User talk:Paul Barlow Archive1

I very much doubt that the Kuna were aware of any "international swastika craze". I don't know if you've been to the islands and seen how they live, but even today it's not exactly wired into mainstream society. And in 1925, its surprising that they knew about Panama... ;-) The Kuna revolution (they fought with traditional poisoned arrows) was sparked off by Panamanian authoritarianism, and their expression of their cultural identity sprang directly from that. A symbol identical to the swastika (though I don't know what they call it) seems to have been in use there for many years, and as it represents creation, it must have been the natural choice as the basis for their flag. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply

You make a fair point about the lack of available evidence for truly "ancient" use of the swastika. However, the 1925 flag was created in response to direct attacks on the Kuna by the then Panamanian regime, and was for use in that conflict, not for international use (as far as I know, they weren't making representations to the UN or anything); and several sources make reference to the swastika as an "ancient" symbol, and as a symbol of creation. So basically I'm skeptical as to what extent the Kuna were influenced at that time by the "international swastika craze": although the existence of that craze, and at the same period, I certainly don't dispute. And while "classic" swastikas appear on old Mola art, I certainly have to recognise the syncretic nature of this art — I almost bought (wish I had now) a really cool, well-made, classic-style mola featuring Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny.

I have to say though that the comment in the article:

The ubiquity of the swastika symbol is easily explained by it being a very simple symbol that will arise independently when people incise patterns on pottery or stone.

ties in very well with truly traditional mola designs, which are characteristically geometric and frequently angular; in fact, if you look at some old mola designs, it's hard to see how they could avoid a swastika. So I guess my challenge is to hunt down some really old swastikas in Kuna art... trouble is Molas haven't been documented / preserved for very long. Oh well. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StanZegel#Jesus_Article_Vote Robsteadman 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see you have reverted my deletion of Wagner from the 'opera manager' category. No big deal, however while Wagner did indeed 'manage opera' he was considerably more than the other professional managers like Bing, Christie etc. who are in this category. In his younger days, Wagner's role in the opera house was that of a conductor not a manager.

If you are going to list composers, why stop at Wagner? You can list Verdi, Richard Strauss and probably dozens of others. Almost all composers are involved in the productions of their operas, the selection of singers.

Kleinzach 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I assume you are in agreement with my comments above? Should we remove the tag then? Regards.

Kleinzach 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. You write: "Wagner had huge influence on the staging of opera because of what he did at Bayreuth. Bayreuth is one of the most influential "events" in the history of the management of opera, so to exclude Wagner seems to me to be rather perverse." However establishing Bayreuth, building and designing an opera house is NOT 'management'. 'Management is the job that Joe Volpe and co. do. It is the day to day running of the business of an opera house.

I am moving this discussion to the Talk page of Wagner.

Kleinzach 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your note, but really, you did a fine jop of explication. It is good to see some level-headed people involved in the discussion, which I hope will soon become more level headed itself, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you agree with the proposition that the term "Aryan" is no longer used in technical writings (or if it used it only refers to Indo-Aryans and not Indo-Iranians or Indo-Europeans). If not, what do you think is the definition of term and how do you think it should be applied? Thank you, Aucaman^Talk 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. The term "Aryan" has no racist meaning in the Iranian context. It's still in use by many scholars, and even recognized by the United Nations. [1]

There is a request for mediation in place regarding this issue. Your comments would be appreciated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people

--ManiF 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, we do appreciate it very much --Kash 10:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, gay and lame have similar meanings.--Vercalos 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go here[2]and sign under the users who tried to solve the dispute and failed, since yourname was mentioned. So, please go sign your name under the section, `Users certifying the basis for this dispute`. ThanksZmmz 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comment in the Afrocentrism article that I am curious about. I believe you are the one who wrote it, if not then maybe you have some insight into it as you seem to have built the majority of the article. The comment:

"It is important to note, this Afrocentric viewpoint had developed while mainstream scholarship was seriously wrestling with the Eurocentric idea that Nordic or contiental Europeans had founded Egyptian royalty and established the dynastic leadership of Egypt."

I have never heard this although it is very interesting, any insights into sources or the current state of this idea would be appreciated.

this comment was added by User:Djaiello 05:56, 9 March 2006

Thanks for uploading Image:Brigitte_and_Tiye.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Historian here, from the AIT page. I appreciate your discussion on that page. And, I was wondering if you could help me. I just thought I agreed with most that Parsis are ethnically Persian until I read a genetic study where it showed them to be only patrilineally Iranian and matrilineally Indian, (suprisingly). What would you label them as? I also ask because many want to label Freddie Mercury Persian because he himself apparently stated so, even though he was a Parsi and, I think, trying to keep his background a secret. -User: Afghan Historian

I've blocked 86.136.81.80 for violating WP:3RR. Technically, I could block you too, but I won't, seeing as how he made seven reverts and you only made four, he's still three ahead of you and in greater violation. Next time something like this is about to happen, post it at WP:AN3. Happy editing. — Mar. 14, '06 [00:18] <freakofnur_xture|>

For what it's worth, I'm mildly disturbed that nobody noticed it and stepped in sooner. — Mar. 14, '06 [00:19] <freakofnur_xture|>

Ouch, such honesty. In any case try to discuss it with the other party and let me know if he reverts again. He posted on my talk page from a different IP after I blocked him, so I concluded the original block was pointless and just gave him a warning. He also stated he was unaware of the 3RR anyway. As I told him, I haven't checked what the dispute's really about and I don't care, but the edit war must stop. — Mar. 14, '06 [01:07] <freakofnur_xture|>

Greetings, and thanks for the Taj. --Bhadani 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the Elijah Muhammad page that he was as bad as the Klan's.... are you kidding me? Did the NOI go to white peoples' houses' and break windows and throw torches inside their houses? You definitly don't know what you're talking about. unsigned comment by User:Icelandic Clementine

I wrote, while defending the article against the charge that it was biassed in favour of Elijah Muhammad, that it stated that the "NOI's doctrines were as racist as the Klan's". They were. That is quite different from saying that their practices were as oppressive.Paul B 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling glad to talk with you – truly yours. --Bhadani 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diyako has created an article on a Turkic-Nowruz without mention of its Iranian history and roots. Soon we will here Nowruz has nothing to do with Iran too. His article is Nevruz. This should be merged or edited properly. He has gone on the Turkish discussions to promote it.

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

Nevruz is the spring festival among Turkic-speaking nations, from Turkey to Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. It is very similar to the Iranian festival of Norouz.

According to Turkish legends Nevruz dates back to era of Gökturks.

Th user Diyako is definnityl anti-Iranian and has an anti-Iranian agenda.

Nevruz is not very similar to the Irnian festival of Norouz it is Norouz!

He has claimed the Kurdish flag has nothing to do with Iran and is a crime to fly in Iran. The Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman.

69.196.139.250 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know if you agree, but imo TrumpetPower! seems to be reaching a point of obnoxiousness that might warrant some kind of action. Any thoughts? john k 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. An RfC might be in order, but I find the whole process tiresome, and generally lose interest halfway through, so I'm probably not the best person to start one. I'm also not sure he's really reached that level of disruption. john k 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you know what the copyright status is of that poem you just pasted the entirety of to Talk:Wiccan Rede? It seems to have only been published rather recently. Perhaps it might be best to simply excerpt the particular lines that need discussion? Jkelly 23:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. I was wondering if you could help assist in providing sources over at Iranian peoples. It's going to take me some time to get down to the university library to dig up references and Aucaman has been creating a lot of problems at this article - once one problem has been solved, he immediately tries to find another one, even if that one was dealt with before. BTW, if you are so inclined, your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Aucaman would be much appreciated. Take care, SouthernComfort 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me summarize your argument.

Slippery Slope Fallacy: If we were to change the term Mongoloid to please people we would have to change other offensive terms like Bugger, Jew, Dutch Elm Disease and German Measeles which are far too numerous. Since we cannot possibly change all these terms, we should not change mongoloid.

The argument you made is fallacious. We can change the term mongoloid to a less offensive term.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem Fallacy India historically has included the entirety of the Indian Subcontinent. Since the term has been used more inclusively in the past, we must continue using it now.

The argument you made is fallacious. Today, India is understood to just include the nation of India.

South Asia has a clear meaning. South Asia is not the same as "southern Asia" which encompases more "West Asian" nations. South Asia, I feel, is properly defined by SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) because it is based off of self-definition. -- 9:50 (PST) March 30 2006User:Dark Tichondrias

The term does not refer to a phenotype. This was the mistake of early 20th century anthropologists. There is no clear definition of what a mongoloid is.

The term Indian in reference to all of South Asia is outdated.-- 10:50 (PST) March 30 2006User:Dark Tichondrias

It is taught in anthropological classes as a dated anthropological term developed by early 20th century race scientists. It is not a phenotype.- 10:50 (PST) March 30 2006User:Dark Tichondrias

It is taught in anthropological classes as a dated anthropological term developed by early 20th century race scientists. It is not a phenotype. If the image did come from a present day anthropology class, the class is suspect as to its legitimacy. Asians have both broad and narrow skulls. Asians have both flatter and more projected faces.- 11:30 (PST) March 30 2006User:Dark Tichondrias

I find Tichondrias's one-man campaign to get rid of "Mongoloid" from Wikipedia rather strange considering his failure to support my campaign to get rid of the Eurocentric terms "Asia" and "Europe", which he dismissed in these terms:

"I don't think the change will happen in Eurasia and I hope you don't change wiki around to confuse users to make it fit the Eurasia concept."

Bathrobe 04:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, you erased the part that it said it was built by Persian architects. You said not only Iranians but all architects (Turkish, etc etc) were from Iran because Iran in that time was much bigger country than it is now. As it is mentioned in the article: As of 1983, the Taj Mahal was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site that was "constructed by Iranians (Persians), or designed and constructed in the style of Iranian architecture". So i think it is important that this be mentioned in the top of the article.

N.B. : Iran is the only country with more than 2000 years of history in it's area. Which means it's neighbors (Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, Armanistan, Tajikistan, etc,etc) are a part of it or a part of an older country such as India. (66.36.140.181 00:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Have a nice day.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shershah.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-- regarding the reversion of the "svastika" page from proposed "South Asian version of this symbol..." back to "Hindu version of this symbol..." I don't think that this is evasive, but rather points to an important point that the pages as it currently stands misses: If Jains and Buddhists also use this symbol, and more importantly it was in use long before the term "Hindu" came to be reflexively used at all, then the phrase "Hindu version of this symbol" both superimposes Hinduism on the other religions that make use of the swastika in South Asia, and also retroactively places the term Hindu on a time when this term was not operative. Both of these issues are particularly sensitive considering the current Hindutva attempts to equate the south Asian subcontinent with Hinduism, so that's why I think the change is useful. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks. Bmani 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history indicates you have briefly worked on the article on Anna Leonowens. Recently this version of the article has been contested by User:J M Rice who calls it "POV" and reduces the article to a stub version by removing most content. Could you contribute your own opinion on the discussion? Up till now we seem to be reverting back and forth undproductively. User:Dimadick

Your edit of 12:08, July 15, 2005 of Cunt removed a footnote about the usage of the similar word kunta in Norwegian and Swedish. Your comment was (added definition of cuntline. remove odd passage on kunta. no reason is given for telling us that a similar word does NOT exist in Swedish.) This suggests you didn't realize this was indeed a footnote (as indicated by the † (dagger) symbol in the text and at the beginning of the footnote which you removed. I am reinserting the footnote since the lone dagger as it now stands becomes enigmatic. __meco 11:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paul, for suggesting balance between value and doubt in your revision to the section, "Historicity of David." In the interest of balance, I also counterweighted the three-word pattern on the doubt side with a three-word pattern on the value side. Your changes also gave me occasion to point out that both archaeological discoveries and biblical texts are interpreted. Lawrencemykytiuk 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to send you a copy of E G Rey's 1888 article where he refers to THE ABBEY OF SION (EMPHASIS - NOT "PRIORY OF SION")? You keep altering everything to "Priory" when no such description applies at all - even a Papal Communication refers to the religious community as an ABBEY OF SION (transcribed by E G Rey in his article). Why do you keep changing things to "Priory of Sion" all the time? I'll send you a copy of Rey's article - don't take my word for it - read Rey's article. I'll send you a scan - what's your e-mail address?

Paul Smith.

I haven't changed anything from "Abbey of Sion" to "Priory of Sion" as far as I know. If such a change has been made, then someone else made it. AFIK, the usual shorthand terminology for the medieval organisation is "Order of Sion" (or "Zion", the spelling is simply a matter of preference). An article at that title already exists, and I have linked to it. Paul B 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - further to this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Sion

The name "Order of Sion" originates from Plantard's "Dossiers Secrets" and from nowhere else (in the context of the PoS being "linked" with the Templars) and this is not history.

Also, the statement "The Order occupied its "mother" abbey, the Abbey de Notre Dame du Mont Sion, built on the foundations of the original apostolic Cenacle, or Coenaculum, traditionally assumed to be the location of the Last Supper" is one of Steven Mizrach's theories and nothing else - no more historical than the claim that the Abbey of Notre Dame de Mont Sion was called "Order of Sion".

Paul Smith

Hi Paul - thanks for the information. Have you got any citations for:- On the basis of Coptic grammar and vocabulary, it is widely assumed that the mising word is "mouth"?

And are you reffering to coptic a language, or arabic, or hebrew for this wide assumption?

I would be interested from an educational point of view.

Thanks.

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hve no idea what you are talking about. Is this in reference to some specific contribution of mine somewhere? If so, what? I've never written anything about late medieval English monarchs or their "gene pool". Paul B 13:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking you because I trust your range of knowledge. I'm curious about the most common recent royal ancestor--and dynasty for those of UK heritage. I think it is the Plantagenets, descent being from whichever monarch in that house. I do not believe that we (you, me, others) have Tudor and later royal descent (being descended from King James VI/I or the Hanoverians, etc), or that it is even possible in most cases. IP Address 14:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix up. That's the sign it's too late for me to be wiki-ing. - brenneman^{L} 13:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]