User talk:ItamarPH.D

Welcome!

Here are some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome to Wikipedia, ItamarPH.D! I am Twinkler4, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Come ask me anything, anytime, on my talk page. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! ♫Twinkler4♫ 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising, and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, if you're going to insist that some person other than the one mentioned in the National Geographic article led the initial excavation, you need to provide a citation. You say you're a lawyer, so I'm sure you understand the importance of supporting your assertions with published evidence. See WP:V. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you did any relevant reading on this subject, which I seriously doubt, you would have known that it was led by Joseph Gath. This is stated both in the Rahmani Catalogue and by Amos Kloner himself, in his 1996 aricle, Atiqot volume 29, page 15, first paragraph.

Edit warring

Rather than edit warring it's preferable to discuss disputed changes on the article's talk page. Please do so before you consider replacing this content again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

\RThe person who led the excavation was not Amos Kloner, but Joseph Gath. Kloner states so himself in his 1996 article.

Bad link

The link to your blog is a bad one anyway. Links should be to the pages themselves, not their RSS feeds.

Whether or not you're a lawyer or hold a PhD in Hebrew is neither here nor there. You have not established any credentials as an historian, archaeologist, or epigrapher, and so your personal blog is not a suitable link according to Wikipedia policy. Please stop trying to use this encyclopedia to promote your blog and self-published novel. Fiction isn't a reliable source anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT insert a link today. So there was no need to block my entries. The Wikipedia page about the Talpiot Tomb is full of errors. omissions and misrepresentations. Thus it omits reference to the three books discussing this find published prior to the airing of the Discovery channel documentary in April 2007. It also omits reference to the most important symbol involved in this find, though it features a "Symbols" section. It claims that the tomb has been dated to between 538 BC and 70 AD , while the fact is that the longest dating was between the end of the first century BC and 70 AD. It insists that the archeologist who led the team that excavated the tomb in 1980 was Amos Kloner, whereas it was Joseph Gath, etc. etc.

When I tried to edit that page correctly, somebody sitting there who probably believed he was protecting religious dogma kept frantically deleting my entries, until I gave up this childish game. At least on this subject, Wikipedia is completely worthless.

spam links are not allowed, and you did insert spam links as indicated here [1], here [2], and here [3]. you deserved to be blocked. Momusufan 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I inserted this link yesterday. I don't see why this is supposedly spam but other links you have aren't spam. In any event, I was blovked temporarily yesterday until today. Today I made some corrections in the text, as explained above, without inserting any link. Still you managed to get me blocked. This is ridiculous. Continue to stifle non conformist contributions and nobody will pay any attention to this mediocre article. Good luck.

Spam

Your blog is non-notable, you are non-notable - I will move to have your blog placed on the spam blacklist if you do not cease and desist. --Fredrick day 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You will be shortly blocked. if think you blog should be added to the article - discuss it on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24hrs as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.. Please read our conflict of interest, external link, edit warring, verifiability and reliable sources policies/guidelines. Thanks/wangi 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Jesse Viviano 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's afraid of the truth? The Wikipedia page about the Talpiot Tomb is full of errors. omissions and misrepresentations. Thus it omits reference to the three books discussing this find published prior to the airing of the Discovery channel documentary in April 2007. It also omits reference to the most important symbol involved in this find, though it features a "Symbols" section. It claims that the tomb has been dated to between 538 BC and 70 AD , while the fact is that the longest dating was between the end of the first century BC and 70 AD. It insists that the archeologist who led the team that excavated the tomb in 1980 was Amos Kloner, whereas it was Joseph Gath, etc. etc.

When I tried to edit that page correctly, somebody sitting there who probably believed he was protecting religious dogma kept frantically deleting my entries, until I gave up this childish game. At least on this subject, Wikipedia is completely worthless.Itamar Bernstein, Ph.D. 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• We do not rely on thrillers and novels, which are fiction sources by definition, as reliable sources, unless we are writing an article on that fictional work or the universe it is part of. Jesse Viviano 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And so we come to yet another policy violation. See WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL.

The truth of the matter, as anyone can see who looks at the page above, is that I showed you Wikipedia policy on the subect, I explained patiently where you were going wrong, and I invited you to discuss it reasonably. You chose to do none of those things. Considering the foregoing, you should not be surprised at what happened. You were told what would happen, and why, in the clearest of terms.

Part of the problem is that you insisted on citing yourself. We don't do this unless we are qualified experts, and the works of ours being cited were published in a peer-reviewed journal. You're not a qualified expert. As I explained earlier, you may well be an expert in Hebrew, but you are not an archaeologist, anthropologist, historian, or epigrapher, at least one of which you'd have to be in order to qualify yourself to hold an expert opinion here. The work you wanted to cite wasn't published in any peer-reviewed context, but was self-published and a work of fiction besides. We don't cite blogs unless they're by such an expert either. Nor may you use this encyclopedia to promote yourself as you did. That's not what we're here for.

You have apparently not read the current version of the article at all carefully. It neither says that Kloner led the excavation nor that the tomb is dated over the entire range given. I would expect a lawyer to be more precise in his understanding of language, so this is actually rather shocking.

The "Symbols" section will probably be deleted soon, since it's almost entirely unreferenced. Although improper for Wikipedia content, it's still not as egregious as your self-promoting edits. It is, in any event, customary to give time for editors to provide citations. It's only a problem when the citations they insist on providing are entirely unacceptable.

Incidentally, the so-called taw you want to make so much of is most probably nothing but a stonecutter's mark according to recognized experts in the field. See [4] pp 12-13. The preceding section is also of interest: it puts the entire miserably sloppy inscription into context and explains clearly how doubtful the more sensational reading is.

There's no agenda on my part other than to produce a reliable article. That you prefer to give fictional sources based on fringe theories speaks of something else entirely. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly indeed following an agenda. I understand this subject is very delicate. If that's reason enough, so be it. I'm not for hurting anybody's feelings. Though I'm personally absolutely convinced the Talpiot tomb is the real thing. As to qualifications, I'm not here to glorify myself. A study of this subject requires knowledge of Hebrew, Judaism, Jewish Law, and Christianity. I'm a native born Hebrew speaker, I studied in Hebrew to a Ph.D. degree (International Law.) I'm also a licensed lawyer in Israel (inactive now.) That entailed a license to practice Jewish Law before Rabbinical courts- that makes me a professional (though not an expert) on this subject. As to Christianity, I educated myself on this subject, and wrote a previous novel in 1998 about Early Christianity. I studied the matter of the Talpiot tomb for years and actually published the first book fully premised on it. You should let readers of my entries judge from them whether or not I know the subject. As to the Taw symbol, the "mason's mark" is just one person's opinion. I applied a 1978 study on the genesis of Christian symbolism by the foremost expert on this matter, Jack Finegan (which preceded the Talpiot find) to plead otherwise.

In any event, I'm not interested in posting here any more, until you become eventually more relaxed and open minded. Thanks for your time. Have a nice weekend.Itamar Bernstein, Ph.D. 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being dishonest.

1. Of course you're here to glorify yourself. That's why you kept linking to yourself and promoting your novel. If you expected anyone here to believe otherwise, you're insulting our intelligence.
2. A study of this subject requires quite a bit more than what you say here; this is transparently the case. We're not dealing with just a Hebrew text -- or arguably a halahkic matter at all -- but with archaeology and epigraphy which are complex disciplines of their own and on which you have not given even a pretense of expertise. Nor are you published in those areas by anyone other than yourself. There is no recognition of you as an expert by a wider community. See WP:OR.
3. I have been interested in nothing more than ensuring the encyclopedia is written according to its own principles. Not only have I pointed you to the policies that tell you exactly what the problem with your edits were, I am obviously not the only one who sees these problems.
4. Even if you're being sophistic, you must see that interpreting the mason's mark as an early Christian symbol is begging the question. Only if the ossuary belonged to a Christian (or Christ, as you and some others insist) could it be reasonably read that way -- otherwise it's just an "X"-shaped mark, which could mean anything outside a clear context, from a mason's mark to the "signature" of an illiterate. Yet you're using this mark to determine the identity of the bones in the ossuary! You'll have to forgive me if this fails to impress.
5. By your own admission, you're using a general work on Christian symbolism to draw your own conclusion about what that mark could mean, and not an expert's opinion on this particular mark in its own context. Such an opinion, when accepted and cited by others, is not merely "one man's opinion". That's why I used it, not because it happened to mesh with my religious beliefs.
6. It is disingenuous in the extreme for you to pretend that your own firm and non-negotiable religious convictions have had nothing to do with the conclusion you have formed here, despite the fact that they're in agreement, but that mine must because it does. What cuts one way, cuts another.
7. That's not to say there isn't a difference in our approaches here. On the one side there is agreement with the broad academic consensus -- because that side has been adhering to a standard requiring citation of the academic consensus -- and there is nothing on the other but private opinion. Which is which is clear from the record. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to promote any book on this subject, as this bandwagon is obviously going nowhere. Still you have links to at least one book on this subject, by someone who's apparently a realtor. That book in my opinion is actually quite good, stil doesn't sell much, judging by its Amazon ranking. Anyway, what makes you believe the author is better qualified than I on this subject, I don't know. Other than preferential treatment to your "camp." And in what way do you believe that Jacobovici, Cameron and Pellegrino are better qualified than me, other than enjoying the status of privileged celebrities?

I don't have religious oriented views on this subject, for the simple reason that I'm an atheist, and always was. However, I believe that Jesus was the person who most influenced human history. Which is the reason that I studied Christianity quite thoroughly, on my own, and published two related novels, after much research.

As to the Taw symbol, you obviously have no understanding of what it means to early Christianity. Educate yourself and then you'd be able to seriously discuss it. The fact it that of ALL ossuaries in the collections of the State of Israel, the Talpiot Yeshua ossuary is the only name directly preceded with this unusually large mark, which just happens to have deep meaning as an ancient Judaic-early Christian symbol.

Underatsnding of Jewish law and Hebrew are at least as important to this subject as archeology. In any event, it is clear that the archeologists detracting this find have litte or no knowledge of the New Testament, and that the Chrtistianity experts have no real knowledge of Hebrew, Jewish law and Judaism, and all of them have no expertise in statistics.

Bottom line, it's much more important what you say, than what your formal credentials are. If you dispute that, read Matthew 21:23-27, where Jesus answered those who sought to impeach him precisely on that ground- lack of formal authority.Itamar Bernstein, Ph.D. 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to promote any book on this subject If you believed that, then you should have stopped doing it after the first time you were given an understanding of why it's not acceptable

Still you have links to at least one book on this subject, by someone who's apparently a realtor. No need to be coy. Which is it? If there's a source cited that shouldn't be there and I failed to notice, I don't want it there any more than you do.

And in what way do you believe that jacobovici, Cameron and Pellegrino are better qualified than me, other than enjoying the status of privileged celebrities? I don't think they're better qualified. I think they're not qualified at all, and are certainly wrong. But yes, they're famous. See WP:N on the idea of notability. Their book and movie are likely avenues by which someone might have heard of this tomb which would drive them to look it up, and would seem strange to most readers if they weren't mentioned. They're probably the only reason the article exists. The same cannot be said of your book. Their work is (no matter how flawed) is already well-known. Yours is not, and including it here amounts to advertising. You'd understand this had you bothered to read any of the guidelines I pointed you to. (In that case you'd also understand the substance of my objections here. If I wanted to give religious reasons, I'm not shy about doing that. But this isn't the place for it.)

As to the Taw symbol, you obviously have no understanding of what it means to early Christianity. Don't presume to lecture me on Christianity. That's not at issue anyway. I point you again to WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own conclusions. Find a reliable source that agrees with you and I'd have no problem with mentioning it in the article. I'll even add it myself. (Not that the taw is an early Christian symbol, but that this mark is clearly a taw and that it means what you say it means in this particular context.)

I admit to a morbid curiosity over what you think has been said about this tomb that contradicts the New Testament. But I think it's also time to acknowledge that equally knowledgeable people can disagree about a subject in good will without one or the other being ignorant. (I'm not speaking of myself here. I'm not an expert at all in Hebrew or any of the other subjects I mentioned. But despite your slander, I'm not particularly interested in promoting my own opinion here.)

Bottom line -- no, your formal credentials don't matter in the least. You have still not read WP:RS, have you? It's the nature of the source cited that matters. TCC (talk)

(contribs) 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The Taw symbol- I have told you and I tell you again, that Jack Finegan, a real authority on the matter, in his 1978 book "The Archeology of the New Testamen", explains the significance of the Taw in great detail. Finegan explains that the Taw was an ancient symbol of judaism, denoting messianic expectation; that early Christians used it as early asa the first century, and that the Cross symbol evolved from it. When I was studying this matter, I recognized that the subject symbol was a Taw, precisely because I know Hebrew script, new and ancient, and I know it thoroughly and instinctively. Therefore I applied Finegan's findings to the Talpiot Yeshua ossuary. Nobody else seems to have noticed that, and the Discovery documentary ovelooks it. But the Jacobovici book obliquely refers to it in the conclusion, after saying the opposite in the text.

2. I repeat again, that I only inserted the link to my blog on the first day. Then I DID NOT insert it on my second editing of your incredibly unlearned and misleading article. Still you decided to block me. Why did you do that?

3. The Israeli archeologists detracting this find seem to have, at best, anecdotal knowledge of the New Tesatment. Otherwise they wouldn't hang their arguments on the very slender thread that the Jesus Family tomb should be in Nazareth (because they've never read Luke 2:3-4, Acts 12:12 or the Pseudo Clementine Recognitions) and that it was too sumptuous for Jesus' family (because they've probably never heard that the family was actually of Davidic descent.) Itamar Bernstein, Ph.D. 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1. You can tell me until you're blue in the face. The problem is this symbol's interpretation as a taw in this symbol's context, assuming it even is a symbol, cannot be determined from a general work on the subject of symbols published two years before the fact. That interpretation is yours and yours alone, and that's the problem. (WP:OR) It doesn't matter what a taw means if it cannot be established from the artifact's context, by the epigraphers and other experts who have examined the inscriptions, that the mark even is a taw in the first place, and you have not provided any references (WP:RS) to say they have.

2. I didn't block you; I'm not an admin. The reasons for blocking you were told to you repeatedly, both before and after. I strongly suggest you read the links to Wikipedia policy we've provided. This will also explain how we determine what may be in an article and what may not. And please. We both know that you inserted your blog link numerous times, in quick succession at the last. You did it here, here, here, here, and here. This you may not do. See WP:EXT, WP:3RR.

3. Your arguments here don't matter in the least. Neither do mine on those instances where I make the error of engaging you on the merits. It's not me or any other Wikipedia editor you have to convince; it's the archaeological community there in Israel. Once we have reliable, peer-reviewed sources that agree with you, then we include the material in the article. As I said, if you find any I'll edit the article myself to reflect them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi. I have unblocked you, with the consent of the blocking admin.

I would like to, first, let you know that Wikipedia respects and values the contributions of experts. Your fellow editors understand that your knowledge and experience in your field are important.

Second, I would like to echo the comments of those above that Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for promoting your own viewpoints or works. I noticed looking over the article history that you have a website on the subject. It would be better to discuss potential inclusion on the article talk page and allow other editors of the article to include it if there is a general consensus that it is appropriate. That way, it avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia does not permit original research and requires that all content be attributed to a reliable source. That doesn't mean that someone who has done research on a topic can't participate in the writing of the article, but it does mean that unpublished theories or ideas that have not gained wide acceptance should not be included.

Please remember that there is no deadline - there is plenty of time to discuss changes on the talk page.

I strongly suggest taking a look at some of the policies I have linked as well as those in the welcome message at the top of your talk page. I also suggest treading lightly - you have been blocked twice already. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance or help you to better understand Wikipedia policies and procedures. Best wishes. --BigDT 04:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid i still don't understand the boundaries. What is "original research" and what isn't? My main contribution to this subject is the study of ancient Judaic-early Christian symbolism, resulting in the application of Finegan's work to the Jesus Talpiot ossuary that features the singularity of a large Taw mark preceding the name. Since this is indeed my original contribution, why shouldn't I get the credit?Itamar Bernstein, Ph.D. 18:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction I would draw is whether the content is published and accepted. Wikipedia:No original research#What_is_excluded.3F gives a list of seven criteria for determining whether or not something is original research ... but really what it boils down to is whether or not you can find other secondary sources making the same claim. I had never heard of this tomb before this evening so obviously I don't know enough about it to say what is and is not accepted science in this respect.  ;) From what you are saying, it sounds like there are two questions - (1) is it appropriate to discuss the symbolism findings in the article and (2) if so, is it appropriate to cite your work. In the case of the former, it depends on whether or not this has become an accepted finding. Is it still a theory or has it gained acceptance? Have other authors picked up on it and do they cite it as accepted truth or as a new theory? The primary reason for the original research policy is that there are constantly new theories coming out about everything - Jimbo (the founder of Wikipedia) originally mentioned physics, but I think it applies to any field. Some theories are good for a term paper or thesis and never see the light of day again. Others become accepted truth over time. Wikipedia is not the place for giving a sounding board to new ideas and theories - we wait until they are accepted. The second question is whether, if this content is to be included, it would be appropriate to cite your book. I believe, as I said before, that you (personally) should not add it, but should let someone else do it - that's just basic journalistic integrity - we as individual editors don't promote our own stuff. Blogs are almost never considered appropriate ... so I really don't think having a link to your blog would be a good idea. Sources on Wikipedia should be peer-reviewed journals, newspapers, etc, where more than one person is responsible for the content. Blogs are generally a bad thing. I hope all this helps ... I know I've rambled a bit. (As a quick side note, please sign messages on talk pages using four tildes - ~~~~ - it will automatically turn into a time/date stamp with your name ... it makes conversations easier to follow.) --BigDT 05:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm going to pass at this time, because I'm pretty certain I'd be blocked again. no matter what I write, unless politically correct (which means taking Acts 1:1-11 in its literal interpretation as overriding evidence.) Itamar Bernstein, Ph.D. 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)