User talk:Debresser

Can you help identify these favicons?[edit]

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. I have over 8,000 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Images' search by image function. benzband (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) _{Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply}

Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I now have over 10,000 favicons, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token: 2214f14d9938ca34406a77c7801e2c4e[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

favicon #18 and #19[edit]

http://www.quantummuse.com https://advertise.baltimoresun.com/portal/page/portal/Baltimore%20Sun/FAQ Zero^talk 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am so grateful! 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I ever saw that second link. It must be that the favicon was previously used on more baltimoresun pages. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can find several more. Go to http://images.google.com and click on the little camera at the end of the search box. Enter the URL of one of your favicon's and it will search for similar images. I think most of them will give some hit, though you can't be sure it is the original page using the favicon. I believe Bing also has a type of search that looks for similar images. Zero^talk 09:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried that, and even found one or two, but the ones that are left I couldn't solve in this way. Maybe I'll try it again, since it is about two years since I last tried that. Thanks for the idea. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They must have improved it, since that is how I found those two. And I only tried 3 of them. Zero^talk 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the tool today, and found a few more. Thanks to you the number of 'orphans' is down to 11. That is the largest change I have ever had in one day. And one more icons was also found by the tool, just that I couldn't reproduce it. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Religion in Israel[edit]

Hello there, Dovid! Thank you for copyediting my contribution- you actually seem to excel at that, so I appreciate it. I do apologise again, if I came on a little strong. I actually got a third opinion on my comments to you from an admin, because I felt a bit unsettled that you were unsettled; they said it was completely warranted, even if it was strongly worded. We all have at least slightly differing worldviews, and sometimes it takes someone else to give us pause and consider it might not be NPOV and/or global. As far as removing "coreligionists", I'm technically fine with it, though I do think it obscures the meaning a bit. Obviously, they're a minority in every respect (globally, and in Israel), but it sort of removes it from the intended context. We can try it out. While not an expert, I do have some familiarity with both their community and the Samaritans, so I think I can expand those sections despite the paucity of sources on both communities (the non-Jewish world just really became truly aware of them this past century). We actually have a fair amount of overlapping interests, and many views in common, so I really just wanted to clear the air, since obviously we'll be collaborating in the future.

On a slightly related note... Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with other Jewish ethnicities and minhagim? Such as the Yevanim, the Italkim, the Gruzim, etc? I'm going to try expanding the content on their articles, and I could really use some help. Being such tiny communities today, just like with the Shomrim and Karaim, they're not very widely known. Let me know. Thank you again for the polishing. I really do look forward to working with you in the future. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a personal note on my talkpage. I too look forward to working together with you, as with any editor in general, and especially in fields which interest me. I'm afraid I am not strong in communities, so I won't be able to help you much. Let me just say, that I very much appreciate your edits and the talkpage discussion. Obviously, we do not have to agree on everything to be able to respect each other. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, on every point. I wanted to try to maintain good form here, because as might be obvious from my frequent statements saying as such, I do actually respect you and your contributions. Glad we sorted this out. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest Chabad attack[edit]

You might look at what I just wrote at Talk:Chabad. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for dropping me a note. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian prefix mishnah-related articles[edit]

Hi Debresser - just saw your reverts and i consider them WP:GF. I do however want to consult you regarding what to do with several articles (mostly created by Chesdovi a couple of years ago): Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian Gaonate, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian Patriarchate and maybe a couple more. All those articles seem to take various topics, mostly from the Talmudic priod, and prefix them with "Palestinian" for no obvious reason - neither historic and neither in sources. I've never heard of "Palestinian rabbis" in reference to the Mishnah period - they are simply named "Galilean rabbis" or "Mishna rabbis" as far as i can remember - there is even a category category:Mishnah rabbis (or specifically Amoraim, Tanaim, Rishonim); neither in Ottoman Syria or Mandatory Palestine (Eretz Yisrael) was the Jewish community referring to Rabbis as "Palestinian", but rather as "Rishon LeZion". It looks to me all those misleading title articles were created for a dubious reason, and i suspect it was intentionally switching to use "Palestine" for political reasons. The question is how do we fix it? Renaming? Merging into existing topics? In current form it is clearly misleading as Palestine is increasingly used to refer to the modern Palestinian administrative entity.GreyShark (dibra) 17:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I butt in here? There are two ways of looking at this. 'Pro-Pal' editors want 'Palestine' everywhere. 'Pro-Israeli' editors want to restrict the term to post-1948, and that both see this as wearing modern political associations.

Though commonly identified as 'Pro-Pal', I came to Wikipedia with a fairly good knowledge of Middle Eastern history, and, even in my mother-tongue, 'Palestine' was the neutral word for what other communities commonly called 'The Holy Land'. Anyone can confirm that 'Palestinian' is the default adjective for that area in scholarship, and has been for centuries, and that terms like 'Palestinian rabbis', etc., don't disconcert scholars because the use it toponymically. I once documented 120 academic books on some page here using it for the biblical and Christian periods. I won't repeat the exercise, but I think we should get used to the fact that Palestine doesn't mean PLO/Arafat/Hamas etc. When Jews like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, to name but a few, wrote in Greek, the lingua franca of the time, they wrote of Palestine. 'Palestine', finally, is just as much an integral element of Jewish history and identity as the more religiously restrictive 'eretz israel', and shouldn't create problems. It certainly bears no such negative or political shading among Talmudic scholars writing in English.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, i'm familiar with your affection to Palestine, but that is not the issue - there has never been such a thing Palestinian Gaonate, and if you ask an average person in Jerusalem who are Palestinian rabbis, he would direct you to Neturei Karta.GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GreyShark, for the good faith assumption. I do understand why you made the edits you made, and I remember we discussed this issue before. Nishidani, you are most definitely welcome to this discussion. We have managed to reach consensus on many hard issues in the past, and in this case I for the most part agree with you as well.

The Jerusalem Talmud is in many sources called the Palestinian Talmud. That is a fact Chesdovi and I agreed upon. On the other hand, I vehemently disagreed with him creating all those so-called Palestinian articles, because apart from the term "Palestinian Talmud", those are terms that are mainly artificial, made up by him, and are not used in reliable sources. I stress the word "mainly", because they have some minor usage. Perhaps they could be merged into other existing articles.

As to the specific reverts I made, I explained the reasons for the reverts in the edit summaries, and would be happy to explain again in more detail here. By the way, I moved Luttif Afif from Category:Palestinian Jews to Category:Palestinian people of Jewish descent, which I created. Weren't there more article sin that category, some 4 or 5?

In any case, I'll be happy to think together with you about any specific problematic category. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a curious question - how do you determine that Latiff was a Palestinian? Participation in Palestinian militant organizations shouldn't automatically brand you as "Palestinian", but rather there should be some criteria for such definition.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree on Palestinian Talmud being sometimes the reference to the Jerusalem Talmud, but you nail the point - it is perhaps the only time "Palestinian" is used as prefix to Talmudic topics. We first have to determine what is the exact topic of those articles and how it is referred in sources per WP:COMMONNAME. In case of Palestinian Gaonate, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian Patriarchate those are specifically Talmudic topics regarding Jewish community in Galilee during late Roman period. It seems that Palestinian Gaonate is WP:FORK of Sanhedrin; Palestinian minhag is obviously meaning "Jerusalem minhag" or simply Ashkenazi rite (since Ashkenazim use the Jerusalem minhag); Palestianian Patriarchate seems like the second WP:FORK of Sanhedrin (or Beth HaMidrash). Regarding Palestinian rabbis, it should certainly redirect to something like Neturei Karta, but the content might be useful and can perhaps exist as Rabbinic eras?GreyShark (dibra) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Greyshark. I never ask 'average people' their views on anything. 'Average' means uninformed. Anything that averages out bores me. If I have a perplexity, I look at what specialists say. They at least have the good sense to disagree among themselves while generally taking their peers disagreements seriously. As for Palestinian Gaonate, Shlomo Dov Goitein's old book New Sources on the Palestinian Gaonate, (1976) is widely quoted in the academic literature, which has adopted the term. Average people in Jerusalem might not know this. Informed scholars in Jerusalem would have no problem with it.

Google books yields 1.510 results for "Palestinian rabbi", 2.960 for "Palestinian rabbis". It is, I would add, extremely common in academic books.

My 'affection for Palestine'?. It's not particular. I was raised rigorously, but unideologically, to be very careful about historical minorities, the dispossessed, groups subject to prejudice, extreme or 'urbane/sophisticated'. I come from a people with a huge history of dispossession. I dropped a good many school friends when, on vising their East European homes, I caught anti-Semitic undertones in stray bits of conversation. I have no particular affection for Palestine. I do have a marked interest in the history of cultural prejudice, which is thick on the ground in this area, and fascinates me. One of the things that affects my POV is this: I dislike attempts to make an homogeneous soup of Judaism and Jews: its (their) history is almost unique for the extraordinary rich variety of contrast of its major subdivisions and its infinite subcultures. It is politics that presses for a uniform front and shared identity. Historically, this was never so - except for the profounbd and warranted commonsense that one owed a duty to extend a hand, make common cause with, and extend charity to one's far-flung brothers and sisters in the creed. That's why restlessness about 'Palestinian' Judaism, or the 'adjective' is, in my view, 'political' because it contaminates complex histories with a broadbrush worry hanging over from the contemporary conflict. Jews were 'Palestinian', and, if one must think politically, it's time 'average' Arab Palestinians and Jewish Israelis learnt this, if they haven't already. It's called catching up with the real world of scholarship just beyond the endwarfed horizons of politics. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In sum. Look at sources neutrally, without prejudging. Take Debress's agreement with you on 'Palestinian' as in 'Palestinian Talmud'. It's counter-factual, as many sources state:

'Although it is popularly known as the Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi), a more accurate name for this text is either "Palestinian Talmud" or "Talmud of the Land of Israel." Indeed, for most of the amoraic age, under both Rome and Byzantium, Jews were prohibited from living in the holy city, and the centers of Jewish population had shifted northwards, . .The Palestinian Talmud emerged primarily from the activity of the sages of Tiberias and Sepphoris, with some input, perhaps entire tractates, from the sages of the "south" (Lydda . and the coastal plain, most notably Caesarea.'(Lawrence H. Schiffman,[From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism,] KTAV Publishers 1991 p.227)

The 'Jerusalem Talmud' is an hisatorical misnomer.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for gate-crashing this party. I noticed Greyshark's comment "prefix them with 'Palestinian' for no obvious reason - neither historic and neither in sources" so I thought I'd check out that assertion using one of the mentioned articles: Palestinian Gaonate. In that article there are at present 9 sources. With the possible exception of ref 6, for which I cannot see sufficient snippets, every single one of these sources uses either "Palestinian academy" or "Palestinian gaonate" with the meaning of the article. For ref 7, I also checked the same article (Machpelah, Cave of) in the newer edition of EJ, and it is the same in this respect. In conclusion, Greyshark's assertion failed verification. None of this surprised me, because such use of the word "Palestinian" has been the standard in scholarly English for most of the past two centuries. In recent decades some scholars became brave enough to use the Hebrew phrase Eretz Yisrael in English, but Palestine is still very common as the English equivalent. Zero^talk 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Was asked to comment by User Debresser. Agree with User Zero0000 and those who are obviously aware of the fact that for a very long time the preferred academic and scholarly term for rabbis and Jews living in the general area in that part of the world that Jews historically referred to as the Land of Israel but was renamed after the Roman conquest 2,000 years as "Palestine" that was in use until 1948 and generally, when talking about Jews, meant those who were living in the land/s that was/were known as Palestine. One could consider the term to be archaic in the sense that since the 1960s with the rise of the PLO that the label "Palestinian" has only now in recent decades come to refer as Arabs co-habiting and rivaling in the same geographic and political space/s as the Israeli Jews, but being quite different to them. A lot of very good arguments are being made in this thread to explain various angles to this term's use so that User Greyshark09 needs to back off his attacks on correct encyclopedic usage of the term and find another way to indicate topics that refer to the very modern Arab Palestinian/s notion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify a little: almost nobody would use "Palestinian rabbinate" or similar to refer to rabbis living in that geographical region since 1948. However, neither 1948 nor 1967 saw a cessation of that phrase in reference to earlier times. It's easy to find examples even after 2000. Zero^talk 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Agreed, you are correct. Not sure about what Greyshark09 has a bee in his bonnet here. IZAK (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy with the broad input here, and welcome Zero0000. I think we can agree that the term "Palestinian" has been used historically in certain cases. I have my doubts regarding the term "Palestinian minhag", and would like to hear your opinions about this specific term. We are still left with the two main questions:

Are the articles correct in using the term "Palestinian" for both the period of the mishnah-talmud-geonim and the British mandate, or is that gathering of eras the fruit of User:Chesdovi's edits and approach? Mind you, I am sure at least one source can be found that uses the term "Palestinian" for any era, but in this question I am referring, of course, to WP:COMMONNAME.
Are the articles basically WP:FORKs of other articles, that have been spun out with many details and information that is only tangentially related to give them some meat, and therefore should be merged with other existing articles (per era), or should these be independent articles on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to lurk in good faith for a while. But I would point out, consistent with the discussion above:

At minimum, the use of the English-language term Palestinian Talmud, intended in a neutral way to refer to that Talmud (as opposed to the Babylonian Talmud), is of long standing.
The term Jerusalem Talmud may or may not be a misnomer, academically. But it is the English rendering of the equally long-standing (or maybe even longer-standing) Hebrew-language term for that Talmud, Talmud Yerushalmi (תלמוד ירושלמי).

So whatever else we decide here, I think either of those terms has to be accepted as a fair and neutral descriptor for the Talmud that is not the Babylonian one. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One goes by sources for everything. The stronger the quality of sources, the stronger the argument. I see no problem with using either Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud, as long as the introductory lead line clarifies the difference in usage. Neither should trump the other. As to Palestinian minhag or minhagim of Palestine, there is good RS for that (dating back earlier than Israel's foundation), and the same goes for Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate. As far as I can see Common name would privilege 'Palestinian' if we take what our major contemporary scholarly sources use. To circumvent this by periodizing rabbis, for example, as amoraim, etc., is to (a) introduce terminology that lacks the geographical specificity in 'Palestinian', for amoraim were equally spread in Babylonia and Palestine (b) common name in this English (global) encyclopedia should be based on scholarly usage accepted by the academy rather than in-house or infra-creedal usage favoured by the specific culture itself. I can't see the argument for forking, but that may reflect my relative unfamiliarity with the history of these articles. On the other hand, Greyshark, and he is an excellent editor, is from the record consistently uncomfortable with the word 'Palestinian' and I think it important for us to thrash this out here, at least to suggest to him that opinions within his own community do not necessarily share that discomfort, which is almost non-existent in historical scholarship.

Chesdovi and I often clashed (well Dovid (if I may) and I did too, but more often than not, we've found a mutually agreeable compromise solution), but I thought his boldness in accepting the scholarly usage index to assert Jewish rights to 'Palestine/Palestinian' compatible with what very strong sources say, so, whatever the POV might have been, is a matter of indifference to me. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: i wasn't intending to open a Pandora's box, but it turned out entirely a defensive discussion on "Palestinian" instead of the article's content. The main issue is that Palestinian Gaonate and Palestinian Patriarchate are WP:FORKs of Sanhedrin. Whatever the issues with Palestinian or not, Sanhedrin is an older article and it is the certain WP:COMMONNAME. Just forking articles for no exact reason and naming them "Palestinian" (or "Israeli") is completely redundant.GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

But the Sanhedrin was dissolved mid-fourth century, several centuries before the Palestinian Gaonate, wasn't it? Two separate things.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While the Palestinian Patriarchate article is a clear WP:FORK of Sanhedrin, the Palestinian Gaonate article is perhaps too poor to exist on its own right - it should belong to "revival attempts" section in Sanhedrin article (it is not even clear when and if the Gaonate was functional).GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

One part has some reduplication, but it is well sourced (2) had 10,000kb which is fair for an article and outsized for reinclusion in Sanhedrin (3) where is your source for the idea that the Palestinian Gaonate was a revival of the Sanhedrin (4) Excellent sources, I cited one, refer to it with this name. There is nothing exceptional in Wikipedia retaining short but detailed articles on specific institutions. All I can see is unease with the use of 'Palestinian' connected to a Jewish institution, against the fact that great scholars are comfortable with it.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried before to get the discussion back to track. Nishidani, I see no unease here with these terms, and even GreyShark, who initiated the thread and the edits that lay at the basis of it, denies that. So let's stick to the real questions:

Are the articles correct in using the term "Palestinian" for both the period of the mishnah-talmud-geonim and the British mandate, or is that gathering of eras the fruit of User:Chesdovi's edits and approach? Mind you, I am sure at least one source can be found that uses the term "Palestinian" for any era, but in this question I am referring, of course, to WP:COMMONNAME.
Are the articles basically WP:FORKs of other articles, that have been spun out with many details and information that is only tangentially related to give them some meat, and therefore should be merged with other existing articles (per era), or should these be independent articles on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See above. You get, to repeat, 444 hits at google books just for "Palestinian Gaonate". Usage is informed by source example, which, as I have indicated several times in these endless discussions, justify these usages, for minhag, gaonate etc. No one need trust me. Just google. I don't know why the authority, for example, of Shlomo Dov Goitein is being contested here. Greyshark worries about a term that one of the great scholars of his generation used unproblematically. I'm not here to resolve his perplexities. Everyone expects me to answer the points that interest them, yet of the numerous points I raised, I see no documentary or logical response. I think wiki editors are obliged to be secretaries of scholarship, not kibitzers.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nishindani. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for being a repetitive nuisance. I fully understand that a failure to be laconic tests the patience of the best editors round here. regards.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly on Nishidani's side here. The problem here is that modern political issues really do overlay the current discussion, and it's awfully hard to get away from that. (Let's face it. There are efforts in at least part of the modern Palestinian Arab political community looking to erase the history of the Jews on the Temple Mount, no less!) But use of "Palestine" during the period of the Mandate, at minimum, should remind us that there are times that the Jewish community embraced the term Palestinian, at least for use in English. (Anyone remember the original name of the newspaper that has since spawned JPost.co.il?) And once we get past that, then we can remember, as @Nishidani has said, that "Palestinian" has been the preferred English-language term in academia for quite a while—even if Jews prefer something like Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew.

Now, to answer @Debresser:'s questions as to the specific articles at hand:

I am very comfortable with Palestinian Gaonate, unless someone has a better English-language term to use for that.
I'd need to see better justification of Palestinian minhag. After all, the word minhag is a Hebrew one, and I'm not altogether sure that it has been fully incorporated into the English language like, say, Torah or Talmud. So I'm not sure that Palestinian minhag is really a justifiable term, unless someone can show me sources for it. Minhag Yerushalayim is probably the term of art in Hebrew, notwithstanding whether it is really accurate—just as the Talmud is known in Hebrew as Yerushalmi. But I'm not sure one is justified in using the word "Palestinian" to describe minhag.
I'm pretty convinced that Palestinian Patriarchate is a FORK. If the article Sanhedrin is accurate, then it may be appropriate to mention the phrase Palestinian Patriarchate in the context of its legal recognition by Rome. (And that's probably also enough to justify a redirect.) But even if the Sanhedrin ceased using the term Sanhedrin at some point due to political pressure, I think everyone still thinks of it in those terms for as long as it continued to function in substantially the same manner.
...which brings us to Palestinian rabbis. That's a tough one. After all, Palestinian Jews refers to the period of the Mandate, or at most the period of the Yishuv in the fifty years before the Mandate. Yet this article's lead says it refers "most significantly" to the Tannaim and the Palestinian Amoraim. I don't know. I can easily see an article of this or similar name that focuses on the period of the Yishuv and later. And frankly, I could see going as far back as the reference to Jacob Berab, as the line of continuity from there forward is pretty clean. But how much connection there is (beside geographic) between the Palestinian Gaonate and the sixteenth century is pretty murky.

If it were up to me, I'd move most of the section "Early Palestinian Rabbis" to a new section in the article Amoraim, then limit each of the first two sections of this article to a 1-2 sentence paragraph with appropriate hatnotes, and start this article in earnest at Jacob Berab. But I don't know if that's WP:OR any more than what Chesdovi did, to tell you the truth.

StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a commendable set of suggestions. Palestinian rabbis to my mind is something one frequently encounters in the first four or five centuries of our era. I don't really associate it with modern times,(though there is an argument for it). Palestinian Gaonate seems secure. The Palestinian minhag is interchangeable with Ashkenazi minhag, since the Ashkenazi were influenced by Palestinian customs (oversimplified, but they are used as interchangeable, and the point is to maintain the notable divide between the Yerushalmi(Jerusalem)/Bavli traditions (it is extremely important because the former looks much like it carried on the influence of Greek logic in Hellenic Judaism, perhaps even Plato (so Moses Hadas argued that Plato was a major influence on Palestinian rabbinical traditions). In any case, well done, both of you. I've had my say, and will accept what the consensus emerges to be. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the discrepancy in content between Palestinian rabbis and Palestinian Jews is that the latter is written with a much more limited scope than that which the phrase is used. Most of the sources mentioned in the other articles used here, including scholars like Goitein, use "Palestinian Jews" for a much longer period of time than the mandate. The phrase is even common in writings about Talmudic times, usually in distinction to "Babylonian Jews". We should attempt to adopt the usage of the best sources, which Wikipedia articles are not. Zero^talk 08:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)[edit]

Hi. I have filed a request at WP:DRN about an issue in an article that you have been involved in. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I see you keep your word. I have commented there. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Careful[edit]

Dovid. No one in his right mind would report you, I hope, but it is good practice to note when ARBPIA sanctions (1R) are applicable, as on the stone-throwing page.

Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had indeed not paid attention to the WP:ARBPIA restrictions on this article.

Now that you mention it, these were distinct edits by different editors. Even though the warning on the talkpage says "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period", and WP:3RR also says "whether involving the same or different material", I do not think this rule should automatically apply in such a case. Note, I know it does, but I think that is too strict a rule to be applied automatically in all cases. Well, whatever. :) Debresser (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And you did it again: 1st and 2nd revert. wp:IAR doesn't apply to a 1RR restriction.--TMCk (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I really need to be more careful. Thanks for your patience with me. On the other hand, I really think that reverting edit warriors in the middle of an ongoing discussion is a good thing to do. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Were I an edit-warrior, I would have (a) behaved like yourself and (b) reported you at AE. I don't have recourse to AE because I have seen that page abused by editors in order to get at 'the other side' in a tactical game which is repulsive. You are availing yourself of liberties the people you criticize refrain from exercising, and do so in a context where sock puppets or on-sight reverters like Plot Spoiler abuse article construction. Of their behavior, not a word. I saw Huldra making an edit I disagree with. I reverted it, and challenged her. I.e. I don't think in partisan terms, esp. if there is an odour of tag-teaming.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see the talkpage, where I explain I mistook Huldra's edit for yours and added an apology. Let's not go the direction of teaming, that is absurd and, frankly, insults me a little. I am smart and principled enough to make my own edits. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insinuate anything personally. I have seen over the years that you have an independent mind, and that, for me, exempts editors like yourself from being niggled at or harassed by techniques of reporting or sanction-threats that often mar this place. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your stance on this issue is much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Top icon templates[edit]

{{Top icon templates}} is ment to list template that generate a top icon. The templates I removed do not generate a top icon; what you see is the protection icon because the template itself is protected, not because the template generates a top icon, ie. if you use the template on another page, it will not show the protection icon. I can't be any clearer than this, so please do not restore them. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand now. Thank you for coming here and explaining. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note here in response. That place gets too conflictual[edit]

Dovid. yes, indeed, it has, at least in the literature, deep roots, and I have notes on this. I'll share one with you regarding Gaza (let's leave out your namesake's slingshot!). Stone-throwing reflects the weakness of the Palestinians’ arsenal but, according to some, it may also reflect a long local tradition in areas like Gaza, where Alexander the Great was almost killed by a stone, as a British official in Palestine was in 1937. Stephen Vertigans,Terrorism and Societies, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013 p.28. Feel free to use it. If not I'll get round to putting it in. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is always a pleasure to hear from you. By the way, I couldn't open the link to the book. I hope it makes the connection clearly, otherwise this would be original research. Debresser (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Morning. I'll transcribe it when I get the time later, so you can check.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The tactic of throwing stones could be seen to reflect the weakness of the Palestinian military arsenal but also connected into local history. Oliver and Steinberg (2002) explain that Gaza has long been associated with stone throwing. A number of examples are included that range from a stone that almost killed Alexander the Great to the death of a British official in 1937'

Sometimes if you can't access a google book, change the url from where you are googling to that of another country, and the page often opens.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, a shame the text doesn't specify its sources, but that sounds very relevant to me. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bad scholarly habit to cite the year, the scholars' names but not the page. But it is clear the reference is to Anne Marie Oliver and Paul F. Steinberg, The Road to Martyrs' Square: A Journey into the World of the Suicide Bomber, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). p.12

Just a point on that. The reference to Alexander the Great is probably flawed. At least, if the allusion is to Plutarch's Life of Alexander,(25:3) he doesn't say that. In the original account:

μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πολιορκοῦντι Γάζαν αὐτῷ, τῆς Συρίας μεγίστην πόλιν, ἐμπίπτει βῶλος εἰς τὸν ὦμον ἀφεθεὶς ἄνωθεν ὑπὸ ὄρνιθος, . .

Alexander laid siege to Gaza, in short, and during the siege a bird dropped a βῶλος (bōlus) that hit Alexander on the shoulder. That primarily means a 'clod of earth', though bōlus could just possibly refer to a nuggetty piece of earth (which the context requires in any case). The point is, it was a bird of omen, not a local lad, that hit him. Sources, even good ones, often fuck up, when you independently check the primary sources, and it is a real problem sometimes for wikipedians who cannot correct them. The other examples cited for the deep tradition of stone-throwing in Gaza however are very good, and can be used on our page. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

With "in short" you meant to say that you didn't translate that part, I guess. I haven't read classical Greek for a long time. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I heard the dinner gong . . which has an imperative urgency in my house. It's the only form of human communication and authority I obey without delay or objections.

'μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα (after this) πολιορκοῦντι Γάζαν αὐτῷ,(as he was laying siege to Gaza) τῆς Συρίας μεγίστην πόλιν (Syria's major city), ἐμπίπτει βῶλος εἰς τὸν ὦμον (a clump of rock/earth) falls onto=struck his shoulder) ἀφεθεὶς ἄνωθεν ὑπὸ ὄρνιθος (released from above by a bird). Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. :) I noticed you left out "Syria's major city", which is an interesting remark in itself. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Meyer and Messner[edit]

Yes, we discussed Rabbi Meyer and his brother-in-law before. It was at Talk:Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount. I spent a lot of effort including a whole day in the library looking for scholarly sources. You did nothing except sit in your chair and stonewall. Other people joined in but nobody supported you. Nobody. Now you revert with "we discussed this before". Shame on you. Zero^talk 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Just to remind us, we are talking about Hakirah (journal) as a source for reliable information.

First of all, that discussion was almost entirely between the two of us. User:ZScarpia did say it is a "rather obscure source" [1], but in the end the only reason he and User:Pluto2012 agreed with you was because there were other sources that contradicted the information in that source. I conceded the point because of that reason, and because you suggested alternative interpretations of the source. I repeat, nobody was actually questioning the reliability of Hakirah. I'd also like to point you to my arguments from that discussion, why that magazine is a good source for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not preview before saving?[edit]

Hi Debresser. "Preview page with this template" is quite nifty; you could try previewing one of the many lang-X templates before saving. It'll save you time and you probably won't end up breaking something, either - be it momentarily. Alakzi (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Where on this page do you see that option? Or is it located elsewhere? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Right at the bottom, below the "Save page" button. Alakzi (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is great. It will save all those "well-intended-but-in-the-end-not-working-as-they-should" edits. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Panic Room[edit]

FYI, I would prefer to include a picture of Jodie Foster at Panic Room, but none of the free options seem particularly great. Do you have an alternative suggestion to make? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really, but I think File:Jodie Foster.4783.jpg is nice enough. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mashpia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breslov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Apropos Palestinian stoning etc.[edit]

Dovid, would you mind re-examining 2 Kings 2:23-25 in your spare time? It's a fascinating if obscure tale, and gave rise, I hear, to hermeneutic worries in the rabbinical tradition. Light was thrown on it by the fact that in some Greek manuscript versions of the Septuagint, a tradition is conserved that Elisha was actually stoned by the boys (qatan/yeled) at Bethel, and it was that which drew his ire, and the vengeance of the two she-bears.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It gave rise to an interesting Hebrew expression "lo dubim velo ya'ar", meaning "no bears and no forest", referring to a factual claim without the least factual support. Would you like to know what traditional rabbinic sources say about this, or are you more interested in the academic sources? I would likely have a problem with finding the latter. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know about lo dubbim velo ya'ar, wonderfully useful expression. Thanks. The baraita at Talmud b.Sanh.107 is interesting, and Sota 46b-47a also comments on it. I have a dozen academic sources on it, so don't worry about that angle or waste time on this. I just thought it might be of interest. The standard Septuagint collation of Greek manuscripts does not have the stone throwing tradition, so I'm still checking around to see which manuscript in the transmission contains it, only to have it excluded from the standard recension. This is just a matter of personal curiosity of course, at the moment.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I'm curious (and wonder, Nishidani, where you're intending to put this).

I have not, myself, looked at either Sanhedrin or Sota. But the word used for "mock" there (2Kings 2:23) uses the root ק-ל-ס, a perfectly reasonable choice, but also not the only one available. And the root for "stoning" is an anagram of that: ס-ק-ל. So the source of this Septuagint tradition is probably related to that. But whether "that" is a Midrashic tradition based on related roots (not an uncommon phenomenon) or whether the translators of the Septuagint were using a text that varies from MT is a different question entirely. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, Steven. I came across this here:

‘To add support to the idea that Elisha’s life was in danger from this gang of over forty teenagers, a series of manuscripts of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) records that the boys also threw stones at Elisha, which could easily have killed an old man. David T. Lamb God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?, InterVarsity Press, 2011 p.98.

That source was not quite satisfactory to me. I've consulted about 20 works on this (the Elisha cycle has a very large number of commentaries, of course), and still can't pin down which set of manuscripts. It's not the translators of the Septuagint, because the standard Septuagint text runs:-

καὶ ἀνέβη ἐκεῖθεν εἰς Βαιθήλ• καὶ ἀναβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ καὶ παιδάρια μικρὰ ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως καὶ κατέπαιζον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ• ἀνάβαινε, φαλακρέ, ἀνάβαινε. καὶ ἐξένευσεν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν καὶ εἶδεν αὐτά, καὶ κατηράσατο αὐτοῖς ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου• καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξῆλθον δύο ἄρκοι ἐκ τοῦ δρυμοῦ καὶ ἀνέρρηξαν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δύο παῖδας

And from there he went up to Bethel: and while he was going up the path little kids came out from the town/city and jeered at him, and said to him, "Go on up, baldy, go on up. And he turned back at them, and saw them, and cursed them in the Lord's name. And, behold, two bears emerged from the wood, and tore apart 42 of them. And from there he went on to Mount Carmel, and returned thence to Samaria.

Like 80% of what I come across while looking into articles for background, it may well stay out of that article, though I could assure its presence there because some specialized commentaries do link Palestinian stone throwing to this text. I don't for the moment because I want to evaluate the specific set of manuscripts whose reading here was excluded from the Septuagint's textus receptus. All this started because stoning is endemic in the Middle East, not specific to Jews (as Morris tries to make out) but all travelers of all nations record incidents like the minor tradition re Elisha, and finally, the Bible itself mentions it not simply in the restrictive Leviticus code of stoning adulteresses, but in various contexts like chasing away tax inspectors or exactors (the treatment meted out [yirgəmū] to Rehoboam's agent ’Ăḏōrām at 1 Kings 12:18, for example). In any case, it's quite fascinating in its own right: a text that embarrassed the tradition, and endless worries over the age group referred to in (nə‘ārîm qəṭannîm), at the nature of the possible cultic resistance at Bethel, etc. (All Israel stoned Acham to death at Joshua 7:25). Your note is invaluable in its own right. Thanks indeed. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comne to think of it, perhaps it would be good for the Elisha article at least if one can pin it down.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Of course, since LXX and MT are in fairly substantial accord here, it's not necessarily surprising that these manuscripts were excluded from the LXX textus receptus. And there remains the question of whether they were, in turn, based on a Midrashic tradition of some sort or from an actual minority Hebrew text that was excluded from the tradition that eventually became the MT.

Do you know Lamb otherwise? There's a biographic sketch of him here, at what I presume is his current place of employment. Why don't you ask him what his sources are?

We won't be hearing from Dovid until after Shabbat his time, and I'll also try to look at Sanhedrin and Sota over Shabbat myself. Have a good weekend. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Lamb qualifies certainly in terms of the curriculum vitae. Thanks. I only disturb scholars when I have exhausted my patience trying to find out for myself. There's a reason for this. A quick email, if replied to, means one doesn't find all of the interesting stuff in unthought of byways that independent research throws one's way. Lucretius's wonderful dictum, Ardua dum metuunt, amittunt vera viai (De Rerum Natura 1:659))/If the tough way upwards (cf.‘ălêh qêrêaḥ) gives you the willies, you'll miss the true track, or the truths along the way' if I may be permitted a wild construal!). Don't ruin your Shabbat following up my queries. In short, Oneg Shabbat, Steven! I'll keep plugging away, alone and with a pizza and a cuppa at my elbow, and a slight touch of envy at those wonderful Friday evening meals! We'll hear from Dovid in due course. Best Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dovid needs to hand in a paper tomorrow night, so is quite out of the running. :) Debresser (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah[edit]

I saw incipid, and I read insipid. Thanks for reverting me and teaching me a new word. :-)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor's contributions[edit]

Hello, Debresser,
It's been a while! I was hoping you could look over some contributions from Monochrome Monitor on articles involving Judaism. I reverted some changes that seem like they made fundamental changes and I posted a warning on MM's talk page. But you are more familiar with the involved articles and how contentious they can be so maybe you could look them over as well. Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. I noticed some of his edits as well, but saw no reason to see them as part of some general problem. However, I still have to work my way through two days of edits to articles on my watchlist, so I'll post again after I finish that. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. Since the great debate over Jewish descent in Spring 2014, I have most of these articles on my Watchlist and it's unusual to see an editor going to most of the important articles and making changes to infoboxes and other sensitive information. They are not large edits but they are like this edit which reduces the importance of European heritage. I mean, we had battles before over edits like this so maybe I'm hyperaware of how contentious the articles on Jewish ethnicity can be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see any serious problem, of the POV kind, or anything like that. I have posted on his talkpage about something I noticed, and was very satisfied with the result. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you are satisfied, I'm satisfied! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. So I am now officially the most paranoid editor around? :) Debresser (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no. You've been here 7 years! You are the most familiar with the articles and care that they are accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just kidding. I remember many editors who used to be active in the field of Jewish article, who now are less active, if not gone completely. A few are still active, like Malik Shabazz, who is actually an admin, and does many good things on Jewish articles. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Beacon Pictures page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article doesn't exist Cuisine of the Ashkenazi Jews[edit]

There's a Cuisine of the Mizrahi Jews and a Cuisine of the Sephardic Jews but no Cuisine of the Ashkenazi Jews. Someone needs to change that. There's certainly no dearth of information that could be added. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Something for you to do while you refrain from editing the Richard Feynman article. :) Debresser (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ugh that still bothers me! Unfortunately I don't know that much about Ashkenazi Jewish food. I know about my own family (Lithuanian and Russian) but there are so many variations that it's going to be a huge collaboration. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I still make a few family recipes but nothing too ambitious. They were Polish and Austro-Hungarian Galician. Maybe a link up with project Judiasm and food and drink? You make a valid point MM. It would be a very useful addition. Irondome (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Um,..hope that doesn't include the numerous Ashkenazi recipes for cooking up a golem!:) Actually, there was a great diversity, surely. I doubt Carciofi alla giudia, artichokes cooked in Jewish fashion, a great delicacy in Rome, was widespread out of Italy.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My family puts chicken fat in EVERYTHING. It's pretty great. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

With respect to your ridiculous posturing on my talk page, please feel free to open up a thread on WP:ANI at your earliest convenience so that I can enjoy people telling you how silly you are. While you aren't as profane as I am, your behavior with respect to being a rude shit and an edit warrior has pretty much mirrored my own. The discussion had long since petered out, but you keep raising it again with your preposterous grandstanding. So go ahead and do it. I need a good laugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I consider my post on your talkpage to be a warning. I think any editor would agree with me on that. You are showing the whole world what an immature person you are, and I wanted to spare you that embarrassment. I can see that my intentions were not appreciated, and have therefore posted on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment 2[edit]

With respect to your ridiculous posturing on my talk page, please feel free to open up a thread on WP:ANI at your earliest convenience so that I point out your preposterous grandstanding. First you remove form Criminal rock throwing a perfectly good photo, then you accuse me of editit warring when I replace the photo. Your behavior is aggressive and destructive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD that if you add something, you have to show consensus for it. And you are the one starting an edit war, when you edit despite a lack of consensus. It has become fashion to insist on all kinds of edit despite a lack of consensus, with editors reverting vehemently in the middle of ongoing discussions. I see this on more than one page, and, frankly speaking, am saddened by it. Believe me, that I derive no pleasure from these edit wars. I wish editors would go back to the feelings of mutual interest and pride to be ale to contribute to this common project that inspired editors like me some 8 years ago to become active on Wikipedia, instead of seeking personal glorification by insisting on this or the other inferior edit. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Case at WP:AE.[edit]

Hi. I have opened a case against you at WP:AE. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have expected WP:DR, but okay, I'll post there soon. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Seven Laws of Noah / Homosexuality[edit]

Please take a look at my argumentation on Talk:Seven_Laws_of_Noah#Homosexuality, and comment on it. Thank you. Teiresia (T) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Belshazzar[edit]

Thanks. I honestly had no idea this article was such a hot topic - pieces on obscure figures like Belshazzar are usually pretty dead, with nobody caring or watching. I edit them to keep my eye in, so to speak - I do a lot of writing professionally, and this is like relaxation to me. (My professional writing has nothing to do with bible subjects, by the way). I feel mortified about Jason, as he'll probably think this is some kind of personal attack, which it isn't. PiCo (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello PiCo. I am sure Jason understands this was just a coincidence, so no reason to feel bad. I am all for it when editors improve articles. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ramadan#Ramadans Alledged Pagan Origins[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ramadan#Ramadans Alledged Pagan Origins.. Thanks. Mtd2006 (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I need an invitation? Nu, thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The bit about Ramadan being Pagan is not soruced. Or at leats the soruce is questionable. Originally two soruces were listed, and I know one of them has no reference to Ramadan in it's given placement.

I'd rather remove soemthign that has an uncertain degree of validity than to leave it in as a fact. Right now the article says Ramadan was Originally pagan on the atrenght of one citation that may not actually say this. It use to be two citations, and we know one fo them dosnt say this. What mak syo thinkt he second Citation is accurate? Shudl we tel the orld Ramadan was originally Pagan if there's noreal evidence for this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.206.208 (talk • contribs)

Halacha on gentiles[edit]

Hi User:Debresser, why did you delete my post on gentiles and Halacha. I have the post in the talk section under the post "Halkha on gentiles solved" Are your negative due to the stilistics or the accuratenes? Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that post. I noticed also, based on your posts, that you are very emotional about this issue. I noticed that another editor also reverted, claiming that the source is not reliable.[2] My reason is that on Wikipedia we write article, not a list of external links. That is a stylistic argument, or a content argument, as you please. Closely related to that is the fact that the general article about Halakha is not the place for seven or more details (the number of links you posted) about such a relatively minor issue as Halakha and gentiles. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Explanation about ownership behavior[edit]

I'll explain what I mean by ownership behavior.

Editor A places on a tag in an article calling for discussion. Less than two hours later, Editor-owner removes the tag and comments "Agreed, but some background is allowed." Editor-owner has made an arbitrary decision that the disagreement is settled before the tag has been on the article for even a single day. No other editor has had any more two hours to discover the disagreement before the Editor-owner has determined that his own decision is final without consensus or the opportunity for discussion. Editor-owner should not remove the tag before giving Editor A and others the opportunity to express their thoughts.
Three hours later, Editor-owner comments "Why would I want to own an article about Ramadan of all things? 2/ You [Editor A] still didn't discuss this on the talkpage." And yet two hours before that, Editor-owner entered two remarks in the Ramadan talkpage comments that say "Reply to Editor A". Still haven't commented? - less than a half a day later? Please, Editor-owner, give Editor A and everyone else a chance to live our lives! Again, Editor-owner made an arbitrary decision without consensus, or allowing other editors any reasonable opportunity for discussion.
IP Editor B, one who is inexperienced, removes an outrageous assertion claiming that Ramadan has its origin in pagan festivals dating back to Egypt, Greece, etc. IP Editor B says one of the references is not only suspect but blatantly invalid. There remains a second reference with undetermined validity. Editor-owner inserts himself into the dispute and determines, without sufficient knowledge of the second reference, that there is a rule that the second reference is valid until disproven. IP Editor B (newcomer) is flummoxed. IP Editor B adds a section to the top of the Ramadan talkpage, that explains his position at 03:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC). Editor A invites Editor-owner to the discussion. But Editor-owner has already decided the outcome of the dispute and bites the newcomer. Here's the kicker. The same day that IP Editor B commented on the Ramada talkpage; Editor C refuted the second reference at 10:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC). Editor-owner entered the discussion and said, "Even though the source disagrees, that does not mean those 3 don't have that point of view, and it is therefore sourced reliably now," and later "After considering this again, I agree with you regarding the Ashura and will restore your removal of that paragraph." Is Editor-owner the final arbiter of what is or is not reliably sourced in the Ramadan article? Newcomer IP Editor B, as it turns out, was correct and Editor-owner's determination that the second reference was reliable was incorrect and arbitrary. If Editor-owner had waited, less than a day, until the dispute process had a chance to work, he would avoided a nasty dispute with a newcomer, and the removal of the outrageous assertion about pagan festivals would have been credited to the newcomer as it should have been.

An editor-owner does not allowing others the chance to make contributions before he makes arbitrary decisions by his own determination and without consensus. An editor-owner makes decisions and states opinions in revert comments, rather than assuming good faith and allowing other editors to have their say.

Please allow other editors to state their position before you make unilateral decisions.
Please assume good faith when an editor makes a bold change and gives a plausible reason before reverting or making arbitrary determinations.
Please let the dispute resolution process to run its course. Most times, one must wait several days to allow other editors the opportunity to comment. Give other editors a chance to reply before you jump in and revert!

Mtd2006 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I deny the WP:OWN accusation. As you can see, I am active on the talkpage of that article, while you refuse to post there about this issue, even though per WP:BRD (which is a continuation of WP:BOLD you mentioned) the onus of proof is on you. That is unnecessary stubbornness, leading to this edit war.

By the way, this tag has a |discuss= parameter not for esthetic purposes, but for it to be used. In general, tagging without opening a discussion is called "drive-by tagging" and is not universally appreciated on Wikipedia, see WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)