User talk:Dbachmann

Hello, Dbachmann. 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.

Hi Mr. Dbachman

Referring to this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_al-Gaddafi&diff=434022359&oldid=433959217) of yours, which clearly shows that all references in the lead section were deleted and the whole section was written again with a strong POV, I would like to inform you that I'm undoing your edit.

Thank you

Sin un nomine (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

An invite to join WikiProject Russia

Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2011; 15:10 (UTC)

"Dravidian" articles

Dab, you've cleaned up after Kalarimaster before, could you help with the same again? The three most recent socks Wangond (talk · contribs), David Fraudly (talk · contribs), Malaikaran (talk · contribs) have been carrying on the same work as before, but linguistics isn't my area, and even a broken clock is right twice a day. The two main articles are Telugu language and Malayalam and Malaikaran has been the most active in the linguistics area. In addition Ancient Dravidian culture is one that needs some attention. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am getting tired of accepting that some users are just here to create janitorial work for others. "a broken clock is right twice a day" is not an acceptable approach to Wikipedia in my opinion. The burden is on the clock to make plausible that it has a better than random chance of being right.

Otherwise we could just create bots posting random strings of words to articles and we would have to ask people to sift through them on the one-to-billion off chance that something sensible has been produced. Users that have shown that they do not know what they are doing (or Hanlon-equivalently worse) should have their work reverted by default, so they learn it is their task to convince us they have anything worthwhile to offer.

In other words, I will fully support you in a policy of by default reverting Kalarimaster, unless this guy manages to present a coherent and referenced argument. --dab (𒁳) 07:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have reverted the contributions per policy, especially since all he does is remove sources he doesn't like and adds stuff that he does. But what I meant with the broken clock analogy was that he keeps writing about something that's wrong and of the other POV extreme and there might be some merit to that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I just note these have already been blocked as socks. This guy is clearly an idiot, and also angry and agenda-driven, so this is the obvious solution: we do not need to put up with this. Swat the socks, roll back their edits, and save your capacity for worthwhile tasks.

I understand the broken clock analogy: what the nationalist cranks need to learn is that they are damaging their own cause, as they invite a backlash by being blatant jerks. Nobody makes Persia look worse than our resident Persian idiot nationalists. Persia has a great heritage, but nobody does more towards obscuring that fact than the teenage trolls going on about it.

This is also how things work in real life. Gandhi figured this out 70 years ago. You don't gain independence by killing soldiers. You gain independence by getting the soldiers to kill your own people while they sing peace songs and wave with flowers. I.e. you need to get the other side to lose the moral high ground and look evil, then politics will take care of the rest. It is my opinion that teaching this lesson to nationalist kids on Wikipedia might actually help fight terrorism :o) Once you have understood that every successful terrorist attack actually damages the cause of the terrorists, the smart thing to do is try and get the other side to kill some of your own people. Once both sides have understood these dynamics, people will just taunt one another with no shots fired. That's the beginning of civilization. What follows is obnoxious politics, but you only think politics is obnoxious if you forget what it is replacing. Gandhi is a hero for having figured this out, not for being a peacenik. Gandhi was actually happy to wade in blood, just as long as it was the blood of peaceful protestors on his own side, because nothing is going to end a regime faster than a record of its slaughtering civilians. The Arabs are 70 years late to this lesson (like to so many other ones), but they are getting there now, too.

Ok, so this was off topic, but it explains my line of thinking on nationalist trolling. Zero tolerance, block the socks until the kids get tired of the game, then try to get a grown-up to cover their point of view properly for them. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So Avedeus (talk · contribs) is not one of the socks, is he? He is still to blame for this train wreck. I think this should not actually be deleted but kept a round as an example illustrating the problem, as it's close to the textbook case. After the article has been blanked-redirected of course. Any minute wasted on such stuff by capable editors is damaging the project. Anyone capable of posting stuff like this to Wikipedia article space, either seriously or mock-seriously (who can tell),

The culture of the Ancient Dravidians was one of the most complex and oldest of living civilisations. ... Kolam reflects much of what Dravidian culture is; ancient, but still endures; it is simple, yet complex; it is colourful and exquisite and is formed from a tight knit network.

makes clear that they have not the first idea what this website is even about. These people should be kindly pointed at WP:ENC and asked to go write a blog. My experience of half a decade of dealing with these people tells me that any further minute spent "debating" these people is wasted. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Avedeus is a sock, behavioral evidence and editing interests indicate otherwise. Yeah I saw the article when I was looking through the socking contributions, that's why I highlighted it above, because I'm not sure that just reverting the sock edits would have been useful in that case. thanks for taking a look at these. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree it's not a sock. Some users are just genuinely just as bad as Kalarimaster+socks in their own right. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The articles you are debating about is about have valid referencing in them. You cannot, for political or personal reasons, criticise an article. Believe it or not, Dravidian identity spans countries - not just India but the likes of Sri Lanka, Singapore, Mauritius. I am up for making the article as neutral as possible by citing other POVs, but to think that you are debating about something like you own the place is ridiculous - so get off you high horses and come back to reality. The article has several valid citations, and of course, if you have other sources that say the opposite, incorporate that into the article, but to not consider it at all shows how close minded "capable editors".

Please continue this discussion ON the DISCUSSION page of the ARTICLE, not here. --Avedeus (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"valid references", eh? I don't think you know what that is. Have you written an article Dravidian identity? No. You are welcome to write one, if and only if you base it on academic references that discuss Dravidian identity. As long as you haven't even started to write that article, let alone provided any references on the topic, I cannot imagine why you even bring up the topic. I certainly haven't complained about a Dravidian identity article, as there isn't even one in existence.

What I have complained about is your insertion of random nonsense into the India article (i.e., the name "India" being derived from a Dravidian word for "date palm". I ask you). Coming to my talkpage rambling about "Dravidian identity" or some other unrelated idea is not going to change that. Please stop doing this. Of course the "please" here is optional. If you continue to add nonsense to articles, you will find that Wikipedia has means to prevent you from doing that. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How am I when I have quoted credible citations to back up most if not all things I have said, if you care so much help to improve instead of criticizing, which is all youve been doing instead of constructively saying how the article can be improved. Dont give me this vague/ambiguous nonsense, what precisely is your problem? Give me opposing views with citations we'll incorporate that into the article, instead your personal/political criticism is baseless and will get you nowhere --Avedeus (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat keep your personal/political views to yourself, I have quoted two credible sources that relate India to Dravidian origin. AND IT IS NOT IN YOUR JUDGMENT TO RULE THEM OFF AS "RANDOM NONSENSE" OR WHATEVER; because I dont care what you think, keep your opinions to yourself!--Avedeus (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting on the discussion page. Once again we have come to to this point where to some people the "Dravidian identity" is, as the book you linked opines, a mere travesty by Christian colonial missionaries in India to cause a division in India. And yet, to some of us, including me and many people around the world, it is our identity as shown by the references.

We should not conflate South Indian culture and Dravidian culture, because the latter encompasses the Chitti, the Malbars, the Malabars as well Sri Lanka, not simply South India. Dravidian culture and identity is mixture of all the following:

Dravidian languages Dravidian peoples Dravidian Architecture Dravidian martial arts

• Note they are all called 'Dravidian' for a reason, i.e. they are part of the Dravidian cultural sphere as recognised by the people themselves.

If you or anyone want to believe it is a mere travesty by Christian colonial missionaries in India to cause a division in India; then I will incorporate that opinion into the article, but for many, Dravidian culture is a mixture of South Indian culture with that of Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Reunion, Malaysia, Singapore, etc., so me including Tamil cuisine in the food section is not at all surprising. --Avedeus (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • --Avedeus (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC): Right; could you have a look at the article and see how much of it you approve now? I have deleted many things about modern and medieval South India, and stuck closely to "ancient Dravidian culture."

Gandhi

I find your opinion about Gandhi extremely repulsive when you say:

“ Gandhi figured this out 70 years ago. You don't gain independence by killing soldiers. You gain independence by getting the soldiers to kill your own people while they sing peace songs and wave with flowers. I.e. you need to get the other side to lose the moral high ground and look evil, then politics will take care of the rest...Gandhi is a hero for having figured this out, not for being a peacenik. Gandhi was actually happy to wade in blood, just as long as it was the blood of peaceful protestors on his own side, because nothing is going to end a regime faster than a record of its slaughtering civilians. ”

I almost threw up as I read your words above. Ironically the very Hindu nationalists you've fought with again and again here on Wikipedia would probably be the ones endorsing this sort of a view point. You have the right to your opinion but might I suggest that you put on your "editor" hat and try to evaluate your opinion from a viewpoint of making an addition to the article on Gandhism based on reliable sources and all of that. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

well, this isn't something I would try to push in an encyclopedia article about Gandhi, but it does happen to be my impression of Gandhi after having read a lengthy biography of the man.

I was a bit disturbed by this at first myself. He was a great man, no doubt, non-violent and all. He was still a fanatic. His only concern was the Motherland, he didn't care about mere human lives. Whether that makes him a great patriot or a deluded fanatic is left to the judgement of the reader, I suppose. But I was serious when I said I consider Gandhi a hero. If only all fanatics could embrace his sublime brand of fanaticism the world would be a much, much better place.

What I never understood was this fixed idea that India was by no means to be divided. After all, India was only united because the British forced the individual states under their imperial rule to begin with. Why should the Indians be so enthusiastic about this unification imposed from the outside? After all, India had never been united since the time of Ashoka, and even then only by imperialist force. And now you ended up with a billion-citizen democracy. I have no problem with that if that's what people really want, but I cannot help but wonder if India had not been better off if it had been turned into a loose union of half a dozen states or so, say the Republic of Tamil Nadu, the Republic of Kashmir, and so on. A lot of bad blood and warfare just might have been avoided. I am only saying.

Of course I do by no means pretend to know all about Gandhi, or to be an expert on Gandhism, and I will be very happily swayed from my current opinion of solid evidence is presented to the effect that I am mistaken. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gandhi is on record saying that he was good with delaying Indian independence if it came at the cost of violence and a human toll. Your opinion is non-mainstream and what's in it for me to make you sway from it? :-) May I have the name/author of the biography that had you come to such an incorrect (IMO) conclusion? If you are truly open to changing your opinion then the best way to do it is to source your claim and make an edit to the article dedicated for this topic - Gandhism. You will gain a lot more knowledge through the WP:BRD process that follows (assuming the page has active watchers). Also since you use words like civilization, violence and Gandhi in the same context, may I ask what you think of European colonialism of that era? Do you think the British (in this case, but it could be the French or the Spaniards, etc) were civilized to barge in uninvited and not leave from India even while the Indians worked hard at convincing them to leave in a very patient and civilized manner? Zuggernaut (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not married to my opinion, and I have no stakes in it. I may also have overstated it. I do assume you agree it is "mainstream" to say that Gandhi cared very much about the Motherland and made it his primary task to keep it united after independence? Of course it speaks for Gandhi that he was killed by the Hindu nationalists, the same way it speaks for Yitzhak Rabin that he was killed by a religious Zionist. Gandhi had a mature, grown-up religiosity, unlike the violent pubescents who run the "Hindutva" movement, so he understood that God isn't a Hindu. All this makes him a very positive figure in my mind and if you think I was just dissing Gandhi above, you haven't understood what I meant.

What I meant was that Gandhi for all his maturity was a dyed-in-the wool nationalist. What the hell is so important about the allegory of Bharat Mata that millions of people should be killed over it? Why not create a bunch of cantons in a pragmatic federalist state, and forget about "nation"? The state is for collecting taxes, building roads, and catching burglars, not for expressing an eternal holy essence of Nation or Folk. If you get this wrong, the outcome will just be very sad for everyone. People can still enjoy their ethnic identity or whatever as much as they like, but like religion it would be their private business and not a matter of state. After a few generations of treating this ethnic or national bs as a private hobby, people will stop to obsess over it as well.

Now, it's not Gandhi's fault that millions of Indians at the time obsessed over religion and ethnicity. This wasn't even the Indians' fault, I suppose they just got the idea from the Europeans, who were absolutely insane over this during about 1880 to 1940, i.e. precisely the time the British came in close contact with India. This was very wrong, and the Europeans payed dearly for the mistake, in the currency of the blood of dozens of millions. Then, by 1945, they had finally learned their lesson. Now from the Indian perspective of the 1940s, if people are going to go apeshit over religion and nation, the very best that can happen to you is Gandhi, a nationalist fanatic who is also a mature spiritualist vowed to non-violence. This is why I think Gandhi may have been the right man at the right time, even if it would have helped if he had been told about the advantages of federalism. People might have been kept from making up a fairy-tale India united under Emperor Bharata which must be re-united at all cost, and we might not have two disturbingly unstable nuclear powers staring each other down across the Kashmir line of control today. I submit that this would have been a nice outcome compared to what we have today.

Now this is just my opinion. I am not sure whether you are saying that I am getting the facts wrong on which I base my opinion, or if you just saying that while I am getting the facts right, you disagree with my subjective conclusions from these facts.

you mustn't think that I have a less than bleak opinion of European colonialism. I was using "civilization" facetiously. Of course "civilization" usually means law and order at home, and imperialist adventures abroad. This isn't a European thing, this happened everywhere, from China to the Andes. Queen Victoria wasn't any more, nor less, of an imperialist ruler than king Ashoka. What I cannot abide is people who denounce the empire who colonialized them as evil, while at the same time glorifying their own historical history of colonizing others. Now that is just lame, dishonest. "Ashoka was a great Indian emperor, but the British in India were evil colonizers" is an extremely stupid position. You could as well say that "Victoria was a great British emperor, but the Romans in Britain were evil colonizers" If your ideal is the romantic Kibbutz/Gaṇa sangha style of local communism, that's great, but then you shouldn't take pride in your own successes at imperialism.

(But I think apart from a few cranky pagan indigenists, most British would say that the Roman conquest had its benefits in terms of trade and technology, say, Britain got the road from the Romans just like India got the railroad from the British. Yes, I admit I do think this joke is at least as much on the Indians as on the Jews.)

My view of this is that imperialism like nationalism is something that is going to happen. I don't believe in contrasting such realities with utopias, I prefer to think about that since they are going to happen, how can the be made as beneficial as possible. In this sense, I believe the British Empire, as empire, did pretty well. I do think that if India had been colonized by the Spanish, you would have noticed the difference. India would probably be half Roman Catholic today, for a start. And from 1945 at least, the British wanted nothing more than leave India as quickly as possible, like the Americans wish they could just leave Afghanistan today without things devolving into a bloodbath. They did their best to prevent the worst, but disaster still happened. Under the innocuous heading independence and population exchanges we learn in passing, that about half a million people were not so much "exchanged" as killed. Half a million! Considering that people write obsessive articles about each terrorist attack killing two and injuring five, I find it difficult to believe this massacre doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. I guess it doesn't quite fit the smooth narrative of "the polite and peaceful Indians asked the British would they please leave already, and then they became an independent democracy". --dab (𒁳) 06:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Gandhi was a stickler for principles, one of which included Ahimsa. Nationalism, social reform, family and everything else came later. You make an emphatic statement like Gandhi was actually happy to wade in blood, just as long as it was the blood of peaceful protestors on his own side, because nothing is going to end a regime faster than a record of its slaughtering civilians and then you say you are not dissing him or that you've overstated your opinion. If that's the case, why not strike it out or redact it and we'll be on our way (we'll be on our way even without that since this is just a talk page). Let me state some facts so you can re-evaluate your opinion.

• In 1920, Gandhi led what was perhaps the most successful Satyagraha of the Indian freedom struggle with the entire nation being mobilized in the civil disobedience movement. When a violent incident took place in Chauri Chaura on the Indians' part, Gandhi took personal responsibility and called off the movement stating that he did not want independence in a violent manner. You will find numerous sources stating that this insistence of Gandhi's to obtain freedom in a non-violent way set back Indian independence by decades. The 1922 Chauri Chaura trial has been called "The great Chauri Chaura trial" - you will find the entire trial proceedings all over the net and in books. Parts of it are an interesting read.
• When World War II broke, all leaders except Gandhi saw this as an opportunity to push the British against the wall and seek independence. Gandhi was alone when he said that taking advantage of the British at such a time would only be another form of violence (perhaps mental violence) and said that independence should wait until after the war. The only leader that I am aware of who opposed him was Subhash Chandra Bose.

So, you see, your stated opinion about Gandhi being "happy" to "wade in blood" is divorced from all recorded facts. There are a plethora of sources that will corroborate this. You just have to look them up. Regarding nationalism, you are viewing nationalism through a European lens, a continent whose definition of nationalism has given us two World Wars and violence on a scale that has not been elsewhere on the planet. Until Gandhi's time, at least, nationalism in India meant liberation from slavery and social reform to some extent. Gandhi himself, of course, wanted no part in the concept of the Indian nation-state which had it's own army, navy and an air-force. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Dab should measure his statements against Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and how Gandhi's disciple Vinoba Bhave coined Jai Jagat or Viva World, which is Hindu culture. Much of Dab's tirade denunciation of Hindutva is Quixotic like tilting at windmills thinking they are dragons, Hindutva's foremost ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, wrote "...The only fair and helpful criterion to be applied while independently studying different religions is to remain truthful and free of bias towards and against any particular religion.", and "...When we read the poetry of Milton, Homer, Valmiki, Omar Khayyam; history books written by Kant, Spencer, Kapil, Spinoza; science books on electricity, light, heat; works on technology, medicine, sculpture and novels, we fondly consider all of them as our common heritage irrespective of the place of their origin. Readers do not generally get lose their sanity and break each others’ skulls when they read these books. Why can’t we likewise read these five or ten religious scriptures peacefully? Why should each of these five or ten books cause murder and mayhem, insult and abuse over a period of centuries? Why should their reading breed enmity between man and man? If this is the result of reading them, then these scriptures are not religious but irreligious scriptures!...",[1] Gandhi was not murdered by a lunatic in a frenzy of madness, Godse was a pariot and an editor, in the events to 30 January 1948 Dalvi's Godse speaks They (Godse's parents), prayed to God, had their fourth son, Nathuram. Nathuram survived because they were destined to suffer for their young son's death and Gandhi was destined to be assassinated. ...I never stole in my childhood, so there was no question of apologising to my father. I never took a vow of celibacy as I was already practising celibacy. I was moving around the refugee camps and helping the destitute with food and clothes. But I did not wander half-naked because the refugees were naked. I never spun yarn, never cleaned my toilet, never observed silence till I was hanged. There was only one common factor in Gandhi's life and mine. We were both the cause of each other's death. He wanted to live for his principles and I was prepared to die for my principles. ...You can't just warn the government through editorials at such hours. Tell me Nana (Narayan Apte ), What do you mean by people will not tolerate, people will revolt...and so on? Who are these people? Do you mean our readers or those who attend our meetings and listen to our speeches? No, Nana, people also mean you and me, us. If we forget what we write and what we talk then our editorials and brave speeches in the meetings and futile. A man addressing from the dais is also a part of the crowd sitting before him. When we say that the people should revolt, it means that we should revolt![2]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, I have already said that I have respect for Gandhi. But I don't see how you propose anything to counter the opinion I stated. I stated the opinion polemically, giving it a rhetoric edge, in a certain context. This doesn't mean that there is no substance to it that can be phrased more soberly. The problem seems to be Gandhis almost religious conviction that there was a "nation", with some kind of real, substantial existence. I do not accept such beliefs as factual, but I do accept that many people hold them. I argue that it is very clear that there was not, nor never had been, a single "Indian nation", hence the bloody ordeal of partition. Apart from that, Gandhi was a kind man and all, he simply held an ideology which I reject, and to some extent despise. This doesn't mean I need to despise the man holding it.

Yogesh Khandke, I have permitted myself to have a discussion of opinion on my own user talkpage. Nothing in this section has anything to do with how I propose to edit any article, which I invariably do based on WP:RS, attempting to meet WP:DUE, never mind my own opinions. Such a discussion on opinion may be "quixotic". It may also be fruitful. Depends on your perspective.

Hindutva is just the Hindu term for "jingoistic religious right". It doesn't matter if these people are Hindu, or Christian, or Muslim, they will always succumb to the same evils. They are a reality that needs to be faced in real life, but they are not a reality that we need to put up with as Wikipedia editors. I am not here to do Indian politics, in my real life, it is enough for me to put up with the same kind of evil in my own country without putting my nose in foreign affairs. But as a Wikipedian, it is for me a janitorial task to keep jingoistic nonsense out of Wikipedia articles. I have brushed with Hindutvavadi editors on Wikipedia because of their anachronistic nonsense regarding the Vedas. The Rigveda is a unique document, without any equivalent the world over, and it does not deserve to be reduced to a feather in the cap of national mysticists or jingoist morons. If Gandhi was killed by an Indian patriot, I will just say, so much the worse for Indian patriotism. It kind of makes my point for me. I am sure Gandhi was saintly enough so he didn't mind being assassinated, and his killer was disturbed enough to not mind being hanged, so, good for them. I really have no stakes in this stuff and all I can do is observe what "patriotism" will make people do, and try to take precautions against this kind of mind-cancer in my own sphere. Perhaps you should preach Savarkar's reconciliatory approach to his own followers instead of to me. The day I see the RSS hold workshops on reading the Quran, Kant and classical electrodynamics because "Hindutva is about peaceful inter-cultural intellectual curiosity" instead of holding rallies and riots, I might be prepared to admit that the quotes you throw at me have anything to do with the topic under discussion. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Its so ironic that Hindutva was started under an avowed atheist and someone who thought Omar Khayyam was Indian heritage. "Perhaps you should preach Savarkar's reconciliatory approach to his own followers" - That is a profound statement.Pectore^talk 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are reading Savarkar incompletely Pectore, he writes that Khayyam and Homer are human heritage, not Indian, if you mean that.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbachmann I'm a little rushed, I'll get back to you, except one point, our talk pages are Wikipedia pages, with editor's names on them, they are not a blog page, the one whose name the page carries has a few more privileges. *Well I will strike Quixotic, it is meant to convey the picture of one striking at wind-mills thinking them to be dragons, that is why I used an upper-case. I am striking it off as I meant no personal offence.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

there is no need to finish this discussion, Zuggernaut and myself just decided to have a friendly exchange on Gandhi in a public spot, this isn't in any way tied to Wikipedia. I did not mean to attack you for the "Quixotic", and I was not offended at all. I merely replied stating why I thought you were mistaken. I understand you meant to say my "tirade" was misguided. I actually objected more to the "tirade" than to the "Quixotic", replying that I was within my rights to post "tirades" to my user talkpage as long as things don't escalate to a blatant violation of WP:NOTBLOG. Nobody forces you to read or comment on this page. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)Tirade struck off, replaced by denunciation. (2)Please read Godse was a patriot, as Godse considered himself as much a patriot as Gandhi, therefore that quote on celibacy,etc. (3)Your statement I do think that if India had been colonized by the Spanish, you would have noticed the difference. India would probably be half Roman Catholic today, for a start gives too much unnecessary credit to the British, one 1857 was a lesson for them not to mess up with religious traditions of Indians and concentrate on what they had come to India for - bleed it financially, Victoria proclaimed very much under duress of the violence of 1857 that Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none be in anywise favoured, none molested or disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all alike shall enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects on pain of our highest displeasure.[3] (4)The following statement too And from 1945 at least, the British wanted nothing more than leave India as quickly as possible, like the Americans wish they could just leave Afghanistan today without things devolving into a bloodbath., grossly overestimates British capablity, one mutiny in Mumbai, brought back memories of 1857, and the desire to withdraw to Old Blighty. (5)My referring to wp:NOTBLOG was in response to the my page that you wrote. (6)Your statement Gandhi was actually happy to wade in blood, just as long as it was the blood of peaceful protestors on his own side, because nothing is going to end a regime faster than a record of its slaughtering civilians, seems to be remarkably accurate, though I do not have evidence to agree with your allegations of his motivations, I would tend to disagree about it, perhaps it was religion, he was prepared to bleed like Christ, perhaps for him, his suffering and his people's suffering was the same, and he was indifferent to his people's suffering as he was about his own. The first part is Godse's complaint about Gandhi, and why he (according to him) had to erase Gandhi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am not asking you to strike out things you said. You say stuff, and I reply, and If I disagree I will just say why I happen to disagree. I also have no particular desire to draw out this conversation. It started as an exchange between Zuggernaut and myself. You have been free to comment, but this doesn't mean we need to follow the debate wherever you want to take it. I have already said that I do not wish to defend colonialism, and the British Empire was clearly colonialist, so there. I am also aware that the Indian nationalists of today have a bee in their bonnet about whining hysterically about the evil British, far beyond the admitted unpleasantries the British are undisputedly guilty of. Hence my reference to "what have the Romans ever done for us". There wasn't a Hindu nationalist anti-British purge after 1947, outlawing the railroad and the printing press, or use of the English language for communication between the disparate nations found within India, so clearly the British must have done something right for the good of India even in the eyes of their most radical detractors.

I am asking you to compare British rule to Maharaja or Sultanate rule, not to some imagined utopian ideal. Once you do that, you can give a fair comparison as to how the British did fare as authoritarian rulers. I am not endorsing authoritarian rule, I am merely saying the British did remarkably well within that category, compared to real-world contrasting examples of authoritarian rule. If you cannot or do not want to follow this argument, you are welcome to just let it be. Of course there was missionary activity under the British. And of course the Hindu nationalists are going to be scandalized about that. Yawn. All I am asking you to do before you whine about colonialism is, go and look at how the Conquistadores fared with the Incas and other indigenous religions of the Americas, and then compare this to a British missionary going around converting Dalits by friendly persuasion. A "lesser evil" may still be an evil, I agree, and you are still free to whine about colonialism, but at least you will be able to put things into perspective.

The last thing I want is accolade for my characterization of Gandhi from the camp of plain depressing fanatical nationalism responsible for his assassination. Gandhi may be surprisingly ambiguous considering he is recognized as an image of sainthood almost universally. The people who assassinated him are not "surprisingly unambigous", they are just plain and boringly evil in the most unsurprising way possible. If you want to disagree with my concept of "evil", that's fine, I am not asking you to join my camp or wave my flag or anything. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if it appears that I am barging into a private discussion. If you wish, you can just revert my edit as its your private space, but I cant stop myself from listing a few relevant points .

1. Mahatma Gandhi wasn't always non-violent. Quit India Movement of 1942 was a violent struggle and Gandhi didn't denounce the violence. This question was asked in Indian Civil Service Examination 2011 conducted by UPSC

2. I cant say this for all but, as far as I know, at least some Hindu nationalists, e.g. Girilal Jain (and even V.S. Naipaul to an extent), view British rule as a positive influence on Indian Society.

3. A small difference between imperialism and British colonialism of India is that British never settled in India. I think if they had settled, as Mughals did, they would have been viewed far more positively than they currently are.

I have not written the above comment to elicit a response from you. Its just that I could not stop myself from writing it. :) --nids(♂) 06:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you learn some English before trying to write an English language encyclopedia?

I'd like to know that, since I stumbled upon this jewel of yours "Notable living US American advocates of linguistic monogenesis are Merritt Ruhlen, John Bengtson, and Harold Fleming.". You should at the very least state in your user page that your first language is German and that your grasp of English is quite poor. --Belchman (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? [4] Reminds me that I was going to write an essay on editing under the influence... Hans Adler 06:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

hm, as far as I can tell, the sentence in question is perfectly grammatical. Perhaps the copula ("living advocates are") does not quite comply with current-day standard written English, people would tend to pick a more grandiloquent verb such as "include" or "comprise" or "have been identified as by some commentators". But since "Belchman" for some reason has emboldened the "US American" bit I am not convinced that he even began to give grammatical structure any thought here. So frankly, I am not sure why I am being asked to "learn some English". Nor what the attempt to second-guess my first language is based on. Perhaps the Bachmann (to assume that he had based it on the point on the copula discussed above, informed by intimate knowledge of both German and English syntax, would perhaps be giving this editor too much credit).

I might add that I clean up after a lot of people who are native speakers of "English" and who make a depressing mess of the language of Shakespeare. A quarter-millennium into American independence, the time may have finally come to decouple things. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Bronze Age

Hi, FYI - please sign up Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

history of name of Azerbaijan

hi - I'm writing to you in regards to the page [History of the name Azerbaijan] since you know editor Xashaiar from before [5]. Per the administrators' suggestion at the top of the page and in page talk that there are too many quotes and the article doesn't read well, as well as per the facts and quotations of both primary and secondary sources quoted in the article itself, I have deleted two irrelevant quotes that did not deal with the name Azerbaijan, and revised the intro sentence to better reflect the page, by removing the incorrect contention that the name of Azerbaijan supposedly became to encompass lands of the current Republic of Azerbaijan only in the 20th century [6]. I don't claim that I made the article perfect, but definitely made it slightly better, more consistent with Wikipedia purpose, and historically and factually correct. When one editor asked me about the edit, I've discussed it on his talk page [7], and on my talk page [8], showing all the scholars and geographers, who were already cited in the article, based on whose writings the edit came about. Then came editor Xashaiar and just started to revert (here's the diff: [9]), without discussions, without providing any logic or facts. Could you please take a look at the page and voice your opinion? --Agasalim (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

pf, yeah, Persian nationalists vs. other nationalists. Not the most pleasant side of Wikipedia, nor the most interesting one. But I guess someone has to do the thankless job of clamping down on the patriotic trolls around here. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Christ Islam.png

Dear Dieter Bachman,

Are you still an Admin here? You don't say anymore on your wiki userpage. Anyway, this map you created now on WikiCommons is quite wrong for South Sudan. How can you just colour green for South Sudan--when its predominantly Christian and Animist (African tribal religion)? Can you fix this map at Commons? After all, it was made by you. This map is actually more accurate for South Sudan. 2 million people in South Sudan didn't die in the second Sudanese civil war (1983-2005) so that outsiders like us can still label their new country Muslim when they are black Africans (not Arabs) who practise Christianity and their native African tribal religions. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? The map is by country, and when I created it back in 2006, South Sudan was still far from being an independent country. I used Islam by country and Christianity by country. The map is only a visualization of the data in these article they stood in 2006. You are shooting the messenger, ok? You are welcome to update it, but you will have to update everything, not just South Sudan. The map shows the situation in 2006. If you want to update the map for 2011, nobody is stopping you. I resent your coming to my talkpage and asking me to "fix" the map, when by "fix" you mean "create a new updated map", as if it was somehow my fault that time has passed since 2006. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Couldn't you update the map just once to make an exception for South Sudan in 2011? I agree the map was drawn up in 2006 but even in 2006 it was incorrect for South Sudan. When Manute Bol the late black African NBA player from Sudan was asked to represent his country as the "minister of sport" in 2001, the Arab Sudanese government said he must first convert to Islam from Christianity first. That is intolerable. I am not familiar with maps but you seem to have made all the edits to this map. Maybe you can make 1 more for South Sudan--as it is a mix of African tribal religion and Christianity. Its just a suggestion...and I'm sorry if I was rude. I should have said this is an update. Today I'm mostly active on Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I overreacted. The point is, the simple fact that I took the trouble to draw up this map back in 2006 does not mean that I a now obliged to maintain it. I may or may not get around to this in the near future. You would be much better advised in placing a request at WP:GL/MAP. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is ...

Is the phrase "epigraphic inscriptions" half redundant? Are there inscriptions that aren't "epigraphic"? I've seen this in a few articles, and I trust you to set me straight. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, "epigraphic inscriptions" is a pleonastic tautology. You can say "in epigraphy" for "in certain (unspecified) inscriptions", but when discussing a specific inscription, in the singular, you can just say "in an inscription". --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had started to doubt myself after seeing it a few times, and thought I was missing some intended nuance. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Astrology in Hellenistic Egypt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astrology in Hellenistic Egypt , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tartessian as Celtic and Koch's "Celtic from the West" school

Can you have a look into this problem? User:Jembana, with the support of some other users, is currently pushing John T. Koch's POV, especially in the article Tartessian language, but also in some other places, in a way clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia policy as I understand them, especially the WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE guidelines. The mainstream view is still that Celtic origins lie in Central Europe and that Tartessian is unclassified, and as far as I'm aware, Koch's and Oppenheimer's dissenting views have not yet been widely discussed in the linguistic community. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, User:Jembana and friends do a lot of damage to our coverage of Celtic topic. I am not sure if they are aware of what they are doing, but since they are clearly ideology-driven I assume they do. This should just be treated like any other ethnic nationalist nonsense.

I have not seen the Cunliffe ans Koch volume, this may be the most reasonable account of this minority model atm. So it should be used to report on it. But of course the editing shouldn't be done by confused agenda-driven editors who actually try to push the minority view.

At the end of the day, the question is, where did the pre-Proto-Celts spend the early Bronze Age, and should they be described as "Celts"?. It is clear that Proto-Celtic proper is closely associated with Hallstatt/La Tène. This is as far as reasonably confident statements can be made. Now people want to know where did these early Celts come from? Obviously, they must have had ancestors. Where did those ancestors spend the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age? This is anyone's guess. If it pleases some people to speculate that the Atlantic Bronze Age should be considered, that's fine with me, but in my book this has very little to do with Celtic proper. It may have to do with early Indo European prehistory in Europe, and should be discussed for what it is, a speculative topic of Indo-European prehistory. Dubbing Neolithic peoples "Celts", even if they are ancestors of the early Celts, is just misleading. I do not think that authors like Oppenheimer who are not ashamed of throwing around stuff like Ice Age Celtic or pre-Roman English should be mentioned at all. We need some sort of minimal standard of non-inclusion for patent nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 07:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it turns out that "Celtic from the West" has now become a "thing" that should somehow be discussed on Wikipedia. This is a problem, because Wikipedia has long had trolls pushing this theory for cranky or nationalistic reasons, even before there was substantial literature on it. These people will now of course feel enabled, because they have been "saying so all along". But we will still need to try to do this properly.

• This is an instance of WP:FRINGE.
• It is also an instance of WP:RECENT, because this is being discussed right now. It may be gone again in another two years.
• The linguists don't believe in it. Which is rather relevant, because it is after all a linguistic theory.
• Nevertheless, "Celtic from the West"has now (2010–2011) been put on the agenda, even if the agenda simply consists of debunking it. And of course, as long as this takes place within academic publications, we are supposed to trace its development

Suggestive phrasing like this one, referring to the mainstream view as the "long-established, but increasingly problematic scenario" should rise huge WP:REDFLAGs: it is the hallmark of crank theories to suggest that the mainstream is "increasingly" problematic. The mainstream is always problematic, there are always little problems and unresolved questions. Suggesting that it is "increasingly" so just after your new idea entered the stage is dishonest, because it implies an extrapolation of a future where the mainstream will be "even more" problematic, and your minority idea "even more" widely accepted. Of course this does not need to happen at all, most minority views end up being recognized as even more problematic than the view they were supposed to replace, and are phased out again after a couple of years. But as long as they are new, it is always easy to claim that they get "increasing" attention etc.

This would be problematic enough on its own. But seeing as we have, on Wikipedia, a history of trolling dedicated to dishonestly inflate the credibility of these ideas, I am afraid the current forecast for the development of our Celtic articles is not looking too bright. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Neo-Pagan (literature) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo-Pagan (literature) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Pagan (literature) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IrishStephen (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Cyrillic Slavic writing->Pre-Christian Slavic writing

You moved the article Pre-Cyrillic Slavic writing to Pre-Christian Slavic writing as per the talk page. My reading of the indicates a consensus on "Slavic runes". Is there any information not on the talk page that I sould know about before I re-move the page? VanIsaac_WS 00:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reading of the what? --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My reading of the talk page. VanIsaac_WS 11:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

hm, that's strange, my reading of the talkpage reminds me of why I had acted on the suggestion to move the article to its current title. Google books gives me 25 hits on "Slavic runes", so I will grant you that the term exists, but in my opinion this is a term used in popular literature, and it is also misleading. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all I was wondering. As long as you have an informed reason to make the move you did, I'm not in a position to overturn it. VanIsaac_WS 12:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

oh, there is ample room for argument. The Russian article is called "the problem of pre-Christian writing among the Slavs", which is more accurate, but also a little wordy. I do by no means claim that the current title is optimal. I just do not feel that "Slavic runes" would be an improvement. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just kind of thought that the discussion had seemed absolutely against Pre-Cyrillic Slavic writing, but slightly more in favor of Slavic Runes than Pre-Christian Slavic writing. As such, I was thinking that Slavic Runes may be a more appropriate consensus name, but I didn't have any background to support that. Like I said, I was just wondering whether you had a reason for the decision you made, or whether you had simply read the discussion differently. If the latter, I was going to discuss re-moving the article on the basis of consensus. It is, however, quite clearly the former. VanIsaac_WS 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bigotry?

Did you mean this to be so strong? It took me slightly aback. There are no doubt bigots of all persuasions editing the article but I would say it has been remarkably collegial so far. Remarks like yours don't seem calculated to help the situation, if you don't mind my saying so. --John (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am frustrated with the situation, and I am also frustrated with how well-meaning people are tip-toeing around naming the issues. How are we going to do anything to improve the situation if it isn't even allowed to address the problems? Yes, I would call this bigotry: sticking to your pre-conceived ideological worldview no matter what the facts are. This is never going to be helpful. I was not complaining about the tone of interaction on the article talkpage. I was complaining that the result, the actual article page, was steeped in politically correct dodging of the uncomfortable questions raised by these events.

I am frustrated enough to realize that I will not be a great help in editing the article, which is why I didn't touch the content page. --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Dbachmann, I haven't run into you for awhile, but just noticed your edits to Pan Germanism - well done, and thanks for taking an interest in that article. It was ina pretty sad shape a little while ago.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I just came across the article as I tried to clean up the Germans#Name section. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Middle Eastern conflicts

You had expressed your opinion on synthesis and proposed merge of List of conflicts in the Middle East and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East earlier this year, though i closed your suggestion due to lack of interest by other editors. However, due to recent changes in the structure of those articles, i would like you to contribute to the renewed discussion here Talk:List of conflicts in the Middle East#Criteria for modern conflicts inclusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection of Babylon

Would you consider unprotecting Babylon? It's been over a year and the threat has probably passed. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But the article isn't protected. It is semi-protected, which in spite of the similarity of the term is something entirely different. You should have no problem editing the article as you please. I see no reason to remove semiprotection. Wikipedia has thousands of well-developed articles which are semiprotected indefinitely, and for excellent reasons. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the difference. No worries; I'll take it to WP:RPP. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, that's the right approach, thank you. I have no problem with the page being unprotected, I am just rather confident that within a couple of weeks and after lots of addition of nonsense and article deterioration, it will just go back to semiprotection, so the whole procedure is rather futile. I would also like to add that I am rather sensitive to semiprotection being called protection, as historically, troll teams have even managed to confuse the much-overwrought arbcom into issuing sanctions over "admin abuse" for using "protection" in "disputes", when in fact only semiprotection had been used to avoid socking. If people don't make the distinction (semiprotection gives zero leverage in content disputes against editors who are not sockmasters), the arbcom and other people basing a "judgement" on a cursory reading of a case of trolling will make mistakes. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)