User talk:Gilabrand/Archive 3

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For the excellent editting and formatting that helped lead to Israel's promotion to featured article status. --Jdcaust 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very much appreciated, Jdcaust.--Gilabrand 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel education

Exactly what part of the information is incorrect, poorly written or singles out certain schools for no reason? If the last bit refers to the mention of the American International School, that is primarily there as an example of a school where English is taught as the language of instruction, and the school where most of the children of foreign diplomats attend. Try editing rather than removing. --Shamir1 07:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehud Barak

Trust me on this one, it's spelled with an 'o'. It's often mispronounced in Hebrew though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecart (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

chocolate buttons

Hi,how did you get theat many chocolate buttons for the image chocolate buttons?CoolĢiṚlʏ88 Coolgirly88 20:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took the picture in a candy shop in a Jerusalem market - I saw it's on your user page. How come?--Gilabrand 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jackrm was showing me an example.Coolgirly88 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Simchat Torah

Thank you for your recent edits which made this article a lot more readable and accurate! Yoninah 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Toda to you, for noticing and taking the trouble to say so.--Gilabrand 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just enjoyed viewing the photo gallery on your user page! Yoninah 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

mashal

hi gila, welcome to WP, thanks for joining, hope you're here to stay. the concept of a mashal is one and the same with a parable but deserves an article of its own as us jews have unique mashal/nimshal take on it in that its a join concept. i was going to create nimshal, just one of those 1000s of articles i havent got down to yet. ta! ephix 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		i frummer give you this award for all the great work you've put into many judaism, jewish and israel relates articles, all the while steering clear of controversy! ..thnx Gila!

"Bukhari Jews"

Respectfully, I hardly think labeling 148 references to "Bukhari Jews" including Wikipedia+mirrors in a Google search[1] as "rarely" qualifies as "OR", especially when exactly 0 books sold on Amazon use this term and removing WP+mirrors[2] results in a paltry 35 hits. Tomer^talk 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Google searches may turn up interesting results, but this is clearly your own research. Tomorrow, the google search might give you a different figure. There is no reason at all for adding these qualifying terms. It is sufficient to state alternative spellings and that's that. They are just there for the reader's convenience. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Especially when there are are SO MANY important issues to deal with on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If I thought it were a big issue, I would have reinserted it. The "fuss" is because of my sleep-deprived annoyance with your calling my rewording something that has actually been in the text for a long time "OR" simply because I put "rarely" on "Bukhari" instead of "Bukharian" where it used to be. That's all. Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On that note, something I do consider to be an "important issue" is this edit which I'm not sure how to handle. It inserts some POV, and removes some history. I'm not sure what to do with it, and would appreciate your input. Tomer^talk 09:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot profess to be any kind of expert on anti-Semitism in India, but the new "sources" that someone has introduced to back up his statements do not say anything at all about anti-Semitism. On the other hand, the previous historical statement stating that India/Hinduism is tolerant, is not sourced. I would look for a source to prove that India has a history of tolerance (if that is so) and add a brief reference to this fringe group that is allegedly stirring up anti-Israel feelings, using one of the sources that best applies .Hope this helps.--Gilabrand 09:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanhedria

Hello, I see that you made reference to Sanhedria in the Tomb of Samuel entry, but as they are not near each other I'm a bit confused. Perhaps you are referring to an older period when Sanhedria was a northernmost neighbourhood? I was going to move the reference to lower down, but I found no indication that Shmuel Hanavi st. had anything to do with the tomb, as opposed to the prophet. Am I incorrect? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. My mistake. I was thinking about the days before Ramot or Pisgat Zeev were a glint in anyone's eye, when we used to hike from Sanhedria to Nebi Samuel. The reason the main street of Sanhedria is called Shmuel Hanavi is that the road led to Nebi Samuel. About Nebi Samuel not being in the West Bank, I'm not so sure about that, as last time I was there, a few months ago, we went through a barricade and an army checkpoint to get there.--Gilabrand 13:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ein Harod

Hi Gila. I see you moved Ein Harod Ihud to Kibbutz Ein Harod (which now seems to be entirely about the Meuhad one!), but we already have Ein Harod as well. What is your intention? On the he.wiki they have an article for all three - wouldn't it be better to have Ein Harod, Ein Harod Ihud and Ein Harod Meuhad as seperate articles? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was totally confused by all these different two-sentence articles. There was no distinction between any of them. "Ein Harod" standing alone means nothing. The current article begins with the words Kibbutz Ein Harod (Meuhad) in bold. I think the name of the article should be changed accordingly, and a new page started for Kibbutz Ein Harod (Ihud). The "Ein Harod" page, which is neither here nor there, should be deleted. Now, the reason I wrote about Ein Harod Meuhad is because that is the one where a major art institution is located. Ihud doesn't seem to have much to distinguish it, but maybe you can find something. If you can sort out the mess, that would be great.--Gilabrand 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we need to keep the word Kibbutz in the article title - nowhere else has it (see Category:Kibbutzim) and as far as I'm aware there is no other use for "Ein Harod", but otherwise I agree with you (i.e. we'd have Ein Harod as a disambiguation, Ein Harod (Ihud) and Ein Harod (Meuhad)). пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you're right about not having Kibbutz in the title. Somehow I was under the impression that they all did. The only other use I can think of is Ein Harod as the spring itself, although I think it's called Maayan Harod. So yalla, go ahead & thanks for clarifying this. --Gilabrand 18:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries - all done now. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Number 57. I have already added something to Ein Harod Ihud to distinguish it from Meuhad. After looking at the Hebrew pages, I see now why I was confused. They are totally mixed up too. The Ihud page claims that the art museum is there.--Gilabrand 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism

Hi Gilabrand: Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels.) Thanks so much, IZAK 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the lengthy discussion there. I believe it should be Reform Judaism with a subsection on Progressive Judaism as a newer term, possibly with its own slant. Reform Judaism is the historical movement begun in Europe, and Progressive came later. I don't think there should be two articles, but again, I am not the world's biggest expert on the topic. My personal view is that all these new names - Progressive, Reconstructionist, etc. - are attempts to dissociate from the bad image of Reform Judaism and bring back some aspects of tradition that Reform Judaism spurned.--Gilabrand 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gilabrand: You are enough of an expert based on your knowledge and editorial expertise. Could you please place the comments you made here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns and expand upon them a little more. The more voices to be heard the better because there are some very determined editors saying the exact opposite of what you just stated here. Thanks again for your kind consideration, IZAK 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another award for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your quality contributions to Israel-related articles, you fully deserve this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am speechless (for once). A bundle of thanks for that, Number 57.--Gilabrand 21:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, but don't stay so for long - there's plenty of work to be done! I've also moved the Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation article to its current location after someone moved it back to the Hebrew name complaining that there was no official source for the original name... пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cardo

i left a comment in the talk page for this article, you may want to read, if you're interested. it involves you and others, but i didnt want to repeat long discussions in individual talk pages. just the comment at Cardo, and these notices. Ivansevil 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Meah Shearim

Please don't change articles based on unlegitimate reasons. I assume you misunderstood me and were offended by my deletion of a blurry b&w picture of a haredi and his cellphone from the article Meah Shearim. This is no reason to delete two relevant pictures, one of them describing the paragraph "Neighborhood Regulations". And there was absolutely no reason to insert a very large image, without consideration of the article's layout. RonAlmog 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

talk:Socialized medicine

You tagged this page as though it is part of a WP project regarding Israel. I assume that is a mistake because its mostly a politically charged phrase used in the US against government involvement in health care amd is not per se connected to Israel.

There is a section in the main article for national implementations of socialized medicine and anything you could add regarding Israel would be most welcome.--Tom 10:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the section I added on Israel is not relevant here. Canada & UK have sections, and I added one on Israel. Because Israel has always had a system of socialized medicine (where it is not a derogatory term) I believe that adding it to Wikiproject Israel is in keeping with the aims of this project, which is to tag pages that are related to issues that also affect Israel. You are welcome to add any other tags you think are appropriate. --Gilabrand 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

The Peel Commission, July 1937, chapter 12, page 312 (paragraph 5):

"The Hadassah Medical Organization has developed a widespread system of clinics in Jewish centres and hospitals in the principals towns and, pari pasu with the creation of similar services by the government, a school medical service, including a opthalmogical servie and a widepread infant welfare service. Though naurally the Jewish population benefitted most, the Hadassah medical services were available to all the communities in Palestine and many of the poorer classes amongst th Arabs received much asistance from the work of the organization. This disinterested philantropy of Hadassah deserves recognition: it was a real step towards the promotion of good feelig betwen the two races; but unhappily the effect of its work was impaired by other influeces. As the rift widened, the Arabs attendace at Jewish hosptials and clinics became less and less".

Sorry to have deleted tha line about the helath services but I didn't think it was an appropriate place for it. I suggest finding a reference saying that Israel has the highest raito of doctors to people in the world and inserting that somewhere. I remeber reading that it was already the case during the British Mandate, I just don't remeber where...

Telaviv1 08:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think it is relevant because socialized health care was one of the mechanisms for absorbing the masses of new immigrants, which is the subject of this paragraph. Kupat Holim and Tipat Halav were vital to the state, and I believe that nowadays, with all the outcry over socialized medicine in the US, it is important for people to realize that it has played a historical role and has its benefits. The fact that Israel has more doctors than anywhere else will just be interpreted as another boast that will get Israel-bashers hot around the collar. The insertion of the word "Jewish" was the problem here, and of course we know why someone inserted it here. So thanks for the clarification from the Peel Commission report - I knew that pre-state Jewish organizations also provided care to Arabs, but didn't have a reference. I'm sure this can be used somewhere.--Gilabrand 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Israel

Could you help me watch the page? Telaviv1 19:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Is something going on?--Gilabrand 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Eilat article

Shalom! I'm trying to develop the Eilat article and it appears [if I understand the history page correctly] that you changed the images on the page. I am developing (time permitting) a panoramic view of Eilat in 3 gallery images which will show something more than the hotels. For this reason I got rid of the Q of S image and tried to diversify; Eilat is also a city people live in. And I apologize in advance if this is not to your address. Thank you for pitching in so. Shabbat Shalom, Shir-El too 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that galleries of photos are pretty much discouraged on Wikipedia. I removed some of the photos because the article and text were out of kilter, and most of them added nothing (such as the airport photo, which looks like any old airport) or are used on another page to which this one is linked (such as the ink flag). I agree about Eilat also being a city where people live, but the truth is, the resort aspect is what makes Eilat different from other cities. I don't know what kind of photos you have in mind, but showing an ordinary looking street with apartment buildings and antennas would not convey "Eilat." On the other hand, a "panoramic" view of Eilat sounds ultra-touristy to me and more suitable for a guidebook (perhaps Wikitravel) than an encylopedia. Having a list of "attractions" on the page is not really appropriate either, unless they have something unique about them, like an underwater observatory or special geological formations.--Gilabrand 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Ariel, my mentor, removed another gallery, but the current one may fare a little better. At this point there are indeed too many images, but I hope to improve the history section and add sections on economy, and education & research, giving it more substance. It's really funny: until I started working on this article I didn't fully realize just how many unique features this town has, and I didn't include all of them, either! BTW I've tried to put the images next or near the subject closest to them, which is why the map came first. See you around. Again Shabbat Shalom, Shir-El too 04:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Didn't know there was a WikiTravel too! Will check it out.

Beit She'arim

Hi Gilabrand, in October you removed some of my edits to Beit She'arim National Park, as you considered them incorrect. In fact, they were not incorrect, but did reflect only one side of the scholarly debate on the importance and function of Beth She'arim. So POV they were. I now reintroduced the information in a more balanced, referenced, and hopefully NPOV way. Please take a look!--Hippalus 09:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Hippalus! I did a little copyediting to make it read smoother, and separated "beit" and "beth" which was problematic in the lead sentence. But the article is much better now. Thanks.--Gilabrand 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gilabrand! I was secretely hoping you would do that kind of copyediting, as you seem to be much more fluent in english than I am. I wasn't happy about my Beth/Beit solution either, but after some unsatisfactory attempts at a solution I thought 'O hell, better leave that to Gilabrand' ;-)

There is one issue with your edit: the reader now gets the impression that the international importance of Beth She'arim is beyond doubt, whereas there is an ongoing scholarly debate on this issue (see footnotes). Maybe we should change 'regional and even international' in 'supra-local' or something like that. By the way, international is an extremely anachronistic term anyway, in the context of Late Antiquity. Any thoughts? Cheers,---- Hippalus (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked the section. It is now more factual.---- Hippalus (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Israel article

Hi,
I think there is a problem with this diff.
JaapBoBo wrote the information sourced by Pappe. I added Morris and Gelber, Pappe was removed. TelAviv1 added David Tal as reference (I don't know for what numbers) and JaapBoBo and him quarrell about what should be the final version (see TelAviv1 talk page).
All I can say is that in the final version (yours), attributing the number of 15000 in March to Morris seems false to me...
I think this should be discussed between everybody before any modification.
Regards, and thank you for your vigilance ! :-) Ceedjee (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think in fact : David Tal tells 15,000 in march and Morris/Gelber 30,000 in May, which would sound logical (and realistic) to me ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the sources - I was just copyediting here for more clarity. If you have read the material and the numbers themselves are incorrect, then you are welcome to fix them. BUT, this has nothing to do with what you think sounds logical or realistic. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey... Keep cool...

I just tried to understand the mess with these sources.

All I can say is that Morris writes 1 brigade in December (ie3000), 30,000 in May and Gelber writes 36,000 in May.

I don't have Tal.

... Could you help : here. I am tired with that. Ceedjee (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

bogus source

You are clearly putting in bogus material. See the talk page of 'history of israel'. You are making a fool of yourself. Please revert yourself! --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but how dare you accuse me of putting in bogus material. I can see from all the trouble you are making on Wikipedia that you are very bored. Poor Jaap.--Gilabrand (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A favor

Hi Gila, I've just come back to Wikipedia after a while away, and am so glad to see your intelligent and knowledgeable edits on Jewish articles (e.g. Simchat Torah, Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)). May I ask you a favor? Instead of making and saving each change you make on the same article, please hit "Show preview" instead of "Save page." That way, you can review all your changes before saving, and it will also be easier for other editors to see everything at once, rather than clicking on each change in the page history. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Yoninah. About making all the changes at once and then saving, it sounds good in theory, but I sometimes add things in drips and drabs while I'm in the middle of work. Also, when I wait too long before saving the changes, Wikipedia has a tendency to go on the blink and all my work is erased. Not to mention the fact that often, you don't see various mistakes, such as typos, until later. But I will try to do better...LOL--Gilabrand (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cave: I used the "one page" method with previews and almost lost an entire edit (Berlinka) when someone else edited and saved the page at the same time! My work was shown side by side with the last saved edit, with a warning that if I hit "save", my edit would be lost. I spent an hour copying and saving my work section by section to my home computer, then comparing/incorporating the last edit into my text before copying the whole back onto the Wiki page. Whew. So now I copy the text (including Wiki edit marks) into a word processing program, hit "cancel" on the Wiki page, edit, spell check, save, at home, then make sure nothing else has been changed on the Wiki before copying the text back onto the Wiki edit page. THEN I hit "preview" for a last scan... and "save." Hope this helps: it's easier doing than writing about it. Shavua Tov, Shir-El too 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Arab pressure"

The Jerusalem article is not in need of more bias. -- tariqabjotu 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that part, while 100% true, may upset someone - so you can take it out, but the part about the consulates needs to be in there, for balance. Otherwise the message conveyed is overly simplistic. Yes, embassies have moved out (under pressure) but there are still foreign government offices in Jerusalem. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dov Gruner

Excellent professionalizing of the Gruner article, I'm really glad that you did so. I'm impressed as well. I just put it up yesterday and you somehow managed to find it! Anyhow kol hakavod. mnuez (I'd'a emailed you a message rather than add to the 'talk page' but I'm not yet wiki-able enough to know how to do that. Feel free to contact me through my blog's 'profile page' if you like www.mnuez.blogspot.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.180.16 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, mnuez. I'm not quite sure how I found the article either, but in the course of various googlings (which I do for work), I found references to Gruner and decided to add the info. It would be good if you could put in the details of where the quotes come from. If you aren't sure about formatting, don't worry - I'll try to fix it up. I think quoting the whole letter is problematic, though. Select passages might be more appropriate here.--Gilabrand 20:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

While I'm not sure where this editors evidence is, but User:Kintetsubuffalo has accused of of owning the sockpuppet User:Kill the Non-Notable Articles. I would suggest you talk this out with him. — Save_Us_229 10:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody has brought such an accusation to my knowledge, but it is clearly absurd and I have nothing to talk about. Why on earth would I use any kind of alias. If you look at my record above, you will see that I speak my mind when necessary, and hide behind nothing. Certainly, I wouldn't waste my breath or energy over an article as inconsequential as the one he is fighting for.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag as the vandalism started before the edit User:Kintetsubuffalo thinks was the trigger event. Agathoclea (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

help

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the long discussion about figs and don't really understand what all the commotion is about (or what page is being fought over). What I do know is that figs are not a Jewish "symbol." The fig tree grows wild in Israel, the fruits of the tree were part of the diet in biblical times, the imagery of the fig and fig tree is used in the Bible, and the fig is depicted in ancient mosaics. Figs may appear in a parable and invested with symbolic meaning in a specific context, but they are NOT a Jewish symbol.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not fully understand how the debate started ... I think that some Chrstians find figs of symbolic importance, and they do so because of passages in our Bible as well as in the "Old" Testament so they may think figs are meaningful or have the same meaning to Jews. Be that as it may, I think if you were to say what you just said about figs on the talk page of this article, and explained why, you would be making a constructive contribution, thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It applies to the article for which the link provided is the talk page, i.e. this. Someone wanted to add "fig" or "fig tree" to the glossary, claiming that it is a notable and important symbol for Christians. Someone wanted to add that it is a notable and important symbol for Jews. When several other editors commented on the talk page that it is not an important symbol of Jews, Bikinibomb replied that (1) these Jewish editors are secular atheists and do not have the right to speak for religious Jews, (2) these Jewish editors are violating WP:NOR because they have no verifiable sources for their claims, whereas Bikinibomb has provided multiple sources - the first one on 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC), which is a post at the very top of this section of the talk page (3RR), but then in his 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) post to the talk page, and (3) these Jewish editors are trying to embarass Judaism by making it look like Jews do not know their own religion. Bikinibomb by the way has stated that he is not Jewish. In the past 24 hours several Jewish editors have responded but he persists in his claims. My hope is that you can provide for him a more compelling argument or proof, but minimally, I think we need to show that there is a consensus among Jewish editors that his claims about Jewish beliefs are wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps when you have time you can contribute to the article itself, too! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)