User:HG1/archive2008 2

Syro-Palestinian archaeology
I've gotten a bit bold and made a number of changes there as represented in this edit. It's provoked by the new material I found while researching for the working page you set up. I just want you to know that I'm still committed to that discussion. If you find the changes inappropriate since they touch on what we're discussing, you can revert and I'll wait until the issue is settled between us. I wasn't clear as to whether you thought we should stop editing those sections while discussing. I hope that's not the case, since I wouldn't want to stop trying to improve the clarity of those issues on the article page as well, if we can. Anyway, if I've overstepped the bounds, let me know.  T i a m u t talk 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't really understand this comment, just saw it now, and have made a number of changes since. Could you just take out what you feel was inappropriate to add or revert to the version you think it should be at? Because I've made a number changes. Also, am I to understand that we are not to edit the article while we are discussing at the working page at all? Pretty much anything that is going to be added is covered by the discussion. Are we are editing hiatus from the article until we're done? Because I'm not sure I'm up for that, given that it might be a couple of weeks. Generally, when I find new things, I get excited and like to add them to the article while I'm still excited about it. So can you be more explicit about the editing restrictions you are proposing?  T i a m u t talk 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, people might think "editing restrictions" is a conduct issue, so readers beware. Anyway, shouldn't I answer on the article Talk. Yeah, I'll do that... HG | Talk 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I've been waiting for you to add something further to the discussion page you set up at Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology/Terms and scope. Since I added material and posed a question to you there about ten days ago, you have not responded. Is the discussion over, or are you simply too busy to be involved for now? Your feedback would be appreciated.  T i a m u t talk 11:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've collected some sources but haven't had time to put it up. Yes, I'm very busy now and may not get to this until hopefully Wednesday. I'm really sorry, though I think the article version isn't disadvantageous to you. Ok? thanks. HG | Talk 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I understand. Waiting has put a chill on my editing there since after your concerns regarding a holding off on changes to the sections under discussion (which pretty much frame the direction and shape the article will take overall) I haven't been able to work on improving the article further in any serious fashion. So when you do get back to editing here, I'd appreciate it if you gave the discussion "top priority". :) I hope you're doing well and like Jd below that your busy-ness is of a good kind.  T i a m u t talk 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still very busy in RL. I did one little entry and ans'd yr question. Be well, email me if need be, HG | Talk 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, HG.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Avi, greetings! Glad to see that you were accepted as a 'crat. Long time no see, of course. I expect to be somewhat active again, though thru a different username. Perhaps are paths will cross or I can just let you know if you're curious. Best wishes for 2015 C.E.! HG | Talk 09:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

1948 issue
Hello HG, Could you please tell me where these archives have been saved ? I cannot find them and the issue surfaces again :) Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your note. Sorry I've been so busy in RL. The archive for that thread is here in Archive 1. Is that what you're looking for? Be well! HG | Talk 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

British Mandate Stamp
Hi HG; On the Postal history of Palestine article, I need your help to try to keep it neutral. As I've seen that you corresponded with another editor there and are considered neutral; so I would like to ask you to please see our discussion there. If you think that arbitration is the way to go; then please tell me how to request one. Thanks. Itzse (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Itzse. Thanks for your note. I'd like to think that my posture is considered neutral, generally. In this particular case, I happened to depart from my usual modus operandi because I've been heavily involved in creating and editing the philatelic articles dealing with the Holy Land (aka other names). I guess I was naive thinking that stamp collecting (which I love) wouldn't be problematic. As a result, I'm not sure that my colleagues there perceive me as neutral. For this reason alone, I'm not sure I can help out in a useful manner. In any case, I'm too busy in RL to get involved in the caption dispute.


 * Personally, I'd recommend against trying to move to arbitration over the caption (which I wrote originally, I think). In the big scheme of things (even within the fish pond of Wikipedia), it's just not worth draining our attention. If you all are having trouble staying civil and reasonable, then try WQA.


 * Also, I strongly recommend that you try your utmost to be respectful and AGF to Ww2censor and Bleddynedans. They're both very knowledgeable philatelists, the latter more of an expert on this specific topic. Like all human beings, they have a point of view but I don't see them as inflexible or pushing their view(s) in an unreasonable way. As you might imagine, since you know me pretty well, I think some of your rhetoric (e.g., Judenrein) unnecessarily dramatizes and escalates the dispute.


 * Good luck, Itzse. I was recently reading about the principle of "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." It'd be great to see that spirit spread around. Do you think there's a tannaitic equivalent? Kol tuv, HG | Talk 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG; nothing comes to mind at the moment as a one liner; but this concept is well known. This is the reason why the Halachah is like Hillel and not Shamai, because Shamai's quality was sharpness (no nonsense - and when the Messiah comes the Halachah will be like Shammai) but Hillel's quality is "humility" which enables someone to try to understand a question. Where as Shamai would show him the door ("make himself understood" as in the famous story of the Ger; al regel achas), Hillel was able to boil it down to simpleness ("seek to understand" where the Ger is coming from). Other Gedolai Yisroel who were known for their extreme humility, are the Remah (1530-1573), the Chafetz Chaim (1835-1933) and Reb Moshe; and therefore they have all merited to be the Halacha Psukah.

That doesn't mean that sharpness is wrong. The Chidah (1720-1798) writes that "I've heard from the elders, that the Maharshal (1517-1575) (cousin of the Remah, and known for his extreme sharpness who couldn't tolerate idiocy) is extremely deep, and most rebuttals from the Maharshah on the Maharshal aren't rebuttals if you would delve deeper".

Ani Hakaten don't consider myself extremely sharp nor extremely tolerant, rather middle of the road; but here on Wikipedia in order to be taken into consideration and not trampled upon, I have found that when making a point it needs to be razor sharp to drive it home.

I respect you preferring not to get involved, and I would agree with you on the right approach; but in this particular case I've encountered an aggressive editor, who starts out in his first edit lecturing me to "contribute to the talk page" instead of the article. How would you deal in my place? If your answer is letting him have his way; so then please tell me when should I put my foot down and when I should let everyone get away with their prejudice?

As you know; I have long given up on WP; and I do not know why psychologically I keep on coming back; maybe I have a slight addiction to it. Either way; if WP would really upset me and make me leave; it would do me a big favor and help me concentrate on the scholarly projects I'm involved with, instead of this unappreciated nonsense. Itzse (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, I'll have to think if I can find a statement about listening skills. (And I don't mean listening to the hakhamim, there's plenty of that but that's within a defined subordinate role. The humility is on the right track.)


 * For me, I've made the most progress with aggressive editors by being repeatedly and uncharacteristically as gentle and as patient as I can. At a minimum, it models proper behavior and reinforces my own RL work on my midot. As you may have noticed, I'm still quite persistent when I think there's a serious issue at hand. Eventually, most aggressive editors will appreciate being treated with soft-spoken respect and they will respond by either articulating their best arguments more carefully or by figuring out a way to save face and let the dispute slide. That's my sense. Meanwhile, Itzse, if you don't mind my saying so, you might want to figure out why you keep coming back to a project, a process, that bothers you. Eyzehu gibor, ha-kovesh et yitzro. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Spread the word
There is a discussion about getting more people involved in Philately on Wikipedia. Join the discussion and share your thoughts here. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  02:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

TFD
Hi! I rewrote the comment taking out the Us-You language and removed your comment. I hope you don't mind. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Judaism
I'm afraid I don't have time for a detailed answer, sorry I haven't gotten back. I'll quickly point out a few issues -- Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I basically take the view that "Judaism" means the contemporary religion, with its history a matter of dispute.
 * Both traditionalists and academics think, for opposite reasons, that contemporary Judaism is very different from the academic view of the religion of the ancient Israelites. Orthodox Judaism believes its tradition provides a reliable window into the past and rejects academic views. And many academics take the view that contemporary Judaism is a relatively recent phenomenon so radically different from the religion of the ancient Israelites that the two shouldn't be given the same label. People who take neither view would form a distinctive constituency which isn't necessarily a majority. It seems to me the different views should be presented rather than one being presented as an editorial assumption.
 * The question of whether academic views of the Bible should affect contemporary Jewish views was a hot topic in the Conservative debate on homosexuality. The essence of the Tucker dissent was that the law committee should be more like the history faculty -- it should accept academic views of the Torah over traditional commentaries and use them to make decisions. The CJLS, even the more liberal Dorff responsum, rejected the idea.
 * Given this debate, and the CJLS's rejection of academic views of Biblical passages on homosexuality, the very idea that academic views of the ancient Israelites are "naturally" part of Judaism is itself a controversial idea. I think one would have to talk about who supports this idea and who opposes it rather than presenting it as fact.
 * Thanks for your thoughtful (as usual) response. Why not just post it on the article Talk? While I'd be glad to look at the text (if you have page #s), I'm skeptical that the CJLS is saying that, for instance, the religion of the 1st Temple is not Judaism. Instead, they probably are saying that non-(or pre-)rabbinic Biblical exegesis is irrelevant to halakhah. I'm pretty confident that within mainstream Jewish discourse, the 1st and 2nd Temple period (and often back to the patriarchs) is considered Judaism. I'm fairly well-read and I can't recall any Jewish argument against the Jewishness of the Temple periods. Your first bullet point requires further discussion because it would imply that the article can be renamed Homosexuality and Contemporary Jewish Views, or the like. Thanks again for your reply. Let's continue at article Talk? Kol tuv, HG | Talk 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)