User talk:LukasPietsch/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

(it is a custom new users to be welcomed by administrators, I'm not an admin but I think it's ok!)

+MATIA &#9742; 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

ancient Greek
Hello there! Thank you very much for your contributions (I was looking for an online version of the dialogue during the last weeks). You may use the talk page if you aren't exactly ready to edit directly the article and I also encourage you to avoid any confrontations (i don't like Caragounis either but let's avoid that part). I kindly ask you to read my previous comments at Talk:Ancient Greek phonetics and leave a message at my talk page with your thoughts about it. Thanks! +MATIA &#9742; 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Ancient Greek phonetics. I hope that we can move forward now without interference. I wonder, too, if you'd like to contribute to Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching. There is nothing there currently about the teaching pronunciation (as opposed to the reconstruction) of Ancient Greek in the German-speaking countries. --Macrakis 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi +MATIA and Macrakis, καλώς σας βρήκα. As for the teaching-pronunciation articles, I've given it a try, although I'm not sure if it's very good.--Lukas 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This "That way, we get a wide array of positions, ranging roughly from Sturtevant through Allen through Gignac through Teodorsson through Caragounis" is what I wanted ;) (if you can name books by Sturtevant, Gignac, Teodorsson and who ever else, I'll try to look them up) +MATIA &#9742; 22:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait a moment, the Sturtevant book is references somewhere by our mutual friend C. Here it is:

E. H. Sturtevant, The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, Philadelphia 1940. F. T. Gignac, ''A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vol. 1: phonology.'' Milan 1976. L. Threatte, The grammar of Attic inscriptions, Vol. 1. Berlin 1980. The three volumes by Teodorsson I referenced somewhere on the talk page of Talk:Ancient Greek phonetics, together with the monograph by G. Horrocks, which is really the best up-to-date survey at the moment.--Lukas 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice indeed. A note regarding a previous comment of yours: While I agree that "overall dichotomizing structure and tone of the whole article. It's not about the Erasmian versus the Reuchlinian system" my opinion (based on experience from previous disagreements in WP) is that the article isn't mature enough for that change (I'm trying however to reorganise it as you have noticed). I think that I agree with the rest of your comments but I'm tired and sleepy right now. By the way, I'm not a linguist and I got involved in the article after an invitation from Andreas (to prove whether the reconstructed is the maj. view in Greece and to check greek libraries - I haven't done the latter yet). Take care! +MATIA &#9742; 23:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read again the talk page, if you can read modern greek take a look at the links I've listed at Talk:Ancient_Greek_phonetics. Take care! +MATIA &#9742; 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

omophones
Hi lukas, you said that a language can surprisely live with a good amount of omophones, well ok for that Hmeis was substited by emeis, but they wrote still Hemeis, H wasn't e? F.S.S.D Philx 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Philx, I'm not sure I'm getting your point completely. They wrote ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς respectively. The initial [h] was lost relatively early in both words; η ([e:]) tended towards [i] relatively early; and υ, which in other words remained distinct ([y]), had a tendency to merge with [i] in some frequent unstressed words such as these, so these two particular words seem to have merged early (don't remember exactly when.) That, at least, is Horrocks' account.--Lukas 20:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * i've explained myself wrong, there was a period in anciet greek were hmeis and umeis didn't sound identycal? And please you are a linguist, can tou write on the debate where i posted "ancient greek digamma " why digamma had to supply hebrew veth while beth was suppled by greek beta? thanks F.S.S.D Philx 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, in that article we should also talk about the evolution of the pronunciation systems (Erasmus as the first one who noticed it through the names we've gathered so far). +MATIA &#9742; 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are doing pretty good job :) +MATIA &#9742; 20:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

request
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reconstructed_pronunciation_of_ancient_Greek#some_sources as soon as you can. Thanks! :) +MATIA &#9742; 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lukas. I think they 'd be useful for the article but I'm afraid I don't understand most of the things he wrote :) Perhaps you could save them, for future reference. ps I'm sorry for the low quality and... merry Christmas! :) talk to +MATIA 20:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Matia is on wikivacations. Regarding Hatzidakis's book it is hard to read, and quite antiquated language. Maybe with your background in ancient Greek it is easier for you to read this? I would be most interested about the section on media. Does H. come to a conclusion when fricatives appeared? Andreas 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Usage examples for IPA consonants
[ɳ]    Malayalam [kɐɳɳi] "link in a chain" [ɲ]    Malayalam [kɐɲɲi] "boiled rice and water"

The phonetic transcriptions you cite here don't count as minimal pairs, because the two words differ by two sounds. However, if you count the nasal consonants as geminated, as [kɐɳːi] and [kɐɲːi] respectively, the words can form a minimal pair. Denelson83 04:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, I've been opposed to overly strict usage of the term "minimal pair" for quite a while :-) -- But anyway, the question was not so much about how to deal with these examples qua minimal pairs, but about whether and how to integrate the individual examples in the articles for the respective consonants in the first place. Lukas 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mensural notation
Thank you for your detailed work on Mensural notation, an article which has needed work for a long time. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I, too, want to thank you. Nice work! Maybe now I can begin to understand it!-- Violin  G  irl ♪ 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got around to reading your list of suggestions for mensural notation, and it appears that you've implemented them. It's open source, of course, so the more the merrier! Let's always keep the wikipedia a living resource.

Vaux

Caragounis' paper
Thank you for taking the time to write this review on C's paper. I enjoyed reading it and I learned a lot. This reminds me my Greek nanny who wanted to learn a German children's song:

Ri-ra-rutsch, wir fahren mit der Kutsch'.

Mit der Kutsche fahren wir,

auf dem Esel reiten wir.

Ri-ra-rutsch, wir fahren mit der Kutsch'.

Of course she could not pronounce it, but what struck us (bilingual) children most, was that she pronounced Esel as [izel].

One more thought: If hemiphona are sounds that can be sustained (I understand that this is what Dionysos Thrax wrote), than "aphona" would be sounds that cannot be sustained, so they could not be fricatives. Andreas 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bebo Norman
Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag from the article, since it asserts notability. The person's discography is even long and verifiable enough to qualify him per WP:MUSIC. If you disagree, feel free to list it on afd (or just leave me a message and I'll do it for you). - Bobet 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Greek music
Lukas, take a look at this, maybe you find it interesting: el:Αρχαία ελληνική μουσική Andreas 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bundesland-level categories
Hello! I see you are listed in Category:Wikipedians in Germany. I have made subcategories for each Bundesland in case you would like to add yourself to the appropriate one. See Category:Wikipedians in Germany for a list of the subcategories (they use the English names, the same as their Wikipedia articles). --Angr ( tɔk ) 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Amorica (legend)
Thanks for the notice on the Amorica (legend) article. I split that off from the Black Crowes album article when I was patrolling the articles to split. -Acjelen 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Neoclassicism, Neo-Classicism
Thanks for pointing it out. I now notice that both spellings are common; it might be worth pointing out the validity of both spellings. Politis

Skylitzes
Thanks for correcting my embarrassing mistake! --Macrakis 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern Greek palatals
Do you have an answer for this? [] Andreas 14:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Aegean dispute" again
Hi Cool Cat, I left a lengthy reply to your comments on the talk page for Aegean dispute, but I now see you seem to be under a lot of Wikistress about other issues, so I guess you might not have much energy left for that one right now. We can let that discussion wait, of course. Or do you know of somebody else who might be interested in joining that page and monitor POV from a Turkish perspective? Take care, Lukas 23:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your response on the talk page of the article. Unlike what you may think that article has been one of the most pleasant ones I have ever touched/discussed. I thank you for your civil, and polite attitude for that you should be commended as this is not a wikipedia standard (even though it should be).
 * Unlike what some people may suggest I am not Turkish while I may be biased as I lived in Turkey for a while.
 * Cat chi? 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Signature
Is it possible to add the "talk page link" to your sig? :) Cat chi? 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rudhraighe Ó Domhnaill
Thank you for the advice, Lukas. Its appreciated and I'll get on that. Fergananim 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support, Lukas. I can't imagine why someone would nominate the rhetorical terms list for deletion. Perhaps a random act of spite? :-) Matt Barton 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

List of rhetorical terms
Hi, Thanks for the message and encouragement. I was thinking of adding some entries to the list, but am not going to waste time on something that is likely to be deleted in a few days. The use of language is such a basic underpinning of an encyclopedia that I find the fervour of attack on this list hard to understand. There are reasonable grounds on which one might argue for its deletion, but most of the delete votes appear to me, to be polite, ill-informed. If the list is saved, I may contribute to it in the future. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  19:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Eleusinian Mysteries
Hi Lukas! Thanks for your sincere msg. If the article is deleted that's sth every contributor shoud expect at Wikipedia after all. All the best, Ivan [ivan_val]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivan_val"

Shivraj
Hi, I'll try to integrate the quote, but I will be "winging it", since I don't have immediate access to the full text of the letter. I did read an article on this a while ago, which discussed the queries his conventionally Christian wife was making, and to which Müller was responding. It's a very complicated matter, as you know, since Müller was dogged throughout his career by the accusation that he was undermining Christianity, and he lost the Boden chair because of this. As I understand, his wife was expressing similar concerns. Like many 19C scholars he could be rather evasive - or at least diplomatic - and his actual views are rather dificult to pin down. Paul B 11:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Greece
Thanks for your comments. No doubt I should be more patient with idiots who add nonsense to articles which I put a lot of time into writing, but Deucalion's childish and heavy-handed sarcasm does particularly annoy me. I have often found this tactic to be the first resort of fools at Wikipedia and I have little patience with it. Nevertheless, I will let things rest for a while as you suggest.

On the scope of the article, I deliberately wrote this series of articles as a history centering on the territory which now constitutes the Greek state, not the whole of Hellas, whose boundaries have expanded and contracted many times over the 3,000 years covered by the series. Of course at one time Anatolia was an integral part of the Greek world, but then so were Sicily and Syria and Egypt. If "Ottoman Greece" includes Anatolia, why not Alexandria? Does "modern Greece" include Melbourne? (In point of fact, however, the Byzantines lost Anatolia to the Seljuks long before the Ottoman conquest of the Greek peninsula).

But even if the article was a history of all the Greek communities under Ottoman rule, I would still have rejected Deucalion's edits, because they are unnecessary to the point which was made in the text. That the Greek language acquired Turkish loan-words during the Ottoman period is a perfectly straightforward statement that does not require a verbose essay about the sociology of Anatolia to explain it. Perhaps you could quietly suggest to Deucalion (in Greek) that he desist from making silly edits and provocative comments. Adam 15:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Lexical similarity
Hi Lukas. First of all I must tell you that I'm just an amateur in linguistics, with no degree or formal education. So everything I write should be checked by someone who actually knows this stuff.

I have known about those numbers for many years, but I have never found the original source -- the numbers match each other so neatly that I'm pretty sure they all come from a single source. Now that I found them on Ethnologue again I thought they were reliable enough for a Wikipedia article. I would very much like to know how they were calculated and I would certainly put that in the article, except that I can't find any reference. I agree with you, there must be lots of problems with these numbers.

Also, I've been looking for another set of numbers related to language comparison, where not only lexical but also grammatical similarities are considered. Any advice from you would be great. And of course, feel free to edit Lexical similarity and add any info that may give the reader a more accurate image of the subject. Cheers! — Adi Japan   ☎  09:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion DNA Link
Hi Lukas, thanks for the comments. I would like to say that neither I am to fight on the link. But please see page 2 of Sengupta et al paper (AJHG). It discusses the Bamshad paper and points out the limitations of that work due to (1) ethnically ill-defined populations (2) limited geographic  sampling (3)  inadequate molecular resolution, and  (4) inappropriate statistical methods. Note that this AJHG paper is written by Prof. Cavalli-Sforza -- one of the most famous genetic expert of our time (from Stanford univ). Also note that the PNAS paper also points out such limitations of the Bamshad et al work and in fact the PNAS paper is co-authored by Dr. Kivisild -- an author of the Bamshad paper! And the conclusions in both the latest papers are just opposite to what Bamshad et al find. So in my opinion the Bamshad paper is not any more relevant. Thanks :-) User:Aano Bhadra

Lexical similarity, again
Hi. I found some details and made the necessary changes at Lexical similarity. There is at least one published work I couldn't find online, this paper by Rensch, which seems to deal exactly with the calculation method. I thought you wanted to know. Cheers. — Adi Japan   ☎  06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Khuzestan
Hi, Lukas. Thank you for your message and kind words. By all means, if you can expand on that or add anything to the article and provide clarifications and so forth, please do so - the whole thing is far, far from finished and it will probably take awhile to correct the many errors and inaccuracies. I would greatly appreciate whatever help you would be able to provide, and the more editors get involved with these articles, the more accurate and NPOV they also become. One of the problems surrounding these articles is that they tend to be very obscure from the viewpoint of the average editor, and so they are very often neglected and not watched, leaving them open to anyone with an agenda or prejudice or even those who are just confused (especially when it comes to definitions). So please do get involved. Best regards, SouthernComfort 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD pages
(copied from my talk page DES (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)):

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the mess about the AfD pages for Mythopoesis etc. that I created. First time I tried that "nominate multiple pages", and it didn't really work out well, did it? Lukas (T. 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Joint nomination is sometimes a good idea, when the pages are very simialr. For eaxmaple there was a mass nom for a bunch of pages on specific colors a while ago. Or when there is a bio page about a person that just descrivbes a particular project, and a page about the project. But when the subjects are as separate or seperable as in this case, a mass nom doesn't work too well. if ther is a need for subhedings within an AfD page, something is not right. DES (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your vote to delete Philosophy of Life
I would urge you to reconsider your vote for deletion on Articles_for_deletion/Philosophy_of_Life_%282nd_nomination%29. I have put my reasons for creating the article and for not deleting on that page. The wording lends itself to spelling out that knowledge which is about Life, but for which a narrower disipline such as Biology, does not cover. Terryeo 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote not to delete the banned list
Adding an article about the banned list was my way of adding to the information on wikipedia. It is insider information that I have learned from my professional comedian mentors. I am training to be a professional improv comedian and a troupe has taken me under their wing. At least one of them is a DJ and a few are stand up comedians.

Magicians have insider secrets that are not written in books but are not original research. Comedians have the aristocrats joke that was secret for a long time. The banned list is insider trade information. I would like to give other comedians to expand upon the knowledge of the banned list.

There may be a few reasons why verification can not be found online. It may be called different names to different people. It is likely in my mentors book that he is writing but has not published. Comedians that have learned it by trail and error are probably unable to get work. Comedians are bad record keepers.

I vote to leave this article until someone with the credentials can second its existence or disprove it.

Answers
Lukas,

I think you are misinterpreting what WP means by "original research". Original research is not defined as a reference or claim or statement that is primary in chronology (and hence original) in its source (e.g. the first paper that came out from Einstein about Special Relativity). Those are in fact allowed as a source in WP. By "Original research", WP means a claim or statement, that is made by you, as an editor, as the source of info. For example, if the paper from Einstein specifically says time travel is possible, then you cannot come and say "he could not have meant that in that sense, because of so and so". You would be imposing what you think Einstein meant. That would be your research and hence "original". User:Jimbo Wales put it best: Original research is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Now, that being said, some points regarding your questions:


 * Elamites not Iranian?! Am I correct that you are stating "Elamites were not Iranian", (as you incorrectly did for Azari)? As such, Id like to ask you, what is your definition of "Iranian" then?
 * Interpretation of sources: As I stated above, I'm not sure if interpreting sources is a valid idea for these articles. My understanding is that your entire question is centering around what you interpret the sentence in question is trying to say (e.g. what you think is meant by "Iranian", or e.g. in your words, that the Khuzi statement "is used to argue for a late survival of the Elamite language"). Firstly, we do know from Encyclopedia Iranica p687 that Khuzi did survive until Sassanid times. And Ibn Moghaffa did not live much far from those times. Furthermore, the reason I provide quotes is only so as to leave interpreting the quote to the reader. We do not know "how Ibn Moqaffa was using the word Iranian", in your own words. We should not impose what we think. That would be "original research". Let the reader decide. Let us only report.
 * Articles on Elam: I did not write most articles on the Elam/Khuzestan pages. Others did. I only corroborated and provided sources as back up for purposes of verifying the texts. Therefore, for example, in the case of Ibn Nadeem, I do not evaluate his writings and his knowledge, and whether he knew what languages or "Historiography" were. I only report what he and others have written, as judging sources are deemed against WP policy, and constitute original research. I only wrote what I read from those sources. I can send you the source in PDF format, or direct you to them, if you can read Persian or Arabic of course. Ibn Nadeem/Ibn Moghaffa were not the only ones to write that statement. Similar statements exist by Moqaddasi, Yaqubi, Tabari, Istakhri, Mas'udi, Yaqut Hamavi, Mostowfi Qazvini, and others.
 * On primary vs. Secondary sources: I dont think Ibn Nadeem is considered what WP defines to be a primary source. Also, contrary to what you state, WP encourages the use of primary sources as well. WP policy states: "In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources". And the article Primary source encourages their use. That being said, Primary vs. secondary sources does not matter to me. I am happy with both. The issues of Azari, Khuzi, and Iranian languages and history have been extensively written on. There are entire books written about them by Mohammad Moin, Kasravi, Ehsan Yarshater, and many other contemporaries. In fact the sentence you question about Ibn Nadeem, I took from an article by Dr. Amin Riyahi Khoi in the journal "Economic and Political Ettelaat", No. 181-182, p26-35. (I can send you the PDF) You can also find such quotes in many other contemporary sources as well, including Encyclopedia Iranica, which extensively uses such sources.
 * Khuz = Elamite: Khuz (or Huz) is from the name Uvja, which is the name referred to Elam in Achaemenid inscriptions. There is extensive documentation on that.
 * the Pluto vs Pythagoras analogy. Actually, I would be in fact happy if I saw both views (current scientific view and Pythagoras crystal view) in an encyclopedic article about the solar system. How do you know that the current scientific belief in what is called the solar system is actually correct? Maybe 200 years from now, scientists will finally accept what Quantum Mechanics has been telling us all along: that the Universe is subjective and is consciousness based in its fundamental denizens. i.e. it is not an absolute existence sitting out there as we now think it is (see idealism). Ah, but that would take us back to the "geocentric" view of the world, wouldnt it now!...a view currently dismissed by the current establishment. Therefore, in light of such a situation, it would be only accurate to report what Hawking, Hubble, Newton, Copernicus, Leibnitz, Spinoza, ...., and Pythagoras, thought of the Solar system and the Universe. Only then can we really be NPOV. Let the reader decide if the Earth is flat or not. Instead of saying "the Earth is round", let us say "Satellite pictures show the Earth to be round. For many centuries however, the Earth was thought to be flat by so and so..."
 * On Dehkhoda: Again, you are judging a source. The reason I use Dehkhoda is only because the dictionary is a highly acclaimed source. The best of the 200 lexical references ever published in Iranian history. You claim Dehkhoda Dictionary is not a "good source" because "it is not a linguistic dictionary". How do you know that for a fact? Have you read it to make such a judgement (assuming that youre allowed to make one)? It is in fact written in an Encyclopedic format. Not to mention that the authors of it were all linguists. That being said, I have no problem with your request. I can give you additional sources. I specifically put this link at the bottom of the Iranian languages page. I now see that you missed it.
 * Dehkhoda uses the present tense indeed.
 * As another source for verification that both the present and past Azari were "Iranian", note p158 of the aforementioned source where Henning specifically says: "All these languages which may be said to surround Azerbaijan belong solidly to the northwestern group of Iranian, and that was probably true of the lost Azerbaijani tongue."
 * Encyclopedia Iranica specifically calls Azari an "Iranian language".. Im sure youll notice the Ibn Nadeem quote there.
 * I have at least a dozen other sources about "the Iranian dialect of Azari". Most are in Persian language. But I can send their PDF files to you if you like.--Zereshk 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We have no disagreement

 * We did have a consensus, and nobody is going back to square one, unless you wish to keep disputing me on additional topics: I agreed for you to wipe out that entire section so that the pre-Turkic Azari material can have its own additional page. N'est pas? I dont see what you mean by going back to square one. That was a done deal.
 * Ah, according to your definition then, the Elamites fall under category 2 of what you define to be "Iranian", because they are "historical peoples who are counted as part of the cultural/ethnic heritage of the Iranian nation." Problem is that most readers (and popular perception) will comprehend the statements made in these WP articles with definition 2 in their minds (just as I did). So....to clear this up, I propose that you clearly state and clarify the difference in all these articles. IOW, lets clearly state the difference between def 2 and 1, and which one we are talking about. User:Jon Safari I presume, made the separate page of Languages of Iran precisely for this reason. Good deed. I have no problem there.
 * As for the Khuzi dispute, do you have any sources saying that Khuzi was not the language of the Elamites? I would like to see that. That would be educational to me.
 * I never said modern Azeri is not Turkic. If you noticed, Ive constantly been using "Azari" (transliterated Adari by E.I.) to distinguish it from Azeri, which is Turkic (and not Turkish). Actually, the most correct transliteration is "Adhari" or آذری. I have only been following this distinction only because E.I. does so. And Henning also points out that Azari dialects do currently "survive". OK, I should have mentioned this subtle difference. My fault.
 * Anything you draw out of E.I. for any article, I will fully accept. As far as Im concerned, E.I. is the best authority in these matters.
 * If the articles are sounding argumentative, and if I do sound curt, trust me, it is only because we (Iranian editors) are constantly facing daily attacks from pro-secessionist editors (who are not even Iranian), trying to portray things inaccurately and revise some historical realities. User:SouthernComfort has constantly been guarding the Khuzestani pages, and I am a general housekeeper, going around, keeping an eye out for any pan Turkists, pan-Arabs, or any others that come in a daily basis, changing the articles. Therefore, again, I apologize for being curt. I fight revisionist morons on a daily basis. After a while, I get so defensive, I actually start acting offensive in normal times too. If you are arguing solely based on definition-1, then you have the right of way. My job is only to see that definition-2 attributes do not change in any of the articles pertaining to Iran. Thanx again.--Zereshk 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again
(9) should read: "Modern Azerbaijanis are politically loyal to the Iranian nation state." Lets call this (9B). It's not that they "should be loyal". They are loyal. The reason Im trying to "heap up" evidence in support of (2) is that some deliberate users and editors go around spreading misinformation based on an assumed (C9B) premise (i.e. the Contrary of 9B), throwing around phrases like "Persian occupied Azerbaijan", as if to imply that Azeris were never Iranian to begin with (i.e. questioning the validity of (2)). So I repeat, these (my) edits are only in reaction. Thus, the people who are trying to change the fact of (9B), based on their implied claim of a (C2), are the ones making "an argument". That's why there is so much fighting going on on the Safavid page, for e.g.. Take a look and see what Im talking about. I am not the only editor with this pro-9B position trying to justify 9B based on (2). Those sources Ive been using are factual, and that's why I am using them.

It seems that you seem to be oblivious that a campaign to spread around the notion of (C9B) exists at all. It's a good thing I showed you an example for crying out loud: (C9B example).


 * Answer by Lukas: Looking at Talk:Safavids, I can still see nobody questioning (2). I can see people questioning (5). I can also see people implicitly operating with (1)(2a)->(3a):


 * (1) Major premise: If a population speaks language X, it and its descendents will bear the marks of X-ness as an indelible, essential part of their cultural/ethnic identity.
 * (2a) Minor premise: The inhabitants of Azerbaijan speak Turkic.
 * (3a) Conclusion: All inhabitants of Azerbaijan have an essentially Turkic cultural/ethnic identity.


 * You see, that's the trouble about (1): once you accept (1)(2)->(3), then somebody else is going to find (1)(2a)->(3a) just as  compelling. (My own view, of course, is that (1) is wrong, as it implies the fallacy of ethnic essentialism). - Anyway, the place to argue (6), or (3a), is Azerbaijani people or Iranian people or whatever.


 * From what I understand, you seem to be so much preoccupied by (1)(2)...->(9) that you project back any opposition to (9) or (6) onto the earlier members of the chain, as if it logically entailed an attack on (2). Which is still a logical fallacy. Lukas (T. 13:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Elamite" could be a cultural attribute as well, and is not reserved for just a linguistic one. Elamite can also be used as in "that which pertains to the people of Elam". Their culture, history, customs,... and language amongst them as well.


 * Sure, "Elamite" can be both an adjective and a noun, but when used as a noun it unambiguously denotes the language, doesn't it?

I have to go.--Zereshk 12:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: 1913 enc. articles about German towns
I am aware that the material from the 1911 encyclopedia is outdated most of the time. But the historical references of some of the towns is not outdated. For example references on the towns during the Middle Ages will be of great historical interest to some of the readers. I have considered listing the topics under "requsted articles" but I feel that this is inefficient. Most of the time, the "requsted articles" remain requsted for weeks, months and sometimes even years!

But I appreciate that you made an improvement of the article "Frankenhausen". If I could understand German, I would definitely do the translations myself. However, I am also trying my very best to look out for updated information on the German towns on the internet. The problem is that most of the information on the German towns are in German. Anyway, I must thank you for improving some of the articles. My hope is that more Wikipedians who understand German would be able to do the translations. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Inanna
Hi Lukas,

For some info about Inanna, see this comment. The only thing that I said that isn't correct is that I don't think she's in high school anymore. Anyways, I'd love to report her and her sockpuppet Altau, but I'm not sure where I would go. --Khoikhoi 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Psellus
I searched through a number of different reference books--including extensive ones devoted to philosophy, theology, and Byzantium--and histories of the period, and came up with absolutely nothing on the elusive "elder"; I think you must be right in your guess that some reference to the well attested Psellus was misconstrued to refer to a different individual, and that this has been cleared up since 1911. I hope this helps, and let me know any time you need a reference check done--I love any excuse to go poke around the library for a while. RobthTalk 20:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post it to the article's page. RobthTalk 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Psellus
You're very welcome, thank you for solving the mystery. Paul August &#9742; 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kindly Check talk:English words of Greek origin
This article needs your knowledge and attention.

Thank you,

NikoSilver 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet
Lukas, could you give us a hand in refuting a claim that the Greek alphabet is NOT descendant from the Phoenician, scientific sources are needed. See: Greece and Talk:Greece Andreas 16:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We would need sources about the Phoenician origin of the alphabet, like a quote from a reputed Greek grammar. There are some Greek pseudo-nationalists who think that Greeks invented their alphabet from scratch (these are the same ideologists who think that the pronunciation has always been the same). I call them linguistic creationists: they think that the Creator created all languages independently, presumable at the time of the tower of Babel. Andreas 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

oldest language
είδα ότι ανέστρεψες την συνεισφορά κάποιου ανώμυμου χρήστη που ισχυρίστηκε ότι η ελληνική είναι η "παλαιότερη γλώσσα σε συνεχή χρήση". καλά έκανες καθώς τέτοιοι ισχυρισμοί είναι πάντα προβληματικοί στο ακριβές νόημά τους αλλά κατά μία έννοια νομίζω είχε δίκιο. Από όσο θυμάμαι είναι πράγματι η παλαιότερη καταγεγραμμένη γλώσσα σε συνεχή χρήση ως τις μέρες μας (το σχόλιο ήταν τοποθετημένο μετά την παρατήρηση ότι έχει καταγεγραμμένη ιστορία 3500 ετών). από ότι θυμάμαι όλες οι άλλες καταγεγραμμένες γλώσσες της εποχής δεν έτυχαν συνεχούς παρουσίας (συνεπώς κατά μία έννοια ο ανώμυμος είχε κάποιο δίκιο). ή μήπως δεν θυμάμαι καλά; --Lucinos 10:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * -Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την Μυκηναϊκή, τότε η Ελληνική γλώσσα είναι η αρχαιότερη γραπτή και σε συνεχή χρήση στο Ευρωπαϊκό χώρο και στην Μέση Ανατολή. Ίσως οι Βάσκοι και οι Λετονοί να μιλούν μία ακόμα πιο αρχαία γλώσσα αλλά σίγουρα δεν έχουμε γραπτά στοιχεία. Εάν συμπεριλάβουμε την Σανσκριτική και τα Κινέζικα, τότε μάλλον έρχεται δεύτερη σε αρχαιότητα αλλά δεν γνωρίζω αν έτυχαν συνεχούς παρουσίας. -- Το θέμα βεβαίως δεν αφορά το ‘μετάλλιο’ της αρχαιότητα αλλά την εισφορά στον παγκόσμιο πολιτισμό, και εδώ τα Ελληνικά λειτουργούν ως μοναδικό και ανεξάντλητο θησαυροφυλάκιο εννοιών που περικλείουν την εξέλιξη του πολιτισμού μας από τα αρχικά του βήματα. Φιλικά, Politis 12:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See my earlier answer on Lucinos' talkpage. Thanks. Lukas (T. 13:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php is what you want. Circeus 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Faucounau
Thanks. Sympathy is always welcome; but I'm used to tough-minded POV-pushers - I went to arbitration with Ultramarine.

Do you know anything about proto-Ionian as a purely linguistic theory? Anon cites one review which is genuinely favorable except for the Phaestos Disk.

I am not fully convinced by your stylometry, although it's interesting. Several of the marks you use are not unexpected for a Francophone struggling with English. (Would you be interested in comparing with the contributions of the blocked user:Irismeister? If that identity can be proven, the problem is solved, at least for another six months.) Septentrionalis 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I'm sure it's far more complicated than Good Guys against Bad Guys; but the purely linguistic side of Faucounau did get a good review, and the proto-Ionians should probably be mentioned (briefly) somewhere in the vicinity of Greek dialects. This will not assuage Rose-mary/80/grapheus; but that's not what I'm here for. (Duhoux does side-swipe Faure's writings on the Disc, so Faure's praise for Faucounau may be partly pique, but so what?) The basic idea that the Mycenaeans and Sea Peoples spoke Ionian rather than an undifferentiated East Greek is not primâ facie silly; it may still be wrong.  Septentrionalis 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why, Mr Pietsch, have you suppressed the important information for the WP reader, that the J.Faucounau's deciphering attempt, presented as an hypothesis in 1975 by his author, has been republished in 1999 and 2001 after gathering of evidence ? What do you find so monstrous in mentioning this ? What WP rule is it hurting ? Is it not the WP:NPOV rule which is betrayed by deleting the words gathered evidence  ? Is it not acting like a partisan that contributing to this deletion ? I'm eager to hear your answers, Mr Pietsch... (User 80.90.57.154 ,11:29, 1 March 2006).


 * Just because you're an obnoxious sockpuppet who is or ought to be blocked, and editing against consensus. Nothing more serious than that, really, grapheus. Lukas (T. 11:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sir, for aknowledging that you don't care about the WP reputation as a serious Enclyclopedia, and for giving the proof that you are part of the bunch of full-of-hatred guys (Latinus, Pmanderson, etc.), who try to impose their POV by acting as a pack of wolves, biting in alternance. (User 80.90.57.154, 12:40, 1 March 2006)


 * Ah, I see you've made the acquaintance of our good friend Rose-mary, the Luxembourgian equivalent of Irismeister :-) --Latinus 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know him from his earlier activity on Usenet. See my comments here: User talk:Pmanderson. Lukas (T. 12:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Arvanitic Inscriptions
From an "old friend" I presume:

''Thanks for your comments. No doubt I should be more patient with idiots who add nonsense to articles which I put a lot of time into writing, but Deucalion's childish and heavy-handed sarcasm does particularly annoy me. I have often found this tactic to be the first resort of fools at Wikipedia and I have little patience with it. Nevertheless, I will let things rest for a while as you suggest.''

I see that Dr. Carr has introduced you to me. Funny how he still assumes that I am a "fool" and an "idiot" when social reality dictates that I am unconventionally conventional and conventionally unconventional (try saying that five times fast) when it comes to how I think. Of course, he still fails to understand that sarcasm is an essential part of the Greek social mentality. Oh well. His loss, not mine.

Anyway, you left a message stating that you wanted the information pertaining to the Greek Arvanitic inscriptions to be placed in the article as a fringe view (I smell a Galilean dilemma brewing). It is alright with me if you want to do such a thing. However, even if the inscriptions on the wine-pitcher and the chrism are understood as an archaic form of Greek, then the next step should be to somehow contact the person who originally interpreted the inscriptions to being proto-Arvanitic (or just Arvanitic) so as to acquire a better understanding as to the validity of the interpretation.

If you have time, why don't you try and contact the person who stated that the inscriptions on the artifacts were proto-Arvanitic and send the person your analysis of the inscriptions (I must say, good job translating the inscriptions). If not, then I understand.

Oh, and I did not fall into this particular "pseudo-science" trap. Trust me, I understand the dynamics of propaganda (even the dynamics of so-called "objectivity" when even outright biases are correct in certain situations). So, in a sense I sort of believed that the inscriptions could be proto-Arvanitic, but I consistently emphasized the importance of confirming the validity of the artifacts and what they bear (check the discussion page if you don't believe me).

Contact me whenever you get the chance (send my regards to Dr. Carr and tell him that Greek history is more than just geography). Over and out. - Deucalionite 2/17/06 5:46 P.M. EST