User talk:Dbachmann

---

old archives:

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 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 Nov 08 / 21 14:49, 11 Apr 2009 / 22 – 18:47, 26 Aug 09 / 23 21 Nov 09 / 24 01:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Someone's talking about you

See User talk:Meeso#<real name redacted>, aka dab, aka dbachmann - I've no idea what this is about, but I'm probably going to WQA about the editor, which is how I saw this. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

German IPs who "reveal my identity" are mostly Albanian nationalists (from the comfort of an EU residence), whose agenda was thwarted by me at Kosovo. There are a number of these lurking about. If I remember correctly, Tubesship (talk · contribs) in particular was trying to make this personal.[1] Perhaps a usercheck will reveal all the IPs used disruptively by this user and lead to a general ban.

This statement above implies racism toward Albanians. I am an Albanian and I take offense. Fellowscientist (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See this diff, it appears Meeso (talk · contribs) wants to "put me down forever". I won't hire a bodyguard, but I think it's good enough for a permaban. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, Mr. Dbachmann! :) "Won't hire a body guard", LOL! I think what he meant was simply that he will "put you down forever" emotionally (which he managed, I mus say!), not physically. (Don't get all Angry now.) ''FellowScientist'' (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so not WQA then but ANI. I'm off to walk the dogs, if you want to take it there while I'm doing that, fine, or else I will when I get back. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'ver raised it there now. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PARAVAR

User Dharani Marani is continuously removing the Original Reseach tag put by Admin SpacemanSpiff who is absent. The refs provided for claims such as Aristocratic/Kshatriya/Pandya royal lineage are fake, not reliable. In the talk page, there are several refs on the origin of this caste (fishermen) but he refused to consider them. He even threatened the user who had put these refs. Please have a look.83.202.205.250 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Dharani Maran (talk · contribs) has actually made some useful edits to Paravar. Of course, the article needs much cleanup still -- but then you should see our other caste-cruft. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but when you assert, claim serious things such as Kshatriya/Noble/Royal lineage, you must be able to provide multiple valid refs written by proper, serious scholars which clearly support these claims... This is not at all the case here!... The sources provided tell nothing like this... This is clearly source manipulation, cheating... Some people are using Wikipedia caste based articles for their propaganda; Why wikipedia is so soft with these people ???.83.202.221.234 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of referenced content for no assigned reason on article Malik

Hi Dbachmann
I am intrigued that why you ,an administrator , would delete referenced content from an article , as you have done in article Malik ,
even while leaving related but unreferenced content . Please see my note for you on the Talk:Malik page
Intothefire (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

• Please see my response to your comment on the Talk:Malik page . Intothefire (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I see ,that instead of responding to my query , you posted me a cryptic question instead ,
    when I replied explicitly , you have chosen to not reply .
    

As an admin you may operate with privileges , but take care to act with depth ,
lest your unilateral actions are indefensible ,
in which case your edit/deletions cease to be judicious .Intothefire (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

please go away. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• What kind of whimsical and arbitrary discussion are you conducting .??
  

Here you post please go away to me instead of cogently responding to my queries" and specific responses

and on the same day you simultaenously make make another 7 edits ,
and contrary to your own contentions , Illogically leave this unreferenced section on South Asia intact
while you paradoxically deleted these pointedly relevant references I had provided related to exactly this unreferenced content in this section ??

This article has been needlessly, fractionated,

and your random actions are really counter productive .

I hope you are not countering me instead of the article content ??

Intothefire (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Was image

I noticed that you removed the image of a was scepter from the Was article, calling it "unencyclopedic". Obviously if it were a real Egyptian was staff, that would be encyclopedic; do you believe it's some amateur reconstruction? I had wondered about that myself, but the image description didn't provide any information, so I let the image sit. A. Parrot (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just somebody's self-made staff. Even if it were an ancient artefact, the image would still be unencyclopedic unless the artefact was identified either based on quotable literature, or citing the museum where the picture was taken. Images are content too, and the same content rules apply to them. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Irkutsk Oblast

Well, in response I could write an equally emotionally charged diatribe about how some people (with best intentions, of course) assume something and try to pass that something as true and encyclopedic information ("flag of Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug", copied word-for-word from "flag of Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug", really?), but since your hair don't stand on end when people do that, let's instead focus solely on the administrative divisions of Irkutsk Oblast.

First off, since when is a short referenced stub considered to be "less helpful" than a redirect to an article which does nothing but repeat the title of the redirect and create an illusion that we already have an article? I also find it incredibly ironic that you would advise a person who routinely helps out with systematic creation of the articles on the Russian districts to "include more fine-grained information" about two random districts he didn't get to just yet. Tell me, is this "fine-grained" enough for you? How about this? I suppose this would be better off if we replaced it with one of your famous redirects as well?

All in all, borrowing from your vocabulary, how the hell is upgrading a redirect to a stub not qualify as a "gradual improvement"? And what made you think I was even done with those two stubs?

Now let's review my "removal of the list of rural administrations", which is "apparently just based on the idea that either all the villages in the oblast should be listed, or else none at all". My response to that is "ahhhhhhhh!!!!". Here's why. Let's forget for a moment that the "list" was all in Russian, without as much as transliteration accompanying it, thus making it completely useless in this English Wikipedia. Let's also not mention the spelling errors in that list ("Больше" is not a word). But the "list" is neither that of the villages, nor of the "rural administrations" (and oh yes, let's also gloss over the fact that the villages are not the same as the rural administrations, as your question seems to imply)! The list you copied without thinking is that of the rural settlements, which are not administrative divisions. They are municipal divisions. Ugh!

I can understand the frustration of an editor who sees his work reverted wholesale, but I assure you in this case it was the best I could do. I honestly thought about incorporating your changes into the list, only to find out after weeding out things which make no sense that I am left with nothing to incorporate. Why would you choose to work on a highly technical subject you know next to nothing about? You've been a Wikipedian for just as long as me; surely you know by now that's never a good idea? Assigning a historical flag to a modern administrative division, breaking the structure of the list of the administrative divisions (an okrug of Irkutsk Oblast is a division hierarchically above both the cities and the districts, not between the cities and the districts), removing red links without giving a reason (did you know that the backlinks those red links produce are invaluable for a multitude of other tasks?), introducing concepts unrelated to the list's scope, arbitrarily changing the spelling of a link instead of taking care of the problem properly—all that is nothing to write home about. And after introducing all that mess you accuse me of the audacity to turn a redirect into (oh horrors) a stub? Pah! Yes, I was having a bad day, after having to waste time on sorting out your "improvements" to find out there's nothing to sort. Shouldn't come as much surprise that I overlooked one interwiki link in all that mess. My bad, sorry about that, is fixed now.

Snarkiness aside, if you really wish to improve the list, why not start with updating it with the 2010 information? Did you know that the list is presently based on OKATO, which is reliable but lagging? Did you know that a new law on the administrative-territorial division of Irkutsk Oblast was adopted this June? Did you know that the new law no longer recognizes rural administrations as an administrative unit? Now that I pointed out the difference between the administrative and municipal divisions, would you be willing to convert this list to cover both concepts (so it could resemble this list)? If there ever was a logical point to start with "gradual improvements", the new law would be it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2010; 13:55 (UTC)

whatever, it's your corner of Wikipedia, I'm not going to convince you about anything here. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not my corner, it's just the subject I happen to know a bit about. Everyone is welcome to contribute productively. My point is that your contribution in this particular case was well-intentioned but hardly productive. The least you could do is to acknowledge it; dismissive "whatever" remarks only work among adolescents. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2010; 15:14 (UTC)

Zoroastrians in Mohenjo-Daro

In June 2008, Science Magazine published a series of articles titled Unmasking the Indus about the Indus Valley Civilization. The following quote comes from page 1282 of the article "Indus Collapse: The Beginning or the End of an Asian Culture?":

Although Wright and others argue that climate and society are deeply intertwined, Possehl scoffs at the idea that drought explains the collapse. “We should stop thinking about the physical world and start looking at the fabric of society,” he suggests. He believes that the end of the Indus was primarily a matter of ideology, like the collapse of the Soviet Union. Possehl and Michael Jansen of RWTH Aachen University in Germany note that the Great Bath at the center of Mohenjo Daro was abandoned a century or two before the city, suggesting change in a society that they say emphasized water-related rituals.

In other words, the collapse of Mohenjo-Daro may have been preceded by a decline in water-related rituals. In Zoroastrianism, there is a ritual called the yasna, which is similar to the Vedic yajna, except it uses water instead of fire. Also, the chief Zoroastrian deity Ahura Mazda is the Iranian version of Varuna, the Vedic god of water. Maybe the decline of Mohenjo-Daro is related to the Hindu-Zoroastrian split... Hokie Tech (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Scythian languages

How are you Bachmann? I notice you reverted a section in this article. I think I know why you may have done it but I would like to hear it from you. I did not finish it. If that is your main reason I can finish it in my user pages and put the finished version back. I need an answer from you as to your reasons; otherwise, you seems to be ignoring the policies of discussion, references, and the fact that I am actually a reviewer. There is the question of totally arbitrary actions on the part of administrators. I did put such a request in the article's discussion. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.Dave (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Brigandage

G'Day. Your edits to Brigandage were excellent. What would think of a "rename" to simply Brigand? (removing the redirect which currently goes to the disambig and then to Outlaw). This would put it into line with other similar articles like Mercenary and Buccaneer. Happy to make the transfer; just wanted to get your opinion. Stalwart111 (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if and how we are going to distinguish the Brigand and Outlaw articles. One possibility would be to restrict "Outlaw" to the actual historical practice of removing legal protection from people. This would mean that the new "Brigand" article would combine "Brigand", "Bandit" and "Outlaw (modern sense)".

What I am sure of is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we don't need a full article at every term for "armed robbers living in the hills". --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I suppose brigand has traditionally had quasi-military connotations; soldiers who went bad, but not necessarily always so. Outlaw, on the other hand is basically anyone who works or worked outside the law. The term outlaw is still used today (see: Outlaw motorcycle club), whereas brigand is really more a historical term. Outlaw is obviously more generally and the intro to Brigand, if we move it, should reflect that. I suppose Bandit should just continue to redirect to Outlaw.

Maybe the problem could be solved with a template at the bottom of each page. I note Outlaw has 21 see also articles. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, but are you aware that outlaw historically was not somebody who "works outside the law" but somebody who had been officially excluded from the law, as in Imperial ban? (the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them) In this sense, outlawry was abolished in the UK in 1879. Since then, "outlaw" is just used loosely or figuratively.

My suggestion is that outlaw should be about this historical legal status, not about "outlaws" in the Wild West sense. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware but that's about as succinct an explanation as I've read. I suppose the difference is that the word outlaw is still used today whereas the term brigand is not so there has to be some accounting for that. I suppose Brigand and Outlaw should be considered in the same historical context. I might have a crack at an infobox template and show you what I had in mind. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind; just threw it together. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think this is going to work. Again, under WP:NOTDICT it is completely irrelevant if the word outlaw is still in use in a different sense for the purposes of an article on the original, historical sense of the term. The place to discuss all possible meanings of the word outlaw is at wikt:outlaw, not outlaw. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Just to be clear; there is no attempt to define or redefine the word, nor is the proposed navbox aimed at listing "possible meanings" - just at listing all actual uses for the word which happens to be wider than it's historical use. By way of example, Pirate redirects to Piracy which deals only with the historical use of the term; historical sea-faring pirates. The Template:Pirate (at the bottom of that page) is similar to what I have tried to do with Template:Outlaw. It, too, lists modern variants. I really don't mind either way; just trying to make things easier, not harder. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

sure, your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. There area also several possible schools of thought on the role and ideal form of a navbox. I do not wish to discuss the best form of a navbox for this at this point, just the distribution of articles. The navbox, if any, would be a corollary of that. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; understand entirely. My original questions actually came about because of a text I cited which referred to the hiring of brigands and outlaws as two distinct groups of people for hire (factually closer to a mercenary anyway) in the original historical context. When I went to link them I realised the links were cyclical; they both ended up at the same place eventually with nothing to distinguish the two. This was just one I followed through. Appreciate you putting the time into a back-and-forth on the matter. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

problems at Jona Lendering and Cyrus cylinder

Any idea who the IP accusing Lendering of racism is? I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Doug, I do not believe that you accurately reading the discussions occurring on the Lendering and Cyrus Cylinder pages and that you are making blanket accusations about my edits. The majority of your edits and undo have been lazy and sweeping with real consideration for the numerous sources that I provided. Please see the discussion pages on both the Cyrus Cylinder and Lendering pages again before your proceed. Moreover, what is to stop me from returning your accusations of sock puppetry (and the like) and to assume that you and Konstock "building consensus?" Please edit with caution. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

75.82, indulging in idle pov-pushing on the Cyrus Cylinder or "ancient Iran" in general firmly places you in the "Greater Iranian Patriotic Troll Cloud" immediately and makes your edits eligible for rollback, and your account eligible for the warn-block cycle, without any need for further discussion. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I happened to this quite by accident. I don't know anything about this issue. However I can tell you that Jona Lendering, whom I know by email slightly, has problems with being attacked by Iranian nationalists. I've had vitriolic attacks on him posted at my own blog, so there is some real hate there (although why I don't know, and I don't get involved). I don't know if this helps, but that much I know from personal experience. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, our Iranian nationalists are a pain in the nether regions. They for all in the world remind you of European nationalists in the years leading up to 1914. We know how that turned out. Except that the Iranian chauvinists of today are allowed to tinker with Uranium. I think the 21st century has not heard the last from that corner of the world. On the bright side, if this comparison holds good, this would mean that they are now lagging behind the history of civilization by only a single century, and if they keep speeding up like that maybe they will get away with only a few years of total war with single-digit megadeaths before they manage to join the present. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(Butting in) I don't think most of our Persian chauvinist friends are that enamoured of the Islamic Republic and a lot of them are ex-pats, maybe the children of those who fled the 1979 revolution. They certainly seem keener on the late shah than on Khomeini. The Cyrus cylinder was a big element in Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi's propaganda, whereas his celebration of the 2500th anniversary of the Persian Empire was one of the events that outraged Islamists and led to his downfall. Wikipedia's Iranian ethno-warriors often have an anti-Arab streak which is not the kind of thing Tehran can afford to indulge in given the ethnicity of its Shi'ite allies in Hezbollah and, indeed, the founder of its faith. --Folantin (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. But do you think Ahmadinejad is a religious soul? Islam has become an embarassment to the Iranian elite, just like Communism has become one to the Chinese elite. And, we might add, Democracy to the western elite. They are all in the same business, you just need to search-replace "Muslim"/"Communist"/"Democratic" in the respective rationales.

lol, I just noted the {{Indo-European}} template at Iranian nationalism. I didn't realize that article went completely unwatched. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit I try to avoid investigating the way Ahmadinejad's mind works too closely in case his thought processes are contagious. But, yeah, contemporary Iran has been compared to Burma, especially after the last election. It's basically a dictatorship looking after its own vested interests. Iran's foreign policy is often cannier than you'd expect: it's aligned with Christian Armenia against Shi'ite Azerbaijan, for instance, and (I think) definitely prefers India to Pakistan.

But Ahmadinejad isn’t editing Wikipedia so he isn’t our problem (although it might be better if he was here spending hours and hours bickering over the nomenclature of the Shatt al-Arab and the Persian Gulf rather than playing at nuclear brinkmanship). Our bunch of POV-pushers generally hate his guts anyway. I’ve more or less given up editing articles on Iranian history. The thing is, why bother with Wikipedia when Encyclopedia Iranica is online? There you get pages written by experts who don’t bother to spend paragraphs and paragraphs analysing the exact ethnic composition of the Safavid dynasty. The only trouble is that Google ranks Wikipedia above the EI.

A lot of our bunch of POV-pushers seem to follow the line of an internet magazine called Rozaneh. Among their ideas is the belief that the USA is planning to divide Iran like Yugoslavia into its ethnic regions. They have a particular beef with Azeris. More Azeris live in Iran than in the Republic of Azerbaijan. In fact, some reckon they constitute up to 30% of the population of Iran. The Persian chauvinists are paranoid about any hint of Azeri separatism or “Greater Azerbaijan” sentiment (you can often spot the Persian chauvinists because they insist on spelling Iranian Azerbaijan as “Azarbaijan”). And , of course, we have their equally biased Azeri counterparts edit-warring. The fight between Iranians and Azeris on Wikipedia has close parallels with thr dispute between Greeks and Macedonians.--Folantin (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cernunnos

You are way out of line at Cernunnos. That article is both incomplete and full of uncited generalized statements that collectively are misleading (the lede particularly). These you leave in, but you deleted impeccably sourced material that comes from entries on Cernunnos in high-quality reference works on Celtic culture. I seriously doubt that you know better than John Koch and P.B. Ellis what's relevant to the understanding of the Cernunnos divine type. Worse, you've actually made a source say what he did not: Maier did not mention Carnonos. This is not the kind of bad editing I expected from you: an editor I highly respect once pointed to you as someone whose opinion might be worthwhile. Since I had bibliography for the topic on hand, I thought it would be a fairly simple matter to add cited material. Now I see there's a deliberate effort to exclude pertinent scholarship and maintain ownership. Won't waste my time in an edit war, so have at it. Really disappointing, though. (For instance, the website used for the first ref is hardly a reliable scholarly source; this is Whatmough's reading of the Parisian pillar, and needs a ref that says so.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

wait, wait, have you considered the possibility that I may have made a mistake? I am not aware of having done any of these things. --dab (𒁳) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems the mistake is yours, you appear to be complaining about something I did not do. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maier was made to say what he did not. I apologize for going bonkers, which I tend to do when a source is rewritten without consulting what the source actually said. Before you lecture me on how an article is written, you might want to determine whether I actually write articles in the manner you describe. Again, sorry for the overreaction, but it isn't uncommon in such articles to be caught between Neopagans who have personal views and linguists who want to exclude all scholarly discussion other than vowel gradations. The lede is misleading; the name "Cernunnos" only occurs once, and it's a more accurate reflection of the scholarship to think of this figure in terms of typology, without asserting that every antlered figure is "Cernunnos". Miranda Green does her thing, which is to construct an elaborate hypothetical mythology, but she isn't the only game in town. There's a major article from the 1950s by Bober (as cited in Koch's Celtic Culture), and evidently Proinsias Mac Cana has a go at it (I haven't seen that one). My goal was to bring the presentation of the article more in line with the entries in Koch and Maier, to balance the predominance of Green's approach, with more developed explication from Bober et al. that would answer some of the questions that readers bring to this figure. Sorry for going ballistic, but Maier didn't discuss the Carnonos inscription in the particular source cited, and that revision really set me off. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Upanishads

Hello, Dbachmann. You have new messages at Talk:Upanishads#Good_news_-_Upanishads_is_now_a_GA.21.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration enforcement

Ferahgo the Assassin has opened a thread about my involvement in the race and intelligence articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji You are mentioned (by user name) as an editor who has observed my editing behavior and who has an opinion about it, but I don't so far see notification on your user talk page about this, so I thought it would be a courtesy to you to let you know that Ferahgo the Assassin's request for enforcement is currently under discussion. On my part, I would consider your courtesy if you found time in your busy schedule to comment there, and I will read anything you write with great interest. Best wishes for much recognition of your contributions and much personal satisfaction from your volunteer participation in building Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationalization of history (content fork?)

I'd appreciate your comments about this new article, which seems to be a content fork and is discussed here and here. Thanks, --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the same editor has created another article to form a matched set: Denationalization of history; he may have a valid approach, but as of yet, his articles are solo operations. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these are valid articles, they just need to be integrated with existing content. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

X Nationalism again

You might be interested since we have a recent wp:idontlike it activity by playing with the pov tag [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna's tag was very reasonable and I started a RfC, so if Alexikoua wants to remove it he should take part in the discussion instead of trying to remove by wp:idontlikeit revert-warring, because the same article written by the same user that was deleted on its home wikipedia is definitely not fine as Alexikoua labeled it. In fact I think that someone should inform the admins, the users of el.wikipedia who voted for its deletion since their insight would be useful(the only one who voted against its deletion was Alexikoua). Btw there are less x organization is a terrorist one labels on Al Qaeda than on Albanian nationalism, which says a lot about the quality of the article. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't see the reason you are obsessed on reverting Db's version and restoring the pov tags.... Seems quite unexplainable since you filled an rfc too.Alexikoua (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA Alexikoua, because I didn't really revert Dab but you who were revert warring and updated the tags. Btw restoring pov tags makes absolute sense when many editors provide reasons about the pov of the article and there's an ongoing RfC.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is irrelevant how "many editors" are trying to have an argument on talk if they just do not have a case. ZjarriRrethues, you want to stop editing articles related to Albanian patriotism since you clearly have a WP:COI. I am sure you can find another area of interest where you can contribute meaningfully. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Alexikoua is not showing "patriotism". Look at his edits. He is trying to make everything Greek. I mean, he also argued that Scanderbeg was Greek. There are no sources that would show anything similar to that, except in forums where people not qualified give their opinions. So, please Dab, try and be less biased. Alexikoua is the next Megistias!—Anna Comnena (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

did Alexikoua try and push a Greek etymology of Bardyllis? I thought not. Look, there is apparently quotable evidence for the opinion that Albanian bardhe has an Illyrian etymology, so why don't you just let the linguistically savvy editors document this and leave it alone. As for Alexikoua "arguing that Scanderbeg was Greek", let's see the diff. Here I definitely don't see him pushing a "Georgios Castriotis", do I? If your excuse for nationalist trolling is that other people also indulge in nationalist trolling, let me tell you straight away that this isn't going to fly. It is your job to behave yourself, and if you fail to do that it is you who is going to face the consequences. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna I was never saying that Skanderbeg was Greek. Please avoid this extreme battleground mentality. Actually I've upgraded the quality of lots of Albania related articles, something that was never appriciated by ultranationalistic cycles (suppose they hate quality).Alexikoua (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, if you would try and assume good faith with me, you will see that there will be less "flooding" and "trolling". As for Bardyllis, I am not involved in that. However, I am involved in Albanian Nationalism and I believe that time has come for this page to settle. As in it's current form, it is badly written, it does not comply with WP standards and was created by Megistias who was banned from editing because of his POV pushing. I really believe that there is useful information in this page, but the naming is not correct and the style is awful. Albanian Nationalism is a broader concept than just irredentism and megalomania. It is like writing in Albania article only about Albanian mafia. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As for you Alex. I remember that we did a number of edits together, and I could see that we did find ways to work together. But yesterday I started to doubt on your "professionalism" because of some edits. I do not want to argue with you about that, however I just want to let you know that I really do not have nationalistic tendencies, I just do not like skewed perspectives. Like (for example) arguments that Albanian Nationalism is a myth, and other Nationalism are not. Wickers does say that Albanian Nationalism is a myth, but she also says that all Nationalism are based on myths. So this, is only an interpretation. (This was only an example of what I am going against). Thanks. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I took Anna's comment for a retort by ZjarriRrethues. If you glance at my contribution history, you will realize that I am busy writing encyclopedia articles. I have very little interest in this. Rollback and block the nationalist patriots, and include a decent discussion of the bardhe thing, please. Wikipedia is orders of magnitude to lenient with people who are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia.

Anna, of course Greece has its own crackpot nationalists. But it seems they are busy making television or something, as they are rarely seen on Wikipedia. Countries like Iran, Armenia and Albania, on the other hand, seem to be so chock-full of crackpot nationalists that literally the majority of Wikipedia editors of such provenience can be counted among their number. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bardyllis, again

The nonsense is starting again. The Empathictrust fellow is most likely a sock of a banned user, I will deal him. But please keep an eye on it, the disruption is incessant. Athenean (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Der Berggeist.jpg

{{Di-no fair use rationale-notice}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Moses and Israel

Several wikipedians, inluding you have changed and finally deleted the term "Religion of Moses and Israel". You must note that even though religion of Moses (or Moseic religion) is largely interchangeable with Judaism, it is not always this way. Samaritans are adherents of Samaritanism - a branch of Moseic religion, which is not Judaism. So were several arab tribes in the Middle Ages, including Himyarite kingdom. There are several more examples. Moseic Religion is a religious term said by Jews and Samaritans in prayers, when relating to the religion, thus changing it to Religion of Ancient Israel was a huge mistake - completely out of context. Later, your forwarding to Judaism has been more accurate, but it has completely messed up my original meaning. Please do something to bring back the original meaning.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's "Mosaic", not "Moseic". "Mosaic religion" is not a historical religion, it is, as you say, a concept within Judaism and Samaritanism. I understand your concern about the original rename and will try to address it. --dab (𒁳) 05:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for understanding. I think it is a good idea to forward it to Mosaic Law - it fits the description well. I will add information within the page of Mosaic Law on relevant religions and ethnic groups which practice the Religion of Moses and Israel i.e. Mosaic Law, and link to Judaism and Samaritanism, as well as relevant religeous groups which practice it.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that Mosaic law is at present a disambiguation page. Perhaps Halakha would be a suitable article? Or else I could envisage the addition of a "Mosaic law" section to the Moses article. --dab (𒁳) 08:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i do understand it is a disambugation page. Thus, my edit was minor - just general mention what communities and ethnic groups practice the Mosaic Law. Halakha is not suitable for expansion on this topic, as it is a differential part of the Mosaic Law, linked to Judaism alone, and completely irrelevant to other practices of the Religion of Moses and Israel. I do not think Moses is a suitable page too, since Moses is a mythical or historical figure, while here we are speaking about religion basics and religeous definitions. Again - Mosaic Law (or more accurately Religion of Moses and Israel) is an umbrella for the major religeous practice of Judaism, but also minor practices of Samaritanism, Subbotniks religeous movement in Russia and Hebrew Israelites movement in USA. There are also other historical and modern examples to Mosaic Law practices (different of Judaism). In a similar way Christianity is an umbrella for Catolicism, Orthodixism, Armenian Church, Maronite Church, Assyrian Church, Anglican Church, Lutheran Church and other Chritian movements. Apparently, there is a page on Christianity. Why no full page to be dedicated for the Religion of Moses (Mosaic Law)? Maybe we could change the status of disambugation for Mosaic Law to a standard page status?Greyshark09 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the Judaism article? Greyshark09 has been trying to shoehorn his "Mosaic Law" shtick into that article. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

sources

i did post sources in the end of Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe.Retroqqq (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We have 43 articles referencing this Eupedia site, which does not carry an "about" section to say what it is. Worrying. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may:

http://www.eupedia.com/about/

There's more, at the link. I happened upon this edit. Hope this is helpful. If I were a much more active participant, I'd find this worrying as well. As it is, I'll return to deep lurk now. Gingervlad (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Identifying lexicographical WP:RS

John Carter recommended I seek your comment on lexicographical WP:RS. Is it preferable to use standard modern lexicons to provide definitions of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words, or can we just use whatever we want? If a 100 year old source is contradicted by a professional modern lexicon, which source should I use; the 100 year old one, or the modern standard lexicon?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For classical languages like Hebrew, Greek, and Latin it is like this: the 19th century produced towering feats of philological scholarship. The major dictionaries of this time remain standard works. You shouldn't just cite any old 19th century source, but you should cite the standard reference, which is most often a 19th century work. E.g. for Hebrew cite Gesenius. For Arabic, cite Lane. For Sanskrit, cite Monier-Williams. If there is a serious more recent source which contradicts these standard works, they will explain why they do so, and this explanation should be included in the discussion. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Authochthony and Illyrians

Since you have dealed with the topic seems that a variety of articles are hit for the same reasons. A recent example is here in Albanian dialects (claiming autohthony using weird wp:synth&or).Alexikoua (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I hate to bother you about this stuff, but this Alex guy is impossible. What is this?: How can someone delete something in such an arbitrary way. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna hope this 'Alex' isn't me, since I'm uninvlolved in the dif. you gave above.Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Sorry! —Anna Comnena (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Where can I report this case! WhiteWriter is another name of Tadija, a user many times blocked for edit warring and whatnot! This page was created by Mladifilozof. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

you are supposed to explain what you thought was the problem with the redirect. As far as I can see, the target article addresses the same topic. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sumerian language

Thank you. I want to show this: "During 1855, he published Écriture Anarienne, advancing the theory that the language spoken originally in Assyria was Turanian (related to Turkish and Mongolian), rather than Aryan or Semitic in origin, and that its speakers had invented the cuneiform writing system." (from Julius Oppert article.) Böri (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to realize that these theories have been completely discredited. It was possible to suggest them in best faith in the 1850s, because almost nothing was known about the cuneiform texts at the time. You need to realize that the decipherment of the cuneiform script dates to 1857. It was possible to read some of it during the 1830s and 1840s, but before the 1850s reading cuneiform was highly speculative. The theory you quote dates to two years before the complete decipherment of cuneiform. The actual edition of the content of the cuneiform texts took many decades, not to mention their linguistic analysis. 160 years later we have are in an infinitely better position to judge the linguistics of the Ancient Near East, and it has long been well known that this "Turanian" theory was mistaken. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sumerian-Ural Altaic Affinities (by A.Zakar): http://www.jstor.org/pss/2740574 / Agglutinative language (both Turkish & Sumerian) / Subject Object Verb (both Turkish & Sumerian) Maybe this don't show much... Regards Böri (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It shows that you are getting better at locating good references. This one, you need to cite as

Andras Zakar, 'Sumerian-Ural-Altaic Affinities', Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1971), pp. 215-225.

What is going on here is that a Hungarian patriot made a submission, "hey, scholars, there are affinities of Sumerian with Hungarian, how about that", and twelve scholars replied, on eleven pages. You need to read all of it. Or if you don't have access to the full article, you can at least read the beginning of the comment by Miguel Civil on the first page, which has the gist "yeah, we know. And Bantu. And Basque. And Polynesian". In fact, your reference is perfectly valid, as long as it is used to point out "An Ural-Altaic relation with Sumerian has been suggested, but is considered as without merit in scholarship." --dab (𒁳) 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Title of Pāṇini article

Your move from a few years ago is being discussed here: someone wants to move "Pāṇini" to "Panini (grammarian)". Just in case you're interested, Shreevatsa (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. That someone is me. Thanks for your comment! ^^, Yours faithfully, kotakkasut. 18:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a report!

Hi Dab. I made this report of you and your edits on Albanian nationalism page. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it. Please only return to Talk: space once you are done wikilawyering on Wikipedia: space and ready to help writing an encyclopedic article. --dab (𒁳) 09:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexandros = a Greek name?

They" say: Alexander: Latinized form of the Greek name Αλεξανδρος (Alexandros), which meant "defending men" from Greek αλεξω (alexo) "to defend, help" and ανηρ (aner) "man" (genitive ανδρος). from:http://www.behindthename.com/name/alexander /but is it true? Maybe, it was a Luwian name... and the Greeks took this name from the Luwians! Paris = Alexandros (other name of the Trojan Prince Paris)with Greek "-os" suffix. Alaksandu > Alexandros(the same name?) My opinion: Yes! but earliest form of this name was Alaksandu! So maybe this was a Luwian name and the Greeks changed it as "Alexandros"... How do you know that it was a real Greek name? Böri (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I read books discussing it. You really need to begin to understand that Wikipedia isn't a place where people meet for the friendly exchange of random speculation. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not a Greek name! & What about Cassandra ? / Saying "I read books" is childish! Böri (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "books", I said "books". Perhaps you can reflect on the maturity of pestering complete strangers with etymological questions that you could research either online or by visiting a library. I have no idea about the etymology of Cassandra. I would need to research it, as clearly just assuming it is Luwian because everybody likes Luwians isn't good enough. But perhaps you could be bothered to do some research for a change and cite some decent literature on the name? --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hurrian language

Is this on your watch list? I removed some odd stuff about the Armenian language which was misplaced, and it's been reinserted once. I assume this is some sort of Armenian nationalist thing. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Samhain & Halloween edits

Further information: Talk:Samhain and Talk:Helloween

Clicked on Halloween discussion, one German editor Bakulan is trying to rewrite the article how he sees it (apparently German view of having absolutely no pagan celtic origin whatsoever) and has done so to Samhain article, and with no consensus. Noticed you are Swiss so you would be aware of the apparent German view on this which Bakulan is enforcing. My personal knowledge on historical origin is very limited so my input would not be worth much. Having looked at edit history, you have contributed to Samhain page probably more than most, so i thought i'd notify you of this (if you haven't already got it on watchlist of course). --Xavier 21 (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how there can be a "German view on Samhain". Either there is decent evidence for a given view on Samhain, or there isn't. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It turns out Ronald Hutton has done our work for us in sorting this out, all we really need to do is cite him. --dab (𒁳) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that, also there are a great deal of sources that state similar. Having read the Halloween discussion page, among many things the user Bakulan is being accused of cherry picking sources to push his personal point of view. He is also using some questionable sources that non German readers can verify, one such source was dismissed after investigation. He has criticised peer reviewed scholars such as Hutton, and then used weak sources such as "business of goosebumps". Furthermore, another user Eastcoat translated one source that Bakulan claimed discounted Celtic origin, and Eastcoat found it said; "The origins of Halloween go back to the pagan Celtic festival Samhain which was celebrated on 1 November". On another occasion Bakulan advocated a BBC source, then dismissed it when another user responded with the same BBC source stating Samhain's connection to Halloween. The discussion page is full of this, now over 180,000 bytes. Is all of this apparent cherry picking to suit an editors agenda allowed on Wikipedia?, and especially on what is a pretty significant event in Halloween? Xavier 21 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Nine Unknown

Cld you take a look at this? (came up on fringe noticeboard) I've reverted to an old version which clearly states it's just a novel, but then I noticed you'd edited the "in-universe" versions also. Am I missing something? Thanx--Misarxist 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a novel which spawned some cranky conspiracy theories. The question is, are these notable in any way. Independent third party sources would be needed to establish such notability. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweden

Greetings. Since the topic interests you [[3]]. Iraqi (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't so much interest me as annoy me. If they could just live out their identity crisis without disrupting Wikipedia articles about the Bronze Age, I probably wouldn't care. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again please

Can you head over to Ramayana and Mahabharata please? I've been off wiki for a while and I was obviously not around to revert much and the two have come to include a lot of, let's just say, innovative content. Also, you might be interested in WT:INB#Articles_about_India as it follows a question you've been asking for a while. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like Doug has got our back :)

Yes, we need to face the realtity that there is literally an inexhaustible number of people willing to add crap to our India articles, and that we need to address the problem by other means than dealing with each one as a separate case to be considered on its own merit. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some older stuff too that needs some looking into on the Mbh/Rmyn series. As for the India articles take a look at Sivakasi riots of 1899. This was the sourced version I left the article at, and the same sources have been manipulated to say the opposite while a lot of other "he said she said" stuff has come in. I don't even feel like going back to that article, the last time was trouble enough with posts on their Orkut and other forums asking for volunteers to attack me and it's just a bleeding waste of time. I really can't think of what we can do about this kind of crap. —SpacemanSpiff 18:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah, this needs to be done more efficiently. I am more than willing to revert to the last good version and semiprotect. In such cases, I do believe any admin, 'involved' or not, should be expected to help protecting respected editors from from trolling campaigns orchestrated in internet fora.

As I have learned from the "Indigenous Aryan" trollfest of 2005-2006, it's an uphill battle, but in the end even Indian internet trolls will get frustrated if they bang their heads against the wall often enough. After that, they will go and look for fun somewhere else, hopefully off-wiki. --dab (𒁳) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection doesn't help these anymore, I think our orkut and other groups educate them, so you'll see these warriors make 10 edits on the talk pages and then start off. See Talk:Nair for example and how a WP:RSN discussion was manipulated to include the caste website as a reliable source! BTW, the Jat articles will be coming up for copyright review soon, some copyvios have been discovered so there may be a massive exercise to clean up copyvios, although you know what I'd suggest instead of clean up... —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Halloween?

I noticed this subject because User:Slatersteven called for help on WP:RSN, and thought you might be able to comment: [4].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading some of the Halloween discussion and its clear it needs assistance, certainly from editors who have some understanding of the subject. The editors are having a struggle in working out the veracity and reliability of the German language sources for example. There also seems to be an issue of undue weight.Xavier 21 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this a little boring. If people want to improve the article by adding secondary sources that are actually superior to the ones we had, why just they don't do that. What is all this "German" discussion? This smacks of ideological motivation, apparently somebody is out to "debunk Samhain" no matter what. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW

This isn't anything to do with Barbadian history, but you probably remember the hoaxing over the Illyrian section of Paleo-Balkan mythology. I just noticed that this festival of fun [5] had developed in parallel to the plain vanilla version - boringly cited to an expert source (Wilkes) - we came up with at PBM. I've changed it into a redirect but maybe we need to keep an eye on anyone who tries to resurrect it without providing solid evidence these elusive deities exist. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I also note we have been blessed with a Thracian horseman article last Saturday[6]. --dab (𒁳) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The original version of Illyrian Mythology [7] was courtesy of the short-lived Afhadhfah (talk · contribs) and looks pretty much like a reinstatement of the hoax material I deleted. I wonder where they're getting this stuff from? Maybe some Wikipedia mirror site. No prizes for guessing our friend's nationality. Check out this edit where he claims an Albanian origin for Argentina [8]. Excellent! --Folantin (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I think I've traced the origins of the "extra info" to the work of one J.W. Pandeli, Oh Albania, My Poor Albania: The History of "Mother Albania" from the Beginning of Time, the Beginning of the World (published by a certain J.W.Pandeli in 1980). Check out the only Amazon.com review (five stars from one J.W. Pandeli) [9]: "This book represents a new idea. Albanian-American presents a unique history book about the Albanian people from 'the beginning of time', 'the beginning of the world'. This book projects the idea that the ancient Albanian history has been preserved in Greek literature. This idea is based on a combination of Greek literature, the Albanian language, and the possible etymology of ancient names." The book is out of print but this guy and/or his admirers have been fairly active on the net. Apparently "Illyr-Albania" is the source of all Western civilisation and religion. For instance, I think he derives the Greek word "genesis" from "Genusus", a river in Illyria mentioned in Classical sources. "Aphrodite" is either Albanian "Aferdite" or related to the River Shkumbe, which apparently means "foam" in Albanian. You get the idea. --Folantin (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Priceless. Written by J.W. Pandeli, published by J.W. Pandeli, reviewed by J.W. Pandeli. Without the ideas presented, neither the evolution of early man nor the Greek Civilization can be accurately understood or fully appreciated. Try telling this to the academians - but it is true.

I share the sentiment expressed in the title. With such patriots, a country needs no enemies. --dab (𒁳) 20:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested

I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether "folk etymology" has a history of being used in folklore journals, but if you present the relevant references, I will believe you immediately, I really don't see where a "dispute" can come into this, it's just a question of pointing to the evidence. --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I would tend to support this. "Folk etymology" is not a formation parallel to folk science, folklore or folk religion, etc. It is for better or worse a (somewhat unhappy) loan translation of German Volksetymologie. --dab (𒁳) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Nations

A problem with the flags on Celtic Nations, they will not allow me to put in the Tricolour, even though its not representing the whole island, and its always the same two or three people led by "BritishWatcher". I think an admin is required to intervene because its such a joke, that they have a problem seeing the Tricolour as a problem and no other flag even though I clearly explained, that it does not represent the whole island.Sheodred (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What the Tricolour represents is probably a matter of perspective. You should ask the Irish Republican Army what they think. I don't want to open that can of worms. Of course the notion of "Celtic nation" is intrinsically nationalist, and nationalism more often than not implies irredentism. The Irish nation seceded from the United Kingdom precisely because of such sentiments. The question of territory is secondary to the question at hand, since regardless of how exactly you are going to delineate the territory of the Irish nation, the Celtic nations article is referring to the simple existence of the idea of a Celtic nation of Ireland. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Afshin(Caliphate General)

Hi Can you comment on the article here [10] or its talkpage. There is a difference of POV and would like some neutral users to comment. I believe source from 1848 or 1910 Britannica is not a valid source, nor are sources which are not written by academic authors. Any feedback is appreciated. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Dab, Any comments? Please read the last section of the talkpage. For example is 1910 Britannica or a source from 1848 valid for modern topics, when top modern scholars state another point of view contrary to these? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

here is what I think of the perpetual ethnic bickering between Iranian and Turkish editors about the "ethnicity" of assorted medieval figures:

thank you. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, as I could care less what Afshin was. However, an Encyclopaedia must present accurate information. We need neutral editors to fix the topic, not delete sources such as Peter Benjamin Golden or Bernard Lewis. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Note these five sources:

• Bernard Lewis (Princeton Full Professor))

Lewis,Bernard. "The Political Language of Islam", Published by University of Chicago Press, 1991. excerpt from pg 482: "Babak's Iranianizing Rebellion in Azerbaijan gave occasion for sentiments at the capital to harden against men who were sympathetic to the more explicitly Iranian tradition. Victor (837) over Babak was al-Afshin, who was the hereditary Persian ruler of a district beyond the Oxus, but also a masterful general for the caliph."

• Clifford Edmond Bosworth, Oxford Full Professor. His Resume [11]

[[12] Clifford Edmund Bosworth (Translator with Commentary), The History of al-Tabari Vol. 33 "Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the 'Abbasid Caliphate: The Caliphate of al-Mu'tasim A.D. 833-842/A.H. 218-227", SUNY Press, 1991. Footenote 176 on pg 59: "Abu Dulaf's contigent of volunteers from lower Iraq would be mainly Arabs, and there seems in fact to have been hostility between him, as a representative of Arab influence at the caliphate court, and the Iranian Al-Afshin"[

• Peter Benjamin Golden (Resume: [13]) (Rutgers Full Professor)

P.B. Golden, "Khazar Turkic Ghulams in Caliphal Service", Journial Asiatique, 2004, vol. 292. pg 292:Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not".

• Roy Mottahedeh, Full Professor at Harvard University

Mottahedeh, Roy, "The Abbassid Caliphate in Iran", Cambridge History of Iran, IV, ed. R.N. Frye, 57-89. pg 75:" Al Mu'atism chose for this task the Afshin, the Iranian king of Ushrusuna".

• D. Pipes. Turks in Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978. I am not particually fond of this author, but his work is published in JTS which is a prestigious journal. I have this particular article and it is in general, well researched. EIther way JTS is a WP:RS journal.

I agree that these disputes are stupid. However, it does not mean that neutrality is brought by deleting these sources. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How many references do we need to establish that medieval tradition is unclear, and that either possibility has been suggested?

Even if you cite 200 references stating the same thing, it doesn't change the essence of the situation. You should cite the three or four best references establishing the status of a conteroversy, not absolutely everything that has ever been said. --dab (𒁳) 18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I urge you to look at the sources. I have to stay I could care less than a grain of sand here on the background of Afshin, but I am trying to make sure the Encyclopaedia has the highest quality sources. Medieval tradition is something but it is up to scholars to intrepret those traditions. I only see one academic reference mentioning Turkish (from 1970), but 5 academic reference mentioning Persian (the ones I brought). The other user(who is a good user but we have a differing point of view on some topics) had 1910 Britannica/ and an 1848 sources, and some non-academic authors which I deleted. So if you can patiently comb through the talkpage, it is better than deleting sources. I know it requires some patience, but it will give a more permanent solution. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. The source saying "the Iranian king" is just a soundbite. You want references pointing out the ambiguity of tradition, and stating that one or the other is more likely explicitly. Claiming on Wikipedia that there is an "Iranian theory" vs. a "Turkish theory" presupposes that this has been stated in scholarship. You need to establish that this is a question that has been of interest in scholarship to begin with. The point is that the question of Iranian vs. Turkish ethnicity may be meaningful today, but was not in the medieval period. I resent the attempts to make modern ethnic identities creep into articles on medieval topics. See also ethnic essentialism. Do you think Richard the Lionheart was "ethnically English"? He must have been, as there is a gazillion references saying he was an English king. But then he didn't even speak English. That is because the question did not arise at the time, medieval society cared whether somebody was or was not of noble birth, but certainly not about their "ethnicity", which is an entirely modern concept. -dab (𒁳) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC) :Because he was always off to the Holy Land again, he was known as Richard Gare de Lyon. 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any Wiki rule according to which references to Britannica or other authoritative sources are deemed 'invalid' due their publishing date? For example, if someone in 100 years from now calls Afshin a Turk, would that yield C.E.Bosworth source invalid?

Anyways, I don't think it is relevant whether Afshin was Iranian, Turkic (or Uzbek for that matter, since he hailed from what is now Uzbekistan). What is relevant is to provide broadest possible picture establishing solid references to either claimed background, which I did on that page in regards to both Turkic and Iranian backgrounds. I am not sure why my neutral edit caused such a negative reaction from User:Khodabandeh14 who started disputing origins, removing them from introduction (along with dispute tags that I placed later), finally, replaced 5 references to Turkic with 1, instead adding 5 references to Iranian. It is definitely focus in a wrong direction of encyclopedia editing.

For prior history of such edit conflicts, you can also look at Atabegs of Azerbaijan, where the contributor was trying to diminish the standalone title involving "Azerbaijan" or any connection to a present-day state of Azerbaijan, and using selective references to assign historical Arran or Azerbaijan as a part of Persia, which did not even exist as a state in 12-13th centuries. I am glad that he corrected himself later re-adding present-day geographic connection, yet again clearly pulling Iran connection to the front.

Frankly speaking all these attempts to replace out Turkic or Azerbaijani with Iranian or Persian are tiring and counter productive. And I agree with you that none of these ethnic terms had any essence at the time described, it is the problem of primarily 20th century. Atabəy (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry dab, but I have to write here venting some of frustations with Wikipedia and also your lack of involement (in a manner that you can). This is becoming a pointless talk as we need some admins with considerable knowledge of the history of the area to get involved when these historical dicussions rise. Dab is such an admin, but I think he needs to show more patience and read all the sources provided in the talkpage and (the ones I'll provide here, which I will answer some of his qestions)

And I have no idea what Atabek is talking about me "correcting" myself. I also answer dab's question: " You want references pointing out the ambiguity of tradition, and stating that one or the other is more likely explicitly." below.

But let me just point to some other issues here. I disagree with: "The point is that the question of Iranian vs. Turkish ethnicity may be meaningful today, but was not in the medieval period.". Please see my reason below (alittle further down where I bring primary sources showing that such cocepts existed). I firmly believe that in Wikipedia, if everyone followed the rules, there would be no problem. I also believe that it is unfortunate that only people from the countries of the regions edit the articles for that region, where-as it is much more preferable for someone like dab (after he does the proper research) to edit those articles. Too bad there is only one dab in Wikipedia. By default, dab now thinks every debate were there is some disagreement is because two users are pushing a different nationalist POV. This is not the case with regards to my edit, but dab mght have been condition here due to 90% of such conflicts.

Atabek, to point to my contributions (all backed up with WP:RS and primary sources, as dab can see in the talkpages of those articles from top experts in the field), however, I can point to Atabek not following WP:RS to push nationalist points of view.. Here are two that I recall(of course ignoring previous arbomms). One using a source from 120 years in trying to connect the Iranian speaking Medes to Turks: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Median_language&action=historysubmit&diff=109410314&oldid=109409796] Even though again I could care less what the Medes were, but I do care for accuracy in Wikipedia in an area I have some knowledge of. This was the source Atabek added: The Turanian language of Media, known through the trilingual inscriptions of Darius at Behistun, first read by Norris, and deeply studied by Dr. Oppert, is stated by the latter great authority to approach most closely to the Turkic group"(C.R.Conder, "The Early Races of Western Asia", The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 19. (1890), pp. 29-51)

Here Atabek in the talkpage justifying the source to me: "Dear Ali, Ehsan Yarshater is Iranian scholar, not acceptable from POV perspective. Again, instead of removing the references, please provide third-party references in support of your position. Also Turanian language group is the same as Ural-Altaic language group which formally used by linguistists"

Of course Ehsan Yarshater is acceptable because he is well known academic from Columbia University.

And then this: "Attempts to purge out Turanian language reference from Wikipedia are not acceptable, as it's already an established group (Uralo-Altaic) by practically all linguists. It's unfair to purge one theory and present only Iranian theory"[14]

And then this: "I would like to attract your attention to the work of the inventor of the term Turanian, Friedrich Max Muller, Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford in his lecture "Natural religion", vol. 2, 1888-1892: "

So when dab gets involved thinking both sides are biased, he is actually not aware of users contributions. I'll let dab to draw his own conclusion by the above example.

And the article in [[15]] as well here: [16] is another example of out-dated, non-existent concepts being created for nationalistic reasons.

Yes all these nationalistic nonsense is tiring because users simply fail to follow [[WP:RS] and try to push a POV, in some cases using sources from 100 years, 150 years ago or sources whose authors are unknown and not experts in the area and to go against modern western academic scholarship. However, the problem is that there is not enough Wikipedia users who are verses in these topics. So imagine if I was not there to correct the Median language article.

So if Dab wants to be invoved, he needs to read the talkpage first and sources from both sides. Look at the first edit of Atabek in Afshin which has 5 non-expert souces (two from 100+ years ago), plus a source from Iranica which has no mention of ethnicity, but Atabek used it as a source to mention Afshin as Turkic.

But it is easier for dab to simply say: "Oh another Iranian-Turk dispute"..which is actually kind of a generalization. Why not look at it as two users who happen to dispute a topic and just ask both users to follow WP:RS?

On the other hand, I stated that there is no need to mention ethniciy in the introdution despite having the much stronger sources. Note I am disagreeing with the edits and ideas of Atabek, not his character, but I have the responsibility to point out what I see as POV edits.

I simply asked Atabek to bring WP:RS sources not sources from 100 years ago, 150 years ago or authors who have no position in academia/scholarship.

Yes a source from 100 years ago or 150 years go has no weight compared to modern University Professors from Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Rutgers who specialize in a specific topic. WP:RS states that specialized sources by scholars specializing in the area have the most weight. Right now, the article has 5 sources for Iranian and one for Turk (from 1970). Even 1970 is 40 years ago, and all the sources I have presented are after 1970. The best example of sourcs from 100+ years is that Turanian concept which is now a dead theory. So when possible (which in this case it is), it is best to source the article with modern sourcs.

Now as to why I disagree with dab on some point with regards to ethnic identity.

Here is a primary source from the book History of Tabaristan by Ibn Esfandyar (1215-1217). [17] Original Persian: " من (مازیار) و افشين خيدر بن کاوس و بابک هر سه از دير باز عهد و بيعت کرده ايم و قرار داده بر آن که دولت از عرب بازستانيم و ملک و جهانداري با خاندان کسرويان نقل کنيم" "I (Maziyar), Afshin Kheydar son of Kavus, and Babak had made an oath and allegiance that we re-take the government back from the Arabs and transfer the government and the country back to the family of Kasraviyan (Sassanids)"

So dab's claim that national ethnic concept is new, is unfortunately incorrect. I say unfortunately, because I also wish we all thought of ourselves as a single human race.

But the fact is dab (and I admire all your work in Wikieda), that humans need to actively exert an effort to rise above the animal within (tribalism is one of the many animal instincts) or else they just another animal (with more brains but still the same instincts). Animals are also tribal wether it is monkeys/apes (who are genetically closest to humans and who are known to attack and massacare other tribes of monkeys/apes) or different ant colonies. Humans (which I usually am not proud to be one) are no different. As long as there were humans, tribialism, and ethnic bickering nonsense has existed. Warfare is also indesirable but it has been a fact of human (animal) life. Yes I also wish there was one country, one government and all humans lived in harmony, there was no wars and etc. But the natural physical/spiritual eco-system has always had both good and evil.

So going back to the real world, or even Wikipedia, one must act to WP:RS and follow rules. As an example dab can research the Shu'ubiyya movement of 1000 years ago. "The Shu'ubiyya were non-Arabs who objected to the pride shown by the Arabs towards them, exalted the non-Arabs over the Arabs or in general, despised and depereciated the Arabs"[18]. So there was a sense of difference at that tie.

I urge dab to for example just study the shu'ubiyya movement. Also the Islamic world was very different from the isolated island of England. Dab may want to look at there: [19]

Here is another primary source with this regard. One of them is a letter from Kuhyar (the brother of Maziyar) from Afshin: "We have only three enemies, the Arabs, the Turks and the Berbers...".

To claim that ethnicities were not aware in the 9th or 8th century of what they were, it is unfortunately an incorrect claim. BTW the Persian language today is new Persian (8th century till now), and it has not changed much (its oldest 8th/9th remnants are readable to anyone) unlike the Middle or Old English of Richard the Lion heart. The same with the Arabic language whose modern standard form is very much the same as it was 1400 years ago. Modern Turkish though is a break from the Ottoman language due to the extensive language reform initiated by Ataturk. So New Persian(after 200 years of Islam) and Arabic(at least from the beginning of Islam) were basically present from the beggining of Islam till now. Anyhow, as much as I hate ethnic bickering, the fact of life is that it did exist 1000 years ago. To say it did not exist (maybe not in ENgland whose history I do not know much), is just covering the problem.

Another example. The Arab historian ʻAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥazm (994-1064) mentions the different Iranian revolts against the Caliphate in Al-Faṣl fi l-Milal & l-Ahwāʾ & n-Niḥal. The Persians had the great land expanse and were greater than all other people and thought of themselves as better... after their defeated by Arabs, they rose up to fight against Islam but God did not give them victory. Among their leaders were Sunbādh, Muqanna‘, Ustasīs, Bābak and others. «أن الفرس كانوا من سعة الملك وعلو اليد على جميع الأمم وجلالة الخطير في أنفسهم حتى أنهم كانوا يسمون أنفسهم الأحرار والأبناء وكانوا يعدون سائر الناس عبيداً لهم فلما امتحنوا بزوال الدولة عنهم على أيدي العرب وكانت العرب أقل الأمم عند الفرس خطراً تعاظمهم الأمر وتضاعفت لديهم المصيبة وراموا كيد الإسلام بالمحاربة في أوقات شتى ففي كل ذلك يظهر الله سبحانه وتعالى الحق وكان من قائمتهم سنبادة واستاسيس والمقنع وبابك وغيرهم »Ibn Ḥazm, ʻAlī ibn Aḥmad (1995), Al-Faṣl Fī Al-Milal Wa-Al-Ahwāʾ Wa-Al-Niḥal (1st ed.), Bayrūt, Lubnān: Dār al-Jīl

So anyhow, thats just a fact of history. However, I could care less for the background of Afshin, except when I saw sources from 100+ years ago and non-scholarly sources, I became suspicious.

Now here are three sources I offer for dab to look at and settle this dispute (following WP:RS and WP:UNDO). I wish he is involved more in such articles.

Here is what dab asked for:

D. Pipes. Turks in Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978, 2, 85—96. excerpt:"Although two classical sources claim him a Turk, he came from Farghana, an Iranian cultural region and was not usually considered Turkish"

A) “The name Turk was given to all these troops, despite the inclusion amongst them of some elements of Iranian origin, Ferghana, Ushrusana, and Shash – places were in fact the centers were the slave material was collected together....Judging from the specific names of their origin, Soghd, Farghana, Urshusuna, Shahs, the majority of them might have been of Iranian origin"”(ʻUthmān Sayyid Aḥmad Ismāʻīl Bīlī, "Prelude to the Generals", Published by Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2001.)[20]

B) [21] "These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner. The Hephthalites are referred to as Turks, so are the peoples of Gurgan, Khwarizm and Sistan. Indeed, with the exception of the Soghdians, Arabic sources refer to all peoples not subjects of the Sassanian empire as Turks. In Samarra separate quarters were provided for new recruits from every locality. The group from Farghana were called after their district, and the name continued in usage because it was easy to pronounce. But such groups as the Ishtakhanjiyya, the Isbijabbiya and groups from similar localities who were in small numbers at first, were lumped together under the general term Turks, because of the obvious difficulties the Arabs had in pronouncing such foreign names. The Khazars who also came from small localities which could not even be identified, as they were mostly nomads, were perhaps the only group that deserved to be called Turks on the ground of racial affinity. However, other groups from Transcaucasia were classed together with the Khazars under the general description." (M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”, Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63)

C) Now as per Afshin, D. Pipes. Turks in Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978, 2, 85—96. excerpt:"Although two classical sources claim him a Turk, he came from Farghana, an Iranian cultural region and was not usually considered Turkish"

I have a copy of this article incase anyone wants it, I'l be happy to email them. Note it is an article devoted to these troops and "Turks in early Muslim service", which means it has examined "Turks in early Muslim service". So here is why exactly one cannot intrepret classical sources withouth using modern scholars.

So what do we have? For viewpoint of Afshin as an Iranian:

• Lewis,Bernard. "The Political Language of Islam", Published by University of Chicago Press, 1991. excerpt from pg 482: "Babak's Iranianizing Rebellion in Azerbaijan gave occasion for sentiments at the capital to harden against men who were sympathetic to the more explicitly Iranian tradition. Victor (837) over Babak was al-Afshin, who was the hereditary Persian ruler of a district beyond the Oxus, but also a masterful general for the caliph."
• Clifford Edmund Bosworth (Translator with Commentary), The History of al-Tabari Vol. 33 "Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the 'Abbasid Caliphate: The Caliphate of al-Mu'tasim A.D. 833-842/A.H. 218-227", SUNY Press, 1991. Footenote 176 on pg 59: "Abu Dulaf's contigent of volunteers from lower Iraq would be mainly Arabs, and there seems in fact to have been hostility between him, as a representative of Arab influence at the caliphate court, and the Iranian Al-Afshin"
• P.B. Golden, "Khazar Turkic Ghulams in Caliphal Service", Journial Asiatique, 2004, vol. 292. pg 292:Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not".
• Mottahedeh, Roy, "The Abbassid Caliphate in Iran", Cambridge History of Iran, IV, ed. R.N. Frye, 57-89. 1975, pg 75:" Al Mu'atism chose for this task the Afshin, the Iranian king of Ushrusuna".

Four Full professors from Harvard University, Oxford University, Rutgers University and Princeton University.

The other side brought one WP:RS source (written by university professor and not from 100+ years ago) and that is: Sourdel, D. "The Abbasid Caliphate." Pages 104-39 in P.M. Holt, Ann K.S. Lambton, and Bernard Lewis (eds.), The Cambridge History of Islam, I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Quote from Pg 125: "and finally of Mazyar, a local chieftain of Tabaristan, against whom the caliph sent the Turkish general Afshin, the conqueror of Babak"

I have examined all the other sources bought by Atabek: 2 of them from 100+ years ago, three of them from non-scholars and non-professors, I also have found 6+ such sources for an Iranian point of view, but I have not inserted them as they were from non-scholars. Because I am not here to have a contest on what kind of viewpoint has the most number of sources, but rather I try to quote modern distinguished professors from Princeton, Oxford, Rutgers, Harvard.

D) I ask for full application of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT here, not because I care what Afshin was, but for quality of Wikipedia. There are 5 modern sources(one from 2004 written by an expert on Turkology Peter Benjamin Golden relative to one from 1970(40 years ago). Now that dab is involved, he needs to look at these sources and formulate a good solution for the article's accuracy. I don't mind the current solution, except that I provided the sources that dab asked for (shows controversy but states Afshin is usually considered Iranian). A good admin and mediator would actually email these professors and get feedback. He would also read the discussions. Wikipedia should be accurate in my opinion as much as possible, even if it is a stupid topic. Too bad dab might not have enough time and there is not that many admins like dab who would know something about the history of the region. I really hope oneday all these stupid tribal/nationalism (not cultural sentimns/values which are gifts) die out and 100 years from now, Wikipedia does not have such debates. Maybe 300 years from now.. who knows.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just another source to the above(and note for dab, this is a source specialized for the region of Osrushana): C. Edmund Bosworth(2005), "OSRUŠANA" in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Accessed November 2010 [22] "At the time of the Arab incursions into Transoxania, Osrušana had its own line of Iranian princes, the Afšins (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 40), of whom the most famous was the general of the caliph Moʿtaṣem (q.v. 833-42), the Afšin Ḵayḏar or Ḥaydar b. Kāvus (d. 841; see AFŠIN)"

My challenge to dab: I ask dab to get involved here and stay involved.

My request from Atabek: I ask Atabek to provide scholars as the same weight as distinguished Oxford Medieval historian Bosworth[23][24], Peter Benjamin Golden, Roy Mottahedeh (of Harvard) and Bernard Lewis from the last 15-20 years who have claimed another viewpoint in specialized articles regarding the Afshin lines of Kings)[25]. And note, for the sake of principle, Wikipedia must reflect accurate information even on the most stupid/trivial matters. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are good, but your topic is very far past anything WP:DUE the Afshin article.

"These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner.

doh. Is it really a "misnomer"? It depends on what you mean by "Turk". This is actually saying that the historical Arabs should not have used the term the way they did use it. Wth? It's their language, and philologist would do well to examine what they did mean by using it, not making claims about the way they think they should have used it. The entire point is that "Turk" vs. "Iranian" terminology wasn't an ethnic thing, because the modern notion of ethnicity did not exist. This is why this "Turk" vs. "Iranian" dichotomy is false, and a problem of modern-day nationalists, not of our articles about the Middle Ages.

You want to discuss this under Turkic peoples, Turkic migration and Turco-Mongol, not under some random article about a medieval general. You need to focus on what the terms meant in the middle ages, not what they mean today to the testosterone-clouded minds of teenage internet nationalists. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Arora - Need Your Help

Hi fellow editor, I have been trying to tidy up article Arora, but have been prevented from doing so from by an editor, and what I suspect is Sockpuppet. I have no intention of getting into an edit war there. I have been through the references added by another editor there and they seem to be typical google search type references. Some are deadlinks. As you can see from the edit history, some abusive messages have been directed at me. I was wondering if you could lend your expertise to this article. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

it's caste-cruft, sorry, I can swat the socks for you but I won't touch the content with a ten-foot pole if I don't have to. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if we can actually cut through the gibberish, it may actually make a very good encyclopedic page. Like the Jat people one, people seem to use these pages as an opportunity to "big" themselves up. Shame you can't help. Know any other person who may? Thanks--Sikh-History 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

well, I did try to help, in giving constructive advice at User talk:Dhruvekhera. Also, there are a few good people who have become aware of our caste-cruft problem at WP:INB (where you should post such requests). But their focus should not be fighting yet another uphill battle to fix a single article on a single clan, the problem is endemic, and efforts should be made to fix it at a higher level. --dab (𒁳) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, people get so fixated on caste they forget the purpose and achievements of certain clans. A good example are Julaha, considered to be Sudra, yet for Martial spirit and fighting ability out rival any Kshatriya or Rajput clan. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

these are just family historians, or fundamentally egotists. They only ever write about their own clan, and try to make it as glorious as they can. Clearly an ego problem, if you ask me. These people should all be forced to write articles about other clans than their own. --dab (𒁳) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense I have added numerous Citations !!!! what caste system? what I am writing is Facts !!! historical FACTS that you blindly delete for no reason !!!! without adding any input of your own and you say your "tiding up the page" what did he tidy up exactly besides blindly deleting my citated edits!!!! dabPlease review the Arora page and see what exactly has User:Sikh-history contributed to the article! absolutely nothing! and he keeps on deleting my edits after I put so much hard work inn....I know I am new at this but he can't outright delete my edits without talking about them on the talk page! the user User:Sikh-history is a Jatt so he is going after all orthodox hindu groups likeKhatri,Lohana and Arora and blindly critiziing them(look at his previous contributions)..shows that he is the one with the caste problem!!!

Where to start when studying historical linguistics?

Hello! I've stumbled upon some of your wiki entries, and while I'm now intrigued by PIE, I've found most material on it difficult to follow. As a hobbyist, I'd be honored if you could give me a few pointers. The sheer immensity of the subject matter (I have literally hundreds of ebooks) is overwhelming, and despite my interest in language structure I find it difficult to "learn" grammars in traditional ways. Although I've been studying Latin for 4 years, the book "New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin" by Andrew Sihler, for instance, took me about four months to get through (even though I completely ignored the Greek parts), let alone retain it long enough to be of any use in etymologizing and sound changing. It was extremely frustrating and tedious, but this is probably because my linguistic foundations could be summarized into tabula rasa. That's why I'd like to start over.

How would you approach Indo-European if you had to start over, considering shortcuts you could've taken and dead-ends you've encountered along the path? How would/do you approach memorization? Rote? Spaced repetition? Lots of practice? :) I'm mainly interested in etymologies, sound laws, proto-languages etc. Thanks. :) Manuel Reyes (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)