User talk:Dbachmann

---

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 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Ancient Arabia

Lets have a logical discussion, everything aside. Why are we deleting the Akkadians and Amuru from Ancient Arabia?.... --Skatewalk 08:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkad is not in Arabia, period. The Amorites may be discussed as affecting the early history of Arabia, no problem, just find a good source. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• First of all the Akkadians came from Arabia before settling west of Mesopotamia.
• Second even using the argument Akkad itself was on the west of Mesopotamia. (Also the Arabian peninsula!)
• Are you claiming that the Akkadians are Mesopotamian natives!?
• Please explain. --Skatewalk 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

history of Arabia: the history of the region known of Arabia, not the history of regions that were at some point settled by people who at some earlier time may have migrated out of Arabia. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

I never said the ancient Arabi article, should deal with the Akkadians and Amuru became after migrating out of Arabia, Elias never allowed me to edit the article! Anyways The Amuru and Akkadians are the core migrations from Arabia. After that I really dont want to get into details on who became who. If the Assyrians want to claim to be Akkadian thats their own history. However, they should not deny the Arabia of its history just because they dont like the modern Arabs who spread over Araboa and Mesopotamia, dont let politics sell history cheap!

A reduced entry on Ancient Arabia

Can you please evaluate before I start editing on this subject?

The Akkadians and Amorites in Ancient Arabia

The Akkadians 2400BC

The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas . Around 3500 BC, Semitic-speaking peoples of Akkadian origin migrated from their homeland in the Arabian peninsula into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Mesopotamian Akkadians (see Akkadians). The Ammuru/Amorites is another group of Semites left Arabia around 2500 BC during the Early Bronze Age and settled along the Levant, mixing in with the local populations there. Some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times

• Bernard Lewis mentions in his book The Arabs in History:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."

References

--Skatewalk 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I advise against this. Discuss theories of the Proto-Semitic homeland at Proto-Semitic. Discuss the Amorites at Amorites. We can cite Bernard Lewis (but what is he referring to in "according to this"? -- quote in context). What the Pre-Islamic Arabia article is missing isn't tangential speculation, it is a solid discussion of the archaeology of Arabia. Discuss the 3rd millennium Umm-an-Nar culture of Oman. Expand Category:Archaeological sites in Saudi Arabia, Category:Archaeological sites in Oman, Category:Archaeological sites in Yemen dab (𒁳) 08:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You already generalized Oman to South Arabia. Oman in ancient times was not under Qahtani influence, today modern Mahra and Shahra still claim an A'adid identity. most of the A'adids were assimilated by the Qahtanis from the West and later the Persians via Hormuz. Sumerian Magan? Thats why I dont like the title of the article. It attaches Arabia to Islam ad robs the article of its historic meaning.--Skatewalk 09:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

no it doesn't. It merely states that the scope of the article runs down to 630. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

here is how I would put it:

Semitic migrations

The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas . Arabia is often assumed as the Proto-Semitic homeland. According to this hypothesis, there was an early East Semitic migration out of Arabia in the mid 3rd millennium BC. The Amorites form a West Semitic group who appear in Mesopotamia and the Levant in the late 3rd millennium. Bernard Lewis connects these Semitic migrations with a deteriorating climate in Arabia:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."

---

can we please have this discussion at the article talkpage? dab (𒁳) 09:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Semitic languages

I am not necessary trying to change the way they are setup, but lots of work needs to be done?

• Modern South Arabian distinction from Modern Arabic and the whole Western Semitic group.
• Is Modern Arabic, Aramiac and Hebrew composed or descended? (because I dont see any consistent distinct line between Western and old South Arabian)
• Is Eats Semitic really extinct? Akkadian and Modern South Arabian both resemble each other (In the archaic nature of the language and Geographic location). Old South Arabian is connected to west Semitic (either via migrations, trade, religion or common origin)
• The confusion between: Proto-Semitic and AfroAsiatic
  • Proto-Semitic:
    • Confirmed Semitic presence in Arabia/Mesopotamia dates to atleast 2300BC vs the first confirmed Semitic presence in Africa dating to the 6th century BC
    • The Arabaian Peninsula remains the only region in the world to have the 3 major branches of Semitic languages.
    • The Arabian Peninsula is the only region that is exclusively Semitic through history.

• • Proto-Afro Asiatic:
    • This subject needs to be discussed, the Desert Geography of AfroAsiatic/Ural-Altai connection opposed to the Niger-Congo(via Berber languages)should be given more space. Lots of Arab nationalists and Eurocentrics dismiss the Berber claims of Central Asian connections (I dont know about it alot, but these claims are weak because of the various invasions and today the modern Afrocentric/Eurocentric and Arabization influence) that it makes it hard to decide whats myth and whats not. However, we should discuss the past of these languages.--Skatewalk 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

if you really want to work on this topic, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the academic literature, and the scholarly mainstream opinions. You will be fine as long as you understand and respect WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:SOAP. Afro-Asiatic has nothing whatsoever to do with Ural-Altaic. --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah I rather stay from this topic. I read a study about Berber and Ural-Altaic I ignored because it was presented to me by an Amzigh nationalistic here in the USA. Obviously no one is interested to give it some thought? Do you speak Berber? How did we jump into the immediate conclusion that there is no connection betwen Altai and Afro-Asiatic? (ignore Semitic) although they are the first family in contact Ural-Altaic, but this wasn't the case 4000BC? Even as late as 2000sBC the Egyptians had direct contact with Asiatics. Anyways Wikipedia is not the place to discuss this. I will just stick to monitoring the articles that relate to ancient Arabia.--Skatewalk 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Syriacs

You don't seem to be very consistent in your approach vis-à-vis the Syriac people. One moment, you try to shove them all together under the name Assyrians, apparently purely on the basis of Google counts, another moment you agree that this would mean favouring the "Assyrianists" over the "Aramaeanists" (hence constituting a violation of NPOV policy), and that Syriacs should be the appropriate common denominator on Wikipedia.

I believe Google counts are a very poor method for establishing what name to use to refer to a certain population group, because website statistics do not say a darn thing about scholarly practice, and many scholarly works have not been indexed by Google. Moreover, WP naming convention should not prevail over NPOV, especially since NPOV policy is the utmost cornerstone of Wikipedia, I believe.

No matter how you feel about the Syria equals Assyria thesis, I think you must acknowledge that this is a disputed theory. Perhaps you can discuss this matter with Garzo, who is well-versed in Syriac and some Neo-Aramaic dialects, and is familiar with the people concerned. Making decisions based on the sources provided by nationalist contributors, is not the way to go. You either should study the history of the people yourself, or consult with others who have studied the matter. As you must have noticed by now, the matter is rather complex, and cannot be solved by applying a Google count, if it can be solved at all. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

there are two or three points here:

• the etymology of "Syria". Has some import on Assyrianism, but is really an independent question.
• English exonyms. Here, "Assyrians" is current, besides "Syriacs". The fact that this happens to be the common English designation has no bearing on any "controversies".
• the Syriac infighting about Oromoye vs. Athuroye etc.; this is in fact a controversy, and should be addressed at Assyrian naming controversy.

My entire point is, these points should be kept separate. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Point #2 is exactly what I'm complaining about. Both Assyrians and Syriacs are current, you say, which is correct. The problem is, that "Syriacs" is neutral, and has been (in the form of Syrians) extant for centuries, and is therefore, in my opinion, sound from a scholarly point-of-view, whereas "Assyrians" bears a political connotation, and was only introduced about a century ago. Hence, choosing Assyrian over Syriac is a violation of NPOV.

Concerning point #3, I agree that this issue should be dealt with in depth in another article, although under a different name, because of #2. As you see, I do not push for calling the Syriacs Aramaeans, all I push for is a recognition of (i) the identification of the Syriacs with the Aramaeans, based on historical sources, both Greek and Syriac, and (ii) of the existence of a group of Syriacs who nowadays identify with the ancient Aramaeans (just as there are those who believe they are the same people as the ancient Assyrians), and bear their own flag. Again, NPOV policy demands that recognition, I believe. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am completely neutral on this question, which may cause the effect of "inconsistency". I could live with either "Syriacs" or "Assyrians". I agree that "Syriacs" is more neutral, but I also note that "Assyrians" is clearly more commonly used. Your points (i) and (ii) are granted, but I do not necessarily agree that "choosing Assyrian over Syriac is a violation of NPOV" in an English language discussion. You complain about google counts. You are free to compile a list of notable English language publications, say, encyclopedias, and list their preference, so that we can get a better informed picture. I am so far not convinced that "Syriacs" is the favoured term in scholarly English language publications on recent Middle Eastern history. If you can show that it is, I'll be all with you. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't have a dedicated article, but uses "Assyrians":

s.v. Syria: "The Assyrians are quickly disappearing as a group because of intermarriage and migration to the cities."

s.v. Caucasian peoples: "The only Semitic peoples in the Caucasus are the Assyrians, who fled to Russian territory from Turkish persecution at the end of World War I and live mainly in the cities."

Britannica doesn't use "Syriacs", but it uses both "Assyrian Christians" and "Syriac Christians", synonymously. I suggest it is up to you to show there are other encyclopedias which opt for "Syriacs". --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia calls the Suryāye "Syrians": [1]. It also states that the Syria equals Assyria theory is "untenable".

I believe you should restrain from making huge changes to the existing articles, before reaching consensus. I really believe other editors should get involved, especially those who have studied the people involved. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

sure. You can add the Cathenc. fwiiw to Syria (etymology), but dating from 1908, its relevance is rather limited. It notably predates Syrian independence (1946). "Syrian" has come to refer to the Syrian Arab Republic since then. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the big problem why many of us don't want to be called Syrians anymore (and Syriacs). If the Syrian Arab Republic hadn't been called that, we most likely would've kept on using Syrian (and it wouldn't have changed to Syriac). Also, Assyrian nationalism developed in both the Eastern and Western Syrians about 50 years before the Syrian Arab Republic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:30 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The foundation of the Syrian Republic doesn't turn all Syrians into Assyrians, of course. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Syrian Arab Republic, is neither Syrian or Assyrian. It is, as implied in its name, Arabic. The native Syrians (those who speak Aramaic and practice Syriac Christianity) in Syria, are however, Assyrians. The same cannot be said of the Arabs in Syria, because they aren't the indigenous people of Syria. Either way, Assyria is the original term. Nuff said. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:22 21 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the final sentence of your comment. --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I really appreciate the intimate wholeheartedly agreement you have going on with the Assyrianist. The question is why is this discussion on the Ancient Arabia article.

• I made a big mistake by clarifying who is Assyrian and who is Aramean at the end of the page. I am sorry that I quoted the website that you don't like. Can you please stop hijacking the Ancient Arabia article and focus on the Mesopotamian articles?
• And for user Benne I am not sure if you right or not, but judging from the Dbachmann/Elias friends forever alliance ( ithought t was a sock puppet) they had in ancient Arabia. That alone gives immediate Credibility to the Syriac term (in Arabi Siryani? opposed to Souri?).
• As of Elias I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish? create a country in Kurdistan Iraq? or modern Syria named Assyria? Change Iraq and Syria names to Assyria?. And what we do with the Arabs? Kurds? and Arameans?. This is politics go discuss it in identity pages. Ancient history should not have these issues!!--Skatewalk 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Skatewalk, just so you can follow this too, my "wholehearted agreement" above is a sarcastic reference to Elias' "nuff said": Enough has been said about this. It is tedious to have you harping on it regardless. dab (𒁳) 07:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An allegory

A: I think 3 is the highest prime number.
B: No, it's not, 5 is greater than 3 and is a prime.
A (after 10 minutes): I think 5 is the highest prime number.
B: No that's not true either; 7 is a larger prime still.
A (quick reply): Oh' so surely 7 is the largest!
B: No. Actually there is no largest prime number at all. Let me prove it to to you ... (goes through the Euclid's classic proof)
A (after a day): So do you mean to say, 11 is not the largest prime ?! I saw on some website that 2,3,5,7 and 11 are prime - doesn't that prove that 11 is the largest prime ?!
B: See wikipedia's article on Prime Numbers - it lists several primes larger than 11.
A: I got it. 113 is the largest prime! Can we write that in all texts now ?
B: I don't think you are getting it - we already proved that there is no largest prime number.
A: How can that be ??? You are lying. you haven't shown me any prime larger than 11 !!!
B (sighing): See this list
A: I think you are talking in circles. All evidences show that 11 is a prime. Only one list has 271 as a prime. Surely that is wrong. Wouldn't everyone have listed it otherwise ?
B: Why don't you try reading a text book on Number Theory ? David Burton's is a nice introductory text.
A: I'll go and learn number theory and get back.
A (a day later): I was wrong earlier and didn't understand all this. Now I know that 13 is the largest prime. can we write that ?
C: Actually B is right, 13 is not the largest prime and there is no largest prime number.
D: I third that.
E Me too.
A (another day has passed): So can we now write that all numbers greater than 13 are prime ?
...
ad infinitum
...
Cheers. :-) Abecedare 08:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vedas

Good day Dbachmann,

My adoptee BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) has expressed a concern about your comments on Talk:Vedas. I take your comments not as "extreme", but a little too strong. Is there a strong reason for this? Your reply will be appreciated. --Hirohisat ^Talk 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

I noticed you added the Aramaean flag to the Western Assyrians article. I wonder where you got that "information" from. How is it based on an Assyrian symbol? You didn't provide any sources.

And what's even worse: how did you get the idea that the Assyrian flag is a "Pan-Syriac flag"? This is flagrant nonsense! That flag is used only by those Syriacs who believe themselves to be Assyrians. There's nothing pan-Syriac about it, it is specifically Assyrian nationalist.

Also, the reference to Aramaeans on both the Syriac disambiguation page, and the Syriac Christianity template keeps on being reverted by Elias, apparently with you condoning that act.

I have a growing concern about your consistency and, more importantly, neutrality in this matter. I believe you should leave this work to someone who actually knows about the people concerned, and does not lend his ear to Assyrianist editors too much. Please, consult with Garzo on this issue. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

'winged sun' on the Neo-Assyrian "Nimrud stele" (9th c. BC)

look, I'm trying to document stuff based on google searches. It is notoriously difficult to figure out what is going on due to the tactics of misinformation used by both sides. The flag is obviously based on the Assyrian "winged sun" symbol. The "Aramaic Democratic Movement" flag practically copies the Nimrud stele. The term "Pan-Syriac flag" I took from fotw.com, but if you prefer, you can change it to "Assyrian flag". The symbol displayed on that flag is deliberately taken from the Assyrian symbol that came to be known as Faravahar in Persian times. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Benne, stop running around and causing trouble. You haven't worked on any articles. All you do is complain and nag about whatever non-Aramaeanist information you disagree with; never mind if it's sourced to academic scholars. As for the "Aramaean flag", it is so obvious it's Assyrian, and it is so obvious, that these "Aramaeans" are Assyrians, it's laughable. Have you actually contemplated about working on any of these articles, instead of annoying us with your constant nagging? If anyone is spreading misinformation here, it's the Aramaeanist side. If they'd be honest about this, they would acknowledge that they are Assyrians and knock this lame crap off. As for the flag, dab, not everyone in the Western Assyrians group use this flag, it's only the Aramaeanist revisionist who use this flag, the rest actually use the Assyrian flag. Oh and by the way, Benne, "The Hidden Pearl" is a joke of a documentary, please do not cite it as source, or any website, that cites it. Thank you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:40 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

sigh, it's the same culture, but the winged sun glyph (and the rosette glyphs) are neither "Assyrian" nor "Aramaean" in origin. They are Hittite or Luwian, and ultimately of Egyptian origin. The particular relief the flag is based on was consciously selected from an Aramaean palace, Tell Halaf, in the period just before it was absorbed into the Assyrian empire. Both Aramaeans and Assyrians inherited earlier Near Eastern culture, and they quickly amalgamated anyway, so it is really silly to portray Assyrians and Aramaeans as somehow completely distinct cultures. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, dab, the Assyrian flag, has Ashurbanipal on it, shooting arrows :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:02 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

so? it's still the Faravahar symbol. I don't see any arrows, and some websites say it's the god Ashur, not Ashurbanipal, but feel free to WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian nationalists should just go back to using File:Oldassyrianflag.jpg instead of drawing a new flag every five years and then shout at each other over it. Seriously, it looks undignified to any bystander. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your typical condescending attitude, but no thanks, the old flag looked like shit. By the way, what's with you and nationalists anyway? Did some German nationalist beat you up or something? — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:12 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

nope, but the Hindu nationalists on Wikipedia over the past two years have made a better show of just how stupid they can be better than you ever could, even if you tried very hard. I have less patience with this nonsense than I would have had if you were the first nationalist fanatic I ever met. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. The point is, your attitude has no place on Wikipedia. If you can leave it behind and detachedly discuss scholarly topics, that's great. If you can't, you should just stay away and do some spirited shouting at a protest march instead to cool your boots. dab (𒁳) 17:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

you sound as if I was the first person telling you nationalism is crap. Einstein famously identified as the "measles of mankind". Now just look where in the world nationalism is most rabid: invariably the run-down, unstable, war-torn places with huge youth bulges. Nationalism (like religious fundamentalism) is a symptom, not a cause. But it is a symptom that a country is going down the drain. dab (𒁳) 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting concept you have of nationalism. You obviously have no idea what it is. As for scholarly sources, that is what I've been bringing all along. For some reason though, you've decided to listen to the Aramaeanists because you think it makes you more fair and balanced, yet these Aramaeanists haven't brought one serious scholarly source. I'll look up more informatin on the flags. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:22 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I know what it is. User:Dbachmann/Parliamentary nationalism. 10% parliamentary nationalism is precarious for a civilised democracy. At 15-20%, you start to have angry lynch mobs in the streets. Somewhere around 35-40%, things spiral down into civil war (or war). About 3-5% nationalists are normal (or even healthy!) for any society, I suppose. I also imagine that about 10% morons are about normal for any human population.

As for your scholarly sources, they are perfectly alright, only, you keep using them for things they are not about. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian religion

Please wait a small while whilst I add alot of information to this. There is lots to add, trust. Tourskin 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know there is a lot to add. to begin with:

• Donald A. Mackenzie, Myths of Babylonia and Assyria (1915).[2]
• Thophilus G. Pinches, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, The World Wide School, Seattle (2000)[3]

as these titles suggest, it is pointless to treat Babylonian and Assyrian religion seperately, at least at the present stage. Try to be constructive and help build the Ancient Semitic religion without constant harping on "Assyria". Alternatively, help build a good Ashur (god) article. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Arabia

• I dont mind the latest changes you made. Althought I prefered Akkadians and Amorites as the title, but then they were Semites when they migrated, so no big deal.
• I expect you to show the same passion in adding an origin section to the Akkadians and Amorites articles, because I dont want to get involved in Mesopotamian edits--Skatewalk 09:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • what passion? The origin of the "Akkadians" is Akkad, the origin of the "Eblaites" is Ebla. "Amorites" is too fuzzy a term to locate an origin. The only valid question here is the "Proto-Semitic homeland", which may well be Arabia. You are the passionate one here, all I did was tone down your "Akkadians-Amurru" enthusiasm to a more detached discussion. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brahmin : etymology

Do not act in a reaction or anger , otherwise you will edit worse than you are actually capable of. Thanks for taking it in good faith. Placement of accent or change in intonation causes semantic changes, even in unaccented languages like Hindi. In Vedic, such effects are more pronounced.

I think you may now try to find out why I used rcā instead of the Sanskrit form. I used the popular Hindi form, and I can substantiate it, but you take a recourse to foul language which I try to ignore, but sometimes your language irritates me. Now I must tell you that rk-veda is correct in padapātha (= broken sandhi), and rgveda is correct in sandhi, (rc-)+veda is okay only if verb is to be indicated. You did not fare well in this test. Take it easy. No one is perfect.

I have to paste the code for signing, and you will again call me a fool !.- Vinay Jha ^Talk 11:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

rc-, veda- are the correct stem forms, and the lemma forms as they appear in modern dictionaries. I know that's neither padapatha nor samhitapatha form (sheesh, I don't need to be a specialist for that, all you need to do is look things up in books). There is a reason dictionaries have rc, not rk: anybody who knows anything about sandhi can derive rk from rc in their sleep, but it is impossible to derive rc from rk. I don't mind if you are not aware of all this, but you should stop try to denounce my "incompetence" based on things you don't understand. I do make mistakes, and when I do I apologize, but so far you haven't managed to point to any, and your contorted attempts to make me look bad have only brought you to the edge of a topic-ban. I don't know if rcā is Hindi, but I take your word for it, I just fail to see what that has to do with anything. dab (𒁳) 11:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Brahmin for my answer (and see MW), and please do not personalize; I am not going to fight, even if you insist on having a wrong etymology of Brahmin . Be a good Wikipedian. Cheers ! - Vinay Jha ^Talk 13:36, 23 August 200

"personalize" indeed. Did I come to your talkpage and complain about 'foul language'? dab (𒁳) 14:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I used "please" and "Cheers", but all my words offend you ! Cheers again ! - Vinay Jha ^Talk 14:31, 23 August 200

your words are fine. Now if you can "please" just go and edit articles responsiblly, and stop nagging me. Cheers. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

but without intent to insult

You offer me an explanation on that.. I understand that I am new to all this. But, you understood not a single new thing from me?????? I understand I no scholar like you.... But, did you learn nothing from me??????BalanceRestored 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was rude, but your behaviour was really disruptive. What do you suggest I could have learned from you? All you did was pose random questions on talkpages. This may be considered the Socratic method, if we are charitable. Of course there is nothing wrong with asking questions. But on Wikipedia, we have WP:RD for that. dab (𒁳) 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB, I have a rough clue of what's going on? What are you all trying to do? Please use better methods to get people involved. Things becomes but obvious when you just scan your contribs, and few others. I really don't know what you all are getting. Ω ^Talk 08:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Please tell me what you want in plain English. --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now I don't have a clue. I don't want to get into all this. I just wish you all success if you are just doing it for good and vice versa.Ω ^Talk 08:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias again

Would you please try to contain Mr Elias? He is on his usual rampant to erase any reference to the existence of a people who identify themselves as Aramaeans.

And have you consulted with Garzo? It is evident that you lack thorough knowledge about the people concerned. You even admit that you resort to Google counts to discover what is the proper denominator. As I have tried to explain, this is not the way to solve POV issues. Freeze this discussion, and let someone knowledgeable speak their view. It seems I am the only one who tries to balance the influence of Assyrian nationalism here. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Aramaeans in the Netherlands, is there actually any need to have two different articles, about the exact same group of people, in the exact same part of the world? Also, your Aramaean articles are so POV they just can be. Don't accuse me of being POV, I'm just making it a little more NPOV. By the way, don't make this into some nationalism cause. Like you Aramaeanists aren't into some weird obsession with an ancient people you haven't identified with in forever. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:01 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

if it is so "evident that I lack thorough knowledge", why are you bothering to ask me to "contain Mr Elias"? Try WP:3O or WP:RFC. Fwiiw, I agree Elias is completely blinded to WP:NPOV by his Assyrian nationalism, but at least he understands WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that I am the one who's neutral. I'm just listening to what the experts and scholars are saying, not Aramaeanists. That's what most of us Assyrians do. We just listen to Assyriologists and other experts in Semitic languages, who study archaeological remnants of our past, and we go by what they say since they know a lot better than us — whereas the "Aramaeans", look for passages in the Bible of some obscure Aram dude, and decide on very vague assumptions, that they are Aramaeans, and that membership in the Syrian Orthodox Church, makes you an "Aramaeans". Come on? Anyone can see through their transparent crap. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:12 24 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: India page

Hi Dab, Since you are one of the people who made substantial comments in the last RfC we had on the Talk:India page concerning addition of new material (see here), I thought I would get your opinion about a new development. Yesterday, out of the blue, Blnguyen, who has no history of editing on the India page, made a post on the page suggesting that the India page be expanded to twice its size, which needless to say, has created a lot of confusion. Please see this section of the talk page there. As a result, User:Sarvagnya, for example, has returned to his scheme for de-constructing the India page. (By way of background: Nichalp, who usually watched over the article is busy this summer; Ragib, who was subbing for Nichalp is busy too. Blnguyen seems to think that the page is in bad shape and is about to be de-FA'd. He feels that it needs many more citations (and their lack) is reason enough for it to fail an FAR. Nichalp, when he was active, discouraged over-crowding the text with too many citations (especially when the text was composed in the summary-style, as India is). I think Blnguyen has some valid points: the page needs more (and certainly better) citations and the prose (especially of some new sections that were created by other people) needs revamping, but I think you might be in a better position to assess Blnguyen's idea of expanding the article to twice its size.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread involving you

Just FYI. A thread involving you has been started on WP:ANI. --Onorem♠Dil 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he got me

Looks like IAF (talk · contribs) trolled me into a 3RR violation on Historical Vedic religion. I wasn't paying attention. There goes my clean Block log (will you do the honors? Thanks!). Sigh. rudra 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

European people

FYI in case you are interested... KarenAER 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The page was moved by Muntuwandi [4] and moved back incorrectly by Murray. Can you fix it? KarenAER 07:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the only way to fix this is by turning it into a disambiguation page. European people used to be a redirect for two years. Then JRWalko (talk · contribs) turned it into a substub on 17 August. The only correct thing would have been to revert that, or at best turn the redirect into a disambiguation page linking to Demography of Europe and Genetic history of Europe. --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks for the barnstar dab; I'll add it to my bower. I am even more glad that you enjoyed the links and allusions here. Cheers. Abecedare 08:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth

I have no objection to the attempted rewrite of the first sentence/paragraph of truth. But, this article was one of the worst tarpits on the wiki until a number of us dug in on it roughly a year ago, and involved extremely time consuming research, point/counterpoint and consensus process to get to its current form. I'll support your proposed rewrite, but please articulate a case for it on Talk:Truth. Thanks. ... Kenosis 15:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Panca-Gauda needs a separate article

Panca-Gauda (North Indian brahmanas) has five branches, one of which is Gauḍa (Haryana,Rajasthan,etc). You moved Pañcagauḍa ( Panca-Gauda ) to Gauḍa, which is not a correct move. I have substantial well sourced data about almost all branches of brahmins, but creation of wrong titles precludes any planned writing. Please separate these two articles (Panca-Gauda to Gauḍa), there will be no dearth of sourced material on these topics if wrong titles are avoided. Otherwise, I will be forced to repeat the details of Panca-Gauda in all those articles which need reference to Panca-Gauda. Do not act in a hurry, we have plenty of time. Regards. -Vinay_Jha 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

sure, {{R with possibilities}}, go ahead, no "planned writing" is "precluded". I suggest you redirect Panca-Gauda to Brahmin communities and discuss the concepts involved there. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion is sound ; Brahmin communities has plenty of space for describing Panca-Gauda. But the problem is different. A small independent article titled Panch-Gauda is needed , because in dozens of articles (some exist, some need to be created) merely a link to Panch-Gauda will suffice, otherwise in all these articles dealing with branches of Panch-Gauda , we will have to write that Brahmin communities should be viewed for knowing the features of Panch-Gauda, which will be tantamount to citing other Wiki articles. Panca-Gauda should not be redirected to any other article. Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, this is the concept behind Wikipedia:Redirects: please read that page. --dab (𒁳) 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proto Semitic vs Proto Afro-Asiatic

• • Semitic starts 4000BC-3000BC

• Ethiopia only has 1 branch only! and it loses Semitic elements East to West (coming from Yemen).

1. 1 Ethiopic family>>>(Tigray/Tigriniya) direct descendants of Southwest Arabian (6th century BC)
2. 2 Aksumite Expansion>>(Amhara)Semitic expands into inner Ethiopia and begins absorboing non Semitic elements. (3rd century AD)
3. 3 The fall of Aksum>>>(Semitic creoles) and the isolation of the Armies, this created the rest of the Semitic creoles in Ethiopia, which were basically the result of the isolation of the Aksumite Garrison towns in Ethiopia. (10th century AD)

• Yemen also was settled East to West and North to South. (Ma'een, Saba'a old capitals were in the desert interior regions), Saba'a expanded into the mountain regions 7th BC and Himyar settled south west Yemen 1st century AD (most the tribes moving from Qataban in the desert, creating small towns).

• Central Arabia is the logical location, because the Semitic expansion came from the west/south in the Akkadian period. And South to North in the Amorite. North to South in Qahtan. A'adid descendants (closer to the empty quarter)still speak Archaic Semitic in the East of Yemen. this language is much more pure than the SouthWest Semitic group (Yemen and Ethiopia).

• • AfroAsiatic claims are very weak, because:
• Ethiopia was settled by the Semites and later invaded by the Oramu giving them the multilingual claim that Ethiopia is the origin, just like Spain can claim its the origin of the IndoEuropean languages, because they have Celtic, Germanic and Latin on Iberia! Which was a result of invasions not origination!.
• The DNA claim is also weak, because Ethiopia was settled by the Yemenites 6thBC to 6th centruy AD. and the Yemenites settled all the mideast and North Africa, covering the AfroAsiatic region (through early pre-Islamic migrations and later Islamic invasions), SO the DNA reflects the DNA of the Semitic invaders and a later reverse invasion of Yemen (by the Aksumite Mixed afro-Semites).--Skatewalk 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

yes? what is your point (besides voicing your personal preference for an Arabian homeland)? WP:NOR. --dab (𒁳) 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

what did u mean that the entire universe will collapse? like i dont exist anymore or something?

Like before u were born right there was no universe for you until your life began at your birth, is that what u mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) 18:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Brahmin communities

The article Brahmin communities is in a very bad shape. At present, I want to wikify / create articles about individual brahmin communities (sub-castes), which will take some time, after which I will like to take care of the master article Brahmin communities.

Many editors do not recognize the difference between a Brahmin sub-caste and a surname. A single surname (e.g., Jośi,Pandey, etc) exists among different sub-castes and even among many castes which avoid marriage &c among each other (e.g., the surname Chaudhary exists among all varnas and castes, including muslims). Hence, a common surname does not make a single community in any sense. There are many such bogus articles in Wiki at present. Owing to a fear of edit wars with editors proud of their surnames, I do not want to touch these articles presently. But chauvinists of all sorts need to be dealt with an iron hand (later). This neglected branch of Indology / sociology / anthropology needs a serious attention.

I try to avoid ślokas in my contributions. The śloka about Panch-Gaudas was copied from already existing matter in Wiki. I will later delete this śloka from all articles except in the master article (Brahmin communities). Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

again, you are doing well. Happy editing. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gauda

MW gives many meanings of Guḍa, two of which are relevant here : (1) Sugar (2) pl. Name of a people in madhyadesh, Var Br Samhita, XIV,3 (there, Guḍa is mentioned among those regions which are traditional belts of Gauḍa brahmins ; Guḍa seems to lie in western Uttar Pradesh). Look at the root Guḍ, which means "to guard/preserve". One can preserve sugarcane juice by drying it (making Guḍa or molass), and one community can preserve itself by sticking to some socio-religios mechanisms, later degenerating into caste system. The way you are deriving etymologies may induce some readers to imagine that Gauḍa brahmins were either sugarcane growers or themselves grew out of sugar. Please do not ruin the subject by putting irrelevant statements. You are doing it in good faith, but you do not have sources. It is an ill-documented field and I am trying to collect reliable sources. Neither the Gauḍa peoples were made of sugar nor the Germans are germs. Take it easy, with some Guḍa or sugar. -Vinay_Jha 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I claimed no such thing. Your explanation, on the other hand, is a popular etymology pulled out of thin air. Since you have MW in front of you, you will note that this is my source for "sugar country":

GauDa m. (scil. desha) or n. (scil. raaSTra) "sugar country", name of a country (district of Gaur, central part of Bengâl, extending from VaGga to the borders of Orissa ...)

A tribe called Gauda doesn't imply people made out of sugar any more than a tribe called Matsya implies fish-people. --dab (𒁳) 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you were in the wrong, my words were your etymologies "may induce some readers to imagine...". But you mistook me. My sources are not thin air. MW has also quoted Var Br Samhita, XIV,3 for Guḍ being the "Name of a people in madhyadesh". The word "Gondwana" is also related to Gauda brahmins according to other sources. Gond, Khond, Kond, Kod/Kodo and Mundari tribes have priests who share names &c with brahmins (e.g., Munda priests are called Bhuinhar, a colloquical form of Bhumihar brahmins). That is why I had objected to Gauḍa being labelled an Aryan tribe (you guessed I was objecting to tribe, but I was actually objecting to Aryan). These are controversial issues which Wiki should avoid. Gauḍa brahmins have no connection with sugar, but it seems you do not want to change. OK. Some readers will indeed deduce wrong conclusions. -Vinay_Jha 09:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, you still need to wrap your mind around the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We proceed by debate and compromise. You object to my precise wording, that's fine, try to shape it into something better. I do not insist on the present version, verbatim. Go ahead and edit it, but respect what's there already (improve, don't blank). Gauḍa is just a name. I introduced the "sugar" to replace a mistaken claim that it means "north". It doesn't mean "north", it is derived, for one reason or other, from a province or tribe called after "sugar molass", nobody knows why. If you're going to discuss this, that's fine, report as many hypotheses as you like, just as long as you remember to cite reliable sources for them. If you're going to claim that goṇḍa "a fleshy navel; a person with a fleshy or prominent navel; a man of a low tribe, mountaineer, esp. inhabiting the eastern portion of the Vindhya range" is related to guṇḍ "cover, conceal, protect", I won't pass judgement, but I'll ask you to cite your source for this. I'm no Dravidologist, and since these terms are probably Dravidian loans, you'll need to consult Dravidian etymological dictionaries. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority of Gauḍa ,the second branch of Panch-Gauḍa, live in Rājasthan and adjoining states, but barring Uttar Pradesh and most of Haryānā sugarcane is not grown in these regions. India has two main regions of sugarcane : UT to Punjāb, and Mahārāshtra to Tamil Nādu (barring most of Andhra and Kerala). But if you like sugar, have it. Neither Gauḍa means north, nor Dravida means south. As for Dravidian connection , you are right, Kondā means conqueror (Chola king assumed a title Gangaikondā after a successful campaign in the Gangetic valley). But such discussions would lead to nowhere for want of adequate linguistic data . Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't "like" it. The only thing I "like" is seeing sources, alright? dab (𒁳) 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[Aside]Does it have any relation to Gowda and/or Gounder? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am no Dravidologist, but I guess it seems plausible that these Tamil terms might be the source of Sanskrit guṇḍ. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm no Dravidologist either. But, fwiiw, let me give this link to a good resource. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Offshoots" on Historical Vedic religion

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there is a current political subtext to the shenanigans going on there. Of late, there has been a push by Jains to have themselves officially declared as a "minority". This is mainly because of a "quota system" (India's demented version of "affirmative action") run amok: Jains would gain, on balance, from such recognition, and the quotas would be stacked even more against "regular" Hindus. No doubt there's terminological confusion in the mix too, but IAF's interest in effectively subsuming Jainism into Hinduism needs no further explanation. The pseudo-academic stuff is all eyewash, he's scraping and scrounging. On the other side, Anish has been too doctrinaire perhaps for the same reasons. But at least he has cited PS Jaini, whose works are indeed standard references on Jainism. rudra 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I suppose it must be a national sport in India make religion a replacement battleground for social politics. And then come and see if you can harness Wikipedia articles for whatever faction you're into. What annoys me most is the almost permanent display of bad faith on all sides. Why cannot these people just honestly discuss their position and its background? It's not like they're fooling anyone, or even themselves, but it seems living in denial has become something of a convention here. dab (𒁳) 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Off topic comment: I don't know anything about the particular article dispute but it is interesting to see what strange gyrations people go through at the intersection of religion and politics. For example, a few decades back Ramakrishna Mission claimed that they are a distinct minority religion, separate from Hinduism, since it would have helped them avail some benefits under the Indian constitution. The case went up the Indian supreme court which ruled against them, but even more interestingly attempted to formulate a legal definition of who is a Hindu. The legal judgment, in fact, makes for quite an interesting reading (in parts). Cheers. Abecedare 07:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

yes -- the Indian constitution seems to encourage grovelling and displays of self-pity. To outside observers, it is rather surreal to see groups like the Vishwakarmas stage public protests because they insist on being considered "most backward". The Supreme Court decision you link is astounding. They quote the OED for the definition of "denomination" and Monier-Williams for the definition of Hinduism(!). The very fact that a Supreme Court even needs to evaluate such theological and ethnological subtleties shows how deeply flawed the constitution must be. In every other democracy I am aware of, religious communities are treated as organized bodies, i.e. the state recognizes (if any) certain churches or institutions, not "religions". Article 30(1) reads:

All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

what were they thinking?? Ianal, and even I can see that this is stupid. This court case is so grotesque that it should be referenced at both Indian constitution and Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO one needs to remember that any constitution is both a legal document and a political one, and as a political document it inevitably is a result of compromise and intentionally contains points of ambiguity. As a unusually heterogeneous society perhaps the Indian constitution reflects these social pressures more than most (Imagine what a constitution forged in Iraq would look like and if it would have a chance of sustaining an imperfect but democratic government for >50 years). And these issues in fact arise in many countries, for example see the differing legal status of scientology in US, France and Germany. And of course, the US supreme court has famously had to weigh in other undecidable issues such as when life begins and what constitutes obscenity. I usually find these issues fascinating although sometimes they can be aggravating too, but we may be getting off-topic. Abecedare 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is the latest evidence of the greatness of the (ancient) Indian society. Abecedare 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting to the read the discussion between you guys. As to rudras quote that Jains want to declare themselves as minority due to quota system.....This is not the case. It is more about the Jain identity rather then benefits. Jain community is a business community and richest ethnic group in India and as such don't require the quota benefits. (There are exception like Digambara farmers of Karnataka who are one of the poorest). I have personally spoken to Mr. Bal Patil (The main protagonist spearheading the minority status movement) to know his views on this subject. Anyway we are all for Uniform Civil code if it is established in India.--Anish Shah 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deity versus gods

Cf. Talk:Rigveda for my suggestion. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinay Jha (talk • contribs) 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding your own words?

Who authorized you to write your own wordings? You simple ignore all the policies and write non verified claims persistantly. It was you who was persistantly positing WP:V to what I wrote. Are there no rules for DAB? BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I could have put this on AfD. Instead, I expanded it to this. You should thank me. The only reasonable source we have is the 2004 Times of India article, which is ambiguous on whether the thing took off. What we know is that there are claims of a successful unmanned flight (this wasn't a first; the Wright brothers' was the first manned flight. Unmanned heavier-than-air flights had been realized since 1848). Also, you are hardly the person to lecture me on Wikipedia policy. Please go talk to your mentor. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the text. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

J. B. Hare quote on Vaimanika Shastra

you quote this which is against the rules. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

? dab (𒁳) 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is what J. B. Hare has to say about it. These comments are simply stupid it is no way a part of any kind of research. IIT is persistantly researching this topic. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

great, then cite their publications on it. do they have a "nutcase division" or something? dab (𒁳) 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/we-also/school-outreach/bharuch.html check this .. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ok? Ms Sonal Gopujkar did a presentation of the VS at the "GNFC Science Fair – Aviation Workshop"? your point? did she publish anything on it? dab (𒁳) 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, please carry on. It is always good to cross examine. I've formatted Vaimanika Shastra. Kindly see if it's doing fine.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting VS to revoke that block on me. Do you think I am doing fine now?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

stop creating new h2 sections every two minutes. what "block". --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am told not to edit more than 1 article a day, or I would have already reverted most of your edits today and yesterday. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BR: you have clearly no inkling of WP:ENC, and no general education to speak of. I wish you would go and read some introductions to the topics you are interested in. That said, afaik, you are under no parole, and bound to WP:3RR like everyone else. But be advised that if you persist in your absolutely unacceptable and surreal behaviour, I will take you to WP:CSN eventually. dab (𒁳) 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am here to make edits for everyone as peaceful as possible. I understand the meaning of WP:V which I used on you. Well only when I used them I know it's true meaning. unacceptable and surreal behaviour, if you can give me feedbacks on the same it will help me correct my mistakes. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

people have been giving you feedback with angelic patience, for weeks on end. You show no signs of learning or intelligence. Sorry, but I think time invested in you is probably wasted. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, did you see no signs of improvement in me..... :(. You mean to say, so far I did not improve............ :(((( Ok, let see what keeps you happy.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

you certainly haven't learned to leave a short comment in less than four edits. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am some one who finds it very hard to change habits. But, once I know my mistakes I at least do not repeat those, I've started doing that at the (Main) Namespace. [5]BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Playboy covers

Hello. See my comments on ANI but in essence: I think it makes a bit of sense to be a little bit careful with the removal of these images. Now I fully agree that the vast majority should go but still there is the caveat that these images may qualify in specific cases where the article mentions a specific incident related to the publication of the cover, for instance in Jessica Alba. Also, if you remove the image from the article, please take the time to tag the image as unused and unfree so that it gets deleted in a week. In some cases, it might also make sense to send them to disputed fair use so that people understand the debate. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do not think that "they should go", I simply insist that they cannot be used in biography articles, per our own "fair use" standards. People are perfectly free to create articles about the publications in questions where they can hang around as fair use images. I don't feel strongly about this at all, though. Spotting orphaned fair use images is a perfectly automatic task, and we should have bots doing this (and I believe we do). dab (𒁳) 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bedouin tribes

I removed that section, before it starts a long list tribes and that how the confusion started in the Ancient Arabia article. I left it as it is now so you think about it.--Skatewalk 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

European ethnic groups

You have done a very nice and careful job on this page. It now looks like a proper WP article. Thanks,Mathsci 15:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks -- wasted much of my weekend once again... :o/ --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

please keep an eye

Hi user barefact might try to re-insert his original research again which was deleted. [6][7]. --alidoostzadeh 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Cultural / Ethnic areas of Europe according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: POV? Or just refering to Europe before 1945?

This map shows a German cultural area in western and northern Poland, and up to Kaliningrad (former German Königsberg). Is this mean to say that the map represents Europe before 1945? Or is there same kind of POV here? The Ogre 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Can you get this link? It is a recent drawing (copyright 1994). /Pieter Kuiper 13:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

no idea. It's apparently a map published by EB in 1994. I don't think it is so great myself. If we can get a better map to replace it, I'll be all for it. There are copyright concerns, however. Our image seems to be just an unoriginal manual copy of the EB map. Even the colours are the same. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer is now up. I've submitted some evidence and organized the workshop. If you want to chip in at any stage, feel free. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

my, I didn't know this was in the pipeline, but I do have some spleen I would want to vent, I can tell you: I have rarely encountered such consistent and blatant bad faith on Wikipedia. It's just that the diffs are months old by now, and I'd have to dig for them. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Linguistic map of Europe

Great job! I see you prefered to use the original map that shows linguistic areas outside Europe - fine. The question (or a question...) that remains is that the map, namely given the fact that it does represent those extra-European territories, does not fully portray the continental territory of Portugal, which is cut short! This may be seen by many as sort of offensive... Could you solve it? Thanks! The Ogre 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

well, I don't think that's particularly urgent. Yes, I prefer to show "extra-European" territories, because it shows how Europe sort of blends into Central and SW Asia with no clear boundary. It also shows that while there are certainly Turkic speakers "native" to Europe, they are clearly "spillover" from Central Asia (just like the Russians in Asia, of course, are "spillover" as a result of Russian imperialism). dab (𒁳) 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic religions

Your sentiment here, perfectly mirrored mine. I too thought that the term is so "common-sensical", that surely it must be used widely. So when I saw the usage being challenged I went looking in academic literature for references and the silence was over-whelming. Guess, the overuse of the term on wikipedia had me befooled! Abecedare 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, well... this is just about the term. It's still valid to compare these religions. Of these 'bilateral' articles,

• Hinduism and other religions
• Hinduism and Jainism
• Buddhism and Hinduism
• Jainism and Buddhism
• Sikhism and Jainism
• Sikhism and Hinduism

some should probably be merged: Hinduism and Jainism and Buddhism and Hinduism into Hinduism and Shramana; Hinduism and Jainism into Shramana. Besides these, we have Indian religions and Eastern religion. This should reallly be sufficient to say everything that needs be said. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By contrast, I'm not surprised. When I first encountered the term a few years ago, I saw the "common-sensical" aspect but also realized the shift in emphasis from the similar term "dharmic tradition" (which, btw, Arvind Sharma uses in the Encarta article on Hinduism), and more importantly, the implicit superseding of "Indian philosophy", which has been the relevant rubric for quite a while. And that's just it: from an academic pov, it's all about philosophy, not religion, esp religion in the Western -- oops, "Abrahamic" -- sense. Note for instance that Buddhism, Jainism, Lokayata and some of the orthodox schools can qualify as atheistic, rendering basic religious considerations such as theology irrelevant. Thus the entire point of promulgating the religion part of "dharmic religion" is the opposition to (if not also the demonization of) "Abrahamic religion", currently identified as Enemy No. 1 by the very people who go out of their way to use such terminology. It's all about ideology. In academia, "Indian philosophy" has sufficed for years. rudra 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

of course, but Indian philosophy does not cover the "Dharmic" stuff in China and Japan, does it? In my understanding, these are just useful labels when looking (choosing to look) at comparative religion. I know as well as you do that the distinction between "religion", "philosophy", "spirituality", "tradition" and "folklore" is perfectly arbitrary, but the demographers (adherents.com) want to draw neat pie charts, and such charts aren't without their value, either. Our aim must be (a) to avoid overlapping and redundant articles (we plainly don't need Indian philosophy, Indian religions and Dharmic religions all separate), and (b) decide on a title for the resulting article according to Wikipedia:naming conventions. What about "Taoic religion"? Do you also smell ideology there? Maybe our Hindutva troll troopers have made you overly suspicious? dab (𒁳) 10:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That they have. To some extent, my beef is with the word "religion" itself. An interesting read is Nirad Chaudhuri's take on it, in his book Hinduism, where he points out that taking Christianity as an examplar of what "religion" is will leave one utterly confused about Hinduism. Extend that to mean that "Abrahamic religion" on the one hand and "Dharmic religion" on the other can't be inflected for the same meaning of "religion". the ideologues, however, would benefit from the same meaning, as it would enhance their claims to know what "true" Hinduism -- or dharma! -- is and, if it comes to that, "justify" an inquisitorial response to dissent. rudra 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

it now transpires the term "Dharmic tradition" is used by MSN Encarta [8]. That's not a Hindutva blog, for once, and I do think it justifies us in keeping Dharmic religion around as a redirect to Indian religions. --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hornplease had mentioned that link and that passing reference is the closest to a reliable source for the usage, and perhaps justifies a redirect. By the way, although the Encarta article is not a Hindutva blog, it perhaps owes its existence to the movement - see this. Abecedare 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly it does, though no one is going to admit exactly how it happened. Anyway, it gave the "dharmic tradition" neologism instant respectability. Thanks for the link, btw. A lot of the fireworks mentioned took place (or were discussed to death) on the RISA-L mailing list, which was where Malhotra first dropped his bombs about "Wendy's children". rudra 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"the American mainstream misunderstands India so pathologically." Sheesh, the only pathology I have seen so far is on the part of the "confused deshis" who insist for all the world that they must make themselves impossible by acting like spoiled children who for the first time are told that the world doesn't revolve around them. I think this throws a light on Indian education, particularly of boys. They apparently grow up thinking they are little princes, and then throw temper tantrums when they realize the world is larger and more complicated than they were told. dab (𒁳) 07:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sumeria

Hello! I changed your version of the disambiguation back. The version you'd created seems to me both wrong and unnecessary. The word "Sumeria" in English (not Spanish or Portuguese!) is used very widely for the civilisation of Sumer. The origin (according to the Mac OS X Dictionary) is from late 19th century French 'sumérien'. It is from Sumeria that the asteroid got its name, not from the Spanish or Portuguese words, either. So I'm not sure where those factoids came from, but they're wrong. Finally, I removed the two superfluous meanings (a comic book and a song from an album. If those two meanings don't have articles, they can't be all that notable. Moreover, neither is actually called Sumeria, they merely have "Sumeria" in their titles. Should we add "Blue Suede Shoes" to the article on shoes and "Dr Who and the Pyramids of Mars" to the article on Mars? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

it's not in the OED. What's the "Mac OS X Dictionary"? If you can find it as an English word in any reputable dictionary, cite your source. I didn't add the various trivia, and you may be right about removing those, but stop claiming that "Sumeria" is a correct term for Sumer in English. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mac OS X Dictionary is the built-in dictionary for the Mac, and contains the full text of the New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition. I trust that is reputable enough for you! I'm not saying Sumeria is the correct term for Ancient Sumer, but it's certainly a widely used one (500,000 Google hits, for example). Given that the Sumerians didn't speak English, neither Ancient Sumer nor Sumeria are likely "correct" in any objective sense. Romans didn't call their home town Rome but Roma, and yet lots of people, most people probably, use Rome instead of Roma. I actually don't have any problems at all with your revision of the Sumeria page now; you haven't put back the nonsense about Spanish/Portuguese, which is good, and "obsolete or poetic" describes reasonably well how Sumeria is used here in England at least. So as far as I'm concerned, it's mission accomplished! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The 500,000 hits, of course, include all the Spanish and Portuguese references to Sumer, since in these languages, Sumeria is the correct term. Also, you will have noted my edits to Sumeria to the effect of recognizing it sees some English use. If the term is in the "New Oxford American Dictionary", what is its definition? Does it say "obsolete" or similar? All I can tell you is that that the term is unknown to OED and Webster's [9], and that it is not now considered correct. It may have seen scholarly use in the early 1900s, though. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ugaritic Unicode.png

{{di-replaceable fair use-notice}} -- Prince Kassad 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's PD or not, but it may be deleted, no problem, since it is no longer needed. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Assyrian king

{{deprecation notice}} --MZMcBride 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, it should be deleted, it's long obsolete. dab (𒁳) 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Race and ancient Egypt controversy

Hi! Regarding the message you left on that article's talk page about the title change; I don't know if you have been following the latest round of discussion, but there seemed to have been agreement across the board to change the title after the concerns I raised regarding WP:UNDUE in the previous version. However, I was quickly rebuffed when I tried to balance the article with material by mainstream scholars, so I have set up this draft to see how we can merge that information into the article. Lusala, who has been unfailingly gracious, has made some helpful suggestions. I don't think, however, that every piece of new information I added should be separated into its own section. You suggested that we create a separate article for mainstream scholars, which I am not against per se, but ideally I think the information should be kept in the same article to minimize the edit-wars, trolling, etc. that this topic inevitably attracts. Would you like to help mediate on the topic? Feel free to edit the draft by the way. — Zerida 08:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)