Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2

July 2

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following DRV; I am neutral. The continued existence of this category is contested in that at least one editor has been removing it from articles and it was subsequently deleted as empty. Following a DRV in which this was contested, the matter is brought here for resolution. Arguments about the merits of the category can be found at Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis#Rfc.  Sandstein  17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Really? "Palestinian geonim" is not century specific, one of your objections? Chesdovi (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it also related to Category:Palestinian Christian monks, Category:Palestinian Sufis, etc, etc? Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not speedy Category:Palestinian geonim if this discussion will be closed as a delete, but it definitely is related. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So you will sd Category:Palestinian Christian monks as well - or are you only anti-Palestinian when it comes to Jews? Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose deletion. Suggest alternative name of Category:16th-century rabbis of the Southern Levant which is neutral and avoids inflamining national passions. It is also more generous about the geography given that the location shifted over the centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just that this proposal of yours was unanimously rejected (7:0) at Category_talk:Talmud_rabbis_of_the_Land_of_Israel. See there for the reasons. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User Debresser's contributions to that debate ceased soon after I asked him to say which flavour of the biblical definition of the boundaries of the Land of Israel he favoured. Would still be interested in a reply. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The behaviour of Debresser from the start has been totally inexcusable, if not manipulative. In response to the creation of this category, he did not initiate a discussion here, but instead made sure that the categories were consistently empty and then nominated them time and again for deletion, trying to enforce his opinion with impunity, once forcing a 72 ban upon us both. All other similar categories I created, such as Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine have been deleted, but not due to any consensus reached, rather by Debressers manipulation. I have tried with difficulty to keep this category active in order to allow debate to take place without it being stifled by Debresser. Even while the Rfc was taking place, he would not allow the category to be populated. Debresser will not be swayed but ample RS provided which prove that the term is used widely in contemporary scholarly sources. Why is this? Is he so worried that people may be "confused" for whatever reason he can think of? The admission by Debresser that it is anti-semitic to call a rabbi Palestinian points to the fact the Debresser is actually driven by other misguided concerns which he has not fully addressed here. I believe Debressers chief opposition stems not from valid concerns, but from a partisan stance on the I/P conflict, with relation to Jews. (Proof: A cateogry of early Palestinian Chrisitans has not incurred the opposition of Debresser.) The fact that a world renowned rabbi calls early rabbis "Palestinian" shows that usage of the term is wholly acceptable in mainstream academia. Serious and concerted opposition has demonstrated solely by Debresser. He then has the audacity to label my efforts to save the category as being "pushy". It is clear that Debresser feels no debate on the matter is needed or appropriate. All that matters are "protests"; "protests" of 3 users to which I am obliged to submit to. Forget about debate. This mentality led Debresser to keep on emptying the cats and nominated them for deletion as CATEMPTY! I have debunked argument after argument, but to no avail. I implore anyone wishing to comment here to first take a look at all the relevant talkback posts, the Rfc and any other linked discussion that have taken place on the issue before commenting here. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:16th century rabbis in Palestine. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  Why? Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please would the closer of this CFD begin by examining the previous RFC and closing it properly? The RFC close will certainly inform this one. Personally, I think the problem word is "Palestinian" which is (according to the pro-Israeli faction) a loaded and inaccurate term. I must admit that I'm British, and I always understood "Palestinian" simply to mean "originating from the area called Palestine", but on researching my !vote here I see that we have a whole article about that and it's highly controversial. I agree with Jheald's proposed rename to Category:16th century rabbis in Palestine, which is strictly accurate and avoids the word that's getting editors so excited. I specifically oppose the RFC-suggested rename involving the Land of Israel. The place is called Palestine.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

At the start of this discussion, I presume all 4 members of the “pro-Israel faction” against the term were unaware of the wide application of “Palestinian rabbi”. Yet they still persist that Palestinian is a "loaded term." Why? Don’t we have an impressive selection of contemporary mainstream (Jewish and Israeli) sources that use the term? It would not be NPOV to opt against using “Palestinian” in reference to medieval rabbis here. It is only "highly controversial" for a handful of pro-Israel wikipedia editors who adopt a political POV. But does their POV really have a solid foundation for support here? There is also Definitions of Tibet (another area of politicised conflict) yet we can still have Category:Tibetan people. It would be very strange for us not to allow “Palestinian rabbis”, while allow "Palestinian monks". Editors that oppose solely “Palestinian rabbis” can simply not stomach the word Palestine used in connection with Jews. That is not a view I feel should be encouraged here. It is not accurate or academically sound. Besides we will end up with too much being put in unconventional categories like Category:Land of Israel. I should add that "...in Palestine" was never an option for the Pro-Israel faction either, so trying to rename to that doesn't get out of the problem. It is 2 (or 4) users and general authors who prefer the term Land of Israel over Palestine against everyone else. What usually happens when terms may have different meanings is to disambiguate. But here, that is not necessary as the by century prefix shows that it refers to an earlier period. Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are various complicated reasons, to do with the history of Wikipedia, why the Israel-Palestine conflict needs handling with kid gloves. I can see why you feel the case of Tibet probably ought to be analagous but owing to the arcane wikipolitics involved, it isn't. I'm sorry, Chesdovi; politically, in this area I follow the mainstream British position (which, famously, the Israeli government finds "unrelentingly pro-Palestinian"). But in this case I think a concession is necessary and we would be best advised to follow Jheald.—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, almost all of the timespan that Chesdovi has tried to cover with his categories (16th-19th century), the land was under Ottoman or Mamluk rule, and was not called Palestine. Not meaning to say that nobody used the word Palestine to denote that region, which was first called so by the Romans, but to state that such would be its rightful name, is factually incorrect. I notice that people here did not study the relevant discussions before commenting, deplorably. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't relevant, though. What matters is what we call it today. Venerable Bede is in Category:English theologians even though, in the 8th century, there was no such place as England. Halfdan the Black is in Category:Norwegian petty kings even though, in the 8th century, there was no such place as Norway. Categories are to help today's readers, so they're written in today's terms.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case it absolutely has to be "Israel", because Jerusalem and Safed, the cities where most of these rabbis dwelt, are all unequivocally in Israel. But I disagree with your argument, and see no reason to rename e.g. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine just because it is now Israel. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Which rabbis lived in Jerusalem and Safed? I can't tell because you've depopulated this category, Debresser—an action which, while I'm sure was well-intentioned, does rather make it hard to discuss the details. You've also repeatedly called for its deletion. Is your position now that it should be renamed? Frankly, I'm having trouble reconciling your earlier actions with your current line of argument, and I'm wondering exactly how extreme your views on this are.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Extreme? Was that a bad faith accusation. I and many others think this unilateral initiative of Chesdovi is "The Wrong Thing To Do". It never met consensus, on the contrary has been heavily protested, just that Chesdovi is trying to push it through with all his might. If anything, I am the voice with the rational arguments here. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Heaviliy protested"?! 3 other editors at Rfc made their views known opposing the category name. I would not call that "protesting". Neither was it "heavy". In fact, there has been a dearth of participation on the issue. There have been numerous attempts to get more people invovled, but to no avail. You would think by the way Debresser describes it, tens of editors have come out strongly against it. In fact Debresser is the only editor "heavily protesting" here. More people participated about whether we should delete a North American Temple! Debresser is the one who has tried time and again to supress debate on the matter, with unilateral deletion nominating and depopualtion without let up. And I am accused of "pushing". If it seems to be, it is in direct response to Debreseers forceful, manipulative and biased actions. Debresser must realise that he, based on the view of a handful of other editors, can not dictate to others what stays and what doesn’t on wiki. Chesdovi (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's been "heavily protested" by one user: you. And it's been heavily supported by one user: Chesdovi. The adding of this category, its removal, its deletion, the RFC, the AN/I thread, the DRV, and now this CFD, all with their huge walls of text from Debresser and Chesdovi, have all come about because neither of you are prepared to compromise and neither of you are prepared to back down. To be completely frank, I think both of you have completely lost all sense of proportion about it, and in that sense I feel quite justified in describing your views as "extreme". You're demonising each other and misrepresenting each other's actions. I think both of you need to WP:DISENGAGE.

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

That is a misrepresentation of the facts. Protests were logged not by me, but by others also. Did you even try to look at Chesdovi's talkpage? And the Rfc showed almost nobody in favor of a rename, and a clear lack of consensus for having this novel and ambiguous (to say the least) category, with more in favor of deleting it than having it. If people don't comment here, it is because Chesdovi has worn out all but me. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is highly probable that there are many users who had some of the 150 rabbi pages on their watchlist and did no complain for one month after they had been added. This is called the "silent majority". The rfc result was neutral. That's clear enough. Calling this "novel" is false. We had a Palestinian rabbi category created years ago, but guess what, one of Debressers “pro-Israel faction” mates renamed it unilaterally after a mere few days. Pity that didn't work for them this time round. I am taking a stand for what I believe is right. It is totally not ambiguous. It seems they just have a problem with "Palestine." That problem should not be passed onto normal wiki users. Chesdovi (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is proof, then the fact that nobody complained when I removed the category is also proof. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof that the community is neutral on the matter, not what you think that everybody disagrees with it. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So when you are met with silence that is proof of agreement, but when it is me, it is only proof of neutrality. You are something! Debresser (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned "agreement"? No one complained either way: they did not complain when they were added and they did not complain when they were removed. All the people who may have noticed the addition of the category or its removal simply have no strong opinion on the issue either way, like Malik and others. As I said, it shows a neutral stance, contrary to your position that there have been "heavy protests" all along. Chesdovi (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The "heavy protests" were made on your talkpage and the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Golly Debreser, will you ever be able to accept defeat? We are talking before messages left by you at talk: In the month and the immediate aftermath of your removal there was no interference. No one had anything to say about the category's addition or removal besides you! Do you really think Supreme Deliciousness has rabbi pages on her watchlist? Third time: What do you call the region? If you can't answer that simple question, what on earth are you doing partaking in this discussion? Chesdovi (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are people getting knotted up with ideas of what it was called, by whom, when? We have ample necessary RS which overwelmingly support "Palestinian rabbis". Why is anyone in their right mind trying to ignore that factual appelation? Notwithstanding the I/P bickering on wiki, we still have "Palestine" beleive it or not. Why Palestinian rabbis should be shevled, I have not the foggiest. Chesdovi (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This question has been addressed by many editors in the discussion, and many answers have been given. Among them: 1. There is a change of meaning from the word Palestinian as these sources used it, and the modern implication of the word Palestinian. 2. It is doubtful whether therm "Palestinian" was used correctly, since a. Most of these rabbis lived in the area you'd like to refer to as "Palestine" only part of their lives, often not even the larger part. b. The area you refer to was hardly ever officially and never universally known as "Palestine". 3. Because even if they are called by some sources "Palestinian", that does not mean that has to be mentioned, let alone be the basis for categorization. These rabbis are also all Jewish, male, and learned, and we don't mention all of these things. And many other arguments.

Please, do not try to give the impression that your arguments haven't been refuted and have met with general disagreement in those discussions. Your constant pushing: opening and Rfc, going to WP:ANI, going to deletion review, posting long list of sources which are not the issue, and now your repetitions here, have just worn out editors. But the fact remains that it is enough to show that other editors have agreed already previously that there is no consensus for your creation of these categories, and that therefore they have correctly been deleted and should be deleted again. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there's a consensus in favour of creating the category. What matters is whether there's a consensus in favour of deleting it.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue above. So far you are the first to express his opinion about this issue. It is by no means as simple as you say. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The modern inference of Egyptian is people who live in modern day Egypt, a state created in 1946. Yet the term is equally valid to describe the ancient Egyptians, a people who lived in the region 3,500 years ago. Sure, the implication has changed, but both are valid. That’s why we have Category:Egyptian people, which includes Category:Egyptian billionaires and Category:Ancient Egyptians. Using the word “Egyptian” has not been deemed unadvisable because of the various meanings the word has. If it matters that much that today “Palestinian” refers to all others beside Jews, so be it. But “Palestinian” is still used today, in 2011, to describe Jews who lived there before 1948 and earlier. That’s why this “rabbi” category has been specifically named to include the century as well alleviate any confusion that may occur, like we have “ancient” Egyptians.
2. I populated this category with around 20 rabbis who have been called “Palestinian” in RS. (You depopulated it as soon as I had done so, surprise.) It does not make an iota of difference how long they lived there. Carrigel probably spent most his life away from Palestine, but he is nevertheless still called Palestinian. The same with Albert Einstein, he is categorised by every country he ever resided in, be it a few years or more.
3. “It doesn’t have to be mentioned.” Hmmmm.
4. Do not ever again accuse me of pushing. If you had your way, there would be no discussion taking place after your disruptive actions. You complaint about this, my opening of an rfc to settle the matter, providing RS, Drv and Cfd this are to be commended. You can’t just hope to enforce your own view here, and then complain of being worn out when it is challenged. You just expect me to crawl away like a naughty little boy? You have worn me out making me have to gather all these RS, which you dismiss as “never being the issue” when it most certainly was, (part of it anyway). You just respond with fickle excuses time and again. The worst bit of your behaviour was when you arrogantly went ahead and depopulated over 150 pages I had added to this category. --Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

It is true, and the both of us were blocked for three days for edit-warring. Let me ask you: if someone can create such a controversial category, and then populate it, and continue to populate it well after protests have started to come in on his talkpage, why can't another editor depopulate it? I see a rather big difference between an editor trying to make non-consensus edits, and the one trying to stop him. But all of this does not mean that my point isn't correct: Chesdovi is pushing this set of categories he created and solely populated, while many editors have protested his actions. Did any of you read his talkpage or the Rfc? For this same type of behavior he has been topic-banned for a year from all pages (not only articles) involving the Arab-Israeli conflict. And here he is again... Debresser (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Debresser makes out as if “we were both blocked” In fact, is was he who instigated the edit warring after failing to take to correct course of action if he felt the category was controversial, something he thinks I should have known. I acted correctly, since by populating the category, it would not be automatically deleted as “CAT-EMPTY” before the issue was settled. You cannot blame me for populating one or two pages to prevent deletion. That is totally unfair. A handful of users have opposed the category, but a handful have also indicated that are not bothered by it or do accept it. Debresser makes out there is nobody but people who oppose the name. What fabrications I tell you! I will have you know that I was topic banned, not for my editing per se, but for my response to the report. Debresser is not only concerned with the pro and cons of the issue, but he likes to constantly bring up unconnected issues like mentioning blocks, topic bans and the like, an obvious attempt to incite other editors against me and sabotage the issue at hand. That is truly unagreeable behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The term "Palestine" for the time period from no later than 1500 to slightly after 1850 seems out of place. The location is functionally Greater Syria during this time period and categories that are time sensitive should reflect this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The parent category Category:16th-Century rabbis does not currently have any subcats. There are only 68 pages in this category. The category does not seem to be large enough to justify sub-dividing it, and even if it were large enough to subdivide I would still say Greater Syria would be a better geographical identifier for the specific timeframe than Palestine. However the category seems workable as is and it is porbably best to avoid the complexities of figuring out what geographical area to place rabbis in during that century. How do we decide how to describe Salonica, which was ruled by the Ottoman Empire but is now in Greece, or do we create two cats or one for a rabbi who is said to have "emigrated from Italy to Turkey". I came up with these issues by looking at just the first two articles in the category. There are no easy ways to subdivide by geography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This passage from the article History of Palestine is probably the most relevant to this discussion. "After the Ottoman conquest, the name "Palestine" was no longer used as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. The majority of historical Palestine became part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, and later became part of the vilayet of Saida (Sidon)."John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• comment. Later centuries with much larger numbers of rabbis do not have sub-categories. From a study of about half the articles in this category it appears that if we did want to sub-divide it we could include everyone whose location is identified in any reasonable way under Category:16th-century rabbis of the Ottoman Empire, Category:16th-century rabbis of Poland, Category:16th-century rabbis of Italy and Category:16th-century rabbis of the Holy Roman Empire. I am ambivalent about the last category. Germany might work if we can convince people that Prague is part of historic Germany. Italy is also a bit problematic since it did not exist as any sort of unified structure at the time, but there seems to have been a concept that Italy existed as some sort of place. I am not sure that there is precendent to create these further sub-divisions, but we should do these to reflect the political/geographical semse of the time first before we do sub-national units that had limited identies at the time like Palestine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I just realized something. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine which this category was setup as a subdivision of on the grounds that 430 articles in a category was too large was not about ethnicity but about place of operation. Specifically it was designed to include all rabbis who ever taught, wrote and otherwise worked in the Land of Israel on the assumption that those in the land of Israel need to be juxtaposed and seperated from those in the diaspora. Thus if this category is not deleted, it should be named Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine because it is about where the rabbis are physically when working, it is not a nationality+occupation or ethnicity+occupation category. This category is meant to include rabbis who -preached were born and lived in Rome for 60 years and spent the last 5 years of their life writting while resident in Safed, but is not meant to include a rabbi who was born and raised in Jerusalem but did not enter the rabbinate until they moved to Constantinople. The name does not in anyway get to the intented scope. I think the assumptions behind the scope have POV problems, and still stand by my view the category should be deleted, however if it is kept is needs to be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@John Pack Lambert 1: You feel the term "Palestine" "is out of place". On what are you basing this? Is it not patently clear that there are literally thousands of RS who are content to use the term. They obviously do not think the calling the Ottoman region Palestine is out of place. In fact, I do not think there are many other the names given for the region found in RS. Are you advocating Category:Greater Syrian rabbis, or maybe Category:Vilayet of Damascus-Syria rabbis? Today, the name of the region is historically known as Palestine in English (and most other Western languages), that is the only thing that counts here. I further notice that you have editied Abraham ben Solomon Treves. Do you think Category:Italian rabbis is out of place there too? In his time is was not known as "Italy", but the whole country as we know it today was made up of many city-states and small independent nations. Take a look at the map here. Where is Italy? The same goes for sub-division of the Ottoman goverment in Palestine. Whatever it was then, does not concern us. What does concern us is what we know it as today, as based on RS. And that most certainly is Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I provide the quote from the article on the history of Palestine that states there is not a political unit of Palestine for most of the 16th century. My other point, which I think I have made clear, is that if we are going to subdivide 16th century rabbis (which I do not think we need to do) we whould start with the empire and culture zone categories of the time, ie Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Poland and Italy seem to have the potential to inlude almost all said articles, with only Italy being a difficult one to delineate. If a rabbi opeated in Ventitian controlled territory on the east side of the Adriatic do we count them as Italian?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you saw my response to your post on my talk page which covers all this. That wiki passage is glaringly unsourced. The next sourced sentence actually states the the region was still know as Palestine. Further, The has never been a "poliltical unit of Palestine" and that fact does not preclue us from using the Palestinian label. 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@John Pack Lambert 2:You seem to think that rabbi categories can only be for nationality+occupation or ethnicity+occupation. It can actually be for neither. When we talk of German rabbis, they are not ethnic German, and they may also not have German nationality. What it means is of/from Germany. “Palestinian rabbis” is simply for rabbi who ever lived in Palestine. Category:Ottoman rabbis are for rabbis who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Did they have Ottoman citizenship? Were they ethnic Ottoman? Dunno. Who cares. They lived in the Empire, so they are classified as Ottoman. It really isn’t that difficult. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@John Pack Lambert 3: Take a look at Albert Einstein. He lived in Switzerland for 11 years; in Germany for 19 years; in USA for 15 years. He is categorised as: Category:Swiss philosophers, Category:German vegetarians, Category:American physicists, Category:German Jews, Category:Jewish inventors. Not "Philosophers in Switzerland”, not "Vegetarians in Germnay". What you suggest “…in Palestine” is not consistent with the majority of similar categories. If an editor feels "Palestinian" can be assocaited with a certain rabbi, we do not need to start calculating how long he stayed in a a certain place. Leave it upto to common sense. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that "Palestinian rabbi" is something like a "kosher camel". :) The combination of these two words is unnatural, if it were up to common sense alone. You are obviously appealing to some historical sense with this name. Well, in that case the area just wasn't called Palestine officially, nor was it called Palestine unofficially by many. And that is apart from the unnaturalness. All of this has been explained to you before and by many editors, starting on your talkpage and ending with the Rfc and here. It is time to use common sense, and admit that you are trying to push a non-consensus category. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It’s high time you stopped these bizarre comments. How can it be “unnatural” when thousands of academics use the term? I know who I would choose between. “Palestinian rabbi” is no more unnatural than Aragonese rabbis, Castilian rabbis, Catalan rabbis, Navarrese rabbis. “Official, unofficial” - who is bothered about this when the term is “Palestinian rabbi” is common use. We are fed up of your views that claim “Palestinian rabbis” is “unnatural” and “anti-Semitic” any other offensive term you may think of. Let me get this right: It is 100% okay to call rabbis after any other region on the planet; it is okay to call any other religious figures “Palestinian”, just not Jews. In my mind that is unnatural and quite frankly an utterly nonsensical position. I have news for you: Italy in the middle ages was also not called Italy. Now what do you propose? Your remark that “nor was it called Palestine unofficially by many” just goes to show how far you are prepared to ignore the “evidence” I provided. That evidence showed crystal clear that in the 20th-century and beyond, rabbis have referred to that region as Palestine. I showed you over 10 instances of this by different rabbis. They called it Palestine. What do you call it? Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Some have, most haven't. You are locked on these so-called proofs. Nobody disagrees that some have during various periods referred to this area as "Palestine". I get so tired of having to point this out to you, just to be met by another of your "proofs". The questions are: 1. is "Palestine" the correct name for this area? And the second question is, should it be used here on Wikipedia to designate this area, or is that problematic? You know the answer of most editors... Debresser (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is the correct name for the region and it is not at all "problematic". How do I know? Because all the the chief rabbis of the British Commonwealth in the 20th century have used the term. Even the current chief rabbi refers to that region in its historic secular context as Palestine: [1]. Is he included in the "some"? Not only that, but the vast majority of RS which refer to that region also call it that name. Now try answering the question I posed above: What do you call the region? Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is why we have Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. A perfectly clear and unambiguous category. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that no one has shown evidence of why we need to subdivide this category. To take up the case of Albert Einstein, he is not in Category:20th century Swiss vegetarians. The nationality (or ethnicity or locational adjective or whatever you call it)+occupation+time period is a triple adjunct. In the case of Rabbis in British and Ottoman Palestine we are not identifying people with a time frame perse, but with a defunct polity. So that is not the same as these triple connections. I am not in anyway convinced that the parent category is large enough to split. However, as I have said multiple times, if we are going to split it we should start with categories that are indepedent state entities at the time, and only subdivide those if they are still needed to be divided. In the same way if we had a category Category:19th-century lawyers we would first break off Category:British 19th century lawyers, Category:Russian 19th century lawyers and so forth, and then if need still existed create subcats like Category:Welsh 19th century lawyers and Category:19th century lawyers in the Moscow Governorate. We would not just have as the one and only subcat of the whole category 19th century Welsh lawyers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say by the above post you have not read all the correspondance on this. I don't what you mean by "evidence", but the reason I have mentioned at least twice is that the century specification in this case is necessary to disambiguate from the modern day entity. Further, take a look at Category:16th-century people. There are enough examples of "triple adjuncts" there. Chesdovi 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are two questions here. 1- Is this category needed. 2- what should it be called if it is needed. Before we discuss the later we should discuss the former. I really do not see any arguments as to why this category should exist, only that its name makes sense. No one has explained why we should create this type of triple juncture cat for rabbis, and even more significantly no one has explained why if we do create this type of triple juncture cat for rabbis, we whould have as the only one for the whole world in the 16th century a cat that is about something that was part of a larger political entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have started commenting here without reading all the postings on the issue, so how can your opinion be seen to be balanced? I would remind you again that it has been stated that this is about a geograhical entity, not a "political" one. My question to you is why do you think this cat should not exist? I also ask you to first clearly answer some of my responses to your original points before asking further questions. Chesdovi (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that you have not answered even one of the many arguments raised against your categories, and now you are demanding answers from others?! Read the Rfd discussion again, perhaps... Debresser (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you should re-read it. I had no follow ups from IZAK, Biosketch or Dfass so I don't know what on earth your are on about. I answered JPL with 3 points above - you must have missed that too. You on the other hand have hardly addressed the snippits of "evidence" I produced. You are clearly ignoring it in an attempt to wriggle out of the corner I have pinned you into. Your tactics and arguments in this debate have been very weak. I don't see how anyone can be won over by your viewpoint which is simply an ineffective attempt to wipe Palestine off the map. Chesdovi (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course you had no follow-ups. People stated their opinion. You refuse to accept defeat. Why should people repeat themselves? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the concept of Rfc. If you don't think this is about debating the issue but rather just an opportunity to state one's opinion and enforce it without hearing the other view - you stated your opinion long ago, now clear off. This is about getting people to think. It is the nature of such discussions that issues need not be repeated as the debate evolves. Unfortunately, you have not responded to the new points and arguments and have just resorted to repeating yourself - in vain. What’s the point of that? Right from the start you have basically kept on stating over and over again: Was there a place really called Palestine? When I have shown you there was, you ask yet again: Is "Palestine" the correct name for this area? I think you’re wearing yourself out. The only time I have needed to repeat myself is where editors commenting here seem not to have read or taken in the points already raised by myself. Usually, in a discussion, if people cannot be bothered to respond, it can sometimes indicate passive defeat. Ever heard of שתיקה כהודאה דמי? That is obviously why you and I try and have the last word each and every time. You never seem to answer the questions I pose. For the fourth and final time: What do you call the region? And why can Jews not be called Palestinian, while any other people or religion can? Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. We already have Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and nothing more was needed. And then you came along. And apart from bringing isolated cases of people calling the area Palestine, you have never answered any of the many objections that been brought by various editors against usage if the term "Palestine" in this case. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have "never answered any of the many objections"? That is an out and out untruth and I refuse to continue this futile conversation with you. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When the opinion of an adversary does not chime with your opinion, that is a difference of opinion, not a failure to engage in a discussion. When evidence is presented to support a position that is verifiable, then that is evidence, not "isolated cases". Again, an "isolated case" that happens not to chime with your opinion, is a difference of opinion, not a failure to engage in a discussion. We must remember that it only took the isolated case of one man, Ferdinand Magellan, to prove that the world is not flat. Let's not have more flatearthism please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• We have Category:Rabbis of Ottoman and British Palestine to disambiguate from the present. We also have Category:16th-century rabbis. Why the Rabbi category for that century needs to be divided is the question, and I have yet to see a response to this question in the affirmative that explains it in light of the current peramers of that category. It has under 70 people and thus is not a huge category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• He still thinks the category should be deleted but if kept suggests renaming this category “16th-century rabbis in Palestine” backtracking on his original suggestion of referring to the region as “Greater Syria.” Suggests “in Palestine” as opposed to regional categorisation, due to emigration/immigration issues, (which I subsequently addressed without response).

• In response to my claim that the region is known in mainstream RS as Palestine during this period, he shows a lack of clarity as to the nature of this category, (already dealt with in earlier discussions), namely that he thinks this is about a political entity, when it is quite clearly about a regional one.

• He also suggests categorisation with “empire and culture zones”, which I think while also acceptable, does not preclude the existence of this Palestinian category.

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

• At this point, he has retracted his first point as to his opposition of the use of the term Palestine for this era if necessary and now focuses on whether it is necessary to sub-divide existing categories in to century specific:

• Not supportive of “triple adjunct” categories, especially for small categories, and suggests that if such categories are created, they should first be spilt off into “independent state entities.” He ends off by asking two questions: “Is this category needed?” and “what should it be called if it is needed?” clarifying that this “triple juncture cat” for a non-political entity needs explanation.

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

• “Triple juncture cats” may not be common, but many such categories exist.
• JPL has a fixation with political entities. It has been stated over and over again that this category is a regional, not political label. And there is no reason why a regional label cannot be used in conjunction with other definitions.

The necessity for this cat in addition to/instead of "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine":

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

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

I do agree with JPL's objections, as well as with the many others named by other editors. Chesdovi's assumption to the contrary is indicative of the truthfulness and logical strength of his other arguments as well. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually Debreesr, no. It all started with your supposed confusion over ethnicity, that “core problem.” But let’s conveniently forget about that. Of course you will agree with each and every other comment that is construed as weakening the need for this category. Why should that be? Because of your disgust of a Jew being called a Palestinian: “this sick edit, which shocked me by its antisemitic POV.” You will “agree” with all objections, whether or not you truly agree with them or not, in order to make sure as best you can that this category does not pass. If you had any scruples, you would maybe stick with your original claim and try explaining why members of other faiths and ethnicities can be categorised as Palestinian, bar Jews. You have not at any time done so in the 2 months of this running discussion. If, on the other hand, you do happen to agree with them, maybe try explaining your reasoning why you indeed agree. JPL claims Palestine was not called “Palestine” under Ottoman domination and therefore wants this category deleted. If you agree with JPL, please explain why medieval Italian rabbis should not be deleted for the same reason. You latest thought that the rabbis themselves would not want to be called Palestinian is cute. Are you a necromancer by any chance? Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have many problems with this category, created recently with any prior disucssion, and then populated and pushed by Chesdovi, who is a conflicting editor as testified to by numerous blocks and bans, and I see no reason to reply to his personal attacks in this last edit of his, when the issues have already been amply addressed here and especially in the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Amply addressed": (based on User talk:Chesdovi#Question)

Debreser: I don't understand the reason for this edit. Would you please explain it to me?

SD: Find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians.

Chesdovi: Why?

SD: You just have to.

Debresser: “Palestinian here is supposed to designate a country, while it sounds like an ethnicity. How to solve that problem?” Suggests not populating category further and restoring original cats.

Chesdovi: Please explain?

Debreser: Problems with nationality, ethnicity, Palestine non-existent in 13th-century. You made a mistake – should have had a discussion first.

Debreser proceeds to unilaterally depopulate around 40 pages: [2] with excuse: “per talk.”

Chesdovi next day: Response to Debresers problems.

SD agrees to call sourced rabbis Palestinian, while Chesdovi asks SD for further clarification. Meanwhile Chesdovi challenges Debreser about the overnight removals: [3]. Debresser does not respond, but rather proceeds to removes categories from another 74 pages.

What happened: 7 days after initiating comment on the issue at my talk page, Debresser does not wait for my latest response to the explanation given for his problems and takes the matter into his own hands. After I leave a message on his talk, he only responds after depopulating all the pages hoping that the empty categories will be deleted. They were. And that is Debresser’s understanding of “Amply addressed.” Chesdovi (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What was that above? Nothing connected to any Wikipedia discussion I am aware of, surely. Editor is trying to do as if no protests were ever made, while in effect there were lengthy discussions on his talkpage and especially the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please say again what you mean. Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 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)