Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 14 February 2010

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Deucalion

Wow, nice work on Deucalion! KillerChihuahua 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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 ⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Java7837 overstates his case. The reality was between the two. The law required the mutilation of the negligent person part for part, UNLESS they settled the case with a monetary settlement prior to it reaching the judge. Of course, this would strongly have encouraged the offender to pay up, unless he valued his money more than his finger.Cadwallader (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Adam's Bridge

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

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. 12:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Your userpage

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

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)

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)

Again, it is annoying to the eye. There is nothing against the creation of a userpage, in fact pages in userspace belong to the Misplaced Pages 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)

Well, Strothra, it seems you have finally convinced me that redlinked usernames are indeed quite annoying! Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Anthemoessa

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

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)

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

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)

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 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuneiform Law

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

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)

And greetings - I have offered to mediate on the cabal page at - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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/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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

Autobiography

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

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 / )} 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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 / )} 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

March 2008

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)

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)
• 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)
• J. F. Hansman, 1978 The Question of Aratta, JNES 37, 331-336 (locates Aratta at Shahr-i-Sokhta)

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

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)

1. 1: I am not Jewish. Where did you get that idea?
2. 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Misplaced Pages: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)

MedCab Case

Have you tried either WP:3O or WP:RFC? Seddon69 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I sure have, still nothing. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide me with links :)Seddon69 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind me acting as informal mediator? I have opened the case, but prefer to keep discussion on Aratta's talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving what's been sourced to another location isn't going to help much (speaking from experience as a mediator). I'd rather we keep this on the talk page, at least for now, where I can address points already made. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK too, I suppose.

Part of the reason I didn't want this to be at the case page is the request details. Especially when the conflict is between two editors, often the opposing party will feel like they're in an unwelcome space, which is the total opposite of what I'd like to happen. I'm sure you agree, so at any rate, with permission I'd like to distill the request details. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

←For the moment I'm going to be slightly bold and keep this at talk. I can easily shift discussion over to the case page if need be Xavexgoem (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've offered my final compromise offer. Past that, I'll give it three days as an open case (for other mediators to see). I implore that you do not be judgmental towards Sumero; I'm certain he sees you to have a POV too, merits notwithstanding each of you. "He started it" is an awful excuse for edit warring. I'm at the end of my rope, I apologize. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Err... and some advice: Just say "I think this is reasonable. ~~~~" in the edit summary. When you point it to me, it appears I take sides. Slightly unorthodox advice, but it's easy (and understandable) for an editor to think we do :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

fyi, that's general advice, but time is often of the essence (grr the spherical nature of Earth) :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Israelites did not consider Assyrians Hamitic?

Hi can you give me some sources for your statement: Israelites did not consider Assyrians Hamitic? Our only real source for such, 1st Temple period, is the Tanakh...and you'll find that there are 2 instances of "Asshur" in Beresh't 10 (Genesis 10). This implies a Semitic Asshur (Ber. 10:22) and and a Hamitic Asshur (Assyria) (Ber. 10:11 Ham-Cush-Nimrod-Assyria "from that land Asshur/Assyria went out)". If you can't give a source, then you have no basis for opposing the work of the 4 Israeli archaeologists that made this map (see source for image). If no source, I'll just put the map back on. regards Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a primary source, try reading some different translations of Gen. 10:11 in the major English Bibles, and compare it with the Hebrew. As for secondary sources, certainly not all are of the view that there were two Asshurs; the traditional and most usual interpretation is that there was only Asshur son of Shem, and the view that there was actually a second "Hamitic Asshur" who founded Assyria I believe is usually regarded as a rather forced and stilted mis-interpretation of the Hebrew of Gen. 10:11 (I will look for the actual sources for this discussion as soon as I get a chance). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This was based on the Hebrew text. The authorial intent of the, I assume, priestly author, was to associate Ham with Israel's enemies. Assyria and Babylon were both viewed as Hamitic based on the only source we have in the Tanakh. The point of the author in Genesis was to indicate that the people who lived in Assyria were over-run -- exterminated? -- by the Assyrian empire which was Hamitic, descended from Cush. What are you credentials, if I may ask. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "Credentials" of wikipedia editors are considered irrelevant on Misplaced Pages, per our founder, Jimbo Wales. What's more important is the credentials of reliable sources, and making sure that one fringe POV is not being pushed against the mainstream. What you just said about a "Hamitic Assyrian empire" overrunning another Assyrian empire, supposedly being the "point of the author in Genesis", would appear to be your Original research interpretation, since I have never once seen any source make such an outlandish claim, and I doubt you could find a reference anywhere for this interpretation of Genesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of a certain modern school of thought that has been all too popular with Bible translators, forces Hebrew Gen. 10:11 to make Assyria founded by Nimrod rather than Asshur, and some even make the resulting presumption that therefore the Israelites actually thought the Assyrians were Hamitic! (which is a real stretch of logic). So far, I have found one detailed, but conjectural discussion of the problem quoted below. However, I realize the source is not considered mainstream and thus his scholarship here will probably be subject to some ad hominem arguments, so I will keep looking for more recent discussions of this same problem. Also this source (Hislop) goes on to conclude that the word "Asshur" is really a verb 'to make strong' and not a proper name at all, which is really a long shot that has little acceptance elsewhere, seeing as Nineveh etc. are known to be in the country of Asshur. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Genesis 10:11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is properly understood, casts a very steady light on the subject. That passage, as given in the authorised version, runs thus: "Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh." This speaks of it as something remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the human race in general went forth from the same land... To obviate such difficulties as these, it has been proposed to render the words, "out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria." But then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, the word in the original should have been "Ashurah," with the sign of motion to a place affixed to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such sign of motion affixed.

In researching the sources, I have found many widely different interpretations of Gen. 10:11, and much debate as to exactly what the Hebrew means and how much can be drawn from it. So it certainly seems to be a disputed question going back for centuries. Extrapolating that the Assyrians were ever seen as a Hamitic people, does seem to be at one extreme end of the spectrum, but this should be explained or attributed in the caption if you're going to use that map. Something like 'Ancient Israelite's view of the Middle East, as reconstructed by x and y'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My purpose for making the map was to present a visual - very literal - picture of the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 based on the work of 4 (four) of the world's leading experts on historical geography, including the current world expert, Anson F. Rainey who is a prof at Tel Aviv University. This same map is published twice. First, in the Macmillan Bible Atlas by Aharoni, Rainey, et al, on p. 21, and also in Rainey's new and updated work "The Sacred Bridge" which is an annotated biblical atlas with the most current research added in notes. You'll find in the Macmillan version, on the same pg 21, a map of Assyria labelled exactly where I placed it and on the same page a map of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. There are three names which appear twice: Havilah (one for Ham and one for Shem), Sheba (one for Ham and one for Shem), and Asshur (one for Ham and one for Shem)...Asshur refers to the region from which the Assyrian Empire originates...having Asshur for Ham and Shem means that both sons of Ham and sons of Shem lived there...not that all the Assyrians were Semites. The nucleus of Shem is clustered around Southern Arabia-Ethiopia (where it is generally believed the Semitic languages originated), thus green. The nucleus of Ham is Egypt-Canaan-Northern Fertile Crescent, thus red. It makes very logical sense...no interpretation involved...the Israelites wrote this passage to show their ethnic origin and that they were not related to the the Assyrians, Babylonians, who descended from Ham's descendant Nimrod, etc...again this is not controversial...? The names appear to suggest place names. This map correctly and literally depicts the Table of Nations...so what's the problem? Most scholars and professors warn their students NOT to use Misplaced Pages precisely because anyone can post anything and edit or delete...I'm trying to make Misplaced Pages better and would appreciate you not deleting a very useful map for understanding the ancient and contemporary Middle East. Isn't the work of 4 archaeologists enough for you? Hkp-avniel (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it must be attributed per the WP:NPOV policy if it is to appear, because these four archaeologists, whatever their credentials, do not possess a monopoly on POV nor on Bible interpretation of disputed verses like Gen 10:11, and contradictory POVs and interpretations may easily be found. When I say "must be attributed", this isn't a big deal. Just reinstate the map as before, and add "according to so-and-so" to the caption, so it doesn't look so much like a bald statement of undisputed fact — when in point of fact it is disputed and controversial to state that anyone thought of Assyrians as Hamitic, and far more so to extrapolate from that presumption, that anyone ever thought "Hamitic Assyrians" had conquered "Semitic Assyrians". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted 5 hours of my work based on undisputed primary and secondary sources. I will now be appealing to third=party editors at Misplaced Pages since you appear to be acting unreasonable. my regrets. Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy and coordinators

I'm afraid I've got no real idea of what the motivation of your recent comments is. The purpose of the thread was to ask whether any members of the project wanted to put themselves forward as potential coordinators for the Christianity project who would be able to provide some focus for the content related to the Oriental Orthodox churches. The various issues of the politics of the OO churches themselves is not particularly germane to the subject of the content relating to that subject in wikipedia. Certainly, as many individuals as would want to who would be able and willing to commit some time to working with the content of any of the Christianity projects, and also helping out with the various activities of the main Christianity project, are encouraged to put themselves forward. But, really, very few of the "daughter" projects of Christianity deal with a single church entity, including Catholicism, which deals with the Old Catholic churches as well. It was suggested that maybe we try to get individual coordinators who could focus on a particular church tradition when the idea was first proposed, and I basically was just repeating that. I imagine we will have whoever are elected try to deal with the content as they feel qualified, but there is not and never was any real thought that it was going to be required that every church body be represented, just that the coordinators who might be elected would indicate which project or projects they would help coordinate, in terms of helping with the assessment, review, portals and the like. That's it. The various projects have to date so far managed to varying degrees to avoid overpoliticization, and I think any elected coordinators would try to keep it that way. Membership in a particular church body is not required to have some knowledge of that body, and what is being sought is people knowledgable about a subject first and foremost. If a Catholic Ph.D. in Mormonism put himself forward to work with the Mormonism project, Ithink we'd all welcome him as long as he remained neutral. It would help if I had a clearer idea as to the specific thinking you have behind your recent comments. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just thinking about how notoriously difficult it has been to impose anything like 'coordination' on all the disparate POVs of the various religions in the long run, historically. Getting them all "on the same page" even in little ways for our purposes, sounds like it might be almost an unprecedented feat! Is each Misplaced Pages Project free to come up with its own selection process rules for coordination internally, or is this more like something being handed down from "above"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to once again be talking about things which I basically cannot comprehend. There is no intention of "getting them all on the same page", whatever your own preconceptions might be. I guess I will have to state it explicitly: There is no intention that these individuals will have any extra power, just that they will volunteer to handle management of directly project related activities, like portals, peer review, assessment, and the like. That's all. There is no real intention that the coordinators should have any particular control over content. There may be some slight contact such that, for instance, two portals don't use the same article at the same time, but that's about it. For the most part, though, there isn't any thought of imposition of anything in anyone's thinking except apparently your own. These individuals would have no particular control over content, like I already said. They would just ensure that articles are assessed, reviewed, and the like. That's all. You'll also notice that most of the assessments done for OO have been in fact done by me already. That's about all a coordinator would do. You might want to read the existing guidelines at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators, as I think it might answer some of your questions. And, for what it's worth, the elections would be done by the Christianity project, as they are the body for whom the positions exist. I also note to date that you are about the only person other than SECIsek who has expressed any real reservations about the idea, and you seem to be operating on the basis of it being an attempt at creating some sort of "cabal". That isn't even remotely the case. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Akkad

You reverted my entry, citing that the Sumerian King List dates The founding of Akkad to Sargon the Great, however The SKL specifically dates Akkad to just after the great Flood, and cetainly there is mention of the city to far before this, and even is mentioned on the page itself. And since there is no agreed date for the great flood I think it is a little dogmatic of you, and certainly POV, to only "allow" yours on this page. The edit i made was a consensus of what was written before and didn't delete any significant material, so I ask you not to simply revert it agian, but to at least it to a more reasonable format. i see by your page that you are involved in a number of revert wars and I dont think this is helpful activity for anyone. Ciriii (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, I am sure the SKL says it was built by Sargon of Akkad, this is mentioned on the article Sumerian king list. Does it also say it was built right after the Flood? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The SKL most definitely claims (line 266) that Sargon of Akkad built Agade (Akkad), centuries after the Flood. It says nothing about it being built immediately after the Flood. I agree that the city almost certainly predates Sargon in reality, based on the other evidence, but we can't misrepresent the SKL to say something it doesn't say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Race of Ancient Egypt

Thanks for the help on those trying to block relevant data.

I hope it does good, but I am not too hopeful. The whole page itself is in for a rewrite anyway.

Race of Ancient Egypt

Thanks for the help on those trying to block relevant data.

I hope it does good, but I am not too hopeful. The whole page itself is in for a rewrite anyway.Big-dynamo (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs at Sumer

Hello. I've reported the IP who's been making racial slurs against you (and me) at WP:ANI.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, that IP first called me a 'german bastard' - and then when I told him I wasn't German, he called me a 'jewish bastard'... Wrong again! Hmmm, do you think it is because of my username? Don't they know it's a character from folklore? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could confuse him by changing it to Tijl Uilenspiegel. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

re civil

I apologize for my behavior. I blame it on time of day. Also, the case seemed to be going so well for a time there, and I'm sorta new to mediation, so I was hoping it would work.

Having said that you two need to be civil towards each other, you began arguing against-the-man. There comes a point where the discussion goes from content policy to behavioral policy, and once that's breached, it's hard to bring it back up to content. I just wished that you did not participate in the edit warring, or say things that are judgmental against Sumerophile, the merits of his arguments notwithstanding. He's only human.

I will close this case, if you wish. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think it could have worked, but I need muh editors to be nice, even if one of them isn't. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I should have moved to the case page after the hiatus (my computer broke down (PSU, mobo, and memory all at once, I kid you not) during that time). So when I got back, I was like: "woah". If the compromise is not accepted (and I think it's perfectly acceptable), I'll close the case and suggest a move to medcom. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you or Sumerophile request medcom. I'm very sorry about how this turned out. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice taken, I have now filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Aratta. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Til Eulenspiegel!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Misplaced Pages. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Aratta. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aratta mediation active

Good day. I have accepted Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Aratta, and will be serving as your case Mediator from here on in. Please take note of my statement on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Aratta, including the sections about party activity, and about getting in touch with me. I look forward to working with you for the next while; keep an eye on the case talk page for developments coming soon. Regards, Anthøny 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please clock in at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Aratta. This is just a little exercise I do pre-mediation :) Anthøny 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates. Luwian language

Oh. Sorry. I was just following the contribution trail of this one guy who's been changing BCE to BC every so often on one page or another when the other style has already been established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Wrong id on sockpuppet

I must severely apologize to multiple people for my mistake, thank you so much for informing me. The article history of Hayasa-Azzi had become incredibly confusing and I accidentally identified the sock as the wrong person. Again thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Perhaps it was not a mistake to ban Andranikpasha since he today actively engaged in several anonymous sock puppetry attacks on various articles: This was the same person who was permanently banned from the Russian Misplaced Pages site! All I can say is I hope the situation is controlled by an alert Admin or two because if not, there will be a whole bunch of sockpuppet attacks by Andranikpasha (or Ararat Arev and his ilk) and then by Sumerophile on the other side of the spectrum. Personally, I prefer some balance in an article--not a strong in your face POV. If not, Misplaced Pages's reliability as a credible source of information would be called into question. I'm going on my Wiki-break now. I need it. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In either case, using a sockpuppet to continue edit warring is equal to saying "I wasn't blocked for long enough, please block me for longer". This applies to both sides of the edit war, including Andranikpasha and Sumerophile. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Til (if I may call you that), You're right. Sockpuppetry by either Andranikpasha, Sumerophile or Ararat Arev isn't acceptable. All I'm saying is that if you intervene against one party, please please be aware that the other party like Andranikpasha don't always have 'clean hands' and may be engaging in the types of activity that you also frown upon. This was what the Admins noticed today. Thank You, Artene50 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is strange that no one has bothered to attach an image or map to Emar, one of the more important site in the Near East. The same thing happened to king Shulgi. I managed to find 'something' on both of them from Wikicommons. I hope they are of acceptable quality. With kind Regards, Artene50 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser Request for Sumerophile

I have delisted Sumerophile (third case) on the basis of not providing a code letter, please provide a code letter and the request will be relisted. Mww113 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Hello Til. Consider opening up an SSP on Sumerophile just as a clerical matter. Put in the names and link to the checkuser, since you already have put some data there. If admins are going to do any blocks, having an actual SSP complaint helps to justify their action. Also there are so many editors being discussed that the lack of a place to put the data creates a risk of confusion; nobody wants to block the wrong person. Others will probably add information if you just open the thing. I can help add the sock tags once there is an SSP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See new response. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In response

Your first edits today clarifying the geography of Aram were quite helpful. However, in reponse to your discussion-free, summary-free reversion of my edit removing scholarly dissension that is unreferenced with anything more modern than 1906, I have attempted compromise and left the sentence 'However, some dispute any alleged Aramean ethnicity...' which you re-added, but I have again removed the 100+ year old scholarship as representing the status quo of scholarship on the issue today, and added a tag requesting a modern citation demonstrating that this is still a valid, modern minority view held by schoalrs, since, as per WP:RS, "# If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." I'm happy to discuss it, and I'm happy to leave it be once cited properly but its not appropriate to represent things published in the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century as if they were the status quo of scholarship today. Brando130 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Come now, rather than address anything I said you just drop your template, when actually I could revert once further (which I'll decline to do), since I have reverted you twice and you have already reached the three times you would be allowed to revert my edit today. . How appropriate to be at the extent of your allowed reversions for the day, and then come and warn me that I'm engaging in an edit war and at risk of violating 3RR. Pretty rich. Brando130 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on changes to that article involves ALL editors f the article and thus belongs on the talkpage for that article (which is the purpose of the article talkpage). Putting the discussion on my talkpage might seem like you are trying to skirt consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, edit warring and consensus skirting; all my favorite forms of wiki villainy. :p In seriousness, you're certainly right, my article-related comments should have made it to the article's talk page, not here. I'll take my thoughts there, though I'd like to do some source collecting myself before then. kalispera, Brando130 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sumerophile

I don't want to dump this on you, but someone should review the edits of the sock accounts that haven't been reverted. Example Enigma 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma)

Why the adjective "large" is used in this article? What is the definition of "large"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I assume it refers not its modest height, but to its wide extent in the other two dimensions! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User Khawkhamty

Sumerophile

May I gingerly ask what was your original problem with Sumerophile? Personally, I don't mind him but I find it distracting that he has to place the Ancient Near Eastern template on so many ancient historical articles including the Hittites now. For instance, this article has a ANE template which he placed and also a less intrusive template at the bottom. I clicked on the ANE template and it does have much useful info but the links to the Hittites generally connect to the same topic as is listed in this article on Suppiluliuma I except for Hittite mythology. I didn't know about this article, I must admit. Is Sumerophile obsessed with adding certain templates? He's a strange guy--he's smart but it seems as if he is obsessed with the ANE template somehow. I don't understand it. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Did Sumerophile just change the title of Neo-Hittite states to Syro-Hittite states? That's unbelievable! Even I am not that smart to do that. All my book sources call the Hittites in Syria which survived the Sea Peoples as the Neo-Hittites. Oh the article has the same ANE template, again. Artene50 (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I first noticed him last January; first, as an IP, he showed up out of the blue, systematically rearranging Sumerian rulers' articles, by changing practically every aspect of the cats, stubs, templates and photos, and stuffing the tiny articles with all of these, in a way that made them almost unreadable. This is normally not the kind of overhaul to be performed by an anon IP with no discussion or consensus at all whatsoever, so I took it for a typical prank and reverted these changes. Things like this happen from time to time, but what I did not expect was that the IP would continue to edit war these changes, refuse to discuss them, then soon register an account with the name Sumerophile and continue the same. This was a clever name, because maybe it made most admins think he was some kind of expert in this oft-neglected area, and give him more benefit of the doubt at first... But if you look at what he has actually done to these articles, he has never expanded, nor added 5 cents worth of information to any of them, all he has ever done is insist, through revert-warring more than through discussion, that all the tags, stubs, cats, pics, orthographies, and dates (as in "short chronology") be done his way, and his way only, without one iota of compromise. Our first big edit war was over the Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer layout, and when he crossed 3RR, I reported the violation without crossing myself, and found myself blocked for the first time ever, even though I'd been editing for years and never once been blocked. I thought this was very strange, since I have always been scrupulously careful not to cross 3RR myself, and it seemed I had been blocked merely for reporting his violation. Even if all of the incidental idiosyncracies could have been overlooked, his most dangerous habits are deleting reliably sourced information, even quotes from Samuel Kramer, the most famous authority to ever share archaeological info on Sumer with the world, simply because he has an unpublished theory that contradicts what the books say. If anyone complained, he then started screaming about "fighting nationalism" - as if that were a perfect, unassailable excuse to delete any sourced points of view he doesn't like. Naturally, behaviour like that eventually attracts ill-feeling from all sorts of fellow editors, and it was only a matter of time before he got blocked for longer periods of time, then extended to permanent because of his refusal not to use sockpuppets to continue this incessant campaign. So that's where we are now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Mr. Eulenspiegel. I now see your point on him. The wholesale changing and addition of templates or article titles doesn't really seem acceptable to me too. He (or at least one of his socks) just sent me a message on my talk page justifying the reason why he changed the title of Neo-Hittite to Syro-Hittites. I don't really buy it most of my published sources call them the Hittite successors of the Hittite Empire as the neo-Hittites...but if I hit the revert button, I may cause an edit war. He did, however, produce a reasonable reason to justify the term Syro-Hittite: I suppose it doesn't really matter what title the article is on this single case as long as people can still access the article. He's quite right on some aspects of Armenian nationalism though. I find Nationalists to be the most difficult people to have a rational debate with. But one or two rights by S. don't make a wrong as in evading a block. BTW, I checked my photocopy of Bryce's book on the Hittites and Bryce himself calls the Hittite successors in Syria "as the Neo-Hittite, or Syro-Hittite kingdoms." (Bryce, Kingdom of the Hittites, p.385) So, while this scholar acknowledges the Neo-Hittites could be called Syro-Hittites, he places Neo-Hittite first which implies he follows the scholarly consensus here. Bryce also directly quotes a 1992 book by Mario Liverani which calls the surviving Hittites in Carchemish, Tarhuntassa and Isuwa as "the Neo-Hittite states." (p.385, footnote 91) But as I said, its not a big deal to me. What I dislike is the wholesale tagging of Hittite articles with the ANE template when there is a separate Hittite template at the bottom of the article. I find their prominent location at the start or middle of an article to be quite distracting. They should be at the bottom in almost all cases. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Aratta closed

Til, just a heads up that I am closing Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Aratta, per my explanation here. Regards, Anthøny 13:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Saqqara King List vs South Saqqara Stone

Please distinguish between the Saqqara Kinglist from the tomb of Thunery and the South Saqqara Stone. The South Saqqara Stone is a relatively new annal document and was only published in BIFAO in 1995. In contrast, the Saqqara Kinglist is well known from long time ago. I corrected your mistake here from to Here is Signor Raffaelle's web page on the South Saqqara Stone; it clearly says the kings listed here are from Teti, the founder of dynasty 6 to Pepi II: Signor Raffaelle is a professional Egyptologist from Italia. Please do not introduce mistakes signor. Arrivederci Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found out this was a mistake myself, after Artene50 first misled me here, with this edit, on the 15th ultimate. For a whole day and a half, he had pulled the wool over my eyes with this nefarious deception. But do note, I had discovered the error of my ways and repented of them by early the morning of the 17th. I deeply apologize to you for not yet rooting out the pernicious misperception entirely, in that place where I had propagated it myself, whilst briefly in the error of my ways. But really, I think you should ascribe just a little of the censure and reproach to that wily Artene...! Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a simple error. The editor was probably confused since there are now two Egyptian kinglists that contain the name 'Saqqara.' The Saqqara tablet is called the Saqqara kinglist whereas the South Saqqara Stone is both a kinglist and an Annal document which chronicles events in a king's reign. I think many readers still don't know about the Saqqara Stone because it was published in a French serial or if they do, they tend to conflate the two documents into one. That's why your correction resolves any confusion immediatedly. But your apology is accepted. Leoboudv (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

There's a call for a vote on recent scolarship about

Tej Bet

Hi Til Eulenspiegel, since I am not an English speaker, I can't judge what pronunciation ‘beit’ could represent for an English speaker. I admit that the English orthography is a catastrophe because there seem to be no rules. So which sound would the combination of ‘e’ and ‘i’ represent? Is it a middle-high front vowel? But I know Amharic quite well and speak it every day. So I know how to pronounce ቤት. From the scientific perspective ‘ei’ is incorrect because it seems to represent something like a diphthong which don't exist in that word (at least in Standard Amharic, በይት vs. ቤት). Driss (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you represent yourself at level 3, but I speak it quite fluently, so I know that mistakes are bound to happen if you try to rigidly apply some kind of "scientific perspective" to something like the Amharic language, or, if you try to force the language to conform to such a narrow perspective. Yes, the sound of the 5th form is considered one vowel in Amharic, but if you want to get "scientific" about it, or give precedence to the insistent pronouncements of these certain men calling themselves "scientists" who know about as much Amharic as an ashtray does, then I suppose you would have to admit that this vowel sound IS indeed a dipthong, in the so-called "International Phonetic Standard". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to start a big discussion. But I just want to say that in the last 15 years in Ethiopia I never heard that vowel pronounced as an diphthong. In Wello there is a pre-palatalized pronunciation in some circumstances, i.e. the ‘y’ actually precedes the vowel. So from a scientific and a real world point of view it is very save to say that there is no diphthong involved in the pronunciation of that vowel. Driss (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you know how to pronounce English correctly, think of the words "bet" and "bait". Would you say the pronunciation of ቤት is more like "bet"? I would not. The principle reason Amharic is so confusing to outsiders, when it is so simple to those who haven't been preconditioned with a lot of gobbledy-gook, is precisely this. Because "experts" deliberately make it as inaccessible as possible. Telling people that ቤት is pronounced like 'bet' is the misleading type of thing I am talking about. Of course you can argue that according to scientists' doctrine, it must be written as "bet" phonetically, with the "e" pronounced as in Spanish, rhyming more closely with "bait" (but not exactly so) -- and you could make a wonderful scientific argument according to your science that this vowel is not really a dipthong. But then most English speakers would have to take a course in "international phonetic standards" first, just to be able to learn a language that is much simpler than it is made to appear. I mean really, anyone could learn it, and most who do, are not required to know anything at all about "international phonetic science" blah blah blah. But if you tell English speakers that ቤት is correctly pronounced as "bet", there is a 95% chance that this will confuse them and / or cause them to mispronounce it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a summarization of your comment I would say that the main problem lies in the inability of the English orthography where you don't have a clear correspondence between written sign and the represented sound. I think, the problem you are referring to concerns mostly English speakers. For me as a German speaker it is much more easier to accept ‘bet’ as a representation of ቤት. But I understand your point. But I wonder how you would write something like ፊት so that 95% of the English speakers would pronounce it correctly? Something like ‘feet" or ‘feat"? And what about geminated consonants? How do you write them in Latin alphabet? Driss (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My own system (I am also an Amharic teacher and have an online course) is to represent the 5 main vowels as e, u, ee, a, ie, i o. Technically in that system ቤት would be biet. Gemination is easily indicated by doubling the consonant in most cases... (I use tch to indicate double ch) this is much easier for English speaking students to study transliterations in than having to cope with IPA. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Prester John

Hi--I might misunderstand something about you povcheck tag on Prester John. Since you don't explain the POV problem on the talk page, who will perform the check? (I'm newish to the wiki, so I don't know how these tags work.) Thanks Cretog8 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Aku-Aku

I am constantly bemused by the quote prominently displayed on your user page. I'm sure you intended it to be thought-provoking and whatnot, but I can't help but crack up each time I get to "race experts". Didn't anyone tell you that scientists are unanimous in saying there's no such thing as race? This foolish quotation from a controversial ethnologist whose theories have been debunked is indecorous for the user page of a seemingly intelligent person like you.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... Whenever anyone tries to tell me that "scientists are unanimous" about anything, the red flags go up... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, there are "scientists" who dispute it, just as there are "scientists" who dispute evolution. Whether you can call them "scientists" is a matter of debate; personally, I think they're "scientists" just as much as Holocaust deniers are "historians".--Yolgnu (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for sharing your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking on the Noah's Ark article

Hi Til Eulenspiegel. Thanks for helping with the wikifying of the Noah's Ark article. I apologise for overlinking; thanks for patiently sorting it out. I though I was being helpful; a "wikify" tag had been put on a section of the article, and I couldn't see why (it looked like one of the better wikified sections of the article to me), so I figured more links was what was required. I think I was probably spurred to over-egg with the links by the overzealous addition of an (unnecessary) "wikify" tag. Thanks again, and sorry for the inconvenience (I know a little how you feel after having just spent over 2 hours trying to wikify). --Woofboy (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Troglodytea

As per your changes to this article, claiming that Wikipaedia can not accept original research, I understand your point of view. I have also read the original research page. However it is evident that you did not check the sources listed. Furthermore it was far more referenced than the original content which makes virtually no reference at all. Also it was solely a clarification of Josephus' use of the term, because the original is grossly misleading. If you disagreed, then you should have taken this issue up on the discussion page and/or requested further referencing and/or requested rewording. My credentials as listed on my pages should speak sufficiently for me. I would also find it helpful if you could say a little about yourself on your page. Alas you have deleted hours of work. What is knowledge but the repetition of other men's thoughts and ideas? What is Misplaced Pages other than the collation of knowledge? How was it original research? It was a collation of known facts that clarified a misleading point. My frustration is your discourteous deletion of my labours without protocol. My article changes and references simply showed that Troglodytis was nothing more than a Greek/Latin come English translation of the literal names of the inhabitants of that area for a Hebrew speaking person (i.e. Josephus). I again suggest that you follow the protocols I have already mentioned. I am also educated in Hellenic Greek and Hebrew. I know that what I have said sounds a little aggressive, but please do not misunderstand me: I still appreciate your efforts, like mine to enhance this great tool that is taking mankind's collective knowledge to the world. If you do not reply I will proceed to eventually replace the text that you have deleted. Regards, Anthony van Duyn. --Avanduyn (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Montezuma (mythology)

Hello, Til Eulenspiegel;

I removed Wilson's article from the Montezuma (mythology) page because upon reading it, it is not apparent that a mythological divine Montezuma is being discussed, as opposed to the legends surrounding the actual person and the Aztecs. Wilson even posited that Kino or Manje interpreted the name into their report. At any rate, I am not convinced that the description in the Misplaced Pages article is supported by Wilson 1999, but I am not an expert on the field. J. Spencer (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

...

I'm sure you've noticed already but here it is anyway: pesky sock. Btw your talk page needs archiving.-- Ευπάτωρ 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

HELLO

I NOTICED YOU REVERTED MY CONTRIBUTION, WHICH I EXPECTED WOULD HAPPEN BUT A KEEPING IT WITH A LITTLE EDITING WOULD BE NICE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT THEY ARE ACUTALLY TRUE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.248.199 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore this IP editor; he is an IP vandal/spammer. David873 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Dear User Til, I see you have had some edit conflict with DougWeller on the Ethiopia article. Personally, I've found DougWeller's edits to be generally balanced and truthful. He tries to include most of the up to date sources on various topics. Some of the material that we see in books on Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia or Ethiopia can be dated because they are based on 19th century theories and interpretations that have been discredited or are somewhat erroneous/dated. (and should be avoided if possible). I am not involved in this article since I don't know the subject.

BTW, I notice from your talk page a reference to a certain editor who is obsessed with templates. I think he is the same person as Twofistedcoffee drinker: I've avoided him if possible because he is not very 'neighbourly'. Leoboudv (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I made two edits on Ethiopia here: because I didn't think the info should in the 19th century discoveries/views section. I moved the location of the 1270 Solomonic dynasty foundation info since its source was from a 1970's book. (Not a the 19th century book, so the context was slightly wrong.) I also gave the full academic citation for Taddesse's book since no source mentioned it. As for the Taharqa paragraph, I don't know if this actually belongs in the Ethiopia article since he and his successor's kingdom were based in Napata and then Meroe which is in Sudan. (though they were certainly black pharaohs) But I moved the Taharqa paragraph to the 'Ethiopian Empire' chapter for a more appropriate context. Leoboudv (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Great username

I hope you don't get up to any lustige Streiche on WP. I am a great lover of horn music. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

4 Baruch

Thanks for moving Rest of the Words of Baruch back to 4 Baruch.jonathon (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Samson

I see you deleted the template I added to this article, with the following edit summary:

rv - This template is inflammatory, divisive, POV and OR, and should be deleted, as it attempts to apply the MOS fiction guidlines to the Bible

I encourage you to reconsider this revert. Just a few notes on this:

1. Unless we as Misplaced Pages are to take the bible at its word (which is untenable as a neutral encyclopedia), we ought to report the facts (The Bible states that ..., According to the bible Matthew 24:30, ..., Christians believe that ...), instead of reporting what the bible wrote as fact (Jesus was resurrected from the dead on the third day after his death, etc). If we are to make these claims as fact, then we should evaluate them as fact, including the presence or absence of corroborating and contradicting evidence.
2. The template is not inflammatory. It states that we should take a neutral stance on the truth of the bible. You may think the Bible is inerrant, or that that part of the bible is fact, or whatever. I disagree, I think it's at least partly made up. This causes problems if we each want our perspective written in the article. However, what we can both agree on is what it says, and therefore we should report what it says, and not make any judgement on whether it's factual or not (by repeating its claims as fact, or indeed treating it as a work of fiction). I see this as a way of healing a conflict, rather than something that is "inflammatory and divisive" (i.e. it creates controversy and argument).
3. Writing about the bible should be done as we do fiction. Not because I believe the bible is fiction, but for the reasons above. The reference to the 'fiction' section of the Manual of Style is merely because the guidelines seem to be roughly the same.
4. That particular template is part of Misplaced Pages (i.e. not an article). Our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, and on avoiding original research, applies to content only. Your statement that the template is "POV and OR" (is POV an adjective?) makes as much sense as demanding references for the notice at the top of an article saying that it is being considered for deletion.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter, particularly on how we can best depict the biblical narrative, without insulting people's religion. — Werdna • talk 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

POV is indeed an adjective, it stands for point-of-view. For example, when you wrote above "Writing about the bible should be done as we do fiction", this is your point-of-view, as opposed to an indisputable statement. I would dispute that point-of-view, as I do not share it. The Bible, Qur'an, Talmud, Lotus Sutra, Mahabharata, Book of Mormon, etc. were not intended as fiction, and were intended as sacred narratives, so they are not in the same category as fiction. They each have a significant number of adherents today, so they are also not quite in the same category as the Eddas or Orpheus. In fact, these books (excepting Book of Mormon) can all be said to constitute part of the background philosophy of various sovereign states in the world today; in this respect, they have more in common with Das Kapital and Thoughts of Chairman Mao than they have with works intended as fiction. Since they are indeed used by sovereign states, I simply cannot agree with the POV statement that "Writing about the Bible (or any one of them) should be done as we do fiction". They are obviously in a special category, that requires considerably more attention to neutrality, than do works obviously intended as fiction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Many people believing something does not make it fact. Certainly, sacred texts are in a separate category. I contend that we must be extremely certain that we take no position on their truthfulness (we should not treat as fact, nor as fiction), which amounts to the same thing you've said: "requires considerably more attention to neutrality". Neutrality means not saying "The bible is totally wrong because it was made up by a drunken idiot", but not saying "Jesus was raised on the third day after he was killed". Instead, we must say "According to the bible, Jesus was raised on the third day after he was killed", or "The book of Genesis details Christian beliefs on the creation of the universe". It is critical that we attribute these statements to the bible, rather than accepting and repeating them.

In essence, I agree with you – we need to give extra-special treatment to speaking neutrally about religious texts. I have just told you how I think we should write about biblical subjects. How do you think we should write about them? — Werdna • talk 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing wikipedia since April 2005, and can say that what you have just now outlined, has always been the policy for dealing with any beliefs or ideas that have significant adherents (it's called the NPOV policy). In your last message, you seem to have come a bit closer to acknowledging the status quo policy, than in your previous message where you made a sort of logical leap to conclude "Writing about the bible should be done as we do fiction". If you now realize that there are several crucially important differences between 1) handling documents intended as sacred narrative, and 2) describing works that everyone agrees were never intended as anything but fiction in the first place, then you now have no difference with the longstanding policy, nor with me. I know of no one who has suggested that all of these sacred narratives are "true" by virtue of their numbers of adherents (there's no way they can all be true at the same time!) but at least policy insists that they all be described neutrally by virtue of their numbers of adherents, not to mention their roles in various national constititions around the world! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in heated agreement. My comment that we should treat the bible as we treat fiction was a throw-away observation that the neutral way of describing religious texts is somewhat similar to the "out-of-universe" style that we apply to fiction (i.e. making sure we're talking about what the text says, not implying that it's true or false – although I admit that we imply that fiction is false, and the analogy breaks down there). — Werdna • talk 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Just noticed you made this edit. It will be good to clarify this is according the mythology of Abrahamic religions. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't; it is inflammatory, polemic, antagomistic, and not at all neutral to refer to the Bible as "mythology"; it is a POV of only a few that is not shared by millions. We are not allowed to be POV and are required to be NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory how? Noah's Ark had no real life existence and it is a mythology. Are you disputing the claim Noah's Ark was not real? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a POV that Noah's Ark was not real. There is another POV that it was real. We can't prove it either way, we have to be neutral and not state either POV as if it were proven fact. . Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This explanation does make sense that there should be a balance between creation mythological beliefs and scientific findings. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are so convinced that your POV is fact. Try looking past your own nose a little bit and realize that not everyone shares your POV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I never edited the article. My POV is that Noah' Ark is mythological and this POV is shared by a vast majority of scientific minded people. I just surprised to see why you removed the fact, but the explanation that some people believe Noah's Ark was real make sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A myth is something which may or may not be true. It's what scholars and your average person use to refer to stories of this nature. If we're going to get technical though: there's more proof (scientific in the form of geological, biological) that this story of a global flood wiping out all humanity down to just one family is not true. We've also no examples of people living hundreds of years. The story is of a sacred nature to some groups of people. All of these make it very suitable to label this as a mythological story (one which does not appear likely in the face of scientific evidence). It's part of what's known as "flood mythology". If you can answer the questions I've asked on the discussion page perhaps that will narrow down what it is you're arguing about. NathanLee (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aram (Biblical region)

Thanks. Rktect, banned from certain types of articles for OR, is busy adding OR to Exodus related articles (he seems to be writing an article on Stations of the Exodus). You should see what he's dropped on Talk:Battle of Kadesh, it's virtually incomprehensible. Doug Weller (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the guy can't wikiformat to save his life, can't explain himself very well on talk, and that he's not adding all the references that would be helpful (and frankly that Wiki policy requires) - but his edits are being done in good faith, they have good information, and they're ultimately quite benign compared to much of the OR that pops up in Wiki (as all of three of us, I'm sure, know) - I think some of his good-faith content (e.g. whatevers verifiable) should be restored and a partial revert would have been more in order than a full. Brando130 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if anything of actual value (and properly referenced) turns up in his version, that we incorporate it into the longstanding, multi-editor framework for the article, rather than work backwards from his version. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Brando130 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

One problem is deciding what is verifiable and what is just pure speculation on his part. You'd have to go through checking every single thing to see if you could verify any of it. He rarely uses references and when he does, they are as likely to be the report of some tourist (which I found today), as anything else, or a book with no page number that may or may not back up his statement. He's in a big argument on the Sarah Palin talk page about whether the Daily Kos is a reliable source (he says yes, and I wish he was right, but he isn't). And as I said above, try to figure out what he's saying on the Battle of Kadesh talk page! Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Arran

Re this. You are reading something into the source that is not there. Neither the name has been compared (as you suggest), and nor has the place itself. Darmesteter does not make any "comparison", and neither does the source referred to by Darmesteter. That source simply says "X on the border of Y", and Darmester does not infer anything more than stating what--in modern times--is "on the border of Y". Darmesteter quite clearly says "mythical". I have really no idea what you hope to achieve, but it is inappropriate to the context, unscientific in its treatment, and if that weren't bad enough, Darmesteter is a 130 years old source and outdated as hell. So stop it already. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
ps: please reply here (or on the article talk page).

Considering your choice to not respond, I have tagged the article, and described why I did so on talk. Please respond from now on on the talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My choice not to respond???? I had to go to bed!!! WTF!!

STrangely I have been suffering from insomnia tonight even though it is now 4:30 AM here, and so I saw this mess on my talkpage. Please go back and read carefully and note the following direct quotes from Prof. Darmesteter on the link I have already given:

• "The first province Airyanem Vaeja, or Eranwej, we identify with the medieval Arrân (nowadays known as Karabagh)"
• "Airyanem Vaeja, Iran-Vej, is the holy land of Zoroastrianism: Zarathushtra was born and founded his religion there (Bund. 20.32; 32.3): the first animal couple appeared there (Bund. 14.4; Zadspram, 9.8). From its name, 'the Iranian seed,' it seems to have been considered as the original seat of the Iranian race. It has been generally supposed to belong to Eastern Iran, like the provinces which are enumerated after it, chiefly on account of the name of its river, the Vanguhi Daitya, which was in the Sassanian times (as Veh) the name of the Oxus. But the Bundahish distinctly states that Iran-Vej is 'bordering upon Adarbajan' (29.12); now, Adarbaijan is bordered by the Caspian Sea on the east, by the Rangha provinces on the west, by Media proper on the south, and by Arran on the north. The Rangha provinces are out of question, since they are mentioned at the end of the Fargard (verse 20), and the climatic conditions of Iran-Vej with its long winter likewise exclude Media and suit Arran, where the summer lasts hardly two months (cf. § 4, note 6). The very name agrees, as the country known as Arran seems to have been known to the Greeks as `Ariania (Stephanus Byz.), which brings it close to our Airyanem."

Do I see some material here in Prof. Darmesteter's views that is relevant to the subject of ARRAN? Yes, I do!!

Are we, as wikipedians, competent to come up with our own original rebuttals to what Prof. Darmestater has stated? Perhaps, however we, by policy, are not allowed to include them here, unless the same rebuttals have appeared somewhere in a published source. We also cannot attempt a rebuttal by stringing together a bunch of refs that do not even mention the subject (ARRAN) because that is the definition of WP:SYNTH.

If you wish to rebut Darmesteter, find some sources that do so. We can't simply accept your POV of Darmesteter (who I am sure you realize is the luminary who translated the Avesta into English), and attribute that POV to "User:Fullstop". We need proper WP:RSS.

And as far as Darmesteter's usage of the term "mythical" - what exactly does this word mean to you? Clearly it connotes the implication of "non-existent" in your view, correct?

Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of honorifics

I've started a discussion on the use of honorifics at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorifics. You are obviously welcome to participate. I have tried to present the issue in a neutral manner, while making clear what my preference is (which is obvious from the difference between the wto versions of the article). Fram (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Biblical minimalism

Whether it should be stated as a fact is one thing, whether it's minimalism is quite another - minimalists would put the formation of the Torah at four-three century, not seven-six. PiCo (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Appomattoc

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Appomattoc, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Appomattoc

Hi,

I don't know if you are aware of the Manual of Style guidance that says:

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated

and that may influence what you do at Appomattoc and other articles. Kind regards. Lightmouse (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki in Akkadian Empire

Hello, there were two articles, Akkadian Empire about empire and Akkad about city. Now there is only one article, but with mixed interwiki. It is not good. Please, select if you want to have interwiki to city or to empire. Interwiki bots must skip this page and reports problem. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We now have one article about both; it is entirely proper, and precedented, to link articles about both in other languages. I don't think it was ever desired or intended that we should have to go out of our way to alter the relevant wikipedia links, just in order to accomodate the python robots. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Troglodytis

Remember this? - that editor is back, inserting the same thing in 5 articles plus some stuff in the Xerxes I article I'm dubious about. Can you help? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also being discussed on the Fringe board, Doug Weller (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jokshan and similar aritcles

Thanks for straightening out the rift valley thing, but would you please look at this diff? - I have two problems with it. First, it appears to be OR (but I was wrong before...) " Abraham in all probability, tried to keep them apart from..." is the bit I'm concerned about, and it would be nice to know who 'thought' the rest. Secondly, the whole article reads as though it is historical fact. Zimran is ok, but Medan and Ishbak are not, and Ishbak has the same OR in it plus some speculation sourced from Adventist literature, and I haven't been convinced that is a reliable source. Shuah has the same problem, written as though it is fact, OR, and a claim put forward as fact based on Adventist literature. Your help would be greatly appreciated as I know the editor is already a bit discouraged. Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemp

Are you sure the hemp you refer to here wasn't Apocynum cannabinum, an unrelated plant native to North American that is often called "Indian hemp"?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no indication that Archer would be referring to anything else other than what he records simply as hempe. The 1619 source clearly says planters must sow "hempe also, both English and Indian" in addition to "flaxe"; the "English hempe" is still relevant to European hemp, even if we were to possibly interpret some other species of plant or weed called 'Indian hemp' that colonists were required to grow. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Nemattanew

On 9 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nemattanew, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deuterocanical

With reference to 2 Esdras‎ I think that Wiki shall be as clear as possible. "Deuterocanical" is a technical Catholic term coined by Catholics in 1566 after the Council of Trent for a precise set of texts. Any catholic who sees a text labeled as "Deuterocanical" considers it fully inspired, what it is not for 2 Esdras.

I suggest you to create a category named "Deeyutrokanoneekal" (or "Ethiopian Deuterocanical books" or something like it) to include the books of the Ethiopian canon not present in the Hebrew Bible.

That mainly to respect the Ethiopian Church that is independent from Trent. The term "Deuterocanical" in you E. Bible is for sure explained is the introduction as meaning "Ethiopian Deuterocanical books", so you can't use such a term without making clear the context. The use of the simple term "Deuterocanical" for a Ethiopian text would lend support to a agreement of the Ethiopian Church with the Roman Catholic theology that does not exist. A ntv (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, it is impeccably sound from a categorizational standpoint. I'll try to make the cat soon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check Talk:2 Esdras about 2 Esdras to be in category:Christian texts. By the way are you going to make a cat for Ethiopian "deuterocanonicals"? Thanks. A ntv (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because a Catholic first used this term does not mean it is a technical Catholic-only term. It is a widely used term nowadays. --Carlaude 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

huh

-- are you trying to wikistalk me now or something? Since when is it a problem to SEMIprotect articles to prevent anonymous edit-warring? --dab (𒁳) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like I'm wikistalking you. I have always edited at Assyria and so I see everything that happens there on my watchlist. But as for your protecting it, it's not for me to say anything that WP:PROTECT doesn't say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

good, there isn't a problem then. just try to remember this isn't personal, ok? Displaying withering disdain in edit summaries isn't very mature. Ignore my personality and I'll ignore yours, we are both here for the 'pedia, not for social games. --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Til

Til first and foremost I want to sincerely thank you for the work you have done on both Assyrian and Mesopotamian articles. You have done an excellant job in contributing to these projects and I salute you for that. Til, I want to bring to your attention that USer: Dab is continually removing the History of the Assyrian People Template from the Article on Assyria. This article is clearly a part of the series of the history of the Assyrian People and yet Dab continues to remove it without any discussion or consensus what so ever. There has always been a template on this article from as long as I rememeber, and he continues to do this on other related pages as well without any logical reasoning. I would greatly apprecciate your advice and assistance on this issue. Thank You Nineveh 209 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Subpage test

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Mediation Cabal

Thank-you for your request for a mediator from the Mediation Cabal for the following case: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-28_Noah's_Ark. Please Tell me all the parties involved as I would like to touch base as I am now your mediator. Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This was closed, and I'm not sure why. The RFC wasn't intended to replace the Mediation, it was to collect commments together. Looking over Wikipedian2's edit count, and recent RFA, perhaps they weren't the most experienced person to go ahead and do this, so do you think this should this be reopened? Ben (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a message at the MEDCAB talk page, and it was archived around a day later without a response. What's the plan? Ben (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq

Our problem with precise figures is that we need an equally precise WP:FOOT from a WP:RELY. Where did the figure come from? It must have come from somewhere? As far as asking about who speaks what in other countries, while it is presument that the French speak French, there are countries that are polyglot, The residents of China for example do not speak Chinese. Many speak Mandarin, some speak Cantonese. There are dozens of other languages. But I would need a footnote to justify and numbers.

The one-third must have come from somewhere didn't it? If it didn't, it is WP:OR and must be removed. Few people speak their native language nowdays. There are few Italian-Americans who speak Italian anymore after three generations.

BTW, you may be in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. Student7 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked you if you had done any research into the matter of Mi'kmaq speakers whatsoever, before pontificating on the subject. Your armchair conjectures and rambling about Italian-Americans do not constitute "research". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We need WP:RELY facts on all Misplaced Pages articles. No statement is supposed to be "observation." All is supposed to be from documented source. This is an encyclopedia not a composition class. All editors should be able to defend any statement. I am often asked to supply a reference. I do not take this request personally because it is not personal. Anyone asking for a reference is trying to make the article more believable. If it is not believable, readers will stop reading it and either go on to another article or forget about Misplaced Pages altogether. Student7 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

references please on Noah's ark

I'm trying to see how your reversions are good faith, but without a SINGLE dictionary definition or reference to support your strange idea of "mythology": I can't really see how what you're doing is anything other than edit warring to push a niche view. So I'll ask you here, simply for some definitions that match either "dead religion" or along the lines of singularly meaning "false/fictional" because I can't find them. While you're at it I'd like something on some things you've claimed along the way:

• 1 . You said mythology means either "religion" or "dead religion" rather than "stories that may have religious meaning and sacred narrative". I looked at your reference and found only an isolated quote, not a definition by any means.
• 2. You said "even the current Pope is on record as writing a book imploring that the Bible is NOT to be classed as mythology" (i've given you one from the previous pope that says the opposite, and most recently an archbishop using the term myth directly). What was the book or link?
• 3. In the mediation request you claimed the role of the term "mythology" as part of the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution (If your argument is that use of the term mythology was a core technique, I'd think that killing or deporting clergy, knocking down churches, forcing priests to marry, passing laws banning christianity etc were more likely the cause) Regardless: do you have any reference about the use of mythology during this period.
• 4. A statement you made "The only parties who have tried to blur these lines and call a living religion 'mythology' are those who are pointedly attacking it and trying to hasten its demise - including mainly the leaders of the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Communists in Russia, China, Albania, Cuba, and every other Communist country". As I've said religions have mythology, that doesn't make mythology a synonym for religion. If you can point me to where you got the information about french, russian revolution, communists, china etc using the term mythology because it sounds a bit like a wild, made up claim.
• 5. Encyclopaedias avoiding the term mythology to refer to living religions. This sounds like another wild claim or perhaps a deduction based on not finding christianity directly called "mythology". Britannica mentions the OT in its mythology article as I recall, but perhaps you have a link to an article or book that mentions this avoiding the term?

Just a simple request of a few answers and should be straight forward for you to supply, as it will help me understand your side of the argument if I can see that it is more than just your personal aversion to a term. NathanLee (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

D.C

It is not up to us to verify material that you want in an article. And if it can be so easily found, then why are you expecting other editors to clean up after you. Simply placing something in an article and then saying someone else can fact check it or reference it themselves is lazy on your part, and coming to me won't do you any good because I delete unsourced, uncited material. It's something that I have taken on personally because if we are all here to make Wiki a better place for people to get complete and accurate information, then all of the information needs to be verifiable by all users. Inserting a book reference is not sourcing it, unless it is being presented in person, which clearly we are not. It goes just the same for other articles here too. So believe me when I tell you I have ABSOLUTELY no bias towards the D.C article. I have a bias against uncited material. Believe me when I tell you that once a verifiable source is available, I will leave the entire debacle that it has become behind.CHEERS!--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you reverted my edits, even though I gave two reliable sources, because I did not spoonfeed you the hyper-link to find it on your computer? That is the worst faith in a regular editor's contributions I have ever seen. "If I can't see it on the internet, I won't believe it". Sorry, but your revert was against policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't. I had the exact same issue with Spencer Pratt article over the input of a contest, and they simply input a radio station where they heard it. How is anyone to know that what you have been presenting actually exists, if they cant see it. They made the decision to actually go back and find their source and then re-input the info..which, like i said is all that people are saying. this has exploded into something it shouldn't have been because clearly, you have the source, but you chose not to put it in the article, instead leaving it on my talk page. So it's not spoon feeding, its responsible editing.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I would add the same RSS with the hyperlinks, which are not actually required by policy; however I might get accused of breaking 3RR. That's why I'm asking you to add it. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:32, 9

December 2008 (UTC)

Well the issue is now being debated on whether or not it even stays in the article. And I didn't know you were asking me to input all of that into the article, so we will see where the debate goes on the subject and then it will be input..Feel free to talk about it though at the talk page and let them know.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't been reached yet on Talk:Washington, D.C. I'm on the fence on this issue, but we do need to come to consensus first, before making further article edits on this issue. --Aude (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You actually mean I have to wait for the decision of a bunch of faceless smug armchair experts to "decide" if native Americans are "notable" or "significant" enough to be mentioned or linked in an article about a place where they lived? YGTBK! I don't think there is any legitimate policy that can be used to justify excluding this information, and plenty that says it needs to be included -- regardless of what your personal WP:BIASes about Native Americans and their relevancy might be. So rest assured, you haven't heard the last on this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(For casual readers:) I think since the above comment was made, consensus has indeed been reached, so while this is technically the same topic, there is no longer a subtext of edit reversion.

Til, you obviously have a lot to offer the encyclopedia on many topics, including native Americans. We need your expertise. But we also need your hard references. As the first editor mentioned, the burden of proof is on the original editor adding the material. It would be helpful to accept that responsibility unless you are entering the material from memory or something, but even then one has to expect reversion or criticism. I almost always insert a reference for every single entry I make. Every paragraph IMO should have at least one in-line footnote.

Naturally, I have made exceptions for myself (wouldn't you know) on "minor" articles that almost no one reads! Even then, I have been challenged by another specialist in my area who deliberately monitors thousands of little-read articles to ensure that they are edited properly. Of course, then, I have no excuse and must drum up a decent reference (which is also challenged sometimes!).

I agree that the second editor probably should have accepted hard print as proper reference, but thank you for coming up with something online. After the first no-reference entry, the online reference was reassuring. I watch a thousand articles and the worse entries I see (after pure vandalism) is top-of-the-head stuff. "Don't go to 6th and Main in Chicago. It's a high crime area." They may be right, but where's the proof? It's reverted immediately by whoever spots it first. BTW, you were arguing with the most respected editor (no he doesn't own it!) on the DC article, the reason that everyone flew to his defense and opposed you!

When I put references on material (and have a good edit summary), even far out stuff, I seldom get any negative response from anyone.

Thank you for taking the time to correspond. Student7 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Given the number of frivolous, mischievous, and destructive edits he has made to the Noah's Ark article (and others), I'd like to seek your assistance as a third party mediator between PiCo and myself. I went through the entire process of conflict resolution with him on a previous occasion, and reached this point. At that stage he backed down and started going quiet for a while, since he knows that as soon as third parties are brought in to view his conduct he's dead in the water (his repeated breaches of Misplaced Pages policy are well documented, and I have the documentation). You've had experience with him before in the Noah's Ark article, so you're well aware of his tendency to sabotage. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Johnnysmitthy trolling at Talk:Noah's Ark

If you haven't noticed, this user has been trolling the Noah's Ark talk page, going around leaving inflammatory comments at a debate that ended weeks ago; he is also posting comments at the beginning and middle of sections, forcing me to refactor almost every time he edits. Could someone give him a friendly message explaining that the debate is over, and asking him not to troll the talk page? I'm hoping people will just ignore his comments, but in any case it would be nice not to have him messing up the flow of a completed discussion.

I first noticed this user when he replaced the image at Portal:Creationism with an image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and he has made it clear from messages at my talk page that his intention is to troll and to start fights. He hasn't technically vandalized yet (other than his edit at Portal:Creationism) but his behavior is clearly disruptive, so I'm not sure what course of action to take. —Politizer /_contribs 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To make matters worse, the debate isn't over, it's still going on and is in MedCab. Maybe ANI? Til Eulenspiegel (talk)

I wouldn't be averse to taking it to ANI. If you look at the content of his posts, you will see that he's being intentionally inflammatory and looking for a fight (comparing fundamentalists Christians to "primitive goat-herders," for example; I'm not a Christian but I still find that offensive on WP), and it's clear that he's trolling just because he's been coming to my talk page insisting that I acknowledge Flying Spaghetti Monster as his official religion—he just wants someone to challenge him so he can kick up a fuss. Anyway, I'm not familiar with what's going on at MedCab, but if you think this user could be causing serious disruption I can take it to ANI. —Politizer /_contribs 16:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

addendum He hasn't edited in 15 minutes or so, so I'll keep my fingers crossed that he's just gotten bored and left. —Politizer /_contribs 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Username

Cool username.  :) JBFrenchhorn (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Heaven

Thanks for that. I just thought I'd let you known that although the bot is working its way blindly through the placeopedia database, I also manually review its edits after the fact, by rapidly eyeballing a list of its edits which have not removed previous {{coord missing}} tags. However, that doesn't mean I necessarily catch everything. -- The Anome (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Til Eulenspiegel. Thank you. Ben (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:FimusTauri sure isn't me, I have no idea who it is. If you think their writing style resembles mine, maybe it is because I've been repeating myself so often on that page, that they borrowed some kind of influence from reading my previous arguments.... When I saw the username, I recognised the Latin word for "bull", but not "fimus". So I entered it in the search bar, and found the meaning at Latin profanity, so at least I can translate their username, as "Bullshit". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Til - I am sorry if my intervention is causing you grief - I actually was trying to help! You are right about the translation - which in this circumstance is not at all helpful. I have been using the name Fimus Tauri for many years (I write music - it is a 'nom de plume' that originally was intended to be ironic).--FimusTauri (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Please comment on this proposal. I would also like to contact you by email if possible. I'm not sure if I can do that through Misplaced Pages, or if you can contact me in the same way. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Til, for your continued participation in the debate over the use of "mythology" in the opening sentence. I had considered adding a section to the page on design and construction, but when I noticed the page had been closed I reviewed and then participated in the discussion. You have been "spot on" from the beginning. I have noticed that this same kind of proselytizing has been introduced to the Creation according to Genesis page (as of November 26, 2008). I hope that your counsel prevails.RDavS (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey about that revert, Where would I get those "citation needed" tags, Thanks --Zaharous (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can put {{fact}} after the contested or dubious words, or {{cn}} does the same thing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-Structuring the Ark?

Hi Til. I don't know if you have seen my suggestion for re-structuring the Noah's Ark article, or if you are still thinking about it, but it's clear that you have had a heavy involvement in this article and thus I would value your opinion (even if that opinion is "Sod off! We don't need to re-structure!). Also, PiCo has suggested that a section on Enoch/Jubilees be included and that you would be the best one to make judgement on the relevance of these sources. Appreciate any input--FimusTauri (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, as you may know I have gone through the entire article history and tried to choose what I thought was the best of everything in my sandbox, then spiffied it up even more, including some information on Jubilees and Enoch. The results so far are at User:Til Eulenspiegel/NA. My opinion on structure is that it should be treated as any of our other articles on a Biblical story - with due weight given toward sourced criticism, but treated primarily as a religious story, not as a scientific view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that the structure I have proposed will give weight in exactly that manner. I acknowledge the effort you have put in so far (although I have only had time to briefly look through the efforts in your sandbox) and would say that this only emphasis my belief that you have a huge amount to contribute to the structure I have proposed. At the moment, my idea is more or less to just 're-arrange' the sections with only minor edits. This was on the assumption that most of the work done thus far on the page is reasonably complete. That assumption would appear to be in error and the article may well require considerably more work. You have already done a lot of that work and for this reason I hope that you would want to become involved.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was on FimusTauri's page and noticed your comment on this answers in genesis article. Why is it that all ANE articles can only reflect Biblical as opposed to scientific or linguistic investigation. Aren't those things interesting and informative enough on their own? It seems like the Article on Noah's Ark has been a struggle to acheive consensus, but its not a consensus you share. Rktect (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Canaan

see discussion page

Is this right?

In the article Creation according to Genesis is the line (2nd para) "Genesis 1-11 is based on Mesopotamian creation myths". This doesn't seem right to me. I was wondering if you had any better information on this (my time is too limited to be allow me the luxury of research at the moment). Appreciate any thoughts.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read that article before, but it's pretty blatant minimalist POV-pushing. I'll take a look. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree its minimal, in the sense of barely touching on the subject. Not all of Genesis 1-11 is based on Mesopotamian creation myths, there is stuff in there from the creation myths of Elam, Egypt, Mari, and Ugarit to mention but a few places, with a wide range of different gods, languages and legal precedents foreshadowing further developments in other books. Rktect (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Lacunae?

Sorry if I am becoming a pain, but I need a hand with something else and at the moment you are emerging as the more expert/better referenced of the editors I have encountered on Misplaced Pages.

The problem lies on the page Chedorlaomer in the section 'Dating of the events'. The first line reads:

In the biblical account, the text begins in the days of, but the remainder of the sentence is missing, and is not found in any surviving manuscript (some modern translations run this sentence together with the next to bridge the gap).

This is suggesting that there is a lacuna in the Biblical record - something I have never heard of before. Checking the reference (New American Bible), it does reflect what is said here. I have checked numerous other sources and none have thus far confirmed this. I am wondering if this is merely an opinion of the authors of the New American Bible, and thus certainly a minority view.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the past couple of weeks I have been helping Rktect to re-write the article Chedorlaomer (if you have encountered him, you may have noticed he has a tendency to verbosity and is only lately beginning to appreciate WP:NOR). I think, between us, we have managed to produce a fairly good article. I was wondering if you would look over what we have done and offer any criticisms. Rather than work directly on the current article, we have been using my sandbox. You can find the new version (sans images) at User:FimusTauri/Chedor. Thanks, in advance, for your time.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitanni

The Mitanni controlled a region in Northern Mesopotamia from Nuzi up the Tigris and from Mari up the Habut to Ashur; thence west to Kanesh and Aleppo which made them allies of several kings in Syro-natolia. Their having spreadwest to Alepo they then began spreading south into the region known As Aram Nahrim in the land of the Ammurru between the Orontes and Litanni as far south as Aram and Damascus. The referencesfor that are the maps in The Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia edited by Michael Roaf p 112 for the trade route to Kanesh, p 116 for the world of the Mari letters, which includes Zalmaqum, Subartu, Idumaraz, Andarq, Warum, Harbe and Hana on the upper Tigris and Euphrates and finally a map of the Mitanni lands with the other Hittite allies Kizzuwatna, Ishuwa, and Amurru showing the Mittani controling the Orontes as far south as Byblos. It locates Washukanni east of the Habur at Tell el-Fahkariyah. On the next page there is a map of the Niya and Ammurru on the Orontes. Tunip, Qatna, Kadesh and Labwe are allied with both the Ammurru and the Mitanni.Rktect (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mythology

Have you ever read the article Mythology? I have left my opinion on the talk page there - no doubt someone will delete it soon.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Canaan

In the article Canaan I replaced a passage on the etymology of the word Canaan for more than a few reasons and gave my references and cites. You reverted and I wondered if you had a reason for that

This is what the passage under the title of Etymology said:

The English name Canaan comes from the Hebrew: כנען. Also the Greek: Χαναάν whence Latin Canaan. The Hebrew name Canaan is of obscure origins, with one possibility being the non-Semitic Hurrian "Knaa" or Akkadian Kinahhu, referring to the rich purple dye produced from the murex snail. The first known references appear in the 2nd millennium BCE, possibly from Hurrian sources in the Mesopotamian city of Nuzi.

Another etymology is straightforward. "Can" means low as "Aram" means high. A straightforward meaning of Canaan is "lowland." This was first applied to the lowland or classical Phoenicia, mainly Sidon, then by extension to the whole region.

A third possibility is that Canaan derives from the Semitic root *k-n-' meaning "to be subdued". This meaning is supported by the story contained in the Bible. The Bible attributes the name to Canaan, the son of Ham and the grandson of Noah, whose offspring correspond to the names of various ethnic groups in the land of Canaan, listed in the "Table of Nations" (Gen. 10), where Sidon is named as his firstborn son, to be subdued by the descendents of Shem.

The eponym Ham merely means "Hot" or "Red" in Hebrew or Canaanite, although it may have been derived initially from the Egyptian word Kemet (KMT), a word applied to the land along the Nile. Some authors reason that the attribution was made because the Canaanite coast but not the interior was under Egyptian domination for several centuries.

I removed what was there because it was not properly sourced, was seculative, was OR, made several blatently wrong statements and was so poorly written it violated basic rules of grammar and changed thoughts in mid sentence.

To start with English and Hebrew are two different language groups so English doesn't come from Hebrew, the same problem applies to Greek and Latin, not to mention Hurrian; essentially the author might as well have said it comes from the Japanese.

The author never cited his speculations about Hurrians, murex snails the 2nd millenia BC, Nuzi, Canaan's etymology coming from some sort of stream of conciousness Ham, Egypt Khmet (Egypt as the black land); conflated Aram means High and Canaan means Low from their usage rather than meaning, and threw in a speculation about the Table of Nations.

I probably wouldn't have objected if he just claimed it was of obscure origins and left it at that but after the third or fourth round of "one possibility", "possibly from", "another etymology" is straight forward, "a third possibility", "some authors reason that" without citing the authors, It occured to me that passage was a luxury Wilipedia couldn't afford and I took it out and replaced it with a little less guesswork.

The etymology begins with the perfectly good Akkadian word for merchant which comes from a semitic root which means to count. The person who looked this up, while he gets points for originality and persistance couldn't find what he wanted because for the root he looked under k. When he found nothing he did a little specualtion, made it a proto word *k-n-' "meaning to be subdued" (quite clever really); what we call here WP:OR.

This is from Strongs:(which he cited but didn't understand how to use) Kĕna`an Pronunciation ken·ah'·an (Key) Part of Speech masculine noun Root Word (Etymology) from H3665 TWOT Reference 1002,1002b Outline of Biblical Usage Canaan = "lowland" n pr m 1) the 4th son of Ham and the progenitor of the Phoenicians and of the various nations who peopled the seacoast of Palestine n pr loc 2) the land west of the Jordan peopled by the descendants of Canaan and subsequently conquered by the Israelites under Joshua n m 3) merchant, trader Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 94 AV — Canaan 89, merchant 3, traffick 1, traffickers 1

This is from Hallorans lexicon merchant (Akk. loanword from tamkaarum, 'merchant', cf., makaarum 'to do business').

This is from Bartleby's semitic roots mnw.

DEFINITION: To count. 1. mina, from Akkadian manû, a unit of weight, from manû, to count. 2. minyan, from Mishnaic Hebrew minyn, count, number, minyan, from Aramaic minyn, count, number, from mn, to count.

I'd like to think you are a good editor and have reasons for what you do, what's your side of it? Rktect (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NPOV. It means if there are several possible etymologies for Canaan that can be cited, we should cite them, as we do; we can't endorse one author's opinion and remove references for the others. It looks like you have cited one author, Halloran, who may suggest the derivation of "tamkarum" for Canaan, although it's unclear to me from the above if he says this explicitly. I don't see where the reference to "mnw" to count is even relevant. Also read WP:SYN again, it means you can't combine sources to advance a new idea that no one of those sources makes by itself. But if Halloran is indeed of the opinion that "Canaan" comes from tamkarum, then this suggestion can certainly be added alongside the other cited ones. As the article has stated, the correct origin of the name is rather obscure. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What was there is not a possible etymology for Canaan in any of its speculations, wasn't and couldn't be cited in any form I saw there. I suspect the "etymologies" probably come from something Albright spouted because he thought Canaan and Phoenica were the same thing. If there is anything about it you think can be justified, cited or referenced to redeem it why not keep that, properly reference it and remove the rest? Strongs which was cited, is a good beginning but that doesn't go into its etymology, just its usage. The use of a semitic root is a good idea, but you need to choose the right one. Hallorans Lexicon (like Strongs Concordance and Lexicon, a basic reference work) gives an etymology for merchant as from the Akkadian, so looking at semitic roots would be the right way to go but it also indicates that the root doesn't begin with a K. The relevence of the root mnw "to count"; mina in the etymology of the word merchant should be clear.

H3669 Kĕna`aniy ken·ah·an·ē' Canaanite, merchant, Canaan, Canaanitess, Canaanitish woman

In the vocabulary of commerce, by contrast, we find that in both Biblical and Mishanic Hebrew most of the words are of alien provenance. The mekhir (“price”) that you pay is Akkadian as is the shetar (“bill”) that you must sign. Pinkas (“ledger”) is Greek, khenvani (“shopkeeper”) is Aramaic and tagar (“merchant”) is Akkadian. It is no coincidence that in the Bible a merchant is called a “Canaanite” (Proverbs 31:24), but in German a “Jude.”

I cited three references in what I replaced this with but think many more and better could be added than what is there now. Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to repond and would hope to see an improvement.Rktect (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we end up with, has to accurately reflect what various cited sources say on the subject. One main rule of thumb on original synth, is that all sources cited have to make explicit mention of the article topic, for starters. So for example we can't cite the definition for "mnw" from one source, or connect our own dots, unless possibly if there is some actual source that has ever explicitly discussed "mnw" in relationship to the name "Canaan". That is almost identical to the clear example given at WP:SYN. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could take what's there, cite all its assertions, reference those cites back to where their idea comes from (generally I expect that if you see the same exact language it comes from an earlier source originally, my bet is they trace back to speculations by Albright) give their author author or authors their due for the Hurrians, murex snails the 2nd millenia BC, Nuzi, Canaan's etymology coming from some sort of stream of conciousness Ham, Egypt Khmet (Egypt as the black land); conflated Aram means High and Canaan means Low, *k-n-' and then I'll give you mnw in relationship to mina, mina in relation to merchant and merchant in relation to Canaan with the net result of a better article.

I saw what you wrote at Noah's Ark. That was what I would describe as due dilligence; a very impressive attempt to find something for everybody, quiet the waters, get back to business...Rktect (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you looked for sources

The English name Canaan comes from the Hebrew: Template:Hebrew. Also the Greek: Χαναάν whence Latin Canaan. The Hebrew name Canaan is of obscure origins, with one suggestion connecting it with the non-Semitic Hurrian term Kinahhu found at Nuzi (c. 1450 BC), and referring to the colour purple— also said to be the meaning of Phoenician (which itself is often used as synonym for Canaan).

You might want to address the fact that English and Hebrew are languages in two different language groups so saying that "The English name Canaan come from the Hebrew language" is at best poorly phrased even if you wish to say that its borrowed.

You could make a better case that its borrowed from the Egyptian or the Akkadian into Aramaic and then into Greek and Latin and then into English. When you associate semitic Hebrew with unclassified Hurrian rather than semitic Akkadian in your etymology citing Niels Peter Lemche, did you happen to notice if he mentions his sources?

The Hurrians were in the region c 2000-1600 BC and then driven out by semitic speaking peoples before the trade connections to Canaan or the invention of purple dye. The Hurrian speaking Mitanni were generally north of Canaan except for the region of Aram Nahraim Its not hard to find speculations in print, and then to find published speculations cited and repeated but so far as I know outside of some Hurrian proper names and a temple inscription there is very little evidence for a Hurrian language at Nuzi. Since Hurrian is unclassified its also hard to lable it non-semitic but there is much closer association between semitic Akkadian and semitic Hebrew once Hebrew (and Phoenician) become languages c 600 BC.

There are speculations that the Kassites invented the technigue for dying wool red, blue and purple with murex snails c 1500 BC, and that the Phoenicians came along much later and knocked off red, blue and purple dyes as a scam using metalic salts left over from glassmaking along with tin and a trace of gold, but the Phoenicians don't exist for the better part of another millenia c 1450 BC, and Canaan already has its name then.

While again I appreciate your having looked for sources, if you are going to list this section as an etymology it would be good to find the passage from Nuzi in which you think it is used as a reference to purple, red or blue wool, or trade in purple red or blue wool, or merchants of purple red and blue wool and then show the derivation into the place name Canaan. Were it derived from a place name it would likely have the Akkadian determinative KI (place). There are other sources which claim it derives from the word merchant which you don't mention. Would you consider letting me help you with this? Rktect (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you've just dumped a ton of new assertions here about Kassites, etc. without citing your source for a single one of them. I still don't know if you get what we are supposed to do here at wikipedia. We don't engage in new research, or share our own research with the world, or debate our own speculations, period, and I'm not going to be drawn into debating my own opinions of the sources, or "make a case" about language groups having anything to do with it. There is one wikimedia project where apparently people can do those kind of things, at v:. But here, all we really do is basically parrot other people's published research as closely as possible. If everyone would stick to that, our job would be incredibly simpler than it is! You can find what Lemche says just as easily as I did, on google books, and see that he fully covers what everyone before him has already said about the various suggestions for the derivation of Canaan, including the Hurrian documents at Nuzi.

While I typed that, you just added a bit about the word Canaan meaning "merchant". It clearly does mean this at the last verse of Zechariah, and I think you'll find most everyone does recognize this as a later acquired meaning that came from the ethnicity, not the other way around, just look up some commentaries on Zechariah. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I cited them in the section you took out, but even as I just wikified above I think the issues are clear. If you want to cite a Hurrian etymology some linkage to the articles on the Hurrian language and the Mitanni would be germane along with some mention of when it died out and where. The research dates back to the forties so its not exactly new or original. Even if you are going to just inclusively list what other people have said you could include cited objections to any proposed etymology. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "came from the ethnicity", and "later acquired meaning" but for example, were the word Canaan to come from its useage in Zechariah, in a language developed after c 600 BC, how would you account for its usage by the Egyptian in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt? The use of the word Canaan in texts goes back long before the invention of purple dye (see Bahrain through the Ages" for the information about the Kassite invention of it and "Gerard herm "The Phoenicians" for the Phoenician use of it.Rktect (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the use of the term Canaan to mean "merchant", which is known from Zechariah (600 BC?) Of course it was an ethnic term long before that. But as our article says, by Zechariah's time it had largely ceased to be an ethnic term and was instead used to mean "merchant". As just about any commentary on Zechariah will tell us.

If you want to add any cites to proposed scholarly objections to the suggested etymologies (I know there are some!), that is the kind of thing that would help. Right now the article is a mess in places, because so many editors have worked it over with their own takes on the matter, but it could be a lot better, and a lot better-sourced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be clear you understand that I appeciate your scholarship and that I know you do check everything out before you use it. To summarise briefly the name is in use in the 3rd millenium BC suggesting it precedes some other cited etymologies that cite languages and technologies that don't exist yet. The following cites from the the fourth section of the Misplaced Pages article Canaan Canaan in Mesopotamian inscriptions that we are discussing conflict with what we are putting in this section so all I'm really suggesting is that we edit for consistancy.

In linguistic terms, Canaanite refers to the common ancestor of closely related Semitic languages including Hebrew, and Ugaritic, and was the first language to use a Semitic alphabet, from which the others derived their scripts; see Canaanite languages. The name Canaan is of obscure origins but is extremely ancient; the first known references appear in the 3rd millennium BC. The Biblical explanation is that it derives from Canaan, the son of Ham and the grandson of Noah, whose offspring correspond to the names of Cana ...

During the 2nd millennium BC the name Kan'an, favoured in Egyptian usage, was used for a province of the Egyptian empire bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, on the north by the Pass of Hamath in southern Lebanon, on the east by the Jordan Valley and on the south by a line extended from the Dead Sea to the Gaza area. This region corresponds closely to the description given in the ...

Early on the Canaanites acquired fame as traders across a wide area beyond the Near East. There are occasional instances in the Hebrew Bible where "Canaanite" is used as a synonym for "merchant" - presumably indicating the aspect of Canaanite culture that the authors found most familiar. The term was derived from the place name, because so many merchants described themselves as Canaanites. One of Canaan's most famous exports was a much sought-after purple dye, derived from two species of sea snails found along the east Mediterranean c ...

Canaan is mentioned in a document from the 18th century BC found in the ruins of Mari, a former Sumerian outpost in Syria. Apparently Canaan at this time existed as a distinct political entity (probably a loose confederation of city-states).

Soon after this, the great empire-builder and law-giver Hammurabi (1728 BC-1686 BC), first king of a united Babylonia, extended Babylonian influence over Canaan and Syria, and he may be identical with the Amraphel of Genesis.

Tablets found in the Mesopotamian city of Nuzi use the term Kinahnu ("Canaan") as a synonym for red or purple dye, apparently a renowned Canaanite export commodity. The dyes were likely named after their place of origin (much as "champagne" is both a product, and the name of the region where it is produced). The purple cloth of Tyre in Phoenicia was well known far and wide.

It would be somewhat odd if there were no word for merchant until it was derived from the place name, especially as it exists as a word in Sumerian, Akkadian and Egyptian before there was any territory that could be defined as Canaan. The usage of the word merchant goes back to before Jehrico was a walled city and had a population the size of an extended family and Jerusalim was a fortified well. The word merchant exists in Sumerian texts. The usage of the name Canaan as a place of mercantilism or free trade zone might exist before Egypt defined it by making it a province and giving it a govenor, explaining why its etymology wouldn't be from the Egyptian.

Rktect (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved that last para to the end to comment directly beneath it. That is a perfect example of what I mean by "speculation". I was just looking at the same source you gave me, http://www.adath-shalom.ca/hebrew_words_history.htm -- and it does mention that these countries had their own words for "merchant" -- for example it says "tagar" was the Akkadian word for "merchant" - but it doesn't establish that any of these words are cognate with the name "Canaan", nor does it say anything other than the accepted view, that the use of "Canaanite" to mean "merchant" in Hebrew is relatively late, and many centuries after it was used as an ethnonym. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm always impressed by someone who is compelled to track something down until they fell like they know what it means. That probably comes from your mother telling you to "go look it up in the dictionary when you were a kid". tagar from the Sumerian Dumgar (gar means hand) as in to hand over the goods semitic root

ENTRY: msr. DEFINITION: West Semitic, to remove, deliver, hand over. Masora, from Hebrew msôrâ, Masora, from msar, to hand over, transmit.

.

The thing about being cognate is that words that have the same meaning in the end may often have different shades of meaning while they are becoming cognates. We aren't the first people to discuss this issue: I submit this discussion of ANE academics touching on some of the origins of the various speculations we are citing so seriously.

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:24:39 -0400 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane Canaan/ Kinanu questions On Friday Aug 27 Bjarte Kaldhol wrote: The Hurrian name of Western Canaan was Kinaxxe, derived from a noun *kina/e/i. The Hurrian name of Qadesh may have been Kinza (Ilse Wegner). There is also a KUR/URU Kinani mentioned in the Alalakh tablets. ...Were you implying that a Hurrian Kin-za contains the same root as URU-Kin-ani? Has anyone suggested that this was Kinza? any other cities suggested?

Isn't R. Whiting's mention in his Just So Story of the "asssociation" of Hurrian KinaHHe with Akkadian kinaHHinu?/purple about a popular etymology? Wasn't Astour's dismissal of this etymology in JNES 25, 1966 generally accepted? Or was it that his suggested etymology relating to sunset and the West, an equivalent of MAR.TU, was not accepted? But in the same outburst of speculation he also mentioned other meanings of the W. Sem. root KN' such as BH "to be subdued" or "to lower oneself"; Aramaic "to bow down, bend", Arabic kana'a, "to bow", etc. All of which would fit nicely with the Biblical Canaan mythology: the patriarch who lowered himself by his unseemly behavior towards his grandfather, the one who will have to bow down to his brothers in servitude, etc. All of which is of course Israelite popular etymology. ...

The fact that the Phoenicians themselves, the Canaanites par excellence, used the spelling Kinanu suggests that the Kin- as opposed to Kan- was not a Hurrian innovation. And why did the post-Carthaginian neo-Punic folks of North Africa use the spelling/pronunciation Chanani, as reported in Harden,(who I think got it from St. Augustine)? Doesn't this reflect the Phoenician ancestor Chna in Philo of Byblos? And didn't the LXX represent the patriarch Canaan as Xna? Or is this a Greek myth about the ancestor of the Syrians? This variant of course opens the floodgate to the inclusion of the toponym/ethnonym Khana and Khanaeans in our list of possible candidates for earlier versions of the name Canaan(ites).

The Hurrians used KhaniaHHe at Alalakh in the 15th c pd of Hurrian dominance to apply to, in Kupper's words in his RLA article on Khana and the Khanaeans, "an inferior social class, perhaps encompassing all the population of W Semitic origin, dominated by the Hurrians"! This is quite an enlargement of Brower's description of the same phenomenon in CAH as KhaniaHHe in Alalakh "forming a numerically large middle class including tradesmen, herdsmen, and grooms."

Kupper's Hurrian KhaniaHHe, now extended three centuries after the Mari age to mean all Western Semites at Alalakh, sounds much more like the origin of the Biblical use of the term Canaan than "land of purple dyers". Much has been made of other clues to Hurrian influence on Abraham who first migrated to an inland eretz Canaan peopled with Amurrim and Anakim, Hattim and Jebusim, not with purple dyers! .

The Hurrian extension of the term KhaniaHHe does not have to mean that all West Semitic speakers at Alalakh were Khanaean migrants from the Hurrian heartland in the Balikh/Habur watershed. Indeed much of Kupper's exploration of the earliest history of the Khanaeans in Nomades points back to their being relative newcomers among the Akkadians and Hurrians of the mid-Euphrates in the Mari age. He points back to earlier connections of the founders of the Lim dynasty with 9 kings of the Khanaeans, their role as a military caste living usually in separate encampments, etc. He also goes back to even earlier refs to a land of Khanu mentioned by Sargon?

All of which suggest the proto-Canaanite patriarch Khana/Xna --in other words an ethnonym so ancient its true etymology was already long lost in the mist of earlier extinct languages.

Kupper, (Nomades, p 38) cites Taha Baqir in Sumer 5, 1949, on year names of Ibal-pi-El II of Eshnunna, whose 10th year celebrates the victory over the armies of Subartu and Khana. He points out that the spelling is Khe-na (-ki) in all copies except one which is Khi-na. He adds that there is no doubt that this is Khana because the Sumerian spelling of latter is, in lexical and geog. texts, Khe.a.na(.ki). So also the i variant of Canaan in KinaHHe may also be of Eastern Trans-Tigridian origin. Didn't KinaHHi first show up at Nuzi in Akkadian texts? Wasn't the Akkadian used at Nuzi the similar to that used at the western courts of Hattusha and in the Amarna letters from Canaan? Wasn't it all an international form of Middle Babylonian? Or are the terms KinaHni etc. in the Amarna letters "Canaanite glosses" to the body of the diplomatic Babylonian text?

What I am driving at I guess is that between the two roots Khina and Khana, the vowel difference at least may be due to the fact that we discover Khana in the Amorite sphere, whereas Khina is first attested from Eshnunna And that same Eastern Akkadian of Warum may have altered H>k, from a western KhaniaHHe to an eastern KinaHHe...

To summarize all that briefly it might be worth mentioning that while there is no real scholarly consensus on the etymology and many speculations have been made, there is evidence that the usage of the word Canaan in association with mercantilism and trafficking begins with Sumerian and Akkadian texts dating to around the time of Ibal Pi el and the Mari letters which discuss commerce along the Euphrates between Dilmun on the Gulf, Mari in Syria, Alakah, Ashur on the Habur and Alepo on the Orontes just north of Canaan.

Rktect (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't really use speculation from a Usenet newsgroup in 1999 as a WP:RS, though. And even the speculation you reproduced from there doesn't suggest that words like Akkadian tamkaarum were in any way cognate with "Canaan". So perhaps I should just rephrase my question more bluntly: WHO has ever suggested (in print) that there is any direct etymological connection between "tamkaarum" and "Canaan"? Where on earth did this speculation originate? Did you perhaps arrive at this conclusion yourself simply because both words, at very different times and in very different places, connoted the meaning of the English word "Merchant"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What you had there before was what was speculative. I gave you that discussion above just to clarify with the cites they give that academics have dispensed with the theories that its Hurrian, that it comes from Phoenicia, or the word for Purple dye, or that it come to English through Hebrew.

the Sumerian spelling of latter is, in lexical and geog. texts, Khe.a.na(.ki)

We began with Strongs concordance which gives merchant as the etymology as opposed to usage. Your article as it exists establishes the connection with Sumerian by claiming you have the word in the third millenium BC.

I think we have established that we have Canaan = Kainai as in use by Mari c 1700 BC or earlier, to mean merchant and by Egypt to refer to its province of Kanaan. You have the hieroglphs on the page now. At that time you really don't have English or Hebrew to use for an etymology and the closest Hurrian connection would be through the Mitanni not Nuzi so we can look at Hurrian and Mitanni but to save you some time, we don't find it there.

The discussion above gives texts you can look up in the ETCSL and find both the sumerian and akkadian text for merchant in association with Canaan.

Sumerian dam-gàr(-a): merchant (Akk. loanword from tamkaarum, 'merchant', cf., makaarum 'to do business').

Sumerian 2 this and the next reference will give you tamkaarum, 'merchant'

Sumerian Lexicon If you want to use this reference you may have to download it, but its free and doesn't take long so go ahead.

We could look at Egyptian because after all its their province, they named it, but they are a different language group so its hard to tie their usage to the usage in Mari.

We have already looked at a source which gives "tagar" was the Akkadian word for "merchant" as associated with Canaan

CANAAN, LAND OF (Heb. אֶרֶץ]כְּנַעַן ,כְּנָעַן]]), the land promised to the Israelites by God (e.g., Gen. 17:8; Ex. 6:4). The name Canaan first appears in documents from the 15th century B.C.E. and was variously written: Akkadian: Kinani (m), Kinaḫḫu / i, etc.; Egyptian: Knʿn·w and P-knʿn; Ugaritic: Knʿny ("a Canaanite"); Phoenician and Hebrew: Knʿn.

the term Canaan also appears in the sense of merchant (Isa. 23:8; Zeph. 1:11; Prov. 31:24; et al). The land of Canaan is also known in ancient sources as, variously, ʿAʾmu-ḥryw-šʿ ("'Asiatics' who dwell in the sand"), Amurru, Retenu, Hurru, and Hatti (for the first see Helck in bibliography). Apart from one instance of the mention of "thieves and Canaanites (who) are in Rahishum" in an 18th-century B.C.E. text from *Mari, the earliest written records mentioning Canaan are Egyptian from the late 15th and 14th centuries B.C.E., respectively a booty list of Amenophis II mentioning the deportation of Canaanites and the *Amarna letters. Mention of the Land of Canaan predominates in the Bible in the four books of Genesis, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges, but less so elsewhere.

Rktect (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase thieves and canaanites appears in Mercer citing the Mari Letters; a letter from an official to the king Yasmah Adad a predecessor of Zimri Lin. "In addition there is a list of captives from the camaigns of Amenophis II which mentions 640 canaanites who are taken captive right after the maryanu (or noble warriors) and their wives. Since maryannu refers to a warrior class it is believed that Canaanite also applies to a social class probably merchants"

The phrase thieves and Canaanites led to this coraborating source that says "kinaahhu spelled in Akkadian cuneiform refers to theives and Canaanites"

Sumerian dam-gàr(-a): merchant (Akk. loanword from tamkaarum, 'merchant', cf., makaarum 'to do business').

tam kaarum Akkadian = merchant and kinaahhu Akkadian = merchant = canaanite. Are those cognate? I'll go a step furthur and check out the Akkadian roots Rktect (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still can't find any source that connects Tamkarum and Canaan. I just see you synthesizing some sources that talk about "Tamkarum", and other sources that talk about "Canaan", and connecting the dots with your own speculation. We aren't allowed to do that. Pointblank, if anyone has ever written that the etymology of Canaan might be from Tamkarum, THEN we might be able to use that, provided it's something like a reliable source. As it is, we don't have any source at all, reliable or not, connecting the two words like this. All we have connecting them is the English meaning, merchant, which doesn't make them cognate with one another. People want to know where we get our information from. If we write that "the etymology of Canaan is from Tamkaarum", and someone asks us where did we get that information from, or who first discovered this fact, we just can't say "It was first suggested by User:Rktect". Do you get what I'm saying? We have to say "It was first suggested by Bob Smith, on page 146 of his 1993 book" or whatever - the only problem is, it doesn't seem like anyone has ever actually suggested it, at any time. So, I hate to say it, but please do not waste any more of my talkpage with this Original research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats ok, I take it you didn't click on the links to the books that give tam kaarum = Akkadian = merchant and kinaahhu = Akkadian = merchant = canaanite. I won't bother you further Rktect (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do know about those, but we can't establish from that on our own, that the two are cognates. Even assuming they are synonyms in Akkadian, synonyms aren't always cognates. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All you need is the one that says Akkadian = merchant = Canaanite. Its not necessary to show that the Sumerian was the same. Rktect (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

References

1. The Canaanites and Their Land (1991) by Niels Peter Lemche, pp. 24 ff.

On polytheism

Here you go:

The simple and convenient view that all myths are stories about the gods continued play the lead role in discussions by biblical scholars about myth and the Bible for a surprisingly long period in the twentieth century — surprisingly long since, as we will see, this definition was dismissed as unfair and inadequate by a wide range of scholars outside the area of biblical study. A look at almost any of the most widely used introductions to the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, or at similarly influential biblical theologies, will show that this remained the case until very recently.

In Robert A. Oden's The Bible Without Theology, page 47. He puts a limit on its lead role until at most the 1970's. No dictionary even contains this restriction any more though. You will note, I found a reference that discusses the state of affairs in modern research - I didn't just look for lists of books that use a definition I like. Cheers, Ben (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Until very recently" eh... he sure sounds authoritative, but I'm not sure he can speak for everyone around the globe, he can't speak for Muslim scholars for instance, or is this something like a fatwah? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

His authoritah is second only to Eric Cartman, obviously. Unfortunately, as Cartman is a member of the World Atheist Agenda (otherwise known as WAA!), they agree on this particular point. Ben (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Calm yourself, Dr. Not-the-Nine-O'Clock-News, we are men of science! We fear no worldly terrors." - Dr. Carlisle, in "Bambi" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You definitely have that Obama like, cool, calm and collected down pat so please don't let me be the one to test your patience with my take on polytheism, but I wondered if you accept the premise that there really is no evidence for monotheism until Akhenaten, and many might argue not even then. To my eye the polytheism of Genesis includes every sort of power; gods of the storm, wind, sky, and water, earth gods, creator gods, fire gods, sons of gods, angels of god, ordinary mortals raised to the status of gods, consorts of gods, lords of the land, natural philosophy that comes across as gods of the earth, air, fire and water. Can those be addressed more scientifically without calling them myths or gods, by substituting words like power, lord, authority, or principle so they can be discussed as the subkject of covenants without giving offense?Rktect (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've always said that as a mere editor, it doesn't matter which premises I might or might not accept. I don't come on here to tell people what premises I myself accept (I use YahooGroups for that); I am only concerned with sourcing all the significant points of view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What's really hilarious is that he isn't even a theologian, but a small college president, and his foray into theology was written in 2000, where he optimistically expresses in the quote above in so many words, "The view that myths are polytheistic has ceased recently, as it was found to be politically incorrect". But what's REALLY hilarious is that I have found even more books written by bonafide theologians AFTER 2000 than before, making that same un-PC point that he says is outdated. I guess they didn't all stop it just because he told them to, after all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on use of myth

You might like to see Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have something I'd like your guidence on

I'd like you to check the references I added to the article on Pi-hahiroth and give me your opinion as to whether its appropriate to treat a station of the Exodus as having a history with linguistic, historic and archaeological artifacts. Archaeologists are presently excavating Thebes AKA Coptos ports and finding a lot of interesting artifacts. I think your knowledge of semitic roots, is good enough that you can tell the difference between semitic roots; Akkadian, Phoenician, Canaanite; Ugartic, and IE Greek, or afroasiatic languages like Egyptian, or Libyan.

What I'm finding is that there is a succession of names for the same places that as the control of the ports changes over time becomes datable at least within a range. For example Elim and Elat are clearly Phoenician and refer to the plural for El. That means the name of the port Elat is coupled with the port Elim and dated to c 600 BC when the Phoenicians had reason to be in the area.

Myos Hormos, Philoteras, Mersa Gawisis and Lykos Limen are Greek. Elim became Lykos Limen when the Phoenicians were replaced by the Greeks and later became Quseir when the Arab traders took over.

If the story were written in either Dynastic or Ptolomaic times we wouldn't see the names in Phoenician. Is that a fair assessment?

Baal Zephon uses the Greek word for the west wind Zephyrus attached to the semitic name for the God Baal. Migdol is a high place. Being encamped "at Pi-ha hiroth between Migdol and the sea facing Baal Zephon" seems to surround the reader with references to Asherah or atheriot.

If my references are correct that the names are Phoenician then the period its written in that form can't really be earlier than c 600 BC based on the geo-political context, and based on the use of the borrowed greek is probably later rather than earlier.

Archaeological excavation there would suggest that the port is very ancient going back to the 4th dynast of Egypt. Some stele are being found ther ethat give the account of maritime expeditions to Punt.

Hi Rktect... I know very little about Pi-hahiroth off the top of my head, but will try to find out more and see what's up. Just at first glance, the language of your edit does look a bit problematic in some places. Things that jump out at me are phrases like "Its worth noting that..." and "Certainly..." which don't seem to be the proper "encyclopedic" tone and are usually red flags for more of a debate style being pushed... I'm going to see Pink Panther 2 now, and will get back hopefully in a few hours... Have a good one! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful comments here and on my talk. I think I understand that issue better now.Rktect (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy of "race" of ancient Egyptians

Hi. :) Thanks for stopping by my talk page with kind words and advice. Noted. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The other side of the fence

With reference to your collection of cites concerning the view that religious stories should not be called myths, I came across an interesting reference earlier. If you go to the article Christian mythology, then, in the lead, click on the 'mythos' link you are taken to the blue letter bible definition of the word. About half way down the screen you will see "" Click the link - its rather interesting.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do - and please let me know if you come across anything else for that page, either here, or at User talk:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple that might be of interest are and .

If you really want to engage in "quote mining" - you may find this a useful resource: . Actually exceedingly useful for all sorts of research.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rktect

I see that you have been working somewhat with Rktect. Could you review his history, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, his talk page archives, his userspace sub-pages, and the like, then go to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nonstop OR from Rktect (talk · contribs) despite 3 1/2 years of editing including a ban and blocks and comment. Is there a chance that this editor can start acting like they understand the concerns and change their behavior? Would mentoring help? Could you be that mentor? I've seen your name here for long enough to value your opinion. GRBerry 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I will try to help him more if his block is reversed; I almost had him trained to add references to the appropriate articles -- which is really something plenty of editors could use help with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Hi, just been looking at the Book of Daniel article and was curious to know why it had been flagged as having disputed neutrality. The talk page is completely archived and the suggestion is that the flag has been there for around 15 months. Glancing down the archive I noticed you have made a few comments. I was just wondering if the tag was still warranted, or if it might only apply to some sections rather than the whole article.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring to your Attention

Take a look at the first word of this sentence. Someone has vandalized it with random letters. Since you constantly monitor the page I'll let you fix it. Ninevite (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mitanni page

There is someone who is trying to remove Armenians link with Mitanni, when I gave him extensive evidence of Armenian with Indo-Iranian during the Mitanni kingdom. Please check the Talk:Mitanni page, and I found in google "News" about Mitanni http://www.allnewsweb.com/page5995991.php just recently new findings in Northern Iraq linked with Mitanni, and there it is mentioned that "many historians regard Mitanni as the ancestors of the Armenians". Also, the sites that are on top of Mitanni search in google say that Mitanni is Indo-European, not just Indo-Iranian. Besides that there are also Indo-European homeland locations in the Armenian Highlands and Anatolia, which is the same locations. Here is the link Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub branches showing Armeno-Aryan branch (that is Armenian-Indo-Iranian=Aryan), which Indo-Iranian later seperates. That seperation takes place when Indo-Iranian's leave after Mitanni. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides these points, there are also Akkadian and Egyptian records mentioning "Armani", and the "people of Ermenin" in the same location of Mitanni. Kurds and Turks also refer to Armenians by this form Ermeni. Also, Aram is an ancestor of Armenians, which is the name of this location of Mitanni. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I know there are scholars who have discussed and debated these things in detail. The complaint of "original research" is basically made by some editors to suggest that you made it all up yourself, and thereby exclude these scholarly views that others have written about, as not really existing. If you bring it up at WP:RS/N, our experts in the Reliable Source policy will confirm for you, that the sources do verify that the view really exists, if there is any question about them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I wish to inform you that I have opened a thread at WP:ANI#Armenian nationalist flare-up at Mitanni. Looie496 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack

Hi friend, regarding this edit here, please don't call people racist. It's the last thing we need in an already burning content dispute. It's silly to even think that an established and trusted contributor like dab could even be seen as racist! Just remember that it's better to discuss than revert :-) If you have any questions or require any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian 08:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been called "racist" many times before on Misplaced Pages. Invariably by editors with a racist or ethnocentric agenda who think it is "racist" not to acknowledge the superiority of whichever group they happen to be into. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you have been called "racist" many times before on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

so you admit to deliberate wikibullying. you may also know that most of these editors ended up permabanned for consistent violation of policy. Perhaps the time has come for you to join them. --dab (𒁳) 06:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not admit to "deliberate wikibullying". I stated that I know you have been called "racist" many times before on wikipedia. By many different people. Funny how the same charge keeps hitting certain editors again and again, since most editors here have never been called "racist" by anyone. I also know that you have succeeded in blocking most of the editors you took a personal dislike to, and driven away scores of other good faith contributors. However, if you continue to threaten me, I will be sure to bring this up with the other complaints about your record. Power is not something to be thrown around and wielded here like an iron glove. You, D Bachman,, imagine that your opinions wield special authority over most everyone elses. But this is not "DBachmanpedia", and if you come after me with idle threats because your personality feels offended, you will break your teeth, because I am going to complain. You and your constant "blocking" threats on anyone adding info you don't like ,are one of the main reasons people feel uncomfortable using wikipedia, and Jimbo needs to know about your tactics. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad move, Til. At the moment you are getting closer and closer to a block for personal attacks. Yep, anti-nationalists often get called racists. That's one of the risks editors take who tackle nationalistic editors on Misplaced Pages. Why don't you go ahead and 'bring this up' - make your complaints public, do a bit more than make personal attacks on talk pages, put your money where your mouth is. dougweller (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Scholar and Historian from the 19th century about Armenians

Another scholar and historian from the 19th century is George_Rawlinson. His chief publications are his translation of the History of Herodotus (in collaboration with Sir Henry Rawlinson and Sir John Gardiner Wilkinson), 1858-60. He mentions in here "The Indo-European colonization went westward from Armenia to Phrygia, and from Phrygia to Europe", when he was making note on Herodotus's statement about Armenians. This was the view of the ethnologists in the 19th century, as you see when he makes further mention of it in his notes. Also, he mentions that, "the Armenians are the most ancient of the Arian peoples". The ethnologists of his time inverted the theory of Herodotus, the Phrygians seperated from the Armenians from Armenia, and not the other way around. 99.163.220.91 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work in helping out to try to correct Armenian history. Misplaced Pages seems to be the most viewed site on the internet about history, so this is why I try so hard to correct Armenian history here. 99.163.222.40 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first of Egyptologists, Petrie mentions in here clearly Mitannian (Armenian) origin. Please use this very important academic source for further proof to correct Mitanni page, back to what it was. Thank you for your help once again. 76.250.9.64 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even my admin has admitted that he well knows what all the sources say: that the Mitanni were Hurrians, and ancestral to the Vannic Hurrians, who were in turn one of the main components (though not linguistically) of the ancestry of modern Armenians. But, while he knows and admits this as well as all the sources do, there is some kind of weird mental block in place, that causes anyone adding this info on whether the Mitanni have descendants today, to the Mitanni article (something I would find most relevant about the Mitanni) to be pilloried, accused of OR, accused of trolling, accused of citing "crackpots", accused of sockpuppetry, page to be locked, and threats of blocking if it is ever added again. So you see, the obstacle here is not a lack of sources. Whatever the ultimate reason for all this bizarre resistance may be, I'm not going to touch it again with a 20 foot pole - sorry, but you'll have to find someone else. I guess it goes to show that of you really want to know all about a topic, you'd be better off researching some other outlet of information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to your reply to me that got deleted by an admin: No, you're wrong, it is not "known" that the Mitanni spoke an "Armeno-Aryan" language. It is known that they spoke Hurrian, with a smattering of terms, mostly proper names, that have suggested an Indo-Aryan background theory for their top stratum. The whole use of the term "Aryan" by linguistics is unfortunate, since unpleasant associations with the misuse of the word are still fresh. I recognise it as interchangeable with "Iranian", it is certainly the same word, but it only properly applies to the Iranian subgroup of languages, not to Germans or whatever. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but from what very little I have studied of Hurrian I can categorically state that it is non Indo-European. The basic vocabulary is completely dissimilar from everything else, except for its close descendant, Urartean. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If you would like to add any more, please use the email tool instead of posting here, as it would seem your information is not very welcome to the administration on my talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

re WikiProject Religious Texts

Thanks for that info - I got it just after leaving a message at WikiProject Religion. I fully intend to take this issue as far as I can, including to ArbCom. As part of that process I have left the message at WP Religion. I will look into WP Religious Texts and see whether it is also appropriate to raise the issue there.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Since Ben saw fit to notify Ilkali about this, I thought it appropriate to notify you and give you an opportunity to comment: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #User:FimusTauri--FimusTauri (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

More ANI

Even I have my limits. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Ben Tillman--FimusTauri (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Noah's Ark. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Ben (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense vs non-standard

Please hypothesize that the proposed merge, albeit a non-standard tactic, was not mere nonsense.

In that case, I might still be wrong or a better course-of-action might be indicated, but the proposal would not be deserving of casually dismissive treatment. --Tenmei (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use of "myth" in religious articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration #Use of "myth" in religious articles

I have listed you as an involved editor and requested that you flesh out the reasons why non-secular authors are valid RS. --FimusTauri (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not certain I am required to place the banner above as you are not someone accused. However, I have seen elsewhere that any party nominated as "involved" has this notice, so I am just keeping to form.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen my proposal? () I honestly think that is about the only way that we can move forward. In an attempt to assume good faith I have asked Ben to back this idea as well. Any thoughts?--FimusTauri (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

another Arbcom request

There is another arbitration request, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, which mentions a situation that you were involved in. John Vandenberg 10:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Counsel on future procedure (copied here from RfA for future reference)

• Thank-you to those who refocused their statements. I'm leaning towards decline, but recognise that the issue here is that one side see a dispute and the other side see a dispute being manufactured where they think none should exist. There also appear to be elements of personal animosity developing here. It would be good if we (ArbCom) could advise on a way to resolve this (some of the user subpages are excellent summaries of the positions). Have any of the parties here tried formal mediation on this wider issue? I think the mediation attempts before were focused on the Noah's Ark article? Might I suggest that a working group be set up to study the issues (and assemble the sources) and create a series of RfCs to gauge opinion on the issues? That will take a while, but might result in a more durable resolution to this dispute. Both sides would have to be willing to accept the results of such a process, and would have to agree to work together during such a process. If this same issue returned here in a few months time, and no progress had been made, I think ArbCom should mandate such a process, but for now, decline. User:Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Neutrality

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neutrality, long thought to have grown inactive, is making efforts at a revival. I have just joined and I think that getting a few more active members would help to push the revival. Care to join?--FimusTauri (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Came across this

Something that may be of interest to you. This was a proposed policy that was rejected by the community: WP:SPOV.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to say I came across the above here, which amplifies on the original discussion and which you may also find interesting.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy

It has been proposed that the Oriental Orthodoxy project be merged into the Eastern Orthodoxy project, which would probably be retitled Eastern Christianity after the merger. Please feel free to express an opinion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy#Proposed mergers shortly. the proposal has been in place for about a month and a half, and gotten very little attention, so I am contacting directly all members of the Oriental Orthodoxy project about it. Please try to respond, one way or another, within a week of this notice, to expedite matters. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in working on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tobacco?

I think a tobacco Wikiproject would be a useful addition to our endeavors, and I suspect you might have something to contribute to such a thing. Please let me know! bd2412 T 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Your user page quote is something I can readily relate to. Was surprised by it though, since you jsut deleted the info I added to Mizraim which was well-sourced (if poorly phrased). I hope the reformulated version meets with your approval. The Philistim article still needs a lot of work. If you have any special expertise/interest in this area and are free to pitch in, you would be more than welcome. Cheers. Tiamut 00:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Your edit helped me realize the information was better covered in Philistines itself. There being so many alternate spellings for the word, I got fooled into thinking it was somehoq unique. Forgive my ignorance. Tiamut 01:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help the other day; I know who it was and am glad they have again revealed themselves in their true colours; getting them blocked was easy; and I remain happily married. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi Til Eulenspiegel, I just wanted to let you know that I copied your recent post at Talk:Arran (Transcaucasia)#Requested move, part 2 to Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Avoid proper nouns. Hopefully the reason for doing so will be obvious, but feel free to reply here if you think this needs further discussion.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revert

I saw you reverted my edit to Tower of Babel that the one language spoken before the dispersion was Hebrew. The reason you stated for your revert was that 1. not all agree that this language was Hebrew 2. the question of which language was the one language is discussed below.

I have not found such a discussion in this article, nor am I aware of other opinions. Please be so kind to address these issues within a resonable time, or I will reinstate my original edit.

Please do so on the article talkpage, in the section I created there. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Indians page

I just wanted to say thanks for all the additional work you have put into this article. As you may have guessed I had put a lot of work into it a month or so ago as there was not more than two sentences in the History section beforehand. I actually had planned to add more, especially about the other tribes besides the Powhatan, but you beat me to it ;-) I had also planned to section it by century, but you beat me to that as well ;-) Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I am glad I am no longer the only one contributing so much to the page as while I may know a lot I do not know everything. Besides, I think a collaboration is best when it comes to this kind of thing since different people have different resources, etc. You have done a great job and the page is a lot more complete now. Also, thanks for what you have said on the Pocahontas talk page.Sarah1607 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is still a lot more than can be added to the Virginia Indians page. I look forward to further collaborations as well. I actually noticed that some of the state recognized tribes do not have article pages, and others that do need to edited, so that may be my next project. As for Helen Rountree I do have her books, at least most of them, and agree that she is a great resource. Do you have the book We're Still Here: Contemporary Virginia Indians Tell Their Stories? If not then you should get it. It's not a very long book, but it is still very good (with a minor error on the Loving v Virginia case being an exception). Anyway, off to see about more additions/editing to other pages. BTW, since I am still fairly new to wikipedia is it best to respond to talks via that person's page or to just add a response to it on your own talk page? Not sure it even matters, but I figured as a relative newbie here I'd ask. Thanks. Sarah1607 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chickahominy article page

I was wondering if you know a way to make "Eastern Chickahominy" an internal link that will take people to the page on Chickahominy? I figure since they were once one tribe making a separate article just for the Eastern branch would be silly. I have added some information on the Chickahominy page about the Eastern Division already as I think it should be there. And since it is there should be a way to get to this page by clicking on "Eastern Chickahominy." Just my thoughts and wondering if you agreed if you could help. Thanks. Sarah1607 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's easy... Just make it a link with brackets, it will show up first as a red link, then click the red link, in the edit box click the #R button and type the target title in the new brackets. I'll do it this time to demonstrate... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured it was probably easy, but since I had been trying to figure it out and hadn't yet I decided to ask. Thanks!Sarah1607 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammurabi

I'm not sure how involved with the Hammurabi article, but as you're the person with most edits to it I thought you may be able to help with a question I have about it. The infobox claims that Hammurabi was born in 1728 BC, although the main body of the article states that he ascended to power in 1728 BC and makes no mention of his young age. Either his year of birth needs correcting, or the article needs an explanation of how a new born was able to rule a kingdom! Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ophir

What is it about your insistence in asking who discarded the identification of Great Zimbabwe with Ophir of the Solomon tale? The medieval Great Zimbabwe is separated from the biblical Ophir by at least 1700 years. It just does not matter who the actual person was who first wrote that this identification has always been pointless because it is anachronistic. Stop holding on to a baseless assumption of the Renaissance period that even back then never had any accuracy whatsoever. It is sufficient to mention that this misinformation has been debunked. Cush (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I have no doubt that someone at some point did indeed debunk it. But if we're going to say "it has been debunked", that is an opportunity for us to tell who debunked it; it is information the article is supposed to include per WP:V. We can't say "it has been debunked because User:Cush says so". Instead we have to say "It has been debunked because Sir Isaac Newton says so" (Or whoever, not saying it was he, just picked his name at random). If we make any assertion, it has to be verifiable, or we shouldn't make it - that's a cardinal rule. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that nobody in his/her right mind today identifies Great Zimbabwe with Ophir is a clear sign that this position has not been maintained. The important point in the article is that the identification was never possible in the first place. If you disagree maybe you should rewrite the article on Great Zimbabwe to make it ancient. Cush (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're still misunderstanding. Look I agree with you that nobody today probably thinks this. I just want to see some attributation for whoever it was that addressed De Gama's claims, because that's what's missing. I'm sure somebody has done so, and we can cite that person, rather than make uncited assertions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that a demonstrably false claim is false would need a citation why? Cush (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It was just the way it was worded. As of now, I have reworded it and toned it down so as not to appear to need a citation. But if you state something in strong terms like "It has been debunked" without attributing this assertion, anyone might wonder who the unnamed person was who debunked it, since it is basically an appeal to authority. Please read WP:WEASEL for a detailed explanation of how and why this should be avoided, if you haven't already. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jubilees

Hello. I can cite the biblical reference for my editions that you reverted. It is not however unhelpful. I was pointing out an error in the text, and knowing it is there is helpful, because otherwise someone might be mislead into thinking the date given is correct. When I registed an account here it said nothing of having to discuss my changes with anyone before making them. I agree that the reference should be added. Your other grounds for reverting my edits are false. I will add the reference, please do not revert it after that. Tyler Thomas (2) (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Til, I posted something in the discussion for this article. Tyler Thomas (2) (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass AfDs

Hi, the discussion on whether mass AfDs is preferred is a bit off-topic at the AfD, so I thought we might continue our conversation here. (If you feel that is inappropriate, you have my permission to move this response back to the AfD.) Mass AfDs are encouraged in the instructions - see Misplaced Pages:AFD#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. I chose to do so in this case because these articles are cookie-cutter - they were created by the same author at about the same time using the same template. They all also appear to share the issues that I raised in the nomination statement. The articles are so similar that it is, in my opinion, overwhelmingly likely that people who support keeping one article would support keeping all of them (or vice versa). If your opinion applies specifically to several particular articles, you can make that clear in your statement at the AfD, and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Undeciphered Script in Somalia

The comment that I deleted at Osmanya script has its discussion at Somali language. The reference that I deleted is not a reliable source if you read it. It is a throwaway subordinate clause in a report on the official status of various Somali writing systems. There is no reference within that report to an actual scientific source for the "lost ancient script" referred to (at least not within the portion of the report that the Misplaced Pages editor was citing as "evidence" for the ancient Somali script). There are ancient undeciphered inscriptions in Somalia, but since they are undeciphered, they cannot be linked to the Somali language, whether or not the Somali government thinks they can be or not. They are undeciphered. The comment about them at Somalia is appropriate because they are in Somalia and the way the statement there is written, they are not tied to the Somali language. If the government report is actually referring to the Arabic script that was formerly used to write Somali, then the statement is still false since the Arabic script is not "lost". If, however, that is the reference that the government wants to make then the statement is incredibly vague. Here is the exact quote that the Misplaced Pages editor is using to add the disputed text at both Somali language and Osmanya script. Note how vague it is. The other reference that was deleted was a reference to a journal without date, author, title of article, or volume number--not an acceptable reference in any sense of the imagination or a WP:RS since "pg 447" in a journal that has presumably been published for many years cannot be tracked down. The reason for deleting these two references is very clear because neither one constitutes a WP:RS. (Taivo (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

What?

I don't know where you are coming from, but I am not "spreading lies". As you noted in your edit summary, all Christian traditions have non-Christian elements in them. Your edits implied that this was a POV advocated by the US government, when it is something that a writer commissioned by the Library of Congress wrote. I am sorry you feel that I am besmirching the Ethiopian Church -- especially after all of the work I have put into Ethiopia-related articles -- but it is not my intent; I am simply adding verifiable information as I find it. If you want to achieve a solid, lasting solution to this issue, please help me find a reliable source which states that the Ethiopian Church preserves several traditions that can be traced back to the primitive Christian Church which survive in none of the other traditions -- which is my own belief. Squabbling over this one sentence (which I consider is simply a commonplace) wastes the time I could be spending finding that reliable source. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

'Creation account/story/myth'?

Just wondered whether you had any comments to make on the issue of these terminologies, either here or on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F .

I'd also appreciate comments on the facebook groups that I have created on the issue (as listed on my talk page). I'd like to find constructive ways forward.

cheers Gregkaye (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ediblemitten

Would you be willing periodically to check this user's contribution history for the next few days? This is clearly a vandalism-only account, and such accounts are liable to be blocked indefinitely, but I don't want to block until/unless there's more vandalism after your final warning. If you find any more examples of vandalism, please alert me and I'll block as soon as I get the message. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Less than an hour after I told you this, Gogo Dodo blocked the user indefinitely. Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Salting the earth

Thank you for your contributions to salting the earth. You added two cities not mentioned by the given source (Gevirtz) -- Washukanni and Susa -- to the list of cities thus treated. Could you please supply a source? Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Direction of sumerian script

Hi 'Til Eulenspiegel'. In a slightly more peaceful context than the Sumer talk page, I'm honestly curious. In none of the tablets I've ever seen, does the script seem to run right-to-left. It's always either top-down or left-right. These directions are the same if the tablet is rotated, and since the orientation of the signs themselves rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise at the same time, we've never been able to tell the exact period when the top-down to left-right transition took place. We do know for sure, that during the Hammurapi period, top-down script was still used for ritual/monumental purposes, since inscribed statues dating from that period are extant. If you have any examples of right-to-left script or any scholarly indications of this (possibly from the early dynastic period) I would be very interested to hear about it. Wilstrup (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for responding on the Semitic page in an intelligent manner. We might not agree on a things (I don't know, I'm just going to guess here), but your contribution to the discussion is appreciated. I will continue to research and look for more sources to add to the discussion. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I found your last comment to WP:FTN to be very offensive

I could not believe you ascribed a singular set of approaches to interaction and belief to an entire continent. One of the most offensive things I've seen on Misplaced Pages in a long time. Congratulations. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote carefully and do not put arguments in my mouth. I did not ascribe any view to the entire continent. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Africa is the kind of place where your reputation precedes you." Yeah, you totally did not ascribe any view to the entire continent. Maybe you'd like to refactor? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Africa contains a plethora of views, but it can still be the kind of place where your reputation precedes you. Have you ever studied logic? It might save you from committing so many fallacies and appeals to emotion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your insistence that Africa is "the kind of place" where anything happens is prejudiced plain and simple. Stop talking in impossible generalities and maybe you'll be taken more seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't the faintest idea of which you speak. NPOV does not mean you are some kind of arbiter of which religions are false. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am criticizing your comment which talks about Africa as a monolithic location with particular characteristics ascribed to the population. I have no idea if you have "the faintest idea of which you speak", but I do know that the way you are expressing yourself is offensive to me. Incidentally, I agree that NPOV does not mean anyone is "some kind of arbiter of which religions are false". I did argue that there are certain statements which are false such as, "Planet Earth is younger than 10,000 years old". That these statements are dogmatically held beliefs by certain religions is also true. But, see, I'm not generalizing that statement to all religions or even to all statements made by religions. Cheers! ScienceApologist (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your continued spin-doctoring and refactoring (twisting) my arguments offensive as well. My point about Africa was that it is NOT a monolithic location; people there subscribe to many POVs like anywhere else, so that is why all wikipedias should attribute whichever POV is being promoted as undisputed fact. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You said something that has a clear implication: "Africa is the kind of place where your reputation precedes you." If that's not what you intended, then you should apologize or say something different. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand by exactly what I said: Africa IS the kind of place where your reputation precedes you. I take it you have never been there, and haven't the faintest idea about it either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop shoving your foot in your mouth. Your assumptions about me are incorrect and irrelevant to the fact that you were the one who made obtuse commentary. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, thanks, you are hereby uninvited from hectoring me any further on my talkpage, you aren't accomplishing much here.... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in an encyclopaedia with a biblical worldview?

If so you may me want to look at this encyclopaedia. LowKey (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) PS. That's pronounced "Loki" as in the other trickster. LowKey (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'Human sacrifice' issue

I've raised this issue at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Umm el-Qa'ab as the IP is adding pov tags to references. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)