User talk:Alastair Haines
Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
---|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can . |
"The only real man in Prussia."
— widely attrib. to Napoléon
La reine de Prusse est réellement charmante; elle est pleine de coquetterie pour moi; mais n'en sois point jalouse: je suis une toile cirée sur laquelle tout cela ne fait que glisser. Il m'en coûterait trop cher pour faire le galant.
— letter, signed Napoléon Bonaparte, 9 July 1807
Archives |
---|
Archive 1 |
If you're fast enough (5 days) to add more inline-citations, I'd say this one deserves to be on the front page for DYK. I had never even heard of "Israelian Hebrew" before (thought you were writing bad English, that's what got my attention on recent changes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the work done on this page. It's more complete and looks tidier.
Keep up the good work! --Dampinograaf (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the correct forum for overturning an AfD discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not unilaterally restoring the page yourself. This is true regardless of the topic-ban issue. Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for talking, I can grant you your point in general terms, and hope you can grant in general terms that dispute resolution starts with one-to-one discussion, like this, not with appealing to processes.
- Our current dispute concerns documentation of the evidence for the universality of patriarchy, which has been differently resolved, by several discussion to be:
- documented elsewhere than the patriarchy article, in a template;
- documented elsewhere than a template, in its own article;
- and, most recently, merged back into the patriarchy article.
- My own original personal preference is exactly in line with the most recent proposal. My current preference is for a separate article, but it's not even strong enough to warrent raising. The point is, the discussions want the information somewhere. Where is it to be? If at patriarchy, why delete it from there? If not at patriarchy, why delete it from UoP? If you must be the one to post it, where and when will you do that? Alastair Haines (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alastair. Could you indicate where the consensus is that you mention in this edit-summary. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe he's talking about the original forking of the article half a year ago. Since then there was an AfD with consensus to merge back into patriarchy. You may also be interested in Alastair's other recent efforts to circumvent the deletion process. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Kaldari is not being full and frank with you, John, the discussion that demonstrates consensus for creating the article is here.
- See below for why I can have no part in resolving this. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, please take a look at Alastair's evidence. Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, very clear mandate for the article, involving a lot of reliable sources, editors and constructive discussion. Bongomatic's comment is representative. Calathan, Bongo, S Marshall, Citius Altius, Buster7 and myself took some time swinging backward and forwards but came to the conclusion that the template needed expansion and upgrade into an article, so the template could be deleted as made redundant by the article.
- I'll be restoring and expanding the article as per consensus; and I remind Kaldari that he really needs to stop being obstructive and resisting consensus regarding a topic he's obviously ideologically opposed to. Attempting censorship like that is rather unWikipedian I would think. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
ANI
You're being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_and_personal_attack --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Neil, yes, really these people should know better than making personal attacks and threats against me. It looks very bad for them. Rather crude and unWikipedian attempts at intimidation and attempting to "chill" my fair criticism ... and provision of reliable sources, for goodness sake. It'll all blow over soon enough. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Disruption, Legal threats, etc
Some of your recent comments ([1] [2]) could be interpreted as legal threats, if you could clarify or reword exactly what your intention is, it would be appreciated. Keep in mind WP:NLT when doing so. This is in reference to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats and personal attack. Prodego talk 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Naturally, the questions I'm being invited to comment on are based on even less substance than similar earlier irresponsible sensationalism.
- Thanks, however, for the politely worded "please explain": a great improvement on previous incidents of this sort of thing.
- I'm sorry, but I will be unavailable for comment until further notice, and that will be some time away, a very good time away, as will be understood by reading the following.
- I can only hope that more common sense and common decency prevails in the current discussions than those of the past. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Melati Haines
At 23:59 (AEDST) Monday 7 December, Alastair's wife, Felicia Widyastuti gave birth to our first baby, a daughter, Sarah Melati, conceived on our honeymoon in June. She weighed 660 grams and was 33 cms in length. She cried, took two breaths, then, over the course of the next 38 minutes, her heartbeat fell from 100 to 0, despite 4 shots of adrenaline. Sarah died at 0:37 on Tuseday 8 December. Sarah's funeral will be held on Friday the 11th.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD (Job 1:21).
daughters last battle
mortal mother and father we
- conceived an heir
- fit to rule and
- rule she did:
not enwombed woman
- but woman and womb
- womb ruled no
- by mother but by daughter
stop! she said
- at her command her
- mothers months subsided
grow! she sad
- at her command her
- mothers womb expanded
and grow and grow and grow
- our little queen enthralling
- catured womb and heart
- and soul of mother
- father
- too
who caused the war
- we do not know
- battle called
- mother writhed
- spasming agony
our little queen
- against the world
- her would-be world
- to conquer yet
- battle joined
- too early
O Glorious Queen
- our daughter
- leaped to life
- screamed once
- breathed twice
- breathed last
- was she defeated?
Captured our hearts
- are always hers
- forever and forever
Amen
- Sarah's dad, 9 December 2009
Please treat this page with respect
- I am logging out of Wiki for I don't know how long.
- I plan to be back.
- I will be checking email from time to time. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Alastair, my heart goes out to you and your wife. There are no words for this. Wim --Crusio (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- God bless you Sir! 124.179.27.50 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- [...] (1 minute). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- May her soul unite with the Almighty. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- A tragedy. Words fail me and my condolences go out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- May her soul unite with the Almighty. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- My condolences Alastair. I will pray for you and your family. MBisanz talk 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- My condolences Alastair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- What an absolute bugger, mate. From a Dad who went through something lesser, though similar, and now has two annoying ticks, hang in there, treasure the moments of what you had, breath deep, seek support, support each other, there will be bad times, though know that time heals, gives you strength, and does bring hope fresh again. Travel safely. billinghurst (talk) 2009-12-10T09:20:31
- My condolences Alastair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. Please accept my sincerest condolences. Guettarda (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear about your tragic loss. May the Lord bring comfort to you and your wife. Dovi (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Condolences to you and your family. Mathsci (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Requiescat in pace & peace to the family. Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
God's peace be with you and yours, and with all who suffer such losses. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- My deepest condolences Alastair, I have no words for your loss. My thoughts are with you and your wife--Cailil talk 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Continued prayers and condolences...--Buster7 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Just stumbled across your user page. Your poem is stunning...a fitting tribute to your beautiful girl. May the God of all comfort grant you grace and peace and patience till you can see Sarah again. Kyriosity (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note on my talk page, Alastair. Only I'm a sister rather than a brother. ;-) Kyriosity (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mangalorean Catholics
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mangalorean Catholics. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangalorean Catholics. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for this courtesy notification, Mr Bot. I'm delighted to see that the excellent work a friend did on that article survived the AfD. I am not in the least surprised, however. It's one of the best articles I've seen at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
30 000th edit
Sorry for my silence, I guess you are very busy, I am too. I do not know what to say. You wrote: "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away". Anything else to add. In last time I had created several articles larger than usually (minuscules 536-545, Peter P. Dubrovsky, Daniel Gotthilf Moldenhawer, Plain Introduction, etc.). With regards. It was my 30 000 edit on en-wiki. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Creation according to Genesis
Hi Alastair, welcome back! I've edited your edits to the lead to this article - I believe the modern view is pretty much that creation ex nihilo is not the intention of the original authors, although of course it became the interpretation of the early Churtch under the influence of the great Philo of Alexandria. Also I deleted the reference to kulturkampf as being too minor to rate a mention.
The article is the subject of intense dispute, so be prepared for that. PiCo (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have all the academic qualifications to enable you to add a well referenced note in Genesis creation myth on the most accepted interpretation(s) of the historical development of the Genesis Creation texts and their relationship to Mesopotamian myth. Every time I attempt to refer to the links and to give sources my additions are removed by the appropritely named Deadtotruth --Tediouspedant (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I not sure how active you are, but if you are active, please take a look at Iravan, an article about a regional deity like Vithoba. I am planning a FAC for Iravan. I know your review and touch can change articles completely like Vithoba changed for the best. Please respond if you are active and let me know if you are willing to take a look. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the first msg was a reply to this msg. What a coincidence! I thought I would miss my lucky charm (from Vithoba) in Iravan. God bless. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to inform you that Ruhrfisch started his review on Talk:Iravan#Review_comments recently. It would be nice if you may start your improvement edits simultaneously. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Ruhrfisch and Abecdare's PR seems almost done. So I was planning a FAC. I will not nominate the article without taking a look at it. Can you give me a date by which you can take a look at Iravan? Please reply. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to inform you that Ruhrfisch started his review on Talk:Iravan#Review_comments recently. It would be nice if you may start your improvement edits simultaneously. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the first msg was a reply to this msg. What a coincidence! I thought I would miss my lucky charm (from Vithoba) in Iravan. God bless. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. Happy house hunting! --Redtigerxyz Talk 02:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Though the word hijras originates in urdu, the group exists atleast in Indian subcontinent with diff. names. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am still a little confused what exactly is bothering you. Your modifications to the note and any objectionable parts in the article, would clear my confusion.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Though the word hijras originates in urdu, the group exists atleast in Indian subcontinent with diff. names. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, it should be fine once I get back to the text tomorrow. In a very broad way of saying things, what was difficult for me was accepting statements in the Iravan draft that sound fine to express a political PoV in English, but not to provide simple, clear description. It's OK to "go political" at Iravan, but it opens an unnecessary can of worms. Once again, it'll be fine, the language can be modified without needing to remove content directly related to Iravan. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not mean to use third gender as a political POV, it is literal translation of the Sanskrit tritiya prakriti or tritiya panthi, used traditionally in Hindu literature calling Hijras "third sex", "neither male nor female" is the intended meaning. Do reword, I have no objections to the removal of third gender. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Everything I read tells me hijra are men, not women, and not rare hermaphrodites, with the exception of literature produced by well-known sexual politics lobby groups. We can be spiritual or political and speak in vague terms of something other than normal male and female, but there's a world of difference between that and the extremely well documented and abundant scientific literature on the observable, measurable, physcial aspects of sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens.
- Do we really have enough evidence to assert the Aravani go back to days when Sanskrit was still spoken? Are the Hijra of Pakistan really culturally descendended from mandates provided in the Sanskrit scriptures? I don't think even they argue for such bold claims. I can see one activist has self-published a book claiming to place "third gender" terminology on Sanskrit, but even that notes that references in Hindu scriptures are "rare" and "not widely discussed".
- I'll get back to copyediting soon. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not use IAST for Aravan as it creates problem of inconsistency since other names like Mohini, Vishnu, Mahabharata are in English, not IAST. As in Vithoba, I would like to limit IAST usage to the chief names of the deity. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like that approach. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- "consummation" is disputed, see The three boons first para. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tishani Doshi, Lessons in transformation, The Hindu (Sunday, 25 May 2005) is a rather nice piece of lyrical prose, winningly addressing questions of the ethics of sexuality in India. "No woman will come forward to marry [Aravan] because she knows that what lies waiting for her is the doom of widowhood. So Lord Krishna, taking the form of a beautiful woman, comes down to satisfy the desire of coital bliss." This is Doshi's interpretation, drawn from personal involvement in, and reflection on, the festival, and in the context of larger questions about sexuality in India. It is not an academic analysis of the sense of the text of the story as we have it. If we have evidence of others sharing Doshi's interpretation, we can supply a popular alternative to academic analysis, though it's not, properly speaking, an additional academic PoV.
- I'll check the other source, 'cause that might provide new information. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I request to check the main text (non-lead) first, we can sort lead issues/rewrite lead like boons at the end. I removed the quote from the ref for consistency in references. A Google book is linked, with may most of the times give a preview.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Would it make any sense if the first para of Java section is shifted to "Development of the legend"? Please read Talk:Iravan#Review_comments_by_Abecedare about Development section and let me know what do you think about it: merge it with other sections OR keeping it a distinct para. A rewrite of that section is needed in both cases. Maybe topic sentences are needed in the latter option. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have fun. I am assured that you will organize "Development of legend" properly, but we need to may an editorial decision about keeping the section or merging it with other sections. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please add all details for references you add like Brockington (1998, p. 26).--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also for "Sukthankar, "Prolegmonena" to (1933)". Also, can you plz tell me about your editorial decision about "Development of legend"? merge or keep separate? --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would it make any sense if the first para of Java section is shifted to "Development of the legend"? Please read Talk:Iravan#Review_comments_by_Abecedare about Development section and let me know what do you think about it: merge it with other sections OR keeping it a distinct para. A rewrite of that section is needed in both cases. Maybe topic sentences are needed in the latter option. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please add details for Van Buitenen; The Mahabharata - 1; The Book of the Beginning. Introduction (Authorship and Date). Have wrote my comments on footnotes issue on talk. Please see "Review comments by Abecedare" too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I request to check the main text (non-lead) first, we can sort lead issues/rewrite lead like boons at the end. I removed the quote from the ref for consistency in references. A Google book is linked, with may most of the times give a preview.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Hi. Can you please add details like publisher, book name, ISBN for references you added. I have no idea what books you intend to quote. The references which need details are:
- van Buitenen (1973): p. xxiv-xxv.
- Sukthankar, "Prolegmonena" to (1933): p. lxxxvi. Emphasis is original.
- Supomo (1995) (ref. 91) page numbers
Also do you think that the article can be ready for FAC by next Wednesday? I have some free days ahead and intend to nominate it then. Please reply. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Regarding the references: van Buitenen, Sukthankar and Supomo are all cited in full in the Bibliography": Confused. I still can't see the references, AL. Can you please put them in Bibliography too (also the page numbers in ref 91 are needed)?
- About next Wed FAC, I want to finish a FAC by first week of May, after which I am expecting to be busy in real life. "I haven't quite finished with copyediting or expanding a little on Tamil versions of the Mbh. But I don't think my work there is necessary for FA, and can continue, during and after the FA process anyway.": I disagree with that. Your work is necessary and invaluable for Iravan, without which I don't think Iravan will make the FA cut. I am rewriting the lead a little to accommodate Javanese traditions. Feel free to add or remove any stuff from rewrite. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- About the my usage of Haines on Iravan talk: I did mean to offend you. I am extremely sorry if I have. I was unaware of the surname thing, AL (I will use Alastair on other talks, AL will confuse others, if it OK with you?). Things are different culturally in India, where you do not have the Western first name concept in colleagues and even friends may not necessarily use first names. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was searching for van Buitenen. I removing van from the reference. If van is needed, then in references part the last name should be listed as van Buitenen, instead of Buitenen alone. Supomo page numbers are missing.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my article alone, it's your article too. Please choose the best option yourself, as I am not aware of the right academic usage of van and your knowledge in this issue exceeds mine. Whatever you decide, will remain in the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since all three use "Buitenen, J. A. B. van", let us keep it that way. What you do think? --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my article alone, it's your article too. Please choose the best option yourself, as I am not aware of the right academic usage of van and your knowledge in this issue exceeds mine. Whatever you decide, will remain in the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was searching for van Buitenen. I removing van from the reference. If van is needed, then in references part the last name should be listed as van Buitenen, instead of Buitenen alone. Supomo page numbers are missing.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I like it, 'cause it's my own preference. But! I suspect the "van" at the end isn't strictly APA Style, the punctuation and ordering are that. I suspect the Aust Nat Lib head librarian just thinks the way I do. But, I'm glad I can show a reliable source of bibliographic citation. Much better we follow a published example, than just my own explanation of my personal style.
- I think we have an answer. :) I'll get back to the copyediting. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good research, AL. I would never done for so much hard work for just a name. Sounds good. Page numbers for Supomo (1995) (ref. 91) remain. To track of what sections you have seen and have already pointed the problems in it, I suggest keeping the contents table as a checklist. Also, it will let me know what sections I should not spoil. ;)--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- ROFL! Thanks for that, friend!
- You give me such great research, and such nice text to work with: full of content and very clear!
- So far, I've covered all sections down to Mahabharata, and the Javanese section.
- I also fiddled with the See also section.
- I have two large sections to cover: Tamil legends and Worship.
- I have worked on the early parts of both of those, and maybe random bits and pieces in those sections.
- I plan to work through the Tamil section next, maybe close to all the way at one sitting.
- After that I'll do the Worship section.
- I have already scanned both sections and I was very pleased with the neutral and sourced way you handled potentially controversial material.
- We'll see how we go.
- By the way, you didn't like the maps showing States and Districts? Could we use one of them? We could also colour a version of the District map. One colour for Draupadi, another for Kuttantavar. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The images were creating blank spaces in the article, so I removed them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will check with TheMandarin, if he has the time to create a Inkspace pic of the 32 temples' location in Tamil Nadu. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The images were creating blank spaces in the article, so I removed them. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- AL, instead of removing red links, I suggest forming stubs saying that the village X is in Y district and has an important Aravan temple. We have the ref. Also, there is some policy on wikipedia (can't remb. the link) that says all settlements are notable. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I making minor changes to parts you copyedited where the meaning is diff after what is intended. Please check my changes and reword, if necessary.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- TheMandarin has agreed to create a map of the temples, that will add meaning to the temple list. Please comment what the villages issue and check my minor changes. I am removing all other links to villages, except the 32 temples. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Message for you on Iravan talk. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- TheMandarin has agreed to create a map of the temples, that will add meaning to the temple list. Please comment what the villages issue and check my minor changes. I am removing all other links to villages, except the 32 temples. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Very nice wording of the patron sentence. Why didn't you put in the mainspace before. Moved it to the article. Draupadi rituals also looks good. I think only Boons and Kuttantavar rituals remain to be perfected. At last, Iravan is looking more like a FA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Found one more explicit connection between Aravan and hijras. See Talk:Iravan#First_paragraph_of_lead--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- ""heroic" self-mutilation and self-decapitation before the Goddess" In this sentence, the g is capitalized to denote the general monotheistic concept of Shaktism of the Supreme Goddess and her forms. "the goddess" in the preceding sentence to the particular goddess Kali.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed you created Korravai (while checking my watchlist I saw you adding the link on Chhinnamasta, missed it on Iravan). We can work on it together - if it's OK with you - after Iravan's copyedit is complete and is nominated on FAC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to be busier in first week of May, so need sort Iravan by then. Korravai expansion can along with a parallel FAC (any way FAC get comments on a daily basis). It will be good if Iravan can be nominated on Wed as a FAC atleast lasts a fortnight. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed you created Korravai (while checking my watchlist I saw you adding the link on Chhinnamasta, missed it on Iravan). We can work on it together - if it's OK with you - after Iravan's copyedit is complete and is nominated on FAC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is it possible for you to take a look at the last section of Kuttantar cult today, so that the article can be nominated today. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- No sorry between friends, Al. I should the one to thank you for your co-operation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- AL, just wanted to check if you have completed Kuttantavar cult rituals section? I see many edits on Iravan by you, so I assumed it may be complete, but your prose standards are much higher than mine. so wanted to confirm if you have reached the end of the section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- No sorry between friends, Al. I should the one to thank you for your co-operation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- okie dokie, AL. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- "At noon his chariot turns north, facing the ceremonial Kurukshetra battle-field, a symbolic gesture representing both his kalappali and his entry onto the battlefield to die at the hands of Alambusha" is not right. Turning to North: means kalapali part, and second turn to face the battlefield means entry in it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since, today is an auspicious Hindu festive day and your copyedit is over, I am nominating Iravan for FA now before this day passes here in India. Thanks a lot, AL. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- "At noon his chariot turns north, facing the ceremonial Kurukshetra battle-field, a symbolic gesture representing both his kalappali and his entry onto the battlefield to die at the hands of Alambusha" is not right. Turning to North: means kalapali part, and second turn to face the battlefield means entry in it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- plz keep an eye on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1, AL. Great job and Good night. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good research, AL. I would never done for so much hard work for just a name. Sounds good. Page numbers for Supomo (1995) (ref. 91) remain. To track of what sections you have seen and have already pointed the problems in it, I suggest keeping the contents table as a checklist. Also, it will let me know what sections I should not spoil. ;)--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The article List of ARC religion journals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- does not meet WP:GNG
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amaher (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
ARC religion journals list
Hi, I apologise if I was a bit quick to reach for the delete button. I just couldn't see the point of mirroring the ARC's journal lists here since it can easily be downloaded from their website. It just seemed a bit random. Also, this is the type of thing that goes out of date - will anyone be around to update it next year? Anyway it appears you have broader intentions for this list so i'm happy for it to stay up --Amaher (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me for butting in, but this was actually a point that I was concerned about. I know that Thompson ISI does not allow third parties to make lists of journals indicating their impact factors, claiming this violates their copyright. The Australian agency that produced these lists is probably less concerned about this than a commercial enterprise, but still, aren't these lists copyrighted? I haven't had time to check, but perhaps either one of you has. Also, I think Amaher has a point that the lists can be downloaded elsewhere, is it necessary to mirror them here? Unless you intend to make more out of this, otherwise the lists on their original site could just be used as sources. BTW, these lists are also linked/listed somewhere in the WikiProject Academic Journals. If I find a moment, I'll try to dig out the link. --Crusio (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your comments are most welcome.
- The benefit of listing within Wiki, as I see it, is the opportunity to internally link and for journal names to come up in internal searches.
- I suspect, but cannot guarantee, that copyright should not be an issue, since taxpayer funded information is regularly public domain. Indeed, the academic body, under whose supervision I work, has uploaded a copy of the list to their own site, and I'd be very surprised if they were alone in doing so. Thompson, on the other hand, seem right to me to seek legal protection for the costly work of producing the service of information they ask the academic community to share with them.
- But, my opinions are inexpert and worthless, our questions are very likely to have answers in reliable sources. The bottom line is, I'd be content were we to move the list to WP:Academic Journals. That's probably its natural home, and as part of a complete listing of the ARC rankings, should copyright (or permission) allow us fair use for the convenience of contributors to that Wikiproject.
- Alastair Haines (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're most probably right about the copyright (and I didn't intend to criticize Thompson, it's stuff they produced and they're entitled to charge for that, of course). Anyway, here are links to the list in the project space. --Crusio (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course you meant no criticism of Thompson, I was only clarifying for third parties to our discussion. Sorry it came across that way. I think you are most probably right too. In my ignorance, I was unaware that John had already done this work more comprehensively.
- I think what I must apply myself to is merging the list we are discussing with my hopeless early attempt at List of theology journals. I think there is a practical advantage in having a list like this in ordinary mainspace, in that not all new users will find WP:Academic Journals particularly quickly. However, I have had theological students find they like the vision of starting articles on theological journals they use or aspire to contributing to, because they've seen that List, even in its sketchy form.
- Big picture issues as I see it: people reading religion articles may want to know more about journals who've published writers an article cites in support of various ideas. Articles on those journals will be very helpful for serious readers. What about the usefulness of having a Bibliographic List like the above in mainspace? I would contend that WP:AJ should consider providing a set of lists classified and titled by objectively defined "fields of research", and selected on the basis of similar objective criteria like impact factor or ARC rank. That would aid non-project members in finding WP:AJ or in assisting it whether they join or not. It would also aid people in all manner of WP space discussions in having easy access to some basic objective criteria, already examined by responsible project members. Ordinary readers can also benefit, in most cases, a few mouse clicks could take them to a journal's homepage, and a wealth of information. The listS could work as a navigation tool for people looking for serious sources in any subject area.
- Nothing I'm suggesting is likely to be new to you, Wim. You and others have been more active and involved with WP:AJ than I ever have been. I trust the integrity, wisdom and even creativity of you who lead by example there. Regarding this list, I surrender any choice in the matter to the better judgement of people like yourself, Dave and John. Regarding Adamantius, however, please forgive me holding out. I think there are good reasons the Adamantius (journal) should, for the forseeable future, exist only as a redirect to an brief article on the group who publish it. I think we have reliable evidence it is a journal that calls itself (or started out as) a newsletter, rather than a newsletter that masquerades as a journal.
- To repeat, my bottom line is that I express no further opinion regarding Lists of journals and will co-operate with any decisions you or others at WP:AJ recommend. I will also co-operate with any decision regarding Adamantius; however, I would appreciate it, that if you decide the Italian Origen Group should not be documented, that you'd also summarise the evidence I've provided in support of the notability of that Group, albeit with your reasons for rejecting that evidence.
- I hope that's sufficient to ensure we can progress with no further consumption of time that can be used elsewhere.
- Best regards Alastair Haines (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Thompson ISI will have a problem with it since this list does not cite ISI impact factors. In fact the whole point of the ARC compiling these lists is that they are trying to move away from IFs entirely - just as the NHMRC have already done ( see here for their explanation). Cheers, --Amaher (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- i misread the above - but the IF article may be of general interest to you.--Amaher (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Thompson ISI will have a problem with it since this list does not cite ISI impact factors. In fact the whole point of the ARC compiling these lists is that they are trying to move away from IFs entirely - just as the NHMRC have already done ( see here for their explanation). Cheers, --Amaher (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's of great interest to me, at least Amaher, thank you! It might not be new to Wim, who is much more abreast of the issues than I. Thanks for that work. Great find, and I one for am now wiser ... and intrigued! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have a pretty large collection of IF-related articles, but I don't think I had this one yet. It's one of my projects to some day try to get the impact factor article up to GA status and this might be a useful source. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The ARC journal lists are not in the public domain, or covered by a permissive license (yet). It is covered by Crown copyright, and permission is only granted to redistribute it in its original form[3], however there are pushes to change this, both from on top[4], and elsewhere. John Lamp's ERA journal listings are well known by all, and there haven't been any take down requests. I'm not particularly keen on the List of ARC religion journals page, as there are many other journal lists compiled by govt's in other countries, but I may warm to it after a bit of consideration. A "comparison of religion journals" page would be more neutral (geographically-speaking) and could include "ARC ranking" as a column. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back
Dear friend. Welcome back. Time heals and memories remain. Knowing you (albeit online), I am sure you have come out stronger out of this ordeal with increased faith. Its nice to see you back active on Wikipedia and doing something you are best at: improving wiki and sharing your knowledge. --Anish (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Anish! I think of you every time I log in to Wikipedia (and many other times too). Although you haven't asked, very much at the top of my mind is getting back to Karma in Jainism, unless it is already an FA. And that is only a little of what I hope we will be able to achieve together as we have opportunity. I had to return my copy of Dundas to a library, but I'll be getting it out again soon enough, and other books also. Please expect an email from me shortly, my apologies that your last is still unanswered. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I did not remind you because I knew that Karma in Jainism would be on your mind and you will go all out for it when you are ready. No, its not yet FA as it requires your special touch. Considering what you have gone through, no apologies are required (esp. between friends). I am simply glad that you have bounced back.--Anish (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Award
Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Misunderstanding understood
Alastair Haines no apology necessary, you're understanding is much closer to 100% and I have quite a bit of practice in being unclear :) The reason I think it's an appropriate title is simply because that's what the sources call it, you actually kind of made my point for me by pointing out Frye's disagreement with the simple creation myth assertion applying to Genesis. If other sources weren't calling it a simple creation myth he'd sound pretty weird arguing his point to a field that already agreed with him. Anynobody(?) 05:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Asking little is my middle name, pleasant surprises have not, however, been my experience in certain cases.
- When people remove reliable sources from the encyclopedia and persevere with personal attacks, speculating about motives of editors, we should all be troubled.
- I intend to restore nearly all material in certain articles, removed prior to and since a certain ArbCom, and that is almost certain to be obstructed.
- Maintenance like this should not be time consuming (my time is limited also), since all text is reliably sourced, verifiable, even uncontroversial in the literature and has also been supported by other Wikipedia editors.
- However, it is naive to think that this is how things will progress, especially given events of the past.
- I will take your advice and procede first via email.
- Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Book Suggestion
You may enjoy Empires of the Word. Check it out.EGMichaels (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes! How well you know me. A good excuse to take a night or two off from Wikipedia. Will read. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Treatment of sources at Jehovah's Witnesses
You seem to be indulging in a lot of hurrumphing and muttering over sources at Jehovah's Witnesses. It's not clear what point you're trying to make in highlighting specific words within those sources. If you have an issue to raise, then do so on the article talk page. LTSally (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Nice to meet you as well, God bless from the UK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Alastair Haines RfAr 2
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alastair Haines 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Self reverting
So... I was just wondering. If you revert yourself 4 times in a 24 period, can you get blocked for 3RR? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you got an answer to your question but, no, self-reverting is not counted against the 3RR. See here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- He he, thanks Bill, but this was rather a nice joke between Lisa and I.
- Your generosity in stopping to post is appreciated. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I just happened to find you because you are involved in an arbitration at the same time I was (although the one I was involved in, Christ myth theory, was denied). At any rate, I was looking over your resume on you user page and I was quite impressed. Is there something, like brain surgery or astrophysics, that you can't do? :) Although you are probably very busy, I'd like to invite you to visit the Christ myth theory article when you get the chance. Have a nice day. Oh, one more thing. I see that you are "down under". What time is it there right now? I live in Texas, USA, and it's about 2:40 PM here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- 6:16 AM, friend. Yes, I'll have a look at that article. If there are any difficult editors there, it will be an interesting experiment to see how they react to this non–brain surgeon, non-astrophysicist, would be poet.
- Have a BIG day Texan friend.
- PS I think if ArbCom voted for restrictions on my User Page, some people might not take such offense at me. ;) Just a theory. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The evidence you have presented is above the word limit. Could you trim it down a bit? We usually give a little leeway past the 1000 word mark so it would be appreciated if you could get it down around there. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I happened to go through that arbitration request and while I do not feel qualified to make my section there due to not being personally involved with those issues, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you for being patient with such obvious attempts to bully and gag you. Wwmargera (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wwmargera, thank you so much for taking the trouble to encourage me in this way.
Indeed, do not fear, I will be inviting a lot more Wikipedians and others to get involved to scrutinise the processes.
It's an ideal opportunity to show the community how even ArbCom itself can correct mistakes it has made, and keep making Wiki a better and better place.
Alastair Haines (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
EPIC DATE
Hi,Alastair Haines! on mahabharata talk page,in comaparative mythology section you refered mahabharata date as 600 bce,How can you say that Mahabharata was composed around 600 B.C,Mahabharata have a lot of references of sarasvati river which dried up by least 1900-1500 B.C.In mahabharata it is given that balaram(brother of krishna) visited many sites along sarasvati river from rann of kutch to plaksha(place near yamunotri) which exactly matches with present Ghaggar-Hakra river geography which was dried up by 1500 B.C atleast.so some part of mahabharta would have been composed by 1500 B.C.
- >astronomical dates in mahabharata give hints a period of 1500-3000 B.C for its composition.
- >all charactors of mahabharata were known to composers of upnishadas(1000-800 B.C)
it was very old trend to give 600 B.C date for composition of mahabharata because of lack of archaeological facts,but mordern research have shown many new facts.so wikipedia should be updated accordingly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.33.236 (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, nice to meet you.
- I think I made a mistake with the 600 BCE date. I believe some of the most accepted sources give a date of 400 BCE for the earliest surviving parts of the Mahabharata (Mbh).
- Please don't misunderstand this. The Mbh is, just like you say, considered by (I think) all scholars to refer to a period a very long time before 400 BCE. But, although they are not the only point of view, scholars believe the Mbh to have been recited over much more than 2,000 years, with new poetic passages being added over that time, and with some being replaced.
- I think it is fair to say that scholars are certain that the Mbh itself was around well before 400 BCE, it's just that the whole epic we have now is based on earlier versions, the oldest of which date to about 400 BCE.
- In other words, the Mbh is more ancient than 400 BCE, refering to even more ancient times. The 400 BCE date is for the oldest sections of poems that have not had their language and phrasing changed at all since that time.
- Kurukshetra War (long ago) -> Spoken stories about the war -> Written records about the war -> Poetry about the war -> Mbh:collection of these and other poems -> Updating of poems and additions -> Translation into Bengali, Tamil, Javanese etc.
- The earliest poems that have never been changed are from 400 BC, from the point of view of several very good scholars checking with one another.
- As you say, though, the War itself is presented by the text as prior to the drying of the river, so clearly giving us a picture going back to before 1500 BCE. I am really not an expert on the Mbh. I have no personal opinion, except I'm happy to accept what scholars say about the age of the language of the oldest surviving poems within the even more ancient original Mbh traditions. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
very nice explanation Alastair Haines!as you said that mbh may have recited over a period of 2000 yr before 400 B.C,but its first redaction took place in 400 b.c,so i think this information should also be addedd into mahabharata article to avoid any confusion--115.242.127.92 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Friend, the scholars believe there could have been many redactions prior to 400 BCE. The orginal Mbh traditions are certainly older than 400 BCE. The scholars cannot say how much older, because the oldest redaction that still survives in the current Mbh is about 400 BCE. Scholars admit they are "blind" regarding things they no longer have evidence for: i.e. text from before 400 BCE.
- As for how far back the oral traditions go, some scholars do accept that references like that of the river suggest very ancient traditions indeed. But if we are talking about the Mbh itself, it is not clear to scholars just when the first parts of the Mbh were composed, so when they would have been around to be recited: centuries before 400 BCE is quite possible, but millenia? I don't off-hand know any who would say that, but then again, I have not read widely enough yet. When I refered to more than 2,000 years, I meant from say 500 BCE to 2010 CE = 2,500 years.
- I am perfectly happy to accept that the Mbh contains information passed on generation to generation over many thousands of years, with the oldest written forms of those traditions coming from about 500 BCE. But I am not a scholar of the Mbh, and so I can't tell you which scholars argue for the point of view you seem to want to document.
- "There exists a great divergence of opinion regarding the historicity of the two Indian epics, namely the Mahabhara and the Ramayana. According to some, everything mentioned in these texts is true to the very letter, while others regard them as mere figments of the imagination. ... The earliest inscriptions available in India date back to the third or fourth century BC. ... all the sites mentioned in these epics bear the same names even today ... I ... discovered ... Painted Grey Ware culture ... at Hastinapura, the key site in the [Mahabharata], dated to a period from about 1100--800 BC." [Emphasis original.]
- — BB Lal, "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir–Masjid issue", chapter 9 in Robert Layton, Julian Thomas and Peter G. Stone, Destruction and conservation of cultural property, Volume 41 of One World Archaeology, (Routledge, 2001), p. 117.
- What I can say is that BB Lal tells us there is a point of view, undoubtedly a devout Hindu point of view, that the Mbh was written word-for-word before 3000 BCE. At Wikipedia, that Hindu point of view is protected. Wikipedia presents all significant points of view in suitable proportion to one another. The conservative Hindu point of view is obviously significant, but if it is this point of view you wish to document, you can probably do it better than I. Hindu Vivek Kendra provides scholarly sources of the Hindu point of view. One caution, though, friend: I can help defend the place of the Hindu point of view, because Wiki policy protects it, however, this point of view cannot be given WP:UNDUE weight. Hindu archeologists can speak on archeology when they are qualified, however, Wikipedia will not accept religious belief as archeology. If we stick to the scholarly sources, they handle disagreements much more politely than Wikipedia editors often do. Non-Hindu archeologists normally speak respectfully of "traditional views". Wikipedia needs to do the same, all the more so, because many issues regarding the historicity of the Mbh are not settled either way. Wikipedia cannot take sides, it is up to editors like us to report what scholars say: scholars from both sides.
- I hope this long post is of some help. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes sir,I understood your points,but i was discussing that it should also be given in mahabharata article that it was existed in another form before 400 b.c or it was orally transfered for centuries before that it will resolve the whole problem.it will also save wikipedia polic of neutrality.i leave upon you and hope some good correction by you will be there in mahabharata article soon.
- thank you very much for giving me your precious time--115.242.119.150 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- And thank you too, Sir, though you may call me Alastair. Please forgive me if it takes some time before I make an addition to the Mbh article. To be sure, I will clarify that scholars can confirm the reasonableness of the belief that a proto-Mbh circulated orally prior to the 4th century text that survives. I will also make a point of finding a reliable source for more conservative Hindu positions. It may take me more than a month to get back to your request, because I have many other priorities just now.
- I will not forget, because this note will stay on my talk page.
- My respects and best wishes to you, Sir. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks a lot,dear Alastair sir! i can give some helpfull information,i read mahabharata article 8 months ago ,6 months ago ,4 months ago,3 months ago with no change,but suddenly it changed and some critical information which i was discussing got removed by some see Textual history and structure,6th paragraph,here john brokington is saying that mahabharata earliest layer as jaya may date back upto 900 b.c.but this information is not present in current version of article,this information was there for about 1 or 2 year atleast.i hope it will help you--115.240.67.92 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- [big smile] And thank you good Sir, my friend. This link is very helpful. Please be very patient, because I'm not entirely master of my own time. ArbCom are demanding my time at the moment, and I like to try to graciously co-operate with demanding people, because I'm scared of what they'll do if I don't. LOL. Thank you for making things so easy for me to help you make the Mbh article better. This will happen, the gods and ArbCom willing. Again, my respects and best wishes. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
True God and 1 John 5:20
From your user page I'm understanding that you're familiar with the Biblical languages? If you have time for this, I have a question on 1 John 5:20 and referencing Jesus as "True God." I understand that a rule of Gk grammar is the antecedent for a pronoun will normally be the matching noun that precedes it. Is that true? Thank you. It's in reference to a discussion Talk:Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament#Partial_list_of_disputed_titles and the article Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament. I'm feeling this needs more input from an original language expert. Basileias (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
οιδαμεν | δε | οτι | ο | υιος | του | θεου | ηκει | |||
We know | [adversative particle] |
that | the | Son | of [def. article] | God | has come. | |||
και | δεδωκεν | ημιν | διανοιαν | ινα | γινωσκωμεν | τον | αληθινον | |||
And | he has given | to us | understanding, | so that | we may know | Him who is the | True One. [substantive adj.] | |||
και | εσμεν | εν | τω | αληθινω | εν | τω | υιω | αυτου | ιησου | χριστω |
And | we are | in | Him who is the | True One, | in | the | Son | of Him, | Jesus | Christ. |
ουτος | εστιν | ο | αληθινος | θεος | και | η | ζωη | αιωνιος | ||
This man | is | the | true | God | and | the | life | of eternity. |
The most natural reading of the masculine singular nominative demonstrative pronoun ουτος (first word of last line) is as a reference to "Jesus Christ", which immediately precedes it, and to "the Son (of Him who is the True One)", which immediately precedes that, and is in apposition to, "Jesus Christ". So say Greek speakers and almost 2,000 years of Christian scholarship.
There is, however, a Bible translation published in the 1950s, by anonymous translators, that offers a possible alternative. That translation sees ουτος as referring to "Him who is the True One", in context, God.
Let TO be "the True One", let ST be "Son of the True One", let JC be "Jesus Christ". Then the last lines say: We are in TO[1], in ST[2], JC[3], "this he" (ουτος) is the true God. One point of view sees "this he" referring to ST[2] and JC[3]. The 1950s translation sees "this he" referring to TO[1].
There are many, many reliable sources that discuss just how possible the 1950s translation actually is. I would say the vast majority consider it to be really stretching the context. However, since most people who talk about the question also have views regarding other NT references to Jesus as God, which they decide for or against exactly the same way they decide on this verse, it is a common objection that opponents are biased by their views regarding those other NT references. The majority opinion, and it is a very large majority opinion, extending well outside Christian circles, is that the traditional understanding is correct.
I would suggest, however, that at Wikipedia, both views must be documented, because the minority view is extremely well-known and significant. Wikipedia cannot take sides on this point of translation. So I won't either. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- That gives me the pieces I was looking for. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- parakalw, adelphe mou Alastair Haines (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Alastair, I liked your breakdown, and it had me thinking chiastically...
Imagine if the first indent were the Son (in italics) and the second indent the Father (in bold):
- And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
- that we may know him who is true;
- and we are in him who is true,
- in his Son Jesus Christ.
- This is the true God
- and eternal life.
In that structure, the Father is truth, and the Son is life. I've never seen that structure anywhere, but your table above made it stand out.
The structure would have to be tweaked a bit to demarcate "understanding" and "know" in the first two lines, "in" and "in" the in the second two lines, and the [Greek] definite article in the last two lines.EGMichaels (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, another tweak on the structure with some chiastic hooks highlighted:
And we know that the Son of God has come
- and has given us understanding,
- that we may know him who is true;
- and we are in him who is true,
- in his Son Jesus Christ.
- that we may know him who is true;
- This is the true God
and [the] eternal life.
Hmm... I haven't had my coffee yet. I always loved this verse. Need to pull out some commentaries...EGMichaels (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good thinking as always EGM. Even without chiasmus, I can see a case for the NWT via parallelism.
- And we are in Him who is True || in his Son Jesus Christ.
- This is the true God || and eternal life.
- My own opinion might stray towards seeing the "this" referring to all three masculine referents: True One, Son and Jesus Christ.
- In other words, ουτος could be reference to bi-unity ("in-ness") rather than to Jesus alone, or God alone.
- John so often uses ουτος for "he", though, without a strong demonstrative feel to it, that traditional readings are probably right:
- And we are in Him who is True ||
- and in his Son Jesus Christ, who is the true God and eternal life. ||
- I'm at the other end of the day to you, my friend, so I'll leave this charming text and turn to things I need to deal with before being offline for a short time, while my wife and I move house this weekend. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good thinking as always EGM. Even without chiasmus, I can see a case for the NWT via parallelism.
- Happy moving! Before I make another comment that could appeal to NWT reading, I have to preface that I believe the NT is fully Trinitarian and affirms the full Deity of Christ.
- That said, there is one other way to see houtos as referring to the Father. Imagine if ALL the pronouns are the Father:
- And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
- The Father would be the "one who is true" and the Son would be "eternal life". To be in the Father would be to be in truth, and to be in the Son would be to be in life.
- But that's way too picky for the passage. I don't think John would ever conceive of not including the Son in Deity here, any more than he would ever conceive of not including the Father in Life.
- Paul does the same thing. It's fuzzy Trinitarianism, but Trinitarianism nonetheless: Paul most often calls the "Spirit" "Spirit", most often calls the "Father" "God", and most often calls the "Son" "Lord." But it would be ridiculous to make this a rule, because there are exceptions that the NWT has to do gymnastics around, such as Romans 8 where the Spirit of God (v9) is IDENTICAL with the Spirit of Christ (v9) is IDENTICAL with Christ (v10). Also, there's Jesus own quip that "God is Spirit", and of course the Father is called "Lord" in numerous places. So, while "Spirit" is normally shorthand for "Holy Spirit", Christ is Spirit (how else could Christ be IN you) and the Father is Spirit. While Jesus is "Lord" certainly the Father is also "Lord." And while the Father is "God", well, "God is Spirit" is just as easy an equation as "Spirit is God." And of course Jesus is ho theos mou as well.
- I hate it when people turn tendencies into rules. Granted, you have to NOTE the exceptions to the tendencies for clarity, but if you deny the exceptions you end up with huge non sequitors like the NWT's fiasco in Roman's 14 where kurios is Jehovah in a bunch of places and then "lord" in a few more when speaking of Jesus. While you can make it work in English, it's ridiculous in Greek.EGMichaels (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Don't like the "all hes lead to God" approach. They're all hes in English, not in Greek (the bottom line of your post!). Consider the striking opposition between autos and houtos. Also consider the parallelism between 5:20a and 5:20b. Who is he who gives (dedwken) understanding (a); and who is he (houtos) that is the true God (b)? The resolution of the pronoun in (a) must be the Son, why not in (b)? I like your explanation—fuzzy trinitarianism—yes, and perhaps trinitarianism is best left a bit fuzzy. shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah -- I was lazy with the pronouns and didn't sanity check it in Greek. What aren't you in bed????EGMichaels (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Editors, please consider moving the relevant part this thread to Talk:1 John 5:20#1 John 5:20. Thanks.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Editors, please consider moving the relevant part this thread to Talk:1 John 5:20#1 John 5:20. Thanks.
- Yeah -- I was lazy with the pronouns and didn't sanity check it in Greek. What aren't you in bed????EGMichaels (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tam, you're welcome to copy the discussion there as far as I'm concerned. If EGM agrees, then this discussion is yours to copy as you wish. Wikipedia is about sharing and being open minded. God bless you Tam. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly! Even my admission of linguistic laziness! :-)EGMichaels (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's all yours Tam, with our blessing. :))
- You might want to trim out Basileias' comments though, since we don't have his waiver. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Patriarchy again
I re-read your proposal about a history of advocacy for patriarchy, and also read my answer. I just gave quite a long answer to your last message with the Greek translations--if you were kidding about the "nice positive interaction" I didn't get it, so I took you seriously and replied. However, I see that I did sound defensive about your first proposal. It had mostly to do with that table, but I was not encouraging and I apologize.
I think a section of the article does need to spell out the main points of advocacy for patriarchy. It won't convince everyone any more than the other sections convince everyone, but it shouldn't have to. It is better if you don't try. It would only need to be a clear explanation from an accepted source, maybe with some feeling. I know it is there. The article would be more rounded if you would be willing to add this other voice. In your last message I picked up on a possible argument concerning whether patriarchy implies misogyny, and a few related questions, but you would know the main points better, yourself. Can't it be approached in a different way? You don't need proof of a view even if the table were capable of proof. Just a reasoned argument from a good source. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to beat this to death, but I think I get the Goldberg thing. I am definitely not trying to argue--I just don't know how to get ths across. He provides an authoritative voice for solutions to the problems and issues that you are concerned with. Sorry if this is too simplistic, but Goldberg's kind of proof is not necessary. You can keep the point of view and all that--but I think he may just be polarizing. I couldn't understand you at all if I had to wade through Goldberg. Sorry to intrude again, but I just thought this was important. Please have a nice weekend.--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This version good for me
Hey. This version of the hijra lede would work for me. I have not made an attempt to compromise based on my consciously taking into consideration points which you have recently made in the discussion, so take no offense if I have put things in a way that has disregarded what you have been saying. Right now, I am testing the water to see how much of my pov I can push, so definitely what I have written and the way I have written it is open to revision. I am also putting a notice for this on Mish's page directing him here.
Immediately I removed your addition of the descriptor "asexual", because whatever hijras are the lack of sexuality is neither, I think, a promoted nor practiced hijra value. If you feel that hijra piety does relate sexual abstinence to religious devotion, which is how I interpreted your edit, then please say so and I will reconsider my position.
I would encourage you to try to make some practical edits to the article so that I can gauge how this collaboration is going to go. At this point, I am hopeful that we will quickly find consensus. Blue Rasberry 18:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Message added 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I re-read everything you ever wrote on the hijra talk page. You said you were busy lately, so I took my time. I think I agree with what you said, but I feel that I must be missing some minor point. Blue Rasberry 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alastair, I tried your Wiki email but it didn't seem to go thru. Pls try mine at [email protected]. Thanks, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration case
Welcome back. I hope your move went well. Since you are now able to participate in the arbitration again, please let us know (here is fine) how much longer you will need to complete your evidence. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still finishing off the move. Fortunately the ISP came back online early. Handing in property report and cleaning old place tomorrow. I also have a submission to clear with my supervisor during the next week. The generosity of my wife should provide a fair bit of time during the next week or so.
- The time consuming part of evidence will be attempting to establish if there is anything to suggest that Kaldari removes reliable sources regarding gender at articles that I'm not involved in. I'll make that lowest priority, though. It's not really my responsibility.
- The essential bits to help others will be: responding to the evidence the first RfAr provided to support their resolutions--shouldn't take long, there wasn't much (say 4 hours ~ 1 day); responding to evidence from people other than Kaldari at the current case--again, shouldn't take long, there isn't much there (say 8 hours ~ 2 days); responding to Kaldari's evidence in detail should take 8 hours ~ 2 days; providing evidence against Kaldari regarding edit-warring, personal attacks and escalation should only take a day, because I've generally avoided him, up to now.
- That's a total of 6 days. I should plan for a day off each week. The following week I can research Kaldari's activity in his time at Wiki, while interacting with comments regarding the other evidence and responses I've provided. That might be all that's needed from my side. It all depends on how clear things are to people, and how much work they're willing to do themselves.
- On that time-frame, we'd be about a week over Fozzie's original proposal, 3 or 4 days more than the time I've been offline.
- I'd like this cleared up as soon as possible myself, either to get back to normal, or to move on to an appeal if needed.
- So, short answer: two weeks, say the 14th of May. No new evidence after that point. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to post something up on the ArbCase workshop talk page.. I don't mind giving you some extra time here.. not sure I want to drag this out, but I don't think it'll be a problem in holding off in posting the proposed decision until the 15th or 16th. SirFozzie (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed that section as it was out of place. If you want to refute or argue evidence provided by others, you can a. incorporate it into your own statement (staying under the limit, of course), b. create a subpage and link to it from your main evidence section, or c. discuss it on the Workshop page under the Analysis of evidence heading. Regardless, make sure you do so without attacking your fellow editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind where I put it.
- And don't worry, I only ever offer fair criticism, never personal attacks. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not worthy
Alastair,
Thanks for the praise but I don't think I live up to it. I certainly have my own biases, they may be quirky and not as easily shared by others but they're there no doubt. I appreciate your own commentaries on that talk page quite a bit. There are a few editors who clearly know something about the relevant fields (like you do) and I certainly do not belong to such a group myself. I'm just sick and tired of what I see as a whole lot of useless arguing about a topic that this entry shouldn't really be concerning itself with all that much in the first place -- the cultural battle over creationism and perhaps more generally the public role of religious belief. That is something I do know a tad about. It's really disheartening to see a reference work so gripped by this nonsense. Oh well. Happy editing and thanks for all of your good work.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Note on Alastair Haines 2 case:
If any parties have any relevant information to add, now is the time. Several arbitrators have spoken up in ArbCom's discussions that the facts of this case are clear, and that providing this additional time would be not useful. I strongly urge all parties to provide any further evidence and workshop proposals they have, and quickly. I will post this to all parties talk page and will update when any proposed final decision is available. (this is a note I've provided to all parties to attempt to give as much notices as possible of a proposed decision being moved up). SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sir Fozzie, I most definitely want to add my comments. However, it is unclear to me on which page, and/or under which heading, that is appropriate. I respectfully request your guidance on that question. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since it is clear that there is no evidence against me, only of personal attacks made by others, it's fine if we proceed to quashing as quickly as possible.
- If, however, any proposal is being mooted that makes any findings against me, that is clearly unacceptable, and withdrawing the two weeks I've explained I need for evidence looks not only like bias, but an attempt to protect the guilty.
- If arbs want to vote to protect themselves from evidence that will show their errors by restricting time, that's a good way of making their resolutions bound to be rejected at appeal, for lack of due diligence.
- As named party, with tons of evidence still to come, I veto the decision. If that's not accepted, failure of due process and likely bias among the arbs is pretty much established.
- Stop! You are going the wrong way. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- You have no veto power. I will reiterate, if you have anything new to post, evidence/workshop wise, now is the time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- And I will reiterate, I cannot supply evidence faster than the agreed deadline.
- Any move by the arbs to bring forward closing of evidence looks like (and probably is) an attempt to prevent me from providing evidence they don't want made public.
- It will look much worse for the arbs if I bring forward evidence they have not taken into account in proposed decisions than if they choose to rubbish my evidence as or after it is presented.
- I object. I will continue to provide evidence after any proposed decision. It will carry far more weight if that's what I have to do, because it will show the arbitrators to have been wrong to conclude evidence was complete.
- More importantly, it will suggest very obviously to observers that arbs adopted a deliberate strategy to exploit my real life commitments and exclude me from providing evidence that might help my cause.
- I find it hard to imagine any more short-sighted and self-defeating strategy from the arbs.
- As if outnumbering someone and having the responsibility of the final decision isn't enough advantage already, current arbs seem to be so defensive they're not even willing to hear evidence they haven't bothered to find for themselves.
- Very bad. Change your minds. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I can't understand why my compromise proposal was rejected: that they temporarily block you from editing anywhere but your talk page and the ArbCom pages so that you can do nothing else on Wikipedia other than present your evidence within the previously agreed to time frame. There was no reason to reject this compromise.EGMichaels (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy notice..
Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Fozzie, EGM alerted me to this via email. I've just had a quick look.
- I'm quite pleased with what I see, because arbs stick to saying things for which there is no substantial evidence, and for which my whole edit history provides counter-evidence.
- Interestingly, it is the alleged "legal threats" issue that is the focus of attention, and on that point in particular, the arbs are clearly mistaken.
- It doesn't particularly worry me whether arbs admit they are wrong now, or whether time will prove they are wrong if I choose not to take legal action; in either case it will be seen by independent third parties that it is arbitrators and administrators who are chilling my criticism with threats, not vice versa: "stop complaining or else we'll block or ban you!"
- What happens re me and my account is trivial in the big picture. What is very helpful, though, is for it to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, that the current ArbCom will not honour the license CC-BY-SA 3.0, which every page of Wikipedia carries.
- Interestingly, one of the recommendations of Glam-Wiki 2009, Canberra was addressed to the Foundation:
- Take pro-active care of the moral rights of content creators as these are not waived even with free-licensing.
- Evidently, that recommendation is based on a well-founded concern. Equally obviously, the current ArbCom has no interest in correcting conduct that breaches the moral rights of contributors.
- The bottom line of the current RfAr is: current arbitrators are more interested in silencing criticism than in upholding the moral rights of content creators. Indeed, these arbitrators are even willing to go on record as being opposed to the moral rights of contributors.
- Current arbs argue that contributors to English Wikipedia are forbidden to assert their moral rights, on the invalid basis that to do so would constitute a "legal threat".
- Obviously I'm disgusted, but I'm curious to see how long they'll be able to keep getting away with that.
- I'll be continuing to provide evidence according to the schedule I agreed to. See you back at the RfAr page. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- For anyone interested in the extensive academic discussion regarding this issue, outside Wikipedia. Here's a start.
- Accordingly, moral rights do not contradict the public interest and are compatible with American law. Moreover, by acceding to the Berne Convention (hereinafter "Berne") in 1988, the United States legally obligated itself to enforce the moral rights of authors. Berne provides "the highest internationally recognized standards for copyright protection." By acceding to Berne, the United States agreed to enforce moral rights in American courts. In spite of this legal obligation to guarantee a minimum of moral rights protection, to this day the United States refuses to officially recognize moral rights, and the enforcement of those rights in American courts remains questionable.
- As the pace of globalization increases, moral rights loom on the horizon as a divisive issue. The majority of countries in the world recognize moral rights. The American misperception of moral rights and refusal to effectively implement them — despite a legally binding obligation to do so — continues to be a significant barrier to further international agreement on the basic protections of copyright law and continues to hinder the expansion of copyright protection throughout the globe.
- —Michael B. Gunlicks, "A Balance of Interests: The Concordance of Copyright Law and Moral Rights in the Worldwide Economy"
- Alastair Haines (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- For anyone interested in the extensive academic discussion regarding this issue, outside Wikipedia. Here's a start.
Comment
Alastair Haines is the finest scholar I've encountered on Wikipedia. I'll miss him on his sabbatical.EGMichaels (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur. What an extreme loss. --Buster7 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone spell out what the effect of this arbitration thing is? Is Alastair gone as of now? We were working on something together, and were almost done! Blue Rasberry 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he's gone as of now until further notice. He can come back, but there is a process involved. I'm a friend of his and have an interest in his work. Is there something I can help you with?EGMichaels (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- He isn't blocked yet. He can do whatever he pleases until the case is closed. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately he has real world deadlines he's taking care of and cannot do much until he takes care of them. And THEN he still has to present his evidence. Although the committee did not keep its word regarding the timetable, Alastair has given his word regarding presentation of evidence, and knowing Alastair -- he'll keep his end of the agreement.EGMichaels (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Rasberry! Nice to hear from you. Looks like you'll be able to revert everything I've done, if you wish. Just like Kaldari has been doing for more than a year. Arbs have decided I'm not able to work with people when there's a disagreement. We know they're wrong, but don't say anything. If you do, you might just get blocked for refusing to accept those who actually arbitrate content, by deleting editors who provide what they want to censor. It would seem that Wikipedia also upholds the right of arbitrators and admins to threaten or implement blocks on people who criticise them, but will not address personal attacks on mere editors.
- Chill out man! That's the law around here. You'll do a fine job without me, what did I ever contribute anyway? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, sad that it ended up like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Cas, I haven't given up hope, but I'm almost mind-blowingly stupid in my optimism. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alastair -- worst case scenario, you'll be forced to write real stuff and get paid for it ;-) EGMichaels (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alastair, I did not know anything about the arbs or this situation external to the work I was doing with you. I did not consider us to be in disagreement. Thanks for all the references you provided and for the extensive commentary you posted on the talk pages; really, thoughtful responses on this subject are hard to get. To the extent that I was able to understand your perspective it will remain in the work that we did together; I never saw us as having any conflict, although I do wish I would have had time to understand your ideas better. Blue Rasberry 13:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again Rasberry. Yes, I don't think we're in disagreement either. We both care to honour the hijra self-identification, and the reliable sources of different points of view. It's an interesting challenge to pull all the sources and points of view together in a neutral way that makes simple sense to a reader. It's not a conflict or big deal, but it is a little challenging when doctors call hijra "male" and some social scientists call them "neither male nor female". The same words are being used in slightly different ways. So we need to understand how that works and explain it simply to a reader. We've made great progress towards that already.
- I do think it is unlikely I'll continue to contribute at Wiki if the "powers that be" are unwilling to honour the terms of the license they advertise on every page here! It's really sad, because gender articles at Wikipedia, in particular, need people who can ignore the heat that sometimes arises in discussion and stick to getting sources and putting forward a neutral perspective, that is genuinely presenting all points of view as completely as possible, without judging them. In my long experience at Wiki, there are few people who are willing to source the biology of gender, for reasons the current RfAr makes obvious: sources on the biology of gender are unpopular with some people who are willing to turn content questions into questions about people's conduct, and admins and arbs cannot be guaranteed to see or deal with this adequately.
- It's interesting to note that as I reflected on how wrong it was that some people were claiming that "scientific" sources outside Christianity were more reliable about matters of Christian faith than Christian sources themselves, I realised it was the same issue as the one at the hijra article—scientific sources cannot be used to silence "gender activist" sources regarding their beliefs in "gender equity". Scientific points of view are nearly always significant, but they're not totally neutral, and scientists acknowledge that they can't speak on ethics or moral issues (see naturalistic fallacy).
- Just as Wiki neutrality means acknowledging the significance of hijra self-identification as "non-male", so it means acknowledging the significance of Christian self-identification as "Christ-worshipers" or whatever.
- There are many people at Wiki who can source Christianity related articles neutrally (including many outstanding atheists whose work here I admire). What we seem to lack is people willing and able to do this in gender articles. If Wikipedia is to become the encyclopedia that anyone except Alastair Haines can edit, I do hope that you, Rasberry, and many others will be diligent to seek out and document scientific material on gender issues: it's interesting stuff, and it doesn't actually take sides on moral issues, like gender equity and tolerance of diverse sexualities, though its much, much closer to both those ideals than some editors are willing to concede.
- Anyway, it's still not quite over. I'm still hoping to see arbs lead by example, and demonstrate willingness to change their minds on the basis of rational handling of evidence. That's something I think you, Rasberry, and I have been achieving at [[Hijra (South Asia). Whatever happens, please accept my compliments on your exemplary willingness to depend on sources and open, frank discussion. Best wishes to you always. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
fare ye well
As a parting gift, I've restored Adamantius (journal) and added the necessary info to establish its notability based on indexing. See you on the other side? John Vandenberg (chat) 03:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yay! Thanks for putting those brilliant Italians back on the map! :))
- Thanks for reminding me about the work at Wikisource that politics at Wikipedia have distracted me from.
- On other things, prompted by your post, but not looking for comment:
- I haven't given up hope in the good faith of the arbitrators, nor in Wiki policy or processes, so I'm not sure things will end as arbs currently think they will. We all make errors, and so long as there is evidence that has not been discussed, there is always room for people to graciously shift positions.
- It is arbitrators (and a very small handful of editors) that are demanding discussion be closed, and demanding I not edit. People supporting me actually outnumber the arbs and two or three critics. It is not I who leaves Wikipedia. I love the project, support its policies and processes, and have strong affection for many of its editors, administrators and arbitrators.
- But it is true: so long as I am permitted to speak freely, I will also offer constructive criticism, supported by evidence and good sense, as best I see it. Currently, I have a very strong case against certain abuses of Wiki's good system. It doesn't surprise me that, as those who I think are perpetrating the abuses have the power to attempt to or actually affect my silence, this is precisely what they have done.
- I've not lost perspective, though, Wiki is not flawed beyond hope, it's just a long way from being perfect. That's nothing to be ashamed of, it's an opportunity for good people to take responsibility and improve things.
- Alastair Haines (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of A fair bit of evidence
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jminthorne (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy this speedily please! Sorry, my mistake. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)