User talk:Kaisershatner/archive5

Help for title issue
Hi, I saw you contributed to British Mandate for Palestine. Could you give your mind for a title issue between Palestine and British Mandate for Palestine here. Thank you in advance ! Regards, Alithien 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Julesetjim.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Julesetjim.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Fonda
Henry Fonda has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. You are receiving this message because you have been identified as one of the article's main contributors. Grim-Gym

Killian documents
I have unprotected, in light of healthy discussion on the talk. I think it was wise not to unprotect yourself; shows your good judgment. If edit war sparks off again, however, it will probably be re-protected. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes or no: are you intending to actually help improve the article? -BC aka Callmebc 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Callmebc has edited your comments at by striking thru them. I'm not sure if this is what you intended. Callmebc has edited other people's comments before and I thought I should tell you rather than possibly make it worse by editing it again. Jmcnamera 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bar Mitzvah / Bat Mitzvah
''Ha. They have no thanks for me, I guess. But I came here to thank you as well. I think I'm a pretty good editor, and I'm doing my best to get the Judaica correct, but I appreciate your changes for accuracy. I learn a tremendous amount from trying to improve the Jewish articles, but I don't always get it exactly right. Even someone without deep knowledge, however, can make the language flow better and provide citations for unsupported claims, etc., which is what I am trying to do. Maybe you could help me by explaining something that I have yet to learn? What is the relationship among the terms/things Talmud, Mishna, Gemara? (I haven't studied them- yet- so I'm confused). Even the article about the Talmud is confusing to me - it was "redacted" over a time period? And was that time period the first two centuries CE or thereafter, or both? I understand overall that it has to do with the written codification of the Oral Law, but exactly how? Kaisershatner 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)''


 * It's interesting that in two days, two anonymous IPs have mistaken me for edits I didn't do. One thinks I'm great; the other hates me.


 * But thank you for your improvements to Bar Mitzvah / Bat Mitzvah. It's definitely a help when someone comes in and makes articles more readable and sourced. Those of us in the area can take care of damage control.


 * The Mishnah ("[oral] teaching") was the original recording of the Oral Torah, finalized by Judah the Prince in about 200 CE. The gemara ("teaching;" Aramaic) was added on in the following centuries. The gemara records teachings of various sages from ~200-500 CE. Traditionally, the material recorded in the gemara was always part of the Oral Torah, but had been left unwritten to preserve some of its oral spirit. Among other things, the gemara expands on the Mishnah and reconciles apparent contradictions between and within Mishnaic teachings. "Talmud" includes both the Mishnah and the gemara, though "gemara" can also subsume the Mishnah, since the Mishnah is dwarfed by the gemara. --Eliyak T · C 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reform Kriat Hatorah
You know as much as I do. I'm not so knowledgeable about Reform. --Eliyak T · C 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Calendar
Greetings. Yes -- I did revert and then unrevert your edit earlier today. What struck my eye was that you had removed a section that I had written. But on about a minute's reflection I determined that that section (on the detailed mechanics of the calendar) needed a rewrite anyway (I think it would be better described as a table of numerical facts about the calendar and written as such) as well as a reference. When I wrote it about a year ago, I copied the info from notes I took back in the 1980's of facts that I got from Encyclopedia Judaica. I need to go back to the library and find the chapter and verse (and the edition year) for that material so that the info is indeed verifiable. I assume that if I done all that already, you would probably not have deleted the section. BTW about a week after I wrote the original version of that section, somebody greatly expanded it with a bunch of tables, which I thought were unnecessary. If I do redo the section, I will leave them out. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezra/Azriel
Thank you for pointing that out. They are two separate names, and I know of no rabbinic or other tradition that links them. It could be a lack of knowledge on my part, but it is not obvious or common knowledge and thus without a source it would be original research. Thanks again! -- Avi 00:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

DPM
Don't get me wrong, it's a great quote... but seriously, how counterfactual can one quote be? "Hey, last night I had a quote at it was so wrong"... How wrong was it? From now on, I claim all facts as my own (c). :-) Maury (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg/Veropedia
Absolutely! Thank you for writing this wonderful article. Let me know your email address (email me if you don't want to reveal that publicly) and I'll make you an account at Vero ASAP. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address FAR
Gettysburg Address has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. KnightLago (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to strike through. If we disagree I will make a note and we can discuss. KnightLago (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a few other things I found after your recent changes. Address those and I think you will be great. Good work! KnightLago (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:12angrymen.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:12angrymen.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Keysuc7 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fonda.TomJoad.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fonda.TomJoad.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Keysuc7 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mylifetolive.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mylifetolive.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Burstmeets (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary protection of Hanukkah from Vandalism
Thank you for protecting the article. It was getting destroyed. Maybe it should be an annual temporary protection every year. AnFu (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comments on the Hanukkah template. I responded on the Wikiproject page. Remember (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales
Hi Kaisershatner: Thanks for creating the great article about History of the Jews in Wales! Since you were able to retrieve information about this subject so easily, is there is any way for you to find information for the following, related to British history, that are still red on the "History of the Jews in europe" series and template?: History of the Jews in Guernsey; History of the Jews in Jersey; History of the Jews in the Isle of Man. Thanks. IZAK (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just hi
Once, many years ago, a busy man gave me a few minutes of his time. We talked about a topic that interested us both: dialects. He told me of his passions and I listened intently. We had a connection. I'm sure I thanked him at the time, but it did not seem enough. I learned that he passed away recently. It made me sad - we had a connection that just basically fizzled, and over the years, I had no way to tell him that I still felt it.

I'll tell you what he told me - maybe you can understand. He got a job through his knowledge of dialects. He was supposed to produce a particular accest, but it didn't sound quite right, so he threw in something similar. He got the job. He said the way he learned was to sit in front of the television, repeating exactly what he heard.

By pure coincidence, I had the good fortune to work with a cousin of someone else who he knew as a friend.

If you know who this was, I have similar thanks for you. Drop me a line. If you don't know who this was, no problem - I thank you for the new userbox. :)Cbdorsett (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. Happy holidays. Cbdorsett (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries
Kaisershatner, don't worry about the criticism. It was very constructive and helped make the template better. I have been around here for awhile so I don't take any criticism personally, and yours was perfectly helpful and polite. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Remember (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI- feel free to revise the Hanukkah template to remove the society section after a couple of days have passed (just so people can respond to your request for comments). If you need help removing these items from the template, just let me know. Remember (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edit
Response.--Padawan Animator (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews, Wales
Thanks for your message. I'm glad you appreciate my edits and the reasons for them, though they may have seemed a bit harsh perhaps. I guessed maybe you weren't too familiar with the history of Cymru which, like the country itself, is different from England. I'm sure I'm not the only one to appreciate your work on this neglected aspect of Welsh history. I do most of my contributions at the Welsh wikipedia and hope to adapt your article over there in the near future. If I find anything else I'll add it to the English article, but I'm afraid it's a matter of coming across references in more general books on Welsh history. I'm sure there must be a few articles "buried" in Welsh academic journals, the only problem is having the time and opportunity to find them. Cofion/Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know Braveheart was Australian, of course :). Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies
I was pleased to see your edits to this article. There are not too many editors still around who go back to 2004. My intention here is to explore some of the principles I see as applying, seeking your comment. If this is too long, my apologies, I'll summarize it on request.

Controversy over ADHD is complex, ranging from almost preposterous criticisms from fringe groups and critics who are notable because of media attention, to mainstream practitioners and scientists who express doubt about some aspects of conventional understanding and practice. One of the latter is, for example, Dr. Simon Sobo, User:Ss06470 whose attempts to reference facts and sources in the article that support some of this doubt have been systematically excluded by certain other very persistent editors, in spite of being a mature psychiatrist in practice, with published articles (though mostly not on the exact point; instead he has articles he has written and self-published on-line which have received some substantial attention and which, to me, read like the writing of one professional to others, which is exactly what some of it is (text of an address given at a conference). While Sobo can be an abrasive editor, I sympathize with his frustration at being categorized with fringe and "social" critics. He has been in practice for many years (forty years since his graduation), acknowledges the value of DSM-IV and uses it, diagnoses patients as having ADHD, and prescribes stimulants and other drugs including Ritalin as he considers appropriate. His criticism, from what I've seen of it, is of a common reliance on a diagnostic category to "close a case," so to speak, overlooking the individual situations and responses of patients. ADHD symptoms can be caused or exacerbated by environmental influences, and simply medicating them away may be less than effective. If my arm is broken and I'm complaining about pain, one can indeed diagnose me as suffering from "pain," and medicate it, relieving the symptom. But, ultimately, I'll be better served by attention to the condition of my arm and how it is healing.

This controversy actually, I've found, touches on deep philosophical questions as well as gaps in our scientific knowledge. Consider the controversy over whether ADHD is a disorder (or "disease" as some critics put it as part of their arguments). ADHD is defined in the DSM as the associated occurrence of a series of symptoms which may be functional at certain stages of development, but which are, as the article puts it, "associated with" poor performance according to societal measures, when they persist into later stages. A fidgety child may be quite normal, an adult who is fidgety to that degree will be considered disordered, and is abnormal. Similarly with concentration. Adults normally can concentrate on topics as needed and socially appropriate, but small children who concentrate for substantial periods -- even on things that very much interest them initially -- are relatively rare; when the nonpersistence of attention impairs social function in an adult, it's a disorder. So ADHD is *clearly* a collection of symptoms of disorder, each symptom is a disorder of a kind, when persistent beyond the developmental stages involved. So arguing that ADHD is not a disorder is preposterous. It is *defined* as a collection of disordered symptoms, commonly found in association with each other. There is room for argument over what symptoms are associated with which others, but most of this is fairly settled through many, many studies. So why the energy put into claiming that it is not a "disorder," that it is a myth?

One aspect is philosophical. Does ADHD "exist"? It's actually fairly easy to say, that in one sense, it does not exist. There is no "thing" -- as far as we know -- to which we can point, and say, this is the source and cause of all these symptoms, the root of it, and we associate roots, i.e., causes, with "things." Rather, ADHD is a diagnostic concept, which has been found useful in suggesting understandings and predictions of the possible success of various treatments. Further, once we have this category, and once statistical evidence is gathered regarding its frequency in a population, it also becomes meaningful to look for genetic differences between this population, diagnosed with "ADHD," as "objectively" defined by identification of specific symptoms through established procedures, and control populations. (Critics claim that the diagnosis is subjective, but that argument depends on a claim, largely true, that there is no "physical test" for ADHD; however, this is a gross restriction on actual practice in medicine, which generally relies on the observation of professionals, who can indeed, with relative objectivity, identify that a client is "fidgety." And the cause might be manifold, such as a thyroid disorder, or drug abuse, or ADHD or other similar disorder or condition. Do categories, established by humans as part of our process of understanding our environment, "exist"? Of course they do. They exist as categories, in the mind and shared with others through definitions of what belongs to the category and what does not. There is, in reality, no rigid boundary between one thing and the next, as modern physics establishes. But it is useful, and, indeed, necessary, to operate as if you and I and everything else in the world are separate and distinct.

But if ADHD is "real," and it is a "disorder," then holding those with it morally responsible for their symptoms becomes more difficult. And I suspect some of the religious opposition to the ADHD diagnosis comes from this. "ADHD is just an excuse for bad behavior," is commonly said. I've heard that from my wife! It's symptomatic of the philosophical position.

There is another reason to deny that ADHD is a disorder. ADHD traits may be, in some cases, highly functional. I have ADHD, I'm not a marginal case, I respond to Ritalin, *and* I would never want to give up my ADHD and become "normal." Rather, I need support fulfilling social obligations and expectations, which I can be pretty bad at doing, for all the standard ADHD reasons. I have a disoder that makes my hyperfunctional in certain ways, I can do things that are impossible for "normal people." So this argument is over labelling these people as "abnormal." However, we are. Einstein was not normal. (I don't know if he had ADHD or not, but certainly the way he thought about the problems he addressed is something I recognize.) Again, this is a legitimate controversy, it is how people with ADHD might be thought of, and some mention of this does belong in the Controversies article.

There is, in my opinion, a common problem with subarticles on controversy. On the one hand, there are editors who attempt to insist that the same standards of notability and balance be applied as if the article were a main article. I.e., as if "balance" applied to the entire topic of the main article; so if some view is a 1% view among the experts in a field, it would warrant practically no attention at all. But, as it seems you understand, once controversy has become the topic, there is a magnifying glass on controversy alone. One of the problems is that this is not like some political controversies, with two main camps, rather there are many issues over which there are controversy, some of them only involving fringe sources -- but which still may be notable -- vs. a coherent mainstream position, but others involving disagreements between scientists and other experts. And there is, of course, overlap, i.e., fringe critics will cite minority mainstream sources to support their views. So my view is that a controversies article must still satisfy WP:RS for what is stated as fact, and WP:V, the underlying policy, for everything. What this normally means is attributing arguments to specific persons, though general arguments, perhaps involving "weasel words" if found in the sources, may be attributed to reliable sources and not to specific individuals, unless the claim is actually controversial, in which case it would have to be attributed to the source. "Some critics claim ..." is usable without attribution if any one who reads the article and the sources finds that there are some critics who claim this. That is, the "some" should be supported elsewhere and is merely summary style, not true weasel.

Subarticles on controversy are frequently established to prevent argument over controversy from overwhelming the main article. While this can be abused for POV purpose, I think that it is, actually, a good solution, and I suggested here that editors critical of the conventional wisdom on ADHD work first on the Controversies article and clean it up. If it cannot be sustained, properly, in the Controversies article, it definitely doesn't belong in the main article. But if it is in the Controversies article, sourced or attributed, with balance, etc., then it becomes possible to summarize it in the main article without creating undue weight. (Sometimes controversy is notable enough to be mentioned, and any mention at all could be claimed to violate due weight, but I consider that an extreme view. As has been noted in guidelines, undue weight does not apply to percentage of text, but to impression on the reader. A reader should come away from the article with a reasonably accurate impression of just how common controversy is, and, if the reader goes to the subarticle on controversy, what it is really about. Here, a *temporary* compromise was proposed by me: previously, the Controversies article, and controversy, was only mentioned in See Also. Which really did deweight it beyond due balance, in my opinion. Whether or not mention of the controversies article belonged in the introduction, ultimately, putting the briefest of references to controversy at the end of the introduction, to put readers on notice that some of the other material in the introduction and in the article might be the subject of some controversy, was proposed as possibly satisfying -- again temporarily -- a desire of anti-ADHD editors to weasel every claim in the article. That's why I put it in the introduction. (If you'd like me to source any of these edits with diffs, I will come back and do it.) It was intended as a very brief and actually not controversial in itself summary of the Controversies article, to serve pending cleanup of that article and then better summary as appropriate. However, it was, of course unacceptable to the warring sides. I think currently it's out, specifically on the claim that "See also" is enough, which clearly did not satisfy a whole group of editors.

This issue of weasel words is a example of a very good Wikipedia practice applied outside its realm. Summary style may use weasel words, indeed it often must in order to accurately summarize. Often summary style isn't referenced in-line, but it should be clear where the supporting evidence is to be found. These would be the examples I think of:


 * 1) In the introduction to an article. There really should not be *any* references in the introduction, it should be a summarization of what is in the article, and the references would be in the body. Often POV editors desire strongly to place unique claims in the introduction; they know that many readers will see only the introduction. (This happens big-time in political articles.) Since the claim isn't supported by the rest of the article, they reference it, supposedly preventing others from removing "referenced facts.")
 * 2) In a summary of a subarticle that establishes the references.
 * 3) With a repeated fact, summarized and established elsewhere (in the article including referenced articles) as part of some explanation necessary to make an immediate discussion clear. I don't think it is necessary to reference every mention of a fact, just the first. But this is less clear, and sometimes a duplicate reference would be in order. At least it might avoid an editor popping in an putting a citation tag on it.... But I'd defend the first and second situations rather vigorously. Editors should expect no references with summary style.

As we have seen, however, users tag "weasel" as they were a bot looking for specific words. Rather, the standard should be, "Is this verifiable?" The words chosen should reflect what is actually shown in the sources provided in the *whole* article and subarticles. And this is a subjective question of balance and is where the consensus of editors comes in. What's the difference between "some" and "a few" and "many" and "most" and "nearly all." How much disagreement is allowed before there is no "consensus among experts?" Again, POV editors will frequently claim either consensus or no consensus, typically with little more evidence than "this is what I think" or, a bit more solidly, "Somebody said it." But consensus should not be established by a single source if there is clearly some controversy, unless the source is itself a peer-reviewed review of the entire field, and not impeached.

In my own research, I've often found no mechanism for actually measuring consensus. There are official organizations which supposedly serve that function, but *they may not have a true mechanism, they may have a small review board which defines consensus in the field, and this can be biased depending on the accidents (or, more darkly, the design) of who sits on that board. Often boards are appointed by a small group, so bias can easily be introduced. I've seen what was never a consensus among experts --- indeed it was a minority opinion, originally -- become commonly proclaimed as a scientific consensus, form the basis of recommendations by hosts of organizations, governmental and non-governmental, with anyone who disagrees being labeled a "dangerous quack" or "fringe," for years, contrary research could not get funded, or if done, published, until somebody finally pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, and managed to assemble enough clout to get noticed. How this could happen is really worth understanding, in general, so I'll source it: Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories, Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease Not a diet book, not a fringe attack on the establishment, it is about the history of science on the topic, by an established science writer, and it is a goldmine of published studies in the field and other evidences that really should make their way into the various Wikipedia articles on related topics. If I weren't occupied elsewhere, I'd be doing it.

Thanks again for helping with the article. I intend, as I have time, to review your edits in detail, but what I saw so far looked good, and the intention was clearly quite what we need. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re:Gary Taubes ": Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease, ISBN 978-1400040780, which aims at examining how a hypothesis got to become dogma and claims to show how the scientific method was circumvented so one man’s hypothesis could be claimed as correct."


 * "one man's hypothesis" bears similarity to "drug industry's hypothesis" By paying for "scientific research"  Speed was found to be neat for us fat folks. Then the scientific method said otherwise. Science will one day take another look at the efficacy of dosing a category of kids with speed. The present dogma is scientifically verifiable; Drug manufacturers pay for the research. Science will likely not question the speed dogma until a manufacturer pays for evidence that his new drug is better.
 * The new popularly exposed evidence that ADD kids brains develop more slowly will likely cause some parents to consider allowing the natural differences in brain development to follow its natural course and not place their child in a speed-up straitjacket.
 * Is it a disorder? Order is subjective. It is popular to define eccentricity from "the received wisdom" as disorder. Socrates created the dialectic for dealing with the rigidity of the received. It took science a generation to discover that the anti-salt dogma research was too limited to indicate the results. It is likely that in a generation or two it will not be popular or scientific to prescribe chemicals for brain/mind development or for assistance in handling social elements of a child's training.Johnshoemaker (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hasmos
You're quite right, of course. That was much more than a little bitey. However, the material had been added and deleted once before, and it seemed very self-promotional. Also, it looks like he may have been pushing dubious claims on a couple of other articles, although I don't really have the time to wade through the histories to see what's going on there. I guess I'm getting old and cranky. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________

Hi Kaisershatner, how are you?

I need your help on this article. I had a previous debate with Mr. Steven, and I pointed every single references of the information about the Hasmonean. I bealive that there is no more doubt in his mind, since he dont answer me anymore. As I pointed him, there are many references that link Cohen Perea to Hasmoneans.

"The boundaries of the Hasmoneans Cohanim Maccabean state were formed in the southern and eastern borders of Perea (i.e. Jewish area east of the Jordan)[2]. Wars were frequent in the period of the Maccabees[3], Flavius Josefo indicate the "Jews of Perea" to the Hasmoneans, as he said “the Jews that dwelt in Perea” [4] and “the Jews of Perea” who “had taken up arms without the consent of their principal men – (The High Priest)” [5] - on an episode of sedition of the Philadephians concerning the vestments of the Cohanim high priest[6].

Others secondary sources: the Book DNA & Tradition - The link to the ancient Hebrews, and articles as the Old Testament priests published by Nature 394: 138-40. Regardin the DNA Prove, all the Cohens listed on the document, is from FTDNA, a well know and credible company.

Now, Mr. Kaisershatner, I just want to contribute in this article. I dont write English as good as you or anyother Wikepedias Editor. I need you help, because the information, facts, and references that I have is very relavant to the Hasmonean article. However, I would like to avoid any mistake regarding the polices of the Wikipedia.

Can you help me? I wish you could write and add the short sentences based on the true information and relevant references?

I appreciate your help on this article!

See ya! Take Care!

Chris --Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion discussion
I think this section 1A's repetition doesn't further the discussion. It's just nattering at us two the same stuff as immediately above. Should we remove it as a personal attack? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it's a nice night for a cruise anyway. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "She was one of the first ships to send an iceberg warning to the RMS Titanic in 1912." Warnings ignored, nothing left but debris.  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikihistory
Wikihistory. :-) -- SEWilco (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)