User:Gilgamesh/Talk Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk Archives

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Active

[edit] Shield of David or Urim and Thummim?

Hi Gilgamesh,

I'm assuming from your user page that "Shield of David or Urim and Thummim?" means you think the Star of David was the same as the ancient Urim and Thummim. I'd disagree, because the oldest evidences for the Maggen David's existence are only around 1000 years old - from a Karaite source, coincidently. In fact, things said to be older than that with a Maggen David have consistenly been shown to be fakes.--Josiah 02:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's why it's on my user page and not on an article. :P It's not asserted to be the truth either; it's just a popular possibility (among LDS studies) proposed by Daniel Rona. It remains merely a possibility. - Gilgamesh 02:50, 8 July 2004 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I stole part of your template. See my user page....--Josiah 03:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's okay, I just noticed it before you could get a chance to tell me. See your user talk page. :D - Gilgamesh 03:13, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew alef

Hi, in Hebrew language I see this: When a vowel is absent, alef stands for /a/. I'm not even 1% of an expert on this, but my impression is that /e/ is just as common or more common (examples: name of the bus line Eger, name of the airline El Al) and other things are possible, like /o/ as in lo, moreover in medial positions it often represents a stop rather than a vowel. If you agree there is a problem, can you fix it? Cheers, --Zero 09:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to edit any of that article. It is a monolith. It really needs to be rewritten in a bad way. - Gilgamesh 09:49, 12 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reformed Egyptian =

Thanks for your edits. Hope to see you more around related pages. Tom 23:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hawai‘i

I told you so. "Your" ‘okina is under attack at Hawaii - Marshman 20:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like your "mood" indicator. As you can plainly see, there are a few—but just enough—A--Wipes in this place to make such an indicator necessary. I can see no "logical" argument that will have any sway with these people, whichs makes me want to give up even trying. It's Hawai‘i, and that is how I plan to put it wherever I'm working. Screw consistency. - Marshman 06:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My own stress level is to "I need a break". I'm going to stop working on this project for awhile. I may go over to en:Wikibooks where the "idiots" are farther and fewer between. Nice to have met you. Let me know if you need support on some battle; I'm sure I'll be back - Marshman 17:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship!

Hi, Gilgamesh! Don't know if our edits have crossed paths yet, but I known you are an excellent contributer who has a great deal of respect in the Wikipedia community. Because of this, I was wondering whether you would do me a great honor by supporting my nomination for sysop on RfA. If you feel like I've earned it, go ahead and add your support - it carries a great deal of weight to me and the community at large. If you don't feel I am ready just yet, feel no obligation. Warm regards, Neutrality 05:28, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know you, and I haven't encountered any of your edits. Without knowing more about you, I can't even consider selling you my vote. :p If you directed me to some of your Wikipedia credentials, then perhaps I can understand enough to make a decision. - Gilgamesh 06:13, 17 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eli

Please read my comments on the discussion page for Eli (Judges). I corrected the Hebrew spelling, but I do not know the vowelization, so I cannot change the transliteration. Essentially, the issue is the vowel after the ayin: Is it long or short? (It’s not necessarily the same vowel as in the word “Eli” spelled with initial alef.) And I still do not fully understand why we use a macron sometimes and a circumflex others. I bow to your knowledge on the issue. --Elyaqim 20:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Tiberian Hebrew transliteration specifies considerably more nuance in phonology. (Someday, at that article, I ought to write a detailed section of phonological distinctions and transliteration. Until then, see List of Hebrew names and study the Tiberian transliterations for a good idea.) Vowels are either shut, asyllabic, short, stressed, long, or quiesced. A shut vowel is either followed by a doubled consonant, two consecutive consonants, or is an in unstressed syllable at the end of a word followed by only one consonant. A short vowel is one of əĕăŏ. A stressed vowel is open, and transliterated as one of íéáú, or simply one of ieau if redundant; they aren't as stable as long vowels. Long vowels are one of ēāō, and stressed vowels sometimes change to one of them in the Hebrew Bible. Quiesced vowels are vowels that occupy that role of a written Hebrew consonant, usually one of אהוי, but with some irregular exceptions such as the name יששכר (Yiśśâḵār). Also, ה, can be quiesced, but is traditionally transliterated with the h after the vowel it quiesced with. The quiesced vowels are transliterated as one of îêệậâôû. With ה, they can validly be transliterated with a macron and without h, but are often alternatively transliterated as one of ēh, eh, āh, ōh, etc. As for the mistake with Eli, you can blame that on human error (me). ^_^; - Gilgamesh 01:42, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation for Hebrew linguistics project participation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism is trying to decide all Hebrew linguistics issues for Wikipedia by themselves. But Hebrew is not purely the realm of Judaism; it is also the realm of Samaritans, Christians and Abrahamic religion as a whole, and also secular Canaanite languages studies. I'm trying to challenge mono-cultural mono-sectarian dominance over a linguistic field that we all should be sharing together. I invite you to participate in trying to pluralize Hebrew language conventions for Wikipedia. In particular, not only is Tiberian Hebrew transliteration challenged, but also Standard Hebrew transliteration, as some people want to use only Israeli Hebrew colloquial transliteration or Ashkenazi Hebrew liturgical transliteration. I think these are perfectly valid and worthy of participation, but not at the total expense of every other Hebrew linguistics study concern. Please support a multi-religious multi-cultural scientific NPOV mandate for studying Hebrew linguistics on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 03:00, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I would be happy to participate. I was just thinking last night that we need something like this. Where do I sign up?Zestauferov 05:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that I don't know. I've never started a new Wikipedia Project group. I just know that this appropriately needs to be a secular pluralistic project for it to have NPOV legitimacy. - Gilgamesh 05:38, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re Category:Israel geography

Hi Gilgamesh. I cannot fathom why you are now removing towns and cities in Category:Israel geography and putting them into a non-existent entity "Israel-Palestine" which does not exist? What's up? Is this your way of "destroying" Israel on Wikipedia, as if messing up the Hebrew language is not enough? By all means create new categories, but please leave the existing correct categories in place !IZAK 08:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are an artist at the flair for the accusation. Actually, I see this as saving POV dispute trouble. If someone sets it all as "Israel" geography, then Palestinians will dispute it. If someone sets it all as "Palestine" geography", then some Israelis will dispute it. But by saying "Israel-Palestine" geography, the category represents the highly-overlapping infrastructure between Israel and the Palestinian territories. I'm trying to be neutral here; it's not appropriate to put places in the Palestinian Territories in "Israel geography" without including "Palestine geography" as well. It's a middle road, a compromise, for the purposes of categorization and the overlapping concerns. Please just let me continue. When I'm done, I'll redirect the current category page to the new category page. - Gilgamesh 08:12, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

There is no "Palestine" as of now, it does not exist as an official country (yet?). And if so, will you also include ALL areas of Trans-Jordan that rightfully are also part of the historical Palestine? What you are doing makes no sense. Tel Aviv and Haifa as part of "Palestine" is both cocking-a-snoot at Israel and does not reflect reality. IZAK 08:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Several million Palestinians would dispute that. Anyway, this category covers lands that are still under dispute. Jordan is now an independent country, and Jordan recognizes Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and both recognize Jordan. Wikipedia is not pro-Israel, nor is it pro-Palestine. With plenty of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as plenty of designated Palestinian towns within Israel, and the constant disputes between both sides, this category name actual avoids that particular dispute, which "Category:Israel geography" readily invites. This is a simple, logical, NPOV approach to the issue, recognizing the resounding concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians. - Gilgamesh 08:37, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

And you Gilgamesh are the one that's come "to the rescue", now isn't that nice! Hmmm, what's next, negation of Judaism articles because Jews are only a small minority in the world and you, knowing what's best for everyone of course, will "settle" all disputes by watering down Israeli and Jewish content and identity. Nice try, but it ain't gonna work because no-one has ever succeeded at it with such stratagems. Don't you have anything else to do, like fishing or something? IZAK 08:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, it's all neatly linked and everything. "Category:Israel-Palestine geography" is in both "Category:Israel" and "Category:Palestine", and the old category page now redirects to the new one. Now that that's finished, about the dispute.
Wikipedia is not pro-Israel, nor pro-Palestine, nor pro-Judaism, nor pro-Islam, nor pro-Arab. It is secular scientific pro-NPOV — neither religious nor atheist — and all the arguments need to be presented in equality with one another. I am not a Zionist, nor an anti-Zionist. As an individual, I am extremely philo-Judaic, philo-Semitic, as well as philo-Islamic and philo-Arabic. They are not contradictions. And Jewish issues are not watered down nor marginalized by the inclusion of other issues alongside. They are all equal in the eyes of Wikipedia. Now please, stop these ridiculous accusations; they are absurd, as well as offensive, when I have never harbored a single anti-Semitic nor anti-Islamic sentiment. - Gilgamesh 09:27, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

Well, you win this round. At least thank me for pulling together those 140+ geographic locations of the ONE Holy Land in the first place (took me some time too), which made it oh so easy for you to just zap 'em, like lined up pigeons (to the slaughter?)! IZAK 09:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you do deserve credit. It was a great idea, and I still think it is. All I did was adjust it to recognize both sides without endorsing nor condemning either. You're very good at making and expanding categories; I encourage you to continue. And please, I do not appreciate metaphors of violence. - Gilgamesh 09:41, 22 July 2004 (UTC)
IZAK, do you have to intimidate every person who doesn't agree with you. Your conduct is that of a person unfit for Wikipedia. If you continue to harass those who do not agree with you I and others will seek Moderator Intervention. We're Jews - not Crusaders.--Josiah 09:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey Josiah, where did you come from? Is issuing threats the best you can do? Do you also agree that Tel Aviv and Haifa should be in a "Palestine" category? Gilgamesh is not Jewish and since he is contributing to Jewish-related items it's good for him to get feed-back from the front-line. In any case, I see that lately your comments to me have NOT contained anything of substance, you have merely taken it upon yourself to act as a nuisance whenever I say anything that is substansive and logical. I had worked very hard on putting together "Category:Israel geography" and therefore was perfectly within my rights to voice my objections. Stop being a pest, and add more real content. IZAK 10:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • IZAK, I don't have to agree with a person to understand their POV. I don't think there truly is a "Palestine" either, and I'm half tempted to buy the Zionist Apparel shirt that says "Ma Fish Falastin" (in arabic)- "There is no Palestine" - but I do recognize that Israel-Palestine is how it would be termed in an NPOV manner.--Josiah 10:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category Jerusalem

Someone else had created Category:Jerusalem. All you need to do is place your Category:Israel-Palestine Geography at the bottom of the page. Jerusalem is a unique category so do't dump it in with the rest of Israel. IZAK 09:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion moved from User talk:Nyh

Apparently this seems difficult for people to believe, but I actually shifted to this category name out of an attempt at NPOV. The politics of the geography of Israel and the Palestinian territories are so charged that it seems impossible to separate them into separate issues. There are even so many people who outright deny the existence of Israel or the existence of Palestine. So, Israel-Palestine is a commonly-used neutral term to regard to the geographical region in general, as well as the overlapping social aspects (Arab Israeli towns, Jewish settlements, etc.). In the case of the category and its use in places such as Haifa, "Israel-Palestine" is a geographical term, not a political one. The political question is terribly terribly messy. - Gilgamesh 12:59, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

Okay, lets put it this way. How would you feel if someone changed the category "Latter Day Saints denominations" to "Mormon denominations", claiming that this is a commonly-used neutral term? Commonly-used by whom? Neutral in whose eyes? Labelling cities like Zefat and Haifa "Israel-Palestine" is going to upset a lot of people, not just Nyh, Josiah and myself. (Not to mention IZAK). If the U.N. calls it Israel, I think Wikipedia can too. --Woggly 16:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since there is only one denomination that goes by "LDS", and all of them go under the title "Mormon", then it'd be very correct. I don't like the change, but if in the future we had others moving them to the Palestine section, what other choice do we have?--Josiah 21:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, though it had never remotely occurred to me before, as I've heard the term plenty of times. Even Google finds it a lot. [1] I've abandoned the issue; the category can be changed back. I really did think I was doing everyone a favor, and objections to such a term never remotely occurred to me in any way as to even think of its disputability. - Gilgamesh 02:23, 23 July 2004 (UTC)
The fact that your intentions are good is quite clear. I like you very much as a user. You approach issues I know a little about (the Hebrew language, Israel-Palestine) from a very different perspective than I'm used to, and usually that's a good thing. Once in a while though, it leads you to make decisions that I find to be a bit odd. So that's what talk pages are for, right?
It is my impression that some of the worst edit battles and disagreements on Wikipedia have been about spellings and namings of geographical areas. (Gdansk, anyone?) There is an illusion that a name can be NPOV. For people who are actually a part of a wide national or political dispute, for which the name serves as a symbol, the attempts of someone from the outside to enforce this name or the other as "neutral" can come across as a political judgement, and is upsetting. Calling the area "Israel" is no less a matter of POV than calling it "Israel-Palestine". You either have to decide whom you'd rather upset, or cover yourself by sticking to the decision of some international body that has already hashed out the issue (such as the UN), or just don't tamper with potentially sensitive categorizations to begin with. Let sleeping dogs lie. I do feel though, that it is important for you to realise that these are potentially sensitive issues. I hate seeing you put a lot of effort into trying to be fair and just, while inadvertently stirring up trouble. --Woggly 07:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your comforting words. I never worried about offending IZAK (that came a long time ago so as to maintain a sense of sanity), but I felt really really bad when Nyh and you were offended. I was really really embarrassed, though a bit less so now. I dont' want to be making enemies if I can help it. IZAK invited that on his own, but everyone else in the Project Judaism has been so kind, and I've felt at home. It would have been devastating to lose my credibility over a large edit project conceived in mistaken judgment. I'm deeply immersed in Old Covenant studies, and it felt nice to actually meet kind and knowledgable religious and secular Jews to have a discussion group. - Gilgamesh 08:16, 23 July 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't really offended. More like, a little surprised. Think of me raising an eyebrow and thinking to myself, "hmm, now here's a nice can of worms being opened". I don't want it to seem that I'm taking some moral highground - I guess I'd like to think that I'm helping you anticipate possible negative reactions that you didn't consider?--Woggly 08:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Something weird happening with the editing here - I somehow lost a sentence. I tried to make the point that there is no such thing as a geographical term, not a political one. I agree that the politics are very messy, but I'm not sure there's a way of sidestepping them. --Woggly 08:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I wish I could have seen it before. I've gotten into a lot of trouble over the years making simple assumptions that I didn't even consider would hurt people or be contested. In autism studies, they refer to it as a lack of theory of mind. I've been humiliated so many times over the backlash from poor judgment calls. But not often does it involve so many fields and so many people as this category situation. Now I've even seen people I've never met reverting some of IZAK's reverts back to "Israel-Palestine". This can of worms is more like a Pandora's box. - Gilgamesh 08:42, 23 July 2004 (UTC)
I know about theory of mind, my son has PDD. My guess is that the Israel vs. Israel-Palestine bickering will go on for a long time, and my advice to you is to stay out of it. Neither term will be acceptable to everyone. I don't think you committed a faux pas, and you shouldn't feel humiliated; what you did was, as you phrased it, opened a Pandora's box. Don't worry about it. Spend your time doing more worthwhile things. The categories will eventually sort themselves out. --Woggly 08:32, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Category:Israel-Palestine_Geography :

I'll try to avoid decision-making in Israel-Palestine naming issues. You must realize I intended absolutely no offense by it. If someone is always going to dispute "Israel", and someone is always going to dispute "Palestine" and "Palestinian territories", and apparently people are also going to dispute "Israel-Palestine", and alternative names like "Canaan", "Levant", "Holy Land", etc., then what the heck does one call the geographical region in NPOV fashion? If "Israel-Palestine" is not an option, then what on earth is? I can't think of a more neutral and compromising term than that. - Gilgamesh 06:43, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

  • Gilagamesh, don't think in terms of ancient history, you must realize that due to the current conflict some may want to enter into emotional disputations that have no place within the framework that Israel is a sovereign and independent country and that places (towns, cities etc) that are either within its boders or points that border on it must be listed as Category:Israel geography which is accurate and is NPOV. If there are some legitimate disputes based on reason and not on terror, then some boderline places can have Category:Palestinian Cities or simply Category:Palestine placed at the bottom of the relevant page/s. Having now gone and checked each article carefully I have delisted some places that have become purely Palestinian controlled, and where there is some known doubt (as based on the political situation) placed them in, or added to their pages, Category:Palestine so as to be as NPOV about it as possible. You must always remember that even though Israel and the Palestinian Arabs share some territory, yet they remain two opposite and hostile entities that one cannot just "redefine" by creating "categories" that simply reflect wishfull thinking and not anything that is real in the world as it is, or as it is known to be. IZAK 09:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finally, Category:Israel geography is fully restored. Thank you. IZAK 10:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have to realize where I was coming from. I didn't invent the term Israel-Palestine. It's been in very wide use for a long time, mostly in neutral and peace talk. Look at all the Google entries that reflect it. [2] It has become a casual apolitical term describing the modern region, and in my experience was always used to diffuse political endorsement/condemnation of either concept or their activities. - Gilgamesh 10:19, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New article

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#New_article and comments on the talk page at Israel-Palestine. Thanks. Have a good weekend. IZAK 10:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew transliteration

Hi. I just translated an article from the Hebrew Wikipedia about Dunash ibn Labrat, a noted medieval grammarian. It could stand for some work by you, particularly on transliteration to distinguish between the shewa na', hataf and other vowels, as well as on certain grammatical topics in Hebrew (how do you say smichut?). If you have a chance, please take a look. Danny 10:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I could give it a look. What do you have in mind? Do you have all the niqqudot ready for reference? - Gilgamesh 10:34, 22 July 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Unfortunately, I know all the grammar in Hebrew, not in English, so I am worried about some of my translations of grammatical terms as well. Say, you aren't a Rona, are you? Danny 10:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
heh, no, though I'm flattered you might think I am. :P I'm not Jewish, but I'm Ephrathite LDS so I appreciate Jewish studies a great deal. (Daniel Rona is Judaite LDS.) I'd be glad to see what I can do to help you with your transliteration efforts; I'm well studied in the issue. Alas, while I know Hebrew phonology and transliteration by heart and soul, I am still an on-going student of Hebrew grammar and vocabulary. :P - Gilgamesh 10:42, 22 July 2004 (UTC)
No probs. I actually know two of his sons (and I've met him and discussed theology with him), so I was just wondering ... Danny 10:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, Daniel Rona has an infectious popularity about him. He invites warm fuzzies. Anyway, provide me with the relevant links and information and I'll see what I can do about it. - Gilgamesh 10:50, 22 July 2004 (UTC)
Dunash ben Labrat. Danny 10:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Huh. "Ben Labrat" was the name of the street my primary school was on. Interesting to read about the actual person it was named after. Thanks. (Butting in again), Woggly 07:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm too embarrassed to talk to you after the category fiasco. :( - Gilgamesh 07:12, 23 July 2004 (UTC)
No no no! Peace! Friends! I'm not the least bit upset with you! Don't be embarrassed, please! --Woggly 08:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well...okay. I'll try. - Gilgamesh 08:25, 23 July 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Thank You!

Hello Gilgamesh,

Thank you for fixing the missing kahako. I am still a tech newbie, but Idid learn how to create an 'okina. I have been contributing to the Hawai‘i Article too.

Me ke aloha pumehana, a hui hou Ilikea

[edit] Hanna-Barbera

Hello, I created the original Hanna-Barbera category and have absolutely no objections to it being changed to incorporate Cartoon Network. But I was a bit worried that in the edit summary you put tentatively replaced. I mean, it's a hell of a lot of work to change the category title on a fairly large number of articles. Shouldn't one be sure first? Regards, --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod ......TALKQuietly)]] 12:38, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that's over an apparent dispute at Talk:Cartoon Network Studios over whether Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network studios can be considered the same at all. I originally renamed the category, and then someone disputed my renaming the Hanna-Barbera article. If enough people reject it, the categories might have to separate. Personally, I think the dispute is more romantically-charged by people who love Hanna-Barbera and can't relate the same way with Cartoon Network Studios, but I see this as just how Hanna-Barbera evolved before Joseph Barbera died and they changed the name. - Gilgamesh 12:45, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with adding "Canaanite" definitions by writing them in Hebrew script

Hi, please see [3] Thank you. IZAK 07:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to help with Hebrew in any way I can. Danny 01:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)