Talk:Ana BeKoach

Citations not relevant to articles

As at 25 November 2023 (before I started editing it) the article had 2 references and 2 external links. The two references are not relevant to the article, nor is one of the external links. See the "relevant?" tags in the article. Ayenaee (talk) 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This external link has been removed as not relevant to the article. It doesn’t mention Ana B'Koach only other parts of Kabbalat Shabbat: "[https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-05-14/ 14. Kabbalat Shabbat and Other Additions to the Prayers] in [[Peninei Halakha]] by rabbi [[Eliezer Melamed]" Ayenaee (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This,content has been removed as unreferenced: "The source of the piyyut is in the [[Middle Ages]], probably in the Kabbalistic circles of [[Ashkenazi Hasidim]].{{cn|date=November 2023}} Rabbi [[Moshe Chaim Luzzatto]] (''Ramchal'') brings the prayer in his book ''Prayers for the Chariot'' and incorporates it as part of his own longer piyyut, preceded by more than two hundred years by Rabbi [[Chaim Vital]] who mentions the piyyut several times, and Rabbi [[Avraham Azulai]].{{cn|date=November 2023}} The Kabbalist Rabbi [[Shalom Sharabi]] wrote a commentary on Ana b'Koach in the "Sefer Nehar Shalom".{{cn|date=November 2023}}" Ayenaee (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reference has been removed as not relevant to the fact it was supporting: "<ref>[https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/15-03-15/ The Tashlikh] in [[Peninei Halakha]] by rabbi [[Eliezer Melamed]]</ref>{{Relevance inline|The ref doesn’t support the use of Ana B’Koach in Tashlich - it just explains what tashlich is|date=November 2023|discuss=Citations not relevant to articles}}" Ayenaee (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

42

(moved from User talk:Beland)

Just one more thing, thanks for the editing you did on the article, I understand what you mean about assuming Jewish readers. I just had one question. You said the statement you deleted was POV, I just wanted to know which part:

42-letter name being used to create the world, [this is the Kabbalist belief]
so there are many mundane instances of the number, [this is a corollary of that belief]
including THHGTTG [this is one of the examples the source give, which surprised me, but I thought it was interesting enough that it was used, to include in the article]

so the statement is sourced I think I can state it more neutrally? It’s not meant to be saying this is the way things are, just that this is how kabbalists see things. Ayenaee (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayenaee: You could certainly rephrase the text to say "Kabbalists believe that since the 42 letter name was used to create the world..." instead of "Since the 42 letter name was used to create the world.." to fix the problem of making a POV claim in Wikipedia's voice.

The relationship to the THHGTTG raises a lot of questions...are they saying Douglas Adams was aware of this belief and incorporated it into his book? Or that the universe somehow conspired to cause him to choose that number because of its mystical importance? According to Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Reasoning, the first claim is false. It seems like the Kabbalist source is mostly just trying to piggyback on the fictional book's fame.

The evidence-based explanation for the Kabbalist idea that the repeated appearance of the number 42 is meaningful, is that believers are experiencing apophenia. I'm not aware of any evidence that the number 42 appears any more often than would be expected given its size and other numerical properties, other than the tendency of fans of THHGTTG (and perhaps Kabbalists) to notice and mention it more often than other numbers. If there are sources on that either way, that would be extremely interesting to include in the article, but just mentioning the Kabbalist assertion without mentioning the skeptical response seems like it would not satisfy the "balance" and "due weight" requirements of WP:NPOV. -- Beland (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the evidence-based explanation for claims that a given number appears more frequently than would be expected is that observers are experiencing the frequency illusion. -- Beland (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]