User talk:Benami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Benami, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conservadox Judaism

Looks good! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism help request

I'm sorry about that. Not really a next step; if he continues vandalizing he'll be blocked again. Looks like he stopped after being warned, but if he continues I or another administrator will block him. Let me know if you have any problems. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Jewish/Non-Christian in circumcision article

In the context, replacing "non-Christian" with "non-Muslim" doesn't really make sense and, indeed, the fact of the matter is that Muslims do not use the term "uncircumcised" to mean non-Muslims. It just isn't the issue in Islam that it is in Judaism and was in Christianity during apostolic times: yes, it's urged on Muslims as a matter of ritual cleanliness, but it isn't a rite of passage in itself (though it is strongly urged that boys be circumcised before adolescence when they are expected to begin performing ritual ablutions associated with daily prayer). One can be a Muslim without being circumcised, after all -- at least a great many pre-adolescent boys are.Masalai 01:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't make much sense to include a reference to uncircumcision meaning, metaphorically, non-Christian, but only because it is extremely rare. (St Paul makes a bit of a song and a dance over "circumcision of the heart" -- of course, a term he brings from his Jewish background but that's neither here nor there in the circumstances.) My point is that it isn't used to mean non-Muslim at all. So it seems to me that either the reference to "non-Christian" should be restored (but, as you say, it's so obscure and rare as to be meaningless) or, much better, take it out altogether. The only really meaningful reference is to Judaism. Masalai 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, rare though the term is outside the New Testament, it is used there with some frequency in reference to non-believers. Maybe it should stay after all. I did take the liberty to edit very modestly a little further, though, to change "it" to "uncircumcised" since as the article stood it read, "As a religious term, [an uncircumcised penis] describes someone not Jewish, or considerably less commonly, a non-Christian. As used in the New Testament, it can refer to non-believers of either gender, regardless of physical circumcision. Odd that no one picked that out before, but the edit-warriors in respect of this topic don't seem vastly burdened by a sense of humour. Masalai 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. OK, all right. I can go with it coming out altogether, leaving only the sentence (as edited by me [supra] re: "As used in the New Testament...." You go ahead and, as it were, circumcise the paragraph :) Masalai 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so we're ad idem. Though actually, I've slightly edited anyway, by way of further clarification: "As a religious term, uncircumcised' describes someone not Jewish, or, metaphorically and considerably less commonly, a non-Christian." As for "it," well, as I say -- a sense of humour is not something this crew are over-burdened with. "Snip, snip"? As far as I know, one snip is all it takes if you know what you're doing! :) Masalai 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue arises again

A foolish "edit war" is going on in the article "penis" (leaving aside the apparently several-times-daily necessity to delete kids' vandalism): the same two photos that were supposely illustrative of circumcision in the "circumcision" article and which between the two of us we renamed -- they are in that article too. Care to weigh in with your opinion? I appear to be in the minority. Masalai 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I hope

I hope you don't mind the dumb guy too much the way I brought him in. I think the genuine point that he raises, as well as the humorous factor, validate him staying there. Dabljuh 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do. I invoke Godwin's law, and will be removing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler pic

I think it's offensive. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recreated deleted cat

Noting your last Delete vote, have you seen Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_12#Category:Films_notable_for_historical_inaccuracy? Please consider voting Speedy delete. Thanks.--Mais oui! 03:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think it's probably time...

Feel free to contribute here as you see fit. Tom e r ^talk 13:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now the RFC there is in the evidence-gathering stage. Feel free to comment on the talk page there or to add additional material in the appropriate sections of the RFC under development, or to add new sections as necessary. I'm not planning to put it to the community until after Shabath, although if Jakew feels it's ready sometime during Shabath here (in Wisconsin), I'm not going to stop him. Tom e r ^talk 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know. Tom e r ^talk 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brit milah

Benami, I just noticed you were editing the section on 'The anti-circumcision movement' in brit milah. It occurs to me that section could use a few cited sources. I'm hesitant to go off and find some myself, as since I'm not Jewish and don't know the subject matter enough to know which sources are credible and which aren't. When you have some time, could you either a) do so, or b) assess some if I do? Regards, Jakew 23:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. I'll see what I can find and will let you know.

As for your question regarding Dabljuh's message, like some of the other messages, it explains what I oppose so perfectly. I prefer not to criticise people themselves (opinions are fair game), but rather let them show their true colours. Regards Jakew 11:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hebrew text on WP

I just type Hebrew normally...when I have to use niqudhoth, I head over to nikkud and copy/paste them where I need them. Tom e r ^talk 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yep

I agree :) Dabljuh 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a truckload of sources for the "Too many circumcisions for phimosis etc" thing: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Estimated time spent for searching for them: <1 minute. Estimated time spent for writing this: 5 minutes.

I don't see much sense in adding a source to every freaking sentence. Why not just *ask* for sources on the talk page, when one needs them so badly, instead of removing material from the page first? Dabljuh 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision

Could you take a look at the article? It's been reverted to a far more POV version. I don't want to get too close to three reverts... Jakew 12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but don't worry. I'm sure the kids must have been a nice change. :) Jakew 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catedral da sé and Catedral da Sé

Thank you for the translation at Catedral da sé! However, shouldn't the article be at Catedral da Sé? That one had the same translation problem. To give you proper credit for the translation, the easiest way would be if you just copy-and-paste it there and replace Catedral da sé by a redirect. (For a proper page move we'd need an administrator, but with so little page history this will be fine). Thank you and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 11:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are right

But keep calm, friend. The wheels are in motion, the community seems to be in agreement, and it won't be long before he's dealt with. Jakew 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, it is quite ridiculous. I'd agree the wheels could use a little oil, but c'est la vie. Perhaps the ArbCom elections are taking people's attention from other issues. Dabljuh's certainly not responding to the RFC in a way that indicates good faith, or any inclination to change his ways, so I think the next step is probably a request for arbitration. It's probably sensible to leave that for a couple of weeks for the elections to be finished and for the new arbitrators to settle in. Jakew 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a great way with words, you know. :) Jakew 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting comment

Earlier, you explained to me that Judaism was not an actively expanding Religion (like Christianity and Islam) but I think this comment refuses that notion as it displays the support of circumcision vital and necessary to the "spread" of Judaism, if I understand correctly. Care to comment? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dabljuh#Outside_view_by_IZAK (On my talk page or right there) Dabljuh 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed answer. My question is, do you figure that circumcision is so vitally important to judaism, that it cannot be delayed to the individual getting 18 years or so? According to the medical data, my judgement on the issue is that the risk is simply too great. I remember somewhat reading somewhere that the bible (or torah?) says, if two of your kids die of circumcision, the third one may go uncircumcised? So even the bible acknowledges that circumcision is risky. Look, I don't think americans or jews or other people are particularly barbaric, I simply consider them ignorant of the medical issues. It only becomes barbaric when the practice is continued despite better knowledge. Dabljuh 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To explain with a more personal slant: I have been baptized as an infant, catholic upbringing and all that. Nowadays I consider this a violation of my personal freedom of religion. I did not consent to be baptized, I did not choose to be baptized, I was simply - spiritually - raped, to adopt this faith. Nowadays I consider myself a progressive libertarian secular humanist, and while I can see the perceived necessity to have an initiation rite of one's parent's faith, I do believe that this procedure should have been delayed until I was old enough to decide for myself. How much more worse is the anger that some jews may feel towards judaism or their parents, as they weren't just spiritually violated in their right to choose their own religion, but also physically violated. I have read Kaminzky's Kiebitz over the holidays, and he mentions a lot of self-loathing of jews towards their own people or faith. Dabljuh 20:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I see. Well, aside from the ~60 billion laws from the bible that just can't be uphold nowadays (stoning of disobedient children or unfaithful wives etc), the health of the baby could demand a delay - to the 18th or so birthday. Dabljuh 00:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope you will never lose a child because of circumcision. Dabljuh 00:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "this is not limited to Mizrahi communities"

You made this edit to Shalom. I was curious as to where, other than in Mizrahi/Sefardi communities "עַלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם" is used. Notably, you changed "Alav hashalom is a phrase particularly used in Mizrahi Jewish communities" to "Alav hashalom is a phrase particularly used in some Jewish communities" which does not make sense. This is why I used the word particularly: as far as I could tell, it was not particularly common outside of the Mizrahi communities. jnothman ^talk 23:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my assumption was probably WP:OR, but I had certainly not heard the phrase used in most Ashkenazi communities, where ZA"L or ZATZA"L are prefered. jnothman ^talk 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And A"H is used liturgically with regard to the patriarchs, who certainly get no lack of honorifics. jnothman ^talk 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

is ZA"L just ז"ל and ZATZA"L זצ"ל? or are there some extra letters in there as well? Do Ashkenazim say "zal" and "zatzal"? I've heard plenty of Ashkenazim say "zikhrono livrakha" and "zekher tzadiq livrakha" (usually with the stress on the wrong syllable and strange pronuciations for כ and ר), but not "zal" or "zatzal"...but then again when I hear Ashkenazim speaking Hebrew my head is usually spinning trying to figure out what they're saying. :-p Also, it's prolly OR here, and I'm not entirely certain, but I think I've also heard Ashkenazim saying ע"ה, and plenty of times by Sfaraðim. BTW, the edit joel cites above makes the sentence in question read rather disjointedly... Tom e r ^talk 07:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, generally these aren't spoken as "Zal" and "Zatzal", I just think I didn't have a Hebrew keyboard at the time. When I use my full name with family addition in being called to the torah, I use "zatzal" though, instead of the full expansion. jnothman ^talk 08:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good...not sure that new comma is necessary tho, but I'll stop picking nits. :-) Tom e r ^talk 09:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the comma was an accident. jnothman ^talk 10:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insertion of photos

Could I enlist your assistance in inserting photos in an assortment of articles having to do with the District of Assiniboia (pre-1905) and the province of Saskatchewan (post 1905)? The photos are on the University of Saskatchewan library website and are long past their copyright date. The articles...well, I can tell you and you can take me by the hand, or you can just instruct me and I can take it from there. At present, alas, I don't have the editing skills necessary to insert them in their proper places. I ask you because you have intervened in the past in respect of certain of my offerings but with a degree of common courtesy that appears, alas, often to be somewhat lacking. Or perhaps, if you aren't entirely au fait, you could refer me to someone who is. I am loathe to invite a nasty attack, as seems to be the accepted way of doning things among the experts in here! Kind regards. Masalai 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altar of Prothesis merge into Liturgy of Preparation

Sorry for the month long delay from when you placed the merge tags on the two pages. I agree with your analysis and have since merged the two articles. Altar of Prothesis is now a redirect to Liturgy of Preparation. I hope everything is to your satisfaction. If you have any disagreements, please don't hesitate to talk to me at my talk page. Kareeser|^Talk! 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiddush Club up for deletion

Hi, because you worked on the article itself, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddush Club (2nd nomination). Thank you. IZAK 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aposthia

Please see the discussion page on Talk:Aposthia, regarding your change of "Sabbath" to "Shabbat" Ð’n^talk 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contact info

Hi Benami: How have you been? You have not enabled your Wikipedia Email feature in your "tool box" on the left hand side of your user page. Sometimes editors overlook that when it's a useful way of staying in touch with other editors. Best wishes. IZAK 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship in Portugal

Hi, welcome to the effort.Galf 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/n/User_talk%7EBenami_2fb9.html"