User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive1

Union of Poles in Germany
Thanks for your copyedit work - I have added more text. Cautious 17:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[uninhibit.. un pw sart...]

Victim blaming
You've said you're not happy with what you ended up with on Rape. I think your edits are moving things in a good direction, and I encourage you to do more.

You were quite perceptive in saying the section read to be more about false reporting than about victim blaming; what happened is that an anonymous editor created a section in the article about false reporting and overreporting, which had some very dodgy material (like claiming that Dr. Eugene Kanin's research showed 41% of all rape reports to be false). A second anon came along and radically revised the section to be more about victim blaming than false reporting, essentially writing from the POV that false reporting did not occur and it was only victim blaming that made people think it occurred. I stepped in, separated the material on victim blaming into a section of its own, cut out a lot of the dodginess from both sides from the false reporting section, and did some research to expand the section and address what we do and don't know about it.

Unfortunately, the second anon keeps returning every 2-4 weeks, always under a new IP address, and keeps editing those two sections to suit his/her POV that false reporting does not occur and even if it does it's a small insignificant problem and anyone who disagrees is clearly victim blaming -- this is the reason for a passage that you removed:


 * Due to the wide spread persecution of rape victims, false reporting is often discounted by those who prefer not to believe in it, as not an effective means of gaining the false reporter's desired ends. This ignores the fact that criminal decisions are often unwise decisions, and people still choose to make them anyways.

That passage went in because our anon (who never responds to the Talk page) responded to the passage where Dr. Kanin reports that women who had admitted making false rape reports said they did so for an alibi, for revenge, or for attention/sympathy, with "Obviously this is not the case considering there is very sparse sympathy for rape survivors in the criminal justice system." -- arguing, again, that false reports just don't happen, and that this is "proven" by the logic that if they did it for sympathy, they wouldn't get it from the criminal justice system, so "obviously" no one ever does it, ever, for this motive or any other.

I'm happy to see someone taking on that section; it's badly in need of attention and unfortunately the only volunteer before you was our ax-grinding anon. It's good to see it in better hands. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Department of Arts: History of Art and Design Assessment Feedback Form Faculty of Arts, Design & Social Sciences Student Registration Number: 12005725 Module Title:	Design and Communication	Topic: design and history Module Code:	VA0400	Module Tutor: Paul Barlow

Aspect	1st class 70+	2:1 60-69	2:2 50-59	3rd class 40-49	Fail 0-39 Level and range of reading Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Inadequate Critical grasp and quality of reflection	Excellent	Good	Fair	Weak	Extremely poor Structure and organisation	Entirely fit for purpose	Good	Adequate	Poor	Inadequate Use of examples and illustrations (where appropriate)	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Inadequate Quality of writing and referencing	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Not acceptable

•	Note that the relative importance attached to these categories will vary according to the nature of the question set

Comments Strengths: Clear, well structured	Areas for Improvement: Limited argument given range of reference General: numbers refer to marked passages in the essay 1.	Well that’s not quite ‘timeless’ is it, but it’s worth noting that some types of design do date quicker than others – suits remain largely similar, and so do ball-gowns (which is the old fashioned word for what she’s wearing). 2.	You need to clarify what Mies meant by this modernist dictum here. This is a generally interesting essay because you are covering quite a range of material. My problem with it, if that’s the right word, is that you do not go into detail on the relationship between the styles and designs you are looking at and the reasons why some things seem to change quickly. Mondrian’s style existed 30 years before it was used in fashion, but looked very modern in the 60s. Classical architecture was timeless – up to a particular point in time, and them started to look ‘historical’. The relationship of this to wider movements could have been explored.

Recommend Northumbria Skills Plus? YES/NO Mark	60%

1st Marker signature:_______________________________________________	Date:__________________

Internal and External Moderation A sample of work submitted for this module has been reviewed by an Internal Moderator. Samples of work at Levels 5, 6 and 7 will be reviewed by an External Examiner before the final exam board

Department of Arts: History of Art and Design Assessment Feedback Form Faculty of Arts, Design & Social Sciences Student Registration Number: 12015416 Module Title:	Design and Communication	Topic: design and history Module Code:	VA0400	Module Tutor: Paul Barlow

Aspect	1st class 70+	2:1 60-69	2:2 50-59	3rd class 40-49	Fail 0-39 Level and range of reading Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Inadequate Critical grasp and quality of reflection	Excellent	Good	Fair	Weak	Extremely poor Structure and organisation	Entirely fit for purpose	Good	Adequate	Poor	Inadequate Use of examples and illustrations (where appropriate)	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Inadequate Quality of writing and referencing	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Poor	Not acceptable

•	Note that the relative importance attached to these categories will vary according to the nature of the question set

Comments Strengths: Clear, well structured	Areas for Improvement: Limited argument General: numbers refer to marked passages in the essay This is a bit on the brief side. It’s well written and clear, but does not go very deeply into the topics in question. You skim over the relationship between Futurism and the history of design – after al not very many futurists apart from St Elia were designers in any meaningful sense. The rest of the essay is a quick run-through of the main movements including modernism and classicism. I think you could have explored more fully how films like Gladiator and Jason use ‘ancient’ styles. Obviously they have to as they are set in that period, but they often adapt them in subtle ways. You could have made a distinct point about the difference between classicism as an ideal of design and classicism that is used to capture a distinct culture. Recommend to attend ASk sessions? (For international students only)						YES/NO Recommend Northumbria Skills Plus? YES/NO Mark	55%

1st Marker signature:_______________________________________________	Date:__________________

Internal and External Moderation A sample of work submitted for this module has been reviewed by an Internal Moderator. Samples of work at Levels 5, 6 and 7 will be reviewed by an External Examiner before the final exam board

Palladian architecture
Ref.: your edits at Palladian architecture: you are of course quite right, Palladianism spread by returning architects and British influence. The article has been hugely edited since it became main page today, if you go back about 10,000 edits to yesterday you will see someone has removed a sentence which explained why I called it true palladianism, ie True P is only there to explain the initial principles. Having reverted 4 edits already earlier today, I thought I would leave the rest until the page is yesterday's news, and then sort out what to keep, if there is anything of the original left that is! Giano 12:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Alfred Elmore
I enjoyed your Alfred Elmore article, thanks for taking a red link off the List of Irish artists! Notjim 11:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nimaattsed.jpg
If that image is from the Egyptian museum, it is copyright, however its use may be possible under fair use laws. Could you explain the copyright status on the image description page. I've listed it as "unknown" for now  &mdash; Zeimusu | Talk 03:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having trouble
I am having trouble with a simonP. I edit Arete (virtue) and he immediately reverts the edits. Him and his friends have deleted [Classical definition of republic] and after the many facts and the quoting of material they will not acknowledge they won't even let an external link and the talk is ongoing at Talk:Republic. This man doesn't know what he is doing. I ask that someone step in and stop this please. This man has no expertise in the classical field. He is an anonymous user. Please see also Talk:Arete (virtue).WHEELER 17:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice work
You did a good job on [Semitic]. Paulr 18:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seemed a bit chaotic. It needed the subheads too. Good idea. Paul B 19.01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare's reputation
Hi, Paul, did you notice I replied to you on Talk:Shakespeare's reputation? Bishonen | Talk 13:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes. I did. I'm just checking up on a few facts before adding anything. Paul B 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nordicism
To my knowledge, the whole concern about the Mediterranean and Alpines comes within Nordic theory as a whole (that is, there isn't a separate Alpine theory), and most of the show is about those people who are concerned with the Nordics anyway. I consolidated them because it didn't seem necessary to duplicate the information in three separate articles. If you want to undo that, you're welcome to, but I just find it unlikely that we need a whole article on the concept of the "Alpine race" since it doesn't come up except in the context of Nordic theory. I've never see the triple division in any context other than Nordicism, but if you feel otherwise, you're welcome to edit it; it is not as if the other articles had a lot of lengthy text that will be difficult to recover.

As for Grant; he certainly didn't come up with Nordic theory on his own, of course not, but he was certainly its most powerful and influential advocate. He's the reason it had any real influence on anything, intellectually or politically, and his variety of it (which is somewhat distinct from that of people like Ripley) is what became prominent. This has been documented in a number of places, including the source I cited. If people are looking up "Nordic theory" or "Nordic race," they are probably looking it up in reference to the version of it he pushed.

Grant attributed all success of other races to influxes of Nordicism. This is made quite clear in Passing in his chapters on the Alpines, Med., and Nordics, and "Expansion of the Nordics" where he describes how everybody successful in Egypt, Italy, etc. was actually Nordic, and describes the Nordic invasions, etc. I don't think I'm oversimplifying too much.

So anyway.. if you want to reinstate, feel free. However I don't think its necessary to have three separate articles. Explaining what the "Alpine race" was out of the context of 20th century interpretation of Nordic theory is quite silly, and if you're going to go through the trouble of explaining it you might as well have it in one article so you aren't duplicating material unnecessarily. But that's just my opinion, you're welcome to do as you please with it, it is not my highest concern, I just thought it was a better arrangement, that's all. --Fastfission 13:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duplicated block of text
Hi, you added a huge block of duplicated text on Talk:Afrocentrism with this edit (about 70% of the page). Please, all, be careful in doing edits - we have seen this problem on a number of pages recently. It's always wise (even on talk pages!) to do a diff on your edit, after it's done, to make sure that what actually happened was what you thought you did. Use of the "section edit" feature also helps (and makes editing faster, to boot :-). Noel (talk) 15:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Lady of Shalott
Nice to read your sensitive and knowledgeable additions. --Wetman 15:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Abanindranath.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 00:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:Roylee
I noticed you on his talk page. See User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee for some background and the history of his talk page (versions just before the anon sockpuppet blankings). Would you too like to join the Roylee Watching Club? ;) Cheers,  BanyanTree 14:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank's for inviting me to join this exclusive club! Yes, I've seen the exchanges between Mark and Roylee, and looked at some of Roylee's other edits. His Afrocentric inclinations are apparent. Since I monitor the Afrocentrism page itself, I'm half-expecting a visit from him soon. Paul B 14:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said to BanyanTree before, I think that things like this really touch Wikipedia in its weakest spot &mdash; so thanks for keeping watch, Paul! Kind regards, &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dating conventions
Please see Requests_for_arbitration for background info on what is currently going on in regards to the problems with anti-BCE/CE users like Jguk and their antagonism towards editorial consensus within specific articles and categories. SouthernComfort 20:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies for what is happening on your articles, where a small number of editors have chosen to apply a failed proposal, only to have it reverted. I appreciate it does WP no good - and I trust that soon the ArbCom will rule those initiating these disputes to stop. Kind regards, jguk 11:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

William Holman Hunt
Thanks for fixing the title of The Hireling Shepherd. Rl 12:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV status of that article
Look, when I added that NPOV tag, I wasn't attacking you personally. I'll definitely recognise that you are an expert in this field! However, like anything, if you write something you need to make sure that you follow Avoid weasel terms and Cite sources. We most definitely frown upon words like "some scholars say". Not that I would ever do this, but I could also do the same thing in the article. I could say something totally unreasonable and offensive to your POV and qualify it with "Some scholars say...". How would that be fair or reasonable?

I want to emphasise that I'm not going to get in your way in editing this article. What I would like to see is a better references, more NPOV article! That is my sole concern, and I'm a little disappointed that you think otherwise of me.

I'd also like to apologise in advance if I've caused offense or implied that you are a terrible writer. That has never been my intention. I focus on the content alone, and while the article is extremely factual, it still needs improvement. For instance, the use of Template:Ref and Template:Note would go a long way to fixing verifiability issues. Anyway, I hope you understand my purpose of using the NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, given that you are still making personal comments about myself and also given that you still seem to think that asking about POV statements is a personal attack against yourself, can I ask if you actually bothered to read my message above? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read it yes. And have explained repeatedly what I was attacking - the tone of your initial comments and the assertion of "POV" before acquainting yourself with the subject. Useful comments, IMO, do not take the form of your interventions were were almost bound to have a negative effect because their over-excited and judgemental tone. Paul B 09:22, 12 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, whatever. You were attacking me (calling me ignorant for one thing is not pleasant). You read into the situation, and you are wrong. Though the irony of your own judgemental remarks never ceases to amaze me. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not misrepresent me. I said you appeared to be so ignorant of the subject that it was difficult to discuss meaningfully was is and isn't NPOV in this case. Of course I assume I too am ignorant of many subjects, including some in which you may be very knowldgable. Paul B 12:06, 12 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, don't misrepresent me Paul! I never would have taken out information (except of course that first bit I mentioned), my reading of the weasel words guidleline has served us very well. As for my ultra-aggressive and arrogant tone: why don't I just leave the project if you feel that I'm such an arrogant twat? I mean, obviously I was trying to wreck the Zoroastrianism article: pointing out issues that I find with an article, after all, is such a terrible, censoring action to take. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Due to my apparently disgusting behaviour, I have decided that possibly I might owe someone an apology. I have taken myself to an open forum to find out. See Administrators' noticeboard. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What the? You wrote:
 * "Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

Excuse me, but that is totally unfair. I'm beginning to think that you are deliberately reading into my actions to make me look bad! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Why don't you have a look at Jihad to see where I insisted on references for anti-Islamic rhetoric? Don't assume that just because I'm a Christian that this is why I ask for references. Your sentence appears to imply that we are insisting on references because we do not like the views. For myself, I say that nothing could be further from the truth. It would also appear that Slrubenstein has not queried the passage because of his culture (I can't speak for Guy Montag as I don't know him very well). We want well referenced, solid material that is stated neutrally (read: does not state or imply that the position on an issue that is described is endorsed by Wikipedia). That is the sole reason for my questioning. You appear to have taken my questioning to be because of my world viewpoint. I got upset because that was not correct, and also got upset because you flung into me with all guns blazing. You may have believed that my initial comments were aggressive: maybe so, but, at the risk of stating a cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. I've now taken that article off my watchlist and won't be working on it: I just don't have enough time to work on an issue where I feel I'm getting attacked and I have many other articles I want to improve. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

April Love
I am in the process of adding paintings from the commons wherever they fit; alas, in many cases (as in this one) the photographs are pretty bad and don't do the original works justice. Well, I learned something new about this beautiful painting. Thank you so much for the explanation. Rl 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
Thanks. It was a bit of an eye-opener, I have to say: it had never occurred to me that some people might seriously classify "Semites" as non-white, let alone believe that all Afroasiatic languages were spoken by Semites! As you say, issues of confusing and contradictory terminology are a serious problem. In general I feel that these can best be avoided by simply not using ambiguous terms like "white" and "black", but in a discussion of Afrocentrism this option is clearly not available; many Afrocentrists are not satisfied with demonstrating that something was done by native African peoples (which the Egyptians certainly were and are) but feel that they have to show that it was done by "black" peoples (which the Egyptians were and are not.) The old term "Hamitic" will not help either; a Somali looks nothing like a Berber. - Mustafaa 18:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia for commercial purposes
I'm glad you and Yu-gi-od are keeping each other so occupied. Zosodada 15:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a pity you can't see a joke when it's staring you in the face. - Paul B 11:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Molefi Kete Asante
Hey--

Thanks for the edit to Asante; as you can guess in my initial creation I had mostly pro-Asante sources to work from, and I want to put the anti- position in more as well. Glancing at your areas of interest, I suspect you know more about this than me. Can you elaborate on the criticism from around the world part, or point me to some sources I might be able to add it from? Merci beaucoup, Dvyost 04:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Nazi
I like your fixations...Two thumbs up!

Might I remind you, that socialism is leftist, national or not?

Just how many neo-Nazis today don't have some new age slant to their theories?

Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party http://www.nazi.org/ http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us%7Dlnsg.html

Hitler Was a Sensitive Man

It's your problem in choice to hide from yourself the uncomfortable facets of life beyond your control, especially what would appear to be personally critical against your pride such as in the UK. I live every day of my life in cooling off my ego from a constant need for stimulation. You can't be serious with others, if you never let the cards of your hand show openly. This is factually why YOU messed with my edits, yet you'll never admit this like a man.


 * You are talking gibberish. I can't "admit" to something that is not even intelligable. I deleted your edits for the same reason the Mustafaa did - because they were incoherent, full of dogmatic assertions annd factual inaccuracies. Perhaps it's up to you to admit that "like a man". Paul B 09:38, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

You want to play stupid, as does the racist Mustafaa. That's your lot in life, not mine.


 * It is generally accepted that the European peoples merely changed their language by economic interactions with exterior non-White civilisations such as the Indo-Aryan peoples of India and Iran, but changed genetically quite little.

[It is not generally accepted. See Paleolithic Continuity Theory. That's a minority position, but the more standard/traditional theory is explained on the Proto-Indo-European page. There you can see the familar claim that PIE originated in the Russian Steppe. Another widespread view, associated with Colin Renfrew is that it originated in Anatolia. I know of no creditable scholars who think that IE languages in Europe resulted from "economic interactions with exterior non-White civilisations". How on earth are Scandanavians and Irish supposed to have learned to speak IE in such away?]


 * Nazis were/are the most obsessed with linking the incursions of Mongols, Scythians, Huns, Gypsies, Alans, Magyars, Avars and other minorly related peoples with Lebensraum. Such people have been recorded and while a minority had remained in Europe, it is as if present-day immigrants somehow vastly altered the English language in the Nazi view.  The truth is, English speakers have changed their language by choice of relation and not by invasion save for the Norman Conquest which had LASTED under direct control of the English people.  Even Celtic tongues leave little trace and you want me to accept a widely masturbated Nazi ideology?  It is obsolete as is your mental attachment with those so-called superior swastika people.  Tell me how much the Hungarian people have altered the European languages by their overstay!  Time period doesn't matter one Goddamned bit!  All these people I speak of came from the Russian Steppes and were widely condemned by native Europeans.  With the power of Attila and Khan, we'd think there were to be some significant traces, but this is out of scale to the facts.  Europeans are Europeans and that is the simple truth of history.  One or a few bad apples doesn't make the rest of them bad, nor do pretexts for militarist invasions of Poland escape propaganda.  I have already explained that the Graeco-Roman Empires spread the Eastern cultures into Europe and by the passive-aggressive and invasive violence between frontier peoples from outside of the Mediterranean, people changed their ways of life.  Think of Theodoric's changes to become Italian.  People of small polity, are readily absorbed within the hive collective.  None of this was possible before Alexander's legacy and his bastard copycats looking for glory!  Empires alter the constitution of native societies, not tribal incursions!  I agree that some European languages appear and sound Asiatic; these are Hungarian, Finnic and Bulgar peoples and their relatives in Russia/Caucasus.  None of this is so prevalent in the rest of Europe. Besides, movements of Near Eastern desert peoples was limited to their environment.  Stuff that went on in Homer's writings was not happening in Gaul(although Galatian peoples did in fact transmit their newfound culture back home in Gallia), nor does any of that early mythology matter to peoples far removed from the scene of action.  Neighbourly disputes!


 * For instance and in the same sense of the orange, cattle herding moved from Southwest Asia to Europe but that doesn't mean people migrated simultaneously in that same direction.

[no it doesn't, but people don't just change their language unless there is some migration.]


 * Of course there had been some mixture, but a minority is no priority. Whites in India?  HMM?!  Besides, don't you remember the Inquisition and Reconquista or even the Cathar expulsions?  The Alan people were at the source of Catharism, as that region was where they settled prior to moving into Africa.


 * Most proponents of a foreign source for the "Indo-European people" are associated with obselete racial supremacism; the desire to pretend that non-Whites never had any highly influential ancient history.

[this is untrue. It is still the standard view that IE languages originated outside India. This argument has nothing to do with racial supremacism. As for the notion that there is a distinct IE "people", few would argue today that that's the case, except perhaps in the sense that there was, at some point, an original population of PIE speakers]


 * Indo-European language is a conglomerate of all different peoples; imperial languages spread.


 * These people overlook the bitter grudges and violent repulsions that erupted by the incursions of Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Gypsy, Jew, and Muslim peoples into Europe, but it is somehow propaganda in "benefit" to the Nazi party

[this has nothing whatever to do with the history of I-A speakers in India. In any case, it doesn't even follow from the previous sentence in any clear way. And the Nazi party no longer exists. Most neo-Nazis have no interest in the history of India.]


 * Who cares about India? I'm talking about Europe of Europeans.  Using the term Caucasian is outdated, although it would work in the sense of the Caucasus being the furthest east that Whites lived in ancient times and as a border of the Asians who saw Whites as living Transmontaine through to the other side of the Caucasus.  All neo-Nazis I have met are diehard Indo-Europeanists, frothing on that Swastika/Buddhist/Hindu nonsense.  Your lies won't work.


 * Like any non-powerful region of peoples such as Central Americans to North Americans, they will absorb the power of the core goings-on in the neighbouring world of hustle and bustle.

[Who is this referring to? It's far too oblique to be useful to the reader. I guess you are saying that the non-powerful people of ancient Europe "absorbed" the civilisation of ancient India. I know of no historical evidence for this at all]


 * India spread and blended with Iran. Iran spread and blended with Babylonia.  Babylonia spread and blended with the Roman Republic.  All of these places were under the domain of Alexander.  It had to get to Greece before it could be mimicked by Rome, as with all things between them.


 * Indo-Aryan people were never Whites

[that depends how you define the loose term "whites". Are Iranians whites or not?]


 * Iranians are a mixed blend of Australoid(from Indian Ocean), Mongoloid(from Himalayas) and Caucasoid(from Balkans).


 * , but their civilisation directed the course of events in a domino effect for Europe even into modern times

[what evidence do you have for this? It is pure assertion, and does not represent mainstream views].


 * This is generally accepted knowledge, as also described by the Fifth Monarchy Men.


 * This is one reason why some people are not supremacist, that they see things out of their control and far in the past

[this is not history, just vague psychological speculation]


 * This is a clear and casually easy thing to recognise and I have heard it personally so many times from the horse's mouth, I can't count. All the time I wondered if people carried grudges over lacking control of their present way of life, for the actions of others preceding them.  They always told me what you seem to filibuster at this point.  You can be a racist numbskull if you want.


 * . Like Old European culture, everybody has ancient history, even without surviving written sources

[What are you trying to say here? It is not at all clear.].


 * So many years ago, the only accepted sources of civilisation were "ex luxor orientalis". Any native, Western and European heritage was condemned by elitist cosmopolite imperialists with their Churches' altar windows all facing Eastward.  The Sun rises from that direction, so the Orientals were somehow the wisest men.  This backwards people-worship still exists today, even after the archaeological digs that produced very refined artifacts.  People have no care to connect themselves with their "barbaric pagan" past, with "fools" who never knew anything of the sophisticated East.  You line your cerebral cavity pockets with the utmost prejudice and ignorance, as common.  See Orientalism for a description of all this garbage.


 * See Alexander the Great and Roman Republic, for information about how Indo-Aryan culture shifted westwards

[Alexander invaded part of India, and there was a Brahmin attached to his staff after this, but there is little evidence of sustained links between Greek and Indian culture, except in the cross-over points in Afghanistan and "Ghandara". Anyway, Greek culture was already highly developed at this point. Later Greek sources indicate a vague and confused conception of Indian culture. I don't know what the Roman Republic comment refers to. Again, it is too vague for readers]


 * The Roman Republic annexed Asiatic provinces from the ailing post-Alexandrians. Don't worry, I previously had no real knowledge on this matter as you.  See these articles: Greco-Buddhism, Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, Indo-Greek Kingdom, Greco-Buddhist art, Buddhas of Bamyan, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthian Kingdom, Kushan Empire, Seleucid Empire.


 * See also British Empire and Emperor of India, for examination of where the racial supremacist ideas began to form and be widely accepted in the Victorian era after Charles Darwin's theories

[In fact racial suprematist ideas existed long before Darwin (e.g. polygenism), and were adapted to suit Darwinian theory. In any case this is marginal to the arguments regarding AIT. The relevance of Victorian racism needs to be seen in the context of specific arguments about invasions/migrations of I-A speakers into India].


 * Modern versions for people to use are handy for the reader to relate to. I find it ridiculuous that you find a prerogative in pretending reality doesn't exist, just so you can create your own worldview that advances your isolation from objectivity.  Drop the arrogance.

You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English. All that is true of you, when you say my writings are undecipherable. I warned you about playing the stupid Nazi and here we are, with you feigning ignorance. Public education's tax dollars were wasted on you.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/10/ancient.europeans.ap/

OK...No big deal.

User:TShilo12/RFC/TheUnforgiven
I'm sure that is impressive. TheUnforgiven 01:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up orientalism
The cleanup tag is necessary because the article is woefully underdeveloped and vague starting with the section on Said. It is those parts that I am referring to. I'm not an expert on the topic, otherwise I would have just made the corrections myself. But I _have_ read the book, and I find the current content unsatisfactory in its account of Said's work and its effects. Some portions seem to have been written by contributors who don't seem to have read the book at all, hence my comment to that effect when adding the cleanup tag. I think most everyone who has read the book would agree with this judgement. As you appear not to be one of these, I wonder how closely you read the text, or, more plausibly, whether you've read it at all. If you haven't, I think you should abstain from contributing. Of course I am referring specifically to parts of the article directly related to Said's work, but I think anyone asserting expertise on the indirect parts without having read Said is at best a questionable authority.

The tag may not be the best way to call attention to this; maybe there's a better tag. But until someone knowledgable gets around to doing the necessary work, there should be some measure of notice to the users of the article. Linkspro 23:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in getting into a Wiki-dick-swinging contest over this, but I do think I can have a valid reading of an article without asserting enough expertise to edit the content. I made a compromise contribution by bringing attention to what I think is "woefully underdeveloped" (Emphasis because the only portion of my note you quoted happened to be a mis-quote).  For a comparative example of this technique in action, please review Oil price increases of 2004 and 2005.  In that case, I read a more severe misrepresentation rather than just lack of development, so I used the more severe NPOV tag.  Some users cued in the talk page to assert they couldn't see why such a tag was necessary, and it was removed (by an incredible coincidence, removed by another user named Paullb).  Recently, after a few weeks, I got around to doing some of the work, and the article is better for it.  I don't know whether it was any serious harm to remove the NPOV tag, but I obviously considered the tag justified and relevant, and therefore considered the removal of it to be specious and wanton.


 * I'm sure you'll be around to revisit any possible dispute when someone agrees with the tag (maybe a future me) and actually edits the text of the article.Linkspro 11:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You are reading me correctly in the sense that I think Said's Orientalism is more than just a contribution to the tradition. I think it's far more important than that.  It's also clear you disagree with this judgement, and that since I'm not prepared to assert much editing control over the text article, we're not in a position to work out that disagreement.  When I say "underdeveloped" I am talking about quality of content much more than I am about quantity; I suppose I'm representing my comment above that I find the total work of all sections wanting in way that suggests the book was not read closely.  That's what jumped out at me when I read the article.  The last thing I would like to do, therefore, is to pretend this reading privileges me to do my own version without having recently completed a close reading myself.  So, if we have a dispute over future edits, I will a least be able to provide you with the more coherent and specific details you asked for in response to the tag.  Linkspro 05:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I see you decided to unilaterally remove the cleanup tag last week. I'm sorry that you feel life is more orderly when those who disagree aren't around to be annoying. It's not a very good attitude to have on Wikipedia, I think-- kind of an extention of the idea behind the revert rules and such. If you have a problem with what someone has done, resolve it. Waiting until things have quited down a bit and then making things as you see fit is not resolving it, and I pity that you feel that's a route that is productive or necessary. Linkspro 19:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please - I do not think you have earned the right to tell me what is "not a very good atttude to have on Wikipedia". I have as much right "unilaterally" to remove the tag as you did to add it. I was behaving no more unilaterally than you were. There was no sign whatever of a wider "community" who agreed with you. I removed the tag for the following reasons:

1. A cleanup tag is inappropriate. It is mainly used for articles that are badly written or otherwise chaotic. I don't think even you thought that this was the case. 2. A cleanup tag refers the reader to the talk page for the reasons why a cleanup tag has been added. You added nothing to talk page to explain the tag. Is this "a very good attitude to have on Wikipedia"? 3. Unnecessary cleanup tags make Wikipedia look bad. They give the impression that the articles are poor and unprofessional. They should only be there when an article really does need to be cleaned up - in order to show that Wikipedians are aware of inadequacies. 4. When I asked you why you had added it I got no clear explanation. You could tell me nothing that was actually wrong with the article, and resorted to the, in my view bizarre, argument that you believed that if someone read Said's book "more closely" then they would come up with a different reading of it than the authors of the article. Now, either you have read it closely and can say what is wrong with the account or you have not. You cannot reasonably claim that some other mystery person will, if they read it, come up with an argument that agrees with your inexpressible intuitions.

I think a request for section-expansion would have been far more appropriate than a cleanup tag. However, what I am going to do is put in a Peer Review request, that is a request for Wikpedians to suggest improvements. Paul B 16:20 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Everything I said above still stands; you've taken it as an invitation to act like a prick. Congratulations.  Linkspro 18:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My language is exacting and uncomprompising. Your attempts to dismiss it as inappropriate only reinforce the delusionary anal retentive attitude you exude.  I've made myself perfectly clear in response to your questioning and you've managed to find a way to make it contentious where it needs not be. It's a tire and a bore dealing with you over such nonsense.  I will again use prick to describe the contrary approach you've adopted, with reference this time to the wikipedia entry so that you may comprehend why it's appropriate.  Linkspro 02:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The pronouncement that you "see no advantage in further discussion" as consequence of my "childish" language is entirely in line with your habit of righteous misrepresentation. After I responded to your demand for explanation regarding the cleanup tag it was you who waited a couple weeks until things had quieted down and then went ahead and removed the notice.  It was only after I pointed out the pitiful nature of this that you came up with the "Peer Review" request as a way to justify your actions. You had already broken off "further discussion." Insisting that I have "resorted to the last refuge of insult" is just your defense mechanism to prevent you from acknowledging that you have acted contrary to the good ideals of the Wikipedia.  You castigate me for not having "earned the right" to tell you about Wikipedia and harp on my "childishness" as if you have some sort of Freudian issue with maturity, as if you must beam your staid and mature manhood upon us know-nothing, foul-language-spewing kiddies.  Meanwhile you insert retroactive evidence of your flexibility as if preparing for review with a third-party, a cathartic showdown with a neophyte who knows not upon whose holy ground he treads.  As long as you cover your tracks, your behavior seems to shout, all will be right with the world.


 * Those who care about the content will not accede the high ground to your indignant posturing. Review my words above and find where I referred to my plans to assert editorial control over the article: "having recently completed a close reading." You, apparently, know not how to distinguish between a close reading and a casual reading, between a measured expertise and seat-of-ones-pants BS, between honest colaborative engagement with others and pretense of such for the purposes of control.  And it's because of attitudes like yours that the cleanup tag is necessary. Linkspro 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

yo dogg
I saw your message on talk:anti-racist mathematics from back in february and I gott say I'm equally confused. Have you by chance learned any more about it? It seems like a rather failed movement. If so, I guess someone should at least say so in a neutral way in the article. weird stuff. later. Kzzl 18:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Akhenaten's Appearance
I would appreciate discussion before deleting my edit on Akhenaten. Which is more speculative:

Akhenaten's face was the result of Marfan's syndrome, despite the fact he had children? or Akhenaten's face was the result of the resemblance to his mother, and to African people of Egypt and Nubia?

IN regards to anything that presents a Black, I notice a predisposition to dismiss it as "afrocentric nonsense" when the considerations are not really examined. How can Marfan's syndrome seem like a more likely explanation than the obvious Black features that shows in his family line?

Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean
Are those based upon three groups of Christianity? Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox? TheUnforgiven 17:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane
What can I say? Exceptional, totally awesome research on the Lane of Shame. Kudos for all time. Coqsportif 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I came to the conclusion that aka  aka  was Steve Kellmeyer, and quite frankly he's a crank. Thankyou for helping clarify the position on the da Vinci code and catholic theology, which are two subject areas that are not my speciality. Dunc|&#9786; 13:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it best to ignore him. I think the standard of his intellect and lack of respect for the NPOV policy speaks for itself.  Don't get into trolling arguments - WP:RFC to get others to back you up.  If it gets completely out of hand and he starts properly misbehaving then RFC him, but until then don't be offended by anything he says - I'm certainly not!  It is likely that he'll give up once he realise that he's getting nowhere, or atleast calm down a bit. Dunc|&#9786; 12:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Grope Lane in Shrewsbury

 * Grope Lane in Shrewsbury was known as Gropecunt Lane until roughly the Victorian Age. Not only do I have a map from the mid-18th Century with Gropecunt Lane on it, but various sources, mainly local history books, cite the passage as being called Gropecunt Lane. The "cunt" part was dropped, for fairly obvious reasons, by the rather dull Victorians! David.


 * I quote from a new local book "Shrewsbury: Archaeological discoveries from a medieval town" - "Shrewsbury's was last referred to as Gropecountelane in 1561.." (the author also talking about the various locations in England that once had such a lane). ISBN number 0-903802-82-1 :) David.

User:jguk at Talk:Biblical canon
User:jguk is agitating to convert yet another article to BC/AD dating, Biblical canon. I you could comment there it would be much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Hitler distanced himself from Rosenberg..."
How was this visible? Is there verification for this? Or is this an inference you are making on your own? patsw 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

on what grouds is Egyptian religion best labelled "pantheism"?
Very good question. Easy answer: mea culpa, getting my vocab in a muddle, almost two years ago. Well spotted. –Hajor 15:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Leland edit
Hi. You just wikilinked anthropologist Charles Leland's book Aradia: The Gospel of the Witches to an article about a, um, speculative historical figure Aradia del Toscano. Is this what you intended? Jkelly 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the mis-attribution (which is being discussed at Talk:Aradia (goddess) -- there is something wrong about the Talk page setup right now). In any case, I'm glad that you're finding those articles interesting enough to read carefully.  Jkelly 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory
Its been a learning experience working with you on AIT. Thanks for your help so far editing the article. I think we need to form a Win watching team. Check out the changes I made to the AIT talk page. I think this format will allow discussion around the actual article to continue, and will give Win a place to yell.

Vvuppala 04:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
I'm sending this message to both Paul and Anonymous Silence: could you please cite which Christians believe in the whole argument "that Jesus, as the son of God, would have had the ideal body type and physical characteristics, including the "ideal" race." I feel that this implies that there are many Christians who believe this, and I know that this is most likely not the case (there are millions and millions of Christians who don't believe this). Please cite who is prominent in believing this! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The quotation in question is a compromise between what I wrote and what Silence wished to write. My main intent was to stress that there is a theological tradition concerning Jesus’s appearance that depends on the assumption that his birth was miraculous, and so that normal arguments about what someone from that part of the world would look like do not apply. It was Silence who seemed to wish to – in my view – confuse this issue with the notion of “racial suprematism”. Racial suprematist positions can use either the theological mode of argument or the naturalist one. They are not dependant on one or other of these views. Ass for the central claim that theologians have argued that Jesus must have been a physically ideal person, that’s well established. There are a number of descriptions of Jesus from spurious ancient sources that were accepted as legitimate during the middle ages. One “Publius Lentullus” is supposed to have described him as of “singular beauty, surpassing the children of men". There are several other such idealised descriptions. You can find them on this website . The website itself is a bit idiosyncratic, but the summary of theological positions is confirmed by other sources. I have an old book called ‘’Christ in Art’’ by F.W. Farrar, dated 1901 which contains the same information. There was a theological debate about whether Jesus would have looked ordinary or ideal. St Jerome and St Augustine both argued that he would have been ideally beautiful “beautiful as an infant, beautiful as on earth, beautiful in heaven” (Christ in Art, p. 73) .Such arguments were familiar to Renaissance artists. Paul B 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Thank you for clarifying. I have to admit, it is hard to tell from the edit history when what wording entered the article when. Be that as it may, I agree that many of the people who painted depictions of Jesus had unarticulated or conscious assumptions about Jesus as a man, and sometimes, these may have involved race. I think the only way to go about treating this topic is to look for articles or books by art historians (or social critics), and cite them. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Race of Jesus
No, Our Lady of Guadalupe is not crucially important to the topic. But she is archetypical. I don't know why others would include here, but that is my rationale. Thanks and God bless Dpr 11:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Arda Viraf
Good start. I feel relieved whenever someone writes an article on my never-ending Zoroastrian to-do list, though this is only the second time I can say I've had it happen! Were you going to mention the similarities with Muḥammad's Mi'rāj as well? I've always thought Arda Viraf was one of the most entertaining Zoroastrian scriptures to read - things like the Denkard make you "think hard" and leave me mentally and emotionally drained. If you ever get to the Chinvat bridge don't forget the Muslim al-Ṣirāt connection as well. Plus the fact that it is one of the most fascinating aspects of Zoroastrianism. Khiradtalk 16:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing my suggestion
Hi. I'm curious why you deleted my suggestion. Was it an editing accident, or did you think it was inappropriate? Jkelly 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Race of Jesus
Great work, thus, you and V. Molotov can share the medal for FA when it whens eventually. He (I) created it after all. 65.35.197.181 01:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Zarathustra
I noticed you moved Zarathustra back to Zoroaster...but the correct nomencalture is Zarathustra. Zoroaster is the later Greek name. Please explain why the title should be Zoroaster. freestylefrappe 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC concerning Roylee
A request for comment is live: Requests for comment/Roylee. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Evil consipiracy
Oh I'm thrilled Paul, it's probably the most recognised I've been on the net outside of Wikipedia. It's a shame that fame and fortune doesn't come with the mentioning, but I suppose I can always ask Mr. Curry to continue to name and shame me. :-) Craigy (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL, yes, I'm very amused by being part of this select group identified by Professor (if you please) Curry. He's spammed this sort of stuff to a number of blogs and newsgroups too. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice rfc
Hi Paul,

Based on earlier interactions at Afrocentrism you might be interested in the deeceevoice rfc at Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice

-Justforasecond 16:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Taj Mahal
Hi, I have responded to your query at Talk:Taj Mahal. I hope you will find these templates useful:

-- Pamri &bull; Talk 13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Roman Salute
Unfortunatly I cannot provide any sources. Any way the original meaning of the salute has probably been lost, and serious historians do not take guesses. I have been interested in the Roman Army (and other armies) since I was a kid but I do not recall the source of this information. The symbol of showing the palm of your hand to show that you carry no weapon is uniwersal and in my opinion it is quiet probable that the roman salute symbol also had that meaning in its beging. Mieciu K 18:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no proof that the Roman salute ever existed, and even if it did we do not know if it really was a straight-hand gesture or just showing the palm of your right hand. I think that we should include the fact about the controvercy - if that gesture ever existed in the roman salute article. Mieciu K 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Flat-nosed Dravidians
Paul, I posted this on Talk:Black_%28people%29, but you have evidently not seen it.

According to Gossett, he got the translations from two sources. The first is The Hymns of the Rigveda, trans. Ralph T. H. Griffiths (Benares, 1896), v.I, pp.488-90. The second is Adolf Kaegi, The Rigveda: The Oldest Literature of the Indians (Boston, 1886), pp 43-45. Would it be safe to say that these two are no longer considered to be idealogically objective translations? -- FrankWSweet 16:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC) -- Frank W Sweet 18:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barabbas
I noted that your insertion " Nevertheless comparable releases do appear to have been a Roman custom" has been reverted. If it were just anyone, I'd shrug my shoulders and move on, but since the edit was from you (a person of considerable credit in my accounting), can I ask, have you found a reference to this practice? in Josephus? I'd like to track it down, because I generally reject the possibility so confidently.--Wetman 08:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bengal Famine
Thanks for the edits on the Bengal Famine article. Jayanta Sen 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the compliment in taj peer review
Hi Paul: Thanks for your compliments. Also thanks for your contributions to the India topics I often frequent. Pleasure working with you.--Nemonoman 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hi Paul, wish you a very Happy New Year 2006 and all the best in the year ahead. --Machaon 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambedkar
Paul, I just saw your edit about Ambedkar. I think it is correct that he rejected the AIT. Please read the following link. Here are a few extracts from there.

What evidence is there of the invasion of India by the Aryan race and the subjugation by it of the native tribes? So far as the Rig Veda is concerned, there is not a particle of evidence suggesting the invasion of India by the Aryans from outside India. As Mr. P. T. Srinivasa lyengar points out:.....

So far the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is against the theory that the original home of the Aryans was outside India. ....

In the face of these statements from the Rig Veda, there is obviously no room for a theory of a military conquest by the Aryan race of the non-Aryan races of Dasas and Dasyus.

The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption which underlies the Western theory. .... Hence the necessity for inventing the theory of invasion.

The Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago. But far from being dead, the theory has a considerable hold upon the people. There are two explanations which account for this phenomenon. .....

Regards, --Machaon 14:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, have you read the whole chapter four from the link above? He concludes the chapter with this
 * The conclusions that follow from the examination of the Western theory may now be summarised. They are:.... (2) There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be natives of India.

See also: ''In fact, after going through the forceful arguments advanced by Dr. Ambedkar against the theory of Aryan invasion in the Who Were Shudras? one tempts to believe that Aryans are the original inhabitants of India and not the invaders.'' and this.

I think in this book he seems to reject the AIT. I'm not an expert on Ambedkar however. Regards, --Machaon 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryanization
Hello, I noticed in your edit note regarding Aryanization you wrote that in Nazi ideology Aryanization was not euphemistic.

I am the editor who added that one month ago, after translating it directly from the first sentence of German Wikipedia artile on the topic:

Mit dem euphemistischen Begriff der Arisierung bezeichneten die Nationalsozialisten die schrittweise...

literally: "With the euphemistic term of aryanization designated the national socialists the systematic..."

Just thought you would want to know the German perspective.

Gilliamjf 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that many Germans were anti-semitic at the time. I took the time to read the German Wikipedia article again and it does have a grave tone.  However, I do not believe that every anti-Jewish German term of the era was taken so seriously.  For example, judenfrei (free of Jews) often appeared on souvenir hotel postcards, with the caption "Our Hotel (name) is judenfrei."  This would appear under a cartoon caricature of a stereotypical-looking Jew being kicked by an oversized foot out of the hotel's front door.  There was almost a humorous effect to the cartoon.  I think that the term judenfrei was a euphemism, and because Arisierung was a neologism (and the German language is so established) it also has an euphemistic connotation.  Gilliamjf 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that aryan is a historic term, but aryanization seems like it is more radical than an historical identity. The article at German Wikipedia on Aryanization only mentions events and concepts in the Third Reich, but the article of Aryan at German Wikipedia begins at 2000 BC in Iran.  Gilliamjf 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You may well be right. I spent 2 years in Germany and never saw the word aryan used as a verb in print, nor is it in my Langenscheidt German dictionary (only Aryan).  I am not a native speaker, but I was doing my best to make a conclusion based on the article and my personal experience. Gilliamjf 17:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

With the euphemistic term aryanization the national socialists designated the systematic-occurring total dispossession of the jewish population in Germany and Austria during the time of national socialism. The term relates to the nazi propagated idea of an imaginary 'aryan masterrace.' Different undertakings were 'aryanized.' ...

Victorian era attitudes
In the Victorian era, not only was promiscuity considered immoral, but any extramarital sex. That is when ladies covered table legs in parlors, etc. Do you object to changing 'promiscuous' to 'extramarital?' I think it would look better, and be more correct. Gilliamjf 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I objected to "promiscuous" because it's a loaded word; extramarital fits here too. If gays were allowed to marry today then they may not be stereotyped as such.  Gilliamjf 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me that that's a myth, Paul. I will have to look into that book. Gilliamjf 17:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory/User:Shivraj Singh
Thanks for your reply. I should have done some checking to see if the mess was the result of one contributor. I'll try to revert as I can. No way we can block him eh? --Lukobe 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Dear User:Paul Barlow and User:Shivraj Singh, I understand that you two have different opinions regarding the article Aryan invasion theory. The article Resolving disputes contains great tips in how to solve content dispute. Some of the suggested methods include Mediation Cabal, Third opinion and Requests for mediation. They might help you in solving the dispute. Sincerely, --Hurricane111 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Best of luck in the process!  --Hurricane111 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Commiserations. I have witnessed SS on Rajput, and I do not feel like tackling that kind of debate soon. There is this, but it doesn't look like this is going to be addressed tomorrow, or next month :\ regards, dab (&#5839;) 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian Wagnerites
Hi Paul --Smerus 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul - The Category:Wagnerites has now attracted a number of entries (and not only from myself) but it has now been put up for deletion on what I consider to be rather aggressively inaccurate grounds - Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_25 - please consider voting for its retention as it serves (imho) a serious purpose in terms of musicology, music history and opera. Thanks - --Smerus 06:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Augustus Egg
I found this article randomly and saw that there were no sources cited for the material in this article. I noticed that you started the article. Please provide them.

TheRingess 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj edit wars
Hi Paul, I got Shivraj blocked for 24 hours yesterday after his 3RR violation. This gives us time to consolidate a bit of the articles before he comes back. Could you perhaps try to propose a way how to integrate that Max Müller quote in such a way that it addresses in a reasonable way whatever concerns Indian readers might have about a perceived cultural superiority ideology on Müller's part? -- If that doesn't help and Shivraj persists in edit warring, we might need to find a way of dealing with him more decisively. If you want to bring this to a user RfC or RfArb some time, I'd be with you. Lukas (T. 10:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion DNA Link
Hi Paul Barlow, thanks for the comments on DNA 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

Edward Said
Please do not ascribe motives to me and assume good faith. Edward Said pursued his academic career in the US, and he is, beyond doubt, an American scholar. His brithplace may be mentioned, although I do not think his biographical details are somehow relevant to the article on Orientalism. Pecher Talk 09:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Palestinian ethno-cultural identity is a little bit rich for Edward Said whose mother was Lebanese, who grew up in Cairo, corresponded with his parents in English, received his education exclusively in English, spent nearly all his life in America, began to identify himself as "Palestinian" only after 1967, and started learning literary Arabic only in the late 1970s. You may say he was a "self-described Palestinian" or that he was born in Jerusalem; however, I tend to oppose strongly such inclusion of biographical details in articles that are not biographies because it should only matter what a person says, not who the person is. Pecher Talk 10:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, please refrain from starting edit wars; especially on trivia. Please be civil and do not call the opinion of your opponent "silly", particularly in edit summaries. Pecher Talk 10:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am ever more taken aback by your continuous attempts to imply some ideological or partisan motive to me. I am even more stunned by your intention to go along with Said's ideas that people are inherently and irredeemably biased depending on their origin; I am unable to interpret otherwise your arguments that a description of Edward Said as "Palestinian" helps the reader understand Said's own biases. If I intoduce any changes to an article, I do so solely in pursuance of WP:NPOV based on the sources available to me from which comes the information I provided to you above. However, I am not an edit warrior and I do not wish to pursue or discuss at any signficant length a matter that I deem entirely trivial to the subject of the article. Pecher Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you ended up accusing me of "disingenuousness". I still have no idea why you are continuing personal attacks against me and keep assuming bad faith on my part. Do you really believe that people assert something not because they believe it to be true, but because they have some hidden agenda or bias? However, I am not sure I want to know the answer. At this point, I'd prefer to end this conversation, which is getting increasingly personal. Pecher Talk 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops
No, sorry, Thanks for catching that! i;d lvoe to revert Rob too, but even though I'm no where near a violation, I'm not going to play that game. I've already reported him to numerous sources and hope to see him blocked soon.Gator (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article, Second Paragraph
I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

White (people) editor
Hi Paul. In case you were wondering about that editor you were having such difficulty with on the White (people) article, I've compiled a summary of his activities on Wikipedia: User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back
Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:TheSaviour.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:TheSaviour.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)