Talk:Madai

message: :The Mitanni were Hurrians who spoke an unclassified NON-Indo-European language. It is conjectured that , at best, some of the names of the Mitanni aristocrats had Indo-Aryan names, but that these rulers were assimilated to the Hurrian culture and language. Nothing can be concluded from this. This is a red herring, because by the same token, the names of the Levite Hasmonean dynasty that ruled ancient Judaea all had Greek names, despite the fact that they were not Greek.
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is something people just don't get, but for those people there is an article on wikipedia entitled Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni where they can enlighten themselves about the situation. Til Eulenspiegel /[[User 
talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]/ 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And also there are article such as Mitanni that demonstrated that it have nothing to do with Medes my Indid(Indian, Pakistani,gypsy, etc.)  friend. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: How many times do I have to say it, why don't you read Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni and then tell me if you still don't see any sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But the mainstream view is they speak in Sanskirit and they're from India. I mean just show me one more source. Then I am going to close this discussion. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because as far as I remember, Kura-Araxes culture is Hurro-Urartu culture. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I am going to check it too. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: What you just called the "mainstream view" sound to me like bizarre speculation.  Certainly some Mitanni names have been compared to other much later Indo-Aryan languages including Sanskrit, but your notion of a Sanskrit-speaking population migrating from India to Syria in 1800 BC is simply mind-boggling, not "mainstream". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Then there is the "Matiene" of Herodotus, if you look that one up scholars say that is the Mitanni getting ready to morph into the Medes... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Til, so why don't you edit Mitanni for it before Madai? Because when ppl read this article and then click the Mitanni page, their mind will be confused. 
* Here they are talking about "territory", not "race". Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is more interesting to me than Mitanni. I can't be responsible for making sure all related articles are always on the same page and it has been a long time since I edited Mitanni, a lot must have been changed since then - but the next time I look at the Mitanni article in depth, whenever that is, I may find some improvements to be made there.  In the meantime, there is no valid argument for keeping out referenced material just because an editor wants to argue their opinion against the RSS, so the edit warring to remove the referenced material should cease. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Admin said that we need to get third opinions from other admins. And, therefore, you shouldn't edit the article. On the other hand, I am still waiting for sources that you will show me. I googled it, but I didn't find any source. Maybe you'll find one. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For purposes of this article, all we need are sources speculating on connections with the article topic, Madai. And I have already shown you several.  There are also sources speculating on whether the Kura-Araxes were Hurrian or Aryan or both, but this is actually a side issue to this article or this talkpage as it would pertain to content of one of those other articles rather than this one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: But Madai is associated with Medes and the scholar who claims that Mitanni is synonym of Medes and therefore, if Mitanni=Medes(Madai) then Mitanni=Madai. That's the reason why I asked you for source it. Because Mitanni is Hurrian country which ruled by Aryans whereas Medes are Iranians. Their languages and races are so different and thus, I have right for asking connections and sources for it. 
Just look at it : It is now generally agreed that Mitanni Aryan is related to the Indo-Aryan rather than to the Iranian or Nuristani sub-branches of Aryan. 1 Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your WP:OR doesn't matter - how many more sources explicitly suggesting a link between "Madai" and "Mitanni" do I need to show you?  That's all we need to be able to say "Some scholars have linked Madai and Mitanni".  No matter how many I show you, you are forever going to demand more sources.  This is what the sources say: it's not up to us to try to synthesize our own rebuttals because as wikipedians all our job is, is to report on what the sources say, and what opinions are out there, and this is amply demonstrated to be one of the opinions that are out there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: But as I told you, I can find many sources that claims Kurds as Arab, Magyar, etc. We do not add them to Kurdish people because they are non-sense. And it is same for Madai. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text:  This source claims that Kurds are Turks. So what now? Shall we add it to Kurds? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are going right back to the dame fallacy again with argument-by-analogy. The analogy is flawed, I am not here to discuss Magyars, Arabs, Turks, or anything but Madai. Kurds are a living people; Madai is a person whose existence is questionable and any schools of thought speculating on his putative descendants should be equally acceptable. If you were to be able to demonstrate that a body of opinion exists tying Madai with Magyars, Arabs and Turks, then those sources could be added here as well. Otherwise there's no point in mentioning them on Talk:Madai. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: WHAT'S IT TO YOU what my race is?  Or why I edit this topic?  And no matter how the wikipedia article defines a "fringe theory", WE STILL COVER FRINGE THEORIES ON WIKIPEDIA IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WP:FRINGE, not in accordance with a wikipedia article! What is so hard to understand?  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  BUT IT IS NOT "APPROPRIATE PLACE" AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE ADMIN HAS SUGGESTED US TO GET THIRD OPINIONS FROM OTHER ADMINS! Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's assume it is a "fringe theory" - why wouldn't this be the appropriate place for a "fringe theory" about Madai?  After all, according to some rhetorical uses of the polemic term, everything in this article might be considered "fringe" including Madai himself!  But we are obviously not going to delete the article, nor label it "fringe". Let's let each reader decide for himself what to make of the whole range of views, since they are going to come from all different backgrounds anyway, that's the wikipedia way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madai, Mitanni, Medes 

message: I was asked to comment, but TLDR.  Though Greek Medos should be in a See-also section, and Kachin Madai should be a hat note, since it has nothing to do with the topic.  — kwami (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I deleted it but this user: Til Eulenspiegel has reverted it. He behaves as if the article was his own blog. Myanmar has nothing to do with the topic. Jezebel1349 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, you have to have a very good reason for blanking out referenced information on wikipedia, it can't just be "I myself don't agree with what the reference says, or I myself know better than what the reference says, so I am going to correct it or remove it based on my own original research."  Trust me, I have been on wikipedia for nearly a decade, that's just the way it works here. Since you don't wish to take my word for it, I am going to seek out some admins who can probably do a better and more tactful job of explaining our inviolable cornerstone policies for you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: "Nothing to do with the topic" - - - wrong, the topic of the article per WP:SCOPE is "Madai".  NOT exclusively "Madai (Bible)".  Do you get it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: A hatnote would only make sense if there were a distinct article dedicated to the Madai ancestor of Kachin tradition that we could link to.  We don't have a dedicated article, so by default the scope of this article is all the documented uses of the name Madai.  Also if we look for more sources we may well find some that have discussed Medos in connection with Madai. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinions to break impasse

message: *My suggestion is that writing these kinds of sentences to article to find a compromise: Madai is assaociated with Medes in Biblical sources and by vast majority of scholars. On the other hand there are some scholars that associated Madai with Matienne, Madai and so on. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mean. ... with Matienne, Mannai and so on. Matiene ii using generally the synonym of Mitanni, therefore, "Matienne and Mannae" is enough according to me. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you still don't feel linking "Mitanni" is substantiated, even though the same could be certainly said about some scholars associating that name with all the other names, including Madai? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand you because of my English. Say it in simply words. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And this my compromise. If you do not wanna accept it, it is your problem. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understood. As I said, my compromise is this. Do you accept it or not? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it would make better sense to link all the relevant articles, as long as there are separate articles for each of these names you call "synonyms"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

text: As far as remember, Matiene is Mitanni, isn't it?Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, but we have two different articles mainly since the names come from different time periods, so we may as well link both entities. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Ok. "Madai is assaociated with Medes in Biblical sources and by vast majority of scholars. On the other hand there are some scholars that have associated Madai with Matienne, Mitanni and Mannae in addition to Medes." It is better. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, That works for me, and I appreciate your efforts at compromise and am glad we finally hammered something out. Maybe an admin can edit the page! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not now, we have 5 days and maybe they suggest different things about the article such as Kachin and other controversies. We should wait. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: :See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iranzamin-Iranzamin/Archive
:In short, , , , , , , and  were all found technically indistinguishable by the Sockpuppet Investigations process and analysis, other than Ritspah who had no edits and had a different account name pattern.  The SPI administrators blocked the accounts.
:Please note that it is still possible that different individual people were involved - per some comments by Iranzamin-Iranzamin, there's a university proxy server involved.  We have both WP:SOCK policy for individual human multiple accounts misbehavior, and WP:MEAT policy for multiple humans working in a similar manner in cooperation.  The handling for either case is the same; if we have good reason to believe users are related and connected, we consider them connected.
:Based on this information I am going to perform an early unprotection of the article as my next edit after posting this.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry investigation results