of Greek iobêlaios, from iobêlos, from Hebrew yôbêl." I don't need a wikipedia-like entry to describe what the Jewish year of jubilee is, thats easily google-able.
2. I know that having both of them is redundant, I just hadn't gotten around to fixing it yet because I have been looking at other things you have been mentioning and well, I also have a life.
3. We don't have to add headings. It may look more precise, but Mike C changes how everything is written before he puts it on this website anyway so adding a heading really isn't that helpful because its obvious that the meaning of the names as used by Christians and Jews is different than its use in Pop Culture.
4. Adding that a comic book was created in 1989 is not helpful. It might be helpful if the name first came into use in 1989.
"I stayed with the existing format. That is why it looks similar. You previously claimed that I gave too much information."
I realize that, but the only changes you did make on top of the original submission either aren't relevant or redundant.
"As an editor, you surely understand the value of these changes. I made it so you could copy & paste the body of the article to keep it in its original format."
This is exactly the point I am trying to make and I'm getting frustrated because I feel like I'm being made to beat a dead horse. I could have copy and pasted if your second submission had anything in it that was relevant and also wasn't already a redundancy from the original submission. But. There. Isn't. As evidenced by the previous responses and this response.
I did more research on my own, irrespective of your commentary and this is what I've found:
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 1:08 AM
1
Your new details are quite impressive, but isn't that more over-the-top than my first submission (which you criticized as being too verbose)?
And expressing my ideas within the article's established format was unacceptable, too?
I am thoroughly confused about what is expected here.
And expressing my ideas within the article's established format was unacceptable, too?
I am thoroughly confused about what is expected here.
1
Actually, its not over the top because all of the information relates to its etymology whereas your submission had a lot of erroneous information. Its okay to be wordy, as long as the "wordy" is purposeful.
"And expressing my ideas within the article's established format was unacceptable, too?"
I'm really confused at what you are trying to say here. If you are referring to adding opinion to a submission, then yes, opinion is unacceptable in a submission. A submission is meant to highlight facts about a name.
"And expressing my ideas within the article's established format was unacceptable, too?"
I'm really confused at what you are trying to say here. If you are referring to adding opinion to a submission, then yes, opinion is unacceptable in a submission. A submission is meant to highlight facts about a name.
1
"If you are referring to adding opinion to a submission, then yes, opinion is unacceptable in a submission. A submission is meant to highlight facts about a name."
No, I'm not referring to adding opinion.
It is the intense effort to obfuscate the eponym that has me confused.
No, I'm not referring to adding opinion.
It is the intense effort to obfuscate the eponym that has me confused.
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 4:05 AM
1
"It is the intense effort to obscure the eponym that has me confused."
Thats exactly why I am not putting more information about "year of jubilee" in the entry. It obscures the actual, factual meaning of the name. Not everyone named Jubilee is named after the year of Jubilee, nor is every Christian or Jew named Jubilee named after the year of Jubilee. Its actually the opposite. The year of jubilee simply uses the word Jubilee which has its own line up of etymology. Putting that into the submission as the main "meaning" of the name is not factual.
Does this edit make you happier?
"Derives from Ancient Greek #ἰωβηλαῖος# (#iōbēlaîos#, 'of a jubilee'), from #ἰώβηλος# (#iṓbēlos#, 'jubilee'), from Hebrew #יובל# (#yobēl#/#yovēl#, 'ram, ram's horn; jubilee' in reference to the year of jubilee)."
Thats exactly why I am not putting more information about "year of jubilee" in the entry. It obscures the actual, factual meaning of the name. Not everyone named Jubilee is named after the year of Jubilee, nor is every Christian or Jew named Jubilee named after the year of Jubilee. Its actually the opposite. The year of jubilee simply uses the word Jubilee which has its own line up of etymology. Putting that into the submission as the main "meaning" of the name is not factual.
Does this edit make you happier?
"Derives from Ancient Greek #ἰωβηλαῖος# (#iōbēlaîos#, 'of a jubilee'), from #ἰώβηλος# (#iṓbēlos#, 'jubilee'), from Hebrew #יובל# (#yobēl#/#yovēl#, 'ram, ram's horn; jubilee' in reference to the year of jubilee)."
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 2:23 AM
1
-- Does this edit make you happier? --
This conversation reminds me of a "Simpsons" clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FPgtsohaIs
This conversation reminds me of a "Simpsons" clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FPgtsohaIs
1
Burying the "Year of Jubilee" in the etymology obscures the whole reason for choosing this name, in the first place. The general party-ness of the name (without consideration of the former) has been held up as an objection to its use.
There is a notable difference between "The Jubilee" and "a jubilee." This name arises from the former, not the latter. It is actually the latter that is extraneous (when it comes to personal names). Your article on CHRISTMAS is not defined as "a celebration, a party." It speaks of a particular festival; so does this one.
If you had guidelines for submissions, like wikis do, I would gladly abide by them.
There is a notable difference between "The Jubilee" and "a jubilee." This name arises from the former, not the latter. It is actually the latter that is extraneous (when it comes to personal names). Your article on CHRISTMAS is not defined as "a celebration, a party." It speaks of a particular festival; so does this one.
If you had guidelines for submissions, like wikis do, I would gladly abide by them.
1
"the whole reason for choosing this name"
Why people choose specific names is more opinion and taste than fact and etymology. If you are concerned about how people view the name, perhaps your information is better suited on the comments section of a name or on the opinions board.
"This name arises from the former, not the latter."
I challenge this. The research I have done shows that the etymology goes back further than the Hebrew use of the word and possibly means the latter over the former. Both suggestions are in the newly edited submission, however.
"If you had guidelines for submissions, like wikis do, I would gladly abide by them."
Just a sampling of the editor's guidelines, seen by editors on the admin portal:
"2.Don't be offended if your edits get overwritten."
Usages
"Each name has a set of usages associated with it. A usage describes who uses the name. It can be a language, a nationality, a culture, or something else. It is NOT necessarily the language of origin."
"2.Merge same-name submissions when necessary. Generally, you merge information into the older entry and delete the newer one (though if the newer entry is substantially better, it can be done the other way)."
"3.Correct submissions which contain incorrect information, superfluous information, poor formatting, or spelling/grammar errors."
Does that help you understand a little where I am coming from?
Why people choose specific names is more opinion and taste than fact and etymology. If you are concerned about how people view the name, perhaps your information is better suited on the comments section of a name or on the opinions board.
"This name arises from the former, not the latter."
I challenge this. The research I have done shows that the etymology goes back further than the Hebrew use of the word and possibly means the latter over the former. Both suggestions are in the newly edited submission, however.
"If you had guidelines for submissions, like wikis do, I would gladly abide by them."
Just a sampling of the editor's guidelines, seen by editors on the admin portal:
"2.Don't be offended if your edits get overwritten."
Usages
"Each name has a set of usages associated with it. A usage describes who uses the name. It can be a language, a nationality, a culture, or something else. It is NOT necessarily the language of origin."
"2.Merge same-name submissions when necessary. Generally, you merge information into the older entry and delete the newer one (though if the newer entry is substantially better, it can be done the other way)."
"3.Correct submissions which contain incorrect information, superfluous information, poor formatting, or spelling/grammar errors."
Does that help you understand a little where I am coming from?
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 1:39 AM
1
I thought my last submission did a better job of #3 than your last one did. You seem to be violating the very rule about excessiveness that you told me to steer away from, which I did.
Do you just not want the Jewish Jubilee to be the centerpiece of the Judeo-Christian entry in this article? Because that is the attraction of the name for Christians and, presumably, Jews.
Do you just not want the Jewish Jubilee to be the centerpiece of the Judeo-Christian entry in this article? Because that is the attraction of the name for Christians and, presumably, Jews.
1
Again, beating a dead horse, so this will be my last comment as I feel my previous comments were very explicit with reasoning and that others probably see that.
Thoroughness is not excessiveness if it reflects the etymology of the word. Excessiveness is using too much information that doesn't add to the entry in any meaningful way.
I am a Christian so I have no issue with the word Jubilee and its use within Christianity to refer to a Jewish year of jubilee. The history of the word Jubilee, etymologically speaking, is spelled out very clearly in the edited submission. It addresses the meaning in Hebrew as well as from what languages it derives. Saying the name comes from the "holiday" is incorrect. The "holiday's" name is derived from a series of words, which are etymologically traced in the submission. So, saying that all Christians, Jews, or simply English speakers use the word Jubilee to relate to the year of jubilee is grossly incorrect. It can mean anything from "shout of joy" to "ram's horn" (which was considered the start of jubilee) to "victory cry" to "shout." Before you suggested that it relates to the year of jubilee, I, as a Christian, have only heard it in reference to "shout of joy." Deciding that your usage of the name Jubilee for your daughter is in reference to the year of jubilee is perfectly acceptable, but one person's reasoning for choosing a name doesn't need to be highlighted in a submission meant for a whole group of people to understand the etymological background of a name.
An entry isn't about describing why a name is "attractive" to a specific culture of people, especially when that entry encompasses a wide variety of usages. An entry is about fact. If you want to discuss why you chose the name or why Jews and Christians may like the name then that is more of an opinion and should be discussed in Opinions or in the comments section of the name (which isn't a part of the submissions section).
Thoroughness is not excessiveness if it reflects the etymology of the word. Excessiveness is using too much information that doesn't add to the entry in any meaningful way.
I am a Christian so I have no issue with the word Jubilee and its use within Christianity to refer to a Jewish year of jubilee. The history of the word Jubilee, etymologically speaking, is spelled out very clearly in the edited submission. It addresses the meaning in Hebrew as well as from what languages it derives. Saying the name comes from the "holiday" is incorrect. The "holiday's" name is derived from a series of words, which are etymologically traced in the submission. So, saying that all Christians, Jews, or simply English speakers use the word Jubilee to relate to the year of jubilee is grossly incorrect. It can mean anything from "shout of joy" to "ram's horn" (which was considered the start of jubilee) to "victory cry" to "shout." Before you suggested that it relates to the year of jubilee, I, as a Christian, have only heard it in reference to "shout of joy." Deciding that your usage of the name Jubilee for your daughter is in reference to the year of jubilee is perfectly acceptable, but one person's reasoning for choosing a name doesn't need to be highlighted in a submission meant for a whole group of people to understand the etymological background of a name.
An entry isn't about describing why a name is "attractive" to a specific culture of people, especially when that entry encompasses a wide variety of usages. An entry is about fact. If you want to discuss why you chose the name or why Jews and Christians may like the name then that is more of an opinion and should be discussed in Opinions or in the comments section of the name (which isn't a part of the submissions section).
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 2:16 AM
1
-- Before you suggested that it relates to the year of jubilee, I, as a Christian, have only heard it in reference to "shout of joy." --
So, why didn't you bring each of these to the fore (in consecutive paragraphs)? The casual reader will not pull these ideas out of the article as it is presently written, with all of its cousin etymologies.
So, why didn't you bring each of these to the fore (in consecutive paragraphs)? The casual reader will not pull these ideas out of the article as it is presently written, with all of its cousin etymologies.
This message was edited 8/6/2014, 6:07 PM
1
It's not like this is going to be an official encyclopedia entry, or the one authoritative reference. It's not really necessary for her to explain any further, exactly why she didn't choose to copy your entry exactly. It would be nice if you'd just accept it as it is. She merged the information you added adequately.
If the name ends up in the main database, you can and should contribute your comments on it, and they'll be linked to the name for anyone who is interested.
If the name ends up in the main database, you can and should contribute your comments on it, and they'll be linked to the name for anyone who is interested.
1
Thanks for weighing in. It just seems that this entry is more ambiguous than the other articles I have seen here.
1