Talk:Tabiti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

The above "keep" at AFD was actually a remand back here as the only option to discuss merging. The small amount of non-duplicated material and the one reference needs to be merged to Scythian religion.

  • Per WP:MERGEREASON #1 and number 2. This article needs to be merged. Note: Informal option prior to possible WP:RFC.
Scythian religion states "Tabiti (Ταβιτί) – Hestia (Tabiti is thought to be a hellenized version of a name similar to Hindu Tapati and related verb tapayati ("burns"/"is hot"), as well as Avestan tapaiti, Latin tepeo and several other Indo-European terms for heat." Another reference the same person and uses references:
  1. West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
  2. Cheung, Johnny (2007) Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 2), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 378–379
  • This dictionary stub states: "Tabiti is the queen of the gods in Scythian religion. Equated by Herodotus with Hestia.". Under the "Etymology section: "Tabiti is thought to be a hellenized version of a name similar to Hindu Tapati and related verb tapayati ("burns"/"is hot"), as well as Avestan tapaiti, Latin tepeo and several other Indo-European terms for heat.". The references (two duplicates) are:
  1. The Histories, Book 4, Chapter 59 that states "In the Scythian tongue, Hestia is called Tabiti"
  2. West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 (the same as above) and,
  3. Cheung, Johnny (2007) Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 2), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 378–379 (also the same as above).
Other than the part being "queen of the gods" and the one extra reference the vast majority is an EXACT DUPLICATE. Otr500 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There is no difference at all between the text in this article and the text in the Scythian religion article. What value does this stub provide? It isn't anything like merging Jesus with Christianity because the two pages are not duplicates of each other. If there is additionally content to be added that is notable, someone could well add it. But without that content, a simple appeal that it could be done doesn't really overcome the OP's merge suggestion. Squatch347 (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Excuse the bluntness but how in the hell is merging a stub Dictionary definition, that according to other articles and sources are directly related to Scythian religion comparable to merging Jesus and Christianity? This current dictionary entry has 50 words of "readable prose size", Jesus has 12611 words of "readable prose size", and Christianity 11816 words of "readable prose size". I can't even consider where these comparisons come from. Wikipedia routinely covers certain aspects under a main article splitting when the size becomes a mandate. The entire concept of article expansion and classifications is to create better articles not individual dictionary entries for 1)- Scythian Ares, 2)- Tabiti, 3)- Papaios, 4)- Api, 5)- Oitosyros, 6)- Argimpasa, and 7)- Thagimasidas, as this intended trend would suggest. Why in the world not include those references provided above, along with the ONE lone unique reference on this article in related sections at Scythian religion. Why have a push to create many substandard stub articles or dictionary entries instead of expanding an already existing article even raising the classification. I don't understand what I am missing. If there is some reasoning like getting paid for creating junk stub articles over article expansion then sign me up. Hell, I can get rich and stop worrying about improving Wikipedia. The policy WP:ATD-M already gives grounds that this could have been deleted with:
  • "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand", which would have likely created a battleground ending up in arbitration. Some Admins seem to not consider these things. Otr500 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had to think about this. I checked the above references, the authors of the books listed, and the sources they used and they are good, verifiable resources. BUT, they are not part of the current article. This is the second time I've seen "these sources could be added" but no one has. As the article now stands, I think it should be merged as, except for two short sentences, it is identical to the information on Scythian religion. If, in the future, the section on Tabiti is expanded, I think a new, separate article on Tabiti could be created. I see no problems with separare articles on The Scythian pantheon, provided they are not merely duplicates of that article. Draftify Apologies, I don't know if this can be used in a merge discussion. The main sticking point for those seeking merging is that Tabiti is a duplicate of the information in Scythian religion. I would be willing to use the resources noted above and perhaps find others and expand this article to make it a stand alone article and not a dictionary entry. I am new at this and it won't get done overnight. I would appreciate any additional resources anyone knows about. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is now more information about Tabiti on the Scythian religion page than there is here. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sounds good. There isn't an article here, just a name and a theorized description. Cover it in a larger article. MarkAQuinn (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Otr500 No policy says that all stubs articles should be merged to a bigger article of related subject. Unless you can prove that we can't expand the article more than a stub then the story would be completely different but this article can be expanded big time.
{U|Squatch347}} Why you are selectively canvassing people to support merger?[4] Tell us why you failed to inform Coolabahapple, Desmay, RebeccaGreen, 65.18.124.149? Orientls (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on my talk page: The posts were to those who had made relevant additions to the AFD page. You'll notice I didn't post to all the editors who made delete or merge comments on that page. Rather, I was notifying those who weren't already present in this debate that had made substantive contributions to that thread that there was a related thread here. That does not meet the WP:Canvassing definition. In addition, please stick to the subject at hand for this page. The burden is not on Otr500 to show that there is sufficient material to expand the article, you made the original claim. You keep noting that it can be expanded, fine do so. Otherwise this is simply a pure replica of the Scythian Religion article and should be merged, as most editors have noted. Squatch347 (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why are we even discussing a merger? The result of the AfD was a Keep. I see that the closer said "Whether this article should be redirected/merged elsewhere is an issue that can be discussed on the talk page", but I do not understand why - there was only one redirect vote, and one merge vote, compared to 5 Keep votes (and 3 Delete plus the Nom). That sounds very much like the closer suggesting another way to argue the AfD after closure, which does not seem compatible with the impartial role a closing admin is supposed to have. Now I have been alerted to this (thank you, Orientls) I would also like to know why I was not informed of it by either the editor who opened the Merge discussion or the editor who selectively informed some other editors, those who voted delete or merge in the AfD, via their talk pages. (As an answer has been given while I was typing, I gather that I did not make "relevant additions" to the AfD page. What I said was "Clearly meets WP:GNG. There appear to be more reliable sources which could be added, and possibly more information, but the article as it now stands provides basic info." Apparently that's not "relevant", nor "substantive".) As for "Informal option prior to possible WP:RFC" - this whole discussion seems to be inevitably leading to dispute resolution, because of the way it's being conducted! RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no offense by not including you. Rather, your comments (which you highlight here) were about why it didn't qualify for an AfD conversation. As the admin noted at the end, AfD and Merge are two different discussions with two different sets of criteria (I'm not sure I agree with his logic, but it is what he stated as a reason to close). Thus, I didn't think you had much of a stake in the merge criteria since you focused on WP:GNG, which no one is arguing. Rather, the discussion is around WP:WHYN, there seems no reason to keep a stub that is just a definition. While many are pointing to other sources, it isn't clear that those sources actually contain significant, notable information to expand this article. Remember that this article has a history of including dubious links and is a magnet for sockpuppets attempting to include WP:Fringe (for the record I am not suggesting anyone in the current discussion is doing that, but it is a major problem for this page). The sources that have been offered don't include a significant amount of information that would warrant an expansion here. There is some additional discussion of archaeological evidence and some discussion about scholarly debate of some of the claims already referenced, but nothing notably different that isn't already discussed on the Scythian page. Squatch347 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see any sense in this since the subject passes WP:GNG. AfD resulted in "Keep" not "no consensus". The crazy thought of getting rid of the article clearly emerged from poor AfD debate where opposing editors were not hearing that they are making WP:ATADD arguments. I should further remind opposing editors to just drop WP:STICK. desmay (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I didn't contest the closing because I in fact decided to "try" here on the talk page per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, as opposed to agreed upon WP:RELAR and WP:SPINOFF. The AFD closer comments: "redirected/merged elsewhere is an issue that can be discussed on the talk page", seems to imply "Merging" is not a viable option on AFD. MANY policies and guidelines and current very broad community consensus is that "Merge" is an option at AFD. Trying to avoid this can just turns Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:FORK into jokes and at the very least adds to the 4500 articles on the backlog. These issues have not been addressed by those advocating for the article, more especially when just duplicate dictionary content is concerned.
The AFD closer did open the door for continuing the discussion here so why try to Wikilawyer that it is arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when I submit that editor presenting this is not hearing the valid reasoning of broad community consensus (those policies and guidelines presented that have not been addressed) support merge or deletion. A smoke screen that it is notable sounds better than but I like it even it there is no policiy or guideline support.
Is it duplicated?---YES! Is the article expandable? I don't know but even if true it is too soon and future possibilities does not give an exemption to creating dictionary stubs.
Why not those wanting to keep as "notable" counter the duplication facts presented. Pretty much any dictionary term can be presented as notable. Wikipedia generally forks or splits when there is ample reasoning and not just to create such dictionary entries. How does that not make sense? I am still trying to understand why there is a concern against following normal procedures. The suggestion was to merge not delete. The option for a split will always be on the table when there is enough content to warrant more than the current duplicated (not contestable) dictionary entry (also not contestable) stub. Otr500 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Flesh out the article if you want; there is a massive wealth of sources on Tabiti to chose from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.243.137 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When is this thing resolved? Almost everyone has agreed that the article stays by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.243.243 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on closing: The reason it has not closed is that someone has to look at it. I would contest some non-admin snow close attempt because concerns of duplication, unnecessary forking, and that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, have been raised. Many words in a dictionary are notable and I am not in any way trying to suggest this is not. As a fork it is already covered and an editor with the same name as the article title has re-added the "word" again. I missed the above comments "No policy says that all stubs articles should be merged to a bigger article of related subject." and that is true but there are policies and guidelines about dictionary entries and unnecessary forking that results is two substandard articles when the main article could be expanded.
A local or fan base can advocate for inclusion as a local argument and a closing admin can decide if WP:IGNORE is appropriate to allow the fork. Look, I actually added relevant content to Scythian religion while some others just wanted the word to have a separate parking spot. There has been zero reasoning why the "term" could not have been added to at Scythian religion, then a proper fork applied by those many sources mentioned. That a dictionary entry may someday make an article is usually not a good argument.
However, a closer may see that there is evidence that a separate article is being added to (a Hey) and decide a merge (back) is not necessary. This is a very good reason to be patient and wait for a proper closer. Edits have been performed so if a merge is not now deemed warranted "editor Mr. Tabiti" can feel good. I can at least see improvements over just a local desire to keep a dictionary term in conflict with policies and guidelines. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP at the request of Celtic researcher Sharon Paice MacLeod (https://www.facebook.com/sharon.paicemacleod) This is her conversation with me: https://imgur.com/a/DRTw2um — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.139.140 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Current state is a partial duplication of what's already part of a larger article. Contrary to what seems to be en vogue here, there is no Win or Prestige in a topic having its own article rather than being treated as part of a larger topic. All the eager expanders above are requested to put their editing where their mouth is and show that the article can be expanded; otherwise this is a pointless doubling-up of existing information. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Consensus is that it's a substantial duplication of Scythian religion, and a year later there's no significant expansion to show otherwise. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Can anyone validate the edits made by anonymous sources this weekend? Just want to be sure that non-digital sources from anon are valid given the history this page has had with spurious sources and sock puppets. Squatch347 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok doing some investigation. The first use of the MacLeod reference doesn't appear valid as there is no reference to Idanthyrsus, nor is Tabiti mentioned as the supreme leader. [5]
The same error is in note 5, where the editor claims that Idanthyrsus mentions her as the supreme deity, but no reference to that can be found in the referenced sections (116-128). Nor is Idanthyrsus (Sesotrus in non-helenized) even referenced anywhere in the work.
I don't think that references six and seven should be included either as it starts with an assumption not present in the secondary sources. The editor first makes the assumption she is a solar deity and then draws a conclusion about her relationship to solar deities if that were the case. This point may well be true, but what matters here is that it isn't present in the source and is thus, original research.
There are two searchable references for Tabiti, neither cover anything like the content or material the editor is claiming. What's more the page numbers don't even line up with the index, [6]
Pending any objections that can point out what I might have missed from the sourced, I'm going to revert these edits. Squatch347 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection as your reasoning seems clear. A note: I have found that some browsers number the reading of a book that may not align with the actual page number that may require "fixing". Otr500 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense given that they seem to be using a plug-in for display that varies. I did comprehensive searches of the book and indexes for the terms and related terms, transliterations, etc. It also doesn't match the Table of Contents (though that can sometimes be misleading), so I felt relatively validated in the conclusion. Thanks for the response. Squatch347 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.243.137 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk, I noticed you restored one of your earlier additions. The issue with that addition is not that there wasn't a page number, but that no such claim can be found anywhere in that book. Please see my concerns with this source listed above and address them on the talk page before adding this language to the main page. Squatch347 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the following: https://imgur.com/a/DRTw2um — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.139.140 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page for Tabiti?[edit]

I see there was significant discussion on this page which resulted in its deletion some years ago. However, I have since then added significant amounts of new information about Tabiti to the Scythian religion page that maybe should instead preferably be on a separate page for this deity. So, how can I ask for the permission to create a new page for Tabiti to transfer this information to? Antiquistik (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiquistik, looking over your edits on the Scythian Religion page I think you have an argument related to Notability that the topic deserves its own page. For context, this page has been an unfortunate magnet for Fringe and sockpuppeting over the years so some editors might be a bit wary of the request. I would recommend that you review the WP guidelines related to Notability and then publish an argument here or split with a request for comment. That should generate consensus and the next step. Good Luck! Squatch347 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment regarding new page creation per WP:Notability[edit]

I have been overhauling the page for the Scythian religion for a while, and I have added new information drawn from reliable and significant academic sources to its section on the Scythian goddess Tabiti. Much of this information on Tabiti would however be better presented on a separate page for this deity, and it appears that the information added fits the criteria of WP:Notability for creating a new page for Tabiti.

However, the page for Tabiti was deleted due to sockpuppetry and the addition of fringe views and only administrators can now edit it. Therefore, I am requesting for the permission to create a new page for Tabiti, seeing as the new information fits the criteria for WP:Notability. I am also placing a request for comment regarding the creation of this new page. Antiquistik (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I was one of the editors that was active in rooting out the sockpuppetry and poor sources that led to it being locked. Lots of scar tissue from that, so I'm always a bit gunshy when someone edits these pages. With that said, I don't see any specific objection to Tabiti being notable if the sources are there. I saw a few of the sources over at Scythian Religion that seemed pretty good. The text seems fine as well and meets my basic read of Notability. Would you suggest porting that over whole sale or would there by different content here than on the main page? Squatch347 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Squatch347: I suggest moving all the contents of the Tabiti section of the Scythian religion page to the new page and leaving only a brief explanatory paragraph on her in the Scythian religion article, similarly to what I did with the material covering Artimpasa and the Snake-Legged Goddess. Antiquistik (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but this isn't really an RfC matter. You just ask the locking admin to allow editing again because you have a good-faith draft in mind. Or you can create it ahead of time at Draft:Tabiti.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I was told to add a RfC by another editor in the conversion in the #Creating a new page for Tabiti? section above. Antiquistik (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend SMcCandlish's advice. I can't imagine the outcome of this RfC being helpful. It likely will not get wide or knowledgeable participation. And the steps SMcCandlish recommends will still be necessary. NPP review of the draft won't attract fringe, the advice will be helpful, and there can be a clean start article. Good luck, — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I have applied for an edit request and I am removing the RfC. Antiquistik (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one responds to the edit request in a timely fashion, it would probably be better to go to WP:RFPP and request a protection reduction from full to extended-confirmed protection, so that you and other long-term editors can edit it directly, but drive-by vandals cannot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 January 2023[edit]

I have added new information drawn from reliable and significant academic sources to the Scythian religion page's section on the Scythian goddess Tabiti that maybe should instead preferably be better presented on a separate page for this deity, and it appears that the information added fits the criteria of WP:Notability for creating a new page for Tabiti.

Therefore, I am requesting for the permission to create a new page for Tabiti. Antiquistik (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Antiquistik (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @Antiquistik: please see all of the above, as this has been contentious in the past; if there is sufficient content to support a new article a good way to go about it at this time is to draft what you are proposing at Draft:Tabiti, and let a reviewer go over the page. — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I submitted a draft, but it was rejected and I was told that AfC is not the appropriate process to split the section on Tabiti from Scythian religion into an article of its own. What do I do now? Antiquistik (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can start a discussion here of course. See Wikipedia:Splitting. — xaosflux Talk 11:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is extremely frustrating. Antiquistik has gone to the trouble of writing a high quality text and (inadvertently) this has become far more difficult than it needed to be.
  • The merger was made because the page was once a stub-duplicate of Scythian religion with insufficient sourcing to justify a separate article - there's now clearly enough material for a separate article
  • Antiquistik proposed a separate page on 1 September, based on the work he'd already done (see above)
  • @Squatch347: said "publish an argument here or split with a request for comment"
  • Antiquistik did this on 19 January and received positive feedback, but was told that instead of an RfC he should post an edit request and create a draft by @SMcCandlish: and @Neonorange:
  • On 23 January xaosflux denied the request, saying "please see all of the above" (apparently ignoring that the last four months of "the above" were supportive of the requested change) and instructing him to produce a draft
  • Antiquistik created the draft on 16 February.
  • It was declined and deleted as an internal copyvio on 17 February.
  • It was declined again by @Galobtter: on the grounds the "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia" and that "Afc is not the process for that"(despite him having been asked to go through this process)
  • Now he's being told to start a conversation here (again?).
Again, no one has actually been opposed to this change; everyone has been supportive of it, but the bureaucratic hurdles seem never-ending. Furius (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antiquistik@Furius Ah I see the reason for the draft now; the redirect is protected. That wasn't clear to me at the AfC process. AfC is also not really the place, as I mentioned. The simplest way to resolve these sort of matters is to ask the protecting admin to unprotect the page (as SMcCandlish said "You just ask the locking admin to allow editing again because you have a good-faith draft in mind."). As EdJohnston said "Protection can be undone if a new consensus emerges", I've undone the protection. Hope that resolves the issue. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't left any protection on the page but if the socks come back that can be quickly applied. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: I have created the article. I think it would be good practise to maintain enough protections so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it though. Antiquistik (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a few years, such protection would be WP:PREEMPTIVE, but if disruption resumes we can certainly protect the page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969:. There *is* consensus to split in this way; it has been discussed and approved of since September. The Scythian religion article is oversize and needs to be reduced to summary style; something that has been in progress for a while. Of course, if you have objections to the existing consensus, you are welcome to raise your concerns on this talk page. In the meantime, I'm restoring the edit. Furius (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there is a draft which needs to be moved here. In addition, proper attribution should be made, as much was copied from the target article. Finally, split discussions should take place on the talk page of the article where the information is being split from.Onel5969 TT me 11:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction of the name is incorrect -- source 1 is incorrect, but source 2 is correct[edit]

Guys, I'm almost scared to edit anything on this page because it looks like people fight stuff constantly, but the *Tapayanti reconstruction is absolutely incorrect and the academic (Bukharin) who reconstructed the *Tapayanti form is mistaken. His exact quote is:

"Ταβιτί < *Tāpaiantī (бпрочем, в качестве исходной формы для этого имени предлагается и *tapatī; эта форма, однако, галгольная, а не причастная, и по этой причине едва ли может быть принята в качестве исходной при рассмотрении имени ταβιτί"

Where it's abundantly obvious that he's mistaken the form tapatī for a verbal element tepti (vel sim.) somehow, when it's clear from the long *-ī in Auslaut that it's a nominal form in the feminine. Whereas M. L. West, in the second source Indo-European Poetry and Myth actually gets the reconstruction of Tapitī < PIIr *tapatī < PIE *tep-ṇtih2 correct (which is, in fact, participial, contrary to what Bukharin thinks), Bukharin has not recognised this. I think we should remove the *tapayanti etymon and just interpolate the second source (West) as the correct one, using his reconstruction of *tapatī, as he has correctly etymologised the name but again, I'm too scared to do this because I feel like some under-/uninformed editor is going to have a fit.

Vindafarna (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiquistik: Do you have any comment on this? Furius (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: I mostly agree with @Vindafarna: in principle, and I was always sceptical of Bukharin's reinterpretation of Tabiti's name.
The issue is that, even if the reconstruction is wrong, it's nevertheless from a peer-reviewed academic paper. Therefore, while I am for restoring the reconstruction of West as the primary etymology, I don't know whether we should just fully discard the erroneous reconstruction of Bukharin or still keep it on the page with the caveat that is is an alternative but less probable etymology until an academic critique or rebuttal is published. Antiquistik (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. The second approach seems more in keeping with WP norms, since we're meant to stay neutral and not engage in argumentation of our own. I admit that's tricky when something published is actually wrong. @Vindafarna: does this sound reasonable? Furius (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I understand what Bukharin is trying to do; there are issues with West's reconstruction as well, viz. what to do about the medial -i-. We have two problems here: 1) we're dealing with an unattested Iranian language (Old Scythian of some sort) mediated through Greek, and 2) we don't know anything about the historical phonology and development of this Scythian language. The issue is what do we do about the -i- in the Gk form and we have two options: we can posit a) this is the regular outcome of *-a- / _.[high vowel] in this Scythian language, or we can do what Bukharin is doing and assume this is a participle to a causative root *tep-éye-ntī 'she who heats/warms' (vel sim.). The problem with Bukharin's reconstruction is it syncopates the medial, accent-bearing(!) syllable and that just doesn't make sense. Moreover, Bukharin doesn't seem to recognise the form as participial or nominal in any way and assumes it to be a (presumably) 3.sg.pres.act.ind. from *tep-. All this is to say that there are issues with the reconstruction of this lemma, as there should be when we're dealing with an unattested language being mediated through another language. But I still think West's reconstruction is closer to the truth here. I'll see if I can ferret out more on the name in the meantime and perhaps using a preponderance of evidence against Bukharin's claims, we can just remove it instead of adding a caveat. It's not that Bukharin is wrong, it's that he's so wrong...
Vindafarna (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hold on, let me just say a few more things. The 'name' section is a bit of a mess. Here are the main issues I've noticed:
1) *Tapayantī 'the burning one, the flaming one' but West only calls it that because he's using the base stem *tep- not the causative *tep-éye-; the form as written there would be 'the one who makes warm, the one who causes to burn' (notice the Avestan meaning with the *-eye- formant that's cited here) because the *-éye- formant is a causative suffix, hence one can't even use West as a source for that meaning...
2) The Skt form is incorrect here because it's been transcribed as tapayati (which is incorrect because it needs the long root vowel due to Brugmann's law) even though the Devanagari is correct.
3) a) Cheung's Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb is (bizarrely) used as the citation for the aforementioned Sanskrit form. First of all, the pages are incorrect, it's pp. 378-380, not 378-379,
b) secondly, Cheung (also bizarrely) doesn't even mention the Indic cognate... so I'm not sure why this citation is placed after the Skt form. Even so, why use an etymological dictionary of Iranian to cite an Indic verb?? Just use Mayrhofer?
c) thirdly, that's not even the meaning of the Skt form, the Skt form (as a causative, tāpáyati) is 'make warm, make hot' not a stative tápati 'is warm, is hot'... (cf. Mayrhofer 1987-2001 s.v. tāpáyati)
4) The Latin is incorrectly transcribed as tepeo instead of tepeō
5) In Skt, at least, tápas is simply 'warmth, heat' and doesn't denote any type of 'cosmic heat' or the like (cf. Mayrhofer 1987-2001 s.v. tápas, which is actually an s-stem in Vedic)
Is it cool if I make the changes here please and cite the additional sources? I love the work that's been done here and this isn't a swipe at any of the work that's been done, but it needs cleaning up for sure. Also, we in the field tend to...not use Cheung's dictionary too much but that's neither here nor there.
Vindafarna (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections like (4) are obviously fine (I know Latin, but not Sanskrit, but it sounds like (2) is a similar sort of change, so also fine). (3) is obviously a good change too, since it is based on Mayrhofer. But (1) and the way you write in the first note sound like they are heading towards WP:OR, which is not allowed. It is not WP's job to solve the problem - simply to report the best solution(s) that WP:Reliable Sources have produced. We can't independently "posit" anything. This is frustrating in cases (like this one, from the sound of things), where you know enough to see that the reliable sources fall short, but it is necessary to prevent WP from becoming a venue for self-publication. If you have a better solution than any that has been published, then you would need to publish it before we could cite it. Furius (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why point 1 would seem like original research, but there are about 25 sources I can think of off the top of my head that support what I said viz. the causative suffix in *-éye-. In fact, Bukharin seems to be going against the communis opinio here and completely disregarding the last 150 years of Indo-European studies. But even simpler than that, these are things that can be easily ascertained by looking in a dictionary or a grammar, and this is one of those. It doesn't matter if the textbooks don't use this specific verb when talking about causatives vs. statives, because the textbooks do certainly support what I've said here and not Bukharin regarding the causative suffix. It's like if I said "well, we have a word pair in English that's morphologically marked as to the causative, PGmc *fallaną >'to fall', i.e., go from a standing to a prone position, and PGmc *fallijaną > 'to fell' to cause something to go from a standing to a prone position." I wouldn't need to back up those claims because it's as simple as opening up a dictionary and looking at the words. The claim for this specific lemma is the same. Again, there are like 25 sources I can think of that write about the causative suffix *-éye-; there is only one Bukharin trying to go against those 25 sources with his reconstruction. This is more of a gripe I have with WP than anything else, but it shouldn't be the case that just because something is published in a peer-reviewed paper that it should stand without being checked against what the current consensus of the field is. Any moron can sneak stuff past peer-review, but that's okay because there are checks and balances and the field already has established ways to look at these terms/suffixes/roots and know what we're looking at, if that makes sense. Regardless, I'll start tabulating the sources that go with what I said vs. Bukharin. I think something like 12-15 should be sufficient to indicate that he's just dead wrong here, but let me know if I should get more.
Vindafarna (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and for your patience. That sounds like a good reason to take what he's said out, as being WP:UNDUE emphasis on a fringe/wrong opinion. But if no one's specifically said "Tabiti means 'causer of warmth'," then we shouldn't say that in the article (I don't really understand your *fallaną/*fallijaną example, because the dictionary would be a source that backed up the point). If they have said that, then all is well.
If I understand you correctly, West's reconstruction *tep-ṇtih2 lacks the causative, so are you proposing to keep Bukharin's derivation but correct him on what it means? It's at that point that I get nervous. Sorry, if I've misunderstood. Furius (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tabiti&oldid=1208362822"