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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
John Pack Lambert voted "Delete" based on the assumption that:
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 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.
I am sure that these points have been discussed at length before elsewhere and will only offer the following summary:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Discussion on Category talk:16-th century Palestinian rabbis
|
---|
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) 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 called Category: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)
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)
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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfican ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by centuryThe 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 to Rabbis 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:
That is what I recommend. IZAK ( talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-- Arfican ( talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 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)
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 all Jerusalem 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)
Dude, get over it! Time to move on.Chesdovi,
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) Century specific Palestinian rabbi sources
And the list goes on and on and on.... --- Chesdovi ( talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 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 all Jerusalem 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)
New evidence submittedI have just coincidentally come across the following fragment in a genizah. It clearly shows that this rabbi, a dayan in Jerusalem during the mandate period, used the word "Palestine" as his address: Chesdovi( talk) 15:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Israel government year book 1987 affirms that Jews called themselves Palestiniansיחידים 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) 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)
Israeli dictionary translates "Erez Yisrael" as "Palestinian"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)
Adin Steinsaltz has no concerns about using "Palestinian" for rabbis
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)
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)
"Palestinian" is used by numerous sources in reference to Jews and Judaism--- Chesdovi ( talk) 23:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Newer evidence—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfican ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Rishon Le'zion stamp
Jaffa's Jewish community also called it PalestineJews of Peki'in also called the Land of Israel "Palestine"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)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) Ottoman "Palestine"The article Palestine says in subsection Ottoman rule:
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)
Rabbi Dr Isaac Herzog on the matterThese 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 the Palestine Post. Joshua ben Levi is called a Palestinian saint. What clearer proof does one need? Chesdovi ( talk) 11:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz on the matterChief 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) Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz on the matter, againAn 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) Rabbi Philip Blackman on the matterThis 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) Rabbi Israel Brodie on the matterThis 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) Baron Jakobovits' view on the matterChief rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits called medieval rabbis "Palestinian" in his medical 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) Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz on the matterRabbi 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)
Rev M. Rosenbaum & Dr. A. M. SilbermanIn 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) Rabbi Isidore EpsteinThe 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) Modern Jews (1960)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) For the children of 1959The 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)
I would sum up this discussion as follows:
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)
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)
"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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
John Pack Lambert voted "Delete" based on the assumption that:
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 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.
I am sure that these points have been discussed at length before elsewhere and will only offer the following summary:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Discussion on Category talk:16-th century Palestinian rabbis
|
---|
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) 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 called Category: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)
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)
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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfican ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel by centuryThe 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 to Rabbis 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:
That is what I recommend. IZAK ( talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-- Arfican ( talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 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)
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 all Jerusalem 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)
Dude, get over it! Time to move on.Chesdovi,
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) Century specific Palestinian rabbi sources
And the list goes on and on and on.... --- Chesdovi ( talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 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 all Jerusalem 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)
New evidence submittedI have just coincidentally come across the following fragment in a genizah. It clearly shows that this rabbi, a dayan in Jerusalem during the mandate period, used the word "Palestine" as his address: Chesdovi( talk) 15:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Israel government year book 1987 affirms that Jews called themselves Palestiniansיחידים 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) 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)
Israeli dictionary translates "Erez Yisrael" as "Palestinian"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)
Adin Steinsaltz has no concerns about using "Palestinian" for rabbis
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)
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)
"Palestinian" is used by numerous sources in reference to Jews and Judaism--- Chesdovi ( talk) 23:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Newer evidence—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfican ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Rishon Le'zion stamp
Jaffa's Jewish community also called it PalestineJews of Peki'in also called the Land of Israel "Palestine"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)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) Ottoman "Palestine"The article Palestine says in subsection Ottoman rule:
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)
Rabbi Dr Isaac Herzog on the matterThese 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 the Palestine Post. Joshua ben Levi is called a Palestinian saint. What clearer proof does one need? Chesdovi ( talk) 11:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz on the matterChief 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) Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz on the matter, againAn 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) Rabbi Philip Blackman on the matterThis 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) Rabbi Israel Brodie on the matterThis 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) Baron Jakobovits' view on the matterChief rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits called medieval rabbis "Palestinian" in his medical 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) Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz on the matterRabbi 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)
Rev M. Rosenbaum & Dr. A. M. SilbermanIn 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) Rabbi Isidore EpsteinThe 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) Modern Jews (1960)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) For the children of 1959The 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)
I would sum up this discussion as follows:
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)
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)
"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)
|