User talk:Maunus

Dear Maunus, I will respond to your request about my Wikipedia page shortly (and please forgive me if I have responded to you in the wrong place or in the wrong manner). Best, Steve. Stevenpinker (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning your comment

Hello. As I agree with your comment here [1], I reply here. Yes, we should focus on the argument at hand. Still, it is rather tedious when one user repeats the same questions over and over again when they have already been answered. Not that anyone has to agree with the answer, but then I'd expect the user to at least explain why and move forward and not just keep repeating. And when the same users goes to look at your edit history to stalk you to begin editing articles they never edited before but that you frequently edit just for the pleasure of opposing you, and repeat the same behavior there as well, then it get's a bit annoying. Of course we should always try to put negative feelings like that behind us.Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It can be tedious, definitely when one feels that another user is going in circles. But I know as well as anyone that acting on that frustration is just likely to increase the problem. When I realize I am getting too frustrated to focus on the arguments, I tend to go on a wikibreak - although sometimes not before I have caused more problems by airing my frustration in unconstructive ways.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, of course. Which is why I've brought the issue to ANI and stayed out of any edit war on any of the articles, which is no doubt what the user hoped to drag me into. I later find out that this same behavior is repeated by the same user at articles I'm not involved in as well. Yes, we should step away when frustrated. But this particular user seems to frustrate a lot of people and to cherish the drama. I don't doubt the user has made valuable contributions, but I'd dare say their net contribution given how much disruption he causes and on how many articles he claims ownership and edit wars against anyone opposing his version. It's not helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the discussion I have never experienced Peter in that way myself, on the contrary I have always found him to be reasonable and helpful and amenable to argument. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is good. I have never seen that, but my experience is limited to his edit warring at Sweden and Melee and his stalking me to List of languages by native speakers to start opposing me there after I "dared" to edit against him on Sweden. If he is more responsible on other articles, all the better. I trust your more extensive experience, and I hope to see that helpful behavior as well someday.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think laying down the stick at ANI might be a good way to signal good faith, which might speed up Peter's ability to be reasonable with you. Sometimes when we are in "fight or flight" mode, other editors become enemies. Putting down the stick is a good way to get back to normal editing mode for everyone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, today alone Peter has reverted you, has reverted me and has reverted a third user at Sweden, all the time insisting that his is the consensus version even though he is alone in saying so, and we are all wrong. That is not indicative of the behavior you ascribe him, I'm afraid.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

?

The 1523 date was removed unilaterally by a single user without any discussion.[2] No one else has disagreed with it, including Jeppiz.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is clearly wrong. Everyone disagrees that its meaningful to consider 1523 the date of establishment or independence of Sweden. It is simplyone of those dates like accession to EU where something politically significant happened to Sweden. It is clearly incorrect to consider it the establishment or foundation of Sweden as a country. By the same token, Sweden would be "established" again if it ever leaves EU. Why donøt you chill out a little on those Swedish/Melee articles? You seem to be in a very tense gear, I know what that feels like, and it is not comfortable. Help me work on some language history instead! Peder Syv, Stød, Peder Laale, Danish dialects etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the importance of the conflicting perspectives here: is there an unbroken line between the first appearance of medieval kingdoms and their modern "ancestors"? Most historians tend to avoid making any definitive claims about this, so I prefer not having dates at all. If anything, most tend to focus on the transition from medieval kingdoms based on personal loyalties and feudal bonds to bureaucratic fiscal-military states. It's not all that problematic to put the start date of the modern centralized, nation state to 1523. I see no problem discussing whether it's valid or not, but it's definitely not comparable to joining the EU.

I'll have a look at Danish dialects, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to have a look at yet! We need to create it from scratch. I agree that all foundation claims are problematic because what was founded is fundamentally different from what exists today - but in this case historians and common folk pretty much seem to agree that there is some kind of ethnic and political continuity from the Svear and untill today. Just as you I think it is a problematic narrative, that overstates continuity and ethnic roots, but those kinds of narratives are insanely popular worldwide for some reason.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well common folk suck and are clearly wrong. :-p

I fiddled around with Danish language#Dialects a bit. But I really don't know anything about that except all the Scanian brouhaha. If you lead the way, I'll surely follow.

Have you considered writing anything about Henrik Harpestræng? I'm thinking about uploading his "Liber Herbarum" to Commons.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently I mostly stick to early Danish philologists, in preparation for a total rewrite of History of Danish and then of Danish language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Never did get hooked on biographies myself. I'll keep the Danish articles watchlisted, then. Maybe I'll actually be inspired to bring Swedish language up to snuff. I mean, God forbid that the language of honor and heroes be upstaged by a bunch of coughing word-turners!

Peter ^Isotalo 22:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tula/Toltec misunderstanding

I wasn't trying to school you in anything, but somebody made me dig up a page number for the name of Ives' ship, the Explorer, because although the cite was from his report, the following page number didn't explicitly state the ship's name. That's all I meant about Ferdon's theory, that the cite that followed did not mention Tula, so the topic sentence was not supported by the refs that followed. All I was trying to do was avoid adding anything that was not supported by the refs. I understand what you meant, but it seemed like WP:V issue, since it wasn't in the cited source. Will you please consider finishing your review? RO^(talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am finished with the review. Don't worry about the Toltecs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But I've added lots of stuff since you last looked, and it would be so great to get your opinion on the cultural aspect in particular, because I think I've done an acceptable job of improving the article based on your previous PR comments about that. I promise I won't argue about anything, even when I know you are wrong, which is like never anyway. Did you like the background section ([3])? RO^(talk) 23:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Irataba FAC

I've taken the liberty of adding your name here. Hope you're up for some scrutiny! RO^(talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The article is definitely ready, but as a co-nominator I cant support it of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but it's even better to have you as a co-nom anyway! RO^(talk) 17:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't feel I can review this as an FAC either. My own personal view is that a person with substantial edits - even if not a co-nom - shouldn't do the FAC review. And I did so much on the previous one, also. I don't have fresh eyes and someone who DOES have fresh eyes is a better reviewer. That said, I'm basically supportive and I think it can pass this time around, so long as RO stays cool-headed when the critics hit. I'm willing to assist at the FAC with some of the requests if they fall within something I'm comfortable doing. Maunus, you definitely do deserve to be a co-nom on this and RO did right to add you! Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Peder Syv DYK review

Can you take a look at my comments/suggestions at the DYK raview page?
While reading the article for the review, I copy-edited the page a bit and added a couple of {{clarify}} tags where I was not sure of the intended meaning. Also, I wasn't sure if Hellested would have one or more parish priests, and therefore whether "the parish priest" or "a parish priest" is the correct usage. Please review my changes to make sure that I didn't introduce any content errors. Fun read! Abecedare (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Champollion article

Dear Maunus, I appreciate all the work you've done on Jean-François Champollion article. It's a good article, and I enjoyed reading it. But at the same time, I think some of the paragraphs are a bit long. In general, when a new subject is broached, new paragraph is in order. That's all I did, I spaced out some of these paragraphs for clarity of reading.

But I don't insist that I'm right. Lots of these things are a matter of opinion, of course. All the best. Y-barton (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but can see that in practice we disagree on what is a new topic. I never use as short paragraphs as the ones you apparently like, with only one or two sentences, and I also dont generally see such short paragraphs in most high quality articles. In my view it makes for choppy disconnected prose and makes the article less coherent and makes it harder for the reader to read the article fluently and maintain overview on the progression. The way I generally craft paragraphs is by having a topic sentence first, and then a progression of sentences that shed new light on the topic in different ways. For example the paragraph you broke up was entirely about the presentation of the letter to Dacier. Each sentence referred back to that same topic. I do appreciate your copy edits to the article very much, but would appreciate if you would not break the paragraphs apart unless they really include completely different topics. If you are in doubt about specific cases maybe you can suggest it on the talk page and we can discuss how to proceed? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The article by the way is currntly listed for GA review. And another problem with breaking up paragraphs is that GA reviewers tend to require a citation for each paragraph, and when you break apart a paragraph it is not clear that information in one paragraph is supported by the citation in the next. So by breaking up the paragraph you create work for me when the reviewer asks requests citations for the new paragraphs, or potentially you put the article at risk of failing the review because of the presence of paragaraphs that appear to be unsupported by citations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Maunus. I appreciate your concerns in light of this new info you've given. As I say, often it's a matter of opinion. I just like to say honestly that when I first read this article, I felt there's not enough highlighting of important issues. That's why I added some additional headings. So I just contributed the best way I knew. But I'd better stay away from this article for a while. Best wishes. Y-barton (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought your introduction of subheadings was fine, and definitely those sections were very long, and your headers do serve to highlight important aspects. Please do keep working on the article, and improving it. Whenever we disagree on style I am sure we can figure out amiably and collaboratively how best to move forward. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

use of ones legs

Thank you for that remark. - I once said that those who dislike a certain accessibility feature (with seven letters which I am not supposed to mention) as aesthetically not pleasing, probably also disagree with access ramps for buildings. I like Beethoven ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Peder Syv

Harrias ^talk 14:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

AAT - Westenhöfer edit

Hi Maunus,
Just wanted to say thanks for the Westenhöfer edit before my account gets deleted again. I noticed that you had checked the Westenhöfer-National Socialist association comment, and probably couldn't find any evidence to support it (I couldn't either after searching). I have to say, I was quite surprised by this, because I had started to assume that all changes from an AAT supporter would automatically be assumed to be wrong, but you must have checked this, so I'm very glad to see some thorough checking, to get facts right. I think saying Westenhöfer was a Nazi probably would be working against the anti-AAT community anyway, because, as we all know from Godwin's Law, the first person to call their opponent Hitler, loses.
For the sake of fairness, regarding the issue of him being anti-Darwin, I think there is a citation for that on the actual Westenhöfer page, so it does seem like it could be true. I'm not sure why, because AAT relies on adaptations over time, and hence Darwinian thinking. Unfortunate, but I think I'd have to look at the issue some more to fully understand his thinking.
Just out of interest what made you decide to look into the Westenhöfer issue? Was it because it was the subject I got most angry about on Neil's page? Or did you check through my other six changes which were all reverted under the Attenborough-gate saga? (still not sure why this is such a sticking point that it was singled out, rather than any of my other six changes, but never mind). Aquapess (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually look into it, it just seemed entirely irrelevant to the issue, and simply an attempt to discredit him by association. Even if he was a Nazi or worse that fact would be irrelevant in relation to the validity of his theory. Many European biologists were anti-Darwinians in that period, preferring instead different vitalist theories.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Champollion GAN

For some reason the bot seems to have failed to add the usual message to the nominator's page, so I'm adding this note to tell you I have left some comments at Talk:Jean-François Champollion/GA1. Best, Tim riley talk 10:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Why Alice Dreger not a partial non-partisan source about Chagnon?

Alice Dreger is a long-time and accomplished researcher in the field of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology and has done much research in bioethics and about scientific controversies. You claim in talk that she's only representing her own biased opinion, but it seems to me to be a wrong statement because she's one of the most unbiased secondary sources on the whole matter and she comes from a neutral background to the issue of Napoelon Chagnon.

She is not unbiased at all, she has been a long time opponent of the post-modern turn in cultural anthropology, including "social constructionism". She is a proponent of a "scientific" approach to anthropology and is a natural ally of Chagnon who also cpostonsiders himself to be a "scientist" and opposed to the "soft" antiscience post-modern anthropologists. Indeed most accomplished evolutionary psychologists would naturally be biased in favor of Chagnon and against the anthropology establishment. She is very much a party in the "science wars" betweeen sociobiology/evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology. her claim to neutrality is disingenuous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, there are many who use Chagnon as a source who are completely neutral to that whole controversy, like this article for example. That academic article, by the way, can be used as a source for many articles about Nature vs. Nurture, Human culture etc. These researchers who have basically no connection to Chagnon are citing him and arriving to his conclusions independently which means that Chagnon's view (and E. O. Wilson's view) is highly mainstream in all the relevant fields and amongst the releveant scholars

Nonsense, The1000year explosion is in no way "neutral" it is a highly partisan controversial and problematic theory, by two avowed allies of Chagnon and human sociobiology and vocal critics of cultural anthropology. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

CRIT museum

So, did you find a bunch of interesting stuff there? RO^(talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they didn't allow pictures to be taken unfortunately. And their exhibit on Irataba had just been taken down for moving. But I bought volume one of "Dreamers of the Colorado" a collection of articles about Mohave culture and history (including some of the articles we've already used). This will be useful for future edits. If you ever travel to the area I recommend the Bluewater Hotel, its cheap mid-week and it is amazing to be able to wake up early and go swim in the river.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's too bad you missed out on the Irataba exhibit, but it sounds like a fun field trip nonetheless. Did you get a chance to speak with any Mohave elders? RO^(talk) 18:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but I probably will on my next trip. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA

Hi Maunus, I saw your quick fail and certainly understand it given the tag and RfC. I nominated this article last December and there were no such issues at the time. Of course, I don't want to nominate it again and have it wait in a queue for that long again, and risk something else derailing the nomination at the last minute. If I do nominate it for GA again once the issues are cleaned up, do you mind reviewing it at that point? I can make another mention here on your talk page once that happens. The centennial of Frank's lynching is August 17 of this year, and I was hoping for a Today's Featured Article on that day, but unfortunately it doesn't seem likely at this point. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to review it once the article is stable. Please give me a hint when you renominate it. It is not far from FA quality in terms of the formalities, so once the neutrality issues are handled then perhaps an FA are within reach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your expertise

As you're an expert in the field and an experienced Wikipedia editor, i would like to hear your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn. A review of the recent changes to Wusun would also be helpful. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your hard work and patience in promoting Irataba to FA! Well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	The Irataba article wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is today if not for your hard work and researching expertise. Thanks for being patient while fixing the glitches! RO(talk) 16:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

White nationalism

In this edit, you restored this to the lead-

"The primordialists view it as a result of a common cultural, religous, philosphical, family and ethnic background causing them to feel more for each other."

Mind removing it? It's the same sort of issue you have with the removal of the other content, consensus needs to be gained for its addition. It isn't mentioned in the body of the article, and doesn't seem notable enough for the lead. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This next edit you did, takes care of it. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It seems to lack some context though to be entirely intelligible or inline with the rest of the article. And also probably checking the sources might be in order as they are notobviously about "white nationalism"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Why did you revert my removal of unreliable source for Ehsan Jafri?

Please provide an explanation or revert back the change asap.

• The content is sourced, and there is no reason to consider it unreliable given that the same statement has been widely reported.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

English phonology

Regarding your recent reversion of my edit to English phonology, I'd like to say that a) I don't see where else in the article Northeastern accents are described b) if the Northumbrian Burr article is right, the /ʁ/ phoneme is not completely extinct (at least outside Tyneside), and the article should be edited accordingly. Esszet (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else has fixed it. Esszet (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I actually thought it was the main article on English when I made the edit.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

White nationalism = Nazism

I'm still waiting for your response on the talk page on white nationalism. None of the sources sited states that white nationalism are the same as nazism. Neither do a white nationalism in any way say it's the same. I will also state; if a liberal kills and hates, does that make all liberals murderers and haters? Do that make liberals a hate group? Do the same count for conservatives? Olehal09 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said what I am going to say on that topic, that you insist on not understanding it is not my problem. The article does not say that white nationalism and nazism is the same, but Nazism is clearly both historically and ideologically closely related. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In what way? White nationalism is a movement that only wants a homeland for whites. The nazis were expansionalist, belived in the superiority of germanians (what they thought to be aryans. And myth of them coming from Atlantis). That slavs, gypsis and jew were undermench ( sub-human). In what way are they related historicaly? You are either uninformed, or just orwellian. From olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That word you use..."Orwellian", I don't think it means what you think it means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Orwellian refers many different things. But here I think your peers ( not you ) are this because you are using language to effect peoples feelings and limit their thoughts. Newspeak. And misinforming about history for the some end. Olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Jukka Siikala

Can you find enough on this Finnish anthropologist to create a stub? I cited him in Sapalewa River.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact would you be interested in finding 10 missing Scandinavian anthropologists and putting them up on the WP:Intertranswiki board?♦ Dr. Blofeld

I don't know many Scandinavian anthropologists I am afraid. As for Siikala I cannot find any sources suggesting notability - a finnish speaking editor may be better able to. He doesn't seem to be a very influential anthropologist outside of Finland.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

TFA

9 June 2015

Carl Nielsen made

Main Page history

and you were part of

working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl PR

Hello. I know you said you finished your PR, but the article has almost doubled in size since you last commented. Is there any chance you'd be willing to take another look? RO^(talk) 16:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest

	Second Prize
	Dear Maunus, congratulations for your joint effort on the second-prize-winning entry English language in the March 2015 running of the Core Contest. A member of wikimedia UK will be in touch soon with details about the Amazon voucher. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your prize. I'm sorting out the prizes from Wikimedia UK. As it's in the form of an Amazon voucher, could you please email me at richard.nevellwikimedia.org.uk so that I can send it to your email address. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Hebrew

Hi Maunus. So, you think the POV of the ELL2 and other sources like that should be ignored for the intro to the WP article? Maltese has more loans, but the history of Israeli is very different. I suspect that people are still struggling with a way to describe it, just as they did with creoles 50 yrs ago, since every author seems to use different wording. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It should definitely be ignored in the infobox, depending on its prominence in the literature it should have coverage in the body of the article and possibly a mention in the lead. But not in the infobox. Could you show any other sources that explicitly consider Modern Hebrew not to be a semitic language but a mixed language in the linguistic sense. Also I dont have access to ELL so could you please let me know exactly what it says about the classification of MH, and who wrote the entry?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It was Zuckermann. He presents it as a hypothesis, but the preferred one. But it belies the claim that his work is fringe - you could hardly ask for a more mainstream source than ELL.

The intro and conclusion of the article are as follows. (Between is a grammatical description.)

Hebrew, Israeli

G Zuckermann, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Basic Information

The Israeli language (a.k.a. Modern Hebrew) is one of the official languages – with Arabic and English – of the state of Israel, established in 1948. It is spoken to varyingdegrees of fluency by its 6.8 million citizens (as of September 2004) – as a mother tongue by most Israeli Jews (whose total number slightly exceeds 5 million), and as a second language by Muslims (Arabic speakers), Christians (e.g., Russian and Arabic speakers), Druze (Arabic speakers), and others.

Hebrew (see Hebrew, Biblical and Medieval) was spoken by the Jewish people after the so-called conquest of Israel (c. 13th century B.C .). Following a gradual decline (even Jesus, ‘King of the Jews,’ was a native speaker of Aramaic rather than Hebrew), it ceased to be spoken by the 2nd century A.D . The Bar-Kokhba Revolt against the Romans, which took place in Judaea in A.D. 132–135, marks the symbolic end of the period of spoken Hebrew. For more than 1700 years thereafter, Hebrew was comatose – either a ‘sleeping beauty’ or ‘walking dead.’ It served as a liturgical and literary language and occasionally also as a lingua franca for Jews of the Diaspora, but not as a mother tongue.

Israeli emerged in Eretz Yisrael (or Palestine) at the beginning of the 20th century. Its formation was facilitated by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, schoolteachers, and others to further the Zionist cause. Earlier, during the Haskalah (enlightenment) period from the 1770s to the 1880s, writers such as Me´ndele Mokhe´r Sfarı ´m (Shalom Abramowitsch) produced works and neologisms which eventually contributed to Israeli. However, it was not until the early 20th century that the language was first spoken.

The genetic classification of Israeli has preoccupied linguists since the language emerged. The traditional school argues that Israeli is Semitic: (Biblical/Mishnaic) Hebrew revived. Educators, scholars, and politicians have contributed to this assumption, linking the history of language to the politics of national revival. The revisionist position, by contrast, defines Israeli as Indo–European: Yiddish relexified, i.e., Yiddish (the revivalists’ mother tongue) is the ‘substratum,’ whilst Hebrew is only a ‘superstratum’ providing the lexis and lexicalized morphology (cf. Horvath and Wexler, 1997). A more recent hypothesis is that Israeli is a hybrid language, both Semitic and Indo–European. It argues that both Hebrew and Yiddish act equally as its primary contributors (rather than ‘substrata’), accompanied by many secondary contributors: Russian, Polish, German, Judeo–Spanish (Ladino), Arabic, English, etc. (see Figure 1). Although Israeli phonetics and phonology are primarily Yiddish and its morphology is mainly Hebrew, the European contribution to Israeli is not restricted to particular linguistic domains and is evident even in its morphology.

[Figure 1: ISRAELI an top, with YIDDISH and HEBREW underneath as primary contributors, as well as influencing each other, and Ladino, Arabic, Russian, Polish, German, English, etc. as secondary contributors both to YIDDISH and HEBREW and to ISRAELI.]

Thus, the term ‘Israeli’ is far more appropriate than ‘Israeli Hebrew,’ let alone the common signifiers ‘Modern Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew’ tout court (cf. Zuckermann, 1999, 2003, 2005).

Grammatical Profile

...

Concluding Remarks

The grammatical profile of Israeli demonstrates its binary nature, which has important theoretical implications for many branches of language science: contact linguistics, sociolinguistics, language revival/survival, linguistic genetics and typology, creolistics, and mixed languages. Genetic affiliation – at least in the case of (semi-)engineered, ‘nongenetic’ languages – is not discrete but rather a continuous line. The comparative method and lexicostatistics, though elsewhere useful, are not here sufficient. Linguists who seek to apply the lessons of Israeli to the revival of no-longer spoken languages should take warning.

Israeli affords insights into the politics not only of language, but also of linguistics. One of the practical implications is that universities, as well as Israeli secondary schools, should employ a clear-cut distinction between Israeli linguistics and Hebrew linguistics. Israeli children should not be indoctrinated to believe that they speak the language of Isaiah – unless the teacher is referring to the 20th-century Israeli polymath and visionary Isaiah Leibowitz. Although revivalists have engaged in a campaign for linguistic purity, the language they created often mirrors the very cultural differences they sought to erase. The study of Israeli offers a unique insight into the dynamics between language and culture in general and in particular into the role of language as a source of collective self-perception.

• Zuckerman's view is not the mainstream view (although he has personally pushed it a lot here on wikipedia), his position is similar to those who argue that English is a mixed language in terms of position relative to the mainstream - an interesting and controversial hypothesis that is not generally considered in classifications. Also it doesnt seem to me that he actually claims that the revisionist position is "preferred". He is arguing that the continuity with biblical hebrew should not be overstated for purist, political or religious reasons, which is a reasonable argument, but which does not really have anything to do with the genetic classification. Every historical linguist knows that genetic descent is not discrete but a continuum - and yet experts in language contact and mixed languages do not consider Hebrew to be in that end of the spectrum. Also the fact that it is in ELL doesnt really mean anything in terms of status of the argument, Zuckerman is presenting his own view not the editor's. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He does describe it under genetic classification. You reverted "mixed", which of course violated NPOV, but what about something closer to the old stable version, like "revitalised Mishnaic Hebrew or hybrid Hebrew–Yiddish", or whatever wording would best capture the two views? There are problems with giving simple genealogical trees for languages that do not have simple genealogical descent, like creoles, conlangs, standardized forms, and revitalized languages. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So...? — kwami (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are bigger problems in privileging non-mainstream controversial classifications.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ELL2 is pretty mainstream. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Zuckerman's viewpoint published in it is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

This user has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian on 24 June 2012.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Stød

Wow, that's a fantastic work. Thanks! Peter238 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Iøm glad you liked it. You do great work on phonology yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing my best :) Peter238 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO^(talk) 17:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Ling.Nut

Hey maunus, this is Ling. Long time no chat. Saw you at FARC. I was actually trying to save cochineal, but then I had the question that I listed... See you around! • Lingzhi♦(talk) 09:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted your work. I will take a look.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • I think the dye section should be moved to the carmine article.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it does require an in situ summary in the Cochineal article. The dye is also often called cochineal and it is the only reason the animal is significant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Musicians on WP:VA

While I totally understand if you have other priorities these days, would you mind taking a look at this proposal? (The nominator also proposed adding Louis Armstrong and Igor Stravinsky, which passed.) I only ask you because you've expressed an opinion on this issue in the past and there hasn't much participation on that page in the last couple of months. Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think adding Armstrong was a good idea, and I've always argued classical composers are over-represented. I can see valid arguments for considering Verdi and Tchaikovsky more important than Stravinsky, and arguments for the opposite as well. But basically I think the VA project is too futile to warrant time expenditure, since the fact that there is no established criteria for determining what makes something vital means that any effort at improving the list based on one view of vitality is likely to be reversed as soon as a new group of editors espousing another view comes along. The result is that we end up adding and removing the same topics over and over.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that's a potential problem, I don't think it's been much of an issue in practice. (One could say the same thing about improving the contents of Wikipedia itself.) Honestly what matters to me is not so much the exact choice of articles in some cases, but that there is a general sense of balance to the list. I supported the proposal in question because I think it improves that. Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it has been a major issue all along actually.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank GA renom

Hi Maunus, I'm thinking about renominating Leo Frank for GA now that the user that was responsible for the NPOV dispute has since been blocked indefinitely and the article is semi-protected to protect against sock puppetry. You had quickfailed it in May, but the issues have since been resolved. I posted on the article talk page to make sure there were no objections, and once I create the GA2 page I'll let you know. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks for the help! Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Tonystewart14:, I am glad the issues have been resolved. And I'll be happy to review it, when I have a little more time than I do in the next few weeks, if noone else has started the review by then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog

Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll refrain though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wessel

Wikipedia has this policy of neutral point of view. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question is not non-neutral. We also have the policy against editwarring by the way.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for my sake, you truly believe that including the word "tyranny" im the sentence would NOT be non-neutral? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, in reference to the policies of Nazi Germany I think the vast majority of people would consider that accurate. Why did you name this section "Wessel"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I was wrong. You're smart, I'm stupid. You win, I give in. Happy editing! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Wessel", btw, was a typo, meant to write Klemperer. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Maunus. Now the dust has settled on the Maya civilization FAC, I just wanted to say many thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for supporting its promotion - after an epic haul it made FA at the weekend. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Tthank you, Simon! You are doing wonderful and dedicated work, and the FA was fully deserved.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Irataba

Thank you for your part in it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015

At Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 25 July 2015 you have raised behavioural issues.

Please discuss these at User talk:Andrewa#Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)