User:HG1/archive2007 5

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Synagogue: name
You asked the question in your last edit summary about the name of the article. What do you feel is the normal convention? Does the term "synagogue" include the congregation? Sorry if I seem to be asking daft questions! The article hadn't been tagged with Category:Buildings and structures in Belfast, though Category:Places of worship in Belfast is actually a sub-cat of bldgs & structs! Ideally perhaps there'd be an article on each. Perhaps a better way, if there isn't enough info forthcoming, is to create a section specifically about the congregation..? Cheers. -- Setanta 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I answered you on my talk page, but I have another question to ask you: as far as I was aware, the Belfast Hebrew Congregation uses the only currently-used synagogue in the whole of Northern Ireland. You removed that info in one of your edits, so I don't know if you know different. Obviously a citation would be useful if it does turn out to be the only one. Cheers. -- Setanta 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender and Judaism
You did all that? I'm seriously impressed. Egfrank 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. HG | Talk 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Notability
Not a problem...notice tho that is says why it's notable, not that it's notable. If you accomplish the former, the latter becomes redundant. Cheers, Tomertalk 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Progressive/Reform Judaism

 * Hi -- Unfortunately, I can only be on Wikipedia for a few minutes a day this week due to events IRL and I don't feel I have time to give this coflict the attention it deserves because of this. Unfortunately I'm knowledgeable enough about the Reform/Progressive movement internationally to offer a really informed opinion and I don't feel I have time to act as an informal mediator. Perhaps you might want to broach someone like User:Tshilo12. User:JoshuaZ is also an administrator with a substantial amount of experience who's been involved in various Jewish article-related disputes at times. If they can't be available perhaps they can recommend someone. dispute resolution offers further advice and additional options.  Best, --Shirahadasha 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reform Judaism
A move to summary style is not a POV Fork. Summary style is something way overdue at Reform Judaism. -- Jheald 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been in a discussion for a dispute over Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism. You've been asked to discuss rather than to edit aggressively to obtain your wishes. Your creation of German Reform movement (Judaism) was done to achieve your wishes -- you moved the material from Reform Judaism and prefaced it with a discussion of the "progressive movement." Whether or not this is overdue or desirable, you need to work it out thru consensus with other editors. What you are doing to accomplish your wishes is disruptive, and it's highly discourteous to those of us who are trying to talk this out. HG | Talk 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HG - you are acting like you have been nominated judge and jury, but you are just one editor among many. There are three other editors in agreement.  You have presented your opinion and failed to persuade anyone that you are right. Demanding that everyone stop editing until they convince you is disruptive.


 * If you feel this strongly, try to come up with new arguments. Go to the library and take every book out you can on the subject of reform/liberal/progressive Judaism.  You lost a lot of credibility when you made arguments about books you didn't read and tried to make semantic claims without studying context.  It doesn't have to be that way.  Turn us into a resource (we'll be glad to help you).  The more you learn, the easier it will be to pursuade. Egfrank 20:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as uncharacteristically uncivil. Ok, I've read it, but please strike it out . I will be glad to respond if you'd like to rephrase in a kinder and less antagonistic fashion. Thank you. HG | Talk 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HG - how would you have liked me to say the above?ie. what would have been kinder and still goten the point across? You do the wording and if it gets what I wanted to say across but in a nicer way, I'll even sign it! And then if you want you can even delete it - I agree: there are some things, true or not, that shouldn't stay out there once they've been heard. Egfrank 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust you know how to avoid being patronizing or insulting. If not now, rephrase when you can. HG | Talk 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would we give credibility to the IDF?
Wouldn't it be suitable to have a subsection on IDF's view and response? Though I wonder, where in the order should it be placed? (Alternatively, the IDF view could be split up, maybe some on Investigations and some on Reporting, etc.) Anyway, maybe somebody could workshop this and then put a draft here? For what it's worth, my rule of thumb would be for maybe 3/4 of the section to neutrally/charitably present the IDF view, about 1/8 on substantive criticism of the IDF view from major players, with 1/8 (or less needed?) a wrap-up on the outcome. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit perturbed to see you writing the above - we're discussing the HR organisations response and the "fact" that the IDF promised investigations but hasn't reported carrying out any. Why would we give the IDF any credibility whatsoever, when not only is not doing what it (apparently) said it would do, but obstructed everyone else, right up to the UN? PRtalk 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

HRW and AI on war crimes
Hi PR. As you know, Battle of Jenin is currently edit-protected -- for good reasons -- so we need to propose edits. I helped hammer out a brief text for the lead paragraph about HRW and AI. Tewfik Armon G-Dett and Eleland participated and support the new text. It's good, it's fair and we've got support on both sides.

However, toward the end of the section with the proposed text, you made a strong statement that sounds like you're trying to block the proposed edit. E.g., you wrote: "Why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.?" As a result, apparently, a neutral admin (CBM) didn't feel that the proposed edit should be put in place.

I'd like to point out that the proposed edit DOES OMIT the "prima facie" language -- which is apparently your chief concern -- and even added that the human rights groups called for official investigations. So I would think that you, (perhaps similar to Eleland here?) would support the proposed edit.

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could strikeout your objection and join the others in supporting the proposed edit. I think it's to everybody's benefit to demonstrate that we can collaborate and edit the article. (Or, if you have a concern, perhaps you could reword it in a way that deals narrowly with the wording we've come up with? Please?)

Thanks very much. Best wishes, HG | Talk 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello HG - I'd love to join you at Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox and start making real improvements to that article. I see the mediator believes he has two smallish edits ready to be finalised there - perhaps he's not seen this, your attempt at doing something similar until it was apparently sabotaged.
 * However, there are fresh and yet more aggressive attempts to muzzle me in progress. Perhaps you'd not realised, all three of my mentors have suffered very serious harassment. Not much of it in public, obviously, but see this reference and a (deleted) "Attack Page" here to get a feeling for it. (And this is the "good" mentor, the only one not to have suffered admin consequences for putting themselves forwards!).
 * You must be very relieved I rejected you as a mentor, there can be little doubt you'd have suffered the same harassment if you'd tried to do it honestly! Remember me saying you'd been "attacked" for dealing with me in a collegiate fashion? You refused to accept that that was what was going on - when you see your successors get so much worse, perhaps you'll accept I was right!
 * Anyway, times have moved on, the latest salvo is an attempt to impose on me a mentor, you can see it here. I've stated my feelings at Mentee speaks #2, I'll not disfigure your TalkPage by repeating myself here. PRtalk 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PR, I don't understand your reply. You say: "Hello HG - I'd love to join you at Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox and start making real improvements to that article. I see the mediator believes he has two smallish edits ready to be finalised there." You seem to be addressing me in the third person ("the mediator"), which is confusing. Anyway, we do believe that the first of the (I certainly admit) smallish edits is ready to be finalized. Can you accept this small edit? If not, what wording change do you think will gain consensus, and what is your reasoning? After this small edit, I would be glad to help work on larger real improvements. HG | Talk 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a mediator on that page and he is asking that we create the Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox page and enter into it edits we'd like made and presumably agree on.
 * I don't mind ignoring him, and going with your mediation (surely you told me you weren't doing a mediation?), but I've not seen your sandbox or definitive statement of what you want to insert either. //Oops, sorry, burrowing down I can find what's being suggested - I'll sign up to defending an agreed compromise. But you'd not ask me to agree to defending something still containing definite falsehoods.// PRtalk 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PR, thanks so much for signing up for the agreed compromise. Would you mind saying so at that spot on the talk page? Or should I just copy your comments from here to there? Have a good weekend, HG | Talk 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PR edit
Hi HG - you have nothing to do with mentoring, but you might be interested to see this and your input will always be considered. PRtalk 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi guys - I'm a bit bemused, y'know, dazed and all that jazz. I've not bothered with this article for a while and at one point developed a blind spot, being unable to find the proposed changes. (There's also the confusion of an alternative mediator hovering, attempting to interest us in yet another Sandbox).
 * Now I've looked more carefully, I see that the proposal is that the 5th and last paragraph in the lead should now read as follows (italics show the changed portion):
 * Palestinian sources have described the events as "the Jenin massacre," and international media and human-rights organizations initially expressed concerns that a massacre had taken place. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held. The Palestinian death toll was estimated as at least 52 (including at least 22 civilians), while 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.[11]
 * There is one hard-fought improvement that's appeared here, "at least 52" Palestinian dead instead of "52 total" - but the wrong version is still brazenly in the info-box, and I don't fancy the chances of the good bit as soon as protection is lifted. I'm afraid I don't like almost any of the rest of it, neither the changed portion, nor the context within which it is set. We're allowing and entrenching the way that the article has been dominated by misleading word-play foisted on it. This incident contained elements of massacre in both senses of the word - and it's not just Palestinian sources who said it, an Israeli minister was one of the early ones to do so.
 * Even if collegiate standards of behavior demand I stick to commenting only on the changes that HG has kindly put in front of me, they're all over the shop. It's plainly untrue that "investigations found no evidence of massacre". 25 or so civilians (even by the laughable admission of the perpetrators) crushed in their houses or rocketed from helicopters is most definitely a massacre (and there seems to be virtually no RS that denies it, other than 3 headlines which don't match the articles they're attached to). The blogosphere is full of angry supporters of Israel insisting "there was no massacre" - but their desperation is plain to see, the RS media reject their ravings. Here's Michael Silverburg, who strikes me as relatively sane, he's writing 8 weeks after the journalists were finally allowed in. "Page after page, day after day, the most respected, influential British newspapers The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times of London and The Evening Standard gave thousands of column inches to unreliable and misleading reports and innuendoes that compared Israelis to Nazis, to al Qa’eda, and to the Taliban." (He and others concentrate on the British media, but I see nothing to indicate the US media were much more Israel sympathetic).
 * Further to the massacre claim, we have good published witness evidence for only one small "line-em-up-and-shoot-them" incident (effectively confirmed by the IDF and for which we have names) - but we simply don't know what evidence may have been collected for the bigger mass shootings that some(many?) camp residents claim to have witnessed. We'll not find out until Israel agrees to cooperate with us, and up to this point it's flatly refused to do so. We should *not* claim that "investigations found no evidence of massacre" - the most Israel-friendly thing we can do is politely draw a veil over it and move on to something else.
 * There's a lot we (or maybe just me) don't know about this incident and the media coverage of it. I'm not aware that Palestinian sources emphasise the "massacre" element - even (or perhaps especially) if they do, then common decency would require us to accept their phraseology. Hammering away that "there was no massacre" puts us into very dodgy territory. PRtalk 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this correctly, your main concern is with "Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one." However, let me point out -- that sentence is simply a carry-over from the existing text. It's not part of the proposed edit, except that it was a clause and now it's a sentence. You can check this out by looking at the article. Anyway, I do appreciate PR that you are looking at our specific wording. I'm sorry the context in which we are placing the edit isn't to your liking, but with such a contentious and disputed article, I think we need to take this by little baby steps. HG | Talk 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are all sorts of massive problems with this article, but the very most serious one is the number of known falsehoods included (such as this one - since there is very good published evidence of an "up-against-the-wall" shooting type massacre, the IDF has confirmed the incident and we have the names of two of those who carried it out).
 * Your attempt at mediation is laudable, but you can hardly ask me to come on board and defend the version we end up with if it's not purged of the obvious rank historical distortions. You told me that "denial involves extreme historical falsification and thereby invalidates or casts the utmost doubt on a source", I know you'd not want us to fall into the same trap ourselves. PRtalk 13:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your merge
I'm sure you meant well, but merging unsourced synthesis into a carefully arranged outline (meant to be developed slowly verified line by verified line) was less than constructive. Could you please put things back where they came from?

We can also talk about a separate article later on when (a) the synthesized material has be desynthed and/or verified and (b) the core shared beliefs have been built up into a reasonable body of material.

If you are concerned about forks, why don't you just move the SYTH material from Reform Judaism into a sandbox...Over the next few days we can distribute the material to the proper places so nothing gets lost.

I'm sure in a few weeks we'll be ready to discuss your proposal of a beliefs article. Now is just not a good time for it. If you need to discuss this further, please make comments on the article you created, not here (so everyone can have a say).

Thanks, Egfrank 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I did respond on the Talk page previously and we can continue there. Thanks for agf'ing me. HG | Talk 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Also, none of you material has gotten lost because we have the edit history. HG | Talk 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken a closer look - I was a bit harsh - I can see you were really trying to be constructive and come up with some ways of grouping things. BTW the bibliographies are interesting - can you please source them though?  Somebody put a lot of work into constructing them and deserves credit.  I'm rewriting my comments on the talk page to tone them down a bit and to be a bit more informative about possible future directions...thanks for the WP:AGF too. Egfrank 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying so, I'd much prefer a friendly rivalry or repartee than a battleground atmosphere. Plus, we might find moments of downright cooperation. On biblio, I'll reply there. HG | Talk 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HG, Egfrank asked me to comment on this article. There are some preliminary remarks from both of us on my talk page, but I will comment more specifically in a little while at the article talk page. DGG (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG, I welcome your input. If I'm not mistaken, I got a very good impression of you from the Psychiatric abuse discussions. Let me know if you need anything from me. HG | Talk 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal aspects of ritual slaughter RFC
Requests for comments are automatically removed after a month with no comments. I expect this will happen soon and suggest letting the standard process work. Sorry for not replying to your comment earlier. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Your RfC was useful and it's good that the article has been renamed. Be well, HG | Talk 20:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethics and halakhah
Great work so far!

A while back User:Shirahadasha suggested that I write up something on Reform Halakhah because the Halakhah article has no sub-article for it. I think you have a much better background than I for that topic. (I've noticed that you have a long term interest in applied halakha and ethics). When things get a bit more substantial I wonder if you'd consider splitting that section off so it can be linked to both articles?

Kol tuv, Egfrank 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IP conflict
Hi, Since you're involved in its resolution, I thought you might want to contribute to Asian capitals. Thanks. --victor falk 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a related rfc. Do you know of articles (preferably not core and complex ones) where similar things happen in the other direction?--victor falk 08:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By other direction, you mean pro-P deletions of pro-I edits? From what I've seen, the edit warring tends to involve both sides, but I don't have specific examples for you. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Hey sir - good to see you again. I know you've had an opinion before on the existence of a controversy section over at Psychiatry. Even after the article rewrite and integration of certain points, an editor has expressed interest in reintroducing this section into the article. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts as to whether it should or shouldn't be included as the article is written now. Let me know at Talk:Psychiatry. Thanks so much for your time. Chupper (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented there. You've done fine work and I trust you all continue to weave controversial issues into the article's narrative. Be well, HG | Talk 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Reform Judaism#RfC: Should there be a single umbrella article on Reform/Progressive Judaism and if so what should that article be called?
Hi! I've tried to rephrase the question into one about what to do with the article vs. one about the underlying subject. If I've misunderstood the intent of the Rfc, please correct the wording. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry about the edit conflicts in my replies. As you'll see, it doesn't look like we're ready with an RfC, plus need Egfrank's buy-in. Meanwhile, in my view the RfC can be removed for now. Hope you can continue to help out with this. L'hit, HG | Talk 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your participation in the wikipedia alert re: IZAK
I have decided not to participate in this debate with you any longer. You are simply repeating over and over again that I am a POV warrior without giving any reason other than I identify as a Progressive Jew and started a Progressive Judaism project. Unless you believe Progressive Jews are inherently biased, then this does not count as a reason.

You don't trust a thing I say, so there is no point in saying anything. This is pointless and a waste of time. Please leave me alone and quit making these accusations of POV pushing and stop including them in your edit messages as well. Egfrank 22:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if there's been a misunderstanding or miscommunication. I believe I've expressed where I'm having difficulty trusting you, but that doesn't mean you're untrustworthy, merely that our relationship needs work. I've tried to articulate my reasons. I don't think I've called you a POV warrior, or spoken to you in an accusatory manner, though I do think people who represent a POV need to work from a critical distance from it. If I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to revert/delete such statement. Which edit messages bothered you? Of course, your participation in something like Wikiquette is up to you.


 * Regarded your deleted draft reply at WP:WQA, I agree that Izak's conduct has shortcomings, but I didn't happen to be discussing these w/you. I certainly make no assumptions about your observance, have never written about which mitzvot you observe, it simply never occurred to me to think about that. Nor has it occurred to me to speculate about your beliefs. I can only think there is some miscommunication (perhaps on my part) that would leave you to think otherwise. In terms of why I don't express my concerns with Orthodox editors about their POV-oriented editing, I haven't had occasion to do so but I'm certainly not adverse to it, nor would I hold them to any different standard or methodology than you. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to delete our entire discussion. It detracts attention from my main reason for raising concern about IZAK's behavior. Contrary to IZAK's accusations I did not take his behavior personally.  I raised the issue because I think it creates a destructive editing environment:
 * The take the focus off the article and onto the person making the attack
 * The are as good as hanging out a sign saying "Warning:Edit war ahead" to any editor of the attacked denomination. Most editors will stay away from edit wars with the result that participation in editing ends up being biased in favor of the attacking denomination.


 * As for Progressive POV - This statement:"it isn't my place to decide for people how to arrange their relationship with or even what they should call and most certainly what they choose to call themselves. But that cuts both ways - I would no more judge a haredi woman who covers her hair and has 10 children than I would the woman who enjoys tanning her body on the beach in the skimpiest bikini known to man.  And I would defend them both equally should one try to cast judgment on the other."  is what Progressive Judaism is to me, or at least what I choose to take from it.


 * In reality Progressive Judaism is so many things to so many people that making generalization about what a particular progressive Jew thinks or practices is essentially impossible - so from an objective sense my statement "That is progressive Judaism is probably wrong too - there is no way to say it is anything. There are progressive Jews who are Shomer Shabbat and Shomer Kashrut and look to halakhah to define what that means.  There are progressive Jews who don't.  There are progressive Jews who believe Moses received the Torah on Sinai and Progressive Jews who don't.  What is definitive and foundational in one person's mind religious mindset may be viewed as a side effect in another.  Some people think pluralism is the core value.  Some people think respect for the privacy of other's decisions is the core value.  Some people think independent decision making is a core value rather than respect for other's privacy of choice.  Some people think change is the core value.  Some think human dignity....


 * Such a perspective sets me free in someways and biases me in others. I don't have an emotional need to protect one version of the truth.  On the other hand, I tend to privilege academic sources because I percieve them as coming from a tradition that is as trying to move towards (but never achieving) full neutrality (WP:NPOV).  I view neutrality as an essential tool in achieving my own religious committment to not judge others but rather being open to the internal consistency of their position.


 * If you distrust me then you have a strongly held belief of your own that you are not owning up to. And that is making it hard for me to trust you.  I distrust people that claim they are neutral and pretend to others that they are and yet act otherwise.  You don't distrust IZAK and he clearly has a point of view.  You don't distrust Shirahadasha and she explicitly owns her modern orthodox point of view.   Your only basis for distrusting me is that I own my identity and that identity happens to be Progressive/Reform. So it must have something to do with the specific identity and your distrust itself hints at your bias.  Egfrank 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Egfrank, thanks for writing and keeping our communication alive. I'm sorry you discontinued our conversation at WQA. (I just posted there to get advice.) I think our relationship does need some work -- on both sides, including mine certainly -- and WQA seems like a good place to get some outside perspectives and support. Let me reiterate that I do not think or claim that you are untrustworthy. Not at all. You've earned many people's trust, as I saw on Talk:Bible (reached via your telling me about your work at Christianity and Judaism) and elsewhere. I'm merely saying that, due to our past interactions and ongoing editing disagreement(s), that I "feel" some distrust and would like to pursue trust-building etc.


 * I sense that there's some miscommunication betw us about my statements regarding you and POV. As far as I can tell, my concerns have absolutely nothing to do with your beliefs or practices, which honestly I've never given a second thought. I have no animus to whatever you believe and I don't think my POV-related concerns have much to do with the content of Progressive Judaism. I feel they could easily apply to an Orthodox editor or, for that matter, a Cowboys or Harry Potter fan. Granted, Izak argues with you about religion, but I don't. Perhaps my distrust does have to do with your owning an identity and working on articles related to your identity, but the nature of your specific identity raises no issues for me. I have similar discomfort with the POV-oriented editing of folks on all sides of Israeli-Palestinian articles -- while I try to avoid the appearance of taking any side myself. Anyway, I would urge you to keep open our conversation and, if possible, use WQA or another mechanism to help us work thru the rough spots and misunderstandings. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, this statement above sounds a lot more honest than some of the other ones I've heard. Perhaps it is because for the first time you've actually talked about yourself.


 * Please see my clarification above - I revised my comments without realizing you had already read them. It might help you understand why academics comes before religion for me.


 * However, the fact remains that you don't distrust IZAK or Shirahadasha and the are both vocal about their identity. Also both IZAK and Shirahadasha work on articles associated with their identity.  And they really do struggle with striking a balance between WP:NPOV and their convictions (though they do an admirable job of keeping that struggle on talk pages).  Why do you see this particular identity that I have owned as especially liable to bias? 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I glad you heard me here. I'm not sure why you think I "don't distrust" Izak or Shira H. Again, I don't think my concern with you has much if anything to do with your particular identity. But can we carry on this conversation in a different venue, such as WQA? Thanks muchly. (Back later...) Be well, l'hit, HG | Talk 01:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When is the last time you have publicly accused them of POV based editing? Maybe that has something to do with it?


 * The problem for me is you came out of the gate just assuming POV motivated edits. That was particularly upsetting because I go out of my way to base my editing on third party sources rather than my own opinion or experiences.  I don't add material unless I either have the cite or know that one is available. (those I usually mark with  tags).  And I don't cherry pick either.  I deliberately look for material covering different points of view. Hold over from Princeton where our professors also went out of their way to teach us the variety of view points available rather than preach a specific viewpoint.  Do you think I would have survived very long at Princeton if I didn't learn the difference between honest reporting of sources and biased self-interested analysis? Egfrank 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear here. I am not making a point about my credentials.  My only point here is that absurd and wrong to assume that someone is biased merely because they edit on topics that they just happen to know something about or have some identity with.  We both know there are ways to train people to avoid bias.  Are you suggesting that catholics can't write a decent academic article on catholicism? That Jews shouldn't do Jewish studies degrees because they are inherently biased?  And if you do think Jews can be academic about Judaism, but you exclude me from that group, aren't you making some sort of assumption about my background and training? Egfrank 03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. It sounds like you're interested and willing to continue the conversation. Would it be ok to go back to WQA (as before or a new section)? Thanks. HG | Talk 05:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No - I'm tired of this discussion. I came to wikipedia to edit articles, not have arguments over my motives.  And that is what I intend to do.  If I keep arguing with you I'm going to stop contributing to wikipedia altogether.  This is not what I came here for.  Enough is enough. I shouldn't have let myself go even this far. Egfrank 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, thanks for making an effort to try to iron out our misunderstandings, etc. Let me know if you'd like to pick it up again at some point. It's unfortunate (for me) that you feel "accused" by my comments about point of view. By the way, I agree with your saying, above, "My only point here is that /it is/ absurd and wrong to assume that someone is biased merely because they edit on topics that they just happen to know something about or have some identity with." My concern is not about your identity or knowledge, but rather the way (in Talk and articles) I've experienced your working for the "Progressive" against the "Reform" terminology. Anyway, at least for WP purposes, I'm glad "academics comes before religion" for you. I wish you well with your editing. Take care, HG | Talk 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hannukah Template
Hi, I noticed you are around, would you please mind opining either way on the subject of the Footer at talk:wpj? I am very upset about this but maybe I'm just wrong. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I did comment there. I feel like you may be unduly perturbed, especially now that Remember has been responsive and good-natured about the media piece. Anyway, hope you'll also appreciate the work that's gone into that template. Freiliche tchanuka, HG | Talk 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians
Hope you're watching how Tiamut is trying desperately to have Wikipedia settle the Palestinian dispute in her favor, with insisting on the insertion of the word "nation". She will not take "no" for an answer.

I have been watching for months, how she tries to maneuver with sources or other means; but she will not acknowledge that there is another side to the story, dismissing it merely as fringe. I told you so!!! Itzse (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Itzse, glad to have you back and you'll welcome on this page, as always. But, hey, didn't you learn that it's not polite to say I told you so? khappy khannakah, KHG | Talk 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * HG, Ah freilichen Zos Chanukah to you; do you have a politer way of saying it? Itzse (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, pardon my gutteral humor. Hope you've had a warm and enlightening Chanukah. HG | Talk 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're pardoned. Now let's turn over another leaf. Hope you're watching. Itzse (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I know I am ... still waiting for a source-based discussion at that talk page that is, rather than one centered on contributors. Hi HG! Thanks for the source you pointed out. I'll try to track it down.  T i a m u t  01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, now that you've gotten a source-based discussion going, which you really wanted; will you back off? Or will you pursue it as if you WP:Own that page? I'm willing to stay out of that page for now if you will do the same; do we have a deal? Itzse (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

HG, I'm disappointed with you. You succeeded in making me leave Wikipedia by bending over backwards to defend her. Now that she has taken advantage of it; where are you? Where is "yoisher"? Itzse (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * HG; thanks on taking on this big challenge. If you succeed there; it would prove your negotiating ability. I've opened a new chapter with Tiamut and looking forward to a positive environment. Gut Shabbos; I'll be away until Monday. Itzse (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Itzse, thanks for your note. But don't jump to conclusions, please -- I'm not taking on the challenge of that page's dispute. I'll raise some q's and talk some, I'm not promising more than that. thanks again and chat with you anon. HG | Talk 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG; I applaud your candor and honesty on this impossible mission which became obvious with your remark about your neutrality. You are probably aware that I extended an olive branch to anyone who would take hold of it. Now evil forces are at work to drag me into a new dispute which I'm not a party to; which no doubt will unravel any goodwill and positive atmosphere created. Please stay on top of it and nip it in the bud. Thanks for being a mentch. Itzse (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Itzse, thanks for your very kind words. I'll observe the proceedings (bl"n) but I don't know if I'll try to "nip it in the bud" because (1) the I-P articles are too much of a battleground and (2) it's my impression that Ryan is a good guy who no doubt wants to help set things right. Let's see if we can keep the drama low and the constructiveness high. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * HG, please see this. If diffs are already at his fingertips it doesn’t bode well for what’s in store. It doesn’t take much to ignite this place. This dispute is on a page which I didn’t edit; and if they think that everybody involved in these type pages is considered a party to this dispute, then let them include all members of project Israel and project Palestine or at least all those that were involved in these pages. Most of these names weren’t named as parties; why not?


 * Don't get me wrong; I have no problem defending every single edit I ever made. I might not have the time for it; but I surely have the wherewithal to deal fiercely with any obnoxious editor. Usually more ink is left in my pen then is dispensed. I smell a rat; and I don't want to tell you that "I told you so".


 * Please don't take it personally; I've come here because it seems to be the only rational place to come. Itzse (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I will take your compliments personally ;-)  I appreciate your keeping me apprised of the situation; it doesn't look like you are asking me to do anything, except maybe express my thoughts to you? While I can appreciate that you don't want to be included as a party, why bother objecting to it strenuously? Look at the calm Statement by ThuranX, who also doesn't want to be a party. You seem agitated and, honestly, I don't think you need to be. If this RFAR goes forward, it may well draw in various additional editors. It will take some time to sort out what the case is about, who is involved, etc. Anyway, my "rational" (your kind term) counsel to you, for what it's worth, is to stop objecting/arguing about inclusion, if only because it will unintentionally make you look worse. By the same token, you will gain credibility and respect if you deal with this calmly, don't stir the pot, don't add to the drama. Do you know what I mean? You don't need to interpret the RFAR as a personal attack on you and you don't need to be defensive. I know it's not easy to react, but you'll be better off the more you avoid the scene for now and either take a wikibreak or go edit some mundane (not I-P) article. B'hatzlakhah and by all means stay in touch. Or let me know if you'd like a different kind of response. HG | Talk 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While resisting being dragged in; I hadn't noticed that they did make it into a larger issue and made one big cholant out of it. I have taken your advice and have taken a deep breath; now I feel better. Itzse (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your guidance needed at Template talk:Chabad
Hi HG: There has been a sharp increase in the debate at Template talk:Chabad as part of ongoing differences of views between opposing editors, some of whom are pro-Chabad POV warriors and others. If you could drop by and give this matter your consideration and input it may help a lot because the way things are unfolding it looks like it may be headed for more serious arbitration which can hopefully be avoided. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me Izak, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I can't deal with anything new this week. Chanuka same'akh, HG | Talk 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner
I will confirm that the statement of the similarity between Rabbi Glasner and Rabbi Berkovits is not written anywhere. I was trying to avoid "original research", but I suspected you'd flag what I wrote nevertheless.

Professor David Glasner says his father (Rabbi Yehuda Glasner) and Rabbi Berkovits were friends, and that Rabbi Berkovits learned under Rabbi Akiva Glasner son of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner. Professor Glasner also says he had a phone conversation with David Hazony on this topic.

In addition Rabbi Professor Yaakov Elman (Professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University) says Rabbi Glasner's and Rabbi Berkovits's philosophies are similar - when I brought up Rabbi Berkovits to him, he responded that everything Rabbi Berkovits said about the Oral Law had already been said by Rabbi Glasner. Rabbi Elman was unaware however that Rabbi Berkovits learned under Rabbi Akiva son of Rabbi Moshe Shmuel.

However, all of this, whether the student-teacher relationship, or the simple fact of similarity, is written nowhere except in my personal emails.

I would ask you then, is there any way to document all of this, without running afoul of original research? I'm sure you'd admit that if this all is true, it is important to document; the question is how to record it without violating the rules. A simple comparison between the two works cited leaves no doubt as to similarity; my asserting the similarity is like asserting a similarity between the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica and World Book Encyclopedia, etc., articles on the same subject, so similar are the two rabbis' philosophies.

Thank you, and shabbat shalom. Sevendust62 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am currently try to contact Rabbi Berkovits's children and ask them if they know of this relationship. However, I am afraid that even if they confirm, it won't be in writing.

Let me ask: what if I got a letter from either Professor Glasner or one of Rabbi Berkovits's children, written on some sort of official stationary and posted somewhere online? (Professor Glasner is a professor of mathematics; Rabbi Berkovits's children are a rabbi and a female rabbinical-type scholar)

Thank you. Shabbat shalom. Sevendust62 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

your help with category
Hi. thanks for your help and input. sorry that my comments don't seem to be coming out clearly. could you let me know more about what your question please? I would like to address your concerns fully and throughly. i thought I had, but perhaps I need to add more explanation. please feel free to let me know. thanks.

By the way, i'm logging off and going home soon, so if you post something, don't worry if i don't answer for a while. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

category discussion
Hi. I just wanted to let you know, I do accept and appreciate your changes to the category "Jewish political status". If it's ok, I believe this might mean that you might now be in favor of keeping the category? If so, I appreciate it. just wanted to ask, could you please go back to the discussion, and note that on your vote? I really appreciate your help with this. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Pls see my note about assignments to the category, too. Thanks for your good work. HG | Talk 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * didn't see this reply before. thanks for your reply, and for your help with this, (as usual). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

help with editor
Hi HG. could you please help me with IZAK? His comments are starting to veer into the terriroty of insulting. he just further replied to acomment of mine at Wiki[project Judaism, reiterating that my categories are troubling, and then saying he could have said more but did not. (To view these, read my contribs history.) I am starting to find his comments to be extremely hurtful in a Jewish setting. I do not like being protrayed as being anti-Israel anti-Semitic, and being subjected to the verbal tendencies of this person. however I say now will only further escalate the apparaent penchants of this person. could you please express a word to stop responding to everything I say, and just be aware that the representations I made about my record are actually accurate and informational, and were not simply me trying to contend with him further? please see what you can do. I appreciate it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give me (here or by email) links or diffs that you'd like me to look at. Be well, HG | Talk 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi HG. Funny you should say that. I was already coming here to do so, and here are you asking me to do just that very thing. Take a look at this. This just in: it turns out, I'm anti-Israel! Just look here: User_talk:IZAK . this is great! La la la. now pigs can fly, snowballs in hell can freeze, and it's gonna rain lollipos and gingerbread men! Is this great or what?
 * As I said before, I think it would be most helpful if you could please submit a wor dor two to perhaps rectify and straighten things out. this editor seems to be trying to do a good job here, and he is a very long-standing editor here. After responding very positively and courteously to my comment, as I'll readily admit, he then launched into a strident comment about how I need to not be opposed to those who are pro-Israel. that's just a bit astonishing. so could you please write to him, just to inject some small abit of rationality into this discussion, which is turning increasingly surreal and bizarre? thanks. i would really appreciate it, and appreciate all your help, as always. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, I see one CfD where Izak says that the category advances what "obviously appears to be an anti-Israel POV." Does he repeat this or call you anti-Semitic somewhere? (Send me links.) Listen, I can see you're upset and I sympathize. But your long and ironic comments (esp on his Talk) won't really help. Better to say very concisely: "You said X. It's unhelpful to characterize me thusly. Please retract or strikeout your comment and refrain from doing so again. Thanks, S..." Do you see why this approach might be more constructive? Thanks, HG | Talk 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I appreciate your input. However, i am not asking you to take my side. i am asking you to simply to reflect to him the actual and correct facts in this matter, namely, that i am not anti-Israel. when someone makes completely false and unfounded and unwarranted statements to me, of course I'm going to react that way. i'm not asking you to support or condone any aspect of any comment of mine, but simple to report the correct facts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * by the way, to answer tyour question, the other instance was the section of his talk page which i linked to above. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * by the way, you are incorrect. there is not a single word of my comments which is even slightly ironic or facetious. i meant every word. Could you please tell me specifically which words of mine seemed ironic to you? I feel that my words were in fact quite simple, direct and to the point, as you may see if you re-read them with this in mind. i feel they were rather fair justified and well-founded. thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the following as ironic: "gee it sure is encouraging to see the way you take evrery positiuve expression of mine and find a way to rebuff it. I assume you will treat this comment of mine as a further reason to subject me to further crticism, anger and outrage?" Also "wow, you sure are doing a good job...." Also: "I'm anti-Israel? I'm anti-Israel." The following seems facetious or hyperbole: "you are so utterly and completely wrong, that the concepts of right and wrong themselves seem uttterly insufficient to express how wrong you truly are." Anyway,
 * Maybe it would be more helpful of me to encourage you not to be so defensive with your response(s) to IZAK. You don't need to prove your bona fides as pro-Israel to him (or anyone) because, as you say, your political opinions are irrelevant. However, to make this point stick, don't then try to clarify or prove your political viewpoint. Do you get what I mean? Besides, don't worry that your reputation is harmed by this, as you saw from GHcool's reply. Have a merry day... HG | Talk 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RfM note
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Requests for mediation/Palestinian people. For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  08:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian right of return
HG, I know that you often help to informally settle disputes on IPConflict related pages. I wonder if you might take a gander at this one. Recently there's been a conflict over whether the page should talk about "Palestinian refugees" or "Palestinian refugees and their descendants," drawing a distinction between "real" refugees and others. My understanding of the sources is that they almost never do this, and indeed many academic sources specifically state that Palestinian refugees include those born outside of the country. Maybe you could help us have a more productive discussion based on the sources. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eleland, I'm honored that you contacted me. In looking at the Talk page, though, it appears that you haven't quite succeeded yet in drawing the "descendants" proponents into much of a substantive discussion. Absent such a discussion, do you really think I'd be of much help? If it remains an edit war with IPs who do not deal with the substantive q's, then semi-protection of the page might be more helpful. Meanwhile, I do see that 'descendents' appears quite a few times in the article. Do you disagree with all of these instances? Thanks. Best wishes, HG | Talk 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's entirely appropriate to note, once, that the definition of "Palestinian refugees" includes descendants, and that some (partisan) sources call this an exceptional or special definition of who is a refugee. However, the article should use this definition of "Palestinian refugee", since it is widely accepted, rather than constantly referring to "refugees and their descendants" which is contrary to normal practice. It's kind of an academic question, though, as long as the IP's won't talk about it. Your suggestion of seeking semi-protection is probably a good one. Thanks. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)