User talk:IZAK/Archive 2

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

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


IZAK, with "WikiProject" I mean a WikiProject, an organised effort to improve the quality of a particular group of articles. I am one of the instigators of WikiProject "Clinical medicine". Please see on that page if you think the "Jewish" Wikiproject articles would benefit from a similar approach. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category names

Hi IZAK. Categories such as Category:Jewish history (Spain) seem to have natural parent categories, i.e. Category:Jewish history and Category:Spanish history. However the title seems to favour one parent over the other. Is it your intention that the categorised articles are more about Jewish history than Spanish history, or can I suggest the naming convention Category:Judaeo-Spanish history? (Sorry, this is not an offer to recategorise the articles, not at the moment anyway.) Also, categories still seem to be in Category:Experiments, but I've recently been removing parent/grandparent categories where they seem redundant, e.g. removing Category:History & Category:European history where the article/sub-category already has Category:Spanish history. --Zigger 18:01, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Hi Zigger: Thanks for asking. I am focused on Jewish history to be sure, but I understand perfectly what you are saying in terms of Wikipedia as a totality. So your suggestion is actually helpful. However, since Jewish history is long and complex I try to keep the categories to the various eras clear, devoting some categories to major time periods. The history of the Jews in Spain is long and complex and would eventaully contain many article no doubt. But I don't see the problem with putting Category:Jewish history (Spain) with either Spain or Jewish. I am not sure what you mean by Category:Judaeo-Spanish history? Does it mean a combination of both Spanish and Jewish history as it happened in Spain to the exclusion of the Arab/Islam or Christian-Catholic history in Spain? I am not sure what you mean. The category Category:Jewish history (Spain) could also have been called "Category:History of Jews in Spain" or "Category:Jewish Spanish history". But if what you mean is to place the same contents and subject of Category:Jewish history (Spain) into less prejudicial nomenclature such as "Category:Judaeo-Spanish history" as you say, then it's just semantics and may be no problem at all. I have been focused on Jewish history so that it runs from Category:Jewish history to sub-categories like Category:Ancient Israel and Judah Category:Jewish history (Greek and Roman) and Category:Jewish history (Russia) etc Do you think that they should also be re-worked? . Best wishes. IZAK 18:54, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand the fine sub-categorisation you have done with Category:Jewish history (Spain) as an example. It also seemed useful as a sub-category of Category:Spanish history. It just looked unbalanced in the visual sense that Category:Jewish history has a sub-category of Category:Jewish history (Spain), while Category:Spanish history has a sub-category of Category:Jewish history (Spain) instead of Category:Spanish history (Jews and Judaism). My view is that the same applies to the Category:Jewish history (Russia), while Category:Jewish history (Greek and Roman) could be split perhaps. I have no preference for alternative titles, and wasn't suggesting any different population of the sub-categories, so semantics it is. I wish I had a bolder solution to all the category issues ... -- Happy wikipediating --Zigger 19:43, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Category:Jewish philosophers (Secular)

Hi, I just wanted to write concerning some recent refinements that you've made to the Category system with regard to "Jewish philosophers."

I'm a bit concerned about the sub-category of "Jewish philosophers (Secular)". Not because I don't understand the impulse--it's worthwhile to make a distinction between, say, assimilated convert families such as the Wittgensteins or the Poppers, on the one hand, and a religious Jewish philosopher like Maimonides or Martin Buber on the other. But I'm not sure that the "(Secular)" subcategory is the way to do what you want to get done here. Wittgenstein is a case in point: while Ludwig Wittgenstein was never a religiously observant Jew, for many parts of his life it's just plain false to describe him as a "secular Jew"; he was, during many different parts of his life, passionately religious (but as a Christian, rather than as an observant Jew), and even in the years when he could not sustain his faith in God, he still thought in deeply religious terms and grappled untiringly with religious questions.

I don't have a ready answer for what a better way to make the distinction you want to make would be. I'm a little inclined to think, though, that unless and until we can come up with a better way to make that distinction, we revert to putting all of the people currently under Category:Jewish philosophers (Secular) back under Category:Jewish philosophers in order to avoid possible misrepresentation. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Radgeek 08:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Radgeek: You are absolutely right that there is no easy solution. However, to class someone who even went so far as to cling to Christian philosophy as a "Jewish" philosopher, regardless of his parentage is logically and religiously absurd. It's falacy to think that what such a person is espousing is called "Jewish" even though it may not be "secular". Perhaps, we can refine it even more to "Category:Philosophers (Jewish ancestry)" ...This is a tough challenge. Best wishes and thanks for the observations. IZAK 21:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi again Radgeek:I have given lots of thought again to your concerns. There is a "solution" for now with can have him simply under Category: Jewish philosophers since he is not specifically "secular" he can be place simply in Category:Jewish philosophers, and this can be done for any "Jewish philosoper" who need it. IZAK 16:25, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do think it's important to make a note of, for example, L.W.'s Jewish ancestry--because, even though he spent his whole religious life wrestling with the questions involved in Christian faith, the Jewish origins of his family are extremely important to understanding his life--both in the way that the cultural situation of assimilated Jews in fin-de-siecle Vienna shaped his intellectual development, and also in the way that he and his family were tangled up in the terrible events following the Anschluss. (Much of this also applies, mutatis mutandis, to thinkers such as Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, etc.) Thanks for the consideration you've put into this, and I think this way is a good way to deal with it for the time being. I will also try to think some more about it and see if I can come up with a way of sorting these things out. Cheers, Radgeek 17:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi again IZAK. I noticed that you have blanked-out Category:Jewish law, and all its articles have been moved to other categories. This was a sub-category of Category:Judaism as well as Category:Religious law, while the latter is a sub-category of Category:Religion as well as Category:Law. Did you have some objection to Category:Religious law as part of the category tree? --Zigger 18:03, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

Hi Zigger: I have no problem with Category:Religious law as the category tree at all, (just wasn't thinking about it when I made the edits). "Category:Jewish law" is still there and going strong, just combined as Category:Jewish law and rituals because "Jewish law" as a field combines and laps over both the areas of Laws and rituals. For some people "rituals" means the "lesser" laws that may be based on "customs" but are widely observed and known, for other people "rituals" actually means the laws themselves. So at this point to avoid confusion it's fair to have one category for both "laws" and "rituals" as they are both the same in essence just vary in degrees. All articles from "Category:Jewish law" and "Category:Jewish rituals" are to found in one convenient place at Category:Jewish law and rituals. Things were not moved to "other categories" as you say above. Thanks for your interest. P.S. I have just added Category:Jewish law and rituals toCategory:Religious law. IZAK 21:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks IZAK. I just wanted to check your plans for the category before doing any more unilateral changes and intersecting your efforts again. I wrote "other categories" as plural because I was too lazy to check every article I'd edited -- and there is no easy way to find every article that has been in a particular category. -Zigger 00:43, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

Jewish Autonomous Oblast

IZAK, I am not into categories all that much, but I believe that the article on Jewish Autonomous Oblast was assigned into a wrong one. This is an article on existing administrative division of Russia, even though most of the article's content is about its history. If it is possible to put an article into multiple categories, please think about doing so.--Ezhiki 22:05, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Now I just finished putting all the Category:Subdivisions of Russia into their respective sub-categories. What can you do, I have a soft spot for Russia ! IZAK 04:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

26. Your comments on my talk page

Sorry its taken me a while to respond. I've been a bit too busy for WP lately, plus ever since the software changed I've had some strange problems working while logged in. (I'm not logged in now for that reason.)

Thanks for your comments. I'm going to try to contribute to the more technical articles on topics that I have some background in, but which stay "below the radar" of current polemics. I think that is where I can add the most, as opposed to topics that seem to spark heated debates and edit wars. I really do see the latter as one of the downsides of Wikipedia, something which will probably always plague the project.

By the way, I do this it would be a good idea to have an official Wikiproject for Judaic studies, and some official collaboration between the people who want to work on such articles. Kol Hakavod for all your efforts in the area. -- Dovi

request for help...

I have posted on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy a new category called History of New York (Jewish & Knickerbocker). There are some Jewish people listed there. I thought you might be interested in initiating some of those articles. Cheers, Kingturtle 01:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:Russian federal subjects

They look fine to me... how about making the font size a bit bigger? Right now it's 70%. -- ran 02:51, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to 80%. -- ran 03:06, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Now it's very good, I can see it. Very good! IZAK 04:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I feel you are going a bit over-the-top with categorization, lets remember to keep it all lean, smooth and up to the point. For instance the Gleichschaltung article should be a part of the “nazi germany” category which in turn should be a subcategory of “nazism”--GeneralPatton 04:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Check out WP:RFC/Simonides Humus sapiensTalk 23:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hassidism: naming convention

Hi, IZAK, could you please have a look at my proposal at Talk:Hasidic Judaism#Naming convention: Hasidic dynasties vs Polish/Ukrainian towns and let me know what you think? --Kpalion 10:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Field Marshals of Nazi Germany

Hi, this catagory seems uneeded since there is allready a temolate box --GeneralPatton 07:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi GenPatton:The process of Categories is different to the "temolate boxes" (isn't it "template" boxes?), as "Categories" connect with a far LARGER group of other categories and subcategories. Thus Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany is a SUB-category of Category:Nazi Germany which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Nazism which is in turn a subcategory of Category:German history which in turn is a subcategory of Germany. So as you see the process and phenomenon of CATEGORIZATION on Wikipedia is different to what template boxes can accomplish as the template boxes are very LIMITED whereas the concept behind categories is to connect things on a far greater scale and at the same time starting off with specific subcategories such as Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany. Thus someone looking at the Category:Germany can have the option of looking for any number of subsequent legitimate subcategories, which CANNOT be done by the placing of template boxes on pages alone, altho they are helpful. IZAK 07:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, i get it now. You have a great point. --GeneralPatton 08:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Links to Neo-Nazi sites

By the way, somebody has been inserting links to and both of whom are commercial sites selling neo-nazi items that are being run by Gary Lauck and his Neo-Nazi network that is considered a terrorist organization in most EU states. Keep an eye for those links. --GeneralPatton 07:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I certainly will be on guard as best I can. The Neo-Nazis should learn from what happened to the Third Reich that they can NEVER win, so why don't they go play baseball someplace or something instead of wasting everyone's time including their own. Such losers! IZAK 07:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I’ve took out most of those links, but the page on Hitler has one because the page was locked for a while, and when we’re at it, the Hitler page also has a link to , a site full of inaccuracies, half-truths and outright distortions, and that in turn links to the site of the “Libertarian National Socialist Green Party”, the infamous and the even more infamous []. --GeneralPatton 07:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The jewwatch people are nuts IZAK 07:50, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I wonder if I should bring the question of these links to the Village Pump so more users can see what they are and know it's ok to remove them, since some links, like the one on Hitler, present themselves as being “excerpts” of historical texts, thus Users are fooled into believing that they are legitimate links. --GeneralPatton 07:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No question about it, you should definitely expose the underhanded rotten neo-Nazi and racist links as much as possible, and get rid of them if it's possible by exposing their tactics. Go for it. IZAK 07:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just to set the record streight PzG Inc. is in NO way connected to Gary Lauck aka Gerhard Lauck.

Categories for Concentration and Extermination camps

Dear Izak, I don't know if you created the catgeory Holocaust concentration and death camps, but if you did I think this category perpetuates serious historical misunderstandings which I have tried to address at Extermination camp and which I will be addressing further at a new article Holocaust (word). The concentration camps were mostly in Germany and were not used for the purpose of exterminating whole categories of people. They were for individial prisoners, and many people survived in them for years, a few for the whole Nazi period. These camps should not be considered as part of the Holocaust, the planned and systematic attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. This was done at the six or seven extermination camps, located in Poland and Belarus. This is an important distinction which should be maintained, but which the new category title blurs. Adam 08:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Adam: I have taken your observations to heart and have created more accurate categories based on the articles themselves. Thus there are now separate categories for Category:Nazi concentration camps and for Category:Nazi extermination camps. This should alleviate some of your concerns. By the way, I have been keeping track of your valiant fights in the Zionist don't get frustrated, your hard work and efforts are appreciated by some of us in Wikipedia-land. If you have any other observations please let me know. Thanks again for contacting me. Best wishes, IZAK 09:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Izak, thanks very much for that response. I think those categories (which should of course be cross-referenced) work much better. Thanks also for your comments on Zionism (and also Anti-Zionism, but I would hope that people who agree with my position on those articles might join the fray sometimes rather than just watch :) Also if you have any knowledge about Lyndon LaRouche you might offer me a hand at that article. Adam 13:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ketuvim template

Hello Izak. Thank you for your comments - I fixed both issues. If you want to fix such things yourself, and an edit link is not available, you can always do so by editing . I am not sure whether there is, at the moment, a way to generate a list of all articles in the Template: namespace. (There was once, when it was still MediaWiki:, but I think it was disabled at some point.) A user-generated list, however, is available at Wikipedia:Navigational templates. Best regards, -- Itai 08:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you Itai! IZAK 08:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The term Canaanite languages

has a precise linguistic meaning. The ancient Hebrews may not have been "Canaanites", but their language belongs to the Canaanite subfamily of Northwest Semitic. This linguistic classification is not in any way controversial, and has no bearing on the ethnic classification of the Jews. - Mustafaa 04:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Hebrew wikipedia agrees, by the way. - Mustafaa 04:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • The citation you quote from the "Hebrew" wikipedia is way off. It has almost no information and is accepting a FALSE categorization, as Hebrew is the language of the Torah, Tanakh, and Mishnah which go back for two to four thousand years. No-one knows what Ammonite, Edomite or Cananite is, as today all there is, is almost only Arabic in those areas, and Arabic is a Hebrew derivative. Hebrew is a uniquely defined language that has survived in all its fullness, whereas nothing or very little is known about Canaanites and their languages barring what the Torah (Bible) records. IZAK 05:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Edomite, Moabite, and Ammonite are all known from several inscriptions, the most important of which I have linked to in their respective articles. These reveal - unsurprisingly - that these languages were extremely similar to Hebrew and to Phoenician. Because of the common geographical location of these languages in Canaan, linguists have chosen to call them "Canaanite languages". This in no way implies categorizing the Hebrews as ethnically Canaanite, any more than calling languages "Semitic" implies accepting that their speakers actually descend from Shem. - Mustafaa 05:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A citation, from Les Langues Chamito-Sémitiques" (ed. D. Cohen), Paris 1988:

[Kena`an...] est à l'origine du terme cananéen par lequel on désigne l'ensemble des langues sémitiques qui ont été en usage dans la région, soit essentiellement l'hébreu et le phénicien (avec son extension punique) et, pour ceux qui y reconnaissent une langue autonome, le moabite. (although he later includes brief entries on the less well attested languages, including that of El Amarna, Edomite, and Ammonite).
[Kena`an]... is the origin of the term "Canaanite" by which one designates the group of Semitic languages which were in use in the region, mainly Hebrew, Phoenician (including Punic), and, for those who consider it a separate language, Moabite. - Mustafaa 05:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And finally, a source more familiar to non-linguists: the Encyclopedia Britannica. - Mustafaa 05:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, yes, the key phrase you use is "linguists have chosen to call them "Canaanite languages"...So now the question is, what if one rejects the notions of these "linguists" and abides instead by the notions of say, "THEOLOGIANS" or more specifically HEBREW Theologians, who would utterly reject the speculations and hypothesis of these "Linguists"? To go just by the views of "linguists" would be to violate NPOV on Wikipedia as one needs to constantly present the views of the classical HEBREWS (aka as Jews) who abide by the classical teachings of Judaism, which teach that Hebrew was the language of Creation and of all humanity at one point. It was at the Tower of Babel that all the people were dispersed and were divided by (newly) conflicting tongues, or is this too much for you to "swallow"? IZAK 05:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has been a lot of exercise today. IZAK, you need to understand, and please read because I will say this once because I am not very comfortable with long essays and paragraphs. - Linguistics is a very well-established science of comparing languages and how they split from each other, a process that never stops. I personally do not dispute the history of the Book of Genesis; I personally (by POV) believe that Terah was a descendant of Eber (founder of the Hebrews), and Abraham was Terah's son, and Lot was Terah's grandson. Ben-ammi and Moab were Lot's sons, and Esau and Jacob were Abraham's grandsons. Ishmael too, is an Eberite in a such a context. However, these distinctions do not translate into parallel linguistic splits. That does not deny that these people existed, but it's far more likely (and scholarly-accepted) that the languages that became associated with them were languages they adopted from other peoples. In the case of Abraham and his children in Canaan, they adopted the local Canaanite language for local communication. Samples of all four Canaanite languages adopted by Hebrew peoples are attested, written in early scripts related to Hebrew. Phoenician and Punic are also well-attested Canaanite languages, closely related to Hebrew, but the Phoenicians actually were Canaanites, and not Hebrews. (The Punic language survived until well into the Roman Empire, and was a favorite literary language of Augustine of Hippo. Now, the Canaanite dialects adopted by Abraham's family and Lot's family in Canaan only became "Hebrew" because they didn't stop speaking it for a very very long time, and it became the language associated with them, and the prophets of the Bible wrote in it. As for what language Abraham spoke before he settled in Canaan (the pre-Abrahamic Hebrew language), we can't say; that's why there are theories at Hebrew language. This is all well-established in the pages of the Torah and the Bible, as linguistic relations between the four Hebrew peoples and the Phoenicians and Carthaginians are well-attested in the scientific world. The truth is, people of the biblical Hebrew family adopted different languages where they settled. Canaanite languages by the children of Isaac and Lot, Arabian languages by the children of Ishmael, and later, old dialects of Aramaic, Arabic, Spanish and German by the Jewish diaspora for their daily discourse. But scientifically, the interrelated languages of Hebrews in Canaan are all Canaanite languages no more or less related to each other than the languages spoken by the ethnic Canaanites themselves, and are only also called "Hebrew languages" because they were biblical peoples in the Holy Land who spoke the same language. Since the Torah is theology, we can present it as a POV belief, but not as NPOV fact without concrete scientific proof. As such, we can't actually (yet) prove the historicity of Terah or Abraham (though we can still keep trying), and the distinction "Hebrew" remains an unscientific one. (That's why the Hebrew language articles were both in "Category:Canaanite languages" and "Category:Hebrew language", because one is scientific and the other is religious.) Now please, I understand and appreciate your religious passions, but keep in mind we can only mention theology as a POV, and that the only fact allowed in Wikipedia is NPOV science. - Gilgamesh - 05:53, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

  • Gilgamesh: I appreciate your time and efforts. But really this is all "theology" as were it not for the Bible this discussion and the mere names "Ammonite", "Edomite", "Cananite" would not even be known today. The so-called POV theology has been around for thousands of years. A few years ago some academics with nothing better to do commnenced the process of chopping up anything too "religious" that came into their line of fire and proceeded to impose their arbitrary POV so-called "categories" which are just sheer nonsense and make a mockery of well-estblished religiously reliable facts. Now, there are also sometimes fellow-travelers to the anti-religious academics who latch onto the teachings of the "linguists" (in this case), and whilst having their own agenda (of promoting Jesus or Allah or whatever) claim to share the views of the secular scholars when all they really want to do is to diminish the UNIQUE role and history of the Hebrew people and their language, and in this case "Hebrew" has ALWAYS been synonymous with "Jew" you are coming along and telling the world in effect that "Not all Hebrews are the Jews and not all Jews come from Hebrews", which is a patent lie and attempt at distortion of the contination of Jewish=Hebrew identity which so frustrates the anti-Semites and anti-Zionists that they will do ANYTHINg to cast aspersions on the cherished traditions of the teachings of the Torah and Judaism that tell us that the Hebrews are the Jews and that the Jews are the Hebrews and that they alone spoke what we call today the Hebrew language, which they preserved for 2,000 years in the their Talmudic and scholarly texts and which they revived as a spoken language in Israel BECAUSE the Hebrew that was part of them never ceased to exist at all. IZAK 06:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think Gilgamesh's point is that, since `Ivri comes from Eber, it shoudl refer to all descendants of Eber, and thus that "Not all Hebrews are the Jews" (although all Jews are Hebrews) is exactly what the Torah implies. Is your point that Ivri does not mean "descendants of Eber"? If so, could you expand on it? - Mustafaa 06:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa: Also not too complicated: See: Why are the Jews called "Hebrews"?: "The word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "Ivri." Jews are called Hebrews because their ancestor and founder, Abraham, is called (Genesis 14:13) "Abraham the Ivri." The word Ivri means "from the [other] side," and Abraham came to the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia which was "on the other side" of the Euphrates. Additionally, Abraham, with his monotheistic beliefs, was on one side while the rest of the world was on the other (pagan) side." IZAK 06:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I don't dispute that you believe what you believe, and I never disputed that the Jews were Hebrews. But even the Tanakh says that not all Hebrews were Jews (but all Jews were Hebrews, which I never contested). But at some point religious belief is inadmissible in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a medium of the scientific method. You're allowed not to like that, and you're allowed to speak your mind to other people and tell them how much you don't like it. I encourage it. But the rules are made by Wikipedia, not me, and facts are only admissible if the scientific method attests to them; otherwise, it's just belief and can only be mentioned as such. And even if Wikipedia were a religious discussion center, there's still the matter that nearly all religions disagree on certain points, and they would still have to compromise and cooperate in maintaining a single archive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not merely an encyclopedia for Rabbinical Jews, nor for fundamentalist Christians, nor for conservative Islamists, nor even for militant Atheists. It's for everyone, and everyone is welcome to make NPOV edits at Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 06:41, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Gilagamesh: I do not dispute what you say. When FACTS are misrepresented then it is is only right to correct them. And to accept only an "assertion" that something is so, is no subsitute for intellectual honesty. We have before us ancient TORAH texts, not "rabbinical" texts, but classical well-preserved and reliable texts revered by hundreds of millions of people, not just Jews and not just by "fundamentalists" as being reliable. This is as scientific and NPOV as a scientist looking into a petri dish which he should stick to doing as he is out of his depth when he applies "petrie dish" methods and theories to black-and white texts that say what they mean and mean what they say. A lawyer in law school would be expected to read, study and explain the statutes and laws, we would not care how well he conducted experiments with his legal ideas because that's not what you do with legal ideas and the language of law. Similarly, to chop up and insert speculations about the language of the Torah and what the words mean is not meant as a "Sunday afternoon stroll" in the hocus-pocus world of anti-religious secular academics and their cohorts. IZAK 06:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm frankly at a loss for words. This is like claiming that every biology article we write should include a Creationism section, or that every cosmology article should include a disclaimer stating that the world was created in six days - except that those doctrines are specifically claimed by the Bible, whereas Bereshit does not say which language was spoken before Babel. - Mustafaa 05:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Darling:Just LOOK at the language of the original Torah! What is it? And of course it is HEBREW. Does it have to say "By the way, we are now speaking Hebrew" when it is obvious that ONLY Hebrew is being spoken. And yes, when touching upon Biblically related "hot-potato" subjects like the oririgins of languages and the origin of life (which NO "scientist" can "know" as there were no scientists to take notes). We can only work with the primary texts and in this case the Torah and the Tanakh are the most reliable texts we have, unless we want to look at the Rosetta stone forever.... IZAK 06:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, I don't know what you think I meant, but of course the language of the Torah is Hebrew. Who was arguing about that? - Mustafaa 06:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • This is the point:The language ALL humanity spoke prior to the Tower of Babel was the Hebrew of the Torah, it's not that complicated. That why all languages have TRACES of Hebrew in them. Linguists agree that all languages are derived from one ancient "unkown" "core language". In Judaism, this is NOT a "mystery", that one core language was the ancient Hebrew of the Torah, which subsequently becomes reserved for the Hebrew people only commencing with Abraham, as a devotee of the HEBREW God who spoke with him and it is Abraham who brought it to Canaan and NOT the other way around. Now, is that not a beauty of reason and logic, and not mere "theology"  :-) IZAK 06:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah... The language of the Torah is Hebrew. I don't know how that can be disputable. I mean, there's a possibility other parts of it were written in other languages originally and then translated to Hebrew, but the texts as they were issued by Moses and later in written form by Ezra were in the Biblical Israelite Hebrew dialect. -Gilgamesh 06:30, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

  • Gilagamesh:Kindly restrain yourself from making up "theories", just stick to the facts as they are presented to us in the "primary documents" of the Torah, otherwise you will start to believe in Science fiction that we come from space aliens and that Steven Spielberg is writing the scripts as we speak ...IZAK 06:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa's calling it a day from this discussion and so am I. But I am afraid I must be blunt here and now: If you continue to flout the rules of Wikipedia, you'll invite trouble, probably at the administration level. You need to adhere to the editing rules the rest of us adhere to, or you'll find yourself not being able to edit here anymore. - Gilgamesh 06:45, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh I see, now you are resorting to scare tactics. I am not "flouting" the rules of Wikipedia and I never have! You have inserted your own POV and grow impatient when your categorization is changed in spite of its erroneous nature. My edit record is excellent. It's your bias that is determining your reaction as you refuse to see or consider a broader more rounded approach to the subject at hand and hence to the truth. What can you do. IZAK 07:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for Mediation

These conflicts have been difficult for us to discuss. I suggest we go by procedure and request a mediator to help us iron out the disputes and clarify the edit rules for everyone, you and I included. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation - I will ask first, I invite you to ask as well. - Gilgamesh 08:16, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Gilgamesh go ahead, not a bad idea (I hope)... hopefully something good will come out it. Let me know when I should put in my two-cents worth. IZAK 08:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, it is ready. 08:26, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

This subject is now in Mediation, see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles Thank you. IZAK 10:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shalom buddy, how are you doing? Seems there is a bit of a sticky mess starting here. The first step is to get your sources ready. Do you have any renowned orthodox jewish published source which you can offer as a solid reference for the beliefs stated? That should settle things down a bit. All the best. Zestauferov 12:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Zest: It's a case of "Judaism or Torah 101" which has been around for close to 4,000 years but which some people refuse to acknowledge prefering instead the "pie-in-the-sky" of "in-the-dark" flashy "slash-and-burn" academics who prefer to pontificate about the unknowable rather than accept the "black-and-white" Hebrew texts of the Torah etc. IZAK 06:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: Further debate on this issue is taking place on: Talk:Hebrew languages. Thank you. IZAK 06:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

I've moved the request/discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation to Talk:Hebrew language and the issue has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, because according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this should be done before mediation is attempted, and I do think that involving more people in the discussion will help move the issue forward.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 12:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cannot be of much help. The terminology alone gives me a headache. Can't we let them believe that Hebrew is morphed canaanite. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
IZAK, I appreciate your request, but am afraid the level discussion is over my head. I need to learn more before making anything intelligible out of it. Regards. Humus sapiensTalk 18:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When all the edit warring is over, would you mind reviewing Beth din and adding what you think is necessary?? JFW | T@lk 19:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Guys. After looking at the arguments from both sides, may I suggest that a term neutral to either side is used? A term used to refer to the parent language/script of this family is 'Old Negev'. Would a term such as 'Old Negev' Languages be agreeable to both sides?--Josiah 02:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: Further debate on this issue is taking place on: Talk:Hebrew languages. Thank you. IZAK 06:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Izak. I've been to the Hebrew-Canaanite debate page a few times, and made comments where I thought they were relevant. Thanks. Jayjg 17:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Wikiproject

Mazel tov, it's here! Ezra Wax has commenced the "Judaism" WikiProject! The bris is next week. JFW | T@lk 14:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, thank you I saw it already and left my personal best wishes. I still have no idea what you really hope to accomplish though...:-) IZAK 05:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The aim of the project has not yet clearly been elucidated. However, my past experience with Wikiproject "Clinical medicine" is:

  • When experienced editors exchange information, the quality of articles goes up due to coordination
  • Articles may be announced for peer review or floated for comments
  • Standards (such as Hebrew pronunciation!!) can be agreed upon
  • It makes edit wars briefer and less damaging
  • It helps in coordinated efforts against vandalism
  • Editors who are particularily knowledgable or have access to resources can do quick checks on facts.

I think a Wikiproject would be a massive step in the right direction. At least it will offer some unity in the otherwise very much fragmented approach to Judaism articles on Wikipedia (although your work on categorisation has brought a lot of structure).

PS I would recommend you archive your talk page. It's 38 KB. JFW | T@lk 09:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok, keep me posted, I look forward to some positive results, but I do anticipate that many others will want to have input...after all this is Wikipedia... IZAK 09:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic Jews

Hello IZAK,

Is there any reason why you have been deleting the "Ethnic Jews" category tag from articles and have deleted the Ethnic Jews category? Ghe 14:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Firstly it's redundant as there is already a category Category:Jews. It seems many people find these type of categories offensive when the word "ethnic" is attached as it is often abused by anti-Semites. Would Howard Stern, Karl Marx, and others listed be happy that you call them "ethnic" "Jews" or would they be outraged?! What is the point of having such a category in any case? This is a very tough and controversial area. It would also become a nightmare to go around and list every last "ethnic" Jew on the planet and make it seem like some sort of "witch-hunt". There is already a List of Jews page that appears that is adequately listed on Category:Jews. Some of the names in that category should also probably be removed for similar reasons. By the way, who are you, as you have no user or talk page (yet), is there any reason you are hiding? IZAK 02:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought it might be a better idea to specify whether a person is Jewish by religion or simply by ethnicity. If you would rather group them all into a single category, that's fine with me. Ghe 02:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Torah people

This new category of Torah people is a little ridiculous. Would there be a parallel category for Christians such as Bible people with all the same information? Besides, it's trite. Hafoch ba ve-hafoch ba de-kula ba. You might as well add everyone in history. Danny 02:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi, I disagree with you. Firstly, these names appear on Wikipedia. I did not place them there. What should we do? Ignore Noah, or Miriam, or whomever and just not categorize them because you think it's "trite"? (Hafoch a mystical concept, we are not going to derive where you are mentioned in the Torah so don't worry). Secondly, there are NOT an infinite number of names in the Torah. The names are finite and as long as some people keep on listing them on Wikipedia, there is no reason not to have them categorized and listed by the primary source they come from: The Torah itself. Thirdly, what the Christians or Muslims do will be up to them. To have just "Bible " people would be a problem as the Christians would then insert New Testament figures. So Torah is a good way to differentiate between the two faiths. Many pages already have seperate Jewish and Christian, even Muslim categories as each faith has its own categories page/s. (Again, not my doing, but Christians and Jews do want to keep their sources apart , even if they share them historically somehow.) I am trying to create categories and sub-categories for Category:Jews and Judaism of which Category:Jewish texts is a sub-category and Category:Torah is a sub-sub-category, and finally to organize the information correctly, and Category:Torah people is a valid and legitimate sub-sub-sub-category (yes, I know, these "categories" do tend to "drag on" but that is the nature of this project). It's all perfectly organized and logical. Finally, the idea of the Wiki categories is to make it easier to locate topics and articles, and by having the lesser categories of Category:Torah people, Category:Torah places and Category:Torah events (most pages have no other categories on the pages, so they are "orphans" waiting to be categorized) they allow the user of Wikipedia to find the names of the Torah's people, places, and events with the click of a mouse (ok, they may have to click a few more times), and it will make their search/es much easier as the categories bring all relevant information together on one category page devoted to that specific category. IZAK 02:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category: British Governor General

I'm a bit curious as to the nature of this category. Is it meant to include all Governors-General that have been British? If this is the case, it should not rightly include Australian Governors-General, since these are now Australian appointments by convention. Or is it for Governors-General who represent the British Monarch?

In which case, I'm not sure if "British" is the right title for the category - because the sovereign wouldn't view them as a "British" GG, but rather as a "Nationality X" GG, since (s)he is representing the monarch in that country. Nor would the GG necessarily be viewed as "British" by the denizens of the GG's nation of appointment. In any case, why limit it to Governors-General? Why not have a "British Vice-Regal Representatives" category that would include (eg.) Province/State Governors in Canada/Australia, and Administrators of places such as Gibraltar?

Thirdly (a really minor quibble :) - shouldn't it be "Governors-General" (with a hyphen, and pluralised?)Lacrimosus 10:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Hi, You have point on "all counts", let me see what I can do. IZAK 10:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking for User:Nyh

denominations of angels

check out the angel and cherub articles. i think the point in the ark article was that the christians replaced hebrew cherubs with their own interpretation of angels. - Omegatron 14:00, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

South African categories

Thanks for your message. However, for my "defense" of the category Notable South Africans, please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, where somebody has put up this category for deletion. Elf-friend 18:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


that article appears to be about very general things such as textual corruption, Mohammed in the Bible etc. The page I've been helping to build is very specific - it's about stories, people and places. There is no place on the page for debates about textual authority - it is frimly foccussed on the texts in of themselves and how they are similar. I do agree though that they are similar in topic, perhaps they should be merged into one all-ecompassing page or something like that. -sdrawkcab

RK has reverted your edits in Yosef Karo

Just thought you'd want to know, RK has reverted your recent edits in Yosef Karo. Jayjg 21:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your notification. So far there is nothing much to say, as long as he does not call Yosef Karo a Reform rabbi or the founder of Conservative Judaism. :-) IZAK 05:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I just thought you might want to put them back in, if you thought they were valid to begin with. Jayjg 15:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request to review

Hi, could you please review Names of the Jewish people? Thanks. Humus sapiensTalk 23:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Very interesting entry. I looked at it, and I will try to think what else can be added. Thank you for contacting me. IZAK 05:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Why did you blank Sorek? I noticed that it was a redirect to Delilah. --MerovingianTalk 06:09, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Merovingian, "Sorek" is a place, whereas Delilah is a person. Sorek was actually a valley or a brook, mentioned as the place where Delilah lived. I have created a brief article now for Brook of Sorek to where I moved plain 'ol Sorek. Your care and concern is appreciated. Let me know if you spot anything else. Thanks again. IZAK 06:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please review your statements "(Remove {{msg:TotallyDisputed}} as it is only Sam Spade that is insisting on Holocaust "revisionism" . Is he an anti-Semite?)" and the Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks policy. Your ad hominem brings you only shame, and does nothing to promote the wikipedia:civility required to maintain intellectual honesty. Sam [Spade] 23:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your concern, but you have chosen to dispute one of the rawest and most sensitive issues in Jewry today, the Holocaust by giving credence to the Holocaust deniers, therefore it IS your credibility and motives that must be clarified as what you are saying is offensive and harmful to all Jews both the living and the dead. You further insult the Jew article by calling it a "rant" which makes your true motives all the more questionable and disgusting! IZAK 23:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IZAK, stop making excuses, reread Wikipedia:No personal attacks and calm down. Blocks for personal attacks are increasingly generally accepted policy, particularly on a contentious article. "Play the ball, not the man" - David Gerard 00:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

Don't let Sam get you angry. Trust me, he's not worth your time. If you do have any trouble with him in the future, however, let me know. I've been compiling data on his activities: User:Spleeman/Sam_Spade. Happy edits! -- Spleeman 08:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"See also" should not be at the tops of articles...

Hi Izak, You've added some links to the tops of a number of articles concerning Creationism, Deism, Cosmology, etc. On many/most of those pages, a "See also" section already exists at the bottom of the page. Your changes have been mentioned on the Vandalism page, and at least one of them has been changed (your suggestions moved to the "See Also" section at the bottom of the page). It might be nice of you to go back and make the rest of those changes yourself, to save someone else from doing it. Kevin (2004-08-21 16:25 CST)

I fixed your broken "see also" lists and created Category:Creationism. Please don't do this again. -- 05:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, in good faith I was hoping that the following was a means whereby these highly inter-related subjects could be disambiguated as very few of them refer to each other via complete "See also's" (Many pages list disambiguations at the top of the page): See also Creation; Creation belief; Creationism; Creator god; Estimates of the date of Creation; Young Earth Creationism; Day-Age Creationism; Old Earth Creationism; Evolutionary creationism; Cosmogony; Cosmology; Cosmological argument; Biblical cosmology; Deism; Theism; Intelligent design. IZAK 03:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is counterproductive to have many lists in many articles, because the lists are hard to maintain. Would you consider using Category:Creationism instead? -- 04:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, your suggestion is not bad, but the main problem with it is that in this case, the "categories" may be changed and switched around easily. In fact someone has already removed most of the Category:Creationism at the bottom of the above pages, and inserted Category:Religion instead. In fact someone has requested that it be made into a Category:Categories for deletion (see it for yourself). Whereas if there is an actual "==See also==" section on a page with links to related or similar articles, it becomes a more secure part of the article itself. That is my take on it for now. IZAK 22:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeshu article

I've suggested that the overlapping and often contradictory information in 5 different articles related to Yeshu be combined into one article. It has been suggested that you would be interested in commenting on this. If so, please see Talk:Yeshu. Jayjg 19:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Jayjg: I have purposely kept my distance from the subject of Yeshu on Wikipedia and there is a very good reason for it is because it's the very nature of the "facts" surrounding this subject that will ALWAYS result in (as you put it above) "overlapping and often contradictory information". I have been impressed by the work you and User:Jfdwolf have been doing. Both of you can count on my full support. IZAK 02:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi, I have created the templates you asked for. Please provide feedback to the Template:JewishLifeCycle since it is more controversial than the other two (Template:HebrewMonths, Template:JewishHolidays) I created. --YUL89YYZ 14:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Dear YUL89YYZ, Thanks a million for the great job! I have done as you requested as well, and have tried to create a little more comprehensive Template:JewishLifeCycle, if you like it, go ahead and insert it in the articles listed in the template. All the best. IZAK 08:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pictures of Israel

Hello, Where can I find copyright-free pictures relating to Israel, Zionism and the Israeli Defence Forces? MathKnight 15:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) (BTW: Shana Tova!)

  • Hi, Shana Tova to you to! One place to start is by searching the Google "Images" page [1] , enter the subject and then see what images and photos come up (sometimes there are several pages with many repeats to go through) and there are always those that are not specifically copy-righted or that are available and circulate in the public domain. Hope this helps. IZAK 05:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine

You might be interested in a discussion on this article's deletion:

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine Jayjg 05:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I have voted to delete it. IZAK 05:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jews & Greece

Hello from Thessaloniki, Greece, the city once famous for its Sephardic majority. I'm particularly interested in writing articles about the history, the life & the culture of Greek Jews, and I'd invite you to review my articles including Yevanika.

A short question: What's Hebrew for "Greece"? "Yevan-" or something? Can you provide the name both in Hebrew and Latin alphabets? Thank you. Etz Haim 11:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Etz Haim: Traditionally, Greece has been known as Yavan in Jewish history and scholarship. I am placing your question on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism where it will get more attention. Please join. Best wishes, IZAK 03:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Well spotted, IZAK. I have put Image:Wikinazi.png on Images for Deletion, and I will unilaterally remove the image in a week if there has been no response. JFW | T@lk 11:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It took just a few minutes for Guanaco to delete the image. Problem solved. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see this has been taken care of. Just wanted to let you know I got your message. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)