User talk:Doron/archive
Request for Support
I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers and Anti-Arab bias. The link [[1]] will take you there. I see that you too have been subject to Jayjg's treatment, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide.A.Khalil 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Although I may not always completely agree with him/her, I find Jayjg's editorial work to be fairly balanced.--Doron 03:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have been subject to Jayjg's Anti-Israel bias. Most of the administrators practice censorship of material that tries to stop making things Anti-Israel.
- The fact that s/he is blamed for being both anti-Israel and anti-Arab speaks volumes. I find him/her fairly balanced.--Doron 03:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. You are responding to someone who is saying that Jayjg tries to censor material that he considers anti-Israel. No one in their right mind would accuse him of being "anti-Israel"!
- How should I understand "I have been subject to Jayjg's Anti-Israel bias"?
New article: Women for Israel's Tomorrow
Please consider reading this new article I just created. --AladdinSE 12:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Appreciate your fixing my Hebrew
It's very rusty, so in my fervor to eliminate vandalism I mistook a good edit by anon as a prank. Thanks for watching! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
IDF Chiefs of Staff articles needed
Shalom Doron: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- This has been done. IZAK 07:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel
Hello Doron: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Doron, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment at Talk:Israel
Your response to the querulous anon at Talk: Israel was brilliant! Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks...--Doron 22:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Israel or Palestine for the region?
Hi Doron, please see the heated discussion at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Israel or Palestine for the region? over revisionist attempts to eradicate mention of (ancient!) "Israel" and "Judah" entirely in favor of "Palestine". Please add your views. Thank you. (P.S. why have you not entered your Email to your own User "toolbox"? so that you can be reached at times when plain "talk" is insufficient.) Thanks again.IZAK 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I did, try now. By the way, I generally prefer "talk" (especially for invitations like this), but feel free to email.--Doron 20:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kafr Qassem is a common Arab pronounciation. I included the note so it would be clarified. [2]
Regards,
Guy Montag 06:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Kfar Kassem is a mispronunciation by Hebrew speakers.--Doron 06:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apology
I'm sorry for being abrasive and I feel bad for it. I'm dealing with some demanding and draining articles at the moment, and I was losing my patience in explaining to you the naming convention and reason as to why "Wikipedia['s] naming policy (generally) use[s] the most common english name" (Raul whould know, he's been an admin longer than I've been a Wikipedian; is the Director of the Wikipedia's featured articles and an Arbitrator) and why the Hebrew abbrevations/acronyms were used for Israeli Security Forces bodies (not of my making; before I joined Wikipedia, I believe). In light of what I've said, I hope you will change the IBP back to Magav. And please *do* contribute to A'man in any way that you can. Any improvement whatsoever counts positively, of course. Sorry again. El_C 11:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ,בברכה
- Apology accepted :) --Doron 12:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since it strikes me that the defence of your renamings has turned personal (and less than rational, seemingly even spiteful) on your part, I will try my best to avoid any contact with you unless absolutely necessary, but the outstanding issues remain with: a. Your unorthodox approach to naming conventions (not in accordance to English-language notability), for A'man specifically, which you consistently refuse to address (and, honestly, I remained mystified by). b. Your seemingly total unfamiliarity with the use of the apostrophe (or single quote) in Hebrew transliteration (and its phonetic aims), including when mentioned and employed by the very source you yourself have brought fourth. Please do review Wikipedia's no original research policy closely. I'm still sorry for being abrasive earlier, but this really has no bearing on accuracy and notable English usage. I am more flexiable with BP [3] viz. BG [4] viz. Magav [5] as all three seem to be in frequent use (but BG is a more correct translation, which is why police.gov.il/english/BorderGuard/Mission features it most prominently in the title and category frames on the left – though of course they stress on it being the combat arm of the Police). And, incidentally, the only work I've done on Magav is placing it in lower case as it is an abbrevation, not an acronym. I note that you placed no notice of renaming it in the article's talk page (perhaps elsewhere?). Sorry, I don't have a lot of time to devote to this, and it has already consumed far more than I wished. As for your complaint that you had to wait over five days; I was, in fact,gone for a few days, and afterwards I did manage to overlook it. For that I offer my apologies, though at this point and considering the tension already built (hopefuly not beyond redress), perhaps in vain. Anyway, as a self-fulfiling prophesy, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, in part but far from limited to this dispute, I do hope that does not please you. El_C 23:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Explanation
Doron, while we await a response from the spokeperson and while my break is ongoing (for which this has been just a poorly-timed last straw), I want to perhaps redress some of the grievences and also try to better articulate my point. I realized that the apostrophe article dosen't address this issue, at the time I thought you were denoucning its existence, so that's all I was concerned with. And it is possible that I am wrong about the transliteration, admittedly, I haven't studied it in many years. English is also non-native to me, and much of what I do is intuitive, perhaps there are some minor errors in the course of this with this being one of them — I have translated published works from Hebrew to English, thus far there has been no complaints (though perhaps the copyeditors took care of minor issue without telling me). At any rate, I am no longer as confident of my point, but I was in light of how the jvlibrary as well as Amazon.com used it in this exact way.
The reason I was so confident is because I thought of naming it that without ever having seen those links, so it all fit perfectly for me at the time. Clearly there is a tendency to spell it that way, which was very welcomed to me since, as said, I could get rid of the (spy) in AMAN, thereby avoiding conflict with Aman while retaining the actual word. Now, it dosen't really matter what the Mossad's official name is, except in so far that it is noted clearly as such in the lead. Naming conventions do not follow the official name, but the most notable one (as is the case with Aman, unlike Tzahal for example). Note, then, how the National Socialism redirects into Nazism and not vice versa; many countless examples (Khmer Rouge PoDC, etc.). So, on that point I'm afraid that I have to stand firm, since it is the convention in Wikipedia, and I fail to see why this needs to be an exception so much viz. other examples (the Mossad, whatever it's called officially, Khmer Rouse, etc.). We still need to know what it's called, the translation I had was not enough (it was descriptive, better than nothing; perhaps it can be included as translation, though I don't see much use in that), but at any rate, having searched it, I'm fairly confident the IDMI is the offical name in English.
So I am comfortable with the current format, though remain open to persuasion (really). About the border guard/border police/magav, I am less sure, we'll see. It seems close enough as per notability in English, so using the official name may indeed be preferable, so I retract on that, and offer my apologies for undue haste. I would like to keep A'man, but if Danny concurs that it is in error, if he concors that the rest of my transliterations are in error, then obviously they would have to go. Perhaps I just suck in the transliterations and never knew it, having copyeditors hide it for me (spare my feelings?), I doubt it's something I really would have picked up on reading the translated works —much of were poetry and prose, so it would scarecly play a role anyway— after the fact (I didn't even think if apostrophying A'man, and wanted to go with Aman, had it not been for Aman; then I tried to make it consistent with the other agencies, perhaps I messed up). I'll let to you and Danny fix these if needed during my break, and I'm trusting both of you to make whatever changes you see fit. I'm confident they will be up to par.
About my break: it is a product largely of disputes elsewhere: Latin American articles, Israeli-Palestinian ones, infamous Govt. of Australia, and others. These were particularly vicious, whereas our dispute, while a catalyst, was just, erm, grumpy, which is to say without malice. The main issue that I took with your position was the naming convention, that Aman is the propper name because of English notability, no matter what the organization calls itself in English. But, if consensus (let say both Danny, Raul, and others) opt for the official name, that's fine. It really should not be an issue to me. I just want to see the article expanded further, in history, organizational structure, current news, etc., really, I should not (therefore, I do not) have any attachment to what it's named. It dosen't make sense. So while I am firm on this point at the moment, I'll bow down to consensus and would not insist. Whatever redirects to what, it still ... redirects, no big deal (I'm just stressed out here, so I acted badly in view of being correct, which was wrong). I should have just waited rather than go on and on. That was a mistake on my part.
I hope that once I get back we can collaborate collegially, even coridally. I have seen your work and I am impressed by it. I streched myself to thin with too many disputes, and as a result committed errors here; misinterperted your own anger at the reversions, which now upon reflection I can better grasp. I have acted and spoke with too much haste and not enough self-criticism and, in certain areas, research. But this was my choice, all of these disputes including this one were a conscious choice on my part, and I bare the responsibility for it. And I am ashamed, I will not try to save face. In a way, I'm almost glad such a lapse took place over such a minor issue, and not the more critical and far more sensitive ones, where I am confident I made no serious errors of this sort (conduct, and potentially, content-wise). I'm only sorry that you became a victim of this, which is unfair for you. You did the correct thing, you made the comment, you waited for more than a courteus length of time. I have no excuses, but plenty of explantions, apperently. Twenty minutes of non-stop writing, my hands hurt. My last appreciable act on Wikipedia for a little while, I hope you will view it credibly and redemptively. And most definitely, I do not wish to "avoid contact with you unless absolutely necessary," I retract that, and again, apololgize (I seem to have that habit, but can I draw lessons from it?) without reservation. Yours, El_C 14:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am really grateful for what you've written and I'm especially glad we can put this behind us and be on good terms in the future. You don't need to be too harsh on yourself, I can totally understand the situation in which you were, and it turns out that admins are still only human after all (congratulations on the appointment, by the way, it is well deserved!). Hope you have a good time unwinding and that you come back soon refreshed and bursting with creativity, or something like that :). Sincerely yours, --Doron 23:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, Doron, I managed to forget about this. I left Danny a note, and I'm inclined to follow his lead on it, either way. If he concurs with you, I suggest we go for Aman (IDF). If you don't mind waiting just a bit longer (I know, I know, you've waited for how long now...?). Also, thank you for all the kind words. And if you really feel strongly about the name, you can go ahead and change it, I will not revert. I just want to see if Danny agrees with you and whether I (& others who use that) are incorrect. Best, El_C 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits to the article I created today. I actually did mean to go back and track down the names of the cities (I suspected Shechem very strongly), since I just grabbed the names from the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than hauling out a relatively modern Bible and looking them up. Thanks again.--Scimitar parley 21:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome! (I hope I got it right...)--Doron 23:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
List of places in Jerusalem
Thanks for doing such a thorough job on this list. One note: throughout Wikipedia they're spelling it Qiriat rather than Kiryat (as in Qiriat Belz). Should we change this list, or do re-directs (I don't know how to do that)? Yoninah 21:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for referring me to this article. Very interesting. Yoninah 13:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Har Homa
Hi there. I think describing Har Homa as primarily an "apartment complex" is, to say the least, disingenuous. I know it wasn't you that stuck this phrase in, but it just misses the point. As regards Jerusalem, I think the current formulation adequately explains that Israel considers Har Homa to be part of the Jerusalem municipality, even though it is outside the city.
As far as I remember, the villagers of Beit Sahour were trying specifically to prevent the destruction of the forest on Jabal Abu Ghnaim.
Personally, I think there is no need to get into any of the argument about legality or otherwise of Israeli settlements on articles about individual ones, so if you think that should all go, and the article still makes sense, fine. Palmiro | Talk 15:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I think the paragraph mentioning it is fine the way you wrote it. In the Har Homa article in particular, this subject is worth a paragraph for clarity, given the political dispute and campaigns that took place when the neighborhood was created.--Doron 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Better yet?
I was thinking of the Gaza Strip, which is why I didn't write West Bank myself. But thinking about it now, I have a funny feeling that something may have changed there lately... :( Palmiro | Talk 23:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Doran, Can you please add source and copyright information to this image? Otherwise it will eventually be deleted. --Duk 03:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Kahane
From Talk:Israel;
- "Don't kid yourself, less than 10% of Israeli jews voted for anti-zionist parties. Desmond Tutu remains a leftist useful idiot, all the same. Klonimus 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have an uncle who says that anyone who is left of Kahane is a leftist anti-zionist idiot. --saxet 09:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wish he were right.--Doron 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"
- I have an uncle who says that anyone who is left of Kahane is a leftist anti-zionist idiot. --saxet 09:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Of course you don't have to explain yourself in any way to me, I'm just curious. --saxet 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Israel would have been a better place if all those left of Kahane were indeed leftist anti-zionists. Not idiots, though.--Doron 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Doron. I thought you might be interested in improving the Religion in Israel article. Cheers. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Naming conventions for articles on Jews
As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Dispute at Mizrahi Jews
Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with User:Al-Andalus at Mizrahi Jews? It's regarding various wordings, and I'd appreciate some outside opinions. Thanks, Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hebrew languages wikiproject
Wrt to Hebrew and naming conventions, the group's not very active, but you should probably join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages if you're going to work on such articles and proposals. jnothman talk 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Doron 07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
שוא נע
You claim that neither שוא נח nor שוא נע is a vowel. I contend that נע is indeed a vowel (thus the use of נע as in תנועה). It never creates a closed syllable, but nonetheless acts like a vowel in many other respects, making a בגדכפ"ת consonant following it רפה, for instance. Please explain your understanding! jnothman talk 10:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's fairly basic, I'm no linguist, I just remember this stuff from highschool.
- מתוך א. אבן-שושן, המילון העברי המרוכז, מוסף ג', עמ' 921: עיצור שאינו מונע בתנועה מסומן בשוא מתחת לאות... יש שני מיני שווא: א) שווא הנמשך אל התנועה שלפניו -- נקרא "שווא נח", למשל: יצ-חק. ב) שווא הנמשך אל התנועה שלאחריו -- נקרא "שווא נע", למשל: בני, ראה. ... שנים הם הסוגים העקריים של ההברות: א) הברה המסתיימת בתנועה, כלומר, אין אחרי תנועתה עיצור בשווא נח או דגש; היא נקראת "הברה פתוחה"... ב) הברה המסתיימת בעיצור, כלומר אחרי תנועתה בא עיצור בשווא נח, או שבעיצור הסמוך לה בהברה השניה יש דגש חזק... הברה זו היא "הברה סגורה". א
- Thus:
- A shva (either nah or na) is not a vowel (tnu'a).
- A shva that opens a syllable is na, and a shva that closes a syllable is nah
- --Doron 15:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm ready to believe Even Shoshan... Maybe I'll have a look in the library tomorrow. Still, a shva that closes a syllable is nah' is true, but A shva that opens a syllable is na' is not, because a shva never opens a syllable. Nonetheless, what it may be saying is that you often can't determine whether a syllable is open or closed unless you know whether the following shva is na or nah. jnothman talk 08:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's not true -- a shva na opens a syllable. The dictionary gives an example on page 922 in rule §16: יקראו=יק-ראו. The kof has a shva nah and the resh has a shva na, the former closes the first syllable and the latter opens the second syllable.--Doron 08:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm ready to believe Even Shoshan... Maybe I'll have a look in the library tomorrow. Still, a shva that closes a syllable is nah' is true, but A shva that opens a syllable is na' is not, because a shva never opens a syllable. Nonetheless, what it may be saying is that you often can't determine whether a syllable is open or closed unless you know whether the following shva is na or nah. jnothman talk 08:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
From my experience...
Hi Doron, ...the references put in edit summary are destined to be lost. This is regarding [6]. I suggest put it in the text, it belongs there anyway. Cheers. Humus sapiens 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I put (AP, Mar 26, 2002) which seems sufficient to me...--Doron 10:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think I'm the one who inserted the citation request a while ago - thanks for finding it. Ramallite (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome!--Doron 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think I'm the one who inserted the citation request a while ago - thanks for finding it. Ramallite (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Iraqi Jews link
I noticed you "fixed" the Hebrew spelling of Iraqi Jews at the Mizrahi Jews article from "יכודי עירחק" to "יהדות עיראק". Now, it was also obvious to me that the spelling was a bit odd when I wrote it as the title associated to the link, but I was quoting the title as it is written on the site itself. I'm changing it back. Perhaps we should add a "[sic]". Al-Andalus 11:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC).
- No, you've misread, it says "יהודי עיראק". Perhaps the confusion is due to the usage of Rashi script.--Doron 11:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. I was reading it as modern Hebrew cursive script. The Rashi script didn't even occur to me. Still though, on the site it says "Yehudi" not "Yehudit". 'Al-Andalus 10:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC).
Hi Doron,
I don't know if you are interested, but I felt you might be able to make an informed contribution to this article, which is rather inadequate and suffering from a bit of conflict at the moment. Regards, Palmiro | Talk 13:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)