User talk:Ermenrich/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Ermenrich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  13:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany
Grüss Gott! Warm greetings to you from the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, and the project as a whole. I see you're well versed in your field of interest expertise, and that is most welcome! Please, if you need anything, do not hesitate to drop a line at either my talk page or the WikiProject's. – Vami _IV✠  17:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

While I'm here, I want to offer you a tool that I use myself and is verrrrry handy for my own work - it highlights Harvard Reference (simply "harv") errors, and was given to me by a member of WikiProject Military History. Go to your common.js page and edit it. Then, copy "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" and paste it into the first available line, and save your edit. – Vami _IV✠  18:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Vami! And thank you for the kind welcome!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for doing such incredible work on Germanic traditions. I used to write quite a lot on this legends in their Scandinavian versions, and I am impressed with the high quality and scope of your work!--Berig (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Berig! I'm afraid I'll have to reduce my contributions in the near future, but I hope to keep contributing in a smaller scale in the future. And I'm always grateful for any help!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Verfasserlexikon
Please have a look at Talk:Verfasserlexikon. A pair of (in my view, misguided) grammar zealots have been trying to force their change of wording on the article. An unbiased pair of eyes would help. If you agree with them, I'll shut up! Thanks. --Pfold (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Move dicussion on North Germanic peoples
There is an ongoing move discussion inspired by the idea that North Germanic peoples and inhabitants of Scandinavia are equivalent. Some members of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies have already expressed their opinion, but including more members like yourself would certainly be of benefit to the discussion. Krakkos (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry I made the wrong operation on article Russia. Thanks for your undid. A Chinese Wikipedian (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I wasn't sure what you were trying to do so I just reversed the edit.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you! I appreciate the recognition!--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you! What makes it like an essay and how would you suggest I fix it?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , you know what? I made the assertion about the article being essay-like after reading selective portions of it. After rereading the article a bit more, I think it's not essay-like and will now proceed to remove the essay-like tag. Sorry for being initially wrong, though.

I'd still like for you to disambiguate some links (the one having the disambiguation needed tag), though! I may have done it myself, but, I don't consider myself an expert on Hun-related topics, so, it'd not the best course of action to take, in my opinion. Good luck and happy editing! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do and thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Pannonian Avars
Hi, please check these two recent IP edits...,   what do you think?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I don't think we know what language the Chionites spoke, though both Iranian and Turkic are possibilities. The situation is clearer with the Hephthalites. I'll revert the edits - the source for Turkic is from 1933 anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, check again here three recent IP edits...is it a "Turkic push"? Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I've removed the Salzburg thing - it's an unpublished lecture. He's right about the Xionites though, as far as my reading says.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, no this is no "turkic push". I now included a genetic research that show that avars were a heterogenous group and there is no support for a turkic only origin. I did not know that the salzburg source was not published officially. In the german wikipedia this source is used. It is also used at the article of the avar khaganate. Greetings. 212.95.8.153 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I realize that the rules about which sources are reliable and which aren't can be a bit confusing at first. Genetics studies aren't allowed to be cited on Wikipedia except in the form of review articles because there were problems with all sorts of genetics sections popping up proving all sorts of crackpot theories. There's a problem with people (in this case Pan-Turkists) pushing their point of view on articles, so you'll please forgive us if we're a bit too vigilant.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, since hot topics were arisen, we are checking everything with more attention I think. Ermenrich, please check also this edit, since also this was an issue in the near past. Sorry, I don't know which articles you already checked or not, tell me if I would draw your attention uselessly. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I hadn't checked that edit, but the IP is exactly right. Tengrism is the term thrown around by Pan-Turkists to try and make it look like all these tribes worshipped a "Turkic" god. There usually isn't any proof. Someone claiming the Huns worshipped Tengri is actually how I ended up editing the Huns page.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Holidays!

 * Thank you very much, Vami IV! And to you as well!--Ermenrich (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation of the article "2019 in Germany" in English Wikipedia
Hello, Ermenrich. Happy New Year to you! 2019 is coming soon. Can you creat the article "2019 in Germany" in English Wikipedia? Thanks a lot! 123.150.182.180 14:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure what an article like that would look like, especially since 2019 hasn't started yet.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Some odd stuff
Hi. Could you take a look at these two articles? Seems some users used outdated etymology sources and tried to connect these two gods. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tengri: Tengri: This part: Dingir, a Sumerian word (meaning deity) that may have a similar etymology[23]
 * Dingir: Lead (more neutral than above): A possible loan relation of Sumerian dingir with Turkic Tengri "sky, sky god" has been suggested by historian Mircea Eliade, but not picked up by linguists.[4]
 * Thanks for bringing to my attention. I've gone ahead and removed them both. At the very least they are fringe views and not particularly notable. Probably they're part of some sort of Pan-Turkist theory about how the Sumerians were Turks/Hungarians, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Add the mentioned articles to your watchlist because it seems some users those stuff in the past. As I said before, a considerable number of Eurasian-related articles suffer from similar odd, dubious, and questionable content and disruptive leftovers. Again, I recommend reading this LTA case Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 and take a look at targeted articles. Thanks and good luck! --Wario-Man (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not interested in rewriting articles like Xionites and Hephthalite Empire? You have done good edits on Hunnic-related articles. So the other historical Eurasian/Steppe peoples might be interesting for you. Rewriting or neutralizing those articles would be very helpful for other editors. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm considering working on those articles, but I'm less sure about what reliable sources there are. Most information about them is probably in various histories of late antique Iran, I'm guessing. I know that the articles could use some revision and that there is constant edit-warring being driven by IPs on many of them. I'm just not sure where to start.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I may actually try to improve Pannonian Avars first, since I know a lot more about Europe and can judge things better.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, Massagetae may be interesting for you too. There are other editors who edit such articles. Plus not all of them are in a bad status. For example, we have good articles like Sogdia. By rewriting and neutralizing, I didn't mean complete rewriting or creating a whole new revision for each of them. Expanding, neutralizing and removing problematic content is what I mean. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Karluks
Hi,

similar as before...please check the three IP edits...I am not very sure they are ok or not...Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC))
 * He removed sourced info and made random changes, so I went ahead and reverted him.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work on the "Huns" article

 * Thank you!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You did fantastic with all the Huns pages. Seriously, it's a vast improvement over my attempt to make the page accurate/coherent. MMFA (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you MMFA!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help
Hi,

We are looking for some small help. I created a new article en:Kithaab, es:Kithaab-a play about women rights issues- which has been copy edited and is being translated in various languages. It is under translation on your wikipedia at de:Benutzerin:IvaBerlin/Kithaab Looking for your possible help in completing translation of the article en:Kithaab to your language. If you are unable to spare time yourself then may be you like to refer the same to some other translator.

Thanking you, with warm regards

Bookku (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

re: edit on Russia
Crimea is a part of Ukraine that was ulawfully annexed and being controlled and by Russia. According to international law, it is not a part of Russian Federation.

And UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 March 2014 states that:

''Noting that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014 was not authorized by Ukraine,

1. Affirms its commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders;

5. Underscores that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014, having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol;''


 * The Russian annexation of Crimea is already illegal under international law. Sorry SeifED23 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Bantustan
I'm not sure, but I've reverted it to your edit, as I did at Bantustan. SeifED23 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34's edits on German WP
This guy: is the newest sock of Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34. Could you check how much disruption he has done to German WP? He edited Pamir Mountains by another account but the edits are identical to SibirHusky's edits on German version of that article. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EN WP
 * DE WP
 * Wikimedia Commons
 * It's difficult for me to tell honestly. In the few cases where I've checked his edits they have seemed to be supported, but I don't know if he's cherrypicking sources (probably).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See this: Talk:Pamir_Mountains, and can you write the related section? Because I have no idea about the main sources of those etymologies; e.g. who are Kreutzmann, Mursajew, and Satulowski? --Wario-Man (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to give it a go.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Book of Jubilees
Grüße,

so I was updating some quotes and citations on the BoJ-article before I received your revert-notification. Admittedly my edits got somewhat way longer then previously anticipated by moi, which is counterproductive at the very least. The question I have is, why is there a need for sources when v. Reeths thesis is contradicted by several passages of the canonical bible and more importantly the Quran itself? V. Reeths thesis is that in the BoJ Moses is described as receiving a revelation through a mediator, namely an angel. He uses this argument to point to the fact that there are striking similarities between the BoJ and the Quran, when it comes to revelations via angels. The keypoint here is that the Quran in Surah 20:10-13 completely contradicts his thesis by drawing a different picture of Moses'revelation (see here https://quran.com/20/10-13?translations=20) in which Moses receives a revelation directly from God [Q20:13]("And I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed [to you].").

Shouldn't this be at least mentioned? One of my students came with his Hausarbeit and it was odd to see how a book written by one scholar, which offers theories is treated as a fact without mentioning any (ulterior) possibilities, especially seeing how, obvious contradictions appear when comparing the Quran and the BoJ.

I'd like to hear your thoughts. --Mikka85 (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikka85 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you need to read the Wikipedia guidelines on original research. You can't use your own interpretation of primary sources to make an argument here, Wikipedia only summarizes other scholars' arguments. So you need to find someone else making these points, you can't yourself do it.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just trying to recall your point here. So, when a scholar argues that in the Quran itself Moses got his revelation via an angel, but the Quranic verses actually contradict him in saying it was God himself who revealed, then despite this very clear contradiction, I'm not allowed to point this fact out until, let's say, some other scholar offers a new thesis regarding this issue? I'm saying this with the uttermost respect mate, since I saw your bio and your effort on Wiki (keep up), but when scholar XY is contradicted by the primary sources, thesis XY should be seen critically, at the very least the primary source should be mentioned in a objective way, if its not for the sake of contradicting anyone, then for the sake of validation the thesis from scholar XY. The BoJ article does not offer anything regarding this. If you look at this section here: "Abraham's role in the Book of Jubilees corresponds to Abraham's role in the Quran in more than one way(these are?) . The interpretation of biblical figures as prophets is also rooted in the Book of Jubilees(again which prophets? why is it exclusive to the Quran and to the BoJ? Are their canonical prophets who fit in here?). Also numerology, the emphasis on angels(which ones?ALL stories of the Nephilim-narrative & the fallen angel spreading corruption are completely absent in the Quran), and the symbolism of anniversaries found their way into Islam, such as the fact that many important events in the prophet's biography as presented by Ibn Ishaq happen on the same date (why is the Sira of the prophet,written and compiled centuries after the initial event of islam relevant to this case where the Quran is compared with the BoJ? This hole section doesn't even belong here). ", you see no citations and or quotes, a vague summary. Whoever wrote this simply dismissed sources and there is ZERO possibility to actually fact-check these claims because there is, again, ZERO comparison with/mention of any primary source and ironically this hole discussion is solely about similarities between the Quran and the BoJ. I don't share your view, I respect you and thank you for answering and elaborating the current issue but this article is insufficient and incorrect in so many ways and it should be our job, (ganz im Sinne der Aussprache veritas omnia vincit) to update it.--Mikka85 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If van Reeth's opinion is as beyond the pale as you imply, then it shouldn't be difficult to find scholars who disagree with him. He's published in a reputable periodical, so we have to take note of his view. I have no objection to changing the wording to "Van Reeth argues" though.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for complying with me on this matter, and yes, I think this would be a great start. Regarding your statement that there should be "traceable" work from scholars who disagree with Reeth; I'm unaware how familiar you are with classical- & quranic arabic, Islamic studies and christian theology (in combination). It is rare to find scholars who can offer all of these fields of research to begin with but given the BoJ is a (predominantly) "apocryphal" work, this makes it even more unlikely due to the fact that extensive study of apocryphal writings is not part of any Islamic Study and moves towards christian theology and bible studies. V. Reeth's work is rare and should be mentioned, but it is clear he, in his writings, shows some revisionistic views on aspects of Islam and works with a given premise (see here for more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_school_of_Islamic_studies#Criticism_of_Revisionism ). Most of the work when it comes to apocryphal writings and Islam, unfortunately, comes from these revisionistic segment. Statistically the majority of the western scholars/orientalists reject this to begin with. That is why it is incredibly hard to find anything that would support the other side. Scholars like Patricia Crone and Hans Jansen offer exactly this, but since both were/are pretty "hardcore" revisionists, this feels obsolete. Sorry for the long text. I know this has nothing to do with my initial request but it is muy importante. In the next days/weeks, with your permission of course, I'd like to give this a second try, with a more careful approach. But for today, I'm happy with the concensus we reached with "V. Reeth argues". Thanks again for your time. Mikka85 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you can show that undue weight is being given to van Reeth, you can reduce the amount of space given to this theories. If you can show that he is a fringe figure, you might be able to remove him entirely (though he appears to be published in a reputable journal, so that seems likely). In either case, though, you'll need to use the article talk page to discuss the reasoning for the change and gain consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Scotsman
Hi Ermenlich. The Scotsman is a quality newspaper that has been in existence since 1817. It would usually be regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia without question. Regards Birtig (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Related stuff to that issue you posted on my talk page

 * Kazakhstan: ,
 * History of Kazakhstan:, --Wario-Man (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I had been wondering about the aversion to saying Scythian myself, but it seems he has sources... I'll try to look into it some more.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Shambling Towards Hiroshima and Ammianus Marcellinus
Dear Ermenrich, Perhaps you will find delight exploring these fantasy works about giants: Shambling Towards Hiroshima and Towing Jehovah by James K. Morrow. Thank you for introducing me (in a round about way) to Ammianus Marcellinus. He was not blind to the faults of Christians or of pagans; he observed in his Res Gestae that "no wild beasts are so deadly to humans as most Christians are to each other." I was familiar with the statement but not its origin. Happy magic Miistermagico (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with personal attacks and similar issues
Since you asked about those stuff on my talk page:
 * Warn the users (on their talk pages) who use personal attacks and insult you or other editors. Using Twinkle makes it easier.
 * If those users ignore your warning messages and continue insults/personal attacks/trolling, report them to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Remember AIV is for obvious vandalist cases. Other cases (e.g. a user with aggressive/bad behavior) should be reported to ANI.
 * Checkusers review all SPI cases one by one. Clean and crystal clear evidences are helpful. For example, see this case and the submitted reports after 14 Feb 2019: Sockpuppet_investigations/Mujhideen101/Archive
 * Ask admins for help; e.g. how you should deal with problematic cases and other issues. Doug Weller is a helpful admin, Ask him => User talk:Doug Weller. Hope these points help you. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A Greater Appreciation of Fantasy and BIG GRAPES
Dear Ermenrich, Perhaps reading The Forgotten Beasts of Eld by Patricia A. McKillip would give you a greater appreciation and understanding of fantasy. (Numbers 13:23) When they reached the Valley of Eshkol, they cut off a branch bearing a SINGLE cluster of grapes. TWO of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs. Infers that even the grapes that grew in promised land of Canaan, the land of giants, were huge, an unlikely metaphor. Happy magic. Miistermagico (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bible, the Arabian Nights Entertainment, and Judith
Dear Ermenrich, I prefer the term fantasy rather than myth. The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night A.K.A. The Arabian Nights Entertainments contain a few stories that are also in the Bible. Theology is a firm foundation in both collections. It is odd this is not frequently recognized by inquiring readers as both originated as oral traditions to teach life lessons while enchanting the listener, as was observed by the famous adventurer Richard F. Burton. I have always cherished a wondrous story and its effect on the human mind and heart. The Book of Judith is a favorite heroic tale from the Bible. I guess my greatest interest in human belief is how thoughts affect feelings and behavior. Happy Magic Miistermagico (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ermenrich, What ever pleasures your fancy tickles me to death. Adios. Miistermagico (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
I did not know that my editions change words to similar words, I use an extension of Google Chrome called The Good Place click here to see, which causes words like hell to change to here and Etc, i did not know that this Web Extension affected my Edits, thanks for letting me know about this. (User:CatechismDatabase) 20:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Giants
I expanded a bit the section the same editor added at Orontes River to counter WP:FRINGE claims. It's unclear to me if the event is notable enough to be mentioned there. Your review/input is welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 07:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't seem notable enough to go there - maybe it would work at Lucius Verus though? EDIT: Actually, it's already mentioned there.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't object to removing the new material then; if others do we'll discuss it at that article's page in time. Thanks for looking at it, — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of Jinn article
The information in the article was incorrect where it was discussing Islamic beliefs about jinn and even went as far as confusing jinn and shaytan as being different entities when it is just an evil version of the same thing. Why then was the article reverted and my changes undone when it was a factual correction that I made? CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You blanked tons of reliably sourced information because it conflicts with your personal beliefs. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. If you have alternative views,  you need to find reliable academic sources that support them, you can't simply remove information. --Ermenrich (talk)

Ivano-Frankivsk
Please! Its en wiki article about uk city. Don't add meaningless pronounced. --Dim Grits 23:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim Grits (talk • contribs)

Faith healing preferred over ancient medicine among ignorant Jews and most likely early Christians.
Supposedly, the Sadducees favored the book of Sirach also known as Ecclesiasticus. In Ecclus. 38: 1-15 For the first and only time in Biblical teaching recommendation for being treated by a physician is introduced. This is a direct challenge against the traditional idea that illness and disease was seen as penalty for sin. In 2 Chron. 16:12 King Asa resorted to physicians for gangrene rather than prayer, sacrifice and repentance. Eccleciasticus, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, commentary by John G. Snaith, Cambridge University Press (1974) There are no extant texts of ancient medicine, as a first subject, of Hebrew origin. [2] There was no medicine distinctly Jewish and instead Jewish practitioners had adopted Greek and later Graeco-Roman knowledge as practice. In Mishnah Kiddushin 4:14 The best among physicians are destined for Gehenna. The Book of Remedies, the earliest medical text written in Hebrew, to Asaph the Jew, dates to the seventh or eighth century.

"...when a person became ill, he would follow what was written in "The Book of Remedies," and be healed. As a result, people's hearts were not humbled before Heaven because of illness." - Rashi' Also see: Galen on the Christians. Miistermagico (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Further healing miracle info that may interest you. But this seems unlikely.
Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith, Princeton University Press, 1999

Robert Knapp The Dawn of Christianity: People and Gods in a Time of Magic and Miracles, Profile books, Great Britain, 2017

D. Michaelides (editor) Medicine and Healing in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxbow Books, 2014

See: Wipedia entry- Royal Touch Stephen Brogan The Royal Touch in Early Modern England: Politics, Medicine and Sin, Royal Historical Society, 2015

William A. Nolen Healing: A Doctor in Search of a Miracle, Random House, 1975 James Randi The Faith Healers, Prometheus Books, 1987 Joe Nickell Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures, Prometheus Books, 1997

Andrew Dickson White (1896 first edition. A classic work constantly reprinted) A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, See chapter 13, part 2, Growth of Legends of Healing: the life of Saint Francis Xavier as a typical example

Roy Porter The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity, W.W. Norton & Co., 1997 Miistermagico (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Miistermagico, I'm not sure what this is about. If you're trying to argue for the inclusion of information on ancient medical magic at Sadducees, I suggest you make your case at the talk page there and stop posting lists of sources and your own texts on the subject on my talkpage.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ermenrich, You are blocking my info at the Sadduces entry.
You are blocking my info at the Sadduces entry. It is likely you would also do the same on the entry TALK page. If you think my additional info would have value on the Sadduces TALK page you can add it there yourself. I always get in trouble adding info on entry TALK pages and get banned. It is always delightful to hear from you. Miistermagico (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's true I suggest you rethink what you are adding to the encyclopedia and how you are using article talk pages. As an admin said to you recently, you've been on Wikipedia for a long time, you know how things work here.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

re "Sources for art featuring Pontius Pilate"
Belated reply on my page, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ping technicalities
Fixing a typo doesn't ping, alas. "The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines. "The user must sign their message." IOW, new text with fresh sig. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Glogonj
Hi,

see the recent edits in the subject...sock returned? What's your opinion? Which admin I should inform in case? Than You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC))
 * , I'm sure it's him. No one else would think that was "neutral and correct". Bbb23 did the block of the last sock, but Yamla and Bishonen were responsible for the blocks before he started socking. So take your pick. My only pause is that the IP isn't just editing the same topics as AustrianFreedom, but that could be a way of throwing off the scent before ultimately reinstating AustrianFreedom's edits.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , he geolocates to Austria. It's absolutely him.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I could only return now, but I see you've already done the things...thanks for your efforts! Let's hope we won't meet this tiring case again.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC))

Carrier and the New Perspective on Paul
Hi Ermenrich. This

sounds like the New perspective on Paul is ignored; it's written from a Protestant perspective. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you're right. It's interesting how he doesn't name any of the eminent scholars he's bested in debate. You'd think he could get them to admit it by publishing it if that was a real argument he brings up at the beginning. If the consensus were really based on non-existent evidence I don't see how it could have survived until now.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The emphasis is too much on atonement, especially substitutionary atonement. That's a typical concern for Protestantism and Evangelicism - but not for the first Christians, as far as I know. They expected the kingdom to come in their time, and saw Jesus' resurrection as the fulfillment of that promise: the first of the dead to be arisen. Carrier is extrapolating his childhood core religious tenets back in time to explain the origins of Christianity - but is unaware and uncritical of his own religious pre-assumptions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ehrman (2012), Did Jesus Exist? P.166-167 ff. adresses the same observation: Carrier expects Jesus' contemporaries to expect a suffering, redemptive Messiah. Which Ehrman rejects. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, . Ehrman specifically compares his scholarship there to evangelical readings of the bible. But I think that a lot of "New Atheists" aren't really able to handle the idea that religion/religious ideas (in this case the Hebrew scriptures) can exist in ways that do not conform to Christian fundamentalism, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking observation. Regarding Carrier's response to Ehrman pp.166 ff: Richard Carrier (april 19, 2012), Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic, subheader "The Dying Messiah Question." See also #32 Richard Carrier and earliest Christians "copying" pre-dating Jewish concepts of a suffering & dying (for a purpose) messiah: Part 1. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Carriers review is certainly... interesting reading. I only skimmed, but I didn't see that he had any rebuttal to Ehrman's criticism of his reading of Daniel and Isaiah. Most of the criticism seems besides the point, as Ehrman notes in his book about many mythicist arguments. And like Hurtado says, hes constantly accusing people of not reading this or that book by himself (hint: if you can only cite yourself in support of your ideas, youre a crank). I'm sure there are errors in the book but I trust Ehrman a lot more than Carrier.--Ermenrich (talk)
 * Ah, I see Ehrman responded to Carrier . Since I've been doing the article on Pilate, his vehemence about the procurator/prefect thing struck me as pretty strange, and frankly, mistaken, but it's releaving to see that suspicion confirmed.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Doppelgänger
Hi, I just wanted to ask what was the issue with my edit on Doppelgänger page. Could you please explain so i can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed robert (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are presenting this as actually having occurred and not using a reliable source (see WP:RS) for the information.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing by fringe user
Hello, I am writing you because I am concerned that a user that was already accused of POV pushing or using unreliable or eurocentric sources is vandalizing articles. You have already discussed with him and reverted hist edits. It is about Hunan201p. He is currently vandalizing articles related to Crntral Asia such as Hazaras and Turkmems and tries to make them “more West-Eurasian”. He deletes and changes small parts to fit his agenda. He also deletes large part and call it “POV reverts” but it seems itself POV. His edits:. Could you please take a look on him? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BC9:810:F670:9965:C772:3976:2103 (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that Hunan201p is making some questionable edits, but there's not a lot I can do about it personally. I'd suggest contacting an administrator. Doug Weller is usually very helpful.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount
Hey Ermenrich,

I see you had some clashes with the above user. I've no position on the subject matter, but I do have experience with that editor in a related topic area. Just so you know what you're up against, see my comments here. It's basically POV, stonewalling and poor sourcing and style; if you challenge him hard enough he'll most likely ignore you, then move the fight to another article. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I had not realized what a hornet's nest I was walking into. Well, I'm only interested in Kuhn because he was an important medievalist, so once I've either given up on this article or had the POV dialed back, I hope not to have much to do with the topic.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. If this is accepted the sourcing restrictions will probably apply to "your" articles as well (or at least to those parts that relate to Poland), so if a claim has been made about a source that you know is incorrect you can ask for WP:AC/DS. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that seems like it would help. He's already accusing me of "falsifying" sources though, so it could bring more of a headache than good. It seems like there's always a way to game the system here, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Problems with "Mongoloid" article: genetics
Dear Ermenrich: I hope all is going well for you. I am writing with regards to some stuff I have found at the Mongoloid article which seems to be dubious, contradictory or falsified. I know you are probably a busy individual, who tires of the constant controversy surrounding ethnicity articles on Wikipedia, but since you have proven to be very vigilant about it, I thought I would point your attention to [|this particular section I made at the talk page]. It outlines one of numerous problems with that page regarding original research, dubious interpretation and probably deliberate falsification, possibly by racist or nationalist trolls.

Respectfully, Hunan201p (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'll try to take a look as soon as I have some time.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Jabuka
Hallo Ermenrich! Ich erlaube mir, auf zwei falsche Darstellungen im Artikel hinzuweisen.

1.“German forces killed more than 10,000 people [7] (Serbs, Jews, and Roma) who mostly were brought from Sajmište concentration camp near Belgrade”

Es wurde nicht ein einziger Serbe hingerichtet. So erklärt sich auch, dass das „monument with memorial house“ trotz israelischer Proteste von jugoslawischer Seite nicht weiter gepflegt wurde. Manoschek schreibt auf Seite 102: „Bei den drei Exekutionen wurden insgesamt ca. 600 Juden und Zigeuner erschossen.“ Er beruft sich dabei auf Quelle 214. Diese besagt: „Zumindest 101 Juden und Zigeuner wurden vom 734. IR der 704 ID erschossen (NOKW 1017). Das Ausheben der Gruben nimmt den größten Teil der Zeit in Anspruch, während das Erschießen selbst sehr schnell geht (100 Mann in 40 Minuten). Oberleutnant Walther schreibt in seinem Tätigkeitsbericht der 704. ID: „Am zweiten Tag machte sich schon bemerkbar, dass der eine oder andere die Nerven nicht besitzt, auf längere Zeit eine Erschießung durchzuführen.“. Eine jugoslawische Kommission untersuchte Anfang 1945 die Gegend um Jabuka nach Massengräbern, wurde aber nicht fündig. Die Anzahl von 10,000 Opfern ist mit keiner Quelle belegt. []

2.“After prison camps were dissolved, many of German population left Yugoslavia because of economic reasons.”

1948 wurden die “Internierungslager” in ganz Jugoslawien aufgelöst. Die Überlebenden mussten sich verpflichten, drei weitere Jahre einen Arbeitseinsatz ohne Lohn und ohne Wohnsitzwahl zu entrichten.

Mit besten Grüßen--Špajdelj (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , danke fuer die Hinweise, ich werde das erste Problem im Artikel mit Hilfe von der Quelle korrigieren, die Sie gefunden haben. Haetten Sie eine Quelle fuer die zweite Behauptung? Ich kenne mich in diesem Thema eigentlich gar nicht aus.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

nach 1948
''„1948 wurden die Lager aufgelöst; die noch rund 80.000 überlebenden Deutschen wurden zwar entlassen, dann aber häufig zu meist dreijährigen Arbeitsverträgen bei vorgeschriebenen Arbeitgebern zwangsverpflichtet. Während dieser Zeit erhielten sie keine Personalausweise und durften ihren Wohnsitz nicht verlassen. Erst nach der Ableistung und vielfach erst nach Zahlung eines Kopfgeldes erhielten sie den Status „vollberechtigter Staatsbürger“.'' aus: Herbert Prokle: Der Weg der deutschen Minderheit Jugoslawiens nach Auflösung der Lager 1948. München 2008, ISBN 978-3-926276-77-3, S. 144, hier S. 14. Beste Grüße--Špajdelj (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Die Lager in Jugoslawien wurden Ende März 1948  aufgelöst  und die Überlebenden zwangsweise in vertragliche Arbeitsverhältnisse außerhalb ihrer früheren Heimatorte eingewiesen." aus: Prof. Dieter Blumenwitz, „Rechtsgutachten über die Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien 1944 – 1948“, Sonderausgabe Juristische Studien, München 2002, ISBN 3-926276-48-7, S. 23 --Špajdelj (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jabuka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jabuka check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jabuka?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow
Hi,

there is a sentence recently added I may not interpret properly..."General von Pragwith fought in the South Western Tula outshines on 26th-31st October 1941."..what means here outshines? (or I may be wrong that the word in this form would not fit?) Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC))
 * , I'm guessing that "Tula outskirts" is meant, although I'm not certain. I would change it to "General von Pragwith fought in the southwestern outskirts of Tula". I'd suggest making the change and then seeing if anyone else can say whether this is correct or not.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, however as I see sombody already deleted the sentence...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC))

Regarding the origins of the Theoderic-legend
Hey, I saw your comments over Talk:Goths and noticed you seem to know a lot about the Theoderic-legend in medieval Germanic literature. I study Ostrogothic Italy for the most part and have been wondering where this legend originated; i.e. in what context were the songs that eventually laid the ground for e.g. the Hildebrandslied first composed? Do you think they could go back to Ostrogothic Italy itself? Are there any scholars who have theorized on this at all? I realize that any answer to this question must remain conjectural (although there of course is the Gothic Bible translation there survive no traces of a Gothic-language literature or poetic tradition, as you probably know), but nonetheless the question fascinates me and I am interested in your view on the matter. (I didn't find a clear answer regarding the possiblity of a 6th/7th century prehistory of these later stories over at Legends about Theodoric the Great) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's a good question! There was a lot of speculation on when the Theodoric legends originated in the older scholarship, unfortunately I don't have any of those books readily available. More recent scholarship has become pretty agnostic about these things, and in many cases current scholars are downright dismissive of attempts to perform Stoffgeschichte. de:Joachim Heinzle writes in his Einfuehrung that the legends may have originated among the Lombards (that they deliver a terminus post quem) in the 6th century, as shown by the change of Theodoric's place of residence from Ravenna to Verona (p. 5). Some elements are assuredly older though, some older than Theodoric himself even: Witege is mentioned as a hero in Jordanes, as is Ermanaric of course. The Rabenschlacht is often speculated to go back to the death of Attila's son Ellac in the Battle of Nedao. It seems likely to me that somewhat aggrandizing stories about Theodoric were told by the Goths themselves after he died, and potentially by neighboring tribes as well. Victor Millet thinks the differences between Dietrich and Theodoric indicate a break between the historical person and the telling of stories about him, although he's not clear what he means. That's all I can say really.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very useful! I recognize the tendency towards agnosticism or general nihilism about such matters (the methods and interests of Grimm-style "Germanic philologists" have mostly fallen from grace in studies of Late Antiquity), but I personally am very interested in the question of the degree of Gothic usage among Goths in Ostrogothic Italy (some scholars such as Patrick Amory hold that Goths did not really speak Gothic other than as a bastardized military cant without fully understanding Wulfila's archaic Bible-Gothic, and that the everyday language was Latin) so the question is very relevant to me. If there is some indication that Gothic-language poetry spread northwards from the Ostrogothic Kingdom, that would be suggestive of everyday and even poetic usage of the Gothic language, an interesting point for sure that would go against the scepticism regarding everyday use of the Gothic language in the Ostrogothic Kingdom that is manifest in some recent scholarship. Your remarks are helpful (if you remember the names of any books or articles where this is discussed they would be most welcome) and give me some hope that something of use to me may be found hidden in the literature on the early medieval epic cycle surrounding Theoderic. I will look into the scholars you mentioned in any case! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Extremecia
Hey, there. I believe that User:Extremecia is back and editing under the name User:Flowing dreams. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 13:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would suggest putting together a WP:Sockpuppet investigations for the user and provided evidence in the form of diffs there. You would want to open the investigation for User:Codename Lisa. Nevermind, see it's already happened.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunan201p (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Demjanjuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSI ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/John_Demjanjuk check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/John_Demjanjuk?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk
"Interim conviction" -- this is hilarious. Someone really did a number on this article. Thank you for your efforts to improve it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was really stunned the first time I read it through,, right after watching The Devil Next Door. It's clear that Demjanjuk-apologists/truthers have been active all over Wikipedia, I had to restore him to Trawniki men too from which he'd obviously been removed. Thank you for your own efforts to improve the article as well, I'm hoping we can all get it to a less embarrassing state of affairs!--Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Fringe?
I knnow Hungarian history better. These things are very much disputed and uncertain. And I refer in the text that "my" sources are also disputed. So please do not undo my edits and we shouldn't let information in the text that are not certain. Kapeter77 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , So you're telling me that a theory invented by a metallurgist and "narrated by a Soviet paratrooper through the "thought-vibration process" is not fringe? If you continue adding this, you will be being disruptive.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich Magyar vagy? Are you Hungarian? I know this topic much better, I have READ that book. It is disouted but I know this region better and what historians claim is very much misleading. We need to indicate it in our texts, so please do NOT undo my edits. Kapeter77 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not confer any special authority on natives of any particular country. This theory is clearly bonkers and you'd do well to follow Wikipedia guideliness on WP:reliable sources and WP:FRINGE.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich "This theory is clearly bonkers"????? How do you know it?

OK, others can discuss it on talk page but not undoing. We cannot let misleding minformation in Wiki texts and what historians claim is misleading, there is no proper evidence for anything. That is why we should indicate it. I didnt write it is the correct view just made some remarks about other theories. Kapeter77 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH, it's about what reliable sources say. You can't say "historians are wrong" here, if (the majority of) historians say something is true, then we report it as true. Nothing else has any place here and will be reverted.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich Once more. I know Hungarian history better. It is totally uncertain, for instance the theory of "Finnugors"... it is misleading and Wikipedia cannot mislead so I added some sources that are also disputed but people should know about them, too. They can decide what they believe but unless this is not clearer, please DO NOT undo my edits. Kapeter77 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So because its "disputed" you can add what any loon has said? That is against policy. Look at the guidelines I've already pointed you to.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich Loon???? Stop writing this way, ok? Kapeter77 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you are yourself Zoltán Paál or Salalar Tura, there's no reason you should take offense. And if you are, you may have a WP:conflict of interest and shouldn't be adding this theory anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

UAR rediect (?)
Hi,

please look on the issue, I'd also tend to contest redirect, but more eyes see more:, ,. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC))
 * I am really curios about your opinion (sorry for bother bothering you again, maybe you are busy)...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC))


 * Sorry for not responding sooner, I saw this on my phone and meant to look into it on my laptop but forgot. It seems likely to me that it's the right move, I can only remember seeing Uar or Warhuns as a name for the Hephthalites in sort of strange pan-Turkic writings.--Ermenrich (talk)

Odoacer
Grüß Gott Herr Doktor Ermenrich--falls Sie zureichende Zeit haben, ich wurde irgendeine Hilfe mit dem Odoacer-Artikel schätzen. Falls nicht, ich verstehe. Ich habe die Absicht stellenweise diesen Artikel zu verbessern. Wie schnell, das ist was anders...lach.--Obenritter (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lieber {U|Obenritter}}, ich habe im Moment allzu wenig Zeit, so dass ich mein Edieren hier eigentlich auf ein Minimum habe einschraenken müssen. Ich werde aber versuchen, dann und wann etwas zu helfen, da ich bei Odoaker zumindest schon einiges Vorwissen mitbringe und deswegen nicht, wie bei meinem letzten Projekt, dem Exodus, aus Zeit- und Wissensmangel werde aufgeben müssen!--Ermenrich (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nur falls Sie sich wundern, - ich habe noch vor, diesen Artikel zu edieren, im Moment bin ich aber leider sehr beschaeftigt.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kein prob, da ich den Zeitmangel nur zu gut verstehe...trotzdem...mach's gut. --Obenritter (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

 * Thanks ! To you as well!--Ermenrich (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks !--Ermenrich (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Original research at Mongoloid article
Dear Ermenrich,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongoloid&action=history

^ Several users have been attempting to revert blatant original research at the "Mongoloid" article, which includes a section titled "Finns and Saami":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Finns_and_Sami

This section cites a bunch of papers about the Y-DNA haplogroup N1. Every genetic reference cited in this article lacks the word Mongoloid. None of them make any reference to the racial origins of haplogroup N. It's obviously original research; yet users Leppaberry-123 and DerekHistorian keep reverting it. Recently, an editor left a warning on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#January_2020

^ They went to great lengths to detail all the edits I made, but apparently didn't read the actual references in the article. Please help, this is another case of original research genetics gone wild on Wikipedia. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , apologies for the delay, I've added my 2 cents on the issue. Generally I agree with you, obviously. It's better not to engage in edit-warring however, no matter how odious we find someone else's edits. They generally don't end well for either party and can result in unpleasant things like blocks or being having to defend oneself at ANI.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Tacitus on Christ
I've read the discussion here. IIRC, Ronald Syme, important Classical authority & probably the foremost expert on Tacitus, accepts the passage in question as authentic. (I prefer to handle this by confronting him with the information he is demanding. If he refuses to acknowledge that Syme is enough of a RS on this topic, then it's off to WP:AN/I; I don't feel its my place to expand the edit ban called for here.) However, I'm at work at the moment & my copy of Syme's Tacitus is at home, & I won't be able to access it until later after I go thru voir dire this afternoon for jury duty. (I'd shut down the discussion this minute if I could trust my memory on this book, but I too often misremember crucial details like this.) So encourage everyone to hold their peace until then. And if I don't respond with a cite from Syme's book within 15 hours of this message, feel free to ping me with a reminder that I was going to do this. -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll just hold off replying to him until you do that. I appreciate you looking into the matter. I thought it was pretty not a tban violation, but asking seemed worthwhile before things got out of hand.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's borderline, & while I could plausibly extend that ruling to include it, IMHO doing so would only add fuel to the fire. Considering that the passage under discussion is only a throw-away comment by Tacitus (I doubt he knew much & cared less about Jesus & Christianity), these words really have led to a surprising amount of ink spilled over the years! -- llywrch (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On second thought, Tacitus probably knew something about Christianity -- although not much. He was proconsul of Asia in 112/113, which at the time was a hotbed of Christianity. (Our first external reports of that religion -- Pliny's letter to Trajan, a rescript from Hadrian -- date to that place & time, which was contemporary with the writing of the Annales.) But his knowledge about that faith probably did not extend beyond what he wrote: a superstitious lower-class group who worshiped a criminal that died in the most humiliating way possible -- crucifixion -- & were mixed up in chronic social unrest that occupied too much of his time as governor! Nevertheless, had he known the result of this one example of his countless acidic asides in his narrative, I bet he would have been surprised. -- llywrch (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Re:all of Paul's posts at your talk page - sorry for dragging you into this . I do think the fact that Paul can't even seem to agree what it is we're debating is fairly symptomatic of why it's not very helpful to have him commenting on this subject though.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if you really want to feel bad, had you voted for me at the last ArbCom election & I had won election, I'd be subjected to lots & lots of messages like that daily. But if you had not voted for, you spared me from that fate & shouldn't feel bad at all. So it all works out. ;-) llywrch (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Badenhausen
Dear Ermenrich, As you deduce from my posts at the Teahouse, I am prepared to start an edit war in order to get a decision from wiki authority. (However, I would not appear in this war, because I have enough students who would be ready for this job.) But do we actually need an edit war? Any attentive reader of Badenhausen's article would conclude the superfluousness of Ritter's basic position at hand of elder German scholarship, as I have pointed out this in the German Thidrekssaga article. We know that this does not contradict the prevailing opinion even of the eminent William J. Pfaff who considered Thidreks's Bern not only in Italy but also at the northern Verona-Bonn with regard to earlier legendary northern accounts. Furthermore, it is obvious that Badenhausen follows not Ritter, but only Kemp Malone's and some elder German scholarship's identification of the historical prototype of Thidrek (cf. the German article), since we also know that his milieu cannot be identical with those apparently Italian drawn Dietrichs provided by MHG poetry. I was told that Badenhausen's article has some hundred hits per week, that is much more than the German wiki article. I have no idea of the final wiki decision or a consensual policy that allows a link to Badenhausen's article, but I can assure you that he generally removes obsolete contextual statements in its update history as well as in the text.--Tympanus (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Badenhausen is extremely fringe. He and his website have no place on Wikipedia, nor do any of the self-published journals in his Dietrich-von-Bern-truther movement. If you edit war, you will be blocked from editing. You appear to be a wp:single purpose account that only exists to promote Rolf Badenhausen.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go straight to ANI now. This is totally unacceptable. Meanwhile I'll protect the pages. Doug Weller  talk 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Two labeling issues
Hi,

I'd kindly ask your opinion about two issues:

The first is here (]), you'll recall the subject similarly as discussed earlier, if you'll see the mother article, while the other is at the talk of the The Camp of the Saints. Go ahead in case. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC))
 * Oh brother. I'll try to have a look at this when I can.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've simply removed the Schieder quote. The source uses it as an example of Germans downplaying their own atrocities, see . As far as "Camp of the Saints", I'd say consensus is for labeling it as racist. I don't really know anything about it.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryans
Hi,

this edit concerns me, however, they discussed in talk, but I have the fear like such agreements many "disliked" theory may be POV-ed as calling it fringe in the beginning in the lead...opinion? (KIENGIR (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC))
 * , as far as I know the indigenous Aryan theory is fringe, it's promoted primarily by Hindu nationalists.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Šaip Kamberi
Guten Abend Ermenrich! Vielleicht kannst Du mir helfen. Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, den Artikel Šaip Kamberi [] wieder zurück zu holen. Es gab seinerzeit ein Missverständnis zwischen Biographie und Autobiographie. Liebe Grüße--Špajdelj (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm,, am besten solltest du den Anweisungen bei WP:REFUND/G13 folgen. Ich denke, dass wuerde das Problem loesen.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Urartu
Hi,

please look on and overview the whole article regarding the recent edits as well, for neutrality especially. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC))
 * , I'll have a look when I can. Could you be more specific about which recent edits? This isn't a subject I'm very knowledgeable about.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank You! Well, I wish to be sure the recurrent linking to Armenians is not POV or fringe, since the ancient Urartu is linked infact to Hurrians where as well Assyrians, Cimmerians etc. occured later. Recently also some genetic studies have been added in order to support (?) Armenian heritage, link, ancestry (?), just because later the territory served for Armenians and their regard Urartu as their predecessor...seems like...worth to check and look on it thoroughly...(KIENGIR (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC))
 * Please check my talk page and as well your history of this section as well, Calthinus concured and given supportive points (]) and (here).

Jabuka
Good evening! User:R.Saringer a former sock puppet of AustrianFreedom is back again. User: 84.114.224.212 starting 14th of February. pls see [] Gruss--Špajdelj (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've informed the blocking admin.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you --Špajdelj (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård
This is the dude - no doubt Myten om Jesus: den tidigaste kristendomen i nytt ljus, Bonniers (Stockholm 1992). ISBN 91-34-51245-4 (in Swedish) is the book, which might or might not resemble Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study In Creative Mythology, (London 1999). ISBN 0-87951-720-4. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! I guess as a Christ myth theorist, we shouldn't be citing him anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m having trouble on the mobile app responding there, , would you mind copying over that I didn’t believe that reverting someone refusing to follow wp:bold counted and I accept that it is if it turns out to be. Thanks—Ermenrich (talk)

, I think Jeppiz must’ve gone offline. Maybe you’d be willing to copy that over there? Not sure why the mobile version won’t let me post at AN3.—Ermenrich (talk)

Actually never mind.—Ermenrich (talk)

Jinn
On my watchlist, you need to stop reverting now, I'll deal with it. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Question and overview
Hi,

I'd also ask a favor, please check this edit and the whole Category:International terrorism, for possible POV issues. I know the topic is sensitive in spite of Ukrainian and Russian conflicts, bur certainly the military intervention is Syria is quite a different issue like Crimea's at first glance...(the phrase terrorism is often used as an accusation or a claim, causus belli from a certain point of view, however it is dangerous and serious charge, so I think any party should be twice as careful in such topics - I have to also add the category just created consist only events where Russia is involved however many other events, issues may fit from varuious other countries, this also raise a few doubts and concerns).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC))
 * , that edit is very obvious a violation of NPOV and I've reverted it. It'll take me a while longer to look at the whole category though.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr
Hi,

there is a discussion in the talk. Since we worked and discussed such issues, take look on it please, not a major issue, but concerning. Feel free to add any opinion, I did everything with good faith, but already told everything and this point of my behalf is nothing more to do..(an interesting case study anyway).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi, in this particular case I think it's probably better to let it go. You are technically right, I think, but the fact that Hedy Lamar is someone known to Hollywood buffs rather than history buffs means that they are unlikely to accept a strange (though correct) term like Cisleithania being used instead of Austria or the better-known Austria-Hungary. I would leave it be and turn my attention to other matters.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway thank for the reinforcement that I did not lost my precisity :). Another technical thing then, I was editing the Attila page recently and opening the the surface I noticed that probably since 2011 a still valid 1RR-24h rule is imposed on the page, immediately sanctionable...I think this has been ingnored, because you made more than one recently, so I just warn you without knowing do not run into anything inconvenient...(funnily I noticed also now...). Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

Small text == Fringe edits by an "account on mission” ==

Hello, I got awareness of fringe edits by Hunan201p (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hunan201p) promotion racist ideas of “blonde haired and blue eyed” warriors in East Asia. His used references do not support these claims and only mention an unknown and likely heterogeneous origin in the case of the Xianbei. More fringe are his edits on blonde (hair colour) or Genghis Khan (also see talkpage). Rashid al-din did not say Genghis had red hair, but wrote about Genghis reaction to the skin colour of his grandchild which was not reddish but swarty. I have included the direct quote and a link yesterday, but currently no one has reacted. I m writing you as well because you seem to be a good editor and know much about Wikipedia rules. I think many edits of Hunan violate WP:SCIRS and WP:WEIGHT. Additionally some things about him remember me on the long term vandal Tirgil34 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34). I mean blonde or red haired turks are his main target, as seemingly Hunan. Anyway, someone should watch this user carefully. Best regards.38.121.43.208 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ermenrich. I would like to point out that the above user is likely WorldCreaterFighter, a notorious sockmaster, based on his edit history regarding me and various subjects WorldCreaterFighter is known to obsessively edit, such as Austroasiatic languages. Multiple active sockpuppet investigations involve his name as I type this. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd suggest going to WP:SPI if you haven't already. Seems pretty suspicious.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please respect what is in the references
Even if it annoys you. --Posp68 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're adding your own interpretation to a secondary source and trying to cite a biased source from 1938 about how Sudeten-Germans were just immigrants or something. I suggest you investigate Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, .--Ermenrich (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Paris Peace Conference did not take this into consideration, neither did the American Delegation. Yes or No? The Germans arrived to the Czech Lands in every century, including many since 1850. Yes or No? If No, Please give references.

The U.S. commission to the Paris Peace Conference issued a declaration which gave unanimous support for "uniti of Czech Lands". Yes or No? If No, Please give references. --Posp68 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanx
I wanted to thank you again for taking the time to read and help improve my material on the current persecution of Christians. You made a positive difference. If others agree, I will add it into the article Persecution of Christians. It's still in my sandbox right now. Hey, I lived in Germany--in Wiesbaden--for three years back in the wayback when I was a wild and crazy teenager! I loved Germany, it was a great place. I am absolutely sure I have seen every castle in the entire country--my mother made me. :-) I'm sure it's way different in lots of ways now, but I'll bet it's still a great place filled with great people. I miss the food--and the good German beer--can't hardly find good German food anywhere in America. Anyway, as far as I am concerned, you have made a friend for life here on WP. I'll try not to be a pest. :-) Hope to run into you again somewhere! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your kind words! I actually did have a few more comments on the draft, sorry for disappearing, I've been fairly minimally active on Wikipedia lately, other things are on my mind. I'll try and give you a bit more feedback soon - maybe just see if anyone else who was active in the discussion has any suggestions to.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! Thank you!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! I understand real life interferes sometimes. ;-)  I know you said to put the stats first, and I will if we decide to put some of it in religious persecution, but I put the debunk of the 90,000 first in this case because it is currently quoted as if it's correct.  Getting that out of the way first seemed fitting for that situation in that article before adding more stats that would otherwise seem to support it.  You can see what you think.  When you can, maybe go look at the article itself: . Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Signature
Please use four tildes in your signature, not three. The date of your signature doesn't appear when you only write three tildes.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there some specific edit your referring to?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I saw the discussion of Talk:The Exodus in my watchlist and while I was reading the comments there I noticed that you didn't use four tildes ( ~ ) but three tildes and when I looked into your contributions I also found your comment in the talk page of WP:RSP undated.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, well thank you for the info. Those edits were all made using the mobile app, so I guess I was unknowingly simplifying the signature.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The "old" issue
Hi,

what's your opinion of this .....(KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC))
 * , looks like the same old nonsense to me. But I don't really want to get involved in that anymore. Molobo will never stop, it's like playing Whac-a-mole.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway I did revert it, I think if we discussed something on talks and noticeboards - the latter were intiated by you - then we should keep ourselves the result there. At least in case attest it's validity.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC))

WP:NPOV
Thanks for your latest message on my talk page, but you seem to lack an appreciation for the way that Judaism, certainly Orthodox Judaism views ITS OWN most sacred texts. I am not inserting my "own" POV's into articles but I do try to insert the Jewish point of view in articles that concern the Jewish people and the Jewish religion of Judaism. To use your argument, imagine if a Judaism editor would enter their POV into German mythology articles, that would cause an uproar. Why do you fail to see that you are doing just that and infuriating other Judaic editors? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have no idea what you could mean. Wikipedia is not a catechism or place to propagate religious beliefs. We write what reliable scholarship writes on subjects, even if this conflicts with religious beliefs. See wp:RNPOV Ermenrich (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have had this argument countless times, but here goes again: Wikipedia is just an Encyclopedia, an online Encyclopedia, it is NEITHER secular NOR religious. One can write about ANY topic under the sun as long as it is written from a WP:NPOV and using WP:RS, end of story. So both your radical secularism and my religiosity can live side by side and respect each other's methodologies. Your allegation that one cannot "quote" the Bible in WP arguments is ridiculous because that is precisely what YOU are doing, you quote the Bible to disparage it by citing so-called secular anti-religious professors, while I am relying on the ongoing scholarship of Torah by Jewish sages from ancient to modern times, just that you may not have heard of all of them, the following would and do assert and affirm what I have to say about the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and that The Exodus is 100% true and the 100% reliability of Judaism's Oral Torah: ALL in Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period -- thousands of Jewish scholars spanning two millennia that would ALL agree with what I am trying to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN. You have to make way for a more religious POV just like I have to make way for your secular POV, it's as simple as that. Hope we can agree on some common ground. IZAK (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the link I sent you? You appear to completely misunderstand Wikipedia policy and to have a WP:AGENDA, bandying around terms like “radical secularism”. Wikipedia is not here to wp:rightgreatwrongs and you’re are completely incorrect that you can use the Bible and Talmud to make your own arguments, see the WP:RSPSCRIPTURE—Ermenrich (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do NOT use scripture to make my arguments. You just don't get where I am coming from. I do try describe and explain what Judaism says about a topic by means of description and explanation often using WP:RS. By the way I also have higher university education so you don't need to keep lecturing me about sources. Can you point to where I use scripture as a source? For example in The Exodus discussion I cited The Jewish Encyclopedia itself not scripture, which you unjustifiably rejected as "POV" IZAK (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Jewish Encyclopedia does not say that the Sadducees are a heresy, and I've already explained why it's inappropriate to label them as such anyway. I suggest you let it go.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Encyclopedia cites Maimonides, who cites the Talmud, that is based on the Torah, that is the foundation of Judaism, that the founder of the Sadducees Zadok was an apikoros/kofer which means heretic in English. Let's face it, you are biased to your POV. 16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The person who is, against all reason, trying to arguing on the basis of Maimonides being quoted not even discussing the Sadducees per se, that they are heretics is accusing me of not seeing my own POV? The irony must escape you.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so tell me how you understand the use of the word Heresy in Judaism, see Heresy in Judaism, and Heresy? How are the Sadducess not heretics by those standards, again NOT MINE or "my POV", but according to Judaism? Face it, you just WP:IDONTLIKE the word "heresy" at all.IZAK (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You could (if you found a source that actually said this, which you haven't shown) add something to the effect of "Rabbinical Judaism regards the Sadducees and their beliefs as having been heretical", but we don't take the POV of rabbincal Judaism and say that they actually were heretical. To them, Rabbinical Judaism was wrong and heretical. Who are we to say who was right? This is a fairly basic concept. Now if you have anything further to say I suggest you use the article talk page and not mine, this discussion doesn't really belong here.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Šaip Kamberi
Guten Abend Ermenrich! Habe ich das so richtig gemacht?[]

Lieben Gruß--Špajdelj (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , wenn es mein Draft wäre, würde ich noch eine kurze Erklärung dazu schreiben, warum es nicht gelöscht bleiben sollte, sonst scheint das mir alles in Ordnung. Beste Grüße!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood
About the Exodus page... I assumed that I likely stepped into a controversial and disputed topic. It appears that I was correct in my assumption given how fast you reverted that edit. The question can be asked however that instead of fighting this endless edit-war, why not just simply break off a separate page for bible doubters. This would make both sides happy, and allow tham to edit their own opinions instead of creating a divisive single page of topics that each deserve their own ground in terms of the complexity and furor of their contents. Just as a thought... SamsonKriger (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, that would be a WP:POVFORK, which we avoid here. We have to report what reliable sources say about The Exodus, and they are in agreement that it is a "myth" in that it is a story of cultural importance and also that the version in the Bible is not historical.
 * Why not just participate in the article talk page? If you have sourced knowledge on the topic, your input is always welcome. The article needs more work on cultural importance, for instance.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked on NPVFORK examples and one of the mentioned topics is the different views of creationism and evolution. Would this case not be similar? Also in terms of "reliable sources", their are many religious scientists and historians who are of religious and of the opinion that the bible is an accurate historical document. Why is their opinion not also believed as truth or at least not taken into account? SamsonKriger (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it mentions Creation-evolution controversy as a subarticle, but that isn't a POVFORK, it's a subject in its own right. There is essentially no controversy over the Exodus though, scholars are in virtual agreement as you can see cited in the article. If you want to discuss the article content, I would suggest doing that at Talk:Exodus rather than here, so that other editors can chime in.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops! He meant Talk:The Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor error
It looks likes your signature got mangled in this edit -- probably from using five tildes instead of four. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh brother. Thanks for letting me know .—Ermenrich (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As promised
Here are the page numbers you asked me regarding von Beckerath's rendering of the XVth dynasty. In:, p. 285, he gives: dynasty 15 as 1648/1645 BC - 1539/1536 BC with 1) Salitis; 2) Beon (Bnon); 3) Apachnas (Pachnan); 4) Chajân (Iannas); 5) Apophis (Apopi I.); 6) Chamudi. Then on p. 287 he lists some 30 kings under the title XV/XVI. Dynastie (Hyksos und Lokalkönige Gleichzeitig mit Dyn. XV) in which he gives Aper Anat, Sheshi, Semqen and Sakir Har which are sometimes put in the XVth dynastie proper or even in the XIVth.

Now in:, p. 189 he gives the same dates and the following precisions: 1) Salitis; 2) Bêon (Bnôn); 3) Apachnas (Pachnan); 4) Chajan (Iannas, Se'user-en-rê) together: 1648/1645 BC - 1590/1587 BC; 5) Apophis (A-qen-en-rê/A user-rê) 1590/1587-1549/1546 BC and finally 6) Chamudi (1549/1546 BC - 1539/1536 BC).

I thought you may also be interested in what Hornung's recent monumental chronology says on the period. In :, p. 492 gives "Dyn. 15 (Hyksos) ? - ca. 1530 BC, 1) Khian Swosenrenrê; 2) Apophis 'Awoserre' ca. 1575 - 1540 BC; 3) Khamudi. In fact the part of the book on the second intermediate period was written by Thomas Schneider with extensive discussions on the XVth dynasty. I have pdf copies of all of these books if you are interested. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much ! I’m in the middle of a trip with limited internet connectivity, but once I’m back I will see that this information is put to good use!—Ermenrich (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Book of Exodus
The statement that Israelites emerged only from native Canaanites is patently false. The sources do not state this. I included the content about Shasu pastoralists and exiles from Egypt as taken directly from Faust, p.476. These groups were involved in the ethnogenesis of the Israelites too, and especially the highland settlers. This is almost verbatim from a valid academic source, not "WP:SYNTH". Greumaich (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the sources more carefully. You are synthesizing Shaw specifically and Faust certainly doesn’t say that the Israelites definitely included anyone from Egypt.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not synthesizing anything. The content I added is taken directly from Faust, p.467 and 476. Greumaich (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please use the article talk page and stop edit warring. I’ve read Faust so I know what he says -but provide your quotes on a talk page, stop reverting. I’m pretty certain you’ve distorted him.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't at all. Refer to my recent comments and quotes on the talk page. The original statement in the paragraph in question in the Book of Exodus article said there was only archaeological evidence for Canaanite continuity. That is false. Faust clearly says there is NO evidence for this, and that the evidence is clearly for discontinuity in the highland settlers, and specifically the first proto-Israelite group were seminomadic groups like Shasu pastoralists. He also states clearly that most scholars agree that of the groups that joined these during Israel's ethnogenesis, at lease some came ultimately from Egypt. Greumaich (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please keep discussion in one place, on the talk page.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've moved the discussion to Talk:Hyksos, since you are only pushing your unsupported reverts there and at the Exodus. Greumaich (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance
So, over two months ago I nominated this article for GA, and no one will bite, so I am coming to plead with you to take a look at it, and see if you would be willing to review it. It's long. Really long, but it's a 2000 year long history for blinkety-blink sakes! Of course it's long! So I'm afraid no one wants to--or will ever want to--take the time. But I'm really fun to hang out with. We could become really good friends. It could be worth your while. I could send you funny Youtube videos. [] Your life would be so much better with me in it, that I'm sure you would love reviewing this article! Sigh. Anyway, hello, how are you, hope you are well in this crazy time--and spending all your time on Wikipedia reviewing articles for GA! That's two smileys in one paragraph. I better go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've never done a GA review - I thought only certain editors even could? I'm not really sure what would be required of me.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No one knows how until they've done one! There's this: . Anyone willing to take the time and trouble to learn how can do one of these, but this would be a heck of an article for someone to first learn on. I don't recommend it for you after all. I need someone who knows something of the topic, so I thought of you, and I have no doubt you would be good at reviewing--I was impressed with your input on the whole persecution thing. But this one will not be easy, so nevermind!  Thanx anyway! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry for not being more help! And sorry I never gave you any more comments on what you were working on earlier, I got distracted and forgot! I really did plan to say more.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to be sorry for, I just think this would not be a good first experience for you, so that's okay. And forgetting happens to everyone--especially me!  I didn't wait on you.  I posted stuff to Religious persecution, to Persecution of Christians and to Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era all from the same conversation, so I made out there! No worries mate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You better take a look at this article
Hi. Since you pinged me for the issues on Alans, I think you better take a look at Turkmens. Seems like there are WP:FRINGE stuff there too. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, . I'll try to take a look.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another editor has already removed problematic stuff. You may just need to review and verify this part: Origins:
 * Chinese encyclopedia Tongdian (8th century A.D) mentions that Sogdia (粟弋 Sùyì or 粟特 Sùtè)[29] had commercial and political relations with China in the 5th century A.D. and was also called 特拘梦 Tèjūmèng (< *dək̚-kɨo-mɨuŋH).[30] Vasily Bartold proposed that 特拘梦 was a transliteration of the country name Türkmen.
 * But reviewing the whole article could be very helpful. It may contain other issues. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I've removed that and a number of obsolete etymological proposals that seemed likely to have been included mostly because they gave flattering meanings for the name "Turkmen". I didn't see anything else that seemed especially out there, but I'm also no expert on the Turkmen.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, someone reverted my removals in the etymology section for being "sourced", but it clearly looks like pan-Turkicists pushing their nonsense to me. Only old sources, claims that the pan-Turkicists' favorite scholars like Omeljan Pritsak support the derivation that aren't sourced, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
Nice to meet you. I anticipated there was no easy solution to the Sp. citation problem in English. When someone wants to consult the source, then when they search for the "page" number they will inevitable find the correct column, so its not the end of the world, but its not too optimal. Where did you get your phd in medieval German Literature? I am studying for my Masters degree at the University of Marburg and would like to continue – promovieren – I took a look at the Nibelungenlied article to which you contributed and must say its certainly on a high level, which is good to know. I rode my bike to Caldern an der Lahn today, having recently read (Heinzle) that legend has it: Siegfried is supposed to have killed the dragon there. The Lübeck law and Hanseatic League articles are inadequate (to put it politely) and other articles in he field seem equally poor (Madgeburg rights, german town law). I am interested in slowly chipping away at them and really re-writing them, they are beyond fixing and there are either no sources or outdated ones. I recently submitted the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handschriftencensus I noticed the attention to the manuscripts in your articles, which is nice. The material side of literature is a specialty here in Marburg. I am also interested in German Heldendichtung and have done some research in the area (also das Hildebrandslied, the english Wiki Article of which seems pretty solid). I saw you would like to plan some more articles in the area. I would eventually be interested in participating. As you know, Lienert is a great source. I have numerous of her books. [User:Hroberth Dunbar|Hroberth Dunbar]]Hroberth Dunbar (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion over here - it's best to keep off-topic or personal matters on user talk pages rather than in article talk pages.
 * My grand plans of reworking all the heroic articles probably won't come much farther, unfortunately. When I did my most intensive Wiki-work I had a lot more free-time than I did now. I've done quite a lot anyway, giving all the Dietrich epics their own articles. There's always a lot to be improved here: medieval German topics don't get a lot of editing attention and they can often be very low quality here. There are countless articles I've marked to come back to but never gotten back to editing. One of my specialties is actually law, so I'm pleased someone is trying to improve those articles. Even more recent German subjects, like Friedrich Schiller, can have very low quality articles.
 * I did an MA in Freiburg and received my PhD from Princeton. If you're thinking of continuing I hope you're aware that the job prospects are not good right now, and show little signs of improving. The German academic system is designed in such a way that most people can't get permanent jobs and are forced to leave academia unless they receive a Professur within 10 years, and the Anglo-American one increasingly relies on non-tenured faculty while language departments have programs canceled and positions slashed, and fewer and fewer positions in medieval German appear. That's not to say you couldn't make a career of it, but it will be difficult and you may end up teaching subjects you don't really care to to stay in academia. It's a shame because I obviously believe in the importance of medieval studies and that it has a lot to tell the present.
 * Anyway, don't let me discourage you if you have your heart set on it! I've certainly enjoyed (most of) being a medieval Germanist!--Ermenrich (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Blasius von Schemua
Hi,

I agreed an mentioned you in the Kievan Rus article. Anyway, could help me regarding the subject? What means exactly failed to distinguish himself at the Battle of Komarów? What is this distinguish?? Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC))
 * , it means he didn't do a very good job as a commander. I'm not sure if it belongs in the article unless the source says something similar.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I "copycated" at the German WP, it seem there are more details.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

Your revert in Kyiv
Hi. Please read the cited reference, and undo your revert. The NYT does not report it as “a way it's being said” in the United States. It literally said “American lawmakers and officials at Wednesday’s hearing generally sounded as if they were trying to pronounce Kiev in Ukrainian. . . . But at points, it sounded more like ‘keev,’ with the long ‘ee’ pronounced as a single syllable.” It described some specific individuals at one specific event. It expressed lack of confidence in a consistent transcription of the pronunciation used. It is not said to be a US English pronunciation. Thanks. —Michael Z. 21:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Take it to talk, there are multiple sources about it. I’m confident the text will stand and I believe you are trying to remove it to make a wp:POINT.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI
[].(KIENGIR (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC))
 * Thanks, agree with your revert.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed it spread on several pages, you may look on them especially here .(KIENGIR (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC))

Discretionary sanctions alert
—Michael Z. 22:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment on talk:Kievan Rus'
If you have a problem with some editor’s edit contravening guidelines, then please let them know. But general ethnic deprecation is not okay. Please strike or remove this comment. —Michael Z. 22:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Where do you see “General ethnic deprecation”? Don’t you think your being a little over sensitive?—Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not. Please strike or remove the comment. —Michael Z. 22:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Unless you’re suggesting that all Ukrainians are nationalists, there’s no way your demand makes any sense. Wikipedia routinely deals with groups trying to falsify history such as Pan-Turkists and there’s no reason to avoid stating that a particular edit /series of edits (e.g. the repeated addition of the tryzub as the "coat of arms" of Kievan Rus' by various IPs and editors over the years) fits into that general attempt. As another example: Kievan Rus displayed the RU country code for several years. There have been repeated attempts to insert information claiming an exclusively Russian heritage for Kievan Rus as well. Do you dispute that claiming the tryzub as the coat of arms of Rus’ is attractive to Ukrainian nationalists? You’ve been making similar demands to other editors for a while now. I suggest you drop it and move on with your life. You’re far too involved in this issue and I think it’s clouding your judgment.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Some moves
Hi,

see this, the user initiated such moves with such argumentation in the edit log, but I don't surely see consensus on talk or any procedure coneducted/being proposed in the main page or other areas...what do you think, am I right? Should we revert?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I think so, and at least force the move to be discussed. There isn't much taste for moving Kievan Rus' at the moment, so I can't see why Grand Prince of Kiev would move.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please undo your moves in this area, we should not do futher on this until Kyiv main talk RFC, consensus building or local discussions do not reinforce such. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC))
 * My impression is that the RFC is done. All categories changed in line.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's incorrect. See Talk:Kievan Rus' and Talk:Kyiv. There is currently no consensus about how to handle articles not directly related to the modern city, and things related to Kievan Rus' may be another matter entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting, . This topic is pretty confusing for everyone now!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * True. And for what its worth I dont think it helps to have two spellings for the same word depending on the age of the subject.  It's confusing enough when the names of cities change over time. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see what the community decides. The debate is fairly toxic, so I'm hoping to be less involved in it, honestly!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see what the community decides. The debate is fairly toxic, so I'm hoping to be less involved in it, honestly!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Spaniards
Hi,

see the recent edits. I oppose, would it meet MEDRS? Should we again invent/endorse x-speaking -pre populations conflations with genetics? I tend to revert as a fresh addition without consensus and put it to talk, but first I'd like to know your opinion (in case it would concur with mine, you may go forward on your own)...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC))
 * My mistake, it has been part of the article for as longer time...despite I have this opinion...(KIENGIR (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC))
 * , that's funny, I thought I had reverted on that page, but apparently I didn't. Anyway, I'm generally in agreement.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Decisive arguments
Hi Ermenrich! At Talk:ß, we now have a problem: This subsection was set aside specifically for decisive arguments. Now, with your edit, you inserted two arguments at once; one of which clearly is anything but a decisive argument. Can you please strike out that part? Fortunately, LiliCharlie graciously ignored that part, and nobody has replied to that part yet, so this can still be done without further complications. You are of course free to write that anywhere outside that specific subsection. ◅ Sebastian 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure which argument is not decisive? Is this some sort of terminus technicus I'm not getting?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC) --Ermenrich (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The “argument against merging based on length”, which you introduce and discuss in sentence 4 through 5. You might have somehow intended those sentences as part of the argument based on overlap, but while one can construct a connection, the two are clearly different and distinct arguments. ◅ Sebastian 23:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of predecessors of sovereign states in Europe
Hi,

FYI. As you remember once we faced a similar issue. Please look in the subject and follow the events. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * I'll have a look,, looks like the usual annoying stuff...--Ermenrich (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please
I hate to put you on the spot, and I know we don't know each other well, but I am in real need. I put Biblical criticism up for FA review a month ago. It is its second time being nominated. I failed to complete the process the first time because of leaving WP suddenly, and now it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Help!
Hi Ermenrich! I cannot speak any German... may I ask for your help in making sense of this inscription and could you provide a translation? I wish to use it in the Tottika and Kizil Caves articles. The page in German with explanations and a translation is here: Hope it's OK for you!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure,, the German says: "When Anantavarma, the great king (maharaja?) of Kucha, saw the letter of Ilmonis, the dedication and the little container of musk, he had honor done to the Buddha." I hope that makes sense!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Ermenrich! According to another document p.27 Anantavarma/ Anandavarman is supposed to be a high-ranking monk who advised the king of Kucha to make the paintings. But I am afraid there is no way to interpret Grünwedel's German translation that way... Grünwedel clearly says Anantavarma IS the king. Would you agree? Best regards पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, the German quite clearly identifies Anantavarma as the king. I think there might be something off about the German though, given the sort of awkwardness that you can also see in the English. Grünwedel describes the Sanskrit as "strange" and says it probably can't be understood in any other way than he translates it, so it's possible he wasn't aware of the monk you're talking about and that was part of the difficulty. I don't know Sanskrit myself, so I can't realy comment, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the title usually comes before the name of the ruler in these inscriptions, so I tend to doubt Grünwedel's interpretation, maybe it should be "Anantavarma told the King of Kucha etc...". Thank you very much Ermenrich, I'll have to research a bit more... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich! One last thing... I've tried to Google translate in English a German translation of a Tibetan letter given here:. Would you agree to check (and correct) this translation?: ""For the followers of the Buddha, the King of Thogar, called Mendre, the Persians (Po-lo-si) and Anandavarmâ had pictures painted in these caves by the artist and painter Mitradatta, furthermore by Naravahanadatta, who came from a temple of the Nirgranthas, finally by Priyaratna, who had come from Syria, and at the same time through by their students. Mendre, the king, received an image of Amitâbha from the emperor of China and then went to the land of bliss (Sukhâvatî). A son of the Chinese emperor came to the castle of Mir-li, according to a vow he had made, killed all the Jaina Nirgranthas and all followers of the Kâlacakra and rebuilt all the caves for the Buddhist cult.""

- Tibetan text from Kucha.

Thank you!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's my version:
 * {{quote|The king of Thogar, called Mendre, or the Persian {Po-lo-si), or Anandavarma, had images painted in these caves for the followers of Buddha, by the artist and painter Mitradatta, also by Naravahanadatta, who came from a place of worship (Kultort) of the Nirganthas, finally by Priyaratna who came from Syria also with their apprentices (Werkschüler). Mendre, the king, received an image of Amitabha from the emperor of China, and went into the land of blessedness (Sukhâvati). A son of the emperor of China came to the castle of Mir-li, killed, according to an oath that he had made, all Jaina-Nirgandthas and all followers of Kâlacakra and restored all the caves for the worship of Buddha (Buddha-Kultus).}}
 * I hope that helps, ! I notice he identificed Anandavarma as the king again.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Ermenrich! पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, any time!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

German confederation
JHi,

please check this, do I have right? I think it's a mistake...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi, I'll have a look as soon as I can.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus
If many professional historians disagree with a perspective then there is no consensus. I already listed 5 authors who challenged it. What politics was he talking about exactly? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:RS/AC. And I don’t have time to check your scholars, but I doubt they’re saying Jews were always monotheists as you claim, or else they aren’t mainstream scholars but apologists.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to check the sources that you shouldn't remove them nor the information based on them. They do firmly reject the view that full Monotheism was not yet fully developped and supported even before the time of Hosea. They are not apologists. Your reasoning is that scholarly souces cannot contradict your viewpoint and if they actually do then they aren't scholarly. That is circular reasoning. The sources are reliable and properly cited. At least 6 scholars have been provided that challenge your views as being undisputed facts. For the article to ignore all of them is POV. Period. To remove them seems to border on censorship. You are welcome to read the sources yourself. Meanwhile, I will add further sources to strengthen the balance of the article, if that's ok. Sergius125 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Not how it works. See wp:ONUS. Also there’s no reason to post on my talk page in addition to the article page. All article related discussion belongs there.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just dropping by to comment on the fallacy of stating the onus is on another editor to provide sources, but saying you're happy to remove that cited content, whilst openly admitting you haven't looked at the source. That isn't WP:ONUS - that's WP:OWN. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If you’re familiar with the topic area or scholarship on it, you will/should understand why I reverted, . New editors showing up claiming that they have sources showing some religiously inconvenient wp:RS/AC isn’t consensus happens all the time. His own sources say they are against consensus, as you can see at the discussion on the article. Also, Considering I’ve never edited on that article before, calling it a case of wp:own seems quite a stretch.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping we could continue our discussion on the discussion page of Yahwism as I still desire to establish consensus. I was hoping you could provide the exact quote regarding Babylonian exile that I asked for. Sergius125 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be patient. Wikipedia is not a place where there's a lot of instant gratification and most editors are fairly busy.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate

 * Thank you, ! I appreciate it!--Ermenrich (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * Thank you, Happy Holidays to you as well!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

 * Thanks ! The same to you!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Weihnachten - Christmas
Dear fellow,

I wish you a Wonderful Christmas and Happy editing (hopefully without re-emerging ducks :) ) on and on! Best Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC))
 * , boldog Karácsonyt to you as well, old friend! Keep up the good work!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Babcock at Attila
Thank you, User:Ermenrich, for inviting discussion of the appropriateness of content from Babcock at the Attila article. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

On the Hyksos
Dear Ermenrich, as we discussed earlier in the year, I am now working on the Hyksos, trying to clarify this difficult issue. First, on the modern usage of the term itself there is a nice sentence by Manfred Bietak in the the Oxford Enclyclopedia of Ancient Egypt: "Strictly speaking, the term Hyksos should be used only for these kings [of the 15th Dynasty] and not as an ethnic designation, as introduced by the third-century BCE Greco-Egyptian historian Manetho. I believe this should settle what should be meant by the term, while also recognizing the ethnic meaning that it has taken in popular Egyptology, as Bietak recognizes himself before this sentence. Regarding the chronology and list of Hyksos kings, the problem is deep and complex. While reading the 2018 book of proceedings of the special conference on Khyan in which Egyptologists try to reconcile their recent discoveries with history, I realised that several "new" kings are now considered likely in the 15th Dynasty, including Yanassi and Sakir-Har between Khyan and Apophis. I will work on this probably throughout this coming year, and hopefully will be able to propose one or more meaningful lists of 15th Dynasty kings after that.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, glad you're still working on this! I actually passive-aggressively added a couple of (less authoritative) statements of wp:RS/AC to the section on the name at Hyksos, but this would seem to settle it! The dynasty truly is complicated since I guess we just don't know a lot about the Second Intermediate Period and a lot of what scholars say seems to be based on little evidence / a lot of what they used to say seems to have been based on grand historical narratives without much basis.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)