Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:18, 20 November 2008

generic {{talkheader}}:

Note that this talkpage may be semiprotected due to disruption by anonymous users. If you have a very new account, chances are that you do not absolutely need to send me a personal message before you have made your first ten edits elsewhere. currently unprotected, courtesy of AuburnPilot (talk · contribs). Also, if you want to discuss an encyclopedic topic, feel free to attract my attention by using article talkpages. I usually do react to e-mails, but as a rule I prefer to keep my interactions regarding Misplaced Pages above-the-board and up for everyone to see. This is also the reason for which I absolutely reject IRC admin discussions, and why I am unsure about the merit of the Misplaced Pages mailing-list. Decisions regarding the administration of Misplaced Pages in my opinion should be made on-wiki, not off.

Archives:

archive1: 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 19 Dec 04 / 4: – 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 6 May 05 / 7: – 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 7 Nov 05 / A: – 13 Dec 05 / B: – 16 Jan 06 C: – 22 Feb 06 / D: – 21 March 06 / E: – 19 May 06 / F: – 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 9 Aug 06 / <11: – 9 Sep 06 / 12: – 2 Oct 06 / 13: – 23 Oct 06 / 14: – 30 Nov 06 / 15: – 17:53, 4 Jan 07 / 16 – 05:16, 16 Feb 07 / 17: – 08:28, 19 Mar 07 / 18: – 02:43, 11 Apr 07 / 19: – 00:26, 16 May 07 / 1A – 19:35, 18 Jul 07 / 1B – 07:47, 21 Aug 07 / 1C – 07:34, 5 Oct 07 / 1D – 09:10, 21 Nov 07 / 1E – 09:19, 26 Feb 08 / 1F – 06:35, 3 Jun 08 / 20 – 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit versus Prakrit inscriptions

Sanskrit was deliberately not written down as early as Prakrit . This is from academic written sources, so to mention that both Sankrit and Prakrit were written from the same time is an absolute lie or misleading to those who read this article. I have more than one academic RS sources that back it up. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Sanskrit and Prakrit" at the time were different registers of the same language, not actually different languages. The distinction is irrelevant for the purposes of the list. Still, your references may be a useful addition to clarify this point. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at thissource, pleaseTaprobanus (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That they were different registers of the same language is a fact. It is clear from the words that were applied to call them so. "saMskRtA vAk" was that word, and here saMskRta/adorned is an adjective describing the noun vAk/speech. Similarly prAkRta vAk(artless/ungrammatical speech) has prAkRta as an adjective of vAk. There was no language called just as "prAkRta". On the other hand, several prAkRta based languages evolved out of "prAkRtA vAk" which are identified as "prakrit languages".­ Kris (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite or OR Taprobanus (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are telling me this seeing that I have just told you. The language under discussion is "Old Indic". It's "high" register is known as Sanskrit, its vernacular as Prakrit. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab u's talk page has become a substitute for the article talk page. Should we move the contents to the article talk page ? second then should'nt the article then refer to old indic as the language attested not Sanskrit and Prakrit because the cite clearly says those who inscribed knew the difference and made a choice to do what they did ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You had said in the article's talk page: "ffs, I don't want to "get" anywhere, I'm just protecting the article's integrity. WP:RS: Iravatham Mahadevan (2003). Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times of 3rd BCE to the Sixth Century A.D. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Any questions? dab (𒁳) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)". The reference in question] does not mention any of 3rd BCE at all, whether in the title or in the contents. It is a false reference. Iravatham Mahadevan has said nothing here of the sort that is attributed by the Dravidian zealots to him. ­ Kris (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

two points

Hi!

• Umm, the management of your talk page is entirely your business, and I would never suggest otherwise. But I have a reasonably speedy internet connection, and it takes noticeably longer to load your talk page than, say, CNN. Think of the poor slobs out there with dialup; it might take them even longer. So...perhaps... archiving a bit... might be considerate to others. But it's your call.
• Hey thanks for the edits to List of endangered languages in Europe, but you seem to be shedding languages as you go. Forex, you ditched Krymchak language asserting that it isn't spoken in Europe. I'm not a geographical genius, but I'm reasonably certain that the whole of Crimea is in Europe. Other languages seem to have been deleted as well....Ling.Nut 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, sorry about this, I was going to hand the archiving of this page to a bot soon... Regarding Krymchak, according to SIL, it is spoken in Uzbekistan (most), Georgia, Kazakhstan, ostensibly omitting the Crimea. It would seem that the language is already "extinct in Europe", and just hanginng on by its fingernails in Asia. Other languages I removed for lack of reference. I suppose this entire "endangered languages" thing should be rebuilt strictly based on the Red Book of Endangered Languages. dab (𒁳) 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Turko-Mongol/Turko-Mongol

Hi dab. I liked your idea of redirecting these articles (Turko-Mongol, Turco-Mongol) to Mongol Empire or Mongol invasions. However, the article Turco-Mongol has been restored again, with some really dubious statements. Your advice is needed. Cheers. Tājik (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I still agree it could be redirected, but I'm fine with the present disambiguation page too. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology

Hi. I reverted back my edits on Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. You did not even give a reason for deleting the specifics of Harpur's accademia background, but anyways I added a source. I discussed the inclusion of the disagreement on entymology on the Talk:Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology page. Madridrealy (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Could you do something about this please? I had merely added other classes of Sanskrit Compunds that were not mentioned earlier. Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have made mistakes with Sanskrit in the past, showing that it is best that you source your additions of this kind. Mitsube (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is a reason we have a Sanskrit compounds article: it's so that the main article doesn't need to lose itself in discussing different types of dvandvas. Please see WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Family lead

Consensus is on my side in the Obama Family article lead...Please do not edit again, otherwise your edits will be nothing but trolling.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

you really have no idea how this works, do you. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to comment ...

You may wish to comment on this absurdity. I had already redirected it once per DICT, and the new "text" isn't getting any better. It also seems to be a significant copy of the .de article, with some cruft left out and new nonsense added. The .de page is apparently by the same newbie editor who is stuffing cruft here. It seems to be an endless loop ala .en wrote crap, which was copied to .it, which was copied to .de, which is now back on .en. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India

I know u did comment to Dinesh but it kind of gets lost in the massive discussion. Would u mind commenting or moving your comments to the end of here. I would understand if you choose not to. thanks. Docku: What up? 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu

Can you take a look at the article quickly...users are pushing one viewpoint which has been discredited by serious scholars. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• See the Talk:Xiongnu and this before. Best, E104421 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to summarize, there are many theories on their origin, but E104421 is trying to erase other theories from the intro. The article had a tag for months before I edited it. Where-as Nlu kept my categorization (which means he kept it) but kept the previous intro for further discussion (since I was WP:BOLD. Another use came and agreed with my info-box change and someone rated a B after I changed the intro. Please look at the diffs and let us know. With all the floating theories and specially Turkologists like Doerfer rejecting in the strongest term any connection with Altaic, it does not make sense to claim they were Altaic in the intro. So I created a category with all the current theories. You can judge based on the talkpage and the last edit I did which is more scientific. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

POV?

Oh please, obviously, you have done way more edits than me and you are trying to balance POVs, which is fine. One one hand you have someone pushing a Sanskritist Hindutva agenda and on the other hand you have me, someone trying to cite and write. Now just because you disagree with both of our edit contents does not mean both are POVs. It still means one is a POV and one is a normal edit. What you are trying to do is clubbing someone like Srkris and me on the same POV side, however, you are obviously missing the point since I do not enlarge labels, do not push POV, do not ruthlessly edit without proper citations, do not exaggerate the contents of the citation and most importantly not refrain from making appropriate talk page points. Replacing bias with content information does not make the content information bias.

I am a professional linguist and I am concerned about the nonsense being written here in the name of linguistics, which is actually pure POV garbage and random usage of terms without the faintest relevance to what it actually stands for, linguistically. All I am saying is this, please do not brand POV and a POV-cleanup together and push both of them off the cliff. In this process, you are discouraging cited edits and, in essence, the whole process of Misplaced Pages upgradation. ] (] · ]) 21:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you are a professional linguist. Then surely you have heard of the difference between a script and a language? You are adding nothing new. All you are doing is pushing the inclusion of material that has been covered for years at the proper location into an article where it is off topic. I agree your sources are valid. So please stop wasting my time and yours, and begin working on the articles to which they are actually relevant. --dab (𒁳) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean when you talk about the difference between a script and a language. However, two points. Firstly, the script has been allegedly 'deciphered', perhaps not the full lexicon or syntactic structure, but a hint has been provided by all the decipherment claims about what language family or 'language' it belongs to, it is just that there is no consensus. Secondly, it is very much unfalsifiably arguable that this 'script' is not just an arbitrary collection of random symbols and that it corresponds to the writing system of a language, the decipherment claims of which have no consensus. It is a code, the characters stand for something, that much we can say, since it has a system. Certain characters corresponding to a certain semantic domain, which follow a pattern. You have a set of characters in pottery, another set in clay jars, etc. If all the disclaimers are mentioned and the claims also listed, it makes several things clear - that there is no consensus as to whether this corresponds to a language, or if it just a script, or if it is just garbage - all these viewpoints are presented in the Indus Script page. We make a cross reference to that and provide a very brief summary of the decipherment claims. I hope this helps. ] (] · ]) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential Superpowers

Hi, I'm one of the main users that works on the Potential Superpower pages as well as other Power in International Relation pages. I've noticed that you put up some things like merging, but didn't post it in the talk pages. However, I'd like to inform you that Potential Superpowers has it's own subsection. But since the entire thing of Academics discussing what's a superpower and, and what's a potential superpower and not. And unless we want Potential superpower taking up half the superpower pages, then we shouldn't merge. Lastly, the reason why it's considered Potential is because according to experts in the field of IR, Polisci, Geopolitics, these specific countries are the ones that are most talked about of what could be the next superpower, due to them having good ______ and ______, which falls under the futurology tag you added. However, some of the potential superpowers like China and EU, the entire community is mixed about those. For instance, Fareed Zakaria believes that China and EU are rising and might become superpowers in the near future, while Parag Khanna believes that China and EU are already superpower. And since the whole community is divided among that issue, it's considered a potential superpower. While some IR/Polisci/Geopolitic experts believe that America isn't a superpower any more, the majority still believe that America is still a superpower. Being a Potential Superpower is a category of power as it's more then a great power but not quite yet a superpower. Deavenger (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)