Talk:Rashash

Claims of Priority

To claim priority, one needs to substantiate that one or the other of these rabbis is the "preferred" or the only "normal" referent of "Rashash." Repeated reversions to unsourced prioritization are unexceptable unacceptable. Editors must put aside personal feelings of awe for one or another rabbi and maintain a Neutral Point of View, remembering that this is an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. חנינא (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

69.86.76.? messed up the discussion. Now User:Hanina is making a mess out of his own personal feelings and/or argumentation. Strangely enough, I concur with his analysis that the prioritization cannot be objected or left out (i.e. cannot be excepted, indeed "unexceptable"). 82.253.163.98 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Play nice please

I think an Ashkenaz yeshiva bochur, when asked who the Rashash was, would answer that he lived in Vilna. I think Hanina's version is supported by disambiguation page guidelines, and if this silly edit war continues I will have little choice but to protect the page. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would an Ashkenazi yeshivah bakhur serve as the truth meter to settle this question? Play honest please! This is not a silly edit war. This is simply a way of condescendingly treating the opinion of all self-respecting Sefaradim. You may think Hanina and/or 69.86.76.?'s version is supported by disambiguation page guidelines, I actually believe (together with a few other contributors I guess) that this isn't a neutral point of view. A vote may be here required. Patronizing cannot settle a question. 82.253.242.160 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusing others of dishonesty ("Play honest please") and condescension does little to advance this discussion; claiming that "all self-respecting Sefaradim" have the same opinion on this matter (that of the anonynmous editor, naturally) is absurd.

No one here has proved that either rabbi should alone be designated the only "normal" or "preferred" Rashash. The appropriate neutral wording, that "'Rashash' refers to either of the two rabbis," must then remain.חנינא (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rashash" referring to Rabbi Strashun's work, titlepage of Shas Vilna, Moed Katan.

I can understand our contributor from France (82.253. ...). This editor did not actually state that all Spharadim have the same opinion on this very matter... He only expresses (according to me) the frustration of many in front of the general rampant domination of Ashkenazi ways. "Play honest please" answers "Play nice please"; there is nothing wrong in that. By the way, "either" cannot be considered neutral wording; "one of" would sound more appropriate. This is maybe what this edit war is all about? Also, why use terms like "must then remain" which seems to patronize other editors? In my humble opinion, the prioritization edits must be given a chance (or a change of the term "either" should be found). 84.109.108.146 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My example above was basically used to illustrate the fact that relative prominence here is based on point of view. The most straightforward way would be to give both rabbis equal prominence on the list. I'm completely with Hanina here. I have now protected the page for a month, and would strongly urge everyone to stop this mindless edit war. I think all editors have already conceded that the Sar Shalom should be first on the list of two. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More protection (according to JFW), More censorship (according to anonymous editor from India)

Given the complete inability of the IP-hopping anonymous user to make a cogent point and achieve consensus, I have protected the page for 3 months. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

First, it seems I am not alone in this battle against unilateral and imposed arbitrary opinion. I am an editor writing from India (the vexing editor said this information was "boring" but this should be clarified since JFW incorrectly states that this is one anonymous editor hopping from one IP to another (how could one achieve that? I guess you can check easily what browser was used... My internet connection does not have a fix IP)). The other editors who battled against this stupid unilateralism will surely voice their opinion, as they did throughout this past year. Second, it is User:Hanina who has a problem achieving consensus. Should consensus be about one editor (and others who side with) imposing his opinion on other editors? Just take a look at the edit summaries to see who is playing honest here. 59.92.37.153 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For example, calling me on December 7th '08 an ignorant am haaretz only because opinions differ is insulting (as an anonymous editor from Israel pointed out). The vexing editor dishonestly justified that "ignorant" is a fact... Though I did not appreciate to be qualified as ignorant, the issue was on am haaretz. As for everything else, the vexing editor is fully aware, just unwilling to discuss and play nice. 59.92.38.160 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The page should be unprotected in order to respect other opinions than that of the vexing editor. I am afraid that JFW is only here protecting the latter and his undisputed opinion. 59.92.38.160 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, do not change the title of the thread to express your dissatisfaction. Secondly, I will keep the page protected until you have achieved consensus without upsetting everyone else. Any personal attacks from either side will lead to this talkpage being protected also.

I am not only expressing my dissatisfaction but the very fact that what you do here can be understood as censorship. What about the vexing editor upsetting various editors from Israel, France and myself in India? I welcome this debate on the terms to be used for this disambiguation page.

The main issue here is the disambiguation policy. I want you to read that policy closely and identify which parts of the policy might support your version of this page. On the whole I'm surprised you are taking this all so very personal. JFW | T@lk 09:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I will read so. Personal attacks were initiated by the vexing editor calling an anonymous editor (I guess it was directed to me, though it is an editor from Israel who raised this point) an "'am haaretz". Condescendence is the mother of all problems here. I am not taking all this very personally, it was and stays very personal as long as the vexing editor does not apologize. 59.92.69.95 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"one of" instead of "either"

So again, why can't we use "one of" instead of "either"? The RaShaSh cannot be both (and at the same time) the G-dly Hakham from Yemen and the Lithuanian fellow. It is one or the other, depending on what the reader of wikipedia is looking for. 59.92.69.95 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In English, "one or the other" is signified by "either." That's what the current version says. It doesn't say that these rabbis are the same person; that they are different people is obvious to any reader from the very existence of a disambiguation. On the other hand, "one of" would mean—in English—that one rabbi is called "Rashash," but the other is not. That would be a very strange (and incorrect) statement for a disambiguation page to assert.חנינא (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that this discussion finally takes place. I was at the initiative of this "one of" and understand now the reasons of Hanina. However why can't we apply here the third scenario mentioned in this editing guideline? I.e., the primary topic on the Sar Shalom Shar`abi ZYA"A and the Lithuanian possibility mentioned and linked directly using a hatnote. Most cases of disambiguation involving only two possiblities use this third scenario... 84.109.111.130 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please participate in this discussion... 84.109.111.130 (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask the members of WT:JEW for input if you can't seem to agree with the two established editors who argue in favour of the status quo. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "seeming to agree" since the only editor who argues in favour of the forced status quo (can JFW serve both as an arbitrator and a disputing party?) is literally ignoring the messages on this discussion page... Much enough time was left for this editor to protest the only valuable proposition. Again, why should so many disambiguation pages apply the third scenario mentioned in this editing guideline and here it cannot even be considered? A friend from India talked about dishonesty, I can understand the resentment. 84.109.111.130 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For completeness

I've just asked WT:JEW contributors to weigh in over here. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus there seems to be that we need a disambiguation page. Moreover, Wikipedia:Disambiguation says clearly that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." So I call upon all editors to regard this subject as closed. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ואגלי להון תרע תיובא ואחוינון דיהכון באורח שלם וקשוט

שלום על ישראל 84.109.104.170 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

הִנְנִי מַעֲלֶה-לָּךְ אֲרֻכָה וּמַרְפֵּא —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.69.91 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)