The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. discussion of potential rename can continue on article talk page (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian rabbis

[edit]
Palestinian rabbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After the deletion of Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and other related categories per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis, Chesdovi (talk · contribs) continues his tendentious editing with the creation of an article about a fictional term. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian rabbi", and the term doesn't denote anything. I do not mean the fact that "Palestinian rabbi" may be misunderstood as "Rabbi with Palestinian nationality" or (even more unlikely to happen) "Rabbi of Palestinian ethnicity". These alone are more likely reasons to delete a category, not an article. I mean that the term simply doesn't exist. And the creator and so far sole editor of this article states that himself implicitly in the first sentence "Palestinian rabbis encompasses all rabbis who lived in the region known as Palestine", which is his own made-up definition. In addition, the usage of the term Palestine for this region also is incorrect, since the region has been called by many names through the ages, as has been argued profusely in the Cfd discussion.

This editor has shown that he is relentless in his tendentious editing, as he has shown when protracting the deletion discussion above for two months after initial deletion of that category taking it to all possible places with an Rfc, Drv and finally to Cfd, and has been topic-banned from all pages involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The creation of this article about a term of his own fiction, is just another step in this. Btw, I would have speedied this, but I think it is more proper to go directly to Afd, so that editors may comment on both the article and the editor, and so that I shouldn't be accused (again) by Chesdovi of evading discussion. I recommend reading the long Cfd discussion and perhaps the Rfc (if somebody will temporarily undelete it) to get the proper perspective on both the issue and the editor. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason added later: there is nothing defining (in the sense of setting apart) about an English rabbi compared to, say, a French rabbi, or a Palestinian one. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I seriously doubted that such a minuscule and obviously contrived topic could have garnered any serious coverage in reliable sources, I looked anyway, and found nothing. To my knowledge from the research I have done into this "topic" there has never been an instance of third party coverage or encyclopedic discussion about, "Rabbis," who are in an ambiguously determined way, "from Palestine," neither on the internet nor even a passing mention in a book. This topic wouldn't even deserve a list in my opinion. Lord Arador (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There must be hundreds of books dedicated to the subject matter. Here’s one: [1] How could you have missed the term being used in over 90% of the presented sources? Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is easy to find sources on a similar topic, for example to look up books and articles about certain rabbis, or about rabbi social structure at a certain time, as you presented, in Roman Palestine, it takes more than a simple google search of the article's title to find sources on the actual topic. Sure, those are all worthy topics you presented as sources in and of themselves, but the article in question for deletion is about none of those topics. No, it is about the rabbis themselves, as a specific and continuing socially constructed group that has evolved, "up till modern times." I agree with Debresser's contention that no such continually evolving social group exists. From a systematic viewpoint, the religion Judaism itself has an inheritance of such fundamental changes that no social group, for example living rabbis in the Palestinian area, could claim a direct social evolutionary decent from the "original" rabbis which the article claims to be the tannaim. That line of thought precludes centuries of tribal involvement in Judaism, specifically the Levites, as well as Roman intervention, which astoundingly enough the article makes mention to, and the modern intervention and displacement of the Israelites from the Zion area. All the sources provided by the author of this article and by the supporters for keeping the article should be taken to separate and more appropriate pages, perhaps some new articles can be created from them, but the mishmashing of dozens of topics into one very confusing and misleading article is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Lord Arador (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not support renaming to, let's say, History of rabbis in Palestine? Please also note that nearly all books about sages during the Talmudic era call them Palestinian rabbis. I don't see why such a page needs to be about a continual evolution. It deals with rabbis of Palestine, all rabbis whoever lived in and made Palestine there home are called "Palestinian". They do not need to have "connections" with rabbis of previous generations. In fact they do: They are rabbis who also live in Palestine. Hey presto. The connection! There are indeed a number of topics covered, but the common factor is: Rabbis in Palestine, hence the article name. I cannot see why it is "misleading". As linked below by Nab's comment, there is a book in Hebrew titled: Encyclopedia of the rabbis of the Land of Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article based upon 1 reason: The wide application of the term in reliable sources.
This article is about a historical appellation. Contrary to Debresser’s claim, there is such a thing as rabbis who lived in what was/is termed Palestine, and it is therefore correct classify them “Palestinian rabbis.” And no, I did not “make this up!” Nor is it a "fictional term." Far from it. The term “Palestinian rabbi” is used widely by academia and its extensive usage, particularly among by Jewish and Israeli scholars, provides ample support for retention of this beautifully presented article. Over 90% of the presented sources use the term. Chesdovi (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were rabbis of the Palestinian Patriarchate, there were Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, there were rabbis who wrote the Jerusalem Talmud (which is sometimes called the "Palestinian Talmud"). But to unite all these and more unrelated rabbis under the umbrella "Palestinian rabbis" is a fiction and part of Chesdovi's tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What title would you suggest? Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deletion. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed from the first comment that the problem was the unification of various Palestinian rabbis. Do you suggest splitting the article? Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must have misunderstood my intentions. Nothing to split here. You already created Palestinian Patriarchate, which is a doubtful term in itself, since it seems to me it is also in part an umbrella term, but at least that one was made by certain academic circles. But "Palestinian rabbis" is a no-option deletion imho, per my argument(s) above. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the procees of creating English rabbis. I need to know if you intend to nominate that too for Afd? Chesdovi (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by the same reasoning. There is nothing defining about being an English or French rabbi. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The country a person is from defines that person. I can't see how this is much different from Palestinian Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are different in different countries, with different customs e.g. In this respect, rabbis are like all Jews. So again there is no reason to single out rabbis. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just in English. There are also many book in Hebrew on the subject: [2]. Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sources all use the term to refer to rabbis living in this region in a specific age. Chesdovi made an additional step, uniting all rabbis who ever lived here under this term, and that is fiction.
What do you mean "fiction". Thats what RS call them. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's like having an article called baseball players (note the plural, and note that this is a redirect to Baseball), and saying that that is a meaningful article because there have been notable baseball players who have each in their own right been called "baseball player", but that doesn't mean that there is something defining setting apart baseball players from other sportsmen. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. But also note that Baseball players is a redirect because Baseball alone can accomodate it. But this article cannot be merged into rabbis as it deals extensivley with the rabbis of Palestine only. I have had a potter around wiki and it seems all such similar titled pages, e.g. "Italian artists" are redirects to "List of Italain artists" instead. Many also have a separate page called Italian art too. But this page is still acceptable, just like Greek scholars in the Renaissance is. Chesdovi (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below to Alansohn, at best this article is a content fork of Palestinian Jews. I have no problem at all with a merge of relevant content in to that article. I do appreciate that you have done a lot of work. I just think that this article with the name "Palestinian rabbis" has not right of existence. But the information could definitely be merged. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is our policy to delete articles about non-existing entities. See my previous post. Perhaps you should try and reread the reason for nomination. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have clearly been many rabbis in Palestine so your point is counter-factual. And, in any case, existence is not necessary for our topics - see Russell's teapot. Warden (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not so. This article is just a historical overview of people who were rabbis in a certain area, which was sometimes called Palestine. Viewed as such, it is a content fork of Palestinian Jews. And I can't escape the thought that you should take into account that this article is part of Chesdovi's tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to avoid linking directly to Google books now for similar reasons but you're seem to be going too far in deprecating ISBNs. These are subject to an ISO standard and are assigned by an international agency and so seem quite neutral. The way that we link them lets the reader decide whether to use Google Books, Amazon, World Cat, Goodreads, &c... Warden (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason so many books are linked is so that it can be seen that all these books contain the words "Palestinian rabbi" in them, something Debresser wants to gloss over. All the recent chief rabbis of the UK have used the term to describe such rabbis, as have prominent Jewish historians such as Cecil Roth. It is also used in the translation of many religious Jewish texts as I presented at the Rfc. Yet Debresser claims the term is used by a "minority" and is a "fictional term". What lies I tell you! Chesdovi (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a ton of orthdox jews living in Palestine that are happy and well and identify as Palestinian and oppose Zionism. Ignoring reality isn't what wikipedia is about.Longthicknosnip (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do yo not see that this is precisely like an article American baseball players? Which surely you would disagree with, saying that there is no reason to single out American baseball players from others. And that the article would at best be a collection of unrelated information about each American baseball player. That is precisely what this is! There is nothing defining about being a Palestinian rabbi as opposed to a Belgian one. Nor is there any connection between the information in the different sections of this article.
Palestinian rabbi's wore tabooshes and spoke Arabic. They wrote discourses, instructed their flock and had a hand in the evolution of the community's customs as influenced by their location in Palestine. Belgian rabbis ate chocolates and spoke Flemish. They wrote discourses, instructed their flock and had a hand in the evolution of the community's customs as influenced by the local Belgian culture. If someone wrote an article about American baseball players I am sure it would be as fascinating as this one. Hopefully it would be more comprehensive than let's say Australian rugby league premiers or Australian Living Treasures. Maybe something along the lines of Greek scholars in the Renaissance... Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a very brief search I found Baseball America, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Baseball Writers Association of America, History of baseball in the United States and American Baseball Coaches Association, which perhaps begin to allay any anxiety about American baseball players. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I have mentioned that the information in this article would better be merged into Palestinian Jews, saying that at best this article is a content fork of that more general article. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian Jews in its current form is in no way "more general", being limited to the last couple of centuries and mired in disputes about nomenclature. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that "pro-Israel editors" and "politically motivated" were not in reference to me. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in reference to those who object to the term "Palestinian". My position is that to object to the word "Palestinian" is normally evidence of (a) a pro-Israel view, and (b) a political view.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Why did Debresser not nominate Category:Palestinian monks for deletion? Are these early Christian monks connected with the modern political entity? No! If the term Palestinian is "confusing", it should be confusing for everyone, not just Jewish rabbis. Debresser can try and explain the various reasons why he only nominates for deletion Palestinian categories about Jews, but by doing so, he has effectively shown himself to being politically motivated. Does the same "problem" arise with many other country/region specific categories. Why are Italian rabbis called so if when they lived, Italy was not called Italy?! But Debresser only finds a problem with "Palestinian". Clearly an attempt to sever the connection of Jews in the Holy Land with the historical term Palestine. Why? Because Palestine represents the enemy of the modern state of Israel? What nonsense! Chesdovi (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys, let's try to keep the conversation civil. I am sure that Debresser's motivations were sincere, and his suggestion to delete this article was out of ignorance rather than malice. As he clearly states in his opening argument, he was unaware that there really was a clearly defined group of rabbis from historical Palestine who made specific contributions to Judaism. Perhaps now that he has been exposed to the arguments he will revise his opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa, please don't be denigrating. My ignorance is actually your lack of understanding. There may have been rabbis, even groups, that is not being questioned. But calling all of the unrelated rabbis and group by one umbrella name is a product of fiction. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you felt my remarks were denigrating. I do urge you to reread the article, which, I believe, makes pretty clear that it is not about a bunch of "unrelated rabbis" but about a consistent school of thought over a number of centuries that had a decisive impact on the Jewish religion. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I do respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree with it. But yes, the article is the touchstone. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Prove that not only have single rabbis been called Palestinian, but that "Palestinian rabbis" is the collective name for all rabbis who ever lived in this area, and there you go. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is absurd: Provide a source that mentions that all Popes from Poland are collectively referred to as Polish… The lead does not need references if the main body of the articles contains the necessary sources. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After this commentary, you must now admit that this article must be deleted. There is no article Polish popes! And for the very same reason I have been repeating here without much success so far, until you of all people now agree with me: there is nothing more than coincidence connecting "Polish" and "popes", just like there is nothing connecting "Palestinian" and "rabbi", apart from a coincidental period of the one living in the other (and often for only a minor part of his active life). Debresser (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be able to live with a list called List of rabbis who ever lived in Palestine, even though that would be problematic as well because of the fatc that the term "Palestine" was only sometimes the official name of this area. I vastly prefer the term "Land of Israel" in this respect. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why Debresser thinks Polish popes is an outlandish suggestion is strange. Is it just as valid as this page. And, notwithstanding his “vastly preferred” term Land of Israel, the proposal that he could “bring himself to live with” is merely a suggestion to replace all this source material with a list of Palestinian rabbis, which I encourage him to produce. Chesdovi (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Roman times "Palestine" has always been an acceptable and comprehensible name for the area, whether or not "official", whereas "land of Israel" can only be an anachronism thinly concealing a POV push. The only other name I can think of which has real historical validity is "Holy Land", which was possibly the majority term in pre-1947 English. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case this is not the issue here. The issue is that there is no term collectively describing rabbis who lived in the Holy Land during all kinds of ages as "Palestinian rabbis", and that this article therefore describes a non-existing entity, and as Chesdovi has no agreed to should therefore not exist. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes thing are just too patently obvious, I wonder what exactly the problem is. The place was known as Palestine. Therefore any groups of people from there are naturally called Palestinian. End of discussion. Just like medieval rabbis who lived in Ottoman ruled Damascus are called Syrian rabbis. Just like medieval rabbis monks who lived in Ottoman ruled Palestine are called Palestinian monks. Enough of this bunkum. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria. What did you request a ref for? That the term is applied to rabbis who lived in Palestine? There is no dearth.... Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see why you disagreed with the Polish popes point, as there has only ever been one. But let's use Polish rabbis instead. There is enough material out there to put together a comprehensive article about Polish rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP. The issue here is not whether or not there were rabbis in that geographic area. The issue is whether or not the term "Palestinian rabbi" exists. There are cats in America; that doesn't make them "American cats". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually checked the source here, over 90% of whcih use the term!! Here's a source that shows that rabbis Palestine are called "Palestinian rabbis":
This study also examines rabbis who lived in Palestine under Roman domination from the late first century CE, the approximate date of our earliest reliable rabbinic sources, until the eighth century CE the approximate date of the final editing of the latest classical midrashim. This book refers to Palestinian rabbis of the first, second and early third centuries CE as Tannaim…. [3]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
African elephant, African Forest Elephant, North African Elephant, Borneo Elephant, Chinese elephant, Javan elephant, Indian Elephant, Sri Lankan Elephant, Syrian Elephant, Sumatran Elephant. Now shall we start with Cats in the United States? Chesdovi (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your elephant-example is irrelevant, that's what's they're indeed called; "Cats in the United States" is not the same as "American cats", don't pretend that you don't know the difference. I would have no problem with "Rabbis in Palestine" or some such; this is about the deployment of the adjective — do you understand now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
African elephant is a species of elephant in Africa. Elephants in African cover all species of elephants in Africa. Both are valid, as are Rabbis in Palestine and Palestinian rabbis. Has it slipped you attention that over 90% of the articles sources use the term “Palestinian Rabbi” as shown in the above quote? You will see that most Category:Rabbis by country use the adjective as a prefix, as do most other similarly named categories when describing people from various region/countries. We should keep page names consistent, don’t you think? If you still prefer Rabbis in Palestine, why do you still want this material to be deleted? Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough; so rename it. You know quite well that it is not as easy with adjectives in that particular part of the world, and when it comes to animals, there isn't really a misunderstanding possible: no-one would think that an African elephant is black and speaks Swahili or whatever. "Palestinian" these days, to most people at least, applies to speakers of Arabic in the area. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a 2011 media outlet. It is to inform and educate people. Sure, some terms have different meanings for different people, but that does not preclude us from using such terms in a way that the majority of contemporary RS do. There is no question that the historic term for the region in English usage is Palestine. It is therefore correct and proper to call historic people from there Palestinian, as do all reputable RS who mention such people. I constantly come across the term when reading Judaic works as I presented at the Rfc. Do you? Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that American rabbis also called their brethren in Palestine Palestinian: Ezras Torah Fund for Relief of European and Palestinian Rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of David Ben-Gurion: “Rabbi Yitzhak of Acre was not the only Palestinian scholar to leave the country in this period". Chesdovi (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warning, Polish rabbis is a piped link to List of Polish rabbis. As I said before, I'd have no problem with a list, but there simply isn't such a thing as a collective term "Palestinian rabbis". Debresser (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above proves quote you wrong. Rabbis (note plural) from Palestine are known as "Palestinian rabbis". Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there was a Palestinian identity before the state of Israel came into excistence. People clung to their tribe, not to a national identity. Deletion is my prefered choice, but renaming it to "Category:People living in the pre-1948 territory named Palestina" could also be possible. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Academic sources refer to such people as Palestinian. Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources. And only to individuals, not as a group spanning two millennia. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The vast majority of sources, to individuals and groups, and from all eras. Debresser really does himself a dis-service here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not so. Only to individuals or closely connected groups of rabbis. Nobody perceives rabbis in this area for the last 2000 years as one group. Because they weren't. Some belonged to a Gaonate, other were Talmudic rabbis, yet other medieval kabbalists, others chassidic masters, yet others were early or later settlers of Israel. Most lived only part of their productive lives in this area. There is nothing in common between them justifying this general name. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all fall under one general term as documented in the RS: Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NotBW: Please note this is not a category! :-) Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, my mistake. But in fact it does not alter my opinion about removal or renaming. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are for rename to Rabbis living in the pre-1948 territory named Palestina. I could possibly go with that. Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) We should not have articles like "People of occupation X living in region Y". Which is precisely why this article should go. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just said above "I'd have no problem with a list." Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point above was that this article is not about a random collection of rabbis, who happened to live in CysJordan. My point is that the rabbinical schools mentioned in the article constitute a unified historical tradition. The rabbis themselves, as well as the Jewish residents of the region, viewed themselves this way. The Massoretes considered themselves the continuation of the Tannaim, and the movement to reestablish smikha, discussed in the section "Attempt to revive ordination" was an effort to formalize the chain of tradition and authority which was informally recognized by all the rabbis of the region.
In this sense, the article is not at all like Notable musicians from Vienna, which is a list of musicians who happened to have their home in Vienna. Chesdovi's example of Cats in the United States is unfortunate.
Since the importance of this continuity - which is supported by the sources - is not apparent to those who suggest deletion of this article, I urge the editors who created it to revise it to strengthen this aspect of the Palestinian rabbinical tradition. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I should add that the above is true for all except the last section on "Palestinian Rabbinate". While the Sephardic chief rabbi calls himself the "Rishon Lezion", that is, heir to the rabbinical tradition stemming from the mid 17th century, the Ashkenazic chief rabbi has his roots in the European rabbinical tradition. Both these posts were established by the British mandatory rulers and are continued today by the state of Israel, but only the sephardic rabbi considers himself a continuation of the Palestinian rabbinical tradition. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The point of view brought forth by Ravpapa is untrue. I dare him to bring prove for it. Attempts to revive ordination were an attempt at reviving a tradition that was specifically considered broken (see Rabbinical_ordination#The_decline_of_classical_semikhah). Likewise, no rabbi in Israel will see himself a continuation of any local tradition that predates Yosef Karo (16th century). Nor could he, since there were times that Israel was all but void of Jewish inhabitants (let alone leading rabbis). Debresser (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known that the Jews claim connection to Palestine by dint of the presence of earlier generations of Jews who resided there. They see themselves as a continuation of the original Palestinian Jews, even though they came there from all over the globe in the late 19th-century. What Debresser just wrote seems to enforce the assumption that the connection was indeed broken since the land was for periods devoid of Jews and that today’s Jews are not related in any way to the Jews of yore. I can tell you that many an Arab will harbour the same sentiment: No Jew in Israel should see himself as a continuation of Jewish people who lived there before the 19th century since at times the land was devoid of Jews... So by what right do Jews claim Israel? I suggest Debresser read 2004 attempt to revive the Sanhedrin which shows that rabbis in Israel see themselves as heirs to the great Palestinian Academies of old. Chesdovi (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, had you called my contentions incorrect, I could have ignored you. But when you write that it is untrue, you are suggesting that I am not ignorant, but a liar. Not surprisingly, I find that offensive.
Because your remarks are insulting, I do not intend to make a detailed reply. Instead, I simply grabbed the nearest book at hand, A History of the Jews by Grayzel. Here is what he says:
"In some respects the interests of the Jews of Palestine differed from those of Babylonia. The latter were more concerned with the legal part of the Jewish tradition; the Palestinians favored the poetic and imaginative. This tendency, dating from very early times, was strengthened..."
This is, of course, a very superficial explanation of the nature of the Palestinian rabbinical tradition. I don't think your remarks merit any more detailed research, though, as I said above, I do think the editors who created this article should devote more of the article to this aspect. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that quote show that has to do with the present discussion? Sorry, but I fail to see your point.
I had no intention to imply anything by choosing the word "untrue" over "incorrect". But it is still incorrect.
I am familiar with that article, and do not see there anything contradicting what I said, that there is no continuation of any "Palestine" tradition, just of a rabbinical tradition.
Nor could there be, as I have told you above, because there have been periods with negligible Jewish communities in the Holy Land.
Note that the discontinuity argument is not my main argument. My main argument is the one above that. It is just an additional observation of historic fact invalidating your assertions. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But presumably the discontinuity is enough ot cause Debresser to wish to delete History of the Jews in the Land of Israel? (I would argue for "Palestine" in that case). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even begin to see what you're trying to say. Probably because it is something really not to the point. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rabbis of Palestine have a monopoly on ordination, and it is only able to be reinstated in Palestine. If it was a mere rabbinical traction, it could have been revived in anywhere. Ordination is the sole prerogative of Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Ordination is the prerogative of rabbis who have received ordination themselves in the Land of Israel. That is the most precise wording, based upon Jewish sources. Don't forget I am a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maimonides' view was that ordination could be reinstituted only with the consent of all the sages of Eretz Israel. The geder of what "of Eretz Israel" is, I do not know, but posiibly along the lines of intent for permanent residence, or even a residence of 30 days suffices. Ie. they need to be Eretz-Isralian, or in common english, Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term denotes individual rabbis residing in the Land of Israel, and even that only in certain sources. There is no collective usage if this term for all rabbis, as this article by its very name suggests. So it should go. And do you remember the Polish popes argument? Debresser (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain "There is no collective usage if this term for all rabbis":
“Palestinian rabbis were undoubtedly aware of this new religion, particularly in the fourth century” - Calendar and community: a history of the Jewish calendar, second ... - Page 226.
“There was a minority of "infidels" in Egypt too, including some outstanding Palestinian rabbis who had settled there”- Gershom Gerhard Scholem - 1978
“Among the opponents of the Sabbatian agitation in Egypt were Palestinian rabbis who had settled there” - Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676 - Page 642. Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certain sources? What do you mean by "certain sources"? I have come across the term in a plethora of RS in a wide variety of literature. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, with all due respect. It seems you don't understand my English. I'll repeat it just once more.: those quotes of yours refer to specific rabbis or small groups of rabbis. But there is no collective term "Palestinian rabbis" for all rabbis who lived in this area for the last 2000 years. It is a thing you made up. Very much like writing an article about Palestinian flora. There would be no connection between the entities in such an article which set them out as being "Palestinian". Debresser (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Palestinian flora would be a perfectly fine topic for an article. Zerotalk 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is none. We could perhaps agree upon some desciptive term, though. Now, I don't feel you or I are adding anything new to this discussion, so please stop repeating yourself. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“There is none. We could perhaps agree upon some descriptive term, though.” Funny, in Hebrew they are called חכמי ארץ־ישראל. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT YOU MUST ANSWER: You said: "There is no collective term "Palestinian rabbis" for all rabbis who lived in this area for the last 2000 years. It is a thing you made up.” Tell me, is there a collective term for all rabbis who lived in Spain, France or Poland during the past 1,300 years? If yes, prove it. If not, we delete all “Rabbi” categories. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. I must nothing. Please take a little more modest position. 2. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Cfd_for_Category:Jews_by_country where I already replied to this ludicrous suggestion that you should study Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. 3. "Palestine" in the sense you are using it here is not a country, so there is no connection. 4. Please stop posting and repeating old arguments. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It is someone trying to push a point of view that has already been deleted by wikipedia repeatedly and after weeks of debate. It appears that there were many categories with similar phrasing deleted after weeks of debate. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia, not a soap box for someone to push a cause. --Provimento (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi African. PS. How does a day-old editor go from Peter Gotti to this page in 14 minutes? PPS. Where do you get the "Strong" from? Are you already that familiar with wiki? PPPS. Did you not notice in the nomination that a distinction was made between categories and pages? Also, it's interesting tht I have only been accused of "pushing" by one other editor. And the cause is adherance to WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. When in the past 2,000 years has the name of the region been known by non-Jews as the Land of Israel? Did Omar call it that? Maybe the Crusaders did. Hang on, was it Suliman? Maybe under the rule of Mohammed Pasha? No, the Brits called it Israel. Well they did, didn't they - as an abbr: E"I? Funny how the usual translation of the DoI refers to Palestine... Chesdovi (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the number of edits a person has made with intent to diminish their perceived significance is an ad hominem argument. Ornithikos (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When a person makes a new account and immediately jumps in to an AfD, that tends to point in a certain direction. Informing others of that may be ad hominem, but appropriate nonetheless. nableezy - 08:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is the region is not known historically in RS as "Israel", otherwise there would be no problem calling these rabbis "Israeli Rabbis". You will find no sources about "Israeli Imams" before 1948. Chesdovi (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More