User talk:Dbachmann

Campaign for less bull more writing

I believe all editors should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article before being considered for adminship, and should make a significant contribution to at least one featured article (or single-handedly write a Good Article) per year or stand for re-election to retain their status. People interested in administrative tasks but not in writing content should be offered a separate status such as rollback privileges without blocking privileges. Checkuser and bureaucrat positions should be scheduled to expire and be rotated among trusted admins.

We are here to write an encyclopedia

---

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput (closed February 2006), my Wikipedia account is exposed to occasional outbursts of trolling by throwaway accounts. For this reason I decided to semi-protect my talkpage. If you are editing logged out or with a young account and you came here to make a good faith comment, please try to get my attention on the pertinent article's talkpage, or consider maturing your account with a few more edits first. If you came here because you were told to, or because you read allegations about my position on India related topics or Rajputs in particular, on-wiki or off-wiki, do make sure you are familiar with the history and context of the case before asking me to explain further. I will only be prepared to discuss recent developments and not repeat my position on the events of the Rajput case of winter 05/06. For my basic position towards any sort of ethnic or cultural supremacism, see [1]. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

archive1: 19:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 04:10, 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 08:23, 19 Dec 04 /

4: – 09:31, 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 2:05, 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 09:17, 6 May 05 / 7: – 09:15, 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 08:17, 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 09:27, 7 Nov 05 / A: – 19:40, 13 Dec 05 /

B: – 02:04, 16 Jan 06 C: – 20:47, 22 Feb 06 / D: – 22:26, 21 March 06 / E: – 05:54, 19 May 06 / F: – 06:07, 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 13:16, 9 Aug 06 / 11: – 15:58, 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for clarification

Thanks for clarifying your position concerning my RFCU. Regarding Elst, I wil discuss that later as I have my hands full trying to fix up the Muhammad bin Qasim and related articles right now. Thanks again.Hkelkar 10:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Look - I don't wish to bicker with you, but I think that the only thing wrong with Colonialism was that it stopped short and w lost its way. It all came crashing down in the 20th century A.D. and look at the world now! Properly subjegated Africa and Asia should have been achieved and we'd be a hundered years ahead towards peace now. How's that for polictically correct?DocEss 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I half expected you to think along lines such as these. And you mean subjugated (from sub jugum mittere) - the only thing wrong with the Roman Empire was that it collapsed, bloody barbarians, we would have law and order now, and everybody could spell Latin. dab (ᛏ) 07:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And by the same logic we should have let the Axis powers win in WW2. and we would all be serving the Japanese and the Germans and the world would have been at peace.Haphar 09:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

that was my own thought too, but I wanted to avoid Godwin's law, so I took the subjegated lead to the Romans :) After the Romans were gone, the easiest thing would have been a complete Muslim conquest of Europe, so we'd all happily chat away in Arabic now, and with a properly subjugated Europe, we'd have had full 1,200 years of piece, just imagine that. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The examples you cite are examples of how colonialism lost its way. And I was only half teasing you anyway. But hey! without Colonialism there's be no USA; there be no gin & tonics; there'd be no Burma Road; there'd be tea at tea time! And with Colonialism done right, there would still be a Palestine; less poverty in Africa; maybe even more peace (or piece as someone spelled it above). Oh we could go on and on just for the fun of it all. And yes, I dydunt thpell that wird two gud - thorry, and thank fer currectung mee.DocEss 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

indeed, another futile debate (a habit of yours?) dab (ᛏ) 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

bot request

Sure, I'll get around to it later, thanks. Martin 11:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

ArB and PerB templates

The templates are useful because when arabic script is used to translate the title of an article, which is also in bold, the arabic text also should be in bold. The default lang-ar template produces text that is not bold, and in my mind quite unreadable. Notice that in the arabic and persian wikipedia's the default font size is larger than the one produced by the default arabic font in the English Wikipedia. The boldness makes the text more readadble. -- Jeff3000 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman's vandalism and incivility

Hi. Bakaman did this. I warned him. He retorted with this. Please look into this matter. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Itmaam-i-hujjat and Mizan

DBachmann, please take a look at these if you can find the time. User:Truthspreader has created an article for a book Mizan, published by Pakistan's Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences, and has busied himself spreading its message across Wikipedia.Proabivouac 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I give up. If even you find this type of article reasonable, then you and Wikipedia can prepare yourselves for many, many more of the same. It's not the Mizan article per se, it's that this was created to establish the illusion of notability, so that the book could be cited in other articles. As a source for cosmological fact, no less.Proabivouac 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistunderstanding. I'm not opposed to an article on the book, only to the use of the book as a reliable source in articles such as Itmaam-i-hujjat, and to the original article only to the extent that one might assume it to have been creaed precisely to establish an illusion of notability to support its use in other articles.Proabivouac 08:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"If there are other, more notable books on the concept, of course they should be given precedence, but unfortunately I am not at all familiar with contemporary Islamic theologica discourse"

Nor am I, but the only indication that I know of its notability is User:Truthspreader's article. For all I know, he is the author of this book and the originator of the concept, the existence of which the Esposito quotes don't support.Proabivouac 09:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

myths and legends

personally, i dont have any problem with calling them myths. But Chrisianity related pages never refer to biblical stories like Noah's Ark or Moses parting of seas as myths. Isnt it then under WP:CSB.

Secondly, if we refer to the proponents of OIT as nationalist proponents, why cant we say According to Marxist historians, the date of the Avesta could also indicate the date of the Rigveda. when they are the only ones who say so.--nids(♂) 09:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, C. S. Lewis does refer to the Old Testament stories as myth, in the technical (not the popular) sense the word is used in mythography. See the disambiguation page at myth—the word isn't pejorative.

On the other hand, "Marxist historians" are not the only ones who believe the date of the Avesta could also indicate the date of the Rigveda. In fact, the view in the article is attributed to JP Mallory, who certainly isn't a Marxist! (And I could name others...) It's not a question of insults; it's a question of accuracy. Including that line would imply that Mallory is a Marxist. And he's not. --Xiaopo ℑ 17:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the myth part but have an issue with the label "Marxist historian" . Most respected academic historian are labelled as Marxist if they do not tow the right wing line. Whether the historian is marxist or not. Instead of Marxist if we could use the word "mainstream" it would be more illustrative of facts. Haphar 09:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in being a Marxist. Karl Marx has been one of the greatest thinkers of his era. Just because his ideas were once used by Stalin, marxism now has negative connoations. I would just call this reductio ad stalinum.nids(♂) 10:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

still, an author should only be characterized as "Marxist" if the work in question has noticeably Marxist traits, otherwise it is just inappropriately suggestive. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

no, no, not all OIT proponents are Hindu nationalists. It's just that they make the most noise about it. Schlegel for wasn't one. Elst is at best sympathizing, but he is probably not dyed-in-the-wool. Indian nationalists apparently do not even understand the hypothesis, the only thing they care about being that they just 'know' a priori that Indian culture must have evolved in hermetic insulation ( and jump on any bandwagon they think will uphold that conviction of theirs. It is perfectly possible to discuss OIT as an academic topic, it's just that the names of Frawley or Knapp (not to mention links to Hindutva websites) then would not appear at all. The problem is that we have a large number of such nationalists of scanty learning here on Wikipedia, and if we do not impose stern restrictions of WP:RS no the topic, they will always turn it back into a pathetic joke. Regarding 'myth', I don't know why everybody is so touchy about the word. I've had talks with rather stubborn Christian editors about it, too. See mythology (I hope; dare I look if its been made a mess of again?) dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What about if we source the statement? The Bryant book mentioned in the article has a long chapter where he details how the academic debate is distorted and filtered in the popular press and discourse in India, with books with titles like Indian Asuras Created European Civilization and suchlike. --Xiaopo ℑ 17:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you are taking it as if I am attacking you. Right now, I am just referring to your changes to AMT. I have told you that i dont have any problem with the word myth, I just want wiki to be consistent. If you could persuade the stubborn christians to use the word myth, then no one will dare object to your changes.

Secondly, you can go through the views of those historians. They were hardline marxists, (and so the result that india had to take desperate economic measures in 1990.) I am not against marxism, but the hardline marxist ideology is no good, if you know about the basics of economics.nids(♂) 10:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

not at all, I am just rather in a hurry because I just spent half my day cobbling together stuff related to descent to the underworld. I tried to make clear my position wrt "OIT and nationalism". I do not feel you are attacking me at all, please do go editing in the present spirit; I have to run just now, dab (ᛏ) 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

right now, i am just reverting your last change to AMT. Will discuss with you later when you will be free.nids(♂) 10:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

so what's wrong with the 'patriotic sentiment'? it's a plain fact that about 95% of the buzz about this is socio-religious turmoil and not bona fide research. dab (ᛏ) 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

so what's wrong with the 'Marxist Historians'? it's a plain fact that about 95% of the buzz about this is socio-religious turmoil and not bona fide research.nids(♂) 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying that either we should include both, or none. Nothing else.nids(♂) 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. is this some sort of deal like "you will be allowed to say that Frawley is an extremist crank if we can say that Witzel's uncle was in the Hitlerjugend"? I don't understand what Marxism is supposed to have to do with the connection of Avesta and RV. Who is a marxist, Parpola? Comparing RV and Avesta helps us guess a date range for Proto-Indo-Iranian, that is perfectly obvious, what does that have to do with Marxism? dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about Frawley. I am just referring to the change wherein you included (as is often postulated by Indian patriotic sentiment), as if warning readers about the uselessness of the theory. This is not the article on OIT. it was Aryan Migration Theory.nids(♂) 10:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The economic crisis in the 1990's was due to flawed economic policies of preceding governments ( including the Janata party which when in power threw out Coke and IBM and were even more regressive than the Congress in economic terms). And not due to any historians. Also the "theory" of the historians being Marxist is mostly BJP propoganda about historians who do not support the "swadeshi" theory of Indian might. Haphar 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, I realize this. OIT is in fact rejected by mainstream academia, and, again, 95% of its notability is due to patriotic sentiment, that is exactly the meaning of the phrase you have removed. I am fine with having a detailed article on OIT and what not, but that will not serve as a justification for obscuring these facts. Regarding "Marxism", it is fair enough to point out some particular author is a Marxist (which one?), it won't do to just repeat the blanket propaganda. Nids, surely you can tell Hindutva propaganda when you see it? Then why do you pretend to be unaware of its context? dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You can mention all this on the main page of OIT. But i dont understand that why should it be kept on Indo-Aryan Migration, when there is just one sentence about OIT in the article, which i removed here.nids(♂) 11:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you think that Stepehn Knapp, David Frawley and Koenraad Elst are Indian patriotic Nationalists.nids(♂) 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

could you do me a favour and read my comments above? I answer both your questions there ("Mature Harappan was Indo-Iranian" is one main feature of OIT). dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like there are two aspects of AIT (one dealing with migration of people and other one with migration of language), similary, there are many aspects of OIT. No doubt that one of them deals with the point you noted above. But I think that Elst's OIT does not say so. I am not an expert on either of these, so leave this discussion for the moment. I was just asking you if it is relevant to include as proposed by patriotic indians with OIT in Indo-aryan migration page.nids(♂) 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

With this discussion, I just remember the Encarta entry on Hinduism where they introduced Hinduism as saying something like they worshiped Rama and Krishna as Gods but they were later proved to be humans. They may not be factually wrong. But since they did not used the same words for Jesus,(like saying Christians worshipped Jesus as son of god but he was later proved to be a human), they were definitely biased.nids(♂) 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean, and I will of course support equal treatment of all mythemes on Wikipedia, but I don't see what this has to do with AIM/OIT. I think you misunderstand OIT: OIT is strictly a theory of Indo-European linguistics, claiming that the IE languages originated in India. That people moved in and out of the subcontinent all the time is undisputed and beside the point. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But i guess there was a theory on racial Aryan migration. I dont know what exactly it is called. One of the main points of the theory was that upper caste Hindus were Aryans and lower caste were Dravidians. Its an old theory but and i guess it has been refuted. nids(♂) 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

you are in muddlehead territory there. Such "racial migration" would just be called "genetic diffusion" today. No, there are some genetic studies identifying a (slightly) larger pan-Eurasian admixture in higher caste Hindus, but I do not know if these studies are tenable (they are recent and may yet be overturned), and such findings play a very minor role in discussion of linguistic history. In either case, higher caste Hindus are not "the descendents of Central Asians", at best they have a "slightly above-average admixture of certain genetic traits prevalent in Central Asia" (this is about percentage, lower caste Hindus will have the same admixtures, just possibly in slightly lower frequency). I didn't want this to turn into a discussion of archaeogenetics, since these findings, again, are still uncertain and have little or no impact on the debate. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

-> see (and improve!) Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia for this topic. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

what you are saying are plain facts and nobody argues about them. But once upon a time in our history, there was a theory that upper caste hindus are purely aryans (sigh! godwin's law again). This theory has been refuted. Am i right?? And it was just called Aryan invasion theory.--nids(♂) 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

this was never anything else but a crackpot theory, so it didn't need much refuting in the first place. It is a popular myth, apparently spread by our notoric Hindutva crowd, that this is the content of 19th century (British Raj!!) mainstream "western" opinion. People were not stupid, even in the 19th century (but some people were, of course, just as today). So yes, inasmuch there ever was a serious theory that "upper caste hindus are purely aryans" I am sure it was resoundingly refuted as soon as it was forwarded. dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was a crackpot theory which didnt needed much refuting. But then there were quiet a few of british academics who supported this theory. For example Emile Burnouf. It may not be a mainstream western opinion, but it did gain notability. Its notability is reflected in the fact that Max mueller had to come up with this kind of statement.

“ I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians...To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar. ”

--nids(♂) 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not to suggest that it be discussed under Indo-Aryan migration, is it? That would be like discussing phrenology seriously in an article about human anatomy. It should be discussed at Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies); this article isn't the place for people to deal with the ghosts of the past. --Xiaopo ℑ

I never said that this be discussed on AMT. Just pointing out that once upon a time there was a theory which argued for a racial migration and was not restricted to linguistics.nids(♂) 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)\

what is a 'racial migration'? Of course people, migrating or not, always have a genome. The point is that there may be substantial linguistic change with only very modest genetic diffusion (say, population movement of 15% leads to 95% language shift). dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

sure, if we go into 19th century scholarship, a lot of stuff that is laughed out of court today was still around. Your Muller quote still proves that even then that sort of muddleheaded approach was frowned upon. Our problem is that a lot of our "anti-Hindu cabal on teh Wikipedia!!1" people still think in terms of a Burnouf worldview, and spend their time shooting Burnouf strawmen. Now it's one thing to chuckle at bizarre views of a 100 years ago, but I meet these every day on Wikipedia, in live people (although some of them are consciously trolling). dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab you are right on facts and I am not arguing on them. But if you say that It is a popular myth, apparently spread by our notoric Hindutva crowd, that this is the content of 19th century (British Raj!!) mainstream "western" opinion, then you are wrong as there were britishers who were responsible for spread of these theories. Hindutva crowd is wrong on more than one occasion but not here. As a matter of fact, the fundamentalistic hindutva grew only after 1990s. Two of the main reasons which catalysed this were

1. banning of Satanic Verses in India.(when even Pakistan acted like a grown up and (initially) refused to ban the book)
2. Shah Bano case.--nids(♂) 18:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of fanatic Hindutva. But if i have to choose between a Shariat ruled state and a Hindutva ruled one, than i will definitely go for the latter option. Please see that i am not choosing between good and evil, just between bad and worse.nids(♂) 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This entire impression of Hindutva is beginning to get downright annoying...Hindutva is the feeling of "being Hindu", and in modern times is a movement to make Hindus feel proud of their religion and defend their religion. It was mainly in response to the growing inkling that throughout their history Hindus (who are meant to be religiously-tolerant) have been downtrodden by other mainly Abrahamanic religions. That's all. The idea that Hindutva represents Hindu fascism, extremism or some uneducated movement to change history is completely wrong and there will be no progress on this topic unless people stop referring to Hindutva in a negative tone. Comparing a Shariat ruled state and a Hindutva ruled state shows this bias. Hindutva doens't say that to be Hindu you should change the laws of the world. Hindutva parties don't try and make the Caste System the law of the land. When Hindutva parties have ruled India the state hasn't fallen into political turmoil because those parties are trying to change laws everywhere. I hope everyone understood that already and I was just wasting my time in writing this paragraph. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i made every possible attempt to separate hindutva from the fanatic version. There is no doubt that hindutva by itself is not a fascist ideology, but there are some fanatic elements which should be condemned.nids(♂) 06:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second nids on that. In theory Hindutva is very much what Nobleeagle says, but in practice it's proponents and supporters are almost always rightwingers. Which is why it is viewed negatively. And we have not seen a Hindutva party in power "Alone" without support from non Hindutva parties. Haphar 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying very hard not to offend you two guys (Nobleeagle, nids): you are extremely valuable editors precisely because you represent the Hindu point of view and at the same time have a notion of fair and encyclopedic writing. I am very much interested in keeping you around and look at things from your angle. And of course it is very fair to be pround of Hindu values and history etc. When I use the term Hindutva I am referring to the fanatical/fundamentalist national mysticists. "Hindutva" is a recent and artificial term and refers to precisely this attitude, combining Hinduism with extremist right-wing nationalist politics: The relation of Hindu to Hindutva is about the same as Islam to Islamism: it is perfectly fair and honourable to be a Hindu or a Muslim and proud of it, but when people cross the line to fundamentalism and intolerant self-glorification, debate becomes impossible. So please be aware that when I refer to the very real problem of "Hindutva" fanaticism in Indian politics I am most certainly not including people like you, just as I am very far from calling our reasonable Muslim editors "Islamists", or our reasonable Christian editors "Christian fundamentalists". dab (ᛏ) 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i found an interesting court case here. Go through it whenever you get time. personally, my views are greatly influenced by Salman Rushdie and VS Naipaul. If you call anyone of these as Hindutva mystic, than i am definitely a hindutva sympathiser. Amongst wiki users, i find User talk:StuRat views closest to my own.--nids(♂) 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Latin alphabet ligatures

Hi there, was browsing the new pages when I saw these new articles. They look like identical boxes to me on my system but are being treated unique by WP. Is there any prerequisite to being able to read the characters properly? Thanks! zephyr2k 13:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link dab. Haven't figured out how to fix my browser but I'm working on it. zephyr2k 14:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kurgan

Hi can you keep an eye on the Kurgan article. Barefact claims the Issyk inscription is proto-Turkic and does not seem to understand that proto-Iranian, proto-Turkic, proto-Indo-European, Proto-Dravidian, Proto-Semetic.. do not have scripts! Plus Encyclopedia Britannica says the oldest Turkish inscription is the Orkhon (8th century A.D.) and this page does not mention the Issyk inscription as Turkic. [2]. The Issyk inscription has not been deciphered yet and to claim it is something or another when it has not been deciphered yet is really baseless. --alidoostzadeh 17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. And Scythian European Kingdoms :o\ dab (ᛏ) 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep that article is really unfortunate. I do not claim to be able to write the most eloquent English, but that article is really below average. --alidoostzadeh 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Scythian European Kingdoms does not mention the ethnic attribution of the Scythians, and fills in the substantial historical and social contents that were totally missing from the "Scythia" article. As far as alidoostzadeh and his Iranian buddies are concerned, the only content needed in "Scythia" is to state "Iranian" in every second word, and who cares about the Scythians themselves. And Issyk inscription has been deciphered and published, whether alidoostzadeh read it or not. In the States, it is available from the Library of Congress, among other libraries. Barefact 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall Barefact used to claim that the Scythians were Turkic. The article was posted for deletion. Please vote. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was G. Moravcsik, not me who counted that between 400 CE and the 16th century the Byzantine sources use the name Σκΰθαι in reference to twelve different Türkic peoples ( Byzantinoturcica II, p.236-39). G. Moravcsik is a recognized scholar on the subject, and his expulsion from the "Scythia" page is a censorship disgrace for WP. The ancient Greeks who knew Persian never-never mentioned any Σκΰθαι speaking Persian, but you can't blame me for that, blame the stupid Greek classics for not having sympathy with the Iranian claims. Barefact 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

um, yes, this would have been after the Turkic migrations of the 6th-8th centuries, nobody disputes that the term was applied to Turkic peoples there. We are talking about the Scythians of Classical Antiquity. dab (ᛏ) 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a very good point, and how could the Greeks use the term if the term did not spread until the Turkic Kaganate spread the term? The same people later known as Türks had different endoethnonyms, and Greeks were noting that, using definitions like "Massagetae, whom they now call Huns" (Procopius). In that respect the retrospective definitions systemized by G. Moravcsik are the only ones at our disposal, because today we use the term "Türkic" in relation to the people that never had "Türkic" endoethnonym or superethnonym (like Saka/Yakuts and dozens of others), and we can not use the long gone terms. This equally applies to other present terms, like "Germanic". Exclusion of evidence as that collected by G. Moravcsik makes the article prejudiced and unbalanced. In the 4th century the Scythians were swept into the Hunnish empire, and the Greeks who had personal knowledge and translators dealing with Scythians, had to adjust to their new counterparts the Huns, and were in best position to correlate the "race" (as they called it) of the newcomers with the old settlers. Once again, G. Moravcsik is the best illumination of your point that Greeks switched from term "Scythian" to what we today call "Türkic" only in the 4th c. AD, but at the time they were using the terminology of the day, i.e. "Huns", "Alans", "Khazars" etc. Barefact 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Moravcsik does not claim Scythians to be Turks as his materials are referenced here [3]. You need to actually bring reliable material from recent time in modern English. As per designations, that portion has been taken care of in the Scythiana Article [4]. By the way the Soghdians, Medes, Bacrtians..etc. have also been mentioned by Herotodus and they are all Iranian speaking. It does not mean they were Persians. Persians are sub-groups of the Indo-Iranians. --alidoostzadeh 01:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrologia Latina

There is a copyright problem with Patrologia Latina on la.wikisource.

If I don't misunderstood, you enter the text for the first time.

Thanks for your help!

--Francesco Gabrielli 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I reply you here.

Thank you very much. --Francesco Gabrielli 12:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expert Retention

This definitely seems like a worthwhile read. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always known that experts can be ... retentive, but now they should be prepared to be retained by WP's retainers :) dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scythian European Kingdoms

Just to clear up any misunderstanding in the discussion of this Afd, I should mention that I didn't enter the conversation to attempt to 'save' the article or some such. My concern was that it wasn't an appropriate candidate for the AfD process as none of the original nominating reasons applied to the Guide for Deletion except WP:V (which was a question mark as there were two references as well as some poorly formatted footnotes in the text).

I believe your vote to move and cleanup is entirely appropriate, my concern was for "delete" votes for an article that seemed to fit none of the deletion criteria, and should have been dealt with on the article talk page rather than being brought to AfD at all.

Last comment and I'm done: As far as my blanking reversion, I was unaware at the time that you were an admin yourself (really, it's in the very fine print on your user page :-). If you have determined the move to be the correct outcome of the AfD, great. -Markeer 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

English: "god" and Persian: "khudā"

Hallo Herr Bachmann. Könnten Sie vielleicht einen Blick in diese Diskussion werfen? Auch Ihre Expertenmeinung wäre sicherlich eine Bereicherung für die Diskussion.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Tājik 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scythia's coin

I looked at the revised article, and the coin image did not come up. Is it a fluke or something happened to the image? Barefact 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Bachmann

If I read your user talk page and read what you have to deal with all the time, I mean for instance religious extremism, racism etcetera etcetera, I wonder why you act so nervous over some "cranks" = Wilkens (your words). Maybe cranks are easier to fight? Anyway, go ahead and delete everything that you consider of lesser value. But one thought comes to mind; as you seem to know so much about so many subjects: might that be the reason that you find it suspicious that I write mainly about one item? (As you know there is no WP-guideline against this!) You can't grasp that, can you? Antiphus 16:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with single-topic editors, no, as long as they are intelligently aware of WP:5P and WP:ENC. dab (ᛏ) 16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you didn't answer my question. The question was not: do you have a problem with it, but: can you grasp that? Regards, Antiphus 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

your post has three question marks, and I answered your second question. I am not sure what you think I am being unable to grasp. That you just write about a single topic? Believe me, you are not the first person I meet who does that. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gothic SVG different from Codex Argenteus

Thanks for contacting me regarding the SVG Gothic letters. I poured over the Internet looking for a free source for these; I ended up using David McCready's MPH 2B Damase TrueType font. After that it was a very convoluted matter of extracting SVG images from the font, as Inkscape does not work well with Unicode code points above 0xFFFF, but eventually I was able to.

I have noticed the difference, of course; I thought there would be more flexibility in the writing of the Gothic alphabet – well, presumably there was more flexibility but since the corpus which arrived to our days is so small, there you have it. Suppose only twenty books in English arrived to our present day; we would have a more standardised way of looking at the language.

Anyway, those are the sources I have; if I could find other free sources which looked more like Codex Argenteus I could use those. Do you have any? Vector is best, but I can vectorise good quality PNGs as well. Greetings! – Tintazul ^msg 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Raj Yoga controversy at Hinduism article

There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Indo-European

This refers to your recent edit on this template. Look, in a subject such as this there are a number of theories and many people believe in different theories. What exactly is the harm in listing some of those theories under the heading of "Migration theories" as opposed to including Anatolian and Kurgan hypotheses seperately under Indo-European while ignoring the rest. I thought the point of a template was to give people links to related pages which they may want to read about/be interested in. After all, this is an encyclopaedia which many people use for everyday information. Why leave out some aspects of a topic then? If OIT and Paleolithic Continuity are listed there, will it really do any harm? I will not revert until your reply. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another user added Armenian Hypothesis to the template...is it justifiable to remove that, is it justifiable to add other hyptheses and restart the Human migrations header which I created? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers :) Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 09:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tomb of Genghis Khan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Peta 12:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A change to my userpage

Hi. I have changed my user page regarding my issues with you. You may wish to take a look at it. I notice that the issue that was occupying your attention the last time we discussed this matter does not seem to be so pressing, and perhaps you would care to discuss the issues raised on my talk page at this time. If you would like, I would be happy for Sundar act in a mediation capacity, to whatever degree is agreeable to him and to you. Also, please let me know if you would like to receive communications such as this in the future. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkic migrations

Following your link, I just read the Turkic migrations article, and it looks like you authored it. My impression is that it is biased in respect that there are facts and opinions of opposite nature but they are not included. The article does not directly states that there were no Turkic populations in the destination areas of the Turkic migrations, but clearly implies that. That implication is not supported by any facts or research. But I know of research resulting in opposing viewpoints, which should have found a place in a balanced article. Would not you agree that the article needs balance? Barefact 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

if Turkic tribes would just move among themselves, it wouldn't be the "Turkic migration" (meaning "expansion"). Now I am not a Turkologist, and I am sure I am unaware of a lot of literature, and you are of course free to expand the article as long as you don't use Pan-Turkic nationalist websites as your sources. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your respect for pertinent literature. In my dictionary Pan-Turkic, Pan-Slavic etc applies to current political ideas calling for political unification of fractured kindered population. If this is the same definition for you, we do not have problem. In contrast, the supernationalist Iranian pack is using deception and maligns anything that falls under their racist censorship policy, whether classical sources or professional academics. For example, O.Ismaigulov is a world-recognized emminent expert who systemized research of dozens of antroipologists. To milign his work as non-qualified, Pan-Turkist, or any other obcenity generated by our ignorant Iranian supermacists is not a hallmark of balanced presentation. Or they managed to call Abaev, a venerated foundation of their Scytho-Iranian theory, a fake, untill they learned who he is, and you've witnessed it yourself. If you find anything resembling a call for a political unification in any of my citations, I would feel ashamed and deeply apologyze. But a lie by supermacist does not make the subject of their lie a culprit. Rather the opposite, the malicious assault by my friend alidoosadeh is a compliment to me as a honest writer. If it was bad, he would not waste his venom. Barefact 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop polluting wikipedia with pan-turkist revisionist historians. Pan-turkism as any distorted political ideas bring about false historical revisionism. For example of your lies, you claimed that the Issyk inscription was proto-Turkic!! And you did not seem to understand that Proto-Turkic, Proto-Iranian, Proto-Indo-European, proto-Dravidian, Proto-Chinese do not have scripts! Yet you kept inserting a non-English Kazakh based scholar POV. If you were an honest writer you would not be caught red handed in the Ossetic language thread claiming what Abaev did not claim and disfiguring the quote from him. Abaev clearly states Ossetic is an Iranian language and you removed the fact and tried to make your own bogus theories that Stalin forced him to say it! You call that Academic whereas it is called pan-turkist conspiracy theory by everyone else. Way before Abaev, the Scythians were considered to be Iranians and as you can see in the Scythian article there are 14 references within this regard whereas your pan-turkist theories are made up! You even claimed 20% of Persian is Turkish. Anyone who knows Persian and linguistic would think your a jester. Two of your threads have already been deleted because they were bogus. If I could, I would certainly ban you from Wikipedia since you bring nothing but pan-turkist POV and also horrendous essays which are sub-par in all aspects and are poorly references and have horrendous spelling mistakes of names. Also you need to bring modern English sources supporting your viewpoint and so far you have failed. So stop polluting wikipedia. And no I am not a supremacist but I am going by what the most modern references say. The fact is Turkic migration is pretty clear and there is no doubt about it. Read Peter Golden's Introduction to the history of Turkic people. Scythians in that book as well are considered Iranian and the book is the most up to date and detailed reference on Turkic people. Unlike your website which claims everything from Scythians to Sumerians to Thracians to Goths .. to be Turkic, this is wikipedia where you will be stopped if you try to push bogus psuedo-theories. You have brought too many quotes that later on it was found to be false. I have nothing against actual researchs like Ismaigulov if you bring updated English references (not your translations!). Check the most updated references like Encyclopedia Britannica, none of the nonsense you have claimed so far have been correct. The oldest Turkic inscription is Orkhon and not the Issyk inscription which has not been deciphered or else they would change their entry. If you have a problem with authoritative sources, then write to them to change their entry. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Encyclopedia Britannica is clear on Turkish expansion and migration. You have a problem with it, it is not Wikipedia's problem, but your problem to convince them to change their entry. As well hundreds of other books out there. Wikipedia is not a place for different POV's but for the correct POV. --alidoostzadeh 00:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a Kazakh source itself [5]:A silver bowl with an inscription of 26 characters on the bottom was found in the 'old man' grave, the Issyk mound. This inscription have not yet been decrypted. Some scientists believe that it is one of Iranian languages, others - that it is a proto-Turkic one. In any case, this was the time when come the appearance and the language of the Medieval and modern Kazakhs, their psychological stereotypes, customs and many features of culture and live-style began their development. The middle of the first millennium A.D. is a true milestone in the history of Kazakhs and for all Turkic peoples.. As you can see , even from this biased site, they agree that the script has not been deciphered and furthermore as I argued proto-languages do not have a script and so they made a blunder. Indeed if you look at real sources: (The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity edited by George Erdosy ) pg 157, they say that the tomb belongs to a pointed hat Scythians. Herodotus calls them Saka TigraKhauda - The Saka with the pointed hats. "Khauda" for example is middle Persian (Pahlavi) "Khaud" and present day "Khood" or "Kolah-Khood" in modern Farsi (Helmet). So the tomb is Scythian and not Turkic and even a bias Kazakh site does not claim it is deciphered and real scholars agree it is not a Turkic tomb. So you need to stop pushing POV. The phenotype of modern Kazakhs has absolutely no resemblence to Scythians. [6] [7] --alidoostzadeh 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of nonsense from barefact's website: [8] and check out his reference: Dr. Selahi Diker, the author of the AND THE WHOLE EARTH WAS OF ONE LANGUAGE (1996, 1999). . (which he means the whole world spoke Turkish and every language comes from Turkish). and here is a quote from this so called Diker to make your headspin: “Indeed, I have proven that the culture of 6300 B.C. Anatolia as discovered at Çatal Hüyük by archaeologist James Mellaart is Turkish, and since this almost 8300 years old culture was not created in a day, we can easily talk of a ‘Ten Thousand Years of the Turks’ ...” [9]. This would be material for the comedy channel, but unfortunately it seems some people have chosen Wikipedia instead. Either barefact has up to date verifable English references with actual quotes (and not just referencing a book but later on finding that the quote did not exist as has been shown so far in many of his writings) or else he should stick to his website. --alidoostzadeh 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And I am sorry to the user Dab for writing here. But it is frustrating to waste time to make sure wikipedia is not polluted by non-scholarly propoganda which is reflected in barefact's personal website: [10] (note the Turkic world part itself has an underlying political theme).[11] We believe that such words as beech, body, girl, beer, book, king were borrowed during the Hun – Old English period[12] --alidoostzadeh 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, alidoostzadeh should be sorry for writing here. The best cure from racism is education, try to read and you may be cured. In respect to Turkic migrations, we are way beyond the late 18th century views found in BE 1911, first these views were severely shaken by deciphering of Orkhon inscriptions, and new studies are coming at accelerating pace. Just look what is happening now with Kurds, with an outlet outside of censorship by Turkish and Iranian governments they are starting to address their own history themselves, causing histeria between racist and nationalist dogmatics. Barefact 05:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry as Dab and every other Wikipedia user are for wasting time with pan-turkist nonsense. Also accusation of racism is against wikipedia rule, prove it. The whole world and every scholarly material can not be a racist! Stop throwing labels just because scholarly references contradict your psuedo-historical viewpoint. Actually Orkhon was deciphered between 1911! And Orkhon was found in Mongolia! Not middle east or caucasia or central Asia even! As per the latest references, they are out there in the encyclopedia britannica 2006 and not 1911! Of course you do not read it, but if you need the 2006 Encyclopedia article, go read it from their site! Now it is not 1911 but 2006! You need to desist from vandalizing wikipedia with pan-turkist psuedo-history. --alidoostzadeh 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Worse than worthless

Your comments about my edit "worse than worthless" is shocking. My attempt was to explain the difference amongst Raj Yog with Jnan, Karma and Bhakti and invite support or oppose. I have just joined and may not have acquired skill at par with other editors for wordings acceptable to seniors that gives you no right to comment harshly even if you are admin which at any point of time undermines the editors (particularly) new comers. Hope you are not thinking being admin gives you right to push your personal opinion tending to be indimating than in-civil. You could say the same thing in other words and positive tone. I have no idea about your knowledge of Hinduism and Hindu Philosophy. Without knowing the vital difference of different meanings of similar terms, how can you pass such authentic comments? If you are not having sufficient knowledge of the subject "Hinduism", I think you are not in position to edit the article to remove distorted facts and so your harsh comments are damaging the cause of removal of distorted facts.

Hope you will appreciate the damage you are doing to Wikipedia.

Swadhyayee 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

now look here, I am not trying to "push my opinion", because I don't have an opinion. I have no idea about Yoga, and it is not a topic I will spend time researching. I commented harshly on the quality of your edits, true. Since just about everyone on talk disagreed with you, and you just kept gesturing towards the Gita in reply (without giving any actual references), I think you should realize the weakness of your position. Yes, people are allowed to criticize your edits, this is a collaborative project. And yes, you are allowed to rectify "distorted facts", you just have to cite convincing evidence that you are doing so correctly. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your opinion that my edits were 'worse than worthless". I felt you had no idea about the subject. Higher the position, cultured the communication to be. Being an admin and editing from more than 2 yrs., you should have checked my registration date before commenting. If, you commented harshly as the other editors were against me, you were biased and carried away wrongfully. Your stating that I had weak side refers to the comparision with opinions of other editors. It necessarily not mean that I am wrong in my views in the subject matter of the controversy. It is a situation that I may not have sufficient knowledgable persons in Wikipedia to support me. Regarding citation, there are points which are of general knowledge like Bible is a holy book of Christains is a matter of general knowledge and does not call for citation. Similarly, Jnan, Bhakti and Karma are subject of science and only way to realise God in doctrines of Geeta. If, at all authenticity of any Hindu scripture is to be decided, Geeta stands on top un-disputed scripture. Geeta is considered to be covering each and every principle and minute point of Hinduism. Bakasuprman has cited some scripture showing Raj Yoga also a way of realising God. I do not dis-agree with it but Raj Yoga is session bound attempt of discipling mind and body for gaining the experience of realisation, where as other three are way of life. I can understand with so much of edits to your credit, you may not be able to read entire discussion and apply mind to the subject matter of dispute. We all editors work in one direction to give true picture of Hinduism. Differences are bound to be and let go has to be the end of any discussion. A time will come when you will see me as an asset to Wikipedia. When you are admin, you are not Dab but Wikipedia admin and your communication has to be more civilised. You are not there as admin to intimidate new editors and discourage them from participating.

My experience with other than Indians and convent educated people is, they use sharp and hurtful language without due regards for the otherside including the age or experience or probabiity of higher age or experience of the otherside. Pl. don't add to my bitter experience about non-Indians.

I apologise for long reply. If taken positively, you will be doing justice to yourself, your position and to the forum.

Swadhyayee 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

all I am saying is, your contributions were useless because they were incoherent and unsourced. Writing coherently and to the point is not something you learn on Wikipedia, we hope to welcome editors who do not first need to be taught such basics. I sincerely recommend you inform yourself about the purpose and policies of Wikipedia first, I suggest you begin with WP:5P. I have no doubt about your sincerity, but unfortunately Wikipedia is more interested in encyclopedic value. Instead of engaging in lengthy conversations and controversies, how about you just present a brief, succinct, polished and perfectly sourced paragraph summarizing your position. Meaning, something that we can actually use in an encyclopedia article. This would save everybody so much time. If you expect people to engage in polite conversation to avoid hurting your feelings and eventually write your paragraph for you, you have misunderstood something about how Wikipedia is supposed to work (see also WP:NOT). You are most welcome to contribute. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, editors are not obliged to entertain you instead. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans

Your protege Rex and another user happen to outnumber me on Afrikaans, rendering the prospect of a sterile revert war possible- I would appreciate your "magic touch", since Rex refuses to acknowledge my arguments. I dont want kids handing in papers with Afrikaans a sub-branch of Dutch and getting failing grades, severely hindering Wikipedia's reputation. Please fix this horrendous taxonomical f-up. Another thing you could look at and react to- as a responsible administrator- is Rex's verbal conduct. Ulritz 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, Rex, are you my protegé? I recognize that Rex isn't as a rule very objective as soon as the term "Dutch" is mentioned. dab (ᛏ) 08:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Westcar Papyrus

I'm just curious, because I like reading about Bronze Age literature-- do you have a source for the idea that the Westcar Papyrus is actually from the 4th dynasty? If you do, we could include it in the actual article. Ashibaka tock 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

A common issue with redirecting pages: Redirecting to another Redirect page doesn't work (like Ancient Semitic religions → Ancient Semitic religion → Semitic gods and goddesses). Redirects will only go one step, so any redirect pages must point directly to the final destination. I've fixed this one. Just something to watch out for. Fan-1967 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Image:Carian Saqqara.png

This image has been nominated for deletion, please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Carian Saqqara.png for details. --Matt314 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

As you know, a dispute has been going on for some while between me and User:Ulritz. I feel you are also involved and invite you to say you share. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ulritz

Rex 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the header? Less bull, more writing. Take a tip. Ulritz 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP CIVIL first and then come back to lecture me.Rex 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My Bot

the reason that Apadana was tagged for India was this Category:India==>> Category:History of India==>> Category:Achaemenid dynasty==>>Apadana. thus it was tagged as a item for WP India as it is categorisied under India. same with Darius I of Persia. if you have any issues ill be back on later but I have to run for now. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with vandalic Iranian censorship

dab, can you please help against removal of contents and references being censored out by Iranian supermacists Ali doostzadeh, Khosrow II and others of their pack? Their main deceptive pretense is that they erase information and references because the references are not in English. Would you please post a note for them on their pages that "only English" is not a WP rule, and they can't pretend to enforce it, and use it as an excuse for removal of contents from public scrutiny. Your help may stop this stupid rv war. BTW, in their incessant chauvinistic "editing", they managed to wipe out anything related to archeology, and that from an article specifically dedicated to "project archeology". Please see Talk:Kurgan Tnks, Barefact 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not say only English, but I said bring modern references that claim what you are saying. They do not, since you basically quote a pan-turkist book called history of ancien turkic script which is in your pan-turkist website. Your problem is you think wikipedia is an open forum for an exchange of ideas. It is not. It is a forum where scholarly opinions will be reflected and pan-turkist hysterical opinions have no place in it. --alidoostzadeh 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Iranian supermacist pearl

dab, could you please look at the Scythia map, it had a long-nose phrase added claiming all of the Scythia as linguistically Iranian. This is another of the Iranian supermacist deceptions, flying in the face of Herodotus statement that Scythia was multilingual. Politically, the map may be correct, but linguistically it is a nonsense, all the nomadic tribes united by Scythia, and agricultural and hunter-getherer tribes subjugated by Scythians retained their languages for the next millennias. There are no written evidence to substantiate the claim promulgated on the map, it is a shear supermacist lie unmeritorious to WP contents. Tnks, Barefact 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dab, please take a look at this: [13][14]. Barefact is actually making his edits seem like he is writing from your POV! As per herodotus, he never said Scythians are multi-lingual. Stop spreading lies,. Also notice his threatening tone (which I take as a joke) but it is against Wikipedia rule. For example look at the kurgan talk page: To Ali doostzadeh and his Iranian supermacist troopers!! or The deadline is coming, and you need to perform or apologyze or Yes, alidoostzadeh should be sorry for writing here. The best cure from racism is education, try to read and you may be cured. Or check out this one: This is what I am doing, following these steps and needing help to bring opponents to a non-militant resolution. Barefact[15]. It is my belief that barefact definitely deserves at least a 24 hour ban for making threats. If he can not bring modern scholarly references that can be double checked to backup his claim, he should stop editting wikipedia. He already has broken 3RR once and so far has only contributed negatively. I think his threats warrant some serious action to be taken since he has no right to threaten wikipedia users who disagree with the false contents of his site. --alidoostzadeh 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Aryan theory and Tamils

Have you seen this article which concerns issues relevant to your usual field of interest? Tupsharru 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadesh

Not sure whether you are interested in the subject. If you are, you may want to vote here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes

Looks like there are no objections to merging this article with Scythia, Scythian, etc. However, that could just be because a lot of the other editors seem to be distracted by some internecine warfare. Hmm maybe we should leave them seperate, looks bloody...

Anyway, if we were to go ahead and merge 'em where to start? I suspect some of the ‎sections in Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes are better sourced than the other articles and should be transferred, but others should be outand out deleted. But which? Methinks we need a classical/oriental scholar with a lot of free time on their hands and masochistic tendencies. That you? --Saganaki- 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, well, it's not urgent. We can slowly eliminate material that figures both on Indo-Scythians and Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes. The Indo-Scythians are those Scythians that invaded India, by definition, but maybe we can make one article a sub-article of the other (such as, the {{main}} article to the "History" section?) dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian_caste_system

Would you care to wiegh in here? — goethean ॐ 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I am a little tired of "Aryan" topics just now ... and I feel my time is spent more usefully at Cuneiform script at the moment. dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OIT talk

Who were you aiming at with this useless inflammatory comment [16]?I've created quite a few articles, and have 5 DYK's. Show me the five times I called anyone a Nazi.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll collect the diffs when I have the time to spare. dab (ᛏ) 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear DAB, I tend to agree with your comments but ... they aren't civil. We must be civil at all costs. Civil through gritted teeth. Civil despite childish provocation. It would probably be a better use of our time and anger if we worked on creating a better enforcement mechanism to eject disruptive editors. A months-long Arbcom process that leaves everyone covered with mud isn't much of a deterrent. Zora 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, I'm not angry. You can tell I am angry when I am curtly polite. And, while I agree you should always be civil to editors in good standing, I do not suscribe to being civil to every lunatic that blunders onto wikipedia: after they have shown to be completely inamenable to common sense or even grasping the most fundamental concepts [I do not refer to Bakaman here, I do recognize his five "DYKs"], yes, I will take surreal potshots at them for fun (sue me, arbcom) in the sense that I think I deserve to get at least a little fun out of my (and others') time these people waste: while we shouldn't assume good faith to the point of ridicule, we shouldn't be civil to the point of insult to any rational mind either :) dab (ᛏ) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

infoboxes, again

What do you think of my reasoning on the above edits [17][18]? As you can see the excuse in both cases was "if others do is, then so should we". The infobox is still a medium for POV-pushing. And apparently not everyone "does it" [19]. Miskin 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are completely right. These infoboxes are about contemporary states, not ancient history. So Turkey was independent with the Hittite Empire, in 1800 BC? Or maybe with Catalhuyuk in 7000 BC? And the Republic of India was independent in 3300 BC, or maybe in 70,000 BC with the first and completely independent paleolithic hunters? These infoboxes are often more of a nuisenace than they are worth. Country infoboxes should state the official date of independence and nothing else, certainly no fuzzy national myths. dab (ᛏ) 06:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

abraham and zoroaster

According to you, would Abraham predate Zoroaster (As wiki shows it), or it'll be vice versa. (Assuming that both were real figures and not just mythical).--nids(♂) 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's like asking me to compare the dates of Odin and King Arthur. Zoroaster might have lived anytime between 1400 and 800 BC. Abraham is a mythical figure projected to have lived in about 1900 BC, by authors of ca. 700 BC. There is no certain way of telling whether the story of Abraham is older than the Gathas. dab (ᛏ) 06:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, even Moses and David would be mythological figures.--nids(♂) 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

why, does it follow from Odin being a mythological figure that Charlemagne is one too? Just as King Arthur and Gilgamesh are semi-legendary (historical kings that became the nucleus of legend), Moses is semi-legendary. David is, afaik, accepted as perfectly historical, lived ca. 1000 BC. You have to understand that mythology isn't the "opposite" of historicity as it is often naively implied. It is rather somehow orthogonal to history: the mythological side of a figure says nothing about its historicity, and the historicity of a figure says nothing about its role in mythology. dab (ᛏ) 08:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i deduced that from Abraham(He just being just a mythical figure.)--nids(♂) 08:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If I claim Xenu is my ancestor, and you prove that Xenu is "just mythical", does that make me, Dbachmann, a mythical figure? dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham is a mythical figure projected by authors of 700 BCE. If the authors would have done it in say, 1200 BCE, there wouldnt have been a problem. nids(♂) 08:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand. What is the difference between saying "once upon a time, 1200 years ago" and "once upon a time, 700 years ago"? Maybe you should enlighten me with some context so that I can see where you are going. dab (ᛏ) 08:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholars say that all the books of old testament were written atleast after 700 BCE. And the dates for Moses and David are about 1600 and 1000 BCE respectively. Also, There is no other historical record for Moses outside the books of Old testament. I am not trying to prove that Moses and David are just mythical. My point is that they are only as real as Abraham. So, even Abraham could be a real historical figure. And if Abraham is assumed to be just a mythical figure, even David and Moses have to be mythical.nids(♂) 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I doubt you are going to "prove" this then. David is more historical than Moses, and Moses is (arguably) more historical than Abraham. If you are going to cite studies arguing for the historicity of Abraham, feel free, but be aware that these will probably be from bible-thumping "universities" and the like, i.e. written with a religious agenda. There is only so much time oral tradition can bridge and still contain historicity. Bridging 500 years is well possible, bridging 1000 years is only possible in extreme cases, and with much accretion of mythology. Since you are also active on India related topics, the timeframe is very similar there: the redactors of the Vedas around 800 BC could look back on a tradition of some 500 years with reasonable clarity, and of some 1000 years with consiredable fuzziness. 1000 years is really about the limit, no historical memory survives for much more than a millennium in oral tradition, you need writing for that (or the rigid, mechanical memorization of Brahmanical culture, which is practically the effective equivalent of writing). dab (ᛏ) 09:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Brahminical culture and Dravidianism

Should I take your comment to mean that the previous title Dravidians and Hinduism would have more content and hence merit its own article? In any case, let me work on this article for some time starting now. I may be on a wikivacation for a week starting tomorrow, however. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. As of now, the article talks only about Tamil brahmins and I don't see why it can't be merged with Tamil brahmins unless information about other Dravidian peoples is also added. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Dab, do you think this may be called "clear documentary evidence". On talk page, the same guy preaches that primary sources are inferior to modern speculations. When I attempted to split irrelevant material from Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev to Caspian expeditions of the Rus, he reverted me three times within one hour. I'm actually very frustrated about this and seek a third opinion. The situation is tense and needs to be defused. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. By the way, do you know that one of your articles is about to be moved? You may want to check Talk:Iraklion Archaeological Museum. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle-earth

First of all, you said that they should be added manually to "show the article has been reviewed by a human." That's what the assessments are for (the classes).

Second of all, when you said "They are not for navigating by topic, we have categories for that," I definately have to disagree. It is the custom of every (or almost every) WikiProject to add their template to categories within their scope. If you find something wrong with that, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject.

Third of all, I was asked by User:Carcharoth to add the articles from Category:Tolkien because they "fall under WP-ME as well". I took his word for it (as he was better with the scope of the project) and added them to most (but not all, because they weren't connected) of the pages in the category.

If you have a problem with anything else or would like to reply to this comment (such as pointing out inaccuracies) you can contact me on my talk page. Cbrown1023 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you also state examples of mistakes made? Cbrown1023 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hellenistic period

Hi Dab, I've seen you added a merge tag at Hellenistic period, proposing to merge it with Hellenistic civilization. I and Yom discussed of this at Talk:Hellenistic Greece, and concluded a brand new article would have been better. This all started by Yom's idea to translate the very good French featured article fr:Époque hellénistique. Unfortunately Yom appears now to have tons of wikiwork to do, so the translation isn't proceeding. In my opinion, expanding Hellenistic history should be a priority, and so we need some willing translator/translators to continue the work. Tell me your opinion. Ciao, Aldux 14:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

well, I don't think we need Hellenistic Greece, Hellenistic period, and Hellenistic civilization, as their scope will be virtually identical. I agree sorting this out has rather high priority, and the French article is a good guide, but I do think most of its content is already present on en-wiki, scattered over so many disparate stub articles. I am not sure if I can look after this soon, but I'd like to, and I'll certainly be happy if you can go forward with it. regards, dab (ᛏ) 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regards Hellenistic Greece, I have to disagree, as the scope is quite different: that article is dedicated to the modern territory of Greece during the Hellenistic period, so its scope is much smaller. But I tend to agree that maybe Hellenistic period and Hellenistic civilization should be merged. Personally my French is not good enough to let me translate the article, but I'll try to badger Yom to see if he's only forgot, and is still willing.--Aldux 11:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle-earth template banner stuff

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I'm manually assessing the relative importance of Tolkien-related articles, and in the process reversing some of the edits where you removed the ME-project template from the talk pages of pages not related to Middle-earth. WikiProject Middle-earth (despite its name) also takes an interest in any Tolkien-related articles, and I've expanded the blurb on the talk page banner template to reflect that. I'd be grateful if you would be able to look at Category:Top-importance_Tolkien_articles, Category:High-importance_Tolkien_articles and Category:Mid-importance_Tolkien_articles if you have time, to see if you agree with the assessments. Thanks. Carcharoth 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blank map

Hey, I was just wondering where you got the blank map of Eurasia you used for Image:Centum_Satem_map.png; I've been planning to recreate a dialectological map from one of Hock's articles. Did you use the GIMP or Inkscape? --Xiaopo ℑ 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

88

Please excuse my ignorance, but in reference to this comment[20], what do the numerals 88 have to do with fascism? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)