Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vinay Jha (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 21 August 2007 (→Nonsense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindu (ethnic group)

Can you make sense of these recent edits by Heegoop (talk · contribs) ? A couple of weeks back he asked questions regarding Hindi language and ethnic groups on the reference desk and then today, he created a one-line article Hindu (ethnic group). I cannot make up mind if the latter is a candidate for speedy deletion as "nonsense" or not (since Savarkar did hold that opinion as is already mentioned in Hindu#What a Hindu is ... but then again does that deserve an article of its own ?!). Abecedare 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

patent nonsense -- there is no way "Hindu" refers to an ethnic group. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern

References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections

Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article Hinduism regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links: Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Misplaced Pages, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples).

This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.

Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Please do so in Talk:Hinduism in the section Talk:Hinduism#Seeking_opinion_from_regular_editors_on_reference_pattern. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I really cannot be bothered to join a discussion on such a technical point that doesn't at all affect content. dab (𒁳) 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Liftarn again

I am really sorry for getting you into this. I would file another case of at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but I have unexpected difficulties in getting that formatted correctly. If I knew that this would be so much trouble, I would have not dared to edit Misplaced Pages. Zara1709 19:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

no, please, try to enjoy it. It's all part of Misplaced Pages. If you get fed up, you can always take a step back and edit more obscure articles undisturbedly. I have been through much, much worse trolling (check my talk archives if you are interested) and I have learned to develop a strange fascination with this sort of people. When I'm really annoyed, you will note that I stop editing :) dab (𒁳) 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Script

Hi Dab. If you are interested in this topic, I invite you to participate in the discussion about the script template. As you know, I'm trying to reduce the number of multi-language templates, and I don't know if {{script}} is really needed in some cases, or can always be replaced by template {{lang}}. Best regards, —surueña 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ARMA

I have responded. I am going to bed now. If you do any editing, please make sure and paste any large chunks of (non-biographical) deleted material on the talk page (poorly sourced biographical material should be deleted and not reproduced anywhere). Out of curiosity, are you involved in historical fencing at all? The Jade Knight 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

involved since 2002, but I only have knowledge of the German language (D-A-CH) landscape. I only have hearsay knowledge of the US "scene", and the "HACA controversy" of the late 1990s was before my time anyway. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My introduction to the controversy was actually this article. The Jade Knight 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

in this case I obviously retract my suspicion of "coi". dab (𒁳) 07:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lesser Oxford Dictionaries on Hindustani

Well, I was curious, so I checked my copies of the Concise OED (at 1700 or so pages, the self-styled arbiter of "modern" English) and the Modern OED (at 1200 pages, the ready reference for the busy executive who has little need for esoteric words). The COED say, "Hindustani: n. historical 1. a group of mutually intelligible languages and dialects spoken in north-west India, principally Hindi and Urdu. 2. the Delhi dialect of Hindi, widely used throughout India as a lingua franca. Usage Hindustani was the usual term in the 18th and 19th century for the native language of north-west India...." And the MOED says, "1. a language based on Western Hindi, with elements of Arabic, Persian, etc. used as a lingua franca in much of India. 2. archaic Urdu." Well, it seems that, at least for "Hindustani," the busy executive is getting more accurate information than the esoteric scholar who pores over the 615,000 entries of the Great OED! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

o tempora o mores :) dab (𒁳) 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Svadhyay

I just stumbled upon Svadhyay, which in its present form is blatant advertising for some group. I was wanting to do a small, well-sourced article on the subject of svādhyāya in the sense of scriptural study, which I am sure you will recognize as a very old traditional aspect of Brahmanic religious practice. Since this nonsense article exists, I do not know what the correct Wikipolicy would be to deal with such a case. If this cult deserves an article, it should be titled after the name of the group, not after the Hindi version of the Sanskrit term which it has appropriated. Can you assist me in figuring out how best to deal with this? I think the redirect of Svadhyaya to Svadhyay should be eliminated as a minimum, and perhaps some disambiguation page is needed, unless all of the existing unsourced puffery is simply cut. Buddhipriya 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw Buddhipriya's comment and since I am somewhat familiar with the article history, I thought I'd butt in. Svadhyay is simply a POV fork of Swadhyay Parivar, an organization that split into factions after the death of its founder, with allegations of murder, defamation etc flying around. Not surprisingly the real-life and court battles have continued and are reflected on wikipedia, which explains the current abysmal status of the two articles. The long and short of it is that since "Swadhyay Parivar" is what the organization calls itself , the two articles should clearly be merged under that title and the title "Svadhyay" should be free for writing an article on the concept of scriptural/self-study. If either of you is really enthusiastic, you could in addition take on the task of cleaning up the article on the organization ... or just leave it alone and let the Second law of thermodynamics do its job :-) Abecedare 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of or interest in the organization. I would enjoy doing a short but well-referenced piece on the subject of independent scriptural study as a religious practice. Can one of you assist me in getting rid of the redirection of Svadhyaya to Svadhyay, and in performing whatever disambiguation is needed? I am vague on the mechanics of redirects. I am going to go ahead and be bold and just purge the article of the patent nonsense. Buddhipriya 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are GFDL issues that I am unaware of, I think you did fine, since anyway there was no sourced content in the article, which one would want to merge with Swadhyay Parivar. Note though, that a similar strategy has been tried before (though not by a neutral party), and was reverted by anon. IPs, who I guess belong to some faction of the split. So don't be surprised if you face similar reversions soon - I'll watchlist the article and try to help keep such POV forces at bay, but will be busy for the next few days.

Sorry, Dab for using your page for holding this discussion with Buddhipriya. Here is treat for you: Doergood (talk · contribs), the latest entry in the AMT/AIT battle, who doesn't hesitate before modifying sourced content or even sourced quotes ! Abecedare 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you can give. I will try to source it in a way that will make removal of the content very clearly a form of vandalism. Buddhipriya 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Until(1 == 2)

I don't really see what the big deal is, but I'll think about it and leave a lengthy comment later (got things to do at the moment). Andre (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I do understand your concerns. I think something needs to be changed but not necessarily preventing disappearing administrators from being re-sysopped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my turn to say "adminship shouldn't be a big deal" now. There should be no reason to go such lengths to allow an editor to keep adminship if there are reasons speaking against it.

but of course there are ways. Either do a privileged RFA endorsed by lots of trusted editors you have convinced of your identity off-wiki. Or get Jimbo to give you a note of approval. Both approaches should work of getting the re-appearing user re-adminned with no questions asked. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What about either a.) multiple crat endorsements, b.) multiple endorsements of trusted users, c.) arb-com endorsement or d.) jimbo wales endorsement for personal endorsements work? Which ones of these and how many would be required?. Would confirmation of a commited identity do the trick or even email confirmation? Where is the appropriate line for requesting verification without blowing all the bells and whistles somebody who has vanished for privacy reasons most certainly does not want to hear? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think multiple crat endorsement should suffice. I suggest a "dummy" RFA page is created at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Until(1 == 2) (viz., where people will find it) with the promoting crat saying he's been convinced of user's identity, and maybe one or two other crats endorsing that. I think that's not asking too much, and it would help greatly in dispelling the impression that cards are being dealt under the table. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I think that is an excellent solution and have started a thread regarding it at WT:RFA. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Meta Discussions on Talk:India

>> (thanks for the archiving -- I suppose this is meta-discussion we don't need to keep around.) Well, it might be a good idea to have something from the meta discussion (the general consensus reached etc.) available as ready information for new readers. There is always the possibility that the same problem will rise again six months hence. However, I don't know what form such readily available information will take; clearly, it can't remain on the talk page. Any suggestions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

no big deal, you are welcome to restore it if you like. Or if you don't want that, you could leave behind just a diff. dab (𒁳) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vikings in popular culture

Vikings in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Vikings in popular culture satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vikings in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Vikings in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not "create" this article because I think we need it, but because I was cleaning out stuff from Viking. dab (𒁳) 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I figured as much. It's an automated message from Twinkle, which I haven't yet found out how to disable. --Eyrian 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Buddhist term

Hi dab -

Thanks so much once again for creating (or re-creating) Template:Buddhist term. I think its rationale is terrific and your creating this template as a subset of function from Template:DisplayTranslations was incredibly thoughtful and immensely generous.

On Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist_terms_template, two of the WP Buddhism community's most scholarly editors (User:Stephen_Hodge and User:Peter_jackson) have weighed-in voicing an occasional motif in our community that sidebars such as Template:Buddhist term should only include Latin-script. (My intuition agrees with this but I don't have anywhere near these other editors' knowledge.) So, unless anyone in the WP Buddhism community objects in the next day or two, I'm inclined to go ahead and make these modifications to Template:Buddhist term. I suspect you don't really care how we go about it and that your creating this template was a gift to our community. But, just in case you might have strong feelings about this, I thought I let you know of our intentions and give you a chance to voice any objections. (Also, FWIW, I plan to copy the Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist_terms_template thread to Template talk:Buddhist term first.)

Thanks so much again for sharing so generously of your significant talents. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my overhearing you :) but to be precise, the IAST romanization method does not use "Latin script", as it is a superset of the Latin-1 character set plus several additional characters with diacritical marks not present in Latin-1. Since there are multiple methods for romanization of Devanagari, and IAST is the academic standard, I suggest that you consider referring explicitly to IAST rather than the general term "Latin script" as that can result in lack of specificity about the romanization method to be used. Since IAST is a lossless rendering of Devanagari, if IAST is shown there is (in my opinion) no need to also show Devanagari, as the information content of the two systems is identical. Buddhipriya 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we mean "Latin" in the sense of romanization, not the restricted Latin-1. Obviously, lossless schemes should be preferred. IAST is a standard for Sanskrit, but if other Indic langauges are involved, ISO (which is also lossess) may be preferable. dab (𒁳) 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are very kind, Larry. No, as long as lossless romanization schemes are used, I have no objection to giving romanization only. Of course, in the case of CJK, pinyin and romaji are not lossless, and the Kanji should be given along with them. In any case, I have no intention of meddling with a consensus among the editors focussing on Buddhism, since I've not been very active in that field so far. best regards, dab (𒁳) 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Enuma Elish link

Since you're interested in EE, this link about sleeping gods might interest you - though the author concludes that in this case at least there's no EE connection. PiCo 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Seraphimblade 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

5,000th edit

Greetings, are there any 'templates' for users with 5,000 edits? I reached that mark yesterday.Ryoung122 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just note that all these "Wikipedians by edit count" categories were deleted. Good riddance, I suppose. You can still make a note of your edit count, of course, no need for a template. Congratulations on your 5,000 edits, hope you keep addicted :) dab (𒁳) 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merv

I would welcome your opinion on the following statement from Mary, Turkmenistan: "In some Indian traditions Mary (Merv) is cited as the original home of the Aryans". Is this taken from the Ruhnama? --Ghirla 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Probably nonsense, useless without a source... dab (𒁳) 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the following statement in the new article Prehistoric Armenia, currently nominated on T:TDYK: "The background of the Armenians has been traced to prehistoric times, to communities living in Eastern Anatolia and the outskirts of Mount Ararat". --Ghirla 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Caucasian race

Hi. Someone, probably an Ossetian nationalist, keeps replacing "Georgians" with "Ossetians (Alans)" in Blumenbach’s quote. I noticed that you reverted to his/her POV version. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks, Kober 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check Blumenbach’s reference to Georgians on Google Books.Kober 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't realize "Georgians" was in the original, I thought it was the other way round. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Everything is ok now. :) --Kober 11:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

White People

Thanks for restoring the information on the White People article, I never realised it used to be there. If the PC nannies had their way it would probably read 'White people are virtually indistinguishable from negro and oriental races, this is due to the fact that everyone is, in fact, exactly the same. Anyone who thinks different is a racist' Cheers --Hayden5650 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think our outlook on this is very compatible, but I agree that the physiological bits belong in the article. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth veda

Hi dab, I saw the Fifth Veda article. Its a good stub but I feel that the article should be moved to "Panchama veda" because "Fifth Veda" seems to suggest a canonical fifth Veda. Panchama Veda, otoh makes no such claims. Various works have been 'bestowed' the 'honour' of being 'dubbed' the "Panchama Veda" simply to show that they're works deserving the highest praise. That still does not make them the "fifth" veda. There are also parallels with several works being dubbed 'Bhagawadgeeta'. For example, the Kannada work Mankutimmana Kagga is popularly referred to as the "Kannada Bhagawadgeete". So unless there are objections, I'll move it. Sarvagnya 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to change the scope somewhat if you did that. Not all works which have claimed to be a "veda" have been called a (or the) "Panchama veda". The Tiruvaymozhi, for example, if memory serves right, was always called "Dravida veda", not "Panchama veda". -- Arvind 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was coming to that. I wanted to confirm it before I said that. But since you've confirmed it, we probably just need to remove the Tiruvaymozhi from the article altogether. I've actually heard itt being called the 'Tamil veda'. And similar descriptions, I believe have also been made of the Kural, if I am right. In any case, they're not the 'fifth' veda. Sarvagnya 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dravida veda" and "Tamil veda" are used interchangeably, the former is more common in Sanskrit texts, and the latter in Tamil texts. There are actually three texts which've been called this, the Tirukkural, the Tiruvaymozhi (later extended to the entire Tivya Pirapantam) and the Tevaram. On whether they're properly called "fifth veda", see below. -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

feel free to edit this article :) However, it should be noted that "fifth Veda" is the exact translation of "Panchama Veda", so I don't really see the point of moving it from one to the other. Of course these works aren't "Vedic" in any canonical sense, I thought the article made that perfectly clear. dab (𒁳) 07:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This might just be linguistic bias, but to my mind, "panchama veda" has a rather specific meaning within the Hindu tradition, and thus only ought to be applied to texts which've specifically claimed that label, whereas "fifth veda" doesn't have that meaning, so it is in theory capable of being applied to all texts that have claimed the status of a veda. In any event, the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's worth having an article which discusses all post-vedic traditions that seek to confer the status of a "veda" on texts other than the four canonical vedas, not just the various texts which claim to be the "panchama veda". -- Arvind 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

what would be the point of that? Any hack can call this or that a "Veda"? That's at best an idea for a disambiguation page (along the lines of Vedic). But again, feel free to edit and/or move Fifth Veda to your liking. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with Fifth Veda as it is - I don't like the idea of it being moved to "Panchama veda". FWIW, I'm not talking about texts which any old hack calls a veda, but about texts like the Tiruvaymozhi (and to a lesser extent the Tevaram), which have an established commentarial tradition that has expressly (and successfully) sought to give the texts the status of a Veda. I hope I'm making myself clear. -- Arvind 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

of course, your point is perfectly valid. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that it should be moved because, the way I see it, "Fifth Veda" even seems to have an unintended but subtle mix of OR and UNDUE built into it. It is somewhat akin to, say, an article titled "Eighth wonder". Several things, people, places and what not have been described as the eighth wonder by fawning commentators but that still doesnt an encyclopedic topic make. So I will move it to "Panchama Veda" which I feel sounds more genuine and also will remove references to Tiruvayamozhi etc.,. If there have been determined and successful attempts at dubbing the Tiruvayamozhi or any other work as a 'Veda', that fact probably belongs in its own article; and perhaps as a footnote somewhere in the Vedas or The four vedas or something. Sarvagnya 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied here, where we should probably move the discussion to spare poor Dab's talk page. -- Arvind 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rishi

I have added over 4k in this article,with refences interwoven within the main article. This type of sourcing saves me time, but I will try to put the sources at the end. This article lacked sources and some of the material was incomplete which I completed with the help of authentic souces. If some of my additions(esp. sourcing) are unsatisfactory, I hope you will inform me before taking recourse to wholesale reverting. I will supply whatever demands you make about sourcing &c,to the best of my ability.

An unknown user had deleted entire section of Brahmarshi, which I undid. It was his/her first act, hence not ac act of deliberate vandalism, but merely a result of misgivings and ignorance. This person probably thought Wiki should not contain mythology, esp Hindu mythology. Vinay Jha11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

your edits seem reasonable, VJ, but can you please use IAST instead of some random homegrown transliteration scheme? dab (𒁳) 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Veda and Upavedas

I have too much of workload and therefore I sometimes try to find out timesaving mechanisms, but your advice is sound and I will try to use IAST.

It is a good idea to start a new article upaveda, but Itihas-Puranas have never been included in any upaveda by anyone. Hence it is not advisable to merge Fifth Veda into Upaveda.

You should restore the para in which I had mentioned that Itihas-Puranas are traditionally held to be the Fifth Veda since ancient period : this is not a dead fact of history but the enduring belief of an overwhelming majority of Hindus. Most Hindus do not have a direct access to the Vedas, and it is the long tradition of Kathas (story-telling) from Itihas-Puranas (in Sanskrit as well as in vernaculars) that has kept Hinduism alive. Most of the major cults like those of cults of Rama, Krishna, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc have come out of this Fifth Veda. Itihas-Purana is the most important part of Hinduism as far as general Hindu public is concerned. Fifth Veda or Pancham Veda is not a popular term, and "Purana" or "Purana-Itihasa" will attract more readers and editors to this article. I live adjacent to the campus of a sanskrit university and it is easy for me to get in touch with topmost Sanskrit scholars (of my town as well as of other universities) on such issues. You can rely upon my truthfulness. Vinay Jha14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

all I am suggesting is that we need a separate Upaveda article. You are aware, I hope, that we already do have articles on Purana and Itihasa. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Upaveda could make a distinct article if desired, as the details of what lists there are of them can be documented to show variants. The Itihasa are a literary category and are not Upavedas. I prefer the title "Fifth Veda" for the article Dab created and do not support the change of title. Buddhipriya 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

User:B9 hummingbird hovering persists in WP:OR and addition of unsourced material on multiple articles, often introducing sexual themes that seem strange to me. I am wondering if you have any advice on how to handle this. This user makes no attempt to engage in dialog and simply starts edit wars immediately. I dislike edit wars and generally try to follow a one-revert rule if at all possible. Can you assist with this situation? I am at the point where I feel the need to begin conflict resolution procedures such as involving third parties or requesting mediation: . Buddhipriya 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

UPAVEDA

Pancham Veda is now in a better and more compact shape; 'upaveda' was unwanted there. You have done a fine job. If enough material on various upavedas are gathered, a separate article headed upaveda may also be started, to which individual upvedas may be linked hierarchically. You have rightly directed Dhanurveda to Indian martial arts but the latter does not contain a single reference to Dhanurveda or to Shastrashastra (a TO DO task).

Similarly Gandharvaveda is not mentioned even once in the article Indian Classical Music. Moreover, Gandharvaveda contains much more than Indian Classical Music. Natya Shastra of Bharata / Natyashastra as well as Indian Classical Music are branches of Gandharvaveda, and sâmâgâna is another such branch ( a TO DO task).

Military science (Dhanurveda and Shastrashastra), cannot be an upaveda of two vedas. Dhanurveda is related to Yajurveda according to all authorities. Hence, Shastrashastra also ought to be related to the same, and not to Atharvaveda as Monier-Williams did. Atharvaveda has a large number of mantras dealing with health (Ayurveda) while Rgveda is much less concerned with Ayurveda. Hence, authority of ancients like Sushruta and Bhavaprakasha is more reliable. I had given the list of Monier-Williams, which you retained, but this list is wrong (not because Monier-Williams was unreliable but because there were a lot of confusing lists of upavedas, which baffled him).

Modern heads of departments of Veda in Sanskrit universities regard Shilpa shastras (which includes murtikala, sthapatya-shastra, vastu-shastra) to be the upaveda of Rgveda. But a private organisation http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Upaveda/id/115299 relates Rgveda to arthaveda which comprises texts dealing with statecraft such as Kautilya's Arthashastra (a nitishastras), but arthaveda is a modern term. Besides, this website also includes 'purushartha' and Kamasutra in upaveda, which is unsupported by modern or ancient authorities. Hence, ancient science of iconography, arts, crafts, architechture, etc (Shilpa shastras) has a greater chance of being regarded as the upaveda of Rgveda. I hope you will consider the points mentioned above. Vinay Jha 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PRAVARA

I have added some reference and some needed material in the article Upanayanam which was completely unsourced (it still needs much sourcing). Upanayan is intrinsically related to four Vedic institutions : gotra, sakha, sutra (of Kalpa) and pravara. Pravara is an ancient Vedic concept and even many brahmanas are also now forgetting its significane. Monier williams gives correct literal meaning of this word, but omits any reference to the ancient concept named Pravara which is related to Yajnopavita and Upanayanam. A new article titled Pravara may help people in finding meaning of this term, which will need just a single para which I have appended to Upanayanam because Pravara is presently occupied by Pravara Rural Engineering College for advertising purposes, although it has a web site of its own. This case is worse than that of Swadhyay Parivar because the latter has some relation to the Wiki project of Hinduism, but Pravara Rural Engineering College should not find any place on Wiki. Even if you think it should, then it should be shifted to a new article titled 'Pravara Rural Engineering College' , together with disambiguation. The title 'Pravara' should be reserved to a new small article about the ancient Vedic concept of that name. Vinay Jha 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved PREC to its own page and freed up Pravara by removing the redirect. But do we need to delete it and get rid of the history before we start afresh? Sarvagnya 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The history of PREC may cause cunfusion to some because a even a vast majority of Hindus now do not know the meaning of Vedic concept of Pravara and may think it to be related to Vedic-engineering of making sacred threads. Starting afreash may be better. But if you think it OK, I have no grudge. Vinay Jha 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Swastika FAR listing

Swastika has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Kicking222 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SVĀDHYĀYA

I have added a new section in the article svadhyaya which you should see before someone deletes it. I had to quote sanskrit commentary of Sayana because it has not been translated into English as yet. I have not mentioned the publishers of Taittiriya Aranyaka and Upanishada because Wikipedians will like English translations while I use Sanskrit originals. Vinay Jha 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Vinay; you are making great progress in terms of WP:MoS :) and your expertise on these subjects is certainly welcome. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Dbachmann, can you please revert without using the rollback tool when making content reverts on articles like Rigveda? If reverts are made with the rollback tool, it suggests that the edit is vandalism, spam, or a test, not a dispute over the content. I think manual reverts would help ease tensions. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

using the rollback button, I do indeed allege that the edit in question is not part of any bona fide dispute. dab (𒁳) 06:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Assimilated Aramaean tribes?

Hello there,

You added a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia to prove that Aramaean tribes have been assimilated into the Assyrian population. I see however no mention of that in the provided article. The fact that the tribes have been conquered, does not mean they have been assimilated. There are plenty of sources referring to the Syrians as Aramaeans, e.g. in Syriac ecclesiastical literature. I would therefore like to replace the source with a fact tag. Do you agree? --Benne _(talk) 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that "assimilated" may be too strong, and "11th century" too early. Why don't you improve the phrasing instead of introducing tags? The origin of the amalgamation of "Aramaic" and "Assyrian" is actually taking place in the 8th century, as the Aramaic language article states,

In the Aramaic language article I see no reference to amalgamation, only that Aramaic became the official language in the Assyrian Empire, which does not prove a thing. (I do see quite some Assyrianisation of the article, though.) Therefore, I believe the sentence about the Aramean tribes does not belong in Assyrian people, but in the Aramaeans article instead. --Benne _(talk) 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The dominance of Assyrian Empire of Tiglath-Pileser III over Aram in the middle of the eighth century led to the establishment of Aramaic as a lingua franca.

Prior to the 8th century, the Assyrian Empire and the Aramaeans are in contact, but still clearly distinct entities. This is also why I refuse to treat Sargon of Akkad in the article. The "Assyrian" ethnic identity, with much goodwill, may be described as taking shape from the 8th century BC. It solidifies in the 6th c. BC under Persian rule. An honest article on the Assyrian people would trace their history from these origins. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also read my comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Syriac Assyrians. There is a lot of work to do on these articles, I believe it must be done in a systematic way. Unfortunately, the articles must be monitored constantly, as they are prone to nationalist propaganda. --Benne _(talk) 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be ever so grateful if you could devote some time to this task. In my opinion, once the article is coherent and well-referenced, it is easier to prevent the crap piling up on it than when the entire article is in disarray anyway. dab (𒁳) 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgveda, Jacobi, and etymology of Rgveda

See Talk Page of Rgveda, where I should confine myself now on. -Vinay Jha 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice about when a disambiguation tag may be warranted

Hi Dieter, I am in a disagreement with a new user about when a disambiguation tag may be useful. Pershaps, you have an opinion in the issue.--Berig 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

White people

Thank you for your interest in the white people article. Please keep it up...KarenAER 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of White people

Considering you are an active contributor to this article, I'm not sure it was the best idea for you to unprotect it yourself; it probably would have been a better idea to bring in an uninvolved admin to gauge the situation. --Krimpet 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, am I? I haven't done a single revert, and the protection wasn't due to my involvement. I was doing straightfoward editing while a revert war was going down between to ideologists. I don't see a problem. I obviously shouldn't protect an article when I'm involved, but since "protection is considered harmful", I frankly see no reason not to unprotect when I deem the situation has calmed down. But feel free to re-protect, of course. dab (𒁳) 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have been edit warring since unprotecting the page, along with several other editors; in fact, you're already at your revert limit for the day. I have reprotected the page since it's clear that edit warring is still going on; I strongly advise you to bring in an uninvolved admin in the future. --Krimpet 07:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am involved now. Has it ever happened to you that an article has attracted your attention because of an edit-war, and you consequently became involved topically? The line is difficult to draw, since even admin intervetion requires some intelligent assessment of content. Admins aren't shell scripts, you need to apply common sense. In a case such as this, where an article is well watched by about a dozen active editors, and there are two editors behaving unreasonably, the preferred solution is not protection. Since I now consider myself involved in this, I will not make further use of my admin buttons. dab (𒁳) 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Modern Indo-European"

Hi Dieter, could you take a look at Modern Indo-European and its external links, then come to Talk:Modern Indo-European#"Conlang" and contribute to the discussion? Thanks. —Angr 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Drills or Real problem????

Do you understand that there could be 1000's of people like me who will be trying to understand editing, research and could be new to certain subjects?? I understand I could be irritating as I am asking too many of questions? But I do not think this was a nice gesture to have written the following.

1. "you are doing it again:"
2. "At best, I take it personally that I should be expected to waste time on this pointless exchange."
3. "but if you do not choose to do that, pray spare us from your own musings."
4. "There is no point at all in posting this on talk every day if you cannot pinpoint your text"
5. "this is getting silly."

The questions could sound silly to you, but for me, they are important. I've found people who have researched a lot start thinking that they have become great humans and in-fact would have left out lot of loose ends. I don't think it was good about you using such words. I again tell you, I respect your efforts. BalanceRestored 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Antiquity frenzy

If you want to do some antiquity frenzy bashing, this is your best chance: Aramaean people. I suggest an AFD. Enjoy! — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:13 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

should redirect to Aramaeans. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what me and Chaldean have been trying to do, for like, two hours. Our eloquent troll Nochi is insisting that there is such a thing as ancient Aramaeans and that they are an ethnic group. Your help is, for once, needed to stop Nochi's revert war. Thanks in advance. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:11 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

of course there is an ancient ethnic group called "Aramaeans", that's why we have an Aramaeans article? dab (𒁳) 13:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The ancient Aramaeans, don't exist anymore as an ethnic group. Their language, partially exists as a Neo-Aramaic language. We haven't called ourselves "Aramaeans", since 2600 years back. We have called ourselves Assyrians, or Syrians (not the modern Arab state, which took its name after our people). Syrian, is derived from Assyrian (quite obvious). Now, mostly in Germany and Sweden, there's a huge antiquity frenzy going on with Assyrians from the Syrian Orthodox Church, and they feel holier by calling themselves Aramaeans, simply because Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's religious fanaticism times ten (although, a peaceful fanaticism). You should study this site if you want a good laugh. Nowhere else in the world, do we call ourselves Aramaeans, save for Sweden and Germany, and not even here, are they a majority. They have no academic sources backing up their bullshit. It's just their priests, making up lies. However, the ancient Aramaeans are our forefathers too, but they have exaggerated this. They even call Mesopotamia (ancient Assyria) Aram Nahrin. Fucking historical revisionists. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:26 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

sure, the "modern Aramaeans" are identical with the "modern Assyrians". I fail to see how it is more 'revisionist' to call them "Aramaeans" than "Assyrians", that's an arbitrary choice of terminology. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Genau, dab, that's why I request you to leave Aramaeans on the Syriac Christianity template. It must be acknowledges that there are Syriacs who call themselves Aramaeans (see e.g. Syriac Universal Alliance, just as there are Syriacs who believe they're Assyrians. No matter how true or untrue those claims of beliefs are, they're part of the Syriac reality, and Misplaced Pages must reflect that reality. --Benne _(talk) 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

that's pointless. Aramaeans is the article on the ancient people (de:Aramäer (Antike)). Sure, "Aramaeans" is often used interchangeably with "Assyrian" when talking about the modern group, and since the group is identical, we have a single article about it, Assyrian people. You can add "also called 'Aramaeans'" to that article. . It is really beside the point if these people 'believe' they are some ancient tribe or other. At the end of the day, we are simply looking at an ethnic group with an incredible tendency for splitting itself into hostile factions and hating each others guts. Misplaced Pages can well state "they love to hate each others guts", but it shouldn't involve itself in prancing around with these childish and inconsequential naming issues. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything speaks for that we are Assyrians. Nothing, speaks for that we are Aramaeans (Syriac Orthodox priests excluded, of course). — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:46 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

whatever. l'arbitraire du signe. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're stance is in contradiction with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Suggesting to move everything related with the Syriac people to the Assyrian people article, means you choose one side over the other. I agree that there should be an Assyrian people article, but it should not deal with the Syriacs as a whole. Please try to be neutral in this matter. The German Misplaced Pages is a very good example, I think. It allows for de:Aramäer (Gegenwart), de:Assyrer (Gegenwart), and de:Suryoye. Let this proverbial Gründlichkeit be an example for the English-language Misplaced Pages. --Benne _(talk) 13:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, he is being neutral (at least this time). You are the one who's having a hard time accepting historical facts. You should really knock this off. You are not helping our people by dividing us like this. You are not a different people. As for the German Misplaced Pages, it has been completely taken over by Aramaya fanatics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:07 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

you seem to think I am "neutral" if and only if I happen to agree with you :) dab (𒁳) 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because I actually am neutral. You agree with me, that means you are neutral ;) — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:27 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

so what do you suggest the article on "everything related with the Syriac people" should be called? everything related with the Syriac people? "Assyrian and/or Aramaean people"? If you have a better suggestion, pray suggest it at Talk:Assyrian people. You guys have a lot to learn from the history of the dispute between Greek Macedonian vs. Slavic Macedonian editors. The upshot is the Featured Article(!) Macedonia (terminology), explaining it all in gruesome detail. You should similarly create an article on your dispute, called Names of Syriac Christians or similar. de:Assyrer (Gegenwart) isn't about an ethnic group at all, it is about the suggested name "Aramaean" itself. Benne, you need to recognize that while Aramäer is a common name for the people in German, it is more common to call them Assyrians in English. dab (𒁳) 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No more silly articles are needed. Stubborn Suryoyos just need to swallow facts, from the Assyrian people article. That's all. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:27 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking u of something but u deleted my edits?. Nochi 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was reminding you of WP:3RR. That was out of courtesy. If you do not respect the rules, you may be temporarily blocked without further warning. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Offcourse i respect tehe rules. but anorhter users reverting the aramaean people page often without any warning. i would also report personal attacks from Elisalucard. Nochi 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

im sorry but what is wrong with u? im asking u stufff im reporting stuff u ignoring it?? i will report u to other admins. that u as admin has allied urselfs with other users. Nochi 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have a look here — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:35 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Time to file a 3 revert ban. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:33 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Ok everyone, I created Names of Syriac Christians -- feel free to pile on the referenced opinions on the matter there. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you are linking to Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. He is an asshole. This article is not making things better. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:55 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I have never met him. He is certainly almost as partisan as you are, but he certainly does a better job at explaining the issue from his pov. I do not endorse either side of course, I'm just trying to figure out what this is even about. So far, you have been unable to show the historical roots of the dispute. It transpires it originates in 19th century colonialism. dab (𒁳) 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with colonialism. We are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Aramaeans, Chaldeans, and Sumerians. We are the true Mesopotamians, or the last remnants left of an ancient civilisation. Europeans discovered the Library of Ashurbanipal, and most of our history (or what's left of it), and deciphered the ancient writings and records of a forgotten civilisation, our forefathers. They have no bias in all this, they look at it from a NPOV. They (Assyriologists) have reached the conclusion that we are indeed, Assyrians. Some of us (like Benne), have a hard time accepting these facts, mostly because of our Churches. At the same time, some of us, look at it objectively. You may not like me, but modern research is on my side. As for Megalommatis, he has a political agenda, and he's trying to further disrupt our true identity. He knows what he's doing. Though he is of course, needless to say, full of shit. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:35 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with ancient history. It is a naming dispute that simply didn't exist before the 19th century. The various hostile factions didn't even exist prior to the Nestorian schism, so it is perfeclty pointless to discuss times predating the 5th century. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This has everything to do with ancient history. Everything. It's not like we are a new people who all of a sudden began to fight over ethnic self-designations in the 20th century. In order to know the accurate name, you have to study our history. This isn't antiquity frenzy, just sticking to what's historically correct. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:46 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

that's, like, your patriotic opinion. In my view, it's pathetic. You revel in anique glory of 3,500 years ago, but cannot even be bothered to establish the history of your people over the last 200 years (which would be the actual topic of this dispute). A textbook case of immature national mysticism. dab (𒁳) 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you call me pathetic again, read this and get back to me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:55 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this is an excellent source, and I wonder why you don't just cite it at the relevant places. However, it isn't about the naming dispute, but about the "formation of the Assyrian ethnicity in the 1st millennium BC", that is, a great source for our History of the Assyrian people article. We can also state that Simo Parpola favours the term "Assyrian", which is certainly more notable than saying that Misplaced Pages user EliasAlucard favours the term "Assyrian". dab (𒁳) 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You know dab, and no offence, I'm just beginning to like you, but now you sound like a retard. This exact source is the source I've been citing all the time on the Assyrian people article. You just haven't been paying attention. Just make a ctrl+f search on that entire article, it's loaded with refs to Simo Parpola. I'm telling you, this guy knows everything about us. If he says it's so, it is so. Here, watch this clip. He knows what he's talking about, watch him read Akkadian at the end of the clip too. Believe me, he has studied our history, from the Assyrian empire, to modern times. He's more Assyrian than I am (he's from Finland, so no, he's not biased). And he's completely NPOV too. He's not alone in saying this either, H.W.F Saggs (another great Assyriologist) agrees with him too. By the way, sorry for that retard remark. It's just that I've been trying to tell you all the time, these Assyriologist, you should pay attention to what they're saying. I do. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:32 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying you get your facts wrong, Elias, I am saying you are guilty of ignoratio elenchi. The ethnic identity, which arguably reaches back to the 8th century BC has nothing to do with the modern dispute. I am asking for sources on the dispute, not on the Neo-Assyrian Empire. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please dab, I am trying to reunite my people. The reason why some of us don't want to accept that they are Assyrians, is because they are being told lies; they don't know our history. I didn't either 6 months ago. That source by Parpola, is a source on the modern identity dispute. You should read it all, and take his word for it, because he knows what he's talking about. He has studied us for 40 years or something. He's not an idiot. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:45 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

you are trying to reunite them by antagonizing them over this silly naming question? Why cannot you be united and accept three or four synonymous names? It appears obvious to any observer that all that is achieved by this bickering over a name is further estrangement and animosity. I try to imagine riots in Switzerland between one faction advocating Confoederatio Helvetica ("we are true Celtic Helvetii!!") and one advocationg Confederation Suisse ("we are true Germanic Alemanni!!1!"). I cannot. It's just too silly. But following Parpola, at least stop pestering us with Sargon of Akkad, will you? Assyrian ethnogenesis may begin in the 8th c. BC, I agree, but not in the 23rd. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand, and Parpola has mentioned this several times (if you read through that entire Assyrianidentity.pdf release of his, and watch this clip), that we are in grave danger of disappearing as a people. We are being eradicated completely back at home (in Iraq, and other places in the Middle East), and we cannot unite under fifty different identities. Also, why should we unite under false identities? Sure, the Aramaeans are our forefathers too, but they did not dominate Mesopotamia. It would be illogical to take their identity. It's like Germans would start calling themselves Swedes, after a minority of Germanic peoples, know what I mean? By the way, I still don't get it what your beef is with Sargon of Akkad. We are not calling ourselves Akkadians anyway, so I don't know why that's bothering you. We'll discuss that some other time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:57 08 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

More antiquity frenzy

Ancient Arabs, your help could be used to clean up this article. I've cleaned it somewhat; it labelled everyone as Arabs at first. Very POV stuff. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:19 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Utpala

From your reference to Utpala in Surya Siddhanta, I found this article which was in a shabby state. I gave it some degree of form and content, with whatever sources I could easily manage. But more information on this astronomer is still needed there. Vinay Jha 11:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cf. Talk:Utpala. Vinay Jha 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos (book)

I apologize for taking again some of you time, but I have come into another controversy at the article Lords of Chaos (book). It has taken me some work to elaborate that this book puts forward an Esoteric Nazism thesis. Although the wording could probably be improved, I had made effort to source everything properly. I also provided one one quote from the book where the author endorses a view he himself calls "extreme rightist", and I offered to provide more quotes. Still in saying that the author is an "extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout ", I am accused of violating Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view at Talk:Lords of Chaos (book). Although this line is taken from a review of the book, it is not the POV of the author of the review, but the most exact description of the book I have yet come across. I could make efforts to show this by providing more quotes from the book, but somehow this issue is so emotional for me that I am currently unable to reply on the talk page myself. Zara1709 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice Article

Hi I just had a look at this WP:BITE :)

I really do not know if I am wrong or you. If I am wrong do let me know, it would help me to correct myself.

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

well, BR, I didn't bite when you were a newbie. I began to be annoyed when you wouldn't stop even after you had been patiently shown the rules. You are certainly right in that you want to learn, and show scepticism, but Misplaced Pages talkpages aren't the place for that. You should look for a discussion forum. Or you should get a few books on the topics you are interested in (we have decent bibliographies in Vedas etc.) and attentively and sceptically read the books first. These books also have bibliographies, and you can dig your way into scholarship from there. dab (𒁳) 08:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes my friend, you are correct about things. But, I really did not know all these. I did not know editing, researching... I entered here due to some personal reason. But, slowly am understanding that you all are correct. BalanceRestored 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

fyi/fwiw

I mentioned you here, so thought I'll let you know. Also I thought it was better to take this discussion to our talk pages. Take a look/comment when u find time. Thanks. Regards. Sarvagnya 08:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rigveda

Just so you know, but you're being discussed on my talk. The user (Vinay Jha) is feeling harshly treated, and questioning why I didn't warn you about the edit warring on Rigveda. Basically I agree that, having a look at the history, it might have been best to refrain from doing this, and not revert so much. As for the other matters, a RfC could be useful... Cheers. --DarkFalls 10:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the article has been trolled for months. The current version is fully referenced, while the reverters haven't cited a single scholarly source. Based on that, they shouldn't even be editing. "Editing Misplaced Pages" means (1) present peer-reviewed WP:RS. (2) seek for WP:CON on how to introduce your reference, (3) edit the article. VJ and WIN haven't even got as far as (1), which makes their edits rollback-able. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB can't you be a little soft? I have been at VJs position. He hardly understands the rules here. I am sure you too should have been through our side... of the world... BalanceRestored 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view, I have been more than patient. But you should expect people to understand a rule as simple as "Misplaced Pages isn't interested in your opinion. Cite academic sources" sooner or later. At some point, it is difficult to believe people are dodging the rules because they are too confused or too slow, and not simply because they think they can dodge them. Once again: if you

cite a peer-reviewed academic source supporting your opinion

I will gladly discuss it. If you don't, you are merely wasting everybody's time, and Misplaced Pages's resources. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try explaining VJ understanding what I've understood till here, and take some efforts there. But, if it is possible kindly cool down a bit and try to go slow. VJ certainly knows a lot, just that he is new here. BalanceRestored 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I google around with finding details, but VJ is an acadamic and he knows the resources very well. Just he does not understand wikipedia.BalanceRestored 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, if you are interested in how current academic consensus on these questions comes about, VJ is probably the last person on earth you should ask. He may be fluent in Sanskrit (I don't know this; I just saw him citing Monier-Williams, which any beginner could do), but he obviously isn't capable of separating between peer-reviewed debate and his private fantasies. That makes him a crackpot. If you want to understand the history of the study of the Rigveda, you'll have to begin with Hermann Oldenberg. There are summaries intended for beginners, like

• Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43878-0 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Flood, Gavin, ed. (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 1-4051-3251-5 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• MacDonell, Arthur Anthony (2004), A History Of Sanskrit Literature, Kessinger Publishing, ISBN 1417906197
• Thomas Oberlies, Die Religion des Rgveda, Vienna 1998.

these are all good sources, and if you read any of these, you will have a deeper understanding. But they will always refer you further to scholarly literature, and if you really want to understand the debate that led to a particular result, you have no alternative than to study: Misplaced Pages or google cannot replace that. Please: you are a physics student? Then why do I have to tell you this? All these sources are listed in Misplaced Pages articles, and you could just silently consult them without imposing on anyone's time. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

what, yet another science student? Please say it aint so. (Oldenberg is indeed the place to start. The good news is that a lot of his 19th century academic German has been rendered into 20th century English:-) MLBD carries translations of his books. Now if only some generous soul could do the honors for his ZDMG articles...) rudra 05:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Syriac = Aramaean

Hello Dieter,

I urge you to reconsider your position vis-à-vis the Syriacs. You say I am oversensitive about the label Aramaeans, and you continue to revert my edits that acknowledge the fact that many Syriacs consider themselves to be Aramaeans. The fact that the name "Assyrian" is more widespread, and more well-known in the English-language world, does not mean we should use that term! This is in contradiction of WP's NPOV policy, as an admin you should know that, and act according to that. Truth is not a matter of statistics. Assyrianists just scream louder, and have gotten it their way too often here on WP. By allowing them to spread their nationalist, history falsifying propaganda, you actually contribute to that statistical overweight.

You acknowledge that in the German-language sphere, "Aramäer" is more common, whereas in the Anglophone world, "Assyrian" has gained more ground. How can it be that such a statistical distinction determines what term to use? Can truth be bound to certain areas or languages?

You should realise that "Assyrian" is a quite recent invention, whereas identifying Syriac (or Syrian) with Aramaean has been extant among the Syriacs for centuries. Please, check out the following website Urhoy and you will see how both terms have been used interchangeably throughout history

I do not deny the fact that many Syriacs use the self-appelation Assyrian, and believe that Misplaced Pages should reflect that fact. However, using it as an umbrella term for all Syriacs, is plainly wrong.

We should dedicate ourselves to creating a reliable encyclopaedia based on reliable sources, and not fall back on silly statistics, or nationalist propaganda.

I underline once again that equating Syriac(s) with Assyrian(s) is a flagrant violation of NPOV. You should not use your admin rights to condone such a thing. --Benne _(talk) 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but "the fact that the name "Assyrian" is more widespread, and more well-known in the English-language world" is precisely the reason why we should use it, per Misplaced Pages:naming conventions (common names). But if Syriacs can be shown to be equally current, I agree we should consider moving the article there. The claim that the native self-designation is Āṯūrāyē is clearly another matter. Here we should give a neutral account of the various sides of the dispute. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As you have noticed, this is a very sensitive issue, that triggers heated debates. Among the people themselves, at least among the West Syriacs, the term Suryoyo (pl.: Suryoye) is the most widespread, and used by both Aramaeans and Assyrians. Translating that term into English, would render "Syrians", by which the Suryoye have been called for centuries (cf. Syriaques, Syrer). Since the foundation of the Syrian Arab Republic, that name has become ambiguous, that's why the Syriac Universal Alliance --according to their own website-- has suggested the term Syriacs as a translation for Suryoye. For "Assyrian" there is a different term in Syriac, Āṯūrāyē, hence "Assyrian" cannot be used as an English equivalent for Suryoye, simply because the two names mean different things in the original language. As you have correctly noted, identifying "Syrian/Syriac" with "Assyrian" is disputed, to say the least. Simply applying statistics to determine what term to use to refer to the people who call themselves Suryoye or Sur(y)āye does not suffice. The matter is too delicate for a simple Google count.

A nice illustration of the fact that only the name Syriac is acceptable for both sides, is the website of the European Syriac Union, where you can see both Aramaean and Assyrian flags combined. However, it must be noted that many Assyrianists will never settle for a common denominator other than "Assyrian".

Once again, I do not ask you to move the Assyrian people article, that can stay where it is. After all, the Assyrian people are a reality, in the sense that they consider themselves to be a separate group, celebrate their own festivals, give their children Assyrian names, etc. All I want is to allow for articles representing those Syriacs who believe themselves to be Aramaeans (which is equally a reality, including an own flag, etc.), and for an article on neutral ground discussing the people as a whole, be it Syriacs or Syriac Christianity, or some place else. --Benne _(talk) 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

it would be easy to cleanly separate the groups, viz., saying there is the "Assyrian people" and the "Aramaic people", and together they form the "Syriac people". The problem seems to be that there is no clear line for this division. This seems to be largely an effect of the diaspora, people don't really know which community they belong to, but feel all the more strongly about it. It seems it is a coincidence that the common term "Assyrians" matches the recent "Assyrianism" among some Syriacs. English "Assyrians" merely denotes Syriac Christians, regardless of whether they are trying to reenact the Assyrian Empire. It seems that this has put a bee in the bonnet of some diaspora Assyrians, who misunderstood the term to the effect that they "are" in some sense ancient Assyrians. This was of course never intended by the English term. As it is, we need to state that there is a people known as "Assyrians / Syriacs". This people has various sub-divisions, mainly along the lines of church adherence. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure that it was never the intention to make Syriacs believe they are actually the inheritants of the ancient Assyrian Empire. It is hard not to see the connection between Anglican missionary activities, and British imperialist ambitions in Iraq (Assyrian Levies). This is exactly the era when Assyrianism started to gain ground, which is no coincidence.

As I have stated before, I do agree that there should be a common article for the Syriacs, for they have for centuries shared a common history, as long as it is not under the misnomer "Assyrian people", which is undefendable from a scientific point-of-view. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with separate articles for Aramaeans and Assyrians, as they consider themselves to be separate nations, with their own flags.

I'll leave you with a citation from the famous Semitic scholar Theodor Nöldeke, "Die Namen der aramäischen Nation und Sprache," in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 25 (1871), p. 131:

"Von den Namen dieser Nation und ihrer Sprache ist im Grunde der ursprüngliche ‚aramäisch’ auch der einzige, der noch für den Gebrauch der heutigen Wissenschaft streng passt. ‚Syrisch’ deckt sich allerdings damit ziemlich, aber, wie wir sahen, ist dieser Name im Grunde nicht dazu geeignet, einen einzelnen dialect zu bezeichnen, da er mit demselben Recht von den verschiedensten Dialecten gebraucht wird... Vollständig zu vermeiden ist der Name ‚chaldäisch’. Zur wissenschaftlichen Bezeichnung der einzelnen aramäischen Dialecte und Dialectgruppe müssen wir uns mehrere Termini technici schaffen."

--Benne _(talk) 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I begin to understand this more deeply. It appears that Syriac "Assyrianism" was inspired by the British colonialists unwittingly, just like the infatuation with the Aryan race among Hindus, by their own naive enthusiasm for the great philological discoveries of the 19th century. Philology has moved on, but Assyrian and Hindu nationalisms have remained stuck where the colonialists left them. Now, your Nöldeke quote in favour of Aramäisch is valuable, but it concerns German (where we already state Aramäer is more common), and it stands beside the Parpola and Wigram quotes in favour of Assyrian. Aren't there any discussions on the best English designation from people uninvolved with the inner-Syriac factions? Have we nobody to quote who is in favour of Syriacs? Frankly, seeing how entrenched the "Aramaean" vs. "Assyrian" positions are, the only solution that impresses itself on me would be a third term, and the Syriacs doesn't seem too bad. But that's WP:OR. Per WP policy, we really have to take proper terminology from relevant sources, and the best recent one we have seen so far is Parpola, who also happens to agree with the google count. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the era when Assyrianism started to gain ground, which is no coincidence. - their is absolutly nothing wrong with nationalism to grow within a community. It occurs everywhere. But to say we woke up one day and all of the sudden claimed to be inheritors of the ancient Assyrian is a joke. We have called ourself Surayes for the past 2000 not for no reason. Did the Spartans always called themselves Greek? No. Did that make them any less of a Greek? No. I don't see the any wrongdoing within our people from going from Suraya to Assuraya. Its the same nation still Chaldean 03:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing It appears that Syriac "Assyrianism" was inspired by the British colonialists unwittingly, just like the infatuation with the Aryan race among Hindus - its not like the word Assyrian has not existed within in terms of our community before the encounters of the British missionaries. While the vast majority of our people did call themselves Surayes, their were still people within our community that called themselves Assyrian (hence the timeline I made) Shio-Mgvime Monastery is an example of that. Keep in mind even for the past 2,000 years, despite Syriacs calling themselves Surayes, many of our neighbors (specifically Georgians, Armenians, and Persians) never switched and remained calling us Assyrian <-- this is a fact that kills Benne's theory of Syriac = Aramean. An example of this is Ephrem the Syrian: the Armenians called him Soorp Yeprem Asori. Look nobody is denying to have Aramean heritage. If I didn't have Aramean heritage then I would not be speaking Aramaic with my parents today. But to want (what Benne wants) an entire nation to call themselves something completely differently then they have for the past thousands of years is downright silly. Assyrian is our nationality. Chaldean 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

alamannen-commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Alemanni_expansion.png?uselang=de

could u please move moguntiacum(today Mainz) one river up, its in the wrong location now. --Echosmoke 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi

I think he's using Misplaced Pages as a political soapbox. You may wanna comment on this: KarenAER 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Misplaced Pages, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Misplaced Pages: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just teaching you a small lesson

You get it. Don't mess with others' opinion. One more deletion of somebody's viewpoint, and you'll spend the rest of your editing career undoing....Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

That sounds like a threat of vandalism, doesn't it now. Did you know Misplaced Pages is not about spreading your opinion? Cite a source or drop it. dab (𒁳) 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Rocksanddirt

Please see my user talk page for some comments by Vinay Jha. As we've discussed previously, keep to the content please. Driving away people from the project is counter productive. Help vinay jah to be a better editor, don't delete their comments will-he-nill-he. I don't care that the two of you will never agree, work together. --Rocksanddirt 21:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care what you do or do not care about, no offense. Driving away valuable editors is counter productive. Driving away trolls or cranks is in fact beneficient. I am patient and friendly with new users who for some reason or other cannot be bothered to learn about WP:5P on their own. After a user has been patiently pointed to Misplaced Pages policy, and still refuses to play by the rules, my patience has limits. Nowhere in Misplaced Pages policy does it say I am obliged to waste my time taking users by the hand who clearly have no interest in bettering themselves. I tried to "help vinay jah to be a better editor". He didn't choose to make the effort. If there are people willing to mentor him, that's fine, but I won't. By his own admission, he is a grown up adult, and should be treated as one. This includes telling him to his face that Misplaced Pages policy is not negotiable , and that he should either stick to WP:ENC or shut up. dab (𒁳) 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skatewalk Your help could be needed, he is at it again on Ancient Arabia this time. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:46 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No Right To Complaint !

On my talk page Vinay Jha you posted a message that I should not complain against your abuses. Look at my answer in and in first para of Rgveda . I still want to have a cordial relation with you, but not as a servant silently hearing the abuses of a Führer, without a right to complain as you have asked me. I do not believe in a tit for tat policy ; but I believe too much of tolerance is also not a virtue, because for some "Fear is the mother of morality" (-Nietschze)( I am citing, because you expect me to write sourced statements even on talk pages). -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Very cordial, I must say. Less cordiality, more encyclopedicity, please. You have a right to complain when somebody violates policy. As it happens, you keep violating policy. Look, I am not interested in discussing with you. If you have something to contribute, do it, respecting policy. If you don't, feel free to find something else to do with your time. thanks, dab (𒁳) 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Be true to your word, and do not remove well sourced statements just because I wrote them. Forget the past and show more encyclopedicity : which you did not by removing the entire reference to Max Muller which is an insult to his memory. Max Muller was already there, I merely replaced the wrong citation with a right one. If you want, add Oberlies there too, but why remove ? Just because of me ? Is it your encyclopedicity ? Dont be unDABBY by removing well intentioned contributions from me. -Vinay Jha 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dab and Vinay, you may want to take a look at my response to the same issue here. Cheers. Abecedare 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Incoming legal threat: User:Vinay Jha has apparently had enough of the content dispute at Talk:Rigveda and is now threatening you with a libel suit:. This has been reported at WP:ANI and a block has been issued. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello there, I haven't editted with you or talked with you much before (if at all) but I just wanted to say sorry for the bad comment on the Neo-Assyrian Empire talk page. I saw that you had editted something out and the article was missing a template that I believed was necessary.

As I already stated on the talk page there, theres been alot of heated debate around Assyrian articles, alot of deleting/replacing sections without discussion, so I did not want that to be spread here.

And furthermoore I don't want to get on the wrong side of an admin!!! Man of Bravery!! 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebirthing Breathwork pages

Hi sorry to bother you Dab, a whole constellation of these pages are a mess, I've started to look at a couple of merges etc. I've merged Rebirthing (Breathwork) duplicate to Rebirthing-Breathwork. They were roughly duplicate articles as the name suggests. I merged to Rebirthing-Breathwork because the title didn't have 'duplicate' in it.:) But User:IPSOS says I should have merged the other way because Rebirthing (Breathwork) duplicate has the longest edit history. But I did it on the basis of the name. Anyway, could you possibly take a look and see if this merge is ok-ish or if the titles etc and merge could be better? Plain "Rebirthing (breathwork)" would be the ideal page name. Or if not could you recommend someone I could ask to take a look? ThanksMerkinsmum 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Hiya, and thanks for your comment.

Would you be willing to stick around there a little, to discuss?

Many thanks! FT2 09:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Message

You have my answer to your message at my talk page. -Vinay Jha 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans

As I understand, you protected Ethnic Germans after about 5k of content was deleted:

• 16:43, 9 August 2007 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) (48,408 bytes)
• 15:56, 15 August 2007 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) (43,827 bytes)

It seems to me that the first revert by Eran was a mistake. -- Matthead      O       14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

well, I semiprotected it because I saw anons revert-warring. Since you have an account, you are perfectly free to revert it to the old version. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis (again)

Please see new developments at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#A_technical_problem, which IMO are in danger of running in circles again with the title. Hope you had a fruitful or otherwise enjoyable summer. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosis (talk • contribs)

I'll look into it. I seem to remember that debate with people with a Jesus-fixation (both 'pro' and 'anti') is often less than enjoyable. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Rgveda for RCHĀ

I have answered your question about my supposedly wrong claims about ṛchā for verse, in brief, though I can provide many other proofs if you wish. I guess you will be satisfied. There is one question for you too, there. Not for teasing you, but to invite you towards a field of Indology which is its essence, but a vast majority of "mainstream scholars" neglect it : actual meaning of words in their proper contexts. Perhaps you will not find time for this interesting branch of Vedic philology. Due to some unknown reason, this whole talk on ṛchā in Talk:Rgveda was saved by me, but vanished, and had to be retyped. While searching for it in history tab, I found a strange event some time ago which might be comedy for some but actually a tragedy for an encyclopedia. People should not do so, but perhaps someone expelled by you is taking revenge or having a fun. I hope he will not do so in future. I am a newcomer, I did not know such things happen in Wiki. I do not know how such things can be prevented. -Vinay Jha 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry for accusing of being User:EliasAlucard sock puppet. Now that I read most your edits. I can see why you sided with him. If I accused of anything I should have used the proper words. I am sorry--Skatewalk 02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi

Would u be willing to open or support a RFC for him? KarenAER 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly cannot be bothered to invest time in that, but if you compile a reasonable case, I would endorse it or leave a comment. --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anciet Arabia, Geographic term

Hi Dab, The article is not related to the modern Arabs its related to ancient Arabia. We discussed this with atleast 20 Misplaced Pages users. Can you please look into the talk page regarding this subject?

Ancient Arabia is the history of the land not the people. Please take a look at the Arabian peninsula as a region. --Skatewalk 08:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored

So, what's really going on here? I think I better quote these at the talk pages? Because that's nothing to do with the Vedas BalanceRestored 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BR, please concentrate and form an English sentence. I cannot imagine what half of your statements are intended to mean. dab (𒁳) 11:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do I persistantly see people concentrating on articles that's criticizing 1 religion to another? If you want you can email me instead. I don't wish to keep these discussions here. BalanceRestored 11:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was never interested in this "discussion" in the first place. All you did was litter talkpages with incoherent, malformatted and ungrammatical ramblings. Misplaced Pages isn't for that. I fail to see how it has taken you weeks just to figure that out. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we all are humans, I think you better stop using these words. I too did feel on multiple occasions to reply you with the same words. But my logic stopped me from doing the same. I better be what I am. I am sure you are infected from someone else, who seems to use unworthy words. Think about it in your free time. My advice to you is to stick to the truth. It's your behaviour that's going to reflect your self, your community and your race. I hope you know protect your dignity as well as the ones who have brought you up. Remember, all the books tell, GOD is infinite, which also mean GOD could be always guiding you. Through me, Through VJ, Through BP, Though AB, Through VY, Through your dog, Through the birds, Through the trees, Though everything you can see and feel, Though your mind that you can think from, Everywhere. It is said that one who has attained a high spiritual life sees GOD in everything.BalanceRestored 12:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if you can kindly avoid using such words, because it become a part of DAB. I don't like my friend with such a lot of wealthy knowledge to be called a bad person.BalanceRestored 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures at WP

I've read through your comments at WP about pictures and the gallery and I think that we share a common goal there. I was initially opposed to having celebrities but convinced that their heritage is more verifiable than unknowns. However, I'm not convinced that the verifiability issue can't be overcome in other ways without resorting to a gallery of celebrities. I agree with your point about the distraction factor, and also the tendency for it becoming a beauty page competition as currently formatted. What I've been trying to do is working a compromise to achieve a balanced range of examples, using verifiable examples of various regions demonstrating diversity. I feel that there is potential in expanding from your four photo collage at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:White_people_variety.jpg. Let's talk if you have time. --Kevin Murray 12:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to work some more on this. --Kevin Murray 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a devil of a time trying to find a picture of an irishman yesterday to replace Kennedy, who was objected to since we have too many politicians per one editor. The best I could find was Colin Farrell, though I'd rather have gone with someone less Hollywood etc. --Kevin Murray 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are you satisfied with the captions for the pictures, or do we need more details? I am thinking about adding another line of four photos to give more diversity, or is that over-kill? Can we remove the tags and work on transferring the gallery to Commons? --Kevin Murray 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I modified the gallery with a new row of less known people with articles at WP for verifiability. I'm a bit reluctant to change-out some of the others that seem to be sacred-cows of other editors and trigger an edit war again. Maybe we can see whether this sticks, and then try to move away from celebritities. OK? If you are not in agreement with me removing the unencyclopedic tag please return it or I will do so at your request. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD for ʹ

Just want to notify you that a redirect you created has been nominated for deletion, see today's log. -- Prince Kassad 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly were you referring to?

What boroque ideas? I'm not exagerating anything. I'm just stating possibilities that can't be proven or disproven which is why I'm stating them in the talk page and not the article. Balu was arguing with me over nothing. I wasn't stating that modern Assyrians are a mixture of all the people they conquered or incorporated into their empire. I'm merely stating that all those factors could have possibly had some influence on the modern people wheather it be genetics, culture, or anything; though it's irrelevant to ethnicity because of exactly what you stated about it being a concensus of self-identity. Maybe I didn't word that in the best way possible but I'm trying to say that in accordance with Bishop Sarhad Jammo's article that all these ancient people could have played a part in what defined the modern Assyrians which is what makes them differ from the ancient Assyrians in that we are not merely Akkadians as Balu is trying to say. Sharru Kinnu III 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

sure, sure. Need I remind you of WP:TALK? We are here to make the article more accurate and comprehensive. Anything else doesn't belong on article talkpages. dab (𒁳) 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well there are claims in the article about being descended from Akkadians, Sumerians and so forth when it should just state that Assyrians are descended from the indegenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia. That's it. No need to mention any other ancient people really. Sharru Kinnu III 14:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

we'll need to mention whatever is mentioned in the scholarly source cited. If no source is cited, the statement needs to go altogether. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• RE: user boxes etc. Thanks! Cheers! And I toast you with IPA. --Kevin Murray 15:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also Dbachmann, I am not concerned with what the Akkadians did after they left Arabia, if thats going to be an issue, you can remove it from the article. (beause I remember someone emailing me about not making you mad because you are an admin...etc). The article can simply list the Native Arabians only in this case (the Akkadians and Amuru). We can get rid of the whole section of the people assimilated/mixed by the Akkadians and Amuru. makes sense? --Skatewalk 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Semitic tribes began to depart from the "Arabian" peninsula after desertification became widespread throughout the land. That is fact. In fact some even state that the Sahara was once green and due to over grazing and human destruction became what it is today. There are theories that is why there are legends of pigs being the villians they are depicted to be in that area of the world due in part to their role in the desertification of the Near East. Sharru Kinnu III 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why does your ToC read

Then why does your ToC read

1 The Ancient Arabians

2 Ancient Arabian tribes that became Qahtani and Adnani Arabs

3 Ancient Arabian tribes that were completely perished

4 The tribes of Ancient Arabia

5 Ancient people that were distantly related to the ancient Arabians

6 Related Modern groups that don't Identify as Arabs

?? you just copy pasted your material from your equally flawed Ancient Arabs. This is nonsense. You seem to want to make the point of an Arabian homeland of Proto-Semitic. Well, do that, but do it at Proto-Semitic. And you are still conflating "Arabian" and "Arab". Not everything Arabic is Arabian, and not everything Arabian is Arabic. The two terms sound similar, that's all. The history of Arabia prior to the 7th century is covered in Pre-Islamic Arabia. If you are unhappy with that title, suggest a move at Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia, don't create random pov-forks. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Dab,

The problem is PreIslamic Arabia is more related to the modern Arab/Islamic identity! Their are a group of Arabians who rather not identify with the modern Arab identity (Thier language is not Arabic). I am really disappointed that you don want to recognize the difference between Arabian (geographic term) and (Arab). Many Eastern Yemeni's and Western Omani's dont speak Arabic. They have their our own websites and seperate and we identify with the Arabian Ancient history. Its not a POV even modern Arabs are excepting the term Arabian as seperate from Arab. I am disappointed because you side blindly with (Elias) and ignore us, although you saw the proof that the Akkadians came from ancient Arabia, if you know about Semitic languages you will know that the East Southern branch is not related to Arabic at all and its the closest live language to Akkadian today. PreIslamic Arabia is irrelevant to the ancient period, its related to Islam and modern Arabs more than anything else. If the Germans or Mongols were living in Ancient Arabia. I will still include them in Ancient Arabia history, you simply made it a point of denying our ancient history and Many modern Arabs will not be interested in such topic because the modern Arabs simply identify with Islam and the few centuries before! I am not talkin about the Arab identity or Semitic languages. I am discussing Ancient Arabia. I strongly disagree with relating everything Arabian to the modern Arab. Find me one North African who identifies himself as Arabian? they say Arab thats the difference. Ask an Eastern South Semitic guy( most of them never heard of Shem or the Northern folkore and their conversion to Islam was a strategic decision) ask him where is he from, he will tell you proudly "ada ild Jazira" meanning he is from the Arabian peninsula they will say that although they doesnt speak Arabic! See Elias started a campaign of hate calling me Arabist!! (just because all my edits are related to Arabia!) can he atleast insult me with proper term (Arabianist) just like I refer to him properly as (Assyrianist). If I was an Arabist my edits will include inflations of Arab population, edits of North African Arab issues, Palestine/Israel...etc. My main concern is Arabian history and I never came up with bogus outlandish information everything I type is referenced, please take a second look at the website and wipe the idea that I am an Arabist!? I am just listing the history of my Arabia. PreIslamic Arabia is related to the centuries before Islam. Kindah, Ghassan and Lakhm all those are Qahtani Arabs (modern Arabs). They later assimilated the A'adids in the South all the other Arabian groups in the north, this part of history. Why are you offended are you an Arabist?

• Even Non-Arab scholars know the difference between Arabian and Arabic

JOHNSTONE, T.M., 1970. A definite article in the Modern South Arabian Languages, BSOAS, XXXIII/2, p. 295-307.

JOHNSTONE, T.M., 1975. The Modern South Arabian languages’, Afro-Asiatic Linguistics 1/5, p. 93-121. In this case they are reffering to the Non Arabic language of Eastern South Arabia. If Arabic meant Arabian they will simply just say Mahra Arabic!

6 Related Modern groups that don't Identify as Arabs <--------------This section was added for ELias so he doesn't claim that the article is linking him to Arabia. I never heard of any Assyrians in Arabia other than the Chritian missionaries later, everybody knows that Assyrians are Mesopotamian natives and I rather not have them in the article at all, but Elias keeps equating Akkadian to Assyrian and thats the real problem behind all of this. (notice how I left the origin of the Akkadians mysterious in the Mesopotamian article) I did that just to avoid arousing tensions among Mesopotamians. The problem is the disregard of ancient Arabia and linking it to Pre_islamic Arabia, Which makes mee wonder again? Are they Arabists? because thats what Arabist do!--Skatewalk 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

you are not making any sense. It is you who failed to make a difference between "Arabic" and "Arabian". Arabs are discussed at Arab. Ancient Arabia is discussed at Pre-Islamic Arabia. You have suggestions for either article? Propose them at Talk:Arab or Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia. Simple, isn't it? dab (𒁳) 07:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of english people photo

I will keep an eye on it too. Seems to be a pretty straightforward case of vandalism unless perhaps the user is not an english speaker and doesn't understand that english is an ethnic group and not presently a nationality or citizenship. I think once informed of this it would be appropriate to treat it as simple vandalism. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

no, I am willing to recognize it as a content dispute, but unless the user is willing to explain himself on Talk:English people, this should be reverted. --dab (𒁳) 07:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Syriacs

Your edits to Assyrian people continue to be reverted. I believe we are in need of a thorough discussion on how to deal with the Syriac people. Either we continue with one page for all the Syriacs (and rename the page accordingly), or we split the article, such that it deals only with the people who believe themselves to be a separate nation.

Please note that I suggested moving Syriac Assyrians to Syriacs. --Benne _(talk) 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean Assyrians

The discussion about moving Chaldean Assyrians to Chaldeans has, after a week, resulted in a clear majority in favour of the move. Isn't it time to go on with the move? --Benne _(talk) 09:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad populum is not a valid case to move articles. They are Assyrians, and so say the academic sources. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:03 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:naming conventions are there for a reason. If you want to argue for one title over another, you would do well to base your argument on these. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem

I think you are doing right, lets better stick to the policies instead of talking unnecessary. This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

BalanceRestored 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

THanks for the edit. I will try to get as much information as possible. I think I've read somewhere that Buddhism is not against the Veda, but only against the sacrifice, and few other issues that can be easily proven to be not a part of Hinduism in actual. BalanceRestored 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So, that's violating WP:NPOV using Nastika for Buddhism. Your guidance about the same will be welcomed. BalanceRestored 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I've not known much of Jainism. May be this is a good chance. BalanceRestored 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting K. Clarkson, "Because Of you"

you are not making any sense. It is you who failed to make a difference between "Arabic" and "Arabian". Arabs are discussed at Arab. Ancient Arabia is discussed at Pre-Islamic Arabia. You have suggestions for either article? Propose them at Talk:Arab or Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia. Simple, isn't it? dab (𒁳) 07:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked you are the only user besides Elias who made it their religious duty to hide the article (Ancient Arabia) if hiding Ancient Arabia makes you feel better then by all means do as you like, I los interest because Elias hates me with passion now and he keeps relating me to the Arabists? and mentions Arabs killing his people. Although all I did was organize an article on Ancient Arabia! I have feelings too and I dont want to be related to the the killing of Assyrians or any massacres that occured in Iraq after Bush brought them freedom--Skatewalk 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah, don't listen to Elias, he's a nationalist. I do encourage you to work on the article on Pre-Islamic Arabia. If you feel this article should be moved to Ancient Arabia, please submit a {{move}} suggestion to Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia. dab (𒁳) 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I am not the one who's classifying non-Arabic peoples, as Arabs. You're making it sound as if this Skatewalk dude isn't a nationalist. He wants to make the word Arab a universal word for all Semitic people, and his sources, oh dear God, what a joke. I don't think you understand how insensitive this Skatewalk guy is. Arabs are committing a genocide on Assyrians as we speak, and he wants to classify my ancestors, as Arabs. You don't see the irony and insolence in this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:07 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Skatewalk is trying to do, but it's a little bit impolite to accuse him of genocide because he is confusing two adjectives, don't you think? I agree his stuff was flawed, but you could really rein in your Assyro-centric belligerence a bit: it is not helpful here. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I accuse Skatewalk of genocide? Can you read? I wrote, Arabs are committing a genocide as we speak on Assyrians. Source: I know you don't like me, dab, but put aside your bias and don't intentionally try to misunderstand me like you always do. You should give me more credit than you do. I am a lot more neutral and objective than you think I am. Your anti-nationalist bias aside, you shouldn't make such snap judgements because you don't know me or where I'm coming from. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I happen to have Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam by Robert G. Hoyland out from the library at the moment if it could help clear this up. JFD 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

please contribute to pre-Islamic Arabia. Skatewalk is right, it is crappy. Instead of discussing pre-Islamic times, it appears to want to make some point about Islam. I now also understand what Skatewalk wanted to do: he presented classical medieval Arab genealogy. This is discussed at Arab#Tribal_genealogy, History of the Prophets and Kings, and Tribes of Arabia. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Newton's General Scholium

Hi! A couple of months ago you added the General Scholium section to Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which is well worth highlighting. You say it contains an attack on the Trinity. I'm surprised...can you give a secondary source, since the attack is not obvious from a straightforward reading of the primary text. (See also my comment on the talk page). PaddyLeahy 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias stalking me in every article

Now please explain to me what does he have to do with this article?--Skatewalk 04:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit, I am stalking every single edit you're making, because, you are not here to present facts, considering the home made websites you've used on Arab articles. As for that article, you can't just remove an NPOV tag. It's put there for a reason, and should not be removed without consensus on the talk page. Hope that helps. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:57 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias yeah the Washington State University and Britannica are indeed home made articles! You are the one quoting Imninalu (Which is a very famous song!) in ancient Semites lol--Skatewalk 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi Dab. Since you have been working very heavily lately with us, I was wondering if you would like to add your name to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Assyria. Chaldean 14:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

Hi Dab! User:Pieter Kuiper is at it again. He has begun to engage in deletions of information, references and maps relating to Gothic legends and culture. How should we deal with this?--Berig 20:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

help translation and pahlavi

Hi I hope you are doing well. Can you translate this sentence for me: "Dank der Nennung von Abar-sahr brauchen wir uns also bei der Bestimmung des manichäischen pahlawänig durch den immerhin misslichen Umstand nicht beirren zu lassen, dass gegen Ende der Regierungszeit der Arsakiden der Name ihrer Stammprovinz ('Parthien’) auch im einheimischen Sprachgebrauch auf die gesamten von ihnen direkt verwalteten Länder ausgedehnt wurde, und zwar besonders auf Medien. Das war Ibnu '1-Muqaffac im 8ten Jhdt. noch wohlbekannt, und so erklärte er Pahlawi als die Sprache von Pahla (Fahlahl-Bahlah) im Sinne von Medien (Isfahän, Rai, Hamadän, Mäh-Nihäwand, ÄSarbäigän); hier ist das Eigentliche, d.h. Parthien selbst, ganz unter den Tisch gefallen. Besser entspricht dem Ursprünglichen eine leider fragmentarische manichäische Stelle, in der Isfahän, nach einer Lücke Nisäbür, schliess­lich als Zusammenfassung ‘das ganze Land Pahrawag’ genannt werden. Aus dem Gebrauch von Pahla(w) für Medien erklärt sich auch die persische Bezeichnung fahlawiyyät für Dialekt­gedichte, und zwar in erster Linie solche, die in den Dialekten des medi-schen Gebiets verfasst sind." I tried google translator but was not satisfied. Thanks in advance for the help (and if you can't do it, thanks for reading it). --alidoostzadeh 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Parthia" by the end of the Arsacid period had been extended to include all of Media, and was still so used in the 8th century. The original meaning of "Parthia" had fallen from use. The original meaning is still evident from a fragmentary Manichean text, which calls Isfahan "the entire land of Pahrawag". The later usage of Pahla(w)=Media goes to explain the Persian fahlawiyyät for "vernacular poetry".

what is the source of this? dab (𒁳) 11:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is from W.B. Henning, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Iranistik (Leiden, 1958), pp.95. Is it possible to give a word for word translation? ;) I need it in Persian. Specially what does this line mean: "Handbuch der Orientalistik, Iranistik (Leiden, 1958), pp."Das war Ibnu '1-Muqaffac im 8ten Jhdt. noch wohlbekannt, und so erklärte er Pahlawi als die Sprache von Pahla (Fahlahl-Bahlah) im Sinne von Medien (Isfahän, Rai, Hamadän, Mäh-Nihäwand, ÄSarbäigän); hier ist das Eigentliche, d.h. Parthien selbst, ganz unter den Tisch gefallen. Besser entspricht dem Ursprünglichen eine leider fragmentarische manichäische Stelle, in der Isfahän, nach einer Lücke Nisäbür, schliess­lich als Zusammenfassung ‘das ganze Land Pahrawag’ genannt werden. ". Is it sayins Ibn Muqaffa considered what? Thanks for your help. I am doing a study on Fahlaviyat which is a late form of Parthian/Median. --alidoostzadeh 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For Henning type Henning in www.iranica.com He is a prominent German scholar. --alidoostzadeh 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

this means,

"This fact (viz. the appellation of "Parthia" for Media) was still well known to Ibnu l-Muqaffa in the 8th century: he explained Pahlawi as the language of Pahla (Fahlahl-Bahlah) in the sense of Media (Isfahan, Ray, Hamadan, Mah-Nahavand, Azerbaijan). Here, the original sense, i.e. Parthia proper, has been is completely dropped.

dab (𒁳) 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot --alidoostzadeh 00:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian Astronomy

I added a well sourced section "Merucentric Astronomy in Indian astronomy at the insistence of SteveMcCluskey who is interested in History of Science Project. A user Bharatveer reverted without discussing. See 'Discuss Before Reverting' in Talk:Indian astronomy. Some important and correct statements were also reverted, and references deleted. Please ask this user to discuss before reverting. History may contain wrong or unclear ideas, but we should not delete history. -- Vinay Jha 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with me, does it? Then why do you post it to my talkpage? dab (𒁳) 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are showing one of your serious pyschocological defects here viz. seeing apologies , where none is offered.It is not too late to apologise for your past "wikipedia sins" and may be atleast this defect of yours will get corrected.-Bharatveer 13:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

aw, Bharat-man, show some spirit. What you are calling a "defect" is pure goodwill and courtesy. I believe in treating people better than they deserve, and sometimes their behaviour will improve accordingly. It works with children, sometimes, but sadly, not often with indoctrinated fanatics. I am afraid that if you are past your teens, it is probably too late. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is futile to teach equality, fraternity, courtesy, &c to a person afflicted with superiority complex ensuing from ill-digested bookish knowledge. Manners make a gentleman, not super-dabbishness. -Vinay Jha _Talk 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Arabia

how on earth did you get the impression I was a Muslim? Or that Akkad was in Arabia? Amurru is more difficult, and could indeed be mentioned in the context of Ancient Arabia. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann,

• Please do simple research on the origin of the Akkadians before entering Sumer. I think I know where Akkad is! I was talking about the people
• As of the Amuru they are clearly described in the Britannica as a tribal federation that came from Arabia.
• Usually muslim scholars love to reduce the Arabian ancient history to the (Jahiliyah), I dont really have a problem with your religion after all my ExGF is muslim and lots of my friends are muslim! The problem is imposing the Jahiliyah on Ancient Arabia. The Akkadians, Amuru, A'adids lived 2000years before the Jahiliyah period and only the declined Himyar is releveant to that period. (because preIslam is the Jahiliyah).
• I really want to fix the article and have a civil discussion section, but the Ancient Arabia article dont exist!. And my ancestors paid a very heavy price for not following Islam, and I am not going to edit/accept the (Jahiliyah) Islamic related article, just because it was force merged into PreIslamic Arabia!--Skatewalk 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

please stop posting nonsense to my talkpage. Jahiliyah and Pre-Islamic Arabia are two separate articles, one about the Muslim religious concept, and the other about the historiography of pre-7th-century Arabia. What is your problem? I am not suggesting that the two should be merged. dab (𒁳) 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you insisting on hijacking the Ancient Arabia article? why not forward or seperate pre-Islamic Arabia to Ancient Arabia? You are the one shaking and baking the article you appointed yourself as the editor of Ancient Arabia although alook at your history....sigh --Skatewalk 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to move the article now at "Pre-Islamic Arabia" to "Ancient Arabia", make a proper suggestion at Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia, placing the {{move}} template and stating your reasons. Follow the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves. dab (𒁳) 09:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK and is their a way I can request for it to be a seperate article? --Skatewalk 10:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

you have presented no reason. What is the scope of your article, and in what way will it differ from the existing one? See Misplaced Pages:Content forking. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled across...

...this. Hornplease 09:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Entropy at work. rudra 11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

The edit on Siberian shamanism was one of my many udoes to your contribs a few days ago before I was banned. That was one of my various diatribes done to give you a taste of your own medicine of subverting, deleting and merging the talks of other editors without any rhyme or reason. I was on the edge of legality because I had never heard of Siberian shamanism (what next ? Catholic fire rituals ? :-))) but it would not have taken long for some googling to come up with some insipid reason to validate my edit.

The edit on Paganism is right. Paganism is a CLASS of religions just like helicopter is a CLASS of aircraft, or planet is class of heavenly bodies. Hence your comment that "Pagans are fewer than Hindus" makes little sense, because Hinduism is technically a pagan religion (in fact all Dharmic religions are for that matter). Indian_Air_Force(IAF) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Also, if you see my talk-page, it is littered with accusations, charges, abuses and many legal threats from a professional lawyer. But I have not deleted a single punctuation mark, unlike you. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

if you wanted to give "a taste of my own medicine", you would make an effort to improve standards of encyclopedicity, not vandalize. That "medicine" has served me well so far, and the only "accusations" directed against me are those of the ideologists whom I prevent from abusing Misplaced Pages. I would be glad to see you change over to the encyclopedic side. You won't get less abuse, I suppose, but the people "abusing" you won't be those trying to build an encyclopedia. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You will get abuses when brimming with half-baked knowledge you put inaccuracies into articles. Have you tried to fathom why reactions to you are "harsh" ? Because it is irritating to be taught about your own history from a European, who has never set foot in the country, and whose knowledge about India has been gleaned only from glossy magazines and a couple of Max muller books.

Some examples from you are, "Dharmic religions are not interrelated", or calling Sanskrit a subcontinental language. A few months ago you did not know that RigVeda is a canonical text of Hindus (or something similar to that effect). Those whom you call ideologists are actually those who stay here and know more than you. A University degree in Sanskrit or Oriental studies is useless unless one experiences the ethos of a nation. Ask Tully. He probably does not know about Mandalas and Kandas, but he has his fundamentals right. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, "half-baked knowledge" is what I'm cleaning out from these articles by the bucket. What is irritating here are the confused expatriate tech students with no academic background, parroting nationalist blogs. I am always glad to meet editors who know more than me, but, to put it politely, you do not seem to figure among them. If the 'ethos' of your nation is fairly represented by the kids trolling Misplaced Pages, I suggest you hide your face in shame (but luckily, it isn't). You know, strong feelings about a topic are useless, unless one has seen a university from the inside long enough to understand what we mean by WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just cleared another one of your ill-informed edits on the Dharmic Religion page. Ahem......"University" education, did you say ? So is your University the "University of jaundiced world-view", or the "University of fertile imagination" ? And also, which planet is this University in ?

You see, I edit pages on strong knowledge and not feeling. You edit pages on strong concoction (1+1=11) that you have gained by merely reading books and some more books (maybe this explains the dogged insistence on sources every time, when often there are none and unfortunately nothing can be done about it). What is more appalling, is that you rate your concocted edits to be more reliable or correct than some residents of India. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

IAF, statements above may qualify as a personal attack in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. If I see any more such examples of classification of editorial competence on the basis of race, I will ask that you be blocked till you understand that we are all in this together. Hornplease 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No they are not "attacks", and they are not in anyway motivated by DBachmann's race. My comment highlighted inaccurate edits and his lack of knowledge thereof due to his virtue of being a non-Indian. This is NOT a racial comment. I emphasised his mutual exclusion from one particular nationality; he could be Chinese, African, Eskimo, Russian, or anyone for all I care. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

all they highlight is that you have really no idea what Misplaced Pages is about. You suggest that you have knowledge about the Rigveda or Sanskrit somehow automatically, just because your parents were born in India. This is childish, racialist, and obviously untenable. Comments like yours really drive home the point how much we need dedication to fundamental Misplaced Pages policy. If Misplaced Pages was left to your ilk, it would turn into so much worthless drivel within a matter of days. dab (𒁳) 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

what's happening? Are summer holidays over at American high schools, and all the ABCD trolls flocking back to give Misplaced Pages grief? --dab (𒁳) 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The manner of discussion above is not conducive to an improvement of Misplaced Pages articles. DAB is misunderstanding some comments made by IAF. Any non-Indian can become an expert of subjects related to India if he/she studies the subject sincerely and properly. But if the purpose of study is to subvert India's religion and culture in the guise of scholarly research, then a backlash is inevitable, which is viewed as chauvinist outburts. Monier-Williams had clearly declared that the purpose of Indology is to convert Hindus to Christianity. Max Muller entertained slightly different views. Witzel has committed many political mistakes which reduces the value of even his good works. JIES was founded by a person who could not hide his ideas of White Supremacy. Leach has given a detailed account of racist bias in many Indologists. Western Indologists have done a great and good job, but this good work is spiced with unnecessary bias which reduces the worth of their work, which persons like DAB do not accept. Secondly, there is rigorous tradition of Vedic learning in India which hardly any Westerner can ever attain, because Westerners (and many Indians) are not allowed any access to this learning directly, although it is not a secret. Accurate pronunciation of Vedic mantras according to respective Prātishākhyas requires years of training, after which meanings are taught, because meaning depend upon the mode in which a given Vedic word is pronounced. Meaning of an apparently simple word like Agni has layers within layers, and these special meanings have special uses in various parts of rituals. The earliest and primary meaning of Agni has no connection with the concept of physical fire, which persons not trained in this tradition fail to recognize. This primary meaning is related to the root 'ag' (to move tortuously, ie swiftly and without being seen to everywhere)which is unrelated to fire. It is unfortunate that DAB personalises these comments and thinks only his "mainstream scholars" have the right to decide the meaning of Vedas. One Vedic word has many types of meanings, and which one is appropriate for a given situation depends upon two things : context and tradition (tradition is a part of context), and cannot be decided by one's personal likes or dislikes. Without a cooling down, DAB will not recognize this fact. These debates cannot be solved by abusing each other. If DAB cools down and takes a comprehensive view of these topics, he will work better for the benefit of everyone. I request IAF also to cool down and not take a recourse to tit-for-tat policy. -Vinay Jha _Talk 07:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)