User talk:Sirmylesnagopaleentheda

Great Name
Welcome, sir, from the plain people of Ireland. I'm surprised the anti-semitism page hasn't come under much attack.--Shtove 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They do say that the Hebrew and the Gaelic are two very guttural tongues. My own contribution to the anti-semitism page is confined to the correction of some typos.  If you want to see arguments about anti-semitism, there is plenty in related articles, such as those about Israel Shamir and David Duke.  Incidentally, do I gather from your user page that you have also made some indecent contributions? :-) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 08:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles, Just wanted to make your quick acquaintance and introduce myself after having spent the past half an hour of a slow work day learning a bit about life, wikipedia, and Judaism on your quite impressive two pages here. I am still intrigued by the "great (certainly large! ;)) username" as someone referred to it above. Do all "barristers and civil servants" in London carry also by extension the title "Sir?" I see you take your ancestry in general pretty seriously, but I haven't seen, in this relatively short study session, much connection to the Norwegian ancestry tag. Very impressive range of interest and contributions, and depth of knowledge.--warshytalk 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

בָּרוּךְ הַבָּא!
/ Welcome! It is great to see more people here who know something about the Spanish and Portuguese Jews and other Sephardim! -- Olve 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

S&P article
Interesting to read your contributions to the S&P Jews page -- I've grown up in the tradition (Lauderdale Rd) and am interested to see the high level of discussion and information available about it online. Perhaps we can add some links to music archives on the Wikipedia page too since I know of several online but don't have the URLs to hand right now.

--

I have just discovered your contributions to the "Sephardic Judaism" page. Hazak uBarukh! As for Spanish and Portuguese Jews, the entry still needs quite a bit of work. I am saddened that I have apparantly insulted Olve and have driven him away from the article. I have fixed up the Pipe Organ section - I just hope that it is agreeable. I still do not think it should be there at all. Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

--

Thank you Sir Myles! Your linguistic and grammatical knowledge has answered what I had always considered odd - some of my friends had dared to call it "wrong!". As for the vA-nashuba...in NY we always pronounce it venashuba, but listening to some of the dutch members here (in NY) most notably Martin Pereira (OBM) I noticed this pronunciation. I asked him and Bram Cardozo (OBM) about it and they tried to explain it with a grammatical rule which I didn't quite understand. I suspect that your intuition is more correct - especially considering that Ashkenazic Jews (Western European ones at least) do convert a Shewa into a Hataf Patach in many cases. I will ask around to see if I can confirm your hypothesis.

-- Sir Myles: Check out the article Dor Daim. The article mentions S&P Jews and makes some generalizations that I think are exagerated or erroneous. Not sure what to make of the external (spam) link that is stuck in there.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro
 * "Spanish and Portuguese Jews admire Maimonides and identify with the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain. However, they cannot be classified as "Rambamists" in the sense required, as their religious law is based squarely on the Bet Yosef of Joseph Caro. It could even be argued that they follow Caro more closely than any other group, as many other Sephardim regard Isaac Luria as having equal or even greater authority than Caro."

What is the source for this?
 * It is not that I disagree with your ultimate conclusion. I.e. that S&P Jews should not be considered "Rambamists".  Rather, I wonder if it can be said that S&P Jews are "Caro-ists" as you imply. In a tradition which venerates minhag and liturgy to a high degree (such as S&P) no single halakhic code will accurately convey the "halakha" of that community. For example, for many S&P Jews, it would be more significant to use the "Despididos" melody appropriately than whether one waits 6, 3, or 1 hour between eating meat and milk. (1 hour being common among S&P Jews, and, decidedly Ashkenazic in origin.) Moreover, the S&P Halakha we are talking about is almost non-existant.  No great codes have ever been produced within the S&P world.  Halakhic questions are answered by the leaders of each individual community and have much to do with the education and background of each given Rabbi.  Historically, the Halakha of S&P Communities could more easily be traced to Amsterdam, and the Ets Haim school.  Today, I doubt whether we can even speak of a S&P Halakha let alone what the influences of that "Halakha" are. Shabbat Shalom.  No worries, I wont disturb the Dor Daim article.

-- Sir Myles: Perhaps you can help me with a particular S&P pronunciation. One of the Piyutim read over Kippur is the Adir veNaor. In the S&P of New York, the first line is pronounced as follows - Adir veNaor/Bore Dok vaChAled. The Hebrew word Chaled is actually written with two segol's. One would expect it to be pronounced vaCheled. Most other Sephardic rites pronounce "cheled" not "chaled". Any insight? Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro 06:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'd never heard of this, as I've never been in New York over Kippur (and in London it is indeed "cheled"). "Chaled" would be a valid pausal form (like "tif'aret" in the last haftarah blessing, or "ha-gafen" as we are careful NOT to say over wine). I think the reason is that Mishnaic Hebrew had forgotten about pausal forms altogether and this was reflected in the liturgy; then, from the Renaissance on, there was an attempt to make prayer-book Hebrew conform with the rules of the Masoretes, which led to an inconsistently carried out reinstatement of pausal forms, more prevalent in some rites than in others.  The various homiletic explanations of why we do or do not do this (such as that "ha-gefen" is really in the middle of a sentence, as it is concluded with "Amen", or that it is a quotation from the longer blessing "al ha-gefen ve-al-peri ha-gefen") are of course completely ridiculous.  So I can only suppose that in New York there was once a cantor who decided to "correct" the line in question.  I wonder what they do in Amsterdam?
 * Another marginally relevant factor is that in Arab Jewish pronunciation (Yemenite, and the older Babylonian though not current Iraqi) "patach" and "segol" were completely assimilated, as in Arabic there is no distinction between the two. This vowel was normally æ as in "cat", but after emphatics and gutturals became like the vowel in "cup".  From that point of view, "cheled" would be simply impossible to say.  But I doubt very much that this is the explanation, as it would take a very convoluted route for this quirk to reach New York. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bevis Marks Synagogue
Good work. --Dweller 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(Ng)am{i|ee|ie}d{á|a}(h)
“Nice try”? Let us not eat each other alive here... That being said: Buenas entradas de Sabá! -- Olve (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Discography
My apologies, I am currently on vacation (in Israel) and haven't had a chance to write anything up. Hopefully, sometime next week.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be adding some more information, and, alphabatizing. Unfortunately, work gets in the way :-).  Feel free to add/subtract/edit away. Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Sir Myles, I heard a rumor that there are liturgical tapes (Cd's? MP3's?) avaialable from Reverend Benarroch. I have looked online and have not had any luck finding out any information about this. Would you know if such recordings exist? Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here to say thanks
Hi there, I found Portuguese Jewish community in Hamburg, an article created by you, and need to stop by to say 'Thank You'. I'm thinking of an article (articles!) about Jews and Jewish life in Hamburg for several weeks, but couldn't get the time. This is a wonderful first start! Greetings and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Haim Palachi
FYI (and respectfully), I have added considerably to your Haim Palachi entry in English, loaded with footnotes (and the same with his ancestor, Samuel Pallache). If you find the Pallache / Palache / Palachi / Palacci family of interest, please contact me further, as I am working with descendants to build out their lineage from Samuel ha-Levi through Haim Palachi to other descendants. Gratefully - --Aboudaqn (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I don't regard it as "my" article and know nothing more than I have put there from the Jewish Encyclopaedia. Feel free to edit, but I don't think I can help further. All the best. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Good sir, you are too modest; thank you for kicking this entry off, like so many others! --Aboudaqn (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Jews
Are you an SY, i mean are you Halabic? talsardar

Partly. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 08:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Baqashot
Dear Sir, My name is Joseph Mosseri and I live in New York. I am a Sefaradi of Egyptian/Syrian heritage and I was directed to the Wikipedia article on Baqashot by my friend David Betesh. I see that you were a major contributor to this article and I'd like to find out more about what you wrote concerning the history of Halabi Baqashot in Jerusalem.

"The Syrian tradition was introduced to Jerusalem by Raphael Altaras, who came to that city from Aleppo in 1845 and founded a Baqashot circle at the Kehal Tsiyon synagogue. In this way the custom of Baqashot became part of the mainstream Jerusalem Sephardic tradition. Another important influence was Jacob Ades (1857-1925), who immigrated to Jerusalem in 1895 and introduced the tradition to the Persian and Bukharan communities. The main centre of the tradition today is the Ades synagogue in Naִhlaot, where the leading spirit was Shaul Aboud, a pupil of Moshe Ashear."

Also do you have the books of Altaras and Burla that are mentioned in the bibliography?

Thanks, JMosseri 12:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I got these details from an article by Seroussi on the "Piyut" website (http://www.piyut.org.il/articles/259.html). I do not possess the books you mention, but there is a very nice man at http://www.virtualgeula.com who can do reprints of any book in the JNUL that is no longer in copyright.


 * I was at the Ades synagogue for baqashot a couple of weeks ago: quite an experience! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Myles, Thanks for the information. I've been to the piyut site hundreds of times but for some reason I never noticed this article there. This article like most of Seroussi's other writtings on music is very comprehensive and enlightning. Thank you once again for sharing this information with me. Joseph Mosseri JMosseri 12:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)JMosseriJMosseri 12:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Simon, How are you? Listen, my community has a really interesting Hazzanut forum that I think that you would be very interesting and I think you could also be a very useful resource for our group. It is very simple to join. All you have to do is go to www.pizmonim.com website and scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to where it says "Join Hazanut Forum". This is part of Yahoo! groups and it is really simple to join. The topics that we talk about include Pizmonim, Baqashot, Culture, Torah, Maqamot etc. Please join us.... We started the forum in May, so you're not too late to make an appearance. This way we keep in touch. David Betesh —Preceding comment was added at 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon, I have a question for you. Do you own or have access to the older pizmonim books that you have mentioned in the bibliography of the pizmonim article. I am referring particularly to Divre Morechai and Israel Najara's book. David Betesh —Preceding comment was added at 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Weekly Maqam
Hey Simon, Help is needed if possible on The Weekly Maqam page. See what you can contribute. Thanks.David Betesh

Hey Simon, are you saying that I should delete the page The Weekly Maqam? I am in favor of deleting the page called Syrian Cantors, but when I try to do so, other editors stop me. If you have ideas about merging articles, let me know and we'll think of something. Also concerning the Syrian surnames, I left a message on that page saying that the list is too long and needs to be shortened by putting the names in paragraph form.David Betesh

Surnames
Perhaps a new article. There are many articles like this. For example, List of Jewish surnames, List of Slavic surnames, Polish surnames, German family name etymology, or List of Germanic-speaking cultures surnames. It's a great idea, and I can envision us also trying to define the meaning of each name, thus making this list actually useful for the masses. David Betesh

Synagogues
Simon, it would help a lot if you can upload a one picture each for the Central Synagogue of Aleppo and Ades Synagogue articles. Thanks. David Betesh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Meshumad
Dear Sir Myles, The rabbis beg to differ on your opinion. Read the treatise of Aboda Zara in the Talmud Babli. Also, Maimonides codifies "Meshumad" as the following: Two are “mešumadim”: a) the “mešumad” for only one type of transgression; and b) the “mešumad” in relation to the whole Torá. The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions], for example, to dress with [clothing made of] “ša‘atnez,” or trim [the hair in a round manner, without leaving the sideburns on the head, on each side,] the peá, making it appear as if this precept [was inexistent] void for the whole world – this is a “mešumad” in relation to such thing [i.e. the given precept]. This is, if done with the intention to provoke. [In regards to] the “mešumad” for the whole Torá, this is that who turn to the laws [as creeds] of the gentiles, when these decree religious persecutions, uniting with them, saying: “ – What gain do I have in remaining united to the People of Israel, who are humiliated and persecuted? It is better for me to unite to those whose hand is powerful!” – this is the “mešumad” for the whole Torá. [MT Book of Science, V: Chp. 3, 18]. For a sensible assessment on the Biblical and Talmudic sources regulating this position, see Foot Moore’s Judaism (Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 460 – 473.

As most Jews today are outright Shabbat desecrators, it follows most Jews are in the status of "Meshumadim."

Also, I will share with you a recent response I made to Hakham Oliveira regarding the status of "Meshumad:"

As for the question of "meshumad", as it relates to those who believe in the "Kabbalah" [medieval Jewish mystical lore begun in France 12th c.], this does not make them into meshumadim, since there is absolutely no problem in believing about reincarnations or not, having [or not having] understanding about the superior worlds as sefirot. If the person believes in the thirteen principles -- and the former is not included [in the thirteen principles] -- he's a Jew, and not a meshumad. If he believes in banalities that are not outright desecrations of the Toráh, we cannot consider them as minim, and much less as meshumadim. Because of this, [people] like rabbi Iossef de Efraim Caro, as rabbi Menashé ben Israel, as rabbi Ia'aqob Sasportas, among others, are kesherim. The term "meshumad" is applied for two cases: a) For a person who left one of the precepts, [this one] is a meshumad for one of two things in the Toráh, and the Sages call them Meshumad leMisswáh Ahat, or leDabar Min haDebarim, or lidbar Midiberehem. b) For a person who left the whole Toráh deliberately. This included those who admit another form of faith, and I do not mean "Cabalismo", but Christianity, Islam or similar, which are declared denials of the Toráh and its truth. This [meshumad] is called Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh. Some [rabbis] pretend to include the Anusim in this [category], due to the fact that they chose to remain in their places of origin in moments when they could flee. It is clear these are rare cases, but it cannot be taken into account. For the cases of kiddushin and gerushin, if they were any, this can help for defense against such people [this in reference to contemporary ignorant rabbis who may consider Anusim as Mamzerim; case which cannot be applied because the kiddushin of Anusim could not be valid, as they were Shabbat desecrators, and therefore their witnesses invalid too. Having no valid witnesses, no valid kiddushin can be performed]. Not that the Anusim are really Meshumadim. This only [is used] as a strategy concerning the halakháh.

Hence, herr Einstein was a Meshumad. Best Regards. --Dramirezg 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles:

I think there is a problem with semantics. Firstly, the category of "mumar" does not exists in Jewish Law [meaning all the sanctioned texts of rabbinic tradition, limitation that does not include whatever has been written from the time of the Ge'onim to our days]. Maimonides does not use it, nor any responsa Sefaradi until the appearance of the Tosafot. "Mumar" seems to have been a word invented by the Ashkenazim as a legal category during the medieval ages in their tradition of the Tosafot, and from whom the Maran Iossef Caro picks it for his Shulkhan Arukh, but I still have to research the veracity of this question.

Secondly, if you were to read more carefully, the way RaMbaM breaks "Meshumad" down is in the following order:

1. the Meshumad who transgresses any of the commandments.

2. the Meshumad who transgresses the whole Toráh

Of the Meshumadim who transgress any of the commandments, Maimonides' codification separates those who casually or intentionally transgress any particular comandment (The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions]). And then he identifies those Meshumadim who do it out with the intention to provoke. Hakham Oliveira gives us these categories too.

Then we have the Meshumadim for the whole Toráh [Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh], of whom Maimonides says there are those who purposely leave the whole Toráh, to turn to different laws; note that he does not mention "conversion" to another religion. In Jewish thinking, Law does not mean only the Written Law, but also the Oral Law. One cannot be without the other.

In this last category of Meshumadim we can include the "Reform" Jews as they have denied rabbinic tradition. "Conservative" Jews are in the first category, as they only break certain commandments without abandoning rabbinic tradition in toto.

"Believing" in the God of Israel does not save either of them from the classification of "Meshumad". A kasher Jew cannot have a "belief" without "action".

There is an underlying current in all this, that eventhough the Jew may have been raised as a 'am aress, it does not exempt him from performing the misswot, specially if he has every opportunity to do so. A lot of Jews today know that driving in Shabbat is wrong, eventhough they were raised accustomed to it. They cannot be classified as 'am aress in this particular instance, or can they?

By the way, the Sages recommended us not to mingle into 'am aress:

“‘am haress are despicable, and their wives such as vermin, and to their daughters one must apply the verse, ‘Cursed be those who lie with all kinds of beasts!’” (Deut. 27:21). [M. Pesahim, 49a]

The implications of a Torah transgressor are several. As you had mentioned, one of them is that they cannot be witnesses ('ed), but also that they are classified "as gentiles" (ke goy) or worst than gentiles. Not that they are actually gentiles [their biological right as Jews is not cancelled], but that they are not kesherim (like gentiles) to be used in Jewish ritual, for example, be counted for minyan. Read the following responsa from early 20th c.:


 * 4. Haham Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad [“Ben Ish Hai”], teshuvot Rav Pe’alim, vol. 3, Orah-Hayyim 12


 * A question from the city of Shanghai, with regard to a person who publicly desecrates the Shabbat by performing work for himself and for others: can he be counted for a minyan, and can he be called up to the Torah...
 * And also: if such persons who are ineligible to be counted for a minyan want to say kaddish, are they permitted to do so? And [if they do so] should others answer “Amen”?


 * Teshuva: Any Jew who publicly desecrates the Shabbat, i.e., performs work [m’lakha] in the presence of ten Jews, has the status of a Gentile, and does not count for a minyan. And not only if ten were present, but even if he desecrated [the Shabbat] in a public place where his actions become known to many, is regarded as having desecrated publicly.... From the way the question is phrased it is clear that this person performs these acts in a publicly visible place and he realized that it would become known, so that even if ten were not present he is regarded as a Gentile. And it is also clear that he does so usually, on every Shabbat, and his actions are known to all.


 * Thus, the person you are asking about, because he publicly desecrates the Shabbat, cannot be counted as constituting ten for kaddish or for kedusha and similar matters […]


 * Therefore, [you should ensure that] there should be present ten persons, besides him. And do so in a manner that it is not obvious nor noticed by him, lest there be hatred and enmity, or lest he be driven further away [from religious observance]. For the joining together [for minyan] is done in synagogue, where many are present, and you shall covertly make an effort that ten kosher persons will be present besides those who are unfit, and you will easily be able to do so.


 * However, with regard to calling him up to the Torah, if he will not be called up to the Torah he will notice this, and this will cause hatred and enmity, and there is concern that he might be driven further away [from religious observance] – especially in these times. However, this can be averted… by calling him up after the obligatory number have already been called up. And if the congregation sees that there are hatred and enmity and quarrels if he is not called up at the beginning on Shabbat and on Festivals, so, call him up for one of the obligatory ‘aliyyot, but make sure that when the next person is called up, the reader begins to read from the place that the previous one began [….]


 * And what you asked, if the ineligible persons who do not count for minyan want to say kaddish, what should be done, and should the congregation answer “Amen” after them ?
 * Teshuva: They cannot recite kaddish in a manner that causes the obligation of the public to be fulfilled. However, to avert hatred and enmity and quarrels, you should not prevent them from reciting kaddish, and you should not say to them: “Your kaddish is useless”. Rather, allow them to recite kaddish. But, the hazan should recite kaddish along with them, to fulfill the obligation of the public. Thus, the public will have their obligation fulfilled by the kaddish of the hazan, and answer “Amen” to the kaddish of the hazan, and they [= the ineligibles] will not notice this and thus hatred will not be born. Because, you will follow this custom all year round: the hazan will recite kaddish together with whoever says kaddish, even though they are ‘kosher’ – so that when such ineligibles happen to say kaddish this will not be noticeable in anything [unusual] the hazan does, because it will be his custom to always say kaddish.
 * {trans. Prof. Zvi Zohar, at Bar Ilan Univ.}

The way rabbis get around this halakháh today, the loophole, is that if they do not prescence the Jew breaking a misswáh, they assume they are kasher for minyan. Albeit, knowing that it is public knowledge, they bent backwards to the limits of this permisibility.

Best Regards. --Dramirezg 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir Myles,

The context that Maimonides uses "laws of the gentiles" has to do with everything outside Jewish tradition as formulated by the rabbis, which comprehends the Written and Oral tradition. Therefore, anything outside this realm is considered "gentile." It is also important to note that Maimonides is giving us a summary of the Talmudic discussion, one that ocurrs within the definitions of the halakhot themselves. There is more than what meets the eye and splitting hairs he does not touch upon this particular codification, but noticible as one reads along his opus.

The context he uses "laws of the gentiles" is anything outside rabbinic tradition. It could be Islam, Christianity, Communism, Free-enterprise Capitalism, etc. On itself it could be anything regarding the action of adopting ways and customs outside what the rabbis formulated for proper Jewish behavior.

If for example, we live in a country where is common to drive on Shabbat, and therefore some Jew thinks is OK to drive on Shabbat, as every body does it, then the rabbis consider this as "turning to the laws of gentiles." There is no need to formally recant Judaism; when it comes to breaking the Shabbat, as long as the Jew does it, he has recanted Judaism privately; if did he it in front of ten (kasher) Jewish witnesses, he has recanted in public; if everybody knows (Jew or non-Jew) that he does it, then this too is considered public knowledge.

The context in which Hakham Hayyim develops his teshubah follows the lines of the discussion of meshumadim, and anyone familiar with the discussion knows this. He does not have to say outright the word "meshumad." Anyone familiar with the halakháh knows he's speaking about a "meshumad." It is obvious from the nature of the discussion.

As it comes to the particular melakhot of Shabbat [where making fire and transporting in public are two concerns to the act of driving a car], the melakháh of making fire is de'oraita and punishable by hayab karet (death); the melakháh of transporting something in public is miderabbanan and it is punishable by hayab malkhot (wips). It is not just a "simple non-observance" as you put it, particularly when knowing that Shabbat is one of the two of the signs of the covenant (the other is circumcision). The observance of Shabbat not only upholds the giving of the Toráh at harSinai, but it also is witness to the cornerstone of Judaism, which is creation ex-nihilo. Breaking the Shabbat -- even if the Jew "believes" in the Shabbat -- leads to denying harSinai and creation ex-nihilo ever happened.

And with all due respect, this discussion is everybit relevant to the discussion of "anusim," as we are discussing what qualifies someone as a Jew who is kasher, and a Jew who is pasul. The determination of who is kasher or pasul revolves on the issue of Jewish behavior, otherwise also referred to as "observance." "Conversion to another religion" is only peripheral to the rabbinic concern, and only important if done out of conviction or out of coercion of some kind. The initial rabbinic concern is one of the behavior of the Jewish individual.

You should know that the rabbis considered the "anusim" kasher, meaning they were kasher witnesses, therefore their weddings and testimonies valid, and so there was their wine and shekhitáh. This happened as long as the rabbis knew they were shomer Shabbat, shomer Kashrut, shomer Tefilah, etc., to the best of the posibilities; despite they had to go to Church, take a Eucharist, eat pork or recite Hail Mary in front of the priests or other Old Christians and apostate Jews (minim). The conversion by force -- and their coerced public non-Jewish behavior -- does not alter the kasher status of the Jew.

It is also important to note that of those forced converts, if they knew that they would lapse into non-observance on their own volition, the rabbis would call them meshumadim.

Lastly, of those Jews who converted to Catholicism out of conviction, as it was the case of Abner de Burgos, the rabbis called them minim.

All these issues are evident in the rabbinical responsa of Spanish rabbis from 1391 to 1492. Some of which you can view in the Hebrew original at www.judaismo-iberico.org.

I think there is an initial confusion with the notion of "Shemad" as perceived today. However, when we review the minutae of Talmudic discusssions, and the attitude of the rabbis up to the present century, you will realize that the notion of "meshumad" as "convert to another religion" is imprecise. Best Regards. --Dramirezg 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

the following two sections are inserted from Talk:Anusim
to be fair, i am inserting the following two sections from Talk:Anusim so you are on notice and can participate in this discussion.-- diremarc (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

section "Meaning and history of term" too exclusive-statuses of jews includes observant and non-observant
the section "Meaning and history of term" begins with "Jewish Law categorizes the status of a Jew according to his commitment to rabbinic tradition. The two most commonplace ones are: Min (apostate), for a Jew who basically denies the existence of God; and meshumad (heretic), for a Jew who does not adhere to the observance of Jewish Law." the most commonplace statuses of jews are observant and non-observant. apostates and heretics are not commonplace. this section should be re-written to either include most jews or re-written to state: "Two uncommon statuses of jews are:" --diremarc (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

article opening is biased and insulting, most jews are non-observant and are not apostates nor heretics
Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, without any discussion or response to my above section, undid revision 296698462 (see point 6.2 below), with the throw-off comment: "Observant" etc are not status at all, only description, and they are a matter of degree. Irrelevant to article."

Sirmylesnagopaleentheda is wrong - in his analysis and his refusal to discuss this issue:


 * 1) observant is a status.
 * 2)  observant is not a matter of degree. for almost all jews, just as there is no such thing as "a little" pregnant, there is no such thing as "a little" observant. you either are, or you are not.
 * 3) completely relevent to article. by his definition of status, most jews (all reform, reconstructionist and conservatives) are apostates and heretics. THIS IS WRONG AND HIGHLY INSULTING.
 * 4) the jewish majority is non-orthodox.
 * 5) currently, the article's disregard for non-observant jews is not consistent with the wiki NPOV mandate.
 * 6) in light of the above, to be accurate and fair, to acknowledge the majority status of non-observant jews and to not enforce a particular POV, the article's Section 1, "Meaning and history of term", should begin with either:
 * 7) "Two uncommon statuses of jews are:"; or
 * 8) "In non-Orthodox Jewish culture, the parallel dichotomies of temple or non-temple, observant or non-observant, orthodox or non-orthodox, suffice to characterize a Jew's status. Orthodox Jewish Law categorizes the status of a Jew according to his commitment to rabbinic tradition."

i am reviewing the situation
i am thinking about it. however, i remain unconvinced by your arguement. in fact, your message on my talk page confirms my belief there is a real dichotomy between orthodox and non-orthodox. you dismiss this, in part, by stating "non-Orthodox is of purely sociological interest". i do not believe this. being non-orthodox for me, and many others, is a religious question. but even if this were only a sociological difference, the beginning of the Anusim article needs clarification. the article would not suffer (and would be improved) if this "sociological" difference is noted. i observe, but by the orthodox standards in the article's main section first paragraph, i am a meshumad. this is false and unkind. "Jewish Law [may] categorize[] the status of a Jew according to his commitment to rabbinic tradition", but even chareidi recoginize reformed, non-observant jews as real, non-heretical jews. i do not doubt your honorable intentions, and i do not believe you mean to insult, but tell me how can i read the opening paragraph, and not logically conclude you classify me as a heretic? as a jew, i categorically disagree that anyone, let alone "Jewish Law [can] categorize" my status as a Jew. i am still not convinced and still advocate changing that sentence to include the concept that it is only Orthodox jews and orthodox Jewish Law that categorizes the status of orthodox and formerly orthodox Jews. yours,-- diremarc (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

end of insert-- diremarc (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

i did not move your talk page section
i did not move your talk page section and did not think that you had moved it. if you check the logs (your history, I am in new york time, you are not) or editing overlapped. you can see i opened the that entire section and begin writing below it the "i am reviewing the situation" comment. while my work was in progress, you moved the message to where you wanted it. when i finally concluded my missive and saved page. my comment was reinserted where i had orginally started to comment, at your talk page end. i made no attempt to alter, change, revert your talk page. i would never stop (nor stoop to) anyone from attempting to tidy up. now, i am concerned you view my attempt to write a concillitory comment as deliberate sabatoge of your page. not true. please do not let this mishmash distract from our discussion. yours,-- diremarc (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote request
Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 70.49.86.196 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you edited the article Kabbalah
I saw that you edited the forementioned article. Would you like to join my new WikiProject Kabbalah? It is definitely in need of your assistance. Lighthead 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

שב שמעתתא
Now, it's time for you to write an article on שב שמעתתא and explains all his intricate שיטות. ;) -- רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Partially done. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * wow, I see you aren't joking (Shev Shema'tata).--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo. I have the afternoons free this week. I'd love to take the time to go through all of Shev Shmaytsa and to write a brief synopsis of each Shar. 1. Would this be OR? 2. How lengthy and involved can I be?

I'm looking forward to the challenge.Wolf2191 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sirmyles, I noticed a puzzling section on Shev Shema'tata that could only have been written by you (about the parallels with Shiite law). I would appreciate if you could identify a source that could possibly support this assertion? JFW &#124; T@lk  23:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think my main question is whether there is a source that directly compares Shev Shema'tata with the Muslim works you mentioned. I wonder if one may not be straying into WP:NOR territory here. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Christian Torah-submission
Hi Sirmylesnagopaleentheda: Hope all is well. Would you mind taking a look at the discussions at Talk:Christian Torah-submission. You will no doubt have something to add. Thanks. IZAK 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
It is vry good of you to continue to take the time with TuranX on the "Who is a Jew" misunderstandings. He is actually beginning to frighten/worry me - he has already sicced one admin on me and is threatening to do so again in a harsher way, in addition to his dogged insistence on the mischaracterized version of my views. I really don't know what to do!FlaviaR 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * & thank you even more for the kind words and offer of assistance (if necessary). It means a great deal to me.FlaviaR 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism
Hello Sirmyles: Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism.) Thanks so much, IZAK 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Shadal
Shadal's disliked Kabbalah because he truly believed it to be a later forgery. He was also very much dedicated to Peshat and he believed the Kabbalists distorted the meaning of the Torah. You can find his מאמר נגד חכמת הקבלה on [www.seforimonline.org] in the unsorted seforim section. There is also a refutation there called טעם לשד. Kol TuvWolf2191 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish and Christian terms (figs)
Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Input with Saudi Arabian Jewish history
Hi Sirmyles, hope all goes well. Maybe you can help improve the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. It links to smaller articles about Jewish tribes in the areas of present-day Saudi Arabia, such as Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Najjar, Banu Sa'ida, Banu Shutayba and they all cited sources. Now User:Bless sins is requesting "sources" for the same information about the tribes in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article, as well as making other requests for sources and whatnot. (If you like, and have a minute or two, see the discussions that have been taking place at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history.) Please help out in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy
I noticed that you fixed up my ref for RaMBaM, and was wondering if you would care to look in on the Prophecy article. I can use help with expanding and referencing it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yemenite Jews
Hi,

how are you?

I'd like you to see my remarks at User talk:Joyson Noel, and also refer yo to the image in the article here Yemenite Jews (enlarge the image)

and the image of Bo'az Ma'uda.

In addition, I live in Israel, they are completely Black. one of my Yemenite Jewish childhood freinds was called by the headmaster, in front of all the school kids "Cushi" (see the article I wrote there, and waht it means in Hebrew, as the Hebrew article of 'cushi' --->  mentions Cushi Rimon, whos original name was "Shimon RImon" -->  (no English) - it says: "He claims his nickname was given to him, because he was a 'Little Yemenite among lots of Ashkenazim' " (the 'cushi' article in Hebrew--> mentions 'Cushi rimon', I didnt mention him in the English article of cushi that I wrote- cinse this man is only known to Israelis).

And then decide for yourself.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note the opening statements of the Hebrew article of Ymenite Jew --> -which specifically states that they should be seen as a seperate third Jewish community from AShkenazi and Mizrahi (for obvious reasons to a Hebrew reader).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yemenite jews references
I've discussed the Issue of category "black Jews" added to the Yemenite article and I agreed with Joyson Noel, that I will find a reliable source first - and only then after will I add this category, since even to this very day there is a small Yemenite community in Ethiopia (see below my link to the Jewish agency website) - and therefore many historians believe they are the one who started the Jewish Ethiopian community.

He referred me back to you, as to my question to him - if the sources I have given are good enough - and here are the sources I have given him :

i have looked into the English article of Yemenite Jews and read the last paragraph where it talks about the study that  "found a possible genetic similarity between 11 Ethiopian Jews and 4 Yemenite Jews who took part in the testing"  and that '' "It is possible that the 4 Yemenite Jews from this study may be descendants of reverse migrants of African origin, who crossed Ethiopia to Yemen." ''-

and would like to use the reference #27 - as a source - would that be good enough?

here is a nother possible source which states the folowing: ''The second scroll will return to the tiny Yemenite community in Ethiopia, consisting of five families, after Simchat Torah. ''

(from the Jewish Agency for Israel website)

??

or this :

(its a hebrew article in wiki hebrew containg an english line: Some historians believe that in this period Jews from either Elephantine or Yemen moved into present-day Ethiopia and gave root to the Beta Israel (their reference is this --> )

--Shevashalosh (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

another one from Beta Israel of north America A lost Jewish custom preserved in Ethiopia is the regular or daily wearing of the talit as Yemenite Jews also did in Yemen

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NYTimes – (about the ethiopian jews) while anthropologists say they might have migrated from Egypt or Yemen. 

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Response
ThanX for your response! My argument is different. We are not talking About what you define in general as Black, we are talikng about what is accepteble in Israel. For this reason, Joyson Noel‎ and I have agreed that what I have corrected in the English as They are considered as a third separate Group to the common definition of Edot Ashkenaz and Edot HaMizrach (Mizrahim), with accordance to the Hebrew article. The rest we are debating right here.

one Remark to Joyson Noel (I hope he reads it)‎, who said they are some times are included with Mizrahi, is a common mistake, since when people are talking about "non-Ashkenazi" - then Yemenite jews are included, but being a "non-Ashkenazi" does not mean you fall within the category of being "Mizrahi" eather, which is obviously the case of either Yemenite Jews or Ethiopian Jews.

And for the latter reason that was agreed up on, I thought the English article was lacking of some information.

Therefore, maybe the question is not about, me bringing references to the English Article, but rather adding an additional sentence to the opening line: ''They are considered as a third separate Group to the common definition of Edot Ashkenaz and Edot HaMizrach (Mizrahim) - that clarifies their status within the Israeli society conventions (rather then out side of Israel), and/or adding the category "black Jews".

What do you suggest as a solution for this matter?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nafka minnah
Thank you very much for your edits to this article; they were very illuminating.

However, I think we also need a short example from the Talmud itself where the phrase is used, similar to the example of "be-mai peligei" that appears in that article. Can you think of one off-hand? The challah example can then stay as an example of its extended use in modern halachic discourse. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- your kind words mean a lot! The challah example was actually the first example that popped into my head, and it was simple enough to keep most if not all people in the loop for the entire discussion.  I felt that an example directly from the Talmud might be too complex or require too much background information, but if you suggest it, I'll put one in there in the next few days.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance is cordially requested
I see you work on this article (Jewish principles of faith). Can you address this ? Thanking you in advance. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta'am 'elyon and Ten Commandments
I saw your last few edits to Ten Commandments. Frankly speaking I had removed a few lines about the subject of the ta'am 'elyon just a short while before. In the edit summary I explained my reason then. Which is simply that understanding the ta'am 'elyon in as far as it is necessary to understand the article is provided for by the explanation in the previous paragraph. This is not an article about ta'am 'elyon. Moreover I feel that your explanation raises more questions than it answers. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but it took me a full 20 seconds and a rereading to understand what you just wrote me on my talk page. And I am a baal kore. That alone shoud give you an indication.

Moreover, my point is that the first meaning of "ta'am 'elyon" (having special cantilation signs, including the partition into verses) is relevant to the article Ten Commandments, but the second meaning (having a special chant) is not connected to that subject. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian
Talk:Hebrew_language, how about Russian in Hebrew or just Israel. How is that nowadays, can you tell me that? Just a question :) Mallerd (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

O yeah, one more thing. Why haven't you mentioned Ashkenazim on your userpage? I don't know as much about Jews as you do, but I thought (eastern) European Jews were called that. Mallerd (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda
Hi, I never knew they called Judas (Iskariot) "Yehuda". Was it a common name in his days? --Mallerd (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your help Mallerd (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Esther
Sorry, pasted inadvertently (relevant to intermarriage but not matrilineality). Thanks for your correction. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Your criticisms are at the same time harsh and constructive.

Prior to contributing to Jewish Philosophy the reader of this entry was led to believe that Lurianic Kabbalah was philosophy, as well as "Holocaust something-or-other", were more prominent than any sort of rationalist philosophy that spawned from Averroism. To have completely omitted the impact of Muta'zili upon the development of Jewish Philosophy seemed a crime of ommission. In addition, there is a rationalist tradition that illustrates how certain Hachamim perpetuated the teachings of their mentors or in some cases changed their philosophy from Aristotlean to neoplatonic or otherwise. None of this was explored in the entry.

Where your commentary is harsh, it is correct to point out my own bias, and at times the confounding of issues such as "ismailis" and "Ishmaelites" - this was purposeful. You will likely note that the correct working in the article is -


 * By professing adherence to the creed of orthodox Shiism, and proclaiming a knowledge of the mystic doctrines (Sufism), which the Ismailis believed to have descended through Ismail to his son Mohammed, Abdallah ibn Maimun al Qaddah succeeded in placing himself at the head of the Ismailis. He is suspected, by historians, to have been a prominent member of the Brethren of Purity and a very close friend of the Jewish Banu Qunayqa Tribe.

I'll take your criticisms to heart and refine the article thusly. Again, thank you. Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in ...
I think what you've done with Syrian Jews and History of the Jews in Syria is exactly right. An article like Syrian Jews should contain everything about Syrian Jews; history, traditions and customs, genetics, communities, and anything else about Syrian Jews. The "History" article is merely a sub-article of the main article. Putting all these articles at "History of the Jews in..." artificially restricts the subject to the history of the community, and there's no real place to discuss the rest of these topics, which don't fit the title. Ideally every one of these articles should be structured that way; a main article about the group, with a sub-article about the group's history. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay: I disagree with you on that. There are two topics here. One is about the actual Jews of Syria or from place XYZ, and then there is their history, two entirely different fields of study. In the case of Syrina Jews they have their own Halachic customs and they are a sub-ethnicity, like Yemenite Jews, and their types extend beyond Syria or Yemen, but when they were IN Syria or Yemen, they had long histories not related to their ethnicity per se. You seem to lack the historian's appreciation of Jewish history and it only serves to undercut the quality of the articles by creating compressed versions of two streams of scholarship. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Synod of Mainz (Jewish) article
Hi Sirmyles: There is a new article about the Synod of Mainz (Jewish). Given your expertise with European Jewish history, would it be possible for you to review it in order to ensure that it adheres to both the views of Judaism and to WP:NPOV. If further discussion is required please take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

13 principles of logic
I have added the above to the Judaism article; Wikiwatcher keeps deleting it because it is just one man's opinion and esoteric (yet the article includes Rambam's Ani ma'amim; I do not object to this, but if we include this, it seems balanced to include something older and more widely accepted, on how Jews interpret the law). I am happy to discuss at length with you why I think this is important but for starts, I think the article is sorely lacking in balance when it emphasizes doctrine and ritual over other elements of Judaism (e.g. Torah Study, that Jews have developed their own principles of logic and jurisprudence). I realize other articles cover this, but I think Torah study is so important to Judaism it deserves some substantive discussion in the main article. Anyway, I hope you will comment. Happy Shavuot, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

please vote
here Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yihyah Salah
Hello. Quite by accident I chanced upon the above article which seems to have been greatly vandalised. I note from the history that you wrote the original article and thought I should let you know. Denisarona (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

His Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Hi, I see that you have added in this quote of Rabbi Hertz's to his article; I was wondering what the source is? Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► international waters ─╢ 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was Solomon Schechter. My mistake. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis
I notice your comments at Palestinian Talmud and wonder if you advocate for the 16th-century Palestinian rabbis category? Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I replied to this personally. I have no strong views one way or the other. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dor Daim
I agree, but we need a WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Traditions regarding rising during the reading of the Ten Commandments
Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, do you know of a good source for this edit? It would be nice to point the reader to some information about the varying traditions. The rest of the paragraph all comes from a single source. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ten Commandments comment about you
At Talk:Ten Commandments Steve kap has suggested that you agree with his viewpoint. I hadn't gotten that impression from your comments. If you don't mind, could you clarify there? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sephardic law and customs: Difference between revisions
Hi, just wanted to say that I agree with your recent undo edit to keep the remarks about talit and halacha. However, I would like to ask you to work with the user to revise the statements. While they are useful, they don't really sound like an encyclopedia entry, they also need citations and maybe some explanation. As far as the halakha, maybe you could cite R. Mourouf's lecture? (its in the article itself). --Daniel E Romero (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Sephardic Laws article edit
Hello,

What is your reasoning for removing these two links? Understanding the process of halakha is indispensable in comparing the different results Sephardic sages derive rather than other sages. Wouldn't you agree? What is your view why you would remove this from the article page?

Where else would you put these on wiki?

--Daniel E Romero (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I may agree with you that they should be removed if you find another article to reference them in. I understand that there is some material in the links that are promoting Sephardic legal approaches to Ashkenazi ones, however, in video lecture, the Rabbi does bring up excellent differences in how Sephardim poskim, for example, not being overly concerned about the mathematisation of quantities for berakhot, these I believe are important general tendencies necessary for the understanding of the different development of law by Sephardic Sages. The article as well has several similar comparisons which are useful.


 * Historically, Sephardim have been overlooked at best, so while not entirely politically correct, it makes sense that these authors would feel the need to promote their tradition as being "better." This is regrettable but there is some good content here. As I said before, if you find a more fitting article to move them to, that may be agreeable. As it is now, I find them very useful and pertinent, and is it does not seem to fit elsewhere, I would keep them here. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Rakkah
Hi, I rolled back the 2 edits you made to this article because the URLs are not accessible; they say there are "too many illegal characters in the path". Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about Romaniote Jews page, Nusach and Minchag
Hello,

I noticed that you were an editor of the section on the page "Romaniote Jews" of the section "Nusach and Minchag." I am a university student, and I am currently doing research on the Romaniote musical traditions. I am particularly curious about Romaniote "folksongs," which are mentioned in this section but I have not found evidence of in the rest of my research. If possible, could you respond to my email address, gabriel.a.zuckerberg.20@dartmouth.edu?

Thank you very much, Gabriel Zuckerberg 94.66.222.30 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Superstition in Judaism?
Hi Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, is there anything you can please do to clean up all the blatant inaccuracies in this abomination: Superstition in Judaism. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Back-formation
Hi.

1. Isolate is definitely a back-formation from isolated.

2. You might want to check this page out.

Best, JackLumber.  13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see that. It may be that isolated appeared first in the language, even by some centuries, but to call isolate a back-formation implies that isolated was not really a past participle form at all and that the verb was formed on the mistaken impression that it was.  See my comments on "donate" and "isolate" on the "Back-formation" talk page.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Isolated became a past participle only after isolate was coined. All lexicographers (notably, OED and Webster's 3rd) regard isolate as a back-formation. JackLumber.  14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I said "past participle form". The word "isolated" was clearly intended to LOOK like a past participle even if there was no verb in active use for it to be the past participle of.  It was not an adjective ending in "ed" for an entirely different reason, later mistaken for a suffix.  (It may be that the original adjective was "isolăte", and that that spawned "isolated" as an imaginary past participle, and then "to isolate" some centuries later.)  I am not disputing your account of the history of the matter, but only whether this really counts as a back-formation in the sense defined.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it most definitely does. But burger from hamburger (as the article states) most definitely doesn't. JackLumber.  14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it would, if anybody had really thought a hamburger was made of ham, but I don't think anyone did. I think it would be better if all this discussion had been on the talk page of "Back-formation" rather than on my user page, as others might wish to comment.  To revert to the main topic: do you also hold that all other supine-formed verbs (see the talk page under "donate, isolate") are back-formations? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's quite a simple solution to this debate, which is, as always, to provide the sources to support the view proposed! Jack has some sources to support back-formation, though the OED also seems to say that while "isolate" might be a back-formation, it might also be from the French isoler or adapted from the Italian isolare. This is from the section published in 1900, which may have been superseded by later editions. Perhaps the article should present alternative points of view if there's doubt about the derivation. Adrian Robson 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Objection sustained. Got another example: donate and locate used to be heavily criticized by the British in C19, not just because they were barbarous Americanisms :-) but also because they were back-formations---although dictionaries say that only donate is a back-formation (from donation), while locate (allegedly) comes from Latin locatus, p.p. of loco -as -avi -atum -are. It must be noted that many of these Americanisms were not so "literate" (enthuse from enthusiasm)---not to mention pseudo-Latinate cowboy words like absquatulate or goofy derivatives like happify... JackLumber.  20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shift (narnia)
Nice addition to the Shift (Narnia) article. If you have the works from which those thoughts are taken, could you add a citation(s) for them? LloydSommerer 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Narnia
Hi, Sir Myles na Gopaleen. I just wrote a reply for your comment at User talk:Leinad-Z. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

W.Somerset Maugham
Given your previous or current interest in Somerset Maugham - can you please add any thoughts you might have at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham so that we can move the article up a notch? V i  r  tual  Steve  09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of the Silent Planet
Hi, this is cechrz and you deleted my additions to the Out of the Silent Planet page. I'm just curious, as a first time Wikipedia editor, why this happened. I will admit it had some partiality to it, but I was still working on scrubbing it all out. It was well sourced and all the themes really are present in the book - it isn't just a religious slant to things. Thanks for the info! I don't want my first additions to have been for naught! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cechrz (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and...
Thanks very much for your contributions to Zoroastrianism-related articles. They are much appreciated, particularly since you know what you're talking about. :) However, Thanks again. -- Fullstop 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * please provide references when you can. I've been lax about it myself, but oodles of references appears to be a criteria for determining the "quality" of an article.
 * please avoid ambiguity when using the term "Pahlavi" (eg in this sentence). You and I know what Pahlavi means, but the average reader does not, which turns out to be a real problem because less discerning Wikipedia editors have taken to misusing 'Pahlavi' as the "native name" of the "language" as it was spoken by the Sassanids.


 * Thanks to you too for those kind remarks. I have generally provided sources for my edits by adding to the bibliography (for example, the Modi book is invaluable, but since I don't have it to hand I can't add page references).  Perhaps I need to add "Middle Persian" in one or two places. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Although Modi is a very good resource for his descriptions of the ritual side of things, his scholarship is a tad iffy, or rather, he's not very "particular" about it, and his interpretations of why certain things are the way they are would today consistently fail peer review. That is, he won't shy from making something up rather than leave some things unexplained.
 * My favourite is his raison of why Parsis apply ash to their foreheads during worship. According to him, this is because Zoroastrianism has an ashes-to-ashes principle. With that, he superimposed a Christian dimension ;) on what is actually a generally Indian (i.e. Dharmic) custom. -- Fullstop 14:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes, remember that Modi was a priest, and as such his explanations of customs are often homiletic and edifying rather than strictly historical. (The same thing happens a great deal in Judaism, and it drives me mad.)  There is also a strong British Edwardian flavour: my favourite is when he describes one prayer as "as it were an Avestan God Save the King".  On the other hand, the attempt of some modern authorities to cosy up to Hinduism can be equally irritating. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Modi's 'God Save the King' is absurd because of his choice of words. The idea he was trying (and failed miserably) to express was a relatively sane one. cf. Khwarenah.
 * 2. These are the product of "interminable and entirely conjectural discussions" (to misquote Kellens) on the similarities between various Indo-Iranian concepts. Compare Airyaman on Wikipedia and Airyaman at the Encyclopedia Iranica (which could just as well be an article on the Vedic figure)
 * But once (cf Varuna) I've had to actually encourage that sort of cruft only in order to stop someone saying "X in Zoroastrianism is unambiguously Y in Hinduism".
 * Apropos cosying up, see Asmodai before my edit of 18 June, or Satan before my edit of 11 August.
 * -- Fullstop 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought the "Avestan God Save the King" rather charming, I quoted it because it amused me. "Cosying up": I wasn't referring to comparative research on ancient Indo-Aryan mythology and civilization, which is obviously entirely legitimate. I meant attempts to appropriate modern Vedanta and theosophical concepts. (One could say the same about attempts to co-opt Iranian Sufism as "really" Zoroastrian.) The last chapter of Mary Boyce's book on "Zoroastrians" is rather good on this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "charming" was the word I was groping for as well, at least in the sense of "quaint." I didn't mean "absurd" as outrageous.
 * ah, I see now (Blavatsky and crew). I'm not so certain about the comparative research. I was once, but have since distanced myself from it for the very simple reason that the exegesis has no middle ground - its either Zoroastrian texts in the "light" of what is known of the Vedas, or vice versa. While philologists are - at the back of their minds - vaguely aware that cultures evolve in much the same way as languages do, this is only slowly trickling into analysis. One fundamental problem is that for the better part of the century, the texts of Zoroastrian tradition were considered to be corrupt interpretations of scripture. That is now slowly changing, but it will be decades before the "popular" summaries (like Boyce today) reflect it.
 * Boyce, for all her greatness, had one serious weakness: she insisted that present-day Zoroastrianism was an accurate reflection of what it had been like 3000 years ago. This is the opposite extreme of Zaehner et al who posit that there were radical changes in direction at several definable points in history.
 * The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle: it underwent continuous change, slowly.
 * Bah, where did that monograph come from? :) -- Fullstop 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vendidad reply is posted
Good morning :) I have posted the reply to the Vendidad questions I had sent. -- Fullstop 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And...
You might wish to review the new Visperad. I have a sneaking suspicion that the collection we call the Vendidad is - just like the Vispered - only a collection of those passages which are recited at a Vendidad ceremony but are not already in the Yasna or Visperad.

It follows that both the Vendidad rituals (Vendidad and V.Sade) are an interleaving of Yasna + Visperad + Vendidad. Then, - or so I interpret from the information I got by mail - the Sade is only called Sade because it is not accompanied by any ritual activity (not even for the Yasna parts). It is only performed in an outer ritual.

Stausberg 2004:337 "If the Visprad liturgy may be thought of as an extended Yasna, then the Vendidad ritual is an extended Visprad." (Although I'm translating on the fly here, I've taken care to use "liturgy" and "ritual" in the same places he does and leave no instance of those words out). Although he does not mention the Sade as such, he does speak of "the three Vendidad liturgies." What do you think? -- Fullstop 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Huzvarishn
Hello, are you sure about this? I've seen Middle Persian manuscripts but never seen anything in Aramaic script in them... but are in Pahlavi. For example, az ("from") was written as MN (Semitic for "from", as you know) with the letters m and n in Pahlavi script. --Z 23:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Notions
Sir Miles,

Where does the claim that bunter comes from the Latin word buntus come from? It is generally agreed-upon in the school that the notion is simply a privative vowel change in banter.

Φ 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OW list
Thanks for your fixes to the fictional OWs. Actually these characters had been there all along (I didn't add them), so the list may have been buggy (or hoaxy) for a long time. This reinforces my feeling that we should really cite every claim. Do you have any idea why "Merlyn" is said to be a fictional OW? If I read the book it was a very long time ago. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I see you have re-displayed Japhet Asher on the grounds that "I was a contemporary of his and knew him personally!". We are personally aware of many things; in the case of OWs, we can even privately consult the OW database (but we can't publish anything from there); the point is that these are not (publicly) verifiable sources – personal experience never is – so they cannot substitute for a reference to a published source. I haven't seen any source that we can use for JA, so I believe there is no option but to hide his name awaiting evidence. If you can point me to a reliable source then I'll be happy to add it, or of course you may do so. Until then, I'm afraid we'll have to leave his name hidden. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Old Wykehamists, Old Etonians, etc. to become "Alumni of... "?
Please see the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Private vs indie
Thanks for your explanation. The user has been edit-warring since August on the question on several famous public school pages, and had just visited the Win Coll page for the first time. He had been well warned by various admins, and has now been blocked, whereupon he tried sockpuppetry. It doesn't look as though he's specially amenable to reasoned explanation, though it's always worth a try, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

T Ken
No-one's disputing it, just not wanting to list a whole lot of attainments for everybody, I'd have thought two things more than sufficient – "L'art d'ennuyer consiste a tout dire". And I'd have thought that given the next guy was also a non-juror, it'd be more interesting to say what was special about this guy. But if you want to bore the pants off our readers ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Salafism/Wahabism
Your are requested to give Your Views regarding merging Salafi/wahabi article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salafism#Merger_proposal. I am supporting the Move to end two faces One good /one bad of Wahabism. regards Shabiha (t) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Averroes talk page
Just wanted to say how strongly I approve of your statement about the value of preserving Anglicized names; this is a point I have made many times and will doubtless make many more. Also: great username! Languagehat (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An Béal Bocht
Shalom. Given your interest in this novel by Brian O'Nolan, the novelist occasionally known as Flann O'Brien, I was wondering if you could provide me with bibliographical details on the Irish reader you mentioned on the talk page, called An Saol Mór. I have been revising some of the articles on O'Nolan's fiction in order to bring them up to proper WP standard and at the moment, all I want to do is get people to add more stuff and back up what they do add with proper citations. In return, for what it's worth I am a very modest amateur student of Judaica and if you want any help with any articles on the subject I will be happy to do what I can with the limited resources at my disposal. Bear in mind that I'm not Jewish and have only the merest beginner's comprehension of Hebrew. I do have a few books, though. Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. As for "Is the Wikipedianity becoming altogether too Wikipedian?", I confess that after much mulling I just don't understand the question.  But I am aware that this may put me in the same position as Sir Humphrey Appleby being asked what's the point of administration.  Lexo (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, could I request that you use edit summaries as much as possible? This makes it easier to see what kind of changes you have made without having to check the diff. JFW | T@lk  16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The section you deleted from Hebrew language
FYI, the large, new section you deleted from Hebrew language was copy/pasted from Jehovah anyway! —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robin Griffith-Jones


The article Robin Griffith-Jones has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Tatsu (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Servetus
Perhaps you are right. We dont know to what extent Servetus used his hebrew. We know he studied through it. It appears in some contracts with editors and some works.He knew it deeply and  used it a lot during his life. But not specifically for creating hebrew works. It was more focused on studying.Noah Bernstein (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman/Anglo-French
I have absolutely no problem with either of your suggestions. It might be good to have two separate articles, but I can see the advantage of putting them together. The fact is, more often than not modern borrowings are confused for French when they are often Norman. Confusing this issue is the fact that Norman and French were, in fact, similar enough that which language some borrowings come from is not always immediately obvious from their form (such as is the case for a word like 'reyne'). However, I question your insistence at a cut off point of 1166. It is my understanding that Anglo-Norman (rather than Anglo-French) still had influence in England into the beginning of the 13th century (and certainly until after 1204). The Jade Knight (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your change to the article on Aristotle's Masterpiece
Hi, I noticed you changed a line I had added to the article Aristotle's Masterpiece. Specifically, you changed the following line:

As a consequence it is now recognized that a Pseudo-Aristotle was the author.

to:

As a consequence the unknown author is described as "Pseudo-Aristotle".

Possibly you did not read the article on Pseudo-Aristotle? The name is used to refer to all authors who falsely claimed to be Aristotle. A quick search on Google Scholar [scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&q="a+pseudo-aristotle" shows] that describing an author as "a Pseudo-Aristotle" is quite common in scientific publications. Would you agree with undoing your edit? I'll assume you'll agree if I haven't heard from you in three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderVanLoon (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
As the name suggests...

Ailurophile52 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited River Stour, Suffolk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyperforeignism
Hello there! A user has come through and removed words they found to be "NPOV" from this article, while glad-handedly ignoring that the point of these instances of hyperforeignization or hyperforeignisms is that they are being mispronounced. I.e. if this weren't the case there would be no phenomenon and thus no article. I am not advocating prescriptivist rules, but it is an objective reality that when an English speaker pronounces an Italian word like a French one, that is a mispronunciation. Would you be interested in cruising over and weighing in? Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

needing help in a philosophical page
hello. I saw your great contribution in wikipedia pages. at the same time I read your activity in Passive intellect page. lately I try to create a page which is concerned with passive intellect by the name of []. but some editors criticized me for non comprehensibility. I need to some one else who can help me in explaining the page more grammatically .--m,sharaf (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your unsourced addition to List of common misconceptions
You added the line "Similarly, Vikings did not drink out of the skulls of vanquished enemies. This was a misconception based on the skaldic poetic use of "skull" to refer to drinking horns." to List of common misconceptions, but didn't provide any sources. Per Template:Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions, things on the list require sources to support the fact that they are misconceptions and that they are common misconceptions, as well as satisfying the other criteria. I've added a tag for now, but if you could provide sources and check that this misconception is mentioned on another article somewhere, then that would be great. Alcherin (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Tabbouleh page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=754977077 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F754977077%7CTabbouleh%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hircocervus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bikkurim ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hircocervus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hircocervus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Now fixed. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion request
Hi Sirmylesnagopaleentheda,

I saw (here) that you edited Levantine Arabic in the past (a few years ago... but still :) )

We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox on the talk page. As you have an expertise in linguistics, a long experience on Wikipedia and a knowledge of the languages of the region, it would be great to have your opinion.

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC
Hi Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, Fellow Londoner here! I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. Given your interest in Semitic languages, I thought you could be interested in reviewing it. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Revia (disambiguation)


The article Revia (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Sirmylesnagopaleentheda! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)