Talk:Erusin

Serious issues in this article

There are several serious issues in this article. Here are just a few:

1. The term Mohar is used throughout, as if it applied to Rabbinic Judaism. But in Rabbinic Judaism, a Mohar is a Ketubah.

2. In Later Judiasm (the title) is POV

3. The entire section about breaking a glass is unrelated to Erusin, but applies to Nesuin.

4. This paragraph:

As mentioned above, the bride's consent is not explicitly required by the bible; in traditional Jewish weddings there is no verbal response on the part of the bride. In these, if she accepts, she would take the mohar (if it is a ring, she might possibly place it on her finger), and then symbolically close her hand. Most forms of modern Judaism, however, including the Conservative and Reform denominations, view sexual inequality as somewhat distasteful, and therefore baulk at the idea of marriage being a purchase of a woman by a man; instead brides from these denominations typically respond to the offer by one of their own, handing a ring to the groom and quoting a suitable biblical passage (the Book of Canticles, a collection of love poetry, being particularly popular - for example, the phrase I am for my beloved, and my beloved is for me[21])

This implies the following:

1. The Orthodoxy considers the Groom to have purchased, or to own the bride, which is certainly questionable. (If Erusin is purchase, then where it is by document, she should be giving it to him, where is fact he must give it to her.)

2. It implies clearly that the Orthodox ceremony contains "sexual inequality". (See the last item.)

3. It leaves open the possiblity that Orthodox / Rabbinic / Talmudic Jadaism does not require consent (implied) on the part of the bride, which is clearly contradicted by the entire discussion in the first chapter of Kidushin in the Talmud and about which there is NO dispute anywhere.

4. Citations are nice; one should not have to read antire encyclopedia articles to find out whether there is a source for something or not.

Frankly, I don't see what this article adds the the general one.Mzk1 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph. I want to emphasize that I AM NOT attempting to remove non-traditional ceremonies; I just have no way of knowing if the author is citing actual practice, as there is no source. I spent some time looking for it though the JE references. If it is put back, it needs to have the implications about Orthodoxy removed.Mzk1 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Are these sources real?

I see several sources here that are in Hebrew, one in particular heavily cited. Since the editor has stated that many of his quotes are "wikified" quotes from other places, can he please tell us if he has actually read these sources, as I see no other source in some cases, even in the history. I suppose I will need to go to his talk page.Mzk1 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for more information, sources, and comments

(Copied from Jewish views on marriage)

Erusin article

After a lot of work, I improved most of the erusin article. I kept as much of NL's stuff as I could (so it is a bit cumbersome) and tried to keep to his idea to avoid being mono-cultural. I used the JE quite a bit, even though I think it is sloppy; NL seems to have missed the Betrothal article, which I did not so much as cite as to use to back up the works I did cite. Based on what he said, I assumed his early sources were not directly consulted, so I only looked at encyclopedias (for the most part) to see if what he said had a source.

I removed or modified the stuff that the original editor misunderstood or took beyond what was stated. For example, there is no proof there that a local custom to break the wine vessel is the source of the general custom to break a vessel. There is an interesting place at the bottom of the Marriage ceremonies article in JE where he seems to have missed the semi-colon. I changed anthropological-sounding language to something closer to normal English; I also modified past to present where it seemed warranted.

I added two main sources: Rabbis Maurice Lamm and Aryeh Kaplan. The former is a very popular handbook in print for a long time; the latter is a very scholarly work (10 cites where the JE has one), much better than the JE, except that it is not peer-reviewd. It also has some Sephardi information. (Note that Rabbi Kaplan himself is of Sephardi origin.)

I added a link to erusin at the bottom; I hope this is fine. We need some more stuff; perhaps someone would like to help (or use material from there here).

If anyone would like to help, we need more stuff:

• Material from good non-Orthodox sources, without prejorative comments or guesses as to who has the most marbles.
• Sources for Orthodox double-ring ceremonies, that make clear the halachic aspect.
• Sources for Israeli Secular Orthodox weddings, perhaps the most common kind. (What I have is OR.)
• A good non-Ashkenazi source.

Move breaking the glass to here; it is not specific to erusin.

Style improvement; I am not the best writer. The amount of detail is because I followed NL's lead; I would like discussion before something is removed just for that reason.

Change the part before the wedding to a general "before the wedding" section; move the Tenaim to there, and link to the related articles.

Sources for the last section.

May I link to there from the body of the article?

I would appreciate comments. I am willing to defend every change that I made.Mzk1 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To deBresser: I have some serious issues with your edits. Perhaps we could discuss them?Mzk1 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying you do not understand my objections, can you respond to them?

Here is the sentence:

In biblical times[clarification needed], the betrothal was effected simply by purchasing the bride from her father (or guardian)[1][2].

Let me ask you some questions?

Are you claiming:

(1) That the Bible clearly says this about bethrothal, without contradiction?

(2) That there are traditional sources that say this? Please let me know what they are. I will give you ones that say otherwise.

(3) That non-traditional sources should be given primary or exclusive prominence in Bible interpretation?

(4) That this has anything to do with erusin?Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "I added a link to Nissuin at the bottom;"? Debresser (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have some serious issues with all of my edits? Or just that one edit? Debresser (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How is question 1 different from question 4? Debresser (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I understand why you are asking question 3. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; you appear to be dodging the question, and I don't know why. Are you thinking of some particular traditional source that says this, or appears to?

I am only concerned with this one edit, which I feel sours the whole article.

(1) is about the Bible. You appeared to defend this as the simple meaning. Aside from the issues even if it were true (how about an article that starts, "In the view of the bible, if a man give his slave to the temple, the slave is executed", based on the simple meaning of the end of Leviticus?), I wrote several things to question this. I asked you to affirm this, and perhaps explain how this is the simple meaning of the bible, taking not just particular references into account. If you like, use marriage instead of erusin. Please note that the bible goes until the beginning of the second temple.

(4) Questions that even if applicable to the Bible, if it is applicable to erusin.

(3) is simply saying that the effect of your edit is to claim outright that the Bible says that a woman is her husband's property. This is based on non-traditional sources, namely JE and the Bible encyclopedia.

I just do not understand why you are insisting on leaving the article like this. It seems the opposite of everything I've heard from you before.

If you do not understand all of what I am asking, could you answer what you do understand? Then I may be able to understand what you are saying and continue the discussion, or perhaps suggest alternatives. I am thinking that perhaps (2) is the key. Mzk1 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It says clearly in Avnei Milu'im 42:1 "אין אשה בתורת קנין לגבי בעל דאין גופה קנוי לו". On the other hand such a formidable source as the Rashba says volume 5, 174 "אשה קנין כספו של בעל הוא", and the same Avnei Milu'im says elsewhere "אשה לבעלה קנויה קנין עולמית כמו עבד כנעני". But the point is as explained in Avnei Milu'im 21 "קידושי אשה אינו קנין חפץ אלא לאוסרה אעלמא". All of this is explained at length in Meshiv Davar volume 4, 35 "אין לאיש על אשתו שום קנין כי אם לאישות בלבד". Good luck with understanding, and translating. :) Debresser (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, but this is basically still what I was saying. (I studied Seder Nashim more than anything else in yeshiva, so, no I don't think I will have trouble understanding or translating :-).) We still have a blanket POV statement, even if there may possibly traditional sources (something I did allow for, I said debatiable) that agree. I will try to come up with some alternative language. If you can come up with something to soften it a bit in the meantime, it would be appreciated. Good luck with the Pesach cleaning. :-). )Mzk1 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll await your proposal here. Good luck to you as well. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing. Both my sources deny that the husband owns the wife, plus I have Nedarim to supplement. However, they do not explicity mention the Bible. Would that be a big problem? (Good thing they both do; I was thinking I would need to go to yuorg and listen to R. Schachter.) I do wish you had repaired instead of reverted, though.Mzk1 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The question is how to put it in words. Something like "One aspect of the erusin is referred to in biblical sources as "purchase". The content of this "purchase" is not that the wife becomes her husband's property, but only gives him the exclusive right to intimate relations with her." This could be shortened, off course, but this is perhaps the clearest and fullest way of saying it. As sources we could use the Avnei Milu'im 21 and the Meshiv Davar. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are going beyond the sources here - "kicha" is not literally "purchase". My question is how to use the secondary sources, when they are referring more to the current state than the Bible. Here is how I would put it:

<Section showing the various uses of erusin - and only that verb - in the Torah, in a NPOV way.> Then:

Some non-traditional sources say (NL's language and sources here). Some traditional sources disagree, saying that erusin does not give a man owenership of his wife. (Lamm, Kaplan). As a practical matter, the Talmud says that both parties have monetary easements on each other.(reference to Nedarim, possible expansion in the footnotes).

The issue is whether it is legitimate to use these secondary sources (Rabbi Lamm spends pages discussing the issue in detail, and the main statement is a section header. But it is not specifically referring to the Bible. We both know that in the traditional view it is unlikely that it does not, but if I try to explain that, I will need a source which I am unlikely to find.Mzk1 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But "kinyan" is "purchase". And that is what the sources use. In addition, this makes it clear that the "kicha" of the Bible also means "purchase". Debresser (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up two things. You can use the Bible as literally stated (proper use of primary sources), or you can use the traditional view, preferably from basic sources (Shulchan Aruch after checking all of the commentaries), or secondary / tertiary ones (which is what I am asking about). We shouldn't mix the two up and get into OR. Where does the Bible say Kinyan?Mzk1 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When writing about Judaism there is no reason to separate Bible from commentaries, nor is that practised on Wikipedia. I hope I understood correctly what you were saying. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why have this "in the Bible" at all? I am getting lost again.

If commentaries disagree, then you should not specify just one view. This is what we have.

How about just an answer to the question? See what I suggested above. The question is whether I can use Rabbis Lamm and Kaplan (see references for titles), which discuss the traditional understanding of erusin (Rabbi Lamm spends pages on exactly sort of kinyan is made) but do not specfically say that this is what the Biblesays. I wish to use this as a counter-POV to what currently starts off "In the Bible". IS this legitimate?

In the meantime, I will qualify the first line in a milder manner. I hope you will not revert it.Mzk1 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Necessary additions?

I think the additions of 7 April should be undone. This article is not a list of all uses of the word. Nor do I think that the examples shed any light on the issue. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not jumping and reverting. I mentioned this in my suggestion for the article quite some time back.

Why is that? Here is why:

1. This is what the Bible actually SAYS about erusin ITSELF, not various speculations about betrothal, which may or may not have to do with erusin. I think it is at least as important as those speculations, and also sheds some light on how much support they may or may not have. (I am combining two issues here.)

2. The quotes from the Torah (I just added the prophets for completeness, to help avoid OR) indicate the basic concepts in the halachic understanding of erusin; that is is a partial marriage, as I put in the introductory paragraph, replacing the previous talk about engagement. If we are going to quote the Bible about an halachic process apart from traditional sources, then the most important thing is what it itself says. Everything else is speculation. I think this is proper use of primary sources.

I still do not understand why you think that the idea that a man owns his wife is traditional; your sources do not show this. I think this is especially important as the feminist projects have an eye on these articles.Mzk1 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to Erusin

I object to the removing of a large portion of this article. I wrote to the author on his user page, and did not receive a response. I worked long and hard to fix up NewmanLuke's orginal, and I would like some discussion about this. Furthermore, sonme of my NPOV'ing was removed, and perfectly good sources which are apparently not the editor's taste were taken out. If there is no discussion, I will revert.Mzk1 (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You can revert back to add your edits (if they are properly sourced and adhere to all the encyclopedia policies), but please don't revert to NewmanLuke's version or additions. It's an original research which isn't acceptable here. Thanks, 109.64.16.166 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mzk1, I am sure that User:Licory meant only to remove NewmanLuke's problematic edits. Unfortunately that has affected some of your edits as well. However unfortunate this is, and I speak from personal experience, I would also like to ask you to make edits to the present form of the article, without reverting. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I REMOVED his OR. I checked the JE, rewrote what he did to match it, and corrected the orgininal sources. This is what you are supposed to do in Wikipedia, not just throw stuff out if you can. His original bothered me so much that I jeapordized my health to do this. (I know, Spiderman.) I respected the original editor's material, and I get paid back with a complete lack of respect for mine.

The problem here is that the new editor(s) agrees with NewmanLuke regarding proper sources, that he basically only accepts encyclopedias. Debresser, please help me with this issue. My contention is that (1) one can use primary sources when one is careful (and I am) and it is necessary, and (2) the Shulchan Aruch, for example, is not a primary source and (with the commentaries) is more-or-less a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. He has basically removed much of my carefully-researched sources. You have been through these arguments before ,and I would appreciate any information you can provide.Mzk1 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as reverting, I don't see why I should take the time to rewrite everything if he won't bother to discuss it.Mzk1 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yes, we have a consensus to use books like the Shulchan Aruch as secondary sources. I'll put up a notification of this discussion on his talk page, and I hope he will join the discussion. Because I suppose there must have been more issues in his edits than sourcing from encyclopedias. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, I was asked to join the discussion. But my opinion is just like Debresser's concerning this issue. I have nothing to add to what has already been said. Licory (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What has been said? You basically removed most of my edits. I can defend every one. Why did you do this?Mzk1 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I was trying to remove was mainly additions made by NewmanLuke, which were not acceptable.--Licory (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I had already fixed most of the problems with his edits, by checking the actual sources and revising, and by balancing the POV of the JE from other sources. Also, you removed my balancing of his Biblical material from Biblical-criticism sources with traditional sources who felt otherwise. This is also why I added the words "explicitly" to the statement about the girl's consent. I would not mind if would like to remove all of the Biblical material, but you left in his and removed mine, which leaves it POV. He did not use any primary sources, BTW, but he put in JE footnotes as if they were the original cites (he called this "wikifying footnotes". I looked at those sources too, in a number of cases, and replaced them with correct ones.Mzk1 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we remove the "In the Hebrew Bible" section?

As it is now, most of this section is a critical view and directly contradicts the traditional one. I can try to NPOV it (again!), but do we need it at all? It really doesn't fit in. Somehow by taking out material from a banned editor, it was restored instead.
(This goes beyond the debate as to whether or not there is a "purchase" element, as it states the father is always involved; the traditional view is that this only applies to a minor.)Mzk1 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I made my first attempt to balance this. But I would still rather remove it.Mzk1 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to your question here before. I agree with you that most of this section is about what is explicitly called "non-traditional" view. Which is speculative, unintuitive, and, what is most important for Wikipedia, unsourced.

But there is this one sentence with critical information about the fact that after erusin adultery would be punishable by death. That should at least be added to the "Other issues" subsection. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should take that as a compliment. The "non-traditional" phrase was my addition, as well as separating out the views. The first sentence is, I think, someone's rewriting of what I put in. Since I kept on fighting with you over my attempts to balance the section, this is a relief. (more to follow).Mzk1 (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I have several issues here, but they have waited a long time. I know you are busy, so perhaps you will have the time to look at theis from time to time.

Bible sections in Jewish marriage articles

First, these "in the Bible" sections tend to be in all of the marriage articles, both Jewish and possibly even in the Jewish sections of general articles. What it does is create an article that says, as a whole: Jews used to have these primitive practices, now they made up some other one. The latter is the halachic part of the article, and it makes up the majority of it. The problem now, is how to explain that these are two different views. Generally the tradional view doesn't get much into the historical aspect, except to say that it wasn't made up; and the actual pre-siniatic custom is speculation, for the most part. (Take a look at what I wrote at the end of the Request for more information, sources, and comments section above to see what I mean.)

I added "in the non-traditional view", but this isn't always so obvious. Originally I wrote, "in the critical-historical view", but I believe you objected. It would be good just to decide in general whether we should have these sections, and how to make it clear who is saying what. (BTW, I note that the incident at the end of Maasei explicitly gives a case where a woman decides for herself whom to marry.) Unfortunately, my COI is too strong here to make this decision myself.

In my opinion these sections should either not exist, or bring relevant biblical sources without any interpretation whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel strongly enough to remove them? As I said, I don't trust myself on this for COI.Mzk1 (talk)

Disappearence of Nisuin

The Nisuin article, which I did not do much to, disappeared or was merged. For a while it redirected into Jewish Wedding. This I believe incorrect, because, by consensus (I gave in), Jewish Wedding is a description of Western Jewish Marriage celebrations, and is light on Halacha. I thought that it should redirect to Jewish views on marriage, but that works its way back to the issue in the next section. What I actually tried to do was to modify Huppah to include some Nisuin issues, since Chuppah and Nisuin are somewhat synonymous. I cannot even find the redirect page now.

Nissuin was moved to Jewish wedding on April 9, 2010. Apparently without discussion. If you ask me, Erusin should also be merged into there, and the Jewish wedding article should have sections clearly explaining what erusin and nissuin is. That is my personal opinion. And in view of the fact that the Erusing article is not so big, I think that should be pretty uncontroversial. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to put my stuff back there, and make the article longer - and reference it. (I think it already is.) Some stuff moved (from here or there, I think breaking the glass) was moved to Jewish Wedding, then promptly deleted, when the editors decided to change the nature of the article. I've added some info on Nisuin to Chuppah, as Chuppah (in its legal meaning) is how Nisuin is done, as I am now adding some Tenaim material (and hope to add more) to Shiduch, since Shidduchin is the Talmudic term for engagement. (I had to add this, so I could reference this on the Engagement page.) Nisuin should forward to Chuppah, or to Jewish views on marriage, depending on which has more material. Jewsish wedding does not belong with the legal articles, and should have a hatnote referencing Jewsih views on marriage (see what I wrote there today).Mzk1 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Loss of my work on Erusin

A rather sore point with me is that my work on Erusin was deleted. This was a great deal of carefully researched and cited work, done in response to banned editor NewmanLuke. This included checking his sources, not only the ones he cited but the ones he might have (other JE articles). Someone then took it upon himself to delete much of the business, except the Bible section, which I would have liked to see deleted. I wanted to revert, but because a small change had been made in the middle, you told me not revert, but to copy the material back.

But how can I do that? I would need to recheck my sources, and check his, since sometimes I gave NewmanLuke the benefit of the doubt. (Ironically, in one of the main things I cited him for, the fact that he insisted that the broken glass is the wine goblet, he turned out to be correct - see Aryeh Kaplan, Made in Heaven - unfortunately, he did not give his sources.) So is there anything I can do? I don't have the hours to redo my work. And this gets in the way of my fixing up the other marriage articles, because they need to work together.Mzk1 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no better solution than to start from scratch. NewmanLuke was a problematic editor, and we are likely better of without any of his contributions. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this is very disappointing to me, as I think I did a good job balancing him. At any rate, please don't merge. Was he responsible for the "In the Bible" sections?

By the way, he was correct about some things. The source for breaking the glass does appear to have been with the glass from the blessings, there is a difference between glass and other materials, and the normal waiting period was not 12 months. Too bad he only gave sources for the last; I've credited him on it.Mzk1 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not merge? Debresser (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well ,the last time a merge was made, some other editors decided the material was net relevant (Jewish Wedding, and threw it away. More to the point, the article would be too long.Mzk1 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If they were wrong, then the material could be restored. That is not an argument. And the article resulting from merging the rather small Erusin article in to Jewish wedding would definitely not be too long. See Wikipedia:Article size. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of merging these two articles. I'll put up a notice, and let's see what other editors think about it. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, I ask you for help, and then you go ahead and do what I asked you not to do, without even waiting for an explanation. Seems rude, at the very least. I'm not sure I disagree at this point, but you did not understand what I was getting at, and I wish you would have at least had the good manners to wait for a reply, which I do not have the strength to do this very second. Looking at the articles, I think what you say make some sense, but there are larger issues to be addressed. But if you want to go ahead and do what you feel like anyway, there isn't much I can do to stop you.Mzk1 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I only placed merge templates. These do nothing more than ask for input from other editors. So if you disagree, this is the chance to state your opinion, and then other editors will judge by our respective arguments. If I were to do what I think, I would simply have merged them. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Second and final request regarding rewriting of Erusin

As I stated above, I believe my material was removed for questionable reasons, possibly by mistake. However, the reason I did not restore it yet was that I thought that perhaps the article was shortened because it was felt that it had too much material. If so, can someone explain why this is a probelm? Shouldn't an encyclopedia be encyclopdiac? (Yes, I know the article length stuff.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Move

This article was moved recently to Erusin (Jewish betrothal), with the explanation that not many people understand the word "Erusin". That is not a reason to move the article. Terms are explained in the lead of the article. Compare Waqf. :) The only acceptable reason to move this article there would be for disambiguation purposes. Like Gayane (ballet) and Gayane (given name), e.g. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That was not my reasoning. My reasoning is that no-one has much need to look for an article by that name. If we add betrothal to the title, people are less likely to find it. And as far as disambiguation is concerned, we have the issue that erusin in modern Hebrew means Shidukhin, engagement. (We will leave out the problem with the word betrothal itself; I still need to finish correcting engagement). (There is a similar issue whereby nisuin (why was that removed, anyway?) redirects to Jewish Wedding, which is about an almost completely different subject (wedding celebrations held in Enlish-speaking countries; see the talk page there.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change that adding information between brackets is only for disambiguation on Wikipedia. What could/should be done in this case is simply create a redirect Jewish betrothal, and perhaps another Betrothal (Jewish), both to here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with the Nissuin article. Please write me on my talkpage about that, and we'll talk it over. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that argument, except is disambiguation only when two articles have the same name?Mzk1 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I created those redirects. Yes, disambiguation is when two articles have the same name. As in the example I gave you, where "Gayane" is both a given name and the name of a ballet. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is a rule I didn't know. I actually only moved it when someone at the Wikipedia technical seminar (97% male!) explained to me that it would automatically do the redirect.Mzk1 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I would, by the way, like your feedback on the two sections above. I am still rather oconcerned about the loss of all of my hard work on the article, simply because it was done on top of a banned editor.Mzk1 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)