User talk:Robin klein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Hi Robin:

Thanks for replying. A couple of quick comments. I refer to Bernard Sergent, who is a renouned anthropologist. He is a very objective author and does not talk about races in terms of "superior" or "inferior", like many "scholars" who discourse the "yellow-skinned man" and the "dark skinned man". Let me quote some of his findings wrt Dravidians.

a) He claims that the Dravidians, dark skinned individuals, emmigrated from from the Sahel belt in what now comprises the Sudan and Senegal and brought with them the Dravidian Languages (or what we refer to as Proto-Dravidian). So we are talking in terms of tribes from Africa, that belong to an established, definate racial pattern, emmigrating to South Asia, and not differing small groups that later came together and exchanged genes. Besides, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, etc are highly evolved, even Sanskritized (Kannada, Telugu), Dravidian tongues are relatively new. So to say that "South Indians are bound together by the Dravidian languages of Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam..." is incorrect since a)They were already bound together by race when they emmigrated. In fact, it was the birth of distinct languages that culturally separated these peoples, as was the case with Kannada and Tamil and b) Tamil is the oldest one of these languages and dates back to only 250 BC, Kannada to 450 AD, Telugu to 650 AD and Malayalam to 900 AD, and so on, whereas systemized Dravidian immigration into India dates back to tens of thousands of years. My ultimate point here being that it is not language, but race that identifies these people!

While your quoting Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza might definately be valid, I doubt that he specifically analyzed the migratory and linguistic patterns of the Dravidian race. He might have been talking in general terms, as opposed to constructing a definative, all encompassing theory.

b) I agree that it is incorrect to refer to all south Indians as Dravidians. The Syrians, Jews, etc did come to the Malabar coast, but I find it hard to believe that these people did not "exchange genes" with the locals. This means that there is definately a Dravidian majority in the region. Besides, there is no "pure" Aryan or Dravidian in India anymore. Sergent also points to a third, "brown" race, the Veddas that inhabited much of India (what he calls "people of the land", since they were not immigrants). But if we talk in terms of proportions, I think we are likely to find a greater proportion of Dravidian genes in South India than any other race. Sergent's research points to a majority Vedda-Dravidian ancestory to south Indians.

c) As far as matriarchal families. Being a south Indian and having travelled extensively in south India, I have not encountered matriarchal families at all, especially among the Proto-Tamil-Kannada cultural offshoot. These societies are completely patriarchal. The Nairs that you refer to are the only practicing matriarchal society in Kerala. And Kerala is the natural candidate for a matriarchal society, being the only state/region with a majority female population. The Nairs are also one of the only 2 practicing matriarchal families in all of India, let alone south India (the Bunts of Uttara Kanara being the other). Therefore it is very incorrect to generalize and refer to South Indian family system as matriarchal, since the region is overwhelmingly patriarchal! Thanks.

AreJay 00:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Robin:

The general idea is that Dravidians are not so much connected by language as they are by a common race and ancestory. The genesis of language comes out of social organization of a race or a bunch of races. So I think more than languages, it is the race that bindes Dravidians. I would like to either leave out the sentence that ties Dravidians to language, or atleast make it auxillary to a discussion on a common racial binding. Thanks.

AreJay 21:07, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Here are some links I find useful


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Robin, I saw that your contribution to the slavery artcile has unfortunately been deleted [1]. In my opinion it is a worthy contribution to the article, but in that form it was unacceptable because it describes a view that would be extremely controversial in the US as fact. Do you have any links to articles in which this view has been expressed in this manner? It could then be added in the form "some have compared modern prison labour to slavery" etc. It would also be good if one included information about other countries with similar practices, such as China for example, so that it looks less like the usual US bashing. - pir 10:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Child Prodigy

Hi. Thanks for your edits on Child Prodigy. Why did you remove Robert Gupta and transfer Shakuntala Devi? Thanks --Jondel 02:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jondel,

Thanks for you mail. I moved Shakuntala Devi from the list of mathematicians because she is NOT a mathematician. She is exceptionally gifted in calculations with numbers but that does not make anybody a mathematician. calculations with numbers is to mathematics what alphabet is to Literature.

I removed Robert Gupta from the list because it is VERY common for not just 14 year olds but even 10 year olds and younger to enter music conservatories like The Juilliard School of music in New York city. If every one of those is to be listed as prodigy then the list would be literally unending. The list would then contain the likes of Itzhak Perlman, Pinchas Zukerman, Gil Shaham .................

Robin klein 03:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Klein,

I am Robert Gupta, and I would like to borrow some of your time to briefly discuss with you your edit of my name from the "child prodigies" list. Firstly, if something were to be posted about me, I would appreciate notice of that information being distributed on the internet. I believe that this is simply common courtesy. Secondly, about the Juilliard matter: If my age was the reason you removed my name from the list, then I believe that you are quite incorrect, sir, for I did not enter Juilliard at 14, but at 7. I graduated from Juilliard at 14, because I started my Undergraduate studies at that age. Personally, I don't think I'm a prodigy, and I have no concern or desire to be on your "list" whatsoever. I simply would appreciate if the information posted about me on the internet is accurate, and I despise the fact that you ignorantly modified information about a certain person without having the full knowledge of that person's background. I don't speak for myself, as, again, I don't care to be on your list. However, I do express my concern about your cursory review and investigation of my information on the behalf of other true prodigies, or even on the behalf of the other subjects for which you so admirably show enthusiasm for. Perhaps it would be wise to truly understand one's background and full training before modifying their information. Also, for the person who originally posted my information, it would also be prudent for you to do your research as well: this is not entirely Mr. Klein's fault, but the fault of the person who originally posted my information. I am, once again, not concerned about my information, but I am concerned about the lack of review and investigation for subjects more important to the societal benefit than my musical training. In conclusion, if you wish to edit information about a certain person, please have the courtesy to sincerely investigate and accurately modify that person's information, with the said person's consent.

Thank you, Robert V. Gupta

To Robert Gupta

Dear Mr. Robert Gupta,

when I edited the information posted by User:Jondel I went by the information provided by User:Jondel on 3rd of august 2004. Please see the history of the page on child prodigy. there are lakhs of editors, working for/on the wikipedia. And one assumes that the information posted by the previous author is accurate. Which in many cases it is. As for Julliard school I was only refering to the fact that it is full of amazing kids like you, who play extra ordinary music at young age. It would be an unending task and probably pointless task to list all their name on this list.

The names on this list are those of prodigies who went on to shine far longer into their adulthood. I hope you will be one of them. I hope you will live up to your PRODIGIOUS talent and shine even better in adulthood. When that happens (in a few years) I would be the first one to add your name on this list.

Besides I read about you for the first time over 6 years. I tried my best to get a ticket to your performance, which I believed included a composition by sarasate. But then I was unable to get a ticket. However a fine friend of mine managed to attend your performance (6 years ago). She told a lot about your performance and that you have also taken training under Itzakh perlmann.

I have not put any inaccurate information about you on the net / wikipedia. I only edited on the information provided by the previous editor on 3rd of august 2004. However it seems that my edit has caused hurt to you. And that thought of having hurt such a promising musician is itself hurting to me. I sincerely apologize for this. However I sould say that I was only editing information provided by the previous editor. It would be virtually impossible to scrutinize the info given by every writer on the wikipedia.

As for the list on child prodigy. The tradition has always been to write names of those prodigies who grew even stronger as the grew up. Because unfortunately the list (if one was to make) of those who had prodigious talent and faded away is even longer and extremely painful. Hence it is only after a person has matured that his/her name is added to the list of child prodigy. the concern here is for parents who drive their kids to any extent to make PRODIGIES out of kids in the form of trophies. and yes such parents are not rare. It is therefor important to wait and see the maturation of a child prodigy into an adult virtuoso. I am sure you woud be a fascinating virtuoso violinsit into your adulthood. which in a way you already are. But only that the experiences of Nigel Kennedy and the like makes one wary of such titles. these titles could itself become a burden on other kids who are unable to match up to those who are prodigious.

I hope you wont remember my name in disdain but only with pleasant thought. It love music and I respect musicians and in no way would I ever hurt them. I hope you would be able to use you skills in music for studies on music cognition. I know you are in Yale doing medicine. So I would not be surprised to see your paper in one of the journals of the cognitive sciences, dealing with music cognition.

your admirer Robin.

Robin klein 18:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I am in no way hurt by your edit, and I thank you for your kind words. I was simply upset to see some of my information misrepresented on the internet (going to Juilliard at 14). Please understand that I mean you every good wish, and I hold no hard feelings. In my honest opinion, I am not a prodigy. In fact, the only violinist, in my eye, who was a true child prodigy was Michael Rabin. For, from a musician's perspective, a child prodigy is one who shows not only great promise and talent as a youngster, but also who has fulfilled and exploited that talent at a very young age, to the extent that would make even a conservatory-trained graduate student blush. Again, I appreciate your intent, and I sincerely apologize if I have, in any way, hurt you. I am currently at Yale, but not studying medicine. I am starting my Master's, and hope to apply to Med school after the completion of the aforementioned degree. I am very, very appreciative of your interest in music, and I hope that researchers, historians, and compilers of knowledge (such as you Wikipedians) may be able to appreciate and consider music from all angles, as I wish to study music from the Neurobiological one. I truly believe that music, as one of the most moral and beautiful arts, will allow us to uncover the secrets of our being, and will inspire us to realize our humanity.

Truly yours, Robert



Hi Robin:

Thanks for the mail. I was really not attempting to discuss the etymological differences between Karnataka and carnatic. Rather those sentences are really just caveats to your discussion of the Carnatic region, and as you rightly point out, people do get confused between the name of a region emanating from an ancient music artform and the name of a modern state that first appeared only in 1950. Thanks. AreJay 19:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I performed the necessary task, but this is not something limited to admins. Firstly, I changed eco-feminism into a redirect to ecofeminism, as the articles were exact duplicates. I then changed Category:Human Rights (I deleted the category, so this is a red link) into Category:Human rights. This makes Category:Human Rights redundant. You can list it on "Categories for deletion" if it's empty and doesn't serve any purpose. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Robin:

We did have some sort of order in the privious edit. They were all arranged in terms of size of the state, and the number of speakers for the languages. But I guess one order is as good as the other, so I'll rv it back to that person's edit soon. AreJay 20:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" 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 [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". 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)


[edit] Category:Universities

Hi, I notice that you are adding Category:Universities to a lot of pages. The problem is that there is already a Category:Universities and colleges which is largely a double of that category. It also creates some other problems such as Category:Academia now being a subcategory of Category:Universities, while both the category and the article Academia actually encompass a larger field, including academies of sciences, other learned societies and other things in the same general field (and Category:Universities and colleges is actually an indirect subcategory of Category:Academia via the Category:Academic institutions).

I think the content of Category:Universities and Category:Universities and colleges should rather be merged under one category, and preferrably the latter, as it has a more inclusive name. I have already changed some to Category:Universities and colleges. / Tupsharru 08:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bicycle

Hi

You look like an active wikipedian, but what happened in the article about bicycles? You added a lot of commercial links, and a lot of ugly HTML. But looking at your large number of other edits, you don't seem to be a scoundrel who is just trying to improve his site's pagerank. See here the edit I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bicycle&diff=8622737&oldid=8613497

--Omegium 21:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christian

Please see my comments at Talk:Early Christian. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] World view

Robin, could you provide us with the legend for your Weltanschauung map, as it's useless without it. Kostja | Talk 18:22, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article Knanaya, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Warofdreams 11:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Kochi

you have been adding text to the page Kochi, India from other websites. No matter how important the information might be, you cannot copy the exact sentence from another site. You have to write the information in your own original words. Otherwise it will amount to copyright infringment.

you have been copying from

http://www.holidayshub.com/kerala-india-travel/cochin/kochi-history.html

http://www.haikerala.com/tourism/asp/history.asp?pc=28

you have also completely copied the article on Baselius Paulos II from the website:

http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/Malankara/CPaulos2.html

It is good that you are writing for the wikipedia. but you cannot copy statements verbatim from other sites. that would be disservice to the wikipedia. you can use other websites on the internet to collect information but please rewrite the information in your own words before submitting for the wikipedia. Robin klein 03:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

hi robin

the fact is that i copied some material i added to Kochi, India firt time round from the http://www.haikerala.com/tourism/asp/history.asp?pc=28 as you correctly pointed out. but the second time i put up stuff, i completely made it up. i didn't copy it from anywhere and i don't know what kind of pattern matching you did. when did people start copyrighting 'sentences'?

and i didn't put up the original article on Baselius Paulos II. i only added a few links and tried to make it more readable.

you seem to be bend on reverting any change i make. come on, editors can take more effort or wikipedia is going to loose a few contributors.

152.78.254.131

[edit] Paradesi Synagogue

Seeing that you have made additions to Paradesi Synagogue, can you answer any of the questions at Talk:Paradesi Synagogue? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Paradesi Synagogue

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article Paradesi Synagogue, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

[edit] Lingam

Hi Robin, I notice you have complaints about vandalism linked to the Lingam page. Please read the complete article before making changes. I have left the sentences you have added for now. Please indicate why you have made the changes on the talk page.--IMpbt 17:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matriarchy dispute

Aloha, Robin. Take a look at Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. It might help you look at the dispute from a new perspective and avoid falling into any common traps. Ashley Y is merely trying to help you develop your argument, so there is no need for confrontation. While I certainly don't agree with Ashley on everything, she seems to be a fair and reasonable editor. Matriarchy is a controversial topic, and you should expect editors to challenge unsourced edits, especially when it comes to the lead section. I don't think Ashley means you any disrespect, and she is probably helping you by forcing you to develop your argument. Any direct quotes you can provide that demonstrate that Most social scientists take the traditional nair tarwad as the prime example of matriarchal system will help, as will any evidence you can quote, beyond just citing authors. I think you can successfully make your case by adhering to the NPOV policy, so you have nothing to worry about. Also, would you have any interest in creating the matrifocality page? --Viriditas | Talk 07:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

I'm dropping you a note to let you know that The Seventies, which you voted on, became a Collaboration of the Week! You are highly encouraged to contribute whatever you can to the topic! Mike H 01:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Johnson, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I will spread the good word! Nach0king 09:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South India

Hi Robin! It sure feels like I've come full circle during my time here in Wikipedia! You were the first Wikipedian that I had the opportunity to collaborate with back in 04 and here we are again! By the way, I do hope that you are not upset with some of the recent edits in the article. I hold your viewpoint and contributions to the article with the highest regard. Perhaps I was a little hasty in saying that we should stick to representing facts — merely citing facts makes for pretty dull reading. I am okay with including the various opinions of authors, provided that we specify something along the lines of "One author asserts that the South Indian worldview is...".

It is important to distinguish fact from opinon, in my view, because generalizing a region as diverse as South India without a pre-qualifier stating "this is an author's opinon" will invite needless POV warriors who will take exception to the information presented. As you probably already know, the dynamics of South India is riddled with regionalistic tussles. Like I say, I hold your contributions in the highest regard, please continue to contribute to the article. Thanks! AreJay 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I must clarify. I did NOT mean negative when I told "Wow! That's great!..." etc. Perhaps it was my language that made you think I was being sarcastic. PLEASE PLEASE do not mis-understand.As a matter of fact, I could not be sure what structure could be better for South India. And beleive me, when you told about "Scandinavia", I saw the article, and really thought that it would be a good model to follow.
So now I am reverting back to the sub-sectioned culture structure. Let's build it up that way. I REALLY liked the idea I tell you. And please, I am not a serious kind of guy, take my words as lightly as possible, and usually I speak in direct manner, so , I emphasize, I was really meaning that it was a good model to follow. I will be waiting for your reply. Thanks.Regards. --Dwaipayanc 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the culture needs copyedits. I am at a hurry now, please see to it.--Dwaipayanc 05:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Why shouldn't I edit? These things always happen..! Let's see what others say regarding the way the article should be oriented. I support your view, especially the fact that the article might emerge as one of the firsts of its kind! However, I do not support blindly. I mean, even if the subsectioned "culture" is retained, at places, it is too repetitive. Needs copyedit. Bye. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 11:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply regarding South India

Hi! Yes, I already saw your comments in the talk page. But I differ in one point. South India is not, after all, all about the culture. "Politics", "Regions" are as important. Plus, the aericle has to be written in a summary form, with daughter articles as necessary. so I think South Indian culture should be retained, with a possibility that in future sections can be hugely expanded. Whereas in South India, still I think culture should be written in a rather summary form. At present, it is in a summary form. So no need to summarise further, rather expansion is needed at places. However, there are a lot of information on the culture which may be added in future, and if adding a flurry of info then "de-summarise" culture section, the info may be easily added to the duaghter article of South Indian culture. At present, however, I admit that South Indian culture has become redundant, with it being almost a copy of the culture section!--Dwaipayanc 05:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:INCOTW on South India

The Moving Earth
The Moving Earth

Hello, the 1 week period for improving the article South India is over. The changes brought about by the contributions of so many, including yours, is amazing. What do you feel about the general ethos of the article? Has it better addressed the Weltanschauung of South Indians? --hydkat 10:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

For Excellent Contributions, I herald you: An Earth Mover
--hydkat 11:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
wow! That is one cool map... I do however have some doubts: It puts the whole of South America, and the islands of the Caribbean under one single Weltanschauung! I'm pretty sure it cannot be so...

Anyway I very much agree with your philosophy: We are creatures of an evolving world, and that which is immediate to us (in term of space and time), has first dibs in shaping our behaviour. --hydkat 20:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome job!

Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg
   Great Work!   
For your work on South India. Well done!

--- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HAPPY EASTER !

"A kid asked Jesus how much you love me. Jesus replied - I love you this much and he stretched his arms to the cross and died for us."A HAPPY EASTER TO YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES!
Enlarge
"A kid asked Jesus how much you love me. Jesus replied - I love you this much and he stretched his arms to the cross and died for us."
A HAPPY EASTER TO YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES!

thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK

[edit] Boarding school

Hi, you may have noticed I did some tweaking to the Boarding school article a few days ago and as part of this, I removed some content that you added. I guess you understood why I did so, because your reintroduction of this content is *much* more encyclopedic and better placed within the article; the citations are also a big improvement and you've kept me happy here. This is a bit of a long-winded way of saying well done :) T. J. Day 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Syrian cross picture

This seems almost irrelevant, but where exactly did you take that picture of a Syrian cross from, and is it possible to acquire one in the United States? Secos5 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continental

Hi Robin,

Yes, the distinction is important, but I don't think we need the list of names of "analytic" philosophers in a continental philosophy intro. The analytic philosophy article doesn't make reference to continental philosophy or its philosophers in anglophone countries in its opening paragraphs. Anyways, both articles need fixing up, feel free to fill in the stubs. Poor Yorick 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the History section of the Kerala page

Hey! Sometime ago I had posted some changes I thought would improve the Kerala page's history section regarding the Syrian Christians. Well I've gone ahead and done it. Let me know what you think. I've fleshed out the same content for the History of Kerala page as well. --Veliath 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for getting back so soon. We seem to differ on how Mappila/Mapilla is spelt. My references and the current Wikipedia entry for Mappila/Mapilla point to Mappila. Perhaps you should create a Mapilla page and redirect it to Mappila. Or do you think changing all Mapillas to Mappilas would be simpler? Also, should we put in a brief stub in the Mappila page to point out the existence of the Nasrani Mappila term? Just wondering. Thanks once again. --Veliath 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weltanschauung map of the world

Hello. During a discussion at Talk:Kochi (India), I quoted your Weltanschauung map as reference to highlight that North India and South India have a different world view. However, it was contested by another user, who claims that India has only one unified Weltanschauung. Could you please provide the source from which you drew the map, so that the map can be encyclopedically verified? I'd appreciate your comments at Talk:Kochi (India) too. Thanks for your time. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the south india sari reply...

Hi, About mundum neryathu type of saris. I don't think anyone intended to delete it.... it was more a fact finding question. BTW why don't start an article on it? you seem to have done the most research here... --hydkat 10:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't mean to upset you... I honestly believe you have done the most research in this. I only wanted to enquire if you would start article on the mundum neryathu sari. --hydkat 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comments disturbed you, Robin klein. Let me make it clear that you are one among the few wikipedians I admire. Why else would I quote your map at Talk:Kochi (India), as I did recently? I apologise for any inconvenience my comments might have caused. My biased statement probably came after reading your comments at Talk:South India, which, I confess, upset me a bit. I had not reverted anything, nor had I deleted any references. But then, I understand that that is no justification. Please accept my sincere apologies. If there is anything you'd like clarified, I'd appreciate it if you mail me. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 07:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Just saw the Mundum Neriyathum page and only one word: cool! --hydkat 06:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review request

Hi! I've put the Kochi article up for a peer review. Could you please see the article and post your comments here?
Thanks!-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 10:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYk!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mundum Neriyathum, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! Featured pic! Next time please remember to bold the article that was nommed though... thanks! It was easy to spot this time, so no worries. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Enjoy your moment of glory! - thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 09:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 23

Hello, Robin klein. Sorry, I have to undo your edits at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 23. Simón Bolívar is currently scheduled to be featured on Sept.7th (the height of his career), and Belfast Agreement on Apr.10th (day of signing, which gave the nickname "Good Friday Agreement"). We are supposed to avoid repeat-featuring the same wikiarticles, so I removed them. Yes, it's okay to move things around, but in the case of the Good Friday Agreement, there isn't a replacement readily available for the Apr.10th template. Too bad Mérida, Mérida is a tad stubby and doesn't mention the date, otherwise we can keep the event on May23rd and feature this page instead of Bolívar's. I almost removed Kyoto Protocol, too, 'coz IMHO, it's better to feature this article on either Feb.16th or Dec.11th. I may do this for 2007.

Thank you for your interests in editing Selected Anniversaries templates. The June templates need help. I can't do much as I'm too busy in "real life". Please feel free to work on those (or any other Sel. Anniv. templates) if you like. Please keep in mind to diversify (in topics, time periods and geographical locations), avoid stubs, problem pages (tagged with {NPOV} etc.) and recent TFAs, and avoid repeats. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 06:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving references/citations into the citations section

Hey! Do you think it would be more appropriate to move the citation contents of this sentence: The works of the scholar A E. Medlycott (1905) and several Eastern Christianity writings states that Thomas the Apostle visited Muziris or kodungallur in Kerala in 52 CE to proselytize amongst the Jewish settlements and trading posts of the Malabar coast. (Medlycott, A E. (1905) "India and the Apostle Thomas"; Gorgias Press LLC; ISBN 1-59333-180-0 ) into the Citations section? --Veliath 04:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Like sound

Did you have anything specific in mind other than sound when you put the phrase "like sound" in the lead for music? Gazpacho 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music

Hi there, I am writing you because you were one of the contributors to the discussion last year about moving Classical music to European classical music. Well, the decision to do that did not have great effects - it has created a lot of confusion. Specifically, people editing articles that contain references are almost exclusively using the link classical music, which of course leads to a disambig page. They literally always mean European classical music in their context. So, it is creating a nightmare for us folks at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, where Classical music remains the number one offender as far as the number of articles that link to a disambig page. Which shouldn't happen. I think the crux of the issue is that English-language editors think "classical music" and they know what they mean - and we are trying to tell them that they really mean something else.

(Deep breath) So, we need to try to solve this issue. My inclination is to move European classical music back to Classical music, and then move the disambig page to Classical music (disambiguation), which currently just redirects to Classical music. What do you think? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I was one of the people who fought to keep the title of the page as Classical Music, as it should and must. However when people were trying to rename the entire page as European inspired classical music or etc. I suggested a better option of AT Least naming the page European classical music. please read the entire discussion to see my stand.

This problem has been created by people from other parts of the world like India who relentlessly want to keep on demonstrating that their music is Superior and refined than any other classical music of the world by calling their Hindustani sangeet as Indian classical music. I had even asked the question, Why not call African music as African Sangeet?

Just see the number of different people around the world calling their traditional indigenous music as Classical. It is this elitist notion that has hijacked the term classical music. If this mess can be finally resolved then PLEASE rename the page titled European classical music back to its original and sole rightful term of Classical music. Robin klein 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, sangeet means music and there is nothing wrong with calling African music African Sangeet. Can Mr Klein explain why he believes why Hindustani Sangeet cannot be called Hindustani Classical music, Carnatic music cannot be called Carnatic or South Indian classical music or both of them together cannot be called Indian classical music? What exactly is wrong with using the word classical in these contexts?

The term "klassische Musik" (classical music) refers to musical system as defined and connotated in the European tradition, because it was coined by Europeans to refer to their tradition of music as they conceived it. To use a term with the same connotation and ethos for another system of music is very misleading. It gives a notion that all these musics using similar terms are just variations of each other, which they are not. Robin klein 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your username while writing on a talk page. :)) Robin klein 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music article

Hi Robin! I see you're a composer and a Wikipedian interested in classical music, so we share some interests here! Can we discuss the lead for the music article? I saw you reverted my copyedits with the seemingly inaccurate edit summary "wikify". I'm going to leave a list of some items I'd like to resolve on the talk page. I hope we can work together! Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice instrumental music

Dear Robin,

My goal here at Wikipedia is to be constructive. I spend much of my time, when I'm not writing new articles, copyediting and trying to make articles more lucid. I particiapte in FAC, and Peer Review, and Cleanup for this reason. When I happened upon Voice instrumental music a while ago, I realized that the article was in dire shape. I could not even understand what the term meant by reading the article. I looked it up on google but could not find it except for mirror sites. Despite this, I spent many hours attempting to cleanup the article. Much of it was a indiscriminate collection of information. A lot of it related to European classical music gave a sort of history of this idea of "using the voice as an instrument." I left most of that alone for the time being. It was hard to know what to do.

The idea of using the voice as an instrument spanned every conceivable notion from world traditions of singing which might be considered extended techniques, to Gregorian chant, to florid baroque arias, to vocalists and choirs merely being used prominently within an orchestral texture. The whole idea of what constituted vocal instrumental music, as opposed to simply vocal music, was totally unclear to me. Since the voice is always used as an instrument, and is the original instrument, it was hard to know what the article intended. I saw 4 principal answers: Did VIM mean that the voice employed vocal techniques different from singing? styles that did not use text? styles in which it emulated the style of instruments? styles in which it was integrated into an instrumental texture? All of these seemed to be intended separately by various parts of the article. I tried to understand what was intended and make that clear.

When, User:Hyacinth changed Voice Instrumental Music to a redirect, I was frustrated after having spent all that time on it, but as I looked at it more, I realized that he was probably right. He thought it was OR, and I had never heard of it before, and couldn't find any google hits. It seemed to be a name constructed by some Wikipedians as an umbrella term for a lot of diverse content. As such, its was apparently usage was too vague to be of use. Now, you may be be more of a scholar than me in this field, I don't know, but I suppose that as someone who has been studying vocal music, choral music, and new music for some time, my total unfamiliarity with the term Voice instrumental music should have given me pause.

So, I went to the somewhat paltry Vocal Music article and realized that some of what I had been doing now had to be rethought. Since the idea Voice instrumental music was apparently OR, I needed to incorporate the content that wasn't OR into a survey article about one of the broadest categories of music that exists.

Of the above possible definitions of what voice instrumental music meant (vocal techniques different from singing? styles that did not use text? styles in which it emulated the style of instruments? styles in which it was integrated into an instrumental texture?), I decided to incorporate the first and second, as well as some of the third (although there was not much content other than specific examples which did not seem apt for an article of this scope). The fourth I decided to reject, as the entire history of vocal music has involved instrumental collaborations. One could discuss the incorporation of voice into symphonic music; maybe this could be a more specific section and utilize what was intended by VIM by some of the original authors.

Vocal music is in dire shape and it needs help. I think the reason is because the topic is so broad that it is very difficult to write well - particularly to be be both comprehensive while avoiding an inappropriate level of detail. As a copyeditor and somewhat of an inclusionist, I very rarely just delete material, but there was a lot here which I just couldn't see fitting into the scope the vocal music article, for all the reasons listed above. As I wrote on Hyacinth's page, currently it has a servicable lead, followed by a somewhat subjective selection of genres, and then the remains of the voice instrumental information, which is essentially a list of examples of untexted vocal music. If you can help improve this, please, please do, but please don't simply revert all my efforts at making this lucid and worthy of wikipedia. If you think there is content that needs to be included, let's discuss what that is, and how we might include it best.

Thank you, MarkBuckles (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear MarkBuckles,
The concept of "Voice Instrumental music" is not OR. How could it be. The "Vocal instrumental concerto" is one of the oldest conceptions of Classical music. refer to this link from Britannica encyclopedia http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9075629

I used the term "voice instrumental music" as an umbrella term over two years ago, so that I may not confuse it with the "Vocal-instrumental concerto". Just because I used an umbrella term does not make the concept OR (original research). In that case the suggestion of user:Hyacinth over a year ago to rename Classical music as "European inspired classical music" which later on ended up being termed as "European classical music" should be considered as OR (ORIGINAL RESEARCH). you would not find most encyclopedias using the term EUROPEAN CLASSICAL MUSIC. Does that make the article is OR (original research)?? ......NO.

Because what Hyacinth was doing was to broaden the scope of the term "classical music" to make it more inclusive to refer to all the musics around the world which are systematized and has formal training. In like manner "Voice Instrumantal music" is NOT original research.

What is needed is to revive the page Voice instrumental music and have new structue to the page. I have decided to have four major sections as structure for the page based on your query

i) voice music that employed vocal techniques different from singing

ii) voice music that do not use text

iii) music where in the voice emulated the style of instruments

iv) music in which voice was integrated into an instrumental texture

on this structure we could re-write the page on voice instrumental music.

If the concept of VIM (Voice instrumental music) is original research, then it would not have survived for over two years. especially when the wikipedia is full of composers and musicologists from around the world.

Instead it only shows that there are a few people who think they are the only ones who have knowledge and insight into music from around the world and they take drastic decisions of redirecting pages that people have written over two years by condemning it as OR. Robin klein 05:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steps to resolution

Dear Robin,

I'm saddened that our interactions seem to have degenerated into argument. I highly value the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia and assuming good faith. I recognize that we're both just people trying make this the best encyclopedia we can. As a result of our recent exchanges, I've found myself stressed and anxious, an experience I hope you are not having as well.

Here's what I hope we can do:

1) Resolve whether Voice instrumental music should have its own article and if so, organize the material. According to what I've been able to find, Vocal-instrumental concerto is a genre is the baroque. Voice instrumental music, as far as I can tell, is a term invented for the sake of the article. If not, that's no problem - simply point me to some sources. European classical music is not an accepted naming convention for many reasons, several of which you have cited in your strong opposition to this name from the start. If we can establish that voice instrumental music is indeed a genre and not OR, I think the plan of organizing it into those four sections would be a good one.

2) Per music, maybe it would be best to bring in some other opinions because I feel like we've reached a standstill. I don't want to argue, I just want to improve and help.

I understand you feel strongly about these issues, as well as protective of your own contributions. I also feel protective of mine even though having our writing edited mercilessly is part of the whole structure of wikipedia. I have no desire to delete your article, your writing, or your research. I have no desire to dispute with you at all. I'd like the articles to be clear, understandable, and sourced. Can we make this happen?

Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MarkBuckles,
With all good regards,
This exchange of ideas is an important one, though it has taken its toll on me and you. Like you, I am also experiencing high stress.

I will never to my knowledge be able to give you a source for the term "Voice instrumental music" just as people would not be able to give source for the term "European classical music" amongst old masters. However, The masters of European classical music have "IMPLIED" the "CONCEPT" of "Voice instrumental music" though definitely NOT the "TERM". see Sprechstimme, sprechgesang. The distinction by German composers of MUSIK v/s LIEDER and GESANG is a great musical idea but most people who are not familiar with "EUROPEAN classical music" are not EXPLICITLY familiar with the distinction, though they do engage in it. For example: the thriving tradition of South Indian voice instrumental called Thillana. I have strongly stressed on having an article on VIM (voice instrumental music), because the simple idea of the voice as an instrument is not an idea that is consciously understood by most people "EVEN" though it is actually used as one. Most people actually reduce music to LYRICS. See cognitive research and Ludwig Wittgenstein and the problems of the philosophy of language.

Apart from the idea that the "term" given by me is an umbrella expression, the concept is NEVER original. Think about the music of the Russian saxophonist Vladimir Chekasin called 'Concerto for Voice and Orchestra', which used the voice of Datevik Hovhannessian as a soloist instrument, or the music of Henryk Górecki (symphony no 3), of course it has text but that is just ornamental like mahler song cycles, or Orffschulwerk or the Jewish nigun which is exactly what I call as VOICE INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. I repeat, only the term is new, the concept I should insist is most rudimentary and an age old one. An idea is (original research) only if the concept is new, a term should never be confused for a concept. If there is a new term for an age old concept, then there is nothing original about it. Instead it is only an attempt to have more light thrown on something that has been overlooked. Not for not being important but because the idea is so pervasive and important that it has been implicit and underlying and therefor overlooked.

I hope we would not get rigid and trapped in the problems of linguistic traditions, rather we may just use a NEW term for an idea that is extremely elementary and basic and ever prevalent across various forms of music across the ages.

The stress that I face is about the concern for a resolution and about getting my view across without it being distorted.

My biggest concern however in almost anything, is to never get trapped by the tool called as Language. Have you ever wondered why the history of human conflict is as old as the history of human language. :)) refer to Ludwig Wittgenstein. thanks, your wikipedian friend Robin klein 10:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making the language work for us

Hi Robin,

It was a great relief to receive your kind reply. I think I understand your intent and I've been brainstorming some ways to allow it to be best communicated. I think I see now that for you, Voice instrumental music, means vocal music whose primary focus is music and not lyrics. Since I'm more of a musician than a poet, I've usually thought of all vocal music in these terms, but I think I still see the distinction you're making - from the composers point of view, the voice is functioning not as a deliverer of text, but as any other instrument.

The thing is, I think having a page titled Voice instrumental music may not be a good solution since people are not aware of this term and probably won't find it searching on Wikipedia. Therefore, perhaps the same content might find a better home under a different title or titles. The difference between this and European classical music is the disambig page (or whatever we're calling it) for Classical music, that will lead them there eventually. The only reason I found VIM was because I was fixing pages that linked to Carmina Burana, instead of Carmina Burana (Orff).

I'm thinking back over the four categories we devised for the original umbrella content of VIM.

i) voice music that employed vocal techniques different from singing

ii) voice music that does not use text

iii) music in which the voice emulated the style of instruments

iv) music in which voice was integrated into an instrumental texture

Do you feel that these categories should necessarily be grouped together under an umbrella or might they be separated? I'm wondering if they could each be sections within the vocal music article. A problem I'm then forseeing is that a lot of the content in the original VIM was so specific (lots of references to single, fairly obscure pieces of music) that it might not be appropriate for a survey article on vocal music. A solution I'm considering is the technique wherein VM would have only a paragraph on each section and include a heading which says "Main article Vocal music (wordless) or something like that. Some of the original content might even work as a list, though I think lists are difficult because the selection of what is included texts to be inherently subjective.

Category I is the section I think could most easily stand on its own, either as part of the Extended technique article or as Extended technique (voice) for which there probably should be an article anyway. I'm not sure if the lack of text or the emulation of an instrumental style is an extended technique inandof itself. What do you think?

I foresee the most difficulty with Category IV. The problem is, what do we consider an instrumental texture versus a vocal texture. The line is so blurry. Both have been used together throughout the history of music. That being said, I think this section is still possible, it will just be tricky to write clearly. Perhaps emphasizing the integration of voice into "traditionally instrumental textures", like the orchestra, would make this a little easier. Maybe that's what you mean anyway?

Let me know what you think about these ideas. Best, MarkBuckles (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MarkBuckles,

Very beautiful suggestions indeed. Yes VIM means vocal music where the primary purpose is music not text or lyrics. Yes thats the composer's point of view.

Yes we need to put all the contents in a page where people could easily reach. We may solve this by:

i) using the umbrella term VIM as a section in the page "Instrumental music" and then have four subsections under the umbrella term. The page Instrumental music is an extremely neglected one and may be it would be a nice point to begin at.

ii) by actually having a page called "Voice instrumental music" and then linking it to the page instrumental music or European classical music.

iii) use the umbrella term VIM as a section in the page "Vocal music" and then have four subsections under the umbrella term.

The lack of text does not seem to be an extended technique.

with regard to category IV you wrote "the integration of voice into "traditionally instrumental textures", like the orchestra, would make this a little easier. Maybe that's what you mean anyway?"

yes indeed, thats exactly what I meant.

thanks Robin klein 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next step: finding a place, finding sources

Hello again Robin,

Thanks for your reply! I'm currently out of town so I'm not on Wikipedia very much at the moment.

I agree with you that the Instrumental music article is impoverished. In my opinion, the main points of what was Voice instrumental music probably belong in the Vocal music article, or perhaps the Extended technique article. I'm uncertain as to whether all of the content, such as lists of pieces that employ the techniques in question, should be included in articles this broad. Sometimes content of this nature leads to subjective and sometimes unwieldly lists, although perhaps including a few of the most salient examples would be helpful.

Here's one big thing I think would help: I agree that the techniques in question, the concept, is not original. However, as such, we need to find sources that discuss it. Grouping this content under an umbrella term makes sense in many ways, but I feel that we should find scholars that have done so and use their systems of categorisation, and their terminology.

What do you think? Best, MarkBuckles (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Indian Cinema and Music Award

Dear Robin: I thought we'd need experienced Wikipedians to discuss about the introduction or removal of a new barnstar — The South Indian Cinema and Music Award. Would appreciate very much you taking a look at the discussion and perhaps providing your comment here. Thank you, and best wishes, AppleJuggler 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobin_klein_85dc.html"