User talk:Davidbena/Archive 2

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Davidbena! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Yemenite Jewish Customs
Just so you know, your article was posted to "Davidbena:Yemenite Jewish Customs" which had it out in the regular article space. Since your article is nowhere near ready for the main encyclopedia, I've moved it to a sandbox under your user page. You can now find the article at User:Davidbena/Yemenite Jewish Customs. Please keep it there until it's ready for the main article space. Thanks and if you have any questions about the hows and whys of me doing this, you can message me at my talk page which you can find a link for in my signature. Dismas |(talk) 10:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was planning on editing the article and adding much more when time permits. As time goes on, the article will improve vastly. Davidbena (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
This kitten is for having a great attitude and being willing to learn about the sometimes-strange ways that Wikipedia works. I think you are going to be a fine editor who will bring a fresh point of view to Wikipedia.

Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 

Talkback
Dismas |(talk) 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Andrew327 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please only have one draft at a time
Hello, you currently have drafts at
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Jewish customs of the Baladi-rite (2)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Jewish customs of the Baladi-rite

Please do not have multiple copies of one article, simply do all your drafting for the topic on one page. If you need to look "back in time" at an earlier draft, use the History tab at the top of the page. So there is no need to "preserve" old drafts on multiple pages, since all old versions can be viewed by you.

Please choose one draft, and mark any extra pages by pasting at the top of the page the code, meaning that you want the extra page deleted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse!
from: PRFEDA —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Back
Your insight is important to Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the timing was right. I have been so busy lately translating papers from Hebrew into English that I have had little time to engage on Wikipedia. The problem with some of the people is that they will say I am quoting primary sources, but when you quote secondary sources they claim that they are merely hypotheses. Then, they will try to discredit the contributor by hoping to find other faults with him, rather than stick to the issue at hand. These people do a GREAT DISSERVICE to Wikipedia, and stymie the truth. In my opinion, such people should be banned permanently for such attitudes. It is dogma that they're more interested in, rather than conveying the truth. Davidbena (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ramle as Gath
It is true that Haparchi recorded a tradition that Ramle was Gath, and some other medieval writers recorded it too. But I don't think it is true that any scholars today (i.e. relevant scholars such as archaeologists) take it seriously. I cannot find a single example, including amongst those authors who mention the tradition. I looked at about 20 recent archaeology books and papers regarding Gath, which overwhelmingly support identification with Tell es-Safi. Can you provide a source for what you are writing? Zerotalk 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, User:Zero0000. While I am not an archaeologist, I do live in Israel and I have read many books on historical geography. I saw stated explicitly in the "Encyclopaedia of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel)" that the ancient city of Gath is believed to be Ramla, before it was rebuilt in the 8th century CE. This view is repeated also in "Carta's Official Guide to Israel," all editions (to the best of my knowledge). Since I have access to many good books at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, I will further research this subject. Meanwhile, however, we cannot speculate here without sufficient proof based on epigraphic sources. Since some modern archaeologists are swift to claim by "conjecture" that a dig may have been the ancient Gath, it is only fair to mention the conflicting opinions. IMHO. One more thing, here (in Israel) Jews give utmost priority to traditions, seeing that often we cannot know about a certain thing or place without a tradition that has been preserved from generation to generation. Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't much trust the Carta guide, as its authorship is unclear and its purpose is partly propagandistic. I've also seen some bad cases of out of date information. However, the second English edition (1986) does not mention the tradition that Gath is Ramle. What it says is:
 * Gat: "Named after ancient city of Gath, one of 5 Philistine cities located in area, but whose exact site has not yet been identified."
 * G'ea: "Perhaps the site of biblical Gath(?)"
 * Kiryat Gat: "Named after ancient Philistine city of Gath, home of Goliath, which is believed to have been located in the area."
 * Tel 'Erani: "The tel was erroneously identified with Philistine Gath and was therefore known for a while as Tel Gath."
 * Tel Nagila: "Believed to be site of Gath, one of the 5 Philistine cities."
 * I absolutely agree that traditions should be mentioned. However they should be mentioned as traditions, not as facts, and popular traditions should not be confused with scholarly consensus based on physical evidence.  It is quite clear that there is little or no scholarly support for the claim that Ramle is Gath.  I have sources that state explicitly that the consensus (though not unanimous) is that Tell es-Safi is Gath. The Jewish tradition in the middle ages means very little regarding the facts, since there was no continuity of Jewish occupancy there even in the recent centuries, and certainly not since the foundation of the city in the 8th century, which itself was a millennium later than Gath. Scholars don't believe the tradition primarily since there is no evidence it was a significant population center at all during the period Gath existed.  It isn't accepted by many traditional Jewish writers either; for example the famous geographical text of Rabbi Yosef Schwarz says: "Gath ... the usual assumption that it is the town of Ramleh, situated in the territory of Dan, I hold to be quite erroneous.." (and he gives reasons). Zerotalk 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How does one distinguish between "popular tradition" and "tradition"? It was a Rabbi of the 13th-14th century who told us the prevalent tradition in his day concerning Ramla. As for a consensus, there is none - not even amongst archaeologists concerning Gath. There is, however, a lot of speculation. A tradition, in my mind, is stronger than mere "speculation." There are no epigraphic records to show that the archaeological dig at Tel Zafit, or elsewhere, is actually the ancient Philistine city of Gath. In fact, in the case of Tel Zafit, its names suggests the very opposite. It was Safitha. I will, however, at the first available opportunity, further research this subject. As for what you said about Ishtori Ha-Parchi's tradition being mentioned as such, namely, a tradition, I think I have done that. What I hope to do more is to show that this is not just a fringe view, and that a "tradition" where there is a doubtful case ought and should be taken into consideration. Look up the word "Ramla" in the Carta's Guide to sites in Israel. As for your comment: "...no continuity of Jewish occupancy there (i.e. Ramla) even in the recent centuries," presents no real problem, since the place known as Ramla is still the old Ramla and hasn't changed. What we're really interested in here are the FACTS. Let's lay all the facts out on the table, whether they be traditions or conjectures. By the way, I know personally a very good Israeli archaeologist named Boaz Zissu. Maybe I can also ask for his opinion and references. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Carta's entry Ramla says it was founded in 717 and has nothing about an earlier existence or any mention of a tradition about it. Anyway, we are not supposed to make our own judgements about whether particular scholars are right in their opinions or not, and we aren't supposed to judge what is the consensus or not.  What we have to do is report what reliable sources say about the subject, and the meaning of reliable in Wikipedia is heavily biased towards scientific scholarship with peer-reviewed academic writing as the most distinguished (see WP:RS).  The Ramle=Gath tradition simply does not have any support in that literature as far as I can determine, so we can report it as a tradition but not as the opinion of scholars. I'd be interested in what Zissu says (I'm familiar with his work) but WP:NOR forbids us from reporting his words on Wikipedia unless he has published them. Zerotalk 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so you saw a different edition of Carta's Guide. In any case, the "Encyclopaedia of Eretz Yisrael" mentions the view that Ramla is the ancient Gath. When I go next time to the Hebrew Univ., I will cite both sources for you, and, hopefully, more. I have made no such judgments whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong, but only cited a source used by many scholars. There was/is a tradition that Ramla is Gath. This is worthy of noting. As for the other hypotheses they should be stated as well, as hypotheses. When scientific scholarship is divided, up and down the line, we must also fairly represent all views. For example, we also find outlined in WP policy what is called WP:UNDUE, according to which: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A tradition doesn't necessarily have to be backed up with "proof," but must be reasonably accepted as a logical and likely possibility. When Israel has a tradition, as there are many, we are not always able to show by proof that the thing/event is as it is alleged. Tradition is just that - tradition. While speculation is just that - speculation. Boaz Zissu has written many articles, but if he hasn't dealt on the subject of ancient Gath, perhaps he can direct us to others who have.Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This might interest you, User:Zero0000. Michael Avi-Yonah, author of the book, The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem 1954, p. 63, wrote: "The name and localization (between Antipatris and Iamnia) are derived from On. 72, 2, but the identification with one of the Philistine cities has been added in disregard of the better identification ib. 68, 4. The Jewish tradition which located Gath at er-Ramleh has some foundation in archaeological facts, Ras Abu Hamid in the vicinity having been identified as Gittaim of Eusebius (B. Maisler in Sefer Assaf. Jerusalem, 1954, pp. 351-356 (Hebrew); id., Israel Expl. Journal, 4, 1954 (Reifenberg Memorial Number), pp.227ff.), which might be represented here. The additional phrase is taken verbally from Eusebius' description of Ekron (On., 22, 16), Ashdod (ib., 22,11) and Ascalon (ib., 22,15)."Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for recording on English Wikipedia the events of Yemeni Jews in 1679. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC) fix typo MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, Marciulionis. It is important for us as editors on Wikipedia that we not flout the good character and dignity of any people being described on the WP pages and articles.Davidbena (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I will desist from doing that. I was looking for friendly advice and help, and I will always uphold WP principles. If worse comes to worse on the current Talk page, I will opt for arbitration through the venue that you so wisely provided. Thanks again, Neil.Davidbena (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * David, just a procedural point: Arbitration is for misbehavior or bad conduct, not content matters. I think what you want is content dispute resolution in the form of either Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Mediation Committee, but be aware that neither of those will be available for so long as the RFC is pending and it's got at least another 29 days to run. There is no system of content arbitration at Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:TransporterMan, for this pertinent advice. I guess I'm stuck then, at least for a short while. I definitely feel it's worth a try. The picture of "Ms." International on a Yemenite page (in my view) is downright offensive. Any other advice will be appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

images at Yeminite Jews
Just read what Writ Keeper wrote at the bottom of the talk page and I agree with it. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't fight the system, can we? At least I tried upholding what I truly felt was WP policy and correcting what I saw as a violation of WP policies. I suppose that people look at things differently. Have a good day!-Davidbena (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kiryat vs. Kri'at
Qeriyat is not Qiryat. 'Nuf said. שבוע טוב, וחג שמח :-) (Shabúang tob, vejag saméaj)  75.128.215.87 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/75.128.215.87, Shalom! I'm not asking that we change the spelling, but I can prove to you that the "nikud" is precisely punctuated as קִרְיַת שְׁמַע in some Jewish traditions, particularly, in the Yemenite Jewish tradition. This peculiar way of spelling (pronunciation) applies only to the conjunction Qiryat Shema, but not in a word like "reading of the Torah" = קְרִיאַת התורה, which is the correct spelling. One of the most renowned Hebrew linguists of our time, Shelomo Morag, has written on page 222 of his book, The Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jews of Yemen, (ed. Yosef Tobi), Tel-Aviv 2001:
 * "The קִטְיָה pattern in nouns derived from ל"י roots occurs in the Yemenite tradition in forms
 * like פִּרְיָה וְרִבְיָה ,בִּרְיָה ,קִרְיַת שְׁמַע."
 * Of course, all this is only related to tradition. In the Eshkol edition of the Mishnah with the commentary of Obadiah di Bertinoro, it is always punctuated with the vowels קְרִיַּאת שמע - just as you have written. However, in the Mosad Harav Kook edition of the Mishnah, it is always written קרית שמע, without an "aleph." See: Berakhot 2:5, Sotah 7:1.
 * I have several facsimiles of manuscripts showing the vocalization as I have written if you'd like to see these. But, as I said, it makes very little difference on Wikipedia. Jag Sameaj!!! - Davidbena (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eduard Glaser
Hi David, On 20 September you made a major expansion to the article on Eduard Glaser but omitted to properly specify your sources. It would be good if you could revisit the article and add them. Many thanks Aa77zz (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am gathering the necessary information for the bibliography right now. It will take me a few days. Meanwhile, I've made mention of the authors and the year of their publications, and have put these in parentheses. - Davidbena (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've added what I believe are some of your sources - please delete if I'm wrong. As I cannot read German I struggle - especially with Lichtenstädter which is written in Gothic script. Aa77zz (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should rather be thanking you. I will double-check your sources.-Davidbena (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aa77zz, I double-checked your sources and they were identical to mine. Great work! You saved me much of the time and trouble of having to do this myself. I still added a few others, and there are yet more to add. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note at Talk:Spanish Inquisition...
Rather than try to fix the problem via reverts, I've posted a note at Talk:Spanish Inquisition. You'll get a ping but I thought I'd let you know here as a courtesy. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg, which you've attributed to. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Biblical chronology
Hello David. I just left a comment on Talk at Biblical chronology, following your own comment of about a month ago. Would you be interested in working on this article? 180.200.136.161 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) (Reply here - I don't have a user page).

Barnstars for you!
Contributor613 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Western Wall
Perhaps you could help me with a question thats been bothering me. Who built the small stones on the top of the Kotel. It is a widly believed that Montefior built them to protect Jews form Arabs who pelted stones from the other side. However i have heard this is a mere urban myth Naytz (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have often pondered the same question, but I do not know the answer to the question. It is true that during the Jewish war with the Romans, the surrounding wall of the Temple Mount was made higher. So writes Josephus. But I don't know if what we see today are the same additions added to the original wall, or if they are merely a later addition. - Davidbena (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Flood myth
Sources need to discuss flood myths explicitly, and Cooper obviously doesn't Using Seder Olam as a source looks like original research, ie your own interpretation of what it says. And note the article isn't about Noah's flood, but flood myths in general. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, I am aware that the article isn't specifically about the flood of Noah, but about "flood myths," in general, which, by its description, should also include the biblical episode of the flood. The idea behind bringing Cooper's research was to show how that it coincides with the biblical timing of the flood, based on the Jewish system of dating. This is plain by reading the research carried out by Prof. Cooper and his co-worker.
 * Doug, I'd be very pleased if you could help me with this one, because of its vast importance. Of course, since original research is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, at best we can just mention the research conducted by Prof. Cooper and let others draw their own conclusion.
 * There were many stories about an epic flood, which in principle has its foundation, since this was etched in their memory as something far greater than an ordinary flood of waters. However, in those civilizations where there was no writing script, the story was passed down by way of oral tradition, and as is the case with some oral traditions, these stories could have been embellished over the years. The biblical account, however, is a written account, made by Moses, who was the 5th generation after Abraham. Abraham was aged 58 when Noah passed away. The account of the colossal flood was still very fresh in the minds of the people of Abraham's generation, since not only Noah was still living, but also Shem, the son of Noah, who endured that voyage.Davidbena (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Really belongs on the talk page, shall I copy it there? Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Doug, I just now raised the issue on the Talk Page. My answer, of course, would have been "yes, please do!"Davidbena (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for thanking me. In hindsight, I should have given you, an established user, some notice that I was reverting your edit. I do apologize if you received a revert notification with my edit. Cheers! - Location (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Population stats
Hi David. When you update population stats in the intro, could you make sure you do the infobox too? Cheers, Number   5  7  15:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try to remember to do that, User:Number 57. I merely forgot to do that when I made updates today on certain pages. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent design
I have never yet, not even once, made an edit on the Intelligence design Page. I have only suggested what I thought would be constructive edits for this article on the ID Talk-page.Davidbena (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Johnuniq, a good example of a "pseudoscientific" article on WP would be our modern-day Astronomy. By knowing what it is, we can infer from it what it is not. Intelligent design should not fall under the same category. The Intelligent design (ID) theory asserts that there must be intelligent causes to explain the complex and information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. It asserts that certain biological characteristics violate the Darwinian explanation of chance because they were probably designed. Design logically presupposes a designer, wherefore, the appearance of design in our universe, or in man, is seen by its proponents as evidence of the existence of a designer.


 * One of the main arguments in the Intelligent design theory is the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle states that the world and the universe are very finely tuned to allow life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the air would be changed just a little, then many species would die out quickly. If the earth were a few kilometers away are more or less of the sun, then many species would quickly cease to exist. The existence and development of life requires that so many variables must be consistent with each other, so that it would be impossible that all these variables are matched with each other due to random and uncoordinated events.


 * Albert Einstein, one of our renowned scientists, believed in Intelligent design. In response to a paper published by Max Born in June 1926 entitled, "Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge" (Quantum Mechanics of Collision Phenomena), Einstein wrote on 4 December 1926: “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice” (see: private letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926: Albert Einstein Archives, reel 8, item 180). Einstein’s view was meant to refute that there is Randomness (indeterminism) in our universe. He felt that natural laws could not be like the throw of dice, with inherent randomness or probability (i.e. the opposite pretensions of the Quantum Mechanics theory), and was averse to the idea of randomness as a fundamental feature of any theory. He believed that randomness could appear as some form of statistical behavior but could not be a part of the law, just like a pack of cards that is shuffled according to deterministic laws still shows a random arrangement. Einstein's view, by the way, stands in direct contradiction to that of another theorist, Werner Heisenberg, who believed that at the fundamental level Nature is inherently random, and which view he codified in his famous Uncertainty Principle. In the final analysis, it is a scientific dispute, whether our universe is to be seen as evolving from "natural causes," or by some "metaphysical force" that has no less a form of consciousness as we do. Whether that be aliens, or UFO's, or something else, will be left-up to science to decide. Let us not be afraid to address these issues, and to give credit to those who are avant-garde in this field of research by making use of the applied sciences.


 * Just as many theories are disputed by scientists engaged in the debate, ID is no different, but stands on its own merits. One of the staunchest supporters of the ID theory is Lehigh University professor and biochemist, Dr. Michael Behe. He has brought down several strong arguments through deductive logic how that there is still much left to be explained in our Universe, and that the ID theory offers an alternative to Darwin's theory of random or "accidental" evolution. Scientific articles on WP are required to show "scientific method of analysis." Proof of "scientific method" as defined above can be seen in the dialogue between two professors on the subject of Intelligent Design on this YouTube video,, beginning from 11:57 – 20:46 on bacterial flagellum, but especially from 24:06 – 32:32, in which Dr. Behe speaks about the evolutionary laboratory experiment conducted by him. If you were to follow the arguments presented by these two professors, you will see that Dr. Michael Behe meets these qualifications of presenting “scientific methods” of analysis when speaking about ID. He uses scientific standards and methods to support his theory. Therefore, the term "pseudoscientific" in this case, for the Intelligent Design theory, is without question inaccurate. Dr. Behe's words are not merely idle protestations, but are and have been demonstrable with scientific (not pseudoscientific) research.Davidbena (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your own personal opinion, however this is not how Wikipedia works. WP:RS/AC requirements are satisfied by and . More info at List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design. Also, stating that Einstein would have supported intelligent design is very far fetched. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly, User:Tgeorgescu, about your understanding of Einstein. I have seen enough of Einstein's writings or quotes as to suggest that he was pleased at discovering how our natural universe is governed by a set of logical laws (call them the "laws of nature"), but which could never have been had there been an "accidental" or "random" existence. It is, for me, as plain as daylight. Einstein was, however, misguided in his ability to see how God can concern himself with small things, hence: Spinoza's God. Maimonides, in his Guide, already explains that God is sometimes at work through us. It is a profound statement which Einstein overlooked.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Tgeorgescu, please note that in the first URL link that you posted, it says: "The sole dissenter from this position (i.e. of Darwin's theory of random evolution) [is] Prof. Michael Behe...", which is conspicuously untrue. He is not the sole dissenter, therefore, there is no consensus.Davidbena (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're wikilawyering over petty details. Read the whole NAS booklet, it is published online at . The NAS made it very clearly that ID isn't science and this is simply a reflection of scientific consensus. The determinism issue is a red herring, evolution is agnostic about determinism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your link sends me to a web-site advertising a book which I cannot access. Besides, the author of that book brings down his own opinions, and perhaps the opinions of a few others, which are no more than a drop in the bucket. Scientists worldwide have many opinions, and many still support the ID theory. So, again, there is no consensus about ID, although there is a consensus in public schools in America that Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught. BTW: My wife's uncle is a nuclear physicist, who once served as Israel's Minister of Science & Technology, and he, too, believes in the theory of Intelligent design. He happens to be a religious man. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And nobody takes issue with any scientist believing in ID as part of their religious beliefs. It is only when one claims that religious beliefs are science that we move into the realm of pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I am One of Many, I have never once posited that religious beliefs are science.Davidbena (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The booklet (freely available online at ) was written by a committee appointed by the NAS and it reflects the views of the NAS, as well as the scientific consensus in biology (and some other sciences as well). Behe has the right to disagree with most biologists because USA is a free country and he has freedom of speech. That, however, does not magically transform his dissenting view into science. If he would disagree with the heliocentric model, that wouldn't be science, either, even if he would be free to publish his view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The journal of the National Academy of Sciences, while indeed a respected publication, is published by an organization not fully representative of all scientists, academics or laymen in our world, though one could easily be fooled by its name. To suggest that man cannot fully understand the complexities of our existence without accepting the views of Darwin's theory of "random" evolution (with all its flaws and errors), and that he must somehow cognitively avoid making any inferences from his observation of nature (albeit close to him), this is to belittle the intelligence of man. Even the laity, as well as those not connected with the laity, many academics and scientists, as well as philosophers (old and new), have published works worthy of our commendation relating to Intelligent design, which only begs the question, why is their view treated with disdain? Why aren't the views of Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher, mentioned in the article when he also wrote about Intelligent design? If an idea is true, it does not change in a thousand years. The idea can only be augmented. Are there no merits to this theory? Of course there are! Has it not been approached from a scientific and rational level? Of course it has! The current article on ID needs rewriting in its opening paragraph. Our first aim should be to define and explain the principles of ID (without bias), and only afterwards to bring-in the dissenting views, such as what may have also been published by the NAS. Let us remember that the ID theory is not only understood and adhered to by some scientists (e.g. Einstein), but by many laymen and common people as well, as if some things were self-evident. They also make-up a consensus. Nevertheless, the onus of proof does NOT rest upon their shoulders, since our aim is not to convince the public, one way or the other, who is right and who is wrong, but only to lay-forth the idea of Intelligent design, and to bring down reliable published sources that reflect that view (whether we agree with it or not), and just as the title of the article implies. I can write about Hitler's Nazi youth organization and its ideology without having to agree with that organization. It is the same principle here. Our job, as editors, is to give an open and honest description of the subject-matter, before delving into its peculiarities. The current article does exactly the opposite. It quotes four sources that allegedly call ID a "pseudoscience," but overlooks the other published sources that do not ascribe to that view. The article at the very beginning is biased, and points a negative picture at what is actually a scientific/theoretical view espoused by a vast number of people in our world. Be well, gentlemen (and ladies).Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence because that is part of WP:ARBPS which closed in December 2006. If something new were to be raised, I think it would be at WP:ARCA. However, that should not occur until after normal WP:DR procedures are followed. The issue concerns proposed wording at Intelligent design so the next step might be to get opinions with an WP:RFC. Re the topic: statements that attempt to explain what is seen in the world are part of science and require scientific sources. Any proposed wording should be accompanied with references known to satisfy WP:RS for scientific topics. I have asked a question about this at WT:Arbitration/Requests. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, John. I will comply. Tell me, will you take part in the debate? I forgot to add your name as a party to this dispute.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Until a proposed edit with sources that satisfy WP:RS is provided there is nothing to debate. Talk:Intelligent design is the right place and my comments there show that I follow that page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, that is your respected opinion. I disagree, however, with its insinuation that so far no sources have been shown to satisfy WP:RS. One excellent source is Maimonides, and even though he was a Medieval philosopher, he speaks about Intelligent design. Certain scientific or philosophical conclusions, if they be founded upon correct and proven principles, do not change in a thousand years. Moreover, I have suggested a brief change in the opening paragraph which, by all accounts, describes with brevity the fundamental issues behind ID, without forcing a biased opinion at the start. The problem, however, is that when I made suggestions for improving the article on main space, I was inundated by anti-ID editors, and their replies forced me to reply which, in turn, resulted in me being criticized for using the Talk-page as a forum. Ask most people (who are not involved in this debate) whether or not I've made sensible and constructive suggestions for the improvement of that article and I think they'll answer "yes."-- Be well, Davidbena (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the primary rules for good editing is to abide by WP:NPOV in articles that clearly have divergent points of view.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your summary of the anthropic principle above is badly mistaken. The anthropic principle is an "explanation" (accept it or not) for why all the parameters seem to be finely tuned. It is not an explanation from design, but from statistics. Zerotalk 04:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, User:Zero0000, it is used as one of the three "corollaries" by ID theorists in support for their theory, attributing it, of course, unto Intelligent design, and just as it is explained in this German web-page: (use Google translation). It is also worthy of pointing out the fact that the ID theory is not only a scientific argument raised by some scientists (the more notable of whom being Albert Einstein), but it is also a philosophical argument mentioned by Maimonides and by Thomas Aquinas and by Sir Isaac Newton. See also this: . Shabbat Shalom. Davidbena (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to cordially request an opinion from the professed "deist," User:Amire80. I think that he will be able to give us some good advice on how to proceed in this endeavor.Davidbena (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Teleology can be another name for "Intelligent design," but its scope is too broad, while most people associate the name Intelligent design with the argument of design in our universe, whether from a philosophical or scientific-theoretical point of view. In this article there is a need for balance. That, and only that, is what I am striving for. The arguments are many in favor of the theory, and those - mind you - which have been stated by highly respected personages. Newton is just one of them, the father of modern physics. If his words seem to be too religious in nature, we can take it from Einstein's perspective, who was NOT a religious Jew.Davidbena (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the question? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My question, User:Amire80, is whether or not the article in Intelligent design is balanced in its description of the theory, and if it fits the description of being "pseudoscience" (as purported there), or can it be simply a scientific-theoretical view or philosophy? See also the discussion we've been having on this issue @ Talk:Intelligent design. There seems to be a lot of objections to my adding any new information to the article. So, my question to you would be, is the article balanced and reflects accurately the ID theory?Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is some reading. Zerotalk 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Zero0000. That is an excellent review of our subject-matter from a very good source.Davidbena (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Incidentally, I have no intention of editing articles about this subject even though I am a qualified scientist (not in biology) and I know a lot about it.  The question of how we can know if something is designed is a very good scientific question, but a large fraction of what is written about it is not scientific. In particular, I don't consider people like Behe and Dembski to be scientists; actually they are religious fundamentalists who have learned how to use the language of science in promoting their religion. They don't follow the evidence as scientists should; rather, they invent arguments against any evidence that doesn't fit their religious beliefs.  It's a pity you don't see that. Zerotalk 13:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree that Dr. Michael Behe isn't a scientist, but only a biochemist. But his only point in pressing the ID issue is to show extraordinary order and sequence and, perhaps, "thought" in all our biological entities and processes which, in his view, cannot have possibly evolved of themselves. I've already noted here that not all who espouse to the design theory have an ulterior "religious" motive, although this might indeed be the case of some. It's more complicated than that. The simple fact is that science has not satisfactorily explained some of the phenomena of our universe, as well as of life forms on our planet, basing most of its modern theories on Darwin's theory of "random" evolution, even though scientists have not found an unbroken chain of fossil evidence proving that all life forms evolved from a primordial cell until they reached perfection.Davidbena (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Intelligent design is pseudoscience. It's not a science and not a philosophy. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Amire80, Philosophy is defined as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." Intelligent design is not limited, of course, to an academic discipline, and therefore it would still fit the description of a philosophical argument. Maimonides, one of Israel's greatest philosophers, has spoken about Intelligent design in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, chapter I; ibid., chapter XIX). Shavua tov!---Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Biochemist" is a subset of "scientist"; what I was implying is that Behe does not think as a scientist when he writes about ID. The very reason for the existence of the DI is religious, and the idea of promoting the religion using the words of science instead of the words of religion is a very carefully designed(!) confidence trick. Second, every scientist believes that "science has not satisfactorily explained some of the phenomena of our universe", it is why they are scientists.  However the progress of science in the past centuries is due to a move away from the "we don't know why molten rock comes out of the volcano, therefore it is caused by demons that are living under the volcano" type of reasoning. Behe's approach pushes us backwards towards ignorance. Zerotalk 05:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Zero0000. I would say that Behe is more honest than most. He admits that in biology everything has either specific or multiple functions. Based on his observance, they show complexities that would suggest design. As a bio-chemist, he has every right to suggest that view and to show how he reached his conclusions. A theory, mind you, is an idea advanced - though not yet proven - but which has some logical foundation to it. There's no need for us to be afraid of the probability that the answer to the questions asked may lie in metaphysics. Behe's confidence may have also been spurred on by the simple fact that Darwin's theory of evolution has not yet been proven. If dinosaur bones have been so well-preserved, we would have likewise seen all the transitional stages of development for all species of animals on earth, but this is not the case.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Darwin's theory of evolution has not yet been proven" is just your personal opinion, it does not establish any fact for Wikipedia, since you are not a reliable source. The verdict of the scientific community is that evolution has been proven beyond any doubt, and there are plenty of reliable sources which affirm this fact to the satisfaction of WP:RS/AC requirements. So, you're obviously busy with propagating crank science and the warning received above is completely to the point. Take heed and desist from advocating crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Tgeorgescu, you came late into this debate, and the "pseudoscience" warning is out-of-place since I have never yet, not even once, made an edit on the Intelligence design Page. I have only suggested what I thought would be constructive edits for this article on the ID Talk-page. I have also brought down reputable sources to show how these views are substantiated, and are not, as you say, "crank" science. But since it is a contentious issue, I would just assume desist altogether from pressing the scientific-theoretical side of ID, and just present it as a "philosophical argument." I see that you are a believer in God. Can you help me present ID as a philosophical argument, without our having to say anything about its scientific merits?Davidbena (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ID simply means a pseudoscientific alternative for the scientific consensus in biology (namely that evolution theory is accurate). So, if you re-frame ID as a purely philosophical argument, it is no longer ID, instead it is the teleological argument. To be sure, evolution is agnostic about the existence of God. So there is no contradiction between believing that God originally created the world and that life developed through evolution. It is just that the watchmaker argument is no longer convincing, as far as it applies to complex biological organisms. We now have an explanation for their existence which complies with Occam's razor. It does not say that God does not exist, it simply says that a specific argument is not convincing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's only one problem, and that is, most international websites which discuss the subject of Intelligent design, call it by its proper name: Intelligent design, since teleology is a broader subject. The Intelligent Design (ID) theory asserts that there must be intelligent causes to explain the complex and information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. It asserts that certain biological characteristics violate the Darwinian explanation of chance because they were probably designed. Design logically presupposes a designer, wherefore, the appearance of design in our universe, or in man, is seen by its proponents as evidence of the existence of a designer.Davidbena (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Take look at this article. The argument from irreducible complexity is really an argument from ignorance. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your article is grossly misleading. It says: "The source of this incredible mobility is the microscopic equivalent of an outboard motor — the bacterial flagellar motor. At one millionth of the size of a grain of sand, this motor rotates up to five times faster than a Formula1 engine, spinning the whip-like flagella and driving the bacterium forward. Most remarkably, the motor builds itself by assembling its constituent parts. It's one of the pinnacles of evolution, and, from a nanotechnology standpoint, it routinely outperforms our latest man-made nanomachines." Instead of writing, "it's one of the pinnacles of evolution," it would have been better to say that it suggests intelligent design, since such structures in bacteria are used for motility (for obtaining speed and agility) so that they can reach their food source. The goal is to obtain a food source, but the means by which it achieves that is through a design in its structure caused by a higher metaphysical source (with intelligence).Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that's your personal opinion and it has nothing to do with the science of biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In this last statement of mine, it is indeed my own personal view, although others have approached the subject on a more scientific level and/or philosophical level. This, my most recent comment (before this one) was not meant for publication (lol), but was only in response to the previous comment about an article the same person had read. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't build upon editors' opinion, it is built upon reliable sources which in respect to evolution reflect the scientific or academic consensus. So, Wikipedia does not give any weight to your opinion, your opinion has absolutely no relevance to how Wikipedia should render the scientific consensus in biology. Asking to give equal weight to evolution and intelligent design is like asking to give equal weight to mainstream history and Holocaust denialism. One of them is mainstream scientific consensus, the other is a fringe pseudoscientific view according to the same mainstream scientific consensus. So we don't give equal weight to Matt Baker's opinion and your opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was the first time that I gave my personal opinion, although at all other times I was careful to give reliable sources for the statements copied and pasted by me. On Talk-pages we are sometimes given the liberty to speak "unofficially." Be well, my friend. PS --- If I should ever bring-up the subject again, I will be equipped with academic sources to support whatever it is that I write.Davidbena (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu, what do you think of this?

Davidbena (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It could be added to teleological argument, but Paley knew nothing about evolution or intelligent design (in its current meaning of creationist competition for evolution), so it is not germane to intelligent design. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you know that the subject of Intelligent design, as we have been discussing it here - with more or less different arguments - goes back much further than William Paley? Even in Maimonides' time, some 850 years ago, he discussed the subject in his Guide for the Perplexed. It seems, too, that Thomas Aquinas was so deeply impressed by Maimonides' wisdom that he, too, spoke about Intelligent design. Davidbena (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As you have been repeatedly told, intelligent design is an article about the contemporary pseudoscientific movement. For the philosophical argument there is the article argument from design. You should not simply conflate the two, different subjects have different articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:COMMONNAME. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Tgeorgescu, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP article on Intelligent design should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience. Do you think that it would be possible for us to incorporate something along the lines of the French article into our own English article, and to admit that there is a philosophical question that has been the subject of debate (or of mere musings) by some respected people of the scientific community?Davidbena (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience" seems pretty damning, and there is no real difference with "ID is a pseudoscience" (according to whom? according to the scientific community, of course). Pseudoscientists never claim to be producing pseudoscience, they claim of writing science. You have been repeatedly told to find a secondary source about Einstein and ID, original research from primary sources (twisting Einstein's words) won't do. Do mind that a lot of folks who believe in creation (at Big Bang for contemporary thinkers) also accept evolution, therefore creationism and ID simply mean theological visions about the development of biological life, i.e. denialism of mainstream biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Darwin and intelligent design
Hi! Fwiw--Darwin changed his mind about a Creator designing the universe before publishing On the Origin of Species. On p. 431 of that book he wrote, "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." And, "There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows." Regards, YoPienso (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Natural selection is not new to the universe, but even "natural selection" has always been governed by metaphysical forces. Moreover, natural selection which Darwin did speak about is not the same as evolution.Davidbena (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem like an intelligent, informed person and literate in English. Yet, your response is incoherent.
 * My point is that Darwin, as a mature thinker, did not support the idea of any kind of intelligent design in the universe. At the ID article, you were saying he did. Do you see your error? YoPienso (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I never suggested once that Darwin supported the idea of Intelligent Design. Can you please quote my words, if I ever wrote such things? Surely there must be some misunderstanding. ID is simply one's observation of our world and universe and all life forms and their unique functions and reaching an upgraded understanding that there must have, without question, been a rational and intelligent being who planned such things and set everything in motion and is cognizant of the things in this grand "scheme of things."Davidbena (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon. This is what I saw:
 * Rwenonah keeps repeatedly repeating the canard that "ID wasn't even invented until the 1970s, after Pandas and People was published and the Discovery Institute got up and running." (As if there was no record of the term prior to the 1970s.) It's a blatant falsehood.  Even Darwin was using the very term to describe the very concept.  To insist on making the article about what Discovery Institute says and does, is as neutral to the topic as insisting that Pol Pot solely defines the meaning of socialism.  The fact that these facts are repeatedly deleted even from the talk page is evidence of culpable bias.  Davidbena, sorry, but you will not get anywhere with these guys because they are confident that their own POV is the wp:NPOV.  They're not intellectually honest about the topic and they don't want to be.  That fact is verified by the short period of time it takes for them to delete this very note.
 * It's poorly formatted and apparently unsigned. On my screen, your name in blue is at the far right and seemed to be your signature. YoPienso (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept your apologies. That was not my statement. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bab al-Yaman, southern gate in Sana's Old City, ca. 1931.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bab al-Yaman, southern gate in Sana's Old City, ca. 1931.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The photo was copied by me from a book published in Germany in 1934, before World War II. There is no copyright infringement.Davidbena (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook
Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture links presented on the talk page, to the article page? Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Abraham Isaac Kook Talk-Page and I saw a long list of items that you wish to have transferred to the main article. Had you listed one or two links, I could perhaps find the time to transcribe them, but not the long list that you provided. I have other more pressing issues to deal with at this time. Besides, in one link you show a Public Notice that calls out for a Public Prayer (יום תפלה כללי), in the year 5695 anno mundi (1935), something that, perhaps at that time, might have been very important, but which today is not of such vast importance that it needs to be mentioned in the main article, in my humble opinion. Other links may, of course, be important to mention in the article.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--please take another look to see the work which has now been completed--the list on the talk-page is now much shorter. To address your important latter point, the reason the public notice calling for a Public Prayer is of such significant historical and current importance is because it clearly illustrates the broad unity of the Rabbis who are seen to have signed the public notice, and how they referred to Rabbi Kook shortly before he passed away. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In your last point, I beg to differ, since these public notices are common-place today in Meah She'arim (Jerusalem) and B'nei Barak, and they all carry sweeping support from the leaders of the community, but are soon forgotten after the event. Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, since in this very unique critically significant example, it is a matter of accurately presenting the evidence based historic reality, rather than hearsay and historic revisionism which some try to repeat. I think presenting and preserving truthful fact/evidence based history has substantial value, regardless of what is or is not common-place in "Meah She'arim (Jerusalem) and B'nei Barak." Ksavyadkodesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Accuracy is one thing (and I have no disagreement with you there, on that one point). Trivia, however, is another thing altogether, and I just can't find the precious time to treat on such subjects, especially when I have far more pressing issues to deal with. It's all a matter of priority.Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mawza Exile
I just saw your comment on this DYK nomination. I have the feeling you might be confused when someone at DYK mentions GA (Good Article). What they are actually referring to is Good article nominations, which is a different process. But about a year or two ago, it was decided that any article that passed a GA review could also be featured in DYK, regardless of its length or if it has been expanded. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Maile66. So, does that mean that Good article nominations must first meet the minimum requirement of "scope" (accomplishments as far as time-wise is concerned) before it can pass a GA review? What exactly are the criteria for an article to pass a GA review?Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a tab on that link regarding Criteria. But the short answer is "no", they don't care about a time frame, or even if you worked on it.  All GA cares about, is if the article meets that criteria.  And whoever nominates an article should be able to take care of any issues that might come up in the review.  Also, there is Good article nominations/templates that will give you an idea of what reviewers are supposed to look for.  Not everybody uses those templates, but it will help you understand what passes GA. — Maile  (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

1RR
Hello, there is a 1 revert per 24 hour rule in place across the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and that includes West Bank. You have reverted twice there today, could you please self-revert and discuss your edit on the talk page? Thank you.  nableezy  - 15:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will gladly revert, if I have made two reverts in a 24-hour period. To the best of my knowledge, what I did was keep the other editor's edit, but only added a small side-note which differs from all my other edits that I had previously made. Look again at my last edit, which differs from all the rest. If this is called two "reverts" in a 24-hour period, let me first ask a more skilled editor than myself if what I did infringes upon that rule.Davidbena (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The revert was adding the line so-called in that most of it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River. Zero removed that, you re-added it (first revert), I removed it, you re-added it (second revert). I am not actually opposed to including why its called the West Bank (though that isnt exactly the story, its more that what is now Jordan proper was called the East Bank and what Jordan held between 48-67 was the West Bank), but I dont think it should be there. Either way, as a general practice, and especially in this topic area, if your initial edit is reverted what I think the correct course would be is to take it immediately to the talk page with no further reverting until there is a consensus for a change.  nableezy  - 17:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you what the objection is about adding something which speaks solely about Palestine's geographical location, especially when I re-worded the sentence to read: so-called in that it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River? Note that Zero was against my use of the words, so-called in that most of it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River, as well as what I earlier called "forming the bulk of the land known traditionally as Palestine." Note the differences in wording.Davidbena (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But it isnt simply a geographical thing, its a political history thing, and I would say that belongs in the body of the article in a section dealing with its name. And how far exactly does a river bank extend? All the way to Jerusalem? But really, this belongs on the article talk page, and the article should remain in the state it was before any contested changes were made while a talk page discussion occurs.  nableezy  - 17:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, since the article is entitled "West Bank," it is only natural that we treat on the etymological meaning of the word, for the sake of clarity, at the start. You asked how far it extends? That, my friend, is something that the article can discuss in subsequent sections. By the way: When a text-book says on the West-bank of the Mississippi, the natural connotation implied is that the adjacent territories west of the Mississippi are considered the "West Bank of the Mississippi." The details, however, would differ between each region. This, however, does not take away from the general understanding of the word "West Bank."Davidbena (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1RR
You have broken 1RR on Bayt Nattif; please self-revert, or you will be reported,
 * 1R: 18:42, 6 October 2015: reversal of this removal


 * 2R: 02:02, 7 October 2015

Huldra (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huldra, I beg your pardon, but unless there is something that I don't understand about the 1-revert per day on any given subject matter, you can see that there is a full day between my two reverts.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a convention that a day is 24 hours. The two edits shown above are less than eight hours apart. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then that particular aspect was unknown to me. Can you show the WP convention, in writing, that between reversions there must not merely be a change in date (since 24 hours have still passed from one date to the other), but rather a literal 24-hour period from one's last revert? I will self-revert once you show me this specific detail in WP policy on reverts.Davidbena (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for a link to prove that two reverts in under eight hours violates WP:1RR? If that is the question, you need to edit in some other topics for a year before engaging in further battlefield conduct in the WP:ARBPIA area. Discussions on P–I talk pages often involve many details and tedious sources—are you able to follow those discussions, or are you just reverting to what you think looks good? Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Davidbena, please self-revert or you will be blocked for violation of the WP:1RR. If you really can't understand 1RR, you shouldn't be editing ARBPIA topics. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, John, my question to you was legitimate, since I was always under the impression that a 24-hour period is analogous to a day, and that if a another day had transpired, as it did in my case, the edit would still stand. Take into account the time zones and the differences between our places. I live in Israel, but I am not sure where our co-editor, Huldra, lives. Are edit times posted in the GMT of the USA for all editors worldwide? I know that my first revert was made at night, and my second revert to Huldra's edit was made the following night. Perhaps I missed out on the time when she made her change in my edit. In any rate, I will be willing to self-revert if I have abrogated a rule of practice regarding 1RR.Davidbena (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted.Davidbena (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BY the way, I double-checked the time. Here in Israel it is around 8:00 AM, Wednesday, the 7th of October 2015. I will test to see what time actually shows-up on this edit page.Davidbena (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Masson correspondence
Thanks for your message which I have deleted since I dont think it is ethically correct to share private correspondence in a public forum unless you have explicit permission to do so. Nonetheless, the sources suggested by Dr. Masson are excellent, and her argument and conclusion clearly shows why it was correct not to simply use the primary source's claim as a flat statement of fact. Going from the sources and arguments provided by her is likely to improve our coverage of the history of Mayapan - remeber however that the article on "Maya Civilization" is not the right place to go into detail about Mayapan so it is a question of how much we want to include there, and how much to include in the specific article on Mayapan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. BTW: I would have sent our correspondence through your private e-mail, but I didn't have it. If I should feel that any additional information about Mayapan's demise is relevant to the current article, I will make my suggestions on the Talk Page. Thanks for your patience.Davidbena (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact you can send me email through the link "email this user" at my talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I forgot about that.Davidbena (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sepphoris
, since you have auto-review rights, I've decided to turn to you over what is turning out to be an edit-war on the WP page, Sepphoris. If you look at the history, the individual wishes to place at the lead of that article a picture of a statue of the "virgin Mary," alleging that she was born in Sepphoris. My view here is that this is hardly relevant to the article, but if he wishes to keep the picture, it should not be in the lead. Furthermore, I have the impression that the individual simply wishes to promote "Catholic issues," as some form of advertisement, based on his history of edits. It just doesn't seem right. When I undo his edit, he puts it back-up again. Can you please give me your view on this subject, or else kindly talk to the guy about this? Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently, it looks like the issue has been resolved by moving the picture further down in the article.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Bayt Nattif
Hi. Are you sure your edits are right? Did you really think them over? Bait Natif is how the 1922 census names the village, and the lead introduces it as a Mandate period village, no more, no less, although it's obviously much older. If the defining Brits wrote it that way (the linked census page certainly does), why does it bother you if it's mentioned in the lead? There seems to be even some WP rule (not hat I care so much about those) that says, if it ain't wrong, don't touch it. So subjective considerations aren't an ideal base for changes. "Roman" road: are you sure? I don't know, but do you know for a fact that the road wasn't MUCH, MUCH older, connecting Gaza via Maresha/Marissa with Jerusalem, and the Roman phase is just the more recent and better visible one? Or that the generally so-called "Roman" road itself isn't somewhat earlier? I mean Yotam & Yigal Tepper: The Roads that Bear the People — Pilgrimage Roads to Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, where they show that at least the stepped segments are not Roman, but older (cannot read Hebrew, in English it only says "[Jewish] pilgrimage roads from the 2nd Temple Period", so anything from Persian to Herodian is possible). I was obviously very well aware that the gen. hist. of Palestine is not what's specifically needed there, that's why I basically only listed the periods. It's meant as a conscious invitation to fill in the gaps. Half-literate WP users tend to overlook the larger scale of time, if there's a "History" paragraph jumping from Biblical or Classical Antiquity to that ubiquitous 16th c. Ottoman census, they don't realise that there might have been no continuity there, that the gap is a millennium long or longer. Like "red links", who do help as invitations to add info, this would also activate some people - or at least some neurons. I took all that into consideration. Did you? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am absolutely sure about my edits, as I live right next to Bayt Nattif, and I also have a modern map showing the area and where it mentions the road (regional hwy. 375) as being the old Roman road. It's also listed as such in the old Survey of Western Palestine map of 1880; see: 1880 map of region. Of course, it has been paved since then. As for general history, I wanted to add more too, but it was suggested by a co-editor not to do this, unless it expressly mentions Bayt Nattif.Davidbena (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For your information: Initially, I had made the following edit, but it was deleted. (But I agree with you, however, that there should be something here to fill-in the time gap):
 * "Literary sources bearing on the history of the village, from the Byzantines to the Arab conquest in 636 under Caliph Omar to the Egyptian conquest in 969 (1) and the Seljuk Turk conquest in 1087, are virtually non-existent. Likewise, no records exist of the village from the long period of foreign conquests (1099 – 1516), until the rise of the Ottoman Empire.(2)"


 * NOTES:
 * (1) Al-Muqaddasi the Arab geographer wrote in 985 CE about the hostelries, or wayfarers' inns, in the Province of Palestine, a country at that time listed under the topography of Syria, saying: “Taxes are not heavy in Syria, with the exception of those levied on the Caravanserais (Fanduk); Here, however, the duties are oppressive...” (See: Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, Including Palestine, ed. Guy Le Strange, London 1886, pp. 91, 37). The reference here being to the imposts and duties charged by government officials on the importation of goods and merchandise, the importers of which and their beasts of burden usually stopping to take rest in these places. Guards were stationed at every gate to ensure that taxes for these goods be paid in full, while the revenue therefrom accruing to the Fatimid kingdom of Egypt.
 * (2) The sense here is to the occupation of the country under the Crusaders in 1099, and by Saladin in 1187, the Khwarizmian Turks in 1244, and the Mameluk rulers of Egypt in 1269. See: Supplement to Survey of Palestine (Notes compiled for the information of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine - June 1947), Government Printer: Jerusalem 1947, p. 125. ---Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't understand my question. I don't say 18th-century PEF explorers didn't recognise the road as being Roman. Sure they did, and did many since them. I'm saying that it is quite possible that it's much, much older, and the Teppers give a concrete, well-researched counter-theory to push it at least a bit farther into the past. Did you read their theory? I see that you take the sources you happen to have at home as the final word. That's unwise. Even what's available online is but a fraction of what's out there, that's why I am myself a bit weary of saying that there is no info for C4 - 1517. You may live at the very center of a village and not know what's happened there 5000, 500, 50 or even 5 years ago, and that's normal. Take it easy, we all learn more as time passes, from Einstein downwards. And forget the "occupation" word when referring to old history, you're living in what was at some point Judah, then Idumea (Edomites from the east took over), then you had Greeks and Phoenicians around, then Persians, Arabs, Turks, maybe Mongols... Goes for Crusaders at best. But your neighbour might have blue eyes and be of partially Frankish descent. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, well-known archaeologists (Boaz Zisu, et al.) and Israel's Dept. of Antiquities, also recognize the road as being an old Roman road, and there are still elements along the road that haven't been altered in all these many years since Roman times. Tourists often stop there to observe the route. Here, on WP, we are cautioned against speculation (WP:OR), and must only rely upon reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You pick & choose what you answer to. Or worse? This was NOT my point, and I made myself VERY clear: YES, what we see is mainly Roman, but the Romans quite possibly? likely? extended or paved over a much OLDER road. So OLDER, not NEWER. Get the difference? Also, Yotam Tepper is very much a respected IAA archaeologist, it's not some Indiana Jones character, and has received good reviews on his paper. He suggests with thorough arguments that at least the stepped segments are pre-Roman. So no, you didn't address my questions, and it looks more & more like I was right in my assessment of your way of editing. Or thinking. I started on a very kind & polite note, giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping for a minimal level for our exchange of thoughts or information. Maybe you knew of deeper-going recent research done on those roads, or of contra-Tepper research, who knows. Or of archaeological finds postdating the 4th-century finds from Kh. Shumeila or elsewhere. After all, the name was preserved since at least the Roman times. But as it is, this is not a discussion worth continuing. So let's not.Arminden (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not refuting your statement, User:Arminden. What I am saying, however, is that you'll need references to support your hypothesis. Besides, even if a road had been used much earlier than the Roman period, but was given a more recent name, i.e. Roman road, we follow the more recent name.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yemenite Jewish song
I don't know how much you know about the Yemenite diwan (hopefully more than me), but are you up to starting an entry on Yemenite Jewish song? I was surprised to see that not even in the Hebrew Wikipedia is there an entry (take a look here and notice the single red link). To begin with, I imagine it should include sections on n'shid, shira, and the hallel. The entry would be distinguished from Yemenite Jewish music, which is a contemporary phenomenon involving musical instruments. Contributor613 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's great that you asked. I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I have actually been collecting information on this subject, mainly from Professor Yosef Tobi who is an expert on this subject. The subject entails a lot of thorough research prior to writing the article, since there are many technicalities, such as nashid (sing.) or neshwad (plural), and other poetic genres.Davidbena (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a better title would be "Yemenite Jewish poetry."Davidbena (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is everything in the diwan poetry per se? Contributor613 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, liturgical poetry.Davidbena (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, poetry yes, but liturgical poetry? Not everything's liturgy, for example the shir חתן תנה הודך עלי כלה (Halikhoth Teiman, p. 151). Contributor613 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the Professor what category that falls under.Davidbena (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * R. Qafeh calls it a shir ("מתחיל המארי שיר זה, שהוא האחרון בשירים המיועדים למעמד זה"). I'm not sure how it [Clarification: By it, I mean the shir חתן תנה הודך עלי כלה. Contributor613 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)] could be classified as liturgical poetry as opposed to the general category of poetry. Contributor613 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Contributor613, the Hebrew words שיר and שירה are translated "poem/song" and "poetry/singing", respectively. In Modern Hebrew שיר is mostly translated as song, but is also translated as poem. Whenever the great talmidei hakhamim use the word, especially Rav Qafih, it is almost exclusively in the context of poetry, as in the liturgical poems taken from the diwan. The word "piyyut" is more specific, insofar that it definitely refers to a liturgical poem, such as those written by Rabbi Judah Halevi, Solomon ibn Gabirol, Judah Harizi and others.Davidbena (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I take it you don't yet have enough for a stub, so I guess I'll just eagerly await your creation of Yemenite Jewish poetry. :) Contributor613 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have more than enough to start an article.Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC) So I guess my :) wasn't for naught. :) :) Contributor613 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a side point, if you have a better translation than banquet halls for בתי משתאות (in History of religious Jewish music note 1) I'm all ears. Contributor613 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better word would be "festive meals," or "houses wherein is dining."--Davidbena (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In context (of שירים הנאמרים בבתי משתאות), how does "songs said in houses wherein are festive meals" sound to you? To me it sounds overly verbose but I don't really see a better, more accurate option. (Rav Kafih is clearly not using the term in the mishneic sense of wine-feasts [B'rakhoth, 1:2; Sotah 9:11] per Maimonides explanation of the term [in B'rakhoth 1:2 "בית המשתה, מסבת משתה יין"].) Contributor613 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. It sounds overly verbose. Perhaps you can just use "houses of feasting."Davidbena (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! Contributor613 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can also advise regarding כלי פריטה? I translated it as string instruments (which can be called כלי מיתר in Hebrew [both Wikipedia entries are linked]) but I'm not sure if it's necessarily more limited to plucked string instruments; I don't want to limit the term to the exclusion of bowed string instruments without being certain. Do you know whether כלי פריטה is sometimes used to refer to string instruments in general and other times used to refer to plucked string instruments specifically, or if it's always only used to mean plucked string instruments? Thank you. Contributor613 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of these words, כלי פריטה, is that they refer specifically to "plucked string instruments," such as the lute, the guitar, the syntar, lyre, zither, kraar, etc. Bear in mind, however, that "stringed instruments" can either be plucked by a plectrum, or played with a bow. The "kinyra" or "kinor" (Heb. כינור) was, according to Josephus, plucked by a plectrum, and not played with a bow (as in some English manuscripts erroneously translate). Today, however, the Modern Hebrew word, "kinor," means "viol" or "violin," and it is played with a bow. You see, the word has actually changed in meaning over time. Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon also translates the Hebrew word "kinor" in the book of Psalms as having the Judeo-Arabic meaning of "oud" (עוד), or lute. (cf. Josephus, Antiquities VII, XII, vs. 3).Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, with you permission I'll move this discussion re translation of בתי משתאות and כלי פריטה to Talk:History of religious Jewish music Contributor613 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use the content here in any forum or venue that you might feel is relevant. Have you seen this? Yemenite Jewish poetry. It's a start.Davidbena (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's alive! יישר כחך. (I'll paste it into that, more pertinent, talk page instead.) Contributor613 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Question
Is there a proven scientific (or other) method that shows, unequivocally, that the universe, the planet earth and the living animal species therein have NOT been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If so, what is it? . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dave, your question borders on frivolity. Still, to answer you, the answer to your question is "yes," since our universe was created by a rational God who cares for the well-being of man. He is not a monster. Would you like proof as to the reality of God's rational character and goodness towards us humans? If so, perhaps in a private email, but not here, since a Wikipedia Talk-Page is not a forum.Davidbena (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should of course be aware that article talk pages are not the place for a forum. Your response is circular as it presupposes the correctness of your faith, which is unproven by definition, and I'll leave it at that. All the best, dave souza, talk 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dave, one's faith in the God of creation can actually be tested, simply by calling out to that God of creation. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

1RR
You broke the 1RR rule on Emmaus Nicopolis...I reverted before I gave you a chance to self-revert. I will therefor not report you, this time. Please be more careful in the future, and please don´t make very contentious edits without discussing it on the talk-page first, Huldra (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being considerate, User:Huldra. I have raised the issue on the Talk Page. We'll discuss it there.Davidbena (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Roger D. Craig
Hi! Thanks for your edits to Roger Craig. I have just added onto Jesse Curry's corroboration for Craig's story when he was asked about how Oswald got away from Dealey Plaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.217 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your kind words.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"We have heard he was picked up by a negro in a car"
While I understand your point, it should be pointed out that Craig referred to the man as "dark complected" - which Curry could have easily misinterpreted for a negro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.217 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Curry's statement is best put into an article treating on Curry's testimony. Roger Craig's testimony is different. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Advice: Whenever you write on Wikipedia, be sure to sign your name by making four of these signs ~ (tittles) at the end of your comment.Davidbena (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClelland
Is it possible for you to do a Robert McClelland page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.217 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know enough about Robert McClelland. If I might ask you to please sign your name by clicking four-times this symbol(~) within the parentheses. In this way I can communicate with you.Davidbena (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Qabatiya
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

using your wiki image of a yemenite siddur in nikud bavli
Dear Mr Bena,

I have a book "The Story of Hebrew" appearing in 2017 (besha'ah tovah) with Princeton Univ. Press and I was interested in using the image you posted at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Babylonian_Supralinear_Punctuation,_from_Yemenite_Siddur,_April_2015.jpg

But a query: You state on the page: "Previously published: A facsimile was later made of the original handwritten MS. in Israel" My editors need to know whether you or someone else hold copyright. Where was it previously published? And who owns the handwritten MS?

Many thanks for your help and kol tuv,

Lewis Glinert Professor of Hebrew Dartmouth College Lewis.Glinert@Dartmouth.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.147.86 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Professor Lewis Glinert, thanks for your query. As for the scan, this Siddur is a facsimile of a copy of Rabbi Yihye Bashiri's "Tiklal Bashiri" (17th century), the copy of which was written in Yemen in the 1930s. The facsimile of this late copy was published here, in Jerusalem Israel in 1964 by Mr. Yosef Ḥubārah under the name "Sefer Ha-Tiklāl" (Tiklal Qadmonim). I am not certain if Mr. Hubarah is still alive, but I will try to check this information for you.Davidbena (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ali al-Muqri at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ali al-Muqri
Hello! Your submission of Ali al-Muqri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Notecardforfree (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ancient identifications
Hi, Please stop adding identifications from a 1932 source. While many of them are still accepted 85 years later, many are not. Old sources from before almost all archaeological investigation was performed cannot be regarded as reliable today. Also, there were no such things as "Israeli archaeologists" in 1932. Zerotalk 02:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, can we simply change the text to read "Archaeoligists"? My understanding of the source quoted is that it is still a viable identification of the site specifically mentioned by me. Perhaps we can bring down additional sources of a more recent date.Davidbena (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gideon Tsur?
Who is he? I can't find hom or anyone citing him. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Shalom, User:Doug Weller. Gideon Tsur is an Israeli author, a regular writer for E-Mago. See: E-Mago. Can you read Hebrew?Davidbena (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW: If you feel he is not notable enough as a source, you can feel free to delete his name and reference in the Khirbet Qeiyafa article. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I really can't see that he's 'notable' enough for a source, not in our sense of notable but in terms of recognistion by recognised academics in the field. I'll remove it. Thanks for your cooperation. Doug Weller  talk 20:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's Okay. I saw, anyway, that Mazar holds the same view that he holds.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a RFC
Hi,I massively edited and moved contents across diff. sub-sections in this RFC section to attract participants to a long-stale discussion.Hope, you will not have objections.Also please read about phrasing a RFC in a proper cum neutral way.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 07:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That looks good to me. I sincerely hope that more people will participate in the discussion.Davidbena (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let' see! Winged Blades Godric 12:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your questions
I just undid your post to Drmies's Talk page, but I'm taking this one step further. Stop posting those questions all over Wikipedia. It's disruptive. What do you expect to get? Different answers from different arbitrators or administrators or clerks so you can try to sort it out? This is not a good use of your time. If you want the questions to be available to anyone, then use an appropriate public forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. From this moment forward I will desist from posting my suggestions to the ARBPIA members. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

David Ben Gurion
Please look at this request. Ben Gurion himself said he believes in God.--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Palmer Park (Colorado Springs)
Hi,

You got me inspired to do some work on the article, particularly ensuring that content is properly cited -- with citations that mention Palmer Park (vs. general links of Colorado flora, for instance). Take a look and if you have sources for some of the content that was edited out, that would be great!

If I can help in any way, please let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, CaroleHenson. Thanks for your Good Faith attempt at improving this Wiki article. I am a former resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado, and I am very familiar with its natural vegetation. You have basically given only generic names of fauna and flora. The only "scrub oak" that is native to Colorado Springs is Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), therefore, its specific taxonomic name should be mentioned in the article. Likewise, the only deer native to Colorado Springs and the Front Range area is the Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), therefore, its specific taxonomic name should also be mentioned in the article. The cross-references that I provided previously mentioned specifically these plants and animals in relation to Colorado's Front Range. Without being specific in these particular references to plants and wildlife, the article is lacking. The prickly pear cactus (Opuntia macrorhiza) is also very common in the Colorado Springs area, and so I am surprised that you deleted its mention. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks, and I am very familiar with the park as well. The point is, that the sources need to tie these items to Palmer Park. I used the terms that were in the sources. (As an aside, when one clicks on scrub oak, Gambel oak is one of the items listed for southwestern U.S.) To do otherwise is original research.


 * If you can find sources for any of the flora and fauna items + Palmer Park... or that they are specific to Colorado Springs, I would be happy to add them back. I will do a bit of searching myself, as well for the specific items you've mentioned here.


 * I tried looking to see if there was a flora and fauna article about Colorado to use as a see also and there isn't one. Are you interested in working on such an article? I'd be happy to help work on it with you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I am not sure how much you've edited, I am looking for secondary sources, like books, newspapers, etc. .... vs. blogs, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ and found Ecology of the Rocky Mountains for the see also.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carole. It already looks better. Palmer Park is not an isolated ecosystem in Colorado Springs, but is part of the whole ecosystem along Colorado's Front Range. Here is where common-sense takes over when assessing source-materials. There is no infringement on WP:OR when one finds materials suggestive of wildlife and flora that either live or grow along Colorado's Front Range, and recognizes that the source also applies to Colorado Springs' Palmer Park. Anyway, I'm satisfied with your latest edits. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

your opinions in your edits
David, You have been here long enough to know that you aren't allowed to describe something as discriminatory on the basis of your own opinion, nor to refer to a reason as a pretext with the same justification. Opinions have to come from sources, not from you. Zerotalk 10:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. Still, is it not obvious to all? I was reading through the book, "A Survey of Palestine," and I saw where the British were under much pressure and constraints from the Arabs of the country. In fact, whenever the British sent out surveying parties to survey the land, they were often suspected of surveying the land in order to sell it to immigrant Jews, and they were physically attacked by the local Arabs. There was a strong anti-Zionist backlash and the Arabs wanting to prevent land sales to Jews. These facts come out elsewhere in the document. Anyway, you are right that we should word a text just as we find it in the source.Davidbena (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Green Line
David, neither Allar nor Beit Nattif were close to the Green Line. They were both around 5km away. Also, the Israel-Jordan armistice agreement was replaced by the 1994 peace treaty; it was not dissolved in 1967. I don't understand why you added the maps either. The first is ugly and hard to read, and the second doesn't show the locations under discussion. Zerotalk 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Zero, The "Green line" is another word for the "Demarcation line" between Israel and Jordan, also known as the "cease-fire line." All towns and villages captured by Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (e.g. Beit Nettif, Allar, Deir Abban, etc.) and which were to the west of the "Green-line," they came under the terms of the Israeli-Jordanian armistice agreement. This has absolutely nothing to do with the distance these towns were actually located from the "Green-line," but rather, that they were formerly contended by the Arabs for control, but came under Israeli control immediately following the war in 1948 and after the signing of the Armistice Agreement in 1949. As for the first map, I could find no better map, although it is still legible. "Beit Nettif" and "Allar" are both mentioned in the map. The "Green-line" is also shown in the map. All towns to the left of the "Green-line" (i.e. West of the "Green-line") and which were formerly contended by the Arabs for control, after the Armistice Agreement in 1949, they "officially" came under Israeli-control. The Six-Day War of 1967 cancelled the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, and the situation remained so until other implements were made between the Palestinians and Israel. Even so, Bayt Nattif remains in Area "C" in the Oslo Accords, under complete Israeli control.Davidbena (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what the Green Line is. Your last sentence indicates that you have a misconception about these two places.  They are not in "Area C", they are in Israel proper.  I.e. they are in the part that has been under Israeli control continuously since 1948.  The war of 1967 had no effect on these two locations at all.  Area C is entirely within the West Bank, i.e right (east) of the green line but these are left (west) of the green line.  You are also wrong about the armistice agreement, but anyway it is irrelevant here. Zerotalk 13:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I retract my last statement. I simply meant that the area of Bayt Nattif (now a ruin) is under complete Israeli control, and has always been since 1948.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's correct, which means that the 1967 war is irrelevant. Zerotalk 13:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, 1967 is very relevant, considering that the terms of the agreement were nullified after the Six-Day War in 1967.Davidbena (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No they weren't. I don't know where you get that idea from. They were only nullified in 1994 by the peace treaty, and even that is indecisive regarding the border between Israel and the West Bank. Zerotalk 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Look again at the terms of the agreement, here. They were considered null-and void after the Six-Day War with Jordan. All subsequent agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have nothing to do with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, other than the fact that, like the Armistice Agreement of 1949, these new agreements tried to fill-up the void and to give some sense of political order out of the situation where Palestinian-Arabs felt disenfranchised. How can you say that the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan was still in force, when one of the stipulations of the Armistice Agreement was "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other"?????Davidbena (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Armistice agreements (like all bilateral treaties) can be violated, but they are not dissolved unless the parties replace them or agree to withdraw from them. The Green Line is still in place in Israeli law today with profound implications. If I commit a crime at the ruins of Allar, I will be arrested by police and taken before a civil court where I have the right to see the evidence against me, to cross-examine witnesses, etc.  If I first walk 7km south and then commit the crime, I will be arrested by soldiers and taken before a military court where my rights are negligible.  It won't do me any good to argue that the Green Line was dissolved in 1967. Zerotalk 05:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My friend, that is incorrect. If, however, Israel and Jordan had signed another Agreement after the Six-Day War, you would be correct, in that the second Agreement would automatically cancel the first. Still, no country needs to formerly cancel a treaty for it to be cancelled. Israel viewed the treaty as null-and-void after the Six-Day War, as did Jordan. In fact, the entire Demarcation lines changed, in Israel's view, after the Six-Day War. In Hebrew-Aramaic, we have a saying, which I will do my best to translate for you into English. It says, "If the terms of the testament have been cancelled in part, it is deemed as cancelled altogether!" (כל דייתיקי דבטלה מקצת בטלה כולה) - Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:6). But why ask me? You can ask any Israeli who is politically savvy, any Israeli politician, any Israeli military expert, even the Israeli Ambassador to Washington. You can ask any smart Jordanian about their country's view of the 1949 Armistice Agreement after the Six-Day War in 1967. I am astonished that you cannot see what others see in regards to the defunct 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan. If this treaty/agreement were still binding up until the time of the Oslo-Accords in 1994, as you propose, then it would be possible to go around making treaties with any nation or individual, later unilaterally alter the conditions of the treaty/accord/agreement at one's own whims and fancies and say that, lo and behold! the terms of the treaty/accord are still binding on all parties. It would be ludicrous to say such a thing. Furthermore, jurisprudence does not work that way. I'm not saying that Israel broke the 1949 Armistice Agreement. It was actually Jordan who broke it by firing a barrage of artillery fire into the Jewish enclaves of West Jerusalem. When Israel attacked Egypt in 1967, Israel warned King Hussein of Jordan not to enter the conflict. He responded by shelling West Jerusalem. This bombardment of artillery led to Israel’s capturing of all the territories under Jordanian rule, lands in the so-called "West Bank" of the Jordan River. With that said, the only thing that you can say has "vaguely" survived from the 1949 Armistice Agreement is that, after the Six Day War, lands taken by Jordan in 1948 continued to be recognized as the "West Bank" of Jordan, with lands conquered by Israel forming their territorial boundary (Zvi Dror, Har’el - Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Ha-kibbutz ha-meuchad 2005, p. 273), in hopes of returning to the status-quo that existed before 1967. The continued recognition by Jordan and by Western governments of the "West Bank" territories was only a means to save what they could of the country that was taken away from Jordan, although, later, their designs were modified to the effect that these territories would be asked to be given-over eventually to the Palestinian Arabs. This is why they insist on the "Green line" which has no real bearing on how Israelis themselves view their country.Davidbena (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: What you alluded to as being Israel's practice of upholding two diametrically opposed systems of civil-law and authority in the same country, this has its own merits, and has more to do with the ethnic nature or make-up of our society, and our wanting to ensure that the country remains in Jewish control. Yes, it is not a complete democratic society. Still, we have seen its precedent elsewhere. Even China has a completely different set of civil laws for people living in Hong-Kong, as opposed to those living in mainland China. A country is permitted to make its own unique laws, depending on its security needs. Israel is no exception. The problem is that Western governments, prompted by British colonialism, have tried to fashion Israel after their own western mindset. Still, Israel is doing its best to accommodate the Palestinian Arabs and to ameliorate their condition. But this is not saying that they are entitled to an Independent State on Israeli soil. For there to have been an "occupation," there would have first needed to be an independent Palestinian State, which there never was. Jews were also Palestinian citizens during the period of British control over Palestine, as also during the period of Ottoman Turk control over Palestine. The problem arose when Arabs refused to live peaceably alongside their Jewish neighbors. The only thing left for us to do now is to try and make good out of our co-existence, so that the Arabs can live with prosperity and security under the current Israeli State and its laws. Years ago, no one ever thought that it was strange that all Jewish kings, from King Saul to King Agrippa, ruled over other men who were not of the Jewish nation. Why should they think it now?Davidbena (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "no country needs to formerly cancel a treaty for it to be cancelled" — that's the exact opposite of one of the most basic principles of international law. If it was true, treaties would be entirely useless.  For sure, treaties can become effectively dead due to changed circumstances (including major violation by one or both sides) but countries can only withdraw unilaterally if the treaty itself allows for it.  As for the different law applying in the West Bank, please go to court.gov.il and see how the High Court of Justice treats it.  The military court system in the West Bank, in fact most activities of Israel in the West Bank, are justified in terms of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation.  That's the actual phrase used by the court, and when government representatives argue before the court they do not challenge this assumption.  Israel has never annexed the West Bank except for East Jerusalem, so under Israeli law it is not part of Israel. That's why the law there is different.  Regards. Zerotalk 02:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you've never heard about a "breach of contract?" A breach of contract is another way of "dis-validating" a contract. It is the same here. The principles that apply in ordinary business also apply here. Of course, without a breach of contract, the contract holds-up as good. I was not referring to withdrawing "unilaterally" from a treaty without violating the terms of the treaty. It is no secret that the people of Israel - the right and the left, the center right and the center left - have two opposing views on this issue. The Israeli Supreme Court, ran mostly by the left, has its own view, while the current right-wing government of Israel has its own view. It wasn't very long ago that the Government of Israel thought about "officially annexing" the "West-Bank," with a clear majority to do so, but because of the backlash it would have received from Western, pro-Palestinian governments, decided against it, thinking it in Israel's best interest not to force the issue, but to keep the situation as a "de-facto" annexation. It's very complicated.Davidbena (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing Scherezade Shroff Talwar
I have tried to edit Scherezade Shroff Talwar while retaining as much information possible without it coming off as flowery. I have also added better references from reliable publications to back each of the claims. Hopefully the article will stay now, though I noticed it has not been reviewed by any editor yet. I would have reviewed it had it not been for the amount of work I have put into it giving me a Conflict of Interest. Hopefully one of the other New Page Reviewers will do the honours. Best.  Jupitus Smart  05:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I want to thank you for your effort to make this noble venue, Wikipedia, a better place for all of us. Be well. If I can assist you in any way, please let me know.Davidbena (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

CANVASS
I believe you are in breach of WP:CANVASS, please stop, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, I have only made note that there is a WP:RfC and others are free to comment. No more, no less.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Marking your AE as withdrawn
Per your recent comment in the AE, I have marked your request as withdrawn. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

1RR on Husan
Please self revert your latest insertion on Husan, or you might be reported. You are violating the 1RR restriction (...besides the fact that what you want to insert is not in the cited source,) cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, this is my first revert in the past 24 hours. If an administrator will tell me that I have done amiss, I will indeed self-revert.Davidbena (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified: If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours.
 * This is the motion that you have just violated. Again, please self revert, or you might be reported, Huldra (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I was unaware of this modification.Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. It looks like I'm in it for the long haul. Cheers!Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self reverting (and saving me from the bother of reporting). However, as I have said before: what you tried to insert is not in the cited source, i.e., it simply woun’t stick. Huldra (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that the rewording of that sentence is completely in harmony with Wikipedia policy per WP:IMPARTIAL, as it is very clear to me that your edits in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have largely been to smear Israel. If we cannot agree on a better edit, then we will have to resolve the issue with our superiors.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whaw. Whatever our opinion is about what constitutes WP:IMPARTIAL, or not, we cannot add anything without a WP:RS! I thought you knew that by now? Also, presently, I’m  mostly adding population figures from 1870 and 1896; do you count  that "to smear Israel"??  Huldra (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding statistics, of course, do not constitute a campaign to "smear Israel." As for WP:IMPARTIAL, perhaps whenever our intent is to show that the more mitigated tone in indeed just, a footnote can show the conflicting opinions about the specific edit in question (even if it doesn't specifically mention Husan). You see, the word "occupation" of a country is being used here in its broad and generic sense, and clearly shows a political inclination representative of one side of the conflict/dispute (i.e. the United Nations), but does not necessarily portray the majority view in the Israeli government.Davidbena (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

1RR on Silwan‎
You just broke the 1RR on Silwan‎, please revert, or you might be reported. If you think anything is wrong with the article, please open a discussion on the talk page, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, it was you who broke the 1RR/24 hours. I removed the paragraph into a section where it belongs, but before 24-hours had passed you returned it to the lead paragraph, where it doesn't belong.Davidbena (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted Angel Defender, who has 77 edits, and should not be editing the article. That comes under General sanctions, and is not considered a revert, (though I don't blame you for misunderstanding, the rules for editing in this area are Byzantine...), So, please save us both some trouble, and self revert, will ya? Huldra (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PS ask some admin about it, if you like, Huldra (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi David, in your last edit at Silwan your edit summary was "rv made to enforce the General Prohibition per WP:ARBPIA#Motion:_ARBPIA_.22consensus.22_provision_modified. "Informal annexation" unsourced, as it is generally held that all of Jerusalem and immediate environs was annexed by Israel in 1967". I'm not sure but I suspect you misunderstand the rule. The "General Prohibition" is the 500/30 rule which prohibits non-extended-confirmed editors from editing I-P articles. The rule doesn't allow you to revert an extended-confirmed editor like Huldra for violating 1RR, which is what I suspect you thought. Sorry if I misunderstood. Zerotalk 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There must have been some misunderstanding. User:Huldra, what you're saying in effect is that you were not the original author of that edit, but had reverted another editor who should not have been editing.Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct. My edit on the 21:03, 12 July 2017‎  was to revert Angel defender, who you can easily see should not have edited the article (has less than 100 edits.) I should have noted that in the edit line, but Angel defender is red linked, so I assumed that people understood that, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And thanks for self reverting! Huldra (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian art userbox
Hi Davidbena! I noticed that you left a note on the userboxes idea page asking to be let known if someone made a userbox on appreciation for Russia's contributions to art throughout history. I made one, and so I am letting you know, in case you want to use it. Have a good day! Gilded Snail (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice work
Hi. Really nice work on Yemeni silver. So you want to nominate the article for DYK?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave that up to you to do. I have always thought about doing an article on Yemenite Jewish silversmithing, but you beat me to it. Lol. Your work is also very good!Davidbena (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory, I just now sent a letter (e-mail) to the curator of the Israel Museum, asking them permission to use two of their photographs of the labbe necklace. Waiting patiently for their reply.Davidbena (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah., because she is an AfD expert.  Hi, Yoninah.  I Yemeni silver is a truly nifty new page and should be nominated for DYK now, because that has to happen befor an article is 8 days old. Or course, I would think so, I started it, but Davidbena has made it into a rally good article.  If you think this is a good idea, would you be willing to nominate it - even though the images are still pending?   If you're not, no worries, I'll manage.  Just, I always manage to bungle the DYK nomination process.  Still, DYK is ever so much more constructive than defending the project from deletionists at AfD.  DYK is positive.  Like writing about beautiful silver work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for contacting me. I'll be happy to nominate the article for DYK, but I have a question. The page is called Yemeni silver, but the lead and history are all about Yemenite Jewish silversmiths. This is a discrepancy. Either call the page Yemenite silversmiths and talk about (only) Jewish artisans, or make the lead and the page mostly about the silver and put the material about the silversmiths into one section. (Also, the page should be called Yemenite silver, as this is the English Wikipedia.) Several of the references are bald URLs; these need to be fleshed out before the DYK nomination. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I cleaned up the bare url sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Kosher locust
Hi, David. You may have tasted these locusts, and the description you offer seems plausible, but in Wikipedia, statements must be supported with the citation of a reliable source. In the Edit Window header is a drop-down menu labeled "Templates." Choose your citation template and fill in what you can. A URL (or book title) and access date may suffice, so no need to strain yourself over all the template information.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, friend. I have since complied with your request. All the best!Davidbena (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, hate to rain on your parade, but, for obvious reasons (when you think about it), WP cannot accept YouTube as a reliable source for information contained in articles. Can you edit down your recent contribution to avoid this problem?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia permits the use of YouTube videos as a source, and since we're only talking about "personal taste" (and no real technical issue), there is especially no problem here. See WP:VIDEOLINK.Davidbena (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Making me a little hungry...--Quisqualis (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Havat Gilad shooting attack
Could you please add the fact that Hamas have warned it is not the only cell and there will be more, That there is a call for riots, and that Fatah had described that man as a martyr. the page is blocked from new ueser editsBanneduser (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, my friend. My personal view is that the Havat Gilad page is not the proper venue to expand on Hamas statements about a killing in Jenin. Perhaps the Jenin article is a better place to do that. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2018)

 * The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Tarichaea) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tarichaea, Davidbena!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Holy smokes this is a fantastic and very well written article! You should be proud!! Excellent work (and thanks for the history lesson) :)"

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 01:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Israel
Can I raise MOS:SANDWICHING? That probably needs fixing, there's also a couple of other examples in the article. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me about this. I fixed the problem. Have a good week.Davidbena (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to merge Tarichaea with Magdala
Just wanted to inform you, as you wrote that article about a month ago. All of the sources I found say that these are the same place. Most interesting were repots of the Antiquities Authority: "These finds seem to corroborate the historical sources that listed Migdal as a Jewish settlement.The finds from this excavation and from previous excavations at the site underline the historical sources from the Second Temple period, regarding the existence of a large settlement named Migdal Taricheae. The collapse layer, which dated to the Second Temple period (Stratum II) further substantiated Josephus’ story about the destruction of the city in the Great Revolt.".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * While Migdal was, indeed, a Jewish settlement, there is no early historical record which calls the same city "Migdal Taricheae." Rather, that title has merely been based upon archaeological speculation.Davidbena (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I might instead change the name of the article you wrote to Battles of Tarichaea and redirect Tarichaea to Magdala, simmilar to the approach taken by the Hebrew wikipedia (קרבות טריכיי).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Do not merge the two articles. Neither should the name of the article be changed. The most definitive research carried out on Tarichaea was done by Nikos Kokkinos in 2010. See his research in "The location of Tarichaea: north or south of Tiberias?". There, he brings down all the conflicting opinions and supports strongly its location in the south of Tiberias. Moreover, no one is more authoritative than Josephus himself, who writes explicitly that Tarichaea was in view of Vespasian's soldiers who encamped at Sennabris, south of Tiberias, and " easily seen by the innovators" at Tarichaea (see: Josephus, Wars of the Jews -- book iii, chapter ix, § 7). This one fact rules out Magdala to the north of Tiberias. We are therefore under constraints to keep two separate articles on these cities.Davidbena (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I expected this answer. I already saw that essay by Nikos Kokkinos and read part of it, but still, he is one voice against a consensus. His research is very extensive and I couldn't find anything close to that, saying Magdala is north of Tiberias, but his research doesn't automatically cancel the broad concensus about Magdala being north of Tiberias. It also doesn't cancel the facts supporting the location of Magdala in the site of el-Majdal. Josephus is considered reliable for the description of Israel, but he is not 100% reliable, as we see in his description of Massada for example. It's hard to think it is a conincidence that Magdala was a Jewish town, destroyed in the Great Rebellion and there is an archeological proof to that. I want to expand the article about Magdala, but virtually all sources say Magdala and Tarichaea are the same place, and I find it hard to simply ignore all of that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly disagree. His work is the most definitive and it confirms Josephus' own testimony. In archaeology, there is no consensus about this one site, except what may be construed as misjudgment. Jewish towns were scattered all up and down the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Many of the unreliable and older sources confused Magdala with Tarichaea, just as many older sources thought Bayt Nattif was to be identified with the valley of Netofa, but later were proved mistaken. It is the same here. The section on the town's "Geographical location" approaches the subject of identity in an open and objective manner. Your attempt to change the title, or to merge two independent articles, would be a great injustice to the truth. Granted, Josephus may have made errors in his recollection of events at Masada (where he had never visited), but he would not have made an error regarding Tarichaea's location, since he actually lived there!Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I must ask for your supervision over the Magdala article. I am adding information from sources that wholeheartedly claim Tarichaea is Magdala.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I'll just go and play basketball or something. I never got such a headache from a wikipedia article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the Magdala article, feel free to cite the differing views. It is not necessary that you render a verdict. Keep everything open.Davidbena (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kedesh, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. ''You removed a valid template within a few hours of my adding it and without giving me the courtesy of time to reply. You clearly didn't read the links I gave. I hope you will now. I've restored the template as the article makes statements of fact concerning issues that are clearly disputed. Please don't remove it again.'' Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, User:Doug Weller, as I honestly thought the matter was fixed. I will review your statements.Davidbena (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
This probably should have been added along with the 1RR notice in January. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doug, for the notice. It is, indeed, very important and ought to be strictly observed.Davidbena (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied territories
Thank you for updating the article with respect to the U.S. Embassy. Forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know, but the U.S. constitution provides for a strict separation of powers in certain matters (only Congress can budget funds and declare war, only the president can negotiate treaties, etc.). By dictating where the embassy should be, the Congress was enacting a law that would have been overturned by the Supreme Court, because foreign affairs are presidential, not Congressional, powers. To avoid that, Congress included the "safety valve" of the presidential waiver. See Jerusalem Embassy Act, especially the sections on "Constitutional separation of powers" and "Presidential waiver". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me about these details which were mostly unknown to me.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Tulayl
Sorry it was the wrong Tulayl Victor Guérin visited...I would have loved it to be Tulayl!

In general, when adding Guérin one has to be very careful: one really have to "walk" in his footsteps...the SWP maps are excellent for that. We cannot trust 100% even modern experts in the field (like Dauphin, Finkelstein, or Zertal)....they have all messed up at times. I am still working on my User:Huldra/Guerin, as you can see, the Galilee part has some areas more or less missing; feel free to add places if you find them. (The chapters where I have put —> in, are mostly areas I have "walked" on SWP maps.), Huldra (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * PS I have found mistakes in the User:Huldra/Guerin, even in the section above  the "@@@@@@@@@@@"-line! So the moral is: trust nonone!! Check everything yourself!! Good luck.. ;) Huldra (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, I can see now where I had assumed that there was only one et Teleil, but now, upon further investigation - thanks to you - I see where Conder & Kitchener in their SWP map # 4 have listed TWO sites as et Teleil; the one near el-Bukeiah (Peqi'in), called Kh. et Teleil - and, which is obviously the one visited by Victor Guérin, as he mentions it lying on "the road to Bukeia," while the other one is simply called by them et Teleil, on the western shore of the Lake Huleh. Here, I must commend you on your keen oversight of these places. You are a great asset here, in this regard. Keep up the excellent work, Huldra! I will, hopefully, pay more attention to the SWP map and try "walking in their footsteps," as it were.Davidbena (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI on language tags
Just letting you know that the codes used in "lang" tags follow the ISO 639-1 standard, i.e. "zh" for Chinese as opposed to the "ch" or "cn" you inputted. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank-you very much, my friend. I did not know that. Your information will be helpful to me in the future. All the best to you!Davidbena (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Adullam in 2006 Israeli Touring Map.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adullam in 2006 Israeli Touring Map.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Adullam in 2006 Israeli Touring Map.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Kremenezky
If you could add content from HE:WP to Johann Kremenezky that would be amazing. I am baffled by the three different birth dates and death dates. Presumably all sources state he had same age, hence variance of death year depends on birth year. Kind regards Shushugah (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I can find the time, I'll do that. Here, in Israel, the surname is often mentioned. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Mount Carmel
Hi Davidbena! Seeing that you expertise in Hebrew, I'd appreciate a second opinion on this edit. I know very little about Hebrew myself, but was suspicious of this alternate translation being added with questionable sourcing; it seemed like it could be verging on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, I understand that in ancient texts the same word has different meaning in different contexts, and the specific meaning isn't always definitively established. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit on the Mount Carmel article. The person is trying to explain the meaning of the word "Carmel," and when he writes, "Full Husk", he is obviously trying to define the word that appears in Leviticus 23:14, and which literally means "green barley" (i.e. which is still in its husk). It is a poor translation for the Hebrew word "carmel" as used in "Mount Carmel". I would think that here there's no connection to green barley. Rather, the Mount Carmel is probably more related to Rashi's description of the word in his commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, and which he says means "forest," and appears in several biblical verses: Isaiah 29:17, Isaiah 32:15, Isaiah 10:18, et al. The related Aramaic word "karmela" means "a vineyard." Rabbi David Kimchi, in his commentary on Isaiah 29:17, explains "Carmel" as meaning, " a place where there are fields of grain, vineyards and low-growing trees." I hope this was helpful.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * * For the Hebrew Bible, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 502a, "carmel": 1. plantation, garden land. 2. fruit, garden-growth. 3. a mount. 4. a city. In Leviticus 23:14 the meaning is "(fresh) fruit, gardengrowth". In Isaiah 16:10, 10:10, 29:17, 32:15 the meaning is "garden land" (but in Isaiah 35:2 "mount Carmel"). Hebrew kerem, Aramaic karema is "vineyard", related to Arabic kerima "vine".
 * * For the Talmud, see Jastrow, I, p. 671b, s. v. "carmel": 1. a ‎well-cultivated ‎plot; ‎whence ‎‎(grist ‎of) ‎early ‎ripened ‎and ‎tender ‎barley. 2. the mount and city of Carmel. --46.189.28.77 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Tיhanks.Davidbena (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)