User talk:Davidbena/Archive 3

Jews who were expelled from their ancestral homeland
,, Pursuant to our discussion on the other Talk-Page, I wish to call your attention to these three historical records. Since neither you, nor I, were present to witness the events which unfolded in the Land of Israel during the Roman conquest and occupation, we only have the testimony of ancient writers to rely on, whereby we are able to know what actually transpired at that time. No one doubts the veracity of their words:

The Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century saw a major shift in the population of Palestine, or if you will, the Land of Israel. The sheer scale and scope of the overall destruction has been described by Dio Cassius in his Roman History, where he notes that Roman war operations in the country had left some 580,000 Jews dead, with many more dying of hunger and disease, while 50 of their most important outposts and 985 of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. "Thus," writes Dio Cassius, "nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate." It would take many years before the Judaean Jewish community recovered from the Bar Kochba war.

The Christian Church father, Eusebius (IV.6), citing Ariston of Pella, also speaks about this time of history, writing: "The rebellion of the Jews once more progressed in character and extent, and Rufus, the governor of Judaea, when military aid had been sent him by the Emperor, moved out against them, treating their madness without mercy. He destroyed in heaps thousands of men, women and children, and, under the law of war, enslaved their land. The Jews were at that time led by a certain Bar Chochebas, which means 'star'... The war reached its height in the eighteenth year of the reign of Hadrian in Beththera, which was a strong citadel not very far from Jerusalem; the siege lasted a long time before the rebels were driven to final destruction by famine and thirst and the instigator of their madness paid the penalty he deserved. Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree and ordinances the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district round Jerusalem, so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home. ...Thus when the city came to be bereft of the nation of the Jews, and its ancient inhabitants had completely perished, it was colonized by foreigners..." (End Quote).

Moreover, the historian Josephus (The Jewish War, VII.6.6 [VII, 216]; 5:421), mentions the period preceding Hadrian, when Vespasian put the entire country of Judea to the sale (see Sicaricon)! This will explain why the Jewish population was diminished, whereas foreigners came for purposes of husbandry and took over these former places belonging to native Jews. Prior to this time, the country was predominantly inhabited by Jews, and cultivated principally by Jews, aside from certain enclaves along the coast (Caesarea Maritima, Ashkelon, etc.), in Kedesh of Galilee, and Beit She'an of the Decapolis, in Geba of the Carmel, the towns of Samaria, and the towns east of the Lake of Tiberias (in the Golan, Hauran, Trachonitis and Batanea regions) where the inhabitants were mostly non-Jews. The usual Roman procedure in cases involving open rebellion was to kill the able-bodied men who rose up in rebellion, but to sell into slavery all captive women and children. I hope this helps you.Davidbena (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with all of those primary sources, David. I stated Jews were not expelled from Judea, and that is the consensus. What Rome did there is what they did everywhere in the world they conquered, on encountering strong resistance. They performed genocide. Caesar killede 1,192,000 Gauls, according to Pliny (other sources go for less that half of that figure) and enslaved another million in the Gallic Wars. The surviving Gauls were not expelled from Gallia, and the surviving Jews were not expelled from Judea. The decline in Jews in that area was caused by several factors, a collapse in the economy due also to devastating climatic effects on agriculture, leading to emigration, heretical conversion to Christianity, etc, The major Jewish communities in the world were, at the time, outside Judea, consonant with the intelligent pursuit of better conditions elsewhere for several centuries before that war. You won't find this much on the relevant wikipedia articles,- you only find accentuations of the Zionist story, which is rubbish.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, These primary sources (which, by the way, we are permitted to use in Talk-Page exchanges) speak for themselves. While not all Jews were forcibly expelled from their land, as many went into exile on their own volition, there was still a major depletion of the Jewish population in the land of Israel in the early 2nd century CE, and who perhaps suffered more than most other peoples. Some captives, however, were indeed taken captive into the various countries, one of which being in the 13th year of Nero's reign, when the Roman commander in Judea sent some 6,000 of the strongest young men of the Jewish nation to Nero at the Isthmus, to help in digging the Corinth Canal. Also in ca. 52 BCE, Judea was invaded by the Roman governor of Syria, Gaius Cassius Longinus, who fell upon the town of Tarichæa and carried away thirty thousand Jews into slavery.


 * According to Rabbi David Kimchi (1160–1235), in his commentary on Obadiah 1:20, Ṣarfat and Sepharad, both, refer to the Jewish captivity (Heb. galut) expelled during the war with Titus and who went as far as the countries Alemania (Germany), Escalona, France and Spain. The names Ṣarfat and Sepharad are explicitly mentioned by him as being France and Spain, respectively. Some scholars think that, in the case of the place-name, Ṣarfat (lit. Ṣarfend) – which, as noted, was applied to the Jewish diaspora in France, the association with France was made only exegetically because of its similarity in spelling with the name פרנצא (France), by a reversal of its letters.


 * Spanish Jew, Moses de León (ca. 1250 – 1305), mentions a tradition concerning the first Jewish exiles, saying that the vast majority of the first exiles driven away from the land of Israel during the Babylonian captivity refused to return, for they had seen that the Second Temple would be destroyed like the first. In yet another teaching, passed down later by Moses ben Machir in the 16th century, an explicit reference is made to the fact that Jews have lived in Spain since the destruction of the First Temple:


 * “Now, I have heard that this praise, emet weyaṣiv [which is now used by us in the prayer rite] was sent by the exiles who were driven away from Jerusalem and who were not with Ezra in Babylon, and that Ezra had sent inquiring after them, but they did not wish to go up [there], replying that since they were destined to go off again into exile a second time, and that the Temple would once again be destroyed, why should we then double our anguish? It is best for us that we remain here in our place and to serve God. Now, I have heard that they are the people of Ṭulayṭulah (Toledo) and those who are near to them. However, that they might not be thought of as wicked men and those who are lacking in fidelity, may God forbid, they wrote down for them this magnanimous praise, etc.”
 * Similarly, Gedaliah ibn Jechia the Spaniard has written:


 * “In [5],252 anno mundi (= 1492 CE), the king Ferdinand and his wife, Isabella, made war with the Ishmaelites who were in Granada and took it, and while they returned they commanded the Jews in all of his kingdom that in but a short time they were to take leave from the countries [they had heretofore possessed], they being Castile, Navarre, Catalonia, Aragón, Granada and Sicily. Then the [Jewish] inhabitants of Ṭulayṭulah (Toledo) answered that they were not present [in the land of Judea] at the time when their Christ was put to death. Apparently, it was written upon a large stone in the city’s street which some very ancient sovereign inscribed and testified that the Jews of Ṭulayṭulah (Toledo) did not depart from there during the building of the Second Temple, and were not involved in putting to death [the man whom they called] Christ. Yet, no apology was of any avail to them, neither unto the rest of the Jews, till at length six hundred-thousand souls had evacuated from there.”


 * Don Isaac Abrabanel, a prominent Jewish figure in Spain in the 15th century and one of the king’s trusted courtiers who witnessed the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, informs his readers that the first Jews to reach Spain were brought by ship to Spain by a certain Phiros who was confederate with the king of Babylon when he laid siege to Jerusalem. This man was a Grecian by birth, but who had been given a kingdom in Spain. He became related by marriage to a certain Espan, the nephew of king Heracles, who also ruled over a kingdom in Spain. This Heracles later renounced his throne because of his preference for his native country in Greece, leaving his kingdom to his nephew, Espan, by whom the country of España (Spain) derives its name. The Jewish exiles transported there by the said Phiros were descended by lineage from Judah, Benjamin, Shimon and Levi, and were, according to Abrabanel, settled in two districts in southern Spain: one, Andalusia, in the city of Lucena - a city so-called by the Jewish exiles that had come there; the second, in the country around Ṭulayṭulah (Toledo).


 * Abrabanel says that the name Ṭulayṭulah (Toledo) was given to the city by its first Jewish inhabitants, and surmises that the name may have meant טלטול (= wandering), on account of their wandering from Jerusalem. He says, furthermore, that the original name of the city was Pirisvalle, so-called by its early pagan inhabitants. He also writes there that he found written in the ancient annals of Spanish history collected by the kings of Spain that the 50,000 Jewish households then residing in the cities throughout Spain were the descendants of men and women who were sent to Spain by the Roman Emperor and who had formerly been subjected to him and whom Titus had originally exiled from places in or around Jerusalem. The two Jewish exiles joined together and became one.

As can be seen, the evidence is overwhelming that Jews were, at various times in history, expelled from their land.Davidbena (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On method.
 * (a) Primary sources never 'speak for themselves', as any Talmudic scholar would agree. Primary sources have to be interpreted, esp when primary sources contradict each other (of figures). Nearly all ancient testimony about population numbers, in classical pagan sources and the Tanakh, in ancient sources generally, are multiples.
 * (b)The fact is that historians, in Israeli, the diaspora, and all major archaeological and ancient history departments, accept the consensus that there was no expulsion of Jews from Judea. The most we have is an interdiction on entering Jerusalem.
 * (c)Don Isaac Abrabanel et alii nice stories, all copied from the History of the Jews in Spain are aetiological myths, typical of medieval writers. There's a vast literature on medieval manipulation of ancient history to rewrite the foundational histories of Denmark, Germany, England, France, Italy etc.etc., and these medieval Jewish writers do exactly what those other creative Christian writers did.
 * In other words David, you are confusing as evidence historical facts with legends. When we affirm something as a fact, there has to be empirical confirmation. In lieu, we say what the consensus is, and the scholarly consensus, goyim/Jewish etc., is that there was no expulsion. Hearsay or just-so stories are not facts. All the tales above refer to a rabbinic religious story invented to explain the galut as a punishment. One from Moses de León even led to the idea 'Jews' were in Spain two centuries before the forging of a specific Jewish identity, which is the work of the period from Ezra and Nehemiah onwards. Utter nonsense as history, but charming as a legend. The story is nonsense because the history of the Jews in antiquity shows that Jews were all over the world from Iran to Spain centuries before Titus, and constituted a major part of the northern Egyptian urban population. A million north African Jews could have, at any time, in late Greek or early Roman rule, gone back to Judah had they wished to, as Maimonides did later. They didn't, because the rabbinic myth of expulsion still did not form the core of their identity as Jews as it was to centuries later.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I am not confusing historical facts with legends, since we all know that early history is often based on an authenticated oral tradition and history, passed down from generation to generation. To object to any oral tradition, one would have to show systematically that the thing claimed did not actually happen. This has not been done. Jews were expelled from their land (Palestine), both, in the late First Temple period, and, to a lesser extent, in the late Second Temple period, although the majority Jewish population was greatly diminished because of war, famine and voluntary exile. For every Primary source, we can also supply you with a dozen Secondary and tertiary sources that support the same arguments.Davidbena (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In the final analysis, Jews made up the majority in Palestine during the 1st century CE, until the Bar-Kokhba revolt which caused mass destruction and the loss of many lives.Davidbena (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should (re) read Ernest Renan's foundational Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? Identity, he argues, is based on selective remembering and forgetting, and this principle holds true for every historical people who have formed a national identity. That doesn't exclude oral traditions, which are invaluable, but are subject to remodulation over time, so that whatever the core story may have been, it can undergo crucial sea-changes that dispense with  historicity. The4 story of my family's eviction from their property in Ireland in 1848 held up until 1992, when a death bed confession by a 90 year old uncle changed the story in crucial details. Had he died,without speaking, we would have kept believing the traditional story. In the Jewish case, Israeli archaeologists have found no invasion of Canaan, no Exodus, etc. Pesakh celebrates, like Purim, an 'historical' nevent that never took place, or rather for which there is zero historical evidence. Those stories, like the myth of exile, arose to 'explain' a real sense of defeated national-religious ambitions, by forging as the core story of Jewish identity the idea of persecution peculiar to Jews as a people. And they were validating metaphors for the real experience of persecution down the millennia, even though the specific events embodying that message probably never took place.
 * As to the majority of the population in Palestine, you are confusing or bundling together the Samaritan majority in Samaria and the Jewish population in Judea.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that some oral traditions have been embellished over the years, but you would have to cite proof that this has happened in Israel's case of its own oral tradition. In the final analysis, you are wrong. You stated that there has never been an expulsion, while even Josephus, a trusted historical writer, admits of several cases of limited expulsion of Jews from their cities. Of course, it never reached the stupendous proportions that we had seen during Israel's first captivity to Babylon. BTW: Some would consider the 1st century Samaritan population as apostate Jews.Davidbena (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim something to be a fact. Anyone can make up facts. Very few take the trouble to chase after the infinite mistakes of the popular imagination or of nationalist mythmakers.
 * I didn't say the Jews weren't expelled from cities. I said they were not expelled from Palestine. Yes they were expelled from townships, exactly as Israel expelled Palestinians from several hundred historic villages, revenging themselves against Rome by using a vendetta against Arabs. There was no 'stupendous' expulsion by the Babylonians: most of what, in contempt, the Ezra and Nehemiah tradition called the Am ha'aretz stayed put. A significant part of the Judean priestly-aristocratic class constituted most of the deportees. They then wrote the bible stories, which reflect their interests and ideology. It is irrelevant whether some consider Samaritans apostate Jews (Christians were apostate Jews, but those some would never bundle the minim of that time up with Jews because of their Jewish origins). What ruins your theory is the simple fact that the majority of Jews were outside Palestine by the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. They weren't in galut. They were following the ways of their Phoenician kin, exploring the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world for opportunities for a better life. Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So this would mean that the burden of proof rests squarely with you to prove contrary to the sources that I provided in this thread. You cannot do so. Even archaeologists who haven't found archaeological evidence of Jericho's destruction during the time when Joshua and the Israelites were believed to have invaded Canaan is not proof, since they base their findings upon modern methods of chronology, while ignoring Jewish chronological dates. The problem with Jericho begins with Finkelstein and Silberman (in "The Bible Unearthed" - 2002), who both claim that during their archaeological research, using traditional dating methods, there is nothing that they have ever dug-up in Israel that confirm the biblical stories. According to modern-methods of chronology, the conquest of Canaan occurred around 1215 - 1210 BCE. During that same period, they found no archaeological evidence in Jericho to suggest that it even existed as a city between the Late Bronze IIB age and the Iron Age IA (from 1300 BCE - 1050 BCE). In Jewish tradition, the conquest of Canaan would have been around 1276 BCE, which is well-within the margin of error for when Jericho was first destroyed as a city, seeing that they did, indeed, find a house in Jericho which they date back to the Late Bronze IIA era (i.e. 1400 BCE - 1350 BCE), meaning, the city was settled at that time, but which settlement soon came to an abrupt end.


 * The simplest way of showing you the errors attributed to modern science and modern chronologies is to look at the dates attributed unto the reigns of the Caesars and the discrepancies in their early writings. Let's take, for example, Josephus who writes about himself and says that he was aged 56 in the 13th year of the reign of Caesar Domitian (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.11.3), and that he (Josephus) was born in the 1st year of Caesar Gaius (Josephus, Vita § 1). Using Epiphanius' chronology of the Caesars, in his treatise "On Weights and Measures - Syriac version," the years are indeed collected as 56. By comparison, the span of years in Suetonius' "De vita Caesarum" (Lives of the Caesars), which gives 14 years for Claudius and 15 years for Nero, the same time frame would span a period of some 58 years! Epiphanius gives for Claudius Caesar 13 years, 1 month, 28 days, while for Nero he gives 13 years, 7 months, 27 days. You can see how that, by relying on a faulty system of calculation, they can miss the mark. We who are observant Jews say that the Second Temple was destroyed in 68 CE, but modern-day chroniclers say in 70 CE!


 * The fatal error of many academics is that they often take speculative "archaeological" history at face value, while neglecting first-hand written accounts - from eye-witnesses of those same events, as recorded in the Hebrew Bible. And while the Hebrew Bible may not be as old as the event itself, it was nevertheless copied from earlier manuscripts, and they from earlier manuscripts, and so forth, which first manuscript was actually dated close to the time of the event itself, and must therefore be a stronger testimony than the speculative archaeological testimony.Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One more thing: Whether or not the majority of Jews were living outside of Palestine during the Second Temple period (such as in Babylonia and elsewhere), this is totally irrelevant, since here we are only talking about the Jewish population of Palestine (i.e. the Land of Israel) in relation to its other inhabitants. Josephus clearly informs us about the areas of Jewish concentration, in relation to those areas inhabited by non-Jews. Until the early 2nd-century CE, Jews made-up the majority in Palestine. Still, Jews of Palestinian origin lived outside of Israel, and they were equally entitled to being called "ex-pats from the Land of Israel." If not, you would have no argument or claim for Palestinian Arab repatriation.Davidbena (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You stand to be corrected on another issue. Christians were not apostate Jews, unless you are referring to the original followers of Jesus. Later, a myriad of non-Jews joined the Christian faith, but they were never considered Jews in the first place. The Samaritans are different insofar that they later adopted the Jewish religion, with minor differences.Davidbena (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are totally out of touch with Israeli scholarship, at a minimum. It is wise not to pass judgements on things 'academics' that you appear not to know much about. I'm afraid you are not reading attentively. All academic studies in evaluating the primary sources you quoted conclude that they contain no evidence of a decree expelling the Jews from Palestine. The myth you underwrite proclaims, against the modern consensus, shared by Israeli/Jewish and goyim scholars, that such an expulsion occurred. So the burden of proof lies with the diehards who, ignoring what those who specialize in the topic unanimously assert, hold out at a kind of conceptual Masada (another myth in the sense the way it is taught in Israel completely distorts the history), in defiance of consensus. You believe the myth? Fine. Please do not try to say that the myth is founded on classical texts you don't understand, in the sense that you are totally unfamiliar with what scholarship says of them. It's like reading the Torah without any knowledge of comparative semitic linguistics, archaeology, history, sociology and hermeneutics. You can come to all sort of conclusions privately, or in a group, but in the real world, those texts are understood by scholars who master all the available knowledge bearing on their textual and contextual elucidation, not by private studies of primary texts. So, let's drop it. You are entitled to believe what you desire to believe, I would be the first to affirm this. But it has little to do with history.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the writer who is writing these lines has been working alongside Israeli scholarship for many years. However, there is a proclivity among many untrained scholars to bypass Jewish sources. That is precisely what we're talking about when it comes to ancient chronologies, which, mind you, is another topic in itself. Moreover, even scholars and academics are not unassailable. Jews were, indeed, expelled from their country during the time of the late First Temple period. As for this historical fact and assertion, you have sought to deny it, but have shown no proof to the contrary; rather, you have uttered baseless falsehoods against our historical records. In fact, the change of the paleo-Hebrew script (used by all Israelites prior to their exile) and their adoption of the Assyrian script (modern Hebrew script) and Aramaic language in subsequent years (learnt from the Babylonian captivity) is the greatest proof of this. You have simply ignored reliable and valid Jewish sources for incredible falsehoods perpetrated by those who deny Israel's antiquity. As for the Second Temple period, some Jews were expelled (taken into captivity) as our records attest, but the vast majority of native Jews were either decimated by war or by famine, or had voluntarily left their country because of these hardships. To say otherwise would be to deny the truth. In fact, there were Jewish kings over the country. King Solomon built a Temple on the Temple Mount, and after it was destroyed, another Temple was built in its place in the days of Ezra. King Herod, a king of the Jewish nation, refurbished the Temple, and his progeny continued to rule over a nation where there was a Jewish majority, until the last of his descendants, Agrippa II, a Jewish king, was forced to leave the country. I suppose a staunch Palestinian Arab supporter could do no better than deny these simple truths, because otherwise it cuts to the core of the problem, doesn't it? I will kindly request of you not to bother to post on this Talk-Page, since your arguments are circular in nature. No matter what proofs I should show you, you will deny it. Writing to you, therefore, is a waste of my time.Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Jews were, indeed, expelled from their country during the time of the late First Temple period"
 * Some pre-Jewish Israelites were expelled in that period. You make easy generalizations, which one can find in several hundred popular books but nowhere in modern scholarship, because, the principle there is:der Teufel steckt im Detail.
 * "You have simply ignored reliable and valid Jewish sources for incredible falsehoods perpetrated by those who deny Israel's antiquity"
 * Nope. The sources you allude to are religious sources written by an identifiable caste from a period where historiographical methods were unknown. This has nothing to do with Palestinians. Still, since you invited me to comment here, and reconsider that it was a waste of your time, I will defer to your wishes.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Most academic sources concur with our historical records. A staunch Palestinian Arab supporter, like yourself, could do no better than deny these simple truths, because otherwise it cuts to the core of the Arab-Israeli problem. Face it. That's the gist of the matter.Davidbena (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you haven't the foggiest notion of what the academic literature on this topic states, and that is the unhappy gist of the matter. To say my judgment here is influenced by sympathy for Palestinians is cheap. I was trained in this area, and everything I wrote above could be minutely sourced to standard works in Israel and abroad on Jewish history. You insist on a known untruth. That is fine, as a belief. It is unacceptable as an assertion of fact when others note to you that the consensus of scholarship, Jewish or otherwise, knows it to be a myth:
 * "'Compulsory dislocation, . .cannot have accounted for more than a fraction of the diaspora. . .The vast bulk of Jews who dwelled abroad in the Second Temple Period did so voluntarily.' Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans Harvard University Press, 2009 pp.3-4."
 * I could waste some hours providing from my files large quotes of similar statements, but it is pointless. The only point is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts, not on clichés, and editors do well to try and keep their private beliefs detached from their approach to articles. Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on facts, but you have scorned the facts posted above, and have shown yourself to be an editor who pushes his own WP:POV. As we have already stated in most unequivocal terms, the evidence is overwhelming that Jews were the majority in the Land of Israel during the 1st-century CE, until, in the ensuing years, they were decimated by war and famine and by eviction. You, however, simply gravitate to what you want to hear, no matter how misleading and inaccurate those reports may be. “Do not consider a statement true because you find it in a book, for the prevaricator is as little restrained with his pen as with his tongue. For the untutored and uninstructed are convinced of the veracity of a statement by the mere fact that it is written; nevertheless its accuracy must be demonstrated in another manner.” Moreover, since you openly admit to being a staunch Palestinian Arab supporter, you cannot possibly admit to the above evidence, since it contradicts all that you stand for and hope to advance. Again, I kindly request of you to desist from your personal attacks on my Talk-Page. Although I initially invited you here, I now retract my invitation, for you cannot be taught.Davidbena (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All subsequent remarks made by you here will be deleted by me.Davidbena (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit of the July events on the Gaza border
Why haven't you described that there had been four wounded Israelis in the incident ?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sderot-man-says-family-had-no-warning-before-rocket-hit-home/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/world/middleeast/2-killed-in-gaza-4-wounded-in-israel-in-most-intense-fighting-since-2014-war.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.58.241 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In my rush, I overlooked that detail. Still, since the dating system brings down only the main points of contention, I am wondering if this is the proper place to mention all the injured in the current conflict. The problem is that there will be a backlash by the other editors to mention the injured on the other side.Davidbena (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Kook
I see you are now promoting HaRav Kook on all Judaism articles. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, I have never promoted HaRav Kook, but have only mentioned him with regard to a major piece of correspondence (Questions & Answers) that he had with the Jews of Yemen in 1911, and for its historical importance I have mentioned it in their respective places. Can you please tell me what specifically you had in mind?Davidbena (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mixed you up with another editor. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
This is precisely what I was looking for. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Amendment Request
Hello! I'm and I am an Arbitration Committee Clerk. At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, I have removed your request for amendment per policy. If you would like to suggest or implement a policy change you should do so through a Request for Comment (RFC). If you would like to appeal your topic ban you can do so at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions. Regards, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Cameron11598, thanks for your reply. If I were to submit a Request for Comment (RFC), where is the best venue for doing this?Davidbena (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * David, I think you would save yourself a whole world of pain if you simly dropped this particular stick. It is never going to fly. - Nick Thorne talk  13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Village pump (policy) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nick, perhaps the idea was a little too far-fetched for Wikipedia. It just struck me as odd that so many people would come out against me. So be it. I'm at ease with myself, although not very happy with our Wikipedia community.Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Khirbet et-Tibbaneh
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Khirbet et-Tibbaneh&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sokuya (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your user page essay
David, under the heading On the logic behind "Intelligent Design" on your user page, you have a fairly lengthy essay expressing your views on ID. This appears to be in direct contravention of the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal web host and does not abide by the purpose of User pages in particular the prohibition against non original research. Please take this down, your user page is not the place for advocacy of preudoscience. - Nick Thorne talk 10:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Nick Thorne, I will gladly take this down from my User Page if it truly contravenes Wikipedia policy. I have seen many personal views expressed on Wikipedia "User Pages." Still, since I am largely unaware of any restrictions about expressing one's personal views on one's own "User Page," so long as no one is threatening anybody else, perhaps we can get a general opinion about this matter from a Wikipedia administrator, say, from User:NeilN, or from User:Doug Weller. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Nick Thorne. It falls under the category WP:UP"Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". Doug Weller  talk 13:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

✅
 * Okay, Doug. I've taken it down from my "User Page," in accordance with your directives. If I should be able to find supportive documentation from academic and reliable sources, inserting these as footnotes in the article even though their opinions may contradict the majority of academic sources, will I be permitted to restore the edit? Just asking for clarity?Davidbena (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * David, if such reliable sources existed don't you think someone would have already used them to modify the Intelligent design article? - Nick Thorne talk 13:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do exist, though perhaps not as prevalent as the other view. Albert Einstein, although he admitted to believing in "Spinoza's God," meaning, someone who does not concern himself with the affairs of man (a view generally held as inaccurate by the rabbis), he still is noted as saying, "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." In another place, Einstein said: "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice," meaning, the universe did not come into existence by chance, but rather by Intelligent Design. And, still, elsewhere, he said: "God is subtle but he is not malicious." While, in another place Einstein said: "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." He is quoted also as saying: "Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." And Einstein said this: "When the solution is simple, God is answering." However, in this next quote from Einstein, he abrogates from traditional Jewish teaching, and says this: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Have a good day.Davidbena (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then, take these "sources" to the ID page. Good luck, you'll need it. - Nick Thorne talk  00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nick, maybe this will come as a surprise to you, but I've tried in the past to introduce ID sources on the Intelligent Design WP article, those sources written by Maimonides and by Aristotle, but not by Einstein. To my dismay, those editors who work on that article rejected my sources, since their agenda is only to show that ID is a pseudoscience, having no real merit or value. The truth, however, needs no supportive evidence, as even the most simple observations in nature and in our universe, as well as the most complex observations, one will always reach the same conclusion. All of creation testifies of a higher Intelligent Being, but this is not the place for me to discuss these abstruse issues, so I will desist from the topic. The problem arises with our own limited human faculties and understanding, since we can only perceive things that had a beginning (i.e. were created), but God has always been - with no beginning nor end. I wish us all a Happy Jewish New Year.Davidbena (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just yet another example of a lack of understanding about how Wikipeida works. It is one of the reasons why you continue to have difficulty getting some of your edits into articles. Content needs to refer back to reliable sources in the sabject area of the article.  Wikipedia has policies about how to approach the subject of pseudocience.  One editor's opinion that a given idea is not pseudoscience does not trump the scientific consensus that clearly states that it is.  Your "sources" are completely irrelevant to the ID article, which is about the modern incarnation of ID as proposed by such likes as the Dicovery Institute and that is why they are rejected.  End of story. - Nick Thorne talk  03:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point, Nick. While I did, indeed, supply reliable and verifiable sources, the community rejected those sources over others. When I saw what they were intent on doing, I ceased pursuing it. I know when to call it quits. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Davidbena: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)   12:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Category:Classical Palestine has been nominated for discussion
Category:Classical Palestine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Tur Shimon) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tur Shimon.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Very nicely done article. Keep up the good editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Sorry, I have no authority to determine whether and how ArbCom remedies apply to a particular page. If you want a reliable opinion about that, you'd need to ask at WP:ARCA.  Sandstein  21:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sanstein.Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Or, to be clearer: I could give an opinion, but I don't want to, because (a) 1RR questions make my head hurt, and (b) my view is not necessarily more correct than any other user's. But generally, when in doubt don't revert, but seek the input of others through such means as WP:3O.  Sandstein   22:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I may be responding to a similar email. (The email I received was about Jarash, Jerusalem). What we ought to care about is the opinion of modern scholars. You are quoting a speculation by someone who died in 1926 (Jacob Simchoni) as though Wikipedia ought to consider it a good guess. If the other party in the dispute seems to be insisting on edits that have scholarly credibility, this is not "in a subtle manner, to divorce Israel's connection to the land”.
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to strengthen or weaken anybody’s connection to the land but to convey the best information that can be inferred from scholarly consensus. If you desire to advance other goals you should find a different web site.
 * In any event, if something is brought to AE without evidence of sincere participation in a reasonable talk page discussion (preferably, in a well-constructed RfC that was advertised in the usual way) you may not have much credibility there. Continuing to revert won’t strengthen your case and risks crossing one of the red lines. The exact position of the red lines is only known from the latest Arbcom decision, and may still be unclear to us even after we have read what they said. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. We are currently debating this issue now on the Jarash, Jerusalem Talk-Page. All seem to be in agreement that we must find a source that makes the direct connection between the site in question and Josephus' remarks about Gerasa. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OTRS Pending on Talk:Adullam-France Park
Hello Davidbena! With this edit in February 2017, you added OTRS pending to Talk:Adullam-France Park. I was unable to find any ticket in the OTRS system that relates to this article. Any information you have about why this template was added to the talk page and its current state would be appreciated. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will re-write the author of the photograph used on that page and ask him to send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org his written consent for publishing it on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. His name is Ariel Fishman, and the photograph which he agrees that we use here is now entitled "File:Rappelling in Columbarium at Hurvat Burgin.jpg". Please give him a few days to re-post his letter of consent.Davidbena (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have accepted the permission for the two files. In the future, please place OTRS pending on the file's description page. --01:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussions on POV and due weight in Jewish topics?
Our discussion at Talk:Jewish religious clothing has been fascinating and I am confident it will be fruitful, as everyone's contributions are in good faith to improve the article. But my editing in Jewish topics up to this point has been fairly gnomish, technical and not with much exposure to deeper content issues, and as such I'm ignorant of any established consensuses within this realm of Wikipedia. Do you know of any previous discussions about balancing coverage of different Jewish movements and points of view? Ibadibam (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will need to review some of the discussions held in past Jewish-related topics. I do know, however, that this has been the case in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, for which I have been somewhat involved. Shabbat Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rfc
I think opening that Rfc was about the stupidest thing to do at this stage. The discussion was as good as closed in your favor. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say the same thing. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that you're both right. Unfortunately, I saw the administrator's closure and suggestion that we start a RfC before I understood that there was no real need to do so. Anyway, we can now hope for a "miracle within a miracle".Davidbena (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yemenite silversmithing
Regarding Yemenite silversmithing; lots of older pictures from Jerusalem (in the 1960s) have been uploaded to commons, I wonder if some of them don't picture former Yemenite Jewish silversmiths? Search for "Zilversmid aan het werk achter een werktafel" on commons, and please tell me what you think. Huldra (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's good news. I'll check them out and see if any might be worthy of that article. There is a picture gallery there, and it could use a few more good images. Thanks, Huldra. ---Davidbena (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

✅
 * How great that you could identify him! Was he born in Yemen? Should we perhaps start a category for Yosef Salah (Tzadok)? Huldra (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew him personally when I lived in Jerusalem. He was born in Sana'a Yemen in 1888, and passed away at the old age of 111 in Jerusalem. His wife, who was considerably younger than him, passed away twenty years before him. He ran a silversmith (jewellery) shop on King David Street, opposite the King David Hotel. I have several personal photographs of him. I would sit down and listen to stories he would tell about Yemen. He was a man of special character. His sister was married to Rabbi Yosef Qafih. I'm not so sure that Yosef Salah (Tzadok) is notable enough for a category of his own. Davidbena (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats fascinating! I will collect the pictures into a category; if you look at Category:Silversmiths from Yemen, I don't think anyone of them have their own article anywhere, but it is very useful to have commons cat, in order to identify their work. My only question is, what name should it be under? "Yosef Salah (Tzadok)" don't look very good....Huldra (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would use a Commons category like "Yemenite silver craft", or something like that. The name of one silversmith would not be all-encompassing enough for the repertoire of silver jewellery that is out there.Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if you look at Category:Silversmiths from Yemen, you will see that Musa Dabwani has his own category, so has S S Habshush‎, Yahya Habshush‎, Hayim‎, etc, etc. I think Yosef Salah (Tzadok) should be equally categorised, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right. If they have a category of their own, Yosef Salah can have one too.Davidbena (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There you are, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nice. If he were yet alive, he'd be happy to see it. I have a very beautiful picture of Yosef Salah given to me by his son. I would like to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, but for that I'll need his written consent.Davidbena (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Robin Rand
Surely you have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that a reliably sourced, good faith edit is not vandalism. Connormah (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That was nothing but pure vandalism, my friend. I went to High School with Robin Rand, and I know personally.Davidbena (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 's addition of sourced content was in no shape or form vandalism. Please stop making such bad faith and blatantly incorrect accusations as they are considered personal attacks. If you want to dispute the veracity reliable source, take it to the talk page. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Vandalism it may not have been, but a case of mistaken source. I have already made note of that in the "edit summary." The problem with Robin Rand's page is that there has been a LONG HISTORY of vandalism. Check the edit history, and you will see what I mean.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the history of the article, claiming that long-standing well-respected editor is vandalising an article by adding reliably sourced content, and then doubling down when they call you on it, is poor show. Your own personal history is not a reliable source.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I have already admitted to my mistake. Accept my apologies.Davidbena (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but perhaps you could have conveyed that in a different manner or stated that initially rather than outright making an accusation of vandalism, then. I was only intending to add some background of where General Rand is from and grew up, as that info is missing from the article (I notice that his USAFA yearbook entry lists him as being from Klamath Falls). Connormah (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may wish to see this here.Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I notice that the article that I found is vague in stating that he went to high school 'outside of Klamath Falls', whereas it's specific in which middle school he attended, in Klamath Falls. It also is specific in the year ranges that he lived in Klamath Falls (in the 1960s), where it states his father managed the airport (also verifiable per his father's obituary ). Perhaps my initial edit was poorly worded then, but it appears that he at least spent some time in Klamath Falls, enough to list it as his hometown in the 1979 yearbook? Connormah (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That, indeed, may be the case. Perhaps even his father's home town. My only objection was to his High School. By the way, I also happen to know where he attended Junior High School, and that too was in Colorado Springs; named "South Junior High School." His mother-in-law always teased him about that, since it was not considered a very good Junior High School. Before coming to Israel, I gave to Robin Rand (who then attending the USAF Academy) my personal Bible. He was later put in charge of 1/3 of America's nuclear missiles and bombs, used as a deterrent force to would-be aggressors. Davidbena (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could agree on adding a mention of his father's name/Air Force rank, and the years that Gen. Rand lived in Klamath Falls, as listed in the article (as well as the AF Academy yearbook), then? As I said earlier, I was only trying to try and find/add info about his earlier years (as I could not find his birth place). Connormah (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes editors of Year Books make assumptions. If Robin's father came from Klamath Falls, the editor may have assumed that he was raised there too. I do happen to know that in the late 1960s-early 1970s, Robin Rand attended Junior High School in Colorado Springs.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that we could mention Klamath Falls in some sort of fashion. I tried another edit, perhaps you could improve upon it wherever you see fit. Connormah (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish to express, personally, to you my apologies for reverting your first edit and being somewhat rude about it. I just now checked your User Page and discovered that you are also an administrator here. Had I known in the beginning that you were an administrator, I would not have been so rash, at least not in my judgment, but would have more politely sought an explanation.Davidbena (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and no harm done. I figured it was a misunderstanding of some sort. Connormah (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing years
Hi, your edit to Jubilee (biblical) looks good at first glance. I would probably want to go through the entire article at some point but not right now. Anyway, you wrote "The discrepancies between Josephus and Seder Olam have led some scholars to think that the dates prescribed in Seder Olam are only approximations," - if you have a source for this, it would be good to add to Missing years (Jewish calendar)‎! Ar2332 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

1RR
If I'm not mistaken, you just broke 1RR on Solomons pools. Please reverse, and argue your point on the talk page, instead of edit warring, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, this is my first revert. If I was mistaken, I will self-revert. The points have been argued on the Talk-Page. As I recall, it was me who initiated the discussion. You were the one who was quick to revert another's edit.Davidbena (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will report you then. And the onus is on one who want to add something to get the consensus for it, which you haven't,  Huldra (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will also report you for you anti-Israel POV, as your edits seem to be based on the views of an International body that does not govern Israel. See here. You are free to report International bias, but your edit should not solely be dependent upon that.Davidbena (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

AE
Please note, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I raised a clarification request earlier this year concerning an American Muslim Congresswoman where the dispute was a part of her article. The decision basically was that there's a distinction between "reasonably construed" and "broadly construed" and that articles such as the one I was concern with and the one you are concerned with are "broadly" hence 1RR doeen't apply. Doug Weller  talk 15:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller: Davidbena just used your above answer to remove my note on Talk:Solomon's Pools, see here. Comment? Huldra (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Were you not trying to "game the system," Huldra? A reminder: Gaming the system.---Davidbena (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, and even if the article is subject to ARBPIA, which it clearly isn't, the page itself needs to be logged, and the article needs an edit notice in order to be under ARBPIA, so if you just place the template, it wouldn't mean anything and would just confuse people. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am trying to follow the rules, as I expect others to follow them, too. (Alas, that is not a simple task, as the rules keep changing...) Huldra (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

1rr
David that is a 1RR violation at Kafr 'Inan. It does not have the edit-notice, and I will get that added now, but it is clearly in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Please self-revert. Beyond that, see the article talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same. Please self revert, or I will report you, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please wait until I hear from User:Doug Weller, User:GoldenRing and user User:DGG on those edits. Obviously there is a mistake. See my comment on Huldra's Talk-Page. The edit does NOT fall under the category of a regular dispute, but is rather related to some gross error and misunderstanding (tantamount to a factual error, or vandalism) Besides, this editor has reasons to believe that he is being purposely stalked by Huldra and Nableezy. Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena I am getting seriously fed up with your edit warring all over the place. I give you one hour, then I will report you, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have shown animosity towards me since day one.Davidbena (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * She actually supported your topic ban being lifted. So did I. That seems to have been unwise to be frank. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

David, you are gaming the restriction here. You know full well that ARBPIA applies to the articles on the depopulated Arab villages. Beyond that, you are quite simply wrong on the edit. We do not place foreign language terms in our articles outside of giving relevant foreign titles for articles. Please self-revert and use the talk page instead of edit-warring. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have shown animosity towards me since day one. It is not me whose edits are disruptive, but it is your edits that are disruptive. Admit to the truth and leave the edit on Kafr 'Inan with its Hebrew insignia. The modern moshav of Kfar Hananya, built one kilometer to the south of the Old Kefar Hanania (now Kafr 'Inan) is, obviously, not the same site as the older, although it bears the same name. We find this all over the country: The new Beitar Illit, named after the old Betar (now Bittir) are two different sites. I call on the administrators here to look carefully at the edit history of our respective pages and to see if Huldra and Nableezy are not guilty of WP:HOUND.Davidbena (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't feel very sympathetic to anyone who thinks they are above the rules, or that the rules are for everyone else, but not themselves. And, as Nableezy pointed out, both he and I supported ending your topic ban. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * David, you are again completely ignoring the issue here. This is exactly why you were topic-banned to begin with. The Hebrew for Kfar Hananya belongs in the article Kfar Hananya, and nobody is removing it. It does not belong in articles where Kfar Hananya is mentioned, it belongs only in the article Kfar Hananya. The idea that I am hounding you to articles that have been in my watchlist for literal years is interesting, but not all that sound. Either way, you are gaming the restriction here, and I would welcome somebody to look at your editing across the topic area since the ban was lifted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to self-revert? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is tantamount to deliberate misleading and/or vandalism and you are harassing me per WP:HOUND. Davidbena (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Id prefer to work with you, but if I need to ask the ban be reinstated so be it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1RR does not apply to cases of deliberate vandalism, such as what you are both doing here.Davidbena (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is also a personal attack. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No personal attack. What is true is true. I will take the case to the Administrators and ask that you both be banned for 6 months on Arab-Israel articles for hounding me and deliberately vandalizing articles.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do. Also, do you want me to add the Arabic name each and every time I mention an Arab place? Huldra (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No personal attack? You are saying we are deliberately vandalizing an article because we are following MOS:FOREIGN. You have completely ignored the comments on the talk page. You have not even attempted to address the issue. You simply edit-war and refuse to discuss. Sure, fine, ask that I be banned. I actually would very much not to ask that you be banned, but your behavior isnt leaving me any other options. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

David, the page now has the 1RR edit notice. Please self-revert or I will report your violation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When there is deliberate disruption of a Wikipedia page and/or vandalism, a revert is in order and precludes the 1RR.Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok fine, AE it is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well guess not as you have self-reverted. Thanks I guess. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this continues the topic ban will have to be reinstated. There was no vandalism here. Doug Weller  talk 08:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller, I concede that I should have given more time for the discussion to play-out, rather than revert before discussion. That was my fault. Still, moderators can be as rash as I was there. With respect to my revert (i.e. the restoration of the site's Hebrew name), I will remind you that we're talking here exclusively about Kafr 'Inan, whose name was also Kefar Hanania in the 2nd-century CE as we see here in Mishnah Shebiith 9:2 and which place is discussed by the relative archaeologists and historical geographers. When students of religion study this site, the first name that comes to mind is the Hebrew rendition of its name, Kefar Hananiah which happens to be the exact same site as Kafr 'Inan. Can you be more patient with me?Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think making that revert while a discussion about topic-banning you was the wisest move? You said above I have been out to get you from the start. No David, I have not. I have said multiple times that I think you are a fine person and an incredible asset to the project in certain areas. When you edit about ancient sites you are a thorough and thoughtful editor. But on anything related to modern politics you promote views so far outside of the mainstream that you rarely have anything resembling a reliable source supporting your view. You refuse to engage with your interlocutor's arguments, choosing instead to ignore what they have written and repeat ad naseum mostly unsourced personal views. You have continued to completely ignore every single comment either of us have made about this specific issue. I think youre a decent person, and honestly I dont like that you feel wronged or that you would be banned, because fundamentally you are doing what you sincerely feel is the right thing. But you refuse to acknowledge that others may have valid arguments. You only self-reverted when an admin told you to. You ignored my, and Huldras, request. You said that us making edits with arguments grounded in policy was vandalism. And throughout all that, did I even report you? No, you reported me. If you a. refuse to believe that anybody who opposes your edits could be doing so in good faith, and b. refuse to engage with their arguments because you think they are not acting in good faith, then I dont see how you are supposed to expect people to collaborate with you in what is supposedly a collaborative website. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What's wrong, Nableezy? I am not Topic Banned, and I waited 24 hours before I reverted the edit. We can, indeed, disagree with each other occasionally, but since we are working collaboratively on an online encyclopedia, we must also follow Wikipedia guidelines and we must follow a consensus. No hard feelings.Davidbena (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You dont have consensus is the problem. Waiting 24 hrs plus 1 does not make it not edit-warring. And doing so when there is an active discussion about banning you is not exactly wise. This is when you show that you wont be continuing to do things that result in banning, not pushing harder. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I will not revert again until we've reached a consensus. Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Doug's comment above; I'm really struggling to find a reason not to re-impose the topic ban here. Self-reverting, waiting just over 24 hours and then re-reverting is clearly edit-warring, and accusing other editors of vandalism while also discussing the change with them on the talk page is clearly casting aspersions.  Knock it off.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I thought it was perfectly legal on Wikipedia to wait 24-hours before restoring an edit, especially after discussing the matter on the article's Talk-Page. If it matters to you, I will never restore the edit again unless we run a RfC and there is a clear consensus. What I did, I did in good conscience. I will not restore the edit. Be patient.Davidbena (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, Davidbena: you seem to think I have been wanting to have you topic banned all the time, but that is simply not correct. Do you really think I voted to have your topic ban lifted in February, just to go around looking for a reason to have you topic banned again?? Seriously, I am not playing such games. You have some things which greatly speak in your favour: first and foremost that you are one of the (far too few) editors who actually look up stuff and read sources. I greatly appreciate that.

But for me it is a question of "noice" vs "signal" level: and you have this last week or three generated an awfully lot of "noice", and very little "signal".

When you think you are "in the right", you seem 100% unwilling to "back down". Well, I am often 100% sure I am right...but I still "back down", or walk away, when I see a majority against me. That is what you have to do, in order to "survive" on Wikipedia.

And as for you having a "good conscience", yeah, well, that does not convince me. When I was younger, I read a lot about the Holocaust. The one thing that terrified me about the Holocaust more than anything was this: some of the perpetrators had a "good conscience"...(basically saying that the people they killed were "lesser human beings"  who would have died out, anyway, so they were just "helping nature", or speeding up the process a little..) So no; since then I have taken having a "good conscience"  as not being a good excuse of anything. Huldra (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Huldra, Huldra, we have had our ups-and-downs, as you well-know. Sometimes we are best-of-friends, but at other times we come across as "enemies." I suppose I was too rash in my judgment about you. I'm sure that you mean well, based on your understanding of history. Please forgive me if I wrongly thought of you, in our most-recent spate of exchanges, as someone who was out to have me topic banned. I promise to act more mature and not jump to such rash conclusions. With God as my witness, I would prefer that we get along, rather than fight.Davidbena (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

looking for an excavation report
Hi David. On this page, item A-4440, it mentions a license to excavate at Kh. Dafna. I wonder if you can find a report on this excavation. Thanks. Zerotalk 13:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll check around and see what I can find.Davidbena (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just in my preliminary research, I've gotten a limited reading on this site where it states in Hebrew that the old ruin of Dafna sits at an elevation of 130 meters above sea-level, and that there is still to be seen on this old ruin the remains of a sugar production factory.Davidbena (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The map bearings for this site in 'Amud 'Anan are 792350 / 260350, which only brings down the information that I cited above.Davidbena (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the archaeological research of the excavator at the old Dafna site (by Mr. Abdallah Muqari) and at other sites, an article was written (in Hebrew) entitled The Sugar Industry in Palestine during the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods in Light of the Archaeological Finds (1999), and which same article has an English summary at the end of the PDF file.Davidbena (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The author concludes there that these sugar production sites were connected to the Order of St. John (the Hospitallers), and that it supports the written sources which mention a connection between this order and sugar production. The author also notes, with regard to these sugar production sites, that only one site (Tell Qasila, site no. 7) can be dated securely to the 12th century. Most of the sites are dated to the 13th century and some to the 14th-15th centuries. If you read through her concluding remarks, she goes into far greater detail. I hope this helps you.Davidbena (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is immensely useful, thanks. It will take some time to sort out as now I have sources for three different places called Khirbet Dafna not far from each other. Guerin in the 1870s mentioned that two hills in this region had that name, but I didn't expect three. The place called Dafna South in that article is in the same location as "Khirbet Dafna" at Amud Anan. The very detailed Israeli maps of 1956 and 1961 show Khirbet Dafna about 600m east of there. At the moment I'm guessing that Amud Anan is simply mistaken. Zerotalk 14:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On p81, it says that this site was investigated by Shaked, and she doesn't call it Khirbet Dafna. So I think there is still something to be found about work at Khirbet Dafna by Muqari. Zerotalk 14:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She must mention Dafna somewhere in the Hebrew text, because I was referred to her article by Google after typing in "Dafna". Amud Anan does, in fact, mention the site as being a former sugar producing place. Still, I found here another mention of the site near Kibbutz Dafna, where it states (in Hebrew) that the site has revealed many potsherds from the Hellenistic era, and early Roman period. It goes on to state that the site was accidentally discovered while members of the kibbutz were preparing the ground for planting an orchard. It later remarks there that there is access to the site from the bypass road to the east and north of Tel Dan.Davidbena (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stern refers to Dafna South, never to Khirbet Dafna. The new site you mention is still different. Zerotalk 01:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I would have no way of distinguishing between these sites, since I have not examined these places personally. If I find anything else, I'll let you know. Perhaps our friend Huldra knows more.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi David
Glad you stayed at Wikipedia. I will be getting back to normal editing soon. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So good to hear from you again, Professor. Would like to work with you on other articles. Your expertise is needed on this worthy project.Davidbena (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes I would. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban
With some reluctance I've closed the AN discussion on the subject of a topic ban from ARBPIA articles and edits. Over the life of the discussion there was enough commentary to produce a consensus, on the basis of which I've closed the discussion in favour of the ban. The closing statement is here and the standard appeal options are here.

I appreciate this is not the outcome you would have preferred, and note your history of productive edits alongside the ones that caused this ban. All the best for where your editing interests take you outside of this specific topic area. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. I will respect the topic ban, until such a time that I am able to repeal the decision.Davidbena (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the reference at Kosher locust
Hi there, User:Davidbena! I hope you are doing well.

I just wanted to give my thanks with regards to the improvement of a reference at the article Kosher locust, as a full quotation was requested. Also, I'd like to ask for your further assistance with improving the reference even further still. There are a couple of questions on my mind.

First, is Ma'achaloth Asuroth the title of the source, or just the name of the sub-section that is referred to? If it's a sub-section, I added an empty  |chapter= parameter to the reference. I also had a look at the main page of the source, but couldn't find the title, הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק א. For that reason I'm a little bit confused (...as I don't speak Hebrew).

Second, I also added parameters for  |trans-title=, and  |script-title=he:. The former would included the translation of the title in English; the latter the title in pure Hebrew. Could you help to fill in those?

And last but not least, I think the remaining empty parameters could be filled as well ( |date=,  |publisher=, and  |location=). Google translate gives the following at the main page, but better if someone knowing Hebrew would see it over:

''Mishneh Torah of the Rambam In practice for all of our time The Mamre Institute Edition (Tammuz 5767) According to the wording of most Yemenite manuscripts © 2017 All rights reserved to Mamre Institute (Haim Vital Street 12, Jerusalem 95470 (02-652-1906)''

Thanks a lot for your contributions! Indeed, the article has come a long way from the state it was prior to April 2015.

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the original quote was added by you. You added a slightly more extense quote here, consisting of both the verses 21 and 22. I kind of liked the original translation better, but that's only for the verse 21. Just to let you know! ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That is the sub-section of the Mishne Torah. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sir Joseph! Still, any help to fill those blanks would be more than welcome! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * One more question. הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק א is the Hebrew one for Ma'achaloth Asuroth, I assume. Therefore, why cannot I find it from the Mishneh Torah front page where all the different sub-sections are listed? The nearest one I can find is הלכות מאכלות אסורות (https://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5200.htm). I mean, Ma'achaloth Asuroth is part of the Mishneh Torah, right? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is there, it's under the 5. section, "משנה תורה - ספר קדושה - הלכות מאכלות אסורות", so the Mishne Torah is divided further into books, and it's the second link. But if you go to Just to clarify, "פרק א" means "Chapter 1." If you go to that site, on the top are links to the individual chapters. If you click on "הכול", which means "everything,  you will then get to  and you'll then see at the second paragraph the entire הלכות מאכלות אסורות and then the second paragraph would be הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק א. Let me know if you need more help. I know it's very confusing.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's all making sense now... Anyway, your help is truly appreciated! Cheers! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Beit Shemesh
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Beit Shemesh&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. תנא קמא (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok
let me deal with it. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Onomasticon
Hi,

I've seen you created Onomasticon (Eusebius) by copying from Eusebius. Please take a look at our policy Copying within Wikipedia and add attribution notices for these two articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OKay. I'll do that in an edit summary.Davidbena (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Habit (disambiguation)
Davidbena, I'm sympathetic with what you're trying to do, but per MOS:DAB, a disambiguation page is an aid to navigation, not a list of uses of a term. For Sudarium, for example, to be included, there must be a mention of "habit" in the article (usually appropriately sourced/referenced). See, in particular, MOS:DABMENTION. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "habit" is used there. With more time, I will also show other sources where the word "sudarium" is used for the habit worn by Jewish men.Davidbena (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"Al-Faqihu 'l-'Imad" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Faqihu &. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Faqihu 'l-'Imad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 08:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Plene scriptum and defective scriptum: explain?
Hi David, and thanks for your thanks :) Would you mind, since this is your field, adding short explanations wherever these terms occur ? I picked the first good definition I could find, from here, and used it here. I am a bit familiar with the concept, but not at all with the Latin terms, so I couldn't change much Ella's wording, so as not to end up getting it wrong. Ella is a native English speaker and much published author, I think you can't get it much shorter and to the point. Of course, adding an article or distinct paragraph in a relevant article could make it much easier, one could introduce a wikilink and basta. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Arminden, shalom. Plene scriptum and Defective scriptum are academic terms used frequently by the academia to describe, in Hebrew writings, words that are written either with a superfluous letter (not really needed in understanding or in reading the word), or words written in such a way that they appear to lack a letter (but which word can still be read and understood). An example of Plene scriptum is in Numbers 10:10, such as the addition of "yod" in the Hebrew word חדשיכם = ḥodsheikhem, the consonant "yod" being added there to make-up for the unwritten vowel sound "ei" (as in `day`), and which could have just as easily been read the same way had it not contained the letter "yod" (for example: חדשכם = ḥodsheikhem. The example just given is called Plene scriptum, since it has a superfluous letter. The reverse is also true. Whenever a word is written defectively (with a missing letter) it is called Defective scriptum, such as in the word מנשא = minneso, in Genesis 4:13. Normally, the word would have been written with an additional letter, the consonant "vav" (Hebrew: ו) to show that the word should be pronounced with the vowel "o" (as in the English `go`). Still, even though the word is written in the Yemenite tradition in Defective scriptum, it is still pronounced as though it contained the vowel "o". Perhaps, when either one of us has the time, he can add two new Wikipedia pages describing these terms.Davidbena (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Plene scriptum and Defective scriptum - wikipedia links are missing. If no other wikipedia article describes the subjects, please write up. In similar situations (i.e., related terms best described by comparison), a single article is usually written, Plene scriptum and defective scriptum, with the two individual terms being redirects.
 * P.S. I noticed the descriptions of the term in Damascus Pentateuch. These are misplaced: a separate article about the terms must exist instead, to be linked in other articles, such as . Yemenite Hebrew and some others. By the way, when writing a new article, please search Wikipedia using Google and add wikilinks to it:, Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we must write a separate article on "plene scriptum." When I find the time, I'll do that, unless someone does it before I get around to doing it. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Meanwhile, I have used this link here: plene scriptum, until we can write a separate article on this important topic.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I wish to thank you both for calling my attention to the fact that someone ought to write a Wikipedia article on the term Plene scriptum. Well, there is now that article. Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great sharing of knowledge! Now, is it possible to write up something about Otiyyot Gedolot (Large Letters) and Small Letters, mentioned, eg., in  Torah scroll (Yemenite)? 17:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of finding the time, and working on articles that are most urgent.Davidbena (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm unsatisfied by some aspects of this. Each of the articles Plene scriptum and Mater lectionis have at the top "Not to be confused with ". And yet, in Mater lectionis we can read "If words can be written with or without matres lectionis, spellings that include the letters are called malē (Hebrew) or plene (Latin), meaning "full", and spellings without them are called ḥaser or defective." Moreover, in all the examples of malē versus ḥaser given in these articles (and here too), the difference between the two forms is the presence or absence of a mater lectionis. I'm wondering if it is correct to have two articles instead of one. Zerotalk 18:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , anyone who has studied Semitic languages can tell you that there is a difference between Mater lectionis and Plene scriptum. Mater lectionis is similar, but actually a broader term, and is often used when referring to Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew, and has more to do with a specific function of the language, for better comprehension, or more specifically, consonants that are used to indicate a vowel. This differs from plene scriptum where the addition of a letter may or may not be used to indicate a vowel, and which word can often be satisfactorily read without the addition of that letter, such as in יעקוב in Leviticus 26:42, the only time in the Torah where the word "Jacob" (Heb. יעקב) is written with a "waw", in plene scriptum. The use of Mater lectionis is more commonly encountered when writing Judeo-Arabic (meaning, trying to find the Hebrew equivalents when writing Arabic in Hebrew characters). In the words of Professor Yosef Tobi of Haifa University, "not everything shown in Hebrew characters for Arabic words reflects what is customarily written in classical Arabic, nor does it reflect what is customarily written in classical Judeo-Arabic from the Middle Ages and which had been the standard in canonical Judeo-Arabic literature between the 10th–14th centuries. This matter finds expression in different ways: (a) the widespread use of vowels (mater lectionis) that are not compatible with anything prescribed in Arabic writing methods for the Middle Ages, and which are related to our discussion – namely, pre-classical Arabic, classical Arabic and classical Judeo-Arabic. On the other hand, we are all too familiar with this phenomenon from ancient Hebrew texts (the Dead Sea scrolls) and from the Hebrew texts in the Geniza MSS., that is to say, the practice of writing a word with an extreme plene scriptum. The sense here is not only to the copyist adding mater lectionis symbols for short-sounding vowels, but of also doubling the Hebrew letters for the vowel-like consonants, e.g. ו (waw) and י (yod). However, it should also be pointed out that, along with that, the copyist sometimes omits the mater lectionis in a long vowel; (b) the lack of consolidation and uniformity in spelling. Meaning, often the same word is written in different ways by the same copyist, and even on the same line or on adjacent lines; and it goes without saying that the spelling is likely to change from one manuscript to another." (END QUOTE). In short, plene scriptum in its Hebrew usage is simply whenever there is an additional letter added to a word and which is abnormal, in most cases, and is singled out as being abnormal. However, whenever we find the words plene (Heb. מלא) and defective scriptum (Heb. חסר) used in Tikkun Soferim (the model text for copying Torah scrolls by scribes), the word plene is always used in relation to others words written in defective scriptum, not because there is necessarily anything unusual or abnormal about the word being written in such a way, but to ensure a universal layout (conformity) in scribal practices, where one word must be written as though it were lacking in matres lectionis, and another word appearing as though it was not. It would be plainly wrong and inaccurate to discuss superfluous letters in the Torah by calling them Mater lectionis which has a useful purpose. I worked as a scribe before I was married, writing various religious scripts, and, as any Jewish scribe can tell you, a scribe must be very meticulous in copying the plene and defective scriptum in the Torah, Mezuzzah and Tefillin, and this purely for uniformity. Davidbena (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One more thing: The best way to show the difference between Mater lectionis and Plene scriptum, according to Professor emeritus Yosef Tobi, is that Mater lectionis (lit. "mother of reading") can most effectively be understood by the example of the Hebrew name "David" (Hebrew: דויד ) which is sometimes spelt in Hebrew with a yod (י), instead of simply דוד . The additional yod is used in this case as a Mater lectionis = "a mother of reading", since the plene letter yod is intentionally being used there to indicate the vowel sound, whereas in the spelling דוד there is nothing shown there to indicate the vowel sound of the "waw", and relies simply upon the knowledge of its reader to know the assigned vowels. Again, the emphasis here is on its function, rather than on its abnormality. Often, when commoners write every-day secular Hebrew, they purposely make use of Mater lectionis to indicate a certain vowel, such as writing "woman" = אשה with an additional yod (e.g. אישה), although the same word NEVER appears spelt as such in the Hebrew Bible. It is ALWAYS written without a yod. But, in secular Hebrew, people often wish to make one's intention as clear as possible, and therefore they indicate the vowel with a letter; the word אשה (= woman) being written with a yod to indicate the Hiriq, or "y" sound. In Mater lectionis, often the Hebrew character aleph ( א ) is used instead of the vowel patach (the "a" sound, as in "apple"), especially when writing personal names. We find many examples of this in classical Hebrew writings. Davidbena (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, is it possible for you to move this discussion (by copy-editing) to Talk:Plene scriptum? It would seem to me that the proper place to be having this discussion is on that Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing
In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
 * Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
 * You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
 * For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
 * If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

Archaeological data
Hi, I see you have added a lot of edits about archaeological  permits being given, like here on Kabul, Israel, or here, on Zanoah.

The thing is: when there is an archaeological permit given, there will usually also be an archaeological report. And a report about an excavation is usually much more interesting that just the permit, no?

In the Kabul, Israel article, the report from that archaeological  permit (Permit # A-5956), was actually already in the article! (see the Zidan, 2012 link).

For Zanoah, just go to Hadashot Arkheologiyot, search and look for author = Pablo Betzer, and you can easily find the permit (=S-44) excavation report here ...+ several other excavations in Zanoah.

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Huldra, for this update and clarification. Yes, archaeological reports are always more interesting and they bring-out more details (e.g. the Archaeological report of Neve Michael (Moshav Roglit). I can always rely on you to help me organize matters. As for these bits-and-bobs of archaeological data, please feel free to make the necessary changes, omissions, or updates, where you feel applicable, or where the subject has already been treated upon. Be well, and let me take this time to wish you and yours a blessed New Year (based on the Hebrew calendar), and may Wikipedia become a reliable source for the acquisition of knowledge, and a means to advance peace and understanding in our troubled world.Davidbena (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Yeter ve-Haser" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yeter ve-Haser. Since you had some involvement with the Yeter ve-Haser redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Yeter ve-Haser" is the transliteration of the Hebrew words for "plene and defective scriptum," sometimes referred to as such by editors who speak Hebrew here on Wikipedia, as well as Jewish seminary students. Its use as a phrase, of course, is restricted to a small Hebrew-English speaking audience.Davidbena (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended
The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahem
Per - your comment makes it rather clear that you did not, actually, understand the DS alert or its implications. Your comments had the effect of advocating pseudoscience. Even when couched in terms of "just asking questions" this is considered disruptive but that edit summary also screams WP:RGW, implying that any reliably sourced statement in support of ID would be instantly rejected. This is untrue and uncivil towards other editors at that article, any actual scientific validation of ID would be of tremendous significance and we would cover it, but it would need to be pretty compelling given the history of ID. Guy (help!) 13:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but my intention was to know exactly what is permitted and what is not, since the "Intelligent Design" Talk-Page had put-up certain strictures since I last visited the page. My intention was to keep myself out-of-trouble if I should add information relating to the ID argument from the famous Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, who wrote about ID in his Guide for the Perplexed. As you know, there are opposing views to this important topic, and every balanced article brings down both opposing views. I do not have the presumption to think that my additions would have changed the dogmas of their persuasion, although they would have given "food for thought" and given balance to this important article. As it is, they made their intentions clear. I will not press the issue, unless there is a willingness to listen to cogent views of the other side. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given how recent Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) is, it's very unlikely that Maimonides had anything to say about it. Rather, just in case you missed it, another editor pointed you to Teleological argument, which is probably more in line with what you want.  Not only that, but that article already has some information about Maimonides!  See in particular the  section.  If you had just started out with what your goal was and responded when I asked what you had in mind for sources, it may have all gone more smoothly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my friend, but you are mistaken. The topic of "Intelligent Design" is specifically mentioned by Maimonides in chapter 19 of Part II in his book, Guide for the Perplexed, where he writes: "Here, in this chapter, I merely wish to show by arguments almost as forcible as real proofs, that the Universe gives evidence of design, etc." As you can see, the subject of ID has been a philosophical debate for ages. The discussion rightfully belongs in the article that carries the name "Intelligent Design," rather than "Teleological argument," which can be misleading to readers of classical histories. If worse comes to worst, yes, Maimonides' views can be added in that other article. By the way, Deacon, you are a kind and thoughtful person; wishing that more were like you. One more thing: We err on the side of caution.Davidbena (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First, as our article on Intelligent design states, "Though the phrase 'intelligent design' had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes." (Emphasis added).
 * Second, you most certainly did not understand the DS alert or its implications and your comments most certainly did have the effect of advocating pseudoscience. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear perplexed, hope you don't mind a word of advice. Your comment caught my attention when I read that you "happen to know many rabbis that hold PhD degrees in philosophy", and it struck me that you might be thinking of pulling a rabbi out of a hat. As I think others have made clear, to propose article improvements you need good quality published secondary sources that refer explicitly to ID, a theological argument presented with the claim that it is modern science, and not to the generic argument from design which is theology with no inherent claim to be science in the modern sense. The Guide for the Perplexed, a 12th-century book by Maimonides, cannot possibly refer to scientific methodology that only developed in the modern era. If the book does include a version of the argument from design, it doesn't seem to be in our article on the book, so you may want to search for a good secondary source to improve that article. If you do find a good published secondary source about modern pseudoscientific ID relating it to arguments put by Maimonides, that's a topic already covered in intelligent design – it'd need a strong argument for significance before giving undue weight by including another ancient author in what is necessarily a brief overview. . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your sincere input. As I thought I made myself clear, I have no intention whatsoever to press this issue further, unless a majority of others would want to expand this article to include "philosophical notions." Until then, I have nothing more to say. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban request closed
I have just closed your request to lift the topic ban at WP:AN. I had to close it as opposed, but I provided some recommendations which you may find useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Tarichaea
Shalom, David. First of all, I know that Hebrew is spoken today: I live in Israel and I love this country. I am actually right now at Tarichae :) I suggest that we resolve our questions before editing what the other writes, especially before modifying the other's text. I mean, if I spent hours trying to make a clear presentation of the arguments about why Tarichae can or cannot be south or north of Tiberias, and you add a phrase in the middle, you break the line of thought. I think we can express very clearly all that has been said on Tarichaea (not what we think, because that is not Wikipedia). You insist that the arguments in favour of Magdala can be explained otherwise, and you are right, but leave first the author (Albright) make his point clearly, and afterwards, you write down all the problems. --Castaliensis (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. I agree that we should be discussing the issues before engaging in an edit-war. I will copy-edit this post here and paste it onto the Tarichaea Talk-Page. There, we can talk about all these issues and, hopefully, improve that article. Shavua Tov!Davidbena (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for one year. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened
Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Davidbena

Thank you for creating Har Yavnit.

User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Doug Mehus T · C  01:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doug. This is your expertise, and I trust your judgment.Davidbena (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mishnah Commentary by Nathan ben Abraham, Av Ha-Yeshiva (1930).jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mishnah Commentary by Nathan ben Abraham, Av Ha-Yeshiva (1930).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baladi-rite_prayer#Maimonides'_influence
Was wondering if you could clarify something for me.

The article says that Yosef Qafih and Avraham Al-Naddaf had the tradition that the Rambam's liturgical format was based on ancient Yemenite manuscripts. It then says this view is corroborated by Epistle: Garden of Flower which was reproduced by Yihya Saleh from which it quotes.

However, the quoted excerpt appears to be stating the opposite and shows that the Yemenite tiklal was reliant to some extent on the teachings of the Rambam; not the other way round, so I don't understand how this corroborates Yosef Qafih and Avraham Al-Naddaf's tradition.


 * Before I reply, whenever you make a comment, please sign your name by typing this symbol (~) four times. While it is true that, both, Rabbi Yosef Qafih and Rabbi Avraham Al-Naddaf, thought that Maimonides' version of the standard prayer was borrowed from the Yemenite liturgies, the article, to the best of my knowledge, does not say that this is a corroborated fact found in the Epistle: Garden of Flowers. The only reason the Epistle "Garden of Flowers" was mentioned was to show that the Yemenites had a version of prayer that was based entirely on their own understanding of the Talmud, and that when the Halachic works of Maimonides (Rambam) finally reached them, they saw that their understanding of the Talmud was precisely as Maimonides had written in his recital of the prayer. I'll recheck the article to see if there might be some error there. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the article, and, yes, the wording has led to some misunderstanding. I have since corrected the wording to now read: "Rabbi Avraham al-Naddaf’s view that the Yemenites possessed a version of the prayer before Maimonides' edition reached them is corroborated by an ancient Jewish source contemporaneous with Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, in which Jewish scholars in Yemen had debated, etc." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Davidbena

Thank you for creating Zalabiyeh.

User:Usedtobecool, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the correct assumption. The Indian variety of Jalebi is derived from the word Zalabiyeh, with a slightly different list of ingredients (components), although it too is deep-fried.Davidbena (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made the corrections according to your directives.Davidbena (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fenugreek (dollop)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fenugreek (dollop). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

topic ban reminder
David, the portions of the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names that are related to the Arab-Israeli topic area (eg occupied) are off limits for you (unless your topic ban has been rescinded, in which case sorry for not finding a record of that). Please respect the limits of the ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly. My argument is that this article (which is a geographical article mentioning place names of Israel) does not apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per se, by a consensus of its contributing editors. Applying Hebrew names to ancient sites in Palestine has been going on long before the Arab-Israeli conflict. We have already discussed this at the beginning of the making of this article. The fact that someone wants to hijack the article and to turn it into a ARBPIA area of conflict still does not make it so. Before editing this article, I contacted an administrator with the request to remove its ARBPIA template by consensus of the editors, and which was agreed upon. Davidbena (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When you discuss the occupation you are discussing the topic area. The entirety of the article is not within the topic area, the part that you are discussing is. Which administrator? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So I will desist from speaking about the "occupation." It doesn't really belong in the article anyway.Davidbena (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Advice
You've read my comment, and you got a mulligan on the appeal. Be smart.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your request at WP:AE to lift your community ban has been declined
Hello Davidbena. Please see this decision. Our advice is: "Davidbena can then make a new request at WP:AN if desired and point out that his May 27 appeal at AN was archived without being formally closed." So it is not forum-shopping if you decide to go to AN with this issue. My personal opinion is that your chances of getting the ban lifted could be better if you wait. If you go to AN, your appeal should consider including the ban history:

When he does so, perhaps he can include links to all the prior ban or unban discussions:
 * August 2018 – Original TBAN thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989
 * February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306
 * April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308
 * November 2019 – Unsuccessful appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315
 * May 2020 – Latest appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320 – This appeal was archived from AN without any closure.
 * At the same time, the prior closers ought to be notified: Bishonen, Oshwah and Euryalus. If Davidbena renews his AN appeal, he needs a better argument. (A vague promise to do better in the future might be OK the first time around). He should address his past problems with more than generalities. Also, it will be more persuasive if he doesn't take up space in his own appeal to blame others: . Also he mentions two co-editors in the area who used to be opponents that he now gets along with. . Maybe he can give the names of those two editors and ask them to comment on his appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

–EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Scherezade Shroff Talwar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scherezade Shroff Talwar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scherezade Shroff Talwar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ScottHastie (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

suggestion
Shalom. The template you're using to display flags of different countries somehow is not displaying the country the flag belongs to, when you hover over it, so you can maybe identify a flag you don't know... In the pages of other users who are using the template/idea, and to whose pages you refer, the feature does work. Just a little something to maybe think about sometime. Best regards, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Warshy! Are you referring to the template of the flags that I am using in my User-Page? If so, I'll try to fix it.Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI: I went ahead and typed-in the names of each country in parentheses.Davidbena (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw it now. Thank you. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 22:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hebraization of Palestinian place names
Hello! Your submission of Hebraization of Palestinian place names 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your post on Paleo-Hebrew
Hey, I found the following pretty interesting and forgot about this argument:
 * When the Hebrews and Arameans adopted the Phoenician script they could not express in writing these phonemes which did not occur in Phoenician. In Hebrew, for example, there exists š (shin) and ś (sin), but both phonemes are designated by the same letter ש, only in a relatively late period, with the invention of the diacritic signs, was it possible to distinguish between שׁ (shin) and שׂ (sin). [...]

Considering the majority of sources seem to agree that the Hebrews did not in fact adopt the "Phoenician"/"Canaanite" script from the Phoenicians, and Hebrew was the earliest variety to split away, it's quite bizzare how according to Biblical_Hebrew there was still a [χ] and [ħ], and according to Proto-Sinaitic_script there was in fact a [x] letter in Proto-Canaanite, which would seem close enough for [χ], but nevertheless there is only one letter khet. The mystery deepens... Does your source also lists examples for Aramaic? Glennznl (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Always happy to hear from fellow co-editors. From whom the Hebrews took the "Phoenician"/"Canaanite" script is for philologists to tell. This is not my field of expertise. However, the simplest way for me to understand this is to remember that there is a difference between the Phoenician script, on the one hand, which was used also by the Hebrews (and some of which written characters had slightly evolved over the years), and the Hebrew language, on the other hand, which was conveyed by them in that Phoenician script. The Hebrew language differed from the Canaanite/Phoenician language in many respects. It is like the English language and the German language both making use of Latin characters, but the sound of "w" in German is not the same as it is in English, for the Germans will pronounce "w" as the English "v" (e.g. wasser), whereas in English the phoneme is "w" as in "water". Likewise, the Latin character "v" in German has an "f"-sound, as in "vater" (= "father"), whereas in English a "v" is sounded differently. The Hebrews used the Phoenician character "shin" (a character resembling an English "w") when writing the "s"-sound in the name "Israel" (ישראל), although, in Phoenician pronunciation, the character "shin" would have been pronounced as the English "sh." The Hebrew speaker gave to it the sound of "samekh", that is to say, an "s"-sound. The tribe of Joseph was particularly vulnerable to this pronunciation, as they could not pronounce "shibboleth," but would say "sibboleth." I am, sadly to say, unfamiliar with the Proto-Sinaitic script and its relationship to Biblical Hebrew phonology.Davidbena (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Some clues to the riddle: The older form of the alphabet still had 27 signs, five of them were lost already in the Proto-Canaanite (or however you want to call it) phase, as far as we can tell. That hints to the fact that the underlying language had no use for them, and so far Phoenician is the one which seems to have lost those distinctios as the earliest, whereas Hebrew and Aramaic retained those sounds longer. Thus, (Proto-)Phoenician seems to be the logical language background for the loss. When speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic adopted the alphabet (from whomever and wherever - but you see the underlying argument for the "Phoenician" alphabet...) they had to make do with less signs than sounds, thus a double duty for ח, ע and ש in Hebrew (only the latter still diferentiated in the Masoretic tradition). In Aramaic the interdentals existed longer, the assumption is based on an interesting change in orthography: The early inscriptions wrote the (etymologically speaking) interdentals with the signs for the corresponding sibilants whereas in later times the signs for the corresponding dentals were used, i.e. dh was written as z and later d, th as sh and later t and so on. A special problem is the q etc. Somewhat clearer now? Last thing: sin and samekh must have been distinct originally, with sin having a lateral sound, therefore כשדים but Chaldeans. It is another historical development that sin and samekh merged in pronounciation as visible in some confusion in late books. Yet this is only true for Masoretic Hebrew, whereas Samaritan Hebrew merged the sounds differently. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban narrowed
Shalom, David. I've closed your topic ban appeal having found consensus to narrow the ban but not lift it. It's a little convoluted, but hopefully it's clear enough that you can continue to work in the areas the community identified as benefiting from your participation. If you have questions, particularly about the scope, I encourage you to get in touch with an administrator first, but I'm not too worried since a lot of people were confident you won't repeat past mistakes. There's no set time limit on when you can appeal again, but 6 months to a year is the typical minimum. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Petersens moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, The Petersens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ash cake
Hello, Davidbena,

Thank you for creating Ash cake.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"I'm concerned that most of the prose is reliant on a translation of a primary source from the 3rd Century AD. Right now there's only one secondary source. More independent reliable secondary sources containing significant coverage of this subject are needed to meet WP:GNG. That being said this does look like a promising topic and given the geographic specificity of the subject, there may be other-language sources.

I note that your user page says you know Hebrew, so you may be just the right person for this task.

Because of the lack of sources there's also potential issues with the title, which to say the least is quite broad. An anglicization of a middle-eastern term might more prevalent in sources.

Anyway i'm just summising. I'm not going to move it into draft space as the article would arguably be kept at AfD, but also i can't mark it as reviewed yet because of these issues. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
 * Zindor, since your adding the tag to the article Ash cake, I have worked on the article, adding two new sections with several other important sources treating on the ash cake. Please review the article again.Davidbena (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working on this. I've now marked it as reviewed. All the best, Zindor (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Antonia fortress
Josephus says Antonia “dominated the temple” which was connected by two colonnades 600 feet long connecting on the NW side of the Temple, which was on Ophel. dif it’s “fringe” because of the implications. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here’s link to the chapter in The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot that mentions the 600 foot colonnades Josephus wrote about. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The 1st-century historian, Josephus, like the Mishnaic scholars who described the Temple Mount in Mishnah (Middot 2:1), knew that the First and Second Temples were built on the Temple Mount, a mount which, at first, roughly measured 500 x 500 cubits square (mind you, not an exact square), before Herod the Great expanded the Temple Mount on its north side to accomodate pilgrims. Taking the Temple Mount's Southern Wall - from west to east - as the standard 500 cubits, it measures in today's modern standards 922 feet (281 m). Josephus, in Antiquities (15.11.3; XV.415–416), described the dimensions of the Temple Mount in the following terms (apparently not including the extension made to the Temple Mount): “This hill was walled all round, and in compass four furlongs; [the distance of] each angle containing in length a furlong (Gr. stadion).” Compare Mishnah Middot 2:1 which states that the Temple Mount measured five-hundred cubits (Heb. amah) by five-hundred cubits. If it can be ascertained that Josephus' stadion is equivalent to the 500 cubits mentioned in the Mishnah, and being that the Southern Wall measured 281 meters, this would place each cubit (Heb. amah) at 56.205 cm. Rabbi Saadia Gaon, on the other hand, holds that a stadion was equivalent to only 470 cubits (v. Uziel Fuchs, "Millot HaMishnah" by R. Saadia Gaon — the First Commentary to the Mishnah, Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature, pub. Bar-Ilan University Press (2014), p. 66), in which case, each cubit was 59.792 cm, close to the 60 cm. cubit espoused by the great rabbinic scholar Chazon-Ish. In short, when these measurements are translated back into English feet (or into the metric system), the rabbinic tradition corroborates with the actual distance of the Temple Mount Wall from west to east. Note this. Now, if we take the same distance going from south to north, we roughly end up where the Golden Gate is fixed.


 * Josephus, who mentions the "eastern gate" of the Temple Mount in his Antiquities (15.424), makes note of the fact that this gate was considered within the far northeastern extremity of the inner sacred court. According to the Mishnah, there was formerly a causeway which led out of the Temple Mount eastward over the Kidron Valley, extending as far as the Mount of Olives. (See Mishnah (Middot 1:3; Parah 3:6). Rabbi Eliezer, dissenting, says that it was not a causeway, but rather marble pillars over which cedar boards had been laid, used by the High Priest and his entourage (Tosefta, Parah 3:7). This gate was not used by the masses to enter the Temple Mount, but reserved only for the High Priest and all those that aided him when taking out the Red Heifer or the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement.


 * Josephus writes elsewhere (Antiquities 15.424) the following anecdote: "There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner Temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the Temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings" (End Quote) . Assuming that the "eastern gate" mentioned here was fixed where the Golden Gate is now fixed, and is the same gate mentioned in Mishnah (Middot), and that its position was at the corner of the colonnade on the Temple precincts' far northeastern side (before its expansion by King Herod to accommodate the pilgrims), we can assume then that the colonnade ran in a straight line from east to west with the peristyle (cloisters) concluding at Antonia on its northwestern corner. In other words, the Antonia Fortress was actually closer to the unseen extension of the Western Wall, as it continues to run - from south to north - in the general northern direction, opposite to (if we were to draw a straight line towards the east) the Golden Gate which is now closed. In fact, British scholar and academic Michael Hamilton Burgoyne said he found remains of what he thinks was from the Antonia Fortress inside two of the Mamluk madrassas just north of the Dome of the Rock (see: ). This is the opinion now held by most historical geographers and historians of Second Temple Jewish history. I hope that this was helpful. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * wow, thanks for the info, I’ll study that, and see what the heretics say about that! best wishes, Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My pleasure!Davidbena (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A source
Hi David, I'm looking for a rather obscure source. It's a journal called Luach Yerushalayim (לוח ירושלים), volume 8 (1948). The National Library of Israel seems to have it, but not online. On pages 88-96 there is supposed to be a listing of Jewish institutions in the Old City. Any ideas? Thanks. Zerotalk 12:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I יhave never heard of the journal before, but when I'm at the Hebrew University library (perhaps this coming Sunday) I can check for the journal, and photocopy the pages that you are looking for. Be well.13:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic, thanks. Zerotalk 01:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the Coronavirus, we have to make pre-arranged appointments to visit the University. My appointment is not for this coming Sunday, but is rather scheduled for 13 September.Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The libraries near me are similar. Hopefully the journal needed is one of these: . The translated title of the article is "Jerusalem: The Holy City and District". Cheers. Zerotalk 01:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

, I visited the Hebrew University in Jerusalem this morning. The two sources that you gave to me were merely calendars. However, I asked the help of a librarian and he gave to me the book's reference and I found it exactly where it was listed on the shelf. I photocopied pages 88–96 in volume 8. The book is in Hebrew, and is entitled, which can effectually be translated as "The Jerusalem Almanac for the year 1948". The editor of this momentous work is Dov Nathan Brinker. On page 88, the caption reads in Hebrew (translated): "Synagogues and places of Torah Study". In outline form, it begins by enumerating places in Jerusalem's Old City, naming the Sephardic Jewish community. Each section is followed by a description of the place. The article gives the name of this first place as 1): = lit. "Congregation (or Synagogue) of Talmud Torah". The article says that this is one of four synagogues in the Old City, the oldest in the city, established in anno 1586 of our Common Era. The second place in that list is 2)  = lit. "Congregation of Zion, or Synagogue of R. Yohanan Ben Zakkai" A description of this place follows, saying that it is the largest synagogue of the Sephardic community. The next entry is 3) = lit. "Small Congregation," with a description that follows. 4), lit. "Istanbul Congregation." A long description of this place follows. 5) - lit. "Yeshivat Beit El", with a long description of this place. The word "Yeshivah" represents a Talmuduc academy where men gather and study together. 6)  = lit. "Yeshivat Porat Yosef". Description of place follows. 7) lit. "Yeshivat Chesed El". Description follows.  8)  = lit. "Yeshivat Ba'alei Batim". Description follows. 9) = lit. "Misgav Le-dakh Hospital". A description follows, which says that the hospital was used also as a place of prayer. 10)  = lit. The Big Synagogue. Description follows. 11) = lit. "Synagogue Beit Ya'akov". A very long description follows, where it says that this synagogue was used principally by Ashkenazi Jews of the sect that followed the approach of the Gaon of Vilna, rather than the Chassidic movement. 12)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Menachem Zion", also known as "The Old Beit Ha-Midrash". A description follows. 13) = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Sha'arei Zion", also known as the "New Beit Ha-Midrash." Description follows. 14)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Sukkat Shalom". Description follows. 15) = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Or Ha-Hayim". Description follows. 16)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Ohel Ya'akov". Description follows. 17) = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Beit Hillel". 18)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Beit Menachem Zion". Description follows. 19) = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Beit Meir". 20)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Sheni Etzel". A Chassidic place of learning. Rebuilt in 1907. 21) = lit. "Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue". A long description follows. 22)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash for the members of the Warsaw Seminary". Description follows. 23) = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Rabbi Dudel", situated in the courtyard of the Warsaw Seminary. A Chassidic place of study. Description follows. 24)  = lit. "Beit Ha-Midrash Beit Aharon". Chassidic place of study. 25) = lit. "For Hasidei Chabad". Two Chabad places of learning in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. Description follows. The section in this article concludes by saying there used to be many more synagogues in the Old City but their worshippers abandoned them because of the outbreak of disturbances within the city, and some of which have since been taken over by the local, non-Jewish community living in the city.Davidbena (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear David, this is amazing, thank you. Does the work have a date; specifically, does it represent before or after the Jordanian takeover of the Old City? Are the disturbances you mention a reference to the war or earlier events? Is it right that only Sephardic sites are listed? Cheers. Zerotalk 03:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book has a date. It was published in Elul of 1947. That means, it was published before the Jordanian take-over of the city. It seems that the disturbances are a reference to events that happened in the city before the big war. The book is extensive, but the section that you requested (pages 88 - 96) mention primarily the Sephardic institutions, with an occasional Ashkenazi institution. I am not sure what the others speak about, since I was only concerned for the pages that you requested. Hopefully, the next time I visit the library in Jerusalem I can make a list of what the other chapters and pages speak about.Davidbena (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkud
Please notice that the template you used in this edit is for Hebrew with nikkud only. If the text is without nikkud, just leave out the "-n" at the end of the template. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Reb Dovid, for this explanation. I did not know that there was an option for the nikkud. Great to know this!Davidbena (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why I wrote it to you. Ktiva vechatima tova. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * תכתב בספר החיים ובספר הזכרונות. וראה בנים לבניך שלום על ישראל --- Davidbena (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * אמו, וכן למר. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Davidbena, I am not sure this is the message screen. The site is confusing. On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Ha-Har, you wrote about Heally Gross: "Since I have her e-mail address, I can ask her." Can you please share her email or forward her my email: boris@bfcollection.net

I have a question about her father's work on Yaacov Ben-Dov films.

Thank you!

Boris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4000:14E0:89E4:B462:A00C:28A9 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Heally Gross can be contacted at: heallyg@gmail.com Davidbena (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Author-link
Hi, thank you for linking to de:Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth, but when you do, could you please also change "first1=Wolf-Dieter" to "first1=W.-D." (as I have done here): all the other authors who have an author-link are only mentioned with first-initials; no need to make an exception of Hütteroth, me thinks, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll do that next time. There is no need to have his full-name when there is an author-link. Initials are sufficient.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it: it might be worth translating de:Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth to English instead, directly. There are nearly 700 places referring to him on en.wp: it would sort of be silly to linking them all to de.wp, then having to undo it to link to a en.wp article, if it appear. And I think he is notable enough for en.wp, don't you? Huldra (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not think that I'll have the time to translate the article at this time. If you'd like, you can go to the German Wikipedia page that has the article and click the link on the top of your screen for a translation. You can copy the translation, repaste it, and then make the relative improvements in the text. Obviously, it would be nice to have an English article on this scholar. I am just very busy with my ordinary work of translating books/articles into English for Hebrew-speaking professors.Davidbena (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

translation
Hi David, In a 1940s newspaper, an organization is described as המהרסת והמחריבהי. I find that both words mean "destructive", but I can't write "destructive and destructive". Is there a translation that captures the meaning of both words used together? Thanks. Zerotalk 07:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , both words are taken from Isaiah 49:17, where we read: "...your destroyers and those who laid you waste go forth from you." So the proper translation for the first word is "who destroys" (verb in the present progressive tense), while the second word  is "who lays waste" (verb in the present progressive tense). Depending on how the words are used in the sentence, they can also be adjectives, in which they simply describe some person or some thing.Davidbena (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. They are certainly being applied as adjectives. Would "devastating and destructive" be ok? Zerotalk 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a correct translation.Davidbena (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Another question: is there a Jewish-Gregorian calendar conversion tool on the web that you particularly trust? I see many but the quality is dubious. I don't mind if the interface is Hebrew but it has to go back to the start of the 20th century at least. Thanks. Zerotalk 08:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This one here is very reliable.Davidbena (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Synagogues in Jerusalem
Hi,

I wondered if you knew which Synagogue  this picture from 1836 depicts? Is it the old Hurva Synagogue? Huldra (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging by the shape of the high, dome ceiling, it looks like the Hurva Synagogue in Jerusalam's Old City, which was later destroyed by the Jordanians, and later rebuilt.Davidbena (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks, I'll put it in that cat, then, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's not the Hurva, it's the Istanbuli Synagogue. Four_Sephardic_Synagogues Sir Joseph (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also a duplicate of this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Synagogue_of_the_Jews_in_Jerusalem.jpg Sir Joseph (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Sir Joseph, I'll change that. And yeah, there are a lot of copies of these old pictures (I once counted 18(!) copies of the very same David Roberts picture); lots of editors just upload old pictures and don't bother "catting" them, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, The caption on the description page (Wikimedia Commons) reads: "Possibly the Istanbouli Synagogue, Jerusalem. From travelogue of John Carne (UK), published 1836." (emphasis mine). Is there a precise way of determining the accuracy of the claim?Davidbena (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea; I would think you would have a much better chance than me of finding that out. Nice picture, in any case! Huldra (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , The picture matches this: for the Istanbuli Synagogue. I've also seen it elsewhere. It's certainly not the Churvah, based on the interior. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and here as well: Sir Joseph (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not Hurva; it's disposition is quite different from this picture (and had been the same before destruction - cf. File:Churva.jpg. The Istanbuli is IMHO a good guess; the shape of the arcs and the placement of the windows are the same as today. There's a photograph of Istanbuli Synagogue before renovation in RUBINSTEIN, Hayim: Madrich Yisrael / Yerushalaim, 1980, page 187. It also depicts the bima and shows significant similarities with the bima depicted here, considering this one is a drawing, not a photo, and more than 100 years (including several wars) probably passed between the pictures. I could try to find some old photo in our antique book store next week. Feel free to remind me if I'd forget… --Shlomo (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all this information. One correction, though. The first image shown by Sir Joseph is the Jerusalem Great Synagogue (next to Heichal Shlomo) on King George Street, built in 1958 in Jerusalem's New City. It has nothing to do with the old image (drawing) from 1836. It is very hard to judge by a limited drawing, although, as our friend says, it is merely a "guess" that it is to be identified with the Istanbuli, based on features that are recognizable with the Istanbuli. I can say the same thing by looking at an 1895 photo of the Hurva, which has these side windows running around the lower dome. This can still be seen in a photo taken of the Hurva synagogue. I will try and post an old photo of the Hurva synagogue.Davidbena (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , my link has a slideshow, the Istanbuli Synagogue is a few pictures into the slideshow, not the first one. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I've seen it. Thanks, Sir Joseph.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, and Shlomo, please look at the photo here, showing an exterior view of the Hurva synagogue which also had these windows going around the lower part of the dome roof.Davidbena (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Istanbuli Synagogue in 1930's.--Shlomo (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shlomo. The photo, when compared to the drawing, is VERY CONVINCING. Thanks, again. My only question would be is whether or not the Istanbuli synagogue is still standing and does it have those windows in the upper level?Davidbena (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't been there for quite a long time, but yes, the synagoge still exists and it has the windows under the dome roof. Their shape has changed though, as did the interior equipment (bimah, aron ha-kodesh). According to the photo from the Madrich, it seems to have been in pretty bad condition in the late 60's. You can see the present condition at c:Category:Istanbuli Synagogue. It is used (at least has been used before the MoH restrictions…) by the Western Sephardic community once in a month for Shabbat morning prayers.--Shlomo (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked some books with old photos of Jerusalem, and to make the situation even more complicated, there is a photo of the same synagogue (as here), interior view from the other side of the bimah, in the book צילומי ארץ־ישראל הראשונים. The description in the book says: “Ramban Synagogue at the beginning of the century”. That is certainly wrong, the Category:Ramban Synagogue is much smaller, lower. I'm still convinced, both photos and the drawing refer to the Istanbuli Synagogue, but to find a 100% prove could be tricky.--Shlomo (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shlomo. I will check the entry of the Ramban Synagogue in the book that I have cited, looking for a description of this site that might shed-light on the place.Davidbena (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW: There is a book entitled, "The Jerusalem Almanac for the year 1948". The editor of this momentous work is Dov Nathan Brinker. On page 88, the caption reads in Hebrew (translated): "Synagogues and places of Torah Study". In outline form, it begins by enumerating places in Jerusalem's Old City, naming the Sephardic Jewish community. The fourth entry in that list is the ‎, lit. "Istanbul Congregation." A long description of this place follows.Davidbena (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, and Shlomo, this is For Your Information: The above book describes the Istanbuli synagogue as follows, translated from the Hebrew: [page 89] "Qahal Stāmbūlī (Istanbuli Congregation). This synagogue is immense, but is not distinguished for its beauty. Therein is had a cistern of water and a place of genizah, a repository for worn-out books until such time that they are taken out for burial. In its eastern façade there is an entrance by which they ascend to the street. On Sabbath days in the afternoon, a savant who regularly instructs there expounds [on the Torah] in the colloquial Spanish tongue (Ladino), a lesson that is derived from the weekly biblical lection (parsha) before the multitude of the people, as also [before] the women in the women's court. In all of the synagogues of the Spaniards there are wide benches that are situated only around the [interior] walls and joining the raised platform (dais), and [strewn] over them (i.e. the floor) are mats so as to permit sitting, their legs being beneath their knees, as the manner of the people of the Orient. The precentor stands upon the raised platform (bīmah) and prays while the congregants surround him. In each one of these synagogues there are many Torah scrolls fixed within wooden cases that are fabulously decorated. During the reading, they open the scroll while it stands in an upright position and read in it. There are also crowns and beautiful finials (rīmonīm), and expensive silk curtains that have been embroidered in gold. The women's court in each of these synagogues is located on the inside of the synagogue, [on an upper storey] close to the ceiling, enclosed by a wooden lattice partition, having a separate entrance from the street or from the courtyard." (END QUOTE).Davidbena (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden administration
Please note that many members of Biden's cabinet, including Janet Yellen and Antony Blinken, require Senate confirmation; they will not assume office until confirmed. Please do not update their pages unless and until they are confirmed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for correcting my presumption. Davidbena (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being so slow
Hi David! Sorry, I was far too slow in reacting to your very kind message & offer. I need to contact Zero to ask him for another good document, so I think I'll ask him for both, it's technically easier. I'm looking forward to read the B. Mazar article, I'm sure it's high quality but I wonder whether it's not outdated in some regards. What do you think? You got yourself in quite a dispute with Huldra & others at the Beit She'arim talk-page, and it's such a conundrum with that place - quite a bit like Beit Guvrin/Maresha: separate articles for the ancient site, the Arab village, the National Park, and the modern village. My opinion is that the best now would be to reduce the NP article to little more than a stub, with the old history in full detail at Beth/Beit She'arim (ancient town), including the Crusader period and links to the other three articles; and for the Arab village one line about the ancient ruins plus a "main" tag connecting there, a short version of the Umayyad & Abbasid periods (with the Moshe Sharon theory about the holy man tradition and possible burials), and all the Ottoman history etc. But the titles should be more "centralised", I think, via a disambiguation page, especially since there's no rule anywhere that the ancient city's name should be written Beth Shearim, and the moshav's Bet/Beit She'arim. I hope you're well, in good spirits and vaccinated :) I'm constantly trying to drop the WP habit for a while, but don't seem to manage. Take care, and thanks again! Arminden (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your kind sentiments. It can be a little tricky dealing with many editors on Wikipedia, but in the current debate, I have tried my best to give to every editor what he or she has asked for, in terms of their suggestions on how the article can be improved. I see no real problem with having a separate article discussing the Arab village, and another article discussing the older Jewish village by the name Beit Shearim, as it is currently a practice widely seen in Wikipedia articles: for example, the Arab village Hawsha, and the more ancient Jewish village Usha (city), both being the same place; or Yibna (the Arab village) and Yavne (the old and modern Jamnia), although both sites refer to the same place. Sometimes it's just easier to break down their histories by the common names applied to these places. I guess that's how the mind works. As for having three articles with similar titles, since there is a disambiguation link on each of the pages for clarification and distinction, that is enough to rectify the issue, if there was one at all. Personally, I think there should be a separate article for the Beit Shearim National Park, and one which is exhaustive, to the best of our ability, since it is an important subject in its own right (I mean, the necropolis). The village Beit Shearim should be an article that treats primarily on its Jewish history, unless one wishes to merge Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun with Beit Shearim, and giving the title of "Beit Shearim" to the article. In this case, we'd cover its entire history. But as I said, I feel fine with having two separate articles, for historical reasons. I am well and hoping that you and yours are the same.Davidbena (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew
Hi David, Does this phrase have some standard meaning: כי בנפשנו הדבר ? Thanks. Zerotalk 06:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, . The phrase is a Hebrew idiom, which means: "Because our lives are dependent upon the matter," but which can also mean, "Because our lives are wholly given-over to the matter," meaning that they are willing to die for that thing, whatever it should be. In a lesser sense it can also mean: "Because we have risked our lives over the matter." It all depends on the context. Davidbena (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks David. Google didn't have a clue on this one. Zerotalk 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

David is right, of course, about the context. But depending on that, I would suggest also "because this matter is in our soul" or "this is an issue that pertains to our soul." warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

precision versus accuracy in coordinates
Hi David, I changed 31|40|26.89|N|35|0|12.34|E into 31|40|27|N|35|0|12|E at Neve Michael. These locations are only 9 meters apart and both lie well inside the built-up area of the moshav. In general I don't think objects the size of a moshav should have sub-second coordinates. Such precision gives a false impression of accuracy and the digits after the decimal point are meaningless. This is in accordance with a guideline written somewhere. Small targets like single buildings or archaeological digs could have more precision if that is available. Cheers. Zerotalk 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I agree that there is no real "precision" when a site stretches out for several hundred meters. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Dear David,

Am citing Iggeret Taiman as a source in Messiah in Judaism for section Messianic Lineage. Is it possible that you can properly put in the citation?

Blessings,

Yaakov W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yaakov, shalom. I will be happy to assist you, in searching for the source in Iggeret Teiman. I have a copy of the book at home. However, based on your edit here, it may also be advisable to cite Maimonides' uncensored edition of Hil. Melakhim, chapter 11 (in his Mishne Torah), where he also mentions the Messiah's lineage coming from King David.Davidbena (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear David,


 * Appreciate your assistance in locating Iggeret Taiman. As well, I really appreciate you finding a source for the uncensored version of Hilchos Melachim! Tougars translation missed " וניצח כל האומות שסביביו". Just want to know which of the uncensored manuscripts this text is based upon.
 * Blessings,
 * Yaakov W.
 * The uncensored Ms. of Rambam's Mishne Torah is based on Rabbi Yosef Qafih's Yemenite Ms. I have not checked it, but there is also a Ms. in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, England (UK), under the title MS. Hunt. 80, which, to the best of my knowledge, is similar to the Yemenite Ms., and is actually a copy of the Mishne Torah in Maimonides' own handwriting!Davidbena (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. Can you help assist in inputting and translating some of the hebrew text which will be in the footnotes of Messiah in Judaism? If you can, email me at yaakovwaronker@gmail.com for for efficient collaboration (Please delete email after reading). Thanks so much! Yaakov Wa. (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can help you translate some of the excerpts taken from Maimonides' Mishne Torah for using as references in the article "Messiah in Judaism".Davidbena (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Davidbena

Thank you for creating Piptatherum holciforme.

User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Congrats, you are famous!
..or, one of your photos is, see this,, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha. People are always free to make use of my photographs. Davidbena (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Yang Jiechi. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The last thing that I want to get into is an edit-war. As I recall, you stated in an edit summary the reason for your previous revert being that it was a Primary source, in which case, we found a Secondary source. My understanding now, from you, is that you had other reasons to revert the original edit with its well-documented source. If you'd like, we can submit a RfC, to avoid any semblance of an edit-war, and we'll get the opinion of a larger group of editors. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It is useful to contemplate on the opening sentence of WP:NPOV:

I have highlighted a couple of phrases for your attention. I agree that Yang Jiechi's participation in the summit deserves coverage on the page. But what that coverage should be depends on how the reliable sources have described it.

By the way, your second source is also a PRIMARY source. It is a transcript of the (public part of the) summit discussion. A SECONDARY source would be a newspaper article or an analyst's column that describes what happened in the summit and includes Yang Jiechi's part in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An independent source that brings down a full transcript of a debate, mind you, in writing rather than a video-recording, is considered a Secondary source. But even Primary sources can be used with discretion. Read again the Wikipedia rules governing Primary sources - which, by the way, this is not. As for presenting a Neutral point of view, sometimes having the full-gamit of views represented makes for a more balanced and neutral approach. The Chinese minister does not dislike the US, but wishes to give advice on how the US can improve its image. We all know that where there is a transcript of a summit aired publicly for all to see, and published in a script-form by a Secondary source, the source can be fact-checked for its reliability. Here, if I might add, there is no question about the source's reliability. If there was a problem, we can always go back to the original aired dialogue. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I referred the sourcing issue to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. I think that, while we're at it, we can also ask about the other source, showing the aired summit on YouTube.Davidbena (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"WikiProject Israel/Books" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WikiProject Israel/Books. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 02:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hasid
Hi Davidbena--this article is susceptible to...well, you can see in the history what it's suffering from. The best medicine against those additions of unverified and unencyclopedic material is article improvement. Do you think you can bring its level up a bit, and add a couple sources, and check for the wheat vs. chaff ratio? Thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me about this article. I'll look into it after the Shabbat. Shabbat shalom.Davidbena (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

✅ -- Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Maimonides talk
Hey David, it seems you are knowledgeable about Maimonides. Can you take a look and give your views? Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Davidbena. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)