Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)

message: Can you please accurately show how my additions "hypothesis" and the Stephan Oppenheimer addition is irrelevant Paul B and with sources?  Because I'm making the claim that your reverts, along with others are based on Censorship.  I'm asking you to....
1.Clearly state your position on the irrelevance of my claim, as you have stated 
2.Show sources/citations directly supporting your claim
PS: It's not up to you or others to debate the claims of Oppenheimer, or his research, it's up to you guys to show the irrelevance directly related to my claims, with sources/citations.
Cosmos416 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the avoidance of doubt, the burden of proof is on editors who want to include material. That is citations have to be provided in order to include content, not for its removal. Addhoc 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: your discussion of paleolithic migrations is completely offtopic. This material belongs on Stone Age India and historical migration: valid topic, wrong article. The only pertinent edit of your edit is the question, did M17 originate in India. This is discussed here, where we already state that scholarly opinion is divided on this, citing original publications, no need to add newspaper articles to that. Again, you got the wrong article for this. This is the article on the notion of "Aryan Invasion" in Indian "communalism". If you want to discuss Indo-Aryan migration, go to Indo-Aryan migration. If you want to discuss Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia, go to Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: again, this article is "Aryan Invasion Theory, history and controversies", not "bleeding edge research into a possible Indian origin of R1a". Please discuss origin of M17 at the proper place, Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA), and possibly Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. Oppenheimer is perfectly relevant there, but he isn't relevant here: this isn't the place to state why you think no "Invasion" has taken place, but the place to explain why people in India care about this "Invasion" meme ever so very much. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that I would be very interested in new data on M17 origin, but this really, really isn't the page for it. Not to even mention your discussion of paleolithic migrations, I have no idea what you are even trying to say there, or why you insist on reporting on Y-chromosome research in a section titled '"Indogenous Aryans" and Indo-European linguistics' in an article about an ideological controversy. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: you are not making sense. I gave excellent reasons why your material is offtopic here. "original research" doesn't enter into it, I am sure Oppenheimer is an excellent source, but sadly completely irrelevant to the topic. Btw, he does not argue that "their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind", he is merely saying that in his view, M17 isn't a suitable marker for Indo-Aryan migration, which is hardly the same thing. If you insisted discussing continental shift, the Apollo project or sandwich recipes in this article, what "source" do you expect me to present that would "prove" that your material is offtopic? I am sorry, but this debate is pointless. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: what utter BS. I accepted nothing. It's called a compromise. Your thing is, indeed, completely offtopic, but I stopped removing it completely because you wouldn't give peace. Am I now "accepting" all the nonsense on WP because I am not removing it? dab (𒁳) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: it is you who are twisting the source. Oppenheimer says that he thinks M17 is not useful to track IAM, not that he doesn't believe there was any IAM altogether. Even if you got that right, it would still be offtopic here. You are misquoting people on the wrong page, but unfortunately these are  two fallacies do not compensate each other. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one welcome additions on topics of genetics, on, like, genetics related articles. What part of "offtopic" do you not understand? Regarding general credibility, I think this compared to this speaks for itself, I wouldn't insist on pursuing that avenue if I were you. dab (𒁳) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: a rather pathetic attempt at ad hominem trolling. What you are doing here has really not the remotest connection to what Wikipedia is about. Read WP:5P and work your way through the guidelines from there, maybe you'll come across a clue somewhere. dab (𒁳) 06:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganging Up and Page Protectionism 

message: Aryan Invasion Theory was moved to Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) but Out of India theory isn't reffered to as Out of India theory(history and controversies). This is a deliberate attempt to make push the POV that AIT is outdated and incorrect while OIT is correct. Nothing shows the bias more than this. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no it isn't. this was never more than just a temporary solution. There have been cleanup tags, and suggestions to split this material into relevant articles for months. The reason for the existence of this article is that there is a lot of polemics and propaganda surrounding "Aryan Invasion" that have nothing to do with factuality or scholarship. The term "out of India" otoh was only discovered by the propagandists in 2000 or so, and it isn't surrounded by as much polemics, mostly because the factions involved to not care much about anything "outside India", the only reason they are interested in the idea is that from "out of India" follows that no Indo-Aryans even arrived "from outside India". It is only possible to have this page make sense if we agree that the propaganda can be discussed regardless of its pretext. Attempts to discuss why the "AIT is wrong" are without consequence here: the scope of this article is Indian "communalism" of ca. 1980 to present and its roots in the 19th century, and not the 2nd millennium BC. You are right that the title should make this more clear, e.g. for people like "Cosmos416" who seem to have a hard time making the distinction. dab (𒁳) 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a newcomer to this debate although I have read this article intermitently over the past year or so.There have been a hell lot of changes.  From what it seems there is a lot of bad air around the AIT and OIT and Indegenious Aryans and I feel it is best I do not add to the commotion. As a person who studied AIT in school , switched to Indegenious Aryans in my teens and came back to AIT , I do fee that AIT is slightly misleading in its name. However I feel strongly that we shoudnt be tampering with the names of the theories(that is for historians to debate , not us). From what it seems there has been a lot of discussion before this move has taken place, so I'll rest my case for now. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this title? 

message: [ Rudra', you leave, and take turns with dab, you have a long history of problems with neutrality, bias, and hypocrisy.  Your using lame tactics with no relevance to the article edits, and keep going off topic(as a distraction), making yourself look quite foolish by linking pointless edits, and personally attacking me, because you have the capacity to write 2 paragraphs of mindless blabbering, and spend all your time on wikipedia, like dab, but can't provide a single argument with citations or sources.  You  should try going outside once in a while.  Stop adding your own personal perspective on what citations mean, or criticisms on Stephan Oppenheimer, unless you have researched sources with citations saying otherwise with sources. Because after 7 weeks, you still have not presented any citations/ sources supporting any of your claims, or neither are you an expert in the subject.  I'm not either, but I have research clearly supporting my claims.
(rudra-dab, please state your argument/claim and show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments (Clearly, in a few sentences so everyone can understand), because it sounds very contrived (Original research).  You have had over 6 weeks to prove your case.)
I'm talking about the article edits, so whatever fantasy world your are in, you can stay in, talking to yourself.
You have nothing.  No case.  
P.S: He is a Professor at Oxford university, and well known around the world and established as a expert in genetic mixtures. 
For everyone else, like I have taken the position....:
Cosmos's Case'
1. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario.  Please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.
2. It deals with any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, and noted in the Citation I added in article, not the talk page, which rudra-dab continuies to use a baseless argument.  Again, please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic. 
Article Additions by Cosmos416:
1.  "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."
2.  "However, expert of genetic mixtures Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University released the book Out of Eden or The Real Eve of published research combining newly discovered archaeological findings, and comprehensive genetic testing through various regions and caste populations throughout India. His findings through interpreting his research, Oppenheimer comes to conclusion that all Eurasians left Africa in a single migration about 85,000-90,000 years ago, moved along the Indian Ocean coast line and settled in India. He mentions that Caucasoids migrated from North India over time, and spread throughout West and North Asia, and finally into Europe as the climate became more favorable for human settlement:
Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:
“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India.” (p. 152)"
Cosmos416 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously,  needs help.  Let's give him a hint.  If he has read Oppenheimer's book, he should know that there is a problem with the word 'characterizes' in the "direct quote". rudra 05:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: BZZZZZT!!  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  rudra 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any idea of what Oppenheimer's book is about?  Didn't think so.  rudra 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Losing "M17 as a marker of" -- classic, isn't it?  The problem isn't just that  is parroting a blog and perforce, its nonsense; it's also that he knows that we know it.  Since he hasn't read the book, he hasn't the faintest idea that the quote is lifted from a discussion of two theories of the origins of M17 roughly 50,000 years ago (and, indeed as you pointed out, treated elsewhere) and thus has no bearing on any 'Aryan invasion' except for a tangential remark.  This would become obvious if the surrounding context were restored (last two sentences from the preceding paragraph, leading six words of the quote, and the sentence following.)  So Cosmos416 is in an impossible position: he can't afford to provide that context even in the unlikely event that he has read the book!  So, he's here to waste everyone's time while salvaging his vanitypride.  rudra 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. the sad thing is that they know what they are doing, but it is enough to simply deny it and fake stupidity, and Wikipedia will allow them to keep going forever per "AGF". Cosmos hasn't shown even a dim glint of honesty or genuine interest in the topic, he's just here to muddy the issue until he can slip in his fallacies. A genuine little Rajaram, it seems. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cosmos, it's virtually impossible to make sense this rambling screed. BTW, before you accuse me of "taking turns", the reason I have not commented for a while is that I have been in the middle of Brittany, without much access to the internet. Several points: Rudra seems to have demonstrated that your "PowerPoint document" is in fact Rajaram's utterly ludicrous online "article" - a text which makes such ignorant comments as "Caucasoid (politically correct term for 'Aryan')" and wildly misrepresents what Julian Huxley says (also the historical context in which he said it). So does this mean that you have been fibbing when you claim to have been using "university sourced information"? You have not expalained why Stone Age migrations are on topic in an article about Bronze Age ones. You have not answered the point about why the term hypothesis is relevant where you put it (that the term AIT in fact covers a number of different, sometimes incompatable, hypotheses). Paul B 10:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid he is serious, isn't he, not just trying to exasperate us, but really unable to do any better? Anything is possible on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, anyone claiming that Oppenheimer is a professor at Oxford should be able to answer: Professor of what and where in Oxford?  (Blogs or blurbs don't count, sorry.  Practically all of the institutions at Oxford have official websites, with faculty listings, etc.  Oppenheimer is a member of Green College by virtue of having graduated his medical degree from there.)  rudra 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it appears he is a bona fide geneticist, PhD in medicine at Green College, Oxford. Of course anybody who says anything of any use to the propaganda machine is immediately touted as an "eminent professor" (remember "Professor Egbert Richter-Ushanas" here?) , and gets fawning biography articles on WP, no fault of Oppenheimer's of course. I would say there is no low the propagandists aren't prepared to stoop to, if it didn't appear that they aren't stooping at all, or at least are unable to get up. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As dab had already pointed out, it would be impossible to find a reliable source stating "cheese sandwiches are irrelevant to AIT", but that would not justify adding a section on cheese sandwiches, no matter how well referenced it was. There is no WP policy requiring us to find a reliable source that something is offtopic. You have to explain how paleolithic migrations are ontopic. You have not. The only part of your edits that is possibly relevant is the information on Oppenheimer's view of MI7. Rudra has shown that Oppenheimer himself clearly states that he is expressing a personal view about a particular marker, one with which some other scholars disagree. Its relevance to AIT is minor at best. Paul B 10:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that minor relevance consists of the observation that if Oppenheimer's side is correct about the origins of M17, then M17 can't be used to decide AIT one way or the other (i.e. it would not be a marker with any determinative value).  Cosmos416, of course, is not thinking for himself.  He's just parroting Rajaram's non-sequitur, from a PPT oops PDF blog. rudra 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments/Claims, Citations/Sources 

message: Rudra', you leave, and take turns with dab, you have a long history of problems with neutrality, bias, and hypocrisy. Your using lame tactics with no relevance to the article edits, and keep going off topic(as a distraction), making yourself look quite foolish by linking pointless edits, and personally attacking me, because you have the capacity to write 2 paragraphs of mindless blabbering, and spend all your time on wikipedia, like dab, but can't provide a single argument with citations or sources. You should try going outside once in a while. Stop adding your own personal perspective on what citations mean, or criticisms on Stephan Oppenheimer, unless you have researched sources with citations saying otherwise with sources. Because after 7 weeks, you still have not presented any citations/ sources supporting any of your claims, or neither are you an expert in the subject. I'm not either, but I have research clearly supporting my claims.
(rudra-dab, please state your argument/claim and show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments (Clearly, in a few sentences so everyone can understand), because it sounds very contrived (Original research). You have had over 6 weeks to prove your case.)
I'm talking about the article edits, so whatever fantasy world your are in, you can stay in, talking to yourself.
You have nothing. No case.
P.S: He is a Professor at Oxford university, and well known around the world and established as a expert in genetic mixtures.
For everyone else, like I have taken the position....:
Cosmos's Case' 1. The "Theories" are based on a hypothetical (or Hypothesis) argument/scenario. Please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.
2. It deals with any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, and noted in the Citation I added in article, not the talk page, which rudra-dab continuies to use a baseless argument. Again, please disprove my argument with supporting evidence claiming directly otherwise, that is insync with the nature of the multifaceted topic.
Article Additions by Cosmos416:
1. "...is a hypothesis and controversial term used..."
2. "However, expert of genetic mixtures Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University released the book Out of Eden or The Real Eve of published research combining newly discovered archaeological findings, and comprehensive genetic testing through various regions and caste populations throughout India. His findings through interpreting his research, Oppenheimer comes to conclusion that all Eurasians left Africa in a single migration about 85,000-90,000 years ago, moved along the Indian Ocean coast line and settled in India. He mentions that Caucasoids migrated from North India over time, and spread throughout West and North Asia, and finally into Europe as the climate became more favorable for human settlement:
Direct Quote from Stephen Oppenheimer Book:
“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India.” (p. 152)"
P.S:  Sorry, You guys have not shown any sources or even provided a properly stated argument in a couple of sentences.  You both leave, then come back.  On and off, taking turns, in 3-6 day cycles.  That's Trolling, and this is happening in (*)Multiple Article and Article Talk pages' where it is shown the both of you are fighting with hard working, intelligent users on various article pages, jointly.  
Can you gentleman please explain why only 2 users together have several current disputes where it is claimed both ranging from non-neutrality, heavily bias, contrived arguemnts (original research) , Vandalism, Trolling, etc.
You can find all the Evidence in their history by going through the Wikipeda Article's Talk pages, Reverts (Rv.), Edits they have done.  
(*)rudra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rudrasharman  
(*)dab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dbachmann
Case Closed.  It's getting changed tonight because you have not dis-proven or even debated my article additions, and giving your own contrived (original researched) argument (not even properly stated).  
Oh by the way dab: You (1) Accepted my edits remember????  You couldn't disprove you contrived view, so you accepted it, but changed it around.   When I wasn't completely satisfied, you (2) Reversed your acceptance entry, and Retaliated by taking out the "Hypothesis" addition, even though you haven't dis-proven it, and wasn't even an issue with you.  That's hypocritical.  And now rudra is taking the exact same position.  Still, with a made up perspective with no citations to back up any of the claims.  You BS has already been noticed on the many Article Talk pages you gang-up together, and the Request for Comment on you.
(1) 18:24, 11 April 2007 Dbachmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=122005654&oldid=122003355
(2) 21:40, 11 April 2007 Dbachmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29&diff=122057038&oldid=122041137
Cosmos416 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosmos, it's virtually impossible to make sense this rambling screed. BTW, before you accuse me of "taking turns", the reason I have not commented for a while is that I have been in the middle of Brittany, without much access to the internet. Several points: Rudra seems to have demonstrated that your "PowerPoint document" is in fact Rajaram's utterly ludicrous online "article" - a text which makes such ignorant comments as "Caucasoid (politically correct term for 'Aryan')" and wildly misrepresents what Julian Huxley says (also the historical context in which he said it). So does this mean that you have been fibbing when you claim to have been using "university sourced information"? You have not expalained why Stone Age migrations are on topic in an article about Bronze Age ones. You have not answered the point about why the term hypothesis is relevant where you put it (that the term AIT in fact covers a number of different, sometimes incompatable, hypotheses). Paul B 10:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid he is serious, isn't he, not just trying to exasperate us, but really unable to do any better? Anything is possible on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, anyone claiming that Oppenheimer is a professor at Oxford should be able to answer: Professor of what and where in Oxford?  (Blogs or blurbs don't count, sorry.  Practically all of the institutions at Oxford have official websites, with faculty listings, etc.  Oppenheimer is a member of Green College by virtue of having graduated his medical degree from there.)  rudra 12:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it appears he is a bona fide geneticist, PhD in medicine at Green College, Oxford. Of course anybody who says anything of any use to the propaganda machine is immediately touted as an "eminent professor" (remember "Professor Egbert Richter-Ushanas" here?) , and gets fawning biography articles on WP, no fault of Oppenheimer's of course. I would say there is no low the propagandists aren't prepared to stoop to, if it didn't appear that they aren't stooping at all, or at least are unable to get up. dab (𒁳) 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cosmos again

message: Can all 3 of you guys stop stalling, and please state you argument clearly and show supporting sources, verifying your claims?  I have taken the time do, please be respectful and do it as well.  No Original Research please.  Paul Barlow likes to go to the Nordic Theories and other Aryan/Hindu subjects, dab-rudra go to Aryan Migrations/Aryan Invasion/Out of India/Hiduveta/etc.  Article pages, all supporting each other, but can not provide a single sources after 7 weeks, supporting any baseless claim. Other users have also stated that you guys do not provide sources, and not being neutral, because you guys aren't.  dab, wasn't it you who started the hindvneta page that go deleted because it was created maliciously? How shameful.  That's the biggest stain on any record I have ever seen.  Not to mention you accepting my edit, and then reversing hours later.
Cosmos416 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As dab had already pointed out, it would be impossible to find a reliable source stating "cheese sandwiches are irrelevant to AIT", but that would not justify adding a section on cheese sandwiches, no matter how well referenced it was. There is no WP policy requiring us to find a reliable source that something is offtopic. You have to explain how paleolithic migrations are ontopic. You have not. The only part of your edits that is possibly relevant is the information on Oppenheimer's view of MI7. Rudra has shown that Oppenheimer himself clearly states that he is expressing a personal view about a particular marker, one with which some other scholars disagree. Its relevance to AIT is minor at best. Paul B 10:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that minor relevance consists of the observation that if Oppenheimer's side is correct about the origins of M17, then M17 can't be used to decide AIT one way or the other (i.e. it would not be a marker with any determinative value).  Cosmos416, of course, is not thinking for himself.  He's just parroting Rajaram's non-sequitur, from a PPT oops PDF blog. rudra 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dab-rudra, Paul Barlow Connection

message: Regarding claims of who has or hasn't read Oppenheimer's book, here is the "direct quote" in  its surrounding context, all from page 152, with omissions to be explained below.
* a X, b Y and c Z are first and last names of three geneticists.  The last name Y also occurs by itself.
* the "direct quote" portion still has a problem with the word "characterizes".
If  wants any further discussion, he will have to fully identify the three geneticists in correct order, and emend the "direct quote" portion to correspond to the passage in Oppenheimer's book.  If he declines for any reason ("my dog ate the book", "my cat scratched the page to shreds", "my friend lost my book", etc.)  the conclusion that he has not read the book can be taken as established beyond doubt.  rudra 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, not sure about this 'test' for several reasons, for example whether this is really an appropriate use of a talk page. Also, I haven't read the book, however I know at least some of the answers, because they are contained in the Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia article. Addhoc 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're suggesting that WP:AGF is a blank check, I disagree.  If you're suggesting that  could guess the answers, there's really nothing to stop him from feeling lucky.  rudra 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper context for cherry-picked soundbites 

message: this article was created to allow a sane discussion of actual scholarship at Indo-Aryan migration. In the meantime, evolved articles have formed at Out of India and Indigenous Aryans, which together with Racial groups in India (historical definitions) cover all the historical and political aspects treated here. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: split

message: Can someone add a new article on the similarities that exist between Indus valley civilization and the vedic period. 
I can list a few for starters. 
1. The presence of swastika symbol.
2. Yogic postures 
3. The evidence for decimal weights and measures in the Harappan civilization, and the later perfection of a decimal numeral system ...etc.
Please, admins/users who are not favorable of this topic, please be polite. Do not abuse me by judging my mind/motivations but rather show your analytical/debating skills by objective arguments. Truth can be sweet or bitter, It will be accepted. But until proven, the argument remains challenged. I request any comments to be objective and impersonal. 
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Xyzisequation (talk • contribs) 
:You can create any article that you want. Of course it will also be rewitten by others and it may even be deleted or redirected if it considered to be non-notable or a POV fork. That would be a community decision. Just go ahead. Paul B 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities between IVC and VEDIC TIMES

message: I am amused by the fact that the only point-of-view presented in this "unbiased encyclopaedia" entry is that of the detractors of the Aryan Invasion Theory.  I am also amused by the fact that the aforementioned point-of-view is presented in a sophomoric, bullet-by-bullet fashion.  I am further amused by the fact that not a single, solitary reference is cited for a single, solitary point.  Absolutely ridiculous.  Well done, Wikipedia.  Tanukihat (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just fun and games by some random IP.  Happens all the time. rudra (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?  Bias?

message: Per this discussion, noting this former FFA was redirected from a discussion I cannot find. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noting merge and redirect