Talk:Babkha

Hey Taurusrex/ Your Radiance- excellent work as always but I feel I should point out that there is a problem with the section on Kelestan. You've written that Baatharz is the northernmost region of Babkha and is presently occupied by Antica, Ashkenatza, and Babkha.

Baatharz is not 'occupied' by Antica and Ashkenatza in the manner a reader of this article would think- it's not marked as occupied territory by the MCS and cannot therefore be called such in MicrasWiki. I hasten to add that this isn't to do with a pro-Ashkenatzi bias on my part, simply a matter of terminology which is misleading and presents an inaccurate view of Euran politics as they stand today.

Over-pedantic much?

Nah, just concerned with facts. Sorry if that distresses you.

No need to apologise on my account old boy. Life is to short to be distressed over-much by errors of interpretation on the part of others.

I must however regretfully note that I think you are being somewhat disingenuous since your comment, and the compulsion to make it, manifestly has everything to do with the 'pro-Ashkenatzim' bias you professed to forswear. Otherwise I am absolutely confident that you would have paid more heed to the way the article was written. As such you would have noted that Babkha is also listed as an 'occupying' polity in the context of that sentence. Namely the sense that the three powers cited occupy the portion of the map formerly and most enduringly associated with the Zamin of Baatharz. All states occupy the territory over which they exercise formal jurisdiction and control - clearly the sense in which the term has been used here - which is wholly different from the MCS use of the term to denote the de-facto occupation of territory by one state which belongs de-jure to another state, normally in the context of a war.

Well it was a pleasure to be pedantic with you also. We really must do this again some time.