User talk:Davidbena

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Davidbena! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Davidbena! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yemenite Jewish Customs[edit]

Just so you know, your article was posted to "Davidbena:Yemenite Jewish Customs" which had it out in the regular article space. Since your article is nowhere near ready for the main encyclopedia, I've moved it to a sandbox under your user page. You can now find the article at User:Davidbena/Yemenite Jewish Customs. Please keep it there until it's ready for the main article space. Thanks and if you have any questions about the hows and whys of me doing this, you can message me at my talk page which you can find a link for in my signature. Dismas|(talk) 10:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was planning on editing the article and adding much more when time permits. As time goes on, the article will improve vastly. Davidbena (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

This kitten is for having a great attitude and being willing to learn about the sometimes-strange ways that Wikipedia works. I think you are going to be a fine editor who will bring a fresh point of view to Wikipedia.

Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile![edit]

Welcome to the Teahouse Badge Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing!
~ Anastasia (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dismas|(talk) 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns[edit]

Your sandbox draft User:Davidbena/sandbox/Yemenite Ketubba gives an impression that it is copied from material already published elsewhere, such as http://www.scribd.com/doc/95809449/The-Yemenite-Ketubba-Abridged and http://www.globalyeshiva.com/profiles/blogs/the-yemenite-ketubbah-marriage. It is not clear that the copyright in that content has been released to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding copyright violation, even on user pages. In any case it is pointless to add to Wikipedia a direct copy of material which is already published. The wording of some of the footnotes in the draft is in the first person, and this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - You do need to understand how Wikipedia works before you try to post articles, even draft ones. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is my article, which was published in the "Jubilee Edition" of Professor Yosef Tobi, Haifa University. I give my permission to have it published here, on Wikipedia. As for the wording in some of the footnotes, I will be willing to re-edit its content. Davidbena (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The process for releasing copyright is given at WP:Donating copyrighted material; it is not sufficient just to mention it here on your user talk page. But see my previous comment; Wikipedia is not here to provide a repository for material previously published elsewhere. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article has been revised. It is my article and there is room for it on Wikipedia (IMHO). As for the two URL links that you provided, one is a site for uploading PDF files to be seen by others internationally and downloaded. The other is a web-site of religious Orthodox Jews, of which I am a member. Members are free to upload material and discuss different issues. Anyway, I can make more revisions in the text if necessary to make it applicable for insertion in the Wikipedia online Encyclopedia. I will read the copyright link that you have given, and do whatever is required of me. Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

David, I have just now added to my article on "globalyeshiva.com" the legal text: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." As for the other website, "scribd.com," I have deleted my article from that venue (web-site). Is it still necessary to receive a written consent from the publishers of the "Jubilee Edition" of Professor emeritus Yosef Tobi from Haifa University (Israel) and to have them e-mail their consent to Wikipedia? Also, I will add {{OTRS pending}} to the Talk page of "Yemenite Ketubba." Davidbena (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with your directives, I have duly changed the wording of footnotes # 7 and 9 so that they are no longer in the first person. Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Andrewman327's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andrew327 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please only have one draft at a time[edit]

Hello, you currently have drafts at

Please do not have multiple copies of one article, simply do all your drafting for the topic on one page. If you need to look "back in time" at an earlier draft, use the History tab at the top of the page. So there is no need to "preserve" old drafts on multiple pages, since all old versions can be viewed by you.

Please choose one draft, and mark any extra pages by pasting at the top of the page the code {{db-author}}, meaning that you want the extra page deleted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

David Welcome to Wiki, Your Patience and attitude is great.[edit]

Sorry you have been bit so hard by some of the editors. Some have abused you and clearly violated wikis rule of conduct. It is unfortunate that many who do this know better. Below is a post by a self described New Age editor with a bias against you. I verbally censured him on his talk page and you could bring his intolerant comments to an administrator for guidance on how to address his behavior. I am somewhat new also but know his stereotype is not tolerated on Wiki.

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.

Re: Newbie[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Message added 18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Message added 00:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse![edit]

Welcome to the Teahouse Badge Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

from: PRFEDA —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. Message[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

Welcome Back[edit]

Your insight is important to Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the timing was right. I have been so busy lately translating papers from Hebrew into English that I have had little time to engage on Wikipedia. The problem with some of the people is that they will say I am quoting primary sources, but when you quote secondary sources they claim that they are merely hypotheses. Then, they will try to discredit the contributor by hoping to find other faults with him, rather than stick to the issue at hand. These people do a GREAT DISSERVICE to Wikipedia, and stymie the truth. In my opinion, such people should be banned permanently for such attitudes. It is dogma that they're more interested in, rather than conveying the truth. Davidbena (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well said. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Also WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ramle as Gath[edit]

It is true that Haparchi recorded a tradition that Ramle was Gath, and some other medieval writers recorded it too. But I don't think it is true that any scholars today (i.e. relevant scholars such as archaeologists) take it seriously. I cannot find a single example, including amongst those authors who mention the tradition. I looked at about 20 recent archaeology books and papers regarding Gath, which overwhelmingly support identification with Tell es-Safi. Can you provide a source for what you are writing? Zerotalk 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, User:Zero0000. While I am not an archaeologist, I do live in Israel and I have read many books on historical geography. I saw stated explicitly in the "Encyclopaedia of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel)" that the ancient city of Gath is believed to be Ramla, before it was rebuilt in the 8th century CE. This view is repeated also in "Carta's Official Guide to Israel," all editions (to the best of my knowledge). Since I have access to many good books at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, I will further research this subject. Meanwhile, however, we cannot speculate here without sufficient proof based on epigraphic sources. Since some modern archaeologists are swift to claim by "conjecture" that a dig may have been the ancient Gath, it is only fair to mention the conflicting opinions. IMHO. One more thing, here (in Israel) Jews give utmost priority to traditions, seeing that often we cannot know about a certain thing or place without a tradition that has been preserved from generation to generation. Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I don't much trust the Carta guide, as its authorship is unclear and its purpose is partly propagandistic. I've also seen some bad cases of out of date information. However, the second English edition (1986) does not mention the tradition that Gath is Ramle. What it says is:
Gat: "Named after ancient city of Gath, one of 5 Philistine cities located in area, but whose exact site has not yet been identified."
G'ea: "Perhaps the site of biblical Gath(?)"
Kiryat Gat: "Named after ancient Philistine city of Gath, home of Goliath, which is believed to have been located in the area."
Tel 'Erani: "The tel was erroneously identified with Philistine Gath and was therefore known for a while as Tel Gath."
Tel Nagila: "Believed to be site of Gath, one of the 5 Philistine cities."
I absolutely agree that traditions should be mentioned. However they should be mentioned as traditions, not as facts, and popular traditions should not be confused with scholarly consensus based on physical evidence. It is quite clear that there is little or no scholarly support for the claim that Ramle is Gath. I have sources that state explicitly that the consensus (though not unanimous) is that Tell es-Safi is Gath. The Jewish tradition in the middle ages means very little regarding the facts, since there was no continuity of Jewish occupancy there even in the recent centuries, and certainly not since the foundation of the city in the 8th century, which itself was a millennium later than Gath. Scholars don't believe the tradition primarily since there is no evidence it was a significant population center at all during the period Gath existed. It isn't accepted by many traditional Jewish writers either; for example the famous geographical text of Rabbi Yosef Schwarz says: "Gath ... the usual assumption that it is the town of Ramleh, situated in the territory of Dan, I hold to be quite erroneous.." (and he gives reasons). Zerotalk 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
How does one distinguish between "popular tradition" and "tradition"? It was a Rabbi of the 13th-14th century who told us the prevalent tradition in his day concerning Ramla. As for a consensus, there is none - not even amongst archaeologists concerning Gath. There is, however, a lot of speculation. A tradition, in my mind, is stronger than mere "speculation." There are no epigraphic records to show that the archaeological dig at Tel Zafit, or elsewhere, is actually the ancient Philistine city of Gath. In fact, in the case of Tel Zafit, its names suggests the very opposite. It was Safitha. I will, however, at the first available opportunity, further research this subject. As for what you said about Ishtori Ha-Parchi's tradition being mentioned as such, namely, a tradition, I think I have done that. What I hope to do more is to show that this is not just a fringe view, and that a "tradition" where there is a doubtful case ought and should be taken into consideration. Look up the word "Ramla" in the Carta's Guide to sites in Israel. As for your comment: "...no continuity of Jewish occupancy there (i.e. Ramla) even in the recent centuries," presents no real problem, since the place known as Ramla is still the old Ramla and hasn't changed. What we're really interested in here are the FACTS. Let's lay all the facts out on the table, whether they be traditions or conjectures. By the way, I know personally a very good Israeli archaeologist named Boaz Zissu. Maybe I can also ask for his opinion and references. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Carta's entry Ramla says it was founded in 717 and has nothing about an earlier existence or any mention of a tradition about it. Anyway, we are not supposed to make our own judgements about whether particular scholars are right in their opinions or not, and we aren't supposed to judge what is the consensus or not. What we have to do is report what reliable sources say about the subject, and the meaning of reliable in Wikipedia is heavily biased towards scientific scholarship with peer-reviewed academic writing as the most distinguished (see WP:RS). The Ramle=Gath tradition simply does not have any support in that literature as far as I can determine, so we can report it as a tradition but not as the opinion of scholars. I'd be interested in what Zissu says (I'm familiar with his work) but WP:NOR forbids us from reporting his words on Wikipedia unless he has published them. Zerotalk 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, so you saw a different edition of Carta's Guide. In any case, the "Encyclopaedia of Eretz Yisrael" mentions the view that Ramla is the ancient Gath. When I go next time to the Hebrew Univ., I will cite both sources for you, and, hopefully, more. I have made no such judgments whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong, but only cited a source used by many scholars. There was/is a tradition that Ramla is Gath. This is worthy of noting. As for the other hypotheses they should be stated as well, as hypotheses. When scientific scholarship is divided, up and down the line, we must also fairly represent all views. For example, we also find outlined in WP policy what is called WP:UNDUE, according to which: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A tradition doesn't necessarily have to be backed up with "proof," but must be reasonably accepted as a logical and likely possibility. When Israel has a tradition, as there are many, we are not always able to show by proof that the thing/event is as it is alleged. Tradition is just that - tradition. While speculation is just that - speculation. Boaz Zissu has written many articles, but if he hasn't dealt on the subject of ancient Gath, perhaps he can direct us to others who have.Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This might interest you, User:Zero0000. Michael Avi-Yonah, author of the book, The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem 1954, p. 63, wrote: "The name and localization (between Antipatris and Iamnia) are derived from On. 72, 2, but the identification with one of the Philistine cities has been added in disregard of the better identification ib. 68, 4. The Jewish tradition which located Gath at er-Ramleh has some foundation in archaeological facts, Ras Abu Hamid in the vicinity having been identified as Gittaim of Eusebius (B. Maisler in Sefer Assaf. Jerusalem, 1954, pp. 351-356 (Hebrew); id., Israel Expl. Journal, 4, 1954 (Reifenberg Memorial Number), pp.227ff.), which might be represented here. The additional phrase is taken verbally from Eusebius' description of Ekron (On., 22, 16), Ashdod (ib., 22,11) and Ascalon (ib., 22,15)."Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added  Ryan Vesey 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for recording on English Wikipedia the events of Yemeni Jews in 1679. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC) fix typo MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you, Marciulionis. It is important for us as editors on Wikipedia that we not flout the good character and dignity of any people being described on the WP pages and articles.Davidbena (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information iconIt appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will desist from doing that. I was looking for friendly advice and help, and I will always uphold WP principles. If worse comes to worse on the current Talk page, I will opt for arbitration through the venue that you so wisely provided. Thanks again, Neil.Davidbena (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
David, just a procedural point: Arbitration is for misbehavior or bad conduct, not content matters. I think what you want is content dispute resolution in the form of either Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Mediation Committee, but be aware that neither of those will be available for so long as the RFC is pending and it's got at least another 29 days to run. There is no system of content arbitration at Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:TransporterMan, for this pertinent advice. I guess I'm stuck then, at least for a short while. I definitely feel it's worth a try. The picture of "Ms." International on a Yemenite page (in my view) is downright offensive. Any other advice will be appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I read through your recently created article on Yihya Yitzhak Halevi, and wanted to award you this barnstar for the high-quality articles you have written about Judaism. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

images at Yeminite Jews[edit]

Just read what Writ Keeper wrote at the bottom of the talk page and I agree with it. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't fight the system, can we? At least I tried upholding what I truly felt was WP policy and correcting what I saw as a violation of WP policies. I suppose that people look at things differently. Have a good day!-Davidbena (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kiryat vs. Kri'at[edit]

Qeriyat is not Qiryat. 'Nuf said. שבוע טוב, וחג שמח :-) (Shabúang tob, vejag saméaj) 75.128.215.87 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.128.215.87, Shalom! I'm not asking that we change the spelling, but I can prove to you that the "nikud" is precisely punctuated as קִרְיַת שְׁמַע in some Jewish traditions, particularly, in the Yemenite Jewish tradition. This peculiar way of spelling (pronunciation) applies only to the conjunction Qiryat Shema, but not in a word like "reading of the Torah" = קְרִיאַת התורה, which is the correct spelling. One of the most renowned Hebrew linguists of our time, Shelomo Morag, has written on page 222 of his book, The Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jews of Yemen, (ed. Yosef Tobi), Tel-Aviv 2001:
"The קִטְיָה pattern in nouns derived from ל"י roots occurs in the Yemenite tradition in forms
like פִּרְיָה וְרִבְיָה ,בִּרְיָה ,קִרְיַת שְׁמַע."
Of course, all this is only related to tradition. In the Eshkol edition of the Mishnah with the commentary of Obadiah di Bertinoro, it is always punctuated with the vowels קְרִיַּאת שמע - just as you have written. However, in the Mosad Harav Kook edition of the Mishnah, it is always written קרית שמע, without an "aleph." See: Berakhot 2:5, Sotah 7:1.
I have several facsimiles of manuscripts showing the vocalization as I have written if you'd like to see these. But, as I said, it makes very little difference on Wikipedia. Jag Sameaj!!! - Davidbena (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eduard Glaser[edit]

Hi David, On 20 September you made a major expansion to the article on Eduard Glaser but omitted to properly specify your sources. It would be good if you could revisit the article and add them. Many thanks Aa77zz (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am gathering the necessary information for the bibliography right now. It will take me a few days. Meanwhile, I've made mention of the authors and the year of their publications, and have put these in parentheses. - Davidbena (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've added what I believe are some of your sources - please delete if I'm wrong. As I cannot read German I struggle - especially with Lichtenstädter which is written in Gothic script. Aa77zz (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I should rather be thanking you. I will double-check your sources.-Davidbena (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Aa77zz, I double-checked your sources and they were identical to mine. Great work! You saved me much of the time and trouble of having to do this myself. I still added a few others, and there are yet more to add. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note at Talk:Spanish Inquisition...[edit]

Rather than try to fix the problem via reverts, I've posted a note at Talk:Spanish Inquisition. You'll get a ping but I thought I'd let you know here as a courtesy. Cheers, Stlwart111 06:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi Yosef Qafih in his Private Study.jpg, which you've attributed to An OTRS notice was applied over 30 days ago, but no message at OTRS has been processed since this tag was applied.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Biblical chronology[edit]

Hello David. I just left a comment on Talk at Biblical chronology, following your own comment of about a month ago. Would you be interested in working on this article? 180.200.136.161 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) (Reply here - I don't have a user page).

Barnstars for you![edit]

The Jewish Barnstar.png The Jewish Barnstar
For improving existing articles and building others from the ground up, it's hard not to be impressed.
Barnstar quill.png The Citation Barnstar
For accompanying the above with citations, with page numbers. Keep up the referencing.

Contributor613 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Western Wall[edit]

Perhaps you could help me with a question thats been bothering me. Who built the small stones on the top of the Kotel. It is a widly believed that Montefior built them to protect Jews form Arabs who pelted stones from the other side. However i have heard this is a mere urban myth Naytz (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have often pondered the same question, but I do not know the answer to the question. It is true that during the Jewish war with the Romans, the surrounding wall of the Temple Mount was made higher. So writes Josephus. But I don't know if what we see today are the same additions added to the original wall, or if they are merely a later addition. - Davidbena (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Flood myth[edit]

Sources need to discuss flood myths explicitly, and Cooper obviously doesn't Using Seder Olam as a source looks like original research, ie your own interpretation of what it says. And note the article isn't about Noah's flood, but flood myths in general. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, I am aware that the article isn't specifically about the flood of Noah, but about "flood myths," in general, which, by its description, should also include the biblical episode of the flood. The idea behind bringing Cooper's research was to show how that it coincides with the biblical timing of the flood, based on the Jewish system of dating. This is plain by reading the research carried out by Prof. Cooper and his co-worker.
Doug, I'd be very pleased if you could help me with this one, because of its vast importance. Of course, since original research is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, at best we can just mention the research conducted by Prof. Cooper and let others draw their own conclusion.
There were many stories about an epic flood, which in principle has its foundation, since this was etched in their memory as something far greater than an ordinary flood of waters. However, in those civilizations where there was no writing script, the story was passed down by way of oral tradition, and as is the case with some oral traditions, these stories could have been embellished over the years. The biblical account, however, is a written account, made by Moses, who was the 5th generation after Abraham. Abraham was aged 58 when Noah passed away. The account of the colossal flood was still very fresh in the minds of the people of Abraham's generation, since not only Noah was still living, but also Shem, the son of Noah, who endured that voyage.Davidbena (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Really belongs on the talk page, shall I copy it there? Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, Doug, I just now raised the issue on the Talk Page. My answer, of course, would have been "yes, please do!"Davidbena (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bayt Nattif". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for thanking me. In hindsight, I should have given you, an established user, some notice that I was reverting your edit. I do apologize if you received a revert notification with my edit. Cheers! - Location (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Population stats[edit]

Hi David. When you update population stats in the intro, could you make sure you do the infobox too? Cheers, Number 57 15:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to remember to do that, User:Number 57. I merely forgot to do that when I made updates today on certain pages. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Intelligent design". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent design[edit]

I have never yet, not even once, made an edit on the Intelligence design Page. I have only suggested what I thought would be constructive edits for this article on the ID Talk-page.Davidbena (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, a good example of a "pseudoscientific" article on WP would be our modern-day Astronomy. By knowing what it is, we can infer from it what it is not. Intelligent design should not fall under the same category. The Intelligent design (ID) theory asserts that there must be intelligent causes to explain the complex and information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. It asserts that certain biological characteristics violate the Darwinian explanation of chance because they were probably designed. Design logically presupposes a designer, wherefore, the appearance of design in our universe, or in man, is seen by its proponents as evidence of the existence of a designer.
One of the main arguments in the Intelligent design theory is the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle states that the world and the universe are very finely tuned to allow life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the air would be changed just a little, then many species would die out quickly. If the earth were a few kilometers away are more or less of the sun, then many species would quickly cease to exist. The existence and development of life requires that so many variables must be consistent with each other, so that it would be impossible that all these variables are matched with each other due to random and uncoordinated events.
Albert Einstein, one of our renowned scientists, believed in Intelligent design. In response to a paper published by Max Born in June 1926 entitled, "Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge" (Quantum Mechanics of Collision Phenomena), Einstein wrote on 4 December 1926: “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice” (see: private letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926: [1] Albert Einstein Archives, reel 8, item 180). Einstein’s view was meant to refute that there is Randomness (indeterminism) in our universe. He felt that natural laws could not be like the throw of dice, with inherent randomness or probability (i.e. the opposite pretensions of the Quantum Mechanics theory), and was averse to the idea of randomness as a fundamental feature of any theory. He believed that randomness could appear as some form of statistical behavior but could not be a part of the law, just like a pack of cards that is shuffled according to deterministic laws still shows a random arrangement. Einstein's view, by the way, stands in direct contradiction to that of another theorist, Werner Heisenberg, who believed that at the fundamental level Nature is inherently random, and which view he codified in his famous Uncertainty Principle. In the final analysis, it is a scientific dispute, whether our universe is to be seen as evolving from "natural causes," or by some "metaphysical force" that has no less a form of consciousness as we do. Whether that be aliens, or UFO's, or something else, will be left-up to science to decide. Let us not be afraid to address these issues, and to give credit to those who are avant-garde in this field of research by making use of the applied sciences.
Just as many theories are disputed by scientists engaged in the debate, ID is no different, but stands on its own merits. One of the staunchest supporters of the ID theory is Lehigh University professor and biochemist, Dr. Michael Behe. He has brought down several strong arguments through deductive logic how that there is still much left to be explained in our Universe, and that the ID theory offers an alternative to Darwin's theory of random or "accidental" evolution. Scientific articles on WP are required to show "scientific method of analysis." Proof of "scientific method" as defined above can be seen in the dialogue between two professors on the subject of Intelligent Design on this YouTube video, [2], beginning from 11:57 – 20:46 on bacterial flagellum, but especially from 24:06 – 32:32, in which Dr. Behe speaks about the evolutionary laboratory experiment conducted by him. If you were to follow the arguments presented by these two professors, you will see that Dr. Michael Behe meets these qualifications of presenting “scientific methods” of analysis when speaking about ID. He uses scientific standards and methods to support his theory. Therefore, the term "pseudoscientific" in this case, for the Intelligent Design theory, is without question inaccurate. Dr. Behe's words are not merely idle protestations, but are and have been demonstrable with scientific (not pseudoscientific) research.Davidbena (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own personal opinion, however this is not how Wikipedia works. WP:RS/AC requirements are satisfied by [3] and [4]. More info at List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design. Also, stating that Einstein would have supported intelligent design is very far fetched. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree strongly, User:Tgeorgescu, about your understanding of Einstein. I have seen enough of Einstein's writings or quotes as to suggest that he was pleased at discovering how our natural universe is governed by a set of logical laws (call them the "laws of nature"), but which could never have been had there been an "accidental" or "random" existence. It is, for me, as plain as daylight. Einstein was, however, misguided in his ability to see how God can concern himself with small things, hence: Spinoza's God. Maimonides, in his Guide, already explains that God is sometimes at work through us. It is a profound statement which Einstein overlooked.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu, please note that in the first URL link that you posted, it says: "The sole dissenter from this position (i.e. of Darwin's theory of random evolution) [is] Prof. Michael Behe...", which is conspicuously untrue. He is not the sole dissenter, therefore, there is no consensus.Davidbena (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You're wikilawyering over petty details. Read the whole NAS booklet, it is published online at [5]. The NAS made it very clearly that ID isn't science and this is simply a reflection of scientific consensus. The determinism issue is a red herring, evolution is agnostic about determinism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Your link sends me to a web-site advertising a book which I cannot access. Besides, the author of that book brings down his own opinions, and perhaps the opinions of a few others, which are no more than a drop in the bucket. Scientists worldwide have many opinions, and many still support the ID theory. So, again, there is no consensus about ID, although there is a consensus in public schools in America that Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught. BTW: My wife's uncle is a nuclear physicist, who once served as Israel's Minister of Science & Technology, and he, too, believes in the theory of Intelligent design. He happens to be a religious man. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
And nobody takes issue with any scientist believing in ID as part of their religious beliefs. It is only when one claims that religious beliefs are science that we move into the realm of pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:I am One of Many, I have never once posited that religious beliefs are science.Davidbena (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The booklet (freely available online at [6]) was written by a committee appointed by the NAS and it reflects the views of the NAS, as well as the scientific consensus in biology (and some other sciences as well). Behe has the right to disagree with most biologists because USA is a free country and he has freedom of speech. That, however, does not magically transform his dissenting view into science. If he would disagree with the heliocentric model, that wouldn't be science, either, even if he would be free to publish his view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The journal of the National Academy of Sciences, while indeed a respected publication, is published by an organization not fully representative of all scientists, academics or laymen in our world, though one could easily be fooled by its name. To suggest that man cannot fully understand the complexities of our existence without accepting the views of Darwin's theory of "random" evolution (with all its flaws and errors), and that he must somehow cognitively avoid making any inferences from his observation of nature (albeit close to him), this is to belittle the intelligence of man. Even the laity, as well as those not connected with the laity, many academics and scientists, as well as philosophers (old and new), have published works worthy of our commendation relating to Intelligent design, which only begs the question, why is their view treated with disdain? Why aren't the views of Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher, mentioned in the article when he also wrote about Intelligent design? If an idea is true, it does not change in a thousand years. The idea can only be augmented. Are there no merits to this theory? Of course there are! Has it not been approached from a scientific and rational level? Of course it has! The current article on ID needs rewriting in its opening paragraph. Our first aim should be to define and explain the principles of ID (without bias), and only afterwards to bring-in the dissenting views, such as what may have also been published by the NAS. Let us remember that the ID theory is not only understood and adhered to by some scientists (e.g. Einstein), but by many laymen and common people as well, as if some things were self-evident. They also make-up a consensus. Nevertheless, the onus of proof does NOT rest upon their shoulders, since our aim is not to convince the public, one way or the other, who is right and who is wrong, but only to lay-forth the idea of Intelligent design, and to bring down reliable published sources that reflect that view (whether we agree with it or not), and just as the title of the article implies. I can write about Hitler's Nazi youth organization and its ideology without having to agree with that organization. It is the same principle here. Our job, as editors, is to give an open and honest description of the subject-matter, before delving into its peculiarities. The current article does exactly the opposite. It quotes four sources that allegedly call ID a "pseudoscience," but overlooks the other published sources that do not ascribe to that view. The article at the very beginning is biased, and points a negative picture at what is actually a scientific/theoretical view espoused by a vast number of people in our world. Be well, gentlemen (and ladies).Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence because that is part of WP:ARBPS which closed in December 2006. If something new were to be raised, I think it would be at WP:ARCA. However, that should not occur until after normal WP:DR procedures are followed. The issue concerns proposed wording at Intelligent design so the next step might be to get opinions with an WP:RFC. Re the topic: statements that attempt to explain what is seen in the world are part of science and require scientific sources. Any proposed wording should be accompanied with references known to satisfy WP:RS for scientific topics. I have asked a question about this at WT:Arbitration/Requests#New evidence for pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, John. I will comply. Tell me, will you take part in the debate? I forgot to add your name as a party to this dispute.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Until a proposed edit with sources that satisfy WP:RS is provided there is nothing to debate. Talk:Intelligent design is the right place and my comments there show that I follow that page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So, that is your respected opinion. I disagree, however, with its insinuation that so far no sources have been shown to satisfy WP:RS. One excellent source is Maimonides, and even though he was a Medieval philosopher, he speaks about Intelligent design. Certain scientific or philosophical conclusions, if they be founded upon correct and proven principles, do not change in a thousand years. Moreover, I have suggested a brief change in the opening paragraph which, by all accounts, describes with brevity the fundamental issues behind ID, without forcing a biased opinion at the start. The problem, however, is that when I made suggestions for improving the article on main space, I was inundated by anti-ID editors, and their replies forced me to reply which, in turn, resulted in me being criticized for using the Talk-page as a forum. Ask most people (who are not involved in this debate) whether or not I've made sensible and constructive suggestions for the improvement of that article and I think they'll answer "yes."------ Be well, Davidbena (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the primary rules for good editing is to abide by WP:NPOV in articles that clearly have divergent points of view.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your summary of the anthropic principle above is badly mistaken. The anthropic principle is an "explanation" (accept it or not) for why all the parameters seem to be finely tuned. It is not an explanation from design, but from statistics. Zerotalk 04:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Still, User:Zero0000, it is used as one of the three "corollaries" by ID theorists in support for their theory, attributing it, of course, unto Intelligent design, and just as it is explained in this German web-page: [7] (use Google translation). It is also worthy of pointing out the fact that the ID theory is not only a scientific argument raised by some scientists (the more notable of whom being Albert Einstein), but it is also a philosophical argument mentioned by Maimonides and by Thomas Aquinas and by Sir Isaac Newton. See also this: [8]. Shabbat Shalom. Davidbena (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sir Isaac Newton
Painting of Sir Isaac Newton

The immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton:


“How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?”


“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”


“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

I would like to cordially request an opinion from the professed "deist," User:Amire80. I think that he will be able to give us some good advice on how to proceed in this endeavor.Davidbena (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Teleology can be another name for "Intelligent design," but its scope is too broad, while most people associate the name Intelligent design with the argument of design in our universe, whether from a philosophical or scientific-theoretical point of view. In this article there is a need for balance. That, and only that, is what I am striving for. The arguments are many in favor of the theory, and those - mind you - which have been stated by highly respected personages. Newton is just one of them, the father of modern physics. If his words seem to be too religious in nature, we can take it from Einstein's perspective, who was NOT a religious Jew.Davidbena (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the question? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
My question, User:Amire80, is whether or not the article in Intelligent design is balanced in its description of the theory, and if it fits the description of being "pseudoscience" (as purported there), or can it be simply a scientific-theoretical view or philosophy? See also the discussion we've been having on this issue @ Talk:Intelligent design#Proposal to Change Introductory Lines of Article. There seems to be a lot of objections to my adding any new information to the article. So, my question to you would be, is the article balanced and reflects accurately the ID theory?Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is some reading. Zerotalk 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Zero0000. That is an excellent review of our subject-matter from a very good source.Davidbena (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. Incidentally, I have no intention of editing articles about this subject even though I am a qualified scientist (not in biology) and I know a lot about it. The question of how we can know if something is designed is a very good scientific question, but a large fraction of what is written about it is not scientific. In particular, I don't consider people like Behe and Dembski to be scientists; actually they are religious fundamentalists who have learned how to use the language of science in promoting their religion. They don't follow the evidence as scientists should; rather, they invent arguments against any evidence that doesn't fit their religious beliefs. It's a pity you don't see that. Zerotalk 13:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I agree that Dr. Michael Behe isn't a scientist, but only a biochemist. But his only point in pressing the ID issue is to show extraordinary order and sequence and, perhaps, "thought" in all our biological entities and processes which, in his view, cannot have possibly evolved of themselves. I've already noted here that not all who espouse to the design theory have an ulterior "religious" motive, although this might indeed be the case of some. It's more complicated than that. The simple fact is that science has not satisfactorily explained some of the phenomena of our universe, as well as of life forms on our planet, basing most of its modern theories on Darwin's theory of "random" evolution, even though scientists have not found an unbroken chain of fossil evidence proving that all life forms evolved from a primordial cell until they reached perfection.Davidbena (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Intelligent design is pseudoscience. It's not a science and not a philosophy. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Amire80, Philosophy is defined as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." Intelligent design is not limited, of course, to an academic discipline, and therefore it would still fit the description of a philosophical argument. Maimonides, one of Israel's greatest philosophers, has spoken about Intelligent design in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part II, chapter I; ibid., chapter XIX). Shavua tov!---Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"Biochemist" is a subset of "scientist"; what I was implying is that Behe does not think as a scientist when he writes about ID. The very reason for the existence of the DI is religious, and the idea of promoting the religion using the words of science instead of the words of religion is a very carefully designed(!) confidence trick. Second, every scientist believes that "science has not satisfactorily explained some of the phenomena of our universe", it is why they are scientists. However the progress of science in the past centuries is due to a move away from the "we don't know why molten rock comes out of the volcano, therefore it is caused by demons that are living under the volcano" type of reasoning. Behe's approach pushes us backwards towards ignorance. Zerotalk 05:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Zero0000. I would say that Behe is more honest than most. He admits that in biology everything has either specific or multiple functions. Based on his observance, they show complexities that would suggest design. As a bio-chemist, he has every right to suggest that view and to show how he reached his conclusions. A theory, mind you, is an idea advanced - though not yet proven - but which has some logical foundation to it. There's no need for us to be afraid of the probability that the answer to the questions asked may lie in metaphysics. Behe's confidence may have also been spurred on by the simple fact that Darwin's theory of evolution has not yet been proven. If dinosaur bones have been so well-preserved, we would have likewise seen all the transitional stages of development for all species of animals on earth, but this is not the case.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"Darwin's theory of evolution has not yet been proven" is just your personal opinion, it does not establish any fact for Wikipedia, since you are not a reliable source. The verdict of the scientific community is that evolution has been proven beyond any doubt, and there are plenty of reliable sources which affirm this fact to the satisfaction of WP:RS/AC requirements. So, you're obviously busy with propagating crank science and the warning received above is completely to the point. Take heed and desist from advocating crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu, you came late into this debate, and the "pseudoscience" warning is out-of-place since I have never yet, not even once, made an edit on the Intelligence design Page. I have only suggested what I thought would be constructive edits for this article on the ID Talk-page. I have also brought down reputable sources to show how these views are substantiated, and are not, as you say, "crank" science. But since it is a contentious issue, I would just assume desist altogether from pressing the scientific-theoretical side of ID, and just present it as a "philosophical argument." I see that you are a believer in God. Can you help me present ID as a philosophical argument, without our having to say anything about its scientific merits?Davidbena (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
ID simply means a pseudoscientific alternative for the scientific consensus in biology (namely that evolution theory is accurate). So, if you re-frame ID as a purely philosophical argument, it is no longer ID, instead it is the teleological argument. To be sure, evolution is agnostic about the existence of God. So there is no contradiction between believing that God originally created the world and that life developed through evolution. It is just that the watchmaker argument is no longer convincing, as far as it applies to complex biological organisms. We now have an explanation for their existence which complies with Occam's razor. It does not say that God does not exist, it simply says that a specific argument is not convincing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
There's only one problem, and that is, most international websites which discuss the subject of Intelligent design, call it by its proper name: Intelligent design, since teleology is a broader subject. The Intelligent Design (ID) theory asserts that there must be intelligent causes to explain the complex and information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. It asserts that certain biological characteristics violate the Darwinian explanation of chance because they were probably designed. Design logically presupposes a designer, wherefore, the appearance of design in our universe, or in man, is seen by its proponents as evidence of the existence of a designer.Davidbena (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Your article is grossly misleading. It says: "The source of this incredible mobility is the microscopic equivalent of an outboard motor — the bacterial flagellar motor. At one millionth of the size of a grain of sand, this motor rotates up to five times faster than a Formula1 engine, spinning the whip-like flagella and driving the bacterium forward. Most remarkably, the motor builds itself by assembling its constituent parts. It's one of the pinnacles of evolution, and, from a nanotechnology standpoint, it routinely outperforms our latest man-made nanomachines." Instead of writing, "it's one of the pinnacles of evolution," it would have been better to say that it suggests intelligent design, since such structures in bacteria are used for motility (for obtaining speed and agility) so that they can reach their food source. The goal is to obtain a food source, but the means by which it achieves that is through a design in its structure caused by a higher metaphysical source (with intelligence).Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, that's your personal opinion and it has nothing to do with the science of biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In this last statement of mine, it is indeed my own personal view, although others have approached the subject on a more scientific level and/or philosophical level. This, my most recent comment (before this one) was not meant for publication (lol), but was only in response to the previous comment about an article the same person had read. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't build upon editors' opinion, it is built upon reliable sources which in respect to evolution reflect the scientific or academic consensus. So, Wikipedia does not give any weight to your opinion, your opinion has absolutely no relevance to how Wikipedia should render the scientific consensus in biology. Asking to give equal weight to evolution and intelligent design is like asking to give equal weight to mainstream history and Holocaust denialism. One of them is mainstream scientific consensus, the other is a fringe pseudoscientific view according to the same mainstream scientific consensus. So we don't give equal weight to Matt Baker's opinion and your opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That was the first time that I gave my personal opinion, although at all other times I was careful to give reliable sources for the statements copied and pasted by me. On Talk-pages we are sometimes given the liberty to speak "unofficially." Be well, my friend. PS --- If I should ever bring-up the subject again, I will be equipped with academic sources to support whatever it is that I write.Davidbena (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu, what do you think of this?

William Paley's watch analogy
Intelligent Design

William Paley’s watch analogy uses a basic argument which would have us consider the intricacies of a pocket-watch; all the fine components working together to produce movement. Most would agree that our universe and planet, or, for that matter, the human body itself, is far more intricate and complex in their design. Now if the earth’s existence was random, or man’s existence was random, meaning, the universe was fine-tuned to promote life on earth after many years of evolution, is it conceivable that in 4.6 billion years a pocket-watch could have ever evolve? Its probability is finitely remote. Yet, the human body is far more complex and intricate than our common pocket-watch! This kind of analogy is called an A Fortiori (an inference from minor to major premise) showing how it strains credulity to think that our own complex human form can evolve of itself in 4.6 billion years or more. If a pocket-watch cannot evolve, which is far less complex than our bodies, how much more then is it impossible for our planet and universe and our bodies to have evolved without a Designer!

According to the book, Evidence and Evolution, by Elliott Sober (Cambridge University Press 2008), p. 120, Paley writes in Chapter 15 of his book Natural Theology, that "the eyes are so placed as to look in the direction in which the legs move and the hands work." The obvious explanation, Paley says, is intelligent design. This is because the alternative explanation is chance; if the direction in which our eyes point were "left to chance [...] there were at least three-quarters of the compass out of four to have erred in" (Paley 1809:269).

Davidbena (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It could be added to teleological argument, but Paley knew nothing about evolution or intelligent design (in its current meaning of creationist competition for evolution), so it is not germane to intelligent design. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you know that the subject of Intelligent design, as we have been discussing it here - with more or less different arguments - goes back much further than William Paley? Even in Maimonides' time, some 850 years ago, he discussed the subject in his Guide for the Perplexed. It seems, too, that Thomas Aquinas was so deeply impressed by Maimonides' wisdom that he, too, spoke about Intelligent design. Davidbena (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
As you have been repeatedly told, intelligent design is an article about the contemporary pseudoscientific movement. For the philosophical argument there is the article argument from design. You should not simply conflate the two, different subjects have different articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP article on Intelligent design should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience. Do you think that it would be possible for us to incorporate something along the lines of the French article into our own English article, and to admit that there is a philosophical question that has been the subject of debate (or of mere musings) by some respected people of the scientific community?Davidbena (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience" seems pretty damning, and there is no real difference with "ID is a pseudoscience" (according to whom? according to the scientific community, of course). Pseudoscientists never claim to be producing pseudoscience, they claim of writing science. You have been repeatedly told to find a secondary source about Einstein and ID, original research from primary sources (twisting Einstein's words) won't do. Do mind that a lot of folks who believe in creation (at Big Bang for contemporary thinkers) also accept evolution, therefore creationism and ID simply mean theological visions about the development of biological life, i.e. denialism of mainstream biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Intelligent design, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Darwin and intelligent design[edit]

Hi! Fwiw--Darwin changed his mind about a Creator designing the universe before publishing On the Origin of Species. On p. 431 of that book he wrote, "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." And, "There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course the wind blows." Regards, YoPienso (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Natural selection is not new to the universe, but even "natural selection" has always been governed by metaphysical forces. Moreover, natural selection which Darwin did speak about is not the same as evolution.Davidbena (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You seem like an intelligent, informed person and literate in English. Yet, your response is incoherent.
My point is that Darwin, as a mature thinker, did not support the idea of any kind of intelligent design in the universe. At the ID article, you were saying he did. Do you see your error? YoPienso (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I never suggested once that Darwin supported the idea of Intelligent Design. Can you please quote my words, if I ever wrote such things? Surely there must be some misunderstanding. ID is simply one's observation of our world and universe and all life forms and their unique functions and reaching an upgraded understanding that there must have, without question, been a rational and intelligent being who planned such things and set everything in motion and is cognizant of the things in this grand "scheme of things."----Davidbena (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. This is what I saw:
Rwenonah keeps repeatedly repeating the canard that "ID wasn't even invented until the 1970s, after Pandas and People was published and the Discovery Institute got up and running." (As if there was no record of the term prior to the 1970s.) It's a blatant falsehood. Even Darwin was using the very term to describe the very concept. To insist on making the article about what Discovery Institute says and does, is as neutral to the topic as insisting that Pol Pot solely defines the meaning of socialism. The fact that these facts are repeatedly deleted even from the talk page is evidence of culpable bias. Davidbena, sorry, but you will not get anywhere with these guys because they are confident that their own POV is the wp:NPOV. They're not intellectually honest about the topic and they don't want to be. That fact is verified by the short period of time it takes for them to delete this very note.
It's poorly formatted and apparently unsigned. On my screen, your name in blue is at the far right and seemed to be your signature. YoPienso (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I accept your apologies. That was not my statement. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg

Possibly unfree File:Bab al-Yaman, southern gate in Sana's Old City, ca. 1931.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bab al-Yaman, southern gate in Sana's Old City, ca. 1931.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The photo was copied by me from a book published in Germany in 1934, before World War II. There is no copyright infringement.Davidbena (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook[edit]

Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture links presented on the talk page, to the article page? Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the Abraham Isaac Kook Talk-Page and I saw a long list of items that you wish to have transferred to the main article. Had you listed one or two links, I could perhaps find the time to transcribe them, but not the long list that you provided. I have other more pressing issues to deal with at this time. Besides, in one link you show a Public Notice that calls out for a Public Prayer (יום תפלה כללי), in the year 5695 anno mundi (1935), something that, perhaps at that time, might have been very important, but which today is not of such vast importance that it needs to be mentioned in the main article, in my humble opinion. Other links may, of course, be important to mention in the article.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--please take another look to see the work which has now been completed--the list on the talk-page is now much shorter. To address your important latter point, the reason the public notice calling for a Public Prayer is of such significant historical and current importance is because it clearly illustrates the broad unity of the Rabbis who are seen to have signed the public notice, and how they referred to Rabbi Kook shortly before he passed away. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In your last point, I beg to differ, since these public notices are common-place today in Meah She'arim (Jerusalem) and B'nei Barak, and they all carry sweeping support from the leaders of the community, but are soon forgotten after the event. Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, since in this very unique critically significant example, it is a matter of accurately presenting the evidence based historic reality, rather than hearsay and historic revisionism which some try to repeat. I think presenting and preserving truthful fact/evidence based history has substantial value, regardless of what is or is not common-place in "Meah She'arim (Jerusalem) and B'nei Barak." Ksavyadkodesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy is one thing (and I have no disagreement with you there, on that one point). Trivia, however, is another thing altogether, and I just can't find the precious time to treat on such subjects, especially when I have far more pressing issues to deal with. It's all a matter of priority.Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mawza Exile[edit]

I just saw your comment on this DYK nomination. I have the feeling you might be confused when someone at DYK mentions GA (Good Article). What they are actually referring to is Wikipedia:Good article nominations, which is a different process. But about a year or two ago, it was decided that any article that passed a GA review could also be featured in DYK, regardless of its length or if it has been expanded. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Maile66. So, does that mean that Wikipedia:Good article nominations must first meet the minimum requirement of "scope" (accomplishments as far as time-wise is concerned) before it can pass a GA review? What exactly are the criteria for an article to pass a GA review?Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a tab on that link regarding Criteria. But the short answer is "no", they don't care about a time frame, or even if you worked on it. All GA cares about, is if the article meets that criteria. And whoever nominates an article should be able to take care of any issues that might come up in the review. Also, there is Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates that will give you an idea of what reviewers are supposed to look for. Not everybody uses those templates, but it will help you understand what passes GA. — Maile (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

Hello, there is a 1 revert per 24 hour rule in place across the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and that includes West Bank. You have reverted twice there today, could you please self-revert and discuss your edit on the talk page? Thank you. nableezy - 15:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I will gladly revert, if I have made two reverts in a 24-hour period. To the best of my knowledge, what I did was keep the other editor's edit, but only added a small side-note which differs from all my other edits that I had previously made. Look again at my last edit, which differs from all the rest. If this is called two "reverts" in a 24-hour period, let me first ask a more skilled editor than myself if what I did infringes upon that rule.Davidbena (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The revert was adding the line so-called in that most of it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River. Zero removed that, you re-added it (first revert), I removed it, you re-added it (second revert). I am not actually opposed to including why its called the West Bank (though that isnt exactly the story, its more that what is now Jordan proper was called the East Bank and what Jordan held between 48-67 was the West Bank), but I dont think it should be there. Either way, as a general practice, and especially in this topic area, if your initial edit is reverted what I think the correct course would be is to take it immediately to the talk page with no further reverting until there is a consensus for a change. nableezy - 17:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can I ask you what the objection is about adding something which speaks solely about Palestine's geographical location, especially when I re-worded the sentence to read: so-called in that it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River? Note that Zero was against my use of the words, so-called in that most of it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River, as well as what I earlier called "forming the bulk of the land known traditionally as Palestine." Note the differences in wording.Davidbena (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
But it isnt simply a geographical thing, its a political history thing, and I would say that belongs in the body of the article in a section dealing with its name. And how far exactly does a river bank extend? All the way to Jerusalem? But really, this belongs on the article talk page, and the article should remain in the state it was before any contested changes were made while a talk page discussion occurs. nableezy - 17:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, since the article is entitled "West Bank," it is only natural that we treat on the etymological meaning of the word, for the sake of clarity, at the start. You asked how far it extends? That, my friend, is something that the article can discuss in subsequent sections. By the way: When a text-book says on the West-bank of the Mississippi, the natural connotation implied is that the adjacent territories west of the Mississippi are considered the "West Bank of the Mississippi." The details, however, would differ between each region. This, however, does not take away from the general understanding of the word "West Bank."Davidbena (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

You have broken 1RR on Bayt Nattif; please self-revert, or you will be reported,

Huldra (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, I beg your pardon, but unless there is something that I don't understand about the 1-revert per day on any given subject matter, you can see that there is a full day between my two reverts.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a convention that a day is 24 hours. The two edits shown above are less than eight hours apart. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Then that particular aspect was unknown to me. Can you show the WP convention, in writing, that between reversions there must not merely be a change in date (since 24 hours have still passed from one date to the other), but rather a literal 24-hour period from one's last revert? I will self-revert once you show me this specific detail in WP policy on reverts.Davidbena (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you asking for a link to prove that two reverts in under eight hours violates WP:1RR? If that is the question, you need to edit in some other topics for a year before engaging in further battlefield conduct in the WP:ARBPIA area. Discussions on P–I talk pages often involve many details and tedious sources—are you able to follow those discussions, or are you just reverting to what you think looks good? Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Davidbena, please self-revert or you will be blocked for violation of the WP:1RR. If you really can't understand 1RR, you shouldn't be editing ARBPIA topics. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, John, my question to you was legitimate, since I was always under the impression that a 24-hour period is analogous to a day, and that if a another day had transpired, as it did in my case, the edit would still stand. Take into account the time zones and the differences between our places. I live in Israel, but I am not sure where our co-editor, Huldra, lives. Are edit times posted in the GMT of the USA for all editors worldwide? I know that my first revert was made at night, and my second revert to Huldra's edit was made the following night. Perhaps I missed out on the time when she made her change in my edit. In any rate, I will be willing to self-revert if I have abrogated a rule of practice regarding 1RR.Davidbena (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have self-reverted.Davidbena (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
BY the way, I double-checked the time. Here in Israel it is around 8:00 AM, Wednesday, the 7th of October 2015. I will test to see what time actually shows-up on this edit page.Davidbena (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Marilyn Masson correspondence[edit]

Thanks for your message which I have deleted since I dont think it is ethically correct to share private correspondence in a public forum unless you have explicit permission to do so. Nonetheless, the sources suggested by Dr. Masson are excellent, and her argument and conclusion clearly shows why it was correct not to simply use the primary source's claim as a flat statement of fact. Going from the sources and arguments provided by her is likely to improve our coverage of the history of Mayapan - remeber however that the article on "Maya Civilization" is not the right place to go into detail about Mayapan so it is a question of how much we want to include there, and how much to include in the specific article on Mayapan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. BTW: I would have sent our correspondence through your private e-mail, but I didn't have it. If I should feel that any additional information about Mayapan's demise is relevant to the current article, I will make my suggestions on the Talk Page. Thanks for your patience.Davidbena (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
In fact you can send me email through the link "email this user" at my talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, I forgot about that.Davidbena (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sepphoris[edit]

@I dream of horses:, since you have auto-review rights, I've decided to turn to you over what is turning out to be an edit-war on the WP page, Sepphoris. If you look at the history, the individual wishes to place at the lead of that article a picture of a statue of the "virgin Mary," alleging that she was born in Sepphoris. My view here is that this is hardly relevant to the article, but if he wishes to keep the picture, it should not be in the lead. Furthermore, I have the impression that the individual simply wishes to promote "Catholic issues," as some form of advertisement, based on his history of edits. It just doesn't seem right. When I undo his edit, he puts it back-up again. Can you please give me your view on this subject, or else kindly talk to the guy about this? Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently, it looks like the issue has been resolved by moving the picture further down in the article.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Bayt Nattif[edit]

Hi. Are you sure your edits are right? Did you really think them over?
Bait Natif is how the 1922 census names the village, and the lead introduces it as a Mandate period village, no more, no less, although it's obviously much older. If the defining Brits wrote it that way (the linked census page certainly does), why does it bother you if it's mentioned in the lead? There seems to be even some WP rule (not hat I care so much about those) that says, if it ain't wrong, don't touch it. So subjective considerations aren't an ideal base for changes.
"Roman" road: are you sure? I don't know, but do you know for a fact that the road wasn't MUCH, MUCH older, connecting Gaza via Maresha/Marissa with Jerusalem, and the Roman phase is just the more recent and better visible one? Or that the generally so-called "Roman" road itself isn't somewhat earlier? I mean Yotam & Yigal Tepper: The Roads that Bear the People — Pilgrimage Roads to Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, where they show that at least the stepped segments are not Roman, but older (cannot read Hebrew, in English it only says "[Jewish] pilgrimage roads from the 2nd Temple Period", so anything from Persian to Herodian is possible).
I was obviously very well aware that the gen. hist. of Palestine is not what's specifically needed there, that's why I basically only listed the periods. It's meant as a conscious invitation to fill in the gaps. Half-literate WP users tend to overlook the larger scale of time, if there's a "History" paragraph jumping from Biblical or Classical Antiquity to that ubiquitous 16th c. Ottoman census, they don't realise that there might have been no continuity there, that the gap is a millennium long or longer. Like "red links", who do help as invitations to add info, this would also activate some people - or at least some neurons.
I took all that into consideration. Did you? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am absolutely sure about my edits, as I live right next to Bayt Nattif, and I also have a modern map showing the area and where it mentions the road (regional hwy. 375) as being the old Roman road. It's also listed as such in the old Survey of Western Palestine map of 1880; see: 1880 map of region. Of course, it has been paved since then. As for general history, I wanted to add more too, but it was suggested by a co-editor not to do this, unless it expressly mentions Bayt Nattif.Davidbena (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
For your information: Initially, I had made the following edit, but it was deleted. (But I agree with you, however, that there should be something here to fill-in the time gap):
"Literary sources bearing on the history of the village, from the Byzantines to the Arab conquest in 636 under Caliph Omar to the Egyptian conquest in 969 (1) and the Seljuk Turk conquest in 1087, are virtually non-existent. Likewise, no records exist of the village from the long period of foreign conquests (1099 – 1516), until the rise of the Ottoman Empire.(2)"
NOTES:
(1) Al-Muqaddasi the Arab geographer wrote in 985 CE about the hostelries, or wayfarers' inns, in the Province of Palestine, a country at that time listed under the topography of Syria, saying: “Taxes are not heavy in Syria, with the exception of those levied on the Caravanserais (Fanduk); Here, however, the duties are oppressive...” (See: Mukaddasi, Description of Syria, Including Palestine, ed. Guy Le Strange, London 1886, pp. 91, 37). The reference here being to the imposts and duties charged by government officials on the importation of goods and merchandise, the importers of which and their beasts of burden usually stopping to take rest in these places. Guards were stationed at every gate to ensure that taxes for these goods be paid in full, while the revenue therefrom accruing to the Fatimid kingdom of Egypt.
(2) The sense here is to the occupation of the country under the Crusaders in 1099, and by Saladin in 1187, the Khwarizmian Turks in 1244, and the Mameluk rulers of Egypt in 1269. See: Supplement to Survey of Palestine (Notes compiled for the information of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine - June 1947), Government Printer: Jerusalem 1947, p. 125. ---Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't understand my question. I don't say 18th-century PEF explorers didn't recognise the road as being Roman. Sure they did, and did many since them. I'm saying that it is quite possible that it's much, much older, and the Teppers give a concrete, well-researched counter-theory to push it at least a bit farther into the past. Did you read their theory? I see that you take the sources you happen to have at home as the final word. That's unwise. Even what's available online is but a fraction of what's out there, that's why I am myself a bit weary of saying that there is no info for C4 - 1517. You may live at the very center of a village and not know what's happened there 5000, 500, 50 or even 5 years ago, and that's normal. Take it easy, we all learn more as time passes, from Einstein downwards. And forget the "occupation" word when referring to old history, you're living in what was at some point Judah, then Idumea (Edomites from the east took over), then you had Greeks and Phoenicians around, then Persians, Arabs, Turks, maybe Mongols... Goes for Crusaders at best. But your neighbour might have blue eyes and be of partially Frankish descent. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, well-known archaeologists (Boaz Zisu, et al.) and Israel's Dept. of Antiquities, also recognize the road as being an old Roman road, and there are still elements along the road that haven't been altered in all these many years since Roman times. Tourists often stop there to observe the route. Here, on WP, we are cautioned against speculation (WP:OR), and must only rely upon reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You pick & choose what you answer to. Or worse? This was NOT my point, and I made myself VERY clear: YES, what we see is mainly Roman, but the Romans quite possibly? likely? extended or paved over a much OLDER road. So OLDER, not NEWER. Get the difference? Also, Yotam Tepper is very much a respected IAA archaeologist, it's not some Indiana Jones character, and has received good reviews on his paper. He suggests with thorough arguments that at least the stepped segments are pre-Roman. So no, you didn't address my questions, and it looks more & more like I was right in my assessment of your way of editing. Or thinking. I started on a very kind & polite note, giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping for a minimal level for our exchange of thoughts or information. Maybe you knew of deeper-going recent research done on those roads, or of contra-Tepper research, who knows. Or of archaeological finds postdating the 4th-century finds from Kh. Shumeila or elsewhere. After all, the name was preserved since at least the Roman times. But as it is, this is not a discussion worth continuing. So let's not.Arminden (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not refuting your statement, User:Arminden. What I am saying, however, is that you'll need references to support your hypothesis. Besides, even if a road had been used much earlier than the Roman period, but was given a more recent name, i.e. Roman road, we follow the more recent name.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Intelligent Design, you may be blocked from editing. --Mr Fink (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend, Mr Fink, I made no such edit on the main page, but was only discussing something with a co-editor on the Talk-Page, whom I've talked with in the past about this issue. There's nothing to be alarmed about. The entire point was for him to be "open" about the possibility of Intelligent Design, even though it is a contested issue. No offense intended.Davidbena (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
For those of our friends reading this, this is what I had written to a fellow-editor who is adamantly opposed to the idea that we were created by G-d, thus, ruling-out any constructive edits on the main page of Intelligent Design, and I quote: "If I might ask your indulgence, just for a moment, [User:so-and-so], and prompt you to think about the unfathomable wisdom embedded within this planet, consider for a moment how a female dog (bitch), when she is in heat, emits an odour that attracts male dogs, but NOT female dogs, which same scent arouses them sexually for the preservation of their species. Consider this wonder. Had all species evolved from a mere germ, how can you explain this phenomenon in the dog family that causes them to mate with each other (male and female) for the preservation of their species? I prefer, rather, to think not of the abnormal occurrence of a dog trying to mount your leg (perhaps because of the scent of a female canine that brushed beside you and left her scent on your leg), but of the regular and fixed occurrence in nature (i.e. the sex pheromone in the dog), whereby, if this were merely an accident in nature, it would beg the question "Why?" No, it is no freak accident of nature, but rather ALL THINGS (including dogs) bear testimony that they were created by Intelligent Design. If you, my friend, cannot discern between rational design which makes only males attracted to the scent of females in order to procreate, on the one hand, and irrational randomness of existence, on the other hand, which, surprisingly (oops!) made everything fall into place, so that there would be the continued existence of canine animal species on this planet earth by emitting a special scent, then, my friend, I cannot help you. Still, it wouldn't take away from the reality of Intelligent Design, would it? Be well. P.S. -- I get the vivid impression that editors here have colluded together to purposely omit the truth, because the truth would obligate them." END QUOTE. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yemenite Jewish song[edit]

I don't know how much you know about the Yemenite diwan (hopefully more than me), but are you up to starting an entry on Yemenite Jewish song? I was surprised to see that not even in the Hebrew Wikipedia is there an entry (take a look here and notice the single red link). To begin with, I imagine it should include sections on n'shid, shira, and the hallel. The entry would be distinguished from Yemenite Jewish music, which is a contemporary phenomenon involving musical instruments. Contributor613 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's great that you asked. I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I have actually been collecting information on this subject, mainly from Professor Yosef Tobi who is an expert on this subject. The subject entails a lot of thorough research prior to writing the article, since there are many technicalities, such as nashid (sing.) or neshwad (plural), and other poetic genres.Davidbena (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a better title would be "Yemenite Jewish poetry."Davidbena (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Is everything in the diwan poetry per se? Contributor613 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, liturgical poetry.Davidbena (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, poetry yes, but liturgical poetry? Not everything's liturgy, for example the shir חתן תנה הודך עלי כלה (Halikhoth Teiman, p. 151). Contributor613 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll ask the Professor what category that falls under.Davidbena (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
R. Qafeh calls it a shir ("מתחיל המארי שיר זה, שהוא האחרון בשירים המיועדים למעמד זה"). I'm not sure how it [Clarification: By it, I mean the shir חתן תנה הודך עלי כלה. Contributor613 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)] could be classified as liturgical poetry as opposed to the general category of poetry. Contributor613 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Contributor613, the Hebrew words שיר and שירה are translated "poem/song" and "poetry/singing", respectively. In Modern Hebrew שיר is mostly translated as song, but is also translated as poem. Whenever the great talmidei hakhamim use the word, especially Rav Qafih, it is almost exclusively in the context of poetry, as in the liturgical poems taken from the diwan. The word "piyyut" is more specific, insofar that it definitely refers to a liturgical poem, such as those written by Rabbi Judah Halevi, Solomon ibn Gabirol, Judah Harizi and others.Davidbena (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I take it you don't yet have enough for a stub, so I guess I'll just eagerly await your creation of Yemenite Jewish poetry. :) Contributor613 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have more than enough to start an article.Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC) So I guess my :) wasn't for naught. :) :) Contributor613 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
As a side point, if you have a better translation than banquet halls for בתי משתאות (in History of religious Jewish music note 1) I'm all ears. Contributor613 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a better word would be "festive meals," or "houses wherein is dining."--Davidbena (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In context (of שירים הנאמרים בבתי משתאות), how does "songs said in houses wherein are festive meals" sound to you? To me it sounds overly verbose but I don't really see a better, more accurate option. (Rav Kafih is clearly not using the term in the mishneic sense of wine-feasts [B'rakhoth, 1:2; Sotah 9:11] per Maimonides explanation of the term [in B'rakhoth 1:2 "בית המשתה, מסבת משתה יין"].) Contributor613 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right. It sounds overly verbose. Perhaps you can just use "houses of feasting."Davidbena (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks! Contributor613 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you can also advise regarding כלי פריטה? I translated it as string instruments (which can be called כלי מיתר in Hebrew [both Wikipedia entries are linked]) but I'm not sure if it's necessarily more limited to plucked string instruments; I don't want to limit the term to the exclusion of bowed string instruments without being certain. Do you know whether כלי פריטה is sometimes used to refer to string instruments in general and other times used to refer to plucked string instruments specifically, or if it's always only used to mean plucked string instruments? Thank you. Contributor613 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of these words, כלי פריטה, is that they refer specifically to "plucked string instruments," such as the lute, the guitar, the syntar, lyre, zither, kraar, etc. Bear in mind, however, that "stringed instruments" can either be plucked by a plectrum, or played with a bow. The "kinyra" or "kinor" (Heb. כינור) was, according to Josephus, plucked by a plectrum, and not played with a bow (as in some English manuscripts erroneously translate). Today, however, the Modern Hebrew word, "kinor," means "viol" or "violin," and it is played with a bow. You see, the word has actually changed in meaning over time. Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon also translates the Hebrew word "kinor" in the book of Psalms as having the Judeo-Arabic meaning of "oud" (עוד), or lute. (cf. Josephus, Antiquities VII, XII, vs. 3).Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If you don't mind, with you permission I'll move this discussion re translation of בתי משתאות and כלי פריטה to Talk:History of religious Jewish music Contributor613 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to use the content here in any forum or venue that you might feel is relevant. Have you seen this? Yemenite Jewish poetry. It's a start.Davidbena (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It's alive! יישר כחך. (I'll paste it into that, more pertinent, talk page instead.) Contributor613 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is there a proven scientific (or other) method that shows, unequivocally, that the universe, the planet earth and the living animal species therein have NOT been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If so, what is it? . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dave, your question borders on frivolity. Still, to answer you, the answer to your question is "yes," since our universe was created by a rational God who cares for the well-being of man. He is not a monster. Would you like proof as to the reality of God's rational character and goodness towards us humans? If so, perhaps in a private email, but not here, since a Wikipedia Talk-Page is not a forum.Davidbena (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You should of course be aware that article talk pages are not the place for a forum. Your response is circular as it presupposes the correctness of your faith, which is unproven by definition, and I'll leave it at that. All the best, dave souza, talk 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Dave, one's faith in the God of creation can actually be tested, simply by calling out to that God of creation. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

You broke the 1RR rule on Emmaus Nicopolis...I reverted before I gave you a chance to self-revert. I will therefor not report you, this time. Please be more careful in the future, and please don´t make very contentious edits without discussing it on the talk-page first, Huldra (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being considerate, User:Huldra. I have raised the issue on the Talk Page. We'll discuss it there.Davidbena (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Please raise the level on your arguments. Almost every time you answer you imply that people are biased or claim them to be naive etc. They aren't. In particular this edit: [9] clearly breaks WP:NPA. If you don't stop things like this, you may end up blocked, and I'm sure that's not your goal. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Friend, I have never meant any harm to anyone by my words, although I have been personally attacked by others. Have you also warned others who attacked me because of my views?Davidbena (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Nobody in the current discussion attacked you because of your views. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng --OpenFuture (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the tone there gets pretty heated at times. Thanks for the YouTube video, "I'm Not Your Friend, Buddy." It's cute.Davidbena (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
And after reading through some of it, and seeing your comments today, I can tell you that the heat is created largely buy you. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If I make them upset, it is unintentional.Davidbena (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages (or in this case, pinging users) on a biased choice of users' to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is a RFC (Request for Comment) pending, and it is within bounds of WP policy to invite others to comment and to voice their opinion. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research at Solomon[edit]

You have performed original research based upon primary religious sources at Solomon. I suggest you either fix it or delete it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu, the only sentence that can be construed for WP:OR is the last sentence added to that paragraph by me. I will reword it so as to avoid the appearance of Original Research. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant: you need a contemporary WP:SOURCE saying that Rashi's view is germane to contemporary scholarship and a contemporary source saying that Lemaire is kind of mistaken, seen the point with the years counting difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Advocacy for ID on your user page[edit]

You should consider this:

However, other scientists remain sceptical. “At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London.

— Steve Connor, Human intelligence 'peaked thousands of years ago and we've been on an intellectual and emotional decline ever since', Independent, 12 November 2012

It also applies to the "science" of intelligent design: it has produced no evidence and it has not advanced in any respect our knowledge of the natural world. Now ID is a collection of religious slogans masquerading as science, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM . Per WP:BALL it is futile to speculate what it would become 5000 years later. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu, on the contrary, those who espouse to Intelligent Design can see the real benefits it has to them in their knowledge and understanding of our natural world, since the natural world is not without its Designer and that there is "someone" (or "some thing") whom we can, both, turn to and look-up to. This can also be tested, insofar that many who have gone before us (e.g. Abraham the Hebrew Patriarch) had encountered certain revelations from the Creator of the Universe. Of course, other methods of testing the fallacy of evolution cannot be tested, since it would require many, many long years of analysis just to prove one little point (such as, if man can, by conditioning, develop saber-like canine teeth). This, then, would put that specific area of research in the realm of "scientific theory" that has yet to be proven. Still, we can examine the human body and reach solid conclusions that are compatible with science. If you'd excuse my rudeness or bluntness for this once, I'll give you just one or two good examples. Let us consider the human genitalia. Wouldn't it have been a striking coincidence had nature just so-happened to provide the male body with the softest of his skin in his genitalia (more specifically, the penis) which, by design, is meant to be inserted within the female genitalia (more specifically, the vagina), without the act causing damage or unnecessary pain? By the way, Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: “Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous” (In “The World as I See it”). Or, let us take two fetuses as another example, one male and one female, both who are twins carried in their mother's womb. Doesn't it strike you as odd that "evolution" would have, by chance, provided the female fetus with a wider pelvis bone in order to facilitate the carrying of children in her womb when she grows older, but the male fetus who is not supposed to carry children has a narrower pelvis bone? Consider that for this "evolutionary feature" to have happened in this way, it would have necessitated the mother who carried the child to send-off, as it were, two independent signals, or for the egg and sperm to send-off two different signals - one for the male, the other for the female, instructing her female offspring to naturally grow a wider pelvis in order to facilitate room enough in her womb for carrying children at some future time. "Evolution," if it exists, cannot see futurities. Only God can see such things and manipulate the human body to act accordingly.Davidbena (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Standard creationist nonsense, complete with misquoting of Einstein the Atheist, and basic misundersstandings of science and evolutionary theory. Tgeorgescu is of course right that ID has not and cannot produce evidence. Evolutionary theory on the contrary has produced volumes of supporting evidence over the past centuries - and has indeed "predicted futurities" many times (that is what experiments do). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I have seen the bogus claims of evolutionary theory, all of which (besides mutations) have yet to be proven. It is still a theory. As for the creation of the universe, there are more proofs than what our libraries can contain, and this, mind you, has also been corroborated by the personal experiences of many a people. The denier of the truth, I'm sorry to say, is you, but this is not a forum to discuss these arcane and complex matters. Be well. P.S. - as for Einstein, he at first was an atheist, but later returned to belief in Spinoza's God - a god that, according to him, created the universe, but who doesn't concern himself with the small affairs of man. I will show you the sources later. Davidbena (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Maunus, you stand to be corrected. Man, who analyzes scientific data can, indeed, predict futurities, but "evolution" itself cannot predict futurities.Davidbena (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No, because "evolution" is a process and does not have a mind. Man however can predict futurities using evolutionary theory. And no, only creationists think that Einstein became a monist - he was an atheist fronting as an agnostic out of the good scientific sense of humility about knowledge. Spinoza's god by the way is not the god you seem to be talking about, but simply a way of calling oneself an atheist without being punished by religious bigots. I personally also believe in "Spinozas God" - because in so far a god exists it could only be the impersonal force of the universe which can only be studied through the natural sciences. Please see our rather well written article on Religious views of Albert Einstein. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I adamantly disagree on both points, since no "evolutionary process" is so boundlessly perfect and self-rectifying so as to suggest that it was randomly put-together. The odds of such harmony ever happening, and of mere "nature" pandering to the needs of every living creature, simply strains credulity. It is without question that Albert Einstein tried to understand the metaphysical causes of our universe. He could be described as an 'Intelligent-design' theorist, although not exactly a religious man, and one who claimed to have believed in the "God of Spinoza" (meaning, a god that does not involve himself with the affairs of man). In a letter to Max Born in December of 1926, Einstein wrote in response to a paper published by Max Born in June of that year, entitled, Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge (Quantum Mechanics of Collision Phenomena): “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice” (see: private letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926: Albert Einstein Archives, reel 8, item 180). Einstein’s view was meant to refute that there is Randomness (indeterminism) in our universe. He felt that natural laws could not be like the throw of dice, with inherent randomness or probability (i.e. the opposite pretensions of the Quantum Mechanics theory), and was averse to the idea of randomness as a fundamental feature of any theory. He believed that randomness could appear as some form of statistical behavior but could not be a part of the law, just like a pack of cards that is shuffled according to deterministic laws still shows a random arrangement. Einstein's view, by the way, stands in direct contradiction to that of another theorist, Werner Heisenberg, who believed that at the fundamental level Nature is inherently random, and which view he codified in his famous "Uncertainty Principle." In the final analysis, it is a scientific dispute, whether our universe is to be seen as evolving from "natural causes," or by some "metaphysical force" that has no less a form of consciousness than we do. Whether that be aliens, or UFO's, or something else, will be left-up to science to decide. Let us not be afraid to address these issues, and to give credit to those who are "avant-garde" in this field of research by making use of the applied sciences.
While belief in a personal God, Einstein may have thought was childish, still, in the cause and effects of our universe, Einstein did believe that this was ordered from God. Remember, Einstein also once said, "I want to know God's thoughts," and many similar things. Furthermore, as noted, if the principles of order were laid down by God, it is what Einstein was seeing when he said on more than one occasion, "God does not play dice." I have already noticed, long-ago, your well-written article: Religious views of Albert Einstein. Proof positive of what I am saying, namely, that Einstein gradually came to a more enlightened view of God, we find that Albert Einstein wrote: “...I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, EVEN THOUGH, LATER ON, IT HAS BEEN TEMPERED BY A BETTER INSIGHT INTO THE CAUSAL CONNECTIONS.” (See: Einstein, Albert (1979). Autobiographical Notes. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 3-5).Davidbena (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: Remember that Intelligent Design is also a philosophical question, not necessarily a scientific pursuit or theory, although it can be too. In Jewish tradition, the human species has lived on earth for no more than 5776 years. Science is not infallible, neither is it unassailable. At one time they say that the earth is warming, but then they turn around and say the earth is about to experience a cold-spell, resembling the ice-age. You see, science can sometimes be correct on some things, but they can still err on other things. As for the age of the earth and our universe, these astronomical dates are by no means conclusive when you consider that they are mostly measuring isotope ratios which may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay. There are many other ways that scientists have been measuring the age of our planet, or things in our planet. Some have used X-rays and CT scans in dating things such as teeth. Mummies were examined by using radioactive isotopes of carbon to determine their ages. Isotopes are variations of elements with different numbers of neutrons. But what are the criteria being used to ascertain that their calculations are accurate? Scientists won't tell you that, but the uneducated simply believe their "highly suspect" results. Radiometric dating is, in my view, being wrongly interpreted, based on some false premise or unknown variables to science.Davidbena (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A thesis could be theologically or philosophically "true" without making it good science. Any scientific theory could change, if evidence so requires. All the evidence scientists have suggests that the Earth and life are billions years old. Of course, that could change if better evidence emerges. But a theological claim does not amount to evidence for scientists, there are other grounds for the justification of scientific theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
True. But some who are the staunchest proponents and supporters of scientific knowledge have been rash to conclude that Intelligent Design is not a science at all, without letting the scientific method of analysis prove itself or run its full-course. They also dismiss the testimonies of men who claim to have communicated with the Creator of the Universe and say that He was also responsive to them. Why deny consciousness and the metaphysical? If we, who are but dust, have a conscious, is it hard to perceive that the logic and order that we see all around us and in our universe came into being by a higher form of consciousness that exists permanently? Of course not! You see, to ignore the fact that design is evident in all things, and to say to inquisitive humans that they cannot pursue this metaphysical lead, puts ignorance on a pedestal.Davidbena (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
"When two or more theories are in competition, it is common for one of them to be treated as the established position – the default option, as it were – and the others to be treated as challengers. A challenging theory is normally expected to bear the burden or onus of proof. In other words, advocates of the challenging theory are expected to provide highly convincing evidence and arguments before the theory can be taken seriously. To use a different metaphor, it is assumed that the established theory has jumped over a very high hurdle to gain its leading position and that any challenger must jump over an equally high hurdle before being in contention for the remainder of the race." Martin, B., "The burden of proof and the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 356, 2001, pp. 939–944. From WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu, An astronomer once proclaimed that he had swept the entire universe with his telescope, but could not find God.
A famous violinist said to him, “That would be like me saying that I took apart my violin, examined each piece with a microscope, but couldn’t find any music!”Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Roger D. Craig[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your edits to Roger Craig. I have just added onto Jesse Curry's corroboration for Craig's story when he was asked about how Oswald got away from Dealey Plaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.217 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your kind words.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"We have heard he was picked up by a negro in a car"[edit]

While I understand your point, it should be pointed out that Craig referred to the man as "dark complected" - which Curry could have easily misinterpreted for a negro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.217 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Curry's statement is best put into an article treating on Curry's testimony. Roger Craig's testimony is different. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Advice: Whenever you write on Wikipedia, be sure to sign your name by making four of these signs ~ (tittles) at the end of your comment.Davidbena (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClelland[edit]

Is it possible for you to do a Robert McClelland page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.27.217 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not know enough about Robert McClelland. If I might ask you to please sign your name by clicking four-times this symbol(~) within the parentheses. In this way I can communicate with you.Davidbena (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Qabatiya has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, Davidbena. Qabatiya, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Qabatiya[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 27 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Qabatiya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1596, half of the revenues from the Palestinian town of Qabatiya went to the Tarabay Bey of Lajjun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qabatiya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Qabatiya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

using your wiki image of a yemenite siddur in nikud bavli[edit]

Dear Mr Bena,

I have a book "The Story of Hebrew" appearing in 2017 (besha'ah tovah) with Princeton Univ. Press and I was interested in using the image you posted at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Babylonian_Supralinear_Punctuation,_from_Yemenite_Siddur,_April_2015.jpg

But a query: You state on the page: "Previously published: A facsimile was later made of the original handwritten MS. in Israel" My editors need to know whether you or someone else hold copyright. Where was it previously published? And who owns the handwritten MS?

Many thanks for your help and kol tuv,

Lewis Glinert Professor of Hebrew Dartmouth College Lewis.Glinert@Dartmouth.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.147.86 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Professor Lewis Glinert, thanks for your query. As for the scan, this Siddur is a facsimile of a copy of Rabbi Yihye Bashiri's "Tiklal Bashiri" (17th century), the copy of which was written in Yemen in the 1930s. The facsimile of this late copy was published here, in Jerusalem Israel in 1964 by Mr. Yosef Ḥubārah under the name "Sefer Ha-Tiklāl" (Tiklal Qadmonim). I am not certain if Mr. Hubarah is still alive, but I will try to check this information for you.Davidbena (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)