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)

• If there is time, I may consider clarifiying oppostion views together with my rebuttal, it being usually unrefuted. Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• I provide the following 21st-century google book searches after Debreser stated on the rfc: "The name "Palestine" is not in use any more for the Land of Israel, nor should it be".
  • No results found for "medieval southern levant".
  • No results found for "medieval greater syria".
  • No results found for "medieval ottoman palestine".
  • One result for "medieval land of israel".
  • 324 results for "medieval palestine". ----Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my words there, so your findings have nothing to do with it. In addition, why do you comment here on a discussion from another place? And last but not least, this is another of your interminable lists of "proofs", unrelated or irrelevant to the real issues at hand, as they were voiced by editors in the discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented above and the futility of trying to get zealots to embrace my attempt at moderation (i.e. Southern Levant), I withdraw my suggestion for re-naming to Southern Levant and keep my opposition to the proposed deletion; the current name should remain. Blatant intolerance has a way of polarising positions in a way that could never happen with more nuanced debate that involved give-and-take. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I have never "realized" that 16th-century Palestinian rabbis is "not" a divions of 16th-century rabbis. The fact that it may also be a sub-division of other things in no way means it is not a division of 16th-century Rabbis. My basic position remains that there is no reason to divide 16th century rabbis. I would also point out the before I made any comments there were others who had argued that Palestinian is not a good term to use in the 16th century, and so I am not alone in that view. On an unrelated note the fact that British and Ottoman in Palestine rabbis covers 430 years is in no way persuasive that we should divide it. We have lots of occupational categories that cover well over 1000 years and are undivided, so there is no reason that 430 years is an unworkable time frame. Beyond that, if British and Palestinian is too large, we should first sub-divide into Rabbis in Briths Palestine and Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine. The 1830-1839 occupation of Palestine by Egypt is still Ottoman Palestine for two reasons. First of all Egypt at that time was still technically part of the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, since it was merely occupied by Egypt and never formally ceded there is no reason to treat it as a seperate time period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the harping on the time frame of how long Ottoman and British Palestine lasted in the past made me think we had several hundred articles in that cat. I just looked it up myself and learned that that category only has 88 entries. I see no reason to divide that cat into each centruy, which will give us an average of less than 20 per category. That category works just fine for our purposes, and if we split it the most logical would be into the two very distinct rule time frames and not by the more arbitrary distinction of century. Thus neither of the parent categories of 16th century rabbis have any need of being split, so there is no reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think that Chasdovi has engaged in uncalled for attacks on me. I understood enough when I voted first to realize that this category was not needed. Just reading his arguments for it convinces me of this more and more. His argument that Palestine has a specific modern context says we should limit its use in a non-modern context to categories that clearly indicate what that it is not being used in a modern sense. In light of the fact that he created the category Category:16th-century Italian rabbis he is actually admitting that we do use century specific categories to refer to modern political identities. Thus it only works to use a 16th-century identifier in a non-modern name if we use a clearly non-modern name. The less than 90 entry Category:Rabbis in British and Ottoman Palestine is a perfect entry, and until it has significantly more entries there is no reason to split it, and the first split should be to Rabbis in British Palestine and Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine. If Chadovi think that is a bad name and it should be say Category:Palestinian rabbis during British and Ottoman rule, he should open a CfD to change the name. What he has done is try to avoid the CfD by creating new categories and moving the articles to them so he can use his percieved superior knowledge to move things to where he feels they should go and avoid trying to develop any sort of consensus. Chasdovi has made it clear that he thinks we should denominate these rabbis as Palestinian, and refer to anyone who ever wrote any rabbinical treatise while in Safad or Jerusalem as Palestinian. This usage may or may not work, but if he wants to get this usage he should seek to CfD the existing category and not try to manuvre around CfD by creating new categories with unprecedented names and structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Responses to JPL:

1. You are correct, it is a sub-cat of 16th-century rabbis, but it was nor created to sub-divide that category. There may be no reason not to sub-divide 16th-century rabbis, but if a suitable category exists, it will be added as a sub-cat. Be aware that “allincluded” tag was added to 16th-century rabbis category, meaning that it was not intrinsically split off from that category.

2. If you feel “Palestinian” is not a “good term to use in the 16th century” give your reasons why. I think you have only addressed usage of Palestine, and not “Palestinian” as you claim. You can take into account other views already mentioned, but in order for your view to prevail, you have to defend it. You based your opinion on not using “Palestine” on an unsourced passage while the next line indicated it was indeed called Palestine, the latter text being sourced. But this doesn’t matter as you later agreed that “if this category is not deleted, it should be named Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine.” We have yet to hear your reason on why “Palestinian” is not a good term. Your last comment indeed states: “This usage may or may not work.” You have not addressed the actual name of this category once, only its need.

3. If you feel that merely the time span of the 430 year O/B period itself is not reason enough to divide it, that is a valid reason. I already suggested at the Rfc this cat can remain together with the century specific cat. I also have said that I see no problem with a normal category called “Palestinian rabbis” (as was created 4 years ago) to include all rabbis who ever lived in the region, instead of having medieval rabbis of the region split between “Rabbis of the Land of Israel” and “Rabbis in O/B Palestine”. The century specific prefix was not only to disambiguate it from modern implications, but I suggested that by that very fact no “confusion” should arise. I don’t know what you mean by “our purposes”, but I for one, and I am sure many others in the field of Jewish rabbinical research, would be happy to see rabbis of certain centuries grouped together with their region. As we have “Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period”, a century specific+region categorisation would only enhance the ease with which one can find rishonim and achronim from various countries and centuries, a factor which significantly impacts in the realm of Judaic law making, etc.

4. I see advantages of "distinct rule time frames", but it does not trump century specific categories.

5. You suggest keeping “Rabbis in British Palestine” and “Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine”. Again such a cat is valid, but I have pointed out there is hardly a precedent for this in the Rabbis category, which spans 2,000 years of various rule over Europe and beyond. If you are troubled by sub-diving cats, the question you should have is why is this the only category that has been divided in to a political era, while all other have not, eg. French rabbis include all rabbis in France during every period. I queried the Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine anomaly and found it to have been created by User:IZAK, an editor who has voiced opposition of this “Palestinian rabbis" category and who in the past unilaterally redirected Category:Palestinian rabbis. In December 2007 IZAK created Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine, but why did the already existent Category:Palestinian Jews not suffice? Look how odd it looks:

Nepalese Jews

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

6. With regard to the Egyptian defeat of the Ottomans in Palestine and Syria, I am not well versed enough to determine whether Palestine was still part of the empire or not, although some areas were “ceded” to Egypt. So this point will need to be clarified.

7. I am sorry that you interpreted my tone as an attack against you. If this is about your “realising” something, that was because you yourself stated: Comment. I just realized something.

8. It is not my argument that that Palestine has a specific modern context. I am of the opinion that Palestine has numerous meanings. It is the concerns of other editors that it is only associated with the “modern context”. I have stated that “Palestinian” has numerous meanings, which should not limit our usage of the term. On the contrary, the creation of Category:16th-century Italian rabbis shows that as Italian can mean 21st-century Italy or Medieval Italy, there is advantages of adding a century-specific prefix. I disagree that “it only works to use a 16th-century identifier in a non-modern name if we use a clearly non-modern name.” If we has a dated name for a region, there very well may not be a need to spilt into various centuries, because the name itself provides the time frame, e.g “Category:Prussian rabbis”.

9. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine may be a “perfect entry” (although it groups together two separate political eras – something I don’t think is to be found anywhere on wiki!), but “Palestinian rabbis” it just as valid category, which JPL has yet to explain his opposition to.

10. With regards to opening a Cfd on Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, it was not my original intention to do away with this category, so I did not direct myself to Cfd. Remember, I did not unilaterally rename the category like IZAK did. I had actually added my category to over 40 pages before thinking it could replace the Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine altogether. I was not to know that this would present a problem, and indeed it did not until Debresser noticed. I did the same for Category:Haredi rabbis in America.

11. It is clear that I do not feel that a rabbi who merely “wrote any rabbinical treatise while in Safad or Jerusalem as Palestinian” be palced in this cat. That is why placed Nachmanidies originally in Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine. (I concede that adding him to Category:13th-century Palestinian rabbis in inappropriate.) Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My questions now to JPL are: Do you think the term “Palestinian rabbi” is appropriate and why? And do you think categorisation by century is only ever appropriate when a large category needs to be diffused? Chesdovi (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

New argument

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

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

See there for the amazing rebuttal and demolition of Debresser’s latest attempt to ignore all RS and “push ahead” with denying that “Palestinian” is a valid historic regional label. He now has a habit of answering “already discussed” and “amply addressed”. A lot has been discussed, but not addressed. I am still waiting for Debreseer to enlighten us why it is absolutely fine to call historic Christian monks Palestinian, but not historic rabbis? Will we ever get it out of him? Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You still try to push through this category tree you created without any prior discussion and against the protests of other editor. You use obfuscating and boring lists of irrelevant sources. But let us not discuss your POV, which is obvious to all. Many reasons have been brought against this category, and it's time it should go. Why don't you make peace with that? Do you have any good reason. apart from the POV which you have been proven to have as a bad faith editor? I prefer to stop the discussion, about you and about the subject, because neither is going to produce anything new, and let other editors make up their minds. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• You still try to push through this category tree you created without any prior discussion and against the protests of other editor.
  • Push through is not the word. Pushing only occurs in actual editing, not on “talk” pages designed to alleviate the problem of “pushing”, a trait that you personify.
• You use obfuscating and boring lists of irrelevant sources.
  • Boring? Irrelevant? May I ask why they are irrelevant?
• But let us not discuss your POV, which is obvious to all.
  • Your POV is also "obvious to all."
• Many reasons have been brought against this category, and it's time it should go.
  • Many reasons have been brought for this category, and it's time it should stay.
• Why don't you make peace with that?
  • Why don't you make peace with that?
• Do you have any good reason, apart from the POV which you have been proven to have as a bad faith editor?
  • I have documented a few good reasons – did you miss them?
• I prefer to stop the discussion, about you and about the subject..
  • Well answer me two things first:
  • For the fifth time, (it would really help me undersatnd your POV):
  • What do you call the region?
  • Why can Jews not be called Palestinian, while any other people or religion can? In other words, why do you have no issue with Category:Palestinian Christian monks? Chesdovi (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd call it "Ottoman Palestine", or "British Palestine", (as in Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, or Category:Ottoman Jews), or "Palestina" during some ages. Btw, would you propose renaming Category:Roman era Jews to Category:Palestinian Jews as well? "Canaan" or perhaps even something with "Levant" during others. "Israel" nowadays, and "The Holy Land" or "Land of Israel" (as in Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel) during all times. Note the correspondence between these name and Wikipedia categories.

I might have a problem with "Palestinian monks". If I were a christian, I'd know better how christians refer to them in their scientific literature and popular usage. But I am more familiar with Judaism, being that I am a Jew and one well aware of Judaisms traditions, and I know that any usage of the word Palestine by Jews, as in the cases you have brought as so-called proofs, is the exception rather than the rule, and was excepted only when the country was called "Palestine" officially, during the British rule of the Palestinian Mandate.

All other instances of rabbis being called "Palestinian" in literature are strictly incidental. It may well be that they arise from the lack of another appropriate term. The term "Land of Israel" is better, but also not universally in use. But here on Wikipedia it has been used for years now, and uncontroversially. While your category tree is new and heavily disputed, read: non-consensus, read: should never have been created.

In addition to all this, there are other reasons that make the use of the term "Palestinian" in this context problematic. First and foremost the confusion with the modern ethnic group and the modern political entity. And other problems. That all have been mentioned by various editors on your talkpage and the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to summarize them:

1. First and foremost the confusion with the modern ethnic group and the modern political entity. These rabbis were not ethnic Palestinians, nor did they hold Palestinian nationality.
2. There seems to be consensus that Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine does not need diffusing. That was your very first argument [4].
3. Your second argument "Surely anyone who lives in any region attains that regions nationality" [5] also has not been accepted, and is factually quite wrong.
4. Category:Palestinian rabbis has been a redirect to Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel ever since its creation in December 2006, without being contested.
5. Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel has been in use on Wikipedia ever since its creation in December 2006, without being contested. As has Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine since its creation in December 2007.
6. Category:Palestinian Jews contains only four articles of three people who have self-identified as such, and 1 who holds honorary Palestinian citizenship. No other Jews (including rabbis) have been categorized on Wikipedia as "Palestinian Jews", including rabbis. So clearly "Palestinian" means the political entity when dealing with categorization on Wikipedia.
7. Category:Palestinian Jews was a subcategory of Category:Jews by country, not of Category:Jews by region, proving the same point.
8. Most of these rabbis were not born in "Palestine" (using it loosely, as you would), but emigrated there from other countries, often living only a minor part of their lives there, and the question should be asked, after how many years of living in "Palestine" does it become appropriate to call them "Palestinian".
9. Palestine was not the official name of the region during Ottoman rule, which spanned from 1516 till 1917, which includes all of the periods you created per century "Palestinian" categories for.
10. The name "Palestine" has been used historically to denote this area, but not during all times and not by all people.
11. The less ambiguous and loaded name should be used on Wikipedia, which is "Land of Israel". This argument has been mentioned in one form or the other by many editors.
12. In addition, I think that an additional argument is the fact that Chesdovi has been found to be a POV editor, who was blocked from Arab/Israel-conflict related pages (not only articles) for a whole year for good reason [6]. As further underlined by his calling me "anti-Palestinian" [7] and accusing me of having a "strong Zionist POV" [8]. These facts undermine the credibility of his arguments. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that this category and several related ones were created only recently by Chesdovi without any prior discussion, and were met with heavy protests as soon as they were discovered. This means that the burden of proof here is not on me or anybody else to prove that there is consensus to delete them , but rather on Chesdovi that there is consensus to have them and to use them to replace a well established categorization system. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me what you call the region and why Christian Palestinians are not an issue for you. You have provided a clear summary of your concerns and I would love to answer each one, but time constraints means an immediate response may not be possible. I will however try to tackle each point one by one, and I hope we can come to agreement on each point.
• In response to point 1: I understand misconceptions could arise between the modern connotations of the word Palestinian and its historic usage. The question is: is this really a serious problem? I would say not really because it has not been an issue with other categories. A similar but not identical case would be Iraq which only became independent in the 1940s. Before that it was known by other names such as Mesopotamia, yet rabbis such as Yehuda Fatiyah and Ben Ish Chai are categorised as Category:Iraqi rabbis. Is this not bound to cause confusion that these rabbis were living in modern day Iraq? Possibly. But they have probably been categorised as such as that is what RS label them. It is not for us to start discerning what was it called and known as during their lifetime. There are of course sources which will state the previous names of the region, but do the sources refer to these rabbis by these older names or not? It is interesting to note that the Talmud Rabbis are indeed known not as Iraqi, but as Babylonian. Why has a different appellation been made for these “Iraqi” rabbis? Because the RS have described them as such. And it is RS which call medieval rabbis in Palestine “Palestinian”. We can not go wrong using this term. We must understand and accept that the word “Palestinian” is used currently not only to describe people associated with the modern political entity, but also to describe people from all ethnic groups who were living in Palestine, from ancient times up till the end of the British Mandate in 1948. (You do not accept this, but it is too well documented to deny.) If some think using "Palestinian" to describe the later group is problematic, the question is how to apply it, not to rename or delete the categroy. Do you agree? Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not. Nor do many other editors. Do you want me to give you the diffs here?

In addition, I don't think you need to discuss anything here any more. Both of us have repleted our arguments. I was just recapitulating them here for clarity. I think we should leave it up to the community to decide. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be useful to provide the diffs. Let’s take what happened over here: After the preamble, we have User: CycloneGU saying: “Personally, I don't see what the big fuss is here. Regarding Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, if there are 16th century-era rabbis who are themselves also Palestinians, then the category can be used.” This is taken up by Chris Cunningham who said the fuss is about calling them “Palestinian” without reliable sources doing so. (User:Selket emphasises this point by saying below: “Just remember that any article you include in the category, must have a source that calls them a "Palestinian rabbi". I suspect that my be hard, which is why all of the members were removed in the first place.”) Debresser is nevertheless adamant that even if RS are found, the other “problems” by far outweigh the support given from RS. It is now to the point that Debresser address in his first point here: User:Biosketch states: “To call 16th-century rabbis "Palestinian" is to impose an ethnic identity on them that's completely foreign to how anyone at the time would have referred to them. Ultimately, that is the problem here. The adjective Palestinian is not normally construed as meaning "in Palestine" but rather as "of Palestinian ethnicity" or "relating to the Palestinian people." (this is Bio’s opinion, as others have said it actually normally is understood as meaning “in/of Palestine”) Bio also wants to ignore the RS and prefers to opt for the less ambiguous “"16th century rabbis of Palestine”. Now I did respond explaining that with the case of German rabbis, that they were of German ethnicity is surely not implied. Bio may still stand by his opinion, but as he did not respond we do not know if he rejects the German argument too. Chris Cunningham instead seems to retract his earlier notion that we should rely on RS and suggests that we should be sensitive to the offense that may be taken by some users involved in the I/P conflict. I responded “We cannot help it if Ameer Makhoul lives in in Israel. He is categorised as an Israeli Arab whether he likes it or not. If these rabbis lived in Palestine, they are Palestinian.” And it ends there. The above shows that, contrary to Debreseer, many editors are of the opinion that if RS are found, that suffices. If further shows that when points have been raised a decisive conclusion has not been adequately reached. So although Debresser now says he does not agree and neither do other editors, it is not good enough just saying that. He needs to explain his position in order to gain the consensus he is after. This has happened repeatedly throughout, with discussions ending and Debresser afterwards claiming issues have “already be addressed”, when in truth the discussion fizzled out with me not being any the wiser on the causes of Debresser’s problems. Chesdovi (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs to support the fact that 8 editors agree with point #1, that using the word "Palestinian" in this context is incorrect, confusing, or otherwise not preferable because of the modern meaning related to an ethnicity or a nationality: User:Debresser, [9] User:Supreme Deliciousness, [10] User:Biosketch, [11] User:IZAK, [12] User:Arfican, [13] User:Dfass, [14] User:S Marshall, [15] User:Johnpacklambert]. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is completely my point. Anyone who looks through the Rfc will see these arguments. What they will not see is any attempt by holders of these views to reach any type of consensus. You have only provided the original points. I provide the subsequent query’s which demonstrates what I mentioned in my previous post: editors say what they think and do not engage seriously enough in debate to show that subsequent arguments are non-persuasive. A non-response may be WP:TOWEL or silent acquiescence: Response to User:Biosketch: [16]. Response to User:IZAK:[17]. Response to User:Dfass: [18]. User:S Marshall is of my opinion, namely: “I always understood "Palestinian" simply to mean "originating from the area called Palestine". Why does she back “16th century rabbis in Palestine” – (a name you also dismiss) - for the same feeble reason as CC: “Israel-Palestine conflict needs handling with kid gloves.” It is of no Surprise that User:Supreme Deliciousness has not commented here. She was the first one to concede that if RS designate a rabbi “Palestinian”, this category can be used. She made it clear that she would not be happy any other way so I went to get outside perceptions on the issue. If anything, she is the only one who has helped reach a consensus here, with the label only being applied to sourced RS. See this: [19]. JPL still needs to provide clarification too: [20]. The diff you provided for him does nowhere discuss the validity of the use of the term "Palestinian" with relation to the "modern meaning related to an ethnicity or a nationality." Please also be reminded that User:Arfican is a blocked sock. ---Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

These editors all tried to convince you with arguments. Why do you say they do not try to reach consensus? That is how they tried. You are just not perceptive to the fact that a majority of editors thinks you are wrong! Just as you were unwilling to stop with your edits while discussion was still in progress. This is called a disruptive editor in Wikipedia, just so that you should know. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

They tried, but did not try hard enough! If I cannot extrapolate the core reasons for their concerns, why should they be given any credence, e.g:

"Palestinian is confusing because it could be associated with ethnicity."

"Strange, you say that when there has been no problem elsewhere in similar cases. Please explain why this case is different."

Silence. No response. Stumped.

You expect me to be convinced with that? About you calling me being disruptive by editing while discussion was still in progress, I would counter that it was you who disruptively depopulated tens of categories while discussion was still in progress. If I added a few back, it was to prevent deletion of the empty cats. Further, creation of the differently named Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine and Category:Palestinian geonim while related, were not in any way part of the actual issue being discussed, it being “Palestinian rabbis”. Now, please explain why there is no confusion about pre-modern Category:Iraqi rabbis, or confusion about the ethnicity of Category:German rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Though we try for historical accuracy in names, there is an advantage in snot splitting this too finely, especially for navigational categories. Regardless of the various official politico-geneograhic names, the term "Palestine" is properly and commonly understood to cover the area, I cannot help thinking that the opposition to this is to some extent a reflection of the desire to denigrate the term "palestinian" because of its 20th century political meaning as an term widely used in opposition to "Israeli" This is the retrojection of contemporary political conflicts into an earlier era. The proper term is Palestinian. ~ DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That last line was just argument by assertion, and has been shown already to be incorrect (point #9 above). Also, we can't close our eyes to the modern meanings of the word "Palestinian". Wikipedia is being build now, not in some time in history. And so say at least 8 editors here. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 9: "Palestine was not the official name of the region during Ottoman rule." Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It doesn't matter. We are only concerned with what mainstream academic reliable sources refer to it as during that period. Guess what: They refer to it as either the Land of Israel or Palestine: Land of Israel is generally used in a Jewish religious context, while Palestine is used by both religious and secular alike when referring to the region during the Ottoman period. Therefore it is quite in order to class the rabbis living in Safed in the 1570s as Palestinian rabbis, as do all other scholars. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

New evidence #1

File:Jah ribbon.jpg

Jah ribbon hymn

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)

As I have said probably almost a dozen times by now, there is no doubt that some use the term "Palestine" in some context, the question is whether we on Wikipedia should. I personally, am so tired of these "proofs" of yours... You are just wearing us out. [User:Debresser|Debresser]] (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

New evidence #2

File:Siddur meforash.jpg

"Prayer Dictionary"

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

There are several weak points to this "proof". (1. It says specifically that the name was used by Greek and Romans, not that is was used afterwards, the more so not that it should be used. 2. It is clear that the literal translation of "Eretz Israel" is "Land of Israel", and that in this entry the word "Palestine" is foremost the translation of "Palestina" and "Pleshet".) In addition, as I have said probably almost a dozen times by now, there is no doubt that some use the term "Palestine" in some context, the question is whether we on Wikipedia should. I personally, am so tired of these "proofs" of yours... You are just wearing us out. Btw, didn't you bring this argument already on the category talkpage? Debresser (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it does not mention that Palestine was the ancient name shows that usage is current. It merely says it was “first used by..” And it still is, see below:

The fact that it used the word "Dan" as a geographical term proves that it refers only to biblical times since the area of the Land of Israel which was occupied by the Tribe of Dan hasn't been called "Dan" ever since the Romans. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Palestinian shulchan aruch.jpg

The Shulchan Aruch was published in Palestine. Fellow Dutchman Jfdwolff agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shulchan_Aruch&diff=437472978&oldid=437348274

Palestine is the English word widely used to refer to the Land of Israel in academic sources. In the example above, it does not only translate the Hebrew word "Palestina,” proof being the entry below which translates ישיבות ארץ ישראל as “Palestinian Academies”. I would say Palestine is used by the vast majority, while the Land of Israel is used by some, usually in the limited Judaic context only. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have said probably almost a dozen times by now, there is no doubt that some use the term "Palestine" in some context, the question is whether we on Wikipedia should. I personally, am so tired of these "proofs" of yours... You are just wearing us out. Btw, didn't you bring this argument already on the category talkpage? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Real evidence

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

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)