Talk:Madai

Budahish and Medes

The verse from Budahish does not mention Madai or Medes, You can check it out here Budahish Ch.29. It just says Eranvej is in the direction of Ataro-patakan [Azerbaijan], but there no mention of Madai or Medes. So I removed the sentence.Heja Helweda 08:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph you removed does not say Bundahish mentioned Medes; It only says Zoroastrian religion of the Medes says so...

In the oldest writings of the Zoroastrian religion of the Medes, the earliest homeland of the Aryan race had been a legendary place called "Airyanem Vaejah", traditionally (eg., in the Bundahish 29:12) associated with Arran and the valley of the Araxes river, which rises next to Mount Ararat

Some sources have used Medes as synonymous for Iranian the same as some have used Persian as synonymous for Iranian. Asoyrun 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph has nothing to do with Madai. You have to provide a source in which explicitly mentions that Madai came from Airyanam Vaejah.Heja Helweda 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, this is 100% relevant; the verse doesn't have to mention 'Madai' by name because this is about the religious book of the Medes. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Mitanni were an Indo-Aryan people" is a false statement

The Mitanni were Hurrians who spoke an unclassified NON-Indo-European language. It is conjectured that , at best, some of the names of the Mitanni aristocrats had Indo-Aryan names, but that these rulers were assimilated to the Hurrian culture and language. Nothing can be concluded from this. This is a red herring, because by the same token, the names of the Levite Hasmonean dynasty that ruled ancient Judaea all had Greek names, despite the fact that they were not Greek.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Madai, Mitanni, Medes

I added one source connecting Madai, Mitanni and Medes, I think I have seen some mention Mannai also anciently in the same general area.

The Kura-Araxes culture has been looked to when theorizing about the origins of the Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni, not to mention the homeland of the other groups as well as Aryanem Vaeja / Arran, by the way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr, I've read the source. According to the source, Mitanni is indistinguishable from that of Medes, the Madai. In this source, "Madai" uses as the synonym of "Medes". And it says that it is indistinguishable from Mitanni. There are no consensus about the second sentence, but the first one is accepted by almost all of the literature. Am I wrong? Cause vast majorty of the researchers claim that Mitanni is a Hurrian dominated country that is governing by Indo-Aryan elites. In your source, this governing class is represents as Indo-Iranian. Therefore, the source is exception. I'm sorry, but I should revert your edits again:( Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something. You evidently don't deny that the source is making this claim about the article topic, Madai. Why can we not mention that the claim has been made and use this source? Also the idea that the original Mitanni were Indo-Aryans from the Araxes who transferred their name to the Hurri lands is not that out of line. And Indo Aryan and Indo Iranian overlap to some extent if I'm not wrong, so this is not a big difference if some sources call them Indo Iranian is it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr,

The source's claims are exception. 'Cause the vast majority of researcher don't agree with it but conversely almost all of them(including this source) agree that Madai=Medes. Synonyms for Medes= Mad, Mada, Meda, Ma'tai, Madai...But Mitanni does not refers to Madai. It refers to Hurrians, Hanigalbat, etc but not Madai. We should add informations that vast majority of scholars agree or reach concensus about it, not exceptions. Yes, some scholars claim that Mitannis(governing class) were Iranians but vast majority say that they are Indo-Aryans. Another example is that about languages. For example Mckenzie claimed that Kurdish language is Southwester Iranian but vast majority of scholars claim that it is Northwestern Iranian. Therefore, we classified Kurdish language as Northern, despite McKenzie's claims. 'Cause McKenzie's claims are exception. So it is same for Madai. Do you see my point Mr.? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the majority of scholars do agree that the Mitanni were native to Hurrian territory and Hanigalbat. The area had already been occupied by Hurrians, so the Mitanni are generally thought to have arrived from elsewhere. Sources calling them Indo-Aryan are not wrong, this term is often used inclusively of Indo-Iranian, and as far as I know most projections of where the Indo-Aryan Mitanni came from involve them branching out of the Kura Araxes culture. At that remote date I'm not even sure it makes sense even to talk about a distinction between Indo Aryan and Indo Iranian because more likely these had not even begun to diverge yet and they were speaking something that was ancestral to Indo Aryan. At any rate even if it is a minority view that connects Mitanni and Mannai with later Madai (/Medes) there are still enough sources to give it a brief mention per NPOV rather than suppress it out of disagreement with the sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think that Mitanni is Indo-Iranian and not Indo-Aryan, you should add these informations to Mitanni firstly. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that "Indo-Iranian" and "Indo-Aryan" mean virtually the same thing. And when you're talking about 1700 BC, most likely you're talking about some ancestral proto-language to both these groups that hadn't even begun to differentiate yet. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Aryans are thought as black ppl, but Indo-Iranians are not. Japhetics are white and therefore this information is exception and fringe theory. As I told you you should add information to Mitanni that demonstrates that they are from Kura-Arax and not from India, then you can easily rv my edits but in this case you shouldn't. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Indo-Aryans are thought as black ppl" Aha, I knew there was a problem here somewhere! Do you have any source for that view? Meanwhile, the view that you are deigning to call "fringe", suggesting that Mitanni may have been related to the Medes, is well-sourced and even if you consider it "fringe" we are allowed to mention it per policy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, according to the source Mitanni has shown as synonym of Medes. That's the reason why they associated with Madai. I mean, according to the source, Medes=Madai and if Medes=Mitanni, then Mitanni=Madai. My poit is that, Mitanni=Medes is a fringe theory. 'Cause Mitannis are not Iranians. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, forget about whiteness, do you think that Mitanni=Medes? Your source claims that they are. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you see fit to sit in judgement of what published scholars have written and brush them off summarily as "fringe", but by the way, do you actually have any, er, SOURCES backing up any of your wild assertions or are you pulling them out of your hat? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, sir, Mitannis=Medes is not make sense. Medes are Iranians while Mitannis' ppl are Hurrians and their elite-rulers are Indo-Aryans. The source claims that they are same and it also claims that Madai=Medes and Mitannis=Medes, thus Mitannis=Madai. But it is not acceptible information. It is an exception. You can find sources which claim Kurds are Turks. But it is an exception, therefore, we cannot add this kinds of informations to Kurdish people Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how feasible I think it is, nor how feasible you think it is. When the sources are looked at, it will be shown that there are several scholars who have discussed the possibility of a relationship between Mitanni and Madai (Mede) and we are allowed to discuss what they say. That will be weighed against your sources that specifically counter or rebut this idea, which so far, is zero. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Noahsworld_map.jpg just look at this. "Madai" is northwestern part of Iran which Medes located. Look at map of Mitanni. It have nothing to do with it. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite was I was hoping for as a WP:RS. However, that map, from a 19th century Bible Atlas, doesn't prove much. It has Madai in the right general location, but again bear in mind what scholars say about the Kura-Araxes culture. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I really cannot understand why are you so obsessed with it:) Who are these scholars? :) In order to decrease confusion or mess, we should to add informations that makes sense. If not, then we can add informations that claims Kurds are Magyars or Kurds are Arabs to Kurdish people. And you know, therea are sources for it. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm basically asking you to put up or shut up. I've shown you sources for the theory and scholarly discussion on Mitanni=Mad and can easily show you more. Now you need to show any kind of source for anything you are saying because WP:OR notions are considered worthless for purposes of article improvement. We are not talking about Kurds, Magyars or Arabs so do let's stay on topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course we are not talking about them but I just wanted to give an example to provide best understanding. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you've shown me a source but as I've said, this source that claims Mitanni=Med is an exception and fringe theory. If not, you can add it this information to Mitanni in order not to confuse minds Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've shown you a source so far and unless I misunderstand, you have ZERO sources dismissing this as a "fringe theory", rebutting the idea, or anything similar. Why should I take the time to present further sources, when apparently no sources are required for you at all to make whatever pronouncements you like, based solely on your own perceived expertise? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you tell me how can I show source that dismissing your source as a "fringe theory"? It's ridiculous. You say that I need the source that claims "Mitanin=Med is a fringe theory". Also I cannot find any source that claims "Kurds=Celts is a fringe theory". So what now? Is it mean that I can add an information that claims Kurds are Celtics? 20:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk • contribs)

You have no sources for anything you are saying, so how is anyone supposed to take your expert word for it that the sources you disagree with are incorrect because you say they are? And could you possibly make your point about Medes and Mitanni without drawing analogies to Celts, Kurds, or any WP:OTHERSTUFF that exists with entirely different conditions? That would clear up a lot of confusion. Generally, references to scholars who have anything specific to say with regard to the topic of Madai can be looked at here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So you say that, I should to show you the sources that claims Medes are Iranians and Mitannis are Hurrians who ruled by an Indo-Aryan elites and therefore have nothing to do with Medes. It is ridiculous too because it's already known by everybody. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. You are right that those things are known by everybody. But as for what they say about the Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni, it's like you have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Once again, this Indo-Aryan superstrate (I'm not making this up, see the linked article) is theorized to have come from somewhere else before they were in Hurri-land, and once again, nearly all projections have them passing through at least some part of what is now modern Iran to get there, and once again, the most specific archaeological determinations have suggested a connexion with the Kura-Araxes culture, and once again, the possibility that they were akin to either Mannai or the Medes or both has indeed been considered by peer reviewed scholars and we have yet to see any specific dissent. In addition, may I remind you that this article is primarily about a person named in the Bible, so nearly any speculation about who his descendants may have been is liable to be considered "fringe" by someone, but that doesn't mean we cannot mention it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, show the sources that claims Indo-Aryan superstrate of Mitannis didn't came from India but from Kura-Araxes. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And also show the sources that claims their language have nothing to do with Sanskirit Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Kura-Araxes ppl never talk in Sanskirit. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made no claims regarding Sanskrit one way or the other, so this is a rather strange request for this topic. Remember, we're just looking for what references can be sourced mentioning the article topic, Madai. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that there are some theories that claims Manna and Mada is connected. It is not wrong and not exception. But your source that claims Mitanni=Med is exception, sorry. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

−

Oh no, I've already shown you sources, and there are more in the linked articles. And all you do is dismiss the published sources as incorrect or fringe, and claim to "know" better than these scholars. Now it's your turn to come up with ANYTHING you can show substantiating where you are getting your ideas from. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Manna is in Iran-Urmia where Mada/Medes located. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You SHOW me a source, I know it! And I said it is fringe. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So how do you as a wikipedian outrank the published experts, especially seeing as you have no references elucidating your own rather peculiar viewpoint? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have answered this. Just look at the above. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you what, why don't you come back when you've got some kind of a verifiable source, because you're never going to get very far around here on just your own pov when it comes down to it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've answered this too! OMG! Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know. You don't need any stinkin' sources, because what you say is right and what the sources say is wrong! Yawn Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not what I am say, vast majority of researcher/scholars say that. What's ur problem? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Now's your chance. Cite one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok when I "cited" it, what should I add to the article? "Medes are Iranians and Mitannis are Hurrians who ruled by Indo-Aryans" It is out of the topic(Madai). You can look Mitanni and Medes. LOL. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And also I feel so harassed. Because about 2-3 hours, I am trying to demonstrate you that Medes were Iranians and Mitanni was Hurrian-dominated population who ruled by Indo-Aryan governing class. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything actually cited in the article should mention the specific topic of Madai, but since you are making claims about where the Indo-Aryan superstrate of Mitanni could or could not have originated, I thought it might help somewhat if you could reference that p.o.v. here on the talkpage...

And I'm sorry you feel harassed but in all that time I have been asking for any reference representing your pov and one has not been forthcoming... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr Til Eulenspiegel, I've answered this but you constantly asking the same questions! Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The specific question I keep asking is What is your source? yet if there was an answer I must have missed it! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You can look at Mitanni and Medes to see it! OMG. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Mitanni has a small subsection on the Indo-Aryan superstrate, but nothing there getting geographic into where they had come from; the main article covering that is Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni - have you not read it? I also suggest you read our cornerstone policies, WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:OR. You must have specific, off-site reliable sources that make the same specific claims you are making - you cannot point to a wikipedia article where these claims are not even addressed and argue a negative by their absence. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, look at http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4074.htm these. According to biblehub, Madai associated with Medes and there is NOTHING about Mitanni. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And also I have the Torah in my library and there is NOTHING about Mitannis that connected them to the Madai. I am looking at google now, to find the Torah on the net too. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Will take a look, hold on... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're still trying to argue a negative from an absence. All we need are scholars that have speculated on a link between Madai - a character from Genesis - with Mitanni, and we have them, so it can be mentioned as a view that has been proposed. If you find another scholar rebutting this possibility, that could also potentially be added as a counterpoint. Generally on articles about the grandsons of Noah, we don't rule out mentioning anything as a "fringe theory" because NONE of it is actually considered mainstream anyway. And if you actually read WP:FRINGE and stop using it as a polemic for "whatever I disagree with and want to get rid of" you might learn that (surprise) Wikipedia covers fringe ! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because only one writer claimed that Mitannis=Medes, Medes=Madai and therefore Mitanni=Madai, we should not add these kinds of informations to the article. In a nutshell, the term Japhetic is from the Torah/Bible and there is nothing about Mitannis in these sacred books to connect them to Madai. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are obsessed with your source and biased toward my-actually not my!- explanations. Thus, I am not going to arguing with you anymore. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Only one writer" No, I'm afraid it isn't "only one writer". Have you even looked into this? The one writer referenced now is sufficient RS to establish the pov, but here's another: [1] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok ok, there are two source for it. As I have said, I am not going to arguing with you. Because you try to say that Indians are Japhetics despite the Torah that the term Japhetic comes from.:) I can find many sources that claims nonsense arguments about any issue. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There's LOTS of sources for it. [2] [3] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this language. But yes dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. INDIANS ARE JAPHETICS:). Bye Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

These sources not in English and I cannot understand it! But one is says that "Madai und Mitanni". It means that Madai and Mitanni is different. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll write a book that claims that Iranians from Aborigines of Australia. Maybe you can add this as a "source" into Iranian people to demonstrate that Iranians are Aborigines of Australia. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 1920 German source says that "Madai und Mitanni" are to be reckoned as included among names related to the Medes! And I'm not about to get sidetracked into a discussion about Australian aborigines on this page... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an old source. Mitannis are as I dozen time said, Hurrian dominated ppl who ruled by Indo-Aryan elite minority. And Medes, on the other hand, Northwestern Iranians. Different races, different languages...Our topic is about Madai. If you try to demonstrate that Mitannis are Medes, firstly you must do it in Mitanni or Medes articles, if it accept by admins, etc, then you can rv my edits. Ok? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, not okay. I do not agree with your repeated removal of referenced information about the article topic, just because you have some differing pov that you cannot even find representative sources for. Perhaps it is time for a WP:3O. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not my POV, it is the Torah's and vast majority of scholar's views! You are the only pov-pusher here. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You have to date failed to produce a single scholar making the specific claim you are making. Pointing to the fact that something is NOT mentioned in the Torah and then saying the absence proves your point is not going to cut it in terms of logic, or our RS policies. Have you read our main wikipedia policy pages I linked for you yet? Until you can tell us what specific source says what you are saying, it will be hard to take your objections seriously. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In the Torah, Medes called as "Madai" but Mitanni is not. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's just your interpretation of the Torah. Actually there is only one name that appears in Hebrew, namely MADAY, and "Medes" is an interpretation that many have. Has anyone ever interpreted or speculated on this reference to possibly include the Indo-Aryan Mitanni? Yes, but regardless of how many sources say so, you are somehow superior to all these published authors and can over-rule each and every one of them by your mere whim or say-so and you are not required to have any source. Well, I don't think so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation...LOL. You are biased and also I think you are Indian. I am not going to discuss this again because you have bias toward my explanations and also you are not objective unfortunately. I won't answer your "comments" anymore. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There you go Til, you're now an Indian, by Vishnu! How many does this make? You should keep a list :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.250 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been angrily called German, Jewish, Hungarian, Turkish, Arab, black, white, Asian, Native American, and many other things by newbies who are incredulous that anybody else would even consider standing up for their favorite enemy's right to have a traditional POV! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Another line in Jubilees (8:5) states that a daughter of Madai named Melka married Cainan, who is an ancestor of Abraham also mentioned in older versions of Genesis." WTF? Older versions of Genesis? What older versions of Genesis? And that stuff about the ancestor of the Karens is way weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.250 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's bound to sound weird to people who have always been taught different, wherever they happened to have been educated. But this is the world of referenced information now, baby. Yes, Virginia, there are older versions of Genesis that mention Cainan. A good place to learn more would be Cainan. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Third opinions to break impasse

I was asked to comment, but TLDR. Though Greek Medos should be in a See-also section, and Kachin Madai should be a hat note, since it has nothing to do with the topic. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. I deleted it but this user: Til Eulenspiegel has reverted it. He behaves as if the article was his own blog. Myanmar has nothing to do with the topic. Jezebel1349 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, you have to have a very good reason for blanking out referenced information on wikipedia, it can't just be "I myself don't agree with what the reference says, or I myself know better than what the reference says, so I am going to correct it or remove it based on my own original research." Trust me, I have been on wikipedia for nearly a decade, that's just the way it works here. Since you don't wish to take my word for it, I am going to seek out some admins who can probably do a better and more tactful job of explaining our inviolable cornerstone policies for you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

• I didn't say that I myself don't agree with what the reference says, or I myself know better than what the reference says, so I am going to correct it or remove it based on my own original research. Do not distort my words. I said Myanmar has nothing to do with the topic. Jezebel1349 (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

• I am also eager to get third opinions from other editors and/or uninvolved admins who have read the problem in the above section, since I on my own have been unconvincing in explaining what our cornerstone policies at wikipedia are. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theories

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view.

So do not add funny informations such as Myanmar-Kachin people to the article. Jezebel1349 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Are you saying wikipedia has no room for anything that your highness declares to be a "fringe theory"? LOL keep reading our WP:FRINGE policy some more. This is a Biblical article, every single word of it is going to be considered "fringe" by some crackpot out there, guaranteed. You are blocking, suppressing and censoring referenced facts simply because your pov disagrees with what these sources are saying. So it's your (uncited) pov versus the sources at this point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't referenced when you first reverted it. You desperately seek a reference to save it. But it is still a fringe theory.Jezebel1349 (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as leaving out the part about missionaries "seizing" upon the established diety:

"Madai is also the name of the deified ancestor of the Kachin people of Myanmar, according to the indigenous Kachin religion, and comparisons with the figure of Madai in Genesis have sometimes been drawn.

- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it a mainstream, prevailing view or not? I don't think so. Jezebel1349 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what you think since you haven't any sources. NOTHING about this topic is going to be considered a mainstream, prevailing view and anyway wikipedia covers thoroughly all notable widely published views relevant to a topic, not just the ones you deign to be "mainstream prevailing". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)