User talk:Gilabrand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• User:Gilabrand/Awards and barnstars

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 Thanks for Bethlehem work 2 Award for your great photographic work 3 Armenian Genocide 4 sumac opening sentence 5 Tu Bishvat 6 Music of Israel 7 Gilo 8 3RR 9 Succade 10 gilo article 11 Archiving 12 Photographer's Barnstar 13 Etrog 14 Jaffa 15 Tomb of Samuel 16 Red links 17 Image:Newspapers.jpg listed for deletion 18 Haaretz 19 ISCAR Metalworking article 20 Hat 21 Editing restrictions 22 Shimon Peres 23 San Simon 24 Haredi Jew 25 Pitom Ve-Ramses 26 Jewish/Israeli Foods 27 Named refs 28 Talk:Falafel 29 Rehavia 30 Berl Repetur 31 RE: Tel Aviv copyedit 32 Shevah Mofet 33 Barnstar 34 Tel Aviv 35 Jerusalem stone - FYI 36 Child 37 Chords Bridge 38 Tzufit Grant 39 Bikur Cholim 40 Ratisbonne 41 Haifa 42 Chief Rabbi 43 NPOV and categories 44 AfD discussion 45 Yom Yerushalayim 46 Flipped Image 47 Your Political Agenda 48 Jerusalem 49 Keep an eye out 50 Tantura and the Katz controversy

[edit] Thanks for Bethlehem work

Hi I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for your efforts in copyediting the Bethlehem article. I'm trying to improve it for GA status,per it being the Collaboration of the Week for Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award for your great photographic work

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This award is given to User:Gilabrand in recognition of all your imaginative and original photographs related to topics about Israel and Judaism, as can be seen on your user page. In particular, I was impressed by how many of these photographs enhance so many articles about people, places and things in Israel. Mazal Tov and may you be blessed to continue contributing to Wikipedia in this productive fashion for a long time to come. See Wikipedia:Barnstars: "The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work..." and you most certainly deserve it. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Izak, for that very heartwarming award. That someone has noticed my contributions and sees them as noteworthy makes all the hard work worthwhile.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gila: Yes, you make beautiful art and I appreciate it as I am sure many others do. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gila: It's agood idea to have page for awards and barnstars, like so: User:Gilabrand/Awards and barnstars which you can place at the tope of this talk page where others can see it or on your main user page if you wish. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Peres' denial of the genocide should be noted in this article, failing to do so makes it more of a hagiography than a biography. His shortcomings must also be mentioned in addition to his feats like winning the noble prize. Do you think it'd fit better in political views? In anycase it must, and will, be mentioned somewhere. How about adding this in his political views segment:

Peres' foreign policy outlook is markedly realist. For example, to placate Turkey, the only significant Muslim country in the region that is friendly towards Israel, Peres has explicity denied the Armenian genocide, which caused an uproar among genocide scholars.(citation) E10ddie (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Peres made these statements in 2001, when he was foreign minister. Clearly, he was caving in to Turkish pressure. Israel has very few friends and cannot afford to lose them, so basically it is not free to take the position that would seem to mesh with its outlook and history, which is to recognize that the Armenians were murdered en mass. Now he is president, an honorary position, not a political one, and his "views," whatever they may have been back then, are worth about as much as mine are. I have no problem with mentioning this "view" in the section on his political outlook, but a separate section on this one utterance gives it undue importance and distorts the picture. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sumac opening sentence

I don't know what the right wording is, but do you see the problem with "Sumac (also Rhus) is a genus of approximately 250 species of flowering plants in the family Anacardiaceae"? First of all, there is no reason to italicize Sumac. Secondly, it is not accurate to say "Sumac is a genus" because there is no genus called Sumac (but there is one called Rhus).

I may be too steeped in botanical jargon to easily come up with something which is natural to non-plant-people. But we need to figure out something which (a) works whether people get to this page as Sumac or Rhus (currently, the latter is a redirect to the former; policy would have it the other way around), and (b) doesn't mix up scientific names versus common names in a confusing way. Kingdon (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a botanist and my reason for reading the article was because of the spice, which is used all over the Middle East. I was surprised that the spice didn't rate a mention in the lead. Sumac needs to be the first word in keeping with Wikipedia norms, and the same as the title of the article (i.e., not plural). How about: "Sumac refers to a variety of shrubs or small trees of the genus Rhus, as well as the purplish spice that is produced from its dried, crushed berries --Gilabrand (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Richard New Forest (talk · contribs) has solved it for us (I'm happy with his wording). As for "first word", Wikipedia policy isn't quite that strict ("earliest natural point in the prose" at Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title and I don't know whether a plural fits under "slightly different form" or not). Anyway, enough wikilawyering. As for why the spice wasn't at the start, the plant is very common in North America in the wild, roadsides, gardens, etc, but the spice is pretty much unheard of. So giving it greater prominence is probably good (although I suspect whatever we do will look slightly strange to some audience). One last comment: Firefox has a hard time editing big pages, so it would be convenient if you archived it, for example by enabling one of the bots on that page. Kingdon (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, all that archiving business is way too complicated for me! Is there a simple way to do it, while saving the Barnstars, for instance, in a visible place?--Gilabrand (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tu Bishvat

Since I'm an editor of this article, I'm bringing in a third-pary administrator to take a look at this. I want to make it clear that my difficulty here isn't with the content you added, it's with the content you removed. As I see it, by removing all mention of the contemporary role of Tu Bishvat as a cutoff date for purposes of Orlah you (a) completely removed all content on, including mention of the very existence of, a very significat viewpoint that you happen to disagree with (this is my primary concern). In addition, you (b) rewrite the article from your own point of view when there are muliple points of view which qualify for representation under Wikipedia policies. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia explained why it called Orthodox Judaism "ancient Judaism" (because it regarded it as a viewpoint with no contemporary relevance which would soon disappear); contemporary Orthodox Jews don't take very well to having their contemporary practices mischaracterized as being only ancient history. P.S. This is also the first time anyone's called me a "black-hatter". Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like my editing of the article. You are welcome to add sections that you think are relevant, but on the whole, it was badly written and organized, and overly verbose. I did not call YOU a black-hatter. The comment about Tu Bishvat customs being an inventions of Zionist heretics spurred that response. It seemed to me that you made all the revisions in response to this one person's inane comment. Respecting sensibilities of anti-Zionists is fine, but not if it turns an article about a holiday into a mishmash that nobody else but yeshiva-educated people can understand (which happens to be incredibly widespread on Wikipedia)--Gilabrand (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Music of Israel

Thank you for your many excellent edits of Music of Israel. They have definitely sharpened up the article.

I do, however, take issue, with your excision of the words of "Eliphelet". You are wrong in your comment that it is not any more notable than "a million others". On the contrary, the song has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion and even opposition, and epitomizes the melancholy, almost pacifistic, tendency of some Israeli war songs.

I respect your opinion, so I am consulting with you before restoring it. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa, thanks for that. About Eliphelet, my reason for removing the lyrics is not that I have anything against the song, but that the translation into English is very poor and those particular verses don't seem to convey the sentiments you are talking about. Rather than being pacifistic, my sense, from these lyrics, is that he is kind of a pathetic, wimpy creature, and in the context of this article, I thought it was weird. But of course, that's only my opinion and I could be wrong. The article itself has become quite interesting, by the way. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gilo

Hello, I saw your edit on the Pisgat Ze'ev article and was wondering if you might be able to help me with a similar edit being made by the same person on the Gilo article, as I'm not sure what the right way to do things here is. Thank you. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.125.218 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering why you reverted my edit on the page on Gilo. You removed many usefull additions including the discourse on the contetious legal issues as well as replaced new sources with old partisan sources and removed any mention of the rest of the worlds view and stance that it is an Israeli Settlement. Are we only allowed to tell one side of the story? Hardly sounds NPOV to me. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove sources, but moved them to the bottom until they can be properly incorporated. There is more to a neighborhood (any neighborhood) than politics. Undue weight was being given here to that. The article definitely needs further work, but at the moment, I think I have introduced a somewhat more balanced picture. I'm not sure you understand the complexity of the issue, from your insistence on labels. Labels are for cans.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't remove the sources, i'm not sure where they've gone. Because they are completely absent from your revisions. You really dont think it is worth mentioning at all that there is a very contentious legal debate over the areas existence? Mentioning that hardly gives it undue weight, rather only mentioning the view of the Israeli Government is giving undue weight to that viewpoint. I agree the article needs furthert work, but every attempt i have made to further neutralise the point ov view it takes has been completely removed and replaced with simply the view of the Israeli Government. I certainly understand the complexity of this issue, which is why I think it is so important to note that complexity in the article. My only instance for labels are the two that take the most NPOV stance. When you consider one is the view of the entire world and one is the view of one government, Israeli Settlement is the most NPOV label. As the term 'neighborhood' is being used in this sense not just to imply legality but also a peaceful and friendly place, Suburb is a more neutral noun, wouldn't you agree? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that various positions should be mentioned, and I have added some info to make it clearer. But I think you are mistaken in reading all kinds of connotations into the word "neighborhood." A neighborhood is is NOT a political term. There are Arab neighborhoods and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and there is nothing political about that. I'm not sure Gilo qualifies as a suburb, since it located in the middle of Jerusalem (as opposed to Mevasseret Zion, for example, which is outside the municipal boundaries). Actually, Gilo is very peaceful and friendly. The shooting stopped long ago, and there was never any war-like atmosphere, either before that or since. All the articles cited here, including those that describe Gilo as a settlement, emphasize that there was no tension between Gilo and Beit Jalla before the Tanzim stepped in. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You have added 'which claim it is a settlement' but have given no background as to why - and your positioning of the viewpoint there serves to minimize it as it is certainly not just Palestinians and media watch groups who claim it to be a settlement - but also the UN, European Union, and many other organisations. The term neighborhood might not inherently be a political term, but it is being used in this sence as one, to imply legality and a long history. Cant we even mention that this place happens to be located in the West Bank? That is after all, what makes it a settlement and not its location within or outside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that Gilo is a very friendly and peaceful place for those that live there, but then how many palestinians (or anyone that isnt Israeli for that matter) live in Gilo? If you take a look at the page on Israeli Settlements it states that they are 'communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that were occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War'. Do you deny Gilo is an Israeli Settlement by this definition? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a few more problems with your revisions. You removed a citation that used census data from 2005 and replaced it with one from 2000. It also seems like you have removed lots of sources you didn't agree with and replaced it with completely different (and in some cases opposing) information for which you have provided no sources. Can you please try and explain how these are improvements? The one UN link you actually did add states quite clearly it is a Settlement - don't you think we should mention that? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Also, please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gilo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

If there is edit warring, it started long before I ever touched this page - I will continue to edit it as I see fit. I am not an unidentified UFO, like most of the others who are "contributing" to this page. I have a long history of improving articles on Wikipedia, and I will continue to do so. If anyone is going to get blocked, it won't be me. So please don't threaten me. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you familiarize yourself with the Three-Revert Rule as this is what i was pertaining to. I fail to see how censoring out the 'other' side of the story is at all improving articles, unless your idea of improving articles is ensuring they tow the official Israeli Government's position, and that position only. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added information to the article on the points you have raised. I have copyedited the poor prose. I have added images that illustrate the text. What is your problem??--Gilabrand (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My problems: 1. You are still minimising the view that it is a settlement by insinuating that only Palestinians and media watch groups consider it a settlement when you state that: 'This drew criticism from Palestinians as well as media watch groups, which claim it is a settlement.' 2. You have still not included any information on the fact that the United Nations and European Union view it as a settlement or 3. WHY it is considered a settlement by them. 4. You have used the united states claim which is outdated and no longer indicative of their foreign policy. 5. As i have expressed time and time again, the term neighborhood is an emotive word, Suburb would be a better title as Gilo IS a residential development on the outskirts of Jerusalem. 6. You havent answered my question as to whether you deny Gilo is an Israeli Settlement by this definion, which i am interested in hearing the answer of because I believe it is important to mention that it is BOTH a Settlement and a Suburb (or neighborhood if you MUST) in the opening sentence as both terms certainly apply. So i am really hoping we can agree that it is both, i am happy to compramise on the term 'neighborhood' as long as it is not used exclusively and as long as its nature as a settlement as well as a neighborhood is determined in the opening sentence. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And for the rest of my problems, please see Talk:Gilo. Colourinthemeaning (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succade

Succade is a name, the others are dicriptions, so I suggest merging them all into Succade. The name originated in German and has nothing to do with the Jewish costume, neither with wikiproject judaizm. It is a clean fruit and food article. Critisizer (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gilo article

I have taken note of your advice on the preview button and will try to do better. At the moment, though, Gilo has become a veritable battleground with some editor who is systematically reverting the information I have added to the article with sources. This person has demanded certain additions to the article to represent the Palestinian view, which I have complied with, but he/she continues on his/her merry way. Maybe you could have a look? Thanks.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Try a listing at WP:3O or WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at combining the two versions. I have to say that I believe the current intro is a better explanation of the situation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Hi Gila: I pasted a copy of the "User:Gilabrand/Awards and barnstars" at the top of this page. It's simple. You should also consider archiving parts of your talk page that you don't need any more. An average page should be about 35-50k, and this one is already at 145k long (it says so at the very top), as each page is "read" for its length automatically and when it reaches more than 35k it lets you know. Anyhow, I have set up your first three archive pages on top, just follow that in the future. The simplest way to archive is to copy what you want to archive, delete it from this page and then paste it into the new "red link" archive page. Hope this helps. Be well, IZAK (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a doll. Thanks for the help. Is there a way to keep the barnstar page open so the awards are visible?--Gilabrand (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographer's Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I hereby award you The Photographer's Barnstar for the beautiful photos of Israel and Jewish stuff you have taken and graced Wikipedia with! I had noticed your contrbution way back in July 2007! The one of the Dome of the Rock viewed through the Cotton Merchants Gate (right) is my favourite! Happy snapping! Chesdovi (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Chesdovi, thank you. I am very touched by the award and the recognition. Digital photography has added a whole new dimension to my life.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etrog

So keep the text and replace with non-advertisment sources. BriefError (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to the custom of pickling or candying etrog on the Tu Bishvat page, if you want to copy and paste it.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advise, but instead of deleting the text YOU should have do it.

BriefError (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaffa

That figure looks ill-placed in that it appears to refer to all Palestine production. The al-Banna family had 24 sq.kilometres of citrus land from Jaffa to Ashkelon, and he exported some 10% of Palestine's total crop to Europe. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb of Samuel

Please explain why you reverted that article to again claim that the Tomb is "in Israel," when it is in territory seized by Israel from Jordan in 1967 and regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by most reliable sources up to and including the International Court of Justice. See Talk:Tomb of Samuel. <eleland/talkedits> 18:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Hello, I'm having trouble with the argument about the Jerusalem places here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilo and colour has pretty much reverted to calling me names like "nationalist" or "vandal" now that I've shown that his own source, Peace Now, uses the word neighborhood and that there is no support anywhere for his argument that "neighborhood" is disputed, as if Maale Adummim can't be both a settlement and a city. Perhaps you have a different argument that might work better? --Robertert (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

FYI, red links are not evil, and are actually encouraged on Wikipedia as long as they link to notable and relevant topics. See Wikipedia:Red link. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are referring to, but in most cases the red links I removed are about people whose names are mentioned in passing and will probably not have a page about them anytime soon. I think they are disturbing to the eye, as they draw attention away from the important things in the article, and I will continue to remove them. When a relevant article is written, they can be restored.--Gilabrand (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Newspapers.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Newspapers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haaretz

Hi. Would you take a look at some of the recent edits concerning the editorial view of Haaretz and the discussion concerning the sources at Talk:Haaretz. Since you're a regular contributor to the article, I'd appreciate your views on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISCAR Metalworking article

Gilabrand, fyi, I reverted your latest change on the ISCAR Metalworking article with an explanation on its talk page.Mirboj (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hat

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Hat, I hereby award you this barnstar. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully for every spoken "thank you" there are a hundred unspoken ones. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing restrictions

Hi. Please refer to this notice. Thanks. בברכה, El_C 07:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please present your position and any suggestions on how to solve the dispute here. El_C 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shimon Peres

Hi. I have had a peer review carried out on this article, and saw that you have been active in editing it. I think we should work to get it up to at least a GA and any help would be really appreciated. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] San Simon

Done - see San Simon. I've linked the neighbourhood as San Simon, Jerusalem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haredi Jew

Why have you removed the Haredi Jew image? It went rather nicely there, I thought. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear or well composed. Technically, David Shankbone's photo is far superior. I'm sure there are better images of Haredi Jews in the commons.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that current practice is to find a better image, and then remove the old one? :P In any case, I can't find any. I'll take a quick look through flickr now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pitom Ve-Ramses

Hey, the source you requested is there. If you think anything else is not accurate you may request sources, but please note that not everything you didn't hear of means it is not correct. - CitricAsset (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a glance at the "diagram" of an etrog's "anatomy" that you introduced is enough to show that you don't have a clue. The terms are "oketz" and "hotam" - not "uketz" and "hotem." The English is also substandard. My attempts were to make the article sound more professional. If you insist on making it sound idiotic, be my guest.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish/Israeli Foods

I see you've been helping to revert the recent removals of Jewish & Israeli references from Za'atar and Lentil soup. There is currently a RfC on the TALK page belonging to Hummus that seeks to resolve a similar situation that occurred there. An edit war broke out there a few days ago over the inclusion of Jewish and Israeli terms and categories. Your opinion and input would be greately appreciated on this RfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus#RfC

Thanks! -- Nsaum75 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Every food article (and Jerusalem neighborhood article) I have contributed to - I have done major editing, brought photos, added historical information, found solid sources, etc. - has been blanket reverted. I wrote to Neil, supposedly an administrator, (see his user page) who laughed me off with a snide comment. There are people on here who are demonstrating a new technique for dominating the world. From the nasty responses I have received in my attempts to restore information, I see my input is not wanted. It is painful and sad that ignoramuses are taking over Wikipedia, but there is little that can be done when "administrators" say the argument is "lame" and dismiss it with a wave of their hand.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to post a photo to Za'atar. I took a photo of a bottle of Za'atar that is labeled in English & Hebrew "Hyssop Za'atar". Maybe this will help back up the references listed that say Za'atar is made from Hyssop and they will stop deleting it. Then again, it might just be wishful thinking. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I made a request for assistance on the WP:Administrator page regarding Za'atar, but never heard anything back. So this morning I created a RfC as well as a notice in WikiProject: Israel, at least to give everyone a fair chance to comment (whether they choose comment or just keep reverting the page to however, is another thing). So just now I requested semi-protection of the page. Maybe the Admins will help finally help. Nsaum75 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We are working towards compromise on Za'atar. It would be helpful if you participated on the talkpage rather than reverting the article to your preferred version. Further, please take some care to use edit summaries to actually summarize your edits, and not to engage in taunting or aggressive pointing or threats. It will be necessary to deescalate to make progress. Jd2718 (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thank you for tempering your edit summaries. Please consider bringing your objections to the talk page. I can't say everybody likes each other, but now we do have some possibility of discussion. Let's take advantage of it. Jd2718 (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JD, I don't know who you are, but if you think you are "making peace," you are mistaken. You are caving in to the hijackers. I introduced sourced information to this article that you automatically removed as if it were controversial. Since when is adding historical information that comes with a source controversial? Apparently only if the word Jew or Israel appears in it. Some editors have introducted OR and anecdotal evidence for the history, usage and healing properties of Za'atar. It is sad that any attempts to fill out an article that was unreferenced and poorly written are promptly removed to appease vandals, sock puppets and racists.-Gilabrand (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(one week later) Gilabrand, I've brought Maimonedes back to the za'atar article. I hope you can take a look. I've also asked HG, an editor with a well-deserved reputation for balance and fairness to take a look at the cultural borrowing bit. I respect HG's opinion and am anxious to see what it is in this instance. Jd2718 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Named refs

Hi,

I'm not the first one to say it, but thanks a lot for your relentless improvements to articles about Israel!

I noticed that you added new footnotes to the Amirim article. When you use the same source more than once as a footnote, you should write the footnote content only once and give it a name. See what i did there at Amirim.

For more information see WP:FOOT. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Amir. Formatting footnotes has never been my strong point. Good to have you around to fix things up.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Falafel

Greetings,

As you were one of two users edit warring over the "History" section of Falafel, I would like to ask you to PLEASE come to the talk page and Workshop page. I'd rather see a consensus article and see the page unlocked, than let it sit the whole time and just see edit warring resume.

Thanks, M1rth (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever I had to say, I've already said it on the Falafel talk page. I stand by my edits and I think my reasons for making them are very clear. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rehavia

Thanks for the fixes to the new Rehavia-I wasn't sure about all those names. I was pretty much translating straight out of the Hebrew article, but I stopped when I came to the list of prominent buildings. Do you think that should be included also? Thanks, Keyed In (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berl Repetur

We've had this discussion already. The name seems to be Berl Repetur. The Knesset website is wrong. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Tel Aviv copyedit

Hi. Tel Aviv is currently undergoing a copyedit in preparation for another FAC. The copyeditor has placed a tag next to this statement: "After the Crusaders left Palestine, life in Jaffa lay dormant for centuries." and I was wondering if it could be cited with the Jaffa: A City in Evolution book? If you could let me know, that'd be fantastic. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it is a statement taken from that book. I thought the reference I added covered it, but you can always add it a second time.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the problem myself to be honest, but it might as well go there if we have it. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shevah Mofet

Hi, can you please explain your edits to the article Shevah Mofet? While some are clearly good edits (especially the spelling/grammar/style corrections), there are others which are strange at best and harmful at worst. For example, who said that lists were discouraged on Wikipedia? On the contrary, they are encouraged for certain things that require lists. For example, the recent FAC Tel Aviv, which we both edited, includes a list of mayors. It is only fitting that a notable school include a list of principals. Also some of your removals were completely unexplained. My guess is that you thought they could be classified as 'unsourced accusations', however, in such a case I'm wondering why you didn't talk about it first. For example, we've had a discussion in the past (with a user who no longer edits) about the cafeteria part and it was decided not to remove it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A list of principals with a bunch of question marks in the middle and no information about their contributions and no sources seemed useless to me, but if you think it belongs, you can restore it. Same goes for unsourced allegations about spoiled food which is really a non-notable event and would never be included in any encylopedia worthy of the name. To me it sounds like someone in the school trying to ruin its reputation. I didn't think the changes I made needed any special discussion. If material is unsourced and libelous, it is perfectly fine to remove it, and I don't need permission.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

[edit] Tel Aviv

Gilabrand there is a discussion at Talk:Tel Aviv#History section regarding the earliest remains found in the city. There is a contradiciton between the Tel Aviv University website and the book source you added. Perhaps you could shed some light. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The book on Jaffa by Ruth Kark (1990) states that permanent settlement existed "in the area" some 7,500 years before the Christian era, whereas archeological artifacts discovered in the town itself date to the end of the 2nd century BCE.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem stone - FYI

I've brought up the move issue on User talk:Valerius Tygart#Melekeh versus Jerusalem stone. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child

Nice addition to the article - but why did you upload such a low resolution version? Is it possible for you to start uploading resolutions of at least 1MB? --David Shankbone 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When I started adding photos here, I was advised to use low resolution so as not to clog up WP or something. Maybe things have changed. What is the policy on this? --Gilabrand (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever told you that was grossly uninformed. We want you to upload to the Commons, and the only current limit, which may be revised upwards, is 20MB. Photos of such low resolution, but of high quality photographically such as your Child photo, are less useful to people off Wikipedia. Upload the highest quality possible, and please create an account at Commons so other projects can use your photography. Nice shot. --David Shankbone 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a discussion on Commons about the issue that started yesterday. --David Shankbone 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chords Bridge

Hi Gila, Could you add to the discussion on the proper name for this article on the talk page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tzufit Grant

Is there any reason for which you think that Tzofit is the correct spelling? The name is generally quite certainly spelled Tzufit, and not Tzofit. There may be an exception in Grant's case per WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. if the media or most other sources use Tzofit, which is possible), in which case the proper spelling should be noted in the article itself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The name appears this way in every newspaper article about her in the last several months,in Israel and abroad (including the references brought for this page). I would imagine this has been checked by the journalists. --Gilabrand (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bikur Cholim

Greetings. I am unaware of your notability or experience in the literature of the Sages or activities of Bikur Cholim in Los Angeles. Prior to making arbitrary changes, I would recommend you exercise due diligence and common courtesy. While you may disagree in form rest assured the content is accurate. Should you have a POV, then as a member of the wikepedia community, please share it responsibly. History is a POV and should be recorded accordingly. It appears that you have taken an interest to many areas. I would hope that you would expect that same courtesy from others with regard to those pages which you have contributed to.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikurcholim (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what kind of disagreement you are referring to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Jewish text, and therefore I removed "zaztal." Apart from that, the Bikur Cholim page is actually about the mitzvah of visiting the sick - not charitable organizations with that name. I would suggest you move that information to a new page (which should also be done for the hospital, if someone adds material). If you think a certain rabbi deserves a page, that is fine, but you will have to bring references for his notability, even if he is your mentor and rabbi. Your tone is rather snippety, by the way, which is not appreciated. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratisbonne

I would somehow agree with the gentleman who wrote above. Before introducing changes, make a pause and think for a while... (1) You may believe that places of birth and death are not needed on the first line. This is a standard practice (and useful information) in all the encyclopaedias I know, including the Wikipedias (fr; it; de) with which I am more familiar; not forgetting printed encyclopaedias such as the 'Encyclopaedia Brittanica'. Wikipedia:en may be an exception. But is it an iron rule? (2) Doing missionary work and mission work is not the same. You may not be fully aware of that. Missionary work would mean working among non-Christians, while mission work usually refers to large-scale organized preaching campaign in order to revive faith life and practice in villages, towns or other social groups. (3) That Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne left the Society of Jesus With the authorization of the Superior General and the blessing of the Pope should be mentioned. To leave the Society of Jesus is no light matter (it created much misunderstanding and suffering); the reasons why he did so should be mentioned. (4) In my view, mentioning the name of his parents is not relevant, but... relax... I do not belong to the group of those who remove things easily from Wikipedia!

All this being said, let me add that I appreciate much your contributions on Judaism.

Zerged (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong about the difference between mission and missionary work, which I don't think is true for English. Yes, the name of his parents does rate a mention, in the same way that it is mentioned on most biographical pages on Wikipedia. All information introduced by me comes from a source, which does not seem to be the case for your additions. If you can bring sourced information (not from a Catholic encyclopedia or missionary website) for why Ratisbonne did what he did, that would certainly add to the article. Finally, my edits are not hasty. The problem is that people are in love with what they write and are often blind to such things as unencyclopedic tone and poor grammar. This particular article was a religious hagiography before I edited it, and in my opinion, is now much improved.--Gilabrand (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Truly amazing the statements you can make, apparently with a good conscience: 'I am right; you are wrong!' (Twice you are telling me so here above...). (1) First: surprised by your the names of the parents are mentioned on most biographical pages of Wikipedia I made a little check, using the 'Navigation:Random article' of Wikipedia opening page. Well, I suggest you do the same, and you will tell me whether what you write is true or not! (2) In the Ratisbonne article you quote several times from the Encyclopedia judaica. In the message above you invite me to bring sourced information, but not from a Catholic encyclopedia. Do you mean exactly what you are implying? In other words: that the Encyclopedia Judaica is neutral and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not? This would be arbitrary and unacceptable of course. In the addition I made I quoted Claude Mondésert, which seems to be sufficient authority. As far as I know he is the best authority on Ratisbonne (remember that Ratisbonne was French, and there is much more in French than in English on the Ratisbonne brothers). In fact, I won't be surprised to learn that the Encyclopedia Judaica has used the same source. I rely on you to let me know... Zerged (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I challenged you on the meaning of a term in English, which I think I am qualified to do, being a native English speaker and a professional editor. I did not say that a Catholic encyclopedia can't be used, but that the article needs other sources to keep it from being a hagiography. The Judaica article cites J. Guitton, Le conversion de Ratisbonne (1964), M. Leggatt A Nineteenth Century Miracle (1922), M.J. Egan, Our Lady's Jew: Father M.A. Ratisbonne (1953) and M.J. Egan, Christ's Conquest: The Coming of Grace to Theodore Ratisbonne (1945). I have edited hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, and the names of parents are mentioned in a large majority of them (when the information is known). In the case of the Ratisbonne brothers, I believe this is not just trivia, given the fact that he was born a Jew. As I said, any improvements to the article are welcome, provided they are encyclopedic and address the subject without a Christian missionary bias. Ratisbonne was certainly an interesting character, a man of paradoxes, and the monastery in Rehavia is an intriguing place. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haifa

Very much agreed that it's a really roughly written article. It does look like someone went in and rewrote it into a mess perhaps. I noticed that I stuck a few typose (typos, I mean), in there too. Thanks for getting right on it and cleaning them up. You were quite quick to delete the Wadi Salib history to begin with and it looked like maybe a little crab-wrestling match would ensue but when I went back in and put the info back and tried to make that section more solid, you tidied it up nicely. Thank you for just tidying it up and not deleting it again as people often do!LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Wadi Salib. It's just that it was garbled and hard to understand in the earlier version. Your re-write has definitely made things clearer. No wrestling match intended. My goal is to make articles on Wikipedia more truthful (i.e., backed up with solid sources and clear of political and personal grudges) and also more readable...Thanks for helping to weed out the nonsense. Haifa deserves it!--Gilabrand (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Rabbi

Do you think we should move Mandate Palestine to under British Empire and Commonwealth? If you do go ahead, otherwise just leave it. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and categories

Please note that the neutral point of view policy applies to the inclusion of categories as well as content. Using a category to tag an article to express one side's point of view is a violation of NPOV. Your addition of Category:Propaganda to Muhammad al-Durrah has therefore been reverted. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of a legitimate category (backed up by a court decision) is a clear expression of POV. The category that doesn't fit is "photographs of people." What a joke. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that some bloggers have claimed that the court backed Karsenty's views. There's nothing in the reportage to support this. According to AFP, which apparently has a copy of the verdict, the court merely stated that "«l’examen des rushes ne permet plus d’écarter les avis des professionnels entendus au cours de la procédure» et qui avaient mis en doute l’authenticité du reportage." [1] In other words, the judge said there was room for legitimate doubt, not that the supposed "staging" had been proved. I would remind you that Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core policies, requires that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD discussion

Hi, would you care to comment on the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caravanim? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yom Yerushalayim

Hi Gila. I see you reverted my recent edit to Yom Yerushalayim. While it may be true that Anti-Zionists have a second reason not to celebrate it, the main reason Chareidi Jews do not celebrate that or any other Israeli holiday is due to conservatism and reluctance to change from the traditionally practiced way of our fathers. Indeed, Chareidim are unequivocally considered among the most conservative form of Judaism, and conservatism by definition means adherence to original ways of doing things and reluctance to change. Though this may be original research (your edit summary indicates that you feel that way), the line as it exists is no better. Also see the infobox, where it is described as "Secular (observed religiously in some Zionist communities)." Clearly secular, and thus considered to have no place among a community in which religion is paramount.

I do appreciate that you later rephrased the sentence to clarify that not all Chareidim are Anti-Zionists. I still think that some mention should also be made of the secular nature of the holiday. Not wanting to engage in edit warring, I would be delighted to hear your opinion. Regards. Keyed In (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the reference I added regarding the recitation of Hallel, you will see it discusses this matter of "conservatism" at length, as well as the halakhic rulings for and against the celebration of Yom Yerushalayim. As a great many synagogues (in Israel and abroad, including Orthodox congregrations) do hold special tefilot, your claim about the holiday being a secular one does indeed amount to OR. If you can bring references, you are welcome to add a section to the article on the Haredi view, which will certainly improve the article and give it more depth.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the matter has received much halachic analysis, and I am not here to argue whether one position is correct. It is just that in the Chareidi community the opinion is that it is secular, and to attribute their non-observance to anti-Zionism is simply wrong and may have a hint (just a hint!) of anti-Chareidi POV (besides being OR as well). If we need references to mention this, then the entire sentence should be deleted until someone finds a reference to anti-Zionism as a cause for non-observance. Thanks. Keyed In (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you say this is the stance of the Chareidi community doesn't make it so. This is an encyclopedia, and statements must be backed up by references. In the same way that I have gone to the trouble to find references, so can you. Find a source for a Haredi leader who says Yom Yerushalayim is banned because it is secular, and add it. The problem is not that the holiday is secular, but that the State of Israel declared it, and certain Haredi rabbis (a small minority) don't acknowledge the State of Israel (although they happily live in Israel and avail themselves of all its services). In Israel, loads of yeshiva students of every stripe are dancing today. Regarding the argument that new holidays can't be added, then how come Haredim celebrate Purim and Hanukkah?--Gilabrand (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Granted that if I say so doesn't make it so, you still didn't answer why you saying that it's because of anti-Zionism does make it so.
2. Yom Yerushalayim isn't "banned" by Chareidim, it never achieved recognition in the first place. The burden of proof for a change in religion is (according to chareidi views--I'm not saying I agree) upon the party who wants to institute said change.
3. Implicit in the current revision is that a Chareidi Jew who is not anti-Zionist has no reason not to celebrate Yom Yerushalayim. This is far from reality; most Chareidi Jews are not even aware that today is Yom Yerushalayim. I wasn't until I saw WP, though I am American so I may be excused :-).
4. Your statement that "certain Haredi rabbis (a small minority) don't acknowledge the State of Israel (although they happily live in Israel and avail themselves of all its services)," though true, positively reeks of a bitterness that seriously calls into question your ability to remain emotionally detached from this issue. (Please don't get me wrong. I admire you as an editor and as a Jew. Many times our feelings about certain charged issues cause an emotional attachment that precludes reason. I agree with your sentiments, and acknowledge your sense of justice. Indeed, injustice can often be a catalyst for the most serious of emotions.)
5. Regarding your statement that "loads of yeshiva students of every stripe are dancing today," unless we somehow disagree what makes a "Chareidi Jew," you would be hard-pressed to find a single Chareidi yeshiva student dancing. This is not done out of spite, nor out of adherence to any "ban," but simply because the holiday never achieved recognition because of its newness (secular is admittedly the wrong term).
6. Although I already pointed out that I am not here to argue any one side but simply to state the facts, I will still answer, for the record, your question about Purim and Chanukkah. (I must admit that I am kind of surprised you brought this up.) As you are well aware, Purim has sources in biblical times where the book of Esther specifically refers to the yearly celebrations. Chanukkah, though not biblical, is referenced extensively in the Talmud. It's hard to understand the comparison to a holiday with no religious sources whatsoever. I agree that the Six Day War was a divine miracle of epic proportions, and the liberation of Yerushalayim was an extremely happy event. But that does not make it a religious holiday, and for a group of people who (attempt to) exclusively live according to their religious views, such an event has no place.

I hope I haven't been too harsh, I just think you may be unaware of the facts. :-) Keyed In (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aware of the facts? Funny...Sounds like you are the one who isn't, if your knowledge of Yom Yerushalayim comes from Wikipedia. LOL But then again, perhaps that provides an incentive to continue editing Wikipedia, as now we know it does provide information that widens someone's horizons. Please note the section on the Haredi view, which makes YOUR point and brings a reference for it. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Hanukkah was not a religious holiday either. It was the celebration of a military victory.

LOL but obviously I know what Yom Yerushalayim is, I just forgot it was today. "To separate themselves from a secular and ungodly system" as stated in the Hareidi view section is not exactly MY point but will have to do because whatever I change will be reverted anyway... and Chanukkah is a holiday with religious sources which is all I said Chareidim require. I don't know what you mean by a religious holiday. Besides, it was also a celebration of the miracle of the oil. To assume the position of some in a debate whether that part was added later is further POV, and besides, Chareidim take the Talmud to be most authoritative. Cheers and Happy Yom Yerushalayim (tho it's over by now in Israel)! Keyed In (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flipped Image

The image is aparently flipped, showing the religious books on the opposite way (left to right). Please fix it by flipping in any imaging program. Shoteh (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what the problem is.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The image isn't flipped because the letters are correct. But the Sefarim in the picture are upside down (back cover on top). Keyed In (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They were arranged that way so the titles would be readable.--Gilabrand (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good way to provide misleading information, and to show analphabethy. --HagiMalachi (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean I won't meet you in Gan Eden?--Gilabrand (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Political Agenda

I see that your political agenda is about removal of information and not adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why don't you start a page called the Katz controversy as that is all you seem to think that the Tantura massacre is about?

Was the village cleansed of Palestinians or are they still living in Tantura?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states (based on Palestine Remembered) that the residents fled and settled elsewhere. Your use of the word "cleansed" clearly shows where you stand. There is a big difference between that and a "massacre" - which clearly didn't happen.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you read some of the Benny Morris foot notes. In particular Benny Morris (2004)p. 299 to 301. As Brechor Shitrit asked Ben-Gurion for permission to move the Tantura refugees from Fureidis it is quite apparent that the refugees went to Fureidis. Also Meron Benvenisti says that the refugees went to Fureidis, thirdly when you tried to make the article a Katz controversy article you removed all the information on the village but left the town statistics from Palestine Remembered, so if you have a problem with Palestine Remembered why did you leave it in the Katz Controversy section? Further the interpretation of the words used in the order was "cleanse or subdue". Clearly as the inhabitants of Tantura are no longer there, subdue would be the incorrect term. Or it could be put as "subdued and then cleansed". But it is correct to use the term cleanse as that was part of the order given. Obviously you do not like the term but as it was used in the original Military order it would be correct in using it now. It seems from your mail that you have a political agenda of removing any portion of any article that does not agree with your political views. I on the other hand realise that there are two views. This is why when I made the article I included the Katz controversy and also included the quoted order. If you feel that the order given was inappropriate then get a time machine and go back and have the order changed. Because in this universe at this point in time the "order to cleanse or Subdue" is in existence. Trying to change or deny a historical event by removing it from wiki is ridiculous.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the orders were given in Hebrew, the word used was not cleansed. That is not a Hebrew expression and it is not a translation of anything that would be said in Hebrew. Maybe you should get into your time capsule and go learn some history instead of making it up.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

Hmm, I've spent a while thinking about this issue, going through the talk page discussions and reading through the different revisions. The truth is that I'm not familiar with the issues, so I'd rather not get involved in the discussion beyond reminding people to keep cool heads. This is in now way saying "I'm taking the easy way out", because at the end of the discussion I'm going to make a decision to unprotect the article or take it to dispute resolution. I also suggest getting someone more familiar with the article's issues for a third opinion. Sorry this doesn't really help, but I've seen a lot of editors (and admins) plunge head-first into disputes they have no idea about, and it just exacerbates and prolongs the discussion. I'm watching the page, and I will intervene if things get out of hand. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep an eye out

Pay close attention to the edits on Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. All mainstream, reputable news agencies refer to them as just that. Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, FOX News, New York Times, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, among others call it that. One editor claims Reuters calls it a "settlement" but I have only found the opposite of that claim. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tantura and the Katz controversy

Work on the Katz controversy let other editors work on the expulsion. Try not to get the 2 events confused.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but the two are directly related. It is you who are confused (and apparently bent on confusing others).--Gilabrand (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They are directly related one is a historical documented fact with no controversy and the other is the Katz controversy. So work on the Katz controversy, I have absolutely no problem with leaving your work alone. But please add to not remove because of your political bias. I had included a section on the Katz controversy in the first article where upon you deleted half the expulsion work as though the expulsion was not documented. The expulsion is documented and has good provenance. The Katz controversy is only about the extent of the incident, as to whether is should be titled a massacre or not. That is immaterial to the historiography of the expulsion, it is over that point that you appear to have some confusion.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gila,

Just for your information : [2]. :Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)