New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Additional Info About Girl Name, Jubilee...
in reply to a message by LMS
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
Replies
"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