Talk:Rest in peace

is the reason we have the latin translation there because of assassin's creed?

i mean, they don't just put the latin translation of every word and phrase at the start of every article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BD8:5E30:6595:1C65:E5:421D (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect change

I just found out that Requiescat in pace now redirects to tombstone, for reasons unknown, instead of redirecting to "Rest in peace" which makes far more sense. I am changing it back until someone (perhaps ShakespeareFan00?) can provide a reason why not.--Mike 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of tag

It seems to me that the only part of this article that is not a part of the dictionary definition of "Requiescat in pace" is the part that is an explanation of RIP as an initialism for "rest in peace." This explanation is not about "Requiescat in pace" and does not belong in the article. The dictionary definition tag should be replaced.--Fartherred (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial claim of status as a law stub

The claim is made that "Requiescat in Pace" is a law stub. There is no supporting evidence that "Requiescat in Pace" is related in any special way to law. Either show the relation to law or remove the claim of status as a law stub.--Fartherred (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see this legal work. I have also added details of a court case which features the phrase. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Colonel Warden removed the idendification as a law stub on the 23rd of October.--Fartherred (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Digression from topic

The bit about School officials in Omaha forbidding shirts marked with RIP is a digression from the topic. While the source cited indicates that requiescat in pace has been in use for more than a thousand years, it does not indicate that the disputants in an English speaking country claimed that the initials were intended to stand for the Latin rather than the English, rest in peace. In and English speaking country, English should be assumed. Improve or remove.--Fartherred (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic church gave up Latin in its services more than 40 years ago. The cultural significance of "Requiescat in pace" is historical. Few people are concerned with Latin as a relic, a smaller portion concerned with "requiescat in pace" and for most of them it has less cultural significance than reruns of the Johnny Carson show. To try to show notable cultural significance in the present day United States for the phrase "Requiescat in pace" is to perpetrate a fraud. The cultural significance of the phrase is a matter of history, a small matter, and I see none of it in the article.

My plan for the article would be to cut it back to what is pertinent and merge it with "Headstone." In the truncated AfD, Colonel Warden wrote, "The article has existed for over 3 years and has been edited by several learned editors." Thryduulf wrote, "My belief is that the article we currently have here is a useful starting point for an encyclopaedia article that belongs on Wikipeida (sic)..." If it takes 3 years for several learned editors to bring this article to a starting point, there is no imminent expectation of much improvement. However if it is not merged, at least the irrelevant bit about RIP gang slang should be removed.--Fartherred (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• This article covers both the original Latin phrase and its conventional English translation. The source provided in the Omaha case is a good one in showing both a contemporary example while referring to the rich history behind it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• It seems there is a pat answer for any question of digression from topic. One can just claim after the fact that the topic includes the digression. One could then include: "May his/her soul and the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace." Then the claim could be that the topic is the original Latin phrase, the Liturgical sentence from which it is taken, translations and possible mistranslations of these. Then one could include "May his/her breath and the breaths of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace." Then one could give theological reasons for the use of defunctorum instead of a form of mortuus to refer to the dead. Even granting a wide enough topic to include every digression possible in the Latin language, these digressions are all of them not notable. This article is an example of the harm done to Wikipedia in lowering its quality with word articles. I will maintain that the topic seems to be requiescat in pace and only that until another contributor or two makes a contrary claim supporting Colonel Warden. It seems as though article search is doomed to become an unmanageable mess with the entire article space of Wiktionary folded into it. God might have mercy on the faithful departed, but will there be any mercy for Wikipedia?--Fartherred (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Others can decide what happens to the requiescat in pace article. If Colonel Warden truly believes the story about a dispute between a school board and some students over what the school board considers gang slang is really a notable example of the cultural significance of requiescat in pace, he can state that explicitly and plainly, putting his nickname on the line, and I will not single handedly delete that part, but might join in if others support deleting it later. Perhaps Colonel Warden would take some time to consider this. I will mark my calendar for the 5th of November and look in then.--Fartherred (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The nonnotable off topic bit has been removed. Now I look for assistance in doing a merge with "Headstone" and a redirect so that people looking for "Requiescat in pace" get sent to it.--Fartherred (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• The assistance I got was advice that the article should remain an article. Good by.--Fartherred (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Requiescat in pace → Rest in peace — Per WP:COMMONNAME. The Latin phrase can still be retained in the opening sentence, italicized and bolded. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) . — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Tricky, because "rest in peace" is only a backronym for RIP, not the actual meaning. Common misusage vs uncommon accurate meaning. How early does "rest in peace" date back to?
  Hmm, relatedly, we need a disambiguation method (either hatnote here, or page elsewhere) for Rest in Peace (song) and Rest in Peace: The Final Concert... Maybe a 3-item disambig page, for rest in peace to become? -- Quiddity (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• That is a good point, which brings me to another point. In recent experience "RIP" is seemingly also construed as "Rest in paradise", another backronym, although I'm talking from personal experience and don't have any sources to back that up. Perhaps we should instead move the article to RIP (epitaph)? Does that sound more appropriate to you? Since "RIP" is commonly known to be expressed in at least 3 ways, perhaps just naming the article as the acronym is a better idea?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd move it to RIP or perhaps R.I.P., and not altogether sure that current policies support this so I'll plead WP:IAR among others. To my mind it's the primary topic of RIP and R.I.P., and RIP or R.I.P. is the common name for this topic, not quite sure how to choose between them. RIP (epitaph) would be better then trying to spell it out, but I wouldn't disambiguate this article name at all. If this article went to R.I.P. then the DAB could stay at RIP where it is currently, so that's my slight first preference. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, the epitaph definitely seems to be the primary topic for the acronym "RIP", so I would support moving this article to RIP. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, we should probably go with "RIP" instead of "R.I.P.", even though the latter is still often used. The MOS discourages the use of fullstops in acronyms. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes... But it's not a complete ban. WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations reads in part The letters in an acronym or an initialism are generally not separated by full stops (periods) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH). Periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is now preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.)... (my emphasis). R.I.P. and U.N.C.L.E. are two of the rare cases where the fullstops are commonly retained, contrary to this trend. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia lists U.S. or US as common abbreviations meaning United States. Andrewa (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It's not a backronym; it's a translation. Certainly more common in English. Oppose move to RIP, just as we don't move Massachusetts Institute of Technology to MIT. Powers ^T 13:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's both backronym and translation. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you oppose a move to RIP (epitaph) or merely to RIP? Because as mentioned above, RIP is also construed as meaning "Rest in paradise" to some. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be even worse. Powers ^T 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Rest in peace - it's both a backronym and a translation. The English Wikipedia should prefer to use English. The phrase "rest in peace" means exactly the same thing as "Requiescat in pace". This is not true for other Latin phrases (eg scientific names of species) - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• R.I.P. seems best, replacing the dab page as a primary topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Move

• Since the inscription is usually worded R.I.P, which does not stand for "Rest in Peace," but for "requiescat in pace," why is this page under the current title?Pelegius (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion immediately above for information about the move and why it happened. The option of moving the article to RIP (epitaph) was also discussed, but rejected. Rest in peace is the common name for this subject and so should be the article's namespace. The Latin translation is mentioned in the first sentence. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling?

Shouldn't it be "Requiescat in pacem"? I suspect that a spelling error has persisted because of widespread ignorance of Latin; however, I'd be happy to be enlightened. "Pace" and "pacem" must be two different (grammatical) cases.74.104.146.95 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (Sorry; persistent logins can be confusing. I had thought I was still logged in. I no longer have a fixed IP, so that "dotted quad" will become invalid on the first power outage (or router shutoff). Nikevich (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No it's correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.216.218 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the previous comment, the use of the Latin preposition 'in' in this case takes the ablative form of 'pax', rather than the accusative; thus 'pace' rather than 'pacem'. —Umofomia (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

'Pace' is the usual form seen, including in ancient Latin liturgies, but 'pacem' can also be correct depending on what is intended. The preposition 'in' can take ablative or accusative. If location is meant, ablative is used. If motion in implied and/or assumed, the object is in the accusative.

'Requiescat in pace' = S/he is in (the) peace, may he she become restful.

'Requiescat in pacem' = May s/he become restful, entering into (the) peace.

When you consider the theological assumptions behind the prayer, the accusative might make more sense. A soul who is in purgatory can no longer be damned. In that sense, they already have 'eternal security' and it is just matter of suffering and waiting. On the other hand, the beatific vision is the peace promised by Christ - purgatory is not. So they should be viewed as not having entered into that peace.

Pacem also makes more sense in terms of internal consistency of the prayer. If they are already 'in the peace', why pray for them to become restful?

See also:

Spockvondeutschland (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Spockvondeutschland

References

Requiescat or Requiescant?

Just a thought, maybe its a misspelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charon77 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

-It's not a misspelling, both are correct depending on context. "Requiescat" is 3rd person singular active subjunctive "may he/she/is rest," while "requiescant" is 3rd person plural active subjunctive "may they rest." So both spellings are correct, depending on whether you are talking about one individual or many (i.e., third person singular vs. third person plural).173.13.121.209 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Derivation - MHSRIP may his/her soul rest in peace

I suggest a further heading on this page. The expression MHSRIP appears to be becoming popular, particularly in the social media. There is no reference to this expression elsewhere in Wikipedia. my suggestion is: The expression MHSRIP refers to "May His/Her Soul Rest in Peace" which in turn is taken from an 18th Century Latin prayer which can be translated into English to: "May his soul and the souls of all the departed faithful by God's mercy rest in peace". See [eternal rest]Dobryen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When RIP is become the Modern Age of Social media

At the present day, RIP is became the Modern Age of Social Media

The most recent R.I.P is Steve Jobs

Following the change of Steve Jobs Era to the Tim Cook Leadership

Also the most recent RIP in the YouTube was: Chester Bennington (deceased)

But now is Deaths everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejbaluyot (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation

More citations need to be included throughout the article to substantiate claims.

More citations needed in the second/ third sentence of the introduction. "...phrase became ubiquitous in the 18th century..." is a historical claim that needs to be substantiated. 'Description' also needs more citation, specifically in the last paragraph. Echidi (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about "This verse has been found inscribed in Hebrew..." should be removed as all of the (pretty bold) claims lack sources 212.85.77.10 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Did i used "Rest in peace"?

I'm on the Catholic Church, and I'm still used "Rest in peace" in Jesus Christ, of someone's death. I had to do with gravestones for remembering their lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.110.174 (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Expiry date convention.

Is there a rule about when to stop using "RIP"? I increasingly see, "Brian Jones RIP", "JFK RIP", "Abe Lincoln RIP", which strikes me as ridiculous. Traditionally, "RIP" was used for someone who passed not very long ago, and to use it for people who've been dead for decades is bizarre. Could the article perhaps mention the polite conventions about this? Searching the internet is useless on this, unless you want to see websites about mattresses. There must be a rule about it.77Mike77 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ambrose Bierce

Ambrose Bierce in his Devil's Dictionary left the following "definition" for R.I.P.:

R.I.P. A careless abbreviation of requiescat in pace, attesting an indolent goodwill to the dead. According to the learned Dr. Drigge, however, the letters originally meant nothing more than reductus in pulvis. [Reduced to dust]

Not sure if this should go in the article (written before 1923 so it is public domain) … comments?

Ll1324 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviation Again

Not to drudge up old discussions, but I really think we should re-examine what RIP stands for. Strictly speaking, the Latin "requiescat in pace" does NOT mean "rest in peace," it means "MAY he/she/it rest in peace." This distinction is important because it wholly changes the meaning of the phrase. "Rest in peace" is tantamount to a command: "You! Rest in Peace!" whereas "requiescat in pace" is a subjunctive phrase. It's not commanding the person to do anything, nor is it even claiming a truce fact; the subjunctive statement is essentially hoping that one is resting in peace. Therefore, RIP, while frequently depicted as simply meaning "rest in peace," is not the translation, nor the same phrase as "requiescat (or requiescant, for more than one person) in pace."173.13.121.209 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Judaism and menorahs

Any content about Judaism or menorahs added to this article has to be cited to verifiable, reliable sources that actually document a connection with the phrases "Rest In Peace" or "Requiescat In Pace". You can't just add an image someone has uploaded and say "hey look, there's a menorah in this inscription!" because over time, particularly in the Greco-Roman Era, there have been religions like the God-fearers and Christians themselves who have appropriated symbols from Judaism and Hebraic culture. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 05:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Struthious Bandersnatch the image you removed is taken from the Jewish Encylopedia and the inscription is described in Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. The image source describes it as "The oldest known Jewish inscription in France". Are you happy with that or you disputing the provenance of the image? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: An IP editor removed most of the image code but I did get rid of what was left. One of the citations under the image in French Wikipedia about its content, "Sonia Fellous, « Les noms des juifs à Paris (xiie-xive siècle) », dans Noms de lieux, noms de personnes : La question des sources, Publications des Archives nationales, coll. « Actes », 3 mai 2018 (lire en ligne [archive])", actually describes "Paragorius" as French: nom utilisé par les juifs mais aussi par les non-juifs contemporains, lit. 'a name used by the Jews but also by contemporary non-Jews'.

That's somewhat beside the point, though: we'd need actual content in the article connecting the phrase to Judaism, in general. Choosing an image of a Jewish funerary inscription to put in the article, out of all possible inscriptions bearing the phrase, (even if consensus among reliable sources is that it's really Jewish) or mentioning that particular one without such sourcing, is under WP:OR to imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The conclusion is clearly stated by the sources in the file description, thus this is not WP:OR. It seems like you're just removing this for political reasons in response to some of the coverage around RBG's death. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can at least give references to explain the ulterior RBG-related motives you are alleging, if not ones for the content you are restoring to the article? I'm familiar with her death and a variety of political issues surrounding it but I don't think I know what you are saying my non-Wikipedia-policy-related motive would be.

I was in fact prompted to come look at this article when a person I know to be Jewish objected to people online saying "Rest In Peace" in response to RBG's death by saying that it was disrespectfully applying a phrase "used in traditional Christian services and prayers... to wish the soul of a decedent eternal rest and peace", as the lede of the article says, to a person from a religion with very specific practices concerning remembrance of the dead. Are you saying that I should suspect that Jew of ulterior political motives rather than taking them at their word?

To get back to the actual issue of Wikipedia content policies, you've asserted in your latest reverting edit comment, Ivar the Boneful, that This image has been in the article for over a decade, the onus is on you to gain consensus for removal; that's the kind of thing I found when I looked at the article—that completely unsourced text content culminating in the statement that the phrase is used to this day in traditional Jewish ceremonies had been in this article for more than a decade. We could figure out if the same editor added both the image and the text content but it doesn't really matter.

I noticed that there isn't a version of this article on Hebrew Wikipedia, then searched through the rest of Hebrew Wikipedia (using Google Translate because I don't speak Hebrew) for mention of the phrase and supporting sources, but found none. I didn't find any sources looking at search engines either, so I marked the text content with {{cn}}, then a few hours later decided to just be WP:BOLD and delete it. Then yesterday the IP user came along and started deleting parts of the image tag.

Your "onus is on you" comment appears to use language from WP:ONUS but it says the exact opposite: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. WP:BURDEN states, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.¶ Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. You did not provide an inline citation and instead claimed in an edit comment that the material you restored does not need a source to support its inclusion in this article. So I'm going to revert you again.

The fact that you responded to my requests for sourcing and articulations of Wikipedia policy by almost immediately proposing a political conspiracy involving a high-ranking Jewish government official is a really, really bad look. Whether knowingly or not, by saying that kind of thing you are propagating anti-Semitic tropes. Don't say things like that. If you have a Wikipedia-policy-based argument, rather than "it was already there", make it. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 01:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought. You saw something on social media, decided it must be true, and removed material here without apparently checking whether it was sourced. And now you're trying to cover your tracks by edit warring, personal smears and gaslighting. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I clearly described the research I did to attempt to find any support for the statements about Judaism that I deleted from this page—and it seems that by claiming I'm "covering my tracks" you mean I came to the talk page and linked to diffs of the edits I've made? Furthermore I have searched through online copies of the Jewish Encyclopedia and, although I've found the text of the inscription and citations to previous works I have not found the image and the text of the Encyclopedia itself I've seen only says It is written in Latin, but contains the Hebrew eulogy 'שלום על ישראל'" (Volume 9, page 477; links to online copies at the bottom of the article)—what I've seen there does not explicitly identify the inscription as Jewish.

As far as the accusation of edit warring—have you ever filled out a report on WP:AN3? I welcome you to start a thread about me there. We both have the same number of reverts in the last 24 hours: two, which does not meet the threshold. (The threshold is 3, hence the 3 in the name of the shortcut.) That counts me removing your WP:CIRCULAR reference to an article in The Forward which, yes, even though a Jew wrote it, cites the exact unsourced image in this exact Wikipedia article which you keep restoring and links here.

I have also compiled a Wikidata item d:Q99560292 about the inscription and linked it to the image on Commons. One of the archaeological databases I found it in, de:Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss-Slaby (German Wikipedia), explicitly classifies it as "inscription genus / personal status: inscriptiones christianae; tituli sepulcrales", values which mean "Christian inscriptions" and "sepulcher titles" in Latin. You can confirm this by going to the database's web site http://db.edcs.eu and plugging in the inscription's catalog number "EDCS-28300234". You'll see the transcribed Latin and Hebrew text of the inscription too as well as a link to, interestingly, what looks like the exact same image we have here except accompanied by a copyright notice. The image which you and its 2008 uploader claim is from the Jewish Encyclopedia but I haven't been able to find and which, if it were to have actually been published between 1901 and 1908 in that encyclopedia, would be ineligible for copyright.

But even though I've done all of this research to make sure I completely understand your claims (thanks alot for just assuming I got all of my information off of social media, by the way) again, none of it matters when it comes to putting that image into this article, because even if archaeological sources actually all agreed that it's a Jewish inscription, taking one sole anecdotal use of the phrase from more than a thousand years ago in one corner of Eurasia and forcing it into a seven-paragraph article about a Christian practice is both WP:OR implying a connection—a connection you can't substantiate in sources—between "Rest In Peace" and Judaism, even if you were to include the image with no caption and just wink-wink about the menorah in it, and also WP:UNDUE weight placed in among seven paragraph when it's one freaking time someone did something 1,300 years ago, 1,300 years during which billions of Christians lived in cultures using the phrase.

Furthermore, alleging a cover-up does not do much to make your words above seem accidental in their perpetuation of anti-Semitic tropes, especially given that your supposed exposure of my ulterior motives mysteriously only justifies restoring the image and a trimmed-down version of its caption, rather than the full caption and all of the unsourced content I deleted—your actions make it seem like you understand the underlying Wikipedia policy issues and are contriving specious justifications and reverting me to get your way, without really caring much that you're throwing out anti-Semitic canards. Nor does the basic fact you're insisting that this image absolutely must appear in this seven-paragraph article about a practice which is only supported by its current sources as being a Christian practice.

Really: whatever the outcome of our content discussion here may be, do not respond to content disputes about Judaism by alleging that removing or adding Judaism-related content serves an unspecified political interest and that the political motive is the real reason behind edits, somehow connected to a Jewish person at high levels of government. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: I still can't find the image in the Jewish Encyclopedia so I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. You can contribute to the discussion there if you want: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inscription de Narbonne.jpg. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 10:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If you google the words "narbonne inscription site:jewishencyclopedia.com" you will find that work mentions the tombstone multiple times, notably in the article titled "Tombstones". The actual image is here. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh, that's great. The copyright discussion where you would want to make claims like this is on Commons at the link that I and the bot have just posted. But I will point out that you have linked to a copy of the image that also has a copyright notice under it in a page which presents it as being from a completely different 1940s work by a playwright and Jewish army chaplain named the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. You don't seem to even be reading your own links you're presenting for your non-policy-based arguments but for the bazillionth time, although you are studiously avoiding any actual discussion of Wikipedia policy, where this one image came from or what it depicts or what it says don't have anything to do with whether it's legitimate for you to force it to appear in this article. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 13:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"you have linked to a copy of the image that also has a copyright notice under it in a page which presents it as being from a completely different 1940s work by a playwright and Jewish army chaplain named the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia"

No I haven't, sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you actually click on the link? Please open http://jewishencyclopedia.com/ and read what it says.

"The copyright discussion where you would want to make claims like this is on Commons at the link that I and the bot have just posted."

I have already commented on your deletion request at Commons, as you would be well aware given you just commented there. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a discussion about what the "About" page of a random web site you have Googled says. If the image is in the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia just say what volume and page number it's on (say it over at Commons, particularly) so it can be WP:VERIFYed in the online versions of the encyclopedia published by real institutions, like the one hosted by Hathi Trust which as I have pointed out is linked to in the Wikipedia article. Even were the presence of something about Judaism in this article to actually be valid under other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can't skip all the steps about looking up facts and verifying them in reliable sources to put your desired challenged content in the article first and sort of issue an IOU that you'll do the rest at some point in the future. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Struthious_Bandersnatch again, CLICK ON THE LINK AND READ IT. Under the section "images of pages", you will find a scan of the exact same page, with the image. Your continual wilful ignorance is bizarre. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hathi Trust link: [1] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, a fourth link that does not have "copyright" at the bottom of the image this time. That's great.

Your edit comment there gleefully says doing your research for you - oh wait, you didn't do any research in the first place (though anyone reading this talk or the Wikidata entry about the inscription will see I've done a great deal of it)—but you realize I'm the one who wasn't supposed to have to do any research, right? Or to have to lead you through finding the volume and page numbers to put in a citation. That's the meaning of WP:BURDEN—if you think that the existence of the image in that particular book shows some justification for including the image in this article, you were supposed to be providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution for whatever fact you're getting from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and only then restoring the disputed content with its inline citation, and only then was I supposed to have to do research to respond to your sourced edit.

And you're still supposed to add a citation to the article, of course. If you were to add the "relating to the Jews of France" bit from the caption in the Jewish Encyclopedia, for example, I'd also add the fact it's listed as a Christian inscription in the ECDS, and so on, and so forth, and in the normal course of events I'd have made my other policy-based arguments. But of course I've already made all of those above and you haven't responded to them but instead have focused on emphasizing certainty that the image exists in that particular book, even though I've linked to the fact that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (which is the full title of WP:ONUS) and stated repeatedly that my basic arguments aren't even about whether that one inscription is Jewish or not.

So do you have any reasoning for why this article can imply a connection between Judaism and the phrase "Rest In Peace", or devote weight to an as-yet-unwritten-and-uncited section on the characteristics of one particular funerary inscription, other than "The conclusion is clearly stated by the sources in the file description, thus this is not WP:OR."? If not, I'm feeling like it's getting around time to move to DR as was proposed by AN3. Who knows, maybe the process will work out in your favor. But now that we are finally within sight of the challenged content maybe being accompanied by an inline citation——the first step that is supposed to happen when content is challenged—this is how the process is supposed to move forward.

I also should point out—even better would be citations that generally support the association of "Rest In Peace" with Judaism as I mentioned in my second comment at the top. If there is a connection between "Rest In Peace" and Judaism, documented in verifiable, reliable secondary sources, substantial enough weight-wise to mention in a seven-paragraph article, then that would remove any issue about an image of a single possibly-Jewish instance by itself implying anything not supported in sources. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 02:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Literally my first comment on the talkpage told you this image was from the Jewish Encyclopedia, as in the image source. You repeatedly denied this, refused to actually read any of the sources, nominated the image for deletion, and called me an antisemite. I've already added a secondary source, from a Jewish writer, in a Jewish publication, and you removed it! How about you apologise and admit you were wrong? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What was I wrong about, specifically? You seem to not have much interest in specifics but it's pretty important for getting someone to believe you're sincerely asking for an apology.

I asked for uncited material to be cited before it was restored (with sources that actually meet Wikipedia standards, not WP:CIRCULAR sources that get their information from this article and link back to it—I'm amazed you are still bringing that up—and now complaining that I didn't leave it in the article?!?) which is Wikipedia policy, which you have not done. You are acting as if you have been outrageously imposed upon and inconvenienced because you've had to look up one page number for the one source you have mentioned here in the talk page without putting into the article and I don't know what to tell you about that. You're editing an encyclopedia. It's the job.

I didn't deny that the inscription was mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia: on the contrary, I said it was mentioned, I just hadn't come across the image itself—HathiTrust has multiple copies of every volume, so maybe the set I was looking in has an OCR error or something and that's why my searches only found the mentions of it in other volumes and other pages. So you could have written whatever fact you thought was in there (though obviously, simply guessing what a source says about a topic based on the book's title, as you appear to be doing, is not allowed) and cited it to the Jewish Encyclopedia at any point during this discussion, but you seem intent on not following Wikipedia policy about citing challenged article content.

I made the deletion nomination on Commons because, as I said there, I found the image with a copyright notice in the ECDS database. Then you and Olevy linked to a web site that simultaneously claims it's public domain and puts a copyright notice on it and puts a copyright notice on every page image, but refuses to display any original page from an encyclopedia volume that shows the book's original copyright information. Go ahead and ask the admins on Commons, some of whom are copyright lawyers, if I should have relented at that point rather than continuing to ask for proof, especially given that I was finding material matching the web site in a different copyrighted book at HathiTrust.

So—if what we're talking about here is that you guessed the uploader's notes were correct without actually checking at all in the versions of the Jewish Encyclopedia I pointed you to at the top of this talk section, waited until Olevy linked to jewishencyclopedia.com in the copyright discussion and used that page you had not bothered to Google yourself—which among other things claimed the image was copyrighted—then on the basis of that proposed not a Keep but a Speedy Keep to completely shut the copyright discussion down at Commons, claimed on AN3 here I was proposing the image was photoshopped, and came here to tell me "you will find that work mentions the tombstone multiple times" which is what I'd already said, then finally got around to the apparently Herculean task of looking up the page number, and upon finding it claimed on Commons that I have a pathological obsession with removing historic Jewish content—is that what you're asking for an apology for? Because no. No, you are not going to get an apology for any of that.

And now that we can see that the real, verified source you've been asking me to take on faith actually makes the much more reserved statement that it's an "inscription relating to the Jews of France" you've completely ignored that and everything else I've said here and written in the article an unqualified statement that it's Jewish... like because it appears in a book with the word "Jewish" in the title, case solved? I give in. I will do your job and I'll write up the citation template and put both your citation and my citations in the article with accurate wording.

Speaking of which, what the hell is with shouting about clicking on links, as if I wasn't the one pointing out that they had copyright notices in them which I couldn't have known without looking at them? Are you for real? I have literally linked to a dozen or more different things in this talk section and carefully explained what I think they say and why I think it's important—which, notice, you have not done at any point, evidently your whole end game was to stick the word "Jewish" by itself under the image with no mention of the rest of what I've documented about its possible religious identities, and you never bothered to explain that was what you were assuming the Jewish Encyclopedia said about it—and you have shown no sign whatsoever of having even read what what I've written, much less clicked on the links to Wikipedia policies or academic sources. But you've got the conceit to be demanding and shouty that I provide some specific acknowledgement for you?

I have not called you an anti-Semite before this point. I very specifically said that particular words of yours in this talk page have been anti-Semitic and explained why that's a problem whether you have said them knowingly or unknowingly, but now you definitely know. Do not think that you have remotely in any way whatsoever proved that your words or actions aren't anti-Semitic by looking up that page number or confirming the copyright status of that image. Not only have you not even acknowledged that there's anything wrong with anti-Semitism or repeating anti-Semitic tropes, you have mocked me for opposing anti-Semitism on noticeboards in multiple Wikimedia projects now.

I've been shocked to find in the course of this that there doesn't seem to be a single Wikipedia or Wikimedia policy that even contains the word "anti-Semitism", not even on the Wikimedia Foundation web site. So quite possibly Wikimedia as a whole and an institution is on your side here and does not object to anti-Semitic content that is not connected to insults or vandalism. But I do. It doesn't have anything to do with what this Wikipedia article should or should not say, but particularly when Neo-nazis march openly in the streets with torches, wearing swastikas and shouting "Jews will not replace us!" and the president puts out videos with people shouting "White Power!" in them—after years of doing things like retweeting people who do stuff like make lists of Jews who work at CNN, because his followers—a large segment of the population—won't even ask him to not do things like that—I am not going to be silent when people say anti-Semitic things in my presence.

We don't have to talk about it any further but what you said was not okay and I will not let shit like that pass by without comment.

As I said in my edit comment on the article, even with a more thorough description of what sources say about the inscription all of my arguments about WP:OR and WP:UNDUE stand. In fact the longer the image caption gets as it describes the image more accurately, it becomes more undue. Is it time to go to a DR option? --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree that one 7th-century inscription is not enough to establish the use of the phrase "rest in peace" by Jews. However, there is ample evidence that Jews have used the phrase, as well as evidence that some Jews object to it. Following WP:NPOV, I have tried to summarize this in a new section in the article. I look forward to collaborating on that section. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Macrakis: You have literally re-introduced the exact WP:CIRCULAR reference discussed above, to an article in The Forward that not only cites this Wikipedia article but links directly to it and illustrates itself with the exact same image from Wikimedia Commons, but this time you've put it in the Wikipedia article body instead of just the image caption. Note that based on the dating on The Forward article, there's a fairly good chance its author was even referring to a version of the article in which I'd marked the uncited claims about R.I.P.'s use in Judaism as .

Furthermore, you've provided a link to a Hebrew dictionary for "wikt:עליה השלום" that, like Wiktionary, says it translates as "peace be upon him"... which has then stuffed the definition of a Yiddish phrase into the Hebrew entry which it claims translates to R.I.P., while stating in the footnote that the actual Hebrew for R.I.P. would be a different phrase. Even for the Yiddish phrase in question, Wiktionary is indicating that R.I.P. would be a non-literal translation.

No one has claimed that R.I.P. is untranslatable in Hebrew... but you can't use the fact that the Latin phrase can simply be rendered in another language as a Wikipedia source for any claim about any religion: the fact that it can be translated into Arabic, even Classical Arabic, means nothing about use of the phrase in Islam, and the fact that it could be translated into Sanskrit or Prakrit would mean nothing about usage in South Asian religions.

If there were indeed "ample" evidence that this phrase is used in Judaism, Wikipedia editors wouldn't simply be forcing unciteable claims about that into this article, or forcibly insisting that out of what are probably millions of extant inscriptions using it, in complete contravention of WP:BALASP the one inscription that also has a menorah in it, which only a minority of sources even identify as being Jewish, must not only be present in the article but must be the image used to illustrate the body text of the article.

It is in no way whatsoever a "neutral point of view" to make up claims about what Jews do religiously, or to insist that there must be a compromise between non-existent evidence of anything and reality.

If indeed you wish to work on this article collaboratively, please read the talk page before you make changes, and if you're going to start participating in a specific talk page discussion please read it in its entirety and ensure that you aren't re-hashing invalid arguments and putting the exact same inadequate sources in the article.

I would also be inclined to ask you to avoid the anti-Semitic canards I mention up above; but last year to my horror I discovered that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not actually prohibit or even discourage anti-Semitism, except as direct insults or provable vandalism, and in fact Wikipedia does not object even to overt Nazism and other forms of white supremacy. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 00:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Struthious Bandersnatch: The Forward article does indeed seem to reference this Wikipedia article about some topics, and using it for those topics would certainly be WP:CIRCULAR. However, I was citing it as support for "some Jews object to using the phrase for Jews, considering it to reflect a Christian perspective". I have now added an additional source for that claim.

I don't understand your objection to the sources I gave for "rest in peace" being used in Jewish contexts. The fact that it is a non-literal translation of the Hebrew is irrelevant; the sources says that it is used in English. There are lots of other sources for the phrase "rest in peace" being used by Jews and about Jews.[2][3] Other sources (which I will add) say that "rest in peace" is "not commonly used in Jewish contexts", though "the concept is consistent with Jewish practice".[4]

I don't believe I've "made up claims". I've tried to provide an WP:NPOV summary based on WP:RS. I would be happy to see more and better sources which clarify the range of Jewish attitudes (which of course are not monolithic) towards the phrase "rest in peace".

Could you be more explicit about what you consider to be an "anti-Semitic canard" in what I've written?

Looking forward to productive collaboration. --Macrakis (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis: I pretty clearly asked you to avoid the anti-Semitic canards I mentioned above in the text of this thread. But don't worry, it's a purely unenforceable collaborative request on my part; as I said anti-Semitism isn't even prohibited in this situation because no English Wikipedia policy or guideline has anything to say about it outside of insults or vandalism.

If you see no need for a WP:P&G-based explanation of why a now nine-paragraph-long article absolutely needs to be illustrated with the one-out-of-countless-numbers image containing a menorah and Hebrew text, and you believe that devoting one of those paragraphs under the headers "Use in various religions → Judaism" to some weakly-backed claims, among that backing a circular reference, given written policy on neutrality, due and undue weight, and WP:FALSEBALANCE, I'm skeptical that things actually being included in P&G really matters at all, anyways.

The state of Israel has been publicly funding modern study of Jewish scripture and other aspects of religion for ¾ of a century now, and scholarly sources from the preceding thousands of years are not exactly paywalled. When I need to document something about Judaism on Wikipedia, even a fairly arcane or archaeology-related topic, I can almost always find open-access academic journals discussing it in English if not citations from extensive and thorough scholarly works. Linguistics and demography and stuff like that aren't as plentiful open-access-wise if we wanted to go that route, but now especially with the Internet Archive's lending library it's still possible to get to mountains of top-notch research for free, far more than most school and college libraries I was ever in back in the twencen.

So if this were really so substantial a thing in Judaism and Hebraic Studies that it justified coverage with an eighth or more, depending on how you count the sole body-text illustration, of the "Rest in peace" article, we wouldn't need to be sticking in things like search engine hits written based on encyclopedia entries, or restricting ourselves to claims so broad as to be virtually meaningless, like wishing a peaceful afterlife being consistent with Judaism—I am not aware of any religion that wouldn't be consistent with. In Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and East Asian folk religions they don't say to their loved ones "I hope you become a hungry ghost".

I'm an atheist. I have said the phrase "rest in peace" and I've heard other atheists say it. If I find RS examples of that, like the one of Rabbi Manny using RIP in quotation marks you found, does that entitle me to add a "Usage in atheism" section to this article and start re-writing the rest of the body text to say that, since atheists use it and most don't believe in souls, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that... or would it suddenly become clear that adding content to an article that way based on primary-source anecdotes about people having said the phrase, and reasoning involving dictionary entries and stuff like that, is OR when there's a practically endless supply of thorough scholarship a real and P&G-compliant article could be based upon?

No matter how many times you write variations on the word "collaborate" that does not change the fact that sticking challenged content into an article first, particularly by edit warring as has happened here in the past, and handwavily saying that someone will get around to doing actual research and coming up with policy arguments at some point in the future, is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work—even if it keeps happening in this article with Judaism-related content and elsewhere. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

p.s. Just to be clear, you appear to be including The Forward article in what you're describing as RSes, but for secondary or tertiary sources there's no "reliable for some facts, unreliable for others" in an individual work. An article which published and put its name to uncited information out a Wikipedia article is fruit of the poisoned tree for everything it contains—we don't say a source "got better" from being unreliable at different points or anything like that.

You still haven't specified what you consider to be an "anti-Semitic canard" in what I've written. You accused someone else of proposing political conspiracies, not me. I'd also ask that you assume good faith and engage in reasoned discourse rather than make unsubstantiated accusations.

And by the way, of course Wikipedia prohibits comments directed against any group; see WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS.

I have never argued for or against the inclusion of any of the images on this page. You are probably confusing me with someone else.

I don't know why the 7th century Narbonne gravestone is included in this article other than the fact that it is fairly early. But it would be better to find earlier examples, since the article says that RIP was used starting "before the fifth century". In any case, its caption is not the place to make substantive arguments (which is why I shortened it).

A section on atheists would be appropriate if there had been some notable incident. Whether the RBG incident is notable or not is certainly open to discussion. Do you consider the Orange Order incident to be notable? What makes it more notable than the RBG incident?

At this point, I'm not even sure what you agree or disagree with:

• The claim that "rest in peace" is not commonly used by Jews.
• The claim that "rest in peace" is consistent with Jewish practice.
• The claim that some Jews object to the use of RIP when talking about Jews.
• That attitudes towards the phrase "RIP" among Jews is noteworthy.

Any light you can shed on all this from better sources is welcome. --Macrakis (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As for the historic use of Rest In Peace in Judaism, Joseph S. Park's Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions discusses the use of various formulas like "rest/sleep/lie in peace" in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in the Hellenistic and Roman periods -- centuries before the Narbonne inscription. The phrase "εν ειρήνη ή κοίμησις αυτού" 'in peace be his sleep' is the "most numerous funerary salutation occurring in Jewish inscriptions from Rome". Park analyses what this might mean (and how it relates to other religious traditions), but I'm afraid I don't have access to the full text of this book. Those who are deeply interested in the topic might want to find a library copy or buy it.

Of course, the Judaism of the first centuries CE is only indirectly relevant to modern Jewish belief and practice. --Macrakis (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who wishes to follow up on Park's analysis of Jewish conceptions of the afterlife, and the terminology used on tombstones and elsewhere, the book is in fact available on archive.org, and you can borrow it for an hour at a time to read the full text. --Macrakis (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Inscription de Narbonne.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)