User talk:Chesdovi/Archive 5

Your dispute with Debresser
It's getting a bit tiresome now, isn't it? Why don't the two of you head for mediation? It may not succeed, but, who knows, you might be able to find some common ground. Or at least a measure of mutual respect. Are you up for it? --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Siddur meforash.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Siddur meforash.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jah ribbon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jah ribbon.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Palestinian shulchan aruch.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Palestinian shulchan aruch.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Banu Nadir
Dear Chesdovi, you left a message on my page which said: "Is there any extra-Koranic source for the existence?" , but i didnt get what you mean. Do you mean does any other Quran verse refer to the event?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis
The verdict is in. Incredible. Does truth count for nothing on Wiki? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Showing your true colors only after the fight?
 * Truth is elusive, and there is much to say for being smart also. If you get my drift. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like yourself Debresser, I find it impossible to hide my true colours. Truth will out. Attempts at smoothing rough edges are usually futile, as the Palestinian debate has shown. Best to be true to the Truth from the start. In Ireland, the expression for one who is "smart" is "cute hoor"; you'll have to Google the Hiberno-English for that one. Suffice to say that I'm glad to say that I'm not smart in that way if that was what was intended by your comment. Better to be a fool than by those standards to be judged "smart". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer to have clear positions. Your position wasn't that clear in the discussion, but your comment here resolved that question. My other remarks were intended to be vague and philosophical, because I really try to not let my personal opinions interfere with what I think is correct from a Wikipedia point of view. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From one topic-banned user to another
I, like you, was topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict (my ban is 3 months). I wish to ask you whether it is safe for one banned from this topic to edit articles about Israel in general, such as the country, the government, communities, etc, if you stay away from pages on the conflict. I wish to make a major edit on the Knesset's section which has to do purely with its functions, but I would like to know if it is safe to do that. Thanks.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Palestinian Patriarchate
Another contribution to the DYK project, thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Afd of Palestinian rabbis
If have nominated the article "Palestinian rabbis" for deletion. The main reason being that the term is a product of your fantasy. Detailed rationale and additional arguments, please find on Articles for deletion/Palestinian rabbis. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * , can you provide a source for this quote by Ben-Gurion: "Rabbi Yitzhak of Acre was not the only Palestinian scholar to leave the country in this period"?—Biosketch (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have. Chesdovi (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, can you reproduce it here?—Biosketch (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, currently note #26 at Palestinian rabbis: David Ben-Gurion (1974). The Jews in their land. Aldus Books. p. 220. Chesdovi (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. My guess is that that's a translation from Hebrew, "לא היה היחיד מבין חכמי ארץ ישראל שעזב," or something to that effect, in which case it's ambiguous as far as translation goes. But I'll have to track down the original Hebrew. Tell me, what are your feelings on renaming the article Rabbis of Palestine or Rabbis of the Land of Israel? Would either of those be acceptable alternatives to the article's current name? This way the confusion with the modern Palestinian ethnopolitical identity would be avoided.—Biosketch (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Point 1: The nominator specifically stated that such an article title does not instigate confusion. Also the nominator would be against such a rename per Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The way the ANI is going, you and the nominator are both going to get topic-banned because of these recurring episodes. I'm trying to suggest a way to avoid that, because you write articles that are valuable to the Project but at the same time also provoke people on account of their possible subtext. If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative. But strictly regarding yourself, would you approve of moving Palestinian rabbis to Rabbis of Palestine or Rabbis of the Land of Israel? I haven't consulted the other party in this dispute yet, but if you tell me you're fine with either or both of those names, I think the onus'll be on to explain why he's opposed to them, if at all.—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Point 2: You are most probably correct that it is a translated work. (I can check as there is a copy in my local Beis Midrash). Nevertheless, am I correct in thinking you seem to want to apply the Jewish name for Palestine to all Jewish subject articles? I know that’s what IZAK seems to endorse, but I feel that it is unwarranted. After all, this is not Jewish Wikipedia. You can see that Palestine links to the Hebrew version EI. It seems there does not exist on Hebrew wikipedia a page on “Palestine”: . The main English page on the region is called Palestine which provides the comprehensive article on the subject, while Land of Israel on has a summary about it meaning in Jewish history, etc. Note that Hebrew wiki page states: השם המקובל בלשונות אחרות לאזור הגאוגרפי המכונה בעברית "ארץ ישראל" הוא Palestine ("פַּלֶסְטַיין", "פַּלֶסְטִין" - אנגלית, צרפתית), Palestina ("פַּלֶשתינָה" - ספרדית, איטלקית, רוסית), فلسطين ("פִלַסְטִין" או "פַלַסְטִין" - ערבית; ובעברית כונתה לעתים פַּלַשְׂתִינָה). And since this is English wiki, we should always be using the name Palestine for all subject pertaining to the region. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Between "Palestine" and "Land of Israel," I don't really have a clear preference. Those two words refer to the same thing. (There is a problem on Wikipedia with Template:WikiProject Palestine associating the Palestinian flag with Palestine, but that's a separate problem and one that I'm trying to resolve elsewhere.) Now, you can see that I added an interwiki at he.wikipedia to your article Palestinian minhag, even though I also left you a somewhat caustic comment on the Discussion page of that article a while back. The point is this: Palestinian is today used to refer to a group of people claiming a common national identity that didn't exist at the time of the rabbis your article is discussing. The meaning of Palestinian has correspondingly undergone a semantic shift over the centuries. Palestine, on the other hand, hasn't. Wikipedia distinguishes between Palestine the region and Palestine the proposed state. What I'm suggesting is that, as a practical measure, we be considerate of the modern meaning of Palestinian and not apply it retroactively where it can mislead readers into associating rabbis with an ethnic-national identity that didn't exist in their time. It seems to me that the easiest way to do that is by renaming Palestinian rabbis→Rabbis of Palestine, Palestinian minhag→Minhag of Palestine, and so on.—Biosketch (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Bio, but the meaning of Palestinian today is not much different than it has always been. Like each and every other country in the world, xxxian refers to residents of that country or region, be they ethnic xxxians or not; whether they indeed hold xxxian nationality or not. Unless you can persuade such categories like “Jews by Country” to be changed into the format you suggest above, why should this be this different?
 * Let’s say Ben Gurion called the new Jewish homeland in Palestine, Judea. Would we have Roman era Judean blacksmiths together with Modern era Judean footballers under Category:Judean people by occupation? Possibly. Maybe the prefix “Ancient” would be used to disambig form the earlier Judeans. But both would be referred to as Judean. No one would suggest that a page on Judean rabbis should be renamed to Rabbis of Judea, lest one think these ancient rabbis formed part of an modern ethnic-national identity which did not exist thousands of years ago. Or even if such an identity did exist, that people may erroneously associate these early rabbis as being alive and kicking during the past 60 years. The term Judean can be applied to both ancient and modern rabbis since it delineates the very same location.
 * I do not known what the rabbis referred to themselves as, but all I can do is base this classification on the extensive contemporary RS which refer to such rabbis as Palestinian. There may have never been a Palestinian nation as we know it nowadays, but the classification used in RS does not necessarily insinuate there was. It merely means such people were from Palestine. It does not mean they were Arabs or held PNA identity papers. Is it really such a significant issue that this confusion precludes us from using this term in this case? (Remember, there is only opposition (by Zionists?) when it comes to Jewish articles!) If anybody has been a tad bewildered upon seeing such an article/category name, so be it: Upon reading the first line of the article, all becomes clear. What is the fuss about? Those few seconds of puzzelment: “How can Jewish rabbis be Palestinian when there are no Jews in the West Bank or Gaza?” What?!! “Oh, I see, this refers to rabbis living in the region when it was known in its entirety as Palestine.” Let people educate themselves. I believe that when the typical reader see a page entitled “Rabbis of the Land of Israel” his mind thinks of a biblical entity, not the medieval and pre-modern period. Palestine or Palestinian on the other hand refers to the region over a much extended period of time, not only since 1964 when the PLO was established. Such a halabaloo about this, made mostly by one editor, makes people think there is an unmentioned agenda on the part of some editors regarding this issue.
 * As it stands, there may be a distinction between Palestine the region and Palestinian state, but that may soon change: Palestine will direct to the modern state, with the current being disambiguated to Palestine (region). We could be left with Rabbis in Palestine which would make no sense at all. About the suggestion of Rabbis in the Land of Israel, that would obviously have to include Category:Israeli rabbis, which is beyond the scope of the article, which is about rabbis who lived there before Israel was created in 1948 with the subsequent influx of thousands of rabbis.
 * I am not sure how we will deal with people of Palestine when the state is declared. Possibly Category:Poets from Palestine (state), while all other poets who lived before 1948 in the region would be simply called Category:Palestinian poets. Chesdovi (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try your argument with "Spanish rabbis". They are not related to contemporary Spain, and when they lived, the country was not known as Spain, yet we still call them Spanish... And remember, the Spaniards did far worse to the Jews than any Palestinian Arab ever has... Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Category creation
You lost me I didn't make this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my error. Chesdovi (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian
A word with at least two meanings:
 * The Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.
 * The Arab inhabitants of Palestine.

Using the less common sense of an ambiguous word, when we don't have to, does not help the reader; it does score points about the legitimacy of Israel (which I support, btw). But, despite the appalling conduct of some prominent editors on both sides, this is not the place to demonstrate one's political commitment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Palestinian has one meaning: Inhabitants of Palestine. Be it Palestine 1512, or Palestine 2012. There is no valid scholarly reason to only reject the term when referring to Jews. That is discrimination. If I say "Syrian" to you - do you think of an Arab or Jew? Arab of course. Jews make up .002% of Syria. But it is not ambiguous to call a Jewish rabbi Syrian. On the contrary, it is usual informative descritption which feature on many biographical pages. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Palestinian" can denote a modern ethnicity, a modern citizenship, or an historical area. Denial of any of these meanings is impossible. I can not even guess how someone can do so. The only parallel which comes to mind is Holocaust denial, being equally absurd. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be absolutley precise, the term actually has just two meanings: 1. Palestinian: the dialect. 2. Palestinian: A person from Palestine. Be someone an "ethnic" Palestinian, hold Palestinian citizenship or reside in historic Palestine, they all share the same common desingnation: They are/were inhabitants of Palestine. That why they are all called Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot about the language. But ethnicity and citizenship are no longer related necessarily to the geographical area. You have to recognise this fact and these meanings if you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Write sense or I will save myself the bother. Chesdovi (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound rude, but if you don't understand English, don't edit here. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. Silence need not imply consent; it may imply that I am tired of the issue and see no profit in further discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tired already? You did not even respond to my first reply. Your silence could also imply that you are not willing to publicly retract your assumption and acknowlege defeat! There is no doubt that Jews historically lived in what is termed Palestine. Yet you think we should not call them Palestinian? There is nothing ambigous about it. What other example is there of this phenomenon anywhere, that we do not call people after the place they are from? Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Constantinopolitans
It says right on top of the Constantinople article: "This article is about the city before the Fall of Constantinople (1453). For a more detailed approach after 1453, see History of Istanbul.". See also the repeated and repeatedly fruitless attempts to rename the article or at any rate move the Ottoman period under "Constantinople" at Talk:Istanbul. If you want to have a shot at changing this, go ahead. Constantine  ✍  15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual lead of Constantinople states: “After the Ottoman conquest of 1453, the official name of Constantinople was retained in official documents and coinage. Not until the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 did the Turkish government formally object to the name, and ask that others use the more common name for the city.” Further, Names of Istanbul says: “It remained the principal official name of the city throughout the Byzantine period, and the most common name used for it in the West until the early 20th century.” So I can not see why Istanbul is being used in article before 1923? Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it was the common name of the city in Turkish during the Ottoman period, and is also used in more modern books for the after 1453 period. Per WP:ENG and WP:COMMON it is still rather a weak argument, as the overwhelming majority of contemporary and modern literature use "Constantinople" for the city even post 1453, but the division exists de facto in WP. Personally, I can live with the 1453 dichotomy and the notion that both Ottoman and modern Turkish city are covered under "Istanbul": there are certainly far more continuities between Ottoman Constantinople and modern Istanbul than between Byzantine Constantinople and the Ottoman capital. For accuracy's sake, I'd prefer a separate article on the Ottoman city, whose history is a fascinating subject, but I am not in the mood nor do I have the time to devote to the massive and in all likelihood impassioned discussion, let alone the resulting huge restructuring, that any change on this will generate. Constantine  ✍  18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nerve
You have a lot of nerve: commenting on a discussion not about you on my talkpage, accusing me of beig impolite, and making this edit yourself. Perhaps you had better strike that insult, or I shall have to take it to WP:WQA. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Impolite again
Please refrain from personal attack language like "petty" or "shame on you", as yo did in this edit. If you are not able to be more polite, people at WP:WQA will have to explain some things to you. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal
Also, please don't send out thank-you notes likes this one, giving people the feeling that they have sided with your personally, rather than with your point of view. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Awards on Syrian and Libyan topics
Chesdovi, thank you for the awards! Greyshark09 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You are a real asset! Wear you awards with pride! Chesdovi (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Joseph's Tomb
The article and the content you are commenting clearly falls under the scope of your topic ban (see the warning on the talk page). I am asking that you strike through your comments. -asad (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think so, I think the ban only extends to parts that discuss the conflict. What the name is or if it is the Prophet Yusuf or a Sheikh Yusuf that is buried there is not, in my opinion, part of the topic area.  nableezy  - 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not comply with Asad's suggestion in any way, shape or form! I will continue to occupy myself with sorting out the correct Arabic name for Joseph's tomb until the age-old Muslim association is given its rightful place in the lead. With Nab's help, we are nearly there. I am sure we can get the wording right. It's kinda cute how Asad says "I am not claiming that it was never referred to as Muslims by the burial site of the Prophet Joseph," as if the suggestion that it was is open to question. What he really should admit is that is most certainly was called after the prophet, and the draped cloth over the tomb in 1917 proves it beyond doubt. Once he accepts that, we may have a chance of providing an accurate picture. Once we find contemporary RS that call it en-Nabi, we should be able to use the term, because sources using Qubr Yusuf would naturally just be using it as a shortened version. (Indeed, that's what the road signs used.) Then we have the problem of the Sheikh. Wafa claims he was from the 7th-century, while most other sources claim he was from the 18th! We will have to sort this out some how, because most pre-Israel sources do not mention this guy. Chesdovi (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My fault, I thought it was more clear. Jewish Israelis believe it is the site one of their prophets, Muslim Palestinians believe it is a site of a local cleric. Both sides have shed blood for control and access to the site based on the conflicting claims I just mentioned. You are inserting the POV that Muslims believe it is the site of their prophet as well, which would give relevance to the Jewish claim. I find this fits the defenition of narrow, but your ban states that you are "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year." So just to confirm, you are not willing to strikethrough? -asad (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making that link. I am not. Neither am I making edits relating to the conflict. So no, I will not strikeout my comments. I am not required to. Would you also expect me not edit Nathan of Gaza as that would be construed as propping up the Israeli claim to Gaza? Don't go causing problems again please. I know for a fact you are wrong in this case. As this Arabic naming issue was one of the fake sccusations you made against me, it is no wonder you are trying to scupper any progress on the matter. Let me remind you that I was not banned for adding this term based on RS. It was my knee-jerk reaction to your report that casued it. Now, we can mention in the lead that Muslims have changed their view about who lies buried there since the Jews and their Israeli allies reclaimed rightful posession, but we must also mention the RS which state that Muslims regard/ed the tomb as belonging to the Nabi. Got it? Chesdovi (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -asad (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Question 2
This was a joke, right? Debresser (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right
If editing the topic was in violation of your topic ban or not -- I don't care. I want to withdrawal my request because I sincerely misinterpreted your intentions regarding the article -- for that I apologize. Even though I entirely disagree with you with you about the subject matter, it would be better for the article to work on it and get it straightened out despite whatever ill feelings we have towards each other as editors. -asad (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See here -asad (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Question 3
In the article about Isaac ben Samuel of Acre you bring the book Chovot HaLevavot as a source. The problem is only that that book predates this rabbi by over a century. Please explain. Debresser (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't give a satisfying reply to this question, I shall have to remove the reference as an obvious mistake... Debresser (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was intended to reference the word Palestinian, but you have removed that anyway, so what's the point? I will further mention that this page was created with Palestinian kabbalist, but IZAK removed that term together with the Palestinian Rabbis category with a "minor" edit. Funny how my readditions of both these are lambasted by yourself as "controversial", "POV", etc. To me, my edits are of the same ilk as IZAK's: minor. You have turned them into the wiki-debate of the century. Chesdovi (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to writing Mamluk Palestine? Debresser (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We all know you have a bee in your bonnet with the "P" word. But you have elsewhere asserted that you would agree to use the word "Palestine" if no other editor besides yourself took issue with it - no other editor has. You also conceded that using the the term "Palestinian" to describe tannaic & amoraic sages was quite in order. What happened to that? Chesdovi (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am doing my best to come to compromise with you. A shame you didn't grab the chance. Anyway, let me say that I admire your work in making these stubs about amoraim. Perhaps you should add Rabbi-stub to Hanan the Egyptian as well. Notice please that I have no real problem with "He later moved to Palestine and was active among the scholars of Jabneh." in that article. I would have a problem with calling him a Palestinian amora because of this, for several reasons, which you probably know by heart already. But since you, perhaps out of consideration for me or my arguments, didn't use that wording, we both agree that this turned out a fine stub. To answer your questions. Other editors have taken issue with your usage of the term Palestinian. That they don't comment every time your continue to ignore them, only does them credit, in a way. Also, editors are simply worn out because of your unending pushing. If you keep being pushed, many people will just take a step aside. That is why I have argued in WP:DRN that you should take a break of a few months before opening a centralised discussion about this issue. People are just not interested at the moment. As to your second question, I remember saying that the term "Palestinian Talmud" is a legitimate term, although "Jerusalem Talmud" should be preferred for all practical purposes, but I do not remember saying generally that amoraim of the "Jerusalem Talmud" can and certainly not should be called "Palestinian". Would you also please reply to another question I asked you a little higher, something about IZAK and waiting. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would in fact like you to apply your reasonings to our Egyptian friend. Why has this Egyptian escaped unscathed? You state that we cannot call an ancient Jewish rabbi "Palestinian" because nowadays there are no Palestinians who are rabbis and people seeing such a term will be thrown aback at such a insane suggestion. Rabbis who lived in "Palestine" were not ethnic Palestinians, it would be misleading to term such rabbis as being so. Yet you are 100% happy with leaving this ancient rabbi "Egyptian". Why? Is this rabbi an "ethnic Egyptain"? Do you know how many Jews there are in Egypt today? Maybe 6? Why do you not worry that people will be confused when we refer to a rabbi as being Egyptian? There are no rabbis in Egypt!? [PS. You are allowed to change your views, (I had hoped you would have by now) but you did previously state: "Anyways, as far as talmudic sages are concerned, there is definitely a point for calling the sages of Israel "Palestinian" as opposed to the Babylonian sages. Just as the Talmud Yerushalmi is sometimes called the Palestinian Talmud."] Chesdovi (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you might ask this question. But I was sure you were smart enough not to do so. I was wrong. The reason is so very simple: that was his (nick-)name. But notice that you did not say "Hanan the Egyptian was an Egyptian amora". And now I turn the table on you! Likewise you should not say that any of our sages was a "Palestinian" amora! Thank you, Debresser (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should I not say any of the sages of Israel are "Palestinian". Why should I be any different from the past 5 chief rabbis of the UK & Commonwealth who have used the term? And if you don't care about a "nickname" why did you move "Tachlifa the Palestinian"? Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because his (nick-)name is Tachlifa of the West. You ask such simple questions today. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you keep dodging the hard ones: You seem to have said "there is definitely a point for calling the sages of Israel Palestinian" - yet you remove this from all Tananim pages, why? You ignore the fact that great Jewish scholars, including cheif rabbis have used the term Palestinian - but I "should not say that any of our sages was a Palestinian!" Why? (Btw, Rabbi Tachlifa's "nickname" is Ma'aravi which translates into normal english as "the Palestinian". Much like "Rabbi Shimon ha'Teimani" - we do not call him "Simeon of the South", rather "Simeon the Yemenite".) Chesdovi (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to have said? Or have I said? Anyway, you seem to have problems with correctly understanding the English language. If someone says "there is a point for it", it means that he can see some merit in it. It does not mean that this one merit tips the scales. In effect, I see so many problems with using that term, that whatever merit it has, is completely outweighed by the disadvantages and problems of and with this term (the "P" word). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the fact that Rashi (Maseches Taynis 19, 1) and the Bartenura (Mishnayes Taynis 3,7) say that Shimon HaTeimani was from Timna(s) (תמנה/ת). So he is actually "HaTimni", and the usual "HaTeimani" is based upon a misunderstanding. In addition, saying that "Palestine" is the normal translation of "Ma'arav" is simply wrong. The normal translation of "ma'arav" is "west". During the time of the gemorre, when the two main centers of learning were in Bavel and Israel, "ma'arav" came to refer to Israel, because Israel lies west of Bavel. But "refer to" is not the same as "normal translation"! Debresser (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Soncino Edition of Tractate SOTAH, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH NOTES, GLOSSARY AND INDICES BY REV. A. COHEN, M.A., Ph.D. UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF RABBI DR. I. EPSTEIN B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit. on page 41a does not refer to Rabbi "Yehuda bar Ma'arava" as "Judah of the West", but rather as "Judah the Palestinian." On page 27a, where R. Tachlifa is mentioned, it translates as "Tachlifa from the West" (i.e. "the Palestiniaan"). There is no reson whatsoever why there should be any oppostiton to the name "Tachlifa the Palestinian". But "rabbi" Debresser obviously knows better... He has yet to answer why it is okay for cheif rabbis to use the term, but not Chesdovi. I have also added Category:Egyptain rabbis to Rabbi Hanan, but oh look, that seems to have slipped under Debresser radar, yet he was so quick to remove the Palestinian rabbis cat as soon as they were added. (Don't go now and remove it, spare us, please) Chesdovi (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not responsible for decisions made by the editor of that book. But you see yourself that "of the West" is an accepted translation. And it has the additional plus of being unambiguous and uncontested. As to the "Egyptian rabbi" category, I simply hadn't noticed that yet, so nothing can be inferred from my actions or non-actions in that regard. Also, I sincerely regret the aggressive tone of you last post. I was hoping to keep conversation civil, without unnecessary and insulting sarcasm. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI
In view of the reaction of admins last time we were at WP:ANI, namely to topic-ban both of us, I find it rather unwise that you have posted there. I have tried to reply as concise as possible, and hope it will not come to that. I'd advise you to do the same.

More to the question. I do know the procedure for moving an article: press the "move" button. I have replied more to the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism.

In general, this instance of your POV-pushing sickened me. I sincerely find you a disruptive editor, and think you should be at least be topic-banned. Other venues for consensus-building not withstanding.

In the mean time, I'd like you to reply to my questions here on your talkpage. I do not ask them lightly. You could at least show me that courtesy. Debresser (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Abba of Jaffa
What is wrong with the wording "Jewish Amora sage of the Land of Israel" like in Rabbi Aha? That shows you what the consensus has been so far. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Palestinian rabbis
Hello! Your submission of Palestinian rabbis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

POINTy behaviour
Chesdovi, please don't advertise every article that you have created that uses the word "Palestinian" on WT:JEW. You are fairly obviously engaging in WP:POINT. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Naw... Thank you for sharing and communicating! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Simeon the Yemenite
Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is unsourced? You will be blocked for removing citations. Chesdovi (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * What is unsourced???????????????????????????????? Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You remove sources. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you warned me saying: "Please do not add unsourced content." I will also add that you twice removed a cited source. The cheek of it. Chesdovi (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Simeon the Yemenite
Do not try to own te Simeon the Yemenite article. The text you prefer is clearly inferior, as it introduces doubtful and simply superfluous geographical qualifiers. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS, GO TO THE RELEVANT TALK PAGE. Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is there to discuss? You are just trying to push your habitual POV. Debresser (talk)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * Landscape during Laugavegur hiking trail 2-CA reduced.jpg (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)]]
 * That is not my attitude. That is my assessment of you: a pushy editor, even to the point of being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

El Ghriba synagogue + Synagogue of the Kohanim of Djirt
Hi Chesdovi. Both these synagogue articles in en.Wikipedia link back to the same he.wikipedia which has the same photos. ג'רבה יהדות_ג'רבה Are you 100% certain that they are different? note there's no geo-cordinates on the 2nd. Maybe Google Earth can help? Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are both different places. Chesdovi (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Amka and Amqa
There is a currently ongoing merger proposal discussion regarding merging of Amqa article into the previously created article of Amka. According to sources and geographic location we are speaking of different prenounsation of the same place name Amka/Amqa/Amca, the same as Acre/Acco/Akko and Tiberias/Tabariya/Tveriya. As done with other towns/cities, all time periods are listed in one article.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Selected teachings
I notices you have added selected teachings to some articles about Jewish sages. Do you think that falls within the scope of what Wikipedia should do? I am not opposing this interesting idea, but I'd like to know if this has precedent on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Priestly covenant
Hi, any idea what the correct standard WP:RS translation of מדרש הנעלם would be? I translated it into English, but was guessing. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see where. If this refers to note 3, there is no need for it to be translated. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It may have been edited out. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Rabbis called &quot;the holy&quot;
Category:Rabbis called &quot;the holy&quot;, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People named for Jerusalem
Category:People named for Jerusalem, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refactor
Hi Chesdovi

In this edit, you imply that Catholic priests provide a benchmark for "revolting, base" "foul language". This is offensive to many if not most people here whether or not they bother to translate your remarks. Please refactor your comment immediately.

Regards, Bongo  matic  12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What a terrible error. Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stay away from Debresser, and stop the personal attacks, or I will block you. Do you understand? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have made it quite clear I want nothing more to do with that “rabbi”. And I would have thought Debresser's choice of words is 100 times more reprehensible than my vociferous protest against them. Yet I see you have not censored him yet. If you remove my remarks, I await you action on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) If you can't refer to him by name, please refer to Debresser as an editor, not by any other expression.
 * 2) What comments of his are you referring to? I'm not aware of them, but I will come down just as hard on him if he's attacking you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is totally unacceptable. What's the matter with you?—Biosketch (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yid Hakodesh
Yes, Yid Hakodesh is an exception. Not every Hasidic rebbe is called Hakodesh. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He still looks rather odd in the category, which will be deleted anyway.... Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deeply honoured
by your gift of that barnstar. One of my real names is Joseph, chosen precisely for the patriarch, a story that has entranced me since early childhood. It's not an easy article to do justice to, and much remains to be done. Please keep that keen eye on whatever I do there, and keep me honest. I put a few links in the bibliography on things (Wright etc.) I think would be useful to give coverage of the scholarship on Joseph's death and the interment, through the biblical, aggadic tradition, etc., and hope you can advise me as to whether or not you think we should explore this there. Best Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ches, do you know off-hand if Rav Yudan's comment in the Genesis Rabba about goyim was made before or after the Rabbinical judgements which reclassified the Samaritans as gentiles? It's apropos of nothing, pure curiosity, woken while parsing that passage today. It is highly curious, and makes more sense to me if Samaritans were intended, given the period (400-450, though Christians were violently anti-Samaritan at that time). Only a Samaritan would make such a charge about Shechem being stolen, surely. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

topic ban
You are violating your topic ban by commenting at an AE request related to the topic area. You are risking a block or an extension of the ban. I suggest you remove your comments, all of them, if you do not wish to be blocked.  nableezy  - 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim said it is not related, only Bio. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits by SD are not related, the actual request is. You cant comment on anything related to ARBPIA anywhere on Wikipedia. I dont plan on getting in to an argument with you on this, but if you do not remove your comments you may be sanctioned. I wont be filing an enforcement request, but somebody else may and I would guess if they did so you would be blocked.  nableezy  - 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine
Hi please see block of Talk above your thread. I hope the comments I made were helpful to all, I'm not pushing anything there and would like to see happy but WP:RS compromise. Re " Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?" You might want to clarify "Antiquity" = Hadrian, since the Herodotus and Aristotle use of Palestine aren't typical of pre-70CE "Antiquity." Particularly weight has to be given to Strabo, whether or not he deserves it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
This jived with the stories I have heard, but I was having a difficult time finding the source. I appreciate your addition. -asad (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal seals.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal seals.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 22:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look in at DYK again
Please comment for what I hope is one last time at Template talk:Did you know/Palestinian rabbis -- is the latest ALT hook valid, per your understanding of the topic? --Orlady (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ben Zakai.jpg needs authorship information.
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Ben Zakai.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal seals.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal seals.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hi Chesdovi. Please provide a convenience link at Administrators' noticeboard to the RfC you want the admins to close. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

re-instating personal attacks
could be construed as a personal attack. Just saying :) Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mufti
Hi, I've done my 1 revert for today but that stuff you found in David Dalin's ridiculous book is going to go. There isn't any evidence for either of the two things you inserted so far, both are well known inventions. The Auschwitz visit that in fact never happened is on the talk page somewhere. None of the serious historians of al-Husseini make either claim. Zerotalk 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mufti
That article is almost certainly covered by the topic ban.  nableezy  - 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mufti
See User:Biosketch v. User:Supreme Deliciousness (September 2011). You can edit articles under ARBPIA sanctions as long as the edits themselves don't concern the Arab-Israeli conflict.—Biosketch (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to add an image of Jews buying land from an Arab in the 1920s or 30s to Jewish land purchase in Palestine. Is that allowed? Chesdovi (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jewish land purchase in Palestine doesn't sound like it's about the Arab-Israeli conflict inherently. But according to WP:TBAN, if the section you're editing is related to the conflict, then it's out of bounds.—Biosketch (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, that interpretation of what the Talmud says is awful and has got to go. There have to be less semantically misleading sources for explaining what Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is than that book.—Biosketch (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like add it to the "Land purchases" section. Btw, what does "semantically misleading" mean? Chesdovi (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that the way Yishuv Eretz Yisrael got translated into English makes it sound like the expression means something different from what it actually means – certainly different from how its original users intended it.—Biosketch (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Solomon ben Jeroham duplication
Thanks for letting me know. This happens when articles don't have variant (or even standard) spelling, particularly with Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian etc. names. But thanks for letting me know and fixing, merging copying across the ref. That "boiling excrement" article of Mare.. HoElohuth is still there waiting for a rename :( In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Recategorization
Hi, I noticed that you removed Category:People from Jerusalem from some Rabbi pages and listed them instead under Category:Rabbis in Jerusalem. It is true that they are rabbis in Jerusalem, but they are also natives of Jerusalem. I was actually trying to populate the former category with more religious figures who were born in Jerusalem. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was aiming for consistenacy, but recognised the issue. Most wiki cats are called "people from". Would it be necessary to have two cats, "from" & "in"? Lots of rabbis were not born in Jerusalem, or can "from" also indicate only residence aswell? Thoughts? Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From my experience, "from" is being used both for people born in that city and people who currently live in that city. I agree it's not the most precise categorization for those who only live there. I would prefer keeping the Category:Rabbis in Jerusalem, but adding back Category:People from Jerusalem for those rabbis who were born there. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Last warning
See the editsummaries of the following edits. Debresser (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation
For File:Mauthausen_IMG_1717.JPG I don't think it's Arabic might Persian or Urdu, I can decipher one word "Afghanistan" Tachfin (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what my Arab friend said too, but he wasn't 100% sure, so thanks for clarifying! Chesdovi (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As promised months ago
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Note that your input to that thread can be placed here on this talkpage, with adminhelp tag used to ask for it to be copied over ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

adminhelp BWilkins, unbeknowst to yourself, I am currently topic banned from I/P for a year (on some spurious basis), and I have a self-imposed interaction ban with the "other" annoying, arrogant and despicable editor, as I indcated to you a while back. So your proposal in in fact truly ineffective. This will never be resolved until some willing Admin actually involves themsleves in the knitty-gritty issue at hand, instead of implementing useless blocks. I have tried everything possible, two RFCs, two DRNs, appeals at wikiprojects, etc. etc. So don't blame any of this on me. While consensus to keep Palestinain rabbis has been reached umpteen times, Debresser will not accept it. It is further just not possible to concrete that "consensus" while Debresser reverts each time! Debresser thinks he is right. I know I am right. Now you sort it out. Threatening us we blocks and sanctions will not get the project, or your reputation as an effective and fair Admin, anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Done

Malik is correct in saying that the meaning of "Palestinian" has changed to refer soley to non-Jews nowadays. But when discussing history, we use historic terms. The words Palestine still is used to refer to pre-1948 Israel. That will never change. It is therefore valid to term people from that period "Palestinian". The more I read on this subject, the more I see the term is used to refer to such people. The latest book I read was published in 1978 and was a collection of scientific discourses. It was editied by two leading Orthodox Jewish personalities, Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb, and ancient rabbis are called "Palestinian". Now Debresser may want to burn this book due to that offending word, but it is crystal clear that the term "Palestinian" is used by contemporary mainstream neutral Jewish RS, just as "Palestine" is used to describe the historic region. Who can claim to the contrary? Even the chief rabbi used to term to refer to Levi ibn Habib. But Debresser will just not accept these facts. As he so idiotically stated: To use such a word to describe a Jewish person is, wait for it: "anti-semitic". Can you now begin to understand his mindset? He said he would "fight will all his might" to stop the word being used. Is that normal expression for a wiki-editor or does it indicate a strong POV related to the I/P conflcit? For Debresser, this indeed is associated with the conflict, but for me, coming purley from a historical viewpont, this has little to do with it. Debresser's opposition to this is a clear case of politically inspired POV which has no place here and I find it very hard why other editors do not recognise this. Debresser can state as much, and as hard as he wants, that there was never a place called "Palestine", but any person with a grain of intellect will just smirk at such a stupid assumption. The Encylopedia Judaica calls Daniel ben Azariah "Palestinian", but God forbid for us to use it here. I find Debresser a disruptive, arrogant and foul-mouthed menace. He has lost any credibility in my mind. Wikipedia should not be pandering to the views of such people. Every fickle argument Debresser has forwarded on this subject, I have refuted. As far as I am concerned, the majority of the communtiy concede usage is valid, but Debresser continues to reject it and enforce his own opinion. There have been enough centralised discussions on the matter. The conclusion, believe it or not, is that "Palestinian" can indeed refer to people of historic Palestine, be they rabbis or christian monks. Any one who wants to help out here should try and convince Debresser of this. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm assuming that the reason you asked for adminhelp was to copy the above to ANI ... please specify next time. I have copied accordingly ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please post to ANI: Why can we just not rely on RS to use the word "Palestinian" to describe medieval rabbis? Claiming that the term is confusing holds no credibility in the face of widespread contemporary usage in mainstream RS. Further, 3RR reports on Israel ben Meir di Curiel. He is described at Palestinian rabbis, as "a rabbi who lived in the region known as Palestine", yet the region he lived in is removed by Debresser because it is "controversial". What is that supposed to mean? Why is it "controversial." Is adding "Israel" not "controversial?", besides from being a absolute untruth. The AFD and rejection of two "potential renames" supports the fact that using such a classification for such rabbis has been accepted. It is now up to the community to impress upon Debresser that any removal of the word "Palestine/Palestinian" from any "Jewish" pages will be dealt with accordingly. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

adminhelp Please post to ANI: How unfortunate Dweller suggests we are "unsuitable for editing in a collaborative system like Wikipedia." Instead of castigating editors who are locked in a dispute over term usage, he should try suggesting a resolution to the dispute in the true spirit of Wikipedia. The community is marvellous at suggesting bans and implementing blocks very swiftly. There’s never a dearth of Admin input in those situations. But when it comes to sorting out sticky points to help the project move forward, that’s a different matter. DRN’s are closed without comment. RFCs are left “unclosed”. CFDs are closed with the wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, I can provide a list here of a majority of editors who have commented about this and have supported using “Palestinian” for rabbis. So what more is there to discuss? To gain consensus, one has to make edits and see if they stick. How can I go about doing if every time I do, Debresser comes along and reverts immediately? I cannot come to an agreement with him because his arguments are in my view irrational and I know very well indeed this this is not about “confusion” at all, but rather about not mentioning the supposedly offensive “Palestine” on “Jewish” pages. What clearer evidence is there that this is a thinly veiled “pro-Israel” manipulation? It is not “anti-Semitic” to call a rabbi “Palestinian”. Neither is it inaccurate or offensive. It is 100% correct and proper. That is why its use is so widespread in reliable sources, many of them written by contemporary Jewish academics. Now, unless there is a rule on wiki that we not use terms which are deemed offensive to certain individuals, I see no reason why unless those editors provide a convincing argument not to use such accepted terms, they cannot be used. Ed suggests: "Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages." Why is this necessary? I am quite capable of not using the word while the matter is "sorted out." On numerous articles, I purposefully blanked out the offending word, pending the outcome of the discussion on the matter:. When the outcome was clear that using the term was okay, I added it. There is similarly no reason why I cannot edit in pages such as Palestinian synagogues, Palestinian Patriarchate, Palestinian minhag and Palestinian Gaonate. An uninvolved editor should try explaining why we cannot use "Palestinian Rabbi" on bio pages even though Palestinian rabbi exists as a self-contained article. That is a very intriguing question, don’t you think? Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

✅ Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please post this image above my latest comment at ANI: ✅. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)