Talk:Payot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

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 no consensus. @harej 01:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Payot → Peyos — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion below, this page title should be changed. --Meirsimcha (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that, in spite of what Ampersand said earlier, and in spite of the criticism of his suggestion to follow the OED, the Oxford English Dictionary's actual headword for this is peyess and gives the following other spellings as well: piyos, 18 pyous, 18- payas, 19- payess, 19- payos, 19- peies, 19- peyas, 19- peyiss.. 19- payot, 19- peyot. The OED further gives the etymological note that usage in English is based on: " < Yiddish peyes, plural of peye side-lock (in colloquial use also interpreted as a singular, with plural peyesn) < Hebrew pē'āh corner (plural pē'ōt: Leviticus 19:27" (OED ENTRY Sept. 2008) MeirSimcha 18:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And the customary Anglicization of the Yiddish (as distinct from the Hebrew) in colloquial English is Payess; I am glad to see it a redirect. The conventional transliteration used in Biblical discussion would be peyoth. This is neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Title of article[edit]

Can this topic be brought up again for discussion. Ampersand's reasoning absolutely doesn't make sense. Redaktor is 100% correct. Before reverting, please read through the 2007 discussion. MeirSimcha 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed 2007 discussion, click to view

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In fact, the spelling payot for peyos is unique to Wikipedia.--Redaktor 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Peyos redirects to Payot. That unknown number of Haredi men will find it just fine. -kotra 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to revisit this. First, some updated Google statistics:
Google Books:
Google Scholar:
Page view statistics (these are essentially useless because about 60 pages link to Payot and only 7 pages link to Peyos, skewing the page views drastically in favor of Payot, but I thought I should include them anyway):
From this data, I am still neutral. I suspect that this is a case of different spellings in different regions/communities, and I'm not sure if there even is a primary spelling worldwide. No matter what name we settle on, someone will be unhappy. -kotra (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data, as user:Redaktor noted two years ago, still leaves the entry wanting. I would assume that the Yiddish pronunciation PEYES may produce the most specific hits on this subject. It is also the closest to the headword in the OED. But the active Hebraists out there who opposed this to begin with would clearly be unhappy about this, even if it reflects the majority pronunciation/usage in English. user:Gilabrand who reverted the page without discussion earlier was opposed in particular to reflecting this entry as stemming from Yiddish (though its entry into the English lexicon in nearly every dictionary cites its entry via Yiddish) as its Hebrew etymological origin apparently makes this word Hebrew. (Perhaps we should always spell English words according to their historical origins--that would make for some interesting spellings). As I noted to Gila, Peyos is not a Yiddish pronunciation. Rather, it is a Hebrew word as pronounced in what scholar Benjamin Harshav has termed Idealized Ashkenazi Hebrew. Payot is an attempt at a romanization of the Modern Israeli Hebrew pronunciation -- although it seems strange that the romanization schemes for Hebrew in this one case would reflect a tsere-yud combination as ay. See, for example, other English language pages that have this combination Betar/Beitar or Zeire. I suggest a change for consistency and bias-free accuracy. MeirSimcha 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all interesting, but I think what is most important is what is the most common name; etymology and perceived accuracy are less important than what is most common when it comes to article titles (for example, Prairie dogs aren't dogs, Rickshaw is a mangling of "jinrikisha", etc). What we should focus on is whether or not "payot" or "peyos" (or another form altogether) is the most common pronunciation/usage in English. Unfortunately, that's a difficult thing to determine. -kotra (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with kotra about the lack of importance of etymology and perception of accuracy. As "payot" is clearly wrong, (I have never seen this spelling used anywhere for the Jewish sidecurl in English), the question should be whether to use "peyes" or "peyos" or maybe even "peyess". The O.E.D. isn't terribly convincing for me, but I did a Google Book search to see how the word appears in their scanned literature. Searching the terms "payot/payos/payes/peyes/payess", the top spellings found that deal with sidelocks were "peyes", "payess", and peyos". A closer look revealed that the "peyes/peyess" are the more colloquial, while peyos is the more academic-seeming. In the first several pages of "payot", only one match for the Jewish sidecurl showed up and, notably, it was in a book on Israeli culture. I would support MeirSimha in changing the page and "peyes" or "payess" would make most sense in an English entry as that appears to be the most commonly used. Also, I have almost never heard any native speaker of English call them "payot", although I have heard Israelis say it. Libhober (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why user:Gilabrand not only reverted the page without discussing but also took out the halakhic material related to the cutting of peyos. In addition to her apparent Modern Hebraist bias that disregards actual English usage, is there now a problem with the Rambam or the origin of the laws of peyos in the Tanakh? I refuse to revert her changes as she has done, but I simply cannot understand why the origin of the custom as well as its historical regulations are "totally irrelevant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meirsimcha (talk • contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that payot is not English, nor Yiddish, but it is not Hebrew either. In Hebrew it is peot. So, if payot is not Hebrew nor Yiddish nor English, nor is it the most used spelling anywhere in the world, I guess the article should obviously be moved. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Jewish use?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See Ambrose Burnside - he trimmed his. Septentrionalis [[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or Hime cut, for that matter, which is probably what was meant by "some geisha hairstyles." 98.82.200.122 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender?[edit]

The main page of this article doesn't mention the gender of the noun.

I think a sentence should be added on the gender.

Correcting Hebrew spelling[edit]

On the firs line.. the plural should end with a (T) not a (H) !!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.21.96 (talk • contribs)

I don't see any "h" there. All words seem spelled correctly to me. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English encyclopedia[edit]

Payot is not an English word. The word in English is payess. Payot belongs in the Wikipedias of other languages. Very strange! --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Payess" is Yiddish, not English either. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Payess is in English dictionaries. Payot is not. Therefore, payess is English. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a citation? Obviously I don't care either way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out the origin of the word is Yiddish. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are agreeing that 'payess' is English? Almost all English words have their origin in another language, so I'm not sure how that is germane. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and the major English dictionaries have 'payess' and do not have 'payot'. Why are we doing it wrong? This is not a Yiddish encyclopedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that payot is not Hebrew either. In Hebrew it is peot. So, if payot is not Hebrew nor Yiddish nor English, I guess it's time to make a move. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sure how you think this word is supposed to be pronounced. It's "pay" + "oat" in Hebrew (Payot, Pe'ot, Peyot, or any of these with Ashk. ending /s/, occ. Ashk. diphthong /ois/ but usually these speakers will use the Yiddish instead) and "pay" + "iss" in Yiddish (Payes or Peyes, where /e/ represents a schwa). I have reverted your move to Peot with the following summary: Transliterations abound, WP:HE suggests "Pe'ot", but 1) This is phonetically clear to English readers, and 2) Google search shows Payot+Payos is more common than any way of representing the vowels except "Payes," which is by far the most common pronunciation in English but is also coded more sectarian. I think Payot is both clear and reasonably satisfactory to all parties. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of preference, though, is it? As others have pointed out for years, payot is not an English word nor is it a transliteration. If there isn't an English word, Wikipedia policy is to use a transliteration, which in this case is peot or pe'ot; I do agree that "payot" can be given as the anglicized pronunciation, though, but we cannot say that "Payot is the Hebrew term for sidelocks", because that is simply false. Dan Palraz (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the word is commonly used in English, we should use a common English spelling instead of a technically accurate transliteration. So says WP:NAME. There are some normal English spellings on this pattern (Meir, for one) but it isn't common or, without the apostrophe, intuitive. I don't think there's a single word in English where "eo" is pronounced that way. Ngram doesn't even return either "Peot" or "Pe'ot" as valid. For this word, search shows in English it is most common to 1) Use the standard Hebrew vowels, and 2) If doing that, represent them by "ayo". This is a little convoluted so I think I strong argument could be made for "Payes", but I predict more editors will be satisfied by "Payot", which both "Peot" and "Payes" users will recognize. I think there's a real concern that "payes" speakers will have no idea what "peot" are and vice versa. I forgot to check before, but Ngram confirms that this is the normal spelling for English formal use] (this is all the spellings for which Ngram was willing to return results). Totally OK with your lede change. GordonGlottal (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locked[edit]

Why is it locked? It seems like an uncontroversial topic Freyheytlid (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freyheytlid Excessive vandalism -Lemonaka‎ 01:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2023[edit]

Change the /y/ in the IPA transcription of peyes to a /j/ as /y/ represents a different sound in IPA. 91.110.12.117 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka‎ 01:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OP is correct, IPA /y/ represents a high front rounded vowel not found at all in Yiddish.
According to Wiktionary it's פּאות, transcribed "peyes". That corresponds to /pɛjɛs/ in IPA. Iwsfutcmd (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be /pɛɪjɛs/, the first vowel is longer. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Payot&oldid=1207210030"