User talk:Til Eulenspiegel

Welcome!

Hello, Til Eulenspiegel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

--Danski14^(talk) 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Til Eulenspiegel/Archive1

Physike

Could you please comment at Talk:Physics#Physike? I hope we can come up with a good compromise. Thanks, Gnixon 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deucalion

Wow, nice work on Deucalion! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zechariah

HI, thanks for your attention to the disambiguation page Zechariah. Actually, the Islamic prophet Zakariyya is the father of John the Baptist, not the author of the Book of Zechariah. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have read it more carefully... Thanks for fixing it... ! Til Eulenspiegel 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code of Ur-Nammu

This is an interesting topic, which I didn't know about. I wonder if you could add more in-line citations, though, as there is only one and no general reference is provided. Did you get the other information from the same source and not list it, or from something else? Rigadoun (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Africa located? I forget —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.244.236 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code of Ur-Nammu

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Code of Ur-Nammu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosiac law

Hi. The 'eye-for-an-eye' in Mosaic law was not Lex Talonis, though that's a common misperception. Someone who caused the loss of a body part had to pay the victim the VALUE of the part. They were not similarly mutilated. See http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=479511 FiveRings 00:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:18-19;&version=31; --Java7837 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan

The claims made are from the British Museum's Series "People and Places" Series "Canaanites", the views of "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" and the book "Abraham in History and Tradition", and are documented. Please demonstrate how these documents represent a POV when they are accpeted as legitimate secondary sources by most modern scholars of the Canaanites. John D. Croft 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section was labelled "Modern Views on the Canaanites". The views presented have all been put forward since 1974. These clearly are modern views as they were not held in ancient times or in the Biblical corpus. The reference to the 1998 book on the Canaanites was by the British Museum. Are you accusing them of bias? Can you please show me how presenting these views as "modern" is a POV? John D. Croft 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Til Eulenspiegel it has already been stated that the majority of Haitians are of West-African descent. It is unneccessary to name the specifics of genetics seeing it is already clear. The term "West African" or "African" in general encompasses all of these tribes. It also takes away from the professional feel of the section. I greatly appreciate your input but the original statement derives from other encyclopedic works. Thanks for your insight. I hope you understand. Spyder00Boi 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced information states "There were seven major groups: Wolof, Yoruba, Ashanti, Hausa, Mandinka, Ewe and Tuareg." You seem to have "decided" that readers do not need to know the names of the specific nations, and just writing "West African" is good enough, but I still fail to understand why. Please take this to the article discussion page, as this should involve all editors of the article, not just me. Til Eulenspiegel 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your stating of the specific groups defeats the term "West African". You might as well say directly say "95% of Haitians descend from the Wolof, Yoruba, Ashanti, Hausa, Mandinka, Ewe and Tuareg." That would be unencyclopedic. The four primary ancestries of Haitians and most other countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are "African/European/Arab as well as Amerindian (not much in Haiti's case. Spyder00Boi 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the discussion to the haiti talk page Spyder00Boi 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding salting the earth

In salting the earth article, I've changed the name of section "Historical examples" to more general term "Examples" to avoid source segregation but also to increase accuracy, because some sources may not be historical or reliable, such as religious sources. Is this okay? --Qsaw ^(talk) 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that compromise, but there is no reason to think other accounts of salting the earth are somehow any more reliable (or less religious) than the instance in the Tanakh. We know of the Assyrian examples only because of their inscriptions, dedicated to their own deities. There is a definite POV out there that if the Tanakh states something like this happened, then that is somehow solid evidence that it didn't happen. I don't understand the reasoning, but it is called 'minimalism', and it is a strong POV that is best avoided here if we are to strive for neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Bridge

Your edit summary was accurate. I have corrected my misphrasing. Thanks. Abecedare 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammurabi

Hee hee, sorry if the revising I did confused you, I did some rearranging when adding references, moved some information up, and other info was repeated, so I just removed it, as it was given in the intro. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mengistu

Hi,

I really don't see the point in not wanting Mengistu listed as the Negus's de facto successor. I am in no way suggesting that Mengistu was emperor (which he was not) or that he was legitimate, or even that he was a good guy. Quite simply, he was in power after Haile Selassie, so he should be listed as his de facto successor, while Amha Selassie of Ethiopia succeeded him de Jure. This is comparable to Mohammed Daoud Khan succeeding Mohammed Zahir Shah, Oliver Cromwell succeeding Charles I of England or the National Convention succeeding Louis XVI of France as holder of the executive power (however brutally). Succession boxes are made to be useful to anyone wanting to follow a chronology, in this case a chronology of ethiopian heads of state. Mengistu Haile Mariam already had Haile Selassie listed as his predecessor and I didn't make that up. It is absolutely not in my intention to be disrespectful to Haile Selassie as you seemed to suggest in your previous commentary. Regards, Wedineinheck 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magog

Hey Til, I see you reverted my redirect of Magog (Bible) to Gog and Magog. I was initially going to merge it, since all things Magog are already covered in more detail at the other page, but there's really nothing to merge - almost everything there is covered more fully at the longer page, and what isn't, isn't sourced. I would almost go so far as to AfD Magog (Bible) as an unlikely search term for Magog. At any rate I commented at the talk page if you wish to respond.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a response to Cúchullain's contact. Please discuss the proposed changes on Talk:Magog. -- JHunterJ 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JHunter, my response from last September to Cuchullain's above contact is at Talk:Magog (Bible). I will also respond to you at Talk:Magog, since it is a slightly different issue (where the page should redirect to, as opposed to the proposed merge). Til Eulenspiegel 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scythians, Sicambri and Franks

To my amazement you have written the following sentence on the Scythians-talkpage:

"I have indeed seen the primary source LHF, though I admit I do not have access to your favorite secondary sources, you know as well as I do there are plenty of others."

I am amazed, because if you indeed would have seen the LHF, that is the Liber Historiae Francorum, than you would have seen that this book explicitly states that Marcomer is the son of King Priam of Troy. However on the talkpage of the Sicambri you say I am using a strawmans argument when I wrote that it is not possible that man lives for 2000 years. Now how should I see this? Do you really have seen the LHF, more than vaguely and do you still launch a personal attack on me? Or is it that you haven't seen the LHF more than vaguely, or maybe not at all?

Furthermore: on the Sicambri page I have only used the most common secondary sources: That is the most cited ones. They are not my favorite sources. And indeed I know others. However non of that other sources say something really different than Wood, James or Wallace-Hadrill. Can you name a secondary source of a mayor, well cited scholar that disagrees with them? johanthon 12:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah

Hi there. Thanks for some good edits on the Jonah page. You were quite right that it was the similarities and not the differences between Gilgamesh and Jonah that were said to be minor - my mistake in the edit summary.

Still, I'm not sure about this. The sentence is cited to a book by Campbell (sadly not on my shelves). My question is, does Campbell attempt to draw parallels but admit that the similarities are minor? Or does Campbell attempt to draw parallels that somebody else thinks are minor? If it is the latter (which I suspect) then we need two citations, not one! Wavehunter 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. I agree that the English etymology of worm is not relevant. As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know. Either way, your edit stands.

Changed, though, is the assertion that the similarities between Gilgamesh and Jonah are minor. This point was added by User:Kuratowski's Ghost. The original citation (which existed before I ever touched the page) made no such claim. (See Jonah, 28 August 2007.) I have left the point in as a separate sentence requiring a citation: without that it is POV (as I mentioned earlier) and should be omitted. I think readers can decide for themselves whether the similarities are major or minor.

I hope you'll agree that my other edits are worthwhile. Small text instead of superscript, and consistency in the version of the Bible quoted (avoiding confusion between Jonah/Jonas and fish/whale).

Do reply here, or come to my talk page, if you have something to say to me. I hope we can reach consensus. All the best, Wavehunter 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as consensus, I am okay with the status quo after your last edit. Re your comment: "As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know." According to the Neutrality policy, what we editors may think is supposedly irrelevant - what matters is whether all significant P-O-Vs are described neutrally, and are cited. There is no significant POV today disputing that Jason is "mythological" AFAIK, but modern references arguing for the historicity of Jonah and the rest of the OT are easy to find, and speak for significant numbers of people today, so there is the difference.

KG's addition stating that there are few similarities between Jonah and Gilgamesh seems to me like a straightforward, inarguable fact that speaks for itself, but I won't quibble if you object or disagree with that, since apparently it isn't cited. Til Eulenspiegel 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I read that there were attempts in Athens to revive the ancient Greek religion, but I don't think this has taken hold yet!) Best wishes to you and yours. Wavehunter 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shem

Hello Til Eulenspiegel. You appear to know something about Shem. There is some very strange stuff still in the article, for example, about the Anglo-Saxons being descended from Shem. (A belief related to British Israelism, but certainly not a neutral bit of history). On Talk:Shem I proposed that the page be rolled back to a 15 July version. If you have time to offer an opinion, I would welcome your input on that Talk page. Since there are substantive edits since 15 July, I'd need to re-add those. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-vandalism award

You get this award for all your hard work on reverting vandalism. This award was made for people who are good at vandalism fighting, and you are one of them. have a fun day! 1() 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Judi

My apologies for my misleqading edit summary - but it was due to laziness rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Just to clarify, I removed the photo because the connection of Durupinar with Judi is extremely recent, and putting a photo of that location rather than the traditional Judi is undue weight; as for the removal of the other material, it was because it was rather beside the main point. PiCo 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Y Done. You might consider making your user page a redirect to your user talk page (i.e. #REDIRECT [[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel]]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please create a redirect if you don't want a userpage. Most editors find red linked user pages to be quite annoying. --Strothra 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who appointed you to go around making up user pages for the tons of editors who prefer not to be unwillingly forced to have any link? Til Eulenspiegel 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is annoying to the eye. There is nothing against the creation of a userpage, in fact pages in userspace belong to the Wikipedia community - see WP:USER. You should try to create one though, they can be quite useful to serious editors. --Strothra 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — DIEGO ^talk 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not achieved a consensus on the talk page in support of your change. PLEASE STOP NOW or you will be blocked for edit warring and tendentious editing. — DIEGO ^talk 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for this edit represents a personal attack, especially since you completely misunderstood the clear statements of Diego. Please be careful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it was a personal attack. Pleasestop harassing me. Til Eulenspiegel 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice and try to get along with others by not edit warring. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

It would make sense to redirect your userpage to your talk page. -- Avi 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a hero

Hi Til,

you misunderstood me at the biblical / Biblical debate.

I think you've made a lot of good points that no-one else has cared to make. That's a gift to Wiki. It also shows a very keen mind. I think you put up with lots of unfounded, indirect put-downs. That shows self-control and is highly admirable. If you're female, you were the best "man" in the debate.

Actually, the proposal I put forward was based on your suggestions -- things I wouldn't have thought of if you hadn't pointed them out, backed by the CMoS.

Where you misunderstood me is when I said "Til v world", I am one of (it seems) few people who couldn't care less about votes, in fact I usually find I'm against majorities. What I care about are facts and consensus. You have provided facts, the vote side to things is irrelevant, except that I meant to convey admiration and sympathy. (Too late I realise my dumb ambiguity.)

On a practical level, my post was a bid to give you the power to close the debate, with your major points written into the new style guideline. Read the proposal again. Think about it.

It's not too late. Go! Have the final word! Despite the sniping, you've been honourable and there's plenty of respect in people taking you seriously enough to argue with you. I think people will follow you if do this. If I'm wrong, vandalize my user page with text explaining what a dumb idiot I really am. You'll be right, but you won't be able to verify it, lol. Alastair Haines 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edits

Til, your edits are good in general, but recently I have seen you repeatedly indulging in unconstructive or disruptive edits as well. Try to be reasonable. "Post-Sumerian" means that the copies were made in Old Babylonian times (after Ur III). This is taken directly from Kramer (1968). I know I could have given a page number, but if you follow me around reverting perfectly uncontroversial content just because I didn't bother to cite page number and ISBN for every sentence is hardly the wiki spirit. This apparently pedantic attitude doesn't sit at all well with you in the light of evidence that, on the other hand, you make efforts to preserve uncited fringe content you just happen to like, as you did on Aratta yesterday. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, Til, my edits to Tower of Babel were straightforward cleanup (e.g., what was a discussion of Breughel and of historical linguistics doing under "Historicity"?). I cannot accept as good faith demands to waste my time explaining my rationals for such perfectly obvious edits to you. Try to help improving the article further instead of prancing around with this disruptive parody of "please discuss". If you have something genuine to discuss, I will happily listen. Playing devil's advocate for fringe views and disrupting perfectly obvious editing will not fly. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Til, just noticed your repeated reversions of this article. Please note that editors are allowed to be WP:BOLD and do not have to discuss every edit on the talk page. These edits, particularly, go a considerable way to cleaning up this article. If you have a problem with a specific part of the edit then you should bring that up on the talk page. Also, please note the three revert rule, WP:3RR. --Strothra 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and re your userpage, then do deign to include a link to your talkpage in your sig so people can click on it. What are you here for, to help build an encyclopedia, or to play the diva? really. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been uncivil to you; there is no call for you to be so to me. Til Eulenspiegel 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Til, I seriously suggest that you keep a redirect from your user page to your talk page. Or, redo your signature so that it links directly to your talk page. It is a bit of an inconvenience for other editors not to be able to wiki-link directly to your page. I will set up a redirect; try it for a bit and see how uncomfortable it is for you. -- Avi 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japheth

Hi Til,

Thanks for your correction about the redirects, and your encouragement to create them. Out of curiosity, how did you choose your username? Are you a trickster in real life, or just interested in medieval legends?

Neelix 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like the latter...! Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, old friend

እንዴት ነህ (ነሽ?), ፈቃደ? የት ሄድክ/ሽ? ለምን ስምህ/ሽ ቀየርክ/ሽ? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ታድያስ ዮምዬ ደህና ነህ! የበፊት ስሜን ከዚህ እንግሊዝኛ ዊኪ የተውኩት በቀድሞው ውይይት ገጼ ላይ ይገለጻል። ለመሆኑ እኔ እንደ ሆንኩ በምን አውቅክ? ቅቅቅ... አሁን በተለይ አማርኛ ዊኪፔድያ ነው ማዘጋጀት የሚሻ! ብቅ አትልምን ወይ? Til Eulenspiegel 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be called Ezra in Islam and not Uzair or Uzayr for the same reason why the Islamic view of Abraham article is not called Ibrahim I do think Uzair and Uzayr should redirect to it though also can you add the future article to the template for the prophets of Islam as he is considered a prophet by some Muslim authorities--Java7837 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article Islamic view of Ezra--Java7837 15:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is named after the country Judea not Judah son of Jacob as is commonly thought--66.143.245.129 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation

Hi. Thanks for providing a link to for the canon of the Oriental Orthodox Church. Can you please provide the exact quote from the article you've linked to. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks --Aminz (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Til, It is not a matter of "assuming good faith", I am sure you didn't make that up, but I just want to be 100% sure that a confusion has not happened. Best, --Aminz (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

Just a warning that User:HisTruthsetsfree is a total newbie, so try and give him a bit of help at Noah's Ark if you can. Also, havea a look at his summary of the story of Noah - it might make a good short summary for the article lead, with just a little fixing of tone. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneiform Law

Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up the page.WikiHistoryEditorGuy (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ethiopia

Hi, I noticed that you are involved in an edit war over one section of this article. Unfortunately, you are in danger of violating the rule described at WP:3RR -- which could have unfavorable repercussions for you. I'm not taking either side in this dispute, but this is past the point where everyone involved should sit down & discuss this edit. I strongly urge you to talk with the other people in this dispute. If no consensus can be reached, the best next step to take would be to open an Request for Comment & solicit outside opinions on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selassie

Thanks for the heads up, I have now cited the uncontroversial material that the fact tags demanded be cited. The Christafari POV (to put it one way) will always come up re HIM, I guess, as these folk believe strongly and like to use wikipedia to express that belief. But really, regardless of one's beliefs re HIM, this kind of material has no place in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And greetings - I have offered to mediate on the cabal page at [1]- if you have any problems with that, please let me know. If not, I have left you some homework :) docboat (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Interesting choice - put to death for mischief-making, but inspired my favourite piece of Strauss. My son is a horn player :-) Guy (Help!) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re "problem" on Haile Selassie

You said to User:Bulbous:

The problem is that you have set yourself up as the judge, jury and executioner of the sources in this article without regard to consensus. It is well known that there are parties out there who seek to delegitimize Rastafari by any trick in the book. Removing the account of Plano meeting the Emperor at the top of the steps until it was safe to come down is a concrete example; this is a supremely important iconic event that appears in ALL the sources, including the Gleaner, not to mention available FOOTAGE of the incident, if you still have any doubts what happened. We could find numerous more sources about the size of the crowd, but no more sources should be necessary to meet your unprecedented standard which always seems to be raising the bar impossibly high. And the ganja smoking is mentioned by all sources including the Gleaner and is confirmed the video sources, so on what grounds do you remove or obscure this fact, and replace it with a half-truth that cuts out or minimizes the significance and magnitude of the event, to give the impression as if there were only a few thousand "weird" and "dangerous" people present who the military had to fend off from His Majesty's dignity? The one-sided version you are trying to write has no parallel in any source; you will be hard pressed to find any source, if you bother to do the research, that omits the Plano incident and the ganja smoke, etc. I am beginning to regard your actions against this article's well-sourced account as trolling. It seems there's one in any crowd, the sort that likes to provoke major international incidents just for the cheap thrills. Well I hope you got your thrills now, so how cheap were they? From the Rasta point of view this is all vaingloriousness, because the facts are facts and they are recorded on video and it is too late to undo them or pretend they never happened. Please leave this article alone and stop attacking the Rastafarian movement / pushing a hostile POV - unless you have done any actual research into sources on Haile Selassie I that you wish to contribute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Til, Bulbous is not the problem. Bulbous has indeed taken it upon himself to rigorously ensure that this article conforms to its sources. He may push harder than is necessary sometimes, but he is well within his rights as concerns Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And he is entirely correct to insist that cited material in such a contentious topic be held to a high standard.

On the other hand, you continue to speak to speak from the seat of passion rather than from reason. Bulbous has yet to display any personal opinions on Rastafarianism, while you have openly declared that you intend to "help to counter some of these false claims" and accused others of trying to "attack the religious faith by making this fraudulent claim" and "provoke major international incidents just for the cheap thrills". That is, quite frankly, absurd. Nobody is trying to debunk your religion or spark a major international incident. Bulbous is trying to ensure that this article matches the available sources as best as possible, and I agree that he is doing a good and thorough job.

Please tone down your rhetoric. The constant accusations and conspiracy theories are unfounded. Meanwhile, you refuse to recognize your own POV vis-à-vis the religion you profess. You do not have the right to try and bully Bulbous out of the article ("Please leave this article alone and stop attacking the Rastafarian movement / pushing a hostile POV - unless you have done any actual research into sources on Haile Selassie I that you wish to contribute."). You do have the right to ascribe to conspiracy theories, but they hold little weight when thrown around as haphazard accusations and cast doubt on your own ability to see the article objectively ("It is well known that there are parties out there who seek to delegitimize Rastafari by any trick in the book.").

I would suggest you take some time to reflect upon and reconsider the debate going on right now. I hope that clearer heads can prevail. - Revolving Bugbear 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that he is trolling when he removes things that are already mentioned in the Gleaner article like the ganja smoke and the meeting with Ras Mortimer Plano. His demand for sources of things that exist on footage and tv documentaries seen by millions, plain for the whole world to see, is unsatiable; and his replacement of the sourced facts with a blatantly one-sided account is proof of his lack of neutrality. I am quite willing to have a neutral article that does not push any POV, and mentions whatever disagreements there are on both sides, when there are conflicting views. But there simply is no disagreement from any source that Ras Mortimer Planno and over 100,000 ganja-smoking Rastafarians greeted His Imperial Majesty at the Kingston, Jamaica airport on April 21, 1966. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very creative use of facts. How does "the smell of ganja wafted through the air" equate to the fact that it was widely and openly smoked? A single joint can cause the smell to "waft through the air", and it does not translate into "over 100,000 ganja-smoking Rastafarians". - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things appearing on TV are by definition referenceable, and I ma myself unconvinced of Bulbous' good intentions based on his edit pattern so far. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox, given your exchange with Til above about "Christifari", your neutrality on this issue is in serious question. It's not necessarily credible for you to start throwing stones. - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing, Revolving, is that this is the article on Haile Selassie not the article on Christafari, and Christafari's beliefs around Selassie are unnotable and have no place on wikipedia other than in the Christafari article. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Karen and others

For the Kuki Chin see Bnei Menashe - from the talk page I gather this article generates a litle heat among those who follow it. It really needs a proper bibliography - I have a bok at home caled The Ten Lost Tribes or something similar which is by an academic who's actually done a fair bit of fieldwork, but our article relies on on-line material. Incidentally, I also visited the Jewish synagogue in Yangon on my latest trip there - no Kuki Chin, but this old British-era Jewish comunity, now slowly dying out in this backwater of 21st century Asia, is fascinating in its own right.

For the Karen, I think the bok I read all those years ago must have ben Henry Ignatius Marshall's "The Karen People of Burma", 1922. Marshall was a believing Baptist, and rather too ready to acept any evidence that the Bible was right. It's now available in modern reprint by White Lotus, a Bangkok publishing house specialising in making old works on Southeast Asia available to a modern audience - it has a useful litle preface by Anders Baltazar Jorgensen, of whom I've never heard, but it was writen in 1997 and so possibly Jorgensen has other works which might be relevant. PiCo (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible knowledge in America

It wasn't me who said biblical knowledge is shallow in America, it was George Gallop - see "The battle of the books", The Economist, Dec. 19 2007., about halfway down the article. This is really quite alarming stuff - 4 bibles per home, and they don't seem to read them! What are they actually doing with them? PiCo (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

On 12 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noel Dyer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I edited it too but you started it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noel Dyer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi, I've blocked you for 12 hours to prevent you from edit warring. John Reaves 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Til Eulenspiegel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did nothing to deserve to be blocked, other than to report another user who definitely violated 3RR after I warned him. I very carefully made sure I did not violate 3RR, I never received any warning that I was going to be blocked for any reason whatsoever, and this block seems to be based on pure whim, rather than on any actual policy or rule that exists. The lesson I am gathering from all this is that sometimes, it simply does not pay to report others who openly scoff at the laws. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not the same as 3RR - you were clearly engaged in an edit war over the template as was the other editor. Both of you were blocked for 12 hours. It takes two to edit war, you should both take this matter to the talk page instead of discussing it via edit summaries and continued reversion. Gwernol 13:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Til Eulenspiegel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In case you haven't noticed, I have attempted to resolve the matter on the discussion page. I have warned the user who broke 3RR. I was very careful not to violate any rules to get myself blocked. I received no warning whatsoever. I was blocked anyway, on a mere whim, not for any rule violation. I am always 100% careful to cross every T and dot every I for you people at all times, and nevertheless I am still punished as any common transgressor. This type of unfair tactic is what makes me, and so many other useful contributors, get real disgusted with wikipedia, real fast. I am starting to realize now that wikipedia deserves the reputation it has for unfairness and special prerogative of the few, and I now ask myself why I have wasted so much time contributing and improving so much.

Decline reason:

When one party reverts 4 times and one reverts 3 times, blocking both users is within the blocking administrator's discretion. Please use WP:3O or another dispute resolution resource available to resolve this issue rather than continuing to revert. — B (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To User:B

User B, thank you for mentioning 3O on the talk page of the disputed template, I have actually already mentioned 3O twice on that discussion page as a solution, but I cannot fill out the 3O request because I am blocked now. Can you please solicit some third opinions about whether this template needs to be right justified, or should remain centred? I would appreciate it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the only dispute centering? From the edit summaries, it looked like order was the main disagreement. I can give you an opinion right now on centering - it looked hideous. ;) In all seriousness, if there is a dispute beyond centering the template, I don't know enough about the issue to document the dispute well. Your block should expire in about 3.5 hours (if, after 3 hours and 23 minutes from now, you get a message that you are blocked, it is a result of an autoblock, that an admin will need to manually remove). You can make the request yourself after it expires, but please refrain from reverting the template until there are some other viewpoints offered. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you may also want to make a request for opinions there. --B (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B, the template has existed since 11-06 and its creator clearly intended it to be a normal type of centered template that you find near the bottom of an article with related topics like a "see also". If you are reading an article about a Sumerian king, all it does is list the other Sumerian King articles for easy reference. The majority of these articles are stubs. There is no need to have such a list in the upper right hand corner like an infobox, and Sumerophile's repeatedly moving it there, which causes all the templates to run down the right hand margin three times longer than the actual text itself, eg this diff, seems to be based on some misunderstanding or confusion between infoboxes (vertical) and reference boxes (horizontal). Now just for a good example, look at the article Reggae. There are BOTH types of boxes there, a vertical infobox in the upper right, and a horizontal reference box near the bottom. There is no reason on earth why a list of Sumerian kings should be made to look like an infobox, it belongs in a reference box. But Sumerophile, a new user about a week old, continually reverts to his preference single-handedly without regard to what I or any other previous editors who worked on the template might think. He will not listen to reason, and his arguments don't make sense. This is a case on a lot of editing time and now block time taken up trying to clean up behind one hard-headed newbie. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit waring

I see you have resumed your edit war on Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer. Please stop. You will not be issued further warnings. Continued reversion or other edit warring on Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer will result in you being blocked from editing. Gwernol 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he is allowed to freely wreck the centering on that template once again, but I have to leave it like that? Have you seen what this is doing to the affected articles? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the exactly the same warning on this talk page - it takes two to edit war, you both need to stop. Gwernol 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread

I've left an additional comment on the ANI thread you started. It looks like you are perhaps looking for dispute resolution, if it doesn't seem like you can resolve your differences over the categories and templates on your own. You might consider looking at the WT:TEMPLATE talk page to see if you can find someone who can weigh in that is a template expert. ^Avruchtalk 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the corrections, Til! It looks we're interested in same topics! PS- Good username!:) Andranikpasha (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the Kabbalistic/Rasta tree of life

Hello,

I deleted my post from the rastafari page and am putting it here for your direct consideration. Sorry for the confusion.

Kabbalistic Tree of Life colored to illustrate cannabis

Hello,

I deleted my post from the rastafari page and am putting it here for your direct consideration. Sorry for the confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kabbalistic_tree_of_life_plus_hemp.png

I submitted this image to a few othe articles for consideration. It is an illustration of the paths leading to tiferet on the kabbalistic tree of life -looks like cannabis. This could be related to kaneh bosem and Bob Marley's view of the tree of life, so I think it has a shot of avoiding POV.

Also, as a side note for this specific page, the freemasonry section does not want it listed as "the stone that the builders refused". So don't try it. =)

I welcome any and all feedback and will do whatever I can to support this fine wikicommunity. Thanks and have a great day/night --TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is has no "shot" at all unless you have a published source relating it to the article topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Kabbalistic Tree of life colored to highlight a cannabis leaf shape. Kabbalah is a facet of esoteric judaism and christianity which like other facets of esoteric judaism and christianity have a mode of pointing to cannabis as an important plant and/or the Tree of Life.

So, it is related to the rastafari movement via the rastafarian view of the Tree of Life and the rasta/christian/jew connection. Although, I don't want to "shop this image around" so I will delete this post within seconds of notice if it annoys anyone.

As a quick reference Kabbalah is that "religion" that Modonna is into, you may have heard about it in the news. It has a lot of well known members and is realated to all the abrahamic religions as far as I can tell, but it is almost entirely publically known to relate to judaism only. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Actually I think I will delete this post tonight. I have this image a few other places and I don't want to make waves. The other places are more important. Cheers--TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HIM

Happy to engage you on this, when I get the chance. Just remember to be civil.

"Rastafarianism", and the acceptance of his death

I believe this source may help assert that some variants of Rasta deny his death: [2]

I don't know much about what these scholars call Rastafarianism. I'm more interested in the Ethiopian Emperor than the religious movement. Please don't get defensive; I'm sure the article would benefit from our working together. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about our current trouble at Haile Selassie I? I'm already close to just saying, forget Good Article status, this isn't worth the frustration. I can't shake the impression that Squeak just wants to debate and argue, rather than to actually improve the article; maybe that's just because I've run into such people in the past. Am I being unreasonable? DBaba (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to the article "Sumer"

Hello, I'd just like to say thank you for helping to improve and maintain the quality of the Sumer article. Keep up the good work. Nico (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography

I'll remember to ask you first before I do any more legwork! Thanks! :o) DBaba (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sumer

A template for specifically removing citations I know not of, however, you may add a personal reminder to his/her talk page that it violates WP:CITE and WP:RS. You could also add {{subst:uw-unsourced1}) or {{subst:uw-nor2}). They might be helpful. Just change the close parenthesis to a bracket before you add. I'll still keep an eye on it. Also, did you try WP:RFC yet? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - I still don't mind offering any help. My suggestion would be to request a third opinion at WP:3O or WP:RFM. However, from what I've seen I don't really see accommodation/consensus in the near future. WP:ANI is always an option and it's always good to get admin eyes on a situation. If you decide to go that route I'll be sure to give my opinion/analysis of the incident after an admin has taken the helm or offered a suggestion. I wish I could take further actions beyond simple recommendations and attempts at communication though. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History of Sumer

I'm trying to find out why this is not showing up on the RfC list. Both of you are getting very incivil -- which is why I suggested that you both take a break from this article. At the moment I won't be of any help with the article, since my Sumerian history is very rusty, so I can't really comment on anything in the article. Don't worry, the article will still be there a few days -- or weeks -- from now. (And it won't harm Wikipedia if it has incorrect information on it: it wouldn't be the only article with that problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs? Or point to where you have collected them? -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the material he is clearly pushing the line, but it's not like an Admin can drop a block on him like a 16-ton weight & make him stop. (That's an allusion to Monty Python, not a suggestion to commit violence.) Further, Wisdom89 has been watching this & gave him at least one warning; if that doesn't make a difference in this guy's behavior, I doubt my talking to him will. (At least he's logged out from Wikipedia for the moment.) Until whatever is broken with the RFCbot is fixed (it's still not updated the History RFC list), I'd suggest taking the bit about his disgreement over Kramer being a reliable source to WP:RS/N. Frankly, I'd accept speculation from Kramer about Sumer sooner than a careful reasoned argument from most intelligent & knowledgable Wikipedians. -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that an Admin have only two tools to manage behavior with: talking to a person -- or blocking; nothing in between. And if an Admin blocks a person who doesn't think the block is justified, they'll try to ignore it -- create new accounts, play whack-a-mole with Admins. And unless one Admin has the support of other Admins, it'll be just a different version of what you are experiencing now. That's why I suggested WP:RS/N; if you can convince folks there, it'll make more of a difference than getting a single crank Admin -- like me -- your side. -- llywrch (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Sumer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Printer222 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Til Eulenspiegel -- you asked for a fresh set of eyes on the page, and I am among several trying to provide it. But your uncivil behavior is making it very hard to make progress. Regardless of what wrongs Sumerophile may or may not be doing to you or to the article, please try to not jump in to the Talk page discussion. Clearly you set Sumerophile off, and vice versa. Give us a chance to talk him down. If he's not reachable, that will be clear soon enough. But you are undermining your own position dramatically with your interjections. Why don't you put your energy into WP:3O or WP:RFM as Wisdom89 has suggested? I think that's a great idea. Msalt (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Please do not revert the changes. The CORE facts are wrong. There were no Black or African Americans at the protest. It was being made by Students For A Democratic Society SDS and they were White Caucasian usually Jewish Socialist / Communist with names Like Abbey Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. The center for this was NYU and Columbia and headquarteres in the Bowery. Deletionists are watching this page and will delete the inaccurate info or lock the page.

24.44.191.252 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

Why do stuff like that? You see I pound an incredible amount of work into that entry, and you make these snide reverts without comment. For someone who seems to have convinced himself that he knows something about Haile Selassie, you have a remarkably poor command of diplomacy and civility. It's rude, and it's graceless, Til. I will not come down to your level and revert you back: I'd much prefer to see you undo your own revert and restore my version, or at least redo your own edit with a friendly explanation. DBaba (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate it, Til. Thanks! DBaba (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanework

Yes, I was thinking I should talk to you about that. First off, this is an outstanding little book, with a great wealth of footnotes. Unfortunately, it probably won't resolve the mystery to your satisfaction!

That note appears in a footnote. The Emperor mentions her death, and the footnote says: "His daughter by an unknown young woman who died in childbirth, Romane Work was married to Dej Bayene Merid. After he had been killed, Romane Work and her three children were exiled. One child died, and only Samson and Merid returned to Ethiopia."

Footnote offers two sources, a 1992 interview with Ato Tafere Seifu, and J.R. Rich's genealogy.

I should tell you, I really trust this little book. Just about every single personality mentioned in the Emperor's recollections has a detailed footnote, and sometimes the footnotes even offer corrections of names and dates which the Emperor, in rare cases, mistakenly recorded. Too bad there's not more info on the subject. Only other reference to speak of is a footnote describing the princess as the daughter of "another liaison". Cheers, DBaba (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Aratta, elsewhere. Given plenty of notices and comments, and prior block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I could use the wiki-break. But, be advised that as it stands, it is VERY probable that this will resume the very moment the Aratta or History of Sumer article is unlocked — because Sumerophile still does not acknowledge that quoting a book about minerals, and an atlas, to "prove" his theories about where Aratta may or may not have been located, constitutes an Original synthesis policy violation. I myself have been pointing this out to him numerous times for the past two weeks, and User:Msalt has also, as I have now fully reproduced at Talk:Aratta; and Wisdom89 even warned him on his talkpageFeb. 27 (later blanked). Note that he never actually responds in any way except to bald-facedly deny that he is committing any SYN. Since he has consistently refused to respect other editors, including those who specialize in what constitutes references, and those who have previously collaborated on these articles, I'm afraid it is going to take someone with a little more persuasion, if you don't want this just to continue in exactly the same manner it has been. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to be added to article, with page numbers

Note: These are all the same prominent scholars who have published their translations of the Sumerian Epic, "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta"; no more qualified and reliable sources than these can possibly be found:

Samuel Kramer, 1963 The Sumerians, p. 275 (locates Aratta betwen Urmia and Caspian, Iran; his 1952 translation had suggested Luristan)
Georgina Herrmann, 1968 Lapis Lazuli: the early phases of its trade, in Iraq p. 54 (locates Aratta nr. Caspian Sea, Iran)
Sol Cohen, 1973, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, p. 55-61 (identifies Aratta with combined Hamadan-Nahavand-Kermanshah-Sanadaj areas, Iran) [3]
Yousef Majidzadeh, 1976 The Land of Aratta, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, 105-114 (located Aratta nr. Shahdad in Kerman province, Iran; same expert now investigating Jiroft, Iran as potential site) [4]
J. F. Hansman, 1978 The Question of Aratta, JNES 37, 331-336 (locates Aratta at Shahr-i-Sokhta) [5]

--Til Eulenspiegel 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ge'ez letters

Referring to your reversion of my change to the article on abugidas, I take issue with the notion that the "correct" spelling of a target language of letter names or terms from a source language calls for the user of symbols that don't exist in the target language. In English, we don't write in IPA transcriptions! I disagree with the umlauted a's from the Ge'ez article as well, but since the abugida article referenced that one I thought it at least ought to follow the same convention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elamite 7000 B.C.

Hey my Jewish friend, Why do you "undo" my changes even when I'm giving 2 references? Is it unbelievable for you that there was a Civilization before pharaoh in Egypt or Mesopotamia Civilizations? have you seen the movie 10000 BC? pharaoh lives on 10000 BC!!! Is 7000 BC amazing? --Iranway (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1: I am not Jewish. Where did you get that idea?
2: What references? All I saw you do at Elam was put a reference to a wikipedia article in a footnote. I realize you are fairly new, but surely you've realized we can't accept an open-source project that anyone can edit as a Reliable source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote 2 sources. How about the other one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranway (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice the second ref, but am looking at it now. I'm not sure that would meet the definition of WP:RS either, it appears to be just a video. A scholarly paper of some kind would be preferable, but even then, because this information contradicts the information already in the article, it would be better to have a discussion on this at Talk:Elam first, to see what other editors of that page think, as I imagine it will be controversial. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aratta

Please be more careful with your reverts. Doubtless you had no idea you were restoring Ararat arev's edits, but - watch it. Moreschi (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Ararat arev, but those references have been edit-warred over by Sumerophile who has been continually blanking them for weeks now. This did not begin with the anon user today. Sumerophile has not demonstrated why he feels these all of these reliable references need to be suppressed. The references are reliable for establishing that this POV actually exists in numerous sources, per all of our policies, but Sumerophile apparently doesn't want any word getting out here that this POV actually does exist, as he has unilaterally declared it to be a heresy; reminding one of the old damnatio memoriae. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aratta

Can you please add back the Ararat statement with Aratta? It has nothing to do with nationalism, Ararat is not a nationalism, its a mountains/land. 75.51.164.173 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate that, and I am trying, but what is needed first is a greater awareness and consensus among more editors, of the bias going on there. This is how wikipedia quickly gets divorced from reality. The reality is: Anyone researching Aratta outside of wikipedia can quickly discover that many scholars have speculated as to its possible location being not only in every corner of Iran, but also in adjoining areas like the Caucasus and Afghanistan. The current wikipedia version of reality is: only those scholars who place it in Iran can be mentioned; sources from India or Armenia cannot be mentioned, and references to scholars with Indian or Armenian last names seem to be disqualified a priori. As you have already seen, nearly any account who treats Armenian authors as significant, quickly gets lumped into one nebulous "Ararat Arev" without question or proof, and is conveniently blocked; I have witnessed this going on for well over a year. I suspect the real reason is because Armenian records go back for so many millennia, they are de facto a heresy that must be rooted out and left unmentioned to any would-be revisionist, to whom they are obviously a stumbling-block. Same with Kurdish authors, Assyrian-Aramaean authors, Hungarian authors, and records of just about any people today who have been writing down the things they see around them for a very long time. This war on access to information actually dates back to Soviet times, and the pretext is always cries of "nationalism" (considered an evil to be surreptitiously rooted out according to "global socialism"), but the freedom of internet and wikipedia are at least definite signs that this mentality is seriously starting to outlive itself. It's almost as if every Armenian historian who ever wrote, has been lumped into a single banned account and reverted from many relevant articles on sight. But I am strongly considering raising these points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia on their behalf -- even though I am not Armenian myself, I am just fascinated and would like to learn more about some things and am finding it unnecessarily difficult. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]