User:Rokus01/archive01

Thank you Khoikhoi! I just saw your interesting article about the Iranian people and wonder what's your opinion about the theory (in http://www.turkicworld.org/) Skythians being from Turkic stock rather than Iranian? Cheers! Rokus01 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. :-) I don't think turkicworld.org is a reliable source, and if someone wants to prove that they were Turkic, they're going to have to provide better sources than that. There was a whole debate about this at Talk:Scythians. One person I recommend you talk to about it is Ali Doostzadeh, as he is more knowledgeable on the Scythians than I am. Regards, Khoikhoi 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, and indeed even the Nostratic language superfamily is merely hypothetical and unreliable for giving answers. However, I was impressed by the elegance of the alternative, especially the part where Herodotus gives us a translation to the Amazones, and now I wonder how scientific any outspoken interpretation could be at all. Without local continuity to Iranian-related tribes in Ukraine even the Kurgan-hypothesis would be shaky. My impression considering archeology and Indo-european afterworld-mythology: mainstream Indo-Europeans could indeed have been peaceful farmers rather than warmongers on horseback. I remember this has been a controversial but very scientific topic recently anyway. Dr Russell Gray and Dr Quentin Atkinson, from the University of Auckland, published in Nature the theory that Indo-European speech has its roots in Anatolia 8000 ago, for instance triggering this comment: "The origins are too early to back a rival theory that the first Indo-European language emerged 6,000 years ago from nomadic Kurgan horsemen who made incursions from the Asian steppes into Europe and conquests south and east." Then, when they came later, why should the Kurgan people and without exception all those people supposed to originate from them, have been Indo-European at all? Cheers back to you! Rokus01 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * whatever your opinion of "Anatolian PIE" in 8000 BC ("steppe PIE" is the vastly more satisfactory scenario if you ask me, warmongers or no warmongers), this is unrelated to the Scythians. The Scythians appear in the 8th century, as part of the Iranian expansion; the Iranian expansion did originate around 1000 BC, and their mode of expansion did involve warmongery on horseback, whatever your opinions on PIE 3000 or 7000 years earlier. Turkic tribes did not appear for another 1,200 years, thus saying the Scythians were part of the Turkic expansion is more than half as barmy as saying they were part of the Proto-Indo-European expansion. dab (𒁳) 11:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dab. Actually I don't have an opinion about the Turkic view. Neither do I adhere wholesale to the Anatolian view. My opinion about Indo-European expansion is that it is complex. To me the Scythian period only reflects the ultimate stage in a nomadic phase of Indo-European migrations, maybe already preluded by the emerging proto-Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranians. I suppose a new cultural continuum came into being when a part of the already differentiated Indo-Europeans changed from a semi-sedentary agriculture way of life to a mobile steppe culture, that included Kurgan-cultures and might have influenced especially the satem-group and the proto-Greeks. Before this I think the Indo-Europeans must have been peaceful agriculturists with a fertility-mythology. Maybe - I think probably - they had spread already considerably without the horse, so yes, I don't exclude the possibilities conveyed by the Anatolian view. I suspect an historical error in thinking Indo-Europeans emerged right on as some kind of superior Aryan warriors. German, Greek and Celtic mythology have been build around an often (ideologically inspired?) neglected base of agricultural elements. In my opinion that change towards nomadism triggered upheavels that draw other players into the scene, leading to new alliances, mixed cultures and finally the random emergence of ethnic unities that could compete with the Indo-Europeans. Maybe the Scythians already included a notable influx of other ethnical groups, thus possibly making for instance Uralians and Turks be part of the Indo-Iranian expansion (not otherwise). Remember for instance the Huns, that brought Goths into Western Europe, and the Avars, that triggered the Slav migrations almost without being noticed in the full light of history. Cheers, Rokus01 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that's perfectly reasonable; nobody characterizes PIEans as "superior Aryan warriors" these days. It is true, nevertheless, that reconstructed PIE culture seems to tilt towards pastoralism, although agriculture and fishing were of course present. Concerning the Scythians (which we should clearly separate from discussions on PIEans), sure, it is perfecly reasonable to assume a cultural hodge-podge over the vast region of Scythia, not unlike the case of the Huns. That doesn't change anything about the classification of the Scythian language as Iranian, and about the fact that there are no traces of Turks for another millennium. dab (𒁳) 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to all suggestions. I am aware the Scythians inspired much of the way how the PIE cultures where reconstructed in the early days. However, the extreme mobility and steppe savagery were elements from a new way of life that, like you say, should be considered completely separately. Moreover, like the Mitanni that contained Aryan and Hurrite elements, we should be prepared for surprises concerning the ethnical and linguistical implications to such a hodge-podge: if you read the literature carefully you'll find serious investigators never exclude such possibilities. Tentative interpretations have been made and should be allowed, but according to the violent reactions here I suspect pseudo-scientists (on both sides) that tend to take (even wild) hypotheses as facts have been engaged in a battlefield already. You are right about the Turks, although I suppose something like proto-Turks should have existed once somewhere and according to my information Turks originate from the Altai region, well inside the reach of Andronovo culture. To the west Scythians overrun Ukraine that had been inhabited for centuries, maybe even millennia by other Indo-Europeans, to the North were the Uralic people including proto-Magyars. Any Iranian-Scythian dominance could be mere appearance and finally, at the end, the Scythians disbanded and just disappeared. No, too many questions remain to be answered, we need some serious input from Russian, Ukrainian and - don't kill me! - yes, from Turkic experts, before anything can be taken for granted. Let's go for it and be sure Wikipedia won't pretend the stone of wisdom. Rokus01 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that's all very well; I happily grant you that there may well have been Turkic-Scythian contact in the extreme northeast of Scythia; it's just that we don't have a shred of positive evidence for that, so the point is moot. Scythian culture didn't just disappear, it merged into Hunnic and Turkic culture in the Early Middle Ages, so yes, the Turkic peoples of Central Asia are indeed the bona fide (partial) cultural and genetic descendants of the Scythians. That doesn't make the Scythians Turks however. The point is that the Scythian language, based on such fragments as we have, is clearly Iranian, which makes the Scythians of Antiquity an Iranian people by definition. We can discuss archaeology and cultural contact in all fairness, but that just doen't impinge on this lingusitic finding. Schematically:
 * Steppe nomads of Scythia:
 * 400 BC: East Iranian = Scythian
 * 100 AD to 500 AD: transitional / who knows / Hunnic / hodge-podge
 * 800 AD: Turkic

dab (𒁳) 09:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, equating Scythians with East Iranians would reflect the cultural exchange and political/ethnical melting pot even better, although considering the archeological proven participation of different groups and local developments from the (Andronovo) onset this would increase even more the necessity to describe the process and the constraints that governed the internal changes. I understand the sensitivities involved, so I want to be clear not to discuss the indo-european linguistic-, or even iranian linguistic roots. My point is that - before the Scythians - the spoked wheel/chariot-revolution (probably started by their direct ancestors west) was the first step towards internationalism, and that internationalism grew even stronger in the second step: the international upheavel (or revolt) triggered by yet another kind of warfare, in the case of the Eastern Iranians connected with the development of extreme high mobility, nomadism and mounted horse tactics. Thus the merging process you agree with should have an ancient history: first as peaceful mixed agricultural/pastoral colonists the indo-europeans could easily settle in between other people and absorb them culturally/linguistically/numerically (like the Slavic migrations into Europe). Later the expansion should have worked differently, for warring tribes are usually obliged to seek political alliances, sometimes with the devil itself. Such a scenario would (also) result into a cultural melting pot, but tribal structures and differences would remain. In other words: developments in technical culture and social culture would follow different ways, and archeology would loose trace of any ethnic continuity. Such could have been the case in the Central Asiatic steppes, starting with Andronovo or even earlier, but as you say, being notable only much later, especially at the dawn of history. Cultural continuity between Andronovo, then Scythian and those claiming descent has been an item of investigation. Linguistic continuity or disruption is normally hard to guess. In such a cultural anthropological view it would indeed make a difference to include attention to the internal differentiations within the Scythian structure and how these evolved. Similar investigations have been applied to Uralian people. The label "Iranian" would indeed be valid to the Scythian leading tribes and upper classes, but wouldn't suffice to the process of change and continuity, eventually leading to their ethnical/linguistic (almost) disappearance. Rokus01 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello guys, I have been following your discussion and I find it very fascinating, i.e. the hypothesis that the Scythians might have been "Turkic". I do not understand how the R1a haplogroup has to be necessarily PIE just because it originates in Eurasia (or is it because it is the "most evolved" (see tree below)). Also I have a lot of doubts about the satem group of IE. Is there a hypothesis stating that the satem group originated because of contact with some other group of languages (i.e. turkic or north-caucasian)? I find the satem group a dramatic change in IE linguistics than the centum group, whose evolution in my opinion is not as dramatic (k to s?, come on give me a break!). Another topic that I have trouble with is the established idea that "Turkic" means mongoloid. In my opinion Turkic for the Byzantines meant anybody coming from the eurasian steppes (see R1a haplogroup area). Also is there a hypothesis stating that Northern Caucasian languages originate from the R1a group? Also if N haplogroup is Uralic, what is the corresponding Altaic (my guess is R1a)? Also R1b which is found in Western Europe is probably Basque. "Indoeuropean" (what ever that means) is probably something outside of the K-derived branch haplogroup. Anyway I have trouble accepting the Kurgan hypothesis in general. I seems to me a bit slavo-centric. What is your opinion?


 * Also this is a cool website https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas_main.html?card=my048 --Kupirijo 09:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kupirijo! I am not as well informed about this topic, but maybe this could be relevant:
 * This R1a haplogroup information is related to the Y-chromosome and might reflect male mobility rather than migratory patterns that also include women. This would be especially true to the mounted people of the steppe. Viewed from the traditional stance that the mounted horse was originally an Indo-Iranian invention, later passed over to Uralian, Turkic and Mongolic tribes, or even more so viewed from the stance that the main migratorary Turkish people were turkified Scythians, I wouldn't expect a marked R1a haplogroup difference between Central Asiatic Turkish people and Indo-Europeans. According to your questioning Indo-European identity of the Kurgan cultures, I deduct such difference has not been found and inducts this peculiarity invites you to the hypothesis that Turkish rather than Indo-Europeans could have been indiguous to the whole area. To test such an alternative view, I would look at the DNA composition of Turkish tribes to the east and north that were not affected by the Iranian onslaughts.
 * The satem-change was linguistically not as dramatic as you depict, but certainly it reflects a dramatic stage in Indo-European development. The change involved an enormous territory and left traces far beyond its fringes, like proto-Greek and Uralian languages. All of this might have been related to the change of life invoked by the invention of the spoked wheel and the charriot correlated to (proto-)Indo-Iranian people. I don't think there exists any indication that points to the satem-change being caused by the influence of a new substratum. To the contrary, the proto-Indo-Iranian culture and the Ukrainian/Uralian regions they originally seem to originate from, seem to be still fairly Cro-Magnonoïd or Northern Caucasoïd at that early stage.
 * But I am actually hypothesizing that the IE-speakers were NOT Northern Caucasoid (R1a) nor Cro-Magnonoid (R1b). The satemization happened in the R1a "homeland". This image shows it clearly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Centum_Satem_map.png. That is bizarre in a sense because if the "homeland" for satemization and R1a are the same then, PIE is a satem language?

Rokus01 13:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Race and language are not necessarily related. The racial differences between groups might have been al lot more prominent in the prehistoric past, being essentially determined by climatic adaptations. Most of the elements contributing to race-mixing are fairly recent, like trade related to metal, luxory and culture and high mobility related to horse and wheel, and maybe even a new policy of culture-related labor and slavery instead of genocide. The main Turkish tribes are associated with mixed race or Mongoloids, but this does not exclude any linguistic tie with Europeans or Amero-Indian people.

Kupirijo, I did some homework about haplogroups, and I figured out that the people of Europe, northern Eurasia and the Americas basically originate from the same stock, represented by the P/Q/R haplogroups. This is completely according to traditional archeology, since the link between Cro-Magnon culture and this whole area had been proposed a long time ago. The N haplogroups are supposed to originate from eastern Asia and have a Mongoloid link. I know about a mongoloid (sinoïd) intrusion in the Uralian Ananino culture-region, from about the time of the Scythians (8th-3rd centuries BC), although I suppose the N-haplogroup has been superimposed on P/Q/R groups already a lot earlier. Strange this group did not migrate to the America's (didn't it?). Since the N group seem to have had an southern or SE Asiatic origin, I don't think we can be too sure the Turks originally belong rather to the N group, although my intuition says they originate from the P/Q/R stem for being part of the hypothetic Nostratic language superfamily.

However, the R1 haplogroups are definitely an early European deviation from the P/Q/R stem. The R1a1-group seems indeed to be related rather to the satem-expansion. The PIE expansion originate from far (how far?) earlier, and the kentum languages seem to be mainly distributed in regions with low R1a1-occurrences. I wonder whether those PIE were even R1a! Actually the R1a1-distribution does not account at all to the current distribution of kentum Indo-Europeans. Who knows? Since the Renfrew hypothesis nobody really knows what happened before the Indo-Iranian expansion, although considering Tocharians and preserved mummies from that region (predating Indo-Iranians!) the earliest Indo-Europeans must have been at least very European. Rokus01 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. R1a does not explain any of the centum languages. And if Tocharian is centum then it seems that R1a people influenced the language of centum speaking people migrating to the east (Tocharians) thus creating a satem language in Western Asia. Maybe the Kurgans (R1a) spoke a language that was never attested. Maybe they became slaves to the IE speaking poeple migrating east (see Slavs). And if the R1a people are related to the R1b people who are Basque and speak an agglutinative language then R1a may have been speaking an agglutinative language as well (Turkic?). But is Turkic related to Mongolian or is that now disputed? (I think Mongolians are C3 haplogroup) --Kupirijo 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The method needs a lot of finetuning. R1a1 is just a marker that evolved by mutation on the eve of the Indo-Iranian expansion, I can read somewhere about the 3rd millennium BC. The R1b mutation was independent, and certainly not ancestral to R1a. For this earliest PIE migrations we would need a different marker, since R1a1 didn't even exist and R1 was already too dispersed to give a clou. Besides, R1a1 is a collection that might contain mutations to the ancestral R1a collection that evolved independently from the "satem" expansion. The predominance of R1a1 within the expanding groups just reflect the succes of a very small (secondary) group within the PIE family: in other words, their success might have worked as an evolutionary population bottleneck on the haplogroup: in other words, nothing prevents the early PIE from being a varied group with low levels of R1. Why not? Anyway, the same might have applied to language. I am a little bothered in the way the haplogroups are presented, as if for instance C is just an ancient group without any recent mutations and concise markers. The view is too much Indo-European centered, the main difference being made between early haplogroup deviations and R1a1. About the Turkish theory: agglutinative is not enough for being related, since even Esperanto is. Some of the Zakiev linguistic arguments could be invalidated by assuming a Nostratic rather than Turkish explication. Any theory based on scanty material is necessarily deemed inconclusive. Even the Scythians, the presumed carriers of Turkish identity (by Zakiev), came rather from the Andronovo east, not directly from the Kurgan homelands. I think anyway Kurgan-culture is a misnomer to the common PIE ancestor, since the kurgan gravemounts were a development predated by the earliest (beaker) IE in Northern Europe. Thus, from a Western European stance, the Ukrainian kurgans could have been build by whatever kind of (related or not related) people. Rokus01 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The "original" kurgan hypothese already lost its universal acceptance, since the pitgrave culture (Yamna) turned out to be just not ancient enough. In Kurgan-times the IE already seem to have split up, so nowadays a "modified" kurgan theory points at kurgan-less cultures in the neighbourhood (Dnieper-Donets culture, Samarran Culture, Khvalynsk culture, Sredny Stog culture). The real situation at R1a1 haplogroup times in relation to IE should have been something like this: Rokus01 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Afanasevo culture, 3500—2500 BC (proposed as being proto-Tocharian)
 * Yamna culture, 3600-2300 BC - PIE? Very probably "proto-proto-Indo-Iranian" and centre of R1a1 development
 * Corded Ware culture, 3200-2300 BC (proposed as being proto-(western)centum/proto-Balto-Slavic)
 * Maykop culture, 3500—2500 BC (traditionally classified as IE or IE-fied, links to known IE languages like proto-Anatolian deemed problematic)

Your good words
Thank you, Rokus01, for your kind words. I am pleased to follow this animated and informed discussion. let me know if I can be of help, it is tough enough for us partimers to face off fulltimer censors, I will help you gladly Barefact 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rokus01, would you be interested to look at "Turkic alphabets" article. User Dbachmann effectively immediately killed it as a stand-alone article, pretending to merge it with "Orkhon alphabet", without resorting to use to Talk page, or allowing the other users to comment. The action is visibly done in a bad faith. User Dbachmann belittled the author, removerd references contained in the original article, wiped out most of the contents, and then added [citations needed] in the merged left-overs. I even could't give a link to the wiped out article, because he re-linked Turkic alphabets title to Orkhon alphabet, erasinf even the traces of the article []. Barefact 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An article discussing the alphabets used by Turkic people would not necessarily deviate to the Orkhon alphabet. However, such an article should include an overview of all alphabets used by Turkic (and other steppe) people. I am not very informed about the existing views on the origins or relations in between, deriving characteristics of one from the other, but any fact of historical value or academic importance - not specific to any alphabet in particular, such as the Orkhon alphabet - would be relevant in such an article. The Indo-European connection would be interesting, since the Turkic advance was definitely preluded by a period of intensive and extensive cultural and ethnic mixing with IE. Theories about runic scripts deriving from stoneage symbols (not necessarily IE) have been advanced and it would be interesting to collect material (from archeological sources?) on this. At least separately, since such a process of adding "typical" signs anywhere in history to a universal list of (Egypt? Sinaï?) derived alphabetic symbols would not have been resticted to Turkic people, nor would it be restricted to a Turkic neolithic past. In short, I could support a separate article focussing on the variety on steppe writing systems and also I would be very interested in a specialized article on any prehistoric symbol-writing and link with historical writing systems, maybe including Turkic alphabets. Rokus01 11:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, even trying to following the Turkic subjects kills all my time, general steppe subject is way beyond me. Even limiting the subject to Türks, they used every script available, including Armenian, in addition to their own. On another subject, could you let me know the result of your arbitration case? I lost track of it. And on Scythians, we know a few words that Herodotus provided, they have quite transparent meaning and are practically understood by today speakers. So, arym is half and spu is eye in today's Türkic, like in Herodotus time. Arimaspa is half-eyed, very precise for squinted eyes. These gems for some reasons have not found a home in the WP. Maybe at some point they were expunged. In your discussion the linguistic moment was not brought up. Barefact 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a strong lobby here that aims to impose their views by killing other views and applying "mainstream" and "generally accepted" on their own, while very often this is not the case. To start with, even if some view is accepted within one branch of science, other disciplines often adhere to other views, like in the case of linguistics against archeologists. Or they come up with a single publication that is hardly referred to by other publications and don't allow anybody to question it, while they themselves question other publications, snipe them and sneer them away. Actually I am not well informed about the linguistic publications on the Scythian language, probably because there is not so much. I doubt the publications of somebody called Zgusta covered anything more than proper names from Greek graves. The discussion is hampered by trolls and permissive administrators that sometimes choose to be hypercritical only to sooth the ones that scream most. At least one of the "opponents" in the Scythian discussion is completely nuts, the arbitration was largely shrugged at so in reality I lost interest in the Scythian discussion. I think the only way to convince people is to use Britannica and try to read it better than the people that already tried to abuse this source. Britannica clearly states somewhere that the Steppes experienced an influx of mongolian tribes hafway the Scythian domination, so I think it is obvious the reports of Scythian becoming mixed are credible. Just like many other conquerors (Franks, Normans), they merged with the people they came in contact with (here: the Slavs, the Turks) and at a certain stage must have adopted their language. If you read scientific reports or reviews you will notice scientists generally hold a very open view, without anything to do with the zeal on Wikipedia to make anybody believe otherwise. I do not know exactly your view, I don't think the Scythians have always been Turkish, nor do I adhere to the view that Turks originally came from Turkey. However, the similarities of Scythian words with Turkish languages is very interesting and should be mentioned somewhere. Rokus01 06:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting you
Rocku01, I shall be reporting you for tampering the article on Sanskrit, and unilaterally editing it out regardless of the age that the original edit stood and without taking into consideration the opinions of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IAF (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Don't forget to tell them you are just trolling around and don't mind reason nor the third opinion of Wikipedia authorized referees. I suppose you are acting like this because you are just a sneaky reverting sockpuppet. Rokus01 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: AMA Case
I have opened your AMA Case and I am reviewing the disputes. (Looks like its a long one). Just to make sure, the dispute is active, right?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, the dispute is active, even though the article has an editlock and the discussion has dwindled, since it is useless to repeat when serious arguments are just flouted. My arguments (including the arguments posted by TAWarner) are still valid and the same people are determined not to allow any correction. Rokus01 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed an action on you case at Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rokus01. See the page and decide if you want me to take that step.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
Could you enable it? Arrow740 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like this? Rokus01 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Arrow740 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurgans
Do you known if the Ipatovo kurgan is a kurgan from 4000 bc or just a burial site under later build up mound. The related wikipedia article list several layer of inhumations. The 4000 bc should be then below ground level. Not a kurgan. What are other oldest ? Nasz 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some graves of the Baalberge group in Germany were of the Kurgan-type about this very same time, even predating the Yamna culture. However, it has not been established this culture was a forerunner to the Kurgan culture at any stage or period. Probably it takes more than a Kurgan to be called Kurgan folk. Anyway, this Baalberge group (essentially a TRB culture) was located west of the gene barrier along the Vistula, were people probably had anomalous low rates of Hg R1a1 and anomalous high rates of Hg I1c, just like nowadays. Rokus01 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On what sources do you locate the barier around Vistula ? Nasz 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You could read and look at figure 5.8, page 57.Rokus01 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't falsify referenced information
I see that you have been working in favour of a Dutch continuity theory and you are of course entitled to do that as long as you refer to reliable sources. HOWEVER, it is difficult for me to assume good faith on your part when you falsify cited information like this. I am going to move your changes to the talkpage, because, when someone does not hesitate to change cited information, I'd rather have an open discussions on that user's additions.--Berig 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not work on a Dutch continuity theory. A lot has been written on this subject, still the only proof of scandinavian or otherwise nordic invasions in this region is from the Viking period.Rokus01 10:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Only now I realize it was my mistake to "correct" the Nordic Bronze Age startdate to synchronize with Oscar Montelius system phase I (1800BC). Briljant! I wonder, though, why the previous scandinavian Hügelgraber period is excluded from the origin, since it still indicates a shared prehistory of both Scandinavia and Northern Germany. Rokus01 10:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suebi
Your equation of the Jastorf culture with the Suebi is either original research or POV-pushing, or at best an exhibition of innocent ignorance or misunderstanding, because tribes that are not universally considered Suebic are also associated with the Jastorf culture. The way you changed the text to add this information made the text highly confusing, and my revert was highly qualified.--Berig 10:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mister, read Germania of Tacitus and you will have a definition of Suebi, they comprised about half or more of what he knew to be Germanic. To compare the unbiased map of Jastof culture with the Elb region "OR"? You will rather have problems correlating Jastof with the fringe area west of the Weser. I hope I don't have to explain what is WP:OR: the combination of separate facts to new statements. Better watch out of accusing me of forging new facts. The previous statement, equating Jastof with West Germanic, was a better example of OR, innocent ignorance and POV pushing, "because tribes that are not universally considered descending from Jastof are definitely West Germanic". I'm sorry for you, it seems you can't see things in the right proportion and your revert things for your lack of understanding. Anyway, I did not mind the reverting itself: I mind you did not revert as well the nonsense my edit was directed against. This is what I call unbalanced. Rokus01 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you consider me to be in the wrong because of Tacitus' definition of Suebi, then you are barking up the wrong tree. According to Tacitus' all Germanic tribes north and east of the Suebi were also Suebi and that included the Suiones in Scandinavia.--Berig 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, just put your hair in a knot and nobody will know the difference.Rokus01 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Rokus01, can I ask you a favor, if you some time left? Some users (,, and ) are making claims that Koenraad Elst is a Vlaams Belang supporter, or even a neo-nazi or neo-fascist. (See, )

Now I saw that you speak Dutch, and since Elst has written some of his online articles in Dutch, it would be helpful if you could comment on Elst's opinion on the Vlaams Belang (which you can read in this article Het VB en de islam, and in some other Dutch articles on his homepage ). Merry Christmas. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can read the claim of his affiliation to VB is based on a speech in 1992, were he sought to make a fist against islam and not - so he writes - against foreigners. His choice to make a speech right there at that time was not a good one, since at this opportunity VB proposed the 70 points against immigration that actually effectuated the political "cordon sanitaire" against VB. In the article you mention he indeed strongly opposes to any such claim. I am not Flemish and I can't give you any "inside information", all I know is in Belgium the "cordon sanitaire" signifies a successfull campaign against VB that would damage the reputation of anyone coming too close. However, on the very moment of the speech the "cordon sanitaire" was not in vigour yet, so in this sense he can not be blamed to speak out on his own terms in this peculiar association. About those 70 points: Did he know? Did he care? His act certainly was a grave political error, but to my opinion his fight is a different one and not in support of the political program of VB. I am not aware of how the Flemish press thinks about this. Still, anyone accusing him of being a VB supporter would need some more substantial evidence - and I figure such kind of evidence would be the least you'll need to accuse him of being a neo-nazi or neo-fascist. And even so, all claims should be properly sourced to deserve a place in Wikpedia. I know Dbachmann has a reputation of defaming opponents, opinions and people, including scholars, often without using published references and by sheer WP:OR as if his deductions are of the same level as scientific articles and his opinions of the same level as the most esteemed opinion magazines. Unfortunately he can count on the help of a whole gang of grateful POV pushing editors eager to return him a favour. If you see any evidence of his violations against WP:NPOV (especially where he tries to smother multiple views) or WP:OR (making unsourced claimes), outright violations of WP:CIVIL or anything else of the kind, I urge you to help making Wikipedia a better place and denounce this behaviour asap at Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Thanks. Rokus01 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this was very helpful. The article was some days ago in much worse shape. Dbachmann wrote on the Elst talkpage: "it is crystal clear that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-fascist by any other name." So much for the responsibility of Wikipedia admins. But otherwise, Dbachmann has not edited much the Elst article, much of the anti-Elst POV on wikipedia is rather due to . (But the pov issues in some related articles (Voice of India) are also due to him.)
 * I have read your discussion on the NPOV talkpage, and agree with you on that. Merry Christmas.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that Dab has           reverted your edit, together with some earlier improvements of mine, without explanation.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have recently made incorrect accusations concerning User:Dbachmann in 3 different places on WP. You have incorrectly stated that he protected a page using his administrative buttons, although you were probably quite aware that this protection was put in place independently by another administrator Angr, without prompting from Dbachmann. Your obsessive attempts to nail User:Dbachmann by fair means or foul, as you indicate in your soapboxing above, is disruptive and dishonest. Please refactor your recent statements about page protection. You should have left a courtesy message on Dbachmann's page before making your bogus report on WP:AN/I. If you continue with your own pet "conspiracy theories" and incite people to denounce other WP editors (as above), thereby violating a large number of WP policies, it is likely that your disruptive behaviour will be scrutinized more closely. Happy holidays, Mathsci (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Angr was nominated for adminship by Dbachmann. Not saying that there was any connection, and Angr seems like a good wikipedian who wouldn't do this, but the they are not completely unaware of each other either.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks again. Let's hope there are enough honest people left to cut short this ever more blatant corruption. Rokus01 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remover merger tags
Please don't remover merger tags. If you want to oppose a merger then do it on the respective talk page. The merger for Nordic race into Nordic theory wasn't adequately discussed on it's talk page and it lead not no consensus. I've started a new discussion bringing up new points which you can address here []. Don't remove the tag unless a new consensus is made. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nehalennia
Hello I am interested in sources used for the history and etymology for Nehalennia, and that page is begging for some more scholarly sources. The etymology proposing various words in German and Celtic seems a bit like original research. As you helped write most of it, you're invited to discuss the etymology at Talk:Nehalennia Goldenrowley 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PIE
Hi, Rokus. There's a cite error (Passarino2002) at Proto-Indo-Europeans re: the Ahrensburg culture. Thanks. SamEV 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't see it.Rokus01 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuity vs. Replacement
Hi, Rokus. I've been watching the development of the discussion on PCT, and I was wondering if you had ever given any serious thought to doing some heavy research into the terms Continuity and Replacement in relation to anthropology and other fields. If you take a look, you'll notice, for example, that Wikipedia - as far as I can tell - has no articles on these very important terms - though they play notable roles in the academic literature (take a look on Google to get an idea). Also, you might want to check out The Four-Field Approach.

These are just a few random thoughts I had reading through your comments. Maybe you can get something from them, maybe not. Aryaman (☼) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Varoon, there are some excellent studies that proof the demic diffusion and subsequent absorption and virtual (physical) disappearing of the Neolithic "Anatolian" wave in favour of the Eurasian indigenous (Mesolithic) population. As such, the Neolithic expansion was nothing but a temporal stage that is neither continuous nor replacing previous populations. However, I don't seek to involve this evidence in PCT. I changed my mind about PCT, I think it basically stands alone. I think Broad Homeland hypothesis reflects regional continuity a lot better. Rokus01 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your commenton the admin noticeboard
I'm pretty sure you don't want to get clobbered for trolling an already heated discussion so I removed your comment from the noticeboard. Please feel free to restate it in less inflammatory terms. Thanks, Guy (Help!) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't intend to have my observation "clobbered for trolling an already heated discussion", since my comment might be mistaken for "inflammatory" in this context. However, I feel my opinion was properly pronounced in this same words:
 * "Being a neutral bystander without any bearing to the articles involved, I urge for an exhaustive and independent investigation concerning possible cryptofascist cabalgrouping in Wikipedia. I have serious doubts against many names mentioned in this dispute, as well against their methods."

If you could help me instead to redirect my deep preocupation in order to evade such an involuntary participation in an already heated discussion that after all is of no concern to me, I would be very grateful. Rokus01 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)
Well again, this are your personal feelings and thoughts towards your interest in the haplogroups of people in Iran and central asia. Your near rude accusations wont change facts from scholars.Cyrus111 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is your representation is changing facts, and creates new ones. This is called WP:OR (original research). Please come up with a new proposal in order I can look at it instead of throwing it away at first sight. Anyway, I already requested a third opinion on this and suppose we'll have to wait for this first.Rokus01 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It´s not creating new facts, I am linking the r1a1 with PIE and so called "Aryans" with the chariot the language the dom of the horse-according to scholary work, not my own. I too can also get "anothers opinion".. I am not working to please your personal liking whether you will throw it away or not at first sight is your thing, it has nothing to do with me who are editing an article by adding facts and sources for others as well. Why dont you just do a section where you try to disprove the scholars work...Cyrus111 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean: YOU are linking R1a1 with PIE and Aryans. You are not citing proper scholarly publications for giving a balanced representation of such a link. Other views also exist and have even been mentioned in the text before. But you just take a link with Aryans for granted, confuse Aryans with Kurgan people, ignore the fact that none of these people have been attested in Western Europe and then come up with a lot of off-topic information meant to promote the Kurgan hypothesis that does not belong in an article about genes. This is called OR and POV pushing and many things more, thus should be removed at first sight. Rokus01 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rokus I´ll be back later from class and then we can work something out, do you have msn messenger or something? Cyrus111 (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Please note that conflating people's intentions with Nazism runs quite contrary to this fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and creates conflict where there should be none. If you cannot participate in a discussion or content dispute civilly, you should take a break until you can. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this admonishing belongs on my talk page. You don't supply any diffs to make your point. However, if you refer to the Nazi-POV that User:Zara1709 tries to insert to the same effect using extremist sources: WP:AGF is not designed to promote, nor does it impose, negationism. The observation that Nazi-POV is the issue here is highly relevant. Rokus01 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm warning you to watch yourself, because you're essentially accusing people of being Nazis. I don't have to supply diffs. If you want to continue to be hostile and accusatory in an otherwise civil content dispute, you'll be responsible for the consequences. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, don't underestimate your obligation to WP:AGF policy. Rokus01 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking you to assume good faith does not indicate that I have not assumed good faith (quite the contrary). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Preposterous that you are accusing me of editwarring, not even being able to come up with arguments that make sense in TALK. I made three different proposals to make myself clear and all edits were accompanied by TALK: . This is hardly sterile edit warring, the spirit of the rule. And evaluating your answers, rephrasing was no luxury. Also, I did not engage in reverting the edits of someone else. To the contrary, my edits are being reverted. Don't try to intimidate and create strife, rather engage in TALK before reverting edits. I am not going to accept this. Rokus01 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The three revert rule applies no matter how much you talk about it, or who reverted first. Please familiarize yourself with policy before incorrectly asserting that something is "preposterous." --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I am not happy with your hasty comments. First it has to be crystal clear that a revert does not intend to undo vandalism. All editors have the obligation to explain their edits and to resolve issues raised by TALK before resorting to undo the edits of others, or else they might be mistaken for a vandal. Rokus01 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a completely incorrect understanding of 3RR. Please read the police WP:3RR, so that you don't slip up in the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing advice
Rokus01, my advice is as follows:
 * Don't over-guard articles - Even if a subject is close to one's heart, or an article has been fostered lovingly, remember that it is still a communal article and communal shared collaboration. Even if it takes the article in a direction that you don't agree with, so long as policies are being followed, allow communal ownership to supersede personal emotional involvement.
 * Don't be too certain - Too much certainty can lead to assumptions of bad faith, or to inability to listen to others properly, both sources of conflict.
 * Don't slip into bad behavior - avoid personal attacks and breaches of civility.

Addhoc (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific? If you refer to the coordinated attack on Nordic race, while I am trying to have a discussion on the currency of this denomination and working towards a concensus on what is generally accepted concerning the "Nordic population" denomination, referring exclusively to anthropology, since this is what the article actually meant to focus on (this part was rejected in the Nordic theory article); or the Nazi-POV that is invading articles without making clear the context, if any; or the Kurgan-theory POV-pushers, that insist on presenting only one "mainstream" homeland theory, while it has been demonstrated several times that at least three widely accepted theories exist: In such cases I can't agree with you that WP policies are respected, or when they are I won't agree to the wording of policies in a way that permits loopholes or gaming the system. If there is communal consensus on gaming WP policies in favor of certain points of views, that will be it.
 * I am certain of things, when I have reliable sources saying the same, and as long as others choose not to pursue their point of view by comming up with other information or TALK. Note it is not me being certain of the validity of a certain kind of view but me being certain of the the point being relevant. People that choose to ignore those sources, whether it be by WP:AFG, ignorance or personal disagreement, are indeed liable to assumptions of bad faith. Indeed this can't be a good reason to recur to incivility, even though I have very good reasons of my own to assume that at least some of the people on the other side of the line seem to be effectively above retaliation to launch their personal attacks, even though unwarranted by diffs and easily to refute.
 * Especially your insinuation to bad behaviour is unwarranted. You just can't make a statement and subsequently reject all counterarguments as bad behaviour. Or maybe you can, by launching a coordinated attack to game the system in a way that compromises the credibility of Wikipedia. Rokus01 (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)