Talk:Mordechai HaKohen of Safed

Jewish/Palestinian/both/neither
This is getting very boring indeed. And quite simple to resolve. Provide sources. On this talk page. The subject can be described as Jewish, Palestinian, Jewish Palestinian, or we can leave it out. But you will decide that on this talk page, not in silly edit wars. I will block anyone who restores either without agreement here, because this has to stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And since User:Debresser is blocked, I suggest this conversation waits until his block expires. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read Debresser ES: "Remove "Palestinian" (a. obvious from "Safed" 2. contentious 3. irrelevant.")
 * Indeed, let's remove the "critical" "Jewish" - that's obvious - he was a kabbalist (all kabbalists are Jewish). Lets remove "in Safed" - That's obvious in the page title. If he was a pupil of Israel de Curiel, it's obvious he lived in the 16th century - so let's remove that too. Being a pupil of Israel de Curiel means he was a friend of Joseph di-trani - so let's remove him too. It says he was a "scholar" so saying he wrote a "commentary on the Pentateuch" is "irrelevant" - (what else do scholars who are kabbalist of that period do?) So after removing all "obvious" and "irrelevant" material we are left with: "Mordechai HaKohen of Safed was a scholar and pupil of Israel de Curiel" END. See what Debresser reasoning leads too? Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the point, really. The argument appears to be mainly over the term "Palestinian".  Was he Palestinian?  If so, is it obvious, or does it need sourcing.  If it's obvious, why aren't we using both terms? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Most articles about rabbis use some phrase like "was a rabbi" or "was a Jewish sage". There is no reason this article should be different. And the reason for this seems obvious. The word "rabbi" implies "Jewish", but the words "scholar" or "sage" do not. And the word "kabbalist", used in the continuation of the sentence, is not enough to make this clear. This explains why I think this sentence must use the word "Jewish" in this place.

I specifically do not think that this sentence should use the word "Palestinian" in this place. For two reasons. 1. This term is ambiguous, awkward, and contested by many, including a few closed discussions and a discussion which is still ongoing. 2. The issue is very simple, actually. Where he lived is incidental to his notability, while his being a Jewish scholar is the main reason for it. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)