User talk:Rokus01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • I also have a normal life
  • I might be very busy at the moment doing something else
  • I hate people that love to destroy information

Please write your comments here below (if any)


DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 29 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elp culture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche[edit]

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over Nietzsche, but you need to justify some of your edits.

  • Tou seem to be confusing moral nihilism, which Nietzsche did accept, with nihilism more generally and the Nihilist movement is specific, which Nietzsche was opposed to. The differences between all of these must be kept very clear.
  • The source material you reference does not itself refer to any source for the claim that Nietzsche accepted the Nihilist label. Nor does it even explain what is meant by what amounts to a very unclear sentence. To a native English speaker, the sentence is very ambiguous. It could just as easily mean that Nietzsche recognized the existence of the label, but not that he accepted it for himself. Regardless, the whole thing is just an unwarranted assertion made in the first paragraph and never backed up.
  • If Nietzsche was the first to study Nihilism, who was he studying and responding to? This claim can't possibly be true.

Please justify these edits, or I will revert them. Thank you. Postmodern Beatnik 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, indeed it would be better to engage into an editwar with somebody else. Nobody ever pretended Nietzsche is easy to understand, another thing he himself readily acknowledged (his estimation was it would last a hundred years before he would be understood, I guess he was an optimist). Thus, your understanding of Nietzsche could easily be different from mine, or from anybody else. However, to make your understanding acceptable to Wikipedia standards I would insist on proper sourcing. Expose your different view by quoting recent sources of scholars who studied this subject.

  • First of all, Nietzsche was the first to describe Nihilism. The sources I quote confirm this, if you have any different information I will readily take this into consideration.
  • Second, you have to understand that the notion of nihilism nowadays differs from how it was received over a century ago. Indeed, Nietzsche would not be a nihilist in the modern sense. I hope you would agree to this modern definition: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." This kind of nihilism does not value moral, as it does not value anything, thus certainly would be opposed to whatever you call "moral nihilism".
  • So, Beatnik, what kind of Nihilism do you think Nietzsche was talking about, when he wrote: "I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength." (Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13)?? Or would you prefer to contradict the general interpretation of such to be nihilism? To this question my reference gives an answer, or at least this will give you an impression to what kind of "acknowledgement" of the label is meant. In the modern sense, Nietzsche would not classify as an nihilist since his "nihilistic" destruction is ultimately meant to construct.

If you have any other information, don't hestitate to notify me. Rokus01 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, indeed it would be better to engage into an editwar with somebody else.

  • When I said I wasn't going to get into an edit war, all I meant was that I wasn't going to escalate anything. I don't get into edit wars with anybody. I'm not sure why you felt the need to get haughty on the issue.

Nobody ever pretended Nietzsche is easy to understand, another thing he himself readily acknowledged...

  • Agreed. That's why we must be very careful not to make rash generalizations or controversial statements that cannot be well-backed. I find your recent edits to do just this, however. That is why I asked for clarification.

However, to make your understanding acceptable to Wikipedia standards I would insist on proper sourcing. Expose your different view by quoting recent sources of scholars who studied this subject.

  • Such as myself? Ah but that is besides the point as I am not arguing for anything. My primary concern was to remove a poorly sourced claim you added to the page. And this is precisely my complaint about your source. The article does not itself validate the claims that you put onto the page. My explanation follows:

First of all, Nietzsche was the first to describe Nihilism. The sources I quote confirm this, if you have any different information I will readily take this into consideration.

  • I find no support for this claim in Michels' article. I see support for the claim that Nietzsche studied Nihilism exhaustively and carefully mapped out his understanding of it; but by no means do I find support for the bald claim that Nietzsche was the first to study Nihilism. As for the other claim that I took issue with, namely that Nietzsche readily accepted the label of "nihilist," I find that the article you cite treads very lightly on that issue. It is only is a specialized sense, after much parsing and qualification, that Nietzsche accepted the term. To properly explain the context of this acceptance in the Nihilism article would require a significant expansion of the Nihilism and Nietzsche section, perhaps requiring its own article. I have no objection to this being done; however, your own abbreviated edits do not do the issues justice and are, thus, misleading as they stand.

Second, you have to understand that the notion of nihilism nowadays differs from how it was received over a century ago.

  • I do understand that. The article, however, is about nihilism today. Any departures from that understanding must be noted. Your edits, made in reference to Nietzsche's own understanding, fail to do such. As you yourself stated: Indeed, Nietzsche would not be a nihilist in the modern sense. See the problem?

I hope you would agree to this modern definition: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy."

  • I have no problem with this definition.

This kind of nihilism does not value moral, as it does not value anything, thus certainly would be opposed to whatever you call "moral nihilism".

  • And here is another place where you fail to understand me. The modern definition of general nihilism is not at all opposed to "moral nihilism" (which is no invention of mine, by the way, so the phrase "whatever you call" in your above quote is really quite uncalled for). Moral nihilism, to put a slight gloss on it, is the thesis that there are no moral truths. General nihilists accept this thesis, they just go further. So the point is that while all general nihilists are moral nihilists, not all moral nihilists are general nihilists. Nietzsche was certainly a moral nihilists (though with very important and particular first order qualifications). He was not, however, a full-fledged nihilist--not even in the way he understood the issue. Moreover, your own reference article supports my point. To wit: "If nihilism is a sort of inaction, then Nietzsche’s philosophy points away from nihilism, not to it. The will to power is nothing if not a doctrine of action." Also: "[Nietzsche believes that] if it is impossible to avoid thinking nihilism, it is essential that we avoid living nihilism." And from one of Michels' own sources (see note 32): Nihilism "is the problem to which the Will to Power is the answer." Robert C. Solomon, "Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Morality," Nietzsche: A Collection of Critical Essays, Robert C. Solomon, ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 203. To suggest a direct relation as you do is simply unsupportable. Even your own sources betray you.

So, Beatnik, what kind of Nihilism do you think Nietzsche was talking about, when he wrote: "I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength." (Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13)?

  • He is, of course, talking about general nihilism. That is obvious. But you have terribly misinterpreted the quote. As Steven Michels himself says in the article: "Nietzsche’s philosophy does not so much celebrate nihilism, as it recognizes the overcoming of nihilism as the only true foundation upon which culture can thrive (UD 3)." This is the standard interpretation of Nietzsche in the philosophical literature, and I see no reason for the article at issue to state otherwise—particularly since your own source does not stray from this mainstream interpretation. You yourself seem to acknowledge this:

In the modern sense, Nietzsche would not classify as an nihilist since his "nihilistic" destruction is ultimately meant to construct.

  • If you feel the need to use inverted commas around "nihilistic" then I would suggest you already know that Nietzsche is not a nihilist in the sense the Nihilism article is getting at. The relationship between Nietzsche and Nihilism is more complex than your edits let on. Postmodern Beatnik 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are just talking two different languages. I fully agree with your "The relationship between Nietzsche and Nihilism is more complex than your edits let on." However, I still think these edits introduce a much more comprehensive overview from what it was: "Nihilism is often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche, despite his explicit denunciation of the position, due to his extensive work on the subject". This was too simple, and does not take into consideration that, in a way, he also classifies for being a nihilist. Your quote "If nihilism is a sort of inaction, then Nietzsche’s philosophy points away from nihilism, not to it" does not take into consideration the word "If". Read well and find out this "if" refers to an approach considering only one type of nihilism, or rather a possible result of nihilistic thinking he indeed tried to avoid.
The historic context was already made clear by adding "a label [...] nowadays largely contested." Maybe you could try and attribute him with an unequivocal stance towards modern nihilism, however, then you would neglect the importance of the very source of nihilism, the "moral nihilism" (it is clear to both of us now what it stands for) that might easily be taken for granted in a nihilistic present time, as it seems you are doing here as well, but surely would be the one and only reason why he (in quite a different time and culture) would have "acknowledged" to be a nihilist himself. General nihilism? You mean a "basic" kind of nihilism? Anyway, this way of thinking essentially belongs to nihilism. Then: "Nietzsche’s philosophy does not so much celebrate nihilism, as it recognizes the overcoming of nihilism". I do not see any contradiction here: why should he celebrate nihilism "as is"? Nihilism must have been the natural result of his nonconformist way of thinking, and I fully agree this would rather have dispaired him. His subsequent drive to try to overcome nihilism is what distinguish him from just a nihilist: however, this does not make him so much different from a nihilist, rather this makes him more than a nihilist. Thus, your source saying "There is a common misconception that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was a nihilist" only applies to the whole set of characteristics commonly ascribed to nihilism. Read well and notice Astin Cline introduce nuance lateron to this bold statement. Also, notice how careful Steven Michels choose his words in defining the real thoughts of Nietzsche: "Nietzsche may be said [...] We limit ourselves here to saying that the movement of Nietzsche’s thought can be understood as [...] Existentialism is the attempt to free Nietzsche’s alleged overcoming of relativism from the consequences of his relapse into metaphysics or of his recourse to nature." This would be sufficient to warn against any certaincy contained in phrases like "his explicit denunciation".
He being the first - should be corrected in: he being the first to study nihilism extensively, agreed on this one. Rokus01 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are just talking two different languages.

  • In fact, I believe this is the heart of the problem. I believe a language barrier has caused at least one of our primary disagreements. More on this below.

I fully agree with your "The relationship between Nietzsche and Nihilism is more complex than your edits let on." However, I still think these edits introduce a much more comprehensive overview from what it was...

  • I must agree with you that the original version is not satisfying, either. And I do appreciate the quality of the Steven Michels article. The problem, I think, is with your English syntax. In the context of the article, the phrase "nowadays largely contested" suggests that modern interpreters are blithely ignoring Nietzsche's own pronouncements and interpreting him in whatever way they like. Your last comment on this page, however, suggests that what you really mean is that Nietzsche's nihilism is not the same as contemporary nihilism. This I would agree with, but it is not what your first edit says to a native English speaker.

Your quote "If nihilism is a sort of inaction, then Nietzsche’s philosophy points away from nihilism, not to it" does not take into consideration the word "If".

  • It is not my quote. It is a quote from the Michels article you used as a reference. I agree that the word "if" is important, but I only brought up the quote to note the complexity of Nietzsche's relationship with Nihilism. It was not meant to prove anything else.

General nihilism? You mean a "basic" kind of nihilism?

  • No. By "general nihilism" I mean the whole collection of partial nihilist theses. You can be a moral nihilist without also believing that the there is no such thing as truth or knowledge or meaning. You can be an epistemological nihilist without also believing that there is no such thing as absolute value. A general nihilist, however, is one who is completely described by the definition of nihilism that you offered: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." Is that clearer?

Thus, your source saying "There is a common misconception that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was a nihilist" only applies to the whole set of characteristics commonly ascribed to nihilism.

  • Exactly my point. Your edits implied otherwise, however. That was my problem with them.

Read well and notice Astin Cline introduce nuance lateron to this bold statement. Also, notice how careful Steven Michels choose his words in defining the real thoughts of Nietzsche: "Nietzsche may be said [...] We limit ourselves here to saying that the movement of Nietzsche’s thought can be understood as [...]Existentialism is the attempt to free Nietzsche’s alleged overcoming of relativism from the consequences of his relapse into metaphysics or of his recourse to nature." This would be sufficient to warn against any certaincy contained in phrases like "his explicit denunciation".

  • Very true. Like I said, I don't particularly like either phrasing. However, to the uninformed reader of Wikipedia, I think the earlier phrasing is less misleading than your edit. But you are correct: the former phrasing is also incorrect. This should be addressed.

He being the first - should be corrected in: he being the first to study nihilism extensively, agreed on this one.

  • I am glad we agree on this.

Now that this is all said, I propose the following solution: I have created a draft on my personal sandbox subpage that I think represents the consensus you and I have come to that acknowledges the complexity of Nietzsche's position without misleading readers into thinking he fully endorsed Nihilism. I would then like to get your approval of this draft. One of us will then edit the page accordingly. Does that sound fair? Postmodern Beatnik 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't read your sandbox. However, I largely agree to your explanation here - the difference between his rejection of universal values (his moral nihilism) against his denunciation of inaction (of general nihilism) is very important. You can edit the phrases you think are not clear. Rokus01 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the link. I want you to look at it first, though, because I have made quite a few changes. For one thing, you had previously added your edits onto the beginning of the Nihilism and Nietzsche section. The older introduction, however, was left intact. That made the section strange to read as it seemed to have two mutually exclusive introductions. I think the edit on my Sandbox makes the section progress more logically. I would like your thoughts on it. (By the way, I started the Sandbox with the current version of the Nihilism article, so you can see the changes by clicking on "history." Hopefully that will make it easier to review my changes.) Postmodern Beatnik 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you've made another edit to my Sandbox page. Are you satisfied with the current version, then? If so, I will edit the actual page. Postmodern Beatnik 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent!Rokus01 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New users impersonating yours[edit]

Hi Rokus01, it seems there have been new users creation that impersonating your user name and they only edited once of an unsourced fact about the Netherlands. I guess from your user page that you're a Dutch. Here are the new users and you can check their contributions:

If they are in fact a vandal and you know who (s)he is, then perhaps you can report them at WP:ANI. Dekisugi (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I reported this at WP:ANI and asked administration to start an investigation. Rokus01 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked them, since you state they are impersonators not doppelgangers. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence[edit]

I'm reading the evidence you're posting at the case about Dbachmann and I've noticed a lot of parallels. This interaction in particular, is very similar to what happened at the Afrocentrism article. I'm just a little confused about what you mean when you use the word "legal" in the evidence? It's a little confusing. futurebird (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Futurebird! You refer to my answer to Dbachmann's remark I am sniping at perfectly mainstream statements. According to Dbachmann the phrase I criticized for being unsourced OR, merely contained "perfectly mainstream statements". However, elsewhere Dbachmann admitted "nothing in Iron Age linguistics is dead certain or undisputed". Moreover, I explained extensively how the publication on the (new) West Germanic Hypothesis (on Runes) would blow away the base of all what Dbachmann asserts to be mainstream. Then to use "it should be noted" in an edit to favour your (Dbachmann's) point of view, of course, is incredibly pedantic. You just can't reject a scholarly hypothesis without peer review, and less when the hypothesis is new and contradictory to a hypothetic "mainstream" doctrine allegedly retrieved from tertiary sources. I dared Dbachmann to come forward with a reference to his statement, and all he could cocktail was something about "mainstream", but no sources that define or back his statements. Thus, with his edit rendered OR, he resorts to that other weapon that we all know of so well: "However, you continue to nitpick in an unconstructive manner. It is far from clear what you are trying to achieve, but it appears that it is ultimately about some private obsession of yours regarding Proto-Germanic and the Netherlands. I still don't quite understand what you want, but it appears you have a bee in your bonnet about some native and ancient specifically West-Germanic culture rooted in your native soil. In other words, boring old national mysticism." Ad hominem, that is, indicating he is out of valid arguments - and getting mean. This is what I meant by referring to his "sneering away valuable contributions of wikipedians and scholars alike in the name of some kind of undefined "mainstream" thing": this I consider in violation of WP:NPOV (against multiple points of view), of WP:NOR (using unsourced arguments), of WP:CIVIL and of WP:BLP for discrediting the work of a scholar on his own terms. Thus, I consider my alleged "sniping" perfectly in agreement with WP policy, and so very legal. Cheers! Rokus01 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant "legal" in the sense of "the law" outside of the wiki... OK. that makes more sense.
Check this out: Dbachmann says "In my experience, histories of mathematics to give due credit to non-European mathematicians." I respond with a source that shows that that is not the case, and he drops the issue. But Dbachmann was prepared to push his "experience" as fact, I didn't put this in to evidence, but it is a persistent pattern, and when he is wrong he just fall silent and moves on to the next article. I didn't include this as evidence, because I see nothing wrong with this interaction, except this is how many of the disputes with Dbachmann begin. Sources don't agree with his experience or POV, and then he pushes back, rather than listening and reading. It's very anyone and especially annoying coming from an admin. futurebird (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. Indeed, this kind of depth is lacking in both his edits and comments. Many editors would agree to an "encyclopedia for dummies" having nothing more in it than what you'll need for slamming your pint of beer on the bar, and there you'll probably find his main allies. No, I disagree to such amateuristic generalizations that he wants to have accepted as some kind of new official WP:MAINSTREAM policy, especially since mainstream thoughts are prone to mainstream misconceptions - and to petty politics and warfare.

About the issue: I am a multiregionalist myself, I think people and cultures are both autonomeous in developing answers to contemporary challenges and susceptible to new ideas from abroad. Modern history shows how important is the injection of new ideas to any community. Still, the further you'll go back in history it becomes more tricky to assume one single idea originating at one single spot that change the world. You'll have to change the way of thinking and assume traditions rather than ideas, that may or may not pass borders and influence cultures. For instance, it is the "mainstream" thought that Neolithic revolution brought farming to Europe. However, to what extend? Certain grains indeed have been imported from the Near East. Still archeologists discovered the "idea" of growing grains had already established in remote European areas, long before. And then to kill off all certainty on the validity of such "mainstream" thought on the spread of single ideas: Australian aboriginals already knew how to make bread long from grains before the arrival of the first European. So, how thick the package of new ideas really was? Mainstream thought about the Near East being the origin of the farming tradition was challenged by the discovery that the bearers of this culture were anthropologically speaking sub-saharan people. And still none of this will give an explanation to the highy developed native farming tradition in the Americas. This is only one mainstream issue that turns worthless when considered in detail.

How to keep balance? I think only a multiple point of view-aproach will solve this issue. An approach especially foreign to Dbachmann. A centric view is not something you can ban by giving credit to the actions of one single minded person. A centric view is so basic to all humans, that it can only be neutralised by multiple centric views. A Eurocentrist would probably agree to the Islam mathematicians playing a role in communicating ideas from the Greek past to the European present, and admit to the undeniable passing through of the Indian idea of digits to European maths. A book I read on Arabs written by a Christian Arab that indeed recognized the historical importance and influence of Arab maths, continued to point out how this could happen in a time that the Arab culture was still multicultural, and science the exclusive gift of subdued Christian (!) families. The amount of possible approaches is infinite, and more views are published every day. Sure, the Eurocentrist view is mainstream and will remain so in popular thought, at least in European countries. However, general acceptance or even authority are no garantee to neutrality and objectivity, not even "truth". We can't allow the centric views to wage a partizan war. Instead, for the sake of neutrality and peace, Wikipedia has to inform encyclopedically on all significant views. I think it is very important to make this clear to Wikipedia, and to make a statement that this should have impact on proper adminship. Rokus01 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how did you follow up this backing out of the discussion? I figure there would not be any problem if you could take this as an implicit agreement. However, in my experience this is indeed rarely the case. Like this discussion: [1], where he dodges my criticism by first creating a Fork and then, when ready, proclaims :"I am not interested in having this argument with Rokus." Finally, after waiting two weeks in vain to a response, I decided to enforce my edit, again not without giving due expanation: [2]. Only then he reacts with a whole set of unexplained edits that include a revert [3] and some unaccounted loss of information. My subsequent corrective edits and the restore of the discussed change [4] was reverted inmediately, even then without coming back to TALK: [5]. One day later this revert was frozen by the protection of the page by User:Angr, with Dbachmann first putting conditions to how and when the protection could be lifted, and then publicly complaining to be a victim himself when I escalated my interpretation of admin abuse and networking. I already forwarded my serious doubts concerning the neutral enforcement of this procedure. Currently, I am still waiting for an explanation: [6]. Rokus01 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Star[edit]

Socratic Barnstar.gif The Socratic Barnstar
I realized that I learn a lot more about a topic by reading the discussions than the article itself. This barnstar is for your valuable contributions in many discussions and your efforts in explaining the differences between the tertiary and secondary sources to various Wikipedians. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish War of Independence[edit]

Have a look at the History of Ireland in general. The Great Irish Famine and Irish nationalism are particulalry relevant. If you just want the short version, see the last paragraph of Digital History: The Irish Potato Famine. --Red King (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nordic Race and R. W. Darré[edit]

You apparently insists that you want to remove the sentence "For example, the later Nazi minister for Food, Richard Walther Darré, who had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race, used the term 'Aryan' to refer to the tribes of the Iranian plains." from the article [[Nordic Race}} Your insistence here is coming close to vandalism. That Richard Walther Darré had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race is highly relevant, since he is the most prominent proponent of a theory about a Nordic Race. The difference between concepts of Nordic race and Aryan race is also relevant. THESE STATEMENTS ARE SOURCED TO A STANDARD, ACADEMIC WORK about Darré in English (which is, by the way, written from a rather conservative perspektive.) You will at least have to get "Blood and Soil: Richard Walther Darré and Hitler's "Green Party". Abbotsbrook, England: The Kensal Press. ISBN 0-946041-33-4" from a library yourself and see for yourself. Make sure, that you are familiar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Zara1709 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: since he is the most prominent proponent of a theory about a Nordic Race
A prominent Nazi won't make a prominent anthropologist, all the contrary.
The Nordic race article is not for politically describing or evaluating a theory. This has already been undertaken by the article Nordic theory, listed as a "History" article. All further historical backgrounds, political concepts and abuses could be discussed there and you'll be happy since nazi shit is crawling all over that place. The Nordic race article, however, is a (WikiProject) Anthropology article. The focus will be on relevant anthropological investigation and results on a certain group of people sharing certain anthropological features, no matter how you'll label it. Racialist and racist Nazi contributions do not belong to this category. Moreover, Nazi ideology is anachronistic to the development of the Nordic race concept. If you don't mind I'll transport this discussion to Talk:Nordic race. Rokus01 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your move to "Nordic population" is very revealing. It is plain as day that your entire effort at wikipedia is directed towards creating an appearance of respectabilty for scientific racism. This is pathetic. dab (𒁳) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest idea what you are up to. You ignore well established definitions of racism, and elsewhere even accuse me of "racializing" without giving any clue on how somebody could "racialize" or boost racism at all, utterly in absence of contempt towards other races. Since contempt alone is the key element to racism and racializing. Please read a GOOD encyclopedia, or a dictionary, and stop tampering Wikipedia any further, with definitions concocted only for your personal abuse against fellow editors. Rokus01 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On R1b's age...[edit]

No one can pretend it is possible to link R1b to any known ancient culture or people simply because we don't know as of now when did it originate. And you can't say that R1b is safely linked to the Paleolithic European cultures because (1) 18,500 BP is R1's, not R1b's, age and as far as we can say, it is not at all unlikely anymore that R1b is 9,000 years old or less (since there are 18 mutations separating R1b from R1, I would say that is is actually the most probable hypothesis); the question on when did the population from which descends a heavy part of the western European migrate from an unknown lost homeland to Europe in now unknown, since the link o the Cro-Magnon and the Aurignacian and the Gravettian cultures (both older than 20,000 years ago) has been destroyed; (2) if we consider that R1b originated somewhere outside of Europe, say Central Asia, as it is assumed nowadays, and its parent haplogroup R1 is in fact 18.5k old, it can't be linked to cultures which originated around the same time in Europe, since some thousands of years would have passed since R1bs would feel compelled to leave its place of origin and reach its current main "homeland", western Europe.

18,500 ago: the R1 mutation takes place God knows where, and becomes predominant amongst a given population (God knows which);
x<18,500 years ago: Some thousands of years go by as slowly, one by one, the 18 mutations which distinguish R1 from R1b originated and give rise to this new haplogroup in a Central Asian population.
y<x<18,500 years ago: Some unknown amount of time later, for whatever reasons, a part of such Central Asian population starts to move west and, God knows when, and which or how many paths were chosen, they finally reach the current main homeland of R1b, western Europe.

Behold that we don't know when R1 gave rise to R1b, and then when did R1b leave Central Asia for Europe and became predominant amongst western Europeans. For such reasons the "link" between R1b and Paleolithic Europe should now be considered weak and hypothetical at best. To say that R1's current estimated age somehow "still confirms" such "link" is to give evidence of poor grasp of the not actually complicated few evidence we have on this respect thus far.189.70.208.92 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

18.500 BP is about the date R1b originated from R1. What references do you have to claim otherwise? Read this [7] (publication accepted 21 November 2006): "Previous studies of Y-chromosome polymorphisms in Eurasian populations have suggested a Paleolithic origin for the Y-haplogroup R1. The origin of the haplogroup R1-M173 is believed to predate the Last Glacial Maximum. This haplogroup dispersed from east to west, possibly 30 kya, along with the spread of the Aurignacian culture. Different demographic processes have been proposed to account for the current distributions of subclades R1a and R1b in European populations." Rokus01 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised at your response because it really made me think you've not read the section under discussion really carefully. Have you seen the image I added to the article on the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor of selected haplogroups? If you have, then I ask you what did you not understand? R1's "birth" is clearly estimated to have occurred 18,500 BP, I don't think you need great interpretation skills to realize that is what the image points to. You ask "[w]hat references" do I have to dispute the claim that R1b is 18,500, and again I have to ask you to read the article a bit more carefully. It is in fact the very first article on the references list; Karafet et al., as I wrote on the R1b origins section, published an antecipated and very recent study (published by Apr 2008) on the format of the phylogenetic tree of human paternal haplogroups after taking into account the effect of the new discoveries on polymorphisms. They've added a new haplogroup into the tree as well as altered some of the estimated TMRCAs of haplogroups, as indicated in the image I linked to, which is actually a screenshot from one of the article's pages. The article you pointed me to is almost 2 years old and relies its estimative on two "[p]revious studies" published in 2000 and 2003. As the image clearly indicates, the estimated ages of major haplogroups have significantly changed as years (few years) go by and new information is incorporated into the tree. A study as recent as 2002 estimated Hapl. R to be 16,300! The information presented at a 2006 article, backed by two studies, 5 and 8 years old, might not be fit by what is known nowadays.

I'm really curious, however, as to where did you get the information that R1b is precisely 18,500 y/o, since that information is not present in the article you quoted? The estimative presented at the wiki article ("less than 18,500", since we don't know its exact age) was actually written by me, and, if you want to, you should take a look at the older versions of the article, previous to my small edition, which instead asserted R1b to be about 20-30,000 years old. That outdated information is still present in the article ("The mutations that characterize haplogroup R1b occurred ~30,000 years bp, whereas the mutations that characterize haplogroup R1a occurred ~10,000 years bp"). So, where did you get the information that R1b is 18,500 years old? Weren't you just misreading the information added by me?189.70.96.30 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little tired of your personal interpretations. It is generally accepted R1 once had a wide geographical dispersion and even though the latest estimate to the M173 mutation of 18.500 BP would point to a younger age of both R1b and R1a, I don't see why this would imply inmediately an asian origin of R1b and refute a European origin. Why, knowing R1 preceded R1b? Rather you should focus on why R1b occurs mainly west and R1a mainly east of the Vistula: this would point to a splitting up of the older version of the gene rather than recent migrations. I would not object the genetic barrier between this two descendents of R1 to correspond to an archeological find-free zone that suggests a natural barreer of unfavourable environmental conditions in Northeast Germany about 10.000 BP, in what case R1b would certainly be barely Paleolithic and still local to western Europe. However, in this I reject all contributions relying on your so called "interpretation skills", just read WP policy on this at WP:OR. If you want to prove your theory of an eastern origin of R1b and reject all links to Paleolithic Europe, you should cite scholars saying so. Rokus01 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

R1's corrected age, of course, doesn't in any way refute European origins for either R1 or R1b. What I was originally pointing to is that the very popular assertion that R1b is the paternal marker of the anatomically modern humans to migrate to Europe can't be supported anymore in face of new evidence, since R1 originated around 12,000 years after the Cro-Magnon occupation. I should call your attention, however, to the fact that a gene or allele geographical frequency is not the sole or even the main evidence used in "guessing" the place it originated. A marker's diversity is the primary condition to estimate how old it is, and R1b happens to be more diverse (i.e., older) in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe, and, apparently, even more so in Central Asia than in Europe (that is probably why someone --not me-- wrote in the R1b article that it originated in Central Asia). Interestingly, someone added a link to the article noticing that R1b1c is also frequent in populations of Turkic speech who live in Central Asia and neighboring regions (see this: [8]). The editor pointed (I don't whether he concluded that from the article, or if the authors themselves pointed to this) that such high frequencies for R1b, so far from its peak frequencies in Europe, rather indicates the R1b has a non-European origin.189.70.174.243 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Haplogroup R complex is still cited as pointing to a very old and extensive Paleolithic migration, that must have included the Levant, India, Central Eurasia and Europe. Some strains even reached Cameroon. Most subclades that originated from R have a local distribution, even though it is logical that later migrations increased the variability on crossroads like those to be found in Central Asia. Don't forget Europe at the time was a highly mobile part of this complex. More recent R1b1, R1b2 and R1b3 have maxima in very different geographic locations and only the distribution of R1b3 requires preponderance of moderately recent though probably very important migrations. The Bashkir are one group of Turks that must have incorporated a disproportionate influx of autochtonous pre-Turk genes, since not any other Turkish people (except for the Uigurs?) show so much "European" R1b3. You would have to consider the origin on R1b3 and concentrate on its maxima in Europe. The maxima of R1b2 in Central Asia is interesting, though does not contradict the very important Paleolithic archeologial link between Europe and Central Asia. This means you just can't generalize on R1bx, and consider the extense geographic extension of R1 first. R1b2 probably originated in the East, though R1b3 must have originated in the west and migrated to the east quite recently. In my opinion, R1b3 would be a good substitute to R1a1 for identifying the origin of first wave Indo European migrations going east.
By the way, of course R-related haplogroups eventually migrated into Europe from Central Asia, when Homo Sapiens strains from Central Asia mixed with or replaced Neanderthal. You are right in the sense this does not belong so much to the R1b article, rather to the R-article. Rokus01 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?[edit]

Not sure why you reverted my revision adding Polish to this list:

In general, older Indo-European languages such as Latin, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, and more prominently Greek and Sanskrit in all their historical forms, are extensively inflected.

Polish IS extensively inflected and how is it less older than Latvian and Irish? Kasnie (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Slavic languages are all extensively inflected, though you didn't bring in any sourced reference to sustain your implicit claim that Polish is any more inflected (or older) than all other Slavic languages.Rokus01 (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I put Polish because it has seven cases (Russian only has six). Czech and Ukrainian also have seven cases but they have fewer speakers. I did not intend to claim that Polish is older than all other Slavic languages, I just didn't see much point listing several languages of one branch so I picked the most widely spoken. But since you suspect me of bias I've gone back and added simply "Slavic". Kasnie (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule[edit]

Your report at WP:AN3 has been closed with no action. This is because there was no rule violation by User:Dbachmann. Please note that the three-revert rule applies only when someone makes more than three reverts in 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Broad homeland hypothesis[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Broad homeland hypothesis, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broad homeland hypothesis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Merzbow (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broad homeland hypothesis[edit]

If you wish this decision reviewed, please list this at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you are unsure of how to do this, I will be happy to do it for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I would appreciate your help in listing my request in the proper way. If possible, I suggest the arguments I submitted would serve for explaining the reason why. Rokus01 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_25#Broad_homeland_hypothesis. If I can help in any other way, please don't hesitate to ask. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal reverts[edit]

Hi Rokus01, I'm not entirely sure why you've reverted two of my edits. I followed your suggestion from here and redirected the article while merging the information into Neanderthal extinction hypotheses. Your suggestion had three people supporting it so I carried it out. Then you reverted my edit to the Neanderthal page stating I had pushed a POV? I linked to a fork of the page (Neanderthal extinction hypotheses) which would surely be the main article of the section The fate of the Neanderthals. It wasn't a POV edit because the section is about the different hypotheses (plural) of their extinction. I would suggest both edits are reinstated, or have I missed something? Cheers, Jack (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. No such merge could have been suggested in the discussion since by then only one article existed. The discussion was about the article (Neanderthal extinction hypotheses that by then was named Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons while in fact it focused on Neanderthal extinction. To perform the suggested change, erroneously, I did not create a new subject called Neanderthal extinction hypotheses, instead I renamed the article and created the separate redirect called Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons. This redirect, created after the discussion, evolved into the current Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons article: an article that intends to compile information on interaction rather than extinction. I don't know why the old discussion was copied to this new article (I suggest it should be removed as being obsolete and out of context).
The problem of choosing Neanderthal extinction hypotheses to be the main article to the Fate of the Neanderthal - chapter is that this would wrongly suggest concensus on the issue. Very influential proponents of other theories are still active on the matter. To advance one point of view would be against POV policy. I did not mean to accuse you of pushing, sorry if you felt it this way. Rokus01 (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, I see where I got confused! One question: doesn't Neanderthal extinction hypotheses cover all the theories and therefore is not suggesting consensus but instead giving a wide range of different possibilities for the extinction of Neanderthals? Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Extinction suggests that Neanderthal disappeared without leaving any offspring. Interbreeding as a result of interaction would not meet this requirement. The other theory says that Neanderthal became fully integrated into the Homo Sapiens (sub)species by ascribing all physical changes to domestication processes that were due to a rapidly changing culture. If so, it would be calling your grandparents extinct just because you don't look like them so much. Cheers! Rokus01 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Korded ware[edit]

You removed early expansion of the no objection , it's OK.. But i have impression that all of the rest of article is written from perspective of kurgan proponents and for my standard is biased. 76.16.176.177 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a very strong movement of resident Kurganist POV pushers is active on Wikipedia. Just ignore it, and create a profile to make yourself noted.Rokus01 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Insted of cuting the crap, i realy thinking to abandon it. Anyway i liked your coedition. 76.16.176.177 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nordic Race[edit]

I have nominated Nordic race for GA reassessment, an article you have previously shown interest in. The criteria have tightened quite a lot since it was last reviewed more than two years ago, and it currently fails on several criteria, some of which are serious. I hope you'll participate in the discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity to comment on Batavia[edit]

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

  • editors who are blocked
  • anonymous IP editors
  • editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)[edit]

Please review and comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Runes[edit]

You inserted references to two ‘Weisberger’ sources (1966/7 and 1968) a few years ago, but never gave any other details. Could you? —Lgfcd (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Broad Homeland Kilian.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)