User talk:GHcool/Archive 10

Why? Because Amin al-Husseini was the most important Palestinian leader. That's why the picture is there. Could you please restore it?--Gyanfranco44 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the image's removal. The mufti's relationship with Hitler is not referenced in the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean with the edit summary "Rav" in this edit? Debresser (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about

Rav. --GHcool (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see Rav in the edit. Or any change at all, except for layout. Would you mind pointing me to what it is you added, specifically in Rav's name? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"There are several instances in the

Rav as Rav was having sex. Rav scolded Kahana for his behavior, but Kahana countered that sex is part of the Torah, and therefore he must learn about it from his teacher." --GHcool (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to claim Hamilton as Jewish, but I believe your recent additions to the article give

Fair enough. Feel free to revert or change them. As a side note, I don't care if Hamilton was halachically Jewish or not. I just thought that the theory was interesting and worth including on Wikipedia somewhere, but I can understand how others might disagree. --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GHcool: Thanks for bringing Porwancher to my attention. I think I'm going to leave some mention of this in the article, with changes – because it turns out he's got solid academic credentials, and he's been written about in numerous usually-reliable popular (not scholarly) sources. But in my opinion, this is a case of a young and publicity-hungry Ph.D. trying to make a name for himself by pushing an appealing but not-very-credible theory, based on wild stretches from misleading or absent evidence. My take is that he's been working the Jewish speakers' circuit hard, which has resulted in numerous very similar articles (all with the title "Was Alexander Hamilton Jewish?" or something close to it), published by gullible journalists in Jewish-oriented media outlets in various cities. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. --GHcool (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwarrenwiki: I am not certain that this edit accurately summarizes Porwancher's argument. Aside from sending him to a Jewish school, the two articles cited don't say that Hamilton's mother raised him as a Jew. What I think Porwancher is saying is that Hamilton was a Jew by virtue of matrilineal descent. --GHcool (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

synthesis, but the arguments he emphasizes depend on the less-plausible premises I mentioned; those, he doesn't state as often or as clearly as I did, but he has stated them. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Burkie Barnstar
	Is hereby awarded for re-creating List of American conservatives. The article--under various versions and titles--had been deleted several times. The Burkie (named for Edmund Burke) is the highest award bestowed at WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel(talk) 11:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List

Hi, wondering why you deleted political parties? [1] – Lionel^(talk) 08:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there were no sources. Also, parties don't usually have a coherent ideology the way individuals or smaller organizations do. Also, none of the parties listed were very important except the GOP. I'm not opposed to adding them back if sources can be found. --GHcool (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert has been discussed on the article's Talk Page. I kindly request you to self-revert and/or participate in the discussion. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert on the page. What is your reasoning for including a photo of a building, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in an article on boycotting Israel? I'm curious. From WP:IMAGEPOL "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". Do you think the photo of a building meets this purpose? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the inclusion of a photo of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario next to the paragraph about the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is self-evident. --GHcool (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems equally evident that you didn't bother to read

WP:IMAGEPOL. A picture of a building does not, "increase readers' understanding" of a building. Come on! Seriously? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A complaint is being filed. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, removed the following text:

Halakha has been developed throughout the generations since before 500 

BCE, in a constantly expanding collection of rabbinic literature initially consolidated in the Talmud. First and foremost, it forms a body of intricate judicial (rabbinical) opinions, legislation, customs, and recommendations, many of them passed down over the centuries, and an assortment of ingrained behaviors, relayed to successive generations from the moment a child begins to speak. It is also the subject of intense study in yeshivas

.

Was that on purpose, or an oversight? Because the edit summary "copy edit, sources", does not point to removal of paragraphs. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was on purpose. I thought it wasn't necessary and it wasn't sourced. Feel free to restore it and add a source if you want. --GHcool (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first part of this paragraph is worth having. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

I reverted the edit removing the bibilography for the sin article because the the bibilography lists works that are not directly cited in the article, but are still used when writing the article or as extra reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1E0C:0:ECA0:6763:39DD:614D (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen The Death Kiss? I found a couple copies on ebay, and I'm wondering if it's worth it. The "plot" sounds interesting. I'd be interested in any input you had. (and TY/YW for the TY) — Ched (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it last week on Kanopy. It's not a great film or anything, but it has its moments. Don't go into it thinking you're going to watch a Bela Lugosi movie. He is barely in it at all. For something similar, but better, I'd recommend The Maltese Falcon (1931 film), or better still The Maltese Falcon (1941 film). --GHcool (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and ordered it - the plot alone made it sound worthwhile. As far as The Maltese Falcon, I have the 41 version, and a lot of Bogie's other films as well, but I'll consider the 31 version too. TY for your thoughts. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]