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)

Madai, Mitanni, Medes

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)

I don't know if there is something people just don't get, but for those people there is an article on wikipedia entitled Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni where they can enlighten themselves about the situation. Til Eulenspiegel /[[User

talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]/ 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And also there are article such as Mitanni that demonstrated that it have nothing to do with Medes my Indid(Indian, Pakistani,gypsy, etc.) friend. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You said that Aryans of Mitanni were from Kura-Araxes but you haven't show me any source for it. If you find source for it and add it to Mitanni, I'll accept your ideas and no more engaged in edit-ar with you. I am still waiting for your sources for Kura-Araxes...Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it, why don't you read Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni and then tell me if you still don't see any sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

But the mainstream view is they speak in Sanskirit and they're from India. I mean just show me one more source. Then I am going to close this discussion. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because as far as I remember, Kura-Araxes culture is Hurro-Urartu culture. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Then there is the "Matiene" of Herodotus, if you look that one up scholars say that is the Mitanni getting ready to morph into the Medes... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Til, so why don't you edit Mitanni for it before Madai? Because when ppl read this article and then click the Mitanni page, their mind will be confused.

• Here they are talking about "territory", not "race". Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is more interesting to me than Mitanni. I can't be responsible for making sure all related articles are always on the same page and it has been a long time since I edited Mitanni, a lot must have been changed since then - but the next time I look at the Mitanni article in depth, whenever that is, I may find some improvements to be made there. In the meantime, there is no valid argument for keeping out referenced material just because an editor wants to argue their opinion against the RSS, so the edit warring to remove the referenced material should cease. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin said that we need to get third opinions from other admins. And, therefore, you shouldn't edit the article. On the other hand, I am still waiting for sources that you will show me. I googled it, but I didn't find any source. Maybe you'll find one. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For purposes of this article, all we need are sources speculating on connections with the article topic, Madai. And I have already shown you several. There are also sources speculating on whether the Kura-Araxes were Hurrian or Aryan or both, but this is actually a side issue to this article or this talkpage as it would pertain to content of one of those other articles rather than this one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

But Madai is associated with Medes and the scholar who claims that Mitanni is synonym of Medes and therefore, if Mitanni=Medes(Madai) then Mitanni=Madai. That's the reason why I asked you for source it. Because Mitanni is Hurrian country which ruled by Aryans whereas Medes are Iranians. Their languages and races are so different and thus, I have right for asking connections and sources for it.

Just look at it : It is now generally agreed that Mitanni Aryan is related to the Indo-Aryan rather than to the Iranian or Nuristani sub-branches of Aryan. 1 Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your WP:OR doesn't matter - how many more sources explicitly suggesting a link between "Madai" and "Mitanni" do I need to show you? That's all we need to be able to say "Some scholars have linked Madai and Mitanni". No matter how many I show you, you are forever going to demand more sources. This is what the sources say: it's not up to us to try to synthesize our own rebuttals because as wikipedians all our job is, is to report on what the sources say, and what opinions are out there, and this is amply demonstrated to be one of the opinions that are out there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

This source claims that Kurds are Turks. So what now? Shall we add it to Kurds? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

I just wanted to show you an example to provide best understanding. I wanted to show there are sources for about everything everywhere. That's the reason why the article fringe theories here. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I keep trying to tell you, fringe theories is not our relevant guideline. It's a wikipedia article. It has no authority over other wikipedia articles. What you want is WP:FRINGE and that clearly explains for people like you that we don't blank stuff out screaming "fringe! fringe!" rather we do cover "fringe" (or what YOU may consider to be "fringe") on the appropriate pages, with the appropriate weight. And once again, for a Bible article like this one, nearly everyone's interpretation is always going to be someone else's "fringe", depending on your point-of-view or perspective, because that word "fringe" gets thrown around a lot as polemical rhetoric, not as neutral encyclopedia-writing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not MY opinion! Read it : A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work. Examples include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth. Some fringe theories may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.[1] Characterization of a theory as fringe does not necessarily invalidate the theory. Dismissing a theory based solely, or in part, on a fringe characterization may deviate from the spirit of the scientific approach and may limit new advances and insights.[2] You are just OBSESSED with this topic and you still hasn't told me what is your race is.Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WHAT'S IT TO YOU what my race is? Or why I edit this topic? And no matter how the wikipedia article defines a "fringe theory", WE STILL COVER FRINGE THEORIES ON WIKIPEDIA IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WP:FRINGE, not in accordance with a wikipedia article! What is so hard to understand? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

BUT IT IS NOT "APPROPRIATE PLACE" AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE ADMIN HAS SUGGESTED US TO GET THIRD OPINIONS FROM OTHER ADMINS! Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume it is a "fringe theory" - why wouldn't this be the appropriate place for a "fringe theory" about Madai? After all, according to some rhetorical uses of the polemic term, everything in this article might be considered "fringe" including Madai himself! But we are obviously not going to delete the article, nor label it "fringe". Let's let each reader decide for himself what to make of the whole range of views, since they are going to come from all different backgrounds anyway, that's the wikipedia way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• ...Til does not have clean hands here, a third opinion or uninvolved admin should have been sought earlier. That is what admin's said. It demonstrated that YOU ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. I've just said that wait for other admin's third opinions. Is it so hard for you? Just wait guy, what's your problem? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Section break

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)

Consensus

• My suggestion is that writing these kinds of sentences to article to find a compromise: Madai is assaociated with Medes in Biblical sources and by vast majority of scholars. On the other hand there are some scholars that associated Madai with Matienne, Madai and so on. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds hopeful for a compromise, but I'm guessing you didn't mean to write Madai the second time, how about "...who have associated Madai with Mitanni, Mannae and Matiene"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean. ... with Matienne, Mannai and so on. Matiene ii using generally the synonym of Mitanni, therefore, "Matienne and Mannae" is enough according to me. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So you still don't feel linking "Mitanni" is substantiated, even though the same could be certainly said about some scholars associating that name with all the other names, including Madai? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand you because of my English. Say it in simply words. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And this my compromise. If you do not wanna accept it, it is your problem. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understood. As I said, my compromise is this. Do you accept it or not? Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it would make better sense to link all the relevant articles, as long as there are separate articles for each of these names you call "synonyms"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as remember, Matiene is Mitanni, isn't it?Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but we have two different articles mainly since the names come from different time periods, so we may as well link both entities. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. "Madai is assaociated with Medes in Biblical sources and by vast majority of scholars. On the other hand there are some scholars that have associated Madai with Matienne, Mitanni and Mannae in addition to Medes." It is better. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, That works for me, and I appreciate your efforts at compromise and am glad we finally hammered something out. Maybe an admin can edit the page! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not now, we have 5 days and maybe they suggest different things about the article such as Kachin and other controversies. We should wait. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

So what? Were you under the impression that "fringe theories" (your unsubstantiated point-of-view label) are things we're not allowed to talk about or reference? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:30, 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)

Til, you'll find a slightly better source for Kachin Madai's nature and role in Kachin theology here: p.281. Also some stuff here various pages. Seems madai nat is the sun-nat (nat means spiritual being, everything from a god to an elf), and the protective spirit of a village. Can't see anything about a link to Genesis though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.250 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

References

No sources linking Kachin Madai to Genesis Madai

Til is getting a bit emotional about this. But the fact is, of the two sources he quotes, only only one is a reliable source by Wikipedian criteria, and that one makes no mention of Genesis.

The two sources are: (1) James Henry Green et al., (2000) Burma: frontier photographs 1918-1935 p. 188, and (2) Robinne et.al., Prêtres et chamanes: Métamorphoses des Kachin de Birmanie, p.228.

The second book, by Robinne and others, is a valid source, but page 228 does not say that any connection can be or has been drawn between the Kachin Madai and the one in Genesis. (Yes Til, I read French). The Green book is a collection of vintage photos, and not a reliable source for ethnography. I must apologise though that I don't have access to the book itself and don't know what the referenced page actually says - maybe Til could quote the passage for us. If there's nothing remotely supportive of this connection with Genesis it'll have to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.250 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

They are both valid sources, and they both do mention the Madai of Genesis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A book of old photos is not a valid source for ethnography. The Robinne book doesn't say any connection has been made between the Kachin Madai and the Genesis Madai. Perhaps you can quote the passages from the two books that you think support your case?

I went back to try to find the quotes again. The Robinne book talks extensively about the Kachin Madai, and at 229-230 during a discussion about the Kachin Madai nat, it mentions how missionaries used such similarities between the Bible and Karen mythology to propagate Christian belief, however I could not find where it explicitly states that the name Madai is also found in the Hebrew text of the Bible, on the pages I could see. The other book is not just "a book of old photos". It IS a valid source for ethnography; why isn't it? About half of it consists of detailed scholarly footnotes about the people there at the time. The part I cited similarly talks about the Madai nat and mentions how missionaries would use similarities in Karen mythology to the Bible, but I couldn't find an explicit mention of the fact that the same name Madai is found in the Bible. So I'm sure it's not like none of these scholars ever noticed that it is the same name, but I can see I will have to look for a more explicit mention somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Might just point out that Madai is not the "deified ancestor" of the Kachin, as stated in the article. He's a spirit, never was a human. He gave his daughter in marriage to the first chief of the Kachin (mythological figure), which made him the "dama" to the chiefs, the "wife-giver", a very important concept among the Kachin. He's not directly the ancestor of any Kachin, and he was never a human.PiCo (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding tons of sources that he is considered ancestor of all Kachin, directly through his daughter. (You saying his daughter is an ancestor but he isn't?) And he is apparently considered a spirit or a deity, hence I said 'deified' but that may be too strong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's complicated for sure. I'm no expert on Kachin culture, but from what I can gather, one important element is the regulation of marriage through what are called "wife-givers" and wife-takers". These are lineages or clans. The Kachin also have a highly stratified social structure, with hereditary chiefs and commoners. Madai is the ancestor of all Kachin, and ultimate wife-giver for all chiefly lineages. All belongs in the past now, they're all Christians. PiCo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation results

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iranzamin-Iranzamin/Archive

In short, BBBAAACCC (talk · contribs), Ritspah (talk · contribs), Enheduanna-nanna (talk · contribs), Jezebel1349 (talk · contribs), Inanna-nanna (talk · contribs), Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk · contribs), and Medea Mēdeia (talk · contribs) were all found technically indistinguishable by the Sockpuppet Investigations process and analysis, other than Ritspah who had no edits and had a different account name pattern. The SPI administrators blocked the accounts.

Please note that it is still possible that different individual people were involved - per some comments by Iranzamin-Iranzamin, there's a university proxy server involved. We have both WP:SOCK policy for individual human multiple accounts misbehavior, and WP:MEAT policy for multiple humans working in a similar manner in cooperation. The handling for either case is the same; if we have good reason to believe users are related and connected, we consider them connected.

Based on this information I am going to perform an early unprotection of the article as my next edit after posting this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)