Talk:Ezer Weizman

Name of the article

The correct spelling is Weizmann (as in Chaim Weizmann) and therefore it should be the name of the article. Therefore I move it Ezer Weizmann.MathKnight 16:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• According to [1] (from mfa.gov.il) it's spelled Weizman .. Can you provide a better source? If not I think it's best to err on the side of the Israeli government site Jewbacca 18:24, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • http://www.weizmann.ac.il/ the official website of Weizmann Institute of Science named after Chaim Weizmann (a relative of Ezer). MathKnight 18:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's true they are relatives, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem that they transliterated their last name's the same way? I'll look into this some more and will post here. Jewbacca 18:35, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this helps.

Google results: "Ezer Weizman" - 9750 [2] "Ezer Weizmann" - 879 [3]

Google results: "Chaim Weizman" - 966 [4] "Chaim Weizmann" - 15500 [5]

Judging by these results, Chaim is with two n's and Ezer is with one n. Jewbacca 18:38, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

This [ I checked the MFA site and indeed, most of the new entries has "Weizman", but this one has "Weizmann". It is indeed strange, since in Hebrew their family name is identical! MathKnight 18:40, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• As they say, 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Judging by the overwhelming spelling of Ezer's last name with one 'n' do you agree to move the article back to Ezer Weizman and post a redirect here? As we find more info on this, it may be worthy of a mention in the article as well as Chaim Weizmann. Jewbacca 18:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. Since there are indeed more n than nn and also offical sources uses 'n' than it is o.k. MathKnight 18:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both of you are right. The name is German and indicative of origin. Hence, it should be spelled "Weizmann" (Weiz = region in Austria; Mann = man). However, since the name was transliterated into Hebrew with its non-Roman alphabet and then transliterated back into the English (with its Roman alphabet), the correct German spelling has been lost. This isn't uncommon with Israeli names. TippTopp (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The spelling of Weizman

According to Ezer Weizman's orbituary in the Daily Telegraph, the name used to be spelt Weizmann, but Ezer Weizman changed the English spelling to Weizman.

Tuvia Frydman.

Here's why: The name is German and indicative of origin. Hence, it should be spelled "Weizmann" (Weiz = region in Austria; Mann = man). However, since the name was transliterated into Hebrew with its non-Roman alphabet and then transliterated back into the English (with its Roman alphabet), the correct German spelling has been lost. This isn't uncommon with Israeli names. TippTopp (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotation requires correction; what is the source text?

One of the quotations is written in clearly incorrect English, and is so ambiguous as to be almost incomprehensible. I'm referring to:
"45 years I am married and not a time I dreamed of slaping Reuma (Ezer Weizman's wife)" (meeting in a shelter for violence hurt women). [sic]

QUESTION: What is the source Hebrew from which this was translated? (The article's author indicates this is a translation.)
The quotation does not appear in the Hebrew version of this article (unless I missed it there).

CLARIFICATION: The critical ambiguity, upon which the sense of the entire sentence rests, lies in the phrase "not a time":
If this comes from the Hebrew "אף פעם" - that means: [at] no time; i.e. never;
however, if it's from the Hebrew "לא פעם" - that means: not [only] once; i.e. several times.
As the article's author cites this as one of several "notorious" quotes, I suspect the latter is the correct version; if so, the Hebrew idiom (and the entire quotation, really) requires correct translation to English. I'd appreciate some input on this. Thanks, Deborahjay 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote can be found at Ma'ariv's NRG site, which has him saying "מעולם לא עלה בדעתי" -- "It never occurred to me". RolandR 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RolandR—I've corrected the entire translation and its context, and included an internal link on the topic of the quotation. -- Deborahjay 23:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Place of death

Wasn't it just Caesarea the town and not the nearby 'Caesarea Maritima'?Counterboint 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

photo

There must be a better photo of Ezer Weizman somewhere. This one is disgraceful. He was the president of Israel. I'm sure there's an official looking portrait.--Gilabrand 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There was one but it was deleted for copyright reasons. Number 57 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

References, bibliography, notes or citations?

I have tried to tidy up the References section of the article. It previously contained two sub-headings, namely Bibliography and Citations. One of the citations was a page in the only listing in the "bibliography". In my opinion, this format is messy and clutters the article. The following is from Wikipedia:Citing sources:

Sections containing citations are usually called "Notes" or "References." Many editors prefer to reserve the section heading "Bibliography" for complete lists of published works in authors' biographies. Whichever header you choose, sections containing citations should be placed after the "See also" section and before the "Further reading" section.[4] Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style.[5]

The approach used in this article was a mixture of all of the above. I have tried to simplify it by putting all references under a "References" heading. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Check all the GA articles on my main page. Its perfectly clear and easy. I'm aghast someone thinks this format could be messy. The current one doesn't make any sense to the casual reader, how are they suppossed to decipher the page number? Dapi89 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal, really. I just happen to agree with the Style Guideline I quoted. Wikipedia has a policy of inline citations, which means that reference material is cited by footnote/endnote. This is a distinction from a biography referencing style. With an inline citation style, it does make sense to separate explanatory footnotes from citations, if both are included in the article. I am one of the "many editors" who "to reserve the section heading "Bibliography" for complete lists of published works in authors' biographies". A list of reference material and related publications is often included in a "Further reading" section. As far as the journal citation goes, I used the cite journal template. Not sure why the page number comes up like that. I do find it messy when a third of the contents list is made up of References, Citations, Footnotes, Bibliography, Further reading and See also sections. But, as I said, I don't feel particularly strongly about this and if you want to go back to how it was, just do it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)