User talk:IZAK/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IZAK (talk · contribs · count · email)

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

"Jewish texts"

Ultimately, I don't really care one way or the other on this, but I thought it worth mentioning.... The various deuterocanonical books were (presumably) included in Category:Jewish texts because they were written by Jews (not Christians) and reflect the Jewish mindset of a particular time and place. The category needs some focus or subcategories anyway, I suppose -- right now it's a mixture of Bible, Jewish philosophy, Hebrew grammar (niqqud), and the puerile and downright silly Verses criticizing Jews in the Old Testament... (I suppose that someone could detail about use of the verses by Christian Church Fathers to make that a useful article, but I'm not inclined to do so. As it stands it's just fluff.) Ah well, just something to think about. Mpolo 08:36, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mpolo: That a work is written by Jews does not make it "Jewish". In order to qualify as being Jewish, a text, or anything for that matter, needs to fit into conventional academic and religious definitions of what is "Jewish" as accepted by Judaism, otherwise things will just not make sense as they run wild. The works within the "deuterocanonical books" are a cross-breed of different works, many of which were never, and still are not, after more than 2,000 years, part of normative Judaism at all. So I think it makes sense for now to list them under the Category:Jewish Christian topics which is broad and neutral enough to take in these matters. As for the Category:Jewish texts it is basically OK, I just cleared out a few items, and I will look at it again. Thanks for the input. IZAK 08:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

O.K. Take a look at the section on the Jewish "canon", please. The topic is important for the article, because the Protestant canon is essentially formed by taking the Tanakh and reordering it, so the formation of the Tanakh must be discussed, and in the context of the article, calling this a "canon" seems to be the only reasonable terminology. Perhaps you will have a better way to write this. Thanks. Mpolo 10:53, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the article is written from a Christian perspective, so I would not like to tamper with it. The word "canon" is important to Christianity. In Judaism there is a whole other method of dealing with it, and it would deserve its own article/s. Because the article on Biblical canon, includes so many sections about the New Testament, I think it is fair to say that it cannot be included with a category of "Jewish texts". So it's best to leave it in the broad "Jewish Christian topics" category. IZAK 11:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DABs

Just wanted to let you know that disambiguation messages go on the bottom (just like stubs). Dori | Talk 15:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I was never sure about this. Thanks again. IZAK 22:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Intifada and Jenin

Alberuni insists there was a massacre in Jenin, even though every credible source (Time Magazine, BBC, HRWs, Amnesty and even the UN) confirmed that no massacre took place there.

You should see Alberuni's latest additions to the Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Unlike HistoryBuff, he - at least - is willing to discuss his edits, I'll grant him that. But the swearing and flamming attacks by him have gone too far, don't you think? MathKnight 21:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MathKnight: I agree with you, and why has there never been any follow-up to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni ? Best wishes. IZAK 22:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK - Out of curiosity, in view of the fact that Arafat kept harking back to the Al Aqsa arson attempt by an Australian reader of Herbert W. Armstrong's Plain Truth magazine, which called for the removal of both the Dome and the Al Aqsa so that the Temple could be rebuilt, has any of this been incorporated in any article that you know of to date? I figured that you would be one person who would know the answer. MPLX/MH 00:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi MPLX, nice to meet you. I don't know what Arafat was harping about, I am sure he had a variety of gripes to go on about, but as far as I know nothing has ever been done by any Jewish group to "build" the future "Third Temple". See the main article on the Temple in Jerusalem and the section/s of Temple in Jerusalem#Rebuilding the Temple today that deal with this topic. Hope this helps you. Keep in touch. IZAK 04:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, this is your subject area, not mine but I am willing to assist you if you want to construct something. Yassar Arafat used to harp on about the attempt by Jews/Israelis for trying to burn down Al Asqa. In fact this is the origin of the terror brigade that is now known by that name. Arafat repeated this claim in books and on TV including 60 Minutes and other shows. It was the foundation of his distrust of Israel, he claimed over and over again. Well the charge has been repeated by Western media as though it was fact, but it was not fact. Here are the facts (they are tedious so please stay with the story):

Back in 1969 Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong broadcast a show around the world called "The World Tomorrow" and they published a magazine in many languages called "The Plain Truth". It was probably in early 1969 (not sure of exact date but it can be found), that Garner Ted Armstrong wrote an article about the rebuilding of the Temple and an Australian reader named Dennis Michael Rohan set a fire in the Al Asqa to fulfill prophecy. Armstrong had taught that at the end of February 1972 WWIII would be begun by a United States of Europe that would destroy both the USA and UK and its resolution would lead to the Pope moving to Jerusalem. In the middle of these events the Temple would be rebuilt and all of this would end in the return of Jesus Christ as the Messiah to reign as world ruler for one thousand years.

Rohan was arrested with a copy of "The Plain Truth" sticking out of his pocket and his picture appeared on the front pages of the world's press, including "The Daily Telegraph" in London. Armstrong distanced himself from Rohan who seemed to vanish into thin air although he was taken into Israeli custody. Arafat used this incident until the day he died to attack Israel and the Al Asqa Brigade were founded upon this incident. You can find more by doing a search on Google or Yahoo for "Al Asqa"arson and "Dennis Michael Rohan"Armstrong and other entries. There is also a very brief mention of him in Temple Mount - under "Damage to the site (claimed and real" - but it does not do this subject the justice that it deserves.

There is also an interesting site at http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/wsj.html where complaints were made to the Wall Street Journal for reporting that:

Anger against Israel has long been the touchstone of both Arabic and Islamic unity ? as has Jerusalem?s al-Aqsa mosque, a sacred Islamic site on what Jews call Temple Mount. It was an Israeli?s attempt to burn down al-Aqsa in 1969 that led to the founding of the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference]. (November 13, 2000)

Critical commentary of the WSJ article states that:

"Contrary to the Journal?s reckless charge, the arsonist, Dennis Michael Rohan, was neither Israeli nor Jewish ? he was an Australian Protestant follower of an evangelical sect known as the Church of God. By his own admission, Rohan hoped to hasten the coming of the Messiah by burning down al-Aqsa." (Actually it was Herbert W. Armstrong's Radio Church of God which was later renamed the Worldwide Church of God with headquarters in Pasadena, California.)

The web site text above is followed by:

The fire was put out by Israeli firemen, despite attacks upon them by Muslim bystanders, who also cut some of the fire hoses. (Times of London, September 2, 1969)

Then the commentary adds:

"Wall Street Journal news editors should correct the false charge and might consider hiring a few fact checkers."

I just thought that this might be of interest to you and at the very least it should be an article and there should be cross-references to the biography of Arafat and the history of the Al Asqa Brigade and all other related subjects because according to Arafat THIS single 1969 incident was the cause of all of the bombing and killing that followed! If you are interested let me know if you want my help in any way. MPLX/MH 06:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi MPLX, I know about "The Plain Truth" magazine and TV show, and I know about Rohan and the fire he set on the Temple Mount way back, altho I was not aware of the connection between Rohan, his beliefs and what he read. I was not aware of the importance Arafat attached to that episode...I view Arafat more as a supreme opportunist, trained by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and inspired by his relative the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Amin el Husseini. Arafat was always on the lookout to create the means for what he had always planned on doing, fighting a "war of attrition" against Israel by "unconventional war-fare", meaning Terrorism. He used Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (after Arafat's own refusal to make a deal for peace with Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000) to launch the Al Aqsa Intifada. He curried favor with Communism and the USSR during the Cold War to get training, money, and arms for the PLO. He played off of the rivalries between Arabs themselves as when he fought King Hussein during Black September in 1970 or helped launch the civil war in Lebanon when he moved there with the PLO. Or, when he sided first with Iran's Khomeini and then later with Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein (remaining "friends with both Iran and Iraq as they killed each other during the ten year Iran-Iraq War). So I don't know if I would just focus on one point about Rohan. Could you do some research and see which sources cite what Rohan did and how much it was Arafat's big bugaboo as you claim? IZAK 06:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • No problem. I will poke around and let you know. MPLX/MH 18:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael Dennis Rohan

IZAK when I started reading the Yahoo and Google entries under this man's name they either described him as a Australian tourist; Christian or Jew. However, none of the articles appear to have the real details. I found the one Wikipedia entry under Temple Mount and corrected misinformation and added information and I have also commenced a main article under the heading of Michael Dennis Rohan. I am giving you a heads-up so that if there is anything there that you wish to change, you can do so. I will be adding more information about Rohan to the main entry and I will try to find as many of the incorrect propaganda uses that have been made out of this incident by the Arab press. My interest is actually not in taking a POV side with the article but to provide information that is not currently available to Wikipedia and to remove some of the false information that had been posted. Clearly this was a major incident that has been used for decades as an excuse to continue a war of terrorism against Israel. MPLX/MH 06:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, best wishes with your research. I will look at the article. Thanks again. IZAK 08:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK: Thanks for putting in the links and tidying it up. MPLX/MH 00:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. IZAK 07:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moment

Your addition to the moment disambiguation page made it appear that "Moment (magazine)]] is one of "two related concepts in mathematics and physics". I have restructured it. Michael Hardy 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thanks for the info. I now made Moment (magazine) into a tiny stub. BTW, there is no "limitation" to a "disambiguation" page on Wikipedia that would limit the disambiguation to "only" mathematics or anything else for that matter AFAIK, so it still all fits and I don't think you need to have a separate "see also" at the bottom for the "Jewish" "Moment". Just my thoughts. IZAK 10:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ashkenazi

Could you have a look at my recent comment on Talk:Ashkenazi? I believe that recent edits to the article are, to put it politely, bad. I have added a disputed tag. I would like to make sure that at least a couple of other people agree with me before I revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel: Your judgment is correct. As you say on that talk page, I have reverted it. IZAK 05:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have just noted, by chance, that CheeseDreams has brought a case against you, me and others for Arbitration. Given that I only found out by chance rather than notification, I thought I would let you know in case you would like to comment on WP:RFAR. jguk 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Dear Jongarrettuk, thanks for telling me about this. I cannot fathom his problem/s. IZAK 07:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Izak, thanks for making contact and sorry I never responded. Hope you are doing fine and do not get into too much trouble these days. The administrators should really let you do your thing on Wikipedia, just as about everyone else. Gidonb 06:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you Gidon. IZAK 07:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You are welcome! Gidonb 23:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naming of yeshiva articles

IZAK, I'm not sure the long names of Chofetz Chaim and Ner Yisroel are helpful. Can't we keep them under their Hebrew names with adequate redirects? JFW | T@lk 13:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi JFW, at this point there are so few articles on yeshivas there is no point to redirects at all. I would say that the redirects could work just as well in an opposite direction, from the short name to the long name (which is its legal name too, somewhat like the official names of all the British Lordships and Earls where the short names have redirects to the longer official titles of "his lordship with his six double -barreled names etc", and here it is not that bad.) In fact I will go ahead and create the redirects myself so that they are in place.I would like to see a conformity to the naming of Yeshivas and they almost all have Jewish and English names, so that I think it is right to start off with the name "Yeshiva..." which is how they call themselves, and then build up a list that will look proportional. See it already in Category:Orthodox Judaism under "Y". Soon we may have a category for yeshivas alone. Hope all is well, and nice to hear from you again. IZAK 13:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton

Hi, on my Requests for adminship, User:Fastfission has suggested that I?m sympathetic to Holocaust deniers, since you know my work on the David Irving article maybe you could comment on that, what I consider a tasteless assertion. GeneralPatton 06:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chofetz Chaim articles

Izak, you screwed up the Chofetz Chaim articles. Please desist from revising them.

  • Whoever you are:
  1. That is NOT the way it works on Wikipedia! You need to explain and discuss on the "TALK" or "DISCUSSION" page of an article what you disagree with. Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts, and if you find fault with facts, or POV, or things that need discussion then discuss it, but you CANNOT leave an anonymous message on anyones talk page and issue them with a "desist order" as it only shows how unfamiliar you are with the way Wikipedia functions. Thanks. IZAK 03:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Hi again anonymous editor "User:207.127.40.3" [1] see my note at Talk:Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim: Rabbinical Seminary of America#To the anonymous editor [2]: "Hi, could you please get yourself an official Wikipedia User name and page so that people can communicate with you and co-ordinate work on this (and other) article/s. You are also adding far too much detail, which will need serious editing at some point. You obviously have good "inside info", but Wikipedia is NOT about being a "platform" to critique and "screw" your subjects. If your attitude of not liking the yeshiva comes through then you are in violation of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Thanks, and hoping to hear from you as a "normal" Wikipedia user." Take care. IZAK 03:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trying to create a template/s by IZAK

Email

Could you tell me the contents of the bounce? I'm getting worried. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I have replied. IZAK 16:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Working to create Jew article Template

User talk:IZAK/Jew

Very nice! One question, though: should it really be on every page connected with Judaism? I can see its use on the main historical/cultural pages (in particular, on the ones it references), but I think we risk visually overloading pages such as List of French Jews (which already has a template of its own) with links that are only two clicks away. No? Juko 12:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Juko: Obviously the {{Jew}} template does not belong on every page relating to Jews and Judaism, we will have to create some balance, but it is very useful and does not do harm. I do not see it as "visually overloading pages" at all, on the contrary, most Wikipedia pages are very monotonous and boring visually, and every added intelligent visual material helps to make reading Wikipedia more interesting and informative, not less. Thanks again for the feed-back. IZAK 04:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jew template

Would you mind taking a look at User:JRM/Sandbox and letting me know what you think? JRM 12:04, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

  • Hi JRM: I looked at your version of the template. I think it is much too tight and jumbles up topics. Each topic/article desrves its own little line, that's my take on it. IZAK 04:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hallo, IZAK! I think the template looks good and will serve as very helpful navigation around Jewish articles. Having said that, I apologise for removing it from Aramaic language. This is partly for the reason stated by your last correspondent (i.e. does it have to go on every page?), and partly due to the article being already overlong (which is my fault). Aramaic is not just the language of Jews, and so I'm writing articles on different dialects of Aramaic (e.g. Mlahso language). I have also proposed that we have three related articles to deal with important religious contexts for Aramaic:

The last of these, I would hope, could cover Targumic, Midrashic and Talmudic dialects of Aramaic, as well as Jewish Neo-aramaic dialects. I think it would be appropriate to link the template in here.

I really hope that you don't take this the wrong way: I do like and appreciate the template in itself.

Gareth Hughes 13:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gareth: You may be right. However:

  • I do not think that "Aramaic of Jesus" makes any sense as he did not invent or do anythinng for the language. He may have spoken it, and that's about it.
  • Another point is that "Biblical Aramaic" is also "Jewish Aramaic" (and then again, there is not that much Aramaic in the Bible either!).
  • So-called "Jewish Aramaic" should correctly be called Aramaic of the Talmud as the vast bulk of the Talmud's contents consisting of thousands of pages of legal, religious, Biblical, and jurisprudence discussions with millions of words are mostly ALL in Aramaic.
  • And, not only that but there are many millions of Jews today, mostly from Orthodox Judaism who are familiar with Aramaic from the Talmud.
  • Otherwise for all intents and purposes, Aramaic is a Dead language today.
  • Only for obscure scholars of language do all the types of Aramaic matter as an ecercise in theoretical scholarship, whereas for the (mostly religious) Jews, Aramaic continues to live on. IZAK 04:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think anyone interested in the New Testament would find Aramaic of Jesus useful. I have thought that the article might best be called 'New Testament Aramaic'. There seems to be enough interest in this aspect of the language to warrant an article about it. You are right in saying that Jesus did not invent Aramaic, whatever that might mean, but there is the oddity that some of his words are recorded in the New Testament (in a Greek context), and these words are of great importance to Christians. I really felt that this material was better taken out of a historical linguistics article on the Aramaic language.
I think Biblical Aramaic is sufficiently different from other dialects, and of enough interest in itself to warrant an article. You are right that this is a Jewish language, and heving a separate article called 'Jewish Aramaic' might be misleading. However, there are a number of related but distinct dialects I was thinking about, the language of the Talmuds, targums, midrash and various private documents. These are now extinct, scholarly languages. However, there are still a few thousand Jews who speak modern dialects of Aramaic, who wouldn't appreciate the idea that their language was dead.
Gareth Hughes 12:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
IZAK, I am posting some more comments in the Jew Tempate talk page. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep reading and responding. IZAK 04:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IZAK: another article for you to take a look at

I have just written an entry on the Magna Carta talk page and this is what it says:

What is missing from this article is text showing that this a anti-semetic document! In the 1215 version (annulled by the Pope one month after it was signed), there is a long body of text concerning the Jews. By the time of the 1297 version this text had been removed. The reason is that the Jews had been kicked out of England in the meantime. In the 1215 version the Jews are addressed as moneychangers and as a sub-category of human beings who do not share the same status as human beings enjoying the blessings of the Pope. I have not inserted any of this material as yet because I would like to see reaction to my comments in the first place. I am also drawing the attention of User talk:IZAK to this message, because I believe that it may be of interest to him. MPLX/MH 21:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magna_Carta"

Go and take a look at this Talk page. Someone suggested that the issue I raised is not significant. I hold that it is the seed that begat the Holocaust. Please have a look and offer your opinion on this issue. MPLX/MH 23:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

  • Image:Israel_M_Kirzner.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:35, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

  • {{GFDL}} IZAK 03:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi IZAK! Can you also move the categories for Elias Khouri and list all other weird categories I created mistakingly, according to the nl.wikipedia standards, for deletion? Thank you! 04:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi: No problem, I have moved him to the Category:Israeli people which is legit. Please be careful before creating Wikipedia "Categories" because you need to have a fair amount of good articles to justify it. Thanks. IZAK 04:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I am more active on the Dutch Wikipedia. I do try to write something on the en.wikipedia too, every now and then. Best regards, gidonb 04:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Paula and David Ben Gurion 1915.jpg

Thank you for uploading the above image. It is currently tagged {{unverified}}. Can you please tag with the appropriate copyright notice and cite the source if possible. Thanks, Duk 17:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thousands of images have no copyright tags. You can help!

  • {{GFDL}} IZAK 03:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kovno kollel etc.

Shalom! Happy Chanuka!

Toda for your sincere comments! I corrected Kovno kollel. I'll try not to repeat similar case :) --Fivetrees 23:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shalom, Izak! I compared your revision Kovno kollel with my edit. Your revisions are very good!! I'll ask Your help always! I'll try to learn from You. Leitraot! --Fivetrees 13:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Fivetrees: My pleasure. Be well. Kol Tuv! IZAK 05:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewish history template

New Jewish history template: Template:JewHist-stub IZAK 10:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antisemitic Jewish issues

IZAK: Clearly the other folks contributing to Magna Carta don't want to touch this issue like the plague, but I have jumped in with both texts relating to the Jews in England at the time of the 1215 Magna Carta. There is a big issue here. The Jews were classified for religious reasons as moneychangers and as property of the king who was a vassel of the Pope (who annulled the 1215 Magna Carta one month after it was signed.) However, by the time of the 1297 Magna Carta there is no more "Jewish Question" due to the English "Final Solution" under which the Jews either had to flee, convert or go undergound under penalty of death. Sound familiar? Everything changes and nothing changes. But this was the prior context of Shakespeare's writing about the same sort of subject matter. Please take a look and wade in because this really is the dirty little secret of history that no one (except me) wants revealed. MPLX/MH 06:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It would appear that according to defenders of King John and the Pope, the Jews just had a "horrible time" in the Middle Ages, but that "blood libels", treating Jews as moneychangers and personal property who were not entitled to enjoy equal human rights, was just one of those things and that all of the current discussion about Magna Carta and the killing of Jews in the 13th Century is POV revisionism. IZAK: Please, please take a look at the Magna Carta Talk page and join the discussion. (Please!) MPLX/MH 05:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JewHist-stub vs. Jewish-History stub

I just added JewHist-stub to Samuel Cohen (composer) instead of Judaism-stub, but I'm not sure if this is correct. The distinction while obvious, is not exactly explained on the two two stub pages, Category:Judaism-related stubs and Category:Jewish history-related stubs. Do you think you could modify the explanations on those two pages to point users to either of them? --Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have added some "NOTE/s" to the "Category" pages as per your suggestion. Thank you. IZAK 08:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:MetaPicstub

I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve with your edit of Template:MetaPicstub, but I fear you were editing the wrong template. That template is used in all the picture stub footers, not just the isreal-related ones. --fvw* 09:13, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry if I disturbed anything. I am trying to figure out how to get the {{Israel-stub}} (see Template:Israel-stub) to show up properly in the list of stubs with "images", instead of the "blank column" on the list of stubs at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs#Place-related, By Region. Also I am trying to do the same for the {{Judaism-stub}} (Template:Judaism-stub) in the religious stubs at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs#Religion, mythology, faiths, and beliefs , and {{Jewish-hist-stub}} (Template:JewHist-stub) at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs#History). Since I created these three stubs, (they all have "images" with them), and they are being used, I would appreciate any help in getting them to appear in the Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs page. If you could help I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.IZAK 09:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can't you just edit the list of stubs manually and put it in? I see no indication that it's a generated list. --fvw* 09:35, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

untagged image.

Could you add a copyright tag to Image:Pat and Richard Nixon exit US plane.jpg it's probably {{fairuse}} Zeimusu 03:28, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

User:Wiesenthaler is a sockpuppet of the sockpuppet User:Goldberg

Please check the contribs of User:Wiesenthaler. Jewbacca 04:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

195.7.55.146 is likely the same sock. --Viriditas | Talk 05:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Religion

Whether or not billions of people would like that category under Category:Main page, what needs to happen is for it to be removed from that category, or added to the category browse bar (displayed on the main page), as these should have the same set of categories displayed on them. See Template talk:Categorybrowsebar#Religion and post comments there, not here. Brianjd 06:01, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Dr. Gene Scott

Aloha, IZAK. I don't think moving Dr. Gene Scott to Eugene Scott is correct. As far as I know, the common name should be used (Gene Scott) as the article title. I could be wrong, though. --Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas: Feel free to correct it, if need be. IZAK 05:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talmidaism

Hi IZAK. There are some questions about the links you recently added to the Talmidaism page; you'll find them on the Talk: page there. Jayjg 21:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg: I will look at it. IZAK 05:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lost Ten Tribes, etc.

Discussion/s concerning this topic moved to Talk:Lost Ten Tribes. Thank you. IZAK 06:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I don't know much about the Lost Ten Tribes, but I notice for example that the names of the tribes are not in the article. Which are the two that are not lost? Judah and Levi, I presume? This information (or the names of the ten tribes that are lost) should appear as well as some information on the formation of tribes among the Israelites. I will take a deeper look at the article and see where I can make edits. Jewbacca 07:17, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jewbacca, the information you require is in the links of Background information, see Lost Ten Tribes#Jewish historical background and the Israelite article in particular. IZAK 07:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please place comments pertinent to this subject on the Talk:Lost Ten Tribes page. Thank you. IZAK 07:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

IZAK i believe you misunderstood what i meant by saying its misplaced. Did you look at my revised template? Its still included, but rather than being a sole background shaded box with no sub links, I changed it to a white background link. Please view my version and relax. Alkivar 01:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Appreciation

IZAK, I know you and I have clashed several times, and even drove me to the brink of insanity once or twice. But I have to say as another Wikipedia user that I think you've been doing well for yourself. You've settled in well, and being a very productive user. I appreciate that. And I'd also like to apologize for driving you insane too.

On another note, I remember how you couldn't view special characters because they don't display in the Arial font. If you wish, I could explain how to change your account's style sheet so that your browser alone can decide what fonts to use. Under those circumstances, both IE and Firefox are freer to mix available fonts for displaying characters for many different languages and academic uses, provided you have the fonts (such as Tahoma, Times New Roman, etc.) available.

- Gilgamesh 13:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gilgamesh: Good to hear from you. Honestly, whatever transpired was in the "spirit of discussion" so I feel bad that you were upset at times. I still have trouble with reading the fonts you installed for many articles with Hebrew transliterations though, but I don't want to tamper with my Microsoft browser as in my experience that may be like opening the proverbial "can of worms", and I certainly don't want to install "Firefox", because I really do respect Bill Gates too much to abandon his universal application/s. Wishing you many more "happy new year resolutions". All the best, IZAK 02:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote on new template

I have now posted a vote (Template_talk:Jew#Vote_on_new_template) for whether or not people will accept the new template. Please put yourself where you feel comfortable. Alkivar 19:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Judaism

I solved the problem. JFW | T@lk 08:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Greatly appreciated. IZAK 03:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BPOV and BPOVbecause

Way ahead of you mate. She is blocked for 24 hours and I have deleted the templates. AllyUnion restore one to show User Vague_Rant what was on there. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hehe :) I saw that also. I've voted already. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation. IZAK 11:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your Anti-Nudity campaign

pasted from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy:

Aside from that, I think it's unfortunate that the anti-nudity crusade is being led (at least on this page) by user:IZAK, who seems to have difficulty making logical, on-topic arguments and responses to disagreements. His/her statements are full of logical fallacies (especially the straw man), and he/she's difficult to take seriously. I think it's important for the community to have this discussion -- in fact, I'm pretty confident that it already has, several times in its history -- but it's difficult to do with IZAK screaming bloody murder all the time.
FWIW, my vote is more or less to soldier on as WP's always done, always attempting to be sensitive to those whose obscenity radar is more sensitive, always using the least offensive, most informative image possible. -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what the above writer means, that I "have difficulty making logical, on-topic arguments and responses to disagreements. His/her statements are full of logical fallacies (especially the straw man), and he/she's difficult to take seriously..." when absolutely NO examples are given at all. Could you please point to ONE example of what I said that is "wrong" in any way (according to your lexicon) to back up your criticism? Makes it sound like I am leading a "crusade" ("jihad"?) against "nudists international" or something...go figure...All we are talking about is trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming a de facto porn site, and is that so "terrible" and too much to ask of a supposed "encyclopedia"? What credibility will Wikipedia have if it allows itself to host an increasing flood of images that rightly belong in Playboy magazine? IZAK 10:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A large part of my objection to your comments may be your use of quotation marks, which for you apparently indicate emphasis but are generally supposed to indicate that you are quoting someone else's words (reduced to a single apostrophe when quoting inside a quotation). User:Evil Monkey said "I am a male, so have a penis, which I see everyday, so am not offended when I see an image of one in Wikipedia." You responded with "Everything that is 'visible' to the 'naked eye' should now be depicted in an encyclopedia? This makes no sense!" which implied to me that you were putting words in Evil_Monkey's mouth that he never said. Hence my accusation of straw man. Perhaps you are mistaking the Wikipedia syntax '' (two single apostrophes) for ", a quotation mark. If you'd use the first one for emphasis instead of the last one, I would certainly appreciate it and have an easier time understanding what you say.
Moreover, I do have an objection to statements like "so many people think that Wikipedia should become a kind of 'free-for-all' with all sorts of ansavory photos and just 'make peace with it.'" No one is suggesting that we completely stop monitoring the appropriateness of images. Your use of exaggeration makes it difficult to believe that you are really addressing what people are actually saying, rather than what you imagine they really mean. Most Wikipedians are actually nice people. We are not trying to destroy children's minds. We don't want pornography on Wikipedia either. Most of us simply feel that a human being without clothes on doesn't have to be obscene. User:Sam Spade is not representative of the larger community; I should think his/her failed attempts to run for office would prove that.
In short, relax. Trust the community. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, your reference to morality as something self-evident and black-and-white is divisive and detrimental to any kind of solution that you and the community at large will be happy with. You obviously feel that nude pictures are immoral. I and many others do not. Saying that it simply is immoral insults those with different opinions, leads readers to believe that you are intolerant of their beliefs, and stirs up bad feeling and needless polemics. Perhaps you should open your mind in mutual discussion, not force your views (which you have no doubt are correct) on others. Timbo 04:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Russian Jews/Old

This category didn't exist until you created it, by adding the {cfd} tag. Please get a clue. And while I'm on the subject of clues, Category_talk:Russian Jews/Old only exists because you moved Category_talk:Jewish Russian people to Category_talk:Russian Jews the wrong way (by doing a cut-and-paste move), not the right way, and I didn't feel like fixing it the right way since i) that's dangerous (it occasionally doesn't work, and loses the page contents/history) and ii) it didn't seem worth while for such a little-used page. However, given your inability to refrain from fiddling with things that aren't just the way you want them, it appears that I will have to fix it the hard way. Noel (talk) 16:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Hi IZAK, please see WP:CS. Thx. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Othrodox Jewish communities

Hi IZAK, I can't help but feel it's more than a little odd to have communities like Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Postville, Iowa, which have large Orthodox Jewish populations, go directly under Category:Orthodox Judaism. I suggest they be put in a new Category:Orthodox Jewish communities which would be made a subcategory of Category:Orthodox Judaism. Perhaps we could also create a subcategory for Category:Hasidic sects.--Pharos 21:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pharos:It is not always advisable or necessary to create sub-categories for each new entry relating to a main category, which is why I try to avoid creating new categories until absolutely necessary. Your suggestion for "communities" may be good. As for the other suggestion, I don't like the word "sect" though. The word "Hasidism" should be fine. But I will keep in mind your suggestions. IZAK 03:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, the Jewish POV

Hi IZAK. Yes, I've seen the article. It was part of a new editor's attempts to completely re-write the Jesus article in a unique and POV way. I voted to delete this article a while ago, since it adds nothing of value. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I am interested in this discussion - I have skirted over the article and for what it is worth here is my opinion (speaking as a practicing Christian myself). Although the article contains some inaccuracies I think it is quite valuable to have a source in the Wikipedia where alternative interpretations on a subject can be found - especially if the alternative view is held by a substantial number of people (in this case the practicing Jewish community). The article does contain a heading which indicates the nature of the work very clearly. Though I would not use abbreviations such as POV in the text of a Wiki-article. I think a word like "interpretation" should be used instead of POV. Also, especially in cases of belief systems, one faith's blasphemy can be another faith's central tenet. --JohnArmagh 08:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Litaim > Lithuanian Jews

Ooops, IZAK, sorry for my mistakes! I try and learn to turn enthusiasm into useful materials. Thank You a lot for correcting my mistakes! I think I went to next phasis of my contribution to Wiki. Now I'll write less and try higher quality. Sincerely! --Fivetrees 01:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Ruling

The Arbitration Committee has concluded your case:

1) IZAK is banned for 10 days for making personal attacks.

3.1) IZAK is placed on standard personal attack parole [for 2 months]. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Administrators are requested to be particularly vigilant with respect to personal attacks made on user talk pages, and cross-posted personal attacks.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK.

Image

Hi, sorry to disturb you but I wonder about Image:Generals Rabin Dayan Narkis Jerusalem 1967.jpg. Are you quite certain it is licensed under GFDL? Thuresson 15:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)