Talk:Rosh Hashanah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gregorian dates for Jon Chungs asianness 2003 to 2007 from as of 2004-12-17t14:44z. — Jeandré

I'd prefer to switch the language from "sunset", and replace it with "evening". By using the ambiguous word "evening" in all locations, we would be very NPOV, inclusive both of the common view that Jewish holidays start at sunset but don't end until nightfall, and also inclusive of the views (if any) that they really do end at sunset. What do others think? --Keeves 12:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel that simply "sunset" should be NPOV enough. It is more clear than "evening," and twilight/evening is really an extension of sunset, both in halakha and semantically. --Eliyak T·C 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semantically, no: Sunset is when the sun goes below the horizon, and is an entirely different event than dusk, which occurs later, when a certain degree of darkness arrives. They are different halachic events as well, and the halacha is uncertain as to whther the day ends when the sun is no longer visible, or when its light is no longer visible. To say that the holiday ends at sunset is simply wrong, and I will continue to fight it. A detailed discussion of this point is not appropriate for this article (it belongs in "Hebrew Calendar" or "Jewish Holidays" or something like that), and this article should keep it simple. My preference remains for either "begins at sunset" and "ends at nightfall" (or dusk), or to use "evening" at both ends. I hope more people will add their comments to this discussion. --Keeves 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, there have been no other comments or suggestions, so I am now changing it to "evening". --Keeves 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proper word should be "sundown." All Jewish days properly begin at "sundown" and end at sunset, as the article states. All the refernces in the article should be changed accordingly, I believe. I changed one, but I don't have the time to do more. 13:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Allen RothReply[reply]
Before I get into a dispute, I want to make sure we have defined our terms. My understanding is that "sundown" and "sunset" mean the same thing, namely, the moment when the sun passes below the horizon and is no longer visible, even though the sky is still bright. Further, my understanding is that although there are varying views in the Talmud and other authorities, in actual practice, all Jews agree that we must begin observing a holiday (however you want to define observance) no later than when the sun goes below the horizon, and that (when the holiday draws to its end) one must continue that observance past that point, and can end the holiday only when a certain degree of darkness has arrived. Is that how you understand these things? Thanks! --Keeves 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, say that it begins on erev yontif at sunset, and then when it ends --- by nightfall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. Debresser (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Rosh Hashanah
Observed by: Jews
Name Hebrew: ראש השנה
Meaning: "Beginning of the year"
Begins: 29th day of Elul
Ends: 2nd day Tishri
OccasionJewish spiritual new year
Beginning of the Days of Awe
Symbols:Challah bread and honey
Related to: Yom Kippur

To the one who made this table, That was excellent idea, and nicely done! Shana Tova! MathKnight 13:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However, it would be better if it was correct. It starts when Elul 29 finishes, i.e. at sunset, not on Elul 29. I'll fix that. You might want to explain the phrase "spiritual new year" which will confuse many people (what other new year is there?). --Zero 14:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The idea and table was by Neutrality however I'm not sure who put it in. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many days?[edit]

This article says "Rosh Hashanah occurs 162 days after the first day of Pesach" but New Year says 163 days. I added an external link to this article that has a formula for determining the exact dates, but the formula is so convoluted I can't figure out if 162 is correct, 163 is correct, or sometimes one or the other. Anyone? SWAdair | Talk 05:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) In modern times, 162 is definitely wrong. I know R.H. has come on Saturday, because I remember Yom Kippur being on the day Columbus Day was observed in the U.S., and R.H. is always 1 week and 2 days before Yom Kippur. Since 162 days is 23 weeks and 1 day, the day that is 162 days before a Saturday is always a Friday, but Passover never starts on a Friday using the current calendar, which is odd because it did on the day of the Crucifixion.

From the first of Nisan (14 days before Passover) to Rosh Hashanah or from the first day of Passover to the first day of Succot (14 days after RH) is 30+29+30+29+30+29 = 177 days. From the first day of Passover to RH is 14 days less, or 163 days.

However, when the lengths of the months were determined by sighting the moon visually, and not by a fixed cycle, there could be variation in the amount of time from Passover to RH. (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do these exist? The poster has a track record of nonsense/suspect edits. Charles Matthews 11:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Matzo. 23:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rosh hashanah on a Wednesday[edit]

The article says that Rosh Hashanah is never on a Wednesday, but then it shows that 9/12/07 is Rosh Hashanah, which is a Wednesday!

It must be an error, unless it says that it begins at sunset... which if you look at that table, it does say that. My calendar says Rosh Hashanah on Thursday, 9/13/2007, which on a common calendar is still a Wednesday, 9/12/2007. CJLippert 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Holidays[edit]

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers.Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shouldn't there be a section explaining the Christian belief that the rapture will fall during Rosh Hashanah.

If you could first explain what "rapture" means and what proportion of Christians attach any significance to Rosh Hashanah... JFW | T@lk 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosh Hashana is not the Jewish new year[edit]

The Jewish new year is in Nissan as stated in Exodus 12:2 "This month shall be for you the beginning of all months, it shall be for you the first of the months of the year." It is a biblical commandment that Nissan be thought of as the first month, not Tishrei. Rosh Hashana is the day that the Jews believe the world was created, it is therefore the earth's new year, not the Jewish new year. DeFender1031 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, but as I see it, it is just semantics. Yes, Nisan is most definitely the first of the months. But there are other ways to look at years also. I compare it to the concept of a fiscal year or a school year. Is it wrong for schoolchildren to end their vacation with the comment that "The new year is starting soon"? I think not. --Keeves 23:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, my father (he's a rabbi) often uses the idea of fiscal year and school year to explain the concept of Judaism having multiple new years. However, I still say that it is a biblical commandment that nissan be the Jewish new year. The point you make about semantics is the reason I didn't edit the article directly. Because I DO hear the argument for it to be allowed to be called the Jewish new year (also given that the year number changes at this point) . Furthermore, it is widely referred to as such. I just find it interesting that that description came about. DeFender1031 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Rosh Hashanah" means "head of the year". I agree with the metaphor of the fiscal year, and I stand behind the article's present intro that states that RH is only one of the Jewish new years. But it is translated widely as "Jewish New Year" and see no reason to disclaim this further. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, "Rosh Hashana" does mean "head of the year", however the term is not used biblically. Biblically it is referred to as "yom hazikaron" meaning "day of rememberance". Furthermore, it is not referred to as "Rosh Hashana" in the prayers either. The earliest mention of "Rosh Hashana" to my knowledge is mishnaic. DeFender1031 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to be confused with Yom Hazikaron on the 4th of Iyar.Aleph4 12:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosh Ha Shanah is the Seventh Month, not the First Month, so it is not the Jewish "new year". --- Leviticus 23:24 --- "[...]On the first day of the SEVENTH month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts" --- It is unncessary to add "the Jewish New Year" to your title, since it is misleading as well as incorrect. User: 02:41, September 24, 2006

The Talmud section on Rosh Hashanah begins with a statement that

There are four New Years. The first of Nissan is the new year for kings and for festivals. The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of animals...The first of Tishrei is the new year for years...

Since Rosh Hashana is a festival, it is dated from the new year for festivals. But since it is the new year for years, the calendar changes on Rosh Hashanah. Judaism of course follows the Talmud on this one, As is often the case, the Hebrew Bible alone won't explain Jewish practice. (FYI the 4th new year is the new year for trees, on the 15th of Shevat). --Shirahadasha 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Tu Bishvat.Aleph4 12:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is the new year in that it is when a year starts, for example, when 5770 ends and 5771 begins. The terms "1st month", "2nd month", etc., mean the 1st month God created, the 2nd months God created, etc., and do not mean the 1st month of the year, the 2nd month of the year, etc. R.H. is the first day (or two days) of the 7th month, and of the year. The year starts with the first day of the 7th month and ends with the last day of the 6th month. (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which new year crossing does G-d use to calculate the prophecies, sabbaths and feast days? Since we are clearly not using TORAH to determine the new year(s) here and clearly something derived of man such as the Mishnah, then I believe to have the proper understanding we must go back to the writings of Mosheh. We can believe him as it is accounted twice that he ascended the mountain to speak with G-d and brought back to us the marriage covenant not to mention the starting of our TORAH. How can we as men debate this, saying this and that about something? All we are doing is confirming a prophecy in Dani'el about the moving of ordained times. Alan (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Does anyone really use pebbles or stones for tashlich? I'd like to delete it, but figured I'd ask first. --Keeves 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure SOMEONE out there does. Ask 10 Jews for an opinion, get 11 answers. Shalom, y'all!--Greenbomb101 21:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The practce of throwing ANYTHING into the water is actually problematic halakhically, as it is transferring said object from one reshus to another, there is an added prohibition with stones, as stones are muktzah on sabbath and festivals. The whole custom is fundamentally flawed, and should therefore not be on the page at all, or be discouraged. — — DeFender1031 01:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A number of authorities object to the practice of Tashlich on grounds like those listed above. The existence of a dispute and these objections can certainly be included if sourced. However, the practice is widespread, included in standard Orthodox prayerbooks, and supported by many authorities. I would stress the importance of relying on sources rather than editors' own views. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look in any halakha sefer out there, they will all tell you that A) stones are muktzah B) throwing something from land into water is a transferring of reshus C) (for the case of using bread) feeding wild animals on sabbath and yom tov is also assur. If you want a source, look in any halakha sefer that deals with the prohibitions of shabbos and moed. These are NOT my own views, these are straight halakha. It's not my fault if those who print prayer books or the "authorities" are ignorant, and it is my hope that in the future, only those who actually deserve their authority obtain it. — DeFender1031 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a siddur. Its purpose is to inform with a NPOV, not to encourage or discourage. The article is supposed to be about what IS done, not what should be done. (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delaying until non-Yom Tov day because of need to drive to water[edit]

The article is incorrect in its statement that Tashlich is not always done on the first or second day. I know of a Chabad-Lubavitcher Rabbi in a place with no suitable body of water within walking distance, so he waits until the 3rd day of the month (or the 4th if the 3rd is Shabbos), and then drives to the ocean. However, I know this only from original research and not from verifiable sources. Someone with a verifiable source, please fix the article. (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tashlich can be said much later and never on Shabbat. Rosh Hashanah is rather the first opportunity for this ritual. Shmini Atzeret is the last. Saxophonemn (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tashlich should be done on the first day of Rosh HaShanah, if not Shabbat. Laying it off till later is bediavad. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lo be-adu rosh[edit]

I've never heard of this one before - as far as I know the classical saying is:

lo adu rosh, ve' lo bedu pesach

i.e. Rosh HaShana is not on 146 and Pesach can not be on 246. The extra "be" in the first part is confusing! Any confirmations?

Nachmore 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This whole article needs more in-line citations. Anyone know a good NPOV source that we could cite for the information. Remember 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if there's such a thing as an NPOV source, but more references and better sourcing is certainly welcome. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The traditional greeting is actually "L'shana Tova", "To/for a good year", not just "Shana Tova", and the pronunication given is for the Anglicized version, not the Hebrew. In Hebrew the stresses go on the final syllables of each of these words. I didn't correct this because I didn't know how to enter the phonetic transcription into the wiki. Jaysonfire (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More on Yom HaZikaron?[edit]

As discussed above under "Rosh Hashana is not the Jewish new year", the ur-traditional name is not Rosh Hashana. I've previously dealt with the extent to which some Wikipedians are upset when traditional or correct names are used for articles instead of popular ones, but is there any disagreement that the article's text, at the lest, should include more focus on this distinction and on the significance of the Yom HaZikaron-aspect of this, to wit, the rememberance vs. the "New Year" bit which, as others have said, tends to confuse those more familiar with traditions in which the New Year is a purely celebratory event? Czrisher (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feast of Trumpets[edit]

Update: Feast of Trumpets now redirects to Christian_observances_of_Jewish_holidays#Feast_of_Trumpets, not to this article (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Per the rules at WP:OTD, this article is going to be excluded from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 28 this year because it has serious maintenance issues. There are 8 weeks to go before this date, so please be sure to have those resolved by then. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where did the extra h come from at the end of Rosh Hashana? --Redaktor (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--I believe that it came from the fact that the word "Shana" (year) in Hebrew ends in the letter Hei, which is the equivalent to the English letter H, so really the question should be why did people stop transliterating the name of the holiday into English without the extra H at the end? Also, technically, You should capitalize the S, to read: Rosh HaShana, and possibly even Rosh haShana, to signify that "ha" only serves as the definite article, and that Shanah is the second word in the phrase "Head of the Year" - i.e. Rosh haShannah.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

According to WP:HEBREW the first "H" of HaShanah" should be capitalised. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also ,if you do a search for "Rosh Hashana" Google will automatically give you the results for the more correct and widespread "Rosh HashannaH" with an "h". Debresser (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosh HashanahRosh HaShanah – Per WP:HEBREW, which says "In all capitalized words, he hayedi'a (ha, he) will be capitalized, as well as the word after it" (stress is mine). Should be uncontroversial. I'd have done this myself, but apparently this page is move-protected. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table of dates[edit]

It would be good if this article included a table of dates on which this event falls in different years. I heard on Thought for the Day this morning that it is today (September 28) in 2011! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The rules says Rosh HaShana does not start on a Sunday (and Wednesday and Friday). Fine. But given that this year (2012) starts exactly on a Sunday, isn’t it better to explain that if it says not on Sunday what it means it cannot start on the evening before, ie Saturday? BTW, the reference used talks about Yom Kippur, not Rosh HaShana.--Sandribus (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That means it can't start on the day, not the night. Jewish days start the night before, so not on Sunday means that it can't start Saturday night. Saxophonemn (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is precisely the reason for the question/suggestion of Sandribus. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connection to Muslim Ras as-Sanah[edit]

Should I remove the paragraph on the connection to Ras as-Sanah? It lacks sources and its wording sounds quite biased, not to mention that the last sentence is very much false: the New Year's festival is called /resh shattim/ in Babylonian (as well as /akitu/) and /wept renpet/ in Ancient Egyptian, with the exact same meaning of «head|beginning (of the) year» as in Hebrew and Arabic, even in the linguistically distant Egyptian (which more precisely means «forehead|beginning (of the) year»). The only factually verifiable statement in the whole paragraph is that the Old Persian name of the festival was different («new light|day»), which is not surprising given that Old Persian is linguistically unrelated to the other 4 languages, and quite beside the point. --RiseOfTheAnts 2013-09-04 20:29 UTC

Rosh Hashanah occurs 163 days after the first day of Passover (Pesach): new days starting at "sundown" and why[edit]

article says " Rosh Hashanah occurs 163 days after the first day of Passover (Pesach). In terms of the Gregorian calendar, the earliest date on which Rosh Hashanah can fall is September 5, as happened in 1899 and will happen again in 2013. The latest date that Rosh Hashanah can occur relative to the Gregorian dates is October 5, as happened in 1967 and will happen again in 2043. After 2089, the differences between the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will result in Rosh Hashanah falling no earlier than September 6.[10] Although the Jewish calendar is based on the lunar cycle, so that the first day of each month originally began with the first sighting of a new moon, since the fourth century it has been arranged so that Rosh Hashanah never falls on a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday." --- This is still very confusing,and this part of the article must specifically mention that jews believe the new day and date starts at sundown rather than at midnight or at dawn as billions of others believe. Thus it needs to mention that tuesday 9-4-13 supposedly becomes 9-5-13 right at sundown. Also more links and information should be in this article concerning the reason that most jews believe that the day begins at sundown rather than sunrise.

Music/noise is ambiguous[edit]

Making music/noise shoos away predators but also prey in natural life. This fact is specifically acknowledged by religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to remove Traditional greetings section[edit]

With the new "Greeting and stages" section, the "Traditional greetings" section has become partly redundant. In addition, it has too much of a Trivia section imho. Perhaps we should remove it? Debresser (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User:Debresser, I appreciate your foresight, and I agree with your assessment that the details of my previous edit were inappropriate for that small sub-section in the main article. I have since revised everything. My question to you is whether this (the following) will be appropriate? I was thinking that it can be placed in the current sub-section "Shofar blowing."

During the first series, Rav Abahu enacted that they blow a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah), followed by three [short] lilting blasts (Shevarim), followed by a [long] quavering blast (Teru'ah), and again by a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah). This series was to be repeated three times. This prescribed order is often called by the mnemonics: TASHRAT – Teki'ah, Shevarim, Teru'ah, Teki'ah.

During the second series, he enacted that they blow one [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah), followed by three [short] lilting blasts (Shevarim), followed by a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah). This series was also to be repeated three times. This prescribed order is often called by the mnemonics: TASHAT – Teki'ah, Shevarim, Teki'ah.

During the third series, he enacted that they blow a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah), followed by a [long] quavering blast (Teru'ah), and again a [very long] sustained blast (Teki'ah). Again, this series was to be repeated three times. This prescribed order is often called by the mnemonics: TARAT – Teki'ah, Teru'ah, Teki'ah.

The first series has a combination of four interchanging sounds made by the horn, which, when repeated thrice, make for a total of twelve blasts. The second series has a combination of three interchanging sounds, which, when repeated thrice, make for a total of nine blasts. The third and final series has a combination of three interchanging sounds, which, when repeated thrice, make for a total of nine blasts. The sum total is thirty blasts. Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just add the following paragraph to the Shofar blowing section. It contains all that is needed, and because it follows the definitions of the sounds in that section, is much shorter and clearer. "The order of the blowing of the shofar was enacted by Abahu and is made up of three series. The first series consists of a Teki'ah), followed by a Shevarim Teru'ah and closed by another Teki'ah. This prescribed order is called "TaSHRaT" by the mnemonics. The second series consists of a Teki'ah, followed by a Shevarim and also closed by a Teki'ah. This order is called "TaSHaT" by the mnemonics. The third series consists of a Teki'ah, followed by a Teru'ah and closed by a Teki'ah Gedolah. This order is often called "TaRaT" by the mnemonics. The sum total of blasts is 30."


Recent edits by Theredheifer claim to remove POV by adding qualifiers and an "Origins" section regarding the character of the festival according to the speculations of some academics. I suggest Theredheifer first discuss this, rather than edit war in the name of supposed academic neutral point of view. Especially since these are indeed no more than speculations.

In addition, I propose to lay of any such major change till after the holiday, as this article will be read much during these days, and it is imperative to first work out a solid consensus version. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't even want to go into details like "Origins of" being an unacceptable header, and missing spaces between sentences. All of these can easily be fixed, but they underline the necessity for a period of working out a new version of this article of sufficiently high quality. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of religious claims to remove RS material is not acceptable. Timing of a re write is not affected by religious dates. The removal of this material under WP:BRD is incorrect. There is nothing BOLD in this material, it is all based on accepted academic understanding. Similar material exists e.g. in Sukkot, where there is a section called History. I am quite happy to change the title to History, but this section should actually go first. The use of the word speculations is not helpful here. Religious claims are themselves speculations. Wikipedia relies on RS, and does not give precedence to non academic speculations. This material should be restored, and all non religious material relating to the origins/history of RH should be permitted. If there are academic claims as to RH origins as other than a Babylonian agricultural festival then they will be included as well. Theredheifer (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theredheifer. Claims like "not acceptable", "incorrect" or "will be included" are out of place. Wikipedia is about WP:CONSENSUS, and not any one of us on his own decided what is acceptable or incorrect and what will be included in an article.
This article is about a religious festival. Therefore it is only normal to describe that festival first and foremost as from within the religious traditions. If you want to add a section discussing outside perspectives, that should be fine. If you plan to bring all kinds of speculations, that will not do on Wikipedia, unless you can show that such speculation is the accepted academic point of view. See WP:FRINGE in this regard.
I will be happy to continue this discussion with you, especially after I removed two paragraphs you recently added from the Sukkot article, for the same reasons.
By the way, please start making use of Wikipedia:Citation templates like {{Cite book}}, because your references leave to be desired. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy of not favouring religious viewpoints. Stop making claims such as 'inferior' as reasons to remove RS material which you apparently do not like. 'Inferior' could refer to the RS, but not to the opinion expressed. What do you mean by 'outside perspectives'? This is weasel wording at its best. Non religious views are hardly outside perspectives. There is nothing WP:FRINGE about any of the material that I have offered. I do not have to show that anything is the accepted academic POV, merely that is an accepted POV, (whether religious or not), and referenced as such. Sections entitled History and Origins are there for ALL POV, not just religious. This material will all be restored. If you want to be constructive then put it in a new section, since you do not seem to like the present placing of the material. Please however understand that religious viewpoints are themselves speculation. Religious viewpoints are a matter of opinion and you are incorrect that there is anything normal about describing religious views 'first and foremost as from within the religious traditions'. This claim is fundamentally incorrect. There is a great deal of academic material that needs to be added to this and other topics on the supernatural, and it would be best if this was cleared up at the beginning. You do not get to decide what is acceptable here. Wikipedia rules decide that. Theredheifer (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theredheifer Please keep this discussion amiable. No need to use a belligerent tone. Please also notice that your suggestion to make a separate section about academic points of view as to the historical origins of this festival is precisely what I suggested above, and what I perceive to be the consensus modus operandi on Wikipedia regarding all religion-related articles. Academic points of view are what I described above as "outside" points of view, as opposed to the point of view of the religion itself. I thought that was clear enough. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I merely responded to the tone that you set. What do you suggest this new section be called? You removed material and dismissed the term Origins, and you removed material from a section called History, so it is not clear to me that you were proposing to accept that material elsewhere. Theredheifer (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My tone was never anything but polite and to the point. Note that the header was "Origins of" (see [1]), not just "Origins", as you claim above. I think "Origins" is a possibility, like on Ramadan. On the other hand, the origins of the Ramadan are clearer, if only because the religion is so much younger. Another reason I don't think the word "Origins" is in place here, is because we are dealing with speculation. I haven't read the books in question, but if they only speculate, as they often do, without bringing more than circumstantial arguments for those speculations, then I doubt this material can be added at all. If such speculation would be notable from an academic point of view, then at most a section about them could be called "Possible origins". Debresser (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that you have a fundamental mis understanding of 'speculation.' This article states that Adam and Eve were the first humans. It does not qualify that statement as the speculation of a religious group. It is probably best if I take this higher, otherwise you can continue to remove RS material that is other than from a religious viewpoint. It is not up to you to decide what is eligible here. Let me repeat RS material is acceptable from all viewpoints. It does need the approval of any individual. Academic or non academic, it all needs an RS. The difference between Origins and Origins of is not important.Theredheifer (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mention WP:RS then please note that the sources you provided are primary sources, and Wikipedia should use secondary sources, see WP:RS and note that the reason is much like the reason I gave nl. to avoid speculation. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The material will be restored with new RS. Please do not remove it if you do not like the Origins section, rather come up with a title that all can agree to.Theredheifer (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you were an editor with respect for the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS and your fellow editors, as well as a bit of common sense, you would obtain consensus for your proposed edit first. The way you behave is called edit warring, and will possibly lead to sanctions against you by the community. Be warned. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that having done some reading on wikipedia it seems that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my style of citations, it is absolutely acceptable. My behaviour is nothing like edit warring, which seems to be continually adding or removing material that is challenged. I am trying to reach consensus. Your last objection was to the RS, and I have agreed to find new ones. I am still waiting for you to advise what title for a section you would agree to. Perhaps you could let me know the answer?Theredheifer (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your citation style is absent, you just leave the usage of citation templates to others. Or you sincerely don't understand how to use templates. But that is not in itself reason for a revert, and I am fine to help out with adding some formatting to your sources.
I would have no problem with something like what I did on Sukkot, where there is a section "Origins" that first mentions the Biblical origins and sources and then possible agricultural origins. After that, parallels in other cultures could also be brought, here and in the Sukkot article, if not overly much (as in WP:UNDUE).
Would such a structure be acceptable to you as well? Debresser (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would need to be made clear that the Biblical sources are in themselves only claims. In Sukkot the text that says G-d spoke to Moses should say that According to Leviticus G-d commanded Moses, etc. Similarly the statement that the children of Israel spent forty years wandering in the desert is in the wikipedia voice. Again it should say where that claim is made. I am not saying that Sukkot is not today associated with the Exodus myth, but that does not mean that it has always been so associated. That is why other non religious explanations, and alternative religious explanations should be included as well. Provided that all important points of view are treated equally I have no problem with your proposal. Regards.Theredheifer (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is unacceptable to me and against consensus. This article is about the religious festival. It is therefore not necessary to explain at every point and turn that the explanations and statements in the article are based on and in concurrence with the religion. Moreover, it would be wrong. As I said elsewhere, the consensus and practice on Wikipedia is to write articles about religious subjects from an "inside" point of view, and to add "outside" points of views in sections or sometimes even whole articles named "Origins of ...", "ccc about ...", or even "Criticism of ...", for example. Your suggestion goes contrary to that basic consensus, and can not be accepted. Debresser (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I look forward to your link to a wikipedia policy that says that the consensus and practice on Wikipedia is to write articles about religious subjects from an "inside" point of view. Please check NPOV, e.g. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. AND ALSO WP:RNPOV Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources. I am afraid that no one needs your acceptance. What I am proposing is wikipedia policy. Regards.Theredheifer (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I am informing you it is not, as per WP:CONSENSUS, see for example what it says there "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia." Debresser (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is overriden by THIS. 'Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines'. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines override your appeal for consensus. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines allow my edits to be made.Theredheifer (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say. In any case, I already informed you there is a way to add the information you want to add, and how to do it. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I am saying is quoting wikipedia policies that state that concensus takes notice of editors' legitimate concerns. It does not mean that every one has to agree to every change. Have you finally come up with a section header that I can add this material under? Or should we take this to a third party?Theredheifer (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that section will contain points of view that are agreed to by both religious sources and the academic world, then probably "Origins". If not, then probably "Academic views", as per a recent suggestion in some related discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yom Kippur uses Contemporary scholarship. How about that? I would prefer that as it covers all types of scholarship. I do not see why you do not think that some academics are also religious. Academic views is a bit limiting.Theredheifer (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such articles like David, Zohar, Ezra, and Lurianic Kabbalah use "Academic views". I do not understand how you came to the incorrect conclusion that I don't think that academics can be religious. Nor do I think that "Academic views" is in any way limiting. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's take it to resolution. I like Contemporary scholarship, that will allow religious and non religious academic views to be posted there, as they should be. The point is not to post only those views that are agreed to, but to post all views. Your view of what an academic views section can contain will prevent that. This could then be rolled out across other articles.Theredheifer (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now understand what you mean. You want to go back to writing the article the way you think it should be done, and therefore you need a broader header for this section. You have already been told by me and User:IZAK that this is not the way articles about religious subjects are written, so no, I do not agree to "Contemporary scholarship". I do not see why you want to run the whole time to dispute resolution. If two experienced editors in the field tell you you're wrong, just accept that. In any case, your proposal is also inferior because the word "contemporary" is a vague term. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I want to use the term contemporary scholarship because it is NPOV, whereas you want to split off academic and religious views. Your OR claim to know how articles are written about religious subjects is not wikipedia policy. Non religious material is welcome there, and there needs to be much more on the articles that I am contributing to. The title used should be common and that is why I want it to be agreed. Actually, how about scholarship? Your claim to know what I mean is mildly offensive, but I would rather you concentrated on trying to answer my questions than waste time on it. This statement is just patronising. If two experienced editors in the field tell you you're wrong, just accept that. But again I am to busy trying to get you to come up with non OR objections to the RS I have provided.Theredheifer (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can post more on this issue, but as far as I am concerned, it is now officially a WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing at reference?[edit]

Ref this claim for a link to Yom Kippur. (The term Rosh Hashanah appears once in the Bible in Ezekiel 40:1 where it means generally the time of the "beginning of the year" or is possibly a reference to Yom Kippur,[1] Jacobs, Louis. "Rosh Ha-Shanah." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 17. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 463-466. I checked these pages for the claim to Yom Kippur, and I can find no reference to a link to Yom Kippur in this part of the EJ. Can anyone else find it, or should it be marked as citation required, (or removed?)Theredheifer (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed material[edit]

This should be restored. Rosh Hashanah (Hebrew: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, literally "head of the year") is now celebrated as the beginning of the Jewish New Year.[1] It is a RS.Theredheifer (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the source. The reason your edit was undone is because it is inferior to the present first sentence of the article: Rosh Hashanah (Hebrew: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, literally "head of the year") is the Jewish New Year. Not to mention that the wording "beginning ... of the ... New Year" is awkward. It is either "the New Year" or "the beginning of the year". Debresser (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you check the RS? I do not agree with your unexplained removal of the text 'is now celebrated' that is in that source. It says 'is now celebrated as the beginning of the New Year'. I have restored the words that I think should be there. I have no objection to the removal of the words 'as the beginning'.Theredheifer (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you have been reverted, again. You are on the border of being reported for being a disruptive editor, see WP:DE and WP:TE. The first sentence of this high-importance article is perfect, as in informative and clear, and enjoys long-standing consensus. You can not go change it without first establishing a firm consensus that a change is necessary. Especially after you have been informed that another editor opposes it, see WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was pretty obvious to me from your revert that you were only objecting to the phrase beginning of the New Year. That is why I restored material that you have admitted is from an RS and adds to the article. Your reference to a perfect sentence and your continued disruption and removal of my edits seems to indicate that you are just edit warring. Whatever I do you always come up with another excuse to removal the material I add. You remove all of my edits even when you later say that your given reasons do not apply to all of the material you remove. Your reasons for removing my additions are not sufficient and you have no support for them. You seem to think that you have a personal veto on this site. Any further removal will be treated appropriately. Please restore the material, which is certainly not BOLD, or escalate.Theredheifer (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
It seems to me that the content is dispute adds little information to the sentence, while making it more clunky. The phrase "is the Jewish New Year" to my mind conveys the idea that it is a current festival, and therefore "is now celebrated as" does not change anything. Theredheifer, I would suggest that if you feel like there is a lack of clarity in the sentence, you make that argument here on the talk, and point out exactly what the lack is. The source used does not seem to be in dispute, but the extra text seems unnecessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theredheifer I reverted your edit for precisely this same reason. Your edits are simply inferior. I have nothing against you, and some materials you bring are very interesting and relevant, but that does not mean that all materials are, and that you represent them in the correct way for an encyclopedia. Perhaps you should take a rest from this area, and edit a little in other areas, to gain some experience and to calm down a little from what you seem to perceive incorrectly as a personal vendetta on my side. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Debresser, I have nothing against you, but I think that you should concentrate on answering the many questions that I have asked on the material that you have removed. Third party opinion is an excellent way of getting some resolution. The accusation that my edits are inferior is risible, as I use RS and I bring accepted academic perspectives that are sadly lacking, and of which you appear to be unaware, and unwilling to check. I am seriously concerned that you would try and personalise wikipedia. I am forced to use resolution as there are so many sections waiting for your reply and I would appreciate it if you would deal with them as quickly as you possibly can. I shall continue using means such as third party in order to move the logjam.Theredheifer (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am relating to everything you post here, and I give you very long and detailed answers. I think saying that I should "concentrate on answering the many questions" is insulting my efforts in this regard. There is no section where I have not replied, I think.
I agree that discussion and only discussion, including asking opinions from other editors, is the way. Therefore I deeply resent the fact that you so many times redo your edits after they have been reverted. You must come to understand that that is unacceptable, as per WP:BRD and WP:EDIT WAR. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is you who is removing RS material, and it is you who is edit warring. You are misusing BRD. You should leave the material and seek a resolution, not just reflexively revert.Theredheifer (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are wrong. I revert material which is either not reliably sourced or worded lousy. That is what editors should do on Wikipedia: insist on the policies and guidelines which are there to safeguard the standards of this encyclopedia. Your reinstatements of removed texts are the first step of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if my material is shown to be RS you will restore it then?Theredheifer (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depends. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Not everything that is written (even in reliable sources) is notable and needs to be included in articles. And even when it is, the way to phrase it is not necessarily with the same words as the source we use. We are writing an encyclopedia here! Debresser (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the first time you have suggested that any of my edits are not notable. That is a new one. If you do not like the wording then you should come up with another, as long as it is not OR, but you just revert and then stall for time. PS if you want to belittle other editors with phrases such as inferior, you really should not write the words worded lousy!Theredheifer (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Jewish Traditions | A JPS Guide |By Ronald L. Eisenberg | Jewish Publication Society, 1 Jan 2010 | pg 184


I tagged the article because of a serious deficiency in sourcing, especially in the Greetings, Significance, Rosh Hashanah eve and Prayer service sections. A lot of it reads like somebody just wrote stuff off the top of their head, and I doubt its accuracy. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might be able to help here, either with sources, or at least to check the accuracy of statements. Could you please give me a list here of statements that you doubt? Debresser (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Debresser! Thanks for getting back to me. Well, for starters, the Greetings, Prayer service, Tashlikh, and Rosh Hashanah eve sections are wholly unreferenced; also:
  • "Hebrew Rosh HaShanah is etymologically related to the Arabic Ras as-Sanah";
  • "This is reflected in the prayers composed by the classical rabbinic sages for Rosh Hashanah found in all machzorim where the theme of the prayers is the strongest theme is the "coronation" of God as King of the universe in preparation for the acceptance of judgments that will follow on that day, symbolized as "written" into a Divine book of judgments, that then hang in the balance for ten days waiting for all to repent, then they will be "sealed" on Yom Kippur. The assumption is that everyone was sealed for life and therefore the next festival is Sukkot (Tabernacles) that is referred to as "the time of our joy" (z'man simchateinu)";
  • "Orthodox and Conservative Judaism now generally observe Rosh Hashanah for the first two days of Tishrei, even in Israel where all other Jewish holidays dated from the new moon last only one day. The two days of Rosh Hashanah are said to constitute "Yoma Arichtah" (Aramaic: "one long day"). In Reform Judaism, some communities observe only the first day of Rosh Hashanah, while others observe two days.Karaite Jews, who do not recognize Rabbinic Jewish oral law and rely on their own understanding of the Torah, observe only one day on the first of Tishrei, since the second day is not mentioned in the Written Torah";
  • "Rosh Hashanah is also the day of "Yom Hadin", known as Judgment day. On Yom Hadin, 3 books are opened, the book of life, for the righteous among the nations, the book of death, for the most evil who receive the seal of death, and the third book for the ones living in doubts with non-evil sins. The final judgment is not done from Yom Hadin before the start of Yom Kippur, it is sometimes possible to receive the seal of life by asking for forgiveness";
  • "Samaritans do not consider what they call Yom Teruah, in preservation of the biblical name for Rosh Hashanah, set at the beginning of Tishrei, as a new year".
These are the most glaring unreferenced bits. The other statements I casually found I assume can be sourced from the existing sources or mostly consist of uncontroversial info. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of sections[edit]

I'd like to reorder the section in a more logical order, also based on what I have seen customarily done on similar articles. Something like first etymology, then origins, and blessing closer to the end, things like that. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like your ideas. It would certainly make the article more reader-friendly. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I re-ordered the sections. I also merged the two sections about greetings. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does appear to read more fluently, although perhaps several other sections could be merged under Customs? What do you think? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


New material added for this section which is based on a modern source, not an out of date version of EJ. The article should contain modern understanding of the different opinions of the origin of this festival. There is nothing argumentative in this material, it is simply presenting two different views, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to doJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take it you are referring to this edit of yours. I agree that the source of the previous version, the Jewish Encyclopedia, is outdated. But the text of that edit was superior in many ways, including the fat that all three sentences were sourced. If you'd simply left the text intact, and added sources, that would be fine, but I am not happy with the new text. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The material that was removed does not occur in the new version of the EJ. Suggesting that the old outdated replaced text is superior is not very sensible when that text is no longer the state of modern opinion. I can't give an RS to text when that text does not exist in the RS. Do you understand the basic ideas of wikipedia. Your might like the old text but the old text has been replaced. Shall I simply add th new version as an addition with a note to explain? all of the material in my edit comes from the EJ, I do not have to add a reference to each sentence when all of them are from the same RS.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't take me for a fool. When I said, I don't like the new text, I meant the way you organized it, as well as stylistic problems. Some statements are vague, others are argumentative. We should try to present facts, or theories, not arguments. Also, we should be careful to indicate what is theory and what is fact, and in how far a specific theory is accepted, or a minority theory or perhaps even a notable fringe theory, or a non-notable fringe theory (in which case per WP:FRINGE we shouldn't even mention it). Debresser (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't take me for a fool. You said none of this in your revert. Your justification is all vague stuff, come up with a new wording then. What you call argumentative is what Wikipedia calls presenting all reliable views. The fact that this is in the RS is sufficient justification for the fact that it is not WP:FRINGE. Taking your argument I could demand that you remove the current text until you prove that it is not fringe. Nothing would ever change using your argument, and we would be stuck with out of date text until you personally are convinced. Why don't you just check the RS? How may RS do you need before you will be satisfied in removing text that is so out of date? Where is the evidence that any of this article is what you call fact? There are only theories especially when dealing with the supernatural.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An edit summary just summarizes the edit, does not explain all the reasons for it.
I didn't say that anything you wrote is fringe. I just explained how to check your sources when writing a Wikipedia article.
Don't get all philosophical, please.
As I said, the main problem is stylistic. Your style is confusing. In addition, I think some things you wrote are best left out, since they are speculative or argumentative. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to barge in, but I'd like this discussion settled so we can improve the article, Johnmcintyre1959 and Debresser. I do not have access to the Jewish Encyclopedia, so I can't comment on what the source says, but could we perhaps attempt to formulate some new text that incorporates both sides of this debate? That is if indeed the source stipulates there is a debate, or someone can offer a reliable source that does. If there is no debate, then this is indeed original research and should not be incorporated. I await your input. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DB If you check you will see that I incorporated some of the original material in my version. You do not seem to understand that there is nothing speculative or argumentative in the text I supplied. Wikipedia is supposed to present all views that are not fringe. That is what the RS does. Since it is a more modern source of the present RS, you are unlikely to convince anyone that it needs further justification. I do not need advice on how to check sources, my RS is impeccable, and frankly should not be questioned. Your arguments about style are only relevant if you try to improve the wording. Why did you just revert rather than try and improve the wording?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FoCuSandLeArN Thank you for your positive approach. I find it strange to be asked to justify the RS when it is a much more modern version of the present RS which is so out of date. DO you want me to post extracts from the RS on here? Do I need other RS?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I previously stated, I can't comment on the assertions made given I have no way of checking the reference myself. I sympathise with Debresser's cautionary approach given he's experienced in the topic; I also am heartened by your effort to improve this article. Let's see if we can verify the source and implement some kind of edit that will prove beneficial to both of you plus the encyclopaedia. I look forward to hearing from Debresser. Please ping me if there is any update on this, as I might forget to check back. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi folks. As the one who introduced the ORIGINS into the article, I feel impressed by the storm it has created.

FoCuS, to the availability of sources: the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) of 1901-06 is freely available online, I have indicated the URL. The much newer Encyclopaedia Judaica (EJ) sounds like it might be the same, but it's not - another proof that even editors such as FoCuS (or me) do overlook basic facts when reading, that's why writing VERY clearly is an obligation towards the WP user. Back to EJ: for that one you need special access, which most don't have, me included. So for EJ even more than the (older) JE, I'd welcome a FULL QUOTATION (selective, but a quotation). And yes, the JE is almost ancient, the EJ can be an improvement.

Looking at Johnmcintyre's EJ-based text: sorry, but it's quite raw and not too carefully edited. I would like to suggest some edits, then you can start merging the two or whatever, once a quotation is provided, which everybody can read and check. So:

The ancient Semitic peoples thought of the year as beginning in the autumn, ////OKish, but not very accurate; see Akitu: Babylonians (Semites, even though influenced by Sumerians, who were not) had BOTH versions, two New Years, one at the sowing and one at the harvesting of barley. Relevance: read [2] for very plausible sounding theory that Rosh Hashanah is nothing but the Babylonian autumn Akitu festival adopted during Exile. /// at the time of the late harvest, whhile /// typo: while/// other ancient civilizations such as the Persians or Greeks chose spring for that purpose. ///following: a half-sentence forgotten from previous edits: starting with capital A, ending in a comma followed by another capital letter - bad!/// As the beginning of the economic year, when crops began to be sold, It is plausible that the Hebrew New Year originally marked the beginning of the agricultural year.

Older critical views tend to see the festival as a post-Exilic ///use link: post-Exilic/// production of the Pentateuchal legislation ///what is that? can't drop such stuff on WP users w/o introduction, it's not a yeshiva manual. Find at least some WP links!/// of the Priestly Code (P) ///use link: Priestly Code/// in which the festival appears, pointing out ///I would leave out "for instance", unnecessary ballast]]], for instance, that there is no reference to it ///not "it", but "Rosh Hashanah", actual noun not mentioned in entire, long paragraph/// in the lists of the feasts in Deuteronomy ///link Deuteronomy///. More recently S. Mowinckel ///if it's him you mean, use link: Sigmund Mowinckel /// has suggested that the suggestion ///"suggested that the suggestion"? BAD STYLE, look for different wording - was of the opinion, maintained that,.../// that an autumnal New Year festival existed in in pre-Exilic ///use link: Israel or Israel or Israel or whatever/// during which God was "enthroned" as King in a manner analogous to the Babylonian ///use link: Babylonian/// enthronement of Marduk. He claims to have found marked traces in many of the psalms ///psalms/// to substantiate this assertion. Although Mowinckel’s thesis has won wide acceptance, it is still the subject of debate.(reference) ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 17 p.g. 464, 465(end of reference) ///for the E. Judaica reference: use full format, avoid all-caps, and add QUOTE, as mentioned: (reference)xxxx, ed. (xxxx). "xxxx". Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 17 (2nd ed.). xxxx: xxxx. pp. 464, 465. ISBN xxxx. !!!!!!! {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)(end of reference) Arminden (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Thank you Arminden, I will make a version of this and put it here for suggestions.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johnmcintyre, truly happy if it helps. I suggest you go ahead and mix it with what I figured out/wrote, and do read [3], Karaite-based or not, most of it makes good sense. I didn't fully buy the last argument (is the Seventh or Eighth Month the beginning of the agricultural cycle in the Land of Israel?), but it sounds very logical altogether and is on the right level for WP. If you manage to add your info, one bit I would consider a clear plus - the annual "enthroning" of the Israelite God theory. True or not, far too few people are aware of the tribal and less-than-monotheistic character of the Israelite religion, and this would help with straightening up that general image. Go for it. PS: I just noticed a repetition - "existed in in pre-Exilic".Arminden (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]
Yes, putting up a version here or on some private draft page for discussion would be a good idea, and would definitely help establish a consensus version and avoid edit wars. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WIP not yet complete. The ancient Semitic peoples thought of the year as beginning in the autumn, while other ancient civilizations such as the Persians or Greeks chose spring for that purpose. As the beginning of the economic year, when crops began to be sold, It is plausible that the Hebrew New Year originally marked the beginning of the agricultural year.
Older critical views tend to see the festival as a post-Exilic production of the Pentateuchal legislation of the Priestly Code (P) in which the festival appears, pointing out, that there is no reference to "Rosh Hashanah", in the lists of the feasts in Deuteronomy. More recently Sigmund Mowinckel /// has supported the suggestion that an autumnal New Year festival existed in pre-Exilic ///use link: Israel or Israel or Israel or whatever/// during which God was "enthroned" as King in a manner analogous to the Babylonian enthronement of Marduk. He claims to have found marked traces in many of the psalms ///psalms/// to substantiate this assertion. Although Mowinckel’s thesis has won wide acceptance, it is still the subject of debate.(reference) ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 17 p.g. 464, 465(end of reference) ///for the E. Judaica reference: use full format, avoid all-caps, and add QUOTE, as mentioned: (reference)xxxx, ed. (xxxx). "xxxx". Encyclopaedia Judaica 17 (2nd ed.). xxxx: xxxx. pp. 464, 465. ISBN xxxx Check |isbn= value (help). !!!!!!! Check date values in: |date= (help)(end of reference) Arminden (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Arminden Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is almost the same as what Johnmcintyre1959 had. Such a text is not okay. Wikipedia does not go into proof, for example, per WP:NOT. Too much detail, like for example the "(P)" after priestly code. If something is linked, we need not explain it further, because all the explanation needed is in the link. Per the same PW:NOT, we should avoid the impression that we are discussing theories (usage of the word "plausible"). And last but not least, it is not clear if the beginning of the text is also sourced to the JE. If it is, then the footnote should be repeated after each claim that can stand on its own. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first para is already RS to the old JE, I will add that in, (I did say this was not finished). Wikipedia very much deals with theories, I am afraid that is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part The theories must have RS, and all non fringe theories must be included, but they are definitely part of wikipedia's role.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johnmcintyre1959, I so love it when you tell me I have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Do you want to check again how long I have actively been editing Wikipedia (and Judaism-related articles in particular)? I am afraid, it is you who is misunderstanding. As I explained to you above, the way to deal with theories is 1. to mention only the accepted (or especially noteworthy) academic theories 2. to avoid bringing arguments why one theory is better than another. Please contemplate WP:NOT again carefully. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I so love it when you reveal your misunderstanding. DO you want to check again where you wrote 'we should avoid the impression that we are discussing theories'? As I explained to you, you did not state that we include all non fringe theories, you said that we do not include theories. Perhaps your problem is with the word theory. Let me help you. Wikipedia describes ALL non fringe theories/arguments/opinions that pertain to an issue and it does state which have most support. The existing text is theory which is only based on the RS. It is suggested that it be augmented by more up to date theories based on more up to date RS. Judaism is a theory, Marxism is a theory, they are all based on opinion and interpretation, and it is wikipedian to present all non fringe views of those theories, and to state which are the most widely accepted. E.g a tiny minority today think that Moses wrote the HB, a huge majority think that it was written by many authors and had many revisions. Both are always going to be theories, and there can never be any definitive proof as to which is right, so both get mentioned, but we say which one is the majority and the fact that it is supported by knowledgable critical academics, and which one is the minority and is only supported by a handful of religious believers.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do not seem to get the point. Perhaps ask somebody else to explain it to you I don't like explaining things more than a few times, especially to editors who use my own words. That is a bit childish and insulting, and not appropriate on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is you who does not get the point. I use the words that are appropriate, and when childish and insulting words are used at me, I am entitled to use them back. I note that you have ignored the substance of my point, and you are not willing to discuss the widespread use of opinions, (which you call theories) on wikipedia.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you can't stop using the Tu quoque. Sigh. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you haven't dealt with the substance of the discussion, i.e. what you mean by 'theories'.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment about Origins[edit]

Can I make a suggestion? At this point in time I don't think anyone is going to give in to the other person, so perhaps a neutral RFC is warranted. I took a look at the origin section and in my nnpov, it's not needed, and if it is there, as it's written now is very lopsided. Personally, I'm getting the heeby-jeebie feels on this, so it might be good to get a NPOV so this can be settled. Yossiea (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfectly good suggestion. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year Number and Origin?[edit]

I came to find the origin of the year numbering system. This coming Rosh Hashanah will mark the Hebrew year 5777. So, in effect, to find the Hebrew year at Rosh Hashanah, add 3761 to the current Christian year (2016 + 3761 = 5777). Thus the question, what happened about 3760-2 years ago to make that the baseline year? And shouldn't that be represented in this article? Thank you. NjtoTX (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean to ask, what happened in -3,761 BCE. The world was created. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ugh, so we're basically creationists, too. NjtoTX (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Logically. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know this is 6 years old, but writing -X BCE, the negative is redundant סשס Grimmchild 08:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosh haShanah as holiday never mentioned in Tanach or Dead Sea scrolls[edit]

According to this source, we first hear of it as a holiday in the Rabbinic period, 2nd century C.E.:

Rosh Hashanah 2017: The History of Rosh Hashanah Which Wasn't Always the 'New Year' Much of today's traditions originated with Babylonian worship, and you have to read this to believe how a calf's head morphed into gefilte fish. Elon Gilad

(I think the day is today.)

I'm not going to waste my time putting it in, because I'm sure it would immediately get removed. deisenbe (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rosh Hashanah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First paragraph text has been inverted[edit]

Will someone please look at the first paragraph. Every single word in is shown inverted, probably due to vandalism. This is how it looks at this moment:

"osh Hashanah (Hebrew: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה‬), literally meaning the "head [of] the year" is the Jewish civil New Year. The biblical name for this holiday is Yom Teruah (יוֹם תְּרוּעָה‬), literally "day [of] shouting or blasting". It is the first of the Jewish High Holy Days (יָמִים נוֹרָאִים‬ Yamim Nora'im. "Days [of] Awe") specified by Leviticus 23:23–32 which occur in the early autumn of the Northern Hemisphere."2A02:1811:B214:CA00:A5E5:8851:971F:47DF (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should display the year[edit]

I believe this article should more prominently link to Hebrew calendar and display the Hebraic year (currently 5780), especially since Jewish New Year redirects here. Adam KatzΔ 22:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postponement rules[edit]

I agree that this recently added section is off-topic here, and is best kept where it came from. In any case, to prevent this page from being excluded from the main page, I propose we leave it out till after Rosh Hashana, and then come back to this issue. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: sounds good to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosh Hashana[edit]

Dear Abby used this spelling and I found it again in an actual article which I can't link to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feast of the Trumpets[edit]

Feast of the Trumpets is not a common English name for the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah. There may be seperate Christian festival called Feast of the Trumpets. There are literally no Jewish sources for the name Feast of the Trumpets and it is not a name that is known at all by Jews, let alone a common English name. (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistent spelling[edit]

Is it spelt Rosh Hashanah or Rosh HaShanah, and shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article? סשס Grimmchild 08:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I share Grimmchild's concerns, and not only for Rosh HaShanah, Rosh Hashanna, or Rosh Hashannah or any of the other variations in this article. I know that Hebrew is written in it's own alphabet and decisions have to be made about how various Hebrew words are spelled in the Latin alphabet, but there is a bewildering variety of spellings throughout this article. Just to name a few: Tishrei or Tishri; Shevat or Shvat. Has Wikipedia adopted, or could it consider adopting, one of the various standard systems for transliterating Hebrew listed in Romanization of Hebrew#Standards? I'd very much like some feedback. JohnGHissong (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]