User:Anthony cfc/Archive/13

[edit] Fresh start

I saw your note at WP:CN. I honestly know nothing about you or your past actions, but I would like to make a suggestion for a fresh start. Check out Wikisource! There is something about the community here that makes seem easy and natural to fall into dispute. I have often thought some people here could benefit from spending a month in calmer waters and returning here with the memory of how things can be done differently, less contentiously. I don't mean to say there is no turmoil at Wikisource, but it is easy to avoid and even when community members disagree, they still seem to be one community rather than factions. You said you were interested in deletion. At wikisource the deletion of texts is pretty clearcut, as the inclusion policy has much less grey area than over here. Most of the difficult deletions come over the structural parts of the project. Or from differing opinions of copyrights (which is the main thing to aviod to stay out of disputes). Wikisource is consistantly short of manpower, so any assistance on checking anon edits, adding texts, or proofreading would be helpful. Whatever approach you decide to take good luck with your new outlook!--BirgitteSB 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Medcom Nomination

Per the two oppose rule, your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been declined. Your nomination has been delisted and archived here. Please note that a new policy was recently enacted in which a user cannot reapply within 3 months of their last declined nomination. However, we recommend that you take this opportunity to use the criticism provided to improve yourself not only as a potential mediator, but as an editor of Wikipedia in general. Thanks again for your interest.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Committee for their input. Their input has been as valuable as ever; I'd like to especially thank Ral315 for his views, which of the entire committee, was the first to be expressed. I shall be reviewing the case and making an off-wiki target list, and working towards these.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usurpation

Hi Anthony, It's Capubadger here, I just Usurped the username I wanted, so if you want me i'm here now :D Capuchin 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good username! Don't hesitate to drop messages at the classroom! anthonycfc ^[talk] 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little Latin help

Howdy! I was userfying {{User Roman Catholic}}, and saw that you have OCD (like all the best editors) and that you know Latin. I have enough OCD of my own but I could use some Latin translation help. It's not a lot; in fact I just need one word.

I want to take "Carthago delenda est" and replace "Carthage" with "destruction" or "deletion", something like "deleto delende est", but I just invented the word "deleto", because I don't actually know Latin declension. I appreciate your help. — Randall Bart 20:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me drag out the dictionary :P I'll double check - I think I've got the word, but I just want to make sure. Give me a minute... anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right an antique dictionary has definetley gone AWOL j/k just remembered - borrowed it to somebody a few months back .. must get it back! Anyway, exitium - destruction seems to be what you're looking for? Double check that with another latin editor, but I'm pretty sure that's what the correct phrase would be.

Hope this helps; don't hesitate to contact me if you need anything else, or just for a chat!

Kindest regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Hey

Many thanks for your reply on this matter, a welcoming bot would be a great idea, aslong as the welcome was personal and made no reference to the bot - welcoming new users helps to keep these editors within the project. I fully support that we can't go against this, I guess its just a pitty! I'll keep welcoming by hand! Thanks again and regards RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I feel obliged to respond to all reasonable discussion on the talk page; unfortunately, consensus is consensus and one of my core beliefs is in the will of the community. Well, hand welcomes are more personal :) thanks for your contributions, and don't hesitate to drop by for a chat any time!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCabal/Category:Kurdistan

Good afternoon (GMT time); would you now like to enlist a CfD nomination for each of the subcategories? I was originally attempting to, but failed :) you seem experienced, so I'll leave it up to you. Remember to link back to the above case page.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel a nomination is the best way to approach the issue (I am merely brainstorming). Since the start of the MedCab discussion, people participated in the deletion discussion of some of the subcategories but did not bother joining the discussion... Might it be better to raise the dispute resolution process a notch? -- Cat ^Chi? 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good evening; "raise the DR process a notch" - do you mean promote it's presence, or move up the chain - eg MedCom? anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Med COM is a notch up since parties appear to be ignoring the mediation... I think promoting the medcom page any more that it has would be fruitless. I was thinking of any other process - except arbcom (I want to avoid arbcom if possible, they are already busy) -- Cat ^Chi? 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC? The full list is at WP:DR. anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible. Care to file one for me? :) -- Cat ^Chi? 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, that was a very quick reply :) I take it you use watchlists? anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Done; anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You in over 465 languages -- Cat ^chi? 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reduce); no problem - "..just doing my civil duties.." anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCabal/Indigenous Aryan Theory

[edit] Introduction

The issue got escalated couple of different ways.

1. I opened a RfC regarding User:Dbachmann at [[1]]

1. Another user has started an AfD for the article at [[2]]

We do need third party mediation as these issue is very charged and everybody (including me) have very entrenched position.

I believe only way to improve quality of this and related article (Indo-Aryan Migration and Out of India)is to enforce WP:ATT evenly on all editors. I don't know how wide do you want to get involved in mediation.

The best place for involvement would be Indigenous Aryan Theory talk page

Thanks for your comments.Sbhushan 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your note. I would propose that you do not attempt to be "neutral", but try to understand whatever it is Sbhushan wants, and argue his case for him. I have no problem with viewpoints different from mine if they are referenced and argued coherently. Thus, if you want to help, I suggest you try to take Sbhushan's side as it were, and argue on his behalf. regards, dab (𒁳) 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am not one of the parties directly involved in this dispute (as far as I know). I am unfamiliar with how mediation works on Wikipedia, and so if this comment is inappropriate here please forgive me and give me direction on how best to comment. Since I have had little or no involvement in the controversy, I simply wish to make it known that I would be willing to help with fact checking for a few of the statements made in the two articles which are involved in the dispute. I make no claim to expertise in either subject, but I have access to some books that cover the subjects. I do not wish to make things worse by suddenly beginning to edit articles I have no prior track record with, which is why I raise my hand now as someone who may be able to help in some minor way. I also see this as an opportunity to learn more about how mediation works. Please help me understand what the role of bystanders like me could be in dealing with this situation. Buddhipriya 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, if you are able to filter whatever merit is in Sbhushan's position and present it coherently, you'll be most welcome to do that to. What Sbhushan needs is an editor who is sympathetic to his general viewpoint and at the same time able to have a meaningful and coherent debate with people who are not. WP:ENC, WP:RS and WP:NPOV (plus some minimal WP:MoS) are enough for me, and if you find that anything remains of Sbhushan's suggestion after filtering it through these, I am certain we can easily accommodate it in the pertinent article. dab (𒁳) 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no desire to represent any particular view. I would merely want to read the article over to look for any sourcing questions that I might have as someone external to the topic. I do not want to touch the article unless it is clear that my intent would be to help improve it rather than to take sides or be disruptive. Buddhipriya 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add WP:Undue weight to the list. The basic agenda here is to present fringecruft as "alternatives" to legitimate scholarship, i.e. to use Wikipedia to gain "air time" and respectability by association. The IA Migration and OIT articles are rambling screeds for precisely this reason - all sorts of tangential issues expatiated on to drown the basic subject - and merging even more pseudo-scholarship isn't likely to help matters any. rudra 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm simply not willing to compromise my neutrality. If Sbhushan wishes for another editor to defend or argue on his behalf, a request may be filed with the AMA through the links above. Otherwise, I am closing this mediation as unsuccessful on the grounds parties do not wish for mediator, unless there are any objections. anthonycfc ^[talk] 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not requested any editor to represent me. My request is very simple: Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. See my request to Dab [[3]] in simplest possible words. I am still requesting mediation.Sbhushan 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Dab's comment above:

anthonycfc ^[talk] 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, can we try mediation for one issue at a time to see if it is workable. Assuming everyone is interested, the issue is

(postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.[3]

I had removed this text asking for citation [[4]], Dab added the text back and provided citation as [[5]]. I corrected the text based on Dab's citation here [[6]] and this was missed in the first round [[7]]. Dab reverted this without checking the material that he himself quoted [[8]]. He again argued for incorrect text at Indo-Aryan Migration page [[9]]. I provided him with exact words from citation again [[10]].

This should be easy issue to fix, as Dab provided the citation. We only have to make sure the text in article represents referenced material.Sbhushan 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Right; time for me to step in to get the ball rolling: could all editors please post any disputes with these edits? If not, they will remain in place. anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The version before Dab's revision is more accurate representation of BB Lal's position. The more accurate version would be

(postulating the 5th millennium BC as the locus of Proto-Indo-Aryan) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.[3]

BB Lal is acknowledged as a professional scholars by Bryant also (2001) page 4.Sbhushan 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I "dispute" this edit, and would like to propose an alternative, given that BB Lal's postulation of 5th millenium BCE (for "Sanskrit-speakers", no less) can't qualify as bona fide scholarship by any stretch of the imagination. The original point of contention was 3rd millenium BCE (for some variety of Aryans). An alternative is K.D. Sethna, "The Problem of Aryan Origins from an Indian point of view" (1992), specifically the appendix where he addresses a 1988 paper by Asko Parpola, "The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dāsas". See L.M. Fosse, "Aryan Past and Post-Colonial Present" in Patton & Bryant (2005), The Indo-Aryan Controversy. rudra 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be your suggested wording? BB Lal was Dab's recommendation. K.D. Sethna has argued that there was a very large surface area stretching from the Northwest of the subcontinent to the Caspian Sea wherein related, but not necessarily homogeneous, Indo-European languages were spoken. I am OK with any "bonafide" scholar proposed by either you or Dab, as long as you use the authors own words and conclusions, without any "further analysis" or mix-and-match with a different author (like R. Schimtt's Aryan).Sbhushan 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reading review of Sethna's book on the wikilink that you provided. It seems Sethna's position is not much different from Lal's. He is arguing based on Silver evidence that the bulk of the Rigveda must have existed by 4000 BC (Lal was 4500 BC). So we are back to question of bona fide.Sbhushan 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In reading over the article by Lal at [11] I am getting the impression that some past edits have involved paraphrasing or interpretation of what he said. I request that if the Lal paper is to be cited, exact quotes be used. Regardless of whether or not these opinions are true, controversial, or whatever, simply being sure we have them correctly quoted is an issue. I am not sure which quotes are best, but some that are relevant to Harappan dating and Sanskrit are:

"Further, there is a continuous story from the succeeding chalcolithic level onwards, taking us through various evolutionary stages to the Early Harappan from which there emerged the Harappan Civilization itself, around the middle of the third millennium BCE. Again, after a thorough study of the human skeletal remains, Hemphill and his colleagues (1991) have shown that there was a biological continuity right from 4500 BCE to 800 BCE. A question may now be posed: “What language did these chalcolithic people speak?” Though the Harappan script has not yet been deciphered, in spite of so many tall claims, we have yet another way of tackling the issue."

"In the Rigveda, the Sarasvati has been stated to be a mighty river flowing from the mountains to the sea (RV 7.95.2). By the time of the Panchvimsa Brahmana (XXV.10.16) it dried up. When did this drying up of the Sarasvati take place? The answer is provided by the evidence from the excavations at Kalibangan which stood on the bank of the Sarasvati, now going by the name of the Ghaggar. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the Mature Harappan settlement at Kalibangan had to be abandoned around 2000-1900 BCE. And, as the hydrological evidence indicates, this abandonment took place on account of the drying up of the Sarasvati. This latter part is duly established by the work of Raikes, an Italian hydrologist, and of his Indian collaborators. Raikes (1968) has very significantly titled his paper, “Kalibangan: Death from Natural Causes”. Thus, an in-depth study of the literary-cum-archaeological-cum-hydrological-cum-radiocarbon evidence duly establishes that the Rigveda (which, to recall, speaks of the Sarasvati as a mighty river) must antedate ca 2000 BCE. By how many centuries, it can be anybody’s guess."

"Putting together the various parts of this jigsaw puzzle, it would mean that if the Vedas reflect the literary counterpart of the Harappan archaeological complex, the Harappans spokes a language called Sanskrit. And since the Harappan Culture had its roots going deep at least into the fifth millennium BCE, it would imply that the Sanskrit-speakers were there in this area as early as that. Further, had the Sanskrit-speaking people not been the original inhabitants of this region, we would have got evidence thereof in terms of a substratum language, which we really do not have. The presence of a few Dravidian words in the Vedas can be explained by an adstratum and not necessarily by a substratum. As explained elsewhere by the present author (in press), the Harappans came in lateral contact with the Southern Neolithic people who, in all probability, were speakers the Dravidian language." Buddhipriya 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In copying these quotes from the web site I noted the grammatical error "were speakers the Dravidian language" which may mean that this web page has other transcription errors. For example "the Harappans spokes a language called Sanskrit" Buddhipriya 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A second question is, do all editors consider Lal a reliable source? If not, should that disagreement be noted? Buddhipriya 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am noticing a possible bias on my own part, which that am unsure why we would turn to a web page on Geocities for sources.Buddhipriya 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This Lal's paper was provided by Dab as citation [[12]]. I don't have any problem with using Lal, as long as we use Lal's conclusions without any spinning. I am suggesting to use his conclusions Putting together the various........ Dab thinks Lal is "comparably reasonable" [[13]]. I would object to this statement without any citation.Sbhushan 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BB Lal is an archaeologist (long since retired). The work over many years for which he is justly famous was not on the IVC. As a professional, he can be relied on not to get the archaeological details wrong, but when it comes to ethno-cultural reconstructions of the IVC, he cannot be regarded as an expert. rudra 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see B._B._Lal's achievements and related work with IVC on wikilink. Your comment regarding Lal at [[14]] are not acceptable as per WP:BLP and were removed by another editor. Please don't do that again.Sbhushan 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not hearing anyone argue strongly that the Lal paper needs to be included. Is that right? Unless one of you wants to argue strongly for its inclusion now, could it be set aside temporarily while another source is examined for suitability? I am just trying to understand which sources are considered acceptable to everyone and which ones are not. Buddhipriya 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the contentious statement also be removed from the article till a source can be found. Sethna has been offered as an alternate source, but that is also questionable (see above). The statement to be removed is

(postulating the 3rd millennium BC Harappan civilization as the locus of Proto-Indo-Iranian) can qualify as bona fide scholarship, albeit far removed from mainstream opinion.

My concern is that controversial statements should be sourced to suitable material, otherwise they don't belong in the article.Sbhushan 13:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I am a newcomer to this article I am trying to start by determining which sources are considered acceptable to all parties. If a source can be determined to be acceptable, the next step would be to examine statements in the article that are referenced by that source. I am trying to get a clear determination if the Lal article is considered an acceptable source to all parties, and if anyone strongly wants to cite it. The impression I am getting is that while it may be possible to get everyone to accept it, no one is strongly arguing for it as a key reference. Is that correct? If so, then would it be appropriate to first remove any reference to the Lal article, and then, if any statements are in the article that depend on the Lal reference, move those sentences to the talk page for the article for further discussion prior to reinsertion? In academic debates, one method of working is to begin by getting agreement on what sources are considered fair game, and once that has been done, a second round begins trying to get agreement on what those sources may say. In other words, a methodology for dispute resolution is to first agree on which sources can be cited, then determine what those sources say. Right now I am focusing on inclusion or exclusion of the Lal source in particular. We can review each other possible sources, but can we get a yes or no on inclusion of Lal? Getting agreement on inclusion or exclusion of a specific source is sometimes easier than getting agreement on interpretation of that source.

Regarding apparent status of opinion on Lal, is it correct that while Dab may have originally mentioned Lal, he has not yet strongly requested that it be retained? Rudrasharman is not arguing strongly for inclusion, saying "when it comes to ethno-cultural reconstructions of the IVC, he cannot be regarded as an expert. rudra 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)". I have noted my own bias that I am unclear why we would cite a web page on Geocities that contains obvious transcription errors. So let me specifically test this proposal: Can we at least for now move the Lal reference to the talk page, as well as any sentence in the article that depends on Lal as a reference? That would have the effect of parking the Lal material on the talk page pending further discussion. Please give me a clean thumbs up or thumbs down on Lal rather than discussing other possible sources, as these can be taken up one at a time in order. Buddhipriya 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with your methodolgy. No regarding inclusion of Lal.Sbhushan 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of Intended Implementation - Compromise 1

If any editors have an objection to this edit being reverted to, please post so on this page by 18:00 05 March 2007 (UTC); otherwise, I'll implement the edit, assuming consensus has been reached. anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have raised questions regarding use of an exact quotation on the talk page, having just missed your notice to post the questions here. Do you wish me to repost my questions here, or is the posting on the talk page sufficient? Buddhipriya 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, if possible. Thanks! anthonycfc ^[talk] 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I post my objection (and alternative) in the wrong place (above)? Sorry! rudra 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to Move Mediation

Would it be better to move this discussion on Indigenous Aryan Theory talk page. Other interested editors can also have input.Sbhushan 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to upset the flow of things, so I posted a message box at the top of the MedCabal case page inviting all to this page for discussion. I'd like to keep it here, if it's alright with all the parties. Of course, I'll post a notice inviting all to comment here, at Talk:Indigenous Aryan Theory. anthonycfc ^[talk] 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify if mediation is still taking place

Anthony: I notice that active conflict and editing is still taking place on the article, and discussion of the conflicts is being done on the talk page for the article rather than here as requested by you. Would you please clarify if you are still handling this case, and if so, what process you want the participants to follow in making edits? Buddhipriya 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, I am unaware mediation has even started. I asked if some mediator could take it upon themselves to try and understand whatever it is Sbhushan wants, and argue on his behalf. So far, no such attempt was made. I repeat that I am happy to acknowledge any position argued within the bounds of WP:ENC, but I refuse to waste further time trying to interpret Sbhushans erratic incoherence sympathetically. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your request for me to argue on his behalf above, but to summarise what I said then, mediation is a neutral third party. You might be looking for the AMA, which advocates for wikipedians in disputes. For the full response, see my reply further up the mediation; your attention is attracted to the quotation near the top of the mediation - my full response is just above that. anthonycfc ^[talk] 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify if mediation is still taking place

Anthony: I notice that active conflict and editing is still taking place on the article, and discussion of the conflicts is being done on the talk page for the article rather than here as requested by you. Would you please clarify if you are still handling this case, and if so, what process you want the participants to follow in making edits? Buddhipriya 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, I am unaware mediation has even started. I asked if some mediator could take it upon themselves to try and understand whatever it is Sbhushan wants, and argue on his behalf. So far, no such attempt was made. I repeat that I am happy to acknowledge any position argued within the bounds of WP:ENC, but I refuse to waste further time trying to interpret Sbhushans erratic incoherence sympathetically. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab: I see that you are very frustrated, and that you are open to having other voices participate. I use the term "mediator" to refer to a person who is neutral but who works to clarify discussions and de-escalate conflict. I use the term "advocate" to refer to a person who takes a particular position on behalf of someone else and who works to present arguments on their behalf, often in a less confrontational way. I think Anthony would agree that the role of mediator is different from the role of advocate. Anthony, is that correct, or do you see it some other way? Buddhipriya 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your request for me to argue on his behalf above, but to summarise what I said then, mediation is a neutral third party. You might be looking for the AMA, which advocates for wikipedians in disputes. For the full response, see my reply further up the mediation; your attention is attracted to the quotation near the top of the mediation - my full response is just above that.

anthonycfc ^[talk] 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Allright - I've lost track of what's going on here. The editors can't possibly expect a third party with no expert knowledge in the field to understand the screeds above. Could editors please just post a "Motion to Implement Edit" like so:..

This archive is full; further archived discussions should be placed in the latest archive - use the navigation menu at the top of this page, or using the Archive Map. New messages should be left at User talk:Anthony cfc.