Make your own free website on


Medieval Hairstyles



Medieval Hairstyles in the news

Scotland faces 'global disgrace' for Executive failure to ban smacking 

The Scotsman - Jan 09 5:44 PM
A POWERFUL UN watchdog is preparing a report that will criticise the Scottish Executive for its failure to outlaw the smacking of children.

- Medeival Hairstyles

Here is an article on Medieval Hairstyles.

User talk:Paul Barlow Archive1

You are welcome to leave me a message..


  • 1 Kuna
  • 2 And now they are trying to fix the vote
  • 3 Was Richard Wagner Medeival Hairstyles an opera manager?
  • 4 Piss Christ
  • 5 Question
  • 6 Perjorative Medeval Hairstyles Mediveal Hairstyles uses of the word Gay
  • 7 Help
  • 8 Afrocentrism
  • 9 Image Medieal Hairstyles Tagging for Image:Brigitte_and_Tiye
  • 10 Parsis
  • 11 Olmec, a mild warning
  • 12 Thanks
  • 13 Are Meideval Hairstyles you kidding?
  • 14 Truly yours
  • 15 User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz
  • 16 TrumpetPower!
  • 17 Copyright of poem?
  • 18 Aucaman and Iranian peoples
  • 19 About historical racial terms being casually used in the Oriental page
  • 20 Taj Mahal
  • 21 Image copyright problem with Image:Shershah
  • 22 svastika, south asia
  • 23 Anna Leonowens
  • 24 Erroneous delete of footnote at "cunt"
  • 25 Historicity of David
  • 26 Priory of Sion
  • 27 Coptic Grammar.
  • 28 Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
  • 29 Oops
  • 30 Olive branch
  • 31 Da Vinci.
  • 32 help
  • 33 favor?
  • 34 Re: Carthage
  • 35 Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
  • 36 Thanks
  • 37 Ashvamedha
  • 38 Priory of Sion - deleting additions by Paul Smith
  • 39 Priory of Sion article - do you know how to understand things?
  • 40 John Baker, PhD (abd)
  • 41 Ben-Jochannan
  • 42 Thomas Jefferson...
  • 43 Black Supremacy...
  • 44 Re Jefferson +Supremacy
  • 45 Queen Mab speech
  • 46 credentials
  • 47 Wallace Fard Muhammad
  • 48 Neo-Nazi Reference Request
  • 49 "Lost" Archive at "Theatre Talk"
  • 50 Debate and Research Regarding Racial Ancestry
  • 51 Moors
  • 52 Oxfordianism
  • 53 Black people
  • 54 Link question on Hitler
  • 55 JNW
  • 56 JNW
  • 57 WIN
  • 58 Thanks
  • 59 Zoroastrianism
  • 60 Goa Inquisition
  • 61 Dido Elizabeth Belle
  • 62 thanks
  • 63 Indophobia
  • 64 Source for pictures
  • 65 Alfred Rosenberg
  • 66 Thanks for your championship of Olmec
  • 67 OIT
  • 68 Fair use rationale for Image:Mountainadolf
  • 69 Why can't we say it is because of prevailing racists attitudes...
  • 70 Mona Lisa - Plucked Shaved and Braided
  • 71 Olmec
  • 72 Taj NPOV tag
  • 73 Question
  • 74 Priory of Sion
  • 75 How rulers of India that opposed Brahmanism became Untouchables
  • 76 Priory of Sion Spam and Scam
  • 77 Gosh,
  • 78 Thank you for the Barnstar
  • 79 See...
  • 80 Hagarism
  • 81 Mona Lisa
  • 82 Nasty attitude
  • 83 My Akhenaten post
  • 84 Gamaliel VI
  • 85 Semitic peoples
  • 86 BarryIsPuzzled
  • 87 Error on Akhenaten post
  • 88 Gamaliel
  • 89 Agreed Title - Indian Rebellion of 1857
  • 90 Moors
  • 91 Barnstar
  • 92 Ribera
  • 93 Mediterranean race vandalism
  • 94 Hindoo
  • 95 Sorry about lewis
  • 96 Japheth
  • 97 Race of Jesus
  • 98 [Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]
  • 99 Martial race
  • 100 Anti-Hindu rubbish on talk page of Hinduism?
  • 101 Nazi racial politics
  • 102 Thanks
  • 103 Your edits to: Nazi Archeology
  • 104 dear paul
  • 105 Question for Paul
  • 106 Black people
  • 107 Mediation case
  • 108 Extent of Problem
  • 109 Thanks! Paul Barlow
  • 111 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
  • 112 Miklós Horthy
  • 113 PN Oak
  • 114 About WIN
  • 115 Please give your feedback
  • 116 article
  • 117 Mediation -- Adolf Hitler
  • 118 The Patriotic Publishing Co.
  • 119 Oak
  • 120 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
  • 121 Nordic picture
  • 122 Philosophy page
  • 123 Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton


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

You make a fair point about the lack of available evidence for truly "ancient" use of the swastika. However, the 1925 flag was created in response to direct attacks on the Kuna by the then Panamanian regime, and was for use in that conflict, not for international use (as far as I know, they weren't making representations to the UN or anything); and several sources make reference to the swastika as an "ancient" symbol, and as a symbol of creation. So basically I'm skeptical as to what extent the Kuna were influenced at that time by the "international swastika craze": although the existence of that craze, and at the same period, I certainly don't dispute. And while "classic" swastikas appear on old Mola art, I certainly have to recognise the syncretic nature of this art — I almost bought (wish I had now) a really cool, well-made, classic-style mola featuring Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny.
I have to say though that the comment in the article:
The ubiquity of the swastika symbol is easily explained by it being a very simple symbol that will arise independently when people incise patterns on pottery or stone.
ties in very well with truly traditional mola designs, which are characteristically geometric and frequently angular; in fact, if you look at some old mola designs, it's hard to see how they could avoid a swastika. So I guess my challenge is to hunt down some really old swastikas in Kuna art... trouble is Molas haven't been documented / preserved for very long. Oh well. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And now they are trying to fix the vote Robsteadman 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Was Richard Wagner an opera manager?

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

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

Kleinzach 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I assume you are in agreement with my comments above? Should we remove the tag then? Regards.
Kleinzach 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. You write: "Wagner had huge influence on the staging of opera because of what he did at Bayreuth. Bayreuth is one of the most influential "events" in the history of the management of opera, so to exclude Wagner seems to me to be rather perverse." However establishing Bayreuth, building and designing an opera house is NOT 'management'. 'Management is the job that Joe Volpe and co. do. It is the day to day running of the business of an opera house.
I am moving this discussion to the Talk page of Wagner.
Kleinzach 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Piss Christ

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Perjorative uses of the word Gay

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


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


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

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

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

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

Image Tagging for Image:Brigitte_and_Tiye

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

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

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

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


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

Olmec, a mild warning

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

For what it's worth, I'm mildly disturbed that nobody noticed it and stepped in sooner. — Mar. 14, '06 [00:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Ouch, such honesty. In any case try to discuss it with the other party and let me know if he reverts again. He posted on my talk page from a different IP after I blocked him, so I concluded the original block was pointless and just gave him a warning. He also stated he was unaware of the 3RR anyway. As I told him, I haven't checked what the dispute's really about and I don't care, but the edit war must stop. — Mar. 14, '06 [01:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

Are you kidding?

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

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

Truly yours

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

User:Diyako is trying to make an alternative ficticious definition of Newroz

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

Here is what user:Diyako has written;

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

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

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

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

He has claimed the Kurdish flag has nothing to do with Iran and is a crime to fly in Iran. The Kurdish flag is based on the Iranian flag it is even in the memories of the founders of the Mehbad Republic who wanted to showcase their Aryan and Mede heritage. Back then Kurds only had a oral history about their only know ancestors the Mede and Mede heritage, before other ancestors were accepted. The Sun is also very significant element of ancient Iranian and Zorasatrianism. Diyako is misleading everyone. Go to Kurdistan 20 years ago let alone 50 they will say we are Aryans and our own blood relatives are the Persians. The Kurdish flag is not banned in Iran and is based on Iranian colours. This user also claims the Iranians are only a lingustic group after he saw that the tide was against him that Kurds are in definition an Iranian people so he worked to undermine the definition of Iranian people and even Persians with user:Acuman. 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Copyright of poem?

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

Aucaman and Iranian peoples

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

About historical racial terms being casually used in the Oriental page

Let me summarize your argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find Tichondrias's one-man campaign to get rid of "Mongoloid" from Wikipedia rather strange considering his failure to support my campaign to get rid of the Eurocentric terms "Asia" and "Europe", which he dismissed in these terms:
"I don't think the change will happen in Eurasia and I hope you don't change wiki around to confuse users to make it fit the Eurasia concept."
Bathrobe 04:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

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

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

Thanks for the reply. Have a nice day.

Image copyright problem with Image:Shershah

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

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

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

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

svastika, south asia

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

Anna Leonowens

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

Erroneous delete of footnote at "cunt"

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

Historicity of David

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

Priory of Sion

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

Paul Smith.

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

Hello again - further to this article on Wikipedia:

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

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

Paul Smith

Coptic Grammar.

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

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

I would be interested from an educational point of view.


Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

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

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

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

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

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Olive branch

Olive branch

I would like to extend an olive branch to you. It was not my intent to upset you or cause you any wikistress. In fact, this unfortunate incident may be seen as an opportunity to improve the use of the edit summary template(s), so that we can avoid this situation from occuring again with other editors. In that respect, I want to thank you for your feedback, as it has been quite valuable. You gave me the idea that each use of the edit summary template should be accompanied by a link to the relevant page name and/or link, so as to avoid any confusion. Again, I apologize for any ill will between us and I look forward to working with you in the future. If you have the time, could you comment on the task I added to my "to do" list? (The link is here) Any suggestions for improving the use of this template is appreciated. —Viriditas | Talk 02:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology in turn, but I feel the error is mine. I should have apolgized to you right away. BTW, you may be interested in this useful tool. Have a good (and relaxing) week! —Viriditas | Talk 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci.

Hello. I'm trying to work with you on the Da Vinci Code article. I proposed a compromise about the "How secret is the secret?" section. Will you please consider it and discuss it on the Da Vinci Talk Page?

"How about i propose a compromise? Let's delete the "How secret is the secret" section, and instead add a sentence into the "criticism" section? Let's not put a huge paragraph about it, just a sentence that explains how some believe that the book is not a good piece of literature because it contains inconsistencies. Is that ok with you? dposse 20:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)"

Thank you. dposse 22:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Paul, can you comment here [3]. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


As someone who has recently edited this article, would you care to comment on: [4] and [5] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Carthage

Thanks for the heads-up. KongminRegent | Talk.

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I thank you for keeping a watch on Ancient India. --Bhadani 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I was responsible for writing a significant portion of the original article, including pointing out that it involved necrophilia, bestiality and other acts; that Ambedkar had refered to it; that Samudrgupta conducted it and that modern tv versions do not discuss it. I returned recently to find that it has been fairly controversial. I have difficulty following the discussion since people donot seem to indent or sign, and some older postings have been deleted However I would like to say

Paul-B---There is no Dravidianist reading of the Ashvamedha. The Shastri translation is published by the Tirupati shrine, and that is as high-Brahmin as you can get. Both the names are Brahmin names, and further none of the significant Dravidian movement figures mention the sacrifice. .

2) There seem to be issues regarding bias and translation. I read Telugu and can look up the books. The existing translation on the page is not very eloquent, even if it might be true. .

3) There is a genuine problem with using any Western translations published before 1960 .

Dab---I'm sure your translation from Sanskrit is great, and I am not doubting your qualifications. However, translations in Indian languages by competent religious scholars do exist, as do translations issued in English by various temple shrines in India. I can procure one, and see if the verses are translated or not. I think they are usually reliable--I remember reading a copy of the Kalikapurana that I picked up at the Kamakhya shrine that mentioned passages other translations omitted. .

4) As I had pointed out earlier, the ritual continued into pre-modern times, and even this century in an attenuated form. Samudragupta's might have been the last true to scripture sacrifice but other Ashvamedhas happened. This is common with several Vedic rituals where pratices incompatible with modernity are rendered symbolic, ex using bread flour as a substitute for goats in the Agnistoma, stuffed human shaped food offerings instead of human sacrifice at Kalighat etc. It would be interesting to learn what precisely was used in place of copulation.

5) 'no one leadest me' is perfectly sound gramatically. It tries to imitate the kind of language the KJV Bible and Book of Common Prayer employed. I have a copy of George Fox's journal that uses the word leadest in a very similiar fashion. .

Finally, I intend to edit the article significantly over the next few weeks. Since my Sanskrit is poor, it will not deal with the translation (except the Telugu part). A more detailed modern, Hindu view of the Ashvamedha is required. Literature discussing the semiotics, symbolism, modern understandings of it, Dalit and communist readings ( M.N Roy for instance) exists. Allegations of ethnocentric bias are very real, and cannot be dismissed as 'fundamentalist cruft.' Perhaps, incorporating the Hindu (vs. Vedic)take on Ashvamedha will make it less 'biased.' --Notquiteauden 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion - deleting additions by Paul Smith

Are you targetting me again - are you automatically deleting ANYTHING that I put to the Priory of Sion article in Wikipedia? What is your problem? Most of the factual material on that page ORIGINATES WITH ME - Why don't you delete all that material also? Email me at to explain why you do this.

The latest addition by me below - please note that both Franck Marie and Pierre Jarnac established the fact that the tomb at Les Pontils was constructed in 1933 AND NOT IN 1903 by Louis Lawrence - they got this information by interviewing interviewing Adrien Bourrell who was Louis Lawrence's second son and who witnessed the construction of the tomb in 1933 - the site in 1903 did not occupy a tomb but a grave - and there is a difference between the two things.

"Other research published by Franck Marie in 1974 and Michel Vallet (Pierre Jarnac) in 1985 had already shown that the tomb was created in 1933 by Louis Lawrence to contain the dead bodies of his mother and grandmother - the previous owner of the land, Jean Galibert, buried his wife and grandmother there in a grave and not in a tomb, and the remains were later transferred to a cemetery in the town of Limoux when the property was sold to Emily Rivares and her son Louis Lawrence."

Can you leave the true facts as they are, please?

Paul Smith

Please read the discussion on the talk page of the article. No one deleted that in order to censor facts - in fact I simply moved it to the Et in Arcadia ego article. It was simply too tangental to the subject of the Priory itself. Paul B 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

THE SAME MISTAKE IS MADE IN THE ET IN ARCADIA EGO ARTICLE. There was no tomb at Les Pontils in 1903 - and neither Frank Marie nor Pierre Jarnac ever made such a claim in any of their books - what existed in 1903 at Les Pontils was a Grave AND NOT a tomb. The tomb was constructed at Les Pontils in 1933 - witnessed by Adrien Bourrell - Louis Lawrence's second son, who was the source of information for both Franck Marie and Pierre Jarnac. There was NO TOMB at Les Pontils in 1903, only a grave - which was replaced by a tomb in 1933 by Louis Lawrence. Is this really so difficult to understand? (Sure, there are 100s of websites out there which make the same mistake - but must you really copy that mistake?) Paul Smith

The word "tomb" and "grave" are often used as synonyms. Look the word up in the OED, which defines "tomb" as "a place of burial; an excavation in earth or rock for the reception of a dead body, a grave"). But for clarity I'll change tomb to grave if it makes you happy. Paul B 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion article - do you know how to understand things?

Do you understand that in 1903 all that existed at Les Pontils opposite the farmhouse was a GRAVE that contained the dead bodies of Louis Galibert's wife and mother? Do you understand that in 1933 the tomb REPLACED THE GRAVE when the dead bodies of Louis Lawrence's mother and grandmother were interred into it? There was no tomb there before 1933 - and that there is a difference between a tomb and a grave? Do you know that there is a difference between a tomb and a grave? Email me at as to why you automatically delete any information I put on the Priory of Sion article.

Paul Smith

Of course I understand it. If you check the edit history you will see that I was the one who clarified this very point on the page. I used the word "sepulchre" rather than "tomb" to clarify the distinction, because "tomb" can in fact be used simply as a synonym for "grave" (hence gravestone and tombstone are synonyms). This then led to complaints that the discussion was rather too pedantic, detailed and tangental, so it was shortened and moved to the main article on this subject, Et in Arcadia ego, where it is still to be found. Paul B 13:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you simply use the words "grave" (ie, an "earthen pit") and "tomb" (ie, a "stone monument" ususally above the ground - yes tombs can also be found in family mausoleums beneath ground level in France) this would be more easily understood. As for "detailed and tangental", all that needs to be pointed out is that what existed in 1903 was different to what existed in 1933 - and any discussion about Les Pontils cannot be limited to Louis Lawrence and 1933 since the history of the site containing the remains of dead bodies begins with Louis Galibert in 1903 and not with Louis Lawrence in 1933.

Paul Smith

The link to the Maknap website relating to the Galibert history is a waste of time because it is WRONG. The Galiberts dug a GRAVE and not a TOMB in 1903. Maknap makes it clear that he is referring to a TOMB MADE FROM STONE and not to a dug grave when he refers to "The famous tomb" - why should a dug grave be "famous"? Maknap has made the mistake of assuming that the Galiberts constructed the Tomb in 1903, when in fact it was Louis Lawrence who constructed it in 1933. Adrien Bourrel, the second son of Louis Lawrence, gave his testimony as witnessing the tomb's construction in 1933 to French authors Franck Marie (1974) and Pierre Jarnac (1985).

Don't you want to take any notice of this, Paul Barlow? Are you going to continue ignoring the facts by referencing the bogus article by Maknap (Mark Naples) on Wikipedia?

Paul Smith.

Paul, are you remotely capable of approaching this suject in a vaguely sensible manner. If you have a better link, replace the curreent one. I have already addressed the issue about the word "tomb". Here, again, is what I wrote on the 23rd June - in case you missed it, 'The word "tomb" and "grave" are often used as synonyms. Look the word up in the OED, which defines "tomb" as "a place of burial; an excavation in earth or rock for the reception of a dead body, a grave"). But for clarity I'll change tomb to grave if it makes you happy.' And, lo, I did change it. This website works best if people collaborate in good faith. Paul B 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

John Baker, PhD (abd)

Hello, respected Shakespeare editor. Please keep an eye on John Baker's edits if possible; he's an eccentric Marlovian theorist who fills Elizabethan pages with contentious and badly-formatted material. I'm Wikiholiday and won't be able to keep up with him... The Singing Badger 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you on the point that he was an Afrocentrist. However you cannot just write off the historical evidence and proof that exists in the book when you do the research. Please look through the books in his bibliography and research those as well and also the other information he has gleaned from outher sources. The truth about Moors is that there was no separation as to distinction in race. Under the yolk of Islam this was not taught. The site before Mustafa edited it seemed to be NPOV. I think it is best to not bring race into the equation at this point since it is a much later definition. Stanley Lane-Poole from the british museum also backed up thes same historic points in his various books and through his bibliographies and he definitely wasn't an Afrocentrist neither was J.A. Rogers. Please let's try to keep this article focused on the many groups that made up the Moors as we know this to be true. When a person adopts a culture and religion it makes them part of that group. When the Arabs brought Islam to Africa it first began in Ethiopia and then swept across the northern continent. They weren't called black Moors as Mustafa wants to label them. In addition Moors didn't stay in one area as they were nomadic as I am sure you know as well and they were found South of the Sahara as well. If a person chooses to convert to judaism he is a jewish person. Not a black jew. We should strive to keep articles such as this removed from racial POVs. Leave me a note on my page please Paul, I'm interested in knowing your thoughts. Thanks.--Gnosis 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson...

This was the opening line on his religious views:

But Jefferson wrote at length on religion and most of his biographers agree he was a deist, a common position held by European intellectuals in the late 18th century.

Most is not all. Historians and biographers are not sure what his religious views are and in his info box unitarinism and deism are listed. To say he was a diest as fact is in clear contradiction to other statements. 00:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"QUOTE"Deism and Unitarianism are entirely consistent. There is a clear consensus that he was a deist."QUOTE"

A consensus is not fact and the consensus among scholars and historians is that nobody is 100 percent sure what his religious beliefs were, but the majority believe that he was either a unitarian or diest. This is stated in the religious views section and I didn't remove that. I only removed the use of the term diest when it was stated as fact. If you have a verifiable source of him saying that he is a diest feel free to add it but untill then it is in violation of wiki NPOV policy to say he was undoubtedly a diest (which is in clear contradiction to the opening line of religious views). 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Supremacy...

I removed the term "racialist" because it is a POV term and matter of controversy. I tried to fix the problem by just deleting both terms altogether and letting the reader make up their own mind. Many people think the black supremacy is racist, some people think it is racialist, and others have a mixed opinion. I think the best solution is to remove all terms and so the reader can go over the article and make up their own mind at the end as wikipedia NPOV policy would instruct us to do. Both terms should have never been mentioned in the first place. 01:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Jefferson +Supremacy

It is undeniably "racialist" because any ideology that states that there is differentiation of races based on innate characteristics is racialism. That's what the word means. Paul B 01:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I believe that rightfully that the white supremacy ideology is clearly racialist as with black supremacy, but you will take a lot of heat from people who will always think it is racist no matter what you tell them. I think the best option is to leave all use of the term out of the article. This way both sides can reach a compromise. If you want to add racailist I believe that if want you to acheive your goal you should try to do it on both articles to protect you from future attacks.
re Jefferson, without the reference to deism the accusation of "atheism" is an unexplained attack. It only makes wense if there is some indication that his views are non-trinitarian/orthodox, which would be understood to mean tainted with Thomas Paines's rationalism. Paul B 01:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not add the line where "Jeffersons opponents attacked him as an atheist" I agree with your reasoning. However, I do believe that this is a common viewpoint and Jefferson actually was attacked as an athiest. It is surely selective propaganda. I will ask for a citation for you on that line, and if it is not given you can delete it although I'm pretty positive that it will be provided. If it is, you can be free to re arrange the article and add more factual information that will sway people to your viewpoint. But I hope you understand why I removed innaccurate use of the term deist. 02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Queen Mab speech


Please provide some information on what your credentials are when you take liberties to edit sensitive topics in Hinduism. Have you mastered Sanskrit,understood any of the deeper meanings in Hinduism or are you one of those ignorant Christian guys who thinks of India as a country of cows and snakes? Also provide information on how many times you have been to India and what first hand experience you have had in the matter.

Please have the honesty to create a user identity for yourself before you have the gall to ask other people for their "credentials". Paul B 12:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You can still answer the question, bozo. Unless you feel that it would expose your ignorance.
Your own ignorance and stupidity are very clear. Paul B 20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Your posts make your own stupidity self-evident. Why you would want to publicize it is a question you should pose to your psychiatrist.
If you have something useful to contribute please do so. All you are revealling is your own moral cowardice. Paul B 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wallace Fard Muhammad

Hey Paul! Thanks for the note. It's all taken from the FBI file. Informations about their marriage are on page 5 (p.5) and Hazel's comment about divorcing Wallace because he was "temperamental" is on page 74 (p.74). I just added some more informations about his rise to power, would be great if you could NPOV/POV-review it. Thanks! CoYep 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Reference Request

I put in the reference for the Neo-Nazi paragraph in the "Aryan Race" article as you requested. The Black Sun, published in 2002, is the standard text about and has the most information on Neo-Nazis. Best wishes, Keraunos

"Lost" Archive at "Theatre Talk"

Paul, I just wanted let you know I left you a reply to your question at "Theatre Talk." W.C. 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate and Research Regarding Racial Ancestry

Paul, I'm not sure as to your claim. Please clarify as to your statement of this being untrue. Here is a copy of the Definition from Webster's below.

Pronunciation: 'mur Function: noun Etymology: Middle English More, from Anglo-French, from Latin Maurus inhabitant of Mauretania 1 : one of the Arab and Berber conquerors of Spain 2 : BERBER

In addition if I'm not mistaken this section is regarding the debate and research regarding ancestry. So with this respect, this is a debate that does exist. Initially I had agreed with you, but upon further thought. It actually does make sense because of the title of the section for this to be included. Your statement about this being untrue may or may not be appropriate in regards to this particular section. However calling it gibberish is definitely a personal matter of opinion and clearly a POV of yours. Whether I agree or disagree with you is irrelevant. Only because this is and has been a debate on this subject of racial ancestry of Moors. The section is clearly titled "Debate and Research Regarding Racial Ancestry". I feel it is safe to assume that you as I do would not like to associate Moors with one particular race either white or black. Nor was this the purpose of this addition. The purpose was to detail the current debate of this topic and specific views from research.--Gnosis 16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Paul, I will review the edit to the article and make the necessary changes if you haven't done so. I appreciate your promptness in getting back with me.--Gnosis 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Barlow,

As a source of this claim of Mr. Streitz, who is a political theorist and writer, I have only seen him make the argument in his review pages at A link might be provided to these reviews. They are informal reviews written by customers. I do not consider Mr. Streitz to be an able literary theorist, though I am interested in his theory about Oxford's death. Oxfordianism must come to terms with Freudianism, either by alligning itself with Freud or by breaking with his view to form a new theory of biography and sexual trauma. The Wikipedia article is a helpful venue but the question remains whether there is room in this tiny section to discuss such controversies as the incestuous sexual life of Elizabeth the first and Henry VIII and the treatment of these things in the plays of Shakespeare. Second, it would have to be recognized that the plays present a salutary philosophy such as that of Epicurus or Buddhism. Such a view of Shakespeare if properly conceived would be nothing short of a revolution in academe and theory in general.

Yours, Chris Gontar

Black people

I need help at black people. I am not capable of edit warring against several sock puppets. Whatever consensus we reach in the talk page does not matter if it does not show in the article. We cannot all give in to the nonsense. --Ezeu 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am so glad I left such an impression on you Paul. And once again you misrepresent my position. I do not consider the QUESTIONING of the international inclusiveness of the term black as a plot. I consider the REJECTION of the international inclusiveness of the term black as a plot. Next time you make such accusations, get your facts straight. Quote me at least before you poison the audience with a predisposition against me. Equally dogmatic self-appointed spokes person? See, I consider that kind of ad hominem attack a conscious example of a plot. Discredit Zaphnathpaaneah through character assassination because he is too effective! --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You have certainly caught my attention Paul, one of the few times that someone I oppose truely has earned my respect. You are articulate and concise. However you are flat out misleading people about my position. Don't take my ability to read between the lines as a knee jerk cry of a conspiracy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Link question on Hitler

I switched the Mein Kampf link you added to a non-Neo-Nazi site. However, I note that the chapter you cite is v.2 c. 3, but the link is to v. 2. c. 5. Which is it? Bytwerk 03:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Your point regarding Sickert's use of paint is well taken. Perhaps better for me to say that both Sickert and Freud are idiosyncratic enough that imitation seems unlikely--finally, the use of "adapted" is spot on. JNW--JNW 04:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. I am brand new to this, and have just started reading and editing entries for artists. I surely do not always follow protocol, but I am cleaning up some unfortunate prose devoted to great painters, and adding a little basic information as I go. A number of these entries read like junior high essays, replete with jumbled data, thinly disguised copy straight from other sources, and little or now overview of the context. Aaaggghhh. Best regards, JNW--JNW 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


I've got a request for admin assistance against WIN up here. Please do come and express support so I don't look all alone. CRCulver 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome. I was just now checking the Vedas page. Hoo boy is that messed up, right from the get-go. Several paragraphs are well beyond opinion and are simply propaganda. That'll take a lot of time and will surely lead to a great deal of angst for some. Considering they really are among the most important text in the history of the world, it really deserves much better.--Almijisti 06:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


"The quotation IS a citation", yes, but, and I may be off on the policy of how things go, what I'm asking is if it can be verified as a core belief. For example, the first commandment: "I am the LORD your God... Thou shalt have no other gods before Me..." Rarely do christian dispute this, and it is hard to call yourself a "true believer" or part of the "mainline" community if you say otherwise.

Versus the fourth commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work." Many christians argue back and forth on the importance of this.

"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." 1 Corinthians 14:33-39. I can quote this, chapter and verse, but it does not mean that most Christians believe it, even though Paul, endower of docrtines, said so. I wonder, out of genuine curiosity and from a former religious background, whether that verse that is in there means what it says, and if there is a way to back it up.

-Bordello 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

If you want to add the TRUE aim of the Inquisition I'm all for it. But the record of brutality has got to remain on the page. The facts are POV against the Portugese (no one can defend their actions). But we would welcome your help on the article.Bakaman%% 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dido Elizabeth Belle

Interesting additions to Dido Elizabeth Belle - Skysmith 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


You deserve another barnstar for your diligence, good humour and alertness, forming a one-man bulwark against national mysticism and confused kookery. dab () 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Paul, you wrote you will check in Trautmann for Indophobia passages. In the meanwhile, please take a look here. [6] Of course the discussion about it maybe rather belongs on the Indophobia article. Cheers. --RF 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. His newest book seems to be an interesting one too. Cheers. --RF 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Source for pictures

I wanted to tell you that there is an international wiki archive for pictures and I contribute further pictures to this archive. I ahve seen you are interested in adding appropriate pictures to wikipedia, so I recommend it to you. Greetings Wandalstouring 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg

Isnt this nazi high ranking official a Jew? Rosenberg sure sounds like a jewish name... and why isnt this mentioned in his wikipedia... article?

Rosenberg is a German name that also happens to be common among Jews. But in Baltic area, from which Rosenberg came, it was very common in the general population. Despite repeated suggestions that Rosenberg was Jewish, purely because of his surname, there is no evidence of this, and indeed this would be rather unlikely for obvious reasons! Paul B 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have and detailed article about your facts on Rosenburg been a common name in the baltics? Are you also aware of the Khazar Jews? For me it seems (and i dont know if your jewish or not) but i'm someone who prides himself on detecting jewish names even though i'm no expect... but any way for it seems that Jews are willing to cherry pick whoever they want to represent them. And dats not a jewish thing its just human nature.
Most people with the name Rosenberg in English speaking countries are indeed Jewish - Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Harold Rosenberg; Isaac Rosenberg. So it's a fair rule-of-thumb to use, but there is nothing specifically Jewish about the name, unlike say, Cohen or Levi, which are Hebrew in origin. Rosenberg is just German for "rose mountain", it's a location-related surname (like my own, which derives from a village in Lancashire, England[7]). I am aware of Khazar Jews, but I'm not sure how they are relevant in this case. Don't you think it would be rather unlikely that a Jew would be one of the founders and leaders of the Nazi party, especially since the Nazis defined Jewishness in racial, not religious terms? Since you ask, I am not Jewish. Paul B 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from these sites, it was quite common for Jewish families to adopt the name Rosenberg. Why that name was popular, I do not know [8]; [9]; (see para 148)Paul B 08:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
In his book "Zwischen Weißem und Braunem Haus" Ernst Hanfstaengl mentions an article of the "Osservatore Romano" from September 15, 1937, which claims that the grandmother of Rosenberg's grandfather was Jewish [sic].
Apropos sounding like a contradiction - Emil Maurice one of the early members of the SS had a Jewish grandfather (Charles Maurice Schwartzenberger), and the Jew Dr. Eduard Bloch (1880 in Frombork - † 1945 in New York City) who was the physician of Hitler's mother was especially protected by the Gestapo on Hitler's order. 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Claims that leading Nazis were part Jewish were common at the time - as a way of attacking their racial ideology. I'm not sure what point you are making about Dr. Bloch. Yes, it's well known that Hitler protected Bloch while his emigration to the US was being organised. What significance do you attach to this? Paul B 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that many of those claims were just "a way of attacking their racial ideology" – but that does not per se contradict any single one of them. You argued that "it would be rather unlikely that a Jew would be one of the founders and leaders of the Nazi party" – I agree that the chances are smaller, and my only point was to show, that it indeed is possible – Hitler (and the other Nazis) did make exceptions, after all.
And apropos Rosenberg again (a Hanfstaengl quotation from the same book):
"Upon the mentioning of his name and his somewhat ambiguous physiognomy I automatically had to think of a remark of Rudolf Kommer [a Jewish journalist (my addition)] about the role of foreign half-castes in national movements. Did I get to know a perfect example with Rosenberg …?"
This question is not answered so easily – a historian will have to dig in the old documents. I don't know what his biographers say. 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your championship of Olmec

Thanks for your championship of the Olmec article!!

Paul, I just wanted to drop by and say that I have long enjoyed your steadfast support of the Olmec article. I have therefore awarded you the Ray of Sunshine Award. I quote:

You are a Ray of Sunshine! You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world [or at least the Olmec article], you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess.

This template is rather poorly worded IMHO, but I'm sure you get the message. Keep up the good work, Paul. Appreciatively yours, Madman 14:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm so used to seeing the garbage AIT I had a lapse of judgement on the OIT page. Thanks for reverting my edits.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mountainadolf

Thanks for uploading Image:Mountainadolf. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we say it is because of prevailing racists attitudes...

that Jesus depicted as a black man still causes an uproar? I think you are whitewashing the situation. Jesus was very, very likely not a white man, yet no one seems to blink when he is depicted as such. Same with the Egyptians, Hannibal, St. Maurice and any number of historical figures who have been appropriated as and by white people. So I aask you if it is not because of prevailing racist attitudes, wherein lies the source of the uproar?


I don't think it's reasonable to say that Jesus was "very very likely not a white man". There is no clear definition of "white man", but the people of the middle east do fit the general category of "caucasoid". We also have very ancient depictions of middle easterners of the levant/palestine area from the Egyptians, who clearly portray them as pale skinned in comparison to themselves. See the illustrations of the Book of Gates. Hannibal was a Carthaginian. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians (From Lebanon originally), who would have looked like other Semitic peoples. St Maurice is very often depicted as dark-skinned. Egyptians were probably a very mixed population including both dark and lighter skinned peoples, but usually portrayed themselves as brown.
Most religious images portray saints in a manner derived from norms in the population that is making the image. It's not necessarily "racism" that produces such images, just a tendency to portray biblical figures looking like the people that the artist knows. Paul B 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you know ... I read about Sappho describing her daughter as "a girl whose hair is yellower than torchlight" [] - which sounds rather blond - and thus with fair color of skin. And this was in the 6th century BC in the Aegean Sea. Do you know how far south and to which countries such people went?
Who did they blend with? Eg, did they blend with Semitic peoples? Were there blond Phoenicians? Were there famous persons of the past who were blond/brown-haired where one would not expect it? 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mona Lisa - Plucked Shaved and Braided


On June 17, 2006 there is a note entry to the article on Mona Lisa, referencing a book I have been trying to get ahold of since 2003 (buy, borrow, pay for a copy of the bibliography). The book is called "Plucked Shaved and Braided" by Daniela Turudich, Streamline Press...and I won't bore you with the various publication dates that I have found on the internet. I do find a common ISBN #193006408X.

I put in a general humanities request back on Aug 18th asking for the person who added this reference to please let me know how they obtained a copy of the book or know if it was truly published or just cited by someone who read a blurb about what the book is supposed to contain (I say this because I have followed other leads of this nature only to discover people are referencing the book site unseen). The responses I got sent me back thru all the research I had already done, with the exception of one thing. Someone suggested I go thru the history of the Mona Lisa article and try to pin point who had added Note 9 that references the book and see how they got a copy.

What is it that drives me to look for this book? I teach classes on Medieval Hairstyles and specifically have been trying to answer some questions about Italian Renassiance Hair taping. I have found one article online about the topic, which uses no bibliography.

I have further found several books in the library on the history of hair, but the information is limited and less scholarly than perhaps theatrical. I am trying to discover a historically accurate recreation. This book is the closest description I have seen of what I am looking for, and if it is not totally helpful I had hoped to use its bibliography to dive deeper into my research. Needless to say I have had no luck so I am hoping that it was you who entered the name of the book into the Notes and may therefore have a way of tracking down a copy of the book. I have a friend who is a reasearch librarian and she was not able to locate a copy of the book for me. If you know where I can buy a copy, borrow a copy or pay for the bibliography to be mailed to me, I would greatly appreciate your help.

Kindest Regards, Michelle Wiseman Portland, OR

Dear Michelle,
I'm sorry for the delay in replying, and even sorrier that I am not likely to be much use to you. I did add the footnote to this book, which weas published by a small printing house and is not in mainstream libraries. I did rely on online summary of its contents. Most of the material I have is from art historical literature on Leonardo. I think the book itself was very superficial - like Asser's Historic Hairdressing and Keyes' Women's Hairstyles. I would suggest that you could write to the Renaissance art specialists in galleries with significant art collections. The London National Gallery created a reconstruction of the costume, hair etc in van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage Portrait, so they may have information on people to contact or scholarly articles on Renaissance hair.
Sorry I can't be of more use to you.
Paul B 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Taj NPOV tag

Thanks for removing...--Nemonoman 02:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I am trembling as I type this but my curiosity wins out over, so: "What is the Billy-Goat Bite Theory"? Str1977 (smile back) 08:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Str1977 (smile back) 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

Insert non-formatted text here

Guess what, Paul Barlow, your Priory of Sion article is getting worse and worse - first you cite material from a website run by Mark Naples who cannot tell the difference between historical fact and pseudo-history --- and muddles the two together without citing his sources.

NOW - NOW - you are making BASIC MISTAKES in the article which you WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO RECTIFY.


AND THIS, THIS STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE LATER GRAND MASTERS LIST "Although Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair is on this list, young Thomas was ignorant that his name had been used in such a manner." --- IS SIMPLY LAUGHABLE BECAUSE THOMAS PLANTARD TOOK OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCAM BETWEEN 1991-1993 --- HE WAS THE EDITOR OF THE RE-VAMPED "Vaincre" DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION.



How rulers of India that opposed Brahmanism became Untouchables

Hi Paul,

I read your articles on the 'Ashvamedha' and your struggle to establish what is written in ancient literature. The Indian society had thousands of tribes with differing culture. Marriage was done in so many different ways, the idea of Family and its sanctitiy the type of sexual acts varied. Similarly the details of Ashvamedha could have been done in different ways. One of the way certainly would have involved the insertion of the Sacrificail Horse's Penies into the Vagina of the Kings chief Queen. The Brahmins destorted History to thier advantage and hid true facts of History by numerous stories and by modifying / inserting origianl texts with stories that helped Brahmanism and the Caste system that they devised for thier superamacy and survival after the collapse of Buddhism.

Unfortunately every Westerner and most Indians today believe that Caste system existed in India since the origin of Civilization in India. Though true facts come out now, the Brahmins take extreme measures to prevent the truth from coming out as this will destroy their current supremacy. The truth about Castesim in India is it started in India after the collapse of Buddhism after the 1st Century B.C. The Kings and his Kinsmen that opposed Brahmanism were cleverly ex-communicated when they were defeated in war by Kings that support Brahmanism and over a period of time made as 'Untouchables" To hide this fact Brahmins always give antique age to Sanskrit, Claim Vedas were given by God, and Castesim was given by God and so forth.

If you are interested more on this topic please review the articles in the web page under New&Links

The origin of Brahmanism, Caste and Riddles in Hinduism Who are the Paraiyars Who are the Brahmins and who are the Aryans

Best Wishes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MariS mallar (talk • contribs) .

Man I wish I got jokes like this on my talk page.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Spam and Scam

And guess what Paul Barlow --- EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PRIORY OF SION is a SCAM AND SPAM --- there is NO "middle ground objective approach" whereby "negative" and "positive" can be "distilled together to form a coherent impression" that produces something that can be described as being "legitimately interesting" --- this is a Paul Barlow/LoreMaster false quest that emanates from sheer ignorance. The impression by Paul Barlow and LoreMaster is that anyone who calls the PoS BS being the "work of a fanatic". Plantard was THE maniac and FANATIC who made things up as he went along --- the Priory of Sion had no "legitimacy" outside of Plantard's poor imagination. It was pure hokum and absolutely nothing else. Why include things about the "legitimacy of the Priory of Sion" on Wikipedia? What on Eath is that all about??? WHAT WAS THE "LEGITIMACY" OF THE PRIORY OF SION??? And there they are --- Paul Barlow and LoreMaster trying to turn the Plantard fantasies into something legitimate. I have just read the latest rubbbish in the Philippe de Cherisey article and find myself wondering === WHERE ON EARTH DID ALL THAT COME FROM AND WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES TO IT ALL??? It seems that any old stranger to Wikipedia can come along and make any allegation and it simply gets accepted. No sources are required - just write the allegations and it remains on Wikipedia. In the meantime those who can question and discredit these latest allegations without substance remain gagged.

I have attempted to address relevant problems. If there are oustanding errors it s best to draw attention to them on the Talk page of the relevant article, to which I have also posted your commnts Paul B 14:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


what a nice talk page you've got! Looking up the user who I'm arguing with, I've seen the barnstar by Sundar and thought about asking you, to have an eye on the caste wars, only to see on the talk page, that you're already involved... --Pjacobi 12:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar

Paul, thank you so very much for the Barnstar. It comes at a great time, because I have been getting worn down a bit: I really just want to add and improve content but lately I've found myself spending great gobs of time just keeping the good articles at at a "good" level. I guess the Second law of thermodynamics applies here in Wikipedia-land as well.

So, bless you, Paul. Your timing is impeccable. Gratefully yours, Madman 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Veer Savarkar and Hindu nationalism; the purported "atheistic" Hindus are not surprisingly rabid nationalists. Of course, atheism has been a historic viewpoint in Hindu philosophy but is that worth mentioning in the intro? BabubTalk 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Why did you revert my changes , while saying that you are fixing the style?--CltFn 12:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Then restore to my version before your edits , then redo you style fixes, because otherwise I will wind up in a 3RR.--CltFn 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do not restore CltFn's change. BhaiSaab talk 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

Hello, you seem to be quite well informed of this painting, as well as many other Wikipedia articles, after seeing your posts on many of others' inputs. I was just curious to know, if it was unusual at all for married women to not wear their bands, or rings. I never gave it much thought, and I'm sure it's been gone over before, but I was just curious, and had to ask.

-James Murphy

Nasty attitude

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Regarding you calling me a "nitwit". [10]. Can't find a source other than the extremist FOSA can you?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken seriously by who? You, Michael Witzel, Romila Thapar? I'm quite happy staying the Hindutva (and as dab would say) "chatterbot from the BJP headquarters".Of course anybody who has taken a look at FOSA would easily understand what I was/am saying. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem debating an issue with you if you bring a reasoned argument to the forum. However, abusive comments (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) such as "the preposterous narcissism you display" [11] appear to be the currency with which you conduct transactions here as the evidence above shows. Puzzle Master 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My Akhenaten post

Dear Paul B, Osman has his own speculative ideas but the problem is that even in the crowd of minority ideas concerning Akhenaten. Osman's ideas are completely his own! Other controversial writers like David Rohl had some scholarly training when he wrote his book--'A Test of Time' but Osman has no academic training. Rohl and Velikovsky had their own suppporters but Osman has none really except Thereamalikee. Have you seen the discussion on Osman which I posted here Thereamalikee has been put on notice by other Wikipedia moderators not to push his own POV's on others. By the Way, my Akhenaten post attempts to bring some sense and structure on Yuya's identity and on the Akhenaten article as you requested. Regards, Leoboudv 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel VI

Hello! Please see the last change on this page.

Semitic peoples

I think you misunderstood my edit here. I was saying that the Kingdom of Judah and the Jews are descended from the early Iron Age Hebrews. Just as I have

"Aramaeans — from the 14th century BC, evolve into the Syriacs of the early centuries AD"

meaning, part of the ancient Arameans evolve into the Syriacs, I had

"Hebrews [listed under 'Canaanite nations of the early Iron Age'] — the remnants of the Kingdom of Judah evolving into the Jews of Late Antiquity."

meaning, "part of the Hebrews evolve into the Kingom of Judah, and the remnants of that kingdom became the Jews of Late Antiquity. Seeing your edit summary

Hebrews does not only refer to the remnants of the Kingdom of Judah, but also to earlier and more diffuse cultures

(which is of course not what I intended to state) it appears I haven't phrased this well. Maybe you can think of a better wording. dab () 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Paul, I've decided to go on a long WikiBreak for work reasons but thanks for raising the Barry issue- I agree that his behaviour is becoming unacceptable after a period of relative decency and he certainly needs a warning; I won't be able to help out for a while, however. Thanks again, TSB The Singing Badger 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Error on Akhenaten post

I realized my error minutes after making the edit, and I could have sworn that I recorrected it. Sorry and thanks. -- NGC6254 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


As it states in the very first paragraph of WP:V, all unsourced statements can be removed. You should not have reverted my edit here without discussion or, at the very least, an explanation in your edit summary. There is no cite for that statement, and it is inherently POV. Kafziel Talk 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Title - Indian Rebellion of 1857

I changed the title from Indian Mutiny to Indian Rebellion/War of Independence. Indian Rebellion is NOT the agreed title. There is a debate. Atleast, please don't revert it to the Mutiny. Thanks.

Sorry, about not signing. Yes, I agree - you are correct about the Rebellion title. I thought you just wanted to change it back to Mutiny - my bad. (Jvalant 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC))


Comments such as the unsigned statements above indicate why it is imperative to discuss the range of meanings here. AFAIK, the standard Greek word for black/dark is "melas", and the standard Latin one is "niger". "Mauro" does appear in late Greek to mean dark, and may have derived its meaning from the perceived darker complexion of North Africans, along with other post-Classical European uses of 'Moor' - or it may not have done. But the fact is that the etymology of Mauri is not known for certain. Some sources I've seen suggest a Semitic term for 'Westerner' as the source. We should articulate these issues in the main text. It's also the case that there are also many cases in which terms meaning black or dark have been applied to people whose complexions were only very relatively darker.

Medieval illuminations are not good evidence of anything concerning race, but in any case, you miss the point. This is not about trying to prove that North Africans were black or were white. Yes, there are, mainly US-based, Afrocentrists who do try to prove the former, and there are others who react strongly against the claim for various reasons (both sensible and not-so commendable). But the question is whether we should discuss full range of the meanings and history of the word Moor here, which would allow for these debates to be made more meaningful and more richly explored by being put under one heading. It would also, I hope, help to avoid neutrality disputes.

    And it wasn't just in English that Moor meant 'dark skinned'. It did so elsewhere in Renaissance  Europe too. It was tied to negative colour symbolism and theories about Hamitic descent. Paul B 10:13, 11 July  2005 (UTC) 

I agree with these two statements by you Paul. Semetic is surely accurate in my opinion because many Jews converted to Islam and vice versus in order to marry under the laws. I think you and I have been arguing the same point from the beginning. It is impossible and unrealistic to label the Moors as one group inaddition to saying they were only froma certain area. As evidence proves there were nomads of all different types during this time. However the term to say, referred to darker skinned individuals. I don't think the artical should be focused on race instead I think it should show how a collective group of individuals from different backgrounds came together under the islam. For any number of reasons. It is somewhat of a shame that we can do this today. Regardless I think this approach will be more effective and less offensive to others. Although there will be those whom argue that the leaders were white opposed to black or vice versa. What are your thought?--Gnosis 17:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your service and dedication to helping Wikipedia, mainly with the Hitler article. Keep up the good work! Sharkface217 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Sharkface217 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I notice you changed the title of the article from Guiseppe to Jose some time ago. That was I suppose progress but it should clearly be Jusepe de Ribera, for the reasons I give on the talk page there. I have largely rewritten the article but can't see how to rename it. Any chance you could do this? I put a request on the talk page some days ago, but no one has done it yet. Thanks if you can Johnbod 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediterranean race vandalism

Just because you are white gives you no right to delete material which you deem "irrelevant" for another person's race.

What on earth are you talking about? It's irrelevant because it is not about the "Mediterranean race". It is also full of inaccuracies. Also "Maleabroad", please don't hide behind anonymity. Paul B 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


To be honest I cribbed almost all of what I wrote from lecture notes I took in an architecture class, and sometimes it was referred to as "Hindoo Gothick." And in looking for some reference I discovered I may have plagerized a little... going to have to fix that...

Anyhoo, a quick check on "Oxford Reference Online" lists an entry from the Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture on "Hindoo." And it's pretty much verbatim what I wrote.

Any advise on what else I can do?--Jhlynes 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just checked what the wikientry says and it's not plagerized, so I needn't have worried on that front.--Jhlynes 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about lewis

He's a bit violent, and he didnt react well to you saying that he supports the Nazi's — although he does i think, but just tolerate him


this is not vandalism, it is historical writings, if you don't believe me visit the website i have listed...

The Table of Nations --CSArebel--

Race of Jesus

Paul Barlow, you are acting very childish, this is one account of the race of Jesus, don't edit it for your own racist wishes. I'm sorry you hate White People, but that is know reason to take it out on Jesus. There is know where that says "Acta Pilati" is fake. If you know a website please post it, back yourself up with facts. --CSArebel--

that's not proof, stop deleting it, just because YOU don't think it is credable, I don't think the interpitation of the book of revalation is accurate but i'm not deleting that. --CSArebel--

[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]

"[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]", --- Skapur 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Martial race

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Furthermore, please do not removed referenced material from wiki articles as you did on the Martial Race article in this diff its considered vandalism, you're welcome to improve the article. thanks. --StreetScholar 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so disingenuous. The "reference" was to a propaganda website which refers to the intervention of Indian troops as "treacherous". It is pure anti-Indian propaganda. Also, a website that spells British as "Bristish" is hardly appropriate or authoritative. Paul B 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi man. If you have any input you'd like to share here: WP:ANI#User:Street_Scholar (concerning this mention of User:Street Scholar vis-a-vis your debate with him over at Martial Race) then please do. Thanks. Hkelkar 10:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu rubbish on talk page of Hinduism?

Abecedare is trying to retain anti-Hindu mischievous links on talk page of Hinduism and cite vague Wikipedia policy. A subversive way to have rascality in Hinduism. Pl. give your view to remove entire discussion, if we have to retain those mischievous links on talk page just to retain the discussion. swadhyayee 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi racial politics

It is generally known that Serbs were persecuted by the nazis, see Jasenovac and [[Independent State of Croatia ]]. Bosoni

"The Nazi staff and mainly Himmler was convinced of that Bosnians were Muslim Aryans" (Source: "SS: Hell on the Western Front. The Waffen SS in Europe 1940-1945", 2003. p.70). He believed the Bosnians to be widely the same, racially, as the Croatians, who he saw as descendants of the Gothic and Persian stock." - Serbs were not included into this racial view and were the subjects of a minor holocaust. The nazis did not proclaim systematic widescale murder beyond racial reasons, which by other words was the only reason for systematic killing. [[User:Bosoni|Bosoni]
I see your point, I cannot provide any sources for the text regarding the view on Serb people. But it is apparently obvious that they were not regarded to be "Aryan", why would nazi germany otherwise build huge concentration camps intended for them? I know I've read somewhere about the "Asian view on Serbian heritage", but cannot recall where. So it's reasonable to remove the "Asian statement", but they were however not regarded Aryan, no matter what. Bosoni

I totally agree with you, but I'm not that well-known with the subject to be making such major contributions. Bosoni


Thanks poul for the award. I really did not mean to vandalize your work but it was a mare effort to correct some vital information about Islam (Since Islam terribly miss understood). But I do apolagize if i have cause you trouble. I miss uderstood your writting since i have never heard of so called "Nation Of Islam" before, well if any muslim look at the name of this organisation he/she would think first that it means "The Entire Muslim World". Later on I found out that "NOI" is an organisation and a CULT. I was really shocked when I read your article about Prophet Yaqub/Jacob(Peace be upon him) being an evil scientist. In The Holy Quran Allah talks about him. he is our Prophet, an ideal,honorable and respectable person for the mankind. Please check the following link. This link talks about prophet Yaqub/Jacob(pbuh) according to true Islam. Thank You

Your edits to: Nazi Archeology

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your edits to Nazi Archeology are disgustingly useful. These edits may be construed as actual contributions and thus may get you barnstarred, so please be careful. :P More seriously, working on Nazi Archeology from a bunch of conflicting texts is very confusing for me, since I'm hardly a specialist in that kind of thing. Weltanschauungswissenschaften seemed to be presented as a theory so I called it that. Any further help you can give would be very appreciated. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

dear paul

for educational purposes and to avoid confusion a brief explanation and background of the word antisemitism is needed as it is already mentioned and also to keep the objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Question for Paul

Paul, a while ago you spoke to me about some of my proposed changes to the baltic collaborators section of the holocaust article. Specifically you told me to speak to 'Goodoldpolonius2' about it, but he appears to be taking a wiki-break. I am only in the Baltics for another 3 weeks, from then on it will be hard to reference all cited work. I am new around here and wondered what other course of action I can take? I don't feel comfortable editing something as important as the Holocaust article.Disco 10:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

I hope that if we can direct the energy into working on a suite of articles, and leave 2 or 3 as general articles, that we can get back to productivity. It makes me cringe when I think of how much material was lost and how many editors gave up in disgust and how much time and energy was wasted. If some reasonable approximate set of different articles can be defined, then these people who want to fight about assorted differences of opinion can be directed to the appropriate article for their efforts.--Filll 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wonder how many independent editors we really have at the black people article. I have seen many give up over the last few months. I think if we can divide off those with a restrictive attitude and give them their own page, then this one black people page can be one of the main inclusive pages and the others, including the list of sites, can be linked from it. Also, I suspect that many of the "falangists" are the same as these black groups, with a lot of sock puppets, and the falangist/white supremacy group is just one or two people. I have advocated splitting the black people page up for months as a way to try to get past the log jams where each had their own vision. I have also seen that EVEN when just self-identified African Americans were editing, they did not agree at all either. Which is pretty funny. I do not seem to be able to get the editors to agree that they do not agree!!--Filll 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation case

Now that I have skimmed the Mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people) I see that we have a much bigger problem than I realized. Editingoprah and his or her sock puppets have been causing problems for a long long time. I think that if Editingoprah/Kobrakid/Timelist etc does not want to adopt their own article to edit and leave this one alone, we should get them barred from this article. It is clear that they have had some sort of crazy irrational agenda for many months that no one else agrees with. I am sorry to sound so harsh but that is what it looks like to me. I should have realized this sooner.--Filll 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Problem

Suspected Sockpuppets of Editingoprah:

  • User:
  • User:Aquadaqua
  • User:Cardriver
  • User:Kittykash
  • User:Kobrakid
  • User:Timelist
  • User:Vexel
  • User:Liketoread
  • User:Whatdoyou

Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah.M This is one person who has been harassing other users here for months and months and ignoring mediation attempts. We have a problem.--Filll 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Paul Barlow

I appreciate very much your work on The Jewish Peril - resizing the image of the COVER!

Can you do the same, but on the PHOTO image of Serge Nilus in my article on his most "important" work, entitlee Velikoe v malom? I just am no master - yet - on working imaging software (I just purchased Microsoft's software for it), and I do not know how to "crop" an image! Yours truly,--Ludvikus 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you get rid of that WHILE, upsidedown, Velikoe v malom? THANKS--Ludvikus 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote from your User (Home) page: . . . articles about the history of racial theories, religious ideologies and – especially – any stuff that combines the two . . .. You should like my article on the 1905 by Serge Nilus involving the Antichrist, and containing - as chapter 12 - the Protocols of Zion. I find it SURPRISING that no one has TRANSLATED and PUBLISHED this book into ENGLISH in its complete form — all of the FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTEEN (419) PAGES!!! My dream is to see it done one day! I would LOVE to get to understand the mind-set of this Serge Nilus!!!--Ludvikus 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


You've done a great job of cropping the image at Velikoe v malom.

Can you please enlarge the Color Cover image at the above article?
I got to scan this image and had it upoaded.
About 300px would be great! If not, then maybe 250px?
I do not know why I cannot do it myself!!
Yours truly,Ludvikus 05:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Also, can you please move the image to the right? It will look better that way! Thanks again.
--Ludvikus 05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Miklós Horthy

Hi Phil, thanks for your cleanup at Miklós Horthy. Could you please take a look at my note on the article's talk page to check if there is a precise translation for the particular expression mentioned there? Thanks, KissL 09:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PN Oak

The content that I added is valid and factual information. If you think that the language is not compliant with the WiKi standard, edit the language and presentation. Do not delete the content because the information is backed with links and books written by people. They ALL are valid contents based on their research and reason!!Bheeshma 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

About WIN

I got your message. I see what you mean, I just wanted to attempt to convince him to compromise by being very respectful towards him. But the change I'd like to see is still an issue. Would it be right for me to make a change based on the fact that I set forth points and he responded with irrelevant babble about Arkaim? I am not sure what his anticipated revert would classify as, but I think that based upon our discussion and his inability to address my main points, they could classify as unproductive edits or vandalism, and hence I could give a warning. What's involved in giving a warning? Thanks for any help you can offer. The Behnam 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give your feedback

You seem to be familiar with Thulean/Lucas19's history. As such, I'd like it if you could give feedback on this issue [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian]. Thanks. -Psychohistorian 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I thought so too. I have removed the section about OIT from the Aryan race article. Regards, --RF 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the reference to the Bhagavad Gita is offtopic to the article. What does this have to do with Aryan race? Many Westerners have read and esteemed the Gita. The question of the religion of individual Nazis should be discussed in another article.--RF 18:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Adolf Hitler

You have been named as a respondent in a mediation case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-18 Hitler. Do you have an interest in participating in this voluntary, informal mediation? If yes, please click the link, state that you wish to proceed and sign your name in the discussion section. 06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Patriotic Publishing Co.

Hello, Mr. 2-Barnstars, how are you?

  • Can you help me remove the "article with unsourced statements" TAG?
  • I have CLEANED UP the article considerably.
  • I have no idea how, where, this TAG occurs--but I read it in the CATEGORY section on the bottom of the page>
Regards, --Ludvikus 20:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Isn't removing large section of sourced text "Vandalism" and can popups not be used in that case? Perhaps it is better to contextualize the information in question instead of deleting it outright, no? Rumpelstiltskin223 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it meets reliability in expressing their viewpoint, which is what I meant before. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Then perhaps the section should be worded that Oak is supported by people with his ideological inclinations. I do not support outright erasure or prejudicial wording. Rumpelstiltskin223 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion


You just reverted me in that article and I'm not sure you've actually read the article's talk page. Ludvikus is apparently basing his changes on original research (worse he claims to be the most knowledgeable scholar on the topic here at wikipedia). Though I notice you only replaced forgery with hoax which is reasonable. I hope you will agree that plagiarism is inapropriate to describe the entire text, though it does apply to at least the 1865 pamphlet by Maurice Joly.--Caranorn 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read your comment on the talk page, just missed who signed it (you). For the rest, Jkelly asked that the change should be discussed before a change is made, which is why I reverted with the edit summary revert per talk' to a version prior to said changes. But as I already said I don't particularly object to a change from forgery to hoax, what I didn't like was your edit summary as per talk? I don't think so. But I expect that was based on a mutual misunderstanding.--Caranorn 14:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul Barlow, for your objectivity. I was beginning to loose hope in this part of Wikipedia.

Perhaps an explanation of our problem is that forgery is more familiar than hoax, so editors say forgery when they really mean hoax.
You've restored my faith in the belief that the time I spent on Wikipedia is not fruitless.
As an aside, you probably know the amount of work I've done to support this article with related articles, like The International Jew and The Jewish Peril. I am not mentioning this here as an ego trip, but just as evidence of my familiarity with the subject matter.
Best regards, --Ludvikus 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I awarded you the Barnstar some time ago? You haven't noticed?
Now I think you are a dedicated Wikipedian, that's why it's important what you think of me. I was about to write to you again when I discovered your're thanks.
Believe me, I have a strong ego, so I don't mind disagreement, or disapproval - except that it leaves at times an unpleasant tast, and disappointment in the other.
Now I ask you for a Wiki favor - please visit my User page and look at my edits - I think you will find that the time I have devoted to the Protocols of Zion is just the tip of the iceberg
I write to you now in the hope of revising your opinion of me as an obssessed eccentric - or if so, at least I'm obssessed with Wikipedia as much, if not more so, than The Protocols.
Here's partly what you think of me (which I hope to revise in your mind):
  Ludvikus is a very eccentric editor
  who seems to be  obsessed the details of different editions,
  which he documents on pages  devoted to each edition.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion of me. I don't mind it - as long as it does not interfer with Wikipedia work. So if you visit my User page you will find a lot of work - even much more - which is NOT devoted to the Protocols.
In spite of your view of me, I still think you deserve your Barnstar because the objectivity I'm concerned with is in regard to WP articles - not what you think of me.
However, if you take a closer look at my User page, you might change your mind about me, and that may mean an even better WP working relationship.
As a matter of fact, I am currently involved in a Editors War over Philosophy which has caused an Administrator to lock the article.
Best regards, Ludvikus 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nordic picture

Hi, my name is Paula Hofmann and I am interested in the picture you have posted in Nordic theory. Could you tell me where you have found the original picture, or from when this picture is originally?

I am looking forward to receiving your answer to Thanks in advance and best wishes. Paula

Philosophy page

Hello. Excuse me dropping in but I picked up some of your comments on the protocols of Zion talk page. There is a spot of trouble on the Philosophy page, due to an individual who obsessively wikifies every word, and who has some very strange theories about the history of philosophy. The trouble is that there are very few editors who know anything about the history of philosophy, and this individual seems to be gaining some converts (equally, a few other editors find him extremely tedious). He has managed to get the article itself locked down, and persists in writing long commentaries on the talk page.

I gather you have taught philosophy in the past, and would be very grateful of a reality check. Some times I wonder if it's me who is just going mad. Best Dbuckner 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton

Thanks for catching my mistake. I thought that I was pasting "British House of Commons|" in. I had just been editing an article on SSM in Spain, and had copied that phrase. I should have checked the edit before saving. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Search Term: "User_talk:Paul_Barlow"