text:
Talk:Strong and weak agnosticism

Uroshnor's proposal
Am I the only one in the world who notices the blatantly obvious contradiction between this statement:

1) Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any God or gods exist.

And this one:

2) Neither type of agnosticism is irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities), but both are typically irreconcilable with strong atheism. ???

The author and every subsequent editor apparently believe there is no contradiction. But if you hold that knowing whether God exists or not is impossible, then how can that possibly be reconciled with theism (belief in God)? Does this sleight of hand depend upon an unstated logical distinction between God or gods and deity or deities? I would understand, and agree, if the author wrote that strong agnosticism can be reconciled with neither theism nor strong atheism, but apparently the author believes these two statements can be reconciled:

1) It is impossible to know whether God exists or not. (strong agnosticism)

2) God exists. (theism)

(But not the first with this one: 3) God does not exist. (strong atheism))

How does this make sense?

Also, why is the word "typically" in there, just for kicks? Can strong agnosticism and strong atheism be atypically reconciled?

I am writing this here so that others can respond to my objections, otherwise, within a reasonable time period, I am going to change the article to bring it in line with what I stated. --Uroshnor 16:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * One can believe in a god (or the absence thereof) based on faith rather than knowledge, and indeed it's my understanding that some religious philosophies suggest this is the best way to approach religion. So it's only the second clause of the second paragraph that needs changing IMO. Both strong atheism and theism can be reconciled with strong agnosticism, though I suspect most strong atheists frown on the whole concept of "faith" and so a strong agnostic strong atheist would be pretty rare. Bryan 17:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "Believers do not require evidence to justify belief." — Adraeus.

This edit and commentary miss the point completely, though I do value the feedback, so thanks for replying. But this is simply not a faith vs. knowledge issue. Your first sentence is redundant, Bryan. Faith in a god is the best way to approach faith? What does that even mean? If you actually meant, but did not say, that some religious philosophies suggest that faith is the best way to approach theistic religions (rather than saying that one definitely knows that God exists), then even this is not a neutral POV and so does not belong in a wikipedia article itself (and so is properly in the discussion section). (And who really says that? Do you honestly believe that Christians are walking around thinking to themselves, "God exists," and that every time they think this, they immediately and inevitably append to this the statement, "But it could be false, since I don't have evidence to justify it.")

Furthermore, belief in the three positions is already implicit in calling oneself either an atheist, theist, or agnostic, whether you have evidence or not. If you believed something other than that "God exists," then you wouldn't be a theist. So a theist believes that it is true that "God exists," with or without evidence. If you believed something other than that "God does not exist," then you wouldn't be a strong atheist. So, a strong atheist believes that it is true that "God does not exist," with or without evidence. If you believed something other than that "It is impossible to know whether God exists or not," then you wouldn't be a strong agnostic.

Either someone is a strong agnostic or a strong atheist or a theist, but not two of these at the same time (and obviously also not three at the same time or zero at the same time, so each person is just one of the three; there simply is no mixing).

Again, if you didn't believe the position, then you wouldn't call yourself either an atheist, theist, or agnostic. So, you believe it, with or without evidence. Hence it is not about faith vs. knowledge at all.

Theists say:

"I definitely believe that God exists."

Strong atheists say:

"I definitely believe that God does not exist."

Strong agnostics say:

"I definitely believe that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not."

''It is a completely separate issue whether they believe based on faith or what they claim is knowledge. They simply believe'' (again, or we wouldn't call them what we do).

There are three irreconcilable positions: theism, strong atheism, and strong agnosticism (leaving aside for the moment the separate positions of weak atheism and weak agnosticism, which are virtually identical).

Everything that I have said is consistent with what Adraeus meant to say, but did not. He said, "Believers do not require evidence to justify belief." My response? Yes they friggin do! Do you even know what the word "justify" means? In case you don't, here is the dictionary definition:

To Justify is to:

1) Offer reasons for or a cause of: account for, explain, rationalize.

2) Be a proper or sufficient occasion for: call for, occasion, warrant.

3) To assure the certainty or validity of: attest, authenticate, back (up), bear out, confirm, corroborate, evidence, substantiate, testify (to), validate, verify, warrant.

4) To support against arguments, attack, or criticism: apologize, defend, maintain, vindicate.

I think what you meant to say, Adraeus, was that, "Believers do not require evidence to believe." (Now this is something with which I would agree, as would any reasonable person since it is obviously true IMO.) But if I am wrong, please defend your statement, Adraeus, from the charge that it is absurd, since I believe it obviously is (considering that to justify something is to offer evidence for it).

Strong agnosticism is an extreme form of skepticism that is inherently incompatible with both the positions of theism and strong atheism, since both claim to definitely believe that something is true. A strong agnostic strong atheist is not pretty rare, it is impossible. You simply cannot believe both of these statements to be true at the same time:

1) I believe it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

2) I believe God does not exist.

Just as the following two statements are also inherently and inevitably and necessarily irreconcilable:

1) I believe it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

2) I believe God exists.

(Notice I didn't bring faith or knowledge into it since it is not about that.)

Maybe instead of writing this all here I should just change the article and then ask, as you did Bryan, "How did I do?" But now that I have written it, I'll flesh out the article only after I have given others a further chance to respond. It may seem unfair that I have charged you with being redundant and then repeated myself again and again here but my point has been missed before, so I wanted to repeat it in various ways so that there is less of a chance of misunderstanding now (though I don't doubt someone will persist in misunderstanding). Anyway, I await your feedback. --Uroshnor 00:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right about the original version of my first sentence here, but I corrected it just minutes before you posted so that it's closer to what you guessed I meant. As for the rest of this extremely lengthy comment, I'm going to try to summarize. You're saying that "one can't believe in something if one doesn't believe one knows what one's believing in"? If so, this is an argument that has gone around in circles on Talk:Atheism and Talk:Agnosticism before. I maintain that it is not irreconcilable to say "I believe it is impossible to know X" and "I believe X", since one can believe something without knowing it. The example I usually bring out at this point in the debate is Immanuel Kant. Bryan 00:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well this is a great piece of feedback, IMO. I do clearly understand now what you are driving at Bryan. Yes, you summarized my position quite correctly. In the final analysis, if it is disputed whether what I think of "belief" is true or not, then I'll leave the article as it is. But for the record, I think that the only reason you can say something like, "one can believe something without knowing it," is because one later finds out that one was wrong (or because a different person believes something that conflicts with what you believe, so they assert that you don't know it is true, you only believe it). However, in the act of believing something, you are believing that you know it's true, otherwise you wouldn't believe it. I have read the Theaetetus of Plato so I am aware that the distinction between knowledge and belief is notoriously difficult to get a firm grip on. Also, while it would be helpful for you to elaborate on what precisely you mean by bringing up Immanuel Kant, I think I already have an idea of what you mean. Immanuel Kant proved (or claimed to) that while it is impossible to know that God exists, one can choose to believe it anyway, since theism does not involve a logical contradiction. Just ask yourself whether we as believers really differentiate between "I believe X," "I believe I know X," AND "I know X" as much as your position on belief vs. knowledge would seem to dictate. I personally don't believe we do. --Uroshnor 02:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You believe we don't, or you know we don't? :) Anyway, yeah, that's why I use Kant as an example - he's a big famous thinker who did differentiate between those two positions. How about we put a though this can be disputed depending on how one defines "belief" and "knowledge" into the article as a way of agreeing to disagree? This is a common and accepted way of dealing with questions of POV, simply point out that different POVs exist (preferably with links for further research - Kant's article is extensive, but I haven't read Theaetetus and the article on it unfortunately leaves much to be desired) and leave it up to the reader to decide what to do with that information. Bryan 04:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I edited the article with your suggestion. One last thing is a comment not related to what we've discussed before. I'd like to point out that strong agnosticism, IMO, requires just as much faith as theism and strong atheism do. To believe that something is impossible to know at the current moment, because of the existing rudimentary state of knowledge, well, that's just prudent. But to categorically deny the possibility of any progress on this issue in all the potentially millions of years of subsequent human history, with all the attending development in thought and technology, well, that's a leap of faith that requires a true believer. --Uroshnor 11:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Yay compromise and mutual understanding! :) Personally, I think it's overly simplifying to pick just "strong" or "weak" agnosticism as a philosophy and apply that to everything. Everything has various shades running from the logical certainty of 2+2=4 to the "how-the-hell-would-I-know" level reserved for omnipotent beings that use their omnipotence to hide their existence (though fortunately Occam's Razor is especially useful in cases like that). Various gods fall over the entire spectrum. Bryan 15:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elembis' edit
Among other things, my recent edit changes the justification/criticism paragraph and (I think) clarifies the possible overlap of strong agnosticism (SA) and strong atheism. Each change is imperfect.

First, I'm not comfortable with the justification/criticism paragraph, mainly because it's just a paragraph. I tried to find more arguments online, but it seems the view is rarely argued for or against in comparison to weak agnosticism and weak/strong atheism. Furthermore, the argument I included (essentially, "SA is only valid if deities are understood to have nothing to do with the natural world, but such a qualifier cannot be made from a standpoint of SA") seems very strong, and I don't want to be making a straw man by not mentioning better arguments which may exist for SA.

Second, I think the current explanation of how SA and strong atheism may coexist is a clear and accurate one. However, Agnosticism states that strong atheism and agnosticism are incompatible, and I'm about to bring this up on Talk:Agnosticism. As my edit says, the compatibility issue depends on the reasons for strong atheism, and since many people justify strong atheism with Occam's Razor (according to Strong atheism) without requiring reference to particular attributes of a given deity, I think strong agnosticism and strong atheism are compatible.

— Elembis 07:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Asymmetry in the discussion
The problems detailed above seem to me to be due to a lack of symmetry in the categories being used. There should be a category of Strong Theism - an instance would be Roman Catholicism, which teaches that it is possible to arrive at facts about God (such as his existence) by use of one's ordinary reason. SA is clearly incompatible with this, but not with fideism. Likewise, SA is compatible with Weak Atheism (or Nontheism) but not with Strong Atheism.

— Alec Brady 16:20, 20 October 2006

Bad edit on the article
The article of Strong Agnosticism was: "Strong agnosticism (also called "hard agnosticism," "closed agnosticism," "strict agnosticism," or "absolute agnosticism") refers the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

Now article has been changed as: "Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable."

Explanation of Strong Agnosticism should not have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.220.72 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strong and weak agnosticism


text: User talk:202.52.199.225

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

title: User talk:202.52.199.225


text:
Talk:Neolithic Europe

From Wetman's Talk page
(From Wetman's Talk page: "Could you please provide a bit more explanation for your original statement, "There has been a tradition of reticence among archaeologists about any attempts to recapture the living culture of preliterate peoples who are known only through archaeology. All such connections are speculative, and archaeological speculation leads to controversy" in Old European culture? Although I've edited it in an attempt to make it less general (e.g. substituting 'ethnohistory' for 'living culture'), these two sentences still don't make much sense to me (as an archaeologist), and they seem a bit POV (notwithstanding many archaeologists would disagree with them, as many claim the point of archaeology is to first reconstruct, then explain, social and cultural history). I think I know what you're trying to say (e.g. that the weaving together of mythology and ideology to create a history for an archaeological culture is problematic?), so perhaps we could agree on a reworded verson?--Rattus 16:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
 * Wetman responded: "In a classic statement of this reticence, A. Leo Oppenheim provided for his Ancient Mesopotamia a somewhat pessimistic subtitle, Portrait of a Dead Civilization and wrote a prefatory section outlining why a history of Mesopotamian religion cannot be written." I shall add that text, to satisfy those who don't already know this. "Ethnohistory" is simply inflated jargon for a "recreated living culture", but other points are better discussed in public.

 * Actually I have but a single issue with Rattus's edit: before the immigration of Indo-European peoples vs Rattus' revised before a hypothesized invasion of Bronze Age Indo-European peoples. The "invasion" sets up an unwarranted specific picture; the arrival of Indo-Europeans is not "hypothesized" it is the date, whether Late Neolithic or Bronze Age, that is contended. There is an Old Europe culture, though perhaps  before the introduction of farming. The original is preferable. Stet. --Wetman 16:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (1) I meant that the date (Bronze Age) is hypothesized, not the arrival of Indo-Europeans per se; your edit is fine on this.
 * (2) 4000 BCE is not the accepted date by archaeologists, it is a minority view (see, for example: Gray, R.D. and Atkinson, Q.D. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426: 435-43). I've changed it back to how it was, which doesn't claim anything other than it is a model.
 * (3) Oppenheim: he was writing forty years ago and solidly within the tradition of culture history, which basically was a pessimistic period in archaeology, and felt that the reconstruction of 'living cultures' was impossible (which ironically was seen as both the general objective of culture-historical archaeology, but also as an impossible task---in this sense, he is a typical late culture-historian, expressing his pessimism with the approaches that were typical during his academic career). Subsequently archaeology has gone through a couple of significant paradigm shifts (but here isn't the place to go into that), so his statement stands out in this article as very old-fashioned, much in the way that if I used a quote from a 1960s economic text to characterise modern economic theory. In any event, what I have a problem with is that Oppenheim's pessimism doesn't really have anything to do with the article anyway. What we could simply have is a statement in its place that states that the Gimbutas' interpretation of a peaceful matrilineal Neolithic culture prior to an Indo-European Bronze Age was important, but it is now a minority view in archaeology because it simply doesn't fit the archaeological evidence collected in the last 30 years. The fact that she was trying to write a cultural history of Old Europe is moot point and the reluctance of a 1960s culture historian to see this as possible is also a moot point: the real issue is that it is an old hypothesis that can't really be sustained. (Also, a minor point, but I've corrected it anyway: Renfrew's hypothesis sees Indo-European's arriving during the Early, not Late Neolithic).--Rattus 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * An impoverished rationale for suppressing Oppenheim's position, already characterized as "pessimistic" in the perfectly sensibly balanced text that Rattus has censored. Perhaps rattus will give the article a reference less slender that the single article in Nature that he happens to have read and liked: the best date will be in the most recent authoritative text, the one Rattus relies upon as a "professional."  Add your modern POV in a form that suits your own spin, or I shall have to attempt it myself. Your remarks above would scarcely provide a basis. --Wetman 23:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wetman---with respect, you're being a bit irrational (and do I sense a chip on your shoulder over something? -- relax, and let's have a friendly debate). My original request was simply for clarification of a statement that I didn't understand the relevance of to an article about Old Europe. You then seemed to take issue with my indication that there has been a lot of work since Gimbutas on PIE origins in Europe that points to an alternative date, and you're now demanding references... All I wish to highlight is that her work is out of date and not accepted by most contemporary European prehistorians. In terms of her Kurgan hypothesis, there are certainly many IE linguists who still wish to see a Pontic source for IE, but most archaeologists, however, are more comfortable with a Anatolian Neolithic source for the IE entry into Europe simply because that is, on balance, what the archaeological evidence supports. That's the way these things work---a model is proposed, it's evaluated, more data is found that supports or refutes it, and a revised model is   constructed. Yes, more recent work is (usually) more valuable than older work, simply becauase the former has built on the latter and has the benefit of new data. My job is to keep abreast of recent work and evaluate its merit in light of what came before. So, if you'd like some suggested reading for the post-Gimbutas re-evaluation of PIE origins in Europe, then you might start with:

 * Adams, J. and Otte, M. Did Indo-European Languages Spread before Farming? Current Anthropology 40/1: 73-77.
 * Barbujani, G. et al. 1995. Indo-European origins: a computer-simulation test of five hypotheses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 96:109-32.
 * Bellwood, P. 2005. Chapter 10 in First Farmers. London: Blackwell.
 * Forster, P. and Toth, A. 2003. Toward a phylogentic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic and Indo-European. PNAS 100: 9079-84.
 * Piazza, A. et al. 1995. Genetics and the origin of European languages. PNAS 92:5836-40.
 * Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language. London: Jonathan Cape.
 * Renfrew, C. 1999. Time depth, convergence theory, and innovation in Proto-Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European Studies 27:257-93.
 * Renfrew, C. 2003. 'The emerging synthesis': the archaeogenetics of language/farming dispersals and other spread zones. In P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds.) Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. pp. 3-16. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.

 * Note that these aren't necessarily in support of a Neolithic Anatolian origin (in fact, the first considers that it might have been even earlier), and most give the Kurgan hypothesis a good discussion too. (Bellwood 2005 is a good one to start with.) In good faith.---Rattus 02:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "Old Europe"
There are 3 layers of European populations: (1) Oldest European -- the Paleolithic / Mesolithic indigs (2) Old European -- the Neolithic farmer "colonial invaders" (3) Aryan -- the Indo-European speaking Kurgans. '''When I listen to Marija Gimbutas, or Riane Eisler, I get the impression they confuse (1) & (2). According to Spencer Wells, Journey of Man, the Neoliths spoke a ~uniform "Mediterranean Language", which was neither the Aryan tongues of the later Steppe Nomads, nor the indigenous tongues of Europe. According to the History Channel documentary, Cannibalism Secrets Revealed, there is evidence of ferocious hatred, by the indig Mesoliths, of the invading Neoliths, on the boundary between their lands (in Yorkshire, c.3800 BC).''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "Old Europe" is, if I'm not mistaken, specifically assocatied with Gimbutas and her followers. This article can't seem to decide whether it is really about inhabitants of Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans or whether it is specifically about Gimbutas' position -- which was never widely accepted and seems to be moribund now. For example, why does it say: "Ancient Greek writers called the "Old European" pre-Hellenic dwellers in Greece "Pelasgians" or "Leleges"." -- what does it add to use the phrase "Old European" here? The very fact that this article is called "Old European culture" rather than "pre-Indo-European culture in Europe" or some such seems to be POV. --Macrakis 03:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Stavros! I worked with Marija as her research assistant when I was at UCLA. Her methods were sound and her conclusions compelling, though you have to study rather a lot of material in order to get the whole picture. I don't believe her position is moribund, whether or not it has current popularity. The "Old Europe" Marija posits does describe a set of cultural motifs which are found in the archaeological record, and which stands in opposition to the classical Dumézilian IE cultural features. There were people in Europe before the Indo-Europeans, and Marija Gimbutas is the only person who has succeeded in trying to put a face on them.... The Pelasgians and Leleges and Maltese and megalithic tomb-builders didn't all spring up out of nowhere. That they should share cultural elements in common (those Goddesses) is unsurprising. What you say about Marija's "followers" is a bit problematic. She has her students, and she has her groupies. Perhaps the latter obscure the former, but Marija was a great scholar and should not be dismissed. Evertype 11:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Evertype. MG has become an icon for crackpot feminists, but that is hardly her own fault (well it may be her own fault, in part, but that doesn't invalidate her serious work). dab (ᛏ) 19:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't want MG's well-accepted work (Kurgan etc.) to be lost in the discussions about her later, not-very-well-accepted work. Yes, there were people in Europe before the IEs.  However, the term "Old Europe" -- despite its attractive simplicity -- has not, as far as I know, caught on among pre-historians.  Also, her later interpretations of motifs on various artifacts (e.g. triangle = vulva etc.) are not widely accepted. I think  or  are samples of at least some archaeologists' attitude towards this work.  --Macrakis 14:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Macrakis - "Pre-Indo-European European culture," or something along those lines, would be more NPOV if the term "Old Europe" is really only associated with one specific scholar. The "Pre-Indo-European" term seems neutral and undeniably accurate, doesn't it?  BTW, is this "Old Europe" the one Donald Rumsfeld was complaining about? john k 15:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * nope -- as I've pointed out above, "Pre-IE Europe" is (a) a linguistic term and (b) laden with assumptions. I am happy to go with "Neolithic Europe" or something similarly accurate, if "Old Europe" is objectionable (although I have no issues with "Old Europe", the term is perfectly fine apart from the fact that MG coined it). The Pre-IE / Aryan Invasion debate is connected with this, of course, but the title shouldn't already take sides in the debate, as it were. dab (ᛏ) 15:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I sometimes find it inaccurate when pre-Indo-European is redirected to Old European culture, as in the other day in the Carian language article when I linked pre-Indo-European: the pre-IE groups discussed (Leleges, etc.) in that article are the pre-IE inhabitants of Anatolia (I do not include Anatolia in Europe). So, some sort of solution needs to be found, IMO. Alexander 007 15:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * why not? Gimbutas' "Old Europe" doesn't draw a line at the Bosporus, and parts of Anatolia, and all of the Aegaean, are included. The correct title for this article would be Southeastern Europe and Anatolia in the Neolithic. Neolithic Europe seems like a good compromise, we could also add sectoins on the Agaean, Anatolia, Northern Europe and Britain to the article. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, that could work. I agree that in real life no line can be drawn between Aegean Europe and Anatolia, but the practice is to exclude Anatolia from Europe in terms of geography. Alexander 007 16:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See also Accession of Turkey to the European Union ;o) arguably, western Anatolia was "European" until 1453. dab (ᛏ) 16:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's probably "those Turks" that make many people (including many geographers, whether they realize it or not) decline to include Anatolia in Europe. Alexander 007 16:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * no no, Anatolia is really "Asia", see Arzawa. The world has shrunk, since those times. I am moving the article now, since we seem to agree; let's see what happens. dab (ᛏ) 16:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for a summary on Neolithic cultures. What I found instead was mostly theories of pre-Indo-European peoples and languages. Inasmuch as the Kurgan hypothesis holds that Indo-European languages were brought to Europe by Bronze Age immigrants, extended discussion of the Kurgan hypothesis and Marija Gimbutas is out of place in an article on Neolithic Europe. About the only Kurgan material that belongs here is a statement that Kurganists reject Renfrew's hypothesis. Similarly, I don't think one could plausibly rename the sections "Pre-Indo-European peoples" and "Pre-Indo-European languages" to "Neolithic peoples" and "Neolithic languages," and if not, these sections don't belong in this article either. I see that this material was moved from an previous article on "Old European culture." I'm not saying the off-topic material should be deleted; rather the article should be divided, with the off-topic material (most of the article) moved to a title like "Theories of pre-Indo-European culture." (In addition to being mis-titled the implicit assumption of most of the article that Neolithic Europe was pre-Indo-European betrays a POV that the Kurgan hypothesis is correct.) --teb728 08:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

timeline, geographical complexes
here is a good timeline we should aim at reproducing. dab (ᛏ) 06:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comb Ceramic Europe?
The Comb Ceramic Culture (Pit-Comb-Ceramic) of northern and north-eastern Europe marks the onset of neolithic in those areas. Should it be included in this article?Clarifer

I have edited the article's map (Europe in ca. 4000-3500 BC) adding the Comb Ceramic culture to the north-eastern corner. If the version is accepted I will proceed to add the culture to the other map as well. May I upload? Clarifer

Urbian
I'd like to break out the Urbian material, if that is OK with everyone. It is very specific material and I want to refer to it elsewhere. I'm not diminishing the tentative nature of the reconstruction, only presenting it as a possibility. Paliga is certainly worth that. I'm sure there are others and this move will leave space for them when someone cognizant of them discovers Wikipedia or decides to participate. Under Urbian, we might decide to list Paliga's roots. Moreover, the comments of other scholars on each root would beef it up and make it worth looking at by savants. I'm not going to do it now, however. If you don't agree, just revert. If you don't, I'll assume this course is preferable.Botteville 14:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I reserve comment on this hypothesis of Paliga's, but another item that may (or may not) support his theory is Uria, the name of a city in ancient Messapia. Alexander 007 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

BC
This article was originally created as a BC/AD article and should remain as such according to wikipedia policy. I'm not sure when it changed the dating system the the |first version didn't mention BCE nor CE. You can discus on my talk page if you like. Thank you, Chooserr

pre-endo-european statement questionable
" The Basques of the Pyrenees are thought to be a non-Indo-European remnant of a once more widespread Pre-Indo-European culture. Older theories considered the ancient Picts of what is now Scotland also to be Pre-Indo-European. It has also been suggested that in North-Eastern Europe, Uralic speaking peoples preceded Indo-European speakers [1]. "

I believe this statement to be false. Through my studies it seems that the Basques were pre-indo-european as apposed to non-indo-european. For now I have left it, but I am continuing my studies and will try to update this in the future.

(RG 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

"Pre-Indo-European" or "Mesolithic"
The article commences by accepting scholarly disagreement as to the identity of the Indo-Europeans--are they the first Neolithic settlers, or are they Bronze Age invaders? The article then goes on to talk about pre-Indo-Europeans without ever making clear which of these two groups the "pre" precedes. Thus, in this passage, are we speaking of Neolithic genetic markers or Mesolithic genetic markers?

 * "According to some studies, modern European peoples derive about 72% of their genetic code from the Pre-Indo-Europeans, on average. Basques show a remarkable lack of genetic markers from other groups, prompting the conclusion that they are the closest of any present ethnic group to having completely Pre-Indo-European genes. Native speakers of Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic from the west coasts of Ireland and Scotland also come very close to the Basque, with a close to 100% "Pre-Indo-European" set of genetic markers. These two groups present useful data points in the study of correlation between genetic and linguistic heritage."

The answer, as those who have read Cavalli-Sforza know, is that the genetic markers are Mesolithic, since they represent the weaker principal components in Cavalli-Sforza's genetic cline maps, and they appear to occupy refugia and less desirable agricultural land. While one can make good inferences about which markers are associated with archeological stages such as the Neolithic (the population increases facilitated by agriculture, and the origin in Anatolia both help in making inferences), one can't make good inferences about which markers are associated with a particular linguistic group such as the Indo-Europeans.

I think that the article should drop most uses of the word "pre-Indo-European" and replace it with "Mesolithic." Anthon.Eff 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Moving this here, since it seems more like a commentary on a problem with the article--a problem I hope to correct:

 * "Labels applying alternately to genetic or linguistic groups are often incorrectly conflated, including with Pre-Indo-European and Indo-European ethnic and linguistic groups. Sometimes, little to no correlation can be found between genetic and linguistic grouping. This is true, to take a non-European example, between the Sino-Tibetan and Hmong-Mien language groups in southern China, where no significant genetic differentiation correlates with the differentiation in language families, indicating ancestry that thoroughly mixed while maintaining separate language communities. On the other hand, Basques show a striking correlation with both genetic and linguistic differentiation from their neighbors, providing a compelling indication of a coherent population group that has remained effectively differentiated since before the Indo-European groups immigrated."

Anthon.Eff 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

this is great, but I would like to know more about if verbal communication (i.e. the languages) of the neolithic time was invented during this time, and if not when.

neolithic language
hi, im a bit confused as to when these languages where invented.

For it, we must consider the HORN theory.

1- The first western european mankind building, started 5000 adc, endend 3000 adc.

2- The last people reletad to that work, the Konii and the B(V)as(Konii) Basque people.

AND, their english descendent, the cornovii tribe. This people came from Algarve - Portugal, to Cornwall (That means the shape of Cornwall -CORNO (horn), in Portuguese and in Konii language ). They migrated to Wroxeter, Shropshire, VIROCONIVM CORNOVIORVM, for the romans. VIRO-CONIUM CORNOVIORUM translated: HORN´S VIRILE KONII MEN.

So, the neolithic language appear in europe.

Proposed merge
It has been proposed that Pre-Indo-European be merged into Neolithic Europe.

 * Merge the other way. I say that some of the content of Neolithic Europe should be merged into Pre-Indo-European. As I explained at length in the last paragraph under The term "Old Europe" above, most of the content of this article (at that time) was mis-titled. I see there has been improvement since then. Any remaining speculation about pre-Indo-European language and culture should be moved/merged. The content about European Neolithic archaeology should be retained under this title. --teb728 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't merge Surely Neolithic Europe needs no defense as an encyclopedia subject in itself. "Pre-Indo-European", however, is just an aspect of Neolithic Europe, a subject for contentions that is currently under a non-encyclopedic title (a dangling adjectival phrase without a noun): at most it is a sub-article that deserves a very concise summary paragraph at Neolithic Europe with the usual Main article:... heading link. Why doesn't someone simply do this, and see if it's not perfectly sufficient?--Wetman 09:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't merge Because the Neolithic peoples of Europe may in fact be Indoeuropean, not pre-Indoeuropeans. And Wetman is right, Neolithic Europe is perfectly good title in itself that serves as an opening for the various debates about who these peoples are, when they arrived, and where they came from.--Rattus 03:28, 27 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Mesolithic or Paleolithic people
The text suggests that you can talk about Mesolithic people from something like 20.000 years BP, but the Mesolithic era only started roughly 10.000 years BP, at the end of the ice age. So that whole section is going to confuse the reader who isn't aware of that. Floris V 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point. Please take a look to see if the text is still confusing. --Anthon.Eff 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. Thanks. Floris V 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
So in a very simplified summary.

Europe was initially inhabited by "pre-Indo- Europeans". Then the proto-Indo-Europeans entered the scene, the extent to which is disputed. The main disagreement lies between

a) Kurgan hypothesis which speculated that the IEs entered in Bronze age, as 'overlords'. This is more supported by linguistic evidence and genetic (Haplo R1a)

vs

b) Anatolian hypothesis stating that they entered earlier (Neolithic), corresponding to new tachniques in agriculture, which better suited to establishing colonies and growing population compared to hunter-gathering. THis is more supported by archeological evidence.

?

 * The Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a is found in the Pontic steppes and Eastern Europe (plus eastwards into Iran, but not into Western Europe) and may well correspond to a dispersal similar to the hypothesized Kurgan dispersal. But what is the evidence that these peoples were the first speakers of Indo-European? No evidence--Indo-European could well have been in place long before R1a began to spread. Of course, one could also ask: What is the evidence that the Anatolian migrants were the first speakers of Indo-European? And again one must answer: No evidence. But Bellwood and Renfrew have been pretty convincing--from Cavalli-Sforza's work we can see that the main genetic gradient in Europe (not just one marker on the Y chromosome, but over 50 autosomal markers) runs from high frequencies in Anatolia to lower frequencies in the North and West; from the ethnographic evidence we can see that demic diffusion of agriculturalists is much more likely than diffusion of agricultural technology; and from similar patterns surrounding other agricultural hearth areas we can see that major language phyla are indeed likely to stem from the ursprache of the original population to develop agriculture. --Anthon.Eff 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Focus on Language
This is just an observation; the focus of this article (and of many of the comments on this talk page too) seems to dwell too much on language.

But this is a much broader subject than that, there is already discussion of the spread of the Cultures, albeit with a rather language oriented theme, but it could also benefit from some information on geography and how that influenced the spread. Also the linguistic discussions will always be, by definition, informed guesswork. Whereas there are 'hard' archaeological records that get far less mention here; technologies & construction techniques, toolkits, burial rites, the ceramic record, etc. It could also benefit from a discussion of the archaeological record itself, it's completeness (or lack thereof) and how our understanding of this has changed over the years. EasyTarget 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Language in Neolithic Europe is guesswork at best, pseudoscience at worst. Let it go. Kortoso (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Megaliths
One of most wide-known activities of Western-European neolithic people was building megalithic constructions (dolmens, menhirs, henges etc.). This should be reflected here. Raoul NK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Maps
The maps on this page are confusing. The first two show a Cardium Pottery Culture on the Mediterranean. The third shows a Linear Ceramic Culture in the same place. Which is correct? If they are both correct, it should be explained. 67.168.59.171 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't quite see what you mean. To me it looks like there are four maps, the second and third showing a Cardium Pottery Culture centered on Italy. The fourth map doesn't show any culture centered on Italy. According to the captions, the difference among the maps is mainly time period.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Genetics section
This part is simplistic. Only some geneticists feel that there is a minimal neolithic biological contribution, whilst others suggest as much as an 80% contribution. The section needs to be updated. Hxseek (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, the first paragraph of the genetics section is not correct (except for the far north and west of Europe, and the Alps). If you have the correct information readily available, it would be great if you would be willing to add it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, can do, soon. Hxseek (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass cannibalism event in Neolithic times
The journal Antiquity reports that archaeologists have found evidence of mass cannibalism at a 7,000-year-old human burial site in south-west Germany. The authors say their findings provide rare evidence of cannibalism in Europe's early Neolithic period. Up to 500 human remains unearthed near the village of Herxheim may have been cannibalised. Researchers say the "intentionally mutilated" remains included children and even unborn babies. Antiquity Journal

Here are some new stories about the finds BBC story Guardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.137.198 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please delete that map
The map titled File:Old Europe.png is very innaccurate and needs to be deleted immediately. The Vinča Culture shown on that map is completely wrong - it was actually only in a relatively small area in modern-day Serbia, and that map indicates that it took up half of Southeastern Europe! That is just one of the many errors in that map, and having it displayed in this article is just one more example why people feel that Wikipedia is not reliable. Delete it now, please. --Saukkomies talk 04:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Active discussion at Talk:Vinča_culture.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert page
I need someone to help me out - I got carried away and added a bunch of links to the list of Neolithic cultures, not realizing (until too late) that I was still on the Neolithic EUROPE page. I need to revert this article back to before I started editing it today (7 Feb 2010), could someone help? I don't know how to do it... --Saukkomies talk 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Done. Several ways to do it. Go to history, compare the latest edit (this only works if it's yours) to the one just before your earliest, then on the left hand side of the page you should see at the top 'Revert to this version' or something like that, click on it. Or go to your latest diff and do a rollback (I use Twinkle which allows me to do an AGF (Assume good faith) rollback.) Put something in the edit summary explaining why. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for doing that Dougweller. I have problems for some reason with my old klunky laptop when it comes to the DIFF program - my computer says it doesn't have the plugin or software to view a DIFF page, and when I go to try to find something to use for it, it never seems to work. I'll have to check out Twinkle. Thanks again, though, for doing this. :) --Saukkomies talk 22:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dating of the maps
There is some contradictions between the dating of the culture in the text of the articles and the dates of the maps European_Late_Neolithic.gif (3500 BC according to the author) and European_Middle_Neolithic.gif (4500-4000 BC according to the author). For example, Lengyel should be 5000-4000 BC, Rössen (4600- 4300 BC), Karanowo III-IV (5500-4950 BC) and the Lineary Pottery Culture (5500-4500 BC),. Probably, the dates given for the maps are not corrected. I would suggest changing the date of the maps to 4300 BC and 5000 BC. Do you have any better suggestions to solve these contradiction?

Second, Europe_Old.png really does not seem to be reliable. Yamna, Lengyel and LBK are not contemporary. LBK should not extend until the adriatic coast. I think it should be deleted.TKostolany (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cardium and J2 ? More like G2a
Ancient Y-DNA has shown that the Cardium pottery people are predominantly G2a Y-DNA haplogroup (the only others so far found are a small minority of E3b and I2) - no J2 yet detected. I think on the basis of this new hard-evidence, we should not be including statements associating the Cardium pottery people with the J2 Y-DNA haplogroup.Jembana (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"believe"
In the paragraph "Archaeology", the notion "believe" means fairytales and has to be replaced by facts or to be deleted! HJJHolm (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

megalitsmo lusitani?os lusitanis nem tinham chegado ali ainda isso era iberídeo ou proto-íbero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.9.219 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 * For a scientist "belief" is based on scientific evidence.
 * And by the way...WP:SPEAKENGLISH Kortoso (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Broomcorn millet in Europe
Looks like there may be evidence after all:
 * Kortoso (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neolithic Europe. 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://archive.is/20131030095411/http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/063/Ant0630379.htm to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/063/Ant0630379.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405085514/http://www.continuitas.com/intro.html to http://www.continuitas.com/intro.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) 12:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Cyprus in Europe?
If ancient Cyprus was in Europe then perhaps it should be said that the Neolithic began there in the 9th millennia, around 8800–8600 BC, or even earlier.

large blanked out section
There's a very large section of the text that is blanked out for some strange reason.

It starts after this sentence,

"Admixture rates varied geographically; in the late Neolithic, WHG ancestry in farmers in Hungary was at around 10%, in Germany around 25% and in Iberia as high as 50%."

and ends with this,

"This association was strengthened when King and Underhill (2002) found that there was a significant correlation between the distribution of Hg J2 and Neolithic painted pottery in European and Mediterranean sites. However, studies of the ancient Y-DNA from the earlier Neolithic cave burials of Cardium pottery culture shows they were mainly haplogroup G2a. These 'Neolithic lineages' accounted for 22% of the total European Y chromosome gene pool, and were predominantly found in Mediterranean regions of Europe (Greece, Italy, southeastern Bulgaria, southeastern Iberia)."

Then the "Language" section begins.

Can somebody clarify the situation please? Y-barton (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 * This whole long section seems to be a rather technical discussion regarding: the long-standing "replacement model" vs. "demic diffusion" dispute in archaeology.

 * Some of this info may be a little out of date. Y-barton (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ancient North Eurasian
The Ancient North Eurasian genetic event is only mentioned in a parenthesis, but the genetic data, and possibly the origin of Kerberos or even a Proto-Indo-European connection, suggest that this event was impactful enough to warrant a bit more mention than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neolithic Europe


text:
User talk:Arianwen~enwiki

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Arianwen. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Arianwen~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arianwen~enwiki


text:
User talk:Gelo71

Username change
As you requested, your username has now been changed from AngelRiesgo to Gelo71. If you haven't done it already, please remember to move your user page and your talk page using the "move" tab on the upper right-hand side of your screen. Redux 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Greetings! I saw you had taken part (already a year ago, but nevertheless) in a discussion regarding the correct spelling of Miguel Indurain's name. On a similar note, I would like to hear your input on that of the Liverpool footballer Luis García. On several language versions of Wikipedia as well as Spanish websites it is spelled in the aforementioned manner, without an accent on Luis. Yet, on the Spanish Wikipedia it is spelled with one. Is this really the correct way or is it just a mistake? I know he was born in Catalonia (don't know if that actually makes him a Catalan, though) which might complicate things, but isn't the Catalan form of the name Lluís, with two l's? This has been bugging me for a while now, and since I saw that you're Spanish and currently living in Barcelona, I thought maybe you could shed some light on the matter. :-) Muchas gracias. –Kooma 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, Kooma. The correct spelling of the Spanish name "Luis" is like this, without an accent. It was misspelt in the Spanish Wikipedia article, where I have already corrected it. The accent rules in Spanish are particularly tricky when it comes to vowel combinations like "ui", "ai" and so on, and even educated native speakers make mistakes. The Catalan version of the name is Lluís, with an accent, as in Lluís Companys, and the interference from Catalan may be the reason for the misspelling in the Spanish Wikipedia. Catalans often get confused with those names and words that are accented differently in the two languages. But this football player has a Castilian name ("Luis Javier" rather than "Lluís Xavier"), so it is clear that it should be spelt without an accent. On the other hand, "Luís" is the correct form in Portuguese, as in Luís Figo. And, to confuse matters even more, Brazilians often use the old Portuguese spelling of the name, which is "Luiz", in this case without an accent, as in Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Hope this helps. Gelo 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you, very helpful indeed. I will move the article in the Finnish Wikipedia accordingly. –Kooma 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Torres Petronas Mayo 2004.jpg
Greetings, Gelo71! I just wanted to let you know that a photograph you took, Image:Torres Petronas Mayo 2004.jpg, has been selected to be the flagship image of WikiProject Skyscrapers per discussion on the project's talk page. This means that it will likely become the most widely distributed skyscraper image on Wikipedia, with use on all article talk pages within the scope of the project. Hopefully this is okay! Thanks and cheers, Rai - me  14:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Mumbai
Hi! You had once contributed to the Mumbai page regarding the name (Dec 2006). We are trying to get the History of Mumbai up to featured status. Would you be having any additional information on Portuguese rule from your sources? If you have anything on that era to contribute, do let us know. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gelo71


text:
User:E-100 Alpha

I am a new user named E-100 Alpha.

title: User:E-100 Alpha


text:
Talk:Northrop F-5

Moroccan F-5A or F-5E?
Does someone whether the aircrafts in this photograph (File:US supplied fighters of the Royal Moroccan Air Force.jpg) are F-5Es or F-5As? I don't know how do distinguish them. According to this source, Moroccan F-5s had the same camouflage in the 1980s.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Doesnt help but Morroco received F-5A and F-5Bs in 1967 but also later acquired F-5Es from 1981. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a very low quality photo, so it's difficult to judge, but "maybe" an F-5A owing to the fact that where the radome would be on an F-5E is covered in the camouflage pattern. Don't quote me on that however.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 * A bit of a late answer, but this has to be an F-5E. The main giveaway is the "dorsal spine extension" in front of the vertical stabilizer, which was issued to some variants of the F-5E, but never to F-5A's.
 * Moreover, the centerline pylon is placed way more frontal and partly underneath the cockpit on F-5A's. On F-5E's, it is placed more in the middle of the airframe and aft of the intakes. On the photo you can tell that the aircraft obviously has an F-5E-type centerline pylon location.
 * Lastly, the radome seems to be a different, darker color than the rest of the airframe, which indicates that it is treated with a special coating to permit the operation of a radar, which F-5E's have. F-5A's do not have a radar. LP98 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Confusing statement
"Another highly influential figure was chief engineer Welko Gasich,[14] who convinced Schmued that the engines must be located within the fuselage for maximum performance"

Well, where else would they be, outside the fuselage? Something is wrong about this wording but I can't say what it might be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 * It is kind of random, and probably taken out of context that would clarify it. But yes, some jet fighters have had their engines outside the fuselage, including the first two production models, the Me 262 and Meteor. Others were in pods or fairings attached to the fuselage, such as the P-59 or CF-100. BilCat (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 * (e/c) To me the article wording suggests engines mounted to the outside of fuselage as the alternative. There is also wing mounted engines such as with airliners and some older military aircraft.  The F-5 family was designed mostly in the late 1950s. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At least one of the early concepts had podded underwing engines - I've added a note to clarify.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Brazil F-5 EM cockpit 3.jpg
 * F-5EM 4th GEN - Brazil FAB.jpg

Wing fences
Wing fences are not mentioned at all in the article at present.

I believe they were introduced on the F-variant? I was alerted to this by the description of the Swiss F-5E/F, which had the "wings of the F-5F". Since the wing area/span does not seem to have changed(?), I am guessing that this is probably a reference to wing fences.

Grant |  Talk  05:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I think it just means that wings taken off of an F-5F were added to an F-5E, presumably as replacements. Given that the claim is unsourced it's hard to know. BilCat (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 * A wing fence is a like a vane to control air flow over the wing. See wing fence article for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

F-5Ns Still Operating In United States
In the Operators section of this page, the United States is listed as a former operator, but that's false.

VMFT-401 is a squadron of F-5Ns still in use by the USMC, and is used as their only adversary squadron. 70.60.85.121 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Vmax vs. Vne
Why is the maximum speed greater than the never exceed speed. 2601:300:8000:1BF0:3CC1:26FF:7F62:67B9 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Two different units are used, the max speed is a Mach number and the Vne is an indicated airspeed in knots. The section indicated airspeed might help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  16:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

New Taiwanese F-5E/F on Display
Under the Aircraft on Display section, subsection United States, of this article, it might not be a bad idea to add a former Taiwanese F-5E/F that I saw recently being stored in a large hangar at Corvallis Municipal Airport in Corvallis, Oregon. Granted, this might need to be added in the future regarding that I was told by staff there that this aircraft was in the hangar, along with some old Migs, because they were building a small museum there. The museum is not yet complete since there are still multiple GA aircraft they need to clean out of the hangar and more classic planes they intend to buy, thus the F-5 in question is not yet on public display but will be in the near future. I suggest editing this article when Corvallis Municipal Airport opens their museum. I have 3 photos of this aircraft, one of the nose, one of the canopy warning label on the side, and one of the cockpit from the pilot's perspective. None of these photos show the registration or serial number unfortunately. Theastronurse (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northrop F-5


text:
Indonesian names

Indonesian names and naming customs reflect the multicultural and multilingual nature of the over 17,000 islands in the Indonesian archipelago. The world's fourth most populous country, Indonesia is home to more than 1,300 ethnic groups, each with their own culture, custom, and language. The Javanese are the largest single group, comprising around 40 percent of Indonesia's total population.

General
In Indonesia, ranks and professional titles are used. It is also customary to use Pak, Bapak, or Saudara to address men and Bu, Ibu, or Saudari to address women. Pak and Bapak are literally translated as "father". Bapak is more formal and is used much like the English word, "sir". Saudara (for men) or Saudari (for women) is another term of greater respect and formality. It translates to "kinsman", "lady", or "gentleman". Ibu is literally translated as "mother". It is used as "ma'am" or "lady" would be in English. If addressing a man whose name is unknown, one uses Bapak and if addressing a woman whose name is unknown, one uses Ibu.

A very formal way to address an older person or a person of higher status is Tuan or Nyonya, which mean "sir" or "madam".

An informal way to address a significantly older person is to use Om, Paman, Bibi, or Tante, which mean "uncle" and "aunt". The terms are Dutch-influenced and quite commonly used in the big cities.

Local honorifics continue to be employed throughout Indonesia. In a casual situation, Kakak or Kak is used to address a person as an "older sibling".

In Javanese, Mbak is used for "older sister" and Mas is used for "older brother". Mbak and Mas are also used, for example, to address junior staff in cafes and restaurants in Jakarta.

In Sundanese, Teteh or Teh is used for "older sister" and Akang, Kang, or Aa is used for "older brother". Mamang, Amang, or Mang is used for "uncle" and Ceuceu or Ceu is used for "aunt".

In Balinese, Mbok is used for "older sister" and Bli is used for "older brother". Geg is used for "younger sister" and Gus is used for "younger brother".

In Batak, Ito is used by a woman to a man or vice versa to call "older sibling", Eda is used by a woman to call "older sister", and Lae is used by man to call "older brother".

In Minangkabau, Uni is used for "older sister" and Uda is used for "older brother".

In Manado, Ambon, and Kupang, Nona is used for "younger sister" and Nyong is used for "younger brother". Noni is also used for "younger sister" in Manado.

In Papua, Tete is used for elderly men and Nene is used for elderly women. Bapa is used for older men and Mama is used for older women. Pace is used for familiar older men and Mace is used for familiar older women. Kaka is used for "older sibling". Ade is used for "younger sibling". Nona is used for familiar women of your age or young women.

In Malay cultural spheres, an "older sister" is addressed as Kakak or Kak and an "older brother" is addressed as Abang or Bang. However, Abang is also commonly used in other areas to address a becak driver, angkot driver, butcher, vegetable vendor, fishmonger, or hawker.

Gus (from bagus) is used exclusively to address an honorable Eastern Javanese person with a strong traditional and religious identity. For example, the Indonesian former president, Abdurrahman Wahid, was often addressed as Gus Dur; Dur being the short form of his first name, Abdurrahman.

Royalty
For Indonesian royalty, the titles "Sri" and "Prabhu" are used to address kings and monarchs, usually in Indianized kingdoms located in the islands of Sumatra, Java, Bali, Borneo, and other places which had Hindu/Buddhist influence. "Sri Baginda" or "Sri Paduka Baginda" is the formal title used to address a king, for example the sultan of Yogyakarta, Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono X. "Prabhu" is also the title used for kings who ruled in the Hindu/Buddhist era, such as Prabu Siliwangi and Prabu Bratasena.

Naming forms
Legally, Indonesian personal names are not divided into first and family names. A single name is recognized as a full personal name, and the addition of further components–such as additional given names, regional, or ethnic family/clan names or patronymics or matronymics–is a matter of parents' choice when registering the child's name. Even then, family names or patronymics are just considered part of the full personal name and have no official relevance (for instance, alphabetic ordering of names is always done by the first letter of the full personal name).

The majority of Indonesians do not have family names. Rather, their given names are geographically and culturally specific. Names beginning with "Su" in Indonesian spelling ("Soe" in the old orthography) or ending with an "o" are usually Javanese people. For example, people called "Suprapto" or "Soeprapto, Joko" are likely to be of Javanese descent. Suharto is another example.

Balinese names are quite distinct, as they have a naming system which denotes birth order. Wayan means first born. Made means second born. A Balinese name may also indicate caste. For instance, a Kshatriya person may be named "I Gusti".

"Sitompul" and "Rajagukguk" are clan names usually found in people with Batak or North Sumatran heritage.

In general, Indonesian names fall into one of the following categories:

 * A single name, such as Sukarno and Suharto
 * Two (or more) names without a family name, such as Joko Widodo or Sri Mulyani Indrawati
 * Two (or more) names with a family/clan name such as Alexander Evert Kawilarang, Abdul Hakim Achmad Aituarauw or Abdul Haris Nasution
 * Two (or more) names with a patronymic, such as Megawati Sukarnoputri or Abdurrahman Wahid

Regulation
The Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation no. 73 of 2022 about Recording of Names on Residence Document regulates the naming of Indonesian residents. The document requires names to be written in the Latin script according to the Indonesian orthography, and having no less than two words and no more than 60 characters, including spaces. It also discourages names that contain multiple meanings or negative meanings.

Before the regulation was introduced, there had been people with unusual names like 6 people with names with only a single character, including "." and "N", while on the other side, there were also people with extremely long names like "Rangga Madhipa Sutra Jiwa Cordosega Akre Askhala Mughal Ilkhanat Akbar Suhara Pi-Thariq Ziyad Syaifudin Quthuz Khoshala Sura Talenta", which contains up to 132 characters including spaces.

Nevertheless, it is common for Indonesian names to be written partly or fully in the old Dutch orthography, as shown in names like Tjahaja (modern spelling Cahaya) and Soeryadjaya (Suryajaya). Spelling of names are also often fluid, such as using y instead of i finally and sometimes medially or using silent letters (there are some very unusual cases such as Masduki Baidlowi or Deddy Corbuzier). Compare Edi with spelling variants Edy and Edhy, are all pronounced homophonously with the first usual variant. The first name of Keenan Almiqdad Riyandhana Saputra, for example, was pronounced as "Kenan" usually, but as "Kinan" by his friends.

Indonesian naming traditions
Most Indonesians do not have family names. Both men and women usually have a given name and then take the name of their father as a last name. Some, but not all, married Indonesian women take the last name of their husband. This name is usually added after their own "last" name. Therefore, it is not rare for married couples to have different last or family names.

Naming also differs regionally. Some Javanese, especially those of the old generation have only one name. Bataks have clan names which are used as their surnames. Some Chinese Indonesians have Chinese-style names. In Indonesian telephone directories, names are listed under the first or given name and not under the last or family name.

Mononymic names
Example:
 * Child's name: Hasan
 * Father's name: Suparman
 * Mother's name: Wulandari

On the birth certificate, the child's name would be written as "Hasan child of Suparman and Wulandari". The birth certificate of an extramarital child would bear only the mother's name. On a school diploma, the child's name would be written as "Hasan, child of Suparman". On all other official documents (ID card, driver's license, and passport), only the child's name would appear, "Hasan".

Polynymic names without a family name
Example:
 * Child's name: Hasan Prasetyo
 * Father's name: Suparman Prakoso
 * Mother's name: Wulandari Hartono

On the birth certificate, the child's name would be written as "Hasan Prasetyo child of Suparman Prakoso and Wulandari Hartono". On all other official documents, the child's name would be written as "Hasan Prasetyo".

Polynymic names with family name
If the parents want a family name (or surname) to appear on official documents, the family name has to be included on the child's birth certificate.

Example:
 * Child's name: Yovan Gunardio Darmawan
 * Father's name: Budi Darmawan
 * Mother's name: Natalena Tirrand

On the birth certificate, the child's name would be written as "Yovan Gunardio Darmawan child of Budi Darmawan and Natalena Tirrand". On all other official documents, the child's name would be written as "Yovan Gunardio Darmawan".

Polynymic names with patronymic
The patronymic is usually constructed from the father's name, with the word putra (for males, "son" in Sanskrit) or putri (for females, "daughter" in Sanskrit) appended.

Example:
 * Child's name: Hasan Suparmanputra
 * Father's name: Suparman
 * Mother's name: Wulandari

On the birth certificate, the child's name would be written as "Hasan Suparmanputra child of Suparman and Wulandari". On all other official documents, the child's name would be written as "Hasan Suparmanputra". This would be somewhat analogous to the practice in Iceland, where patronymics are used.

Occasionally, the father's name will be used as the surname, without appending putra or putri (in this example it would be Hasan Suparman). This might be done unofficially, that is, not matching the birth certificate. Nevertheless, this format sometimes appears on government documents.

Modifications to the name outside of Indonesia
Other countries may modify an official Indonesian name to conform to local standards. This is most apparent in states throughout the world where personal names are divided by law into given/first name and family/last name.

In the Netherlands, for example, a person without an official family name would be given the surname Onbekend (which means "unknown"). Individuals with multiple-word names will often be given this surname, particularly if the last name on the birth certificate differs from the father's family name. Individuals with a distinct family name may also be given this surname if it is recorded differently on the birth certificate.

Referring to the examples above, a Netherlands identification card would record the individual's name as:
 * Example 1: Hasan Onbekend
 * Example 2: Hasan Prasetyo Onbekend
 * Example 3: Yovan Gunardio Darmawan
 * Example 4: Hasan Suparmanputra Onbekend

In Germany, the one-word name is used as both given name and surname. This is often displayed on official documents as "Hasan Hasan" or "H. Hasan".

In the U.S., there are at least four ways to record people with a single-word name. One way is to use the existing single word name as the surname. Then, an official body will add "Fnu" (first name unknown) as the first or given name. This can lead to a false belief that "Fnu" is a common Indonesian first name.

Conversely, the existing single word name can be used as the given or first name and then "Lnu" (last name unknown) may be added as the family, surname or last name. This can lead to the misconception that "Lnu" is a common Indonesian surname. In some cases "Fnu" will be used as the surname or last name.

Third, the existing single word name may be duplicated to give a first name and surname such as "Hasan Hasan".

Fourth, the practice of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is to record the single-word name as a first or given name, and to enter a period for the surname.

Local family/clan names
There are some Indonesian ethnic groups or tribes whose people do maintain a family, last, or surname. These include the:
 * Alas people of Aceh, for example, Keruas, Kepale Dese, or Pagan.
 * Gayo people of Aceh, for example, Alga, Ariga, Bukit, Cibero, Gading, Gunung, Linge, Munte, or Tebe.
 * Kluet people of Aceh, for example, Bencawan, Pinem, Pelis, or Selian.
 * Batak people of Sumatra, for example, Hutabarat, Nainggolan, Panjaitan, Simatupang, or Siregar.
 * Nias people from Nias, for example, Amuata, Falakhi, Laoly, Marunduri, Ote, or Wau.
 * Minangkabau people of Sumatra, for example, Bodi, Caniago, Sikumbang, Koto, or Piliang.
 * Mentawai people from Mentawai Islands, for example, Anakalang, Gougou, Oinan, Sagurung, or Talopulei.
 * Palembang people of South Sumatra, for example, Benakat, Gumay, Meranjat, Pegagan, or Rambang.
 * Komering people of South Sumatra, for example, Bungamayang, Pakusengkunyit, or Semendawai.
 * Tribes and royalties in Lampung, for example, Djayasinga, Badak, Limau, Gunungalip, or Way Tube.
 * Christian Betawi people, for example, Baidan, Djaim, or Senen.
 * Royalties and nobles from the Javanese people, for example, Sastrowardoyo, Djojohadikusumo, or Kolopaking.
 * Royalties and nobles from the Sundanese people or Bantenese of Java, for example, Kusumah, Djajadiningrat, Soerjaatmadja, Martadinata, or Prawiranegara.
 * Dayak people of Kalimantan, for example, Tingang, Unus, Apui, Usat, Laing, Lawai, Danum, Riwut, Usop, Narang, Undjung, Ngampar, Gohong, Baboe, Huang, Lambung, Djinu, Ningkan, Jau.
 * Minahasan people from North Sulawesi, for example, Lembong, Mogot, Ratulangi, Sondakh, or Tendean.
 * Mongondow people from North Sulawesi, for example, Damopolii, Mokoginta, Mokodongan, Manoppo, Mokodompit, or Pasambuna.
 * Sangirese people from Sangihe Islands, for example, Kansil, Manansang, Manganang, Mohede, or Tatengkeng.
 * Talaud people from Talaud Islands, for example, Ambanaga, Binambuni, Darinding, Gumansalangi, Lalombuida, Ratungalo, or Totopandey.
 * Gorontalo people of Gorontalo, for example, Gobel, Hulupango, Lasindrang, Panigoro, or Uno.
 * Toraja people from South Sulawesi for example, Batusura, Lumba, Rambulangi, or Manganan.
 * Various ethnic groups in the Molucca Islands, for example, Malaiholo, Hehamahua, Sahanaya, or Sahilatua. Due to intermixing, many Moluccans also retain foreign surnames from foreign countries such as the Netherlands (Van Afflen, Van Room, De Wanna, De Kock, Kniesmeijer, Gaspersz, Ramschie, Payer, Ziljstra, Van der Weden, etc.), Portugal (Da Costa, De Fretes, Que, Carliano, De Souza, De Carvalho, Pareira, Courbois, Frandescolli, etc.), Spain (Oliviera, Diaz, De Jesus, Silvera, Rodriguez, Montefalcon, Mendoza, De Lopez, etc.), and Arabic directly from Hadramaut (Al-Kaff, Al Chatib, Bachmid, Bakhwereez, Bahasoan, Al-Qadri, Alaydrus, Assegaff, etc.)
 * Various ethnic groups in East Nusa Tenggara use surnames native to the region—some of these surnames include Hurek, Riberu, Seda, Messakh, and Keraf. There are also Portuguese surnames (typically found in the eastern portion of Flores) due to Portuguese influence in the region during colonial times, such as Fernandez, Diaz, Pareira, Da Lopez, Da Cunha, De Rosario, and others.
 * Various ethnic groups in West Papua—There are more than 200 ethnic groups in West Papua, and surnames are typically unique to a particular ethnic group and can be used to identify a person's ethnic background. Some of the largest surnames include Kogoya, Wenda, Tabuni, Wonda, and Murib from Papua province. There are also other West Papuan surnames popular in Indonesia such as Suebu, Kaisiepo, Numberi, and Solossa.

Javanese names
Javanese people have various systems for naming. Some Javanese, especially those from older generations, have only one name and no surname. Others use their father's names as well as their own, in a similar manner to European patronymics. For example, Abdurrahman Wahid's name is derived from Wahid Hasyim, his father, an independence fighter and minister. In turn, Wahid Hasyim's name was derived from his father named Hasyim Asyari, a cleric and founder of the Nahdlatul Ulama organization. Another example is former President Megawati Sukarnoputri; the last part of the name is a patronymic, meaning "Sukarno's daughter".

Some Javanese, especially those from older generations, have a mononymic name and no family name; for example, Sukarno, Suharto, and Boediono. Some names are derived from native Javanese language, while some others are derived from Sanskrit and Arabic. Names with the prefix Su-, which means good, are very popular.

Sanskrit-derived names
Most Indonesians, especially the Javanese, Sundanese, and Balinese, have names derived from Sanskrit. This is because of the Indian cultural influence which came to the archipelago since thousands of years ago during the Indianization of South East Asian kingdoms, and ever since, it is seen as part of the Indonesian culture, especially Sundanese, Javanese, Balinese, and some part of Sumatran culture. Unlike Sanskrit-derived names in Thai and Khmer, the pronunciation of such names in either Javanese or Indonesian is almost similar to the original Indian pronunciation, except that the v is changed to a w, and all instances of s, ś, and ṣ are merged into single s.

For example, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, former Indonesian president, has a Sanskrit-derived name. "Susilo" comes from sushila meaning "good character" and "Yudhoyono" comes from yudha meaning war or battle and yana meaning an epic story. Sukarno is derived from the Sanskrit su (good) and karno or Karna (a warrior) in Mahabharata.

Several common Indonesian names derived from Sanskrit are deities or heroes names, including Indra, Krisna, Wisnu, Surya, Bayu, Dewa, Rama, Lesmana, Sudarto (Javanese for Siddharta), Dewi, Pertiwi, Sri, Ratih, Shinta, Laksmi, and Saraswati. Some famous people who uses these names include: Giring Ganesha, Isyana Sarasvati, Indra Lesmana, Dewa Budjana, Dewi Sandra, Laksamana Sukardi, etc..

Other Sanskrit derived names used widely in Indonesia also include such as: Wibisana or Wibisono (from the Ramayana figure Vibhishana), Arya, Subrata, Aditya, Abimanyu, Bima (from Bhima), Sena, Satya, Cakra (read Chakra), Putri, Putra, Mahardhika, Gatot or Gatut (from the Mahabharata figure Ghatotkacha), Perdana (from the word "Pradhan"), Prameswara or Prameswari, Wijaya (from Vijay), and many more.

Many Indonesians use Sanskrit-derived names to indicate their position among siblings (birth order). The first-born child might bear the name Eka or Eko (mostly Javanese), the second-born child might be named Dwi, the third-born Tri, the fourth-born Catur, and the fifth-born Panca or Ponco (usually Javanese). Some examples are Eko Yuli Irawan, Rizky Dwi Ramadhana, Triyaningsih, and Catur Pamungkas.

Indonesian government names of institutions, mottoes, and other terms also use Sanskrit, such as to address an Indonesian Navy admiral, the word "Laksamana" (from the Ramayan figure Lakshmana) is used. The "Adipura award" (Indonesian: Penghargaan Adipura) which is an award given to cities throughout Indonesia from the central government for cleanliness and urban environmental management also uses from Sanskrit language which is Adi and Pura. There are also many mottoes of Indonesian institutions which use Sanskrit language, such as the motto of the Indonesian Military Academy which sounds "Adhitakarya Mahatvavirya Nagarabhakti".

Some of these Sanskrit-derived names might be used by ningrat or menak (noble) families, especially among Javanese and Sundanese, in much the same way as some family names in western culture indicate lineage and nobility. Some such names are Jayadiningrat, Adiningrat, Notonegoro, Suryasumantri, Dharmokusumo, Wongsoatmodjo, Natalegawa, Kusumaatmadja, Kartadibrata, Kartapranata, and Kartasasmita.

Chinese names
Under President Suharto, Indonesia attempted to deconstruct organisations and groups that might represent an internal security threat. As a part of the policy to limit the influence of the Chinese Communists and to encourage the ethnic Chinese to assimilate, the state strongly encouraged Chinese Indonesian individuals to change their names. This was a difficult balance because while the names were changed, laws continued to identify them as 'different' from indigenous Indonesian groups. Indonesian businessman, Liem Sioe Liong, for example, had his name changed to Sudono Salim. Some people did not change their names (e.g., Kwik Kian Gie, Liem Swie King, etc.).

Many of the later generations have kept the Indonesian form of the name. Other Chinese Indonesians, however, maintain their Chinese name as well as their family names. As is customary with Chinese names, the family name (or surname) is traditionally placed in front of the given (or first) name.

Arabic names
As Islam is the largest religion in Indonesia, it is quite common to find Arabic first names or words. Popular Arabic names include Muhammad, Ahmad, Arief, Ibrahim, Ismail, Aisyah, Nur, Aminah, Nabila and Zahra. Such names are used by Indonesians not of Arab descent, both as first names and as surnames.

Ethnic groups with strong Islamic influence, such as the Acehnese, Malay, Minangkabau, Betawi and Bugis, tend to use Arabic names. For example, Indonesian politicians Teuku Muhammad Hasan (from Aceh) and Mohammad Hatta (from Minangkabau) have Arabic names. However, some of these ethnic groups with strong Islamic influences, such as the Betawi people, have Arabic names which have been suitable with the local pronunciation, such as Rojak (Razak), Leman (Sulaiman), etc.

Arabs settled in Indonesia many generations ago, and their descendants still use their family names, for example, Assegaf, Alhabsyi, or Shihab.

There are many Javanese-style Arabic names such as Marpuah (from Marfu'ah), Ngabdurohman (from Abdurrahman), Sarip (from Sharif), Slamet (from Salamah), Solikin (from Salihin), etc.

The name "Maysaroh" is a common female name amongst the Betawi people. However, this name is actually a male name in Arab countries. It is probably mistaken with the name Saroh, which is in turn derived from Sarah.

Western names
Western names were brought to Indonesia by the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and later from American-English cultural exports. Names with western origin include Henry, Agus, Johan, Andri, Anto (Antonius), Siska, Roni, Jono, Riska, Suzanna, Rian, Markus, and many more.

Indonesian Christians (Protestants and Catholics) may use Christian first names and/or baptismal names, derived more or less directly from Latin, such as Yohanes, Andreas, Matius, Markus, Lukas, Paulus, Maria, Stefanus, Yakobus, Filipus, and many more Biblical names. These names have been Indonesianized to conform with the Indonesian pronunciations (or as they appear in the Indonesian Bible translations). But more recently, many parents also use Anglicised names such as Peter, Andrew, James, John, Paul, Eva, Stephanie, Mary, etc.. Many non-Christian Indonesians may also use Western names such as Jon, Sam, Paul, Brian, Toni, Tomi, Anne, or Yulia. Many female names are also suffixed with either -ina and -ita, both are diminutive suffixes in Spanish.

Combinations of names from different origins such as "Ricky Hidayat" (Western-Arabic) are to be found as well.

Names related to month of birth
Indonesian names may indicate the month of birth. For example,

 * January: Januri (m), Yanuar (m). Example: Yanuar Tri Firmanda.
 * February: usually identified from prefix Febr-. Example: Febriyanto Wijaya.
 * March: Marti (derived from Maret, Indonesian word for March, which in turn is derived from Dutch Maart). Example: Marty Natalegawa.
 * April: usually identified from prefix Apri- or Afri-. Example: Aprilia Yuswandari.
 * May: Mei or its derivations such as Meilanie, Meiliana, Meiliani (all are feminine). Example: Meiliana Jauhari.
 * June: Yuni (f) or its derivations such as Yuniar (f), Yuniarti (f), Yuniarto (m). Example: Yuni Shara.
 * July: usually identified from prefix Juli- or Yuli-. Example: Alvent Yulianto.
 * August: Agus (m) (actually a name of native origin) or its derivations such as Agustin (m), Agustina (f), Agustinus (m, usually borne by Indonesian Catholic). Example: Agus Ngaimin.
 * September: usually identified from prefix Sept- or Seft-. Example: Seftia Hadi.
 * October: usually identified from prefix Oct- or Okt-. Example: Yati Octavia.
 * November: usually identified from prefix Nov-. Example: Novita Dewi.
 * December: Deasy, Desi, Dessy (all are feminine). Example: Desi Anwar.

Patrilineal and matrilineal family names
Some Indonesian patronymic last names are constructed of the father's name, with the word putra (for male) or putri (for female) appended. One example is former Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of former President Sukarno. However, it is also common for the father's name alone to form the child's last name (for instance, 'Ali Ahmad' from the father 'Ahmad Sudharma').

Located in Western Sumatra, the Minangkabau are the largest matrilineal culture in the world and the fourth largest ethnic group in Indonesia. Tribe, clan (or suku) titles, properties and names are all handed down through the female line.

Names with religious connotations
Other than the above linguistical sources, Indonesians also gave their children names from their religious background, irrelevant with their mother language or source language of those names. Hindu names typically includes some deity names, and Sanskrit in origin, while Muslim names usually contain some variation of "Muhammad" and other Arabic names (with no apparent consensus on transliteration rule), and Christian names are either borrowed from European languages, or assimilated from them into Indonesian spellings (e.g. Christian -> Kristian). There are some similarities between the Indonesian Christian and Muslim names such as names that can be found in both Abrahamic religions like Adam, Abraham/Ibrahim, Yusuf/Yusup, Harun, Salomo/Sulaiman, Yunus, Ayub.

It is noteworthy that names based on religious connotations sometimes doesn't necessarily means that the person (or their parents) adherents of said religion, such as Christians/Muslims with Hindu names (e.g. Wisnu, a common male name, Giring Ganesha, etc.), Muslims/Hindu/Buddhist with Christian sounding names (e.g. Kristiani Herrawati), or Buddhist/Hindu/Christian with Muslim/Arabic names (e.g. Sulaiman, Hassan, and other common Arabic names), as many Javanese (and Indonesians to a larger degree) took inspirations from various cultural sources. Some names even mix elements from different religious sources, such as "Wisnu Kristianto" (Wisnu from Vishnu, and Kristianto from Christian), "Muhammad Wisnu", etc. which makes them truly unique from anthropological's point of view. This naming system is especially prevalent from people living in metropolitan areas, or people with Javanese background, as Javanese names tend to be more liberal, while less prevalent in other cultures and regions where the majority of the people are still using traditional names and naming system, or where religion still play a very large emphasis on the daily lives.

Nicknames
It is uncommon, and considered rude, to refer to an Indonesian person by their full first name, unless that name has only one or two syllables. Former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid, for example, had "Abdurrahman" shortened to "Dur". Many Indonesians use a different name altogether; a woman born as "Khadijah" may be known as "Ida" or "Ijah" to all her friends and family.

In Sundanese culture it is common for the nickname to become integrated as the first name. For example, someone with the name "Komariah", "Gunawan", or "Suryana" written in their birth certificate may become known as "Kokom" for Komariah, "Gugun", or "Wawan" for Gunawan, and "Yaya" or "Nana" for Suryana. The result is rhyming names such as "Kokom Komariah", "Wawan Gunawan", and "Nana Suryana". Notable people having such names include politician Agum Gumelar, comedian Entis Sutisna (with stage name Sule), and politician Dedi Mulyadi.

Indonesian people might also take a Western style nickname such as Kevin, Kenny, Tommy (Tomi), Jimmy, Ricky, Dicky, Bob, Nicky, Nico, Susy, Taty, Lucy (Lusi), Nancy, Mary (Maria) and so on. It does not necessarily mean their names are Thomas (for Tommy) or James (for Jimmy). For instance, Suharto's son, Hutomo Mandalaputra is popularly known as "Tommy Suharto". The "Tommy" here was not derived from "Thomas", but from the Javanese name, "Hutomo".

Noble titles as part of personal name
In some ethnic groups it is common to include a nobility title into the formal personal name. Due to the various traditions of nobility in each ethnic group, it may be difficult for people from outside a particular ethnic group to discern the nobility title from the personal name.

Acehnese people have titles such as Teuku (male) and Cut (female). Celebrities with such titles include, for example, Teuku Wisnu and Cut Tari.

Balinese people have titles based on castes such as Ida Bagus for male and Ida Ayu for female (Brahmana caste), I Dewa, I Dewa Ayu, I Gusti, I Gusti Ayu, Ida I Dewa Agung, Cokorda/Tjokorda, and Anak Agung (Ksatriya caste), and Ngakan, Kompyang, and Sang (Waisya caste).

Banjar people have titles such as Andin, Antung, and Anang (male) and Gusti and Galuh (female).

Bantenese people have titles such as Tubagus (male) and Ratu (female). People with such titles include, for example, Tubagus Hasanuddin and Ratu Atut Chosiyah.

Belitung people have titles such as Ki Agus (male) and Nyi Ayu (female).

Buginese people and Makassarese people have 13 titles such as Andi, Petta, Datu, Bau, Daeng, Karaeng, Kare, Puang, Arung, Iye, La/I, Opu, and Sombaya. People with such titles include, for example, Andi Mappanyukki and Karaeng Matoaya.

Butonese people have titles such as La (male) and Wa (female). People with such titles include, for example, La Nyalla Mattalitti and Wa Ode Nurhayati.

Javanese people have titles such as Raden Mas, Raden, and Mas (male), Raden Ayu, Raden Nganten, and Mas Ayu (married female), and Raden Ajeng, Raden Rara, and Mas Ajeng (unmarried female).

Malay people have titles such as Tengku (male and female) and Datuk (male).

Minangkabau people have titles such as Datuak, Sutan, and Marah for male. People with such titles include, for example Sutan Sjahrir and Marah Roesli.

Palembang people have titles such as Raden Mas, Masagus, Kemas, and Kiagus (male) and Raden Ayu, Masayu, Nyimas, and Nyayu (female).

Sasak people have titles such as Lalu (male) and Baiq (female). People with such titles include, for example, Lalu Muhammad Zohri and Baiq Lukita Kirana Putri.

Sumba people have titles such as Umbu (male) and Rambu (female).

Indonesian names outside of Indonesia
Indonesian passports do not divide names into given name, middle name, and family name, and Indonesians who travel outside of Indonesia have trouble filling out registries due to not understanding how they ought to subdivide their names.

Indexing
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, Indonesian names are indexed differently according to the individual practices and customs. If there is one name, it is only indexed under that name. If the family name is printed first, index under the family name with no comma and no inversion.

title: Indonesian names


text:
All India Kisan Sabha

All India Kisan Sabha (abbr. AIKS; lit. All India Farmers Union, also known as the Akhil Bharatiya Kisan Sabha), is the peasant or farmers' wing of the Communist Party of India, an important peasant movement formed by Sahajanand Saraswati in 1936.

History
The Kisan Sabha movement started in Bihar under the leadership of Sahajanand Saraswati who had formed in 1929 the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha (BPKS) in order to mobilise peasant grievances against the zamindari attacks on their occupancy rights, and thus sparking the farmers' movements in India.

Gradually the peasant movement intensified and spread across the rest of India. All these radical developments on the peasant front culminated in the formation of the All India Kisan Sabha at the Lucknow session of the Indian National Congress in April 1936, with Swami Sahajanand Saraswati elected as its first president. The other prominent members of this Sabha were N.G. Ranga, Ram Manohar Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Dev and Bankim Mukerji, and it involved prominent leaders like E.M.S. Namboodiripad, Indulal Yagnik, Sohan Singh Bhakna, Z.A. Ahmed, Pandit Karyanand Sharma, Pandit Yamuna Karjee, Pandit Yadunandan (Jadunandan) Sharma, Rahul Sankrityayan, P. Sundarayya, Yogendra Sharma and Bankim Mukherjee. The Kisan Manifesto, released in August 1936, demanded abolition of the zamindari system and cancellation of rural debts; in October 1937 it adopted the red flag as its banner. Soon, its leaders became increasingly distant with Congress and repeatedly came in confrontation with Congress governments, in Bihar and United Province.

In the subsequent years, the movement was increasingly dominated by Socialists and Communists as it moved away from the Congress. By the 1938 Haripura session of the Congress, under the presidency of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, the rift became evident and by May 1942, the Communist Party of India, which was finally legalised by the government in July 1942, had taken over All India Kisan Sabha all across India, including Bengal where its membership grew considerably. It took on the Communist Party's line of People's War and stayed away from the Quit India Movement which started in August 1942, though this also meant losing its popular base. Many of its members defied party orders and joined the movement. Prominent members like N.G. Ranga, Indulal Yagnik and Swami Sahajananda soon left the organisation, which increasingly found it difficult to approach the peasants without the watered-down approach of pro-British and pro-war, and increasing its pro-nationalist agenda, much to the dismay of the British Raj.

Protest against three Agri-bills
AIKS led nationwide protests against Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

 * 2 October 2018: AIKS organized march of farmers at the Delhi-Uttar Pradesh border.
 * 26 January 2021: AIKS organized tractor rally in national capital.
 * 26 February 2022: AIKS led Thousands of farmers started marching to Dhule District (Maharashtra) Collector's Office demanding forest land certificate.

title: All India Kisan Sabha


text:
User talk:Zoe Allen

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
You might like to put something on your user page. It's an exception to the rule that anything you write may be "edited mercilessly". You might want to say a little about yourself.

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you.

Feel free to ask me anytime if you need help -- click the word "talk" in my sig. — Xiong熊 talk 08:54, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zoe Allen