User talk:Apaugasma
![]() | I have stopped contributing content to Wikipedia. Instead, I will be studying like Aulus Gellius is doing here on the left. You may leave me a message, but it may take a long time for me to reply. I will be back writing articles once the scholars and academics have taken over. ☿ Apaugasma (☉) |
Lurkers' cove
[edit]This collapsed section contains some old archived talk page threads that for various reasons I think are interesting enough to keep on display here. Lurkers enjoy!
Lurkers' cove
|
---|
Hieroglyphs, decipherment of[edit]![]() Hi Apaugasma! First off, thanks for the warm welcome and for the balanced edits :-). One request, though: I think "[...] was able to identify the phonetic value of a few Egyptian hieroglyphs" gives the wrong impression. This suggests that Ibn Washiyya was following the correct method like an early Young / Champollion, as per Dr. El Daly's claims. I would be very excited if that were true, but looking e.g. at the picture shown with the article (from Dr. El Daly's presentation), it clearly is not: Going through the list from the upper left, 𓊰 is not a uniconsonantal sign at all, certainly not "aleph", 𓏌𓏤 is /nw/ + determinative stroke, not "y", 𓏏 𓏥 is /t/ + plural strokes and not "q", 𓉻 is ayn+aleph (the word "great"), not "g", the next character 𓏌 is /nw/ again, now interpreted as "b", 𓊹𓊹 "two gods" (nTr.wy?) is certainly not "k" and so forth ... I could go on for the rest of the chart: it is not just that the phonetic values are misidentified but that word signs are interpreted as phonetics and the author clearly did not even understand which signs belong together. This impression is confirmed by a quick glance through the translation of the work linked to in the article: whole groups of glyphs are given allegorical translations "if a man was poisoned they would write it with XYZ glyphs" with no basis in the actual text displayed. So, if any glyphs were identified correctly I would ascribe that to mere chance (sadly, again - if the work had been done 1,000 years ago, I would be extremely excited). I think the reason why this never gets called out is because the number of reporters that can read Hieroglyphs and Arabic is vanishingly small if not zero. I would give Ibn Washiyya credit for trying and for his assumption that signs could be read phonetically (rather than just allegorically / as ideographs) - in itself an important step. But "correctly identified some signs" gives the wrong impression IMHO, especially since this has been hyped so much in the media and there has been no critical reporting whatsoever (outside of specialist circles). Can we find a better way to phrase this? I struggled, that's why I took the identification part out completely in the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikuChan39 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The Arabic Hermes[edit]You appear to be an extremely knowledgeable person to me. Will come to visit you from time to time to discuss few things or to get some book recommendations on the history of philosophy, religion and science if you don't mind. I have started reading Kevin Van Bladel's "The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science." Interesting study. But the book I suppose suffers from some Hellenocentric biases. I don't know. That is just an opinion. I haven't even finished the book yet. Have you come across this term before? I mean, Hellenocentrism? I suppose you have. The article is not an well developed one. Need more references to enrich that entry. Anyways, Bladels' book is great. Learning many things from it. Wanted to let you know that I came to know of this book from one of your comments in a talk page. And yes, pardon my English, I am not a native speaker. Best wishes for you. Mosesheron (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It was really enlightening. However, do you believe that modern historians have genuinely attempted, or are still attempting, to reconstruct the cultural context in which ancient Greece flourished, with all of its knowledge of philosophy, theology, and so on? Was it that difficult, given the fact that they have “successfully reconstructed" many aspects of history that were almost unknown to us? I'm sure you've considered the time period between the so-called first philosopher of ancient Greece, Thales, and the "all-knowing" Aristotle, in whose figure we see the culmination of nearly all ancient knowledge? How could they achieve so many things within such a short period of time? What are the real sources of pre-Socratic philosophy, theology, and so on? Did it all begin with them? If the answer is no, then, who were their real inspirations? People like Martin Bernal et al might well be wrong in their theses, but what really have the mainstream historians taught us about this aspect of intellectual history? I've been looking for a few works on the history of ancient philosophy, theology, sciences, and other subjects that explore the origins and sources of pre-Socratic philosophy in depth, but to my surprise, I have found none. Now that maybe because I am not an expert in the filed or a student of the history of philosophy and sciences like you. But again why are they so scarce if they really exist, if such works exist at all? Most books or journal papers I read start with the pre-Socratics, with an introduction that largely rejects rather than recognizes the contributions or contacts with other civilizations in a very smart way. They frequently spare a few lines to demonstrate how primitive and mythological other civilizations were, while claiming that the Greeks were unique and original in such and such ways. I made a comment on the Talk Page of the pre-Socratic philosophy about its sources and origin few months ago, which two devoted editors took very seriously. What do we come know about its origin and history from that page now? The straightforward answer is nothing. I am not of course undermining their efforts. Perhaps they did their best. Or perhaps they thought such little description was sufficient for it. Would you kindly recommend me some works that discuss the origins and sources of pre-Socratic philosophy in depth? Lastly, I thank you for your comment. It offers some ideas that our academics frequently fail to express. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
![]()
History vs legend[edit]Hey, What, in your opinion, is the difference between history and legends? From what I understand, a legend is a folk tale and its historicity can either be:
From my reading, I'm seeing the legends of Abadir falling into the third category. It seems that historians agree Abadir existed; they doubt some of the more exaggerated tales surrounding him, but consider other stories of him believable enough to mention. For example, But as a general question, though, doesn't history include a lot of folk tales and hearsay?VR talk 16:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe we've been introduced...[edit]![]() ...but I've seen your name around plenty, and given the current unpleasantries I've finally decided to click on your very interesting-looking signature. Some fun topic area overlaps :) Admirable work on As above, so below -- with some expansion and tweaking (sandwich the images less, maybe a less indiscriminate list at the end) I could envision it making GA, and there'd be a Quarter Million Award in it if that's anything that interests you? (I was working on The Magician (Tarot card) when much newer, with quixotic aspirations to bring the whole Major Arcana to GT/FT, but not for now.) Vaticidalprophet 20:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
What is your issue with mentioning alcohol on al-Razi's page?[edit]The guy literally coined the word "alcohol" for christs sake. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
It would be so exciting to see it work, so please, please make that WikiProject a reality :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
putting academic views over the community own views[edit]Considering an academic opinion over the views and opinions of the believers of the Ismaili religion is a form of bias. Also new works have show connections between the Umm-al-Kitab and Ismailism, check Intellectual Interactions in the Islamic World, The Ismaili Thread for more. 201.92.244.22 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I don't know if this in your area of interest, but if you'd like to take a look at today's edits, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Abu Lu'lu'a[edit]Your revert edit summary says I changed the NPOV framing on this article. My edits were in fact to correct editorialising in the article. What facts did i contract from the source material? The article already explains the Muslim relationship with non-Arabs as mawali and the edits you reverted place undue weight on ethnicity. Sasanian Iran is the focus point of a metric ton of irredentist editing here on Wikipedia that editorialises about an imagined pure Persian past and that's why I made those edits. In addition, you removed the edits I made that underline the fact that Abu Lu'lu'a is a Twelver martyr. It is a part of Twelverism. Ogress 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Arab Sword Article[edit]I don't see why the improper sourcing of the image of what is reputedly Umar's sword would be grounds to remove the file. SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Display Name Magic[edit]How does one go about getting a magical black cloud to surround one’s username on one’s edit tags? It’s pretty frickin’ sweet. hello, world (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Ibn Arfa Ra's alchemist[edit]Good morning @Apaugasma, thank you for filling out Ibn Arfa Ra's page. I have a question, does Ibn Abbar say that Ibn Arfa or Ibn Naqirat were both born in Andalusia? Is a birth in the Maghreb excluded or possible? @Hayani-maghrebi Hayani-maghrebi (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
|
You might be interested in the discussion on the talk page. Then again, you might not. Curious as to what your opinion might be, if interested. Skyerise (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm kind of flabbergasted that someone should actually propose to merge an article about a core aspect of human psychology like Intellect to an article about a historical term used in a variety of very specific and now often rather esoteric meanings like Nous.
Anyway, I replied to that effect. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Tagging you
[edit]As this editing is kind of confusing sometimes, I believe I might have sent you many tagging notifications mate. I hope that was not bothersome. DrTheHistorian【Talk】 02:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- So you did, and you added a 4th notification on top by posting on my talk!
No worries though, it can be, as you say, confusing. Nevertheless, here is a revenge ping to get your attention!
- Now that you're here, I should like to add a more serious note. Please be advised that not everyone likes being called "mate", so perhaps consider using that word a little less around here. Also, you're wp:signature is kind of big and distracting; consider reducing the font size, and using colors with a little bit more contrast (see the info on that linked in note 5 of WP:SIGAPP).
- Last but not least, While it's clear to me that you have not edited Wikipedia much before, since you say you've been around since the late 2000s, please make sure you're clear of WP:BADSOCK and in line with WP:GOODSOCK. Mentioning previous accounts (not IPs!) on your user page can also go a long way to avoid unwarranted suspicions.
- Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I got the notification, I deserved that one.
- I was looking for a new signature actually, I fixed it to wp policies now.
- And for the last paragraph, yes I have not edited much before and it shows :D. What I meant by that is that I have been using and reading on this website for what seems like forever, people can be here and not have accounts :)
- how the new signature now? :D
- DrTheHistorian 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Looking good! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @DrtheHistorian}It's beautifully legible, but doesn't seem to have a talk page link. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Musiconeologist:, as far as I know, pings only work when adding a new line and signing. Often the easiest way to fix a ping is to add a new comment containing a ping and a signature, and then self-reverting the new comment immediately. More info at H:PINGFIX. So repinging User:DrtheHistorian. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma Thanks! I think adding one to the edit summary also does the job, so I put the real one there. (When editing a comment, Convenient Discussions warns that adding one to the comment won't work and suggests that as an option.) So now everything hinges on how many pings were received . . . I'll have a look at what that help page says. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes you're right, adding a wikilink to someone's user page to your edit summary also triggers a notification, although if you do it like that you won't get confirmation that the notification was sent, as you do with a normal ping. So DrtheHistorian will probably have received two pings now. No worries though, this thread is all above tagging-overkill!
- ... and about signatures; @DrtheHistorian: while only a link to your user page is a-okay by the relevant guideline (wp:siglink), if you only have one link to pages related to your account, a link to your user talk page is generally regarded as more helpful. Consider linking the DrTheHistorian bit to User talk:DrtheHistorian. Personally, I also much like it when users link to their contributions (hidden in the ☉ bit in my sig), but that's perhaps a stretch. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- So many tags. Is this war? Apaugasma :))
- And I fixed it.
- Also, I cant seem to be going to your talk page Apaugasma, when I press on Apaugasma it takes me to your user page, and the dot is contributions. Your talk page is not a link.
- Musiconeologist Thanks for your input the Ⱦⱥłҟ Ꝑⱥꞡē Ꞩⱦⱥłҟēɍ. DrTheHistorian(𝓣𝓪𝓵𝓴) 20:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- @DrtheHistorian The talk page link shouldn't work here, since it's a link to the page we're already on. I can use yours now, but on my ancient phone it displays as[X][X][X][X] instead of text. (Most people can probably see it though.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh you are right on that.
- I don't know where the X X X X is coming from. I checked and it works for me. I hope others see it too. DrTheHistorian(𝓣𝓪𝓵𝓴) 22:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- @DrtheHistorian There are some special characters people use as fake italics or fake bold or something, that aren't included in older fonts because they're a relatively recent addition. You've probably used those, I think. Musiconeologist (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- @DrtheHistorian The talk page link shouldn't work here, since it's a link to the page we're already on. I can use yours now, but on my ancient phone it displays as[X][X][X][X] instead of text. (Most people can probably see it though.) Musiconeologist (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma You know, that's often the first thing I want to see, so I've now added it to mine (thereby making it too long, but I'll try it out for a while before trying to fix that.) Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thats actually a nice touch. Maybe use a symbol like Apaugasma did, that way your signature stays neat and wont be as long. I just changed mine too :D
- Hope Apaugasma is not bothered by us chatting in here. DrTheHistorian(✎) 15:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- No bother at all, you're welcome here anytime!
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- No bother at all, you're welcome here anytime!
- Yes you're right, adding a wikilink to someone's user page to your edit summary also triggers a notification, although if you do it like that you won't get confirmation that the notification was sent, as you do with a normal ping. So DrtheHistorian will probably have received two pings now. No worries though, this thread is all above tagging-overkill!
- @Apaugasma Thanks! I think adding one to the edit summary also does the job, so I put the real one there. (When editing a comment, Convenient Discussions warns that adding one to the comment won't work and suggests that as an option.) So now everything hinges on how many pings were received . . . I'll have a look at what that help page says. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Musiconeologist:, as far as I know, pings only work when adding a new line and signing. Often the easiest way to fix a ping is to add a new comment containing a ping and a signature, and then self-reverting the new comment immediately. More info at H:PINGFIX. So repinging User:DrtheHistorian. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fyi, DrtheHistorian is a sock (now blocked) of EnlightenmentNow1792 who participated in the last Persian Gulf RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello DeCausa, thanks for letting me know! The UN thing did ring some bells here too, but to be honest I'm not at all convinced that this is the same user based on what I've seen (I haven't been looking for evidence either though). EnlightenmentNow1792 was often very obnoxious, and had a much better command of English than DrtheHistorian. Their communication styles are entirely different. I would expect two editors pushing the same POV to cite the same sources, as well as each other. I hope the admins at the SPI have seen something I haven't, which they're not mentioning for bean reasons. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have no idea whether they are EnlightenmentNow1792. I was pretty sure though that they were a sock of some banned user - though I don't know who. The mixture of some clear WP expertise coated with claimed lack of understanding/knowledge of other basic aspects left me highly suspicious. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello DeCausa, thanks for letting me know! The UN thing did ring some bells here too, but to be honest I'm not at all convinced that this is the same user based on what I've seen (I haven't been looking for evidence either though). EnlightenmentNow1792 was often very obnoxious, and had a much better command of English than DrtheHistorian. Their communication styles are entirely different. I would expect two editors pushing the same POV to cite the same sources, as well as each other. I hope the admins at the SPI have seen something I haven't, which they're not mentioning for bean reasons. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
HarHar188
[edit]Hello, thank you for file SPI about them and I would like to add one more thing [9][10] these diffs show that both of them are the same person. I hope CU's will look into the investigation immediately. Kajmer05 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would say you're welcome to post your diffs at the SPI case section (there's a 'Comments by other users' section for that), except that I don't think those diffs are particularly strong. I added another pair of diffs myself though.
- SPI is eternally backlogged. It used to be only in the summer months, but now it's all year through.
It's extremely boring work, so I for one understand why admins aren't crazy about working SPI. Don't worry though, an admin or clerk (and if we're lucky a CU, which is needed here) will look at the case in due time.
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- There is no need for me to add diff, you already explained it very well and yes you are right, SPI is eternally backlogged, it was even discussed on ANI a few weeks ago but it seems like CU and admins do not care anymore, anyway thank you very much again, good work! :) Kajmer05 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- After saying this it was checked! :D Kajmer05 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- There is no need for me to add diff, you already explained it very well and yes you are right, SPI is eternally backlogged, it was even discussed on ANI a few weeks ago but it seems like CU and admins do not care anymore, anyway thank you very much again, good work! :) Kajmer05 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to contribute to expanding this new article? Skyerise (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Skyerise, thanks for the invitation! I stopped contributing content to Wikipedia some time ago, after I got utterly tired of all the wp:cheese. It's just patrolling for me now, until (as I hope and believe will happen during the next decade or two) academic experts take over Wikipedia. But I see you're still having fun around here, so enjoy!
☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit at Emerald Tablet
[edit]I was considering asking you for help directly as you seem to have much better insights into this subject and better access to sources than me, but feared I would unnecessarily pester you with it given your proclaimed retirement. So these sort of revisions are greatly appreciated! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have some trouble reworking the article currently to reduce redundancies introduced by having a translated French article and a genuinely English one next to each other. But I am having some trouble finding the right citations for parts with which you may be more familiar. Mainly I can't find where in Mandosio2005 it is asserted that the original meaning was in fact in reference to talismanic magic. If you could give me a rough idea where else to look I would be greatly obliged! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Only after having spent quite some time in looking it up (and eventually finding it), I noticed that the article was already giving the correct reference (to Mandosio 2004b, pp. 682–683, 686, referred to also by Kahn 2016) in another place. I added a bit about it in a footnote, but this should probably be integrated in the main text at some point (a short statement that it has sometimes been seen as a text about talismanic magic probably even is lead material).
- I like the work you are doing on the article. I do not normally contribute to Wikipedia articles anymore, but if you want some small help like this you are always welcome here!
. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is fantastic! That's very kind of you! :) Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm mostly done with the changes I had in mind now. I still want to write a section on Jung's reception in the 20th century but I will need to gather some good secondary sources for that! Also, I wish I had better access to the materials mentioned by van Bladel 2009 because his citation is so vague and I would like to directly point to pages were authors say this.
- With all that said I'd gladly appreciate your feedback on the changes up 'til now! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- I look at all the edits you make to the page, and if I see a mistake I try to fix it, but I don't want to spend more time than that on the article, or on WP in general. I think you're doing well, but I don't have time for extensive feedback.
- Here is Kraus 1942-1943 vol. II, which is still by far the best source on the Sirr al-khaliqa. You might try Anna's archive or similar for Weisser 1980. Here is Zimmerman 1981, here Rudolph 1995. If you send me a wiki-email, I can send you a pdf of Ullmann 1980 (review of Weisser 1979).
- Jung's reception, or any post-medieval reception history really, is a bit out of my league, and I have no sources about that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'll send you the email right away. I would never demand an extensive feedback from anyone here given the whole project is voluntary, but a preliminary rectification of any grave errors is of course much appreciated :)
- I was just constantly running into Jung during this as his whole library is digitized and so many of these primary works can be found there so I thought "huh, he should probably be in here as well if that Netflix show is." Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also and this is purely cosmetic regarding the two double page texts of the tablet from Secret of Secrets manuscripts. They both have the first pages a recto and the second as a verso. Right now I have stitched them together making a I think nice to look at double page but with western reading order so to speak. Do you think this aesthetic compromise makes it too hard for people who aren't good at reading Arabic to pick up where the story starts or now? ie should I reverse them or not? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- E-mail sent. Regarding the images of the manuscripts, I think that anyone even able to read medieval Arabic will easily find out the correct order. In the first image (shown to the right here) the text of the Tablet even breaks of after اعزل الارض من النار اللطيفة اكرم, continuing mid-sentence with some paragraph about the ordering activity of the world soul on qualities like color, taste, smell and visual appearance. Medieval manuscripts of esoteric texts are often cut up like that, in order to make it harder to recover the 'secret' original text for non-initiates, so I wouldn't worry too much about reversing page order here or there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, thank you for the email and the input :) I have finished essentially everything I could think of to improve the article. Do you think I should dare and nominate it for Good Article or not? I am really bothered by the fact that the French article of mixed quality has an (old) star and we don't... Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not far from meeting the GA criteria. I would say it fails only 1.b, mainly because it does not comply with mos:lead's specification that an article's lead should be
a summary of its most important contents
. - Writing a new lead is no easy task though. A true summary may also not leave enough room for Newton's translation, which would necessitate moving the 'Textual history' section to the first section again (because we do want readers to have quick access to the text itself). But then that section is a bit of a mess, and the different text versions should really be integrated into the 'History' section itself.
- Generally the layout of the article is too complex (it's mos:oversectioned, also a part of GA criterion 1.b), and everything currently in the 'History' section should probably be in the top level. I suggest four main headings:
- Greco-Roman background and early Arabic versions
- Medieval Latin translations and commentaries
- Renaissance to the Enlightenment
- Esotericism, psychology, surrealism, and popular culture
- Now that's a lot of work, and really the article is already pretty 'good' as it is. I personally believe GA is overrated, and time is often better spent at improving other articles that are in far more need of attention. If you really want to go for GA though, making sure the lead summarizes the actual article would be a bare minimum. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those were a lot of good suggestions. I have created a version of the page in my sandbox where I tried to implement them all. What do you think? User:Bari' bin Farangi/sandbox Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's pretty good. I think the lead needs just a little more info from the main text, but it's probably GA-worthy by now. The whole article still needs some copy-editing and polishing (spelling, etc.), but its definitely ready for a GA review. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have stumbled upon a conundrum regarding the Norimberga edition. Gilly comes with several problems: A instead of vulgate he uses textus receptus for this version which is a really unfortunate theological metaphor B in Italian he says "this is the first time it was published" while English allows for some leeway bc he phrased it better be the first edition.
- I don't have access to Kahn 2007. But as it stands the fact that the Norimberga edition is similar but not the same as the Liber dabessi vulgate is possibly original research... Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so: we are rendering well-sourced copies of both the vulgate version and the Nuremberg version, and it's pretty clear for anyone who reads them that they are very similar but not entirely the same. We don't need a citation for what is obvious. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- You're right I am just cautious because the French article had so many unsourced assertions like Bry thing, but we do properly cite both versions. Thank you a lot for all your edits and I'll try and do some copyediting to conform to Oxford spelling and maybe help readability here and there! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I added the GAN tag to the talk page. I'd say piruz shodim, no matter if it actually gets it or not because the article itself is a lot better now! Thank you once more :) PS this was a lot of fun! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just skimmed through BnF MS Hébreu 1016 and this is absolutely magnificent and very funny. Going to look into the secondary literature! Are you aware of this version? I am thinking depending on how the source situation is it might actually be sensible to put it into the article.https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10544604q/f22.item Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am just not sure what to make of this! It is certainly not bestowed with secondary literature to allow for article inclusion so that's utterly out of the question but the whole tractate is VERY weird to me. https://archive.org/details/diehebraeischen00steigoog/page/846/mode/2up?view=theater Steinschneider's description might be helpful to you idk it was to me a little at least. But it feels like this is a mashup of several different things but also at least significant parts of the Sirr al-Khalīqa? and maybe parts of the Sirr al-Asrār and some other Talisman magic text and of course the entertaining scribal commentary... What do you think?
- https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85301919/f27.item.zoom# Vajda's comment about the morceau (pseudo-)aristotélicien are just in the handwritten version and not in the digitized one shown when you look at the manuscript on the BnF site. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- What I have been able to make out thus far is that:
- 1st BnF MS Hébreu 1016 is a translation of the Arabic if we look at how this goes there is no way it translates from Latin likely it's the other way around if we take Ruska/Nau speculation about speculation about Santalla's rendering of Tyana seriously and ignore the Maghrebi script or Judeo-Arabic.
- 2nd The pseudo-Aristotelian interpolation reads similar to the Hebrew Secretum Secretorum published by Gaster, which is also likely a direct translation from Arabic if we look at the frame story in the temple and so on. What connects the Hebrew pseudo-Aristotle and the Hebrew pseudo-Apollonius is, in truth, mainly the Hermetic component.
- 3rd Except for like three footnotes the literature kind of ignores that there seems to have been Hebrew translations of these text floating around in Europe independent of the Latin ones. Only European vernacular version that seems to be translated from Hebrew rather than Latin is the older Russian version of the Secretorum.
- 4th Its a real shame the Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial hasn't digitized Casiri 916/Renaud 921.
- 5th I used to laugh a bit at Kriegsmann's bizarre conclusions but now looking at Hébreu 1016 and comparing it to his attempted Hebrew reconstructions I actually think he did amazing work with what he had. Had he actually found the Hebrew version he would probably instantly have clocked that the Semitic flavor he was detecting was Arabic not Phoenician.
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/25210488
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/25210534
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/25210670 Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- What I have been able to make out thus far is that:
- Just skimmed through BnF MS Hébreu 1016 and this is absolutely magnificent and very funny. Going to look into the secondary literature! Are you aware of this version? I am thinking depending on how the source situation is it might actually be sensible to put it into the article.https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10544604q/f22.item Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I added the GAN tag to the talk page. I'd say piruz shodim, no matter if it actually gets it or not because the article itself is a lot better now! Thank you once more :) PS this was a lot of fun! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- You're right I am just cautious because the French article had so many unsourced assertions like Bry thing, but we do properly cite both versions. Thank you a lot for all your edits and I'll try and do some copyediting to conform to Oxford spelling and maybe help readability here and there! Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so: we are rendering well-sourced copies of both the vulgate version and the Nuremberg version, and it's pretty clear for anyone who reads them that they are very similar but not entirely the same. We don't need a citation for what is obvious. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's pretty good. I think the lead needs just a little more info from the main text, but it's probably GA-worthy by now. The whole article still needs some copy-editing and polishing (spelling, etc.), but its definitely ready for a GA review. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those were a lot of good suggestions. I have created a version of the page in my sandbox where I tried to implement them all. What do you think? User:Bari' bin Farangi/sandbox Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not far from meeting the GA criteria. I would say it fails only 1.b, mainly because it does not comply with mos:lead's specification that an article's lead should be
- Once again, thank you for the email and the input :) I have finished essentially everything I could think of to improve the article. Do you think I should dare and nominate it for Good Article or not? I am really bothered by the fact that the French article of mixed quality has an (old) star and we don't... Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also and this is purely cosmetic regarding the two double page texts of the tablet from Secret of Secrets manuscripts. They both have the first pages a recto and the second as a verso. Right now I have stitched them together making a I think nice to look at double page but with western reading order so to speak. Do you think this aesthetic compromise makes it too hard for people who aren't good at reading Arabic to pick up where the story starts or now? ie should I reverse them or not? Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is fantastic! That's very kind of you! :) Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)