User talk:Brando130/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Brando130, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Rklawton 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back to scientific racism[edit]

I have the feeling it is going to need more moderation. I have added a request for comments to the talk section to try to develop consesus on whether or not ancient authors should be included as "early examples of scientific racism," or if they are simply early examples of ethnocentrism as I believe, and do not belong on the page, sourced or not.

Even if consensus is built to determine that ancient authors belong listed here, there are certain outrageous statements being made which must remain deleted. One in particular, which you restored a few days ago, actually states that:

"Europeans thus have by nature a strong, courageous character and "endurance in body and soul" due to living in rigorous, cold, wintry climates. This theory is known nowadays in genetics, race-realist and anthropological circles as the "cold winter theory of intelligence"

This offensive, absolutely false pseudo-science has no place in the article. Brando130 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because the information was cited -- but another look at the wording shows that the information is improperly presented. It's a quote, or a belief of someone, but it is not really presented that way -- and the overall tone of the segment you removed is written slightly like an essay, not an encyclopedic article -- so in other words, this section probably needs to be re-written, not necessarily just removed. Your major problem is probably in the way it is presented -- in that that specific statement you mention is not exactly presented as a someone else's views, as it should be. Also, I'm not sure about whether or not the "ethnocentrism" is that or what. However, the content you added in place of it is uncited... I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this, but neither revision is proper. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep an eye on this and comment, if necessary, as things transpire. Gscshoyru 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chios[edit]

How generous of you to notice my contributions to this article. Looking back, in all honesty, you're probably the one who has done the heavy lifting. The article is where it is, due in no small part your efforts. But thanks! Glad to have been of help! Student7 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chios.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Chios link[edit]

Were you thinking about inserting that "twin city" link on Chios? Since it wasn't a .com, I probably would have just skipped it, particularly if you put it in. A bit short of content IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so slow. Feel free to add it if you like. (I don't remember adding twinning myself. Maybe I looked up a reference? Can't remember. Another senior moment, I guess! :) Student7 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tedickey[edit]

Well,Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy, So albeit late you shouldnt have wrote your comment. WP:NOTPOLICY --Jayson (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Yes, I took another look, and you were altogether right about the article.DGG (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Wikipedia[edit]

I have been sharing your concerns since I joined Wiki, and actually, that was the sole reason why I joined in the beginning. I could not believe some of the stuff being written in Assyrian related pages without others checking for authenticity. I have been strongly in terms of how to deal with the problem. 1.5 years ago, I created the WikiProject (Assyria), hoping by having some kind of community where we can share and discuss our ideas about controversial Assyrian related pages, nationalistic-pushing statements and pure false information would be put quickly resolved. Well, the project hasn't fixed the issue, so a few months ago, I started a cooperation board, hoping to lower down the amounts of revert-wars that was going on with the three different kinds of nationalism. Didn't do much either, but now I am hoping having guidelines to the topic will help in some way. But to be honest with you, I am starting to get tired. I have seen users come and go (good ones who became frustrated with the nationlist wars and bad ones who have been banned.) Our best scholar to the topic (User:Garzo) quit dealing with the issue long time ago, because of all this nationalist wars. And I am starting to wave off as well. After a while, you just can't keep doing it anymore. I keep track of my watchlist, but it gets really hard to keep fighting a battle when your on your own. Chaldean (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, τι γίνεται is how are you, not hello. :) Chaldean (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (theme)[edit]

For Brando130. Please do not undo my corrections without justification. I corrected the article on Macedonia (theme) and my corrections are direct source supported (As I stated in the “discussion”: I cited what Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus is writing in De Thematibus, lib 2., in Bandur’s Latin translation, ed. Migne, from 1862, or Bekker’s translation - with parallel Geek, Bonnae 1840. If you have better source I would be pleased to see it.). Does your explanation “nationalistic…” refers to Constantinue VII? Would you please conduct your disputes with Macedonians or Greeks at some other place.Draganparis (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brando for the explanation. I will go back to the Macedonia (Theme) to see where the problem is and will put may comment there eventually. The problem of “theme” is very hard since little is known about that expression that in the beginning had clear military meaning, to acquire much later, more administrative sense. Theme of Thessalonica was created about the time of Constantine VII and he characterised it as Macedonian. I think I wanted this to be left as Constantine VII wrote, although the status of that theme could have changed after him. I am sorry if I made some confusion.

What is obvious is that some politically interested “historians” instead of keepong their Macednonia/Greek disputes to be expressed at some other apropriate place, insist on introducing them all over the ancient history pages in Wikipedia. What is done is “systematic removal” of the word “Macedonia” from all texts related to the ancient Macedonian kingdom or later provinces that kept that expression down to the Ottoman empire. I do not know how any of these sides can profit (Greek or Macedonian) sinc the Ancient Macedonia is so distant and certainly is connected to any of modern states of today no more and no less as today’s Egypt or today’s Israel are connected to “their” ancient states. I must admit I was not able to grasp the meaning of your second paragraüph but if it contained some aggressive meaning I would like to ask you to present to me your appology. If I am wrong, the appology is due from my side.Draganparis (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dear Brando130. To put "teme" instead of "tema" is correct, thanks. The emperor Constantine VII writes the following: “Thessalonica, which is now ordered as teme, is also part of Macedonia.” The sentence that I put is closer to that meaning, although yours says the same.

For your information: He, Constantine, writes this because he just described teme Strimon, which, as he says, was joined to Macedonia (thinking of geographical region of the ancient Macedonia). Strimon, he says, has been earlier treated as “Kleisurai” (probably a kind of smaller unit) and inhabited by the Scythaes (presumably Slaves, may be related to the Bulgarians). (Constantine’s father Leon established the teme Strimon). Please restrain from the insulting meaningless comments like: fixing link, adding lang-el temp for 'thema', rv nationalistic phrasing". On history pages there are no “nationalistic” , i. e. politically correct and incorrect phrasings, just historically correct or incorrect phrasing. This is the only way how to remove "nationalistic phrasing". The "nationalistic" means nothing in history genre; this is a theoretical expression emotionally charged that belongs to politics and politics is not to be mixed here We can not change facts because of today's political atmosphere.

But, one last comment. Don't you see what is going on? Removing "Macedonia" from the texts all over Internet and replacing it by "Greece" or "Hellenes"? Can you imagine what great a crime is being done by removing the “Macedonia” from the texts on ancient history? Can you imagine that “Athens” or “Sparta” would be replaced by “Greece” throughout all the texts on Greek history? What a catastrophe!!! No, my dera Brando130. There were Athina and Sparta and this is where all, almost all, our civilisation started.Draganparis (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to purposefully resist my warnings. All I think is that would be a mistake to replace surreptitiously „Hellenism“ with „pan-Hellenism“, mix “cultural history” with “political history”, and to identify “cultural” with “ethnic”. This is not original research (I publish my original research elsewhere). This is long established method of history and serves against the misuse of History for some other, most often political purposes. The jurisdiction of number of Western countries sanctions breaches against fair presentation of history particularly if they may lead to nationalistic, ethnic and racist consequences. So please comply with this. I think I explained sufficiently well on other places what this means. I am ready to explain it again if you still did not grasp it. If you are lacking background to fully understand this, I will be pleased to expand even more on the subject, but not on the Wikipedia pages. I will propose sanctions for anyone who violates these established principles in spite of being warned.Draganparis (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate for your "Pssst" message. This is very nice from you. I always had problems with my articles.

Something personal also: I do not understand your bitterness sometimes. Yesterday, you went to disturb a serious conversation with nationalistic accusations. Why are you doing this? I am of course neither Greek nor Macedonian (so called FYROM). As a 4th century B.C. historian, when I saw how history of Macedonia is neglected on Wikipedia, I dared to say one word - to receive an avalanche of accusations. You people can play there as you wish, I find it fun also, but take your time to listen for 2 minutes about writing history, confusion of political and cultural history and peer reviewing system. Do not bite my foot as soon as I appear on the doorstep. These Macedonians from 4th century B.C. had almost nothing to do with these of today’s FYROM. Nevertheless, on one hand the Greeks on Wikipedia remove all what can remind us on the Ancient Macedonia, and, on the other, today’s Macedonians insist on the fact that their ancestors were Phillip and Alexander!!?? Absolutely fantastic things, you must agree.

That the political pan-Hellenism is to accuse, is my conviction, and I explained why I think that it is dangerous. Germanism is a recent example. Hitler thought that all Germanic people should make one state and that splitting non-Germanic people into small independent states is just. These were contradictory concepts but useful – for him. The parallel of today is that some say that in the past all was just “Hellenic”, so Macedonia was Hellenic. Since Hellenic is Greek – therefore there is no Macedonia today which is not Greek. This may well be true but not entirely true (and is politically irrelevant). The Ancient Macedonia was first Macedonia and then culturally but NOT politically Hellenic (or it was just inverse, Hellenic city-states belonged to the Macedonian state!). We can not invent the past to make it fit our desires of today.

Please read the ancient biographies of Alexander, which are all not contemporary but quite, qute reliable. They all show how Macedonians were conscientious of their Macedonian entity. Read Arrian, or better Diodorus, which is shorter, and let it be Loeb edition since Selincourt translation of Arrian is older (Penguin edition) and is at some essential point just wrong. Look up also something on methodology of history (to see what people say about political and cultural history writing: I recomended Tosh, but there are many others).

Have a nice weekend!Draganparis (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About GoogWik scientists[edit]

Dear friend. I read your page. I put something longer, just for you. I see that we are all frustrated with how all this runs. I mean life is hard. But I think is very interesting. This is what I think about some of the problems. If you do not like the text, please remove it. I will not be angry with you.

I wrote extensively on Wikipedia pages about the “historical method” that is in use on the Wikipedia pages and its shortcomings, and about the problem of Hellenism and its cultural and political meaning. (see also my slightly extended answer to you on the „Seleucid empire“ discussion).

We have a good example. When some people tried to introduce a cultural concept into politics, it had disastrous consequences. The introduction of the expression “Hellenism” (not “English” but German concept) was in concert with German 19th century similar concept of “Germanic” or “Aryan” - not only as culture and race, but as a political concept. What this political “turn” could bring we were able to see. The “Germanism”, as a political concept, failed and is now extinguished I think. The Hellenism remained because its political dimension remained far in the past. We are witnessing now the revival of its political aspect in the absurdity of the Greek-Macedonian disputes. Now people like you (of Greek or Macedonian origin or affinity) play with the concept, even conscious of its political aspect, without realising all the dangers of such conceptual misuse. The amateurs historians search on Goggle or in Wikipedia and make their compilations. They do not know original texts, no reliable reviews. They copy information one from another, and construct their picture of the world history. This is a nice game, as I said, but no science. Somebody call them GogWik scientists. This is nice, friendly name, I think.

As a cultural concept, Hellenism had no function other then to designate certain aspects of the ancient history and only its cultural aspect. Historians, after the mid of the 19th century, thought that something revolutionary was found: it was possible to explain that ancient world by some cultural unity, and then to explain its politically. This included Rome also. Nevertheless, the concept had its political dimension, but nobody was bothered in the 19th century. All were occupied with the Germanic culture. What a failure this was! Germanic culture remained, but its political aspect lays in the ashes now.

Similarly, in the future we will probably have “Europeism” as a cultural (and again NOT political) concept. Do you think that political Europe that we know would one day be reduced to its European cultural-political identity that will incorporate just cultural dimensions? As some are trying to handle the Ancient Greek world today? No. The ancient Greek world had its distinct political structure which, by using the term “Hellenism” was pushed away, and I want to warn you about its dangers. In the antiquity as today, in reality, the social movements, conflicts and political struggle had their own dynamics independent of how much “Hellenised” the societies were. Obviously we had political organisations that were the kingdoms of the ancient world. The Hellenism, we invented it in 19th century to explain some cultural aspects of that world and it had no political significance at that time.

So what? You would say? My answer is that we should separate political history from cultural history, as the historical method dictates and apply normal historical method to the ancient history. We should not repeat the mistakes that Germany committed in the 19th and 20th century. The misuses that the politicians from the Republic of Macedonia or Greece would like to introduce, the question of who has genuine link to the ancient Macedonia, is obviously absurd and will remain as such only if we do not, as a response to it, start deforming political history of the Greek world. Then and only then, if we would remove Macedonian designation of the Alexander the Great, or the notion of the genuine Macedonian world that lasted up to our era, then we may expect problems. And I think we may expect not very easy problems. This act would not make Macedonians become more Greek as they. This will and does sharpens the conflict, because it negates 1000 years Macedonian tradition in the lands where most likely the ethnic ancient Macedonians did not remain. But the land remained and a mixture of various peoples remained who did not have any OTHER identity, but Macedonian! This will then and only then, be a big, unsolvable problem. - if it is not already there. my conclusion is: keep history as it is. Do not convert cultural history into political history.

So let play the game. Let us "preserve from decay the remembrance of what men have done", as Herodotus says. But be friendly, this is most important of all. And do not be afraid of being "GogWik scientists". We can not know all. This is why we have others around. Draganparis (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande[edit]

Hy Brando130, I noticed the problem at the article Roman Empire and I believe that your opinion would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (currently last case). Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess that two reverts plus another two reverts don't make four (three or more) reverts on a pure technical poin of view. He seems to have stopped for today so at least the article is safe for the meantime.

This issue is an old problem of this article and goes with basic question "When did the Roman Empire end?". Traditional scholarship - mostly written by scholars of Western Europe (i.e.: British, French, Germans, Americans, etc) - proclaimed 476 as the end of the Roman Empire with Romulus Augustus being the last Roman emperor, strongly neglecting the Byzantine empire as a whole. AFAIK it still stands today. Ppl of Greek/Orthodox cultural background seem to defend the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 as the end date and seem to largely hate the term "Byzantine Empire". If this seems prejudiced just take a look at the editors userpages (in the case of the "problem" his IP seems to be from Istanbul). It is simply a poisonous affair and both articles have suffered alot because of it. Flamarande (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucids[edit]

Sorry, but the Seleucid Empire is neither short-lived (250 years) nor Macedonian. It is of Greek-Macedonian origin, but that's all. For years historians have established the term 'hellenistic' to describe this kind of states. --Kryston (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ops. Now I got your point. Sorry --Kryston (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brando130, you can NOT do changes without supporting your affirmations with literature or without disapproving the interpretation of the literature that I gave when I introduced my changes (see discussion). According to the cited literature ALL diadochi states were Hellenised but Macedonian political states. This must be stated. By the way, “Kryston” previously (Drayer’s book) probably tried to promulgate something quite illegaly - without knowing the literature. What was even worst, he pretended to had seen the cited literature (Dreyer, as cited previously in the discussion in Seleucid Empire). Therefore Kryston is unreliable, I am afraid, and should not be taken seriously on these pages.Draganparis (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is only for you my argumentation. You may want to erase it after reading. It is already in the discussion of the Seleucid Empire, section “Introduction”.

"Political designation instead of cultural designation."

I think some corrections that imply the Macedonian nature of the Macedonian states, from early times and down to the fall of the last Macedonian state, are needed on this page (addition of “Macedonian” at appropriate place), designating the states not only as Hellenistic but also as “Macedonian”. Some discussions on this theme, sometimes with certainly unpleasant political bias, have been carried out previously. However, these changes are supported by the latest academic literature and by the most respected authorities on the subject. Retaining “Macedonian” to designate the political nature of the states is necessary also to avoid transition from cultural, which goes far beyond political organization and introduces a risk of neglecting far more important political characteristics of the communities and states which were of importance for the geopolitical and historical developments during Hellenistic period all over territory of the Alexander’s empire.

These, now classical works, all show that Macedonians distinguished themselves from the Greeks (Hellenes), had significantly different language (which may or may not be from the Greek family of languages – this is still disputed), and insisted very strongly on these differences. Also these academic works show, what is of particular relevance here, that the political state organization, particularly from Philip onwards, was “Macedonian” and was preserved throughout the diadochi reign in all three late successor states or empires. In addition, the Argeid dynasty being of Macedonian (or Greek) origin – what is also disputed, was strongly attached to their Macedonian people to often express substantial doses of nationalism, probably as a result of obvious Greek repudiation of all what was barbarous, i.e. the nations that did not speak Greek. Culturally, Macedonia was early Hellenised, at least its aristocracy, but this was kept separate from the political and to great extent administrative organization of the state or succession states. The dynasties were closed toward external world, although hetero-national polygamy was a practice, but the successions was carefully preserved between the members of the Macedonian families (sometimes to the unprecedented extremes – Ptolemy’s intermarried even with the 1st degree relatives). I give the summary of the relevant literature: NGL Hammond and FW Walbank: A History of Macedonia, volume III, particularly chapter V (The legacy of Alexander – what concerns the political Macedonian nature of the diadochi kingdoms) (1988); NGL Hammond: The Macedonian State (also implying Macedonian nature of the diadochi kingdoms), particularly the chapter X (1998); EN Borza: In the Shadow of Olympus - The Emergence of Macedon, particularly chapter 10, what concerns the nature of the Philip’s and Alexander’s reign (1990); EN Borza: Makedonika, particularly chapter 8 (on military conservative and nationalist Macedonian army); EN Borza: Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia, chapter II (about Macedonian nationalism). More popular is RL Fox: The Classical World, an Epic History of Greece and Rome, particularly chapter 22, Alexander early successors (2006).Draganparis (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, your accusations (on my Talk page) are unfounded. I introduced what I considered minimal, unimportant changes (example: calling Macedonian states “Macedonian” in addition to Hellenic, and may be one or two other also negligible interventions). Then you and ("your") “company” took it to be “essential mistake” and started insulting me. It took me some time to understand the problem: you are “insiders” of the Greek-FYROM Problem and react emotionally. Some even started inventing evidence (Kryston) in form of references – which did not exist. Such people should be banned for some time from Wikipedia. Well, I never intervened afterwards, but was trying to convince you and the others that what you do was wrong - and wrote some quite long texts.

Now, yesterday, 3-4 months after!! I did some changes and introduced essential authoritative references. Please point out to the mistake in my interpretation of the references, and I will accept all your changes – if justified. If my mistakes are obvious, I would not mind if you would improve the text.

Sorry for “spoiling your side. You can, of course, erase all what I write on your Talk pages.Draganparis (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it now: you removed my changes. OK, your rephrasing implies, but not so directly, that the Seleucids were also Macedonians: the royal house, it is true accepted foreign women, but the kings, by male line, were Macedonians; Military organisation and civil government (including Persian satrapies that Alexander accepted) were Macedonian; financial management Macedonian, etc. Please try to understand that the Hellenism meant earlier Macedonian driven Greek culture and the Macedonian and Hellenistic was interchangeable in political sense. This changed, and you can see this in the modern historians. The notion of “Macedonian” is not any more contained in the term Hellenism because of the FYROM-Greek conflict. This is changing the meaning of the “Hellenic state”. Indeed, the Ancient Macedonians should not be removed from the meaning of the Hellenic state, and this is all what I am trying to prevent. The literature that I cited justifies this. We can keep your wording but please be aware of the permanent danger of the influence of the actual politics. OK?Draganparis (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First: not the number of (false) arguments should determine what is acceptable, but BETTER argument(s) should determine what should be accepted. So read first the literature that I cited, and then try to decide whether you agree with me or not. One (not you, of course) can not write history after learning it from secondary school textbooks or from cartoons. Second: I may be not listening to you, but you are not reading what I am writing on your Talk pages and you are not seeing that I did NOTHING this time in the “article”! But! You did not propose “friendly” solution, you PUT your “friendly” solution to the dispute and I ACCEPTED that solution with –bitterness. That is all. So please DO NOT SHAUT on me. Did I write in such a tone to you? Ever?! I started mentioning the “FYROM-Greek Problem insider” to describe what I thought in the beginning!!! After all of this, why do you think I should want to write to you next time? So…Draganparis (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]