Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 9 December 2012

|

This user believes that all men are created equal.

This user comes from Serbia.

This user is of Hungarian ancestry.

This user is interested in the Ancient Near East

This user likes to study Genetics.

 Serbia United States Israel Hungary

Demographic history of Jerusalem

Please explain your changes on Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem - you have reverted reputable sources. If you explain clearly what you are trying to say on the talk page, we should be able to understand each other. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) !

Hy Oncenawhile Yes I made two corrections.Fist I corrected the name of the chapter as all sources given indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority.I don't see any conflicting results given.Second the reference Harrel and Stendel, 1974 was quoted twice,once correctly which I left and second time incorrectly,(showing two different results).I removed it. Third I didn't remove the only source indicating Muslim plurality in section 1830-69: Conflicting estimates regarding Muslim or Jewish plurality ref Yigal Shiloh, 1980 although the page given is nonfunctional. There was one additional quote given which didn't match the source which was given.I would like to see that quote on the page,but given correctly without misleading interpretations

Hi there - let's continue this conversation here: Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem <= click on the link as i have copied your response over. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, please note that this page is subject to Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction - please read this carefully as you have already violated it today. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah

Hi. Rather than edit-war, it would be better if you took you concerns to the Talk page. My problem, by the way, isn't the content of what you're trying to say, but a feeling that it's a level of detail we can't support in this article. PiCo (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

sources

Hi, Maybe you didn't realise that the enotes page you used as a source is just a dump of Misplaced Pages. crystalinks.com is not acceptable either. Zero 12:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the phrase "Misplaced Pages mirror" means? Zero 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa

Perhaps you can explain where this page backs your claim of "unequivocally stating that the written in Hebrew alphabet (and Hebrew language" as I can't find the word alphabet, but on a related page on the same site I find "the letters are very archaic in form, in the style known as Proto-Canaanite script." plus two more mentions that it is Proto-Canaanite on that page. There are other sources that say the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription

Hi Dougweller, The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was analyzed by Haifa university scientists(linguists and archeologists).Here is the link to their findings (press release). http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043

University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

If you have nothing against, I will use this reference, as Haifa university is in the charge of examining this finding.

Considering the site "History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah Iron Age I" The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it, in the section regarding that particular archeological period.

Our edits

We seem to be drifting into an edit war again, and I think we both want to avoid that.

Let me set out my basic points:

• The History of Ancient ISrael and Judah article has to make only broad general points, because it's got 2000 years of history to get through in about a thousand words. Individual archaeological finds can only be mentioned if they're extremely important - most of the time, we should put down what scholars are generally agree on as to the course of the history of these two states.
• On the inscription the case is more complicated. Please be very careful in your use of sources - there are many in Israel and America who want to prove a case, either that David existed or that he did not. Many people, even scholars, are quite sincere in putting forward their views, but allow their commitment to their case to colour their views. We need to restrict ourselves to the agreed facts, and to present major viewpoints, but without entering into controversy or seeming to support one interpretation over another.

PiCo (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(A little later) This is an excellent example of what I mean: You have just made this edit to History of Ancient Israel/Judah:

• During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed. This is reflected by archaeological sites and findings such as the Broad Wall, defensive city wall in Jerusalem, Hezekiah's Tunnel, an aqueduct designed to provide Jerusalem with water during an impending siege by the Assyrians, led by Sennacherib. Siloam Inscription, lintel inscription, found over the doorway of a tomb, has been ascribed to his comptroller Shebna. LMLK seals on storage jar handles, excavated from strata formed by Sennacherib's destruction as well as immediately above that layer suggesting they were used throughout his 29-year reign, and Bullae from sealed documents, some that belonged to Hezekiah himself, while others name his servants. King Ahaz's Seal is a well-preserved piece of reddish-brown clay that belonged to King Ahaz of Judah, who ruled from 732 to 716 BCE. The seal contains not only the name of the king, but the name of his father, King Yehotam. In addition, Ahaz is specifically identified as "king of Judah." The Hebrew inscription, which is set on three lines, reads as follows: "l'hz*y/hwtm*mlk*/yhdh", which translates as "belonging to Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah.

I have no objection to saying "During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed", and your referenced source is a valid one. But I see no reason for all the supporting detail: if someone of Carr's stature says that we see a notable increase in the power of the Judean state in the reign of Hezekiah, I'll take his word for it. PiCo (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the ONLY site on Misplaced Pages where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is something you may challenge. There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections.

We are speaking about the The History of Ancient Israel and Judah and we are speaking about IRON AGE=ARCHEOLOGY

I have to confess that I simply do not understand what you're saying. Let me take your points one by one:

This is the ONLY site on Misplaced Pages where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. First, the article on the history of ancient Israel and Judah is NOT the "only site" (I think you mean article) where we can show what has been archaeologically verified" from these two kingdoms. There are other articles which are specifically about the archaeology of the kingdoms. This one is about history.

As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is one of the sentences that I simply do not understand. Are you saying that the section on the Iron Age uses archaeology and the others use the bible? This simply isn't so: the section on the Iron Age does make reference to the bible, and the other sections equally make reference to archaeology. What do you mean?

There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections. No places on Wiki to summarise the archaeology? There are many articles on the archaeology of the two kingdoms! There's one on Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and there's one on Biblical archaeology, and there are others also. Nor is the Iron Age "strictly archaeological" - the bible's Book of Joshua and Book of Judges are about the Iron Age I period, and the Books of Samuel and Kings are about Iron Age I and II respectively. Again I don't see what you mean.

As I've said before, and perhaps you missed it, my problem with your edits is to do with the way you approach writing - I actually agree with you about the historicity of the kingdoms, but we don't need all this detail. PiCo (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pico's point about detail. As for the inscription, there are two aspects (besides its content and significance). One is the language it is written in, which may be Hebrew. The other is the script, which is so far as I can see not suggested to be Hebrew but Proto-Canaanite or perhaps Phoenician. It's 'Hebrew writing' just as this is 'English writing', but 'French writing' uses the same script as we are using right now. None of your sources have suggested a Hebrew script, and your latest edit will just confuse the reader. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa

I will listen to your advice and I will not further edit that particular site, especially that I after my posts it was made much more objective. My further role in this issue is to watch for how long the current balanced presentation on that site will last. I have nothing against different opinion, that was the main reason why I was upset with the fact that Hebrew university/Haifa university opinion was totally erased from that site, replaced with non accessible sites and questionable quotes which likely do not represent the opinion of authors, they were credited with.

I am withdrawing from active edition of that particular subject. Thanks to everyone who gave me useful suggestion --Tritomex (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ok

Sorry, but what does this refer to?

Tritomex, I'm sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to follow what you're saying. This is the message you elft me:

We had this discussion regarding this subject and our edits were examined by administrator who removed my contribution regarding Elah fortress, while the section regarding Iron Age II was left. I consider that arbitration as fair and I adhered to this suggestion. However, you further removed some basic facts reflecting the history of ancient Judah and Israel from iron age II, which were left standing after the arbitration. Removing whole section is not the way, we can find compromise fairly on this issue. If you think that any posts are problematic, reflect on that particular detail and do not remove the whole sections.

I agree that we should try to work together, and I believe we can - but I don't even know what article you're referring to. What whole section did I remove, and from what article? PiCo (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

21:06, 5 November 2011‎ PiCo (talk | contribs)‎ (60,122 bytes) (Undid revision 459109804 by Tritomex (talk)Noone doubts the accuracy of this, just the importance.) (undo)

I think that this revision is problematic, as the site "History of ancient Israel and Judah" was already examined by User:Dougweller, and my contribution regarding the Elah fortress was removed,maybe some sections written by you too.

Yet my edition in the section Iron age II was left to stand. I consider this arbitration a fair solution and a compromise. The archeological facts mentioned by me in this particular sections do not constitute involvement in too much details, as I mentioned only basic findings of fundamental importance.

If you have any suggestion about any particular archeological findings regarding this section, than write me, and do not remove them altogether --Tritomex (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I'm moving the posts you made on my personal page to the article Talk page, as this concerns the article and others should be given the chanec to comment. PiCo (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

July 2012

Your addition to Khirbet Qeiyafa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reworking this. I've done some copy-editing. We use s lower-case 'b' for 'biblical' (except if quoted with an uppercase, part of a title or the first word of a sentence). See MOS:CAPS. We don't use 'Prof' ever, and even Professor shouldn't be used unless necessary to identify the person (so if there's a link to their article, no need) and then only once. I removed a number of commas also. Read what you write out loud, and if you don't pause, don't put a comma in. At least that's what I do. Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Jews

This is just a friendly reminder, which I'm sending to Historylover4 as well. Rather than reverting each other and discussing the disputed content via edit summaries, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Edit warring is always disruptive and contrary to policy, regardless of who is right, who is wrong, and who began the dispute. I have no opinion on the substance of the content at issue, but if the back-and-forth edits continue I'll see what I can do about protecting the article. Rivertorch (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I fully agree with you. My opinion is that Genetic studies and their results should be placed in right section. The article about the origin of Jews was written many years ago and remained unchanged until recently Historylover4 added some of genetic studies, with his conclusions. My latest edition is without any remarks objected by user Historylover4 Tritomex (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. When you recently edited Genetic studies on Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three shekel ostracon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jehoash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahaz

Thanks. No idea how that got there. I noticed that the article said the trial was ongoing and it was clearly wrong to leave that there. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles

Please don't just provide links to Google books. We need book title, author, publisher, year, page number and ISBN. There is probably a citation template in the menus above the editing field which will help you (you have to click on not just cite book but 'show extra fields' so you can add the page number or numbers. See also WP:CITE as you have to use the style already used in an existing article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

King Ahaz's Seal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bulla

Lachish relief (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Judah

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hi Tritomex. Regarding this edit to the Jerusalem Talk page, please review Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. You should not be editing other people's comments in a way that could be construed as altering its meaning. If you want to respond or add links then do so in your own comment not by editing mine. Regards Dlv999 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dlv999 I am familiar with Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and with all my wish to understand your concerns I do not understand what your objection is. Please clarify your problems with my comments.--Tritomex (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You edited my comment in a way that seems to me to alter the meaning of my comment. I am asking you not to do it again. From Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Dlv999 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please notice that my comment is separated from yours by another comment. Certainly it was not my intention to edit your comment. I hope this explanation will satisfy your concern-

Best regards,--Tritomex (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandals

I didn't know where else to put this. Sorry for the delay. I replied to your comment on my page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:PeterWaldo#Vandalization Regarding notifying Misplaced Pages, that Misplaced Pages is increasingly a propaganda tool of Islamists, to peddle Islamic so-called tradition as if it were historical, they simply don't seem to care about truth or they would have kicked those guys out long ago. The Islamists are fully aware that the nonsense they posted in the "Bakkah" page is specifically contradicted by scripture they cite as if to support it, but censor the only important part out of the very scripture they cite, to advance what they themselves recognize as a blatant lie! Over and over — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC) PeterWaldo (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest you to write your problem as request for comment http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All

You can also report any violations of Misplaced Pages policy http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requesting_dispute_resolution Do not forget to write everything down before on talk page. If there is possibility to resolve the dispute through talk page, this possibility should be used primarily. Best Regards--Tritomex (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wow quick reply! I simply don't have time (particularly after the untold hours I spent editing it on so many occasions only to come back months later to find it all erased). Since you have an interest in Jerusalem I would think it might be a topic that might interest you. Their claim is that Psalms 84 reference to Jews pilgrimage to the temple YHVH had them build on the temple mount IN ZION, is actually about God's people wandering across 1400 kilometers of unknown, untraveled, uncharted desert from Jerusalem to Mecca, to march around the Kaaba in Saudi Arabia 7 times, and then wander 1400 kilometers back to Jerusalem, most of 1,000 years before the first caravan was able to travel along the Red Sea in Arabia. I'm a bit too busy trying to help Jesus save Muhammad's followers, to spend my time trying to save Misplaced Pages.PeterWaldo (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Genetic data

Do you know of any genetic data regarding the theory of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel? --Jethro B 22:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am certain that such genetic study was not made until now. Considering the haplogropups distribution in Kashmir the pair-wise genetic distances between Kashmiri People and Jewish populations is likely huge, with little possibility of common origin.--Tritomex (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

Personally, I'm about as comfortable with inserting "probably" and "likely" into that sentence as I would be with saying "the Holocaust probably happened" or "it is likely that the death toll is estimated to be 6 million Jews". As with many topics pertaining to Jews, the cultural and genetic origins of Ashkenazi Jews in particular are highly politicized and disputed by people who have an ulterior motive of some sort. So with that in mind, I'm reticent to leaving that topic open to debate, because their origins in the Middle East are known with about as much certainty as the Romani origins in the Indian subcontinent.69.248.98.23 (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok..I can agree with you-see talk page of the artickle for the continuation of our discussion.--Tritomex (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for change

How do you make a request for an article change? Who do I message?69.248.98.23 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also trying to get the List of indigenous peoples page on here to include Jews under South West Asia, rather than Old Yishuv, as it reeks of politics. Here's the change I've been trying to make.

Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly you mean under article change? Considering the specific issue you have raised I will take a look tomorrow.

Best regardsTritomex (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jasenovac-HRT

Please use Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp for these comments in the future. I'll have a look at that distinction in the source and adjust the phrasing accordingly. --Joy (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Defense CNN/ORC Poll

Hey, I noticed that you restored the CNN/ORC poll to the article lead. There was a discussion about it on the talk page. Perhaps you can chime in because it will probably be deleted again without an explanation. Capscap (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Capscap--Tritomex (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples

Evildoer187 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to make a concise statement defining your position regarding the relevance of genetics data to claiming the status of indigenous people for Jews in Palestine. I use the term Palestine in the sense of the following definition found on the corresponding Misplaced Pages page:

"Today, the region comprises the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories."

There has been some discussion with respect to the terms "Israelite" and "Israeli" on the Talk page, too, but it would seem that you haven't seen that. Please check it and add anything regarding the definition and usage of those terms that you may find relevant.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

1. David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 164.
2. Seal of Amariah Hananiah--Servant of Hezekiah
3. First Impression: What We Learn from King Ahaz’s Seal (#m1), by Robert Deutsch, Archaeological Center