Talk:Payot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Payot is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Title of article

NOTE: about the spelling: there's a lot of variation. The article is headed under "Payot" because it is the spelling used by the OED and more academic. --Ampersand.

Those are the two worst reasons for adopting a spelling on Wikipedia. Most chareidim who wear long peyos would not recognize the spelling "payot".--Redaktor 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, a Google test shows "payot" is about 8 times more commonly used than "peyos", "peyo", "peyot", or any other spelling. The chareidim you know are apparently in the minority. You're right that what OED uses and what is more "academic" are not by themselves good reasons, but what is most common is. And that appears to be "payot". -kotra 04:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That just goes to show the futility of relying on a Google test. Payot is the name of French company selling beauty products.--Redaktor 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the spelling payot for peyos is unique to Wikipedia.--Redaktor 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ampersand redirected the Peyos page here without discussion. In fact as pointed out above, this spelling is unique to Wikipedia and is in fact the name of a French company. I propose to move it back to Peyos, the normal spelling.--Redaktor 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the French company when I did the Google test. Here's a more accurate test:
So they look roughly the same, with peyos slightly more... in light of this, I'm neutral about the title of the article now, but until there's a move to another title, the spelling should be consistent within the article. So I reverted the changes to "peyos" within the article back to "payot" since that is the current name of the article. -kotra 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The current title is just plain wrong. Nobody uses 'payot' with this meaning. The word comes from its use in Yiddish. I have proposed previously that the article be moved to Peyos, and there has been no objection. --Redaktor 06:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Payot is a perfectly good transliteration of the word, which is Hebrew. The Yiddish pronunciation is worthy of mention, but not as the name of the article. To say that it is "plain wrong" is plain wrong. There are only transliteration conventions - no hard and fast rules. Oh, and I doubt very many Haredi men with payot will be looking it up on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand 10:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Redaktor. The link I gave above [1] proves that at least some people use "payot" with this meaning. As for what word is most common, I did a little more research:
Unfortunately, that doesn't really clear up anything except that there should be more redirects to here. I still am neutral about the main title, but it probably should be whatever is the most common translation of פאות‎. I don't know Hebrew, so I'll leave that to someone who does. -kotra 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
None of us knows how many Haredi men with peyos (they don't have payot!) look things up on Wikipedia. --Redaktor 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Peyos redirects to Payot. That unknown number of Haredi men will find it just fine. -kotra 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Jewish use?

I have sidelocks and I am not Jewish (or an adherent of any Abrahamic religion). I simply like the style. Am I the only one? The reason I ask is because this article seems to imply that payot/sidelocks are an exclusively Jewish style. I'd like to know if there is a significant number of non-Jews who wear sidelocks (and why) before I add something about non-Jewish use. Anybody know?

Also I wonder if this article should be under the secular name Sidelocks instead of Payot, depending on which word is more commonly used. I don't know the answer to that either. -kotra 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish concept though is not that wearing Simmonim or Peyot is exclusively a Jewish "thing" the wearing of Peyot and Simmonim for the specific purpose of fulfilling the Biblical commandment is what sets them apart. That is the reason that Peyot/Simmonim are different than sidelocks. I don't think that the article implies that "sidelocks" are a Jewish style. The article implies that Peyot and Simmonim are Jewish. I.e. THE definition of Peyot or Simmonim. Because you are not Jewish your side locks would not be considered Peyot or Simmonim, they are sidelocks. As you stated the reason that you wear "sidelocks" is because you like the "style." A Jew doesn't grow Peyot or Simmonim for that reason. Besides, in the Jewish community Simmonim/Payot are not called "sidelocks", I have only heard non-Jews call them that, and I haven't even heard that many non-Jews say that since Peyot aren't locks. They are either free flowing, curled, or braided. If there is a non-Jewish custom of wearing something called "sidelocks" that is a different article. I hope that helps.--EhavEliyahu 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. You're right, if sidelocks are worn by a notable number (whatever that may be) of non-Jews, it should probably have its own Sidelocks article, not be part of this one.
As for the word 'sidelocks', to me, 'lock' means any tuft of hair no matter how it's bound (or not). So, I think 'sidelocks' would be accurate.
The issue for me would be whether or not enough non-Jews wear sidelocks to merit an article of its own. At the moment I can't think of any non-Jewish use of sidelocks other than my own and possibly some geisha hairstyles. I know I can't be the only one, but I don't have any other examples, so if I were to start a Sidelocks article describing them in a secular context, it would probably be deleted as non-notable. -kotra 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)