Contents

Talk:Lilith

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lilith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Lilith was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Kabbalah (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah articles Occult Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Lilith: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-06-05 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : -Consider rewording article to adhere more to standards of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Many sentences read as though "Lilith" existed and previous cultures have aspects that relate back to "her" rather than that the concept of Lilith arose during the middle ages and may have been inspired by previous cultures. There are multiple places in this article and related articles that also mention Lilith and present "facts" which are then immediately contradicted by sentences after. The whole article is mildly schizophrenic, stating facts then contradicting them. Cleanup : -Shorten and remove least notable uses of Lilith in popular culture section. Copyedit : -Patai and Hurwitz have two sources and it's confused which source is being called upon in the notes. For example, no note should read Hurwitz p. xx but instead read Hurwitz (1980) p.xxorHuritz (1992) p.xx -There are missing page numbers from many sources. -This article is using the NOTES - REFERENCES style of annotation so the <ref name="NAME"/> inline notations for sources with multiple pages listed in the Reference section is not used and need to be edited to a <ref>Author (DATE) p. xx</ref> style. -Check on capitalization and individualism throughout. If it is a common demon lilitu then it's lower case if it's the Lilith it's upper case. In each usage what are we talking about? Is it THE Ki-sikil-lil-la-ke? Is it Lilu or lilu? Is it ever Lilitu or should it alwasy be lilitu? Is it Ardat-lil or is there ardat-lil's? There is consistency in Hurwitz's book but not across sources.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Lilith#cite note-47|[47]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patricia.alexander.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress Hi, clarifying here because of typo in edit summary. Biblical Hebrew does distinguish length in hireq. Generally a long hireq is indicated by hireq-yodh such as both hireqs in לִי-לִי-ת. While this is not itself an absolute principle, we can confirm the hireqs' status by other rules. 1) A word-final and stressed hireq like the second syllable is always long. 2) A short hireq necessitates a dagesh hazaq in a following lamed; as the second lamed is rafe, the first hireq must also be long. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonGlottal hmmmm while inherent length does appear in ɔː iː eː [a macron, i macron, e macron), at least if we agree on a system akin to geoffrey khan's work, it is extremely difficult to determine in the case of iː. i defer to you here but i think it might be overspecifying? nonetheless you are technically correct, and as hermes notes, that's the best kind of correct.

also forgive the lack of caps for some reason recently when i use the shift when commenting on someone's page, it sends me to the beginning of the section and so i haven't bothered copypasting except for the question mark above and the following sig marker Ogress 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to approach academically, although not all cases are equally challenging. In general advice, there's often no need to go to any trouble. Distinguishing hireq is still a practical question for revivalists in the Orthodox Jewish world, and people like Joshua Jacobson and Jeremy Wieder have created practical systems for the novice cantillator. Wieder has also recorded himself reading every liturgical passage with distinct vowel-lengths. There's room to quibble, and daylight between wiki's aims and those of religious revivalists, but these systems and recordings are a great resource if you want quick, practical tools, or to check a particular pronunciation (Isaiah 34 is never read liturgically so not available here specifically). GordonGlottal (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming back late because of conflict with another editor, but I do wish someone would take Tiberian recitation seriously! Also, as an Iraqi learner, the lack of begadkefa(ra)t pronunciations is somewhat frustrating, as we pronounce all of those (some people are weak on the b~v contrast, but in general it is observed). Ogress 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]