Jump to content

User talk:Kansas Bear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asharidu (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 3 February 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

JSTOR This user has access to JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library



Battle Of Mutah

Dear Sir, I am a student in O Levels and am studying Islamiat. The number of soldiers of the Byzantine Empire have been said to be 100,000 to 200,000 by various blog sites, books and the OFFICIAL Cambrdige Marking Scheme, but you deem many blogs an unreliable source, the number of soldiers said now are less than 10,000 on the official page. This may cause a lot of confusion among people, I tried to follow the cited source for 10,000 or less but could not trace back to any such figure. Please help me clear this confusion, and allow multiple blogs to be deemed as reliable sources, thanks. 

     Edit 2: I have in my hand the book of Yasmin Malik : Islam Beliefs and Practices, and on page 37 it clearly states the figure of 100,000, can you please fix this at your earliest convenience, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.183.115 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After a cursory search, Yasmin Malik does not appear to be an historian. You have not presented any evidence to prove "that book in your hands" is a reliable source and judging from the title, it is not an academically published history book. I would suggest taking your concerns to the article talk page, where you will find numerous reliable sources listed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Malik is the standard book to teach students Islamiat, one of the standard atleast, including Farkhanda Noor, I tried to follow the "reliable" sources but could NOT find the number 10,000 listed anywhere, wherever I see a number mentioned, it's 100,000, can you please point out where is 10k written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.12.218 (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik is not an historian and the book in question is self published, which means it is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Seljuks

Dear Kansas , I think you have made a mistake in your interpration about the meaning of ethnicity.If you read wikipedia about ethnicity you would see an ethnicity is defined based on the anccestors , language and culture of a group of people.as you do agree with e the later generations of the house of Seljuk was highly Persinated by culture and language , so I can not understand why do you against the Persian part of the house of Seljuk


This is not my interpretation. This is blatantly stated by the academic sources I have provided.

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kara-Khanid Khanate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Infobox Former Country
  • Central Asia'', (E.J. Brill, 1962), 99.</ref><br>[[Persian language|Persian]]{<small>Poetry</small>)<ref name="iranica">{{cite web |url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ilak-khanids |title=ILAK-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

It seems Dengesizz (talk · contribs) is the new sockpuppet of EMr KnG (talk · contribs). I submitted a SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EMr_KnG. It will be very helpful if you write your comment. Because we encountered this user on several articles before (e.g. Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century). Also, it's possible that he registered multiple accounts and attacks other articles. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The see also section of Battle of Tarain

The battles of Salher and Raichur are not directly related to the battle of Tarain, however the single common element of all these battles are that they the ones whereby the native (Hindu) Indian army defeated (or achieved some level of success) an invading foreign one (here foreign one implies an Islamic one). Nonetheless your wish. Amit20081980 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Kansas Bear. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Do you agree with this reversion? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, it appears correct. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mutah

I have read the Arabic and Byzantine history books about the battle in great detail. The muslims were first pushed back from the original battle field when three of thier leaders were killed. They then camped in Mutah were they skirmishes with the Byzantines and Khalid ibn waleed took over. Who made it appear as if new troops arrived. This made the Byzantines withdraw and then the muslims withdrew. YOU have to look at sources from both sides to get a clearer picture. Kasif the great (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care what you have read. Articles on wikipedia are written using published secondary sources, not primary sources or your or anyone else's opinions. Unreliable and primary sources will be removed and replaced with reliable published secondary sources.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any detailed analysis of the battle from a secondary source, I'm very interested in reading, I think I have pinpointed the Urban legend of the Muslim Victory which is solely based on the Khalid's performance (based on Al-Waqidi) at the end of the battle. Yet Ibn Kathir (based on Ibn Ishaq)mentions the fact that the Muslim when they were back in Medina people started throwing sand and calling them cowards. Seems not a victory. I think a lot of Muslim people who can't take this defeat today and before, is the fact that you can't call Khalid's supposed retreat a victory based on Modern Standards. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found, through google books or books I own, any detailed account of the battle. Granted the bulk of the sources are from Western sources, however, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, which I have quoted on the Battle of Mu'tah talk page, is written by academics that are specialists in the field of Islam. As for primary sources, we should avoid the direct usage of primary sources, unless quoted by published secondary sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used primary source ever in Wikipedia, even if I did I'm very careful and give priority to secondary sources, I have Encyclopedia of Islam IE2, I'm still not satisfied with the details. I am sure someone has analyzed it, just have to dig deep. But one thing that caught my eye how the editor/contributor named F. Buhl doesn't take Khalid's supposed strategy of retreat seriously (based on Al-Waqidi). Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is considered an Islamic victory is because Muslims suffered 12 casualties, while the number of casualties on Byzantines side was at least in hundreds, up to 3000 at maximum. Muslims were not able to avenge the death of their envoy, but they showed their strength and damaged the enemy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.183.115 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources state this? All I see is personal opinion unsupported by published secondary sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Hey infidel! Never insult Kasif the great (talk) or Muhammad or any other muslim again or I will troll the crap out of you! Takbir! ALLAHU AKBAR!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.238.67 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear hater of the great and holy pizza. My pepperoni hordes will never bow to your personal attacks. I have anchovies by the thousands ready to engulf the world in a never-ending spasm of mozzarella cheese. Beware the coming of the sharpened pizza cutter.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis IV of France

Hi, thanks for your kind opinion. I just in the process to translated the article from french to english, so I first translated all and at the end i put the respective references. Thanks a lot for your concern. Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Keep it up! Cheers. Zyma (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Mind giving your opinion regarding this dispute here? It's about the inclusion of the Persian translation in the lede. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

A user changed ethnicity of Massagetae [1]. Previous lead was stable for a long time and I think it's based on cited sources. That user is an experienced editor (an admin). So the new revision confuses me. Is it based on WP:WEIGHT or what? Would you please review it? --Zyma (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have found;
  • 1.Karasulas, Antony. Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 BC-AD 1300 (Elite). Osprey Publishing, 2004, ISBN 184176809X, p. 7, states the Massagetae spoke an Iranian language, which does not necessarily mean they were Iranic. Which Karasulas goes into detail about how certain peoples spoke a Turkic language but were not Turkic.(pages 7-8) Also, as far as I could find, Karasulas is a doctoral student at the Australian National University, so I have concerns over his reliability as a source.
  • 2.Wilcox, Peter. Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids. Osprey Publishing, 1986, ISBN 0-85045-688-6, p. 9, states the Massagetae were an Iranian people, however I can not find anything about Wilcox. Therefore, for me, his reliability as a source is a concern.
  • 3.Gershevitch, Ilya. The Cambridge History of Iran (Volume II). Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 0-521-20091-1, p. 48, states the Massagetae were an Iranian tribe.
  • 4.Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes. Rutgers University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8135-1304-9, p. 547, fine source, however, the page simply states what Massyagata means in Iranian. Which does not mean they were Iranic.
  • 5.The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achaemenian periods. By Ilya Gershevitch, same source as #3.
So essentially, only the Cambridge source is viable, however if the Wilcox source checks out it would also be a viable source.
I will start a discussion on the Massagetae talk page and see if Grant65 has sources that state something else. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think you can write a better revision than Iranian (old revision) or Indo-European (current revision). If all sources do not support Iranian origin or Iranian theory is not strong enough, then it's better to move them to a new section, e.g. "Origin" section. Just like Huns and Xiongnu. --Zyma (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Report that new user to an admin. As you already know, he and those IP-hoppers are this guy. Same insults, same behavior on talk page. --Zyma (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Alcazar of Madrid

I already answered in the talk page, sorry for the time that i answered, i was busy--Vvven (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reference

Hey KB, long time no talk. Hope you're doing fine. I was wondering; could you perhaps check whether this added reference is a legit one? I've actually never read about these "plans" in the mainstream historiography, nor about the writer, hence my doubts. Thanks much in advance. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the inside of the book, Raghubir Sinh appears to have been an historian, Malwa in Transition being his doctoral thesis. The book appears reliable, though its historiography is outdated. It wouldn't hurt to find a corroborating source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits to Yusuf Adil Shah. There does seem that one ends up either relying on writers like Firishta and Münejjim Bashi, and their more recent advocates, or siding with more recent writers that dismiss them as fiction. It seems better to try and find a way to be objective and so thank you for your work trying to cut through the tangle. Simongraham (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qutb Shah

As a junior editor, I truly respect you and your point of views but could you please tell me that how the sources which I stated to back my information are wrong and how your source from a satisfactory book source which contradicts with many of the Old and modern Writings is more reliable and worth citing here. Thank You. Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, Chapter 57, Gibbon is an outdated source, has no specialization in this area, oh and since I own Gibbon's unabridged version of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 57 does not mention Qutb Shah. Did you copy it from here? source misrepresentation
  • The Spiritual Guides of Sarwari Qadri Order By Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman, primary source translated by non-historians. unreliable source
  • Kashf ul Asrar English Translation: Sultan Bahoo English Book Kashf ul Asrar, by Sultan Bahoo, primary source translated by non-historian. unreliable source
  • Researched By Dr Muhammad Iqbal Awan and Jalhari Moazzam Shah, you edited this into another article whilst logged out(as an IP), this is from ancestry.com. unreliable source
  • Tohfat Al Awan (Book), nothing on books.google.com or amazon.com. Probably a fake book.
  • History of Awan, by Muhammad Sarwar Khan Awan, nothing on books.google.com or amazon.com. Nothing about the author. Appears to repeat the same fairy tales.
  • Talbot, W.S., 1991, Gazetteer of the Jhelum District 1904: Part 1, Sang-e-Meel Publications, p.100 and Kaul, H., 1912, Report on the Census of Punjab 1911, p.p.445-446. Neither of these are reliable sources, not written by historians.unreliable source
  • الشجرۃ-الزکیتہ-فی-انساب-بنیی-ھاشم, you can read this? Or did you simply copy and paste it from one of these sites?
You do not appear to understand what a reliable source actually is, ignoring even what the Rose source states, "According to one tradition of the Awans....., which means its a legend/fairy tale. Yet you have chosen to present this as historical fact.
So, why don't you explain why you re-added unreliable sources after being told numerous times they were unreliable[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and why you ignored admin Utcursch's warning? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael I of Russia

Regarding this long unsourced sentence "The weeping boyars solemnly declared that if he persisted in his refusal, they would hold him responsible to God for the destruction of Russia" in the firts alinea of the body. I found the reference from which it is taken. Its written by R. Nisbet Bain, a late 1800/early 1900 historian, who published the material in 1908 (thus, outdated). The stuff is published in the 1911 Encylcopaedia Britannica publications as well. The thing now is however, Cambridge University Press has re-published his book in 2013 as the first paperback edition, which still includes the sentence (p 188). Do you think I should cite it as a reference behind the sentence and remove the 6-yo tag, perhaps adding a "Historian R. Nisbet Bain (1854–1909) stated that (...)" with it? Or do you think the whole line should be just deleted as no modern-day sources back up the thing, as well as because the whole thing is unsourced for like... 6 years? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the paragraph structure, the sentence seems out of place and really has no place in the paragraph. It makes assertions not previously mentioned or stated in the paragraph. So yeah, I would scrap it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lel, I think we got another one for your fanclub (User:Kansas tear). Also, btw, though you might have had already noticed; amongst the masses of socks who have been blocked in the past few days, Steverci has also been CU indeffed as a sock of a long-term sock abuser. My my, what a surprise. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, Bbb23 blocked it, almost before I could mention anything.
Honestly, I really was not surprised Steverci was socking. Sometime ago, I thought I saw a pattern, but it didn't seem relevant. So I figured to just give him more rope. Nice work on the SPI, by the way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant it in a rather sarcastic way :D At least that's what I hoped it would come across as. It was obvious since a very long time ago that he was socking. And it obviously didn't stop after his first row of socks were blocked.
Btw man, regarding this; you probably figured out yourself long ago, but you've reached the point where no intellectual convo can be held anymore regarding the matter. Don't waste your time. Even if you'd post 99 more reliable sources, it'd still be "just an opinion". You've said your stuff, and you've backed it all up more than well enough. It's saved now for the record. Just wanted to give my own view on that dialogue, as I was kinda involved in the initial matter as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know. Just thought I would show what The Encyclopaedia of Islam states, since it has an academic editorial board. Wikipedia can be like that, learning something that does not agree with one's personal beliefs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw man, I was just reviewing the Maurya Empire article. I thought its actually hilarious how the article easily claims in the lede, and well as on the unsourced map, that it held territory in what is modern-day Iran, even though no such thing actually happened. I have never ever read of any historical impact/expansion or whatsoever in(to) any part of Iran by this empire. I made a further dig myself therefore, and indeed, I couldn't find a single reliable reference that attests to this tale that the empire, at any point, had expanded into the territory of nowadays Iran. Did you perhaps stumble across this same matter at some time? Does the JSTOR database say something about this? Virtually every source I found myself states that its maximum extent was Pakistan/Afghanistan in the west, but I wonder whether you could list a few more references from JSTOR to fix this once and for all, as well as to to remove/adjust those bogus unsourced maps that are present on the article for a pretty long by now. If it ain't too much of an effort of course.
Just to name a few of the sources that I found;
  • Chandragupta founded the Mauryan Empire. His empire encompassed the whole of northern India and Afghanistan. -- Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela M. Bradford (2001). With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World p 125
  • The vastness of the Mauryan empire, from Afghanistan in the north to Karnataka in the south and from Kathiawad in the west to Kalinga in the east (if not as far as north Bengal), is considered on the basis of the spots where Asoka's edicts were (...) -- Bharati Ray. Different Types of History. Pearson Education India. p 24
  • The Maurya Empire extended from Afghanistan in the north to the deep south in India except for the southern tip of (...) -- Stanton, et al. (2012) Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia p. 41
  • By 300, Chandragupta ruled over an India that extended from modern Afghanistan to Burma and from the Himalayas to nearly the southern tip of the subcontinent. -- David W. Del Testa (2014) Government Leaders, Military Rulers and Political Activists p. 30
  • It has been already shown (Ch. II) that the empire of Candragupta extended from Afghanistan to Mysore and that of Ashoka was far greater in extent including all the Dekhan and South India upto the frontiers of the Tamil Kingdoms. -- V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1993) Motilal Banarsidass Publ., The Mauryan Polity'. p 197
  • "He [Ashoka] controlled an empire (the largest until British rule) that ranged from Bangladesh in the east to Afghanistan in the north and included much of the southern part of the subcontinent. -- Denise Patry Leidy (2008) The Art of Buddhism: An Introduction to Its History & Meaning p 9
  • (...) Candragupta's empire were the Hindu Kush in the north and the Afghan highlands above Herat in the west, and so he (...) -- Jack Finegan (1989) An Archaeological History of Religions of Indian Asia p 109
PS: I'm going to further expand the Russo-Turkish War 1787-1792 in the nearest future. Already got my references ready for it. Thanks for having already removed that Baddely stuff and for having made a great start already. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can look through JSTOR, but their search engine is sporadic at best.
As for Maurya Empire, has the Grainger source been interpreted incorrectly?
"Seleucus I ceded the territories of Arachosia (modern Kandahar), Gedrosia (modern Balochistan), and Paropamisadae (or Gandhara). Aria (modern Herat) "has been wrongly included in the list of ceded satrapies by some scholars [...] on the basis of wrong assessments of the passage of Strabo [...] and a statement by Pliny." (Raychaudhuri & Mukherjee 1996, p. 594). Seleucus "must [...] have held Aria", and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later." (Grainger 2014, p. 109)."
Note the information in the parentheses has been added, since it is not found in the source itself.
If we go looking for Persia/Iran for the furthest extent of Mauryan expansion, I do not believe we will find anything. Gedrosia and Makran, appear linked together. Your thoughts?
Good to hear about the 1787 war. That particular editor(pro-Baddeley) only wants to make the issue of Baddeley's unreliability, personal. I guess when they do not have a real argument... --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear; thanks much. That basically fully confirms my assumptions, namely that the addition of Iran was not much more than some nationalistic ungrounded IP nonsense. It was added in ~ 2014 by some IP (I can even dig for the diff if needed) who randomly decided to insert Iran to it, even though not a single sources makes/made such a mention that the Mauryans ever held territory with the modern-day confines of this nation.
Yeah, the Grainger source has indeed been misinterpreted per WP:OR. Oh btw, this other reference written by Saul, David (2009; War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 9781405341332) page 362) seals the whole matter further as he states that the "Gedrosians are known to have successfully prevented the Indian Mauryans from capturing the western-most parts of their state", thus, even, if Gedrosia was to be synonymous with the entire present-day defined confines of "Balochistan", we can safely assert, based on all this, that we were completely right with our doubts. I will make sure the maps/content is fixed accordingly. Been way too long that this ungrounded nonsense was available on the article, but then again, thats why we have so many SPA and sock IP's/accounts. Remember to always assume good faith! Lel. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sent you the sources btw, that you were asking for some time ago related to that other matter. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mind leaving your opinion here? [9]. PS: I replied to your mail, just in case. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the discussion, it appears to be more a matter of linguistics, which is not my forté. However, TaivoLinguist and Florian Blaschke may be able to assist you. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. The matter has "some" historic aspects, hence why I thought of asking you. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, a matter alike to the thing that went on Battle of Mu'tah is going on here it seems, regarding its content ("100.000 Romanz vs a tiny amount of Muslim forces", for example). I went ahead and deleted/tagged some of the most nonsensical/outrageous content myself, for now. Haven't had the time to fix the article accordingly yet, but the funny thing is, is that even right now the lede and the infobox assert the matter in such way as if there was actually a pitched battle, even though all academics unanimously agree that no such thing ever happened, lel. Surprise? I think not. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The author, Sukhbir Singh Kapoor, "In this early career he was Professor and Head of Accounting at SGTB Khalsa College Delhi, University of Delhi and Principal Lecturer in Accounting at London Guildhall University. Later he became a Guest Professor of Sikhism at the FVG in Antwerp, Belgium."
Not what I would call an historian. LOL.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KB, do you by any chance have access to the pages 134 and 176 of; Blow, David (2009). Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0857716767. If yes, could you copy paste the info regarding the demise of this Armenian dude Yusof Khan? I believe its specifically stated on p. 176, but not entirely sure. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far it appears that page 159-184 are not viewable. Let me do some digging and see if I can bring something up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Btw, lel.[10][11]. Anti-Arabism lmao. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. I even check google books in other languages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem. Thank much for your effort.
- On the Persianate society page; I have excluded the Khanates of the Caucasus so far (e.g. Erivan Khanate, Karabakh Khanate, etc.) as most of them that had prominence were simply de facto provinces under the Safavids/Qajars. Having said that, I think that the Durrani Empire and Hotak dynasty should be deleted from the list, as I can't find anything that states that the Hotaks "were Persianate", and the same goes for the Durranis, apart from this (Thomas Barfield (2010), p 125 "(...) but the Durrani elite judged itself by the standards of a Persianate political system (...)". It ain't the best source either, on top of that; the writer is a Harvard Anthropologist/Social Scientist specializing in Afghanistan, though, with a chair in the "American Institute of Afghanistan Studies"). There are, lastly, a few sources mentioning the Persian-like imitated court of some of the later Durrani rulers, who copied it from the Mughals, but does that merit for them to be included in the list? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anthropology is fine, since it encompasses culture, which is what Persianate represents. The fact they "judged" themselves by the standard of a Persianate political system does not necessarily mean they implemented a Persianate style political system. As for the Durrani rulers copying from the Mughals, if the Durrani were in fact a Persianate, then I am sure some academic made mention of it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it for now. If someone has any concerns over it, he/she can expand their main pages backing u the claim. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these edits unsourced and personal analysis (POV)?

Hello. What do you think about these edits?

  • [12] Afghan Turkestan -> South Turkeststan. Not mentioned in the body of article. Looks like a pov & nationalistic term.
  • [13] Why he added Turkish & Uzbek without any edit summaries? Are they really related to that article? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, check what sources there are for the photos and what those sources state. Then check with an Administrator that knows about pictures and what can and can not be added/stated with photos. I do not know that much about the picture/photo section of Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baghrir

Dear wikipedia user,

I have seen that you currently undid the changes on the page baghrir. I have explained in the talk page why certain additions were made, and tagged you in it. I have seen that you reverted some other pages aswell, accusing me of taking part in a edditing war. Please note that im not the one who is starting a edditing war on wikipedia. There has been 2 particular berber wikipedia users who have been sockpuppeting with many different accounts, constantly undoing information on the pages. It made me look like I'm the one who is constantly vandalising the page, but all the users are actually the same users. These users are user:JovanAndreano, user:Historydish, user:Americanpcuisine, user:AyOuBoXe, user:jasminjovo which all have been blocked by wikipedia administrators after investigations of sockpuppeting. The administrator user:Ponyo and other administrators have already taken a look at this problem back in may. Since the users have been blocked, they keep coming back every day to revert information like these users user:Saraanastasiabro, user:Narabrooklyn, user: DanaCastle, user:Billkinzie which all have been blocked aswell. I have taken the responsibility to battle this problem on some pages, reverting the information which is constantly being reverted by sockpuppets making it an endless job. The page Baghrir was aswell created by user:JovanAndreano with false information and poor sources.

You might aswell take a look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JovanAndreano in which the user abuses multiple accounts. I actually tagged him on the talk page of the wiki page "tajine" a while ago, but he didn't react to it. I hope you understand my actions and behavior on wikipedia, none of it is meant to vandalise information, but many North-Africna pages include lots of false information with poor sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I have seen an IP making the exact same edits as yours over multiple articles. It is extremely clear you are here on a anti-Berber agenda.
As for the Baghrir article, an IP made the removal[14], claiming "not sourced".

These appear to be the sources that do not exist. Is this IP you? Said IP has also, according to Kuru, used as a reference a site which is a Wikipedia mirror site and added it to North African Arabs.[15] AND, copy and pasted information from somewhere to Wikipedia, also according to Kuru.[16]

It would seem to me you are disruptive in your editing. Logging out to continue your edit warring, adding Wikipedia mirror sites as references, copy & pasting, just to name a few instances.
Anything else? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idrisids

For your information:

1- Nothing has changed on my edit, except two things: putting the right references on the right place instead of a block for all refs in the introduction & moving the origins block to a dedicated section [17]

2- The version your are putting back [18] is that of M.Bitton [19] a POV bias, instead of your own.

Regards,

--105.154.146.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you have been reported for edit warring, since you either can not or will not use the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasted content

Hi. The IP just copy-pasted content from cited sources (e.g. Britannica and others).[20] He didn't edit them, just pure copy-paste. Is it OK? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? Remove them or use related tag/template for that section? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Hello User:Kansas Bear, on the matter concerning User:Craft27by I've submitted a report here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Busy day, Hebel? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen calmer ones ;-) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wish admins took this stuff a bit more seriously. Heya, KB, been a while :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Crazy stuff. What's up Liz! :) --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot and at the same time, nothing. ;) Living in Ireland now, and seldom on here, but I do like to check in now and again. How's you? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. Guess we dodged a tornado a few nights ago, no sirens or any kind of warning. HA! Got to love living in Kansas! Although, I would not mind some cold weather. :/ --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Very L Frank Baum - though I suspect you get sick of such refs. Rainy here - as always - but warm. It never gets very hot or cold here, but it is pretty damp. And green. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

They are assuming bad faith and their edits are very POV. Have they pretended the IP is a different person? Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Foleo posted as an edit summary, "Please do not bully or intimidate IP users as you did in Roman-Persian Wars".[21] Foleo's statement was because I reverted the IP, once, and posted a 3rr tag on the IP's talk page(he had reverted LouisAragon 3 times), to which he posted a 3rr tag on my talk page.
A cursory comparison of Foleo and the IP's edits[22] shows a high level of similar editing. A more intensive comparison indicates Foleo and the IP both add "Anti-Arabism" and "Islamophobe" to articles and editor talk page(s).FoleoFoleo,Foleo,IP,IP,IP. Yeah, same person. Same agenda, same bias. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional court language used - Safavids

I had a suspicion that Georgian/Circassian/Armenian were spoken at the Safavid court, and indeed, David Blow (Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0857716767; pp 165-166) confirms my thought. I think it should be added to the Safavid dynasty infobox, do you agree? - LouisAragon (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the source says it, why can't you add it? Does Blow go into detail about how the languages were used? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he states that it was spoken due to the fact that there were large amounts of "gholams" (military slaves, part of the Safavid elite, similar to the Janissaries) present at the court from those three, and due to the high proportion of women in the harem from the same three aforementioned ethnicities. Furthermore, he gives Abbas I as an example of a Safavid ruler who seems to have been able to speak Georgian.
Ah, no specific reason, just wanted to tell you my finding as well :-) Thought you might find it interesting. Inb4 anther 10.000 hurr-durr IP's and "new users" geo-locating to Azerbaijan and Turkey will hop in to specifically spam remove "Armenian". Lel. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. But, hey, that is quite the find! Nice work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, check this whenever you can. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised, some people just do not get it. Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... - LouisAragon (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This matter has "some" kind of twist though I think. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He has supported said editor in the past. So....... --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Btw, this sounds familiar to me. Does it to you as well? [23] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it does ring a few bells, fortunately it has been some time since I edited Qajars. Or at least it feels like it has been some time. LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lel, yeah, if any of those articles don't pop on our watchlist at least once a week, we can call that a calm week. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your well-grounded concerns, I just noted some more related stuff. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the Qajar page; its interesting to note that the same user (Yomagrey) canvassed user Atabey, even though the latter left the English Wiki years ago. [24]. The last person to do so was "Yalquzac". - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's some mass WP:OR going on on this article (no surprise of course) and it seems in fact as if the whole article was fabricated on self-interpretation and imaginary tales. I recently got most of the titles cited on the page; none of those that are WP:RS state anything about a "Kurakchay treaty". - LouisAragon (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, LA. If I were you I would address the supposed sources on the talk page contrasted against what sources really state about the Treaty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About my edits in Walter II of Avesnes

Why reverting my contributions in this page?
Did I do something bad ? :( --Yufitran (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just read it

Just read your message. Sorry for being late. Yup, ANI is a total waste of time, except if one wants some kind of hilarious "show process" that is firstly very time consuming and often does not yield any results as well. Especially regarding IP's. Whenever an admin tells a legit long-standing member 1 on 1 that the matter should be taken to ANI it basically, with some exceptions, just means they are not in the mood/don't want to deal with it themselves. Think we both know that well after all this time. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just saw, as I was writing this; he already took the one way trip by himself on his own talk page. Lel... - LouisAragon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after ?2-3? days of his logged out rantings, apparently someone decided to resolve the issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KB, I just checked the Orontid dynasty article, and it turned out that the reference added by "EtienneDolet" pointing to p. 20 of Payaslian, Simon (2007). The history of Armenia : from the origins to the present (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 8. ISBN 1403974675, mentions not a single thing about the so-called possible Urartian origins of the Orontids. I removed the source and that specific content, and made some corrections per that what is supported by the overwhelming number of sources. I however vaguely remember that you once told that there is also a certain Bactrian theory regarding their origins? If yes, would you mind adding it to the section as well, per WP:NPOV? If the way that I re-wrote that part of the section isn't "NPOV" enough in your opinion (as I'm sure this change is gonna attract some *cough* "concerned" new editors) please let me know as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, judging from the bad faith, canvassing, personal attacks, and blatant ignoring of sources I had to endure in 2011, that is a midden I would just as soon avoid.
Here are the sources they ignored in 2011;
  • The Middle East under Rome, by Maurice Sartre, p23. Harvard University Press.
  • The royal hunt in Eurasian history, by Thomas T. Allsen, p37. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • The Cambridge history of Iran, Volume 2, by William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Avery, p354.
  • The Numismatic chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, by Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain),p6.
I believe the issue is the same one I encountered when I presented evidence the Ottomans used the Persian language for 500 years before switching to Ottoman Turkish.
Some people will ignore facts, even if stated by !universities!, simply because it refutes what they believe is the truth. Granted I come from a Euro-centric, mid-western, Scottish, Irish, English, French, German ancestry, so I do not have the perspective of trying to keep "pure" my ethnicity from any outside influences. "User:XXX will not allow no Persian, no Turk, no Armenian, no Azerbaijani, no Kurdish, etc, etc, in our history."
So, that being said, no amount of information will make a difference to certain editors. Their sole purpose on Wikipedia is the protection of their articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much.
Yeah, its a damn annoying (to put it polite) but rather complex issue that is more of a "mental error" than something that actually contains "logic". Its just a projection of the error in peoples minds irl, which subsequently gets projected online. That being said, its the very same reason as for why atm I'm still "mostly" (more than I'd actually like to) working on articles of this region as they're much more underdeveloped, and are so prone to impairing nonsense (e.g. sock armies, plain dorks, ethno-nationalists, "ill" people and what-not that we've seen passing by over the years), as compared to the articles of my "Euro" ancestry and background. I wish I could spend more time on history-related articles pertaining to Europe specificaly, rather than just "sometimes" making some major efforts on them and the occassional article here and there (e.g. Andrey Glebov, amongst others) but alas, unfortunately, that luxury isn't really given to me yet. Though I have to say, looking at the past 1-1,5 year, alot of history-related articles of this region (Iran/Armenia/Caucasus/Turkey/Azerbaijan) have improved in a relatively steady way. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you see btw if Hovhanisian (p 47/48) which has been added to this section says anything about so-called "Irano-Armenian" names regarding the Artaxiads? JSTOR apparently has the book.[25]. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No good. JSTOR is a book review and it is non-viewable on google books. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, I will try getting those pages from the ppl at "resource request" then. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BUT, Amazon.com does allow a search,
  • "Both the interior chronology of Moses Xorenc'i and the reading of the Armawir inscriptions are still open to considerable disagreement, but the the existence of a local Armenian dynasty, probably of Iranian origin, as indicated by both Strabo and Movses Xorenac'i as well as by the derivation of the Eruandid name, has now received additional corroboration...." -- page 47.
Which goes on to confirm the Iranian/Achaemenid origin of the Orontid dynasty.
Also, your query of the Irano-Armenian names are confirmed on page 48. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucid empire manpower

I wrote a source which gave a conservative number of 49 million of the Persian empire in 480 bc. The Seleucid inherited most of the former Persian Empire lands and wad around from 312 bc to 64 bc. The population would have at least doubled in his time. Kasif the great (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care what your opinion is. I seriously doubt Guinness is considered a reliable source. Following BRD would be best for you since all you seem to do is add contentious material based on no or unreliable sources. I would suggest you take your concerns to the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hattin

Hello

If you look at battle of hattin number of crusader, they were 55,000 and not 20,000

Guy de lussignan was know for many time faking his stat

its time for you to understand that most of the christians stats are faked.

look at the french wikipedia version of this battle

Also for the siege of acre Garrison: 3000 killed or captured (2,700 saracen prisoners were killed by Richard Coeur de Lion.)

Richard Coeur de Lion as kill 2,700 sarasin prisionniers (captured) and like 300 child & womens

So we should precise that.

I suggest you take your concerns to the article talk page. You removed references and referenced information, whilst citing nothing but opinion. Wikipedia does not work that way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lel

Such a gem.[26][27]. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from 2013, shows Azerbaijan language with an Encyclopedia Iranica reference. Here is the quote:
  • "Among the Azeri poets of the 15th century mention should be made of Ḵaṭāʾi Tabrizi. He wrote a maṯnawi entitled Yusof wa Zoleyḵā, and dedicated it to the Aqqoyunlu Sultan Yaʿqub (r. 1478-90), who himself wrote poetry in Azeri Turkish." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had seen that one before, thanks for linking. I have no doubts that the Aq Qoyunlu rulers used an Oghuz Turkic language closest to the present-day Azerbaijani language mean. However, what I don't get is the constant reinstatement of the transliteration of the article in Latin script, not only in Azerbaijani, but also in Anatolian Turkish and Turkmen. Which is what the user in question is edit warring for. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This information was removed by user:Hayk.arabaget , 25 November 2014. Who states this lie, "There wasn't anything about Azerbaijani language as an official one in Iranica online. Also we do not need Azerbaijani and Armenian names of this tribe."
Which is then changed by user:Cednel, 26 November 2014.
After Azerbaijan is re-added by an IP, user:Hayk.arabaget added citation needed tag. Ten minutes later user:Hayk.arabaget removes Azerbaijan again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good search. That's one of the first things that needs to get fixed then. But what do you think about the transliterations in the lede? Which one should it include, and which ones should be removed (looking at the current revision)? Any transliteration in Latin script would be, for a start, ridiculous to keep. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure how that is decided. If we go according to the Safavid dynasty article then Azerbaijani should be included in the transliteration. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, such things are not "really" decided I thought initially myself as well. Such things are usually based on how many sock accounts/IP's a niche of users can bring in, lol. But, aight, I agree. I concur with the Safavid comparison. Btw, if you have the time, please share your opinion about this (related) matter on Doug's talk page. It could be of proper use in the future. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this ambiguous/weird change of sourced content btw.[28] - LouisAragon (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Kansas Bear. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to send the other PDF file in the mail. Just sent it in the one right after. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Seljuk Empire

The book has arrived in my local library and I'm reading it. Thanks for the recommendation. Excellent book, by Professor Peacock, who I know worked on the Seljuks of Rum which I read only one chapter of it. This book is part of the The Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires, and after finishing this I might pick up some more in the future. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned concerns

More canvassing (just) resulted in this change. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the difference, I add references/referenced information(regardless of my personal opinions*), they(Samak and his buddy Afshar Kan) are just here to promote their nationalistic/ethnic POV. Not to mention Afshar's canvassing violates AA2! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No truer words were ever spoken. In my opinion he [Samak] is a useful, kind and helpful editor, but he succumbs way too easily to all these sockpuppet who happen to speak "dialects which are mutually intelligble to Azerbaijani or are from the same ethnicity". If he'd have genuine concerns about such matters (even just the Turcoman-->Azerbaijanis change, f.e.), he'd engage in discussions, add/cite WP:RS sources, and wouldn't resort to such odd behaviour. But alas... - LouisAragon (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to leave a comment.[29] He's evading his block en masse. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for cluttering your talk page with information/material these days KB, but I wondered whether you could check the sources given to "back up" this part ("The Khanates were mostly ruled by Khans of Turkic (Azeri)[4] origin[5][6][7]") in the lede of this article -> Khanates of the Caucasus. I wonder whether they're WP:RS and actually back up the story, e.g. that they were "Azeri"). I know Swietochowski and Atkin are RS, but I can't view the pages in question. Thanks much - LouisAragon (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well;

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: History of Azerbaijan, makes no mention of the ethnicity of the khanates.
  • Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920 By Tadeusz Swietochowski page 272, there is no page 272 in this book.
  • Russia and Iran, 1780-1828 By Muriel Atkin, Page 16-20. Pages 17-19 are unviewable and page 11 would indicate that Turcoman is considered a separate entity from Azerbaijani(at least it appears that way in her writing).

Given time I might be able to expand on Atkin's view, but as of right now, none of those sources support that sentence.
This sentence;

  • "In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran." -- World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2006. ISBN 0761475710. Стр. 751.

Makes it sound like there are other khanates besides the Azeri ones.
Oh, and I removed that Baddeley crap source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the effort. I'll get to you more in depth about these findings myself as well. In the meantime, you might be interested in this. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naimans, Tuoba and Pannonian Avars

Would you please verify [30], [31] and [32]. What do you think? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


For the Naimans:
  • Man, John (2013). Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection. p. 19-20.--Is not a reliable source.
  • Morris Rossabi (2012). The Mongols: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.--No page number and I found only one reference to Naimans. Morris Rossabi is a historian of China and Central Asia who teaches courses in Inner Asian and East Asian history at Columbia.
  • Frederick W. Mote (2003). Imperial China 900-1800. p. 407.---"The Naimans displayed strong Turkic characteristics and had adapted the Uighur Turkic script to their language, making them one of the few literate people among steppe nomads at that time."---Which sounds like the Naimans were Turkicized.
  • Frank McLynn (2015). Genghis Khan: The Man Who Conquered the World.---No page number and this is not McLynn's area of expertise. I would avoid using this book.
  • René Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. p. 190.--This actually supports what it references. "Mongolized Turks". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the Tuoba:
  • Evelyn S. Rawski, Early Modern China and Northeast Asia, page 123. Reliable source. "...including the Northern Wei (386-534), found the Tuoba, a Turkic group descended from the Xianbei."
  • Kang-i Sun Chang,Stephen Owen, The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, page 272. Reliable source. "The Northern Wei dynasty was founded by a Tuoba or Tabgach, a Xianbei people originally from the northeastern part of China and believed to have spoken a Turkic language."
  • Charles Holcombe, The Genesis of East Asia: 221 B.C. - A.D. 907, page 132. Reliable source. "Exactly what this language was is a matter of speculation. In the opinion of Peter Boodberg, the Tuoba vocabulary was "essentially Turkish, with a certain admixture of Mongol elements"." --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the Pannonian Avars:
Well, thank you very much. However, I think I should allow other editors to review those articles. The reason why I asked you to verify them, is because I think both [33] and [34] have similar edits and they're interested in same topic, e.g. Turkic peoples, List of Turkic dynasties and countries, Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century. Plus, As you know, it's a common behavior among some users to do such edits. For example, when they appear and bomb the articles with their sources (ethnicity, language, background and etc). --Wario-Man (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit. In my opinion, it's some kind of overciting and pov-pushing. He changes the weight/tone of the main articles, then he adds them to those lists and other mentioned articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is to be expected. This is the atypical POV pushing editor that is not smart enough to realize "Turkic" does not mean "Turkish". It would be like assigning "Indo-European" to every ethnicity that speaks an Indo-European language! That editor, in particular, is probably a blocked user from Sweden. Sooner or later they will slip up, someone will recognize a pattern and they will be blocked for socking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kabyle people

Hello Kansas Bear

I just want to ask you about about something

Is this good/reliable edit ? --Aṭlas (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IF the source supports the sentences in question, yes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So this is reliable "Kabyle Berbers are largely Mediterranean with someNordic contribution." It seems to me like an old racial theory. --Aṭlas (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is outdated(1939). I would not use it, if that means anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this Gentleman don't get it. --Aṭlas (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try the talk page. Not sure where it will get you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the mood. can you help me ?--Aṭlas (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I am swamped with my own research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you want. --Aṭlas (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Gentilz hom discovered a new thing "1930 is 21th century and modern enough" --Aṭlas (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just lel

[35][36]. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a dig in Oxford's database to find information regarding Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher's alleged membership to the Freemasons. I think I found something, but I'm not sure whether the author is correct in his assessment. I just sent you a scan of the page in question. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sent you a reply back with a link to his curriculum. Just in case you didn't get a notification. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon:  Done [[37]] [[38]] --Aṭlas (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix this?

Ahmadilis says the dynasty was Turkish in origin, with some connection (though "presumably" does not sound very evidence based) to the Rawadids - yet Rawadid dynasty says they were Arabs in origin who became Kurdified and whose descendants continued to rule in Maragheh as the Ahbadilis. So the two article are saying different things. I don't have sources to clarify this, but I see you did some editing to the Ahmadilis article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it this evening. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable references

I just want to ask you If this three references are reliables and good for Couscous.

I want to use them if it's possible. --Aṭlas (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food history is way outside my area of study. Might I suggest Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to know your opinion. Best Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing War

I guess I screwed up on the House of Montlhery article. I was trying to redirect it and couldn't get the redirect to work. So, I repeatedly deleted what I had done and tried over again. I didn't realize that would trigger an Edit War warning. But it wasn't an Edit War, it was just me. Sorry.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houari Boumediène

I added some referenced content in this article (this is my edit) from (The Encyclopaedia of Islam 3rd ed). I want your opinion about this reference, because I know that You have experience in such matters. My question is: Is this a convenient reference for the article ? Best Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is this guy a reliable historian?

hello.check this pleas https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomb_of_Cyrus&diff=747118190&oldid=744112441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.222.31.49 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eliot Crawshay-Williams (September 4, 1879 – May 11, 1962), was a British author, army officer, and Liberal Party politician
  • John Struys, The perillous and most unhappy voyages of John Struys Through Italy, Greece, Lifeland, Muscovia, Tartary, Media, Persia, East-India, Japan, and other places in Europe, Africa and Asia.

No to both. One is a politician and the other is some outdated primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think the second is the dutch traveler "Jan Janszoon Struys". I can't find anything about ibn battuta or any other travelers in pages:231–232 from the mentionned book "Across Persia" and this gentleman "Eliot Crawshay-Williams" wasn't a historian. It seems that this user translated this paragraph from the persian wikipedia without any self research. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People like you makes persons want to get away from Wikipedia and look for accurate information anywhere except here.

I really want to clarify this Roman issue but people like you don't let me, so sad. Common people may think that byzantine empire is a different state when in fact is a despective name for the medieval Roman Empire. That needs to be pointed out. But ok, continue misinforming people. I'm not attacking you personally I don't know you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A r m i n i u s (talk • contribs) 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking your so-called concerns to the article talk pages. Before you get blocked for your personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Common people may think that byzantine empire is a different state when in fact is a ??despective?? name for the medieval Roman Empire.[...].But ok, continue misinforming people."
Instead of trying to act like you know something, why don't you read the Byzantine Empire article. Note the opening sentence;
  • "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople."
Every link that says Byzantine Empire leads to that article. So, either, you are willfully ignorant or you are a blocked user back to settle a score.
  • " I just want to help with a harmful misconception."
Harmful? LMAO. Try using the article talk page since you are so certain your opinion should be enforced. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

I was reading the disruptive editing article and I found something that really made me think about you.

(If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.)

I'm not a vandal. I just want to help with a harmful misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A r m i n i u s (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this your final warning. Edit warring and arbitrarily changing Byzantine to "Eastern Roman Empire", throughout numerous articles, is disruptive editing. Continue your nonsense at your own peril. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP Historian

This IP, who claims to be "a historian",[39] changed some content here in the lede and added one outdated source to it, as well as one dubious source. He tried to add the same content earlier to it as well.[40]. Following a brief dig, I found The Encyclopedia of Islam (p. 821) which pretty much considers them to be a subgroup of the Lurs; "Lur -- an Iranian people living in the mountains in southwestern Persia. As in the case of the Kurds, the principal link among the four branches of the Lurs (Mamasani, Kuhghilu'i, Bakthiari, and Lur proper) is that of language." I suggest reverting the edit in question, adding the source to it, and changing that sentence to "The Bakhtiari are a subgroup of the Lurs. They speak the Bakhtiari dialect, a southwestern Iranian dialect, belonging to the Lurish language." Or something like that. Your opinion? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the so-called "historian", made quite a few mistakes that no real historian would make. The author of "The Last of the Khans", iUniverse self-published, was not written by Alireza Bakhtiari, but by Ali Morteza Samsam Bakhtiari. Neither of them are historians. "History of Persia", that the IP "historian" copied from the self-published book(page 19) and failed to list the author, was written by Percy Sykes, who is not an historian. So both so-called sources are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Navarre talk

Hi Kansas, how are you? With re to this talk section, I can not access the source provided. It would be appreciated if you could confirm that the information on Mozarabic language (Harvey, p 124) provided by the ever-mutating-editor-this-time IP 173.238.79.44 in the Infobox is actually true. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to view that page. However, I am not sure what the IP is trying to prove with that particular quote;
  • "but in general, Muslims in the rest of Spain spoke the local varieties of Romance...the fact that the Muslims of Aragon, for example, did not from the Middle Ages onward speak an Arabic vernacular did not mean that during that period their written language was not Arabic."
Compared to what Harvey, page 125,
  • "In the independent kingdom of Navarre, the situation was different again. This area provides us with a clear set of specimen texts, limited in number because Islam was brought to a particularly sudden end there in 1515. We can witness fully trained ulama(Islamic scholars) publicly exercising the functions of their offices, drawing up Arabic documents carry Arabic signatures, and this almost right up to the date of the conversion. What the Muslim folk there spoke was Navarrese. Their written language was Arabic."
So we have established that the Muslims in Navarre, pre-1515, wrote in Arabic. I see no one making any comment about it being a spoken language.
Then the IP goes on some off topic rant, "With regards to the source presented here from Harvey, it doesn't state that Andalusian Arabic was spoken, only that a few Islamic scholars who wrote in Classical Arabic." Which is not what the source states, "What the Muslim folk there spoke was Navarrese. Their written language was Arabic." Unless the IP can focus on the real facts and refrain from off-topic rants, there will be no reason to continue your discussion with them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the rest of the book besides that page, and the excerpt specifies that Arabic was only written. Every source shows that when writing in Arabic, scholars wrote almost universally in Classical Arabic, just as today they write almost overwhelmingly in Modern Standard Arabic and not in the mutually unintelligible regional varieties of Arabic.
In any case, you will have noticed that I am not disputing the inclusion of Arabic as a written or formal language under the "languages" of the Kingdom of Navarre in the article (after 1118, anyway). My main contention was that we should also include Mozarabic, which was opposed (and reverted) without reason by the user above. Mozarabic was spoken in the lands of the Kingdom of Navarre, and this is supported by the source from Harvey, because it states Romance languages were the languages spoken by the small Muslim minority there, specifically Navarrese, which itself is actually a form of Mozarabic. It originated from Mozarabic prior to becoming distinctly the Navarro-Aragonese language, as it was a Pyrenean dialect of Mozarabic, which is why the language is classified as Pyrenean-Mozarabic to this very day. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The language was not defined by clear-cut boundaries, but rather it was a continuum of the Romance language spoken on the stretch extending north of the Muslim realms of the Ebro, under the influence of Mozarabic and Basque, towards the Pyrenees."

- Elvira, Javier. (2008). "Reinos y Dialectos en la Edad Media Ibérica: La Construcción de la Identidad; Homenaje a Juan Ramón Lodares". p.523 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.79.44 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK?
  • "You need to read the rest of the book besides that page, and the excerpt specifies that Arabic was only written."
Excuse me? Where have I stated anyone in the Kingdom of Navarre spoke Arabic? Where has Iñaki LL stated it was spoken? You have decided to rant that Arabic was not spoken in the Kingdom of Navarre, ignoring what the source actually says and editing your OR into the article.
And unless you can give a quote from Reinos y Dialectos en la Edad Media Ibérica: La Construcción de la Identidad; Homenaje a Juan Ramón Lodares, spare me the quote from another Wikipedia article, since Wikipedia can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles.
Oh, and this quote;
  • "...but in general, Muslims in the rest of Spain spoke the local varieties of Romance...the fact that the Muslims of Aragon, for example, did not from the Middle Ages onward speak an Arabic vernacular did not mean that during that period their written language was not Arabic."
Does not support Mozarabic being spoken/used/written in the Kingdom of Navarre and is your own interpretation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, WP:OR to make a point by an IP disruptive editor with roots in another username, getting here by means of tracing other editors. And clear alteration of sources, as it is his customary way. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t know what your problems are here. Every source I mentioned above is taken directly from the actual sources. You notably excluded the section where they specifically state that that the Muslim minority in the lands re-taken by the Kingdom of Navarre especially spoke Navarrese or Mozarabic (same language, with the former developing from the latter):
As for the quote from Reinos y Dialectos en la Edad Media Ibérica: La Construcción de la Identidad; Homenaje a Juan Ramón Lodares, it is from p. 523: [41] "The language was not defined by clear-cut boundaries, but rather it was a continuum of the Romance language spoken on the stretch extending north of the Muslim realms of the Ebro, under the influence of Mozarabic and Basque, towards the Pyrenees." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.79.44 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, that quote is taken from the Wikipedia article Navarro-Aragonese. Which I also said, "a Wikipedia article can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles". That link to the book, ?wrong volume?, does not show Mozarabic, nor does a search for "Mozarabic" result in anything.
AND, since you have chosen to ignore my questions;

  • "Where have I stated anyone in the Kingdom of Navarre spoke Arabic? Where has Iñaki LL stated it was spoken?"

...therefore, unless you care to start responding directly I see no reason to continue to respond to you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning that you did not state Arabic was spoken in Navarre, and I already said I am not raising that as an issue. I am only contending for the inclusion of Mozarabic, from which Navarrese was originally a dialect of and developed from. The source does have Mozarabic stated, from p.523. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I am only contending for the inclusion of Mozarabic, from which Navarrese was originally a dialect of and developed from. The source does have Mozarabic stated, from p.523."
You have no idea what the source states, since it is unviewable even from the link you provided. If you are contending the quote from a Wikipedia article is reliable, think again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kansas, sorry to come back, the IP is giving a nag, what he actually intends really. Unfortunately I do not have access to the book, it would be appreciated if you let me know that the page 125 states that Arabic was used in Navarre only after 1118. At any rate, I seriously doubt that place names there (even some streams) originated there after 1118, but that is another question now. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on page 125 of Harvey's book stating 1118. You should ask for a quote(source & page number) that specifically states 1118 and Arabic, else the IP is back to giving their interpretation of information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! He has been blocked for a couple of days. However, he may be back again in Reconquista with another username. The shamelessness of his OR / altered sources is a matter of big concern for its recurrence in WP, no wonder productive editors are abandoning the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About some references

Is this reliable references Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups around the World, 2nd Edition: Ethnic and National Groups around the World, The Peoples of Africa: An Ethnohistorical Dictionary and Les Berbères et le makhzen dans le sud du Maroc; essai sur la transformation politique des Berbères sédentaires (groupe chleuh) for this article ?

And if you have time can you check the revision history of this article to confirm the reliability and the validity of the interpretation of the references. Kind regards --Aṭlas (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources appear reliable. Have not had the chance to check the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your response. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgil34 and PavelStaykov

Hi. I saw you've requested a PP for Xionites. Don't you think PavelStaykov and those IPs are related to team Tirgil34? PavelStaykov targeted many Eurasian groups like Huns, Massagetae, Yuezhi, Xionites and etc. Just like Tirgil34, he uses turkicworld.org content as source. That turkicworld.org is blacklisted now. But he still copy-pastes them. Plus, he's a similar Turkic pov-pusher. For example, check IP-hoppers/IP-socks edits on Yuezhi. He uses Tirgil34's trademark (Türkic and Türk instead of Turkic and Turk), direct copy-pasted content from Tirgil34's website (turkicworld.org). --Wario-Man (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wario-Man:, @Kansas Bear:, as far as i remember, user PavelStaykov was anti-Turkic. Staykov's ips are/were from Bulgaria, if i am not wrong. And there was an another Bulgarian ip(s) edit-warring with PavelStaykov. You may be confused these two edit-warriors( one is pro-Turkic and one is anti-Turkic), since both of them are from the same location(Bulgaria). 46.221.220.195 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@46.221.220.195: Yes, both of them are from Bulgaria. I think they play WP:GHBH to confuse other editors. Actually, the one who always write anti-Turkic rants in his edit summaries, is the one who inserts pro-Turkic povs on articles. This is a Tirgil34's trademark behavior. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the situation is not that simple dude, and life is not black and white. Instead of assuming that someone is trying to confuse you, why don't you assume that someone is making an attempt to improve these articles? An attempt that you have cockblocked by deleting content supported by multiple academic sources.[42] Not all editors are playing your stupid games who is ip-hopper or who is pro-/anti-turkic, понимаеш? I can only advice you to study the subject on hand before deleting information from the articles. Thank you for your understanding.

/The ip-hopper: --46.229.227.121 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC) /[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs your opinion

Would you please write your comment here? Talk:Persian_Empire#Issues I think that article needs re-writing and some sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, Ağ Qoyunlu: [43] --Wario-Man (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the belated response, been rather busy.
As for "Persian Empire", it appears to have become a nationalistic nonsense list page.
The article/page originally was a dab page. Which was a more neutral, productive article/page.
As for naming of the Ağ Qoyunlu article, Tiptoethrutheminefield seems to have supplied relevant information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kansas Bear. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Algeria

Hello Kansas Bear

There is a user, who's introducing a big amount of content and removing the ancient lead without any concineous. Can you take a look at his edits if it's possible? Regards. --Aṭlas (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about my stalker. As for Kayble20 your best move it to start a discussion on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Toumanoff

Apart from these four sources, that were blatantly deleted on the article,[44][45][46]

  • Allsen, Thomas T. (2011). The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812201079. p. 37. quote = "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin, originally administered the territory as satraps and later as independent kings."
  • Sartre, Maurice (2005). The Middle East Under Rome. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674016835. p. 23 quote = "The Commagene kings claimed to be descended from the Orontids, a powerful Iranian family that had ruled the area during the Achaemenid period. They were related to the Achaemenids who had built a kingdom (...)".
  • Babaie, Sussan.; Grigor, Talinn. Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis. (2015). I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1848857513. p. 80. quote = "Iranian culture deeply influenced Armenia, and Iranian dynasties ruled Armenia during several important periods, including the Orontids (c. sixth century - c. early second century BCE) and Arsacids (54-428 CE)."
  • TIGRAN II. Garsoian, N. (2005). Encyclopaedia Iranica. quote = "Tigran (Tigranes) II was the most distinguished member of the so-called Artašēsid/Artaxiad dynasty, which has now been identified as a branch of the earlier Eruandid [Orontid] dynasty of Iranian origin attested as ruling in Armenia from at least the 5th century B.C.E."

...I actually just found out that Toumanoff (p. 278) holds the exact same view in his The Orontids of Armenia study, which appeared as part III of his well known Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963). Here's what's stated on p. 278: "The eponym's praeonemen Orontes is as Iranian as the dynasty itself, derived from the Avestan auraund/aurvant ('mighty,' 'hero') and related to the Pehlevi arvand." Didn't know that. Thought you might be interested (in case you hadn't already seen it). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Thanks for the information, LA! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Always welcome. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help

Hello, Kansas Bear. I recommend you to add the following two pages related to the last Russo-Turkish war to your watchlist: Battle of Sarikamish and Caucasus Campaign. Recently, a newly created Turkish account was used there to inflate the number of Russian casualties in the Caucasus Campaign and downplay the strength and casualties of the Ottomans by all means possible. Your help is very much appreciated. FullertonCA (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note

As I had added some of that important information concerning Ibn Hanbal, I ask to remove it temporarily because I am writing an essay on the matter -- once, I am done we can re-put it. Otherwise, the teacher will think I copied from wikipedia. Please do understand! Your help is appreciated!Megalodon34 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ziryab

Hello Kansas Bear (merry christmas ;))

Can you take a look at Ziryab? There is tens of references in this page. If you have time can you check the reliability of this references ? Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a difficult task, if you were interested in learning.
  • Check the author's credentials(historian, journalist, writer, etc).
  • Does the author's credentials correspond with the subject matter in the book, journal, etc.
  • If not then the book, journal, etc, can not be considered a reliable source.
  • Example, (Ruiz, Ana (1960). Vibrant Andalusia: the spice of life in southern Spain.) This particular source is being used to support that Ziryab was Kurdish. Ana Ruiz completed her master's degree in cognitive development at Federal University of Pernambuco and obtained a doctoral degree in developmental psychology from Cornell University. Therefore, Ruiz can not be considered a reliable source for Ziryab who lived during the 8th-9th centuries CE.
  • Check the publisher. Is the publisher considered a reliable source?
If not, then the book, journal, etc, can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for This answer. Kind Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Kansas Bear: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Kansas Bear! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Aṭlas (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Nomination of Raoul III of Valois for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raoul III of Valois 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/Raoul III of Valois 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Kansas Bear!

Happy New Year!

Kansas Bear,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wario-Man (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Kansas Bear!

Happy New Year!
Hello Kansas Bear:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Aṭlas (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Barnstar

Home-Made Barnstar
I award this barnstar to you Kansas Bear, as a sign of appreciation for everything you did in difficult topic areas. Keep up the good work! You were the first editor with whom I interacted on en.wiki during the first dispute I had with somebody here some seven years ago. Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia - how to deflect phony editing disputes

Dear Kansas - I am contacting more or less at random, but based in part on your articles on European history. I don't want to use my established username - my contribs are under observation by a group of "conservapediots" - i.e. Wikipedia editors who follow the precepts of the online Conservapedia.

Most of the few articles I have reedited are on US history, ante bellum period, related to the political parties. I've written the narratives for a number of articles including the Bank War, Election of 1844, and I am currently editing Missouri Compromise. (I don't want to hyperlink these).

I was recently kicked off Wiki for 48 hours for posting warning not to engage me in "pseudo"-sockpuppet assaults. The problem is that during the years that I've been posting major, well-sourced articles, I have not been engaged by a single editor who supports my work. It would appear that I am on a blacklist. When this phony "edit" war at the Bank War was started, I was warned that by other editors that I was obligated to field these entirely unserious and tendentious complaints about minutiae related to the article. The "edit war" went on for weeks, and I was accused of being a sockpuppet.

My question is this: to what extent do you think that Wikipedia is infiltrated my editors from Conservapedia? What impact has this had on your own work, and what do we do about it? --68.107.181.155 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions:

Another hoax?

So far all edits made by the user in question were pseudo-historical fabrications, not covered by any source. He has created one article as well (very first edit). Speedy, I think? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well a search of;
  • Iran: Empire of the Mind, Michael Axworthy, no page number
Ardehians- zero hits
Ardahvans- zero hits
Ardehis- zero hits
  • The Muslim Conquest of Persia, A.I. Akram, no page number
No viewable edition available.
  • Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Kaveh Farrokh, no page number
No view edition available.
Unless Ozymaxes can provide evidence, then the article is a hoax. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Timurid empire and its lead section (edits by IP-hopper)

Hi. This IP-hopper changed the accepted lead and he says current revision is misleading.[47][48]. I'm sure he's one of those blocked sockmasters (per his IP-range and edit style), but is Persianate Turco-Mongol empire misleading? Or is his changes constructive? I think his changes are pointless and unnecessary. Persianate links to Persianate society and that article is clear about the term. So should we keep older revision or accept his revision? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Said IP can start a discussion on the talk page to find a consensus for the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about his edits? Do you think his edits are OK or not? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are not ok. Why relegate Persianate to the second sentence when the culture of this empire is so heavily supported by references and referenced information? The extreme bias of the IP is telling when they use the term "Turco-Mongol" twice in the first two sentences of the article!
If we compared the lead of the Timurid Empire to the lead of the Seljuk Empire article:
  • "The Seljuk Empire or Great Seljuk Empire, was a medieval Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks."
  • "The Timurid Empire (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani, was a Persianate Turco-Mongol empire...."
Nothing in the article explains how the Timurid empire is "Turco-Mongol". There is nothing in the lead to explain the religion of the empire, as compared to the Seljuk Empire article.
Maybe something more like;
  • "The Timurid Empire (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani, was a Sunni Muslim Persianate empire, founded by Timur a warlord of Turco-Mongol origin."
or....
  • "The Timurid Empire (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani, was a Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire, founded by Timur a warlord of Turco-Mongol origin."
Both can be supported by references and properly reflect the influences on this empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. So please rewrite it because I think your suggestion is better than the current revision. Plus, this article is old and your contribution(s) (content + more references) will improve it for sure. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn tumart

What do you think about this new user edits, especially this two edits [49], [50]. He's using primary sources (ديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبربر ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر , Mafākhir al Barbar......). Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources:
  • "Ibn Kallikan. p.205 Biographical Dictionary VOL. III.
  • "Bigelow Merriman, Roger. The rise of the Spanish Empire. Archive.org. The Macmillan Company, 1918."
both appear viable, though dated. What do modern sources state? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That he was a pure masmuda Berber, and the sharifian lineage is just a genealogical fiction (The Encyclopaedia of Islam edition 1 and 2, the cambridge history of africa, Encyclopédie de l’islam (the french version of EI)....), Encyclopedie Berbère..... EI2 p:958 "His father belonged to the Harg̲h̲a and his mother to the Masakkāla, both of which are divisions of the Maṣmūda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various S̲h̲arīfian genealogies attributed to him"--Aṭlas (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion? What is the reliable version is it my last version or the current version. + this account looks suspicious this is his first day and he already know how to open "a dispute resolution request"! --Aṭlas (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. I had not checked my copy of "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" that is on my computer. Well, if the EoI says that, I would not argue with it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you participate in this discussion Talk:Ibn Tumart ? Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will not end with him. He's using primary sources. Cplakidas Explained to him what is primary sources, but he don't want to understand. I wasted all my day in a Byzantine discussion (I'm so busy with my university exams.....). Can you please participate in the discussion? (as I really like your way in discussing things). Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about my arguments here? I was waiting for you a response, but it seems that you don't have time. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you, Walraisid and Constantine have things well in hand. I am not sure what more I could contribute. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of the reliability of sources! and some remarks will be good. --Aṭlas (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the secondary sources I provided are not reliable ? (see, if you want, a "summary" at the end of this part). Fulgery (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, please explain your reasoning when you ignore a source like The Encyclopaedia of Islam, written and edited by academics that specialize in the field of Islam, Islamic studies, Islamic history, etc.
And you want to use, most likely because it says what you want,
  • Encyclopedia of Africa, Almohads, page 94-95,
by, Thomas K Park, Anthropology and Agricultural Economics.
Editor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Afro-American Studies department at Yale.
Editor, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Philosophy.
Compared to:
  • The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. III.
Editor, B.LEWIS, He earned his PhD in the history of Islam.
Editor, V. L. MENAGE, Chair of Turkish/Ottoman history in the University of London
Editor, CH. PELLAT, professor of Arabic
Editor, J. SCHACHT, professor of Arabic and Islam
Clear enough? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ignore these sources, Kansas Bear. On the contrary I accept them but I would like to add the other point of view.
I added reliable secondary sources to the "point 2" of my summary at the end of this part, please take a look at it. One question is : Do my sources and arguments justify the adding of "Arab" along with "Berber" in the lead ?
Also, you said about other sources that I had provided "both appear viable, though dated.", but I would like to have your opinion on this one please :
The « author of a number of influential books on Muslim history and the modern development of Islam » Syed Ameer Ali :
"In the year 514 of the Hegira, a man of the name of Mohammed, surnamed Ibn Tumart, (Abu Abdullah Mohammed, son of Abdullah, son of Tumart, an Alide, descended from Hassan I) a native of Sus in Western Africa, appeared among the Berbers inhabiting the vast chain of mountains which intersects Mauritania. He was an Arab by descent, but belonged by adoption to one of the Berber tribes." (A short History of the Saracens, Chapter XXXIX The Almohades, 1916)
Constantine didn't accept it saying "they only deal with the matter tangentially and probably use "Arab" as a cultural label; certainly they are not serious arguments against a host of expert sources that address the issue directly and specifically." I respect his views but, Syed Ameer Ali says explicitly "an Arab by descent" and "descended from Hassan I" so it's not a cultural label, and isn't the author reputable enough in this subject (see his bio) to grant him the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage ? Fulgery (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I consider a source written in 1898, over a modern source written and edited by the leading academics in this field?
  • ".. to grant him the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage?"
You mean what you have decided NOT to grant the academics that write and edit The Encyclopaedia of Islam? Especially this particular source that specifically states, "His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him." Why do you refuse to use your own logic(that, "..[they] have done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage") towards this?
Here are three more academics...
How that ? I just told you that my proposition accepts and includes the two views and the difference of opinions. Perhaps I did not express myself properly. Fulgery (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. You just keep ignoring what I have said.
Using your own logic statement, "grant him[them] the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage"
Would not the editors and writers of EoI and Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought have done the same thing and in the case of EoI have concluded that, "His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him."?
Your own logic when applied to this situation supports that these academics, in the course of "serious research", read Syed Ameer Ali's book, checked the sources, and applied modern historiography to get their fact(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of view that I'm defending is not "considering an opinion over another" but "considering in the article two different opinions" if they both are based on reliable sources.
As for Syed Ameer Ali, I just related to you the reasons why I didn't understand why was not considered to be a reliable source. The "serious scholar" is just to explain why I consider him to be reliable. I then wanted to know if you considered him reliable and gave you his wikipedia's page link. That's all. You do not have to answer if you do not want. The fact that others had a contrary opinion had nothing to do with my question and is not hurting my point of view... Fulgery (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of ignoring everything I have said. We are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ibn Tumart#RfC: Should the article gives weight to the mahdist/sharifian claims. . Aṭlas (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

I am not a vandal. I just want truth to prevail sir.

Sorry, but you have nearly accused me of vandalism, publishing a warning note on my talk page. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BE A NEW EDITOR? I'm a new editor, and might do some mistakes at editing, but the exclusive reason I started editing, not long ago, is due to the amount of historical lack of information on certain themes, or sometimes, even worse, the manipulated and false imperialistic point of view on history, which was still fashionable for instance on the 20th century Francoist Spain, and after 40 years of military dictature, the historical fallacies on detriment of truth had been widely spread, and apparently still promoted by some, but shouldn't be present on the wikipedia. Sad but true. Some of my editions with references have been reverted to another uncited version, it's true my note on the Albigensian crusade didn't have a quote, but linked to articles which give details. Anyway I feel also happy to say that other users support the truth, and some of my editions on other articles have been supported and re-edited by other users when reverted by imperialist liars. Finally and hopefully the truth prevails. If you take a minute to look at my editings, which include a translation of an entire article about a medieval manuscript, you will see I always try my best at bringing accurate cited historical information, so readers will take acknowledgement not only of the historical events, but also of their contemporary historical background. So, no means to make you waste your precious time, but... why did you erase the note about Peter III of Aragon? I explained who was Peter the Catholic, who died in the Albigensian Crusade, fighting against the crusaders, defending his vassal lords of Occitania and Roussillon, and himself Lord of Montpellier since he married Marie of Montpellier in 1204... As soon as 1209 the crusaders were starring the Massacre at Béziers. My note about Peter II is totally ON-TOPIC and verifiable. WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO KNOW that the King who fought and died defending his vassal lords accused of Christian Cathar heresy had been not long awarded with the exclusive Papal award Rex Catholicissimus before giving his life fighting against the crusaders? Peter wasn't heretic, and was never accused of heresy of course, but nevertheless he defended his vassals til death. Nowadays no-one outside the Catalan-speaking Countries, except from scholars, has heard about the Crown of Aragon (union of the Kingdom of Aragon, coastless, with the Counts of Barcelona, with important ports on the Mediterranean and the most powerful county of the Principality of Catalonia); nor about its king Peter the Catholic, (awarded with the Papal title of Rex Catholicissimus some years before whilst fighting the Moors on the context of the Reconquista, his most important triumph, just a year before he died fighting the crusaders, was the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212), who was as well lord of Montpellier from 1204 by marriage. Most people haven't heard about those, and it doesn't seem important, but at the time of the Albigensian Crusade, the Crown of Aragon was a growing power. The crusaders had already the bad fame of sacking Constantinople twice during the fourth crusade in 1204. IT IS RELEVANT INFORMATION, so people understand exactly what it was: a genocide led and promoted by France (casually the Dolphin of France was married to Blanche of Castile, being the Crown of Castile natural rival of the Crown of Aragon, who held control of the Mediterranean Sea coast and its trade). Another Castilian, Domingo de Guzmán, who had been an ambassador of the king Alfonso VIII of Castile in Denmark and had visited Rome for State matters around 1205, formed in Occitania the Order of the Friars Preachers in order to eradicate the so-called Catharism heresy. As it has its own chapter in the article, this crusade was a genocide. But furthermore, a french conquest of the lands which were vassal to the Crown of Aragon, undermining its power in the area. Please, I beg you stop erasing information. Let's leave readers decide if it's worth the information or not. Don't you think so? LEAST CALL ME A VANDAL, sir, it is TOTALLY UNFAIR... Ethra2016 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethra2016 (talk • contribs)

And why not take this to the article talk page? Where is the source that states Peter II of Aragon was given the title "Rex Catholicissimus"? Have you missed these particular issues?? Considering, the article is about the Cathars and not Peter II of Aragon, any specialized titles concerning him are irrelevant to the subject. As for it being a genocide or not, as I have said before, take your concerns to the article talk page. FYI, Peter III of Aragon did not die at Muret. Anything else? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Peter II of Aragon did die at the battle of Muret on 12 September 1213, fighting the crusaders indeed. NOT Peter III as you erroneously wrote (who was his grandson). Peter II was indeed the first king of the Crown of Aragon to be crowned directly by the Pope at Rome (which not many kings at that time did), entrusting his realm to the Papacy and making the oath to defend the Christian faith [1]. I haven't found references that say he was awarded with the title Rex Catholicissimus specifically though. Another article in the wiki says so, but no references neither, sorry. Apparently all an error. I'll further search for references, if any, and meanwhile have erased the unreferenced information on the other article in which the misinterpreted information was edited. Anyway, Peter II was a recognized christian king, crowned by the Pope, and he opposed the crusade anyway, and even died defending the so-called cathar lords of Occitania. I think it's worth saying, don't you think so? I still think is on-topic, furthermore, he was Lord of Montpellier (neighbouring area of the attacked territories of Occitania) since 1204, when he married Maria of Montpellier. Many specialized scholars agree the Albigensian crusade was a political strategy basically held by France (dynastically allied with Castile) to conquest the south and undermine the influence of the Crown of Aragon. Please, can you comment on my talk page and comment or revert your note which treats me as a vandal, it's totally not true and unfair Sir. Maybe I should have brought the subject to the talk page, and sorry about copying an error on other page, which I though was referenced, but was not... my confusion on that, sorry, BUT he was indeed crowned at Rome by the Pope Innocent III himself, and THAT is referenced, but not the Papal title itself. Well, no one is perfect, sorry. I'm new, I learnt. Thank you for all together making Wikipedia better.Ethra2016 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.
  • "So, no means to make you waste your precious time, but... why did you erase the note about Peter III of Aragon? I explained who was Peter the Catholic, who died in the Albigensian Crusade, fighting against the crusaders, defending his vassal lords of Occitania and Roussillon, and himself Lord of Montpellier since he married Marie of Montpellier in 1204... As soon as 1209 the crusaders were starring the Massacre at Béziers. My note about Peter II is totally ON-TOPIC and verifiable. WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO KNOW that the King who fought and died defending his vassal lords accused of Christian Cathar heresy had been not long awarded with the exclusive Papal award Rex Catholicissimus before giving his life fighting against the crusaders? Peter wasn't heretic, and was never accused of heresy of course, but nevertheless he defended his vassals til death."
FYI, I have not edited Peter III of Aragon since 2010 and this statement appears to be your words. My comment was a simple correction, which instead;
  • "NOT Peter III as you erroneously wrote."
So more like you erroneously wrote.
  • "Please, can you comment on my talk page and comment or revert your note which treats me as a vandal, it's totally not true and unfair Sir."
It is a edit-warring warning nothing more. The word "vandal" is not present in that warning. You are the only one that keeps mentioning vandal/vandalism.
  • "Maybe I should have brought the subject to the talk page,"
Which is why things should be talked out on the article talk page.
  • "...and sorry about copying an error on other page, which I though was referenced, but was not... my confusion on that, sorry, BUT he was indeed crowned at Rome by the Pope Innocent III himself, and THAT is referenced, but not the Papal title itself."
I know, I wrote the reference.
  • "I think it's worth saying, don't you think so? I still think is on-topic, furthermore, he was Lord of Montpellier..."
No. The information should be clear and direct(therefore, Peter II of Aragon), give the reason why he was in southern France(to protect his vassal).
Why did you add all this information, that has nothing to do with Peter III of Aragon? AND, the information has nothing to do with the section to which you added it:Youth and Succession. Not to mention, no source linking this information's relevance to Peter III. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-... why did you erase the note about Peter III of Aragon?... -Sorry, I meant the note ON Peter III article (about Peter II), a misunderstanding, only that. Thank you for your time, sorry about the whole thing. PeaceEthra2016 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Innocent III and the Crown of Aragon, by Smith, Damian J. ISBN: 0-7546-3492-2.

Connection between Battle of Chaldiran and First Battle of Panipat

Please explain why the reference to Battle of Chaldiran was removed from First Battle of Panipat. The Battle of Chaldiran was one of the first in Asia to make heavy use of artillery and muskets to win a battle. Babur acquired his artillery and muskets from Ottoman empire and learned the tactics of amassing firepower behind the protection of carts, which was used in both First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawadid dynasty

Hello Kansas Bear

I just want to let you know that I reverted this page to the 22 February 2015 version. This was the most reliable and NPOV version. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am not sure why that article attracts so much attention. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Tempel

This "new" account's editorial pattern looks extremely much to me like that of an old acquiantance (not sure whether your fine with that label here though, sorry) of yours. Proficiency, target articles, "interests", specific information removals, etc. all bear a striking resemblance imho. At least from what I can remember. All in all, definetely not a new user. Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I never had a problem with Qara Xan's editing until they called me a "Turkophobe". Then Qara Xan received a response in a like manner. Anyway, I am digressing, on Qara Xan's talk page there is a comment about similarities to RussianDewey. You might check that as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently RussianDewey is linked to Alexis Ivanov. Do you think Alexis was Qara Xan? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure about JFT/QX (100000% sure at least that he's not a new user). There are multiple similarities bewteen Qara xan and RussianDewey/Alexis, however, there are a few differences as well. Having said that; comparing RD with Alexis Ivanov purely based on WP:HERE-like points and overal "attitude" would probably show quite a lot of differences as well, yet they turned out to be pretty much clear cut CU confirmed. Anyways, just made this. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Hi, Kansas Bear! I've just noticed that user Geotem has been waging an edit war in the Battle of Konotop article, trying hard to place his heavily exaggerated estimate of Russian casualties above the well-documented one and put it before the references that don't support his estimate and consider it unreliable and inflated. Please, keep an eye on that page and help to protect it from POV-pushing. Asharidu (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kansas_Bear&oldid=763483991"