User talk:Night w

It is now 04:21 on Sunday, 11 August 2024. English Wikipedia currently has 6,865,866 articles.

Indian titles

Many thanks for your note on my talk page. I am in the wrong place to look up sources, but you could try emailing christopher.buyers [at] virgin.net who is the author of the royalark.net page you found.

Some WP users seem to me to have a political agenda to trivialize the native states, even to the point of making them out to be a kind of fiction, British colonies or provinces in all but name. For them, the Indian Empire was already a "unitary state", so that after 1947 the extinction of the states was inevitable, if not a kind of tidying up. There are even some WP articles on individual states which describe the post 1947 period (after assimilation into India) as "Independence" and the pre-1947 period as "colonialism". For such users, Operation Polo was merely the Indian Union excercising its perfect right to treat the native states as already part of the new India, whether their rulers agreed to accede or not. Clearly, from the point of view of India-wide political parties (and, no doubt, democracy itself) the extinction of most of the states was very desirable (except that some states might eventually have had a more democratic future by retaining some autonomy), but it is no longer essential to democracy to play games with what happened. Unfortunately, the distortion of the history of the political integration of India has been going on at the highest level for so long that even some academic specialists have a clouded view. That makes it easy for the misrepresentations to be embedded in the fabric of Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll certainly contact Buyers and see what sources he might be able to provide. The presence of those few sources directly stating that titles were not abolished certainly proves that this is not clear cut and therefore we certainly shouldn't be presenting it as such. Still, titles in pretence (and most of them are certainly still claiming them) is a valid subject and I'd like to see the articles look somewhat like those on European individuals. I'll keep you updated. Nightw 14:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Titles in pretense are surely to do with thrones rather than mere titles? If India suppressed the rulers' states but not their titles, then the inheritor of a princely title has it now (regardless of whether it is actually used) and does not need to pretend to it. Such a person is only a pretender if he claims the restitution of the state the title is based on, together with some of the sovereign power, privileges, rights and duties which went with the title. No doubt some of the former rulers and the heirs of others do claim just that, but in my view only those who do should be included in a list of Indian pretenders. Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well by most definitions, so long as you're the apparent heir by the relevant laws of succession, you are a pretender whether or not you yourself make the claim. But many seem to feel otherwise, so when I recreate the article I probably won't use "pretender" in the title. Yes, titles in pretence are purely to do with the thrones, but as of 1971 they are no longer recognised as the successors to those thrones (point a in the amendment) so they would need to pretend to it. I guess what's left is titles without any substance, as there's no legal connection to the thrones anymore. Nightw 16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Most definitions of "pretender" do not come to the same thing as "heir": Chambers, for instance, begins to define "pretender" with "a claimant, especially to a throne". I broadly agree with "titles without any substance", if "substance" means power or position, although a historic title always has some substance, in that it changes the holder and people's perception of him or her, even without the possessions which might go with it. Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding navboxes listed on CENT

What is there about the discussion that relates to either policies, guidelines or matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It was to do with accessibility problems being introduced by changes to {{Navbox}}, but Edokter has worked his magic and fixed them. Nightw 05:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Flatlist wrapping issue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Flatlist wrapping issue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

List of current sovereign monarchs

First off, thank you for bringing the potential concerns to the directors' attention. I greatly appreciate that you took this action for your own list, and I'm sure the other directors feel the same way. After the list was pulled from its upcoming TFL date, I went to check for close paraphrasing myself, to the extent that I could. I didn't find much that was concerning on that front, but I came away with some reliable source concerns that I think should be looked at before the list is rescheduled. The comments are at Talk:List of current sovereign monarchs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I'll check it now. Shouldn't take too long. Nightw 05:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Night w, I have to explain to you about this accident because my contribution was reverted by you. First of all, we would like to know about the following three points. First point is that ususal japanese know Japaese Emperor not have fimly name. Second point is that Jananise article ja:皇室#氏・姓・名字(family name item in Imperial House of Japan article) mentioned it and have some reference. Third point is that I hate foreign language link.

anyway, you may not read japanese, but you feel the article have some reference. Do you need more explain ?--Forestfarmer (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am indeed unable to read Japanese, so I don't know what to look for on that page. Could you please post the reference in Japanese here. I'll read through it as best as I can through an online translator and then I'll go hunting for some English references saying the same. The reference already in the article explains the issue and says that "Yamato" is the name commonly applied in English. We can add that there is no official name, but we'll need a reference for it. Nightw 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. "Yamato" is commonly applied in English: Thus yamato is not offical, and last sentence of 氏・姓・名字 item in Japanese article ja:皇室#氏・姓・名字 have reference No.3 "吉田孝 『日本の誕生』 岩波書店<岩波新書>、1997、ISBN 40043051". (I do not have enough trans-language wikipedia copyright rules. but I think citation may be OK )citation "～大王＝天皇が姓を持たず「姓」制度を超越し続けたことにつながったとしている[3]。". I think mechanical translation is difficult because the high scholar of history develops a theory in the problem of the Emperor's family name.

anyway, I translate it,"daiō = tennō do not have sei and had transcending sei system."

explain of technical term

"daiō"ja:大王 (ヤマト王権) is old name of tennō. It is the king when it says simply.

"tennō"ja:天皇 is the Emperor when it says simply.

"daiō = tennō" is japanese Emperor when Japan conscious of a foreign country (China).may be A.D.6~7.

”sei” is family name when it says simply.

"sei system" in old japan, Japanese Emperor had given "sei" his allegiant.

--Forestfarmer (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the book is by Takashi Yoshida and it's called The birth of Japan, is that correct? He appears to be fairly well-known so I'll look around for an English translation. Meanwhile, I've added back a summarised version of what you wrote with some other references. Does this look okay? Nightw 18:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank your writing. It is better and enough in English Wikipedia. but usual japanese feel that it is unscientific when they read. It is disrespectful to write the Japanese Emperor's family name to be Yamato because family name is gift for a allegiant. a Japanese who is me recommend to write "N/A(yamato)". but i hate to face japanese style.

reagrds--Forestfarmer (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Al-Nurayn Mosque

I did an initial run through of the new version, and it definitely seems better. I asked for a second editor, more familiar with CCI, to take another look before I move it back to mainspace. However, I actually think it could be even better with a thorough re-write, which would involve cutting the information in about half. See, right now, it seems like you're trying to get every single detail covered in the news articles into the WP article. But the WP article should really be a broader summary of the mosque itself, not just a recounting of the news stories. I removed a few details I thought were excessive, but more could probably be done.

One thing that you could do that would help: the second reference is now a dead link; could you find the original article and update it? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. At least on the internet, there's actually not all that much information available on the mosque itself. The article should probably just be merged into Qusra (where I see someone else has already pretty much duplicated the mosque article). I'll fix the deadlink and try to cut some of the excess, but would you agree that merging and redirecting is probably best? Nightw 07:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's an interesting question. If the mosque were a person, I'd say that it falls under WP:BLP1E, and thus shouldn't have an independent article. Probably the best thing to do is wait until the new version is checked by someone else, then do a merge discussion. That way if there are any active editors on Qusra, they could comment, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for all your help with this. It's very much appreciated. Nightw 09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No consesus to remove Explanation section - International recognition of the State of Palestine

There was no consensus. The item was already being discussed. You offered no compromise and your points were not addressed before your removal of information. Please either self revert or offer a compromise thx ... talknic (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond on the talk page shortly. Nightw 12:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Date of recognizing the independence of the State of Palestine from the Gambia

Why November 18th? in AS date not specified, it is said that the November 19, recognized the following, and Gambia among them!!!--analitic114 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

+ This there are and Lebanon--analitic114 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)