text:
Talk:Sumerian language

OR? Verification?
This is Prof. Dr. Osman Nedim Tuna's work: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind0308&L=language&P=2828626&E=2&B=--050000000408020202070501&N=Sumerian-Tuna.pdf&T=application%2Fpdf This may be added to external links section. --78.191.47.19 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Has your list been looked at by some of the linguists that regularly look over Wiki? HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Categories
I would suggest to remove all categories (except for the Category:Sumerian language of course) and write them into the category rather than into the article, so that Category:Sumerian language is a subcategory of all of them, as probably all pages in the Category:Sumerian language could also fall within the scope of the other categories. Opinions? --Thogo (Talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of language extinction date
I would like to know what evidence has been presented to indicate when the languae had died out. A lot of tlk but no dosh is indicated. So by whom and when did this date come up? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. It's not an exact date, it's more like a "the first half of the second millenium BCE" thing (or 1800 BCE +/- 200 years if you like). The land of Sumer has been conquered by Akkadians and Sumerian primary texts ceased to be produced sometime after that. They continued writing Sumerian texts, but these were copies of older texts or religious/ceremonial/liturgic texts, not any every-day stuff like administrative texts or new literature anymore. So it's obvious that there were either no or at least not many native speakers by then. There might have been some folks who still used Sumerian at home, but there is no indication at all that this was the case after the time mentioned. IIRC the latest native-looking Sumerian texts (texts with more or less the full range of vocabulary and grammatical forms and more or less correct grammar) are from the Nippur area from about 1700 BCE or so (don't nail me on that, it's long ago when I learned that stuff ;) ). --Thogo (Talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ERA
While WP:ERA states that one style BC/AD or BCE/CE should not be changed to the other style without consensus, when an article is mixed--half BC/AD and half BCE/CE--it is necessary to standardize on one style. Since there is no evidence here of past consensus-building on this issue, I have standardized the dating in this article on BCE/CE since that is the current academic standard for usage in Near Eastern studies. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Since that is the current academic standard for usage in Near Eastern studies"? That is news to me.

As far as I know, "BCE/CE" is a product of political correctness. I doubt any serious scholar would waste time with prancing around with political correctness. Also compare this to this. If I was asked which style was "more common" in literature published during the past 20 years, I would say the AD/BC style, by a ratio of roughly 3:2. This doesn't surprise me in the least, as the attitude of "omg Christian bias" takes place within the culture war in the USA, not within scholarship.

Our best practice is, rather, to revert to the system used by the primary contributor to the original article. Going back to 2008, and further, I see that this was clearly AD/BC. I began contributing to this article in 2004, and I have been significantly involved with it. I am by no means the primary contributor, but at least I have a history of being involved in building it. Apart from transient attempts, I can only assume for ideological motivations, the article has used the common AD/BC style for more than six years now.

I have seen lots of attempts to sneak in era changes by first introducing some mixed styles and then later "standardize" in the desired direction (or sneak in a change and then be all for "WP:ERA" when people change it back). I am not saying that this is what you intended to do, but it is in effect what you have done. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Dbachmann, please practice WP:AGF. Contemporary Near Eastern usage is, indeed, moving toward BCE/CE in most cases.  However, when I made my edit back in November, the article was mixed in usage.  This was no "ideological motivation" or "attempts to sneak in era changes", it was a standardization based on common usage.  Please do not attribute motivations to my action that were not there.  This standardization was made nearly 6 weeks ago.  --Taivo (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. We should use here what people *nowadays* are more accustomed to, and that's (B)CE. It's just scientific standard meanwhile. We aren't in 2004 any longer. That the article has used that system for six years now, well, that's fine (and sad in that case), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be like that forever. If you don't want anyone to update the article, then print it and keep it as it is. But this is a wiki and that means that any sort of modernization is possible at any time by anyone, with or without approval by any author of the previous revisions. --Thogo (Talk) 23:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The attitude of 'OMG Christian bias'", just like the attitude of 'OMG whatever kind of bias' should, in fact, be a legitimate concern for scholarship, because scholarship is traditionally opposed to bias. So is Wikipedia. While BC/AD are more common, the suggestion that "no serious scholar" would ever use BCE and CE is laughable. And the use of the term "political correctness" as a cussword in reference to any attempt at removing symbolic Christian/Western/right-wing/male/white/hetero bias (but, interestingly, never for the reverse) is quite unsuitable for Wikipedia. dab should restrict himself to discussing the application of Wiki policy (in this case, WP:ERA) to the current situation and not lash out at perceived commie hippies. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the moral support, but I doubt that Dbachmann has read any of it or even cares. It was six weeks between the time I standardized the usage of BCE/CE in the article from the mix it was before to his "outrage".  He's not a regular here.  --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to take positions, no matter who reads them. For the record, I personally use "BC" and "AD" and attach no religious significance to that, but I think Bill O'Reilly-esque rhetoric should be confined to politics pages, not spread into pages about the Sumerian language.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for changing the calendar namings with to the new way - I didn't realize most of the refs were still using the old Christ/Lord naming. Taivo, when reverting, make sure not to revert things like the addition of references, and cleaning up of the article, along with what you want to get rid of as you did with . For an example of how to selectively change the article, see . Interesting to see that the ETCSL page has "This evidence is spread over more than 3,000 years, the first sources dating to the late fourth millennium BCE and the last to the first century AD. When Sumerian ceased to be spoken is difficult to determine; according to some estimates this took place during the early second millennium BCE.", emphasis mine. -- Jeandré, 2011-08-02t13:03z

Skipping alot of history
Alot of history is skipped. There is no mention of the Babylonians being the first to adopt the language in its written form and not its spoken. The Babylonians took what they wanted and changed stuff around. Yes, the written Sumerian was around until the Assyrians and Akkadians took over everything, but the spoken had changed significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.89.55 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kramer and misquote
There is a misquote (false citation) added for the book that states something else completely. The actual quote from Samuel Kramer is here: Kramer, Samuel, Noah 1963. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  pg 306:“In vocabulary, grammer, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead”.. It clearly says that Sumerian is a language isolate yet some users have added the opinion that Samuel Kramer has mentioned it as Turkic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it's not just Turkish nationalists...some Hungarian nationalists assert this as well. It's hard to tell which nationalist camp is pushing this one, but they are both wrong.  --Taivo (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that one is ...I suggest that a strict criteria should be used on that section and that is the authors actually meet WP:RS and their theory is accepted by the majority of the community. Here is my response to another one of those "word lists": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=507903391&oldid=507902145 "These are baloney sources which no one in academica takes seriously. For example: the word Saghir is a loanword from Arabic to Persian to Turkish.  Or the word "tin" (body..) is actually Persian loanword to Turkish.  Sorry but Sumerians are not Turks and no one takes this crap seriously.  As you said: "I'd bring you hundreds of articles, but most of them are unpublished on the Internet".. So they do not belong to wikipedia but to your ethnic nationalistic forums.  It is always some Turkish or Hungarian author trying to make the false claim.  And this is exactly why the above user with his multiple socks below should be watched.  By the way here is a fun one (Latvian and Sumerian)  (looks 10x longer than your list!).  Much longer than your list!  How about Basque and Sumerian?. How about Dravidian and Sumerian? ? How about Sumerian and Tamil ? Oh wait unlike Turkish, Sumerian is a split ergative language (like Kurmanji Kurdish). So maybe it is Kurdish? Unlike Turkish, Sumerian has all three affix, prefix and infix (Turkish has only pre-fix)..wait English/Persian have all three. So maybe it is English? Sumerian has 6 vowels (same ones as Arabic), so maybe it is Arabic> Oh wait I can make a funny comparison too.. Sumerian Pap..Latin Pope mean father.. Or Sumerian Abzu and Persian "Ab" mean water. Unfortunately, you are not aware of how modern linguistic works. Please spare wikipedia with this sort of nationalistic nonsense. Also the Kramer book precisely said the opposite of what you guys were inserting. It is a fringe viewpoint and so stop pushing fringe viewpoint. No serious scholar thinks Sumerian were Turks. But unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a policy in dealing with this sort of nationalistic editing.. Anyhow, falsification of the Kramer was demonstrated. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed Ural-Altaic altogether as it seems Uralic and Altaic are considered a separate linguistic family. So can someone seriously watch this page? If I had not checked Kramer, imagine some poor high school student that would have been citing him! Kramer is actually a reputable scholar..so this is actually a disaster in terms of misrepresenting sources.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested languages for Sumerian language

 * From Britannica, "The linguistic affinity of Sumerian has not yet been successfully established. Ural-Altaic (which includes Turkish), Dravidian, Brahui, Bantu, and many other groups of languages have been compared with Sumerian, but no theory has gained common acceptance." REF
 * From the article in Wikipedia: "Sumerian has been the subject of controversial proposals purportedly identifying it as related genetically with a wide variety of agglutinative languages, as well as with some non-agglutinative languages, however it is generally accepted to be a language isolate. As the most ancient written language, it has a peculiar prestige, and such proposals sometimes have a nationalistic background and enjoy virtually no support among linguists because of their unverifiability.[9] Examples of suggested related languages include: ..."
 * So no matter for the suggested Ural-Altaic over there. So please don't remove it from the article. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Britannica is not a specialized source. Specially Uralic-Altaic is not a single family.  Uralic and Altaic are considered two different language families.  Even the Britannica (again not a specialized source) alludes to this .  My problem is with websites and not academic sources.  If there are actual quality academic journals within the last 30 years that mention controversial hypothesis, they should be brought.  By noname authors who do not specialize in Sumerian language, and whose only contribution is to make an article about how their own mother-tongue is related to Sumerian should not be placed in the article.  I believe user Taivo who is a linguist can handle this article better.  --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However, my concern is utmost of making people believe mainstream scholars scuh as Kramer support controversial theories and I have pointed this out already. No one yet has taken responsibility for the false citation.  --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing Ural-Altaic from the article means that it wasn't suggested by linguists. I don't support any theories, and I don't claim Sumerian people were Turkic, Finnish or Hungarian, but I say that Ural-Altaic have its place on the article as a suggested family by linguists for Sumerian language. It doesn't mean Sumerian was an Ural-Altaic language. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Britannica says what you quoted: ""The linguistic affinity of Sumerian has not yet been successfully established. Ural-Altaic (which includes Turkish), Dravidian, Brahui, Bantu, and many other groups of languages have been compared with Sumerian, but no theory has gained common acceptance."". So it cannot be placed for support of Ural-Altaic.  It should be in a separate part.  Also the family of Ural-Altaic is still controversial from mainstream linguists.  --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the second website does not work (Alfred Toth or whatever) and random websites should not be quoted in such articles.. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're really kidding! :) You're changing Ural-Altaic to Uralic. So Britannica is also false! In the same way, you can separate Indo from European. :)) Also, you can delete any other language families and Dravidian from the article as Britannica says "many other groups of languages have been compared..." and "no theory has gained common acceptance." You don't understand well what you read, so you need to improve your English a bit. OK, I'll not struggle with you. I can't spend all my time to persuade someone. Barayev (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ural-Altaic is not anymore accepted as a single supra-family but separate family branches. It is not like Indo-European. I do not make up the rules, just read the Britannica article on Ural-Altaic. Also wikipedia does not use random websites. Please carefully read WP:RS.

It would not be bad if you just read the first line in Britannica: "Sumerian language,  language isolate  and the oldest written language in existence". Note it is clear that it is a language isolate. So why quote Britannica only for Uralic, or Altatic, or Ural-Altaic? When it is clear it rejects the Ural-Altaic theory. I think we need to stop all these psuedo-linguistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * First, I don't have to persuade you, and you don't have to persuade me.
 * Second, You warn me about Wikipedia rules, but you break the 3RR.
 * Third, you remove a referenced information from the article without a consensus.
 * Fourth, I'm fed up with you, and not struggle with you. Barayev (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) [This account is a sock puppet of Tirgil34 and has been blocked indefinitely.]

It is simple:
 * We cannot use Britannica under "Ural-Altaic" (in reality now there is hardly any linguist who supports such a supra family and Uralic and Altaic are seen as different groupings). It has the same relavence as it has to Bantu in Africa (per the quote).  Britannica is clear Sumerian is a language isolate.
 * We cannot use websites who are not academic journals. Else I can make a website about Sumerian-/English/Latin/Persian/Italian and start with words such as Pap (father), abzu and etc.  So at least if we want to give the fringe viewpoint any weight, let us have some academic journal that has published such theories. Or at least a serious scholar from the last 30 years who has published articles and books on Sumerian languages, and does not have the mainstream viewpoint.
 * As per 3rr..they are not reverts of the same page, but change of Ural-Altaic to Uralic. And furthermore, removal of Britannica to support fringe theory.  Britannica calls it language isolate in the first line and rejects all other theories as non-mainstream .    --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

At least Prof. Kramer (who is probably passed away) was spared. All the watchers of this page for not even double checking about Kramer should really be more vigiliant. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I have information about those papers (published on journals). I give a link to the article from the Internet, so that you can check them online. However, you claim that I send fake resources or URLs. You just clamnuate me. Even if I don't gve a link to any article, you'll not accept what I give as reference. You're just prejudiced. So I don't need to discuss with you. Barayev (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay well.. at least bring the name of the author, journal and publication. Also something about the academic qualification of the author.  Your 2nd URL did not work for a while but now it works.  Maybe the site was down.  However, I do not think Wikipedia can accept random URLs.  Anyhow Britannica cannot  be added to Uralic or Ural-Altaic, as it is clear it is a language isolate.  It can only be added to the beginning of the section showing non of these theories (affinities to modern languages) are accepted.  I have asked the user Taivo for his opinion on all of this and hope to get it.  He is at least a linguist major.  --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll await the result of user Taivo's comment. I am still frustrated by the Kramer issue and it is hard for me to trust attributions without actual details that can be verified.  --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My change of Ural-Altaic to Uralic was justified per the title: "Simo Parpola, Sumerian: Uralic Language, 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Moscow, July 23, 2007". Of course Uralic and Altaic are considered separate languages. Simo Parpola's theory here again would be controversial. He is Finnish, so he is saying Finnish is Sumerian. It is remarkable, that in the past 30-40 years, all the people claiming Sumerian is related to a language are native speakers of that language. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Barayev, you obviously don't know anything about what you are talking about here. 1)  Britannica is not a specialized linguistic source.  It's like citing Wikipedia as a scientific source.  Neither are scholarly sources.  2)  "Ural-Altaic" has been completely rejected by the vast majority of reliable historical linguists, so EB's reference to Ural-Altaic just shows its unreliability in this area.  3)  Citing EB only for its "authority" on Ural-Altaic is falsifying the actual statement in EB since the statement in EB is a long laundry list of discredited ideas, not an assertion about Ural-Altaic.  --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I recall a recent discussion at WP:RSN about encyclopedias, it was felt that they were rarely a desirable source and that we should stick to more specialist sources, especially for anything contentious. So far as I am concerned, for this article we should stick to sources that unquestionably meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, which basically means academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add that Barayev asked for an indefinite block and this was granted. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi folks, Samuel Noah Kramer: "The first Sumerian rulers kept up an unusually close, intimate connection with a city-state called ARATTA which was probably located in the Caspian Sea territory. The Sumerian language is an agglutinative tongue, reminiscent to some extent of the Ural-Altaic languages, and this fact may also point to the same general area as Aratta." (Kramer, Samuel Noah: The Sumerians, their History, Culture and Character, University of Chicago Press, p.42-43.) 78.170.99.254 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aratta is basically known from myth, and if it actually existed, might even have been located within Sumer itself. Anyway, not a good starting place for linguistic arguments.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again nothing about Sumerian being Ural-Altaic. It simply is saying it is agglutinative language (as is Dravidian, Basque, Bantu, Malaysian, Native American languages, and etc.).  Kramer is clear: "Kramer, Samuel, Noah 1963. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [15] pg 306:“In vocabulary, grammer, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead”.. ".  So that is a definite statement and Kramer cannot be used to make a false claim that he proposes that Sumerian is in the Ural-Altaic family.  Of course the book by Kramer as mentioned by Taivo is getting out-dated,..however this definitive statement by Kramer means that no language family can be used in relationship to Sumerian (while citing Kramer). --96.255.251.165 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Extinct from about 2000-1800 BCE
The infobox says "Attested from 3350 BCE. Effectively extinct from about 2000-1800 BCE; used as classical language until about 100 AD."

So why did it stop getting used for 200 years from 2000-1800 BCE, and then presumably start being used again until 100 CE? This information seems highly suspicious and probably incorrect. 109.144.174.200 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check, but I think it became extinct as a spoken language but was still used as a written language. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"the oldest writing" (lie)
"Archaic Sumerian is the earliest stage of inscriptions with linguistic content, beginning with the Jemdet Nasr (Uruk III) period from about the 31st to 30th centuries BC."

Then the Vinča script (pre 5000 BCE) is probably after the Sumerian (3000 BCE)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.251.1 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Please read the statement again. Then read Vinča symbols: "The symbols are mostly considered as constituting the oldest excavated example of "proto-writing" in the world; that is, they probably conveyed a message but did not encode language, predating the development of writing proper by more than a millennium." You are calling them a script but that making an assumption. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

removed - tagged over 2 yrs ago - restore if citation noted
Removed: *Hurro-Urartian languages (see Subarian, Alarodian Citation needed | date=June 2012)   HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Delitzsch
His other two books, the grammar and the shorter work for non-Assyriologists, are both on Internet Archive. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems in attempting to relate Sumerian
Snipped:
 * Several linguistic problems arise in the attempt to relate Sumerian with known language families. First, the amount of time between the earliest known form of Sumerian and the oldest reconstructable form of the proposed related language is too great to make reliable comparisons. Another problem difficult to overcome is that the phonetic and semantic change to vocabulary that can occur over long periods of time can make a language unrecognizable from its ancestor. Words in two languages that may sound alike today are more likely to be unrelated than related.

It is not clear to me what point this paragraph is this trying to make. While comparison with modern languages is of course likely to run into so many accidental similarities that we could not tell them apart from any possible actual cognates, Sumerian is still e.g. younger than Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afro-Asiatic, approximately as old as Proto-Uralic, and not enormously older than Proto-Dravidian.

(This is also not a problem that affects Sumerian specifically. We see the same issue just as well with e.g. "family-internal isolates" like Tocharian or Hungarian, whose first attestations or earliest reconstructible forms are also several millennia separated from their last common ancestor with other related languages. Regardless their affinities are quite recoverable by standard methods of historical linguistics.)

The last phrase seems to be trying to point out the existence of false cognates, but a discussion of this really ought to mention something about the regular methods of establishing relationship as well — such as regular sound correspondences in basic lexicon. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unused reference
An unused refernce was causing a cite error to dispaly at the end of the reference list. I have commented it out, but left it in place in case a further edit would find it useful. If those editors who know this topic better think it is not of value to the article, they can and should simply remove it. The reference was:

I came to this issue from a post on the Help desk. DES (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sumerian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121025205450/http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ppcs/MorphologyTable.html to http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ppcs/MorphologyTable.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Northern or southern Mesopotamia?
The first line of the article states "Sumerian is the language of ancient Sumer and a language isolate which was spoken in northern Mesopotamia", but if you look at the map in the Sumer article, you'll see that all the Sumerian cities are in the south. Is "northern" just a mistake, or is some important information missing here (like the language first developed in the north, but then shifted southwards)?
 * You are quite right. Fixed.  --Taivo (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why such trivial forms of vandalism in important articles that have many watchers (182 in this case) and are on topics that are relatively prominent among laypeople (and, in this case, notorious for attracting cranks) aren't caught more quickly. Clearly, our watchers aren't very good at watching. This is something that deeply concerns me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some watchers have hundreds of articles that they watch and due to limited time on Wikipedia, we don't always notice changes to articles that are not typically subject to vandalism, especially when the change shows up as a "0" in the size of change parameter on our watchlist. In other words, we're only human :)  (Hope that helps.)  --Taivo (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, but a size change "0" is a very bad reason to neglect inspecting a change: a troll could insidiously swap figures, for example. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, with all due respect, a watchlist that includes hundreds of articles is pointless exactly because it is overwhelming. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the place to be making aspersions against the habits and practices of other Wikipedia editors. Mistakes happen and edits slip under the radar because we are all only human.  A large watchlist is hardly uncommon, especially when 90% of the articles are small and have no edits in any 5-year period.  99% of all "0 size" edits are bots making minor, trivial administrative changes, so not inspecting every one is reasonable.  Bravo to the anon IP who spotted this one.  That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work--people spotting things that need fixing and either making the fix or notifying other editors that there is a potential problem.  Wikipedia will never be a perfect resource--even EB has bogus information--but as long as we work as a group, things won't go off the rails.  --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though obviously IPs are not bots – clearly there is usually no need to inspect bot edits, especially "0 size" ones, but IP edits are another matter – I for one never trust IPs, sorry. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even more southern than you may think. The southern half of what was once Sumeria is now under water, in the Persian Gulf. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1D4D:ECEB:719:853D (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sumerian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151031113742/http://www.etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/14505.pdf to http://etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/14505.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080803183452/http://www.assziriologia.hu:80/site/publikaciok_zg.jsp to http://www.assziriologia.hu/site/publikaciok_zg.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

drive-by citation-format tagging by SynConlanger
This should have been taken to the TP back in August 2015. So, here it be (now.) Any valid complaints on this, or does the tag need to go? 98.67.1.124 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oldest language
Check out Tamil and Sanskrit too properly.... Rktheking (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Sumerian language, not about Tamil or Sanskrit. Also, this article doesn't say anywhere that Sumerian was/is the oldest language. - Lindert (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The oldest language probably dates to some 250,000 years ago - or more. Sumerian is one of the oldest documented languages with which we have a written form.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Turkish pseudo-origin
The Turkish nationalist claim that Sumerian and Turkish are related is certainly notable, even if it is clearly false. --Macrakis (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't notable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Second that. For some reason Bronze Age cultures attract a lot of present-day nationalistic fervour (and / or prejudice against certain present-day ethnicities), which cannot be but deludedly misguided. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1D4D:ECEB:719:853D (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on your "clearly false" statement? You should cite your sources that "clearly" reject or stand against Turkic(?) relations, if you're making that sharp statements of course.
 * First of all, "Turkish" language--which's being spoken in Anatolia, is a sub-branch of Turkic languages(Oghuz). And for sure, Anatolian Turkic language has nothing to do with Sumerian language so I am assumming you referred to Turkic language family when you put the title "Turkish pseudo-origin".
 * I know that Turkish nationalists can participate in vandalism. However, most scientists agree on that Sumerians came to Mesopotamia from West Asia(quoted from Sumer Wikipedia page), so it wouldn't be absurd for someone to to seek relations with other Asian originated languages. Since Sumerian language is clearly not a Indo-European nor a Semitic language, we are left with a limited pool of languages. And if someone is simply not buying the idea of labeling an aggluginative, Asian language with apparent vocal similarities "an isolate", that someone will eventually will come to conclusion that he/she needs to compare Sumerian with Turkic languages. And there are many articles/books written about that controversial topic. Muazzez İlmiye Çığ, also known as Sumerian Queen in Turkey, is a 107 year old Sumerologist who contributed mountains of researches to Sumerian literature and she released a book named "Sumerians are a Branch of Turks" where she makes scientific statements on Turkic and Sumerian languages.
 * It's for science world to judge whether they're related or not. But I think that your "even if it is clearly false" statement comes from your nationalistic base, and you're doing the exact same vandalism while trying fight against so called "Turkish nationalists". Fanaticus linguae (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the 'world of science' has already spoken and practically all (non-Turkish) experts in the field agree that Sumerian is not Turkic. And the hypothesis has had plenty of time to be assessed by now, since it is by no means new - people considered it (and rejected it) early on precisely because of the basic logic of comparing with the best-known and largest agglutinative families in the vicinity, which you mentioned. For sources just read any overview of Sumerian, they all treat the issue of genealogy.
 * As for the argument that 'since Sumerian language is clearly not a Indo-European nor a Semitic language, we are left with a limited pool of languages' - you'll be amazed at how many languages there are that are neither Indo-European nor Semitic, and there is absolutely no rule that says a language must belong to any attested linguistic family, i.e. have any attested relatives. The logic that an 'agglutinative Asian' with 'apparent vocal similarities' can't be an isolate and must be Turkic is likewise hilarious - do you realise how many languages there are in Asia and how many of them are agglutinative? Some 'vowel similarities' are quite common across languages and the vague hints at such a thing in Sumerian don't resemble the Turkic vowel harmony system at all. But even if Sumerian had a very Turkic-like vowel harmony system, both this and agglutination are typological features, whereas genetic relatedness between languages is established by means of the comparative method, with systematic sound correspondences between words in the core vocabulary, and the application of that method just doesn't support the classification of Sumerian as Turkic. Also, you seem unaware of the fact that the Turkic languages hadn't yet become 'West Asian' even 2000 years after the demise of Sumerian; the earliest appearance and roots of Turkic are very far from the Fertile Crescent, in East Asia, with Mongolia and China as the closest neighbours, and it is a very recent newcomer to South-West Asia.
 * As for Mrs Çığ, 'known as Sumerian Queen in Turkey', I'm very sorry to hurt your patriotic feelings, but the thing is precisely that she isn't known as a 'queen of Sumerology' among Sumerologists outside of Turkey and neither her name nor her 'mountains of research' are widely known internationally, and her age doesn't change that. Maintaining that Sumerian is an isolate doesn't flatter any particular nation's patriotic ego or serve its nationalist ideology, whereas claiming a Turkic relation clearly does. People's saying things you disagree with is not what WP:vandalism means. The first part of your username may be apt, but not the second one. --87.126.21.225 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

New Article about Sumerian Language removed
I recently added this article : http://www.wseas.org/multimedia/journals/information/2019/a045109-930.pdf It was removed with my content by Doug Weller under the pretext it was written by a computer scientist and so not reliable. I would like a proper explanation why one cannot add this article as a reference ? It seems to me a serious research paper using the latest techs available to find the origin, root of the Sumerian languages.It strengthen the hypothesis (already made by some scholars) that a Sumerian is a king 'creole' language made of 2 main languages : Dravidian & Uralic.--2A02:C7D:E028:C100:7C7B:926C:BE94:5C56 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that article is rubbish. About the author being a computer scientist, unfortunately it happens in all academic disciplines that a person with accreditation in one field feels that they can and should branch out into others. And it is a well-known piece of academic folklore that computer scientists are particularly prone to producing pseudo-science in other fields than their own. This has certainly been my experience, and, anecdotically, that of every serious scientists I have ever interacted with. I do not mean to belittle or offend anyone; it is just a sad fact of our times. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1D4D:ECEB:719:853D (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The guys who know all those three languages know that Sumerian is an isolate, and is totally unrelated to Dravidian & Uralic. The closest one is Archaic Chinese which belongs to Sinitic family.--Vitaly.v.ch (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Emesal
The page for emesal redirects here, but there is no mention of “emesal” anywhere in the article. As far as I remember, it’s some way of speaking Sumerian that was reserved to women? There should be more explanation about it… CielProfond (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's briefly discussed in the 'dialects' section. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh! Indeed… However, it’s spelled there as “eme-sal” and not “emesal,” which might elude a person doing a search as I did… Should we add nonhyphenated spellings for “emeg̃ir” and “emesal”? CielProfond (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Emesal redirects to the Dialects section. I don't know what the standard transliteration is, but you can add it if you think it would help. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Article is much too long and needs to be shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.135.34 (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a morpheme boundary before -sal, this (well, actually 'šal') meaning 'female,' hence, presumably, the hyphen. Johundhar (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

case markers are listed twice
I don't mind, but it looks as though editors put in bits and pieces without checking what was already there. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1D4D:ECEB:719:853D (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, that's too much redundant detail for an introduction to the following subsections. Fixed. –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Unicode
What's the quickest way to get the Sumerian language letters/glyphs in this article to render for me in Chrome? I'm just seeing white boxes right now. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC) (please use  on reply)

Tagging of non-English text
Greetings! Regarding this edit, what type of notation is "eme-gir₁₅"? If it's a transliteration, I can tag it transl. Is there a page on this notation scheme that explains what the subscripts mean? I didn't catch anything skimming the article. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! It's the canonical way of transliterating cuneiform signs. The indexes distinguish signs that have been reconstructed as having the same pronunciation. For example: 𒄫 = gir, 𒄈 = gir₂, 𒄊 = gir₃, 𒌋𒀜 = gir₄, 𒁽 = gir₅, 𒁼 = gir₆, 𒂠 = gir₁₅, etc. I don't know whether it's explained on Wikipedia, but it's standard practice. Sartma (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So tagged, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No Wiki Article for the Sumerian People?!
I'm having trouble believing that nobody has written a separate Wiki article on the Sumerian people. That is a major missing piece. Just saying... Mpaniello (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sumer is the article about Sumerian civilization and its people. It makes little sense for this ancient civilization to separate the people from the culture they have produced. –Austronesier (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh. But it's OK that there are articles on the Roman People, Greek People, Assyrian people, Israelite people, Lydian people, Persians, Medes, etc, separate from articles on their civilizations? OK then, lol... Mpaniello (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are aware that Assyrian people is about the contemporay Syriac-speaking group, while Babylonians simply redirects to Babylonia? Medes is essentially composed like Sumer, only their respective titles refer to different entities (cultural area vs. people), while Media (region) is a pretty superfluous article.
 * There is no historical record of a Sumerian people that exists separately from the Sumerian civilization and its city-states. On the other hand, Lydians are mentioned in historical sources as an ethnicity within the Persian empire even after the fall of the Lydian kingdom. So many of these comparisons are apples and oranges. –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't what you say be true of Romans as well? And Sumerians appear very much to be their own unique ethnicity, based on the genetic evidence presented in the Wiki article on Sumer. Mpaniello (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Archaic Sumerian
I'm pretty certain that we don't know what the language of Proto-cuneiform tablets was. People guess Sumerian because thats what the first cuneiform writings were in. Since cuneiform starts 2900 BC then it seems like Archaic Sumerian also starts then. If they ever do show proto-cuneiform is Sumerian then it would go back to 3300 BC (Uruk III). I am prepared to be educated if I have this wrong. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Classification
You have removed Nostratic and Dene-Caucasian because of WP:GEVAL issues. I agree with you that these two should not be put on par with established language families, but we should look at this issue from the Sumerian perspective. The remaining proposals are just as hair-raising as these two macro-families, and most of them even less notable and only have a primary source citation (Austroasiatic, Dravidian; there's Marr, too!).

I will restore as a first measure the proposals for Sumerian in Nostratic and Dene-Caucasian, but with explicit flagging. As a next step, we should scrutinize what mainstream sources about Sumerian say. I won't expect a mainstream source to give credence to any of these proposals, but at least we can prune which of the latter actually gets a mention in secondary expert sources, and throw everything else out (per WP:UNDUE). Austronesier (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 * @Austronesier We could simply remove them all, but I figured a more surgical start with removing the pure fringe would be a better start, the relationship of Sumerian to other languages has been probed endlessly over the decades and it’s still very clearly an isolate. A paragraph of the relationship to other languages with inline links, rather than as a list highlighting an ocean of nonsense.
 * I’ve got a decent background specifically in Assyriology since that’s my primary linguistic focus. I can comfortably do the rewrite on that section, though I’d love a second set of eyes on it afterwards Warrenmck (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the Classification section to be inline instead of a list. There's not too much content-wise I think could be worth adding. There's some speculation about the contact with Meluḫḫa and loanwords, which is where some of the speculation of a Dravidian relationship comes in, which possibly could be worth emphasizing a little, though the language of Meluḫḫa isn't for sure Dravidian (at all, to be clear). I need to crack open a few books here to get the citations before adding some of that, but I actually want to go through and cite the Cuneiform section first.
 * I've (again) excised Nostratic and Dené-Caucasian, not trying to edit war with you at all and if you add it back in I'll leave it there. I think, personally, I'm starting to believe that treating fringe macrofamilies with the WP:ONEWAY treatment may be the best way to avoid either accidentally pumping up their crediblity or unintentionally erasing information of relavence (particualrly since that seems quite pertinent). Basically: reference it, don't mention the macrofamily by name or with a wiki link unless it's directly pertinent. Thoughts? Warrenmck (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say its a definite improvement. I might even say a few of those references are dodgy and could be considered for reaping. Like I skimmed "Sumero-Indo-European Language Contacts" and was not impressed. Maybe I should do something similar to this for Linear_A. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sumero-Indo-European Language Contacts" is someone’s essay from a class. Was that one of the citations? Heck, time to grab my pruning shears again. Warrenmck (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't restore Nostratic and Dené-Caucasian for now, because eventually, we should only provide a short exemplary listing (not a bullet point list!) of extant proposals based on secondary quality sources. If we have multiple sources mention Nostratic (at least one does), we can do so too. But only a thorough survey of the literature will tell.
 * Although this is a moot question, I am a bit unhappy of applying the Lord Voldemort principle to Nostratic and Dené-Caucasian. "Sumerian has been linked to Basque" based on a poor source is at least just as fringe-promoting as to say "the Nostratic hypothesis exists", but the first is good because Basque is a thing, while the latter must be deleted because...shhhh, don't say his name!
 * It's a bit like having to choose between the following:
 * [insert a paragraph with a graphic description from a De Sade novel here that does not contain a single taboo word]
 * "Fuck!"
 * And then, we only remove the latter because "fuck" is taboo. ;)
 * –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier To be absolutely fair to you, I should have been consistent and removed Basque as equally fringe. I don't think it makes sense to give Nostratic/Dené-Caucasian the damnatio memoriae treatment, but I think perhaps it's worth maybe not pointing every single language family or isolate article at those. I don't know, I think it'd need to be handled delicately to not risk being a WP:POV issue in the other direction? This is where I think a more comprehensive macrofamily article could solve a lot of problems, though. Warrenmck (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A nice example to follow is Michalowksi (2004) in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages:

–Austronesier (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I looked at these proposals at one point and they range from wacky to seriously wacky. I would say at minimum they could be reduced to a couple sentences, removing the "researchers" name and maybe leaving one ref per, instead of the long bulleted list. Might casually kick the worst offenders to the curb in the process.Ploversegg (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the secondary sources are also questionable. We shouldn't cite fringe (like Sahala 2009, a term paper from a repository) to establish notability for due mention of fringe. –Austronesier (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can add the Turkic fantasies back based on this secondary source: (see p. 459, and "nudge, nudge" about one of its authors)? After all, Michalowksi also gives Turkish a one-word mention in his chapter in Woodard (2004). –Austronesier (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection if we have some more recent sources, and that paper looks absolutely fascinating. No offense intended to Billposer, and I am of course familiar with this particular claim--though I do feel that to properly contextualize it would take up more space than is really due.  Having said that, no worries if consensus is against me (as I would say it is right now!).  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Alt origin of name story
I read "The earliest attestation of the name for that language is Emegir, which  means  “local  or  native  language/tongue.” The Akkadian term  used to translate the Sumerian term Emegir was šumeru. As we know from  written texts, when referring to themselves, the native speakers of the Sumerian language had  called  themselves  the  people  of kengir, a term Akkadian speakers translated again as šumerû. Based on this Akkadian rendering, scholars in the last half of the nineteenth century CE applied  the name “Sumerian” to the language and to the population for whom it had been the native tongue." in page v of"Cohen, Mark E.. "PREFACE". An Annotated Sumerian Dictionary, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, 2023, pp. v-x. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9781646022212-001" Ploversegg (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Darn, I missed a circumflex over the r in kengir though now that I think of it I don't remember ever seeing that in Sumerian, but what do I know. :-) EDIT - Oh, I see, a circumflexed r is /dr/, an aspirated affricate which I almost vaguely slightly understand.  Ploversegg (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sumerian language


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America/Notice

Gay Nigger Association of America
See Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America for discussion. It is not displayed here because of its huge size.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Jobinbasani

About Me
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.

Contributions
My contributions

Websites
Blog Page

title: User:Jobinbasani


text:
Category:ISO 3166

ISO 3166 is a three-part standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and defines codes for the names of countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest, and their principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states).

title: Category:ISO 3166


text:
Mass No. 2 (Schubert)

Mass No. 2 in G major, D 167, by Franz Schubert was composed in less than a week in early March 1815 and remains the best known of his three short settings, or missae breves, dating between his more elaborate No. 1 and No. 5. Apart from some passages for soprano, its solistic interventions are modest; Schubert, characteristically, inclines toward a devotional mood. The First Mass had been successfully performed in the composer's parish the year before.

Scoring and editions
The Second was originally modestly scored, requiring only a string orchestra and organ in addition to the soprano, tenor and bass soloists and the choir. It was not printed until 1845, some years after Schubert's death, and until then remained one of his less-noted compositions (so much so that that first edition was usurped by one by Robert Führer, director of music at Prague's St. Vitus Cathedral, a man who eventually landed in prison for embezzlement). But a 1980s discovery at Klosterneuburg of a set of parts dated later than Schubert's full score suggests that his final thoughts about the work were on a grander scale, with trumpet and timpani parts added and minor changes throughout. (The discovery led to recordings of the work by Sony Classical and Carus Classics, in 1995 and 1996 respectively, and to Carus-Verlag's publishing of the enhanced score.) Separately, Schubert's brother Ferdinand wrote parts for woodwinds, brass and timpani in response to the work's popularity.

Structure
The mass consists of six movements. Performances require approximately 22 minutes.

 * 1) "Kyrie" Andante con moto, G major, 3/4
 * 2) "Gloria" Allegro maestoso, D major, common time
 * 3) "Credo" Allegro moderato, G major, cut common time
 * 4) "Sanctus" Adagio moderato, D major, common time
 * "Osanna in excelsis..." Allegro, 2/4
 * 1) "Benedictus" Andante grazioso, G major, 6/8; soprano, tenor and bass soloists in canon
 * "Osanna in excelsis..." D major, Allegro, 2/4
 * 1) "Agnus Dei" Lento, G major, common time

Recordings

 * 1989 — Dawn Upshaw (sop.), David Gordan (ten.), William Stone (bass), Atlanta Symphony Chamber Chorus, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, no organ, Robert Shaw — Telarc 80212
 * live in 1990 — Barbara Bonney (sop.), Jorge Pita (ten.), Andreas Schmidt (bass), Wiener Staatsopernchor, Chamber Orchestra of Europe, Katrine Bryndorf (organ), Claudio Abbado — Deutsche Grammophon 435 486-2
 * Sept. 20-27, 1995 — Thomas Puchegger (boy sop.), Jörg Hering (ten.), Harry van der Kamp (bass), Wiener Sängerknaben, Chorus Viennensis, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, Arno Hartmann (organ), Bruno Weil — Sony Classical SK 68247
 * April 1996 — Edith Lienbacher (sop.), Alexander Kaimbacher (ten.), Anton Scharinger (bass), Wiener Kammerchor, Orpheus Orchester Wien, Martin Nowak (organ), Johannes Prinz — Carus Classics 83.317
 * live on Dec. 23, 2000 — Tatiana Lisnic (sop.), Cesare Catani (ten.), Ildebrando d’Arcangelo (bass), Coro del Teatro alla Scala, Orchestra del Teatro alla Scala, organist unknown, Riccardo Muti — RAI-TV, no catalog number
 * live on March 29, 2007 — Luba Orgonášová (sop.), Christian Elsner (ten.), Gustáv Beláček (bass), Chor des Bayerischen Rundfunks, Symphonie-Orchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks, organist unknown, Mariss Jansons — BR Klassik 900114

title: Mass No. 2 (Schubert)


text:
Talk:The Humble Guys

AfD
For the February 2005 deletion debate, see Votes for deletion/The Humble Guys. Decision was to keep the article. jni 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Candyman
Uh, I don't think this David Francis is Candyman, but he's the only one I can find that died in St. Louis on 9/6/2006: http://www.wgnu.net/DAVEFRANCISmemorialpage%20090706.htm Runderwo 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah..Cheers to any old school that is still around

Good-bye Dave
I got the news today. A few months late.

So long old friend. You once said we caught lightning in a bottle. What a great ride that was.

05 05 2011 Tried to access article and confirm this was the real "Candyman". URL DEAD.

Before The Humble Guys/PC we owned the Commodore 64 scene running under the group name "Fucked Beyond Repair" aka: FBR aka: FBR2001 for all imports and cracks. Multiple Voicemail systems were used to announce the newest releases and this gavebirth to one of CandyDaves projects the Disk Magazine INTENSE. Ronski/FBR wrote an article for Recollection #2 that tells some Pre-Humble info. The Bit Bandit aka: TBB aka: TBB/FBR is still to this day very active in the c64 irc channel. T0XIC R0ADKILL aka: R0ADKILL Sysop of FIBER0PTIC HELL BBS/FBR HQrs. be reached @ FIBER0PTIC.com and on irc.spidernet.org for more details about FBR, Intense, Napalm (H/P Side) Amiga releases & the PC .nfo how and why it became standard because of The HUMBLE GUYS. The Slave Lord details on txtfiles are false, Slaves started way before the PC, Napalm & W orship were started as just an internal use only place holder for lack of better to call it. From the name Worship mixed with Ronski telling everyone two bow before the leet g0ds of FBR I had friends that were FBR level but not OFFICIAL in the group for multiple reasons. With the handle R0ADKILL spawned The R0ADRELIGION just rules of the l33t, again, this was never expected to move into the public. With the help of Apple Bandit, Astral Warrior, Kludge(likes to play with DOD computers & redirect little boats like the USS Eliz*), TBB, and other friends they put all 0day releases on my board before the current top bbs's like Pudwerx/UCBBS, UCF, MasterKrackers, Wild Warez, Warez Galore, 5150, Sharks/INC, ESI HQrs, NEI, TSM had a run etc etc etc. Goal was to get our release out fast. problem was all top boards would not just add 10 or more of my friends for unknown reasons like past history ex group members whatever. I was however able to get accounts created in advance and not disclose who my "slaves" were.

the name scheme came from the .zip format for commodore

!1_____s1 !2_____s1 !3_____s1 !4_____s1 !1_____s2 !2_____s2 !3_____s2

File number ______ Side #

R0ADRELIGION = became R0ADRUNNER = !1R0ADRUNNER/FBRs1 it was rhe only way sysops would let them on is by tagging my handle with FBR power and this was when FBR was hitting on all pistons, importing 4 6 8 or more a day.

Text needs to be formatted and verified sources. its on my 2 do list.

THG had better grafix than the current - Morresy was our gfx guy, elric was doing great work

acid members were doing some covers. - getting all content back in order is a huge projet -- how many ppl read this 20-25 year old scene info

tks

quick cleanup?
Noticed "The NotSoHumble Babe" quickly followed by "The Not So Humble Babe." Anyone with a reliable fix? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.100.237 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

The Not So Humble Babe Died
The Not So Humble Babe died on Dec 3rd 2003. I had not talked to her since 2000 and happened to find this out while searching for family history online. Amy was a good person, I am sad to read that she died so young (38). She is interned at Knollwood Memorial Park in Canton MI. Garden of Angels Section 232 Plot D2-D. I was married to her for 5 years, I ran Enterprize Elite back in the day. - Static —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

a full text file was n txtfiles related to Babe and the CC fraud

Intense was the 2nd phase of thg magazines

started on the c64 with voicemail and party lines

many members did fed time, amiga 500, Joe screwing Daves wife while he was working for Dave and living at his home.

THG was run like a business, we all had a job and did it well

when the SS knocks on the door, takes all your hardware and you know your phone is bugged have that feeling ppl are stalking you lasts for years....reason,its true... they have a load of resources

one thing that saved a ton of us from 89=94 is that we all had c64 machines, they tried to chase us on pc's .. pc did not have Hmodem protocall from Shamus - Dave Sharpless = HandyTerm

Everyone spills milk, its just how you clean it all up.

THG and FBR was a great tool for all of us to learn what was never offered in school, would be interesting to see Warez group members income per year vs classmates. also the % that went on to college % of group members that started a business (being more outgoing-venture off easy path)

I will scan and upload all the history soon as possible - traffic stats url please

Tks, FIBER0PTIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.179.208 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Humble Guys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050212002627/http://www.totse.com/en/zines/cud_a/cud454.html to http://www.totse.com/en/zines/cud_a/cud454.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Humble Guys


text:
Talk:General Grievous

Sign
Please sign ALL your comments to this page using --~ Deskana (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sith Lord?
Since Grievous wielded lightsabers, even though he is rendered unable to call upon the Force, could he be considered a Sith Lord? --John VEd Telerionus 21:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No.
 * A Sith Lord, by definition, is either one of the Dark Lords of the people who lived in Korriban or one of their apprentices. Grievous is not a Force user, and in fact has barely any connection to the Force at all since he was rebuilt as a cyborg. If Asajj Ventress has no claim to the title of Sith, much less Grievous. --Luis Dantas 10:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Interestingly enough, when he first began to surface he was in fact called Darth Grievous, but by the time the "Clone Wars" cartoon came into being and included him, the Darth was dropped and so were his force powers. The character of Darth Greivous was revamped into General Grievous.

 * Further more, I coulda sworn I saw it stated somewhere officially that part of the reason the Jedi had such trouble fighting him was due an utter lack of contact between him and the Force, making him somewhat invisible, analogous to the Yuuzhan Vong. --maru 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Can a person be called a Jedi Knight or a Sith Lord even though they are unable to call upon the force, but can wield lightsabers? --John-1107 05:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope- inherent in the definition is the condition of being a Force-user, withe the primary difference between Jedi Knight or Sith Lord being what side of the Force drawn upon and corresponding changes in style and philosophy. Just wielding lightsabers means one is a darn good swordsman, or damn stupid, is all. --maru 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Duh of course not (my friend told me to do this, so blame her) (Treetalker12 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)) ps. genaral grevouis is stupid ( my friend told me to write that too)

Past/present tense?
Beyond his backstory, I'm noticing some use of both present and past tense to describe the general. "The general displays amazing dexterity" and "His . . . weakness in battle was" are two examples. Since he's dead in the story, shouldn't all of it be changed to the past tense? And if descriptions of his attributes ought to be in the present tense, shouldn't they at least be consistent? --Elembis 23:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * When refering to literature, it is appropriate to use the present tense. The same probably applies to movies.  --Citizen Premier 01:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ehh- somewhat dubious. But I can agree it is important that the tenses be consistent, at least. --maru 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand it can be appropriate, and it would be expected if Grievous were still alive, but it's weird to go from present tense to past tense at the end of the article. However, saying "Yoda was a Jedi master" early in an article would imply his death, as well as clash with the common images of Yoda as being a Jedi master. Despite that, I say we use the past tense for consistency. It's been done before (see Saruman). --Elembis 21:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * What this seems to me to mean is his transition from Kaleesh warlord (organic being) to his cyborg form as he is more commonly seen. when they refer to him in past tense and describe him, it is most likely a trait he lost when he became a cyborg. when they say things such as "He has great dexterity" it is a trait he has kept through the transition. when they say "he is now..." it means it is somehting he gained through becoming a cyborg. seems plausible.JonathanLee98 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Magna droids
Are we really sure that Grievous' droids were using 'electric' staffs? They looked more like force pikes, or shields than electricity to me, and I don't see how electricity could stop a light saber beam from touching the staff. --maru 15:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It's science fiction, okay. --→  Jarlaxle Artemis   22:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * According to Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary, they are "Electrostaff" which the tips can generate electro-magnetic field. StarWars.com has new databank entry of the MangaGuards and the staff, go take a look! --Kevinmhk

 * The metal is called "Krint" which is resistant to Lightsabers. --Psi edit

 * Wookieepedia says its called Phrik....confusing. --24.22.212.250 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, they are electrostaffs (Force pikes use the Force, I believe). Unless the starwars.com or other Star Wars site says it's made of Krint, I'd go with the Phrik material. I've heard it in Karen Traviss' books and a few other sources, but I've never heard "Krint." Phrik was (seemingly) manufactured most during the Clone Wars, but before Grevious had his bodyguards. Buy a copy of Wizards of the Coast: Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook: Saga Edition and there will be a lot of information (WotC works with LucasArts to come up with official information on Star Wars) on stuff like that. Meanwhile, you could learn the rules of a pretty darn awesome RPG. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Quick question--is it Grevious or Grievous? I'm a fan of Star Wars and I have plenty of books--you'd think I would remember. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture
Get a better picture of the General instead of the comic book cover. Get something like his picture on the Star Wars website. --B-101 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, does anyone know if using the one on the SW website would fall under Fair Use? --maru 17:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * A screenshot from the movie should be fine. --Poiuyt Man talk  14:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying the picture from SW.com, just a picture with most of the General's body in it from the movie. I don't really like the comic cover and I think we should keep the character pictures consistent. --B-101 19:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * i dislike the comic cover too.. it is one of the worst pic of Gievous released by LucasArts. --Kevinmhk

Young Boba Fett figthing General Grievous ?¡
can somebody give the source of that information ?, for what i have founded the event happened during clone wars episode 20 and that the general won and forgived Boba's life, but i dont see anything sugesting that figth really ocurred. --User:200.44.146.218

 * Episode 20? There's only six episodes. --→  Jarlaxle Artemis   23:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps he meant the 20th micro-cartoon? --maru 00:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably. I don't know anything about the comics. →  Jarlaxle Artemis   00:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, no, I was referring to the animated cartoon series that was on Cartoon Network- Clone Wars; they were called microcartoons 'cause the first few groups (at least; the schedule was irregular and I stopped watching after that) were, like, 3 minutes. --maru 00:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, okay. I never heard of that one either. --→  Jarlaxle Artemis   01:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * It was Boba fett's own book series entitled "Boba Fett," He was given the assignment to capture Wat Tambor when he ran afoul of Grievous.

 * im the guy who started the disscusion, yes im talking about the clone wars'cartoon. can you give me the exact title of the book so i can try to found it ? thanks

 * The book is Star Wars: Boba Fett #5 - A New Threat --Kevinmhk

About improving Grievous' article
my fellow friends please take a look: Background Information in the current artice---
 * 1-5 paragraphs are talking about the transformation to cyborg
 * 6th paragraph is talking about lightsaber ability and lack control of the Force
 * 7th is talking about the Battle of Hypori
 * 8th is talking about The Battle of Coruscant
 * 9th one is talking about Grievous' ability AGAIN and suddenly mention the bodyguards
 * 10-12th are AGAIN talking about his lightsaber ability and weakness in the Force
 * the 13th suddenly mentioned he is under Dooku and Sidious
 * 14th is talking about The Battle of Utapau
 * no paragraph mentions the events triggered by his death

i think the article should re-arrange... dividing parts into backstory, transformation, ability and weakness, then follow the timeline to describe his activites in Clone Wars and ROTS.

the article of Palpatine is doing such a great job, i think Grievous should/can follow

by Kevinmhk, a crazy Star Wars Fans and Grievous' Fans~

 * I will do that--Gpigr

How many Jedi?
"However his existence was a secret, since no Jedi had escaped his presence alive. He first revealed himself to the public when he attacked and dispatched a team of seven Jedi Knights in an aggressive display of lightsaber mastery during the Battle of Hypori. With his mechanical enhancements and attributes combined, he was able to battle five Jedi single-handedly. Only three survived the onslaught."

Five + Three = Eight, not Seven. What's the real number? --Golbez 19:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * "to battle five" not "kill five", the real number is indeed 7 Darth Kevinmhk 03:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe i should list out the names: The Battle of Hypori - General Grievous VS Daakman Barrek(death), Ki-Adi-Mundi(survive), Shaak Ti(unconscious), Aayla Secura(unconscious), Sha'a Gi(death), Tarr Seirr(death), K'Kruhk(apparently death, but re-appear in other Expanded Universe materials). --Darth Kevinmhk 03:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Because Grievous killed Daakman Barrek and Sha'a Gi first, so Grievous could battle the remaining 5 Jedi single-handedly. --Darth Kevinmhk 03:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serial killer category
Should grievous be added to the category fictional serial killers because he kills,or are soldiers in war not considered serial killers?

 * I'd say not. All his killings seem to be in the context of war, not because he is an amoral psychopath who likes killing, which is what one usually thinks of when serial killers come to mind. Should we add Luke Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi? --maru (talk) Contribs 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * well now, in the comic book series when the rebels try to attack him on his flagship or wherever he was he seems to kill them without regret. it wasnt really a war. it was a rebelious jedi and a couple friends trying to get back at him for killing their friends.there were battle droids involved but it wasnt an actual battle, i wouldnt say.go ahead on the serial killer category. sounds awesome to me. JonathanLee98 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maru. Serial killer implies to me a murderer in times of peace, not a general. Are assassins and bounty hunters included in this list? If not, it really doesn't seem appropraite that Grievous is. And Mr Lee's example seems more like self defence than cold blooded killing. MrJammie 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Force?
How can a villian with the lack of force abilities defeat any jedi/sith in battle? It seems they would just push him away and crush his body in only a few seconds as has been established in previous movies/books etc. I'm confused. Gary Seven 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I agree A lot! because, how can you kill anybody with no Force? And he killed a lot. Well maybe because he's a metal guy!

You know what man u got a great point. I can only tell u to go up to the sith lord part and rean what i said and it still wouldnt fully explain this. But if i had to say anything is that he could of been forced pushed around but not crushed. his armor was made out of some strong type of material that not even a star ship balster could harm. But great point man[added by user sirbizzy]

 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.-- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

grievous horribly weakend in the movie in the clone wars he was extremely powerful in yet in the movie he was slow and sluggish i think this should be in the page i mean i understand that mace windu weakend him in yet this in no way constitutes his weakend state he barely moved at all forgive me if this is in the wrong format as i am sort of new at this however i still think my state ment is valid

tartakofsky(sp?) had no real idea what grievous would actually be like in the movie.nobody did, really. that is why his appearance differs so much, not to mention his random shape-shifting ability. he was rumored to be a big bad villain, and with tartakofski's previous cartoon expierience (samurai jack) he most likely imagined someone quick, strong, powerful, and frightening. therefore the crappy cartoon version of general grievous was born, and his plotline was murdered.

When it comes to "why didnt the jedi just use the force" THEY HAD NO IDEA! i doubt jedi training includes how to beat a kaleesh cyborg with four sabers and metal armor incasing his only weak spot. obi-wan is extremely intelligent and inventive, whcih is why he discovered Grievous' weakness. the other jedi simply couldnt keep up with grievous in swordplay and probably had no time to summon the force while fighting off four lightsabers consecutively.JonathanLee98 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for Kenobi's battle with Jango Fett. A Jedi should really be able to body slam any non-force using opponent from 20 yards away. Crappy character. 68.166.173.232 (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When Grevious gets owned by Obi-wan, am I the only one who felt...
... like Obi-wan was acting like a smug, smarmy, condescending, ridiculously-naive piece of human garbage for making a quip about his victory? Grevious, the noble warrior, annihilated, and Obi-wan thinks it best to crack wise? UGH -- Lucas you madman! Theavatar3 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed.But then again, Lucas was also dumb enough to delete the line "You're lucky you dont taste very good" from the dagobah scene where r2-d2 is launched out of the water. this line seems to imply Luke has tasted r2-d2 before.lol JonathanLee98 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS SOO true!!!! how can he defeat other jedies with no Force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.234.143 (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Utapau section
The Battle of Utapau section seems to be almost completely wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.135.153 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. General Grevious never escapes. Obi-Wan pulls his chest plates apart, shoots him in the heart, and he catches fire and dies! Then again, my brain might be lying to me again. Isn't that what happens? I know Grevious never escaped. Cactus Guru 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * That's true, Cactus Guru, Obi-Wan does pull the chest plates apart and shoot him (after being pushed near the edge of a platform, dangling in suspense and what-not). Although by now, 2010, I'm not sure if someone's changed it or not. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Details from Hypori Missing
In Clone Wars, it seems there is evidence that Grievous was directly controlling the strategies of droid troops, at least by the dilaogue before Grievous attacked. --68.41.156.80 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor contradiction
Just noticed that the opening Character paragraph describes Grievous as "an accomplished Jedi hunter in the period before and during the outbreak of the Clone Wars", but in the Clone Wars section, it states he killed his first Jedi during the Battle of Geneosis. Which of these is the correct story? MrJammie 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a good point, MrJammie. It could be that he was a bounty-hunter ("I want them alive!" type stuff), and finally killed a jedi in the Battle of Geonosis. Who knows? Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this even mean?
"Only three and barely four survived the onslaught, with one a second later they recovered."

I deleted this sentence because I couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. Someone who can figure it out can add it back in coherently. XAlpha 01:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Name
I took the liberty of correcting his name. The name stated was a creation of that iggnoramus Micky Suttle.71.101.33.174 08:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Return
Exactly in what does Grievous return? And how can Dooku be "alerted to the 'new Grievous' " if he's already dead?
 * Section removed; it reeked of bullshit. EVula // talk // ☯  // 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop the madness!
Is there any way to lock the character information box of this page? People persistently replace Qymaen jai Sheelal with Grievous Shakaar, and the recent string of edits only seem to clutter it and defeat the purpose of a small box of vital, standardized information. I'd revert all of them, but I'll sit this one out for a bit and see what any more experienced editors think... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalthuras (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Part one, I've reordered the way that the infobox code was handled in the article, which will hopefully cut down on edits that screw everything up.
 * Secondly, unless someone can come up with a good reason why not, we should have the name be the one he's most familiar to non-fans as: General Grievous. Let Wookieepedia get all fan-boy about his name, or mention his old name in the body of the article, but not the infobox. EVula // talk // ☯  // 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Blood Transfusion of Grievous is From Another Kaleesh
One of the articles in this section indicates that grievous blood was that from a transfusion method with blood of a human (Syfo-Dyas). It is nearly impossible for a blood from a human to be compatible with that of an alien, not to mention that it can cause blood cloths and organ failure. --DarthPlagueis 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10577.jpg
Image:10577.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Battle
When Grievous was fighting Obi-wan, why didn't he pull out 2 more lightsabers and keep fighting after he lost four of them (and 2 hands)? According to the Clone Wars TV series, he's got what, 20 different lightsabers he could have used? Shouldn't he have done that especically when Kenobi lost his lightsaber which would make him easy prey for Grievous? Emperor001 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I would assume it is since he keeps his lightsabers in his robe, and throws the robe away before taking up the fight.
 * No, in the series, all of the lightsablers were fastened to his legs. Emperor001 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense
How is it that Grievous' organic parts (eyes, heart, etc.) can survive the rigors of open space when he sucked out of the window of the battleship? - Cybjorg 10:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Dude, it's science fictionit is not the real science you see in textbooks.--Mart572 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Yah, it's for the same reason that we hear explosions in space. Makes for a better movie. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, part II
In the Revenge of the Sith section it tells about all of Grevious' organic parts being destroyed but in "partial rebirth" section it mentions that "a brand new body with his brain left as the only organic part". Is this a mistake in the Star Wars cannon? And could someone site where these contradictions occur?

Movie Canon(with one N) or G-Canon as it's called vs Book Canon, according to books Grievous was pretty much just a brain but in the movie he had all of those parts in that sack thing Obi-wan shot. Pretty much, if you want to go with the books go with the books if you want to go with the movies go with the movies, just don't try to rationalize one thing from one source with another thing from a separate source of canon. All you need to know is the big main facts(Luke blew up the death star, Anakin kills a village of Sand people, Grievous is a Cyborg) is in both. However how it came to be, might be different in both in fact in "the Clone Wars" series the writer has gone on record saying he has actually formed things how things happen in books comics and how they are in the movies but left it up to the audience to believe what they want-76.21.106.232 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask..
What is the source for the end of the partial rebirth section? it seems like fanon..(and not the NK part, the part where it is possible Palpatine rezes him) 71.122.158.91 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's from the MMO Star Wars Galaxies.172.188.238.81 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Grievous image
I'm being nitpicky, but can we get a pic of grievous in his normal pose. [IE standing up in human like pose, only him in the pic?] thans (Treedemfoir (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Transformers?
The amount of information about ILM and their work on the Transformers movie seems completely unecessary to me, I have no problem with it being mentioned but I don't think there needs to be a description and explination.172.188.238.81 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I cut it. It seems like it's enough just to state that he was one of their most complicated models "at the time" as opposed to including a lengthy aside about Transformers that doesn't even make a direct comparison between the two films. 209.40.212.28 (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg
How he become a Cyborg? This page said nothing about he becoming a cyborg wearing a lightsaber carrying cape.(209.129.62.2 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

TV
With the Television series of the Clone Wars, Grievous plays an important role. Should we put that up there? Queenqpawn (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How many arms?
In Episode III, I think he had 4 arms. But the picture here shows only 2 arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francispotter (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 * His arms could split into two, making four arms. Agent 14LC (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021
Ought "Grievous murdered numerous Jedi" be softened to "Grievous killed numerous Jedi" in the lede? "Star Wars" characters claiming that the killings in question constitute murders is neither here nor there, surely. And determining whether the authors mean for them to be perceived, and/or whether the audience does perceive them as such, runs afoul of OR policy, absent an appropriate attribution.

- 2A02:560:4201:7A00:C189:8ECC:3818:9BD5 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Neo spamton
Neo spamton gets no rizz 2603:8080:A301:E7C5:B993:D5AB:176F:D8BC (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:General Grievous


text:
Toll Group

Toll Group operates a logistics and global freight forwarding network spanning 150 countries, with over 20,000 customers. Toll has more than 16,000 team members across 500 sites.

Toll Holdings Pty Limited (also referred to as Toll Group) is an Australian registered company, 100% owned by Japan Post Co., Ltd, which is 100% owned by Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd which is listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

History
Albert Toll established Toll in Newcastle, Australia, in 1888. The business began by moving coal with horse and cart, and by the time of Albert's death at 95 in 1958, Toll was running a range of fleet trucks from five different locations.

National Minerals purchased the business in 1959. It then became a part of mining conglomerate Peko Wallsend a decade later. Peko Wallsend utilised the Toll transport business for all its transporting needs, making Toll a popular domestic carrier across the country.

The business changed name to Toll-Chadwick when its new owners wanted to blend their businesses and start using containerised shipping. By the mid-1980s, Toll-Chadwick had evolved into one of Australia’s most significant transport companies, operating beyond the nation’s capital cities.

Toll was purchased by its management team in 1986 by Toll’s first Chairman, Peter Rowsthorn and Toll’s Managing Director at the time, Paul Little. The duo developed the business through acquiring modest, strategically located transport companies.

Public company
In 1993, Toll was listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.

After its listing on the ASX, Toll progressively built its reach and service capabilities via a program of strategic acquisitions. In the process, Toll expanded its operations in logistics and freight forwarding across the Asia-Pacific region.

Toll’s acquisition of SembCorp Logistics (SembLog) in 2006 significantly increased Toll’s market presence and reach across South East Asia, Greater China and the Indian Sub-Continent. In this period, Toll acquired ST Logistics, a standalone subsidiary business in Singapore, which supports the Singapore Government with logistics in healthcare, defence, and homeland security.

In 2008 Toll acquired BALtrans Logistics. In 2009 Toll acquired Express Logistics Group, one of New Zealand's largest freight forwarding companies. In the same year Toll acquired Logistic Distribution Systems (LDS), a Dubai-based international freight forwarding company.

In 2010 Toll acquired United States freight forwarder Summit Logistics. In 2010 they acquired WT SeaAir and Genesis Forwarding. The acquisitions added significant scale to the Toll Global Forwarding division in Europe.

In 2011 Toll acquired SAT Albatros (SAT), a Dubai-based provider of sea-air services.

By 2014, Toll had 40,000 team members across 1,200 locations in more than 50 countries, and annual revenue of A$6.5 billion.

Japan Post acquisition
On 18 February 2015, Toll's Board announced that it had accepted a proposal from Japan Post to acquire all of Toll's shares. Japan Post was looking to Toll to grow its global logistics operations and expansion across Asia.

On 13 May 2015, Toll shareholders voted in favour of the acquisition. On 28 May 2015, Toll formally became a division of Japan Post. Toll remained headquartered in Melbourne and retained the Toll brand in Australia and around the world.

Toll continued to grow in Asia, investing AU$228 million in Toll City, a multi-story logistics facility in Singapore in 2017.

In 2020, Toll divested its logistics business in the United States, maintaining its freight forwarding operations; and on 1 September 2021, the Toll Global Express business in Australia and New Zealand was sold to Allegro Funds.

In 2023, Toll acquired a business in Australia, ASQ, an operator of uncrewed aircraft systems (drone), and became the majority shareholder in its joint venture in Dubai, CWT-SML.

Today, Toll has dual headquarters in Melbourne and Singapore, with contract logistics operations across the Asia Pacific and a global freight forwarding business. In 2023, the company had 10,00 team members globally, 20,000 customers, and revenue of AU5.6 billion.

Freight forwarding
Toll provides international freight forwarding and supply chain management services that range from airport-to-(air)port and door-to-door freight forwarding movements to complex supply chain services and project movements involving over-dimensional, out-of-gauge, and heavy haulage cargo.

Headquartered in Singapore, Toll Global Forwarding operates in four regions: Australia and New Zealand; Asia; Europe, Middle East, and Africa; and North America. It has 90 sites in 28 markets which, combined with an agent network, services more than 150 markets. It is one of the largest freight forwarders on the Asia to Australia, New Zealand, and USA corridors.

In 2023, Toll Global Forwarding managed around 500,000 air and ocean freight shipments.

Contract logistics
Toll provides warehousing and transportation contract logistics across the Asia Pacific region, including Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, India, China, Taiwan and Korea.

Toll provides end-to-end supply chain services for a range of industries including retail and consumer, grocery, healthcare, automotive, industrial, energy, government and defence. The company operates 500 plus warehouse facilities and a transportation fleet of more than 44,000 vehicles, vessels, plant and equipment.

Toll specialises in customised supply chain solutions, supported by innovation centre control tower systems across the region. In 2022, Toll opened a $20 million innovation center in Singapore to lead advancements in supply chain solutions.

Toll provides logistics, transport and warehouse distribution solutions including:

 * Automated warehousing design
 * Omni-channel and ecommerce solutions
 * Dedicated, specialised higher capacity transport solutions
 * Advanced, integrated telematics for bulk transport.

Toll is the first and only service provider to operate a fleet of Super B-doubles on a fixed route in Singapore and operates the Toll Helicopter ambulance rescue services in Australia.

Former divisions

 * Toll Domestic Forwarding apparently disappeared in a restructuring in 2017.
 * Toll Resources & Government Logistics, assumed restructured.

IPEC
The Interstate Parcel Express Company (IPEC) was established in January 1954 and operated two Peugeot utility vehicles on express parcel services from Adelaide to Melbourne. By 1968 it was operating in all Australian capital cities.

In 1963, IPEC commenced operating interstate air freight services from Melbourne to Launceston service commencing with Douglas DC-3s chartered from Brain & Brown operating three services per night. In 1966 IPEC began operating another interstate air freight service between Brisbane and Cowra that contravened the Two Airlines Policy using a chartered Air Express Holdings Bristol Freighter, where it connected with trucks to Melbourne. IPEC had already purchased a Douglas DC-4 in England, however the Federal Government would not allow it into Australia. The Cowra service ceased in 1967. In 1977 IPEC imported two Argosys followed by a further two in 1978. In 1979, IPEC commenced operating services between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane using chartered East-West Airlines Fokker F27 Friendships. A Douglas DC-9 was purchased in 1982.

In October 1979, IPEC purchased British freight company Sayer Transport Group. In December 1980 it purchased Skypack International with operations in 26 countries. IPEC owned the Angus & Robertson publishing business until selling it to News Corporation in May 1981. In 1983 Skypack International was sold to Thomas Nationwide Transport.

In 1983 Mayne Nickless purchased a 50% shareholding. In 1998 IPEC was purchased by Toll and rebranded Toll IPEC.

In July 2007, Toll Holdings Limited acquired Victorian Express Pty Ltd which provided intrastate express freight services within Victoria.

Global Express
Toll Global Express was a logistics and transportation division of the group. In 2012 it had plans to extend its compressed natural gas-powered fleet to more than 70 trucks. In 2014 it announced a $150-million, 71,000-square-metre, parcel-sorting centre near Melbourne Airport, to be built in partnership with Australia Pacific Airports.

Toll agreed to sell the division to Allegro Funds in April 2021. In 2022 it was rebranded Team Global Express.

title: Toll Group