User talk:Dbachmann

---

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Hindu (ethnic group)

Can you make sense of these recent edits by Heegoop (talk · contribs) ? A couple of weeks back he asked questions regarding Hindi language and ethnic groups on the reference desk and then today, he created a one-line article Hindu (ethnic group). I cannot make up mind if the latter is a candidate for speedy deletion as "nonsense" or not (since Savarkar did hold that opinion as is already mentioned in Hindu#What a Hindu is ... but then again does that deserve an article of its own ?!). Abecedare 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

patent nonsense -- there is no way "Hindu" refers to an ethnic group. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism#Seeking_opinion_from_regular_editors_on_reference_pattern. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I really cannot be bothered to join a discussion on such a technical point that doesn't at all affect content. dab (𒁳) 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Liftarn again

I am really sorry for getting you into this. I would file another case of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but I have unexpected difficulties in getting that formatted correctly. If I knew that this would be so much trouble, I would have not dared to edit Wikipedia. Zara1709 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

no, please, try to enjoy it. It's all part of Wikipedia. If you get fed up, you can always take a step back and edit more obscure articles undisturbedly. I have been through much, much worse trolling (check my talk archives if you are interested) and I have learned to develop a strange fascination with this sort of people. When I'm really annoyed, you will note that I stop editing :) dab (𒁳) 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Script

Hi Dab. If you are interested in this topic, I invite you to participate in the discussion about the script template. As you know, I'm trying to reduce the number of multi-language templates, and I don't know if {{script}} is really needed in some cases, or can always be replaced by template {{lang}}. Best regards, —surueña 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ARMA

I have responded. I am going to bed now. If you do any editing, please make sure and paste any large chunks of (non-biographical) deleted material on the talk page (poorly sourced biographical material should be deleted and not reproduced anywhere). Out of curiosity, are you involved in historical fencing at all? The Jade Knight 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

involved since 2002, but I only have knowledge of the German language (D-A-CH) landscape. I only have hearsay knowledge of the US "scene", and the "HACA controversy" of the late 1990s was before my time anyway. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My introduction to the controversy was actually this article. The Jade Knight 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

in this case I obviously retract my suspicion of "coi". dab (𒁳) 07:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lesser Oxford Dictionaries on Hindustani

Well, I was curious, so I checked my copies of the Concise OED (at 1700 or so pages, the self-styled arbiter of "modern" English) and the Modern OED (at 1200 pages, the ready reference for the busy executive who has little need for esoteric words). The COED say, "Hindustani: n. historical 1. a group of mutually intelligible languages and dialects spoken in north-west India, principally Hindi and Urdu. 2. the Delhi dialect of Hindi, widely used throughout India as a lingua franca. Usage Hindustani was the usual term in the 18th and 19th century for the native language of north-west India...." And the MOED says, "1. a language based on Western Hindi, with elements of Arabic, Persian, etc. used as a lingua franca in much of India. 2. archaic Urdu." Well, it seems that, at least for "Hindustani," the busy executive is getting more accurate information than the esoteric scholar who pores over the 615,000 entries of the Great OED! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

o tempora o mores :) dab (𒁳) 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Svadhyay

I just stumbled upon Svadhyay, which in its present form is blatant advertising for some group. I was wanting to do a small, well-sourced article on the subject of svādhyāya in the sense of scriptural study, which I am sure you will recognize as a very old traditional aspect of Brahmanic religious practice. Since this nonsense article exists, I do not know what the correct Wikipolicy would be to deal with such a case. If this cult deserves an article, it should be titled after the name of the group, not after the Hindi version of the Sanskrit term which it has appropriated. Can you assist me in figuring out how best to deal with this? I think the redirect of Svadhyaya to Svadhyay should be eliminated as a minimum, and perhaps some disambiguation page is needed, unless all of the existing unsourced puffery is simply cut. Buddhipriya 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw Buddhipriya's comment and since I am somewhat familiar with the article history, I thought I'd butt in. Svadhyay is simply a POV fork of Swadhyay Parivar, an organization that split into factions after the death of its founder, with allegations of murder, defamation etc flying around. Not surprisingly the real-life and court battles have continued and are reflected on wikipedia, which explains the current abysmal status of the two articles. The long and short of it is that since "Swadhyay Parivar" is what the organization calls itself [1], the two articles should clearly be merged under that title and the title "Svadhyay" should be free for writing an article on the concept of scriptural/self-study. If either of you is really enthusiastic, you could in addition take on the task of cleaning up the article on the organization ... or just leave it alone and let the Second law of thermodynamics do its job :-) Abecedare 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of or interest in the organization. I would enjoy doing a short but well-referenced piece on the subject of independent scriptural study as a religious practice. Can one of you assist me in getting rid of the redirection of Svadhyaya to Svadhyay, and in performing whatever disambiguation is needed? I am vague on the mechanics of redirects. I am going to go ahead and be bold and just purge the article of the patent nonsense. Buddhipriya 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are GFDL issues that I am unaware of, I think you did fine, since anyway there was no sourced content in the article, which one would want to merge with Swadhyay Parivar. Note though, that a similar strategy has been tried before [2] (though not by a neutral party), and was reverted by anon. IPs, who I guess belong to some faction of the split. So don't be surprised if you face similar reversions soon - I'll watchlist the article and try to help keep such POV forces at bay, but will be busy for the next few days.

Sorry, Dab for using your page for holding this discussion with Buddhipriya. Here is treat for you: Doergood (talk · contribs), the latest entry in the AMT/AIT battle, who doesn't hesitate before modifying sourced content or even sourced quotes ! Abecedare 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you can give. I will try to source it in a way that will make removal of the content very clearly a form of vandalism. Buddhipriya 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cookie for you in thanks for the redirections! Buddhipriya 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Until(1 == 2)

I don't really see what the big deal is, but I'll think about it and leave a lengthy comment later (got things to do at the moment). Andre (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I do understand your concerns. I think something needs to be changed but not necessarily preventing disappearing administrators from being re-sysopped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my turn to say "adminship shouldn't be a big deal" now. There should be no reason to go such lengths to allow an editor to keep adminship if there are reasons speaking against it.

but of course there are ways. Either do a privileged RFA endorsed by lots of trusted editors you have convinced of your identity off-wiki. Or get Jimbo to give you a note of approval. Both approaches should work of getting the re-appearing user re-adminned with no questions asked. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What about either a.) multiple crat endorsements, b.) multiple endorsements of trusted users, c.) arb-com endorsement or d.) jimbo wales endorsement for personal endorsements work? Which ones of these and how many would be required?. Would confirmation of a commited identity do the trick or even email confirmation? Where is the appropriate line for requesting verification without blowing all the bells and whistles somebody who has vanished for privacy reasons most certainly does not want to hear? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think multiple crat endorsement should suffice. I suggest a "dummy" RFA page is created at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until(1 == 2) (viz., where people will find it) with the promoting crat saying he's been convinced of user's identity, and maybe one or two other crats endorsing that. I think that's not asking too much, and it would help greatly in dispelling the impression that cards are being dealt under the table. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I think that is an excellent solution and have started a thread regarding it at WT:RFA. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Meta Discussions on Talk:India

>> (thanks for the archiving -- I suppose this is meta-discussion we don't need to keep around.) Well, it might be a good idea to have something from the meta discussion (the general consensus reached etc.) available as ready information for new readers. There is always the possibility that the same problem will rise again six months hence. However, I don't know what form such readily available information will take; clearly, it can't remain on the talk page. Any suggestions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

no big deal, you are welcome to restore it if you like. Or if you don't want that, you could leave behind just a diff. dab (𒁳) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vikings in popular culture

Vikings in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Vikings in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikings in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Vikings in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not "create" this article because I think we need it, but because I was cleaning out stuff from Viking. dab (𒁳) 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I figured as much. It's an automated message from Twinkle, which I haven't yet found out how to disable. --Eyrian 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Buddhist term

Hi dab -

Thanks so much once again for creating (or re-creating) Template:Buddhist term. I think its rationale is terrific and your creating this template as a subset of function from Template:DisplayTranslations was incredibly thoughtful and immensely generous.

On Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist_terms_template, two of the WP Buddhism community's most scholarly editors (User:Stephen_Hodge and User:Peter_jackson) have weighed-in voicing an occasional motif in our community that sidebars such as Template:Buddhist term should only include Latin-script. (My intuition agrees with this but I don't have anywhere near these other editors' knowledge.) So, unless anyone in the WP Buddhism community objects in the next day or two, I'm inclined to go ahead and make these modifications to Template:Buddhist term. I suspect you don't really care how we go about it and that your creating this template was a gift to our community. But, just in case you might have strong feelings about this, I thought I let you know of our intentions and give you a chance to voice any objections. (Also, FWIW, I plan to copy the Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist_terms_template thread to Template talk:Buddhist term first.)

Thanks so much again for sharing so generously of your significant talents. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my overhearing you :) but to be precise, the IAST romanization method does not use "Latin script", as it is a superset of the Latin-1 character set plus several additional characters with diacritical marks not present in Latin-1. Since there are multiple methods for romanization of Devanagari, and IAST is the academic standard, I suggest that you consider referring explicitly to IAST rather than the general term "Latin script" as that can result in lack of specificity about the romanization method to be used. Since IAST is a lossless rendering of Devanagari, if IAST is shown there is (in my opinion) no need to also show Devanagari, as the information content of the two systems is identical. Buddhipriya 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we mean "Latin" in the sense of romanization, not the restricted Latin-1. Obviously, lossless schemes should be preferred. IAST is a standard for Sanskrit, but if other Indic langauges are involved, ISO (which is also lossess) may be preferable. dab (𒁳) 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are very kind, Larry. No, as long as lossless romanization schemes are used, I have no objection to giving romanization only. Of course, in the case of CJK, pinyin and romaji are not lossless, and the Kanji should be given along with them. In any case, I have no intention of meddling with a consensus among the editors focussing on Buddhism, since I've not been very active in that field so far. best regards, dab (𒁳) 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Enuma Elish link

Since you're interested in EE, this link about sleeping gods might interest you - though the author concludes that in this case at least there's no EE connection. PiCo 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

5,000th edit

Greetings, are there any 'templates' for users with 5,000 edits? I reached that mark yesterday.Ryoung122 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just note that all these "Wikipedians by edit count" categories were deleted. Good riddance, I suppose. You can still make a note of your edit count, of course, no need for a template. Congratulations on your 5,000 edits, hope you keep addicted :) dab (𒁳) 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merv

I would welcome your opinion on the following statement from Mary, Turkmenistan: "In some Indian traditions Mary (Merv) is cited as the original home of the Aryans". Is this taken from the Ruhnama? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Probably nonsense, useless without a source... dab (𒁳) 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the following statement in the new article Prehistoric Armenia, currently nominated on T:TDYK: "The background of the Armenians has been traced to prehistoric times, to communities living in Eastern Anatolia and the outskirts of Mount Ararat". --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Caucasian race

Hi. Someone, probably an Ossetian nationalist, keeps replacing "Georgians" with "Ossetians (Alans)" in Blumenbach’s quote. I noticed that you reverted to his/her POV version. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks, Kober^Talk 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check Blumenbach’s reference to Georgians on Google Books.Kober^Talk 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't realize "Georgians" was in the original, I thought it was the other way round. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Everything is ok now. :) --Kober^Talk 11:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

White People

Thanks for restoring the information on the White People article, I never realised it used to be there. If the PC nannies had their way it would probably read 'White people are virtually indistinguishable from negro and oriental races, this is due to the fact that everyone is, in fact, exactly the same. Anyone who thinks different is a racist' Cheers --Hayden5650 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think our outlook on this is very compatible, but I agree that the physiological bits belong in the article. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth veda

Hi dab, I saw the Fifth Veda article. Its a good stub but I feel that the article should be moved to "Panchama veda" because "Fifth Veda" seems to suggest a canonical fifth Veda. Panchama Veda, otoh makes no such claims. Various works have been 'bestowed' the 'honour' of being 'dubbed' the "Panchama Veda" simply to show that they're works deserving the highest praise. That still does not make them the "fifth" veda. There are also parallels with several works being dubbed 'Bhagawadgeeta'. For example, the Kannada work Mankutimmana Kagga is popularly referred to as the "Kannada Bhagawadgeete". So unless there are objections, I'll move it. Sarvagnya 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to change the scope somewhat if you did that. Not all works which have claimed to be a "veda" have been called a (or the) "Panchama veda". The Tiruvaymozhi, for example, if memory serves right, was always called "Dravida veda", not "Panchama veda". -- Arvind 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was coming to that. I wanted to confirm it before I said that. But since you've confirmed it, we probably just need to remove the Tiruvaymozhi from the article altogether. I've actually heard itt being called the 'Tamil veda'. And similar descriptions, I believe have also been made of the Kural, if I am right. In any case, they're not the 'fifth' veda. Sarvagnya 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dravida veda" and "Tamil veda" are used interchangeably, the former is more common in Sanskrit texts, and the latter in Tamil texts. There are actually three texts which've been called this, the Tirukkural, the Tiruvaymozhi (later extended to the entire Tivya Pirapantam) and the Tevaram. On whether they're properly called "fifth veda", see below. -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

feel free to edit this article :) However, it should be noted that "fifth Veda" is the exact translation of "Panchama Veda", so I don't really see the point of moving it from one to the other. Of course these works aren't "Vedic" in any canonical sense, I thought the article made that perfectly clear. dab (𒁳) 07:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This might just be linguistic bias, but to my mind, "panchama veda" has a rather specific meaning within the Hindu tradition, and thus only ought to be applied to texts which've specifically claimed that label, whereas "fifth veda" doesn't have that meaning, so it is in theory capable of being applied to all texts that have claimed the status of a veda. In any event, the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's worth having an article which discusses all post-vedic traditions that seek to confer the status of a "veda" on texts other than the four canonical vedas, not just the various texts which claim to be the "panchama veda". -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

what would be the point of that? Any hack can call this or that a "Veda"? That's at best an idea for a disambiguation page (along the lines of Vedic). But again, feel free to edit and/or move Fifth Veda to your liking. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with Fifth Veda as it is - I don't like the idea of it being moved to "Panchama veda". FWIW, I'm not talking about texts which any old hack calls a veda, but about texts like the Tiruvaymozhi (and to a lesser extent the Tevaram), which have an established commentarial tradition that has expressly (and successfully) sought to give the texts the status of a Veda. I hope I'm making myself clear. -- Arvind 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

of course, your point is perfectly valid. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that it should be moved because, the way I see it, "Fifth Veda" even seems to have an unintended but subtle mix of OR and UNDUE built into it. It is somewhat akin to, say, an article titled "Eighth wonder". Several things, people, places and what not have been described as the eighth wonder by fawning commentators but that still doesnt an encyclopedic topic make. So I will move it to "Panchama Veda" which I feel sounds more genuine and also will remove references to Tiruvayamozhi etc.,. If there have been determined and successful attempts at dubbing the Tiruvayamozhi or any other work as a 'Veda', that fact probably belongs in its own article; and perhaps as a footnote somewhere in the Vedas or The four vedas or something. Sarvagnya 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here, where we should probably move the discussion to spare poor Dab's talk page. -- Arvind 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rishi

I have added over 4k in this article,with refences interwoven within the main article. This type of sourcing saves me time, but I will try to put the sources at the end. This article lacked sources and some of the material was incomplete which I completed with the help of authentic souces. If some of my additions(esp. sourcing) are unsatisfactory, I hope you will inform me before taking recourse to wholesale reverting. I will supply whatever demands you make about sourcing &c,to the best of my ability.

An unknown user had deleted entire section of Brahmarshi, which I undid. It was his/her first act, hence not ac act of deliberate vandalism, but merely a result of misgivings and ignorance. This person probably thought Wiki should not contain mythology, esp Hindu mythology. Vinay Jha11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

your edits seem reasonable, VJ, but can you please use IAST instead of some random homegrown transliteration scheme? dab (𒁳) 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Veda and Upavedas

I have too much of workload and therefore I sometimes try to find out timesaving mechanisms, but your advice is sound and I will try to use IAST.

It is a good idea to start a new article upaveda, but Itihas-Puranas have never been included in any upaveda by anyone. Hence it is not advisable to merge Fifth Veda into Upaveda.

You should restore the para in which I had mentioned that Itihas-Puranas are traditionally held to be the Fifth Veda since ancient period : this is not a dead fact of history but the enduring belief of an overwhelming majority of Hindus. Most Hindus do not have a direct access to the Vedas, and it is the long tradition of Kathas (story-telling) from Itihas-Puranas (in Sanskrit as well as in vernaculars) that has kept Hinduism alive. Most of the major cults like those of cults of Rama, Krishna, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc have come out of this Fifth Veda. Itihas-Purana is the most important part of Hinduism as far as general Hindu public is concerned. Fifth Veda or Pancham Veda is not a popular term, and "Purana" or "Purana-Itihasa" will attract more readers and editors to this article. I live adjacent to the campus of a sanskrit university and it is easy for me to get in touch with topmost Sanskrit scholars (of my town as well as of other universities) on such issues. You can rely upon my truthfulness. Vinay Jha14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

all I am suggesting is that we need a separate Upaveda article. You are aware, I hope, that we already do have articles on Purana and Itihasa. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Upaveda could make a distinct article if desired, as the details of what lists there are of them can be documented to show variants. The Itihasa are a literary category and are not Upavedas. I prefer the title "Fifth Veda" for the article Dab created and do not support the change of title. Buddhipriya 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

User:B9 hummingbird hovering persists in WP:OR and addition of unsourced material on multiple articles, often introducing sexual themes that seem strange to me. I am wondering if you have any advice on how to handle this. This user makes no attempt to engage in dialog and simply starts edit wars immediately. I dislike edit wars and generally try to follow a one-revert rule if at all possible. Can you assist with this situation? I am at the point where I feel the need to begin conflict resolution procedures such as involving third parties or requesting mediation: [3]. Buddhipriya 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

UPAVEDA

Pancham Veda is now in a better and more compact shape; 'upaveda' was unwanted there. You have done a fine job. If enough material on various upavedas are gathered, a separate article headed upaveda may also be started, to which individual upvedas may be linked hierarchically. You have rightly directed Dhanurveda to Indian martial arts but the latter does not contain a single reference to Dhanurveda or to Shastrashastra (a TO DO task).

Similarly Gandharvaveda is not mentioned even once in the article Indian Classical Music. Moreover, Gandharvaveda contains much more than Indian Classical Music. Natya Shastra of Bharata / Natyashastra as well as Indian Classical Music are branches of Gandharvaveda, and sâmâgâna is another such branch ( a TO DO task).

Military science (Dhanurveda and Shastrashastra), cannot be an upaveda of two vedas. Dhanurveda is related to Yajurveda according to all authorities. Hence, Shastrashastra also ought to be related to the same, and not to Atharvaveda as Monier-Williams did. Atharvaveda has a large number of mantras dealing with health (Ayurveda) while Rgveda is much less concerned with Ayurveda. Hence, authority of ancients like Sushruta and Bhavaprakasha is more reliable. I had given the list of Monier-Williams, which you retained, but this list is wrong (not because Monier-Williams was unreliable but because there were a lot of confusing lists of upavedas, which baffled him).

Modern heads of departments of Veda in Sanskrit universities regard Shilpa shastras (which includes murtikala, sthapatya-shastra, vastu-shastra) to be the upaveda of Rgveda. But a private organisation http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Upaveda/id/115299 relates Rgveda to arthaveda which comprises texts dealing with statecraft such as Kautilya's Arthashastra (a nitishastras), but arthaveda is a modern term. Besides, this website also includes 'purushartha' and Kamasutra in upaveda, which is unsupported by modern or ancient authorities. Hence, ancient science of iconography, arts, crafts, architechture, etc (Shilpa shastras) has a greater chance of being regarded as the upaveda of Rgveda. I hope you will consider the points mentioned above. Vinay Jha 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PRAVARA

I have added some reference and some needed material in the article Upanayanam which was completely unsourced (it still needs much sourcing). Upanayan is intrinsically related to four Vedic institutions : gotra, sakha, sutra (of Kalpa) and pravara. Pravara is an ancient Vedic concept and even many brahmanas are also now forgetting its significane. Monier williams gives correct literal meaning of this word, but omits any reference to the ancient concept named Pravara which is related to Yajnopavita and Upanayanam. A new article titled Pravara may help people in finding meaning of this term, which will need just a single para which I have appended to Upanayanam because Pravara is presently occupied by Pravara Rural Engineering College for advertising purposes, although it has a web site of its own. This case is worse than that of Swadhyay Parivar because the latter has some relation to the Wiki project of Hinduism, but Pravara Rural Engineering College should not find any place on Wiki. Even if you think it should, then it should be shifted to a new article titled 'Pravara Rural Engineering College' , together with disambiguation. The title 'Pravara' should be reserved to a new small article about the ancient Vedic concept of that name. Vinay Jha 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved PREC to its own page and freed up Pravara by removing the redirect. But do we need to delete it and get rid of the history before we start afresh? Sarvagnya 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The history of PREC may cause cunfusion to some because a even a vast majority of Hindus now do not know the meaning of Vedic concept of Pravara and may think it to be related to Vedic-engineering of making sacred threads. Starting afreash may be better. But if you think it OK, I have no grudge. Vinay Jha 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Swastika FAR listing

Swastika has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Kicking222 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SVĀDHYĀYA

I have added a new section in the article svadhyaya which you should see before someone deletes it. I had to quote sanskrit commentary of Sayana because it has not been translated into English as yet. I have not mentioned the publishers of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Upanishada because Wikipedians will like English translations while I use Sanskrit originals. Vinay Jha 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Vinay; you are making great progress in terms of WP:MoS :) and your expertise on these subjects is certainly welcome. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Dbachmann, can you please revert without using the rollback tool when making content reverts on articles like Rigveda? If reverts are made with the rollback tool, it suggests that the edit is vandalism, spam, or a test, not a dispute over the content. I think manual reverts would help ease tensions. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

using the rollback button, I do indeed allege that the edit in question is not part of any bona fide dispute. dab (𒁳) 06:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Assimilated Aramaean tribes?

Hello there,

You added a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia to prove that Aramaean tribes have been assimilated into the Assyrian population. I see however no mention of that in the provided article. The fact that the tribes have been conquered, does not mean they have been assimilated. There are plenty of sources referring to the Syrians as Aramaeans, e.g. in Syriac ecclesiastical literature. I would therefore like to replace the source with a fact tag. Do you agree? --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that "assimilated" may be too strong, and "11th century" too early. Why don't you improve the phrasing instead of introducing tags? The origin of the amalgamation of "Aramaic" and "Assyrian" is actually taking place in the 8th century, as the Aramaic language article states,

In the Aramaic language article I see no reference to amalgamation, only that Aramaic became the official language in the Assyrian Empire, which does not prove a thing. (I do see quite some Assyrianisation of the article, though.) Therefore, I believe the sentence about the Aramean tribes does not belong in Assyrian people, but in the Aramaeans article instead. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The dominance of Assyrian Empire of Tiglath-Pileser III over Aram in the middle of the eighth century led to the establishment of Aramaic as a lingua franca.

Prior to the 8th century, the Assyrian Empire and the Aramaeans are in contact, but still clearly distinct entities. This is also why I refuse to treat Sargon of Akkad in the article. The "Assyrian" ethnic identity, with much goodwill, may be described as taking shape from the 8th century BC. It solidifies in the 6th c. BC under Persian rule. An honest article on the Assyrian people would trace their history from these origins. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also read my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syriac Assyrians. There is a lot of work to do on these articles, I believe it must be done in a systematic way. Unfortunately, the articles must be monitored constantly, as they are prone to nationalist propaganda. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be ever so grateful if you could devote some time to this task. In my opinion, once the article is coherent and well-referenced, it is easier to prevent the crap piling up on it than when the entire article is in disarray anyway. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgveda, Jacobi, and etymology of Rgveda

See Talk Page of Rgveda, where I should confine myself now on. -Vinay Jha 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice about when a disambiguation tag may be warranted

Hi Dieter, I am in a disagreement with a new user about when a disambiguation tag may be useful[4]. Pershaps, you have an opinion in the issue.--Berig 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

White people

Thank you for your interest in the white people article. Please keep it up...KarenAER 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of White people

Considering you are an active contributor to this article, I'm not sure it was the best idea for you to unprotect it yourself; it probably would have been a better idea to bring in an uninvolved admin to gauge the situation. --Krimpet 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, am I? I haven't done a single revert, and the protection wasn't due to my involvement. I was doing straightfoward editing while a revert war was going down between to ideologists. I don't see a problem. I obviously shouldn't protect an article when I'm involved, but since "protection is considered harmful", I frankly see no reason not to unprotect when I deem the situation has calmed down. But feel free to re-protect, of course. dab (𒁳) 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have been edit warring since unprotecting the page, along with several other editors; in fact, you're already at your revert limit for the day. I have reprotected the page since it's clear that edit warring is still going on; I strongly advise you to bring in an uninvolved admin in the future. --Krimpet 07:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am involved now. Has it ever happened to you that an article has attracted your attention because of an edit-war, and you consequently became involved topically? The line is difficult to draw, since even admin intervetion requires some intelligent assessment of content. Admins aren't shell scripts, you need to apply common sense. In a case such as this, where an article is well watched by about a dozen active editors, and there are two editors behaving unreasonably, the preferred solution is not protection. Since I now consider myself involved in this, I will not make further use of my admin buttons. dab (𒁳) 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Modern Indo-European"

Hi Dieter, could you take a look at Modern Indo-European and its external links, then come to Talk:Modern Indo-European#"Conlang" and contribute to the discussion? Thanks. —Angr 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Drills or Real problem????

Do you understand that there could be 1000's of people like me who will be trying to understand editing, research and could be new to certain subjects?? I understand I could be irritating as I am asking too many of questions? But I do not think this was a nice gesture to have written the following.

1. "you are doing it again:"
2. "At best, I take it personally that I should be expected to waste time on this pointless exchange."
3. "but if you do not choose to do that, pray spare us from your own musings."
4. "There is no point at all in posting this on talk every day if you cannot pinpoint your text"
5. "this is getting silly."

The questions could sound silly to you, but for me, they are important. I've found people who have researched a lot start thinking that they have become great humans and in-fact would have left out lot of loose ends. I don't think it was good about you using such words. I again tell you, I respect your efforts. BalanceRestored 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Antiquity frenzy

If you want to do some antiquity frenzy bashing, this is your best chance: Aramaean people. I suggest an AFD. Enjoy! — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:13 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

should redirect to Aramaeans. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what me and Chaldean have been trying to do, for like, two hours. Our eloquent troll Nochi is insisting that there is such a thing as ancient Aramaeans and that they are an ethnic group. Your help is, for once, needed to stop Nochi's revert war. Thanks in advance. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:11 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

of course there is an ancient ethnic group called "Aramaeans", that's why we have an Aramaeans article? dab (𒁳) 13:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The ancient Aramaeans, don't exist anymore as an ethnic group. Their language, partially exists as a Neo-Aramaic language. We haven't called ourselves "Aramaeans", since 2600 years back. We have called ourselves Assyrians, or Syrians (not the modern Arab state, which took its name after our people). Syrian, is derived from Assyrian (quite obvious). Now, mostly in Germany and Sweden, there's a huge antiquity frenzy going on with Assyrians from the Syrian Orthodox Church, and they feel holier by calling themselves Aramaeans, simply because Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's religious fanaticism times ten (although, a peaceful fanaticism). You should study this site if you want a good laugh. Nowhere else in the world, do we call ourselves Aramaeans, save for Sweden and Germany, and not even here, are they a majority. They have no academic sources backing up their bullshit. It's just their priests, making up lies. However, the ancient Aramaeans are our forefathers too, but they have exaggerated this. They even call Mesopotamia (ancient Assyria) Aram Nahrin. Fucking historical revisionists. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:26 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

sure, the "modern Aramaeans" are identical with the "modern Assyrians". I fail to see how it is more 'revisionist' to call them "Aramaeans" than "Assyrians", that's an arbitrary choice of terminology. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Genau, dab, that's why I request you to leave Aramaeans on the Syriac Christianity template. It must be acknowledges that there are Syriacs who call themselves Aramaeans (see e.g. Syriac Universal Alliance, just as there are Syriacs who believe they're Assyrians. No matter how true or untrue those claims of beliefs are, they're part of the Syriac reality, and Wikipedia must reflect that reality. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

that's pointless. Aramaeans is the article on the ancient people (de:Aramäer (Antike)). Sure, "Aramaeans" is often used interchangeably with "Assyrian" when talking about the modern group, and since the group is identical, we have a single article about it, Assyrian people. You can add "also called 'Aramaeans'" to that article. . It is really beside the point if these people 'believe' they are some ancient tribe or other. At the end of the day, we are simply looking at an ethnic group with an incredible tendency for splitting itself into hostile factions and hating each others guts. Wikipedia can well state "they love to hate each others guts", but it shouldn't involve itself in prancing around with these childish and inconsequential naming issues. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything speaks for that we are Assyrians. Nothing, speaks for that we are Aramaeans (Syriac Orthodox priests excluded, of course). — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:46 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

whatever. l'arbitraire du signe. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're stance is in contradiction with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Suggesting to move everything related with the Syriac people to the Assyrian people article, means you choose one side over the other. I agree that there should be an Assyrian people article, but it should not deal with the Syriacs as a whole. Please try to be neutral in this matter. The German Wikipedia is a very good example, I think. It allows for de:Aramäer (Gegenwart), de:Assyrer (Gegenwart), and de:Suryoye. Let this proverbial Gründlichkeit be an example for the English-language Wikipedia. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, he is being neutral (at least this time). You are the one who's having a hard time accepting historical facts. You should really knock this off. You are not helping our people by dividing us like this. You are not a different people. As for the German Wikipedia, it has been completely taken over by Aramaya fanatics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:07 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

you seem to think I am "neutral" if and only if I happen to agree with you :) dab (𒁳) 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because I actually am neutral. You agree with me, that means you are neutral ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:27 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

so what do you suggest the article on "everything related with the Syriac people" should be called? everything related with the Syriac people? "Assyrian and/or Aramaean people"? If you have a better suggestion, pray suggest it at Talk:Assyrian people. You guys have a lot to learn from the history of the dispute between Greek Macedonian vs. Slavic Macedonian editors. The upshot is the Featured Article(!) Macedonia (terminology), explaining it all in gruesome detail. You should similarly create an article on your dispute, called Names of Syriac Christians or similar. de:Assyrer (Gegenwart) isn't about an ethnic group at all, it is about the suggested name "Aramaean" itself. Benne, you need to recognize that while Aramäer is a common name for the people in German, it is more common to call them Assyrians in English. dab (𒁳) 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No more silly articles are needed. Stubborn Suryoyos just need to swallow facts, from the Assyrian people article. That's all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:27 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm asking u of something but u deleted my edits?. Nochi 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was reminding you of WP:3RR. That was out of courtesy. If you do not respect the rules, you may be temporarily blocked without further warning. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Offcourse i respect tehe rules. but anorhter users reverting the aramaean people page often without any warning. i would also report personal attacks from Elisalucard. Nochi 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

im sorry but what is wrong with u? im asking u stufff im reporting stuff u ignoring it?? i will report u to other admins. that u as admin has allied urselfs with other users. Nochi 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have a look here — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:35 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

[5] Time to file a 3 revert ban. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:33 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok everyone, I created Names of Syriac Christians -- feel free to pile on the referenced opinions on the matter there. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you are linking to Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. He is an asshole. This article is not making things better. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:55 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I have never met him. He is certainly almost as partisan as you are, but he certainly does a better job at explaining the issue from his pov. I do not endorse either side of course, I'm just trying to figure out what this is even about. So far, you have been unable to show the historical roots of the dispute. It transpires it originates in 19th century colonialism. dab (𒁳) 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with colonialism. We are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Aramaeans, Chaldeans, and Sumerians. We are the true Mesopotamians, or the last remnants left of an ancient civilisation. Europeans discovered the Library of Ashurbanipal, and most of our history (or what's left of it), and deciphered the ancient writings and records of a forgotten civilisation, our forefathers. They have no bias in all this, they look at it from a NPOV. They (Assyriologists) have reached the conclusion that we are indeed, Assyrians. Some of us (like Benne), have a hard time accepting these facts, mostly because of our Churches. At the same time, some of us, look at it objectively. You may not like me, but modern research is on my side. As for Megalommatis, he has a political agenda, and he's trying to further disrupt our true identity. He knows what he's doing. Though he is of course, needless to say, full of shit. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:35 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with ancient history. It is a naming dispute that simply didn't exist before the 19th century. The various hostile factions didn't even exist prior to the Nestorian schism, so it is perfeclty pointless to discuss times predating the 5th century. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has everything to do with ancient history. Everything. It's not like we are a new people who all of a sudden began to fight over ethnic self-designations in the 20th century. In order to know the accurate name, you have to study our history. This isn't antiquity frenzy, just sticking to what's historically correct. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:46 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

that's, like, your patriotic opinion. In my view, it's pathetic. You revel in anique glory of 3,500 years ago, but cannot even be bothered to establish the history of your people over the last 200 years (which would be the actual topic of this dispute). A textbook case of immature national mysticism. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you call me pathetic again, read this and get back to me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:55 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this is an excellent source, and I wonder why you don't just cite it at the relevant places. However, it isn't about the naming dispute, but about the "formation of the Assyrian ethnicity in the 1st millennium BC", that is, a great source for our History of the Assyrian people article. We can also state that Simo Parpola favours the term "Assyrian", which is certainly more notable than saying that Wikipedia user EliasAlucard favours the term "Assyrian". dab (𒁳) 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You know dab, and no offence, I'm just beginning to like you, but now you sound like a retard. This exact source is the source I've been citing all the time on the Assyrian people article. You just haven't been paying attention. Just make a ctrl+f search on that entire article, it's loaded with refs to Simo Parpola. I'm telling you, this guy knows everything about us. If he says it's so, it is so. Here, watch this clip. He knows what he's talking about, watch him read Akkadian at the end of the clip too. Believe me, he has studied our history, from the Assyrian empire, to modern times. He's more Assyrian than I am (he's from Finland, so no, he's not biased). And he's completely NPOV too. He's not alone in saying this either, H.W.F Saggs (another great Assyriologist) agrees with him too. By the way, sorry for that retard remark. It's just that I've been trying to tell you all the time, these Assyriologist, you should pay attention to what they're saying. I do. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:32 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying you get your facts wrong, Elias, I am saying you are guilty of ignoratio elenchi. The ethnic identity, which arguably reaches back to the 8th century BC has nothing to do with the modern dispute. I am asking for sources on the dispute, not on the Neo-Assyrian Empire. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please dab, I am trying to reunite my people. The reason why some of us don't want to accept that they are Assyrians, is because they are being told lies; they don't know our history. I didn't either 6 months ago. That source by Parpola, is a source on the modern identity dispute. You should read it all, and take his word for it, because he knows what he's talking about. He has studied us for 40 years or something. He's not an idiot. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:45 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

you are trying to reunite them by antagonizing them over this silly naming question? Why cannot you be united and accept three or four synonymous names? It appears obvious to any observer that all that is achieved by this bickering over a name is further estrangement and animosity. I try to imagine riots in Switzerland between one faction advocating Confoederatio Helvetica ("we are true Celtic Helvetii!!") and one advocationg Confederation Suisse ("we are true Germanic Alemanni!!1!"). I cannot. It's just too silly. But following Parpola, at least stop pestering us with Sargon of Akkad, will you? Assyrian ethnogenesis may begin in the 8th c. BC, I agree, but not in the 23rd. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand, and Parpola has mentioned this several times (if you read through that entire Assyrianidentity.pdf release of his, and watch this clip), that we are in grave danger of disappearing as a people. We are being eradicated completely back at home (in Iraq, and other places in the Middle East), and we cannot unite under fifty different identities. Also, why should we unite under false identities? Sure, the Aramaeans are our forefathers too, but they did not dominate Mesopotamia. It would be illogical to take their identity. It's like Germans would start calling themselves Swedes, after a minority of Germanic peoples, know what I mean? By the way, I still don't get it what your beef is with Sargon of Akkad. We are not calling ourselves Akkadians anyway, so I don't know why that's bothering you. We'll discuss that some other time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:57 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

More antiquity frenzy

Ancient Arabs, your help could be used to clean up this article. I've cleaned it somewhat; it labelled everyone as Arabs at first. Very POV stuff. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:19 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Utpala

From your reference to Utpala in Surya Siddhanta, I found this article which was in a shabby state. I gave it some degree of form and content, with whatever sources I could easily manage. But more information on this astronomer is still needed there. Vinay Jha 11:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cf. Talk:Utpala. Vinay Jha 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos (book)

I apologize for taking again some of you time, but I have come into another controversy at the article Lords of Chaos (book). It has taken me some work to elaborate that this book puts forward an Esoteric Nazism thesis. Although the wording could probably be improved, I had made effort to source everything properly. I also provided one one quote from the book where the author endorses a view he himself calls "extreme rightist", and I offered to provide more quotes. Still in saying that the author is an "extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout [the book]", I am accused of violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view at Talk:Lords of Chaos (book). Although this line is taken from a review of the book, it is not the POV of the author of the review, but the most exact description of the book I have yet come across. I could make efforts to show this by providing more quotes from the book, but somehow this issue is so emotional for me that I am currently unable to reply on the talk page myself. Zara1709 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice Article

Hi I just had a look at this WP:BITE :)

I really do not know if I am wrong or you. If I am wrong do let me know, it would help me to correct myself.

well, BR, I didn't bite when you were a newbie. I began to be annoyed when you wouldn't stop even after you had been patiently shown the rules. You are certainly right in that you want to learn, and show scepticism, but Wikipedia talkpages aren't the place for that. You should look for a discussion forum. Or you should get a few books on the topics you are interested in (we have decent bibliographies in Vedas etc.) and attentively and sceptically read the books first. These books also have bibliographies, and you can dig your way into scholarship from there. dab (𒁳) 08:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes my friend, you are correct about things. But, I really did not know all these. I did not know editing, researching... I entered here due to some personal reason. But, slowly am understanding that you all are correct. BalanceRestored 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

fyi/fwiw

I mentioned you here, so thought I'll let you know. Also I thought it was better to take this discussion to our talk pages. Take a look/comment when u find time. Thanks. Regards. Sarvagnya 08:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rigveda

Just so you know, but you're being discussed on my talk.[6] The user (Vinay Jha) is feeling harshly treated, and questioning why I didn't warn you about the edit warring on Rigveda. Basically I agree that, having a look at the history, it might have been best to refrain from doing this, and not revert so much. As for the other matters, a RfC could be useful... Cheers. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the article has been trolled for months. The current version is fully referenced, while the reverters haven't cited a single scholarly source. Based on that, they shouldn't even be editing. "Editing Wikipedia" means (1) present peer-reviewed WP:RS. (2) seek for WP:CON on how to introduce your reference, (3) edit the article. VJ and WIN haven't even got as far as (1), which makes their edits rollback-able. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB can't you be a little soft? I have been at VJs position. He hardly understands the rules here. I am sure you too should have been through our side... of the world... BalanceRestored 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view, I have been more than patient. But you should expect people to understand a rule as simple as "Wikipedia isn't interested in your opinion. Cite academic sources" sooner or later. At some point, it is difficult to believe people are dodging the rules because they are too confused or too slow, and not simply because they think they can dodge them. Once again: if you

cite a peer-reviewed academic source supporting your opinion

I will gladly discuss it. If you don't, you are merely wasting everybody's time, and Wikipedia's resources. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try explaining VJ understanding what I've understood till here, and take some efforts there. But, if it is possible kindly cool down a bit and try to go slow. VJ certainly knows a lot, just that he is new here. BalanceRestored 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I google around with finding details, but VJ is an acadamic and he knows the resources very well. Just he does not understand wikipedia.BalanceRestored 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, if you are interested in how current academic consensus on these questions comes about, VJ is probably the last person on earth you should ask. He may be fluent in Sanskrit (I don't know this; I just saw him citing Monier-Williams, which any beginner could do), but he obviously isn't capable of separating between peer-reviewed debate and his private fantasies. That makes him a crackpot. If you want to understand the history of the study of the Rigveda, you'll have to begin with Hermann Oldenberg. There are summaries intended for beginners, like

• Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43878-0 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Flood, Gavin, ed. (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 1-4051-3251-5 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• MacDonell, Arthur Anthony (2004), A History Of Sanskrit Literature, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1417906197
• Thomas Oberlies, Die Religion des Rgveda, Vienna 1998.

these are all good sources, and if you read any of these, you will have a deeper understanding. But they will always refer you further to scholarly literature, and if you really want to understand the debate that led to a particular result, you have no alternative than to study: Wikipedia or google cannot replace that. Please: you are a physics student? Then why do I have to tell you this? All these sources are listed in Wikipedia articles, and you could just silently consult them without imposing on anyone's time. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Syriac = Aramaean

Hello Dieter,

I urge you to reconsider your position vis-à-vis the Syriacs. You say I am oversensitive about the label Aramaeans, and you continue to revert my edits that acknowledge the fact that many Syriacs consider themselves to be Aramaeans. The fact that the name "Assyrian" is more widespread, and more well-known in the English-language world, does not mean we should use that term! This is in contradiction of WP's NPOV policy, as an admin you should know that, and act according to that. Truth is not a matter of statistics. Assyrianists just scream louder, and have gotten it their way too often here on WP. By allowing them to spread their nationalist, history falsifying propaganda, you actually contribute to that statistical overweight.

You acknowledge that in the German-language sphere, "Aramäer" is more common, whereas in the Anglophone world, "Assyrian" has gained more ground. How can it be that such a statistical distinction determines what term to use? Can truth be bound to certain areas or languages?

You should realise that "Assyrian" is a quite recent invention, whereas identifying Syriac (or Syrian) with Aramaean has been extant among the Syriacs for centuries. Please, check out the following website Urhoy and you will see how both terms have been used interchangeably throughout history

I do not deny the fact that many Syriacs use the self-appelation Assyrian, and believe that Wikipedia should reflect that fact. However, using it as an umbrella term for all Syriacs, is plainly wrong.

We should dedicate ourselves to creating a reliable encyclopaedia based on reliable sources, and not fall back on silly statistics, or nationalist propaganda.

I underline once again that equating Syriac(s) with Assyrian(s) is a flagrant violation of NPOV. You should not use your admin rights to condone such a thing. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but "the fact that the name "Assyrian" is more widespread, and more well-known in the English-language world" is precisely the reason why we should use it, per Wikipedia:naming conventions (common names). But if Syriacs can be shown to be equally current, I agree we should consider moving the article there. The claim that the native self-designation is Āṯūrāyē is clearly another matter. Here we should give a neutral account of the various sides of the dispute. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As you have noticed, this is a very sensitive issue, that triggers heated debates. Among the people themselves, at least among the West Syriacs, the term Suryoyo (pl.: Suryoye) is the most widespread, and used by both Aramaeans and Assyrians. Translating that term into English, would render "Syrians", by which the Suryoye have been called for centuries (cf. Syriaques, Syrer). Since the foundation of the Syrian Arab Republic, that name has become ambiguous, that's why the Syriac Universal Alliance --according to their own website-- has suggested the term Syriacs as a translation for Suryoye. For "Assyrian" there is a different term in Syriac, Āṯūrāyē, hence "Assyrian" cannot be used as an English equivalent for Suryoye, simply because the two names mean different things in the original language. As you have correctly noted, identifying "Syrian/Syriac" with "Assyrian" is disputed, to say the least. Simply applying statistics to determine what term to use to refer to the people who call themselves Suryoye or Sur(y)āye does not suffice. The matter is too delicate for a simple Google count.

A nice illustration of the fact that only the name Syriac is acceptable for both sides, is the website of the European Syriac Union, where you can see both Aramaean and Assyrian flags combined. However, it must be noted that many Assyrianists will never settle for a common denominator other than "Assyrian".

Once again, I do not ask you to move the Assyrian people article, that can stay where it is. After all, the Assyrian people are a reality, in the sense that they consider themselves to be a separate group, celebrate their own festivals, give their children Assyrian names, etc. All I want is to allow for articles representing those Syriacs who believe themselves to be Aramaeans (which is equally a reality, including an own flag, etc.), and for an article on neutral ground discussing the people as a whole, be it Syriacs or Syriac Christianity, or some place else. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

it would be easy to cleanly separate the groups, viz., saying there is the "Assyrian people" and the "Aramaic people", and together they form the "Syriac people". The problem seems to be that there is no clear line for this division. This seems to be largely an effect of the diaspora, people don't really know which community they belong to, but feel all the more strongly about it. It seems it is a coincidence that the common term "Assyrians" matches the recent "Assyrianism" among some Syriacs. English "Assyrians" merely denotes Syriac Christians, regardless of whether they are trying to reenact the Assyrian Empire. It seems that this has put a bee in the bonnet of some diaspora Assyrians, who misunderstood the term to the effect that they "are" in some sense ancient Assyrians. This was of course never intended by the English term. As it is, we need to state that there is a people known as "Assyrians / Syriacs". This people has various sub-divisions, mainly along the lines of church adherence. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure that it was never the intention to make Syriacs believe they are actually the inheritants of the ancient Assyrian Empire. It is hard not to see the connection between Anglican missionary activities, and British imperialist ambitions in Iraq (Assyrian Levies). This is exactly the era when Assyrianism started to gain ground, which is no coincidence.

As I have stated before, I do agree that there should be a common article for the Syriacs, for they have for centuries shared a common history, as long as it is not under the misnomer "Assyrian people", which is undefendable from a scientific point-of-view. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with separate articles for Aramaeans and Assyrians, as they consider themselves to be separate nations, with their own flags.

I'll leave you with a citation from the famous Semitic scholar Theodor Nöldeke, "Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache," in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 25 (1871), p. 131:

"Von den Namen dieser Nation und ihrer Sprache ist im Grunde der ursprüngliche ‚aramäisch’ auch der einzige, der noch für den Gebrauch der heutigen Wissenschaft streng passt. ‚Syrisch’ deckt sich allerdings damit ziemlich, aber, wie wir sahen, ist dieser Name im Grunde nicht dazu geeignet, einen einzelnen dialect zu bezeichnen, da er mit demselben Recht von den verschiedensten Dialecten gebraucht wird... Vollständig zu vermeiden ist der Name ‚chaldäisch’. Zur wissenschaftlichen Bezeichnung der einzelnen aramäischen Dialecte und Dialectgruppe müssen wir uns mehrere Termini technici schaffen."

--Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I begin to understand this more deeply. It appears that Syriac "Assyrianism" was inspired by the British colonialists unwittingly, just like the infatuation with the Aryan race among Hindus, by their own naive enthusiasm for the great philological discoveries of the 19th century. Philology has moved on, but Assyrian and Hindu nationalisms have remained stuck where the colonialists left them. Now, your Nöldeke quote in favour of Aramäisch is valuable, but it concerns German (where we already state Aramäer is more common), and it stands beside the Parpola and Wigram quotes in favour of Assyrian. Aren't there any discussions on the best English designation from people uninvolved with the inner-Syriac factions? Have we nobody to quote who is in favour of Syriacs? Frankly, seeing how entrenched the "Aramaean" vs. "Assyrian" positions are, the only solution that impresses itself on me would be a third term, and the Syriacs doesn't seem too bad. But that's WP:OR. Per WP policy, we really have to take proper terminology from relevant sources, and the best recent one we have seen so far is Parpola, who also happens to agree with the google count. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the era when Assyrianism started to gain ground, which is no coincidence. - their is absolutly nothing wrong with nationalism to grow within a community. It occurs everywhere. But to say we woke up one day and all of the sudden claimed to be inheritors of the ancient Assyrian is a joke. We have called ourself Surayes for the past 2000 not for no reason. Did the Spartans always called themselves Greek? No. Did that make them any less of a Greek? No. I don't see the any wrongdoing within our people from going from Suraya to Assuraya. Its the same nation still Chaldean 03:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing It appears that Syriac "Assyrianism" was inspired by the British colonialists unwittingly, just like the infatuation with the Aryan race among Hindus - its not like the word Assyrian has not existed within in terms of our community before the encounters of the British missionaries. While the vast majority of our people did call themselves Surayes, their were still people within our community that called themselves Assyrian (hence the timeline I made) Shio-Mgvime Monastery is an example of that. Keep in mind even for the past 2,000 years, despite Syriacs calling themselves Surayes, many of our neighbors (specifically Georgians, Armenians, and Persians) never switched and remained calling us Assyrian <-- this is a fact that kills Benne's theory of Syriac = Aramean. An example of this is Ephrem the Syrian: the Armenians called him Soorp Yeprem Asori. Look nobody is denying to have Aramean heritage. If I didn't have Aramean heritage then I would not be speaking Aramaic with my parents today. But to want (what Benne wants) an entire nation to call themselves something completely differently then they have for the past thousands of years is downright silly. Assyrian is our nationality. Chaldean 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

alamannen-commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alemanni_expansion.png?uselang=de

could u please move moguntiacum(today Mainz) one river up, its in the wrong location now. --Echosmoke 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi

I think he's using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. You may wanna comment on this: [7] KarenAER 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)