[Facts] Re: Additional Info About Girl Name, Jubilee...
in reply to a message by Sabertooth
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
Replies
-- 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
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.
Thanks for weighing in. It just seems that this entry is more ambiguous than the other articles I have seen here.