Talk:Parisi (tribe)

NPOV
Hmm, here we go again with the old "waves of invaders" idea together with the notions of the primitive cavemen Britons unable to do anything but 'ape' their more sophisticated neighbours on the Continent. Paul S (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced content
If sourced content is 'out of date' then add the dates to the mention (i.e. '19th century authors', 'a 1955 report' etc). If you disagree with sourced content then provide sourced statements in the text (or here on the Talk page first) that counter it. Simply removing either, without providing sources that support its removal, can be just as much 'original research' (WP:OR) as adding opinions without sources. 'We' (other editors) have no idea whether you are making fact based or opinion edits without those sources to back you up. AnonNep (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not obligated to supply every lame-brained, fringe theory that has ever been published over the past 200 years! The modern scholarly consensus is that Parisi has a Celtic etymology and is entirely unrelated to the ethnic name Frisii. Cagwinn (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Note - We may have cross-posted. I restated the above on your Talk page, prior to revision, before reading this). That is an understandable explanation - just add your sources for it either here, to argue for removal, or as article text rebuttal. Even then, the 19th century information can remain as the accepted view from that time period. What's more important is to have revised and generally agreed to modern views as long as we have WP:RS to back it up. Just provide sources for your statements and we can figure this out. AnonNep (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources and can get others if necessary.Cagwinn (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cagwinn, two things.
 * Firstly, the disputed content should stay in the article pending an outcome to this discussion, per WP:BRD.
 * Secondly, the information you added here looks unsuitable, because it appears to be about the etymology of Parisii (Gaul). Although, as noted in the article, there may be a link between the two communities, we cannot really assume that an etymological theory for one is automatically valid for the other. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you don't know what you are talking about; all three of the sources I cited reference BOTH the Gaulish and British Parisi(i) and regard the names as related (Gaulish and Brittonic are closely related languages, in case you don't know). The outdated, spurious speculation on a connection to the ethnic name Frisii - which no sensible linguist today would support - absolutely does not belong in this article. You are talking about making Wikipedia an unreliable and bad source of information! What is wrong with you people? Cagwinn (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All you've done is removed adequately sourced earlier theory that was placed in context as such. Net result: Wikipedia readers loose out by not being offered the history of thought on what they're reading. Not much of a win. But given your comments, history of edit wars,, and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, I think its better to WP:DROPTHESTICK and quietly back away for the time being. Continue as your record suggests and this page of editors won't be the problem you face. AnonNep (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is mindless Wikipedia bureaucrats like yourself who make Wikipedia WORSE, while passionate, knowledgeable editors like me work hard to make Wikipedia BETTER. In the few edit controversies I have been involved in, I have always been exonerated and my edits upheld. I do not apologize for standing up for scholarly accuracy and the removal of fringe nonsense that plagues far too many Wikipedia articles. Cagwinn (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost a year of no action on your part. Rescued SOURCED historical data under a '19th century theories' section subhead. Gee, wasn't that hard? *sarcastic eyeroll* AnonNep (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * * Rolled back the recent edit that removed the 19th century theories of the Parisi (without discussion). It had a clearly titled section and reliable sources. The development of present theories came out what was considered and discarded. We shouldn't be afraid of it or hide it under the bed and hope no-one finds it. (NB. A Google search on 'wikipedia +"earlier theories"' shows that including them isn't unusual at all. I really don't see the problem here and never have.) AnonNep (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ** Reverted again after no discussion by original editor. Added summary 'As this is a contested issue please state your reasons on the Talk page & give everyone time for input & discussion'. I really would appreciate a rational explanation if the editor can provide one. AnonNep (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ***, your most recent edit summary was "Please stop restoring fringe nonsense". Can you explain how earlier theories, clearly labelled as such, which contribute to the present understanding meet WP:FRINGE? Under your preferred edit, if someone comes here because they've heard that the Yorkshire Parisi are related the Parisii of Gaul, there is nothing to dispute that because the now discounted 19th century theories aren't there. If anything aren't you encouraging your 'fringe nonsense' by not allowing it to be addressed and refuted? AnonNep (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If every Wikipedia article was required to include every half-baked, debunked hypothesis from centuries ago, the articles would become bloated and confusing. What is the point of inserting nonsense that literally no modern scholars (I use that word carefully here - it does not include self-publishing fringe loons) accept? It's ridiculous that you are battling to include it here - don't you have better things to do with your time? Cagwinn (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the article doesn't need to address "every half-baked, debunked hypothesis from centuries ago". But we do need to address the big bloody obvious one - that 'Parisi' name. What of the reader who arrives here still believing the Yorkshire Parisi to Parisii of Gaul link? Or who comes to the article to find out if its true? Or arrives via the disambiguation page Parisii? We do need to make clear that it was an old 19th century theory about the name and why its no longer accepted. AnonNep (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The archaeological evidence (and perhaps also genetic) points towards a likely connection between the Gaulish and British Parisi(i). The scholarly consensus is that the name is Celtic. There is absolutely no point in repeating outmoded, blatantly incorrect etymologies here. This is not a survey of the entire history of scholarship on the Parisii. Cagwinn (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting "a survey of the entire history of scholarship on the Parisii" anymore than "every half-baked, debunked hypothesis from centuries ago" (also above). I'm more than happy to see it all edited and rephrased. What I do believe is that its valuable for anyone visiting this page because of/looking for information on the name link to have an explanation that, yes, there was an old etymological theory, among others, which was challenged at the time and has now been debunked. Just to add, this is the Parisi (Yorkshire) article not the Arras culture article, this deals with theories about the name and mentions of it, the latter more squarely with the archeological evidence in that area (and, therefore, possible archaeological/genetic links to Gaul). AnonNep (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no value to having it here whatsoever. Cagwinn (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Theories are built up from what's been accepted and discarded previously. Of course it has value. AnonNep (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The nonsense that you are trying to insert here was NEVER the scholarly consensus - not even in the 19th century! Stop the madness!! Cagwinn (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is relevant in an explanation of why the etymological link was dismissed (it had to be made before it was dismissed). I am genuinely struggling to understand why you're so emotional about this. AnonNep (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, just stop it. Go get another hobby. Cagwinn (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As to why you want partial explanations in the article I'm still none the wiser. AnonNep (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal a 19th century ideas
It is not for editors here to editorialise on what is and is not correct. The information on 19th century ideas is not "fringe" it was proposed by persons such as Thomas William Shore (has an article and ODNB biography), and the other sources are generally reliable eg George Poulson, the person who questioned the Frisian connection was Thomas Wright (antiquarian) - he did not reject the theory at all - simply advised caution.

To reference historical context of development of understanding of a topic is essential for an encyclopedia, and removing such information is contrary to wikipedia founding principles. There is no evidence for the correctness or uncorrectness of either the old or modern etymological theories. All are/were published in reliable sources, and by recognised scholars. The accusation of these being "fringe theories" has not be given any basis.

All the content easily meets Verifiability, and no attempt has been made to present one theory as being superior or correct, - in fact the opposite is true - so Neutral point of view has been applied.

83.100.174.82 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do no edit war (see Edit warring) - edit warring has happened twice on this page - in Mar 2015 and Mar 2016 - on both occasions the three revert rule was not broken - howver the same matter was at issue and having being discussed before there is little excuse for reverting without discussion.

If the matter can not be settled on the talk page there is a proceedure to follow - ie see Dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.174.82 (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)