User talk:Thecurran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Uyghur Latin Yéziqi 3 Elective monarchy 4 =D 5 Little context in Central American Integration System 6 Diaper bag 7 Diaper bag 8 AfD nomination of Diaper bag 9 Bhutan 10 Part two 11 Bhutan Part three 12 Your edits on michael jackson 13 re:Jacko 14 Re: Coats-of-Arms

[edit] Uyghur Latin Yéziqi

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Uyghur Latin Yéziqi, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mshtawy.com/en-wiki.php?title=Uyghur_language. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elective monarchy

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Elective monarchy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =D

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in Central American Integration System

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Central American Integration System, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Central American Integration System is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Central American Integration System, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't tag that article. Ros0709 did. I simply patrolled the page to let other people know that it was tagged for deletion. For the record, when it was tagged, the article consisted of two or three external links and therefore was a valid speedy deletion candidate per Criteria for speedy deletion A3. Xenon⁵⁴ 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diaper bag

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Diaper bag, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Diaper bag. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diaper bag

I see the request, but I don't think that establishes encyclopedic notability. Your well within your rights to remove the PROD, but I'm going to take it to AfD TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Diaper bag

I have nominated Diaper bag, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaper bag. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On a semantic note, I wrote, "An average full bag 'might contain". I don't know if that's weasel wording, but at least it makes the sentence true.

On to notability, people that haven't taken part in infant rearing are often unaware of what the term "diaper bag" means, what a diaper bag is meant to be, and what a diaper is meant to contain. A sum-of-parts analysis would yield that it is a bag for diapers alone and I have seen people making that mistake, fetching a bag of diapers instead, come to dire consequences.

How to care for children does not come naturally; it must be taught. Teaching is what Wikipedia does. I believe many people have tried to look up diaper bags on search engines or Wikipedia before and there was a person desperate enough to explain its need on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts#Fashion. I don't know if that person posted the original request or not.

I just googled "diaper bag" and found many sites selling them under that name as well as under "baby bag" and "nappy bag". Somehow, we don't have a page for any of those terms. "Baby bag" at least should have a page and maybe the others should link to it. A baby bag is neither a bag a baby can play with, a bag a baby owns, nor a bag full of baby / babies. Now, while you may view the idea of not knowing what a baby bag, diaper bag, or nappy bag is as laughable, please remember that we do have an article for hat.

At King Eddie's (King Edward Memorial Hospital http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/ ), the public hospital for maternity in Perth, Western Australia, there are several posters designed to help new mothers and other carers of infants. They detail how to breastfeed a baby, how to hold it, how to blanket it, how to lay it down, how to respond to it, how to bathe it, how to change its nappy and so forth. Some of these things are public health announcements necessary to prevent cot death (SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Perth has some of the highest literacy rates in the world and the world's most vast rural network for a megacity, besides deep ties with Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and the rest of Oceania, so the potential readers are neither idiots nor far from reality.

Babies are very delicate, and people can become carers of infants without passing omniscience tests. This situation is why infant mortality rates are so high in the world. The health and hygiene (mental included) of both the infant and carer are therefore notable topics. Diaper bags have played an important part of infant hygiene for millenia. Giving no information to genuine seekers of it on this topic is hard to believe for me..

As far as OR goes, this is a topic most well-versed infant carers (probably >10% of the world population) know by heart and I think most of them would not see it as OR. It's one of those funny things that still manages to be notable because non-versed infant carers (probably >10% of the world population) don't know any of it.

As far as NPOV goes, I tried to be very balanced in what I put in, favouring neither disposable nor reusable culture, favouring neither breastfeeding nor bottle-feeding, being careful to not specify with "parents" but to generalize with "infant carers", as well as specifically attaching "perhaps" to things that are vital to some people but not to all. I should probably attach it to keys and wallet as well.

I'm not trying to dominate other cultures with my own. I'm trying to help guide carers of infants so that both they and the infants can survive at least until the baby attains the age of 5. This is part of the UN millenium development goals designed to decrease infant mortality and systemic difficulties faced by women. I would like you and anyone else who can to edit the article to improve it, but I disagree with questioning its notability and proposing deletion. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutan

The USGS, CIA World Factbook, every South Asia studies department I cited, World Bank, and the UN all identify Bhutan clearly as South Asia. I have never seen an alternate geographic classification for it. Also, your linguistic argument is wrong. Numerous Tibeto-Burman languages extremely related to Dzongkha are spoken through out Northern India and Nepal. Please cite an alternate classification for Bhutan before you commit such edits Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Bhutan is not a Hindu nation, it is a predominantly Buddhist nation with a large Hindu minority. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Indo-European -> Indo-Iranian -> Indo-Aryan -> Eastern Group -> Bengali-Assamese -> Bengali (Bangladesh), Indo-Aryan -> Hindi (India), Indo-Aryan -> Insular Indo-Aryan -> Dhivehi (Maldives), Insular Indo-Aryan -> Sinhala (Sri Lanka), Indo-Aryan -> Pahari (Northern zone) -> Eastern Pahari -> Nepali (Nepal), & Indo-Aryan -> Central zone -> Western Hindi -> Khariboli -> Urdu. Further note: Indo-Iranian -> Iranian -> Western Iranian -> Southwestern Iranian -> Persian = Farsi in Iran & Dari in Afghanistan. There's even: Indo-European -> Germanic -> West Germanic -> Anglo–Frisian -> Anglic -> English, as used in much of South Asia, especially the British Indian Ocean Territory. Now compare those to: Sino-Tibetan -> Tibeto-Burman -> Himalayish -> Tibeto-Kanauri -> Tibetic -> Tibetan -> Southern -> Dzongkha (Bhutan). I think it's plain to see that Bhutanese Dzongkha is the odd one out out of these official languages. This ethnolinguistic barrier is vast and felt by my Nepalese friends and co-workers. I'm not saying there are no valid reasons to group it in Southern Asia, but the very fact that you're defending it indicates that it's in dispute. SE Asia and E. Asia are known for Buddhism like Bhutan, as well. Sorry but I think more argument just shows that it is more disputable. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

actually there is no dispute. Thats just you and Saimdusan saying that. There are no academic sources taking your side. Every source known states that Bhutan is South Asian. There are no disputes. Your comments are equivalent to OR (Original Research, see WP:OR). Wikipedia is not friendly to OR. OR is to be reverted as soon as it is detected. Also take a look at Ladakhi, an Indian language in the southern Tibetan group too. Look at Nepal Bhasa, it is Himalayish like Dzongkha. Tibet is also very often considered South Asian. There are plenty more T-B languages in South Asia Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Try looking up wikt:globalizing. You said "every known source". History on the region dates back millenia. I think it's impossible for you to have become acquainted with every written and oral source on South Asia in your human lifetime. Some were destroyed along with every copy before ever making it to English. Neglecting to wikt:qualify reasonably in such phrases leaves the merits of your argument wide open for attack. I may not have been able to prove you wrong if you said "99%" but saying "every" is illogical to the point that it's certainly false. There were recent times when there was no state called Pakistan or Bangladesh. Articles from those times would reflect such, not counting either state in South Asia, so not every source would include them (maybe their predecessors are included) but we would be foolish not to include them. Nevertheless, we should avoid stating every source on South Asia includes Pakistan. You seem to refuse that Socio-Ethno-Linguistic boundaries make a difference. I quoted the official languages and majority languages of those states above. It may be a different simplification from what you're used to, but it's quite demonstrable. When you act like there is no room for dispute, it shows you in a bad light. Mayhaps(^_^) you mean that amongst current academic discourse, in the disciplines of government and economics, consensus has been reached that South Asia includes Bhutan. If that were true, I'd have trouble disproving and you could have your way. BTW, your stating that a minority it India and Nepal speak Sino-Tibetan languages (I know many are immigrants from last century) doesn't make Bhutan fit in better. If anything, it would just make particular Indian villages be excluded from South Asian discussion. A better method would be to bring up how significant the Indo-European minority in Bhutan is. That would force me to extend my thoughts of the SEL boundaries, rather than shrink. Please remember that I am not saying you're wrong, but that your arguments aren't convincing enough to prove you right. In the case of whether or not something's disputable, the onus to cite references would lie on person who says it's indisputable. :|--Thecurran (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

you mean that amongst current academic discourse, in the disciplines of government and economics, consensus has been reached that South Asia includes Bhutan. If that were true, I'd have trouble disproving and you could have your way.

It is true. I need a source on your part in order to recognize your view. You view is not academic. Well, its pseudo-academic; you're taking one of many factors and trying to make an argument out of it, but your argument is flawed and academics have declared Bhutan as South Asian. I have never seen an academic source that dissents from this view, and I doubt you have either. Please produce one; unless you can cite an academic source that lists Bhutan as anything other than South Asian, you view cannot be justifiable as anything more than OR and OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you wish to revert your edit, please give me a citation. Also remember, the Bhutanese are very closely related to the rest of South Asia for reasons other than language. Indo-European languages are the characteristic of South Asia. The regions of India that border Bhutan do speak TB languages.

And just for the hell of it I am going to prove you why your linguistic argument is flawed

Unless otherwise stated, only official languages are listed

Close states Sikkim: they speak Limbu, which is Himalayish. It is not close enough to have been from within the last couple centuries

Assam: Bodo is an official language

Arunachal: Bodo is spoken by some, Chakma is, some others, the offical language of this state is English only

Meghalaya: Garo is TB. The languages of this state are Garo, Khasi (Austro-Asiatic), and English

Nagaland: Nagaland#Language over 60 TB the offical language of this state is English only

Tripura: Kokborok (TB)

Mizoram: The languages of this state are Mizo (TB) and English

Manipur: Meiteilon (TB)

And I'll include Ladakh, which is often called Little Tibet

Ladakh (Kashmir): Ladakhi is the major language; within Tibetan Southern group

Many parts of India around Bhutan speak Tibeto-Burman languages.

Also, take a look at the Tibeto-Burman articles, the bulk of the languages within this category are spoken in India, Nepal, Tibet, and Burma. Tibeto-Burman languages make up about as much of South Asia as Dravidian ones. Sure it is a minority in India and Nepal but a huge chunk of TB languages are spoken these two nations

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part two

You're talking about Tibeto-Burman, the subgroup of Sino-Tibetan, the one I've been talking about. Sino-Tibetan is nationally official in China, Myanmar (Burma), and Bhutan; should we therefore include China and Myanmar? I just googled South Asia. I'll ignore the Wikipedia articles for clear reasons. Thimpu was not a city whose weather was counted on

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/default.stm , despite Bhutan being included in the guide to South Asia. That indicates it's a fringe nation. The description on

You realize news sites are not considered scholarly?

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/SouthAsiaLocalLang.png&imgrefurl=http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003828.html&h=120&w=140&sz=120&tbnid=S8ao0QFy20kJ:&tbnh=120&tbnw=140&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=3 doesn't refer to Bhutan, but to many other countries.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/images/south_asia_map.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/cache/offonce/pid/48%3Bjsessionid%3D9E019FAEC28E3C2026654C7C8FDB1F90&h=122&w=112&sz=12&tbnid=fCpXFau05kAJ:&tbnh=122&tbnw=112&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1 includes Bhutan, but also Myanmar and several of the -stan's the article lists as in dispute. The blacklisted (asterisks inserted)

some sources include Myanmar as part of South Asia

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.*mapsofworld.com*/images/south-asia-political-map.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.*mapsofworld*.com/south-asia-political-map.htm&h=95&w=140&sz=74&tbnid=leGDGuM7DxAJ:&tbnh=95&tbnw=140&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2 lists Bhutan but also ASEAN. BTW, India also has Austro-Asiatic tongues; should we therefore include Vietnam and Cambodia.

We're not defining South Asia based off of linguistic groups

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/seasia.pdf includes Bhutan but also China, parts of SE Asia, and parts of Central Asia.

You realize this map has the header: South Asia. This map really doesn't say anything

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/as.htm includes India and Bhutan in SE Asia and Pakistan in the Middle East; it seems Pakistan's in dispute. The blacklisted (asterisks inserted) http://www.*mapsofworld*.com/south-asia-political-map.htm again shows S & SE Asia.

This site is not a scholarly site you do realize

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200803091969.htm counts Bhutan in S Asian archery but ignores Thimpu again in the weather, as if it is not an important part of S Asia.

This site is not a scholarly site you do realize and ignoring a city on the weather section

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=27169 doesn't mention Bhutan or Thimpu.

This site is not a scholarly site you do realize. News sites are not scholarly sources.

http://nyheter.uib.no/?modus=vis_bokmelding&id=39619 doesn't mention Bhutan, but it doesn't mention India either.

If it mentions no countries, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080310005286&newsLang=en mentions neither Bhutan nor Thimpu. We've already listed

If it mentions no countries other than India, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat. News sites are not scholarly sources.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200803091969.htm .

Bhutan was third with ten silver and eight bronze medals. News sites are not scholarly sources.

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31487&Itemid=1 mentions neither Bhutan nor Thimpu.

If it mentions no countries other than Pakistan, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat. News sites are not scholarly sources.

http://indiapost.com/article/lifestyle/2270/ mentions neither Bhutan nor Thimpu.

If it mentions no countries other than India, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat. News is not scholarly...

http://indiapost.com/article/techbiz/2262/ mentions neither Bhutan nor Thimpu.

News is not scholarly... What DishNetwork says is South Asian is not scholarly either

http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?leftnm=3&subLeft=2&chklogin=N&autono=316438&tab=r mentions neither Bhutan nor Thimpu. http://www.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUSSP20519520080311 mentions neither Bhutan nor Thimpu.

If it mentions no countries other than India, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat. News is not scholarly...

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200803102068.htm mentions neither Bhutan, Thimpu, nor India, but it does mention New Delhi. All of the pages above and below mentioned India unless otherwise stated.

If it mentions no countries other than India, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat. News is not scholarly...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/default.stm mentioned neither Bhutan nor Thimpu.

If it so happens Bhutan is not in the news at the time, not mentioning Bhutan signifies diddly squat. News is not scholarly...

http://www.south-asia.com/ mentioned neither Bhutan nor Thimpu.

Umm... THIS IS AN UNBOUGHT URL, THIS IS NOT A WEBSITE

http://www.southasia.net/ mentioned neither Bhutan nor Thimpu. Well, it seems on the top Google pages, including the last 2 named after South Asia, New Delhi, India is unanimously part of South Asia, unlike Thimpu, Bhutan which was only included when places outside of South Asia were discussed or in a sidenote about a guide to S Asia and another about S Asian archery and both times its capital was markedly absent from lists of important S Asian cities on those pages. We even saw a page separating Pakistan from India to put it in the Middle East.

THIS IS NOT A SCHOLARY SOURCE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A SCHOLARLY SOURCE IS? NEWS ARTICLES DON'T FIT THE BILL

Now on to South Asian Studies... The top of the Google list is at ~.upenn.edu .

http://www.southasia.upenn.edu/ doesn't even list India, but http://www.southasia.upenn.edu/home/views/languages.html lists 13 languages but neither Bhutan, Dzongkha, nor Thimpu. http://www.southasiacenter.upenn.edu/ lists India but neither Bhutan, Dzongkha, nor Thimpu.

http://www.southasia.upenn.edu/home/old-site.htm lists Agra, India but neither India, Bhutan, Dzongkha, nor Thimpu.

http://ias.berkeley.edu/SouthAsia/ lists no country.

I go to this university. They include Tibet and Bhutan in South Asia http://ias.berkeley.edu/SouthAsia/aboutus.html South Asia, comprising the nations of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Tibet and the Maldives. We offer Tibetan but not Dzongkha

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/southasia?hl=en&domains=ias.berkeley.edu&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Hindi&btnG=Search&sitesearch=ias.berkeley.edu shows Hindi but see direcly above

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/southasia?hl=en&domains=ias.berkeley.edu&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Dzongkha&btnG=Search&sitesearch=ias.berkeley.edu shows no pages for Dzongkha. Finally one page lists Bhutan on an equal setting,...

http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/ shows the Bhutanese flag.

That signifies Bhutan is part of South Asia

http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/about.htm has indology but no words on Bhutan and

http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/indology.htm has India but nothing Bhutanese. Some of the pages list no country, so forgive me if I skip them. http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/research.htm lists India but nothing Bhutanese. A Bhutanese flag means they acknowledge Bhutan as part of South Asia

http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/projects.htm lists India but nothing Bhutanese.

http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/grants.htm spells research like "reserch" at the second word from the top but lists no countries. I'm beginning to question the authority of this site. http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/activitiesSA.htm lists India but nothing Bhutanese. http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/links.htm lists India but nothing Bhutanese. Before, I started this I thought you'd turn out right. I was merely trying to correct your argument style. Now if in the US, the 3rd largest population in the world, after India and China, and the second or first largest English-speaking country in the world (depending on your definitions, India could come first) has a national centre for Asian Studies that ignores Bhutan but also teaches 13 S Asian languages, I think it's pretty clear that Bhutan's position is in dispute, unless you want to attack the US and Google. BTW, I think the US has more South Asians than the UK anyway. Please stop arguing the point that Bhutan is never in dispute when the top Google article for South Asian Studies contradicts you as it seems the heaviest academic source does take my side. It's only a minor edit anyway; Bhutan will still shine brightly on the page. BTW, I've met some fantastic Dzongkha-speakers in Australia and I hold nothing against them. I just want the best for Wikipedia. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasted a half hour filtering your NEWS ARTICLES. Just because something says South Asia, but not Bhutan, doesn't mean Bhutan isn't South Asian. What I meant for you to look for was a SOURCES THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES BHUTAN AS EAST ASIAN, CENTRAL ASIAN OR SOUTHEAST ASIAN, you did not find anything of the such.... Universities do not have the money to teach all the languages of Asia. Many universites, such as Berkeley offer Tibetan and not Dzongkha, probably as the two languages are classified closely together. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you vandalized my page. When dealing with Wikipedia editors, please do not insert your own text into ours, strikeout our text, or otherwise alter what we wrote. It is simply not clear who wrote what. I have no problem with you adding new things at the end of a section, even a new one, as long as it is tagged, even if you leave it up to User:Sinebot.

[edit] Bhutan Part three

Capitalizing words beyond proper capitalization or acronym use is usually considered shouting online and shouting is usually considered rude in an argument. Please, desist in that habit as well. You may italicize text by putting two apostrophes before it and again afterwards and you may embolden by using a pair of triple apostrophes instead. I don't mean to offend you by assuming you don't know that but I need to assume good faith (WP:AGF) that you weren't trying to be offensive.

I did what you asked before by showing an academic source that does not include Bhutan in its South Asian Studies. You are adding new conditions now. It is true that Bhutan is Sino-Tibetan, which is East Asian. So it is not impossible to construct an argument that Bhutan should be considered East Asian, anyway. I have no qualms with calling Bhutan South Asian though and prefer to do so over East Asian because of the other stronger historical and cultural ties listed in the article on South Asia. It is however ill-advised to imply that all sources count Bhutan as South Asian, when there are sources that don't.

Wikipedia often cites news media that keep online archives anyway. Otherwise, we would probably not manage to stay current. Of course, I prefer an established academic journal over a local newsletter, but to discount all serials is a wide blow to research. Please, view my last edition. I kept Bhutan on par with India in the sentence you disagreed over. I just removed a prepositional phrase I found unnecessary and added some background to the controversy. I hope you find it satisfactory. :)--Thecurran (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Tibetan -> Tibeto-Burman -> Himalayish -> Tibeto-Kanauri -> Tibetan but it is not the same language. Note the following from Dzongkha language.

"Dzongkha bears a linguistic relationship to modern Tibetan. Although the spoken varieties are largely mutually unintelligible, they share a common literary language, as well as a liturgical (clerical) Tibetan language (Chöke ) which has been used for centuries by Buddhist monks. Chöke was used as the language of education until the early 1960s when it was replaced by Dzongkha in public schools."

You obviously have worked hard to learn what you know now and care about it a great deal. Imagine if I said you typed your last entry in Frisian, because it is related to English and basically the same. I think maybe you would want to disagree. Differences in linguistic identity are important to people and play a large part in international conflict and even war. Maybe Berkeley doesn't have Dzongkha because there aren't as many academic native speakers there, at least compared to Tibetan. I was surprised though that their entire site had no entry containing even a passing reference to Dzongkha. Since, you're physically there, would you mind encouraging the faculty to remedy that situation? I ask because you're right; the national language that has been official for decades and used much longer deserves attention. BTW, I just self-edited my last and I have learned that it is expected that when I do so, I append < del > and < /del > or < ins > and < /ins >; but < s > or < u > is faster to type. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Many of your sources are just articles that mention South Asia. Academics and government documents, etc. are weighed much much higher than news paper articles. Also you're UPenn citation is a dud, http://www.library.upenn.edu/collections/policies/soasian.html The primary geographical coverage is South Asia which includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Indian, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sikkim, and Sri Lanka with some coverage of Tibet. Sorry about the Dzongkha classification mistake. The problem with universities and languages is money. Most universities only have the income and research grants to teach certain languages. On top of that there are very few Bhutanese Americans (the people i think in general contexts would be desiring the most to take such language). I do not forsee them teaching Dzongkha. They don't even teach my parents' language, Gujarati, which is the first or second most spoken Indic second language by Americans Now back to the discussion. You yourself admitted it, Bhutan is significantly culturized by it neighbhors (and has significantly culturized its immediate neighbhors in Sikkim, Arunachal, etc.). The linguistic thought is minor. Yes I take your fact, Indo-Aryan languages dominate the larger regions of South Asia, with Dravidian ones in second, but no academic source takes the linguistic argument to show that Bhutan is distinct, may be its because a lot of offical and unofficial TB languages are spoken near it (ex. Nepal Bhasa is a huge language in Nepal; it's TB, but it is not official)

Anyways I think I found a place on the article where you talks about language belong, (you still need to cite eventually though). South_Asia#Languages that is a better place on the page for it to go Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current controversy section only talks about what the views of departments in certain universities are. It does not explain the how or why of the controversy. I think my edit was at least a reasonable stab at the cause of the divisions. I'm pretty sure it was also all verifiable. If you want to completely remove my reasoning for the controversy in that section, then could you at least please add your own?

I know that the sources I showed weren't perfect examples. They weren't meant to be perfect but rather representative of global takes on South Asia. I tried to explain that I merely followed each link on the page Google generated from a search for "South Asia"; checked to see if the page listed Bhutan, Dzongkha, or Thimpu; noted if when not listing Bhutan, it didn't list any other South Asian country, making it statistically unimportant; noted if when listing Bhutan, it listed other countries outside of South Asia, also making it statistically unimportant; reported these results on this talk page; did the same for South Asian Studies, until I found a page that finally treated Bhutan as an equal partner in South Asia; and did the same for its main subpages. I did not mean to mislead you. When I re-read what I wrote, it still seems clear enough.

This time you split one of my entries on this talk page in two. I would prefer it if you did not do so. But if you choose to, please copy the signature + date + time from the end and append it to the part before the division. Remember: someone else may read this and it would be nice to be clear. Besides, if someone edited it afterwards, it would seem even less clear. BTW, section titles like Part three are much more generic than, say, Bhutan (part three) or Bhut. 3. On such a small page, it's not a big deal, but this page is likely to get larger, so please don't be offended if I change your section titles in the future to prevent repeat anchors.

If you are a Gujarati American studying South Asian Studies at Berkeley who is enthusiastic about advancing Bhutan's cause, I'm sure you can convince them to at least post one page that mentions Dzongkha. Their not doing so seems remiss. Good luck!

Is it safe for me to assume that the deletion of "if not all" satisfied you so we don't have to argue any more over that? I'd like that. I think we can still find some agreement over the cause of the controversy. Also please quit bagging news sources right off the bat. Lay news sources carry less weight than scholarly journals, which carry less weight than regularly edited academic textbooks, but those still have a place as references in this encyclopedia and others. Besides, the original text was a general "most, if not all, sources" not specific like "most, if not all, university social studies departments". I've gathered that you're somewhat new at this and I want to warn you that some of your methods may not go down so well in the future with other editors. Please try not to dismiss all of my advice.

I find it hard to believe that they don't teach Gujarati there. In Australia, I meet Gujaratis every day at work and on transit. :)--Thecurran (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not a student of the South and Southeast Asian studies dept. I was planning on becoming one, until I found out that I can't to do both South and Southeast Asia (and the prereqs for the South Asian studies major are horrible). I will be taking courses (Hindi and Sanskrit) from the department, but I do not plan on majoring in the dept. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. You seem like you've a good head on your shoulders, a heart in the right place, and fire in your belly. Best of luck with wherever your studies end up leading you. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on michael jackson

Your edits on michael jackson could be seen to breach neutral pov, derogatory nick - names in the intro arent approved of. It is already discussed in the content of the article however if you wish to expand on it there. Realist2 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. Here in Australia, it's not derogatory. I just tried to grab the top two AU google hits on Jacko. Being born in the US, I thought it was derogatory, too, when I first moved here in the mid '90s. That was, until I realized how important nicknames are in Australian culture. A truckdriver is called a truckie. An electrician is called a sparkie. Bottleshops are called bottleos. Redheads are called Bluey. We have nicknames for just about all of old cricketers, like Buddha. It's a mark of reverence that MJ received this appellation. It existed before the British "wacko Jacko" surfaced. Do you know the last added line we sing in "Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer"? He'll go down in history ... like Michael Jackson. We say that because when a lot US Christmas were popularized here in the '80s, MJ was arguably the world's most popular person and George Washington was just too American and perhaps belligerent for Australians to have their children repeat. His face is not the most common on our currency. Queen Elizabeth II's is, but people that lean away from monarchism and towards republicanism found MJ to be less controversial back them. Even now that MJ is not as universally revered, we continue that tradition in that childhood song. I even have to consciously edit myself to avoid writing Jacko instead of MJ. My articles were bad taste but sources nonetheless and I couldn't go to the page, looking for those old African lines of the new song and leave such a glaring omission at the top of the page. I would love to find articles that show him in a better light, but I just wanted anything to back my point up, because it's 1:30 in the morning and I should be in bed. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure im looking into it, ive consulted an admin for their advise, it is considered derogatory in the vast majority of the world, as for your edits to his music videos, before removing info read the article and you will see why they are included they`ve one numerous awards and had huge viewing figures. Something in the lead need not be sourced if its sourced within the article. Realist2 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page, an admin have exstablished that it breaches NPOV. Realist2 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look as far asim aware it breached npov and an admin agreed, i wont ad it again if i were you it could constitute vandalism or edit waring. As for the music videos ill alter that.Realist2 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened you with 3RR and i dont intend to, i dont report ppl unless their vandal's, ive taken note of all your suggestions and made the relevant adjustments on the list of music videos. If you had explained why you were making the change straight away i would have let it be. The second you told me that the sources didnt list those songs i adjusted it. Personaly i thing we can deal with this ourselves, i didnt mean to drag the conversation to the admins page, if you look at his talk page you will see i always report stuff to him its quite instinctive.

As for the Jacko statements its universally thought of as derogatory. Also the title starts with "Also commonly known as...." well if its only in Australia its not that common. Michael jackson is one of the worlds most famous living beings, the 14 million ppl of austrialia or the 60 million of the UK mean nothing. Realist2 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Jacko

That's fine - Im really not involved with that article at all, Realist just asked me my opinion on the inclusion of the name in the intro. If you guys have it worked out, then I'm good. Later! - eo (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you told me to respond elsewhere. Sorry bout that, Ill go to Realist's page. - eo (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Coats-of-Arms

Replied on my talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)