Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2

Category:Agricultural organisations in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Agricultural organisations in Australia to Category:Agricultural organisations based in Australia
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename (I am orig author and it was created today) Rename to match all other related categories -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

DC group images

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LSH images to Category:Legion of Super-Heroes images
Propose renaming Category:Covers from titles related to LSH to Category:Covers from titles related to the Legion of Super-Heroes
Propose renaming Category:JLA images to Category:Justice League images
Propose renaming Category:Covers from titles related to JLA to Category:Covers from titles related to the Justice League
Propose renaming Category:JLU screenshots and pictures to Category:Justice League Unlimited screenshots and pictures
Propose renaming Category:JSA images to Category:Justice Society of America images
Propose renaming Category:Covers from titles related to JSA to Category:Covers from titles related to the Justice Society of America
Propose renaming Category:Covers from titles related to New Gods to Category:Covers from titles related to the New Gods
Propose renaming Category:Covers from titles related to Teen Titans to Category:Covers from titles related to the Teen Titans
Propose renaming Category:Covers from Doom Patrol related titles to Category:Covers from titles related to the Doom Patrol
Nominator's rationale: Expanding the abbreviations and adding articles as needed. There are multiple Justice Leagues, so I did not add "of America" to the JLA categories. I know Teen Titans is a TV show, but the group definitely takes a "the."-- Mike Selinker (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Captain Marvel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Captain Marvel to Category:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)
Nominator's rationale: There are multiple Captain Marvels, including a major one from Marvel Comics, so this should match the article Captain Marvel (DC Comics). The character started at Fawcett Comics, but has been at DC for 40 years, and is most prominently known as a DC character.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Phelps family

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Phelps family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's no Phelps family on Wikipedia. This cat is just a collection of people and things with the name. There's no way to tell if any of these people are actually related as a family. People with the surname are listed here: Phelps (surname). Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fooian football manager history templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: The convention of country-level association football categories is "Foo templates", not "Fooian templates" – see e.g. the subcategories of Category:Country templates and Category:Association football templates by country, or even individual lower-level categories such as Category:England football templates andCategory:Netherlands football club templates. The purpose of this is, in part, to avoid ambiguity regarding which word is modified by the demonym. For example, the "English" in Category:English football manager history templates could be interpreted as indicating nationality of the football manager; however, not all managers of English football clubs are themselves English (e.g. Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Inhabited localities in Russia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Inhabited localities in Russia to Category:Populated places in Russia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring this category in line with the others in Category:Populated places by country. Mlm42 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Expressways of Singapore

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Expressways of Singapore to Category:Expressways in Singapore
Nominator's rationale: Other countries (10) in Category:Expressways use "in" Hugo999(talk) 05:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Franklin College alumni

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose renaming:High-speed railway lines of Fooland to High-speed railway lines in Fooland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:High-speed railways of Austria to Category:High-speed railway lines in Austria
Category:High-speed railway lines of Canada to Category:High-speed railway lines in Canada
Category:High-speed railway lines of France to Category:High-speed railway lines in France
Category:High-speed railway lines of Germany to Category:High-speed railway lines in Germany
Category:High-speed railway lines of Japan to Category:High-speed railway lines in Japan
Category:High-speed railway lines of the United States to Category:High-speed railway lines in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Most of the Category:High-speed railway lines (19) are called “in” (13) with 6 as “of”, and this change will bring them into line, so to speak. Of the Category:Railway lines by country all are called “in” except for the United States, and the American subcategory is of railway companies not lines. Hugo999(talk) 01:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we are categorizing objects which are in. Only organizations would be of, which is actually consistent with the United States railway category being different since it has companies and not lines.John Pack Lambert(talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cardiac procedures and surgery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Category already renamed. Feel free to create necessary additional categories.Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cardiac procedures and surgery to Category:Cardiac surgery
Nominator's rationale: Brought up on WP:MED. This category seems redundant to the above. Alternatively, we could merge them in the opposite direction. NW (Talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I read all the commentary, and I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces. Without taking a position on whether another name can be found that would satisfy the critics of this approach, I can say consensus exists to delete this category. Since there's nothing in it, I recommend Chesdovi try a different wording which does not include the word "Palestinian" and see if that gains consensus. Since the talk page contains a major discussion on the merits, I've copied that discussion below rather than burying it in the deletion process.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following DRV; I am neutral. The continued existence of this category is contested in that at least one editor has been removing it from articles and it was subsequently deleted as empty. Following a DRV in which this was contested, the matter is brought here for resolution. Arguments about the merits of the category can be found at Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis#Rfc.  Sandstein  17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The conclusion of this discussion is relevant also to Category:Palestinian geonim and Category:20th-century Palestinian rabbis, and other per century categories at present deleted. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "Palestinian geonim" is not century specific, one of your objections? Chesdovi (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it also related to Category:Palestinian Christian monks, Category:Palestinian Sufis, etc, etc? Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not speedy Category:Palestinian geonim if this discussion will be closed as a delete, but it definitely is related. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you will sd Category:Palestinian Christian monks as well - or are you only anti-Palestinian when it comes to Jews? Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The conclusion of this discussion is relevant also to Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, and possibly other related categories. Chesdovi (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as this category was discovered, I and another editor started discussion with the creator and sole applier of this category on his talkpage (see User_talk:Chesdovi#Question). Afterwards, discussion was opened on the category talkpage (see Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis#Rfc, already linked to by the nominator). The correctness of deleting this category after it had been emptied has been discussed on WP:ANI. Whether or not the Rfc came to a consensus seems to be a matter of opinion. I for one hold that it came to a clear conclusion, not to keep this category. Btw, this is only one of the contested categories: the others, for other centuries, have been deleted and stayed so.

I'd like to stress that these categories were created and populated solely by Chesdovi, who has shown himself to be a pushy and tendentious editor. He has disregarded protests against these categories on both his talkpage and the category talkpage, and continued to populate them while discussion should have shown him the controversy his actions caused. He has clearly failed to show consensus to keep these categories. In addition, he has since been topic banned for a year from all Wikipedia pages connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict (see User_talk:Chesdovi#Topic_ban), arguably including this category and this discussion as well.

In view of the fact that this category exists only for a short time, was never used by other editors, and was contested immediately, and in effect deleted after being empty for over a month, I think that the lack of consensus to have it is the same as a consensus not to create it, and in other words to delete it. In this, procedure should differ from long existing and widely applied categories, where consensus is needed to show that they should be deleted, while this category has still to show its right to existence.

Apart from this procedural argument, there are of course the many arguments brought by various editors on Chesdovi's talkpage and the category talkpage, that all point to one conclusion: to delete this category. My opinion is that these arguments are clear and convincing, and that there is no reason to rehearse them here, rather I think that this nomination should confirm that in view of them, the deletion of this category should be confirmed. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just that this proposal of yours was unanimously rejected (7:0) at Category_talk:Talmud_rabbis_of_the_Land_of_Israel. See there for the reasons. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User Debresser's contributions to that debate ceased soon after I asked him to say which flavour of the biblical definition of the boundaries of the Land of Israel he favoured. Would still be interested in a reply. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The behaviour of Debresser from the start has been totally inexcusable, if not manipulative. In response to the creation of this category, he did not initiate a discussion here, but instead made sure that the categories were consistently empty and then nominated them time and again for deletion, trying to enforce his opinion with impunity, once forcing a 72 ban upon us both. All other similar categories I created, such as Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine have been deleted, but not due to any consensus reached, rather by Debressers manipulation. I have tried with difficulty to keep this category active in order to allow debate to take place without it being stifled by Debresser. Even while the Rfc was taking place, he would not allow the category to be populated. Debresser will not be swayed but ample RS provided which prove that the term is used widely in contemporary scholarly sources. Why is this? Is he so worried that people may be "confused" for whatever reason he can think of? The admission by Debresser that it is anti-semitic to call a rabbi Palestinian points to the fact the Debresser is actually driven by other misguided concerns which he has not fully addressed here. I believe Debressers chief opposition stems not from valid concerns, but from a partisan stance on the I/P conflict, with relation to Jews. (Proof: A cateogry of early Palestinian Chrisitans has not incurred the opposition of Debresser.) The fact that a world renowned rabbi calls early rabbis "Palestinian" shows that usage of the term is wholly acceptable in mainstream academia. Serious and concerted opposition has demonstrated solely by Debresser. He then has the audacity to label my efforts to save the category as being "pushy". It is clear that Debresser feels no debate on the matter is needed or appropriate. All that matters are "protests"; "protests" of 3 users to which I am obliged to submit to. Forget about debate. This mentality led Debresser to keep on emptying the cats and nominated them for deletion as CATEMPTY! I have debunked argument after argument, but to no avail. I implore anyone wishing to comment here to first take a look at all the relevant talkback posts, the Rfc and any other linked discussion that have taken place on the issue before commenting here. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:16th century rabbis in Palestine. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please would the closer of this CFD begin by examining the previous RFC and closing it properly? The RFC close will certainly inform this one. Personally, I think the problem word is "Palestinian" which is (according to the pro-Israeli faction) a loaded and inaccurate term. I must admit that I'm British, and I always understood "Palestinian" simply to mean "originating from the area called Palestine", but on researching my !vote here I see that we have a whole article about that and it's highly controversial. I agree with Jheald's proposed rename to Category:16th century rabbis in Palestine, which is strictly accurate and avoids the word that's getting editors so excited. I specifically oppose the RFC-suggested rename involving the Land of Israel. The place is called Palestine.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the start of this discussion, I presume all 4 members of the “pro-Israel faction” against the term were unaware of the wide application of “Palestinian rabbi”. Yet they still persist that Palestinian is a "loaded term." Why? Don’t we have an impressive selection of contemporary mainstream (Jewish and Israeli) sources that use the term? It would not be NPOV to opt against using “Palestinian” in reference to medieval rabbis here. It is only "highly controversial" for a handful of pro-Israel wikipedia editors who adopt a political POV. But does their POV really have a solid foundation for support here? There is also Definitions of Tibet (another area of politicised conflict) yet we can still have Category:Tibetan people. It would be very strange for us not to allow “Palestinian rabbis”, while allow "Palestinian monks". Editors that oppose solely “Palestinian rabbis” can simply not stomach the word Palestine used in connection with Jews. That is not a view I feel should be encouraged here. It is not accurate or academically sound. Besides we will end up with too much being put in unconventional categories like Category:Land of Israel. I should add that "...in Palestine" was never an option for the Pro-Israel faction either, so trying to rename to that doesn't get out of the problem. It is 2 (or 4) users and general authors who prefer the term Land of Israel over Palestine against everyone else. What usually happens when terms may have different meanings is to disambiguate. But here, that is not necessary as the by century prefix shows that it refers to an earlier period. Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various complicated reasons, to do with the history of Wikipedia, why the Israel-Palestine conflict needs handling with kid gloves. I can see why you feel the case of Tibet probably ought to be analagous but owing to the arcane wikipolitics involved, it isn't. I'm sorry, Chesdovi; politically, in this area I follow the mainstream British position (which, famously, the Israeli government finds "unrelentingly pro-Palestinian"). But in this case I think a concession is necessary and we would be best advised to follow Jheald.—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost all of the timespan that Chesdovi has tried to cover with his categories (16th-19th century), the land was under Ottoman or Mamluk rule, and was not called Palestine. Not meaning to say that nobody used the word Palestine to denote that region, which was first called so by the Romans, but to state that such would be its rightful name, is factually incorrect. I notice that people here did not study the relevant discussions before commenting, deplorably. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't relevant, though. What matters is what we call it today. Venerable Bede is in Category:English theologians even though, in the 8th century, there was no such place as England. Halfdan the Black is in Category:Norwegian petty kings even though, in the 8th century, there was no such place as Norway. Categories are to help today's readers, so they're written in today's terms.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it absolutely has to be "Israel", because Jerusalem and Safed, the cities where most of these rabbis dwelt, are all unequivocally in Israel. But I disagree with your argument, and see no reason to rename e.g. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine just because it is now Israel. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which rabbis lived in Jerusalem and Safed? I can't tell because you've depopulated this category, Debresser—an action which, while I'm sure was well-intentioned, does rather make it hard to discuss the details. You've also repeatedly called for its deletion. Is your position now that it should be renamed? Frankly, I'm having trouble reconciling your earlier actions with your current line of argument, and I'm wondering exactly how extreme your views on this are.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme? Was that a bad faith accusation. I and many others think this unilateral initiative of Chesdovi is "The Wrong Thing To Do". It never met consensus, on the contrary has been heavily protested, just that Chesdovi is trying to push it through with all his might. If anything, I am the voice with the rational arguments here. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Heaviliy protested"?! 3 other editors at Rfc made their views known opposing the category name. I would not call that "protesting". Neither was it "heavy". In fact, there has been a dearth of participation on the issue. There have been numerous attempts to get more people invovled, but to no avail. You would think by the way Debresser describes it, tens of editors have come out strongly against it. In fact Debresser is the only editor "heavily protesting" here. More people participated about whether we should delete a North American Temple! Debresser is the one who has tried time and again to supress debate on the matter, with unilateral deletion nominating and depopualtion without let up. And I am accused of "pushing". If it seems to be, it is in direct response to Debreseers forceful, manipulative and biased actions. Debresser must realise that he, based on the view of a handful of other editors, can not dictate to others what stays and what doesn’t on wiki. Chesdovi (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been "heavily protested" by one user: you. And it's been heavily supported by one user: Chesdovi. The adding of this category, its removal, its deletion, the RFC, the AN/I thread, the DRV, and now this CFD, all with their huge walls of text from Debresser and Chesdovi, have all come about because neither of you are prepared to compromise and neither of you are prepared to back down. To be completely frank, I think both of you have completely lost all sense of proportion about it, and in that sense I feel quite justified in describing your views as "extreme". You're demonising each other and misrepresenting each other's actions. I think both of you need to WP:DISENGAGE.

    The argument is about how to group articles concerning rabbis from the late middle ages from a particular region; it's got nothing to do with the modern states of Israel and Palestine. Those editors who aren't Chesdovi or Debresser are pretty much unanimous in voicing that this category should have a different name, but it's right that it exists. The only point of contention is how to rename it.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresentation of the facts. Protests were logged not by me, but by others also. Did you even try to look at Chesdovi's talkpage? And the Rfc showed almost nobody in favor of a rename, and a clear lack of consensus for having this novel and ambiguous (to say the least) category, with more in favor of deleting it than having it. If people don't comment here, it is because Chesdovi has worn out all but me. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly probable that there are many users who had some of the 150 rabbi pages on their watchlist and did no complain for one month after they had been added. This is called the "silent majority". The rfc result was neutral. That's clear enough. Calling this "novel" is false. We had a Palestinian rabbi category created years ago, but guess what, one of Debressers “pro-Israel faction” mates renamed it unilaterally after a mere few days. Pity that didn't work for them this time round. I am taking a stand for what I believe is right. It is totally not ambiguous. It seems they just have a problem with "Palestine." That problem should not be passed onto normal wiki users. Chesdovi (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is proof, then the fact that nobody complained when I removed the category is also proof. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proof that the community is neutral on the matter, not what you think that everybody disagrees with it. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So when you are met with silence that is proof of agreement, but when it is me, it is only proof of neutrality. You are something! Debresser (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who mentioned "agreement"? No one complained either way: they did not complain when they were added and they did not complain when they were removed. All the people who may have noticed the addition of the category or its removal simply have no strong opinion on the issue either way, like Malik and others. As I said, it shows a neutral stance, contrary to your position that there have been "heavy protests" all along. Chesdovi (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "heavy protests" were made on your talkpage and the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Golly Debreser, will you ever be able to accept defeat? We are talking before messages left by you at talk: In the month and the immediate aftermath of your removal there was no interference. No one had anything to say about the category's addition or removal besides you! Do you really think Supreme Deliciousness has rabbi pages on her watchlist? Third time: What do you call the region? If you can't answer that simple question, what on earth are you doing partaking in this discussion? Chesdovi (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people getting knotted up with ideas of what it was called, by whom, when? We have ample necessary RS which overwelmingly support "Palestinian rabbis". Why is anyone in their right mind trying to ignore that factual appelation? Notwithstanding the I/P bickering on wiki, we still have "Palestine" beleive it or not. Why Palestinian rabbis should be shevled, I have not the foggiest. Chesdovi (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been addressed by many editors in the discussion, and many answers have been given. Among them: 1. There is a change of meaning from the word Palestinian as these sources used it, and the modern implication of the word Palestinian. 2. It is doubtful whether therm "Palestinian" was used correctly, since a. Most of these rabbis lived in the area you'd like to refer to as "Palestine" only part of their lives, often not even the larger part. b. The area you refer to was hardly ever officially and never universally known as "Palestine". 3. Because even if they are called by some sources "Palestinian", that does not mean that has to be mentioned, let alone be the basis for categorization. These rabbis are also all Jewish, male, and learned, and we don't mention all of these things. And many other arguments.
Please, do not try to give the impression that your arguments haven't been refuted and have met with general disagreement in those discussions. Your constant pushing: opening and Rfc, going to WP:ANI, going to deletion review, posting long list of sources which are not the issue, and now your repetitions here, have just worn out editors. But the fact remains that it is enough to show that other editors have agreed already previously that there is no consensus for your creation of these categories, and that therefore they have correctly been deleted and should be deleted again. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether there's a consensus in favour of creating the category. What matters is whether there's a consensus in favour of deleting it.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed this issue above. So far you are the first to express his opinion about this issue. It is by no means as simple as you say. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The modern inference of Egyptian is people who live in modern day Egypt, a state created in 1946. Yet the term is equally valid to describe the ancient Egyptians, a people who lived in the region 3,500 years ago. Sure, the implication has changed, but both are valid. That’s why we have Category:Egyptian people, which includes Category:Egyptian billionaires and Category:Ancient Egyptians. Using the word “Egyptian” has not been deemed unadvisable because of the various meanings the word has. If it matters that much that today “Palestinian” refers to all others beside Jews, so be it. But “Palestinian” is still used today, in 2011, to describe Jews who lived there before 1948 and earlier. That’s why this “rabbi” category has been specifically named to include the century as well alleviate any confusion that may occur, like we have “ancient” Egyptians.
  2. I populated this category with around 20 rabbis who have been called “Palestinian” in RS. (You depopulated it as soon as I had done so, surprise.) It does not make an iota of difference how long they lived there. Carrigel probably spent most his life away from Palestine, but he is nevertheless still called Palestinian. The same with Albert Einstein, he is categorised by every country he ever resided in, be it a few years or more.
  3. “It doesn’t have to be mentioned.” Hmmmm.
  4. Do not ever again accuse me of pushing. If you had your way, there would be no discussion taking place after your disruptive actions. You complaint about this, my opening of an rfc to settle the matter, providing RS, Drv and Cfd this are to be commended. You can’t just hope to enforce your own view here, and then complain of being worn out when it is challenged. You just expect me to crawl away like a naughty little boy? You have worn me out making me have to gather all these RS, which you dismiss as “never being the issue” when it most certainly was, (part of it anyway). You just respond with fickle excuses time and again. The worst bit of your behaviour was when you arrogantly went ahead and depopulated over 150 pages I had added to this category. --Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this last is true (and I have not researched its veracity), how it it that the perpetrator has escaped chastisement, punishment and banishment? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, and the both of us were blocked for three days for edit-warring. Let me ask you: if someone can create such a controversial category, and then populate it, and continue to populate it well after protests have started to come in on his talkpage, why can't another editor depopulate it? I see a rather big difference between an editor trying to make non-consensus edits, and the one trying to stop him. But all of this does not mean that my point isn't correct: Chesdovi is pushing this set of categories he created and solely populated, while many editors have protested his actions. Did any of you read his talkpage or the Rfc? For this same type of behavior he has been topic-banned for a year from all pages (not only articles) involving the Arab-Israeli conflict. And here he is again... Debresser (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser makes out as if “we were both blocked” In fact, is was he who instigated the edit warring after failing to take to correct course of action if he felt the category was controversial, something he thinks I should have known. I acted correctly, since by populating the category, it would not be automatically deleted as “CAT-EMPTY” before the issue was settled. You cannot blame me for populating one or two pages to prevent deletion. That is totally unfair. A handful of users have opposed the category, but a handful have also indicated that are not bothered by it or do accept it. Debresser makes out there is nobody but people who oppose the name. What fabrications I tell you! I will have you know that I was topic banned, not for my editing per se, but for my response to the report. Debresser is not only concerned with the pro and cons of the issue, but he likes to constantly bring up unconnected issues like mentioning blocks, topic bans and the like, an obvious attempt to incite other editors against me and sabotage the issue at hand. That is truly unagreeable behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term "Palestine" for the time period from no later than 1500 to slightly after 1850 seems out of place. The location is functionally Greater Syria during this time period and categories that are time sensitive should reflect this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category Category:16th-Century rabbis does not currently have any subcats. There are only 68 pages in this category. The category does not seem to be large enough to justify sub-dividing it, and even if it were large enough to subdivide I would still say Greater Syria would be a better geographical identifier for the specific timeframe than Palestine. However the category seems workable as is and it is porbably best to avoid the complexities of figuring out what geographical area to place rabbis in during that century. How do we decide how to describe Salonica, which was ruled by the Ottoman Empire but is now in Greece, or do we create two cats or one for a rabbi who is said to have "emigrated from Italy to Turkey". I came up with these issues by looking at just the first two articles in the category. There are no easy ways to subdivide by geography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This passage from the article History of Palestine is probably the most relevant to this discussion. "After the Ottoman conquest, the name "Palestine" was no longer used as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. The majority of historical Palestine became part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, and later became part of the vilayet of Saida (Sidon)."John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Later centuries with much larger numbers of rabbis do not have sub-categories. From a study of about half the articles in this category it appears that if we did want to sub-divide it we could include everyone whose location is identified in any reasonable way under Category:16th-century rabbis of the Ottoman Empire, Category:16th-century rabbis of Poland, Category:16th-century rabbis of Italy and Category:16th-century rabbis of the Holy Roman Empire. I am ambivalent about the last category. Germany might work if we can convince people that Prague is part of historic Germany. Italy is also a bit problematic since it did not exist as any sort of unified structure at the time, but there seems to have been a concept that Italy existed as some sort of place. I am not sure that there is precendent to create these further sub-divisions, but we should do these to reflect the political/geographical semse of the time first before we do sub-national units that had limited identies at the time like Palestine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just realized something. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine which this category was setup as a subdivision of on the grounds that 430 articles in a category was too large was not about ethnicity but about place of operation. Specifically it was designed to include all rabbis who ever taught, wrote and otherwise worked in the Land of Israel on the assumption that those in the land of Israel need to be juxtaposed and seperated from those in the diaspora. Thus if this category is not deleted, it should be named Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine because it is about where the rabbis are physically when working, it is not a nationality+occupation or ethnicity+occupation category. This category is meant to include rabbis who -preached were born and lived in Rome for 60 years and spent the last 5 years of their life writting while resident in Safed, but is not meant to include a rabbi who was born and raised in Jerusalem but did not enter the rabbinate until they moved to Constantinople. The name does not in anyway get to the intented scope. I think the assumptions behind the scope have POV problems, and still stand by my view the category should be deleted, however if it is kept is needs to be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@John Pack Lambert 1: You feel the term "Palestine" "is out of place". On what are you basing this? Is it not patently clear that there are literally thousands of RS who are content to use the term. They obviously do not think the calling the Ottoman region Palestine is out of place. In fact, I do not think there are many other the names given for the region found in RS. Are you advocating Category:Greater Syrian rabbis, or maybe Category:Vilayet of Damascus-Syria rabbis? Today, the name of the region is historically known as Palestine in English (and most other Western languages), that is the only thing that counts here. I further notice that you have editied Abraham ben Solomon Treves. Do you think Category:Italian rabbis is out of place there too? In his time is was not known as "Italy", but the whole country as we know it today was made up of many city-states and small independent nations. Take a look at the map here. Where is Italy? The same goes for sub-division of the Ottoman goverment in Palestine. Whatever it was then, does not concern us. What does concern us is what we know it as today, as based on RS. And that most certainly is Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provide the quote from the article on the history of Palestine that states there is not a political unit of Palestine for most of the 16th century. My other point, which I think I have made clear, is that if we are going to subdivide 16th century rabbis (which I do not think we need to do) we whould start with the empire and culture zone categories of the time, ie Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Poland and Italy seem to have the potential to inlude almost all said articles, with only Italy being a difficult one to delineate. If a rabbi opeated in Ventitian controlled territory on the east side of the Adriatic do we count them as Italian?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you saw my response to your post on my talk page which covers all this. That wiki passage is glaringly unsourced. The next sourced sentence actually states the the region was still know as Palestine. Further, The has never been a "poliltical unit of Palestine" and that fact does not preclue us from using the Palestinian label. 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@John Pack Lambert 2:You seem to think that rabbi categories can only be for nationality+occupation or ethnicity+occupation. It can actually be for neither. When we talk of German rabbis, they are not ethnic German, and they may also not have German nationality. What it means is of/from Germany. “Palestinian rabbis” is simply for rabbi who ever lived in Palestine. Category:Ottoman rabbis are for rabbis who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Did they have Ottoman citizenship? Were they ethnic Ottoman? Dunno. Who cares. They lived in the Empire, so they are classified as Ottoman. It really isn’t that difficult. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@John Pack Lambert 3: Take a look at Albert Einstein. He lived in Switzerland for 11 years; in Germany for 19 years; in USA for 15 years. He is categorised as: Category:Swiss philosophers, Category:German vegetarians, Category:American physicists, Category:German Jews, Category:Jewish inventors. Not "Philosophers in Switzerland”, not "Vegetarians in Germnay". What you suggest “…in Palestine” is not consistent with the majority of similar categories. If an editor feels "Palestinian" can be assocaited with a certain rabbi, we do not need to start calculating how long he stayed in a a certain place. Leave it upto to common sense. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense dictates that "Palestinian rabbi" is something like a "kosher camel". :) The combination of these two words is unnatural, if it were up to common sense alone. You are obviously appealing to some historical sense with this name. Well, in that case the area just wasn't called Palestine officially, nor was it called Palestine unofficially by many. And that is apart from the unnaturalness. All of this has been explained to you before and by many editors, starting on your talkpage and ending with the Rfc and here. It is time to use common sense, and admit that you are trying to push a non-consensus category. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It’s high time you stopped these bizarre comments. How can it be “unnatural” when thousands of academics use the term? I know who I would choose between. “Palestinian rabbi” is no more unnatural than Aragonese rabbis, Castilian rabbis, Catalan rabbis, Navarrese rabbis. “Official, unofficial” - who is bothered about this when the term is “Palestinian rabbi” is common use. We are fed up of your views that claim “Palestinian rabbis” is “unnatural” and “anti-Semitic” any other offensive term you may think of. Let me get this right: It is 100% okay to call rabbis after any other region on the planet; it is okay to call any other religious figures “Palestinian”, just not Jews. In my mind that is unnatural and quite frankly an utterly nonsensical position. I have news for you: Italy in the middle ages was also not called Italy. Now what do you propose? Your remark that “nor was it called Palestine unofficially by many” just goes to show how far you are prepared to ignore the “evidence” I provided. That evidence showed crystal clear that in the 20th-century and beyond, rabbis have referred to that region as Palestine. I showed you over 10 instances of this by different rabbis. They called it Palestine. What do you call it? Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some have, most haven't. You are locked on these so-called proofs. Nobody disagrees that some have during various periods referred to this area as "Palestine". I get so tired of having to point this out to you, just to be met by another of your "proofs". The questions are: 1. is "Palestine" the correct name for this area? And the second question is, should it be used here on Wikipedia to designate this area, or is that problematic? You know the answer of most editors... Debresser (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is the correct name for the region and it is not at all "problematic". How do I know? Because all the the chief rabbis of the British Commonwealth in the 20th century have used the term. Even the current chief rabbi refers to that region in its historic secular context as Palestine: [2]. Is he included in the "some"? Not only that, but the vast majority of RS which refer to that region also call it that name. Now try answering the question I posed above: What do you call the region? Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is why we have Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. A perfectly clear and unambiguous category. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that no one has shown evidence of why we need to subdivide this category. To take up the case of Albert Einstein, he is not in Category:20th century Swiss vegetarians. The nationality (or ethnicity or locational adjective or whatever you call it)+occupation+time period is a triple adjunct. In the case of Rabbis in British and Ottoman Palestine we are not identifying people with a time frame perse, but with a defunct polity. So that is not the same as these triple connections. I am not in anyway convinced that the parent category is large enough to split. However, as I have said multiple times, if we are going to split it we should start with categories that are indepedent state entities at the time, and only subdivide those if they are still needed to be divided. In the same way if we had a category Category:19th-century lawyers we would first break off Category:British 19th century lawyers, Category:Russian 19th century lawyers and so forth, and then if need still existed create subcats like Category:Welsh 19th century lawyers and Category:19th century lawyers in the Moscow Governorate. We would not just have as the one and only subcat of the whole category 19th century Welsh lawyers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say by the above post you have not read all the correspondance on this. I don't what you mean by "evidence", but the reason I have mentioned at least twice is that the century specification in this case is necessary to disambiguate from the modern day entity. Further, take a look at Category:16th-century people. There are enough examples of "triple adjuncts" there. Chesdovi 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There are two questions here. 1- Is this category needed. 2- what should it be called if it is needed. Before we discuss the later we should discuss the former. I really do not see any arguments as to why this category should exist, only that its name makes sense. No one has explained why we should create this type of triple juncture cat for rabbis, and even more significantly no one has explained why if we do create this type of triple juncture cat for rabbis, we whould have as the only one for the whole world in the 16th century a cat that is about something that was part of a larger political entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have started commenting here without reading all the postings on the issue, so how can your opinion be seen to be balanced? I would remind you again that it has been stated that this is about a geograhical entity, not a "political" one. My question to you is why do you think this cat should not exist? I also ask you to first clearly answer some of my responses to your original points before asking further questions. Chesdovi (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that you have not answered even one of the many arguments raised against your categories, and now you are demanding answers from others?! Read the Rfd discussion again, perhaps... Debresser (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should re-read it. I had no follow ups from IZAK, Biosketch or Dfass so I don't know what on earth your are on about. I answered JPL with 3 points above - you must have missed that too. You on the other hand have hardly addressed the snippits of "evidence" I produced. You are clearly ignoring it in an attempt to wriggle out of the corner I have pinned you into. Your tactics and arguments in this debate have been very weak. I don't see how anyone can be won over by your viewpoint which is simply an ineffective attempt to wipe Palestine off the map. Chesdovi (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you had no follow-ups. People stated their opinion. You refuse to accept defeat. Why should people repeat themselves? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously do not understand the concept of Rfc. If you don't think this is about debating the issue but rather just an opportunity to state one's opinion and enforce it without hearing the other view - you stated your opinion long ago, now clear off. This is about getting people to think. It is the nature of such discussions that issues need not be repeated as the debate evolves. Unfortunately, you have not responded to the new points and arguments and have just resorted to repeating yourself - in vain. What’s the point of that? Right from the start you have basically kept on stating over and over again: Was there a place really called Palestine? When I have shown you there was, you ask yet again: Is "Palestine" the correct name for this area? I think you’re wearing yourself out. The only time I have needed to repeat myself is where editors commenting here seem not to have read or taken in the points already raised by myself. Usually, in a discussion, if people cannot be bothered to respond, it can sometimes indicate passive defeat. Ever heard of שתיקה כהודאה דמי? That is obviously why you and I try and have the last word each and every time. You never seem to answer the questions I pose. For the fourth and final time: What do you call the region? And why can Jews not be called Palestinian, while any other people or religion can? Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. We already have Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and nothing more was needed. And then you came along. And apart from bringing isolated cases of people calling the area Palestine, you have never answered any of the many objections that been brought by various editors against usage if the term "Palestine" in this case. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have "never answered any of the many objections"? That is an out and out untruth and I refuse to continue this futile conversation with you. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the opinion of an adversary does not chime with your opinion, that is a difference of opinion, not a failure to engage in a discussion. When evidence is presented to support a position that is verifiable, then that is evidence, not "isolated cases". Again, an "isolated case" that happens not to chime with your opinion, is a difference of opinion, not a failure to engage in a discussion. We must remember that it only took the isolated case of one man, Ferdinand Magellan, to prove that the world is not flat. Let's not have more flatearthism please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert voted "Delete" based on the assumption that:

  • the term “Palestine” covering 1500 to 1850 is “out of place” as Palestine was part of Greater Syria during that period and claims that "Palestine" was not the official Ottoman name for the region.
  • Notes that “16th-century rabbis” has 68 pages and suggests that it does not need dividing.

One hour later he realised that “16th-century Palestinian rabbis” was not a division of that category, but of Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, a clear admission that he has voted blindly and had not been bothered to read all the material on the issue.

  • He still thinks the category should be deleted but if kept suggests renaming this category “16th-century rabbis in Palestine” backtracking on his original suggestion of referring to the region as “Greater Syria.” Suggests “in Palestine” as opposed to regional categorisation, due to emigration/immigration issues, (which I subsequently addressed without response).
  • In response to my claim that the region is known in mainstream RS as Palestine during this period, he shows a lack of clarity as to the nature of this category, (already dealt with in earlier discussions), namely that he thinks this is about a political entity, when it is quite clearly about a regional one.
  • He also suggests categorisation with “empire and culture zones”, which I think while also acceptable, does not preclude the existence of this Palestinian category.

He didn’t indicate whether he agrees or not with my second point which suggested that calling someone Palestinian does not have to do with ethnicity of nationality.

  • At this point, he has retracted his first point as to his opposition of the use of the term Palestine for this era if necessary and now focuses on whether it is necessary to sub-divide existing categories in to century specific:
  • Not supportive of “triple adjunct” categories, especially for small categories, and suggests that if such categories are created, they should first be spilt off into “independent state entities.” He ends off by asking two questions: “Is this category needed?” and “what should it be called if it is needed?” clarifying that this “triple juncture cat” for a non-political entity needs explanation.

I am sure that these points have been discussed at length before elsewhere and will only offer the following summary:

  • “Triple juncture cats” may not be common, but many such categories exist.
  • JPL has a fixation with political entities. It has been stated over and over again that this category is a regional, not political label. And there is no reason why a regional label cannot be used in conjunction with other definitions.
The necessity for this cat in addition to/instead of "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine":
    • Consistency 1: There is no similar categorisation under Category:Rabbis, i.e. we do not have Category:Weimar Republic rabbis, Category:Nazi Germany rabbis, just German rabbis.
    • Consistency 2: Where are rabbis who lived in pre-Ottoman/British Palestine to be placed? Currently they fall under inappropriate “Land of Israel rabbis”.
    • Inaccuracy: It is inaccurate as Palestine was under Egyptian rule between 1830-1839.
    • Diffusion: Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine spans 430 years, while century specific categories act as location aids.
    • Clarity: The reason why we needed to add the century specific prefix is because Palestine in not only a historic region with a self-contained meaning, but also has a very modern context, namely a modern “nation” that incudes anyone besides Jews. Though I see no intrinsic problem with “Palestinian rabbi” myself, others do and believe it is not suitable as it may lead to some type of confusion that questions how a rabbi can be a Jew while being an Arab Muslim or Christian from the PA controlled West Bank or Gaza Strip at the same time! (the PA is a Jew free zone.) Therefore, to be able to use the word Palestinian in its historic context, it is necessary to include a century to disambiguate between any modern day confusion that may arise. Of course, there will not be a “21st-centruy Palestinian rabbis” category.

I will add the main protagonist it the deletion of this category, Debresser, does not have the same issues as highlighted by JPL. While he will use any argument at his disposal to support the deletion, it is patently clear from his successful manipulative deletion of Categroy:Medeival Jews in Palestine that his issue is with the term Palestine being used in conjunction with Jews, period. This is the crux of my debate with him, and it should be obvious that his forceful suppression of the creation of such categories is not based on significant or logical opinion. Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with JPL's objections, as well as with the many others named by other editors. Chesdovi's assumption to the contrary is indicative of the truthfulness and logical strength of his other arguments as well. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually Debreesr, no. It all started with your supposed confusion over ethnicity, that “core problem.” But let’s conveniently forget about that. Of course you will agree with each and every other comment that is construed as weakening the need for this category. Why should that be? Because of your disgust of a Jew being called a Palestinian: “this sick edit, which shocked me by its antisemitic POV.” You will “agree” with all objections, whether or not you truly agree with them or not, in order to make sure as best you can that this category does not pass. If you had any scruples, you would maybe stick with your original claim and try explaining why members of other faiths and ethnicities can be categorised as Palestinian, bar Jews. You have not at any time done so in the 2 months of this running discussion. If, on the other hand, you do happen to agree with them, maybe try explaining your reasoning why you indeed agree. JPL claims Palestine was not called “Palestine” under Ottoman domination and therefore wants this category deleted. If you agree with JPL, please explain why medieval Italian rabbis should not be deleted for the same reason. You latest thought that the rabbis themselves would not want to be called Palestinian is cute. Are you a necromancer by any chance? Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have many problems with this category, created recently with any prior disucssion, and then populated and pushed by Chesdovi, who is a conflicting editor as testified to by numerous blocks and bans, and I see no reason to reply to his personal attacks in this last edit of his, when the issues have already been amply addressed here and especially in the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Amply addressed": (based on User talk:Chesdovi#Question)
Debreser: I don't understand the reason for this edit. Would you please explain it to me?
SD: Find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians.
Chesdovi: Why?
SD: You just have to.
Debresser: “Palestinian here is supposed to designate a country, while it sounds like an ethnicity. How to solve that problem?” Suggests not populating category further and restoring original cats.
Chesdovi: Please explain?
Debreser: Problems with nationality, ethnicity, Palestine non-existent in 13th-century. You made a mistake – should have had a discussion first.
Debreser proceeds to unilaterally depopulate around 40 pages: [3] with excuse: “per talk.”
Chesdovi next day: Response to Debresers problems.
SD agrees to call sourced rabbis Palestinian, while Chesdovi asks SD for further clarification. Meanwhile Chesdovi challenges Debreser about the overnight removals: [4]. Debresser does not respond, but rather proceeds to removes categories from another 74 pages.
What happened: 7 days after initiating comment on the issue at my talk page, Debresser does not wait for my latest response to the explanation given for his problems and takes the matter into his own hands. After I leave a message on his talk, he only responds after depopulating all the pages hoping that the empty categories will be deleted. They were. And that is Debresser’s understanding of “Amply addressed.” Chesdovi (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was that above? Nothing connected to any Wikipedia discussion I am aware of, surely. Editor is trying to do as if no protests were ever made, while in effect there were lengthy discussions on his talkpage and especially the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please say again what you mean. Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I just came up with an interesting thought. Which is admittedly speculative, but the thought experiment is after all accepted even in hard science, see e.g. Schrödinger's cat and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

We have the concept of self-identification on Wikipedia when applying categorization (see WP:BLPCAT). Now let us ask the following question. If all these rabbis were here to ask them, and they would have full grasp of this discussion including the modern meaning of "Palestinian", would they agree to being called "Palestinian rabbis"?

To me it is obvious that they most emphatically would not. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my words there, so your findings have nothing to do with it. In addition, why do you comment here on a discussion from another place? And last but not least, this is another of your interminable lists of "proofs", unrelated or irrelevant to the real issues at hand, as they were voiced by editors in the discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evidence presented above and the futility of trying to get zealots to embrace my attempt at moderation (i.e. Southern Levant), I withdraw my suggestion for re-naming to Southern Levant and keep my opposition to the proposed deletion; the current name should remain. Blatant intolerance has a way of polarising positions in a way that could never happen with more nuanced debate that involved give-and-take. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have never "realized" that 16th-century Palestinian rabbis is "not" a divions of 16th-century rabbis. The fact that it may also be a sub-division of other things in no way means it is not a division of 16th-century Rabbis. My basic position remains that there is no reason to divide 16th century rabbis. I would also point out the before I made any comments there were others who had argued that Palestinian is not a good term to use in the 16th century, and so I am not alone in that view. On an unrelated note the fact that British and Ottoman in Palestine rabbis covers 430 years is in no way persuasive that we should divide it. We have lots of occupational categories that cover well over 1000 years and are undivided, so there is no reason that 430 years is an unworkable time frame. Beyond that, if British and Palestinian is too large, we should first sub-divide into Rabbis in Briths Palestine and Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine. The 1830-1839 occupation of Palestine by Egypt is still Ottoman Palestine for two reasons. First of all Egypt at that time was still technically part of the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, since it was merely occupied by Egypt and never formally ceded there is no reason to treat it as a seperate time period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the harping on the time frame of how long Ottoman and British Palestine lasted in the past made me think we had several hundred articles in that cat. I just looked it up myself and learned that that category only has 88 entries. I see no reason to divide that cat into each centruy, which will give us an average of less than 20 per category. That category works just fine for our purposes, and if we split it the most logical would be into the two very distinct rule time frames and not by the more arbitrary distinction of century. Thus neither of the parent categories of 16th century rabbis have any need of being split, so there is no reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that Chasdovi has engaged in uncalled for attacks on me. I understood enough when I voted first to realize that this category was not needed. Just reading his arguments for it convinces me of this more and more. His argument that Palestine has a specific modern context says we should limit its use in a non-modern context to categories that clearly indicate what that it is not being used in a modern sense. In light of the fact that he created the category Category:16th-century Italian rabbis he is actually admitting that we do use century specific categories to refer to modern political identities. Thus it only works to use a 16th-century identifier in a non-modern name if we use a clearly non-modern name. The less than 90 entry Category:Rabbis in British and Ottoman Palestine is a perfect entry, and until it has significantly more entries there is no reason to split it, and the first split should be to Rabbis in British Palestine and Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine. If Chadovi think that is a bad name and it should be say Category:Palestinian rabbis during British and Ottoman rule, he should open a CfD to change the name. What he has done is try to avoid the CfD by creating new categories and moving the articles to them so he can use his percieved superior knowledge to move things to where he feels they should go and avoid trying to develop any sort of consensus. Chasdovi has made it clear that he thinks we should denominate these rabbis as Palestinian, and refer to anyone who ever wrote any rabbinical treatise while in Safad or Jerusalem as Palestinian. This usage may or may not work, but if he wants to get this usage he should seek to CfD the existing category and not try to manuvre around CfD by creating new categories with unprecedented names and structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responses to JPL:
1. You are correct, it is a sub-cat of 16th-century rabbis, but it was nor created to sub-divide that category. There may be no reason not to sub-divide 16th-century rabbis, but if a suitable category exists, it will be added as a sub-cat. Be aware that “allincluded” tag was added to 16th-century rabbis category, meaning that it was not intrinsically split off from that category.
2. If you feel “Palestinian” is not a “good term to use in the 16th century” give your reasons why. I think you have only addressed usage of Palestine, and not “Palestinian” as you claim. You can take into account other views already mentioned, but in order for your view to prevail, you have to defend it. You based your opinion on not using “Palestine” on an unsourced passage while the next line indicated it was indeed called Palestine, the latter text being sourced. But this doesn’t matter as you later agreed that “if this category is not deleted, it should be named Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine.” We have yet to hear your reason on why “Palestinian” is not a good term. Your last comment indeed states: “This usage may or may not work.” You have not addressed the actual name of this category once, only its need.
3. If you feel that merely the time span of the 430 year O/B period itself is not reason enough to divide it, that is a valid reason. I already suggested at the Rfc this cat can remain together with the century specific cat. I also have said that I see no problem with a normal category called “Palestinian rabbis” (as was created 4 years ago) to include all rabbis who ever lived in the region, instead of having medieval rabbis of the region split between “Rabbis of the Land of Israel” and “Rabbis in O/B Palestine”. The century specific prefix was not only to disambiguate it from modern implications, but I suggested that by that very fact no “confusion” should arise. I don’t know what you mean by “our purposes”, but I for one, and I am sure many others in the field of Jewish rabbinical research, would be happy to see rabbis of certain centuries grouped together with their region. As we have “Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period”, a century specific+region categorisation would only enhance the ease with which one can find rishonim and achronim from various countries and centuries, a factor which significantly impacts in the realm of Judaic law making, etc.
4. I see advantages of "distinct rule time frames", but it does not trump century specific categories.
5. You suggest keeping “Rabbis in British Palestine” and “Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine”. Again such a cat is valid, but I have pointed out there is hardly a precedent for this in the Rabbis category, which spans 2,000 years of various rule over Europe and beyond. If you are troubled by sub-diving cats, the question you should have is why is this the only category that has been divided in to a political era, while all other have not, eg. French rabbis include all rabbis in France during every period. I queried the Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine anomaly and found it to have been created by User:IZAK, an editor who has voiced opposition of this “Palestinian rabbis" category and who in the past unilaterally redirected Category:Palestinian rabbis. In December 2007 IZAK created Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine, but why did the already existent Category:Palestinian Jews not suffice? Look how odd it looks:

Nepalese Jews

New Zealand Jews
Nicaraguan Jews
Nigerian Jews
Norwegian Jews
Ottoman Jews
Pakistani Jews
Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine
Palestinian Jews
Panamanian Jews
Iranian Jews
Peruvian Jews
Polish Jews
Portuguese Jews
Romanian Jews
Russian Jews.....Something needs a good explanation here.

6. With regard to the Egyptian defeat of the Ottomans in Palestine and Syria, I am not well versed enough to determine whether Palestine was still part of the empire or not, although some areas were “ceded” to Egypt. So this point will need to be clarified.
7. I am sorry that you interpreted my tone as an attack against you. If this is about your “realising” something, that was because you yourself stated: Comment. I just realized something.
8. It is not my argument that that Palestine has a specific modern context. I am of the opinion that Palestine has numerous meanings. It is the concerns of other editors that it is only associated with the “modern context”. I have stated that “Palestinian” has numerous meanings, which should not limit our usage of the term. On the contrary, the creation of Category:16th-century Italian rabbis shows that as Italian can mean 21st-century Italy or Medieval Italy, there is advantages of adding a century-specific prefix. I disagree that “it only works to use a 16th-century identifier in a non-modern name if we use a clearly non-modern name.” If we has a dated name for a region, there very well may not be a need to spilt into various centuries, because the name itself provides the time frame, e.g “Category:Prussian rabbis”.
9. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine may be a “perfect entry” (although it groups together two separate political eras – something I don’t think is to be found anywhere on wiki!), but “Palestinian rabbis” it just as valid category, which JPL has yet to explain his opposition to.
10. With regards to opening a Cfd on Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, it was not my original intention to do away with this category, so I did not direct myself to Cfd. Remember, I did not unilaterally rename the category like IZAK did. I had actually added my category to over 40 pages before thinking it could replace the Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine altogether. I was not to know that this would present a problem, and indeed it did not until Debresser noticed. I did the same for Category:Haredi rabbis in America.
11. It is clear that I do not feel that a rabbi who merely “wrote any rabbinical treatise while in Safad or Jerusalem as Palestinian” be palced in this cat. That is why placed Nachmanidies originally in Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine. (I concede that adding him to Category:13th-century Palestinian rabbis in inappropriate.) Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My questions now to JPL are: Do you think the term “Palestinian rabbi” is appropriate and why? And do you think categorisation by century is only ever appropriate when a large category needs to be diffused? Chesdovi (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New argument

In addition to all the old arguments, brought forth by other editors and me in the previous discussions as linked to in the beginning of this Cfd, I have brought a new argument on Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis#New_argument, based on the nature of the word "Palestinian" as it is used in Wikipedia categories.

In addition it shows clearly the manipulative nature of Chesdovi and how he tries to push his POV. And no, I see no reason to assume good faith in the case of an editor who has been repeatedly blocked and banned for his POV pushing in related subjects. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See there for the amazing rebuttal and demolition of Debresser’s latest attempt to ignore all RS and “push ahead” with denying that “Palestinian” is a valid historic regional label. He now has a habit of answering “already discussed” and “amply addressed”. A lot has been discussed, but not addressed. I am still waiting for Debreseer to enlighten us why it is absolutely fine to call historic Christian monks Palestinian, but not historic rabbis? Will we ever get it out of him? Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still try to push through this category tree you created without any prior discussion and against the protests of other editor. You use obfuscating and boring lists of irrelevant sources. But let us not discuss your POV, which is obvious to all. Many reasons have been brought against this category, and it's time it should go. Why don't you make peace with that? Do you have any good reason. apart from the POV which you have been proven to have as a bad faith editor? I prefer to stop the discussion, about you and about the subject, because neither is going to produce anything new, and let other editors make up their minds. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still try to push through this category tree you created without any prior discussion and against the protests of other editor.
    • Push through is not the word. Pushing only occurs in actual editing, not on “talk” pages designed to alleviate the problem of “pushing”, a trait that you personify.
  • You use obfuscating and boring lists of irrelevant sources.
    • Boring? Irrelevant? May I ask why they are irrelevant?
  • But let us not discuss your POV, which is obvious to all.
    • Your POV is also "obvious to all."
  • Many reasons have been brought against this category, and it's time it should go.
    • Many reasons have been brought for this category, and it's time it should stay.
  • Why don't you make peace with that?
    • Why don't you make peace with that?
  • Do you have any good reason, apart from the POV which you have been proven to have as a bad faith editor?
    • I have documented a few good reasons – did you miss them?
  • I prefer to stop the discussion, about you and about the subject..
I'd call it "Ottoman Palestine", or "British Palestine", (as in Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, or Category:Ottoman Jews), or "Palestina" during some ages. Btw, would you propose renaming Category:Roman era Jews to Category:Palestinian Jews as well? "Canaan" or perhaps even something with "Levant" during others. "Israel" nowadays, and "The Holy Land" or "Land of Israel" (as in Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel) during all times. Note the correspondence between these name and Wikipedia categories.
I might have a problem with "Palestinian monks". If I were a christian, I'd know better how christians refer to them in their scientific literature and popular usage. But I am more familiar with Judaism, being that I am a Jew and one well aware of Judaisms traditions, and I know that any usage of the word Palestine by Jews, as in the cases you have brought as so-called proofs, is the exception rather than the rule, and was excepted only when the country was called "Palestine" officially, during the British rule of the Palestinian Mandate.
All other instances of rabbis being called "Palestinian" in literature are strictly incidental. It may well be that they arise from the lack of another appropriate term. The term "Land of Israel" is better, but also not universally in use. But here on Wikipedia it has been used for years now, and uncontroversially. While your category tree is new and heavily disputed, read: non-consensus, read: should never have been created.
In addition to all this, there are other reasons that make the use of the term "Palestinian" in this context problematic. First and foremost the confusion with the modern ethnic group and the modern political entity. And other problems. That all have been mentioned by various editors on your talkpage and the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to summarize them:
  1. First and foremost the confusion with the modern ethnic group and the modern political entity. These rabbis were not ethnic Palestinians, nor did they hold Palestinian nationality.
  2. There seems to be consensus that Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine does not need diffusing. That was your very first argument [5].
  3. Your second argument "Surely anyone who lives in any region attains that regions nationality" [6] also has not been accepted, and is factually quite wrong.
  4. Category:Palestinian rabbis has been a redirect to Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel ever since its creation in December 2006, without being contested.
  5. Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel has been in use on Wikipedia ever since its creation in December 2006, without being contested. As has Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine since its creation in December 2007.
  6. Category:Palestinian Jews contains only four articles of three people who have self-identified as such, and 1 who holds honorary Palestinian citizenship. No other Jews (including rabbis) have been categorized on Wikipedia as "Palestinian Jews", including rabbis. So clearly "Palestinian" means the political entity when dealing with categorization on Wikipedia.
  7. Category:Palestinian Jews was a subcategory of Category:Jews by country, not of Category:Jews by region, proving the same point.
  8. Most of these rabbis were not born in "Palestine" (using it loosely, as you would), but emigrated there from other countries, often living only a minor part of their lives there, and the question should be asked, after how many years of living in "Palestine" does it become appropriate to call them "Palestinian".
  9. Palestine was not the official name of the region during Ottoman rule, which spanned from 1516 till 1917, which includes all of the periods you created per century "Palestinian" categories for.
  10. The name "Palestine" has been used historically to denote this area, but not during all times and not by all people.
  11. The less ambiguous and loaded name should be used on Wikipedia, which is "Land of Israel". This argument has been mentioned in one form or the other by many editors.
  12. In addition, I think that an additional argument is the fact that Chesdovi has been found to be a POV editor, who was blocked from Arab/Israel-conflict related pages (not only articles) for a whole year for good reason [7]. As further underlined by his calling me "anti-Palestinian" [8] and accusing me of having a "strong Zionist POV" [9]. These facts undermine the credibility of his arguments. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this category and several related ones were created only recently by Chesdovi without any prior discussion, and were met with heavy protests as soon as they were discovered. This means that the burden of proof here is not on me or anybody else to prove that there is consensus to delete them , but rather on Chesdovi that there is consensus to have them and to use them to replace a well established categorization system. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for telling me what you call the region and why Christian Palestinians are not an issue for you. You have provided a clear summary of your concerns and I would love to answer each one, but time constraints means an immediate response may not be possible. I will however try to tackle each point one by one, and I hope we can come to agreement on each point.
  • In response to point 1: I understand misconceptions could arise between the modern connotations of the word Palestinian and its historic usage. The question is: is this really a serious problem? I would say not really because it has not been an issue with other categories. A similar but not identical case would be Iraq which only became independent in the 1940s. Before that it was known by other names such as Mesopotamia, yet rabbis such as Yehuda Fatiyah and Ben Ish Chai are categorised as Category:Iraqi rabbis. Is this not bound to cause confusion that these rabbis were living in modern day Iraq? Possibly. But they have probably been categorised as such as that is what RS label them. It is not for us to start discerning what was it called and known as during their lifetime. There are of course sources which will state the previous names of the region, but do the sources refer to these rabbis by these older names or not? It is interesting to note that the Talmud Rabbis are indeed known not as Iraqi, but as Babylonian. Why has a different appellation been made for these “Iraqi” rabbis? Because the RS have described them as such. And it is RS which call medieval rabbis in Palestine “Palestinian”. We can not go wrong using this term. We must understand and accept that the word “Palestinian” is used currently not only to describe people associated with the modern political entity, but also to describe people from all ethnic groups who were living in Palestine, from ancient times up till the end of the British Mandate in 1948. (You do not accept this, but it is too well documented to deny.) If some think using "Palestinian" to describe the later group is problematic, the question is how to apply it, not to rename or delete the categroy. Do you agree? Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. Nor do many other editors. Do you want me to give you the diffs here?
In addition, I don't think you need to discuss anything here any more. Both of us have repleted our arguments. I was just recapitulating them here for clarity. I think we should leave it up to the community to decide. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be useful to provide the diffs. Let’s take what happened over here: After the preamble, we have User: CycloneGU saying: “Personally, I don't see what the big fuss is here. Regarding Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, if there are 16th century-era rabbis who are themselves also Palestinians, then the category can be used.” This is taken up by Chris Cunningham who said the fuss is about calling them “Palestinian” without reliable sources doing so. (User:Selket emphasises this point by saying below: “Just remember that any article you include in the category, must have a source that calls them a "Palestinian rabbi". I suspect that my be hard, which is why all of the members were removed in the first place.”) Debresser is nevertheless adamant that even if RS are found, the other “problems” by far outweigh the support given from RS. It is now to the point that Debresser address in his first point here: User:Biosketch states: “To call 16th-century rabbis "Palestinian" is to impose an ethnic identity on them that's completely foreign to how anyone at the time would have referred to them. Ultimately, that is the problem here. The adjective Palestinian is not normally construed as meaning "in Palestine" but rather as "of Palestinian ethnicity" or "relating to the Palestinian people." (this is Bio’s opinion, as others have said it actually normally is understood as meaning “in/of Palestine”) Bio also wants to ignore the RS and prefers to opt for the less ambiguous “"16th century rabbis of Palestine”. Now I did respond explaining that with the case of German rabbis, that they were of German ethnicity is surely not implied. Bio may still stand by his opinion, but as he did not respond we do not know if he rejects the German argument too. Chris Cunningham instead seems to retract his earlier notion that we should rely on RS and suggests that we should be sensitive to the offense that may be taken by some users involved in the I/P conflict. I responded “We cannot help it if Ameer Makhoul lives in in Israel. He is categorised as an Israeli Arab whether he likes it or not. If these rabbis lived in Palestine, they are Palestinian.” And it ends there. The above shows that, contrary to Debreseer, many editors are of the opinion that if RS are found, that suffices. If further shows that when points have been raised a decisive conclusion has not been adequately reached. So although Debresser now says he does not agree and neither do other editors, it is not good enough just saying that. He needs to explain his position in order to gain the consensus he is after. This has happened repeatedly throughout, with discussions ending and Debresser afterwards claiming issues have “already be addressed”, when in truth the discussion fizzled out with me not being any the wiser on the causes of Debresser’s problems. Chesdovi (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs to support the fact that 8 editors agree with point #1, that using the word "Palestinian" in this context is incorrect, confusing, or otherwise not preferable because of the modern meaning related to an ethnicity or a nationality: [10] User:Debresser], [11] User:Supreme Deliciousness, [12] User:Biosketch, [13] User:IZAK, [14] User:Arfican, [15] User:Dfass, [16] User:S Marshall, [17] User:Johnpacklambert]. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely my point. Anyone who looks through the Rfc will see these arguments. What they will not see is any attempt by holders of these views to reach any type of consensus. You have only provided the original points. I provide the subsequent query’s which demonstrates what I mentioned in my previous post: editors say what they think and do not engage seriously enough in debate to show that subsequent arguments are non-persuasive. A non-response may be WP:TOWEL or silent acquiescence: Response to User:Biosketch: [18]. Response to User:IZAK:[19]. Response to User:Dfass: [20]. User:S Marshall is of my opinion, namely: “I always understood "Palestinian" simply to mean "originating from the area called Palestine". Why does she back “16th century rabbis in Palestine” – (a name you also dismiss) - for the same feeble reason as CC: “Israel-Palestine conflict needs handling with kid gloves.” It is of no Surprise that User:Supreme Deliciousness has not commented here. She was the first one to concede that if RS designate a rabbi “Palestinian”, this category can be used. She made it clear that she would not be happy any other way so I went to get outside perceptions on the issue. If anything, she is the only one who has helped reach a consensus here, with the label only being applied to sourced RS. See this: [21]. JPL still needs to provide clarification too: [22]. The diff you provided for him does nowhere discuss the validity of the use of the term "Palestinian" with relation to the "modern meaning related to an ethnicity or a nationality." Please also be reminded that User:Arfican is a blocked sock. ---Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These editors all tried to convince you with arguments. Why do you say they do not try to reach consensus? That is how they tried. You are just not perceptive to the fact that a majority of editors thinks you are wrong! Just as you were unwilling to stop with your edits while discussion was still in progress. This is called a disruptive editor in Wikipedia, just so that you should know. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They tried, but did not try hard enough! If I cannot extrapolate the core reasons for their concerns, why should they be given any credence, e.g:
"Palestinian is confusing because it could be associated with ethnicity."
"Strange, you say that when there has been no problem elsewhere in similar cases. Please explain why this case is different."
Silence. No response. Stumped.
You expect me to be convinced with that? About you calling me being disruptive by editing while discussion was still in progress, I would counter that it was you who disruptively depopulated tens of categories while discussion was still in progress. If I added a few back, it was to prevent deletion of the empty cats. Further, creation of the differently named Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine and Category:Palestinian geonim while related, were not in any way part of the actual issue being discussed, it being “Palestinian rabbis”. Now, please explain why there is no confusion about pre-modern Category:Iraqi rabbis, or confusion about the ethnicity of Category:German rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though we try for historical accuracy in names, there is an advantage in snot splitting this too finely, especially for navigational categories. Regardless of the various official politico-geneograhic names, the term "Palestine" is properly and commonly understood to cover the area, I cannot help thinking that the opposition to this is to some extent a reflection of the desire to denigrate the term "palestinian" because of its 20th century political meaning as an term widely used in opposition to "Israeli" This is the retrojection of contemporary political conflicts into an earlier era. The proper term is Palestinian. ~ DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That last line was just argument by assertion, and has been shown already to be incorrect (point #9 above). Also, we can't close our eyes to the modern meanings of the word "Palestinian". Wikipedia is being build now, not in some time in history. And so say at least 8 editors here. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 9: "Palestine was not the official name of the region during Ottoman rule." Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It doesn't matter. We are only concerned with what mainstream academic reliable sources refer to it as during that period. Guess what: They refer to it as either the Land of Israel or Palestine: Land of Israel is generally used in a Jewish religious context, while Palestine is used by both religious and secular alike when referring to the region during the Ottoman period. Therefore it is quite in order to class the rabbis living in Safed in the 1570s as Palestinian rabbis, as do all other scholars. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New evidence #1

The above taken from Siddur Meforash by Rabbi Ralph De-Koven, (Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1965), refers to the region as "Palestine". Remember this was published when Safed had been inside modern day Israel for over 15 years. Chesdovi (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said probably almost a dozen times by now, there is no doubt that some use the term "Palestine" in some context, the question is whether we on Wikipedia should. I personally, am so tired of these "proofs" of yours... You are just wearing us out. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question. We do: [23]. Chesdovi (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New evidence #2
File:Siddur meforash.jpg
"Prayer Dictionary"

The above is taken from the "Prayer Dictionary" printed at the back of Ktav's Siddur Meforash (1965). A similar snippet was presented at the Rfc. Here however, Hebrew wording is added showing that ארץ ישראל is translated into English as "Palestine". Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several weak points to this "proof". (1. It says specifically that the name was used by Greek and Romans, not that is was used afterwards, the more so not that it should be used. 2. It is clear that the literal translation of "Eretz Israel" is "Land of Israel", and that in this entry the word "Palestine" is foremost the translation of "Palestina" and "Pleshet".) In addition, as I have said probably almost a dozen times by now, there is no doubt that some use the term "Palestine" in some context, the question is whether we on Wikipedia should. I personally, am so tired of these "proofs" of yours... You are just wearing us out. Btw, didn't you bring this argument already on the category talkpage? Debresser (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it does not mention that Palestine was the ancient name shows that usage is current. It merely says it was “first used by..” And it still is, see below:
The fact that it used the word "Dan" as a geographical term proves that it refers only to biblical times since the area of the Land of Israel which was occupied by the Tribe of Dan hasn't been called "Dan" ever since the Romans. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beersheba lasted all the way through. Dan was established in 1939. This book was published in 1965. That makes it accurate to modern times by 26 years. Chesdovi (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in this text is to Dan (ancient city). Debresser (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, be reminded that it is giving the location of the biblical Land of Israel, using biblical terms. As it mentions, "Palestine" is not written in the Bible, but that is what the biblical Land of Israel is know as. Chesdovi (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


File:Palestinian shulchan aruch.jpg
The Shulchan Aruch was published in Palestine. Fellow Dutchman Jfdwolff agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shulchan_Aruch&diff=437472978&oldid=437348274
Palestine is the English word widely used to refer to the Land of Israel in academic sources. In the example above, it does not only translate the Hebrew word "Palestina,” proof being the entry below which translates ישיבות ארץ ישראל as “Palestinian Academies”. I would say Palestine is used by the vast majority, while the Land of Israel is used by some, usually in the limited Judaic context only. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said probably almost a dozen times by now, there is no doubt that some use the term "Palestine" in some context, the question is whether we on Wikipedia should. I personally, am so tired of these "proofs" of yours... You are just wearing us out. Btw, didn't you bring this argument already on the category talkpage? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is simple: should "Palestine" be used in Wikipedia categories for denoting people (including Jews) who lived in this area during any age, as in the categories Chesdovi created of late, or should it be considered a nationality or ethnicity category, as it was till now? I would like the community here to decide. If editors here at Cfd feel inadequate to decide this question, then perhaps a broader discussion should be initiated. Although I personally am getting quite tired of fighting Chesdovi's novel and pushy creations... Debresser (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that up till now such categories were considered as denoting nationality or ethnicity? You will see from here that Category:Jews by country does not denote nationality, and neither can it truly denote ethnicity. As lots of editors, not usually involved with Israel & Judaism topics have voiced: "Palestinian" designates the place from where a person comes from, as do all other similar cats. Chesdovi (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Real evidence

If everybody just please do a small experiment. Please type "Eretz Israel" in your Google search engine. It will take only 5 seconds. And my argument will be made, stronger than anything anybody can dig up from dusty prayer books, or wherever. And that shows once and for all how Chesdovi is trying to obfuscate the truth with these so-called "proofs" and "evidence". Debresser (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or typing "Eretz Israel translation" which yields the same first search result, but the second is more interesting: a dictionary definition: "the Holy Land, Israel", but not "Palestine". Debresser (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your evidence is flawed to a great extent. If you want an extensive breakdown, I will provide. Meanwhile, just look at what one of your returns throws out: www.israel-independence.com "THE FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ISRAELI DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine]" !!! Chesdovi (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is because at the time of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the territory was called Palestine by the ruling British. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Officially? Does that mean we can call rabbis of the Britsh Mandate "Palestinian"? Chesdovi (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. We call them Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. A unambiguous term. A consensus term. (Stress added where needed.)Debresser (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous? Yes. Consensus? Well, not exactly:

The history shows that in Jan 2005, (2 months after creation), User:Pearle nominated it for deletion or renaming at "Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Standard form for country names." IZAK repetitively removes the Cfd tag. The occurrence of enforcement without due discussion, as demonstrated by Debreser earlier on, seems to have a precedent.

Now lets come on to the matter at hand: Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis:

After a four year interlude, justice must be done. We cannot rely on unconventional “Land of Israel” categories. If we must have Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine aswell, so be it! Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call to close

  • Procedural call to close this CfD without decision or prejudice I have a strong procedural objection to this CfD. The dispute here is (or should be) larger than one relating merely to categorisation, and should encompass content too. A close here one way or the other is not likely to be successful as it will not be binding on content and will further damage the chances of a successful negotiated consensus on the matter. I suggest that this CfD is closed and submitted by both leading parties to a skilled third-party mediator who can help them - and any others interested in the matter, such as other members ofWP:JUDAISM - to arrive at a consensual agreement that is encompassing of content, Categories and any and all en: Wikipedia material relating to this issue. Fragmenting discussion or prejudging it by deciding how it applies to Categorisation is a bad idea and unhelpful. If parties will not agree to mediation, I'll open an RfC instead, but really mediation is the best way forward. There's already been sufficient bad behaviour around this dispute, including a ban and a ridiculous alphabettyspaghetti of tit for tat he said/she said reporting of one another. It's enough - and the well-intentioned CfD contributors should not be called on to foment the dispute. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Cfd editors would feel inadequate to decide this case, or would feel it incorrect to do so per Dweller's argument, then perhaps an Rfc is the best solution. Mediation is out of place, since the issue is not a personal one. The question is deciding upon the right term. Debresser (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that's right. Then again, there has been much discussion here after the Rfc. The discussion from the Rfc just continued here. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on Category talk:16-th century Palestinian rabbis

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted. I am not sure why this is being nominated for deletion. During the medievl era, the Land of Israel was know as Palestine and this is the general term used widely when describing that region during this period. There were 24 pages in this cat before Debresser removed them. --Chesdovi (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

I have been involved in a dispute with two other editors about how to categorise rabbis who lived in Palestine, prior to the creation of the state of Israel. The category in which such people had been placed till now was calledCategory:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine which is out of sink all other similar categories, and spans a period of over 430 years, as opposed to century by century categorisation.

The first editor insisted that in order for the term “Palestinian” to be applied, that specific term needs to be used in RS. It was not sufficient for the RS to simply state that someone was born, lived and died in Palestine and was said to have “flourished in Palestine.” I find that a rather excessive demand, and quite frankly irrational. The issue was confused by whether the term would insinuate actual Palestinian ethnicity, when I felt it was being used simply to indicate the region in which that person resided, rather like nationality.

The issue is further a problem because the term today is used also to identify the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, none of whom are Jewish, and it may be confusing. I countered that this issue should not preclude us using the term for this historic group of Palestinians, since the name Palestine was used for the whole region for hundreds and hundreds of years beforehand. Additionally, RS still widely use the term to describe Jews who lived there in medieval times as Palestinian.

Would it be acceptable to create the following: Category:13th-century Palestinian rabbis, Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, Category:17th-century Palestinian rabbis, Category:18th-century Palestinian rabbis,Category:19th-century Palestinian rabbis, Category:Medieval Jews in Palesine, Category: Palestinian geonim?

Please see all various discussions at User talk:Chesdovi, User talk:Debresser (with next 8 talkback sections), User talk:Supreme Deliciousness.

Also related: Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that since this is an official and (hopefully) centralized discussion of this issue, that we should discuss it here as though there has been no previous discussion elsewhere. Let's stick to the arguments, and let's keep a cool head.Debresser (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For pre-modern times I think historians have generally used the term Palestine without any political connotations, at least after the Roman period. My impression is that after the Roman period Palestine is usually the administrative name for the region (although during Roman times an argument could be made that the administrative name was in flux due to attempts to recreate a political entity of Israel.).

That being said, I think Israel is another historical name for the region and I wouldn't object to that being used. My impulse is to say that the British English/American English rule apply here and we just go by the practice of whoever first created the article.

I just searched Google Scholar and found that usage of the term 16th century Israel vs. 16th century Palestine is impossible to gather from the search engine test since the term Israel is often used in unrelated contexts about 16th century Jews (such as the "God of Israel"), moreover, generally when talking about modern geography people will use city name, Israel in their papers. Finally a lot more people have the last name of Israel than Palestine. My impression is that Palestine is more common in pre-modern times than Israel in historical papers, but I also think many papers use both terms (usually to avoid monotony, ie, Palestine in the 13th century had many cows. Yet not all those who owned cattle in Israel were happy).Jztinfinity (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of Palestine in pre-modern times does not give us the right to call anyone who moved to, lived, or was born in the area "a Palestinian" when sources do not specifically call those people that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why can we not exercise that right? Palestinian means "from/of Palestine". If they lived/were born there, they are automatically from there. Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has already been discussed at your talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I recall disagreeing with you. I then asked you a further couple more questions you did not respond to and I subsequently threw the question open to the whole wiki community, (for which you accused me of breaking the topic ban). Yet no one seems the slightest bit interested. Still left with my unanswered points, you restate your view again here. There is no need for you to repeat your view as I have already mentioned it above. Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be repeating myself so I didn't reply, but I have replied now. And Ynhocky also gave you a reply:[24]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you would go with "Category:Palestinian rabbis"? Chesdovi (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to be the first to register his disagreement, but now that discussion has started I would like to do so. My reasons are the following.
  1. The name "Palestinian rabbis" makes the impression it is like any other country category. Like e.g. Category:American rabbis. That is, "rabbis of the Palestinian state". And this definitely is not the intention of the proposal.
  2. Likewise it is definitely not used to refer to the Palestinian ethnicity, which is the second though which comes to mind when I see a "Palestinian FOO" category.
  3. The name "Palestine" was in use sometimes, and sometimes not. And even when it was used, it was not used by all. For example, when the territory intended was under the romans, it was called "Judea provincia" (if I remember correctly from my high school Latin courses), and so forth. The same is surely true for later periods, when it was under Mamluk, Ottoman or even English rule.
  4. The best and most neutral name is that, used by the rabbis in question: Eretz Israel = Land of Israel. CompareCategory:Rabbis of the Land of Israel.
  5. Another problem is that many of the rabbis who lived and worked in Israel, were from foreign origin. They lived and worked in Israel for a period anywhere from a few years to a few decades. That is still not a reason to call a rabbi a "Palestinian" rabbi. The example comes to mind of the Arizal and Nachmanides, who each lived in Israel for about three years, out of respectively three and seven decades. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you "didn't want to be the first to register". You had previously stated that "the whole community" were against my new additions to back up your atrocious behaviour. So much for that. Not even my postings at the project pages could rope anyone else in. How wrong you were, how wrong you were. You are alone on this one. Chesdovi (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no other editors have anything to add, I guess I will have to go to mediation. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation? First of all, you should give it a week at least. Rfc's usually run for 30 days (seeWikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs). Secondly, what mediation, when it is clear nobody agrees with you? You opened an Rfc, and that is a mediation step in itself. On Wikipedia, you have to abide by majority decisions (unless they violate otherwise established rules of Wikipedia) when they are made in due process (like this Rfc).Debresser (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody agrees with me?" Where do you get that from? You are the only one who does not agree with me in the whole of wikipedia. There is not even a majority of one here! Jztinfinity, the only person who has bothered to get involved with this, seems to actually back me up, giving the right of the creator to choose which term he prefers! SD is at odds with you too, compromising on agreeing to keep the cats as long as a specific source for each rabbi is provided. Ynhocky was only refering to use of the term inline, not discussing the cats. In fact, I think I do have support for my changes, since Malik clearly says he doesn't have strong feelings one way or the other! Meaning he is not against! You seem the one to be causing the fuss here. If this gets settleed in my favour, I will insist that you be given the task of readding all my cats. Chesdovi(talk) 23:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing an Rfc should definitely be done by a non-involved editor. :) And please, don't be childish...Debresser (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't necessarily have a clear policy-based reason for it, I personally object to labeling medieval rabbis "Palestinian." Someone suggested "Rabbis of the Land of Israel" as the category name. Any reason to reject that proposal?—Biosketch (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on the reason for your objection. I want to bring in to line the rabbis who lived in the region with the other cats. Are you happy with Category:16th-century Land of Israel rabbis or Category:16th-century rabbis of the Land of Israel? Palestinian is the more common usage. Chesdovi (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to create those cats as that was never an official name for the region. And just because someone lived there is not enough to call them "of" that region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by official, and please bring the rule where cats need to be based on that presumtion.Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, please refrain from using argument by assertion. And Category:16th-century rabbis of the Land of Israel and the like, look completely normal to me, yes. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should learn to stop answering other peoples questions. Chesdovi (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is considered impolite on other people's talkpages (where you replied to my comment once), but in discussions that is completely acceptable. Please, cut the childish crap. Debresser (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for asking a question that's probably been answered outside the RfC but, What are the "other cats" with which this and sibling cats need to be be brought into line? I'll say for now that, when modifying a human noun, the adjective "Palestinian" is construed primarily in the ethnic sense. That may change when there's officially a state by the name of Palestine that people can immigrate to regardless of their ethnic identity; but for now the expressions "Palestinian children" or "Palestinian refugees" or "Palestinian peasants" denote ethnically Palestinian children and ethnically Palestinian refugees andethnically Palestinian peasants. It's different when the adjective modifies an inanimate noun, like "Palestinian hospital" or "Palestinian school," which probably just mean in the Palestinian territories (though "Palestinian synagogue" strikes me as an oxymoron at first blush), but the rabbis these categories are about weren't ethnically Palestinian – certainly not in the medieval era when the Palestinian ethnos was still a long way from developing.—Biosketch (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is being used as a regional term for the historic region. Still in use by contemporary scholars, as can be seen atIsaac Luria as a Palestinian. We cannot just reject using the term since nowadays many people associate it with something else. If anything, we need to disambiguate. Should we not use Category:Babylonia since nowadays most people associate Babylon with the TV series or other places, e.g. Babylon, Illinois,Babylon (town), New York? If a place was referred to as Palestine for hundreds of years, there should be no reason to ignore that term when referring to people who lived during that time, as we have for all other categories.Chesdovi (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This area was referred to as "Palestine" in some ages and by some people. But it was during all ages referred to by the very same rabbi's we come to categorize as "Land of Israel". So that is the name we should use. And then no "disambiguation" will be necessary. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Debresser (talk · contribs). Unless there is a prevalence of reliable sources that refer to these Land-of-Israel rabbis as "Palestinian," the less ambiguous label should be preferred, which in this case is Land of Israel.—Biosketch (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is english wiki, not international wiki. It is of no concern to us what various peoples call the region. For all I know, the Zulu's may have called it Umpa-lumpa Land. It does not concern us, as here we are instructed on wikipedia to use the most common used name in English for the region. A simple example: those rabbis may have referred to the Temple Mount as Har Habayit. Yet we use the most common term used by English speakers. At the time, Palestine was the most common used name, evidence can be seen from the fact that the term was used by the British throughout the mandate period. Debresser is just wrong when he asserts that all rabbis call it LOI. They may have called it any of the tens of names Jews refer to the Holy Land. In factIsaac Breuer in his Judaic works calls the Land of Israel "Palestine". So there we have it, a rabbi who lived in the Land of Israel calling it Palestine in his own sefer (book). If you had bothered to open the link at Arizal, you would have seen the prevalence of reliable sources that refer to such rabbis as "Palestinian". The main reason why I am pressing for this categorisation is due to this point. The term is so widely used, there is not good reason not to use it.Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed the English wiki. Which is why we call it Land of Israel and not Eretz Israel. As to Breuer: 1. An occasional exclusion does not prove anything 2. He wrote the book for others. He himself probably called it Eretz Israel.Debresser (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing could be said for today.

The same thing could be said for today. In Judea/Samaria/West Bank many classify this as Israel and some others Palestine. Difference of opinion clearly. What is not in dispute by either parties are the labeling of the people. Jews who live there are considered Israeli and Arabs who live there are considered Palestinian. NO Arabs who consider it Palestine would refer to a Jewish Rabbi as "Palestinian" even though they consider it "Palestine"

To say that any Jewish Rabbi is "Palestinian" today or at any time in the past is simply not true and misleading. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not here to confuse people. It is not here to make novel arguments.

There is a reason that after 10 years, this was not proposed before. Not from the Pro-Israel editors, not from the Pro-Palestinian editors, not from the neutral editors. There is not now, nor was there ever, such a thing as a "Palestinian" Rabbi. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Arfican (talk •contribs) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are, I'll have you know that it was propsed, by a Jew, over 4 years ago but IZAK was quick toenforce his opionion, and that was that. You will conceed that term Palestinian has been applied to many peoples, including Jews, over the centuries, to Jews during the British Mandate especially. Now, about the confusion today, it is not about confusion is it, is about personal POV and "offense". Admit it. Nothing to do with stacks of source material, common usage in English academia or the like. There are tons of books being written today which refer to Jews as Palestinians if they lived in Palestine when it was known by that name. Now there may very well be other names for the same parcel of land that various people referred to it, but Palestine is just as valid, if not not more so as such a appellation is widely recognised. Chesdovi (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion, everyone here in Judea/West Bank knows who they are and what they are called. It is the standard and neutral point of view amongst all Jews and Arabs who actually live here. I think you are trying real hard to push your point of view, which does not seem neutral or normative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfican (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well let us educate these people and let them know about their heritage. There were hundreds of Palestinian rabbis throughout the centuries living in Palestine. Jews are not alien to Palestine. They did not just appear in 1882 and usurp Palestinian land. There were Jewish Palestinians too. It was their land as well. If that classification has now changed with 1948 naming conventions and eviction of all Jews from Arab held areas, so be it. We cannot turn back the clock. Just as we still refer torabbis from eastern Europa as Galicia rabbis, a region that has also now changed name. Are we worried we may think they are from Galicia (Spain) ? Chesdovi (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. the category name is Category:Rabbis from Galicia (Eastern Europe), so yes, we are worried.Debresser (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by century

The name "Palestine/Palestinian" is a loaded term today and should be avoided when referring to Judaism-related topics as much as possible because it is a confusing label and has problematic political and historically confusing and contradictory meanings. It's not used by Judaism because the term "Land of Israel" defined as all areas that had been historically classified as part of the Kingdom of Israel+Kingdom of Judah+Judea where Israelites/Judeans and their spiritual leaders/prophets/rabbis had and still lived and it is the way Jews always referred to it, certainly as it should apply toRabbis the religious leaders of Jews and Judaism. Let there be the parent Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by century (itself a sub-category of the main Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel) and then take it from there, there would be twenty main sub-categories covering the 2000 years of the exile from the times of the destruction of the Second Temple circa 70 CE until the establishment of modern Israel in 1947/8:

1. Category:First century rabbis of the Land of Israel
2 Category:Second century rabbis of the Land of Israel
etc...
19 Category:Nineteenth century rabbis of the Land of Israel
20 Category:Twentieth century rabbis of the Land of Israel (until 1948 when they then become Category:Israeli rabbis since Israel becomes an official country, but they could also be included in the above if need be).

That is what I recommend. IZAK (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, you have noted that the term "Palestinian" when classifying Jews is "confusing", "problematic" and "contradictory". Please explain why the term is indeed as you have described. From an academic point of view, there seems to be no problem at all, hence the vast number of modern day scholarly works, including the Encylopedia Judaica, which use the term without the fear of confusing the comtemporary reader. I for one do not get confused when the Arizal is called a Palestinian kabbalist. Only a fool would start to ponder how a 16th-century rabbi could simultaneouly be a Chrisitan Arab. It is quite clear that "Palestinian" is being used to descibed a person who lived in what was then known as Palestine. Using Palestinian for people who lived in historic Palestine is a very logical classification. It is not archaic, nor uncommon. That is probably why I am at least the second (Jewish) editor proposing to use this term. That some Zionist Jews may feel uncomforatble or "offended" with it does not carry as much weight as you may think. It is not as if the term is non-existant today. Quite the opposite. Your excuse that the term is "loaded" seems to be a facade for the real reason for you position which was aired by Debreser, i.e. using such a term is (would you believe it) Antisemitic!!!! It is my proposition based on RS against Debreser's (and yours?) based on emotional and political bias. Chesdovi (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking my use of the word "antisemitic" out of its context. All, please disregard this sentence by Chesdovi.Debresser (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree:
  • To say that any Jewish Rabbi is "Palestinian" today or at any time in the past is simply not true and misleading. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not here to confuse people. It is not here to make novel or political arguments. The new proposed categories are accurately described and neutral. --Arfican (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assertion is 100% untrue. As you obviously have no idea about what your talking about, I suggest your views be utterly discounted. Chesdovi (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chesdovi, What you've said on this page here is some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in Wikipedia is now dumber for having read it.

--Arfican (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. All 3 of you. Chesdovi (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's 4 or 5 by now. And yes, I'd say 3 (or 4 or 5):1 is a clear consensus against you. Debresser(talk) 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi: The ARI was a Jewish Kabbalist or simply a rabbi who lived in the Land of Israel when it was under Ottoman rule/occupation. No need to complicate matters with outdated and controversial nomenclature. IZAK (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, you again refer to "outdated" and "controversial" but I have yet for you to disprove that this term is indeed "outdated" (It is not). And why it is "controversial"? Just saying it is again and again without stipulting why it is, will not make your opinion here acceptable by any means. The ARI was indeed a Jewish Kabbalist. But he was "of Palestine" too. Granted, there are a few meanings to the word "Palestinian". In our case it simply means "of Palestine", like all other regions. Was S R Hirsch German? Of course we understand that he was not of ethnic Germanic origin. He lived in Germnay and is therefore known as being German. It's that simple. Is it confusing to call him German, lest we think he sported blond hair and was a latent Nazi? It is much simpler to say he was Palestinian than saying that he "lived in the Land of Israel under Ottoman rule". Don't you agree?Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's simpler, but it's not correct, so whether it's simple or not does not matter. Not correct, or - at least - to a high degree misleading, ambiguous, controversial. Since you like it simple, let me put it simple: the word "Palestinian" is a bad choice here. Is that simple enough for you? Debresser (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree:
Do not put everything to a vote. The discussion is coming to a clear enough conclusion without that already.
  • I think the name we should use should have Land of Israel and not "Palestinian". But I do not think we need per century categories for rabbis in the Land of Israel. Dividing them into Mishnaic, Talmudic, Geonim, Medieval, and of Ottoman and British Palestine seems more natural here. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: Chesdovi is right that the term "Palestinian" was used very widely in scholarly works to describe rabbis of all eras who lived in Israel (and I have myself copied over many Jewish Encyclopedia articles that employ this term freely). And perhaps there is something to be lost in giving up this term, or in allowing its meaning to become solely associated with other interests. But I don't think it is within the power of Wikipedia to influence the world's understanding of the term "Palestinian"—that ship has already sailed. So the average Wikipedia user will only be confused by the use of that term in reference to rabbinical culture. I think "Land of Israel" is an accurate term, and certainly predates the use of the term "Palestine" (unless in reference to the ancient Philistines, which is not our concern here). Is there some reasoning that advocates against the use of "Land of Israel" in this context? I'm curious. —Dfass (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly confused as to what you mean by “influencing world’s understanding”. That would only be true without RS supporting the term’s usage. Contrary to your assumption that the term is non-current, I provide below results of books, printed since 2000, which still using the term. It is also used for the classifications of the similar, e.g. Category:Palestinian Christian monks (who lived in the Medieval era) and others. Why need the appellation with regards to Jews be ignored here? It is worth noting that the Land of Israel category is useful for those searching for that specific Judaic-oriented region and it associated categories. But to opt not to have these Palestinian categories would result in a whole chunk of Palestinian history being left out under the categories relating to the history of Palestine. It would be just as valid to have a Palestinian rabbi category together with a “Rabbi of the Land of Israel” category. Why has no one suggested this? The “Palestinian rabbi” cat would include the century, dispelling any confusion to the alternative modern day connotation, i.e. a citizen of the State of Palestine. Indeed, to have both would actually be an improvement regarding navigation in this field. It should be noted that many of the Sephardi rabbi who lived in Palestine in previous centuries no doubt attained a Palestinian ethnicity, (by speaking Arabic and the like), so that problem does fall away in some circumstances. I have yet to understand fully the opposition to the use of the term. Is it not clear that so many disambiguation pages exist for that very fact that there are different meanings to so many terms? Why this case should be a different eludes me. Chesdovi (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to some kind of cross-referencing to suit the more scholarly among us, but the fact is that most people who are not scholars would not be looking for the term "Palestinian" in reference to rabbis. I think this is very self-evident. The designation of the region as Palestine may trace to the Romans or Greeks (I don't know), but it is not the term used in Jewish sources, and is therefore tremendously jarring to people seeking information about Jewish figures. Frankly, I think the term "Palestinian rabbi" would be incongruous to 99% of readers. Maybe one in one-hundred will recognize "ah, yes, rabbi in the historical land of Israel". Perhaps we just have different perceptions of how this term would actually be interpreted by readers. —Dfass (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But who says people are only searching via the Jewish/LOI route? They may be at Category:History of Palestine and want to know about Palestinian clergy. Would it be fitting to have a category called “Roman governors of the Land of Israel”? "Christian monks in the Land of Israel"? “Crusaders of the Land of Israel”? “Muslim clerics of the Land of Israel”? “Turkish pashas of the Land of Israel”? “Mamluk caliphs of the Land of Israel”? “Ottoman Arabs of the Land of Israel”? “Persian rulers of the Land of Israel”? Why should the Jews be treated separately in this regard with the region being called something different just for them? We don’t want people to think “ah yes, a rabbi in the historical land of Israel” We want him to correctly think what it says, “ah, a rabbi from the land of Palestine”. It is well known that both terms basically mean one and the same thing geographically. Notwithstanding that, I think that’s why I opted for including the centuries in the cat name, as opposed to other rabbi cats which at the moment don’t include that info. I agree that the category LOI has its advantages for people wanting to see stuff relating specifically to the LOI. The question is how much to put in it. All history of the Levant, from ancient Canaanites up to and including the State of Israel? The way it seems now is that only Jewish stuff related to the region is placed there. A better name would be Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel to define its scope. Indeed, the category notes “This category encompasses the Land of Israel, primarily as it figures in Judaism and Christianity. For the modern state of Israel, see Category:Israel. For its history, see Category:History of Israel. See also Category:Palestine for a more general overview of the region.” Yet many of the sub cats include modern day Israeli stuff. There is then a very odd Category:Buildings and structures in the Holy Land without a holy land parent cat. I am not sure of the relevance of this category at the moment. Maybe it can include Jewish history in the region up till 1948. But I would include in it Palestinian Jewish related cats, because that is a valid term used by 99.008% of the world’s population, as attested to by the words of the Maharzu below.Chesdovi (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know Dovi you are being very short-sighted and opening up a huge can of worms here. First, note Template {{Quote farm}}“This article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry” for the above, it’s overkill. Second, it’s basically meaningless because they are all secular scholars since in classical Judaism, the term Land of Israel “Eretz Yisrael” is used, as you well know. In classical Jewish scholarship Jews and rabbis have never used the term “Palestine/Palestinian” about themselves or their holy works. Third, according to your reasoning there is now nothing to stop all the Christian editors from coming along and demanding that the articles and categories with the words Hebrew Bible, Torah, Tanakh etc be renamed as Old Testament because that is what gazillions of “sources” call them. Fourth, the Muslim editors can come along and demand that since more Muslims use the term Al Quds that it then become the de facto and de jure name for allJerusalem names on WP. Therefore, when conveying how classical Judaism uses terms, and not merely by college professors, WP is being accurate in how it uses Jewish terminology. You are going too far with your quest and it is bound to backfire on you and we shall all have to clean up the mess if this ever gets passed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objection to the word Palestine in this context. The region has been known by that name for close on two thousand years. --Redaktor (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the way classical Judaism refers to it. The name was re-imposed as a punishment upon the Jews/Judeans by the Romans after they crushed and destroyed Judea, while Jews and Judaism continued to refer to it as the Land of Israel, Zion, or symbolically as Jerusalem in the siddur, Tanakh, Talmud and all classical Judaicsources, while Palestine/Philistines was the gentile name. Is this new to you? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More Muslim editors may use the term Al Quds, but until there are more English speakers who use that term, we would not change it from Jerusalem. Yet you use the same argument to advocate for the Jewish name here? Since more Jews call themselves by Jewish terms.... In this instance, we are interested in the common English scholarly usage, not necessarily the Jewish terminology, and Palestine fits that designation. Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, get over it! Time to move on.

Chesdovi,

The editors here DO NOT agree with you.
We have all read what you wrote, all your reasonings, theories, etc.
Still do not agree.
Get over it.
Time to move on.
Accept defeat like a man, not a whiny baby.
Get a life, move out of your parents basement, go out into the real world.--Arfican (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your feeble response to my links provided above after you earlier revealation of ignorance: "To say that any Jewish Rabbi is "Palestinian" today or at any time in the past is simply not true and misleading"? We don't count your views here anyway, as you have just created an account for this debate only. You must therefore be a sock. Bye bye. (but thanks for hidding your real identiy, as I am sure we will be working to improve other article together in future.) Chesdovi(talk) 13:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost two weeks have past. I think it is time to let an uninvolved admin look over the discussion and come to a conclusion. And if that conclusion is against the use of Palestinian categories, as I feel confident it will be, then he should at once delete the involved categories. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rfc's usually run for 30 days." Chesdovi (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Century specific Palestinian rabbi sources

And the list goes on and on and on.... ---Chesdovi (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know Dovi you are being very short-sighted and opening up a huge can of worms here. First, note Template {{Quote farm}}“This article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry” for the above, it’s overkill. Second, it’s basically meaningless because they are all secular scholars since in classical Judaism, the term Land of Israel “Eretz Yisrael” is used, as you well know. In classical Jewish scholarship Jews and rabbis have never used the term “Palestine/Palestinian” about themselves or their holy works. Third, according to your reasoning there is now nothing to stop all the Christian editors from coming along and demanding that the articles and categories with the words Hebrew Bible, Torah, Tanakh etc be renamed as Old Testament because that is what gazillions of “sources” call them. Fourth, the Muslim editors can come along and demand that since more Muslims use the term Al Quds that it then become the de facto and de jure name for allJerusalem names on WP. Therefore, when conveying how classical Judaism uses terms, and not merely by college professors, WP is being accurate in how it uses Jewish terminology. You are going too far with your quest and it is bound to backfire on you and we shall all have to clean up the mess if this ever gets passed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, for every 1 source to call them "Palestinian" there are 10 sources calling them Jewish. This is not even serious.Debresser (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably "Jewish Palestinians". There would not be very many sources calling them "Jewish rabbis", as it's quite obvious rabbis are Jewish. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'No, definitely not "Jewish Palestinians". That is something few sensible people would use. More like "Jewish scholars" and the like. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence submitted

I have just coincidentally come across the following fragment in a genizah. It clearly shows that this rabbi, adayan in Jerusalem during the mandate period, used the word "Palestine" as his address: Chesdovi(talk) 15:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palestine add.jpg
Sefer of Rabbi Rabinowitz, a Palestinian rabbi from Jerusalem, Palestine


Nobody says that the name Palestine wasn't in official use during one time or another. Chesdovi, we went over all this before. Finding sources is not the issue here. Don't forget that we are under no obligation to use the precise language of our sources, furthermore, sometimes we specifically should not do so. Anyway, as I said above, it is about time to close this discussion. Chesdovi, you are starting to repeat yourself. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody says that the name Palestine wasn't in official use during one time or another" But what they do say is this: This area was referred to as "Palestine" in some ages and by some people. But it was during all ages referred to by the very same rabbi's we come to categorize as "Land of Israel". The booklet address clearly shows the oppostie to this misguided view. The venerable rabbi used the term "Palestine" as his address. No ambiguity here.Chesdovi (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, that image is of an official postal address. In conversation this same rabbi undoubtedly would have said he lives in "The Holy Country", or some other term, not "Palestine". Debresser (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dbrsr advocating we call the categories "Rabbis of the Holy Country"? The fact is we can't base entries on wiki on mere speculation about what so and so should have, would have, could have said or not. Let's not be silly now.Chesdovi (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can give you a better argument. Proof, actually. The Hebrwe does not have the word "Palestine". But it doessay "Jerusalem the Holy City". Debresser (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where Dbrsr is going with this, but he has admitted that the LOI was not the only term that the region was known as by Jews, it having various names, all of which were used by Jews, Palestine included. Don't you remember Yenta fromFiddler on the Roof? If Moshe Gil can use this term and not harbour the fear of misleading and confusing his widespread readership, why on earth are we? Oh yes, I forgot, the two main editors against using the term are probablyReligious Jewish Zionsts. Well, nothing will convince them about the validity of the word Palestine, a word which repsents their greatest common foe. Can we have some other, preferably non-Jewish/neutral editors to provide imput here?Chesdovi (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not a fan of having to use logic to determine when content belongs or doesn't belong in an article. If WP:RSes agree on something, that's the criterion to consider above all others. Therefore, despite my instincts instructing me otherwise, I have to concede that Chesdovi (talk · contribs) builds a more compelling case per Wikipedia's guidelines. The only real counterargument to his proposal, given the volume of sources he's been able to produce, would be to attack the neutrality of the label "Palestinian" in this case. But Chesdovi (talk · contribs), if you'll allow my asking, Is your purpose in creating this category something more than the category itself? Is it so that it can later be argued that Palestinian people necessarily also includes these rabbis from centuries ago, which would then open the door to extensive changes of the Palestinian people article and its associated templates? Needless to say, you're under no pressure to reply; and avoiding the question will not commit you implicitly to an answer either way.—Biosketch (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been made perfectly clear by now that this category will be placed under “Rabbis by region”, not nationality, to avoid confusion that may arise. This was mentioned at the very early stages of the discussion. This is besides the fact that the PLO has said that Jews living in Palestine before 1917 are to be considered Palestinians. The Palestinian people page documents in the lead that "Palestinian Jews made up part of the population of Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel." So I am not sure how a “Palestinian rabbis” category would effect related pages. However, there was in the past such a thing as a Palestinian Jew in the regional sense. I am not sure what “neutrality” you refer to. Granted the I/P conflict arouses emotions and POV issues, but we cannot hide from the facts. The Land of Israel is a religious term that has no sound basis in determining a geo-political region in modern day secular scholarship. It is a general, made up term for the region which was never used in ancient times as an official name for the land. I am not even sure if ארץ ישראל is even mentioned in the Bible. It contains a variety of Kingdom of Israel, House of Israel, Kingdom of Judah, then Judea, etc. The LOI is a very vague designation. Using Palestinian to describe people who lived in the area when it was called that is quite acceptable, instead of having to placate sensitive Zionists. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel government year book 1987 affirms that Jews called themselves Palestinians

יחידים שכינו את עצמם פלשתינים היו יהודי פלשתינה. העיתון שיצא בארץ בשפה האנגלית היה ה״פלסטיין פוסט״; התזמורת שלנו נקראה תזמורת פלשתינה, וארגון גיוס התרומות שלנו היה המגבית הפלשתינית המאוחדת. הערבים הפלשתינים התעקשו על כך שהם חלק מהאומה הערבית והתננדו לכינוי ״פלשתינים״.[25] Chesdovi (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loose translation: The people who called themselves Palestinians were the Jews of Palestine... The Arabs of Palestine were adamant that they were part of the Arab nation and were against being called "Palestinians". Notwithstanding, nowadays appaelations have changed, part of the process here is to show that Jews were known by this term in history, and it is valid to use the term to describe them. Chesdovi (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad translation. More correct would be to translate: A few among those who called themselves "Palestinians" were Jews. etc. And this refers to the Jews living in the British mandate. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. "hayechidim" here means "The only ones". Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "ha-" in "hayechidim"? That passage reads like a propaganda piece. Anyway, I think I'm done here. It's impossible to keep up with the two of you. The discussion's gotten completely out of control. בהצלחה.—Biosketch (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Chesdovi, you don't know how to read the Hebrew, as Biosketch also pointed out. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ה is in the source, but was not copied in above. Chesdovi (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. My apologies. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli dictionary translates "Erez Yisrael" as "Palestinian"

File:I D 69.jpg
Further proof of the words english connotations

This shows how the Hebrew word ארץ ישראל has been translated by Y Orenstien of Tel Aviv, Israel as "Palestine". It comes from a dictionary printed in Israel in 1969. Chesdovi (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That same image shows that the publisher itself uses "Israel". Anyway, this is no more than an interesting curiosity.Debresser (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dbrsr needs to understand that we would not be calling rabbis who lived after Israel was created "Palestinian." That would indeed be taking it too far. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may stop bringing sources. Especially since not even you would want to argue that Israel should even now be called "Palestine". Nobody disagrees that the word "Palestine" has been in use during some periods and by some people. That is not the issue. The issue has been made in previous posts, and frankly speaking, you are starting to bore with your sources.Debresser (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, for every source like this, there are ten sources to the opposite. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adin Steinsaltz has no concerns about using "Palestinian" for rabbis

File:AS P1.jpg
Yochanan bar Nafcha and Shimon ben Lakish were both Palestinian according to RabbiAdin Steinsaltz
The "once-in-a-millennium scholar", Jewish rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

Adin Steinsaltz, first head of the renewed Sanhedrin, has also called rabbis living in Erez Israel as Palestinian, This was taken from his Talmud printed in New York in 1990. Baba Metziah, Vol. 3, part 3, pg. 13. Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, he resigned. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I wonder if it had to do with pressure from radical zionists who were inflamed at his use of the P word?)Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not start about this "renewed Sanhedrin", which is no more than funny. Anyways, as far as talmudic sages are concerned, there is definitely a point for called the sages of Israel "Palestinian" as opposed to the Babylonian sages. Just as theTalmud Yerushalmi is sometimes called the Palestinian Talmud. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dbrsr is slowing coming round. Shame I have to go to such lengths. Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have agreed with you before on the issue of the Yerushalmi/Palestinian Talmud. That in no way is true for any of the other articles and categories you are pushing. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Midrash calls Erez Yisrael "Filastini"

Thanks to research by User:Oncenawhile, I can now add that the Midrash Rabbah (Genesis 90:6) when talking about the three lands around Canaan affected by famine refers to them as "פנקיא, ערביא, פלסטיני" translated as "Phoenicia, Arabia and Palestine". R. David Luria (1798-1855) states that Palestine is Erez Israel. R. Zeev Wolf Einhorn of Horodna (Maharzu) (1856) asks why Canaan, which was the worse affected, is not included in these 3 lands. He answers that Canaan is included in Palestine "which is still today called that in the language of the nations." I would ask further as to why the midrash did not refer simply to the land as Eretz Israel. We see that the rabbis referred to Erez Israel as "Palestine" too. Even if Erez Israel was the common name among Jews as IZAK notes, we should nevertheless use the term most commonly used by English speaking people, which undoubtly is Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, apparently, are not well versed in Jewish learning. Or you would have known that Midrash uses foreign words, mostly Greek and sometimes Latin, on average at least once a page. Just as the first two words, Phoenicia and Arabia are clearly in a foreign language (not Hebrew), so is the word Palestine. So if anything, this proves, that "Palestine" was even in those days not a term in the native tongue of those who wrote the Midrash, but instead a recognizable name of foreign origin. And this stayed so right up to the 18th and 19th century, even so much so, that the scholars you mention need to explain that the term "Palestine" includes Canaan (that is Israel), because otherwise nobody would have know what "Palestine" is! You have proven quite the opposite of what you thought you did. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dbrsr advocating we use Category:Rabbis of the Land of Ei for Category:British rabbis since ארץ האי is the Jewish term for England? Just as with the Jewish termed category Category:Ashkenazi Jews we include all rabbis of countries regions of Europe, and with Category:Sephardi rabbis we include oriental countries, so too we can include Palestine rabbis in the parent cateogry of the Jewish term for the region, if we must have it (see my response to Defass above). If it is not yet clear, I am advocating for the use of the "foreign" term on Anglo-Saxon wikipedia. Thanks.Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian" is used by numerous sources in reference to Jews and Judaism

---Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newer evidence

File:Israel add.jpg
Sefer of Rabbi Rabinowitz, a Israeli rabbi from Jerusalem, Israel
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfican (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done African. Try something original. We are not impresed by your antics. Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting funny here. :) Debresser (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rishon Le'zion stamp

This 1890s stamp shows that in the French language, Jews referred to the colonisation of Palestine, not Terre d'Israël . Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, seen that. Nobody has a problem with Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. Sigh...Debresser (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have categories for American rabbis, Argentine rabbis, Australian rabbis, Austrian rabbis, Belarusian rabbis, Belgian rabbis, Bosnia and Herzegovina rabbis, British rabbis, Bulgarian rabbis, Bulgarian rabbis, British rabbis, Bukharan rabbis, Bulgarian rabbis, Canadian rabbis, Chinese rabbis, Croatian rabbis, Czech rabbis, Danish rabbis, Dutch rabbis, Egyptian rabbis, French rabbis, German rabbis, Greek rabbis, Hungarian rabbis, Indian rabbis Iranian rabbis, Iraqi rabbis, Irish rabbis, Israeli rabbis, Italian rabbis, Latvian rabbis Lebanese rabbis, Lithuanian rabbis, Mexican rabbis, Moldovan rabbis, Moroccan rabbis, Ottoman rabbis, Polish rabbis, Portuguese rabbis, Romanian rabbis, Russian rabbis, Slovak rabbis, Slovenian rabbis, South African rabbis, Spanish rabbis, Swedish rabbis, Swiss rabbis, Syrian rabbis, Taiwanese rabbis, Tunisian rabbis, Turkish rabbis, Ukrainian rabbis, Uruguayan rabbis, Yugoslav rabbis and then we have "Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine." That is the problem. If we have Ottoman rabbis, we can have Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa's Jewish community also called it Palestine

This 1892 seal shows that the Jews of Jaffa also called Erez Israel "Palestine" when writing the word in a foreign language, be it German or English. Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jews of Peki'in also called the Land of Israel "Palestine"

Peki'in and Safed were also in Palestine, according to the Jews who lived there in the 19th-century.

There is no contadiction or confusion by saying someone is a Jewish Palestinian or Palestinan rabbi

Carrigal was a palestinian (well, according to Cecil Roth that is)

File:Carrigal was a palestinian.tif
Raphael Chayyim Isaac Carregal

Jewish people: 4000 years of survival 1967 (updated version 1986) by the illustrious Cecil Roth calls Raphael Chayyim Isaac Carregal a Palestinian rabbi on pg. 246. Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman "Palestine"

The article Palestine says in subsection Ottoman rule:

"After the Ottoman conquest, the name "Palestine" disappeared as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. Following its 1516 incorporation in the Ottoman Empire, it was part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660. Nonetheless, the old name remained in popular and semi-official use within the ethnic Greek Christian population.[139] Many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries have survived,[140][141][142] for example, the English reference book Modern history or the present state of all nations written in 1744 states that "Jerusalem is still reckoned the capital city of Palestine"[143]".

Just to put some perspective to Chesdovi's claim that the region would have to be called "Palestine". This regards the whole four hundred year period from 1516 to 1917. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this, I think Chesdovi should stop adding a link to Palestine to many names of cities in articles about rabbis, and use a link to Ottoman Palestine instead. Debresser (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I presume Dbrser will now opt for Category:Rabbis in Eyalet of Arabs, or possibly Category:Rabbis in Sanjak of Safad, or Category:Rabbis in Eyalet of Safad and between 1864-1920 Category:Rabbis in Beirut Vilayet? Maybe we should call rabbis in Jerusalem not "Israeli rabbis", but Category:Rabbis in Jerusalem District.Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Dr Isaac Herzog on the matter

File:I Herzog.jpg
various instances of the word Palestine being used in Rabbi Herzog's acclaimed work.

These snippets from a Judaic works entitled The Main Institution of Jewish Law (Soncino Press, 1939) by Cheif Rabbi Isaac Herzog shows that influential rabbis have indeed used the term "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel. This is taken from an edition printed in 1967. It has the oiginal recommendation on the back cover from thePalestine Post. Joshua ben Levi is called a Palestinian saint. What clearer proof does one need?Chesdovi (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz on the matter

Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz in his Authorised Daily Prayer Book (New York, 1948) also refers to Erez Yisrael as "Palestine" many times in the prayer book. This scan is from the 14th edition printed in 1971.Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz on the matter, again

File:J H Hetz Pentateuch 1929.tif

An excerpt form Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Hebrew text, English translation and commentary, Soncino Press, 1968 (1st edition: Oxford University Press, 1929) by Rabbi Hertz. He stated that Rachel's Tomb was in Palestine, as was Bethel.Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Philip Blackman on the matter

File:Blackman mishnayoth 1951.tif
Blackman Mishnayoth

This clearly shows that in Jewish circles, the word "Palestine" was the accepted traslaton of Erez Yisrael and used by rabbis and laymen alike. This scan is from the 1951 edition, but the 2000 edtion still uses the word:[26]. The translation of Mishnayoth was authored by Rabbi Blackman, an "outstanding scholar of Judaica." Chesdovi (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Israel Brodie on the matter

File:History of out people 5th edit. 1968.tif
Jews also called it Palestine, not only the Land of Israel.

This is from of our people in Bible times by Joseph Halpern MA (1st edition 1939). In the forward to the original edition, Cheif Rabbi Israel Brodie says the book "will help to increase the knowledge and understanding of the Bible..". The scan is from the 5th edition prinited in August 1968. Chesdovi (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Jakobovits' view on the matter

File:Immanuel Jakobovits, Palestine.png

Chief rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits called medieval rabbis "Palestinian" in hismedical ethics: a comparative and historical study of the Jewish religious attitude to medicine and its practice. (1959). Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz on the matter

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his The Essential Talmud (Oct 1977), uses the term Palestine liberally throughout the book. If Rabbi Jeremiah regarded himself as Palestinian, so should we! This is in addition to the citation above where Stensaltz was still using the term Palestinian in 1990. Chesdovi (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to apply what is admitted as being "liberal use" on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another grammatical misunderstanding. Not liberal, as opposed to conservative or mainstream, but rather liberal as in abundant, copious and numerous. Anyway, your point is totally weird, as above you have acknowledged that we can call Talmud rabbis Palestinian, or did you forget that “concession” in your effort to deny the Jews of Palestine their regional identity, an act enforced by European rulers many a time in the Jewish nations tumultuous history? Chesdovi (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rev M. Rosenbaum & Dr. A. M. Silberman

File:Silberman rashi.tif

In With Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary 1985 (1st edition 1951) by Rev M. Rosenbaum & Dr. A. M. Silberman, use of Palestine is noted. The "Land of Israel" is indeed used when translating “Erez Yisrael” in Rashi's comments, but in further analysis, elaboration and notes, it is always referred to by its technical secular geographical term. Rabbinic sages are also called Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Isidore Epstein

File:1977 Soncino Tamud.tif

The Soncino Babylonian Talmud, 1978 by Isidore Epstein writes that Rabbi Assi came toPalestine, not the "Land of Israel", Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Jews (1960)

File:Modern Jewish thoughts 1960.tif

modern treasury of Jewish thoughts, by Sidney Greenbergn 1960. (Scan from 3rd edition 1964). “The Jew’s Love for Palestine” gives the American Conservative view, as it was penned by Israel H. Levinthal in his Sabbath and Festival Prayer Book of the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue (1946). The Reconstructionist view is given by Mordecai Kaplan in “Palestine became a Destiny”, which was penned originally in 1934 and reprinted in 2010:as a Civilization: Toward a Reconstruction of American-Jewish Life. Jewish Palestine in 2010!Chesdovi (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the children of 1959

File:Jewish knowlegde.tif

The illustrated book of Jewish knowledge, by Edith Tarcov (1959), informs Jewish children not of the Land of Israel, but rather of Palestine, "the name for the land of Israel". Rabbi Debreser should get a copy and educate himself.Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice it says clearly that the name was in use only in the time of the Greeks and Romans?Debresser (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misread, unless you think this publication is a children's Ancient Roman compendium of some sort:
“PALESTINE”: Name for the land of Israel.. Was first used by the Greeks, and later by the Romans.
...and nowadays, in 1959, Palestine it is still used as the name for the Land of Israel. Notice it does not say "Palestinewas the name.." If you misinterpret something so infallibly clear, it can only be an indication of your selective understanding and feeble, superficial examination of sources on the matter. This revelation should be committed to all your other comments and reasoning’s within this discussion. Chesdovi (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this "infallibly clear" fact, which is actually only your interpretation. This book mentions only the historical fact. The name "Palestine" is not in use any more for the Land of Israel, nor should it be.Debresser (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must first query your astounding assertion and ask what you mean by "the name "Palestine" is not in use any more for the Land of Israel?" Chesdovi (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi's conclusion

I would sum up this discussion as follows:

For, category name acceptable
  1. Supreme Deliciousness: Agrees to the category as long as each rabbi is sourced as being called “Palestinian”. She is opposed to using Category:16th-century Land of Israel rabbis as it was never an “official term used to describe the region”.
  2. Redaktor: “I don't understand the objection to the word Palestine in this context.”
Although the following user did not comment in the rfc, elsewhere they stated:
  1. Nableezy: "You want to use the term "Palestinian" to refer to those residents of a place called Palestine. I don’t see a problem with this." (User talk:Chesdovi#Palestinian categories)
Neutral, category name acceptable
  1. Jztinfinity: He made one comment saying “For pre-modern times I think historians have generally used the term Palestine without any political connotations” and “Israel is another historical name for the region and I wouldn't object to that being used.” “My impulse is to say that the British English/American English rule apply here and we just go by the practice of whoever first created the article.”
Although the following users did not comment in the rfc, elsewhere they have stated:
  1. Malik Shabazz: "Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other." (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 27#The Arizal was a Palestinian)
Acknowledgment that the term “Palestinian” is used to describe residents of Palestine.
  1. Zero0000: "The British called residents of Palestine "Palestinians" because "Palestinians" is the word grammatically indicated for residents of Palestine." (Talk:Palestinian Jews#Question source)
Against, category name unacceptable
  1. Biosketch: “Palestinian rabbis” would confuse the reader into think the rabbis are of modern day Palestinian-Arab ethnicity. She does say however that “Unless there is a prevalence of reliable sources that refer to these Land-of-Israel rabbis as "Palestinian," the less ambiguous label should be preferred, which in this case is Land of Israel”. (I proceeded to provide ample RS to confirm the use of Palestinian which refer to rabbis of the region) To which Biosketch “conceded” that I “build a more compelling case per Wikipedia's guidelines”, but still has problem with the “neutrality of the label "Palestinian" in this case”. (There was no responses to my counter argument, but a later comment shows Biosketch still opposes usage)
  2. Debresser: Use of Palestinian for rabbis is “misleading, ambiguous, controversial and Anti-semitic.” “There is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location” and has argued for its deletion from the onset asserting that Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine suffices. Always responding to my posts, Debresser often understandably changes his view as the discussion progressed. From first denying that the region was ever called Palestine, to “Nobody says that the name Palestine wasn't in official use during one time or another." He further claimed that Jews never called the place Palestine, yet when I provide an Israeli dictionary that shows clearly that Erez Yisrael is translated as “Palestine”, he concedes “Anyway, for every source like this, there are ten sources to the opposite.” When he said “Palestinian” was not used by Jews to describe rabbis, I showed him that Adin Steinsaltz had done so in his 1990 edition of the Talmud. He seems to give in saying “as far as talmudic sages are concerned, there is definitely a point for calling the sages of Israel "Palestinian" as opposed to the Babylonian sages,” but then refuses to apply the term to medieval rabbis.
  3. Dfass: Agrees that the term "Palestinian" was used very widely in scholarly works to describe rabbis of all eras who lived in Israel” but thinks that the contemporary “average Wikipedia user will only be confused by the use of that term in reference to rabbinical culture.” Dfass prefers "Land of Israel" since Palestine is not the term used in Jewish sources, and is therefore “tremendously jarring to people seeking information about Jewish figures.” (I countered whether we should have a category named “Muslim imams of the Land of Israel” and so forth. If so, we would end up having is a variety of inconsistent categories with different names associated with the various ethno-religious preferred terms all referring to the same region.)
  4. IZAK: “Palestine/Palestinian is a loaded term today and should be avoided when referring to Judaism-related topics as much as possible because it is a confusing label and has problematic political and historically confusing and contradictory meanings.” IZAK wishes to use the “Jewish” names (defined as?) for the region when it refers to Jewish subjects, a problem that leads to gross inconsistencies. He believes these rabbis themselves never called themselves Palestinians (questionable), so despite RS which do, we cannot label them as such. Suggests using Category:16th-century rabbis of the Land of Israel.

In summary, I see no reason why the category should not be allowed to remain and be populated accordingly. ----Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even a superficial look at your own "conclusion" shows that there is no consensus to have this category. Please do not forget that you created it, and the burden of showing consensus to keep it is on you. It is not that it always existed and somebody suddenly decided to remove it. Also, do not forget that consensus is not about counting votes, but also about the relative strength of arguments in view of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's all to do with timing then? Shame I created Avraham Chaim Naeh only for you to notice my cat addition and scupper it. Your view on an issue does not trump others. The sooner your get that, the better. Chesdovi(talk) 14:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note the very well-argumented oppose of an IP editor in this edit. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::Don't see him agaist the use of "Palestinian" anywhere? He opposes Palestine for the same reason you do: A disregard for RS and a strong misguided Pro Zionist POV. Chesdovi (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)(Topic ban)[reply]

Either you purposely deceive your fellow editors, or you don't understand English very well. I quote:

It is also significant that the term 'Palestine' was rarely used, if at all, in European circles of the Renaissance era in which Isaac Luria was born (16th century) ... The term 'Palestine' started creeping into Western public discourse only in the 18th century, with the secularizing tendencies of the Enlightenment era to avoid the ecclesiastical associations of the term 'Terra Sancta'.

In addition I demand that you take back the words "strong misguided Pro Zionist POV" to my address. You have no right to make any such assumption. Failure to apologize will lead to a thread being opened against you on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and you might find yourself not only topic-banned for a year from all edits involving the Arab-Israeli conflict,[27] but banned from Wikipedia altogether. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::::Jacob Davidson - zionist or not? He is misguied by not referring to RS, as the reponse by Malcolm Schosha suggests. Explain why the additioanl evidence is "shown to prove quite the opposite." Chesdovi (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (Topic ban)[reply]

Perhaps this comment was posted on the wrong talkpage? I don't really understand what it refers to. In addition, I am waiting for your apology. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of this nastiness could be avoided if my neutral suggestion had been accepted: drop Palestinian / Land of Israel and use Southern Levant instead. Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just that this proposal of yours was unanimously rejected (7:0) atCategory_talk:Talmud_rabbis_of_the_Land_of_Israel. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New argument

Category:Palestinian Jews has existed since 19 August 2007. During these years it was a member of Category:Jews by country. It contains only four articles: 3 Jews who have self-identified as being Palestinian, and 1 Jew who holds honorary Palestinian citizenship. Apart from a few additional articles which Chesdovi added recently, and who subsequently have been removed from this category.

Along came Chesdovi (talk · contribs) on 12 May 2011, and edited the category to be a member of Category:Jews by region.[28] Need I say more? Or is it obvious to all, that this was an additional example of Chesdovi's POV pushing?

The above gives us strong indication, that in Wikipedia categories, "Palestinian" refers to a country, and not a region, present or historical. The way Chesdovi tries to use the word here, is therefore incorrect. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine is not a country in the true sense of the word. It has never in history existed as one. That is obvious to even the hardened Pro-Palestine activist. In fact, when this category was first created, it was a sub-cat of Category:Israeli people! It was soon linked to the wiki Hebrew version of קטגוריה:יהודים ארץ ישראליים - "Jews of Erez Yisrael," the common Hebrew form of pre-1948 Israel, i.e. Palestine, not linked to a category for the contemporary PNA. Then it was added to Category:Palestinian people by religion of whomDorotheus of Gaza was placed in its sub-cat Category:Palestinian Christian monks. Only in Jan 2009Category:Jews by country was added in error. Then Category:Jews in the Land of Israel was added and removed together with the Hebrew wiki link. The Category:Mizrahi Jews was added and soon replaced withCategory:Racial segregation (?), then Category:Jewish anti-Zionism was added with other references to the modern Palestinian entity. I removed Category:Racial segregation & Category:Jewish anti-Zionism and changedCategory:Jews by country to the correct Category:Jews by region, for this category is called "Palestinian Jews", not "Palestinian Authority Jews", and Palestine is not (yet) a country. 2 months later in the midst of this discussion, Debresser takes up his self-assured reigns again and reverts this to Category:Jews by country with comment "Unexplained change with far reaching effects. Should have been discussed". As if this isn't currently under discussion pending an outcome. In this, he demonstrates again how he is unable to hold himself back and enforce his own POV. In such a climate, one would have hoped Debresser would have left a message at talk and stared a discussion if the edit was so "controversial". No, instead he lends towards edit warring and enforcement of his personal bias and understanding. There may need to be a discussion to clarify what is a important point: How do we disambiguate historic Palestinian people with today’s state in the making? The answer is do we really have to? Why can’t Palestinian Jews be just that – Jews who belong to “Palestine” whether it be in the 13th-century or 21st-century? Jews may no longer live in Iraq, but we have Category:Iraqi rabbis. I am wondering what the confusion is actually about... Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have too much chutzpah. I should wait? You make changes in years-old categorization, create a whole new category tree, everybody is falling over you and your notorious POV, and I should wait?!? Debresser (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the other issues have been addressed already. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you shouldn't wait. But try practising what you preach... And I don't believe the subject of whether Palestine is or is not a country has ever been discussed. Another non-truth by our friend. Shall I get all hyper because you changedCategory:Palestinian people by religion to Category:Palestinian people by ethnic or national originbecause the catergorisation under “religion” has been in place since 2007. Get real Debreser, You do not rule wikipedia. The sooner you understand that, the better. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that change I made 1. with an explanatory editsummary 2. I'd be willing to discuss it, if somebody were to disagree with me 3. is not part of POV pushing. Especially the last difference is all the difference between a helpful editor like me, and a disruptive (tendentious and pushing) editor like you. Now, the sooner people see this difference, the better it will be for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You call the removal of a category which indicates the fallacy that Palestine is a country a “POV push.” There is no Point of View to be had on the matter. It is fact. Fact, fact fact. Palestine is not a sovereign state nor a “country” and never has been. It is not POV to rectify errors about this fact, in fact, helpful editors like myself purge Wikipedia of these minor errors. I disagreed with your removal of my categories, and where did it lead? They all got deleted courtesy of you. Were you "willing to discuss it"? Well, yes, initially, but after you got fed up and saw you were not getting anywhere, you did not seek a community based Cfd discussion, but just pushed straight ahead like a bulldozer. When I embark on further discussion about to validity of this category, I am labelled by you as being a disruptive, tendentious and pushy editor. It that nice? No. It’s downright bad form. You also constantly drag up my tainted past. That’s really helpful. It often makes me wonder, is thisreally about "confusion". Chesdovi (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your past, but your present. You still try to push through this category tree you created without any prior discussion and against the protests of other editor. You use obfuscating and boring lists of irrelevant sources. But let us not discuss your POV, which is obvious to all. Many reasons have been brought against this category, and it's time it should go. Why don't you make peace with that? Do you have any good reason. apart from the POV which you have been proven to have as a bad faith editor? I prefer to stop the discussion, about you and about the subject, because neither is going to produce anything new, and let other editors make up their minds. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Those previous bans and blocks are in the past. Like your blocks for personal attacks and harassment are in the past. You nevertheless feel the need to mention them within the current discussion, is it 5 times? How nasty is that?
    • You still cling on to the concept that I am culpable for creating this category without “prior discussion.” IZAK was also of that opinion. IZAK creates tens of categories. I wonder if he discussed any of them first. Probably not. He only instructs others to do so. I can be bold and edit as I see fit without your “prior” permission Debreser.
    • Now please direct me to where the discussion took place about whether Palestine is a region or country. You said it has “been addressed already”. I have forgotten where that was. I have said all along “Palestine” is a region. I do not recall anyone making the astonishing claim “Palestine” is/was a country. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palestine is a country and there needs to be recognition of this present fact in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We call it by its English medieval name, Palestine, from now on....

"A cultural struggle...in the ancient homeland of Eretz Yisrael (we call it by its English medieval name, Palestine, from now on) and what the Palestinian Jews..." Source: My People's Prayer Book: Kabbalat Shabbat, (1997), by Lawrence A. Hoffman, pg. 12. Chesdovi (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which proves only that "Palestine" is a medieval name for this region. Which we knew all along. Why the author of that book uses that specific term in his book is his business, and does not relate to our discussion. This is just another of your worthless and irrelevant "proofs". Debresser (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shows that it was not called "Mamluk Palestine" or "Ottoman Palestine" as you seem to suggest. It also shows that the Jews of Palestine are called "Palestinian Jews". Chesdovi (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really show anything. And if you decide arbitrarily to call the area "Palestine" then its Jewish inhabitants will of course be "Palestinian Jews", so that also doesn't show anything.
In general, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to bring the proverbial 150 proofs to declare the unclean clean... The sages you try to call "Palestinian" are sure to less than appreciate your efforts, as I have mentioned elsewhere already as one of my minor arguments.Debresser (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore than they would not appreciate being called Babylonian. If Adin Steinsaltz uses the term, it's good enough for me, (and you). Chesdovi (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they would object actually a lot more. And what Steinsaltz does is absolutely inconsequential for Wikipedia.Debresser (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most people are proud of being associated with the country of their origin. Even if as you claim, the חכמי בבל were offended by being assocaited with the country that generously hosted them, that is how RS refer to them. And we don't push personal POV on wiki. Steinsaltz, an expert in his field, can be relied upon here. The inconsequential views of Debreseer can be consigned to the recycle bin. Chesdovi (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you of WP:NPA, and recommend you to remove this last sentence. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I said recycle bin, not the usual "dustbin". Recycling is known to have a postitive connotation. And Please be reminded of WP:BLP when describing the illustrious views of HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz shlita as "inconsequential" which borders on the libelous. Chesdovi (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find "recycle bin" not the least less offensive. I will take this to WP:WQA, if you don't retract it. And I repeat that Steinsaltz usage of the word "Palestinian" is inconsequential for Wikipedia. We have our own policies and guidelines, and the fact that he is a great Torah scholar in now way influences these policies and guidelines. Debresser(talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2&oldid=1083632222"