User talk:Dbachmann

An invite to join WikiProject Russia

Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2011; 15:10 (UTC)

E-mail

...nothing urgent. Just in case you'd missed it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of List of conflicts in the Middle East

Please share your opinion on renaming "List of conflicts in the Middle East" into "List of conflicts in the Near East" in the discussion. The renaming is proposed in order to cover the pre-1918 period (when the Middle East had generally been related as the Near East), and delete post-1918 conflicts while leaving wikilink to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East). This is in order to avoid doubling of information between post-1918 section in the "List of conflicts in the Middle East" and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary

Could you please advice me on the following issue? 'Principality of Hungary' is a latter usage of this entity. Moreover, in primary sources (Byzantine) it was Tourkia or Western Tourkia. English rather uses 'Duchy of Hungary'. Hungarian historiography uses form of 'Principality of Hungary' (or sometimes 'Tribal Alliance' until Prince Géza). Should I move it to Tourkia? What would be the proper solution?Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:UCN/WP:UE say clearly that we should use the most common name relevant English-language literature. So if the common name is Duchy of Hungary in English, that's where the page should be. But we will need to collect evidence on which is more common, "Duchy of Hungary'" or "Principality of Hungary". From a quick survey of google books, "Principality" seems to be slightly more common. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I am going to seek sources about it. My concern is whether usage of 'Hungary' is correct before the establishment of 'proper' Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what this "Tourkia" thing is supposed to be about. It's clearly a red herring, probably motivated by the usual ethnic bickering among editors. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Byzantines called Hungary for Tourkia. It is only a historical fact. It is not supposed to be ethnic bickering. A Greek inscription (on the Hungarian crown): "ΓΕΩΒΙΤZΑC ΠΙΣΤΟC ΚΡΑΛΗC ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑC" (Geōvitzas pistós králēs Tourkías, meaning "Géza I, faithful kralj of the land of the Turks").Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the English Wikipedia what the Byzantines called Hungary unless it becomes fashionable among English speakers to use that word. And if you are concerned about using a term that suggests the entity in question was more related to modern Hungary than it really was, then I don't understand why you aren't a lot more concerned about using a term that suggests the entity in question was more related to modern Turkey than it really was. Surely that would be a bigger problem? Hans Adler 11:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean, "it is not relevant to the article titles on English Wikipedia". Of course the fact as such is perfectly relevant to the article, it just has no bearing on how we choose article names. But I agree, this "Tourkia" nonsense and the entire deletion "debate" is a red herring, to put it kindly, or just disruptive behaviour by ethnocentric morons of one flavour or another to put it more bluntly. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Of course that's what I meant. I know that most Hungarians don't like to be reminded of their historical close cultural ties with the Turks, but it's really news to me that there are people anywhere who make a point of obnoxiously reminding them. I have never seen that outside Wikipedia. Hans Adler 11:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, what is going on here is simply that the 10th-century Byzantines could not care less whether a bunch of barbarians on horseback were "Turks" or "Magyars". It's not like they had any interest in studying the subtleties of Altaic linguistics. So they simply included the Magyars under the "Turks" moniker, and if you had pointed out to them, would they please take note that the Magyars were in fact speakers of Finno-Ugric, not Turkic, they would probably just have raised a sardonic eyebrow.[1]

Also, in Central/Eastern Europe today, "Turks" means "Ottomans". These are the "Turks" the Hungarians would not like to be associated with. Well, they aren't. The "Turks" under discussion here aren't the Ottomans, they are the Khazars. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to use primary sources determining the valid name of Hungary in historical context. I see primary sources are not important here. This is the real problem. We can use name of Romania in the Middle ages. Or name of Principality of Nitra or name of Balaton principality (there are no primary sources about these names).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, primary sources aren't very important for Wikipedia. We want secondary sources. The idea is that the authors of scholarly secondary literature more or less know what they are doing. Did you realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia? Unless we base our articles on scholarly publications, there would be no end to discussing shoddy private interpretations of primary sources. Also, would you please recognize that the choice of WP:TITLE is a question completely seperate from the discussion what should or should not be discussed in the article itself. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought the title of page of Principality of Hungary may be incorrect. I chose the name, I thought this is the most neutral title of the page. However I got unsure in reference to the title (Because of the primary sources). My aim was to be accurate, formal. I have failed. I did not want to emphasize the Turkic connection (though it is fact).Fakirbakir (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem, Fakirbakir. Your contribution is still valuable, as the article is now aware of this "Western Tourkia" thing. It would only be a problem if people point you to WP:UCN and WP:PRIMARY and you somehow pretended you didn't read or understand what is being said there. We have these guideline pages for a reason. Namely, so that people can read these things up on their own without needing a separate and personalized explanation of such project basics. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Avestan letter

Hi, I've asked a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Avestan letter that maybe you can answer. Angr (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Big mistake in Romani_population_average_estimate.png

Hello. There is a huge mistake in your [Romani_population_average_estimate.png graph] that is used by several wikipedia articles. There are 535,140 (census) (700,000 estimated - [article]) Gypsies in Romania and for your graph you considered 1,85 million. That means that only 2.46% of the Romanian population are Gypsies, as you can find in [this article], not 8.5% as shown on your graph. Please make the necessary adjustment. I would be more than happy to assist you if you want: (talk). Thank you for your time. —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

uh yes, I seem to remember there are wildly diverging estimates for this number. I am sure I based the graph on some reference, also taking care to use comparable references for all countries, so before we change the graph we will need to collect as many estimates as we can, instead of basing it just on the first one we come across, choosing the high or the low estimate depending on "preference". --dab (𒁳) 06:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold out on Akan page till saturday

I think we should handle this like adults all the information there seems to be right as a person who knows a thing or two about African history and the Middle East along with E. Europe.

I can help fix it properly on saturaday but, I have a big exam coming up so can't do it now. Leave the page as is until then. I vote for that and, I think Delivernews likely feels the same way.

Medicineman84 (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

By "like adults" you mean, of course, adhere to Wikipedia policies. You are most welcome to add referenced information any day you like, on Saturday or any other time.

Of course, as long as that work has not been done, we can agree like adults that the page should not contain non-referenced information. There is no deadline. Once you have written the article, you can post it. As long as you have not written it, there is obviously also nothing to post. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Washington Window/Selby Abbey

Hi, I noticed your cn notes regarding the date of the Washington Window in Selby Abbey. I haven't found anything concrete to use as a source, but if you're interested, the abbey website [2] suggests that it "probably represents some kind of benefaction made to the Abbey to commemorate John Wessington, Prior of Durham (1416~1446)" which makes it C15. The link from there to this BBC article, which may be the original source for the research asserts these dates for Wessington, but then says that it is C14. I would suggest that the mid-late 1400s is the correct date, making it 15th century, with some sloppy editing by the BBC staff. —User:MDCollins (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to assume the same. Never trust a journalist. Thanks for your research. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Modification to the Qwan Ki Do article

Hi Dbachmann, I have noticed that you have recently amended the Qwan ki do article, merging some parts of it, and removing some references to the origins of this martial art. I wanted to ask you the reasons behind this, as I thought that it was interesting informations. Do you think that this should be part of a new part focusing on the history of this martial art, rather than being part of the intro? Speak to you soon Regards FSJmax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsjmax (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Romanian language

Your edit resulted in a broken ref. Unfortunately, I can't figure out from which "main article" you took those parts, which would have enabled me to retrieve the text of the ref. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Celts

Hi, there's a discussion going on at Talk:Celts regarding an "undue" tag you placed in the minority views section. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Star names

FYI, one or more people went around adding spurious star names to Wikipedia a while back. Urodelus is one example I found; other editors found plenty more. Please check back through the edits before re-introducing them. As far as I can see, all references to Urodelus as a star name come back to the original Wikipedia vandalism. How sad that the Patrick Moore book has swallowed this spoof name, which will only reinforce the general impression that Wikipedia is full of misinformation. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

PS: There's a big list of bogus or questionable star names on this page User:Rursus/star_name_desinformation Skeptic2 (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(Butting in) Some of the "fake name" research [3] may be a little out, e.g. dismissing "Biceps" as a name for Gamma Herculis on the grounds that it's an "obvious hoax" because "biceps" is "a modern medical term of no real language alleged to be a traditional star name." [4] "Biceps" is perfectly good Classical Latin. It means "two-headed", which would be appropriate for a binary star. Of course, we do need reliable sources to prove that Gamma Herculis really is called "biceps". --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"may be a little out", yes of course, but disproving a star name is pretty much harder than approving and attesting it by citations. Please, feel free to improve!

"two-headed" ... "appropriate for a binary star", yea... nope! Not if one knows the history of star names, Latin names originate from latest the 18th century, I think, and nobody knew of the duplicity then. Later on, stars are almost always called by some designation, in the case of bright stars the Bayer/Flamsteed/variable designation, or some star catalogue designation.

(Also having something called "real life" outside of WP) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for the way my comment was phrased. I didn't mean to diss your research. I know what a drag it can be dealing with some of these pranksters. Maybe I should just have said that the troll might be more learned than we imagine. On the other hand, "biceps" may just be a lame joke about Hercules' muscles rather than evidence of a Classical education. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! I think rather more like a "lame joke", in fact the lamest joke of them all. The most tricky one was Dhanab al-Shuja, that truly means the tail of the (water) snake, applied to some star in Hydra. Realistic, but I found no source for it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I had not known this was an issue on Wikipedia. Amazing how "Urodelus" ended up in print, entirely based on Wikipedia vandalism? I was somewhat surprised the name wasn't more widely known. But I would be even more surprised if ε UMi had no name in medieval Arabic astronomy. The question is, of course, what was its real name? I'll make sure to be more careful in this area in the future. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just saw that "Urodelus" is in Constellation, as part of a list of stars of Ursa Major with proper names (Polaris...). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Name of Russia (Russia TV) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Name of Russia (Russia TV) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of Russia (Russia TV) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi. I see I'm visiting a lot of pages to which you have added {{Disambiguation}} and removing it. I'd encourage you to review WP:CONCEPTDAB. A page that contains a list of links to Wikipedia articles with similar or related titles is not necessarily a disambiguation page; it may just be a list article. The distinction is whether the similarity of titles is the only thing those articles have in common, or whether the titles are similar because of some other relationship among the topics of those articles. Only the former case requires {{Disambiguation}}. Thanks for your consideration. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand this, but if you want to turn a mere disambiguation page into a full article, you will need to carry the full burden of establishing notability, encyclopedicity, avoiding content forks, etc. If in doubt, it is a disambiguation page. Meeting the "broad concept article" requirements is a much, much more difficult proposition, and the burden of that lies with whomever is trying to create such an article. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize that many of our "list articles" violate every rule in the book. This is no reason to assume the rules are invalid or do not apply to lists, it just means that these pages need to be cleaned just like thousands of other broken articles.

"List articles" list encyclopedic items, not Wikipedia articles. This is what distinguishes them from mere categories, content indices or disambiguation pages. Whether it is encyclopedically viable to collect a certain kind of thing into a list page needs to be established based on quotable encyclopedic sources, just like everything else in content namespace. You cannot just create lists on random topics that pop into your head, the thing listed must be verifiably encyclopedic, and the list itself must be based on solid references.

The only thing in main namespace that doesn't need to be based on references are disambiguation pages, as they do not have the purpose of conveying encyclopedic information, they are just a navigation aid. There is much confusion surrounding this. Apparently some people think because disambiguation pages are navigation aids, they must not have an intelligent structure informed by the nature of the term to be disambiguated. I submit that this is too silly a suggestion to merit discussion, but I have been forced to have exasperating discussions on this in the past. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, one cannot just label any random group of links as a list article, because there are "rules" that govern those types of articles. (Of course, they are not actually "rules" but guidelines, but we'll let that slide for a moment.) But, one can label any random group of links as a disambiguation page, regardless of what the "rules" pertaining to that type of page may say. Pardon me if I'm having trouble following the logic of this.

Anyway, if a guideline says that if a notable, encyclopedic, well-referenced list is divided into logical sections contained in separate articles, there cannot be an index to those lists without separately meeting the notability and referencing requirements for the index, then it is the guideline that is wrong, not the list. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Islam and Intercalation

Hi. I can see that you have made an edit claiming that Islam did not encourage astronomy because of the prohibition of intercalation.[5] Apparently, you seem to be unaware that the pre-Islamic concept of intercalation as practiced by the Arabs (called nasīʾ) is different than how the term is generally used. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd, Index, p. 144) that explains this difference:

nasīʾ : intercalary month, intercalation, or person (pi. nasa'a) charged, in pre-Islamic Mecca, with the duty of deciding on intercalation. The Arabic system of ~ can only have been intended to move the HADJDJ and the fairs associated with it in the vicinity of Mecca to a suitable season of the year. It was not intended to establish a fixed calendar to be generally observed.

Happy editing. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what I am supposed to be unaware of. I am aware of what you are telling me, but thanks nevertheless. I do also not understand what you are implying is the "general use" of the term intercalation. Anyway, my "claim" was in an edit summary. The actual edit was just a request for clarification.

To explain the background of my comment: Muhammad went to great lengths to discourage astronomy:

• no intercalation: the purpose was to avoid political disputes on who has the authority to define intercalation (this had been an issue in pre-Islamic Mecca)
• active disregard of the movements of Sun and Moon, to avoid all danger of misunderstanding of his religion as Sun or Moon worship. For this purpose, prayer times were moved away from sunrise and sunset, so that nobody could entertain the idea that the Sun was being prayed to. This was also motivated by the fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Sun and Moon had indeed been worshipped, and this was supposed to stop under Islam.
• the only astronomical observation encouraged by Muhammad is the new moon (to determine the beginning of the month). That's it. The positive intention behind this is avoid confusing astronomical calculations left to a scholarly elite as was the case with the Christian date of easter. Anyone is able to understand the concept of "first sighting of the new moon". You don't need to be an astronomer for that, and it is objective and unambiguous. Either you see the new moon or you do not. This is hardly "astronomy" in anything but the widest sense.

In the light of the above, the claim which I have tagged, to the effect that "The rise of Islam provoked increased Arab thought" in the field of astronomy, is extremely dubious to say the least. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How can a ban on shifting months for political reasons (i.e., nasīʾ) be against astronomy? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

um, what? Sorry, you are not making sense. Mumammad asked people to stop observing the heavens. I find it difficult to see how this could have "provoked increased thought" on astronomy. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm only explaining what nasīʾ is, ie, the shifting of months for political reasons. As noted by EI2, nasīʾ was not intended to fix the calendar, so claiming that banning an arbitrary practice such as nasīʾ to be "against astronomy" is rather absurd. My guess is that you were thinking about a different type of intercallation that was not practiced in Arabia at the time. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Citing references

First of all, the oneliner from that Ivo Vukcevich book is incoherent. Well, maybe I'm also on crack, but you can't let a single fishy source contradict the entire historiography of the region :) Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this isn't one - I did a cursory search for the author and found very little. The Premuda claim is cited to a work by Heinrich Kunstmann, but the entire notion is not - it says "the names Pfreimd [...] are traced to Dalmatia to Primorska Serbia or Primordia to Namen der kleinen Adria-Insel Primordia", and I think I verified that last part, but not the former part. Granted this could just be a GB problem, but I'm wary of such blatant generalizations.

Primordia certainly looks like a Latinized rendition of the Slavic word Primorje, which is a generic term meaning Littoral - such a title could refer to practically anything, but if we know the historical context, then going to Premuda is completely nonsensical. It's an island to the west of Zadar (Zara), and neither Tvrtko of Bosnia nor Tsar Dušan had a realm that included territories that far to the west. Granted, one could still invent an armorial that includes such an item, but then we need a source that would specifically describe that claim, rather than this.

That's probably the reason why the author Blažević didn't make any such claim, and instead referenced Zachlumia/Zahumlje/Hum, but apparently making the mistake of using a strange term for it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I agree the source is fishy. As long as you agree that no source at all is even more fishy. So we'll just have to leave this open until we have something better. I can accept that Primordia is probably a corruption (or "latinization") of Primorje "littoral, coastal". So far so good. Then we have a source stating that the name Premuda is from exactly that word. This doesn't prove, I'll agree, that the Premuda island is what is meant by the Primordia in these armorials.

What I would need to see before allowing your "Zachlumia" interpretation is a confirmation that "Hulmia" (not just "Hum") has been used to refer to that. Then we could say that "Blažević interpreted 'Primordia' as referring to Zachlumia". --dab (𒁳) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I admit that was simply my best guess - based on the fact that these consonants seem to have been getting swapped on a regular basis - compare ZaHuMLje vs. ZacHLuMia vs. HuLMia - but it still seemed more grounded in the actual source than the Vukcevich stuff. Using the latter seemed way too WP:SYNTH for my liking.

While examining the Čiode picture, I read the article, and it looks like the whole thing might simply have been a random error, because it was done by a person who was trying to fake nobility. Yet, they also describe that part as "primorske i humske zemlje", i.e. Zachlumia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted, the original source seems innocuous enough, we just have to avoid misinterpreting it for more than it's worth :) BTW the same hand holding the saber motif seems to have found its way to the emblems of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Austro-Hungarian condominium), so the link to the territory we now call Herzegovina seems clear from that point, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in that design at the moment. I forget what the heraldic term for it is, bras de fer or something. I am also very interested in the star-and-crescent used for Bosnia, as it predates the Ottoman star-and-crescent by full 200 years. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here (img) is a claim that the arm-and-sabre motif was used for Bosnia in 1499! I have no idea if this is correct (the 'source' being croatianhistory.net), but it would mean that this design at least was not just made up by Don Pedro. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

	Quality Management Inspection Medal
	I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your positive and industrious contributions to the quality management inspection process. I appreciate your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of the Illyria article. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am honored to accept this accolade, thank you kindly :) --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dbachmann. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Serbian cross

You're probably looking for this quote [6] regarding the date.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This German source say that the Serbian eagle originates in 1402, not the ocila. I had expected as much. I consider it possible that the "ocila" cross appears in the 15th century, but so far I haven't seen any references. So far the earliest source we have dates to the late 16th century.

I simply do not understand why so many people feel they must add things that they "simply know to be true". There are so many widespread misconceptions, and there is no way for you to know whether the things you "just know" are such misconceptions as long as you haven't bothered to check. Also, even if people aren't interested in finding out about their own misconceptions, they still violate project policy by adding unreferenced content. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)