Talk:Palestinian minhag

Page Rename
I suggest renaming this page to Israeli minhag, that is the more common usage used by people, especially those searching for this article. Israeli minhag is distinct from the generic Ashkenaz minhag. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Israeli minhag" (whatever it may be) is distinct from "Palestinian Minhag" which pre-dates it by over 2,000 years. Chesdovi (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. The article is sourced, and from a quick look just at the article it seems that two of those sources use the term "Palestinian minhag/rite". I know that the creator of this page was cherrypicking his sources to propagate the use of the word "Palestinian", which apparently was indeed used in older sources like the Encyclopedia Judaica, but we should at least be sure any alternative name is based on reliable sources. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * AGF failure: "I know that the creator of this page was cherrypicking his sources to propagate the use of the word "Palestinian"..." Please retract. Chesdovi (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your most recent edits seem to be in violation of your TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's Nusach Eretz Israel in Hebrew, then that is fairly enough reason to call the article Israeli Minhag or Nusach Eretz Israel or something similar. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Chesdovi I will most certainly not retract a neutrally worded statement, which voices my legitimate concerns regarding a editor who has rightfully been topic-banned.
 * @Sir Joseph I disagree with that last statement. This is the English Wikipedia, and per the guidelines, we must prefer the most common name in English writings. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even so, Israeli Minhag is still used more often. Many of his sources that he cherry picked is due to the publication date. So something published during the Mandate Era would use Palestinian Minhag. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ... "More often"? Chesdovi (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This allergy to the use of 'Palestinian' for anything in the past regarding Jews in that area is silly. Establish a precedent for replacing it with 'Israeli', on almost non-existent sourcing, politicizes the issue. As to Chesdovi, please evaluate his edits regardless of what you might think of his personal bias or motivations. As I see it, the usage he supports is well-grounded, and Debresser's point that this is the English Wikipedia is sensible.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani Even though we are, as often, in agreement, you made a few minor statements that I would like to register my disagreement with. The "allergy" to the use of the word "Palestine" is based on it being used incorrectly in articles like Palestinian rabbis and Palestinian wine. It is now up to the community to fix these POV-inspired misnomers by Chesdovi. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Palestinian costumes while you're at it. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dovid. The allergy is obvious in numerous discussions. I remember for example the responses in this discussion where I supplied, without effort, rapidly, 21 sources which used the term Palestinian Jews (a ghit in google books will show 10,000 hits). There was no intelligent response only foghorning chat that evidently illustrated the inability of many editors to detach the use of the word 'Palestinian' from contemporary political usage. I read a lot of stuff on antiquity and no scholar shivers at the expression. On Wikipedia, in any ancient context, as here, you get upset people, inventing all sorts of rationales not to use the obvious, RS-grounded, adjective. An encyclopedia is supposed to nudge readers towards an improved knowledge of the subject, not to dumb them down to the sterilized or politicized jargon of contemporary affairs. If I have a bias, it is this: Judaism's rich mosaic of particular cultures looks to me to be crushed into a bland homogenizing oneness by editors insistently 'modernizing in terms of post-1948' Israeli national discourse everything in the past, and that impoverishes its diversity in unity. In my view, 'Palestinian minhag'  is not only eye-catching, but whoever clicks on it will see another example of the deep Jewish roots in that land. If anything, it counters some widespread Palestinian misperceptions in this regard. People raising these objections do not seem to understand that squeezing out all Jewish associations with 'Palestine' and restricting them to 'Eretz Israel' is self-defeating, even culturally. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I might add that I can well see where (religiously) Chesdovi is coming from, but I can see also similar if ideologically or religious distinct POVs also operative in others on this kind of question. I think the recent tendency is focus on a metareading of edits he makes, while ignoring case by case, their merits or otherwise, is problematical. Certainly with "Palestinian rabbis" (4,100) google book hits, that is highly customary usage in the scholarship on the antiquity of the area, and I for one, in seeing it, don't have wanking fantasies of some Arafat-bearded amora beaming between payot, or Hillel the Elder wrapped in a PLO flag.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Chesdovi, Palestinian costumes seems correct, since there it means ethnic costumes. Which can not be said of the other cases I mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani I don't think trying to prove my "allergies" will be successful, nor will it bare any fruit. In view of the fact that you, and other editors here, also have your clearly definable POV, I see no good coming from going down that path, and will not even read that section, instead assuming good faith from all editors here (with the exception of Chesdovi, in which approach I feel myself justified because of his editing restriction). Debresser (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We really disagree on what is evidence. Of course I have a POV, but it has never got in the way of the primary criterion producing my edits, which is solid predominantly academically produced works on the various topics. It's not a worry for me that we all have, visibly, personal POVs on the big picture, Who cares. What deeply annoys me is that far too many editors are contemptuous of strong sourcing, which trumps the POV issue. In 2 cases here, Chesdovi has far better sourcing evidence than anything produced to challenge his editing. Were we to meet Chesdovi and I would probably agree on nothing in general re the world in POV terms. I don't look for editors who agree with my outlook, but editors who know what strong RS evidence is. You and Sir Joseph are looking at his personal POV, and ignoring the quality of the evidence he adduces, which bears on NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi's sources are cherrypicked and misleading. I say that not based on his POV; it is how I established he has a POV. As such, his sources just show a nice front, while they are worth nothing, or actually less than nothing, since they are misleading. That is the crux of Sir Joseph and my problems. By the way, please remember that in the case of this specific article, I have no problem with the word Palestinian. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Cherrypicked' is a word I could gloss extensively. I found it as a dump term in wiki talk pages, like 'strawman', empty of effective meaning, but generally connoting the idea that:'I have no evidence, you do, since you worked hard on sources. But I dislike the evidence you have given, and therefore I will claim, without counter-evidence, that you are just grubbing up selective evidence to confirm your confirmation bias, which, I, your editing adversary, am free of.'Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that definition. :) Debresser (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Israeli minhag" is certainly wrong, as it implies that it is or was used by nationals of the current state of Israel. "Minhag Eretz Yisrael " is technically correct, but would anybody wanting the information think of looking it up under that name? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then why do we have Palestinian wine, Palestinian rabbis? Neither the wine nor the rabbis were in the current State of Palestine. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dovid. These are case by case issues. As I said, I don't think it healthy to look at all occurrences of 'Palestinian' regarding early Jewish practice and people as if they all reflect the same problem.Each case should be examined on its merits, in terms of customary usage and RS evidence. That is the only way to avoid the endless POV worries we unfortunately get in these articles. Sir Myles's suggestion of Minhag eretz israel is certainly an improvement as an alternative name. The only issue there is, as he appears to imply, its appropriateness to what you yourself called the exigencies of encyclopedic writing in English.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a question of usage, not logic. "Palestinian" has in fact been used in several senses, whether we like it or not. "Israeli" unambiguously refers to the present state of Israel, and has never been used to mean anything else except in the rarest instances (such as the names of some Black churches, and even they have generally changed it to "Israelite"). It would create confusion to broaden it to mean either "Israelite" or "shel Eretz Yisrael". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Differences?
The article talks a lot about the Palestinian Rite, but never tells us with it is.

What are some significant differences between it and the Babylonian Rite? What are things that make it unique? What some general/recurring features of it? Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)