User talk:Beit Or/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the [current talk page].

Welcome!

Hello, Beit Or, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for improving WP. I noticed high quality of your contributions. Happy editing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beit Or, I don't know who you are but this is just to let you know that your editing out of a highly doubtful finge view on Pharaohs Ay Ramesses I and Horemheb and [Moses], etc have been reverted back by a user named Therealmikelvee. (see here [1]) This user follows Ahmad Osman gewnerally unorthodox views on Ramesses I, the Biblical Joseph and Yuya--among others. However, Osman's views are not accepted by mainstream Egyptologists and have not published in reputable Egyptological journals like JEA, JNES, BAR or BASOR. Most professional scholars including Kenneth Kitchen date Joseph to the 20th Century BC based on the price of 20 shekels that was paid for him when he was sold into slavery in Mesopotamia/modern day Iraq. (see KA Kitchen, 'Genesis 12-50 in the Near Eastern World' in "He Swore an Oath", RS Hess, et al, eds: Cambridge Tyndale House, 1993, pp.67-92.) Somehow, I think that this user will probably revert back all your other deletions on Yuya, the Exodus and complain that it is 'Vandalism' just as he called me that when I tried to edit his fringe views here. This is the problem with Wikipedia--anyone can put noncredible or original research here with no academic oversight to evaluate the credibility of the information. Just because a user can cite information from a book doesn't mean the book is mainstream or is published by a respected scholar. In contrast, more weight should be placed on the work of scholars like Frederic Payraudeau who have published in mainstream journals like JEA[2] or BIFAO.24.87.128.182 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing my message above, Beit Or. I am User 24.87.128.182 Leoboudv 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beir Or, Do you know anything about the Shasu? Some scholars such as Donald Redford have once claimed that they were the Hebrews but others say these people were Bedouins. I thought they wee Bedouins but I know little about the topic. Anyhow, Thereamalikee has made a reference to the Shasu in the article on Ramesses I but I won't touch it--for fairness sake--due to Redford's claim that the Shasu were perhaps the Israelites. As an Aside, are you Israeli? You seem to know much on Jewish topics. I have had some minor contact with Dan'el Kahn from Haifa University who has published a new, more accurate chronology of the 25th Dynasty kings in Orientalia 2001 such as Shebitku. Regards, Leoboudv 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for clarifying the identity of the Shasu. I'm afraid I don't have recourse to my University resources at UBC at present. I have removed the reference to the Shasu to Rms I now. I always thought the Shasu were not the Israelites but someone else. Also, scholars once thought the Apiru or Hapiru--who are mentioned in the Amarna letters--were a reference to Hebrews but few now accept this comparison. Most scholars today view them as highway robbers/thieves who attacked the trade caravans travelling between Egypt and Mitanni/Hatti; hardly the vision one gets of the real Hebrews who lived in Egypt. As an Aside, it is sad for me to say that my local municipal library does have a copy of Osman's book on Akhenaten. It seems the local librarians can't distinguish Osman's untenable ideas; no wonder some people are fooled by his ideas unfortunately. My University and College definitely don't carry Osman's work--they are professionals who know what is history and what is fiction. I personally prefer BALANCE in Book Reviews and in Wikipedia articles Recently, I incorporated new evidence on 3 Egyptian kings--Kamose, Sobekemsaf I and Khendjer on Wikipedia from Kim Ryholt's 1997 book on the Second Intermediate Period through my 24.87... or Leoboudv accounts, but I've also criticised many of Ryholt's views here. [3] I don't believe in completely accepting a scholar's ideas if they are wrong as you can see here. In contrast, Thereamalikee uncritically--and constantly--pushed his POV's on Osman, which is just plain wrong. It was nice conversing with you..and wish everyone else was as reasonable and informative as you but we live in an imperfect world. With kind Regards, Leoboudv 02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptology edits.

Personally, I agree that Osman doesn't belong in the main articles. However, this is a disputed point. Now, we could adress this on the talk page of every different article, but I suggest you make your case over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Ahmed Osman. Contrary to what another user has written on your talk page, I believe you'll find Therealmikelvee to be a reasonable person, and not a "pov pusher." He is not an "osman follower," but merely believes that these theories deserve coverage. I don't personally agree; I believe they belong on Osman's page itself, but that's a matter to be hashed out on talk pages. I think I can speak for all of Wikiproject:Ancient Egypt when I say we'd rather avoid a full scale edit war over half the 18th dynasty, which this is quite possibly shaping up to be. Thanks Thanatosimii 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful suggestion. I am not interested in a full scale war of reversions. That is why I felt it better to let Markh's historical context post remain even though I disagree with it. But PLEASE note ONE fact: when a scholar/student publishes an article in a major--or even a minor journal--like JEA, JNES, BIFAO, SAK, Orientalia or the small scale GM, it has been scrutinised numerous times for textual errors, historical context, the strength of the evidence supporting the article,etc prior to it being published! But with Osman's unorthodox views, there is no scrutinity--anyone can come up with their own ideas and post it on Wikipedia--or print his own book like Osman has without seriously analyzing what the archaeological evidence says. Encyclopaedia Brittanica wld never do this--they would just omit Osman's theory altogether. Neither would Kenneth Kitchen who is renowned as a thorough fact checker whose books have mostly stood up to the test of time. Mainstream Egyptological Forum like Thoth Web and EEF have moderators to censor these unprovable ideas before they are even posted to Forum subscribers--but Wikipedia doesn't. Regards, 24.87.128.182 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fact-checking is the basis of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and for this reason Ahmed Osman's writings will never qualify as a reliable source. Beit Or 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just want to point out that I was tidying up the articles and I do NOT agree with User:Therealmikelvee that Osman qualifies to be in Wikipedia (other than his own article), so just seconding (or thirding even) support for your changes. Markh 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khazars

Nice edits to the article. I hope you will continue to help policing it against vandalism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tmutarakan

I assume that you dispute some particular assertion. Please be more specific what is to be sourced. Which statement in particular do you find dubious? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

Please don't engage in revert warring. Your edits to Svyatoslav I were reverted as irresponsible for these reasons. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is also quite questionable. The passage was added by an anonymous editor who may not have been familiar with Wikipedia practices. Although I was one of those who suggested that Old Russian language should be moved to Old East Slavic language (where the article sits now), I object to wiping out any reference to the correct scholarly name of this dialect. That move was only a temporary solution, as "Old East Slavic" is but a Wikipedia neologism. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Old East Slavic" is not a Wikipedia neologism: the term is used extensively in the scholarly literature, even if "Old Russian" is admittedly more common. See, for example, Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory by Christina Y. Bethin or Languages and Their Status (a standard linguistics reference text). In addition, there is no such language as "archaic Russian". Anyway, you'd better sort out this issue on the talk of the respective article. Beit Or 09:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see what I was talking about. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This name is spelled differently in Ukrainian and Belarusian, isn't it? Furthermore, not all Slavonic languages use Cyrillic, do they? Don't you think it's thus inappropriate to label the Russian spelling as "Slavonic"? Beit Or 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why the Ukrainian spelling should precede the Russian one. You should recognize that it's your incompetent edits that started this mess. These issues are sensitive and require a more delicate approach. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the Ukrainian spelling should precede the Russian one. It's probably a good idea for you not to put words into my mouth and refrain from personal attacks. Beit Or 11:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources confirming that was the actual spelling in Old East Slavic [4]? The Cyrillic alphabet was entirely different 1,000 years ago. Beit Or 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you persist in incivility, gratuitous revert warring, promotion of fringe theories. Further interaction with you will be based on this principle. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo-Hebrew alphabet

Hello Beit Or. We need some sources for this. The DYK got neglected over the weekend, so I have been bending the rules and including some 6 day old stuff so as to not penalise contributors for admin laziness. But yeah, we need sources for anything that goes on the front page. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love it!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On October 18, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this??????

Most probably, the crossbow first appeared at an unknown date among the tribes of South-Eastern Asia, where it is still used by the hunter-gatherer and nomad tribes both for hunting and warfare, as well as a toy. [1]

The reference for this statement is Needham according to your source. I doubt very much Needham ever said anything like this. There was a source about South East Asia and you deleted it, furthermore it is not clear its use was limited to hunter gatherer, this is close to OR. We had a long discussion on this issue and came to the conclusion it is not clear where the crossbow comes from, it is roughly South-East AND East Asia. Wandalstouring 22:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have interpreted Needham correctly; notice that I didn't say hunter-gatherer only, but hunter-gatherer and nomad tribes. However, feel free to suggest your wording. What I'm 100% certain is that Needham does not say that the crossbow originated in China, as the article used to claim. In fact, he says it is more likely that the corssbow first appeared among the primitive tribes outside China. Beit Or 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I have been arguing for this several months and Needham was used as key source against me. Unfortunately, I did not have the possibility to check his statements. Keep this article on your watchlist, it is likely your edits will be attacked. Wandalstouring 12:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Beit Or, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

Having failed to address my concerns on the talk page of Caspian expeditions of the Rus, you proceed to edit warring. If you hope to expel me from the early medieval topics by this incooperative attitude, WP:OWNing, and penchant for revert-warring, your designs are miscalculated. I have been through thousands conflict disputes like this one. Please don't teach me what is acceptable and what is not. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is disrupive and your attitude is insuting. Having failed to make significant positive contributions into Caspian expeditions of the Rus or Sviatoslav I of Kiev, you are disrupting both articles by removing sourced and relevant material that diverges from the Russian elementary school curriculum. Instead of striving to raise Wikipedia to the current level of scholarship, you're reducing them to the childish fairy-tales. Beit Or 12:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, Ghirlandajo, hereby award you this **Epic Barnstar** for all the hard work you put in Caspian expeditions of the Rus. We need more articles like this one!

Dear Beit Or, I reread Caspian expeditions of the Rus and was amazed at how much new and well-sourced data became available online with this article. I believe you deserve a star for this work of yours. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA candidate discussion

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khazars. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. But I don't think you should remove things from discussions. My VP claimed this an as a blanking edit, so I reverted it. I'm new to this program, so don't be suprised if I make any mistakes. Also, Please read this. Everyone makes mistakes now, don't they? --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm putting you on my White List (i.e. people's edits I ignore.) I might just stick with IPs. --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On October 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caspian expeditions of the Rus, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Keep it up. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On October 25, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ozar Hatorah, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On October 27, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Volga trade route, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thankyou for improving the coverage of this fascinating historical topic.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhodes blood libel, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Constantinople (860)

It is currently being discussed whether to merge Siege of Constantinople (860) into Rus'-Byzantine War (860) or vice versa. You might want to join the discussion here. --Grimhelm 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Host desecration

Please do not delete templates from an article or section header until the issue has been addressed. Doing so is considered vandalism. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself

Could you please explain your page move on that talk page please? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably you who should explain your unilateral move done without a prior discussion to a title that makes little sense. Beit Or 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, and had you checked you would have seen the same. now, do likewise. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mizrah, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mizrah.jpg

Protection has been removed. Should have been done when the image was removed from the Main Page, but it looks like the admin who performed that update missed removing the protection. --Allen3 ^talk 14:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:AMIA Bombing and User:75.5.2.227

Hi... The removal of this user's comments on Talk:AMIA Bombing makes me rather uncomfortable, because there is a process in place for handling malicious sockpuppetry, and it does not involve blanking a user's comments. Help:Talk and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines both make clear that editing other users' comments is offside. I anticipate you'll point out that the suspected sockpuppet has identified himself as the banned user. That's true, but it's still a matter to be handled by the procedure set out here, not through blanking, which may be considered vandalism.

I need hardly add that this objection has nothing to do with the content of this user's posts, which I distasteful. I've also already made clear my position on the issue he has tried to raise.

--Rrburke 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afarid, I must disagree. It's beyond doubt that User:75.5.2.227 is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:75.17.183.177. Blocked users cannot edit, period, and their edits must be reverted. Beit Or 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appeal to you to take the matter here, which is the proper forum for dealing with it. Even if it's beyond doubt, as you say, this is the place in which such matters are handled. I don't know whether you had the opportunity to read Help:Talk or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, but both state very explicitly "Don't edit others' comments" under "Basic rules for all talk pages" and "Behavior that is unacceptable".

Evading bans through sockpuppetry is a problem to be dealt with at the sysop level. Non-administrators simply have no authority to delete other users' comments, whatever rule you believe the user to have violated. The few exceptions include cases of libel and the publication of personal information. You really must contact a sysop to handle such matters. --Rrburke 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shiraz blood libel, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--LordAmeth 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HoTR sockpuppet?

Hi Beit Or. What makes you think Kiyosaki is a HoTR sockpuppet? Can you point to specific contributions? I do suspect Kiyosaki is a sockpuppet of someone. I've removed the notice on User:Kiyosaki for now. Take care, Kla'quot 09:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on WP:AN/3RR. In addition, there is a new, but already indefinitely blocked User:Kiyosaki = HoTR . For some reason, HoTR 's contributions are not available, but a look at the talk page suggests that both users take strong interest in the subject of Allegations of Israeli apartheid and both strongly support the view that these allegations are true. Beit Or 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/3RR doesn't include a confession from Kiyosaki as far as I can see. There was a comment from User:Kiyosaki = HoTR , but that account could have been set up by anyone. Kla'quot 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, theoretically, anyone could set up this account to troll Kiyosaki. However, given HoTR 's history of sockpuppetry, I interpret this account as a confession that Kiyosaki is indeed HoTR . Beit Or 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith...

Hi, I am thankfull for the edits you have made, but some edits you have made were wrong. I am the creater of the List of Arab scientists and scholars. See also [[5]] or List of Iranian scientists, which contain the same disclaimer at the beginning. Cheers Jidan 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is a country, so it's natural that people from Russia are classified as "Russians" regardless of their ethnicity. There is, however, no such country as "Arabia"; thus, Arabs are an ethnic group rather subjects of a country. One cannot, therefore, call apply the name of "Arab" to anyone who lived in a coutry ruled by Arabs or simply wrote in Arabic. Beit Or 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have answered in my talk page. Anyway, may I ask how you came to these articles? I ask, because all articles we are discussung here(al-Khwarizmi, Mashallah, etc), are also exactly the same articles I have conflict with User:ManiF? Interestingly, I also had exactly the same discussion with another guy, User:Shamir, just yesterday. Don't get me wrong, but I find this vers suspicious. Jidan 09:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this lack of good faith astonishing, but the answer is easy. I'm mostly interested in Jewish topics, and while reading Mashallah, I noticed the squabble there. Then I read List of Iranian scientists and scholars, which is in "see also", from which I proceeded to List of Arab scientists and scholars. There is no cabal. Beit Or 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Chrysostom

Do not removed factual, sourced content from articles. If you have a problem with the article, edit the parts you dispute and source the material you place in, but do not "revert to last good version" if that revert wipes out a great deal of good encyclopedic material. If you continue, I will have to bring this to Vandalism In Progress. CRCulver 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so. Beit Or 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Population Merge

Please feel free to discuss the matter in the dissuasion page that I've put up there. If you take it down, we only have each others talk pages to update each other on. Its an upcoming discussion that a good few of us are going to participate in. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. The article you created is a transparent content fork of Jewish population. Beit Or 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Host desecration

I would appreciate your input at Host desecration.--Lance ^talk 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fiscus Iudaicus, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--P.K.Niyogi 13:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please join the talk pages. Thanks --Aminz 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third holiest site in Islam (expression) deletion comment

Greetings, based upon your comment on the AfD for this article it is clear that you are not aware that the speedy kept AfD was contested on deletion review and based upon the consensus that the AfD should not have been speedy kept was reopened. You might want to adjust you commentary accordingly. Thanks. (→Netscott) 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserved it

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for making WP more encyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop Defamation

Kindly do not vandalize the John Chrysostom page again. Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This POV crusade is really not appropriate for Wikipedia. 71.241.83.84 00:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman being or not being Hungarian

You deleted a category from his article: [6]. My source is the following: [7]

Milton Friedman is not usually counted among Nobel laureates of Hungarian origin although his parents were born on the area of the historical Hungary and they spoke Hungarian between each other. Milton Friedman confirmed it in his letter to Endre Czeizel [a notable Hungarian genetician]: "I've always considered my parents Hungarian." Hence, Milton Friedman can better be classified among Nobel laureates of Hungarian origin than for instance Robert Bárány.

Only Milton Friedman's parents are known to a satisfactory degree. The father received the name Jenő (which is a typical Hungarian given name) and Saul (which refers to his Jewish ancestry). He was born in 1878 in Beregszász (...).

His mother was born in Beregszász, her family name being Landau, while she received the Hungarian names Sára (which she later used as "Sarah") and Etelka ("Ethel"). Three of her sisters had emigrated earlier to the U.S. Encouraged by them, she followed them there in 1895, aged 14. They lived in Brooklyn. She worked as a seamstress and she studied the language of her new homeland in the evening school of immigrants.

The two young people met in Brooklyn. They hadn't known each other earlier, although both of them were born in Beregszász. Their Hungarian-Jewish ancestry and their shared birthplace may have played a role in their coming together. They had four children, the first three being girls, Tillie, Helen and Ruth, and the fourth was a boy, Milton.

If both of his parents were Hungarian, I don't think it's fair to remove reference to his Hungarian roots, even if it's only by birth and not by citizenship. I think it would be somewhat POV to decide on the side of citizenship. Adam78 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This claim may be sourced, but you'll still have to demonstrate that it is NPOV to consider a Jewish person born in America to be Hungarian even if both of his parents were born in a twon populated predominantly by Hungarians. Prima facie, the claim of Friedman being a Hungarian sounds odd. Beit Or 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not that he was exclusively Hungarian but that Hungarian was one facet of his multiple (in fact, triple) identity. The best category would be "Jewish-Hungarian-American Nobel laureates" but since a category like that would be questionable, we use the separate categories: one for each facet, cf. Hyphenated American. It's also strange that you keep the Jewish ancestry in the category but delete the Hungarian. If an American identity overwrites (?) everything else, how can he remain Jewish? On the other hand, if an American identity doesn't overwrite the other ones, how can he put down the Hungarian one? I don't understand the rationality. Chronologically speaking, the Jewish was the first, then the family became naturalized Hungarians (while keeping the Jewish origin), then they became naturalized Americans (while keeping the Jewish and the Hungarian origin). Isn't it logical? If he had ever wanted to deny his parents, he could have denied the Jewish roots along with the Hungarian ones. But he did not do so with either so we must not do so posthumously, instead of him, can we? Adam78 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Hungarian is a person who either is Hungarian by ethnicity or was born in Hungary. Friedman was neither, so he cannot possibly be Hungarian. Beit Or 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Friedman was not Hungarian by ethnicity when both his parents were those? Adam78 09:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Sviatoslav I of Kiev, please keep it up! Khoi khoi 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Khoi khoi 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Chrysostom

I looked at some of the details of this article, and it appears that the person under consideration held anti-Judaic views (in the sense that he opposes Judaism as a religion). He doesn't appear to be antisemitic (i.e., he doesn't seem to be having any opposition to Jewish people—and their corresponding ethnic group). Do you agree with this formulation? I was thinking about creating a category called "Anti-Judaic people"—people having negative views toward Judaism as a religion, but not necessarily the ethnic group. For example some Jewish converts to Christianity might be anti-Judaic, but they may not be anti-Semitic per se. I hope you see what I'm saying. So let me know what you think about this idea in general and whether or not you think it applies in the case of John Chrysostom. Regards, Taxico 09:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious or ethnic group. Religious antisemtism is thus just one of the facets of antisemitism, alongside racial antisemitism. Beit Or 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Birka

There is a heated discussion on this page. You are welcome to voice your opinion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Khazaria

Check it out and let me know what you think or make edits as you see appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the latest edits. It looks a bit lopsided. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar Correspondence

Have you seen the article? It describes Derbent as "the gate through which the nomads in Russia hoped to rush through and raid the rich towns of Asia Minor". Which "nomads in Russia"? How did they get through Derbent to Asia Minor? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmitude

Looking forward for your comments on the talk page. --Aminz 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping the neutrality

Thanks for helping the neutrality on the page about the incident.Opiner 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Early Rus.png

Updated the map. Check it out and let me know what you think, and esp. if any other archaeological cites should be added. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Maccabee

You may not have noticed, but when I found the "article" it was nothing but a redirect. The article space was not being used for an article on the Jewish historical figure. I did nothing wrong in creating an article on an entirely different topic under its proper name, so maybe you should watch your snippy tone and your "don't do it again" orders. Otto4711 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing, next time you move an article, update the links so that someone else doesn't have to clean up your leavings. Otto4711 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Caspian expeditions of the Rus

It's entirely up to you. If you're comfortable enough with your ability to resolve any complaints during the FAC itself, then there's no particular benefit to a second round of peer review; conversely, if you'd rather squeeze out as many potential issues as possible before the FAC, another peer review might be useful. Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian History

FYI- looks like a new Wikiproject you might be interested in. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmitude

Hello again Beit Or. Since we've hit a bit of a conflict about citing authors relative to their pen names I decided to see if there's any sort of Wikipedia guidelilne/policy about that. You may want to join the discussion here. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rus articles

Probably I'm getting lazy with time, but I don't feel myself able to embark on the series of the Rus' history articles. It would require examination of too many sources, too much time and too much energy, now that I have some other projects to pursue. Kievan Rus, however, needs serious expansion, so I plan to tweak it after we are through with the khaganate. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, how long ago did you start seven (or eight?) article on Rus-Byzantine relations? Beit Or 08:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that it's standard for FAC authors to nominate their articles themselves, rather than ask someone else? This is important if you want to see your name in WP:WBFAN. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Beit Or 08:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the article as FAC, but there is still no nomination on WP:FAC. Puzzled. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. I was distracted in the middle of the process. Beit Or 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sviatoslav map

Sviatoslav map is incorrect. See talk of the article. --Alex Kov 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that the map is fine. Beit Or 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Thanks for the heads up. :-) It appears to have been archived now. Khoi khoi 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

need attention

Could you take a look at the crossbow article. I'm not sure whether some recent edits are supported by the sources (Needham). Wandalstouring 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert; I've done a wholesale revert of the pro-Chinese edits, though I understand that I could have done something better than that. I'm prepared to do so again unless the anon is able to justify on the talk page how 400 BCE can be an earlier date than the 5th century BCE. Sorry if some of your edits fell victim in the process. Beit Or 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but perhaps we should all in all improve this article. It gets quite a lot of attention (measureable with the weekly amount of vandalism) on the discussion page is a link to a sandbox with a rewrite. You are among the most knowledgeable editors on the origins so far. In my opinion one of the chief problems is the claim anybody invented this thing. From the rare evidence we have due to lucky circumstances such claims are erronous as a history professor has put it in a book on the Neolithicum (I'm reading currently). Perhaps we could once and for all make it clear to the average reader that there is no "invented" claim possible for prehistoric times. We only know the oldest surviving evidence. The aspect that the crossbow is actually identifiable at an earlier date in ancient Greece than in historic China could perhaps be better presented and a description of the development of nuts could help to shed some light on it (see Steven Selby studies). For the Romans I have some mention that they do have relief with small handheld horn crossbows besides small handheld ballistae. I will check this in time, but this would make the difference between China and Europe/Western Asia/Africa even lesser. What really bothers me is the time between the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and the battle of Hastings. In between the crossbow disappears from records. Are there possibly Byzantine records on the subject(They managed to steal the secret of silk, so I assume they knew Chinese weapons)?Wandalstouring 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Christianization of the Rus

I finally started this article, which I view as a useful appendix to the Rus' Khaganate. I'm not wholly satisfied with its title. Can you think of a better one? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 01:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam GA candidate

May I remind you it's been well over a week. Please pass or fail the article very soon. Thank you. Wiki-newbie 21:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. I remember about this article, but I have decided to give its editors some more time to resolve disputes. There is nothing illegal about doing so. Beit Or 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't intentionally try to sound harsh. Sorry. Wiki-newbie 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad as a diplomat

Itaqallah is ignoring your comments there, can you comment? Arrow740 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaism versus Anti-Semitism

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that these are two very different things? -- Kendrick7^talk 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because anti-Judaism is but one type of antisemitism? Beit Or 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all people who don't believe Judaism is the one true path to salvation are anti-Semites? -- Kendrick7^talk 10:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Jews themselves don't believe that "Judaism is the one true path to salvation" (this claim is probably indicative of your grasp of the topic). Those people who are prejudiced or hostile towards Judaism are, of course, antisemites. Beit Or 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't respect the fundamental freedom to hold a different theology? -- Kendrick7^talk 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored my comment above. Prejudice and hostility towards another race is racism; prejudice and hostility towards Jews (whether on ethnic or religious basis) is antisemitism. This is as simple as that. Beit Or 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it impossible to oppose an ideology while remaining tolerant of those who believe in it? Arrow740 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is even poor anti-Semitism to oppose the purported notion that Judaism is the one true path to salvation. A more accurate contention would be that Judaism is cliquish and exclusionist; it is based upon God's pact with Israel as descibed in the Torah. Non-Jews are not expected to follow all the regulations given therein. The upside to this exclusivity is than one is unlikely to come under attack, rhetorical or otherwise, for not submitting to Judaism. If one is an idolator, this is indeed condemned and has a right to take issue with Judaism on ideological grounds, if not practical ones as it has been millenia since Jews have persecuted idolators. I welcome what corrections you might offer, Beit Or.Proabivouac 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Proabivouac, but I find your comment cryptic. Beit Or 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing Racism

You have written great articles on wiki, why can't you help us have a reasonably NPOV section on Israel by assisting in the editing? Deleting the entire country is vandalism and will start an edit war. Rcnet 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad The Reformer

I tagged it for deletion. You go first, I'll join, I think its non encyclopdc too. FrummerThanThou 10:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to prod the article instead. Beit Or 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilogos

I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege_of_the_Banu_Qurayza

You and Striver are in an edit war (it seems). Please resolve your issues peacefully on the talk page Talk:Siege_of_the_Banu_Qurayza. Bless sins 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

And which scholar believes that

Antisemitism wasn't either absent or tiny? --Aminz 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind WP:POINT when editing. Beit Or 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the turn has come to allegation of WP:Point. Thanks. I was asking a very valid question. --Aminz 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYRIGHT

With respect to your edit [8] at Olga of Kiev. I'd like to point out that

If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either

you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or

you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.

In the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy. (WP:COPYRIGHT)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that GFDL requires to provide the acknowledge of authorship, if the incorporated material is not yours. --KPbIC 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon's work is nt licensed under GFDL, so strictly speaking the second case does not apply. Anyway, the material is attributed to Gibbon. What's the problem? Beit Or 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem (easily fixable, as it turns out) is that Wikipedia:Public domain states the following guidelines:

Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism. (WP:PD)

Please, if you insert material, which is not yours (as you did [9]), follow the guidelines and be so kind to provide the proper attribution. --KPbIC 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon's text was clearly attributed by the title of the article's section. So, Krys, please do not harass other users. I added also a template I created but it is indeed redundant. --Irpen 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon's text was far from being clearly attributed. Only a few harassed other users more than you did, Irpen. --KPbIC 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*. --Irpen 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Hi Beit Or,

An RfC case involving you has been opened here [10]. --Aminz 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The mediation has started, please join at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident --Striver - talk 10:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]