Talk:Menasseh Ben Israel

Pesky, unruly IP keeps deleting original WP content and refuses to discuss or answer questions
IP 75.114.222.69 has apparently decided he owns this page and what is written on it, and that he/she can keep deleting original WP content as much as he/she wants, just like that, summarily. He/she does not give any edit summaries, and he/she does not bother to answer any questions directed at him/her on his own talk page. Worse even, all the questions, requests for sources, and/or warning I have put in his/her page he/she just summarily DELETES, as if he/she can do whatever he/she wants here, and I don't really exist.

Can anyone that has some kind of "power" here (an Admin), I guess, just look at what is happening and help? That is, I really should go the appropriate board (whichever it should be) with this, and tell the whole story, with the appropriate diffs, etc. But who has time for that? Until I find/decide which is the best and most appropriate board (I now remember there something as a user behavior board somewhere, but I have to go look for it, of course), and get all the story together, it may be one or two weeks. Isn't there a shorter easier way to just get such an unruly IP warned and possibly blocked if he/she persists in the behavior? Thanks, warshytalk 23:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP for violating the three revert rule. I suggest you add a citation to the statement about the nature of the image. In that way we can take more immediate action for removing sourced material. By the way, I checked a few other languages out that use this image, and they don't mention that its subject is disputed. Rklawton (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your action on my request. Attribution of Rembrandt paintings is a very complicated field. This case is even more complicated, since it is not a famous painting, but a small, not very famous etching. I for one seriously dispute this attribution, and the content on the English WP has been like that since I first read the page. Anyone wishing to change that would have to offer reliable sources for the attribution, and I know of none. If you agree with my rationale I will restore the caption to its orginal status before the disruption of the blocked IP. Thank you. warshytalk  18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP changed, but the behavior is still exactly the same!
Please keep an eye on it, since my revert back to original English WP content was again summarily reverted by a new IP (208.104.99.73). The behavior seems to be exactly the same...

Please note that all the other foreing languages versions of WP that are currently using the image just follow the English WP, but without specifying that the attribution is UNSOURCED. It the English WP this attribution is correctly DISPUTED because it is UNSOURCED. Thank you. warshytalk 16:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is starting to look almost funny, if you're still paying attention. What is this, "attack of the clones" on this page from sundry one-time IPs after the first offender was blocked... All of them simply delete the original content as the first one did, no edit summaries, nothing... No more than half an hour after I revert. I am leaving this to you. warshytalk 22:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I finally dug up into the history of the page to find out who introduced the original change to that caption, and when was it done and why. And I found it here. It was done in 2008, after I was already watching this page, and the edit summary by the one time IP (another one! What a coincidence... Maybe that guy regretted his addition 5 years later and decided to come back to erase it from WP?...) made complete sense to me then, as it still does today. It has stood firmly since, and there is no reason to change it now, I believe, unless someone can provide sources that mention the attribution. warshytalk 22:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the edit summary supplied by IP 70.250.119.89 on 30 March 2008 in the diff I dugup above, and it is as true today as it was then:"That portrait by Rembrandt may or may not be of Menasseh, so it is incorrect to definitively label it as so." warshytalk 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have no reliable source to support the idea that the portrait image is disputed? Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I was clear on this. There is no reliable source to support the idea that the subject of the etching/portrait is indeed Manasseh ben Israel, UNDISPUTEDLY. The one time IP pointed that out correctly in March 2008, under my wacth, and I agreed with it. It has whitstood the review of all interested editors since. It should be changed now only if the editor suggesting the change can provide reliable sources for the undisputed attribution of the portrait IMO. warshytalk 22:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And one more observation. As far as I can determine, there is no reliable source that says this is undoubtedly, originally an etching/portrait that was done by Rembrandt himself, or whose origin is the known work of Rembrandt. As far as I can determine, both the subject of the portrait and the author of it could have been invented by the same unreliable source from where it was copied and introduced into WP, whatever that source is? warshytalk 22:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a starting point. We've got a museum that labels it as "Rembrandt portrait of Menasseh ben Israel". That's a reliable source. It also appears in a book of Rembrandt's etchings. That's another reliable source. And this article will state it that way until a more reliable source appears that says otherwise. That's the way it works here. We continually build upon reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking. A web site with no sources whatsoever. OK, it is one "source" saying that it is a Rembrandt portrait of Menasseh ben Israel. No sources for the attribution whatsover, and it is only a web site, not a book. I have seen others like that, but never one that gives sources for the attribution. What is Tbat? The Amazon book you point out does not include that etching of "Menasseh ben Israel" whatsoever, as far as I can see? Can you please clarify? Thank you. warshytalk 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The museum website IS the source. If I understand the website correctly, the etching is one of its holdings. At any rate, museums of this caliber are sufficiently reliable. It's not like the website was published by some kid with a personal interest in the subject. As for the book, go check it out at the library if you don't want to buy it. I've seen it. It's there. And it's verifiable. Wikipedia isn't limited to online sources. The bottom line is, there are two reliable sources supporting the statement that this is a "Rembrandt portrait of Menasseh ben Israel". Unless you have sources that indicate otherwise, there's not much more to discuss. Rklawton (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The book, if the etching is indeed there, is definitely reliable, and that should be definitely the end of the issue. It is more than enough. I cannot see it with the link you provided. If you have the book and/or if you know for sure it is there, because you have seen, could you please add the reference as a note to the caption in the main article page? Thanks, warshytalk 13:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a more accessible source. I would also like to add that before you enter into an edit war you should at least attempt to find a reliable source that supports your position. You didn't do that in this case, and you should have been blocked for violating the three revert rule. I've added information about the engraving to the image's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

1) I had sources to begin with, but the sources I had are not reliable in my view. The same way as the museum you pointed to in the first place. This last source you have now added is also not reliable in my view. His name is by no means "Samuel" Menasseh ben Israel, Samuel according to the most reliable historical sources I have was his son's name. So maybe the engraving is of his son, according to this latest source, not of him? No, I don't believe so. (There are other English spelling errors in the page that should not occur in a truly reliable source.) Having studied this subject at length, I know that determining a subject of an engraging by a very famous artist such as Rembrandt is something that can add a lot of value to your historical study. Such determination may still have been done by the British historians that documented the issue of Menasseh's supposed mission to Oliver Cromwell in 1655, especially Cecil Roth, whose book I own and have studied. And that was done without any truly reliable sources, back in the early 1930's. Anything after that simply repeats the initial determination without further checking the sources. For the current issue, the only truly reliable source for the determination, as far as I am concerned, is the book you pointed to, if in there that determinations is explicitly made, which I cannot see. I will, in time, certainly try to look at the book myself. 2) Regarding the supposed "edit war": I asked the initial IP to provide sources to begin with, and multiple times, but I never got any reply. You have just blocked that same IP again for a week for vandalism. Remember that the content had been like that since March 2008 without anyone ever raising any question about it. 3) Is still don't see where you added the notes as to the sources for the determination of the portrait's subject. If you can, and you do have the source (which I don't), I would appreciate it if you could add a reference to the book as a footnote directly to the caption in the article's main page. I would appreciate that. Thank you again. warshytalk 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the source in the image's talk page - on Commons. Here's the image & book reference. Rklawton (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do see now your note on the Commons talk page. Thanks. This link you give above is completely unreliable, as far as I can judge. It states the name of the subject as Samuel Menasseh ben Israel, which is a big, unreliable mistake. As far as I can judge, it is a commecial site for sale of a [copy of?] of the etching for US$ 15,000, no less! For sale! I checked also the references in that commercial page and they are all from 1969 and beyond, of course... As I said, the initial determination of the subject was made in a quite non-reliable manner apparently by Cecil Roth in 1939. Any attribution after that simply repeats his original attribution, which considering from his book, might have been a well-timed, very appropriate and very self-serving complete invention, no less. But all this is original research of course, and as such, Wikipedia does not have to consider it at all. It may be published some time, but for the time being it does not have to affect the Wikipedia page. But since the commercial site also points to the book, also for sale on Amazon, I can see why you prefer to put your clarification in the Commons talk page only, and not as a full book reference to the picture caption in the article main page. Thanks for looking into this issue, and for finding sources that seem to be reliable enough for WP for the time being. As far as I am concerned, and with my remarks above, this issue in this Wikipedia page is now resolved and closed. Thanks again for your help. warshytalk 16:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

if you're still around. Coming back to this conversation/exchange of hours of a year and a half ago approximately. It took a long time but I eventually did find now the reliable source that says explicitly that the common art world (commercial) attribution of the Rembrandt etching in question to the person Menashe Ben Israel is DOUBTFUL. Please re-reread/review again this whole discussion between us above, and look at the note I have now added to the picture's caption in the article itself. The historically reliable source explicitly says/states that this attribution is [again] DOUBTFUL. A couple of questions: 1) Are you an Admin here? 2) Your tone with me a year and a half ago and your threats of blocking to me then still feel, after all this time, unwarranted, arrogant, disrespectful of my intentions and of my integrity in historical research. Please bear in mind that I was reverting an unidentified IP that kept creeping back in different disguises and that was reverting my edits without any apparent reason and without any explanation or justification for these apparently random and/or vandalistic edits. The IP never gave any explanatory summary to these vandalistic edits, and he never bothered to answer any messages I left in his talk page. More that that, this unidentified random IP just kept blanking out his talk page and summarily deleting anything I wrote to him/her there. Now, I am a cleanly open and identified long term good faith editor here. Your tone with me above, despite all my attempts at historical explanations of the issue, was harsh, incorrect, and completely unwarranted. Aa a first step, before doing anything else regarding this matter, I would expect from you now an acknowledgment that I was basically correct in everything I said above regarding the historical development of the issue, and an apology for your threats, for your tone, and for your arrogance. I would sincerely appreciate a simple acknowledgment, if not an explicit apology, of the correctness of my research and the manner in which I have annotated the picture's caption in the article now. Sincerely, warshy (¥¥) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Without a source, you had no legs. With a source you have legs. It's that simple. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it is NOT that simple. Let me try to extremely clear here: What really hurt me a year and a half ago, and what has left a bitter taste in my mind to this date about this affair and that has not gone away, is the fact that the PREPOSTEROUS behavior of an unidentified IP editor, who changed IPs to continue reverting long-standing content on a page, and who repeatedly just summarily, immediately BLANKED his talk page without a blink or explanation, every time I tried to warn him or to ask for explanations about this preposterous, completely UNEXPLAINED behavior; i.e., all this vandal and preposterous behavior by some individual with some axe to grind somewhere out there was never even questioned by you. You came to this issue directly at me exclusively, warning ME from the get=go and threatening ME from the get-go (ME, a good-faith longstanding editor in this area of Modern European history), without even questioning or mentioning the vandalous and preposterous behavior of this unidentified vandal even once. As an Admin, and I will just assume you are or were, since you did not even granted me the courtesy of answering this question, your behavior still hurts me and leaves me with a very bitter memory of this whole affair. Your behavior as an Admin then was arrogant, incorrect, uncivil, and unwarranted towards me. And it still is. Even more so, given the fact that I was right in historical matters in everything that I said and argued then, and the fact that after a long time everything I said then proved to be not only correct historically, but also absolutely correct for Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia because it is now explicitly supported by a reliable historical source.

Now, I requested from you the courtesy of an apology for your arrogant, incorrect, uncivil, and unwarranted behavior towards me then, now that my historical argument has been vindicated by an explicit reliable source. You have not even granted me again the courtesy of an answer of an explanation for not granting me the requested apology. So be it. But thinking and summarizing the whole affair once more in my mind, I cannot avoid the feeling that as someone interested in photography and in art, and who came at me with warnings and threats based uniquely on commercial artistic sources such as contemporary art museums and art publications that sell images for profit, that you yourself had then some personal interest or bias in favor of the deletion of the term "disputed" from the image's caption that the vandal actually achieved then through his vandalous and preposterous behavior. In other words, because of your own artistic or commercial bias, or for whatever other reason, the result of your intervention against me then was that the incorrect, wrong edit of a unidentified vandal ended up being the position of Wikipedia on the matter for one and half years or more. If you can live with this outcome of your intervention in the behalf of a vandal for Wikipedia by just telling me now that this whole issue is "that simple," then so be it. I hope your own bias and arrogance, as clearly evidenced by your own behavior in this whole affair as described above has not been causing more of this type of damage in other areas or issues in Wikipedia over the years, as it clearly has caused in this issue. Sincerely, warshy (¥¥) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. We run on reliable sources. See also WP:THICK and believe me, you have been far more insulting and inappropriate, and so I'm issuing you with a new warning - stop with the personal attacks - or you may find yourself blocked (though not by me). Rklawton (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. It is good advice in general. The fact that an Admin in Wikipedia did not even question the completely inappropriate editing behavior of an unidentified IP user bent on deleting long-standing content on a WP article (using at least two different IP with the same behavior of immediately blanking the temporary talk page of any edits questioning the vandalous, unexplained behavior), while threatening and admonishing a long-standing good-faith open-identity editor on the area/subject, with the result for Wikipedia being that the correct content as supported by reliable sources, that was inappropriately removed remained missing from the this Wikipedia page for one and a half years, remains there for anyone interested to check. warshy (¥¥) 14:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The current edit on this subject fails to meet the standards established by our manual of style "(see sources below)" is entirely inadequate. However, let's assume some good faith here. We can always fix style issues later. Let's talk about sources. As noted above, the museum holding the artwork in question and another printed source do not dispute the subject. Let's see the citation for the source that does. Warshy, please include author, title, date, and page number. This will allow all of us to examine the source (many of us have access to university libraries) and evaluate all the sources together. Please also be aware that straying from this subject to include personal attacks will not be tolerated. Just stay focused on sources, and I think you'll see this all sorted out quite neatly. Ordinarily I wouldn't feel the need to remind fellow editors to remain civil, but your past behavior has been entirely atrocious. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Given Warshy's unilateral edits and their lack of willingness to engage in collaborative discussions, I propose reverting their edits to a version supported by the sources provided. Rklawton (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. Since we've had this discussion back in 2013 and 2014 the content is now properly referenced in the article, with the source, page numbers and everything. It has been like that since at least 2016. If you want to correct the style of the references please feel free to do so, but the reference is a reliable source according to WP guidelines. It the the Encyclopaedia Judaica, with volume and page numbers, etc. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I now realized that the sourced reference I added back here in 2016 was only in the readings, not in the reference themselves. I have hopefully corrected this now. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 15:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Source removal at Menasseh Ben Israel
@198.111.164.158: Can you explain why the source should be removed in the article rather than reverting everyone's edits and being disruptive? This edit war dispute has been migrated to 198.111.164.158's user talk page so he is properly notified. DS Crowned (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menasseh Ben Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707034959/http://omeka.wustl.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/brisman/printinginamsterdam/item/7017 to http://omeka.wustl.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/brisman/printinginamsterdam/item/7017

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menasseh Ben Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714123444/http://www.eichlers.com/the-conciliator-hardcover.html to http://www.eichlers.com/the-conciliator-hardcover.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Rembrandt
I see the issue of whether or not Rembrandt painted a particular portrait is at hand again. Let's try to make this as simple as possible and flip a (kidding). Let's simplify this by listing reliable sources that say Rembrandt painted the portrait as well as listing reliable sources that say Rembrandt's authorship is in dispute. With such a list at hand, we may all get a better picture (ahem) of the current state of academic opinion. Rklawton (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I left in the note the statement from Cecil Roth already in 1970, that has resolved the issue here until now. There are no other reliable sources today arguing that the unfounded identification made by "Gersaint ... in the mid-eighteenth century" is correct. Nadler's summary of the issue is already in the note also. Here is Nadler's definitive statement once again: "The scholarly consensus now, however, is that this is not a portrait of Menasseh ben Israel at all." I have the book in my hands as I quote it, from pages 223-224, as also already given correctly in the note. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 23:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Samuel Menasseh ben Israel
On a related note, and assuming the preceding sections produces useful and interesting results, what do you all think of creating an article specifically dedicated to this particular portrait? To be clear, I'm not proposing a wp:fork; I'm just wondering if maybe this portrait is worthy of its own dedicated article. Rklawton (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you called the section "Samuel..." There is no person called Samuel Menasseh as far as I know. Regarding the etching, Nadler has studied the issue in detail and in depth, and he summarizes the entire issue with all the sources for the reader also in the book. The text of the WP article itself can always get better formatting or redactions for the sake of conciseness and clarity, but Nadler's conclusions are good enough for WP, in my view, at this time. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 00:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021
I wanted to share an excellent article on Menashe ben Israel for external links https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/features-on-jewish-world/rabbi-menashe-ben-israel-the-chacham-who-opened-england-to-jews/2021/02/04/ MIR61318 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: An arbitrary news article is likely not appropriate as an external link, unless used as a source. Gaioa  (T C L) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023
Born in La Rochelle (Charente-Maritime), 1604, or in Madeira.

Source: Bethencourt (1904); Levy (1924); and p. 136, Solomon (1983); p. 65, Meinsma (2006) Notrecercle (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article already mentions the fact that "other sources give Lisbon or Madeira Island as a birthplace" (see Menasseh_Ben_Israel for more info) M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Spurious references
the spurious reference I removed appeared after the reflist template appeared in the article. That meant that the reference caused an undefined reference error for the article, added the article to for maintenance, and the reference was never visible to readers of the article. Since the "Further Reading" section appears after the "References" section (per WP:MOSORDER), "Further Reading" sections should not contain footnote references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. So, if I understand this technical matter correctly, I think that the "0" parameter should be removed from the current ref, because otherwise I can see the ref as is without any errors? Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 14:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the name param now. Does this eliminate the error you are referring to? Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The error was fixed with, where I removed the reference. Reference invocations (like ) should not appear after the reflist template invocation. Doesn't matter the name used in the reference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. So I think we're OK now. Regards, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)