- 1 Demographic history of Jerusalem
- 2 History of ancient Israel and Judah
- 3 sources
- 4 Khirbet Qeiyafa
- 5 Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription
- 6 Our edits
- 7 Khirbet Qeiyafa
- 8 Your recent edits
- 9 Sorry, but what does this refer to?
- 10 July 2012
- 11 Dispute at Jews
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for August 23
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for September 5
- 14 Your recent edits
- 15 Talkback
- 16 Ahaz
- 17 Citation styles
- 18 Disambiguation link notification for September 12
- 19 Talk page guidelines
- 20 Talk:Jerusalem
- 21 Vandals
- 22 Genetic data
- 23 Ashkenazi Jews
- 24 Proposal for change
- 25 Formal mediation has been requested
- 26 Re: Jasenovac-HRT
- 27 Operation Pillar of Defense CNN/ORC Poll
- 28 Request for mediation rejected
- 29 Update
- 30 Request for comment
- 31 Disambiguation link notification for December 13
- 32 Request for comment
- 33 RfArb: Jerusalem
- 34 I have a concern
- 35 Response
- 36 Since this involves you....
- 37 You might want to look at this
- 38 Disambiguation link notification for December 20
- 39 You might be interested in this
- 40 Hey
- 41 Redirect blanking
- 42 Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
- 43 Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
- 44 Question
- 45 Claims Jews are not an ethnic group
- 46 Moderation of Jerusalem RfC
- 47 Your post to me
- 48 Trying to (finally) close the discussion with a conclusion
- 49 Genetics of Lebanon
- 50 ANI
- 51 Crimean Karaites
- 52 Khazars and Antisemites
- 53 Khazar
- 54 Warning
- 55 Again on edit warring on Khazars
- 56 House of Yahweh ostracon
- 57 Disambiguation link notification for September 21
- 58 Disambiguation link notification for October 11
- 59 Whom to address about fixing apparent gap in article?
- 60 Kindly read WP:NPA, then stop violating it.
- 61 How to use talkpages
- 62 Disambiguation link notification for January 25
- 63 March 2014
- 64 Nomination of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel for deletion
- 65 Disambiguation link notification for August 13
- 66 I invite you to a discussion
- 67 Concerning your most recent edit on the article of Ashkenazi Jews autosomal DNA
- 68 FYI
- 69 New Israel Fund
- 70 November 2015
- 71 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 72 I agree
- 73 reporting
- 74 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 75 Please fix the format in Amin al-Husseini
- 76 Edit war warning
- 77 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 78 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Demographic history of Jerusalem
Please explain your changes on Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem - you have reverted reputable sources. If you explain clearly what you are trying to say on the talk page, we should be able to understand each other. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) !
Hy Oncenawhile Yes I made two corrections.Fist I corrected the name of the chapter as all sources given indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority.I don't see any conflicting results given.Second the reference Harrel and Stendel, 1974 was quoted twice,once correctly which I left and second time incorrectly,(showing two different results).I removed it. Third I didn't remove the only source indicating Muslim plurality in section 1830-69: Conflicting estimates regarding Muslim or Jewish plurality ref Yigal Shiloh, 1980 although the page given is nonfunctional. There was one additional quote given which didn't match the source which was given.I would like to see that quote on the page,but given correctly without misleading interpretations
- Hi there - let's continue this conversation here: Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem <= click on the link as i have copied your response over. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
History of ancient Israel and Judah
Hi. Rather than edit-war, it would be better if you took you concerns to the Talk page. My problem, by the way, isn't the content of what you're trying to say, but a feeling that it's a level of detail we can't support in this article. PiCo (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain where this page  backs your claim of "unequivocally stating that the written in Hebrew alphabet (and Hebrew language" as I can't find the word alphabet, but on a related page on the same site  I find "the letters are very archaic in form, in the style known as Proto-Canaanite script." plus two more mentions that it is Proto-Canaanite on that page. There are other sources that say the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription
Hi Dougweller, The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was analyzed by Haifa university scientists(linguists and archeologists).Here is the link to their findings (press release). http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043
University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.
If you have nothing against, I will use this reference, as Haifa university is in the charge of examining this finding.
Considering the site "History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah Iron Age I" The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it, in the section regarding that particular archeological period.
We seem to be drifting into an edit war again, and I think we both want to avoid that.
Let me set out my basic points:
- The History of Ancient ISrael and Judah article has to make only broad general points, because it's got 2000 years of history to get through in about a thousand words. Individual archaeological finds can only be mentioned if they're extremely important - most of the time, we should put down what scholars are generally agree on as to the course of the history of these two states.
- On the inscription the case is more complicated. Please be very careful in your use of sources - there are many in Israel and America who want to prove a case, either that David existed or that he did not. Many people, even scholars, are quite sincere in putting forward their views, but allow their commitment to their case to colour their views. We need to restrict ourselves to the agreed facts, and to present major viewpoints, but without entering into controversy or seeming to support one interpretation over another.
(A little later) This is an excellent example of what I mean: You have just made this edit to History of Ancient Israel/Judah:
- During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed. This is reflected by archaeological sites and findings such as the Broad Wall, defensive city wall in Jerusalem, Hezekiah's Tunnel, an aqueduct designed to provide Jerusalem with water during an impending siege by the Assyrians, led by Sennacherib. Siloam Inscription, lintel inscription, found over the doorway of a tomb, has been ascribed to his comptroller Shebna. LMLK seals on storage jar handles, excavated from strata formed by Sennacherib's destruction as well as immediately above that layer suggesting they were used throughout his 29-year reign, and Bullae from sealed documents, some that belonged to Hezekiah himself, while others name his servants. King Ahaz's Seal is a well-preserved piece of reddish-brown clay that belonged to King Ahaz of Judah, who ruled from 732 to 716 BCE. The seal contains not only the name of the king, but the name of his father, King Yehotam. In addition, Ahaz is specifically identified as "king of Judah." The Hebrew inscription, which is set on three lines, reads as follows: "l'hz*y/hwtm*mlk*/yhdh", which translates as "belonging to Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah.
I have no objection to saying "During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed", and your referenced source is a valid one. But I see no reason for all the supporting detail: if someone of Carr's stature says that we see a notable increase in the power of the Judean state in the reign of Hezekiah, I'll take his word for it. PiCo (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is something you may challenge. There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections.
We are speaking about the The History of Ancient Israel and Judah and we are speaking about IRON AGE=ARCHEOLOGY
- I have to confess that I simply do not understand what you're saying. Let me take your points one by one:
- This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. First, the article on the history of ancient Israel and Judah is NOT the "only site" (I think you mean article) where we can show what has been archaeologically verified" from these two kingdoms. There are other articles which are specifically about the archaeology of the kingdoms. This one is about history.
- As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is one of the sentences that I simply do not understand. Are you saying that the section on the Iron Age uses archaeology and the others use the bible? This simply isn't so: the section on the Iron Age does make reference to the bible, and the other sections equally make reference to archaeology. What do you mean?
- There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections. No places on Wiki to summarise the archaeology? There are many articles on the archaeology of the two kingdoms! There's one on Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and there's one on Biblical archaeology, and there are others also. Nor is the Iron Age "strictly archaeological" - the bible's Book of Joshua and Book of Judges are about the Iron Age I period, and the Books of Samuel and Kings are about Iron Age I and II respectively. Again I don't see what you mean.
- As I've said before, and perhaps you missed it, my problem with your edits is to do with the way you approach writing - I actually agree with you about the historicity of the kingdoms, but we don't need all this detail. PiCo (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Pico's point about detail. As for the inscription, there are two aspects (besides its content and significance). One is the language it is written in, which may be Hebrew. The other is the script, which is so far as I can see not suggested to be Hebrew but Proto-Canaanite or perhaps Phoenician. It's 'Hebrew writing' just as this is 'English writing', but 'French writing' uses the same script as we are using right now. None of your sources have suggested a Hebrew script, and your latest edit will just confuse the reader. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I will listen to your advice and I will not further edit that particular site, especially that I after my posts it was made much more objective. My further role in this issue is to watch for how long the current balanced presentation on that site will last. I have nothing against different opinion, that was the main reason why I was upset with the fact that Hebrew university/Haifa university opinion was totally erased from that site, replaced with non accessible sites and questionable quotes which likely do not represent the opinion of authors, they were credited with.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but what does this refer to?
Tritomex, I'm sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to follow what you're saying. This is the message you elft me:
We had this discussion regarding this subject and our edits were examined by administrator who removed my contribution regarding Elah fortress, while the section regarding Iron Age II was left. I consider that arbitration as fair and I adhered to this suggestion. However, you further removed some basic facts reflecting the history of ancient Judah and Israel from iron age II, which were left standing after the arbitration. Removing whole section is not the way, we can find compromise fairly on this issue. If you think that any posts are problematic, reflect on that particular detail and do not remove the whole sections.
I agree that we should try to work together, and I believe we can - but I don't even know what article you're referring to. What whole section did I remove, and from what article? PiCo (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- 21:06, 5 November 2011 PiCo (talk | contribs) (60,122 bytes) (Undid revision 459109804 by Tritomex (talk)Noone doubts the accuracy of this, just the importance.) (undo)
- I think that this revision is problematic, as the site "History of ancient Israel and Judah" was already examined by User:Dougweller, and my contribution regarding the Elah fortress was removed,maybe some sections written by you too.
Yet my edition in the section Iron age II was left to stand. I consider this arbitration a fair solution and a compromise. The archeological facts mentioned by me in this particular sections do not constitute involvement in too much details, as I mentioned only basic findings of fundamental importance.
- If you have any suggestion about any particular archeological findings regarding this section, than write me, and do not remove them altogether --Tritomex (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Your addition to Khirbet Qeiyafa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for reworking this. I've done some copy-editing. We use s lower-case 'b' for 'biblical' (except if quoted with an uppercase, part of a title or the first word of a sentence). See MOS:CAPS. We don't use 'Prof' ever, and even Professor shouldn't be used unless necessary to identify the person (so if there's a link to their article, no need) and then only once. I removed a number of commas also. Read what you write out loud, and if you don't pause, don't put a comma in. At least that's what I do. Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This is just a friendly reminder, which I'm sending to Historylover4 as well. Rather than reverting each other and discussing the disputed content via edit summaries, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Edit warring is always disruptive and contrary to policy, regardless of who is right, who is wrong, and who began the dispute. I have no opinion on the substance of the content at issue, but if the back-and-forth edits continue I'll see what I can do about protecting the article. Rivertorch (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I fully agree with you. My opinion is that Genetic studies and their results should be placed in right section. The article about the origin of Jews was written many years ago and remained unchanged until recently Historylover4 added some of genetic studies, with his conclusions. My latest edition is without any remarks objected by user Historylover4 Tritomex (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Genetic studies on Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three shekel ostracon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jehoash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't just provide links to Google books. We need book title, author, publisher, year, page number and ISBN. There is probably a citation template in the menus above the editing field which will help you (you have to click on not just cite book but 'show extra fields' so you can add the page number or numbers. See also WP:CITE as you have to use the style already used in an existing article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Talk page guidelines
Hi Tritomex. Regarding this edit to the Jerusalem Talk page, please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You should not be editing other people's comments in a way that could be construed as altering its meaning. If you want to respond or add links then do so in your own comment not by editing mine. Regards Dlv999 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Dlv999 I am familiar with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and with all my wish to understand your concerns I do not understand what your objection is. Please clarify your problems with my comments.--Tritomex (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- You edited my comment in a way that seems to me to alter the meaning of my comment. I am asking you not to do it again. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Dlv999 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please notice that my comment is separated from yours by another comment. Certainly it was not my intention to edit your comment. I hope this explanation will satisfy your concern-
Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know where else to put this. Sorry for the delay. I replied to your comment on my page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterWaldo#Vandalization Regarding notifying Wikipedia, that Wikipedia is increasingly a propaganda tool of Islamists, to peddle Islamic so-called tradition as if it were historical, they simply don't seem to care about truth or they would have kicked those guys out long ago. The Islamists are fully aware that the nonsense they posted in the "Bakkah" page is specifically contradicted by scripture they cite as if to support it, but censor the only important part out of the very scripture they cite, to advance what they themselves recognize as a blatant lie! Over and over — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC) PeterWaldo (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you to write your problem as request for comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All
You can also report any violations of Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_dispute_resolution Do not forget to write everything down before on talk page. If there is possibility to resolve the dispute through talk page, this possibility should be used primarily. Best Regards--Tritomex (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow quick reply! I simply don't have time (particularly after the untold hours I spent editing it on so many occasions only to come back months later to find it all erased). Since you have an interest in Jerusalem I would think it might be a topic that might interest you. Their claim is that Psalms 84 reference to Jews pilgrimage to the temple YHVH had them build on the temple mount IN ZION, is actually about God's people wandering across 1400 kilometers of unknown, untraveled, uncharted desert from Jerusalem to Mecca, to march around the Kaaba in Saudi Arabia 7 times, and then wander 1400 kilometers back to Jerusalem, most of 1,000 years before the first caravan was able to travel along the Red Sea in Arabia. I'm a bit too busy trying to help Jesus save Muhammad's followers, to spend my time trying to save Wikipedia.PeterWaldo (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am certain that such genetic study was not made until now. Considering the haplogropups distribution in Kashmir the pair-wise genetic distances between Kashmiri People and Jewish populations is likely huge, with little possibility of common origin.--Tritomex (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm about as comfortable with inserting "probably" and "likely" into that sentence as I would be with saying "the Holocaust probably happened" or "it is likely that the death toll is estimated to be 6 million Jews". As with many topics pertaining to Jews, the cultural and genetic origins of Ashkenazi Jews in particular are highly politicized and disputed by people who have an ulterior motive of some sort. So with that in mind, I'm reticent to leaving that topic open to debate, because their origins in the Middle East are known with about as much certainty as the Romani origins in the Indian subcontinent.184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for change
I'm also trying to get the List of indigenous peoples page on here to include Jews under South West Asia, rather than Old Yishuv, as it reeks of politics. Here's the change I've been trying to make.
Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly you mean under article change? Considering the specific issue you have raised I will take a look tomorrow.
Formal mediation has been requested
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
Please use Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp for these comments in the future. I'll have a look at that distinction in the source and adjust the phrasing accordingly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Operation Pillar of Defense CNN/ORC Poll
Hey, I noticed that you restored the CNN/ORC poll to the article lead. There was a discussion about it on the talk page. Perhaps you can chime in because it will probably be deleted again without an explanation. Capscap (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
- Perhaps you would care to make a concise statement defining your position regarding the relevance of genetics data to claiming the status of indigenous people for Jews in Palestine. I use the term Palestine in the sense of the following definition found on the corresponding Wikipedia page:
"Today, the region comprises the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories."
- There has been some discussion with respect to the terms "Israelite" and "Israeli" on the Talk page, too, but it would seem that you haven't seen that. Please check it and add anything regarding the definition and usage of those terms that you may find relevant.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Request for comment
Another request for comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Should_the_Palestinians_be_included_on_the_list_on_the_basis_of_tacit_UN_recognition_since_at_least_2009.3F
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup G2b (Y-DNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Request for comment
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a concern
I don't know if you're a moderator, but...
It appears that the UNISPAL document relating to Palestinian indigeneity is an official UN document, whereas the other one clearly pertains to Bedouin Arabs. However, I am still wary of including them without also including Jews, as they too face very real threats regarding preservation of their culture, identity, and way of life in their historic homeland (which is Israel/Palestine, as consensus would have it), even if the UN doesn't currently recognize it officially for reasons we cannot ascertain for ourselves. The ramifications of implementing these edits runs the risk of implying that Jews are purely a foreign, colonial presence with no real roots in the region, which is demonstrably false and flies directly in the face of neutrality and facts, and is something that we on Wikipedia are compelled to avoid. This is especially relevant when one considers that there has been, and still is, a Jewish minority in what is now recognized as the Palestinian state before the initial wave of Jewish returnees to Palestine, as the UN document in question has recognized. Moreover, from what I can gather based on what is written at the top of the page, we are only using the definition of indigenous peoples posited by the UN as a blueprint for deciding for ourselves who to include. In that respect, the goalpost has clearly shifted from "meeting the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", a definition that is problematic in its own right. While it is certainly true that the latter would imply the former, recognition as such is evidently not be a prerequisite for inclusion here. Furthermore, there is some criteria that they, along with Jews, do not meet (not being a national entity, for one).
I feel that if the sole determining factor for deciding who to include on this list is "recognition as such by an official UN body" (which is obviously not what it says at the top of the page, nor did we use it as a basis when including any other group), that we should make that clear in the intro paragraph to the article. At least this way, we can help to curtail further controversy and biased interpretations.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, I am a little too focused at the moment on the dispute at List of indigenous peoples. I will turn my attention to the Genetic studies on Jews page once I am done with that.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Since this involves you....
You might want to look at this
Since you are a geneticist, you might be able to argue this better than I can.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haplogroup G-M377 (Y-DNA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You might be interested in this
Do you have any non-genetic sources I can use for the related ethnic groups section? I figured you might know of some.
Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Eleazar ben Ya'ir. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "List of indigenous peoples Talk page".
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Tritomex. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zerotalk 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought I'd ask you, since you're a geneticist. Do you know where the Slavs originally came from, and how long they've been in Europe?
Claims Jews are not an ethnic group
Hi! I went on the Germans page and saw that on the collage they put Einstein and Marx, who were obviously not German. I opened a discussion on the topic on the talk page, and I got a bunch of Germans saying Jews are not an ethnic group but a religion. Could you join the discussion and help explain them that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish.
Moderation of Jerusalem RfC
Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Your post to me
Trying to (finally) close the discussion with a conclusion
Hi! Here’s what I wrote: .
Genetics of Lebanon
New genetic studies have pointed to significant genetic differences between Middle Eastern Christian and Muslim Arab speaking population. As observed by Pierre A. Zalloua the main difference derive from elevated J1 haplogroup levels among the former.J-M267 originates from Arabian peninsula and low to moderate levels in Levant likely originated from neolithic time, yet the substantial differences on J-M267 level between Christians and Muslims as observed can not be explained through ancient migrations. Although autosomal DNA studies have not been carried out, this findings suggest substantial Arabian gen flow following Islamic conquest, into the contemporary Lebanese Muslim population and likely to other Leavntine Muslim Arab speaking population.
Table 6 Admixture Analyses "These observations, together with the historical information, led us to formulate three specific hypotheses: that many J[low asterisk](xJ2) chromosomes were introduced into Lebanese Muslims by the Muslim expansion from the Arabian Peninsula; that some I and R1b chromosomes were introduced into Lebanese Christians by immigrating European Christians, perhaps during the time of the Crusades; and that additional R1b chromosomes were introduced into Lebanese Muslims during the Ottoman expansion.The signal of migration, however, should be most readily detected in the highly differentiated haplogroups. J[low asterisk](xJ2) was found to be much more frequent in Lebanese Muslims than in Lebanese non-Muslims (25% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001)...Likewise, one can test the question of whether the difference in J[low asterisk](xJ2) frequencies between Muslims (25%) and non-Muslims (15%) would have emerged by drift without enhancement during the Islamic expansion from the Arabian Peninsula by considering the probability that the 15% frequency could have drifted up to 25% or more by chance in the ∼42 generations since the Islamic expansion. For an assumed effective population size of ∼5,000, this is 0.0023, and thus, again, admixture seems likely to have contributed "--Tritomex (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Please can you provide justification for this edit, at Talk:Crimean Karaites. I did look at the edits you made to the article on Khazars. Judging from one of your edits summaries, I expected there to be a discussion of Brook on the Talk:Khazars. There was something on Talk:Khazars/Archive 4, but did not help me understand your issues..--Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Khazars and Antisemites
You edited my deletion, but althought you gave me lots of rules, you didn't explained what you did. Is this an endurance war? It that how it's done? Please be rational and explain your actions - like I did.MVictorP (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I just proposed a new form for the section I deleted in the "Khazars" article, and I would like your input on it, given that you are one of the main editor of the article. Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits on the "Khazars" article are un-acceptable, for what are obvious reason to everybody but you - namely, bias. Go back on its talk page - actions are about to be taken.
Although the page has been full protected, please note that this is unacceptable behavior. I have told the parties repeatedly to establish consensus before reverting - you cannot simply just revert without discussing this issue and coming to an acceptable agreement. Please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you are unwilling to discuss this issue with other editors and respect consensus, I will pursue a topic ban or other such sanctions to prevent disruptive editing. —Dark 07:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently created this page. However, I have material for dozens of other ancient artifacts from Israel/Palestine which are not mentioned in Wiki articles. Anyone interested in receiving this material and editing subsequent pages is welcome. Due to the lack of my time I will not be able to do this work.--Tritomex (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing problems again
I think you have been told that blogs can't be used as sources normally - WP:SPS - this article uses  which is someone's personal blog. The material sourced to the blog is also copyvio from the blog, so I'm removing it all. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamization of Jerusalem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Old City, Tiferet Yisrael and Jewish Quarter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ophel Treasure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menorah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Whom to address about fixing apparent gap in article?
Hello, Tritomex. Am ignorant about Wikipedia creation and maintance. I saw your name as most recent in contributors to this article. This is to ask that this please be directed to the appropriate person for fixing. Please see [***** note in paragraph 5 of article section below.
History of Jews in Europe before the AshkenazimHistorically, Ashkenazi Jews were thought to have originated from the Israelite tribes of the land of Israel, arrived in Europe in stages starting from ancient times (following the Greek and later Roman conquest of ancient Israel and Judea).
In the following centuries such Jewish communities were joined by migration of Jews from Babylonia, Israel and other parts of the ancient world. First, Jews began settling in Germany, or "Ashkenaz", at least since the early 4th century. Throughout Gaul and Germany for this period, with the possible exception of Trier, the archeological evidence suggests at most a fleeting presence of very few Jews, itinerant traders or artisans. Yiddish emerged as a result of language contact with various High German vernaculars in the medieval period. It was written with Hebrew characters, and heavily influenced by Hebrew and Aramaic. In the territory of what is now Austria, Jewish presence is documented since at least the 3rd century CE In Hungary, minor Jewish presence was documented since the late Roman period. In France, there was no substantial Jewish population in northern Gaul from late antiquity until the Middle Ages, but Jewish communities existed in 465 CE in Brittany, in 524 CE in Valence, and in 533 CE in Orleans. Jewish settlement in Romania dates back to 2nd century, Jewish settlement in Italy dates back to the 1st century, when there was a large Jewish population in Rome.
After the Roman empire had overpowered the Jewish resistance in the First Jewish–Roman War in Judea and destroyed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the complete Roman takeover of Judea followed the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132–135 CE. Though their numbers were greatly reduced, Jews continued to populate large parts of Judea province (renamed Palaestina), remaining a majority in Galilee for several hundred years. But, the Romans no longer recognized the authority of the Sanhedrin or any other Jewish body, and Jews were prohibited from living in Jerusalem. Outside the Roman Empire, a large Jewish community remained in Mesopotamia. Other Jewish populations could be found dispersed around the Mediterranean region, with the largest concentrations in the Levant, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, including Rome. Smaller communities are recorded in southern Gaul (France), Spain, and North Africa.
Many Jews were denied full Roman citizenship until 212 CE, when Emperor Caracalla granted all free peoples this privilege. Josephus ben Matthias, a direct-line descendant of the Hasmonaeans, became a Roman citizen and adopted the family name of the Roman Emperor Flavius, before 70 A.D. This was before he accompanied Vespasian's son Titus to Jerusalem and wrote The Antiquities of the Jews (The History of the Jews). As a penalty for the first Jewish Revolt, Jews were required to pay a poll tax until the reign of Emperor Julian in 363. In the late Roman Empire, Jews were free to form networks of cultural and religious ties and enter into various local occupations. But, after Christianity became the official religion of Rome and Constantinople in 380, Jews were increasingly marginalized.
In Syria-Palaestina and Mesopotamia, where Jewish religious scholarship was centered, the majority of Jews were still engaged in farming. Early Talmudic writings were concerned with agriculture. In diaspora communities, trade was a common occupation, facilitated by the easy mobility of traders through the dispersed Jewish communities. wish Enlightenment, and the dev [***** appears to be an unintended omission here *****]
Throughout this period and into the early Middle Ages, some Jews assimilated into the dominant Greek and Latin cultures, mostly through conversion to Christianity. A remnant of this Greek-speaking Jewish population (the Romaniotes) survives to this day. In the late Roman Empire, Jews are known to have lived in Cologne and Trier, as well as in what is now France. King Dagobert I of the Franks expelled the Jews from his Merovingian kingdom in 629. Jews in former Roman territories faced new challenges as harsher anti-Jewish Church rulings were enforced.
How to use talkpages
On a side-note. Please see Wikipedia:TALK#Layout and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation to learn how to use indentation when replying on talk pages. In short: take care that your posts should look like a continuation of a discussion and do not place all of them at the beginning of the margin. For those who are used to Wikipedia house-style, it is very irritating when you outdent all your posts, as though with every new reply you start something new which needs to receive major attention. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
arbitration decision, and for an outrageous personal attack and casting aspersions against other editors, contrary to the warning to all participants in the result section and despite another editor having previously been blocked for the same misconduct. If you wish to file an AE request against a specific editor, please do so once your block has expired on the page WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Nomination of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Schabas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Baird. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I invite you to a discussion
Hi. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaza beach explosion (2006) should be moved to Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). I would like to know your opinion about this issue.--Mevarus (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Concerning your most recent edit on the article of Ashkenazi Jews autosomal DNA
I suppose your reason for that was (please correct me if I'm wrong) because said studies were already included in "Genetic studies on Jews"? As for Atzmon's quote, I added it a while back, by copying and pasting it from this source:  "The authors of this study in Nature Communications, led by Gil Atzmon of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, noted that there had been mass conversions to Judaism in the early Roman empire, resulting in some 6 million citizens, or 10 percent of the population, practicing Judaism."
Atzmon is already included in Association and linkage studies with large quotation, including the issue of conversions.  I do not think that this article should be broaden further, with repetition of such details, I am also not sure, that this is the right place to cite each and every population geneticists opinion, on this and others issues here, as i know for dozens of such and this will turn this article on AJ to the article (or debate) regarding their genetic origin . Richards is also already included with huge quotation in mtDNA section.  However, the answer to your question is that the Ashkenazi jews article already has autosomal genetic studies section and Atzmon is already in. --Tritomex (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
New Israel Fund
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jews. When you are directed to the talk page read it before reverting. You pretended not to know what was being objected to, but here is your own text You better read again if that's what you figured out. What you cited indicates only that the name was changed. We are talking about the same people with merely different names, as also stated here: "The Jewish people as a whole, initially called Hebrews (ʿIvrim), were known as Israelites (Yisreʾelim) from the time of their entrance into the Holy Land to the end of the Babylonian Exile (538 bc)." Got it? only semantics, different name for a different time and era, but the same people. Now, add this to the given previous source that clearly refers to Jews as Israelites i can't see how my argument was "blown". It is true that 'Israelite' is more used in a historical context, still, it doesn't contradict the current sentence in the article and doesn't require a change (which personally i don't necessarily object) especially when the article is about Jews. Infantom (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I have objected to the sources you have given, so you need to demonstrate concensus before you restore them. Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinians&type=revision&diff=709678526&oldid=708968287 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you actually going to report him? This has gone from a context dispute to outright obnoxiousness. He even reported me for "vandalism". And reverted an edit of mine for no reason except to spite me. I'm done reverting him because I don't want to break 3RR and I'd rather wait for a sanction than go back and forth.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Please fix the format in Amin al-Husseini
Thanks for your last contributions. But for some reason, from the words "According to Prof. Dina Porat..." to the rest of the article, the paragraphs were moved to the center. Please put them back in place. Thanks.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warningArchaeogenetics of the Near East shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
ArbCom 2018 election voter message