User talk:SouthernComfort

Please click here to leave me a new message.

---

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4

Request

Hola SC, would you be able to make a statement on Aucaman's ArbCom? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, but would this be considered POV pushing? I dunno, I heard somewhere that the languages are close. I just wanted to hear what you have to say about it. BTW, you've got mail. --Khoikhoi 05:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'd post a comment on the talk page but I'm honestly too lazy and don't really care.

About the Parsi page, what's exactly wrong with moving it to "-people"? The Persian people page used to be at Persians, and the Azerbaijani people page used to be at Azerbaijanis. What's the difference with the Parsi? I read the talk page, but I'm still not quite clear on things. --Khoikhoi 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks! :) --Khoikhoi 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll talk to him. Hold up. --Khoikhoi 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I fear people might get confused and think that they are an Iranian people. Yes, I know it's linked to Iran, but still, the way it's phrased. I just think it would be better if we said "dynasty of Iran". --Khoikhoi 06:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And besides, the idea of a nation is a 19th century idea as you probably know. --Khoikhoi 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So we can't say "Persian" and we can't say "Iranian" - I'm afraid I strongly oppose. I've been willing to back up Grandmaster's position that Safavids were Azeri and Turkic-speaking, but this I cannot condone at all. Both Tajik and himself are taking extreme positions. Their politicking cannot be allowed to ruin the article. SouthernComfort 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we should call them a "Persian" dynasty since the Persian Empire was still in full swing. But that would be opposed as well. SouthernComfort 07:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

What's your response to this? Sorry, I don't mean to bother you, but I'd really be interested in seeing what you think. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. :( Would it be a good idea to reply or just leave it how it is? It's going to be about a month and a half since this whole ordeal started... --Khoikhoi 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this guy pretty much said what you were saying! --Khoikhoi 07:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I have to go to sleep now. Buenos noches. --Khoikhoi 08:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

With edits like these, the world may never know... But seriously, have you tried talking with him one on one? Try telling him about your personal experiences with the term. I dunno, it might work. We have a source that clearly states that Aryans = Ancient Iranians. Still, over and over again, same ol' same ol'. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. BTW, is this edit by Lukas ok with you? I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not sure why "Ancient Iranians (Aryans)" was changed to "Ancient Iranians, branch of Indo-Iranians (Aryans". --Khoikhoi 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Check your email. --Khoikhoi 05:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

not nice.

Hey, I worked for weeks on that rewrite. And then you revert it without comment? That is really, really rude. What exactly do you have a problem with?

I really have no objection to a tersification of my text (I agree, its much too verbose), but to throw it out preemptorily is really downright nasty.

Incidentally, *I* wrote the Ethnic origins text, *I* wrote the definition text, and you apparently didn't have a problem with those. And now you have a problem with a merger of the two ("definition" *includes* definition from within and without the community) with the reason "rv unilateral rewrite - you have inserted too much opinion and disregarded that there are other editors involved here". Incidentally, you weren't around when the edit wars between Aucaman and ManiF were on, and I saw a rewrite as the only possible solution to break the deadlock. Incidentally, which "other" editors? With the exception of Afghan Historian, I don't see a lot of text in that article that doesn't stem from me. What precisely do you mean with "inserted too much opinion"? What exactly is any article on Wikipedia but a layout of opposing points of view?

I hate to say this, but I'm really, really hurt, and would truly like to know what exactly you have a problem with. -- Fullstop 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: please answer here.

Hi, Fullstop. I explained why I reverted - you rewrote a great portion of the article without first discussing it. Also, much of your new text was not objective, but rather opinion. The dispute between Aucaman and Mani ultimately comes down to use of the term "Aryan" in Iran-related articles. My feeling is that the article did not need such a significant rewrite, especially when it introduced too much opinion. Exactly what is wrong with the current version? SouthernComfort 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So, I did a significant rewrite without discussing it. I also wrote the original text without discussing it. There is no opinion expressed in the new text that was not already im the old. What the new text does is expand the old text, and ethnic origin in line with definition (it too being definition - of the community). Re: "what is wrong with the current version". Absolutely nothing - but why does anything have to be wrong with an article (for it to "allow" it to be rewritten)? Re: "introducing too much opinion": I repeat, what exactly is any article on Wikipedia but a layout of opposing points of view? What qualifies "too much" anyway? I repeat: the new text does not cover more than the old text did, but does expound on the ethnic status of the Parsis. -- Fullstop 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Again: please answer here.

>> instead did add unsourced opinions which were not in the previous version.
such as?
>> I also did not see any reason for such a complete rewrite when this version appears to be far more clear and concise
a) I agree its more concise b) perhaps others (not only myself) do see a reason for an in-depth explanation. See User_talk:Fullstop#Parsis. c) concise is not necessarily a contradiction for "in-depth". d) why is a less detailed version better than a more detailed one? e) in what way is a less detailed version more NPOV than a more detailed one?
-- Fullstop 10:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Diyako Talk + 10:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Norooz Pirooz

I hope you'll have a great year. --ManiF 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Geber

I've read several book in Farsi that refer to him as "Daneshmand Irani". You and I both know that "Irani" usually means Persian in Farsi. Furthermore, many Encyclopedias mistakenly list anyone who wrote in Arabic as an Arab, as is the case with Khwarizmi. --ManiF 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we already did compromise when we agreed to call him just Muslim. --ManiF 03:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Because anonymous users keep changing his ethnicity from unclear to Arab. If you are going to say that he's often identified as an Arab then what about all the claims about him being Iranian? I don't think scholars mentioning him as an Iranian are talking about nationality as there was no Iranian nationality back then. --ManiF 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I already did list an article and three published books referring to Gaber as an "Iranian", on the list of sources on the bottom of talk page. Furthermore, you may want to discuss this matter further with User:Ali doostzadeh , as he's very knowledgeable on this issue and he's the one who came up with the compromise to call Gaber a "Shia Muslim", nothing more, nothing less. This link also refers to Gaber as a Persian. --ManiF 03:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not had the time to do some more reasearch, but I'm sure I can find more published material referring to him as Iranian or even Persian. User:Ali doostzadeh alerady cited one of the books. Bottom line, I feel that if we are going to say that "he's often identified as an Arab" then there should also be a mention that he might have been of Iranian stock or Persian. Personally, I think it's better to leave all the IFs and BUTs out and go with the only thing that's definite about him "Shia Muslim" without any further explanations, plain and simple. --ManiF 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabir is Persian:

History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova (Page 286)

Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014)

The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200)

I listed those references in the talk page. Now, I don't wish to revert your changes, but it would be nice if you could add something to reflect the possibility that Gaber might have been a Persian. Even Britannica, which is the most reputable encyclopedia, does not discuss or mention Gaber's ethnicity because they know there is nothing certain about it. --ManiF 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana

Good job.--Kagan the Barbarian 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we need more people who can keep cool and assure that the article is balanced with both views presented. Bertilvidet 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks man. :) I'm not sure if the quote is on a talk page, but for now I think the article looks good. Btw on Talk:Iranian peoples Aucaman just denied the existence of an Iranian ethno-linguistic group, this discussion is starting to get silly. --Khoikhoi 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good idea. Btw, what should we do on the Iranian peoples page? Aucaman just added that it's only a linguistic group of people. --Khoikhoi 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Check your inbox. --Khoikhoi 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--Khoikhoi 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--Khoikhoi 07:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Şalgam

Interesting, I just thought it was a Turkish word. However, I looked it up at the website of the Turkish Language Association, and apperantly it is a Farsi word:

şalgam isim, Botanik Farsça şel¦am

 1 .    Turpgillerden, yumru köklü bir bitki (Brassica rapa).	
 2 .    Bu bitkinin insan ve hayvanlar için besin olarak kullanılan etli ve tatlı kökü:
      "Şalgam suyu."

Bertilvidet 23:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian

Well, the missworld website is obviously wrong claiming she is Persian, so..dont know what to say about that. As I quoted her on her page, she said she is proud to be Assyrian. She knowns how to speak Farsi...and? That makes her automatically Iranian? Doesn't make sense. So, if she's not ethinically Iranian, and has never lived in Iran and wasn't born there, then how does she become Iranian? Chaldean 05:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe her other half is French-Canadian. Anyways, the term Iranian is not a clear/cut issue eather. Chaldean 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, its what I asked Khoikhoi. Agfans are considered "Iranian" throught ethnic justification, but arabs of South Iran are considered "Iranian" throught geographical jusification...? I mean, which is it, is it a term that describes a certain of people that are related to another through ethnic or geographic? Chaldean 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajiks

Thanks for the information. right now, I am really busy in the German Wikipedia. I've written the article Tajiks (German) ... I'll try to help you once I am finished in the German Wikipedia. Tajik 15:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana massacre

The reason why the article was called Adana holocaust(but I think replacing it with the more used term Adana massacre was a good decision), was because this was what it was called after the event by foreigners(Holocaust, meaning burning by fire). The Adana massacre is the only, in which estimates of losses from every sides concord with eachothers with slight differences. The Danger Zone of Europe; Changes and Problems in the Near East. by Henry Charles Woods published in 1911 gives accounts on what weant there. There were foreign battelships that have seens the burnings and this is a recorded event, Jemal that was then the Vali of Adana provided the figure of 17 thousand Armenians for the first series of massacres. Orphanages were formed, the one in Hajin being I think the most important. The inspection party in 1909 aimed at inspecting the orphanages, the Ottoman to dissossiate itself from the massacres has trialled many who they qualified as responsable and financed many of those orphanages. I have found one link about this, http://www.hadjin.com/Offical_Ottoman_Inspection_Party_1909.htm. You won't find much about Adana on the web, because it isen't really much denied, what is debated is the circunstances under which those massacres happened. Besides, while Jemal provides figures of Muslim killed in Adana, (between 1000 to 2000, I don't remember the actual real figure), what is not talked much, is that most of those killed had nothing to do with the Armenians, and that many uncounted and counted for massacres of Arabs should be taken in consideration, since Fahri Pasha, the Turkish commander has ordered under the pretext of an Arabic insurection, the massacre of Arabs there too. This too isen't much covered in google, but I have found a link which refer to this Arab massacre http://sociologyesoscience.com/hroots2.html. Fad (ix) 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

About McCarthy, to use McCarthy as a prime source for the Adana massacre would be like using Zundel like a prime source for the Holocaust. Professor Ton Zwaan, from the Holocaust and Genocide Studies has called McCarthy as a "professional denier" Professor Jos Weitenber, an Armenologist wrote about McCarthy: "McCarthy belongs to the few non-Turkish scholars who deny the existence of the Armenian genocide. His arguments have been the same for years. He shows no inclination to seriously consider the refutal of his fellow colleagues". Colin Imber an 'Ottomanologist' one of those still having some dignity, has called the last work of McCarthy: "Junk food, junk bonds and now junk history ... This is a cruel description, but one which is perfectly appropriate for a book which is carelessly written, is often misinformed, and shamelessly follows a Turkish nationalist agenda." (British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Nov., 1999)). McCarthy has always supported Turkish nationalist thesis in everything that regards the Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. He recently was called to tell the Turkish National Assembly how to answer to « Armenian genocide claims. » He is also a pied scholar of ARIT and ITS grants, two grants of the Turkish government. He has himself contributed to write the The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period a publication of the The Grand National Assembly Of Turkey aimed at denying the Armenian genocide, he even wrote one of the chapters. I can provide many other examples, about his direct link with the Turkish government and the critics of his works.Fad (ix) 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 'Adana massacre' is POV, it respects Wikipedia name conventions, this is what it is called. Besides, Jemal official statistics of the number of Muslims killed is 1850 Muslims, but there was an attack against the Arabs in Adana under a pretext of insurection, so many Muslim losses there have nothing to do with Armenians. Also, if we take into account Jemal figures, it is 17000 Armenians killed against 1850 Muslims Muslims, and if we take into account the insidences between the Arabs and the Turks, as well as the Kurdish revolt in Adana, and that we attribute half of the Muslim losses to the Armenians, which is 925, don't you think that 17,000 against 925 is a clear disproportion? There are articles titled massacres for few hundreds of victims, I don't see how it is POV to have one called such for at least 17 thousand people, and this according to the official Ottoman figures? Besides, there are Turkish officials and authors at the time that have characterised what happened as a slaughter.

Comming to McCarthy, personally I think there are more serious issues regarding him then there are for Zundel. I don't see how someone having contributed to write a book published by the Turkish National Assembly, a contributer of the Turkish government founded 'Instute of Armenian studies' specifically aimed at denying the Armenian genocide, a contributor of the documentary produced by the Turkish Business chamber aimed at denying the Armenian genocide. An individual that was asked to advice the National assembly on how to take measures to deny the Armenian genocide. McCarthy is criticized by various people, from his statistical methodology(for example, read Frederic Paulin analysis of McCarthy misuses of the Population stable theory to specifically minimise the Armenian population to then minimise its losses), to his illogical conclusion about both sided massacres(for this, you can read professor Daniel Panzac analysis of this thesis), or various other critics, some I have already quoted. Hilmar Kaiswer also reviewed one of his works. In short, Justin McCarthy is a very controversial author, and can not be considered as a neutral party, someone contributing in the writting of a Turkish government work aimed at denying the Armenian genocide can not be considered as a neutral party, neither also when he recieved both ARIT and ITS grants, and when he himself has declared during an ATAA conference that he was trying to 'correct Turkeys' image, he repeated this during the Turkish historical congress in Ankara in 1990, when he declared that he was trying to rewrite history. I do not oppose the inclusion of his thesis, but his thesis is Kamuran Guruns thesis, and not the one maintained by the very large majority of scholars. About your question, Pamuk is a novelist not a historian, he says nothing about Adana. Fad (ix) 04:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ra'i

Agha, ye ra'i eenjaa bedeh. Dastet dard nakoneh.--Zereshk 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kurds

Hahaha, life really is grand! :D The Kurdish people page says "some sources state they are ethnically close to Iranians". I thought our sources say that they are an Iranian people. However, if I bring this up I fear that we'll have something like this. --Khoikhoi 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

--Khoikhoi 04:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, do you have any idea what this and this is about? What does English have to do with anything?

Do you notice anything different about Aucaman's signature? [1] Yes I know it's for Esperanza, but it looks almost the same as Diyako's. --Khoikhoi 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Right back at ya. --Khoikhoi 08:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied. Sorry for the delay. --Khoikhoi 08:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Email address

Hi man, whats your email address (for outbound messaging) ? (mine is Amir_jacobi@hotmail.com) Amir85 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On the ancients

I have taken your critique in consideration and have re-phrased the intro so as not to give the impression that relations were widespread in Persia - or anywhere. (We know only of such relations among the Persian aristocracy.) But we cannot not mention them. Haiduc 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Even your friends think you are an ultranationalist! Seriously, why get offended if I point out the obvious? Let it be, let's strive for accuracy, and that's all. Haiduc 13:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Urmia

I have noticed that you have been deleting the previous content of Urmia with no justification/proof whatsoever. You seem to pursue a very racially-motivated, biased, and intolerant policy in editing articles that pertain only slightly to Assyrians and/or Arabs. This philosophy is not consistent with the fairness and objectiveness promoted by Wikipedia. You are an insecure loser and an anti-Persian/Aryan!

Thank you very much for the personal attack. SouthernComfort 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it, this SouthernComfort guy is really an ultranationalist! --Khoikhoi 01:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! SouthernComfort 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Adana massacre

Should we keep the sentence "Thousands of Armenians were locked in schools, hospitals and churches and burned en masse"? --Khoikhoi 02:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that as well. --Khoikhoi 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

First of all, please keep your outrage to a minimum; just let your diffs speak for themselves. Secondly, I think there was a misunderstanding. Devil's Advocate (as indicated at the bottom of the page) refers to someone who advocates a certain point of view for the sake of advancing an argument. Not nearly as nasty as it sounds, I know. His 'spamming' probably could have been worded better, but there's nothing wrong with inviting other users to a debate to help form consensus. And as to his removal of sources, it says in his that he disputes their validity, which is a valid reason to remove them so long as it is then brought up on the talk page, which it was (past that it is a content dispute, and one I am not prepared to get involved in). This is not to say I don't have a problem with anything I saw in the diffs you provided. I didn't like the accusations made in the first diff you provided any more than you did, and he will be warned about continuing this type of behavior. However, I would appreciate it in the future if you did not respond to these allegation with conterclaims and threats (as you did on the talk page in question). --InShaneee 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscations on pederasty

How can you claim that you are "adding the full quote" when you are removing her accusations of censorship??? Did you do that by mistake or was it intentional? Haiduc

Thanks for fixing that. Haiduc 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian peoples

Hey man, great work you are doing here but to be honest "Iranian peoples are related ethno-linguistic groups" isn't very tasteful! --Kash 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It was just a thought. My exams are starting soon so I really am short of time at the moment. Thankfully the world will not change in a few months so if I ever do have a short break from wikipedia, I will still be able to find Iran and the related topics on it when I come back! (sometimes I really do doubt this!) --Kash 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's another day and another Wikipedia drama! replied to your email :) --Kash 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Logic

Define logic - information about Armenians being killed by Turks, which results in edit warring, then a compromise to say nothing about who was killed on the page. After that, the user adds info about how Turks were killed by Armenians. :) It's been a wonderful day, eh? --Khoikhoi 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted but it looks like you beat me to it. I have to go, but I'll be back soon. --Khoikhoi 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link does not say anything about Iranians BEING AN RELATED ETHNIC GROUP!!!!!! it defines Kurds. My source does define it as East Aryan group.Xebat Talk + 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link does not say anything about Iranians BEING AN RELATED ETHNIC GROUP!!!!!! it defines Kurds. My source does define it as East Aryan group.Xebat Talk + 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link does not say anything about Iranians BEING AN RELATED ETHNIC GROUP!!!!!! it defines Kurds. My source does define it as East Aryan group.

Your link does not say anything about Iranians being a related ethnolinguistric group!!!!!! it defines Kurds. My source does define it as East Aryan group. Xebat Talk + 05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Indeed. I've always been fascinated by the Caucasus, especailly Dagestan--there so many tiny ethnic groups squeezed in there. I'd love to go there someday if the violence stops. --Khoikhoi 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they basically leveled it. I actually liked the decoration added to your user page more. :P --Khoikhoi 06:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that was meant for me. ;) --Khoikhoi 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically I've been talking to myself for months! How stupid can I get? --Khoikhoi 06:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This calls for sockpuppet tagging time... --Khoikhoi 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's against the rules however. What we first need to do is the page protected. --Khoikhoi 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you did not answer that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=45667832 Xebat Talk + 06:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you have not answer clearly, Only said it is clear, it is clear. Now only in one word say which one is an ethnolinguistic group, Kurds or Iranians? I'm here before anything to learn something noty to to teach you, maybe I'm wrong. Xebat Talk + 06:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please at least add one of dispute tags. do not remove it.Xebat Talk + 06:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I know wikipedia policy maybe better than you. Your link does not describe Iranians. It describe Kurds. it is irrelevant. it is wrong.Xebat Talk + 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And you could not answer in the talk page what it says!! Xebat Talk + 06:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What matter?? why you do not say it clear. let me know. what your link says. what??? Xebat Talk + 06:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First line? My very dear friend!! It says Kurds are an ethnolinguist group. Nothing else. But you dear friend inserted in the article that this is Iranians (!!!!) who are an ethnolinguistic group!!!!!!!! Xebat Talk + 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kurds are but here Iranians are not an ethnolinguistic group!! This is Kurds who are being described not Iranians!!!Xebat Talk + 07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the bottom of Talk:Iranian peoples. --Khoikhoi 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you made one. Thanks! --Khoikhoi 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at Iranian peoples

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Iranian peoples. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman

I've warned him about innapropriate use of the 'unsourced' tag, but as to his removing/replacing of sources, that seems to be more of a content dispute to me, and one I am hardly qualified to get involved in (and I am sorry that I can't do more to help on this front). Don't worry about the large number of comments recently, though, as long as there's a large amount of stuff that needs doing, I don't mind. Although, if you want to make it up to me, please, tell me: what kinds of Synthpop/Industrial groups do you listen to? --InShaneee 20:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I've not reverted your edits, but somebody's else edit's. I didn't delete your edits and didn't accuse you. Maybe I should have said "earlier" vandalism in the edit summary. --Rayfield 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Music!

No worries about the help. And yes, I most certainly do listen to that type of music! I'm actually the proud founder of Augustana College's radio station's first electronic music show (I played mainly Trance and House, my fav genres). As soon as I saw 'Synthpop', I was hoping you'd say Depeche Mode! I'm currently crazy about their new album, especially the track "John the Revelator" (currently trying to scrape together enough cash to check out their concert in a month, too!). I actually do know VNV Nation and Assemblage 23, as one of my close friends is a big follower of the German scene (and she's seen VNV Nation in concert three times!). While I'm here, I might as well ask: have you heard NIN's new album? And if so, what do you think of it? I know it's a departure stylisticly, but I really do enjoy it. --InShaneee 02:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pump up the Volume? Yes! Not nearly enough people know about that movie. Fan-tastic! I don't know if you've heard, but word is that once all the "Playing the Angel" singles have been released, there will be an album with remixes of all of those (looking forward to that, too). And I couldn't possibly argue with you about "The Downward Spiral". Artistically, it's simply a masterpiece, and I don't believe he could hope to top it, either. --InShaneee 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Source

Amir, Kash, SC, ManiF,

I have access to an online e-book library. It has some of the books that are listed as reference on Iranian related pages. If any of you are interested, email me, I'll hook you up with the password and all.--Zereshk 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Qissa-i Sanjan

Hi SouthernComfort. I just created this stub. If you happen to know more on this subject, please take a look when you have time. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty in empty space

That edit seems to be a combination of my work and that of others. Since things evolve here it is probably due for some updating. But as for the distinction you are fishing for, between pederasty and bisexuality, it does not exist, at least not in the way you imply. Most Islamic pederasty was bisexual, in that the men married and kept boys on the side. You know that old Central Asian proverb, "Women for business, boys for pleasure"? That sort of thing. Haiduc 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. That argument was very well put in a recent work (Age of Beloveds) which pointed out that prostitution in Venice could not be said to be "Christian prostitution". Thus we'll have to be careful to talk about "pederasty IN Islam" as opposed to "Islamic pederasty" which of course does not exist. Haiduc 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image of David Tibet

Please note that I don't mean this message to be threatening, the tone is intended to be friendly. I admit that I might be totally wrong on all the following points...

I just noticed that you added DavidTibet.jpg to David Tibet. I'm not sure this would qualify as fair use. These exemptions to copyright have been included in the upload information (my concerns are listed below each point);

• to illustrate the object in question
  • Does this apply to people? Will this set a precedent for including any image of celebrities?
• where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information on the English-language Wikipedia,
  • I don't think this one applies. I think it would be possible to obtain a public domain image of David Tibet (ie. a Wikipedian takes a photo at a concert)
• hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
  • This doesn't seem to apply.

I've added this message to the image talk page too, and you may like to respond there, to keep it all in-house, so to speak. -- Cnwb 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

SouthernComfort, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 02:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hey SC, what do you think of the anon's recent edits on the Pashtun people page? He's claiming that they're only related to the Iranian peoples, and they aren't one themselves. (He left a comment on talk) --Khoikhoi 07:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good for now. --Khoikhoi 07:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. My friend Tombseye contributed to that article a lot, he hasn't made an edits since early March. --Khoikhoi 07:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah man, anything but the library!! I might go there, but until then, have you seen Aucaman's recent edits? --Khoikhoi 07:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I guess the "sweat of a camel" isn't Muslim either. Check your email. --Khoikhoi 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ya-ya-ya-ya-you've got mail. --Khoikhoi 09:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Adolescence

I do not know what to make of your edits there, because, in the first place, I have not been paying any attention to tha article, and in the second, I do not really see the logic. The US high school class was a bit out of place, but the others? I would have left them in, nothing wrong with them. Actually, yesterday was the first time I had seen them, and I found both to be of intelectual interest - I had never heard the term "emo" before, and actually went to look it up to get a sense of the meaning. And the Japanese class picture was great, it is always interesting to see what other people are wearing as uniforms. I think a better policy would be to remove pictures when you are bringing in so many, and of such quality, so as to render the others superfluous or obsolete. But to go in and remove those particular images using that rationalization seems a bit . . . I don't know, you fill in the blanks. Also, I noticed that you inserted your own picture there, from you user page. I don't think we are allowed to do that, you better look into it. Haiduc 10:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

April fool! What are you doing, anyway? It look like you have insomnia - or are you in a different time zone? Cheers, Haiduc 10:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth it? It is a very subtle thing, there are so many ways to look at it, social, personal, psychological, political. To simplify for the moment (and because I have to go to work), how about using the criterion "Am I creating wealth?" In the sense that the poverty to be addressed is a poverty of knowledge, and wiki is a tool for satisfying that need. Now when it comes to dealing with vested interests that oppose the dissemination of certain knowledge, which seems to have to do with the control of power, that's when it gets even more interesting - or frustrating. Anyway, good luck with the novel - that's a very brave undertaking. Haiduc 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot the most important point: wikipedia is the best game I have ever played. And I have learned from it - ironic and salutary when one is at the end of middle age. Off to work, be well. Haiduc 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have a moment of tranquility, I wanted to reflect on your comment that "precisely the reverse" has occurred. It is true that animus against same-sex relations has been exacerbated by its growing visibility. But I do not think that the premise of "growing understanding and knowledge" has been satisfied. What has been exposed and sold as "homosexuality" is an aspect of same-sex relations which is applicable only to a small minority (4%?) of the human population. It is of course a valid reclaiming of personal territory by that group, since whom one loves and makes love to is nobody's business (generally speaking, you know what I mean). But this societal "coming out" is a fraud, since it disempowers the other 96% of humanity from loving others of the same gender.

That is new. It is based on a falsification of history and human nature. That is why the discussion of pederasty is, as you say, an "incredibly complex and difficult subject," and fraught with discomfort - it is against everyone's agenda. It is against the agenda of the new "heterosexual majority," which has been frightened into a state of compulsory heterosexuality by medical and religious discourse, and will not countenance a "democratic" homosexuality accessible to everyone. It is against the agenda of the androphile community, which needs to suppress the historical discussion of men's relations with boys in order to attain respectability and legitimacy in the eyes of the hoi polloi, and in order to grasp at a measure of historicity - most of which is pederastic. And it is against the agenda of the child lovers, who would have people believe that relations with children were normalized and privileged in some elsewhere and elsewhen, when (with minor exceptions which prove the rule) all we ever see is an endless landscape of disapproval and contempt for sex with little children.

In conclusion, I too subscribe to your premise that given sufficient understanding and knowledge, many societal fears and confusions would be put to rest. We are just not there yet. Much more "outing" needs to take place. Thus, in what regards my own work on homosexuality and pederasty, I do hope that greater understanding will inform a discussion which up to now has been framed by forces inimical to social evolution, such as religious dogma with its legal and moralistic tentacles, and those who would curry favor with that apparatus. To put it another way, we need to confront homosexuality not in the other, which can only lead to discrimination and ghettoization, but in ourselves.

So much for my Sunday morning sermon. I think I'll go and putter about in the garden, it is a glorious day. Haiduc 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the homosex subculture is a reaction, but a reaction to what? In my mind, it is a reaction to over thousand years of repression. The types of homosexuality that are now flourishing have rarely - if ever - been welcomed in Western history. As for the orientation of people in general, what strikes me as an observer is that people are first of all obedient to custom. That is the prime directive. Thus they will conform their natural selves to fit, and if I were to psychologize a bit, the more they have to twist and distort to fit that mold, the madder and the more dangerous they become - but not the less obedient. So it would follow that a wise government would create molds that are as accomodating to the natural self as possible in a social environment.

There has been a certain amount of theorizing on what the human "default state" might be. My own thoughts on that lead me to two sources. One would be a cross-cultural survey, looking at widely disparate cultures and seeing what kind of mores they adopted over time. Another interesting exercise is to look at the lives of the very powerful (monarchs, tyrants) - they did whatever they wanted, though one could argue that they may have been self-selected in other ways. At any rate, the modern conceit that people are "exclusively" this or that is wildly exceptional from a historical standpoint, perhaps even unique since the premise is for that to be the norm rather than the exception. Haiduc 11:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Monarchism

Hi, I don't think the article is really necessary. There are articles for monarchist groups and parties which we can expand or create instead. Shervink 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hello again, About Rastakhiz, I don't know. The party was dissolved during Sharif-Emami's premiership (before the revolution already), and I hardly think that there is any real political party nowadays which is a continuation of it. There might be groupings which like to identify themselves with Rastakhiz. I really don't know. The most important monarchist party nowadays seems to be The Constitutionalist Party of Iran [2], which was created in the nineties, and the programs and views of which seem to be closest to those of Reza Pahlavi II. I think there is no article on this party in WP yet, so I will create one as soon as I find the time. About the editor opposing the HIM style, I don't understand either. Some people tend to be alergic to the style. There was already discussion about this before, with the result that HIM was moved from the beginning to after the name, and the word styled was used so as to avoid confusion.Shervink 13:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Hi again,

About the picture, I agree, but I don't know about the copyright status. Personally, I would even prefer one of his pictures in civil clothing (unofficial suit). About the economic predictions, I really don't know very much. But I'll try to see whether I can find anything. I started an article on Daryoush Homayoun, the main founder and theorist of the Constitutionalist Party. I'll try to make an article on the party itself as well, if there is not already one. Please expand or edit them if you can. About Bakhtiar's movement, I don't know what their official stance was. I'm sure that at least in the years after the revolution he was attempting to restore the monarchy, although his real concern was always democracy, he just thought that monarchy would be a better way to achieve it. In the latter years, I don't think he ever (officially at least) changed that position. His attitude seems to me to be very similar to Mossadegh's: Loyal to the monarchy, but at odds with the Pahlavis. Shervink 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Question

Hi! Are you persian? Inanna 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wassup

I keep asking you for help on a lot of stuff. TuzsuzDeliBekir is at it again, deleting entire paragraphs at the Adana page. He left an explanation on talk, but I know as soon as he gets online again he's going to revert. What should I do? --Khoikhoi 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's ridiculous. Once again people are forced to repeat themselves. *Sigh* --Khoikhoi 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

...or if people don't leave any comments at all. (see the Iranian Azerbaijan page) As for Fadix's edits, I don't really get what he's saying - why is the Adanna rebellion not an alternative name? I think that in order to make things NPOV we should include the name. I don't really care that much to change it, however. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Iranian Azerbaijan page, can you please help me out there? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gracias. --Khoikhoi 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. (Check your email) --Khoikhoi 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold-facing Arabian Gulf

salam. i got the impression from your note on persian gulf talk page ("arabian gulf bold-facing?") that you are in favor of a compromise to italisize the term arabian gulf instead of bold-facing it. so i thought you might want to announce your support for User:TheKMan's idea (it's in the same talk section, the second posting). Barnetj 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, that's what User:TheKMan has proposed (going back to italics) as a compromise. what i'm asking is if there's a reason you're not willing to announced your support for this. it's the quickest way to remove the bold-facing, don't you agree? Barnetj 05:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just swamped

SouthernComfort, I have a midterm coming up this week and would not be able to join the discussion there now, but you can find my lengthy discussion with Pecher and several relevant links at [3]. Search for "ritual" or other relevant words there. thx. --Aminz 06:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at: [4]. I think www.al-islam.org should be a reliable source. It seems so. --Aminz 07:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This link says that according to Al-Sistani, people of the book are ritually clean (but the fact is that Al-Sistani does not have a specific view of as they are ritually clean or not.(Ehtiyate Vajeb) )--Aminz 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

URMIA/Museums section

On the edit summary of the Urmia page you have shamelessly claimed that it was you who added the museums section. Have you no honour? no integrity? You can smile and yet be a villain? I believe you have, in innumerable cases, violeted the integrity of Wikipedia and utilised your editing powers to suit your aggenda. I am reporting this shameless act to Wikipedia.