User talk:Alcaios/Archive

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proto-Indo-European society, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Xerxes and Archelaus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Proto-Indo-European_society check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Proto-Indo-European_society?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Renfrew has not abandoned the Anatolian hypothesis
I see that you have been adding edits to various pages about Indo-European, saying that Renfrew has 'admitted the higher probability of the steppe hypothesis.' I have listened to the lecture you cite. This is not what he says - see the Talk page for Proto-Indo-European Homeland. These edits are misleading, and should be reversed. Regards. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dyeus Edits [Weds Nov 27 2019]
Hey Azerty82,  I removed the etymological content about the word "day" because it's all available on Wiktionary (I added a link to it so those who want to see it can go to the proper page) and besides a detailed list of them doesn't add much to an understand of the figure Dyeus. I didn't delete any mythic info, and actually added some good sources and an image to the page. Other than that I cleaned up some of the clunky language and rearranged some things to make it fall in line with the standard organization of wikipedia's mythic figure pages (i.e. putting all the etymology under a header titled "etymology" not "name", etc.) [Here's the version I did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyeus&oldid=928260480]. For the future--I'm new to this!--I need to make a post in the "Talk" section about what I intend to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Lost (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Your have added indeed some good contributions that I have preserved, as you can see on the current page. And I see no issue if you keep on improving the page. However, you had removed some parts that were sourced in linguistics, like the absence of the meaning "heaven" in Anatolian languages that is argued by West. So I had to restore the article to the old version. That's why I expected you to explain why you removed those parts in the discussion page. Feel free to edit and improve the article! Azerty82 (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to move Dagda into the more secure region based on ML West's book Indo-European Poetry and Myth which describes the Sun as the Lamp of Dyeus, it also describes that Dagda came from Dagodeiwos and controls the sun in the myth where Angus Mac Og was born. This solidifies him as Dyeus. ML West also provides about a dozen examples of Usas ,who is 'Priya Divah' the daughter of Dyeus, of parallels between her and Brighid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.188.159 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I did so, based on Dagda < *Dago-dewos. Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians
Hi. I appreciate your intention to improve the article. However, a part that you just added re Albanian mythology in particular showing Greek influence was reverted twice after added by other editors in the last few hours. I am not reverting you to avoid more reverts in the article, but it would be best if you self rv, and we sort things out on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out . However, I'm not the one who reintroduced that, it was added back in an older version restored by Azerty82 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Azerty, my bad. I appreciate your intention to improve the article. Cheers :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll wait for any more section to be possibly restored/deleted until further attempts to improve the article. Azerty82 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Dhéǵhōm
Hi Azerty! In the Albanian language dhé stems from PIE Dhéǵhōm, and the name of some mythological figures contain this word, like Dheu (the chthonic serpent) and E Bukura e Dheut (the beauty of the earth), which are considered in Albanian mythology to be earth deities. Do you think they can be included in the "Evidence" section of the article Dhéǵhōm? – Βατο (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Yes for sure! As long as we have evidence of the 'ritualization' of a name stemming from the root *dhéǵhōm, it can be included in the 'evidence' section. Feel free to add it as you master the Albanian subject better than I do! Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I will add it soon. All the best! – Βατο (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edit . I surely forgot other cognates, feel free to improve the article again! Azerty82 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You know better than to make personal attacks
As you did at Talk:Far-right politics. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that’s why I stopped contributing to political articles a couple of months ago to rather focus on ancient mythologies.
 * Read my history of edits on Great Replacement, Far-right politics or Identitarian movement. Those are neutral (I think) contributions supported by RS, and no contributor has debated them so far.
 * I just can’t stand people using WP as a platform to diffuse their personal views, be it within articles or discussions. Azerty82 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, Doug Weller is referring to this discussion (section /lefist bias/). I apologized for accusing another contributor of introducing personal opinions in the discussion page of Wikipedia. Azerty82 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my edit to Vedic Period
The "origins" refers to the pre-vedic period. It is mentioned in the paragraph that Aryans migrated into the Civilization. And the study was of Harappan era DNA. SO what's the issue you pointed out? Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the study you linked is about Harappan genomes. They lived before the Vedic period. The authors are arguing against a common lineage between Happarans and early Iranians, not between Aryans and Ancient Iranians. Azerty82 (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read the newspaper articles you also linked. We'll need to read the study thoroughly to check if journalists have interpreted the results correctly (it seems not based on the abstract alone). But I'm open to the discussion if it's the case. Azerty82 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * “Research showed the Vedic culture was developed by indigenous people of South Asia,” Shinde asserted. Source: Kalyan Ray, New DNA study challenges Aryan invasion theory, Deccan Herald.
 * "Aryan" (/ˈɛəriən/)[1] has its roots as a term used as a self-designation by Indo-Iranian people.
 * Aryans are said to be Ancient Iranians.
 * Santosh L (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant "between Ancient Iranians and Indo-Aryans" sorry. Read this article. It's from India Times (not a Western newspaper) and a geneticist is explaining the results of the study. Azerty82 (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The key sentence is "have sparked different interpretations on what they reveal about the genetics of ancient Indians." You can open a subject about that on the discussion page of Vedic Period so that everyone can contribute to the debate. Azerty82 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Aryas of the vedas are said to be Ancient Iranians. Hence I mentioned the study showing they couldn't be, and thus is against the migration theory. Maybe the "Aryas" mentioned in scriptures is different to "Aryans". I simply want to highlight the fact. And since we are discussing their origins, then its precursor, Harrapans are definitely part of their origins.
 * Anyways I will go through your points and the paper and IndiaTimes article thoroughly and get back. Hope you could look into it as well. Santosh L (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I promise I'll read the articles you linked, I've said I'm open to the discussion. But please open a subject on the discussion page of Vedic Period so that we can all reach an agreement among contributors, not just the two of us. Azerty82 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Azerty82, newspapers simply aren't reliable sources for DNA or archaeology. More specifically The Times of India is "considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." In fact even governments at times aren't reliable sources for these subjects. We need peer reviewed papers from  non-predatory journals.  Doug Weller  talk 12:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I linked the India Times article because it is an interview of a notable geneticist, David Reich. Reich is the source, not the newspaper (unless they completely misrepresented his comments, but come on...) Azerty82 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But newspapers do I'm afraid - all too frequently. Sometimes by simply being selective in what they report. And that's a way around getting any sort of response from the academic community. Doug Weller  talk 12:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I have never proposed to use this article as a source, I was just pointing to a contradictory interpretation. I reverted the original contribution on Vedic Period based on the abstract of the genetic study, I have never considered the other sources linked in the edit (i.e., the newspapers) as reliable. Azerty82 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration; Shinde's spin is a shame for science. And an editor who's now adding this nonsense to multiple articles is either completely unaware of the response to Shinde's spin, or is deliberately pushing WP:FRINGE-theories. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I always try diplomacy with those editors. But maybe it's a waste of time and I should change strategy. Azerty82 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

apologies for collapsing our discussion
I can't demand that you accept that I collapsed our digression on Germanic peoples. If you insist, we can uncollapse it, but I hope you understand the concern about digressions. You yourself mentioned the insanely long posts, and of course I will be one of the ones to be blamed, because I try to answer "too much". Given what you have yourself noticed therefore, this is a talk page where we all should try to avoid posting more than necessary. If we don't it becomes an opportunity for more aggressive distractions and smoke screens. I can understand your initial observations and it is very good to have you looking at the article, and potentially editing it or making concrete proposals. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm used to this kind of controversies. I've been working on a rewriting of Origin of the Albanians for several weeks now. It's still in a draft and I won't publish it until I have all the different views featured in the article, which should be the norm for any article on Balkanic history. Wikipedia is a public website that is read by thousands of people, and what we write here has consequences in real life. I'll read the article Germanic peoples thoroughly this weekend in order to provide insightful propositions of improvement. Azerty82 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in the meantime I looked at Proto-Indo-European society which you mentioned, and some of your French articles. Looks good. Your style is ambitious if I understand correctly, because it seems you like to rebuild in a very structured way. This is also my preference, and I have helped restructure many articles which were having troubles. Of course sometimes there is resistance.
 * Some things I can think of...
 * I think in these proto/ pre / urheimat etc articles, which I have also worked on sometimes, there is a risk of too many overlapping articles, and in the case of a sensitive subject like Germanic peoples this can lead to POV forking, where each editor gets their own article with completely different opinions on it. That is something to avoid of course.
 * Germanic is a bit special, because it was the first big proto-language and urheimat hypothesis in some ways, and it has really created long-lasting obsessions. With PIE we can really start with language, as we should, and build from there. Each new scholar can go through the whole logic. With Germanic, I have learned that the editors who say they are using a linguistic definition, are actually normally not. They are not saying first, what do we know about the language, but starting with Roman texts from the very beginning. This is especially true in the older literature which internet people love. Actually it is not really clear who spoke Germanic in early classical times, so this approach is completely different to a linguistic one we might use with other proto languages. This is why I was thinking you would need to start with the Roman texts, but I am interested to see what you come up with.
 * Archaeology is not so difficult probably. The Jastorf culture is relatively uncontroversial, and then there are surrounding cultures who may or may not be Germanic speaking. If we would move logically from here to the Roman texts, we could say only some of Caesar's Germanic people are likely to be "Jastorf".
 * Side issue which I just find interesting. We already discussed this, but I still think that actually it is not clear how and when the lower Rhine Franks became Germanic speaking, and speaking a language so close to what the Suebian Alamanni and Bavarians were speaking before the second consonant shift. There must be more recent literature on this somewhere. An obvious idea I have NOT seen in publications would be that these peoples were inter-acting heavily in the Roman military or some other field of life, keeping their dialects similar.
 * Good luck!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Your recent editing history at Proto-Indo-European mythology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrClog (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

General remark
This is just a general remark relevant to Germanic peoples, to help think through a common issue which I guess will come up more often, and how it should be handled on WP. This is presumably all "obvious" to you as an experienced editor, but based on experience I believe in sometimes reviewing/summarizing obvious principles when working together with others. Obviously one reason the above came into my mind is that your drafting is often covering materials already covered in the article, with sources. Also, you know that like you, I often use drafts to build up new ideas, but we both have to keep in mind that this approach can be worrying to other editors because it implies a sudden massive change is coming. Your work looks like it is aimed at several sections, and if I understand correctly it is a "restart", that has not been based on looking at what is already in the article? Also, given the history of the article, I remain concerned about duplications or anything which would create really large digressions (though possibly you intend your material to be useful for several articles).
 * The article is not new, and has had lots of critical debate and source collecting for many sections you are interested in. So for most sections we are beyond the early phase where any good source is automatically something we must follow and add to the article.
 * In cases such as some of the etymologies of ancient names with only one or two syllables, it is easy to find sources which state things as certain, but disagree about this with other good sources. In general, that whole approach is a bit controversial, and you know we have sources for that.
 * (Actually for a reasonable status check of many of these old theories the Reallexikon articles can give more information than the Rübekeil handbook article, which explains no differences of opinion and has no detailed footnotes.)
 * In such cases, while we must avoid original research and non-obvious synthesis of sources, we must NOT avoid trying to understand our sources in a bit of extra detail, so we can make sure about the contexts of materials we are thinking of using. In the past of this article, ignoring the contexts of sentences was a problem.
 * For example, two sources might say superficially opposite things, but using different rationales and evidence, citing different sources, within or outside the specialization of the author, and published at different times. These will also be parts of different kinds of discussions - side remarks, surveys of what other authors think, speculations, basic summaries, detailed arguments, etc. We certainly do NOT need to ignore such differences of context. In fact we MUST look at them if we want a good stable article.

Past editors on the article believed that we had to chose ONE opinion only to present in the article, and this led to un-ending problems with one source replacing another as the "one and only". Of course I have no reason at all to expect your drafting to lead to that again. I found your comments about this being a dialectic process reassuring. It is a pleasure to learn from you and see your thoughtful reactions to feedback. But you might have noticed how cautious I am to try to avoid the problems of the past! This is of course not your fault, but hopefully you do not take this post as something which is critical of you.

One idea/recommendation is that you should occasionally review what is in the existing article, and make edits and improvements there, but trying to avoid duplication or destructuring, and also to avoid replacing one source's idea with another. In other words the "restart" aspect of your drafting could lead to problems? Sorry for the long post. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, be reassured that it don't want to "replace" your article. My draft is still a work-in-progress that only includes linguistics sources for the moment. I'm convinced that we can eventually reach a "consensual" article. This is what it is aimed at. Consequently, it's not a problem if it remains as a draft for several weeks until a consensus is reached. Azerty82 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, that is also what I was thinking. Pardon my lengthy reflections. But it is absolutely not my article. I want more editors working on it. My feeling of responsibility is because I made major structural changes and I feel they are unfinished in a sense, partly because others need to look for whatever weak points I have left. So it is in a "sensitive phase" where it could evolve better or worse depending what happens next to it. I want to make sure the next editors can see what was done so far. I feel positive about your commitment to work on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'll make the authors "talk to each others" in each paragraph in order to (I hope) reach a balanced presentation encompassing leading and modern interpretations. See the section on early attestations. Azerty82 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I had said in one of our previous discussions, I'm mainly working on the pre-Roman period. Those are the sections that need improvements in the article as yourself are primarily working on the Migration Period. What do you think of the draft as it is now (especially the /languages/ section)? Azerty82 (talk)
 * will have a closer look and comment either here or there. Thanks again for your work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe some obvious questions first:
 * Will you also work on other types of evidence, such as archaeological (which I have done some work on, but lately held back from a bit while you are working), river and place-names?
 * I guess the biggest question is which parts would fit where in the article. I will give my impression just to get discussion start:
 * (1) I guess your Languages section, perhaps tweaked to fit whatever is in the rest of the article at that time, is basically aiming to replace the current Language section?
 * (2) The other sections, look to me more like notes that could be used to add to and tweak what is in the relevant sections of the existing article. I think for those types of topics, the challenge is more to do with concentration while editing: whole article needs to be looked so that you make sure each bit of information is not over-duplicated, incomplete, or handled too far apart from related bits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You present one "field consensus" about the timing and position of proto-Germanic. When I did my best to understand this topic, looking at both linguists and archaeologists (see our current footnote 77) I came to the conclusion that there were two pretty distinct ideas about this? I am a bit surprised that you do not mention the Jastorf culture (or its region) at all, because that actually seemed to be the dominant proposal out of the two?
 * Playing devil's advocate, the last three sentences of the reconstruction section go quite far into details without being able to come to any strong conclusions. So it could be argued they are not needed in this article (though this again raises the question of whether some of your work should also go to other articles).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Attestations section jumps straight into discussion of earliest runes, without first explaining that there are Germanic runes. Later, the section seems to "introduce" the topic of runes, but near the end of the section. Also, taken literally it gives two conflicting "earliest" runes?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Crazy idea just to think about: What if you structured the discussion reverse chronological, working your way back in time? At the moment it is roughly chronological, meaning it starts suddenly with Proto Indo Europeans, which some readers may find jarring. What if we worked back in a common sense way from the more concrete evidence of later times, back to the less knowable periods?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, the aim of this section is to replace the language section, since it includes more details without omitting or contradicting what is already in this article's section (except Jastorf for the moment, see below).
 * (2) Yes you're right. The aim of the other sections is to provide notes that could be used to complement relevant sections in the article.
 * The Urheimat is only based on one source in my draft for the moment (this is also an improvement I'm currently working on: to back all statements with several sources). It does not contradict what you are saying though. The geographical spread is that of the Jastorf culture, which is implied by "archaeological evidence". You're right to point out that "Jastorf culture" is not yet mentioned in the draft. This will be added.
 * The /attestation/ sub-section need to be clarified indeed. I've started to do it.
 * This is an interesting idea. We'll probably discuss discuss this proposition in the talk page of the draft when it has been reviewed by more editors and ready to be used in the article? Azerty82 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: I think that the terminology "south Scandinavian" can be confusing for the reader, as it can be used to mean "present-day Denmark + southern present-day Sweden", or "present-day Denmark" only, or "southern present-day Sweden" only. Azerty82 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you ! I'm currently working on the Koryos, the famous Indo-European youthful war-bands. Tell me if you are aware of interesting reflexes in Albanian traditions. Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nitiobroges moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Nitiobroges, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has two reliable sources. What didn't you ask before moving it to a draft? I have restored the article with a third source. Azerty82 (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Daunia / Apulia
Hello! I read your message ("Teanum Apulum was on the Oscan territory, not Iapygian, so it's not surprising that it was spoken alone. The modern region of Apulia should not be confused with ancient Iapygian territories – the northern part of present-day Apulia was not part of it"). This would be very interesting, but I cannot find a source that states that; can you? Besides, the article Iapygians states: "The Iapygians were an Indo-European people who inhabited Apulia in classical antiquity" (Apulia, the modern region). If you get a source, can you fix it? Thanks in advance!-- 3knolls (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was not easy to clarify everything in a single comment. Iapygian (maybe I should have specified Iapygian-speakers) occupied the most part of present-day Apulia, but not all of it. See this map of inscriptions from the University of Salento: https://classics.uc.edu/apulia/full/3wf025.png
 * Some of the northerly Daunian cities show Oscan influence, and part of them certainly got 'Oscanized', but Teanum Apulum was in a Frentanian territory, or at least at the frontier between the two cultures, so it can be misleading to use it as an example. Oxford Classical Dictionary: It was on the borders between Daunian and Frentanian territory and shows signs of Oscanization by the 4th century bce, notably in issues of coins with *Oscan legends.
 * If you take Ausculum Satrianum for instance (also a northern city near present-day Foggia), an Oscan influence is perceptible, but it didn't get fully Oscanized like Teanum Apulum. Azerty82 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand. Next time I will try and choose some better examples. Thank you.--3knolls (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problem, and you were right to add the part on the Oscan influence ;-) It's just that Teanum Apulum is not the best example, it would be like using the city of Cannes to say that Italy got 'Francized' ;-) Azerty82 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Toponymic/hydronymic evidence?
I am wondering if the Germanic peoples article (or a related article) should eventually also mention this type of evidence, along with archaeological? It gets mentioned every now and then as relevant to the search for the urheimat.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Jastorf area
I noticed this in the latest version of Germanic peoples: the ancestral idiom of all attested Germanic dialects, was primarily situated in present-day Denmark and bordering parts of Germany, and along the sea-shores of the Baltic and the North Sea, from the Ems river in the west to the Vistula river in the east, an area corresponding to the extent of the Jastorf culture. citing Fortson 2004, p. 338; Ringe 2006, p. 85.

To me this seems very different from Jastorf culture definitions I have seen archaeologists give, at least for the earlier periods. They restrict it to the south of Jutland, and between Elbe and Oder. (Although the Jastorf culture is seen as part of a group of related ones, including the Harpstedt-Nienburg group between lower Elbe and lower Ems. It is an archaeological term though. In our archaeology section we cite for example Mertens (2014).

By the way, in our discussion above I mentioned footnote 77 on 4 April, which no longer exists. So, to preserve that, it was a citation to Polomé, Fee & Leeming (2006); Ringe (2006, p. 85); Lippi-Green (1992, p. 47); Koivulehto (2002, p. 591); Schmidt (1991, pp. 129-133); Wofagiewicz (1997). It supported a sentence which mentioned some debate in the field (and also defined the Jastorf area):
 * Although both earlier and later scenarios have been proposed, including a larger "polycentric" origin area, Proto-Germanic is believed to have emerged as a separate branch of Indo-European in either the Nordic Bronze Age or later during the Iron age period Jastorf culture (located in eastern Germany between the lower Elbe and lower Oder), which was the southernmost regional culture to develop from the Nordic group.

Can you please consider. Perhaps there is a reason you feel some of these sources should be ignored, or perhaps you just missed it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I had clarified in the original draft that the proto-Germanic Urheimat corresponds to the late Jastorf culture (at least what can be said with reasonable confidence), but the 'late' part had been removed by Florian Backe in the draft...
 * Ringe says: early Jastorf, at the end of the 7th century BCE, is almost certainly too early for the last common ancestor of the attested languages (which is what historical linguistics is stating: Proto-Germanic did not emerge before 500 BCE.) He follows: but later Jastorf culture and its successors occupy so much territory that their populations are most unlikely to have spoken a single dialect (again, historical linguistics state that independently: traces of early dialectal variations have been pointed out). He follows: It follows that our reconstructed PGerm. was only one of the dialects spoken by peoples identified archeologically, or by the Romans, as Germans. The remaining Germanic peoples spoke sister dialects of PGerm. (again, independently evidenced by the absence of Grimm's law in some proper names)
 * Late Jastorf is the Urheimat of Proto-Germanic, while Early Jastorf is the last linguistic area of Pre-Germanic.
 * This is a rare case where historical linguistics and archeology go hand in hand and come to same conclusion independently, making the above-mentioned conclusion very likely. Azerty82 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on your remarks, I have toned down (read: 'removed') the horizontal geographical extent, and the clarified the sentence with Ringe's quote. I'm going to include more references to support this statement. Azerty82 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't seem to be seeing archaeologists and linguists all agreeing with each other. Did you have a look at any of the sources I provided?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with some of them, especially Polomé. I'm going to read those references thoroughly. You know I'm a reasonable contributor; if anything needs to be clarified, toned down or changed, I'll do it. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I posted here first. You worked on a whole section, so it is not strange that there might be bits which need a second look. Appreciate the efforts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This might be good to have looked at if you are planning to look at the opening sections of Goths. I know you probably aim to separate out linguistic and "other", but at least for now the origins speculations permeate all the structuring and treatment of the linguistic and name topics, so it can handy to know what ideas exist: For (some) archaeologists and linguists one relevant issue is which material culture was likely to have been the source of Germanic languages, and does it look similar to the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures. OTOH, it might NOT be relevant to what you do on Goths, but I still think Germanic peoples needs a re-check. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As you are talking about avoiding Germanic topics (unfortunately!) I hope you don't mind me reminding you about this. I do not mind working on it directly of course, but it is "best practice" to cross check I think.
 * Tweaking the existing sentence now in the article. I looked at the 3 sources...
 * I can not see any definition of the territory of "late Jastorf" in Ringe, but he does define the earlier territory like I would expect (on the same page) using the term "Southern Denmark".
 * Polomé and Lippi-Green describe the "Germanic homeland" as the Jastorf region plus perhaps the Harpstedt (so stretching towards the Ems though I am not sure it goes that far in normal definitions). They then suggest that in a later phase where "Proto-Germanic" moved east and north. There is discussion about hydronymic evidence that Scandinavia was not in the first area.
 * Fortson p.338 seems to be the real source for the geographical description you have used, but it really looks like a passing reference to things discussed in the literature, so it is a problem in my opinion that it disagrees with works that discuss the evidence more specifically. Also, in essence these geographical words which disagree with the other two sources in terms of timing and geography and more, are being synthesized together with the other two sources for the timing.
 * Considering if there was anything lost with the deletion of the older sentence and sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , unless there is a misunderstanding, I have already corrected that part in the article a few days ago. The paragraph now reads 'Jastorf culture' instead of 'late Jastorf culture', and Polomé's quote you're referring to is now in the article. Alcaios (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the Urheimat, I (and most scholars) believe Proto-Germanic emerged in the continental Jastorf culture, and was later introduced to Scandinavia (excluding Denmark) through migrations (hence the Goths/Geats issue). Alcaios (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After a second reading of your message, there must be, indeed, a misunderstanding. The original 'nucleus' of Proto-Germanic was probably located in southern Denmark, from which Proto-Germanic speakers migrated southwards and eastwards, leading to the apparition of the Northwest/East dialects. It is the scenario described in Ringe's quote, I didn't want to make the article longer than it is already by giving too much details in the body, but I can clarify if you want. Alcaios (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have tweaked the sentence. What do you think of the new wording? I'll replace Fortson with specialized sources. Alcaios (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it turns out I am wrong somehow but so far I don't think so. I think Ringe describes the Jastorf culture as stretching FROM southern Denmark to Central Germany. That is also the definition I find elsewhere. A more common definition is between Elbe and Oder. Don't forget the second part of my original question also? Thanks for looking at it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See map Alcaios (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There are various maps and written descriptions around, but basically I think most agree that the main part of the Jastorf culture is between Elbe and Oder, including this one? That is almost entirely in modern Germany.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What about this wording: ...was primarily situated in the southern Jutland peninsula and neighbouring parts of Germany, between the Elbe and Oder rivers, an area corresponding to the extent of the Jastorf culture. Alcaios (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. By my reading this seems different from the wordings I was seeing, which could be summarized by ...was primarily situated in the area of the Jastorf culture, between the Elbe and Oder rivers in what is now Germany. Southern Jutland could be mentioned also if that is for some reason important, but basically that also comes under that description, and it is not the "primary" part of the Jutland area. Perhaps you should look at the other sources I mentioned in my original text, because it also raises questions about the level of consensus on the timing. Is there some source I should look at?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Name sections. Eburones.
I see you are adding lots of name sections. These small sections seem to have recently become seen as a standard thing, a bit like Genetics sections, sections about supposed hair colour, and so on. But I am not sure these short sections were ever discussed as something all these articles really need, and in general the new tradition seems to be to dump these sections in quickly, while doing many at once. In any case, many articles were written without any idea of needing a name section, and thus they often already contain discussion of name etymologies in other sections. An example is Eburones. Concerning this people, I am surprised to see the assertion that Evreux is named after them, given that this form of name is commonly described as one found in many parts of Gaul and Britain, and this is nowhere near them. I do not have access to Delamarre, so I can't double check it, but it seems quite strange. As another point of interest, I believe there is also a Germanic proposal for the name's etymology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot compare a /name/ section with one on 'hair-colours'. It is normal to give the meaning of the name used as the title of the article. The etymology does not contradict what is in the article. Regarding Évreux, I'm going to add another source and give the phonetic evolution as I did in other articles. Azerty82 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The relation with Évreux was incorrect; it rathers stems from the Eburovices tribe. Thank you for your vigilance. Azerty82 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I misread "Eburones, Eburo-uices > Evreux (Eure)" in Delamarre. He was only referring to the latter name. The complementary source used a better wording that allowed me to see the error. Azerty82 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was wondering, and I did not want to be too negative. Just to be clear, some of the genetics sections are better than others also, and I do not judge all of them as being the same, and nor are all of your new Name sections the same. I just want to make sure we look at what is already in the articles, and make sure what we are adding is really worth adding and fits in the existing article structure. Germanic peoples articles have suffered from massive batch edits over the years. Of course many of these German cisrhenani articles are only short, because there is not much to say and they get very little traffic, so it is not too hard to look them over. Also concerning cn tagging concerning general questions about that topic (such as the language debate), it can be worth keeping in mind that there is a main article. For what it is worth the German WP articles are also helpful, and in general I think most literature on the etymologies of these peoples has been in German. I have added a few already.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not have the time to read all articles to be honest. I'm adding /name/ sections in batch in all articles on Gaulish/Belgic tribes with reliable sources, a task that it's taking a lot of time and effort (I did the same for the articles on Roman deity and for many articles on Greek deities). I would argue (and insist) that a /name/ section is necessary for the overall structure of articles though (not only for tribes but for WP articles in general). The first thing we need is define/give the meaning of the name used as a title. If there is any duplication in articles, I'll merge the etymology-related parts into those new sections. Azerty82 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, can you link articles where those new sections appear problematic. I'll address the concerns/issues. Azerty82 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eburones has a language section, which mentions some of the debate about their language, together with discussion of their name etymology. It includes the Germanic theory which Neumann takes reasonably seriously still in the RGA article (Vol 6). Eburones is a longer article than some of the others. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a language section, and sections in general, to Condrusi, which is an article I never did much to. I also added citation with link to the RGA article which discusses the name. But I have not added a name section. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Goths
Given you are working on Germanic peoples and especially on etymological sections, it would be great if you had a look at the messy and over-lapping sections on Goths:
 * The Name section is very messy and has been expanded a lot, so that it now "pre-empts" several other sections which used to handle some aspects better:
 * Possible references in classical sources describes the classical sources for the "pre Goths" in the north, who scholars feel have names etymologically related to the Gothic name.
 * Evidence from language mentions the same evidence this presenting it as evidence for a Scandinavian and/or Baltic origin of the Goths. The Name section also now already plays a role (too much?) of implying for a Scandinavian origins story.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll look into it. The /name/ section is indeed unclearly redacted, but this is not surprising as the etymology of 'Goths' is much debated. Concerning the origin, we can say with reasonable confidence that they came from the Baltic sea coasts and islands. The fact that Gutes and Gutones are linguistically related does not mean that Goths came from Scandinavia. The name of the Gallic Veneti (in Brittany) is related to that of the Vistula Veneti, which does not mean that the former came from the Baltic region.
 * FYI, I’m going to work more deeply on articles about Gallic/Belgic tribes. While I recognize and appreciate past efforts, they do not respect WP standards of quality: most of them are unsourced; when they are, they rely on primary sources; when secondary sources are used, the page is often missing. Azerty82 (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A simple suggestion about the Name section is that it could at least better START with Goths, before moving on to all the variants etc? And there has to be a way to reduce the incredible amount of duplication and repetition?
 * & Glad to see the work on the Belgic tribes, and I have tried to help yesterday when I saw some of that. I am probably responsible for adding primary sources to some stubs in the past. On some of the smaller peoples, there is only a small number of primary references so collecting them is good first step sometimes in order to structure a future article. For example with Condrusi I apparently never went further (until last night). Some secondary sources make it fuzzy what their primary sources are, which, when editors are not aware of this, can lead to silly misunderstandings on WP about why different secondary sources seem to say different things. But for example the RGA articles do not. Such sources make it easier to write, and help us know how to fit in "fuzzier" secondary commentaries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to restructure the /name/ section in Goths.
 * Don't worry for the articles, it's not your fault and I know it takes a lot of time to gather sources and write such articles. Many references on Gauls are only available in French, especially on etymology and archeology. If you see the article on Veneti (Gauls), I have been trying to confront classical sources with modern interpretations and archeological records. The article was previously based on Caesar alone, which would be like writing an article on the Iraq war based upon George W. Bush's account of the event. Hence the intrinsic problem of relying on primary sources alone. Azerty82 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 99% of the time your edits make perfect sense to me and if not I'll be sure to say something. In the old days with those smaller peoples, I wondered if there really should be such articles for each "tribe" (as opposed to just one better Germani cisrhenani one) so I only worked tentatively except for cases like Eburones (a larger people which has also good Dutch language sources), but I think the editing community just can't stop itself from making articles for everything, no matter what policy says, so what you are doing is good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ideas about Goths so far: Currently all these sections are "multi-tasking" and all trying to argue for a specific origins scenario, in every section, over and over. Possible eventual aim would be to have origins proposals moved to one place, and then divided into the more logical parts similar to what you have done with the name section: Vistula proposal, Scandinavia proposals, etc. When well-structured it will also become shorter I think, because full repetition of things like the name evidence can be avoided.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sectioning helps! Good idea. Probably you already see these, or have a better idea, but anyway in case it helps...
 * Gauts still make up second part of Gutones section and should move down to Gauts?
 * Gauts section mainly made up of stuff which could go to Linguistic evidence? (Because I think that section is supposed to be the place for linguistic arguments for certain origins proposals.)
 * The current "Possible references in classical sources" should probably also be mainly merged into the Gutones and Gauts sections you have made? ...at least in cases where the material is just a report of the various possibly-related names in the north.
 * The other parts of "Possible references in classical sources", where specifically written to present "origins evidence", should probably merged with "linguistic evidence".

Gaulish or Gallic
I noticed this and I am wondering if you have any rationale. I have no preference and have used both terms over the years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm using this denomination (Gaulish language; Gallic people) because it is the convention used by the Oxford Classical Dictionary. I have only renamed the other articles for consistency. Azerty82 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh well, as we've discussed Andrew, Gallic is technically more correct.--Calthinus (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ah yes now I remember a discussion. I tracked back these . But as we are talking about early Roman or even pre Roman peoples in this particular discussion I think those discussions are about something different?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Andrew: in this case (the Morini) Gaulish is widely used even in literature, but Gallic is more correct, as Gaulish was not actually a term until the migration era. --Calthinus (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have renamed the short description from Gallic to Belgic for consistency. (Azerty) Alcaios (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand what you are saying is that Gaul is understood as a modern French/English word for Gallia, but actually isn't, etymologically. I don't have a strong opinion about it (I never knew this proposal, and have not yet looked around to see how it was received) but as we discussed last time it is clear that in modern English Gaul is seen as the modern word for Gallia. So to some people, what you are saying may come over like someone saying that the proper spelling has to be in Latin ... if you see what I mean. You are kind of making an appeal for a mini language reformation, and of course in English these rarely succeed. We still spell island with an "s" because someone thought it must be related to Latin, even though everyone now knows this is nonsense. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as I noted before, it's not my original idea. But yeah, I'm also fine with Gaulish, just reminding you :). Of course English is hairball, I do wonder how much of America's education issues have to do with the need to take spelling tests in grade school, which would be alleviated if everyone switched to Spanish... --Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, honestly, whether they are called Gallic or Gaulish is not important to me (in French, both terms are identical: Gaulois/Gaulois). We just need consistency between articles. Alcaios (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, should the Leuci, Mediomatrici, Treveri, Caletes be classified as Belgic or Gallic? In my view, they appear to be misplaced, since they are categorized based upon a later Roman administrative divisions. In a sense, shouldn't all Gaulish-speaking tribes be defined as Gallic rather than drawing a virtual border between the two groups? The only rationale I can see for using the term 'Belgic' is the cultural mixing with Germanic tribes, but it certainly not applies to all Belgic tribes. Alcaios (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that some tribes are described as Belgic or not Belgic by different authors. Like the Treveri. I would cite both opinions in the lede, i.e. Gallic Belgic tribe -- or if there is evidence of disagreement in the literature "Gallic or Belgic". Alas the present statement in the lede of Treveri seems adequate to me. --Calthinus (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning the peoples of later Belgica I (Leuci, Mediomatrici, Treveri) an "or" might be justified. Caesar did indeed seem to divide clearly between Celtic Gauls and Belgic (the only primary source for that?). His text implies they were Celtic because they weren't in the first Belgic military alliance, but I am not sure he anywhere explains the status of that group in a perfectly clear way. The Treveri were certainly culturally connected to the Germani on both sides of the Rhine also. In terms of secondary sources, many historians use the Roman provinces of course, and then we need to get into the arguments about better and worse secondary sources. And indeed those province names had a meaning I suppose. Here is an old 1854 text: Caesar does not fix the boundary of the Belgae between the source of the Marne and the Rhine, and We might be inclined to consider the Caleti as Belgae, from their position between the three Belgic peoples and the sea; and some geographers support this conclusion by a passage in Hirtius (8.6), but this passage would also make us conclude that the Aulerci were Belgae, and that would be false. and In B. G. 2.4, Caesar enumerates the principal peoples in the country of the Belgae in its wider sense, which, besides those above enumerated, were: the Suessiones, who bordered on the Remi; the Menapii in the north, on the lower Maas, and bordering. on the Morini on the south [...]; the Caleti, at the mouth of the Seine;2 the Velocasses on the Seine, in the Vexin; the Veromandui, north of the Suessiones, in Vermandois, and... Caesar 2.4 is basically a reference to troop contributions only, but I can see some would place them among the Belgae. See also the 1854 source which mentions more primary records.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There does seem to be a difference between Strabo and Caesar. Alas the Caleti are Belgic for both. See pictures. In general though my understanding is that "we don't know" is the honest answer for a lot of these. The language of the Treveri is supposed to have been intelligible to that of the Galatians, which would suggest the mainline Gallic linguistically at least, but that script (considered reliable on the matter by at least some experts) was centuries later and language shift could have occurred.--Calthinus (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reclassified the Caleti in Template:Peoples of Gaul. If I had to choose between the two of them, I would rather trust the geographer than the politician on the geography of Gaul, so I'm ok with keeping the rest unchanged. Alcaios (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)



clients of the Treveri
Relevant to the Eburones and Condrusi you have rightfully noted that they were clients to the Treveri. This simply means they had to pay them off, kind of like "protection money" or owing tribute, and it apparently implied military commitments. The primary source is here, by the way. Two minor questions: Small things I know, but it takes no time to post this quick message. They are short articles and there are very few things to look up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is such an alliance "economic"? I would tend to say it is political or military.
 * Does it deserve a section, keeping in mind that there are unlikely to be any new publications which will add to our knowledge of those alliances. Or should it just be a paragraph within the general history sections.

Any reason that you prefer Loeb links to Perseus links?
Small issue for most people perhaps, but I certainly find the Perseus links easier to use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main reason is that Loeb provides the original Greek/Latin along with the English translation, and their translations are more recent, stretching from the early to the mid-20th c. (whereas those of Perseus are from the 19th c.) The Loeb website can be freely accessed through the incognito mode of the browser. But apart from these arguments, it's mainly because I prefer Loeb's translations. Alcaios (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perseus also has the Latin and Greek (you have to click on it). You are right that the translations are older, but if the interpretation of the text is disputed we should probably use a secondary source instead anyway. Advantage of Perseus is that it always works for readers and editors, without special technical get-arounds. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Although if we use short notes in articles (sfn, harvnb, harvtxt, etc.), we won't be able to directly link to the page. A note like 'Caesar. 2:9' has the advantage of being 'neuter', the reader being able to locate that passage in his edition, although it lacks a direct link. I'm OK with using any of these styles. Alcaios (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still trying to understand the benefits of using sfn and efn templates LOL. It is so easy to have them malfunction, and the old ref mark-up always works. Anyway, I'll also try to worth with whatever but wanted to double check on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of Famenne
I wonder if any of the sources you have would be helpful for getting better discussion of the above (same old 19th century theories in the French and English articles, connecting to the Paemani who you were working on). Gysseling's analysis of old forms is online but he proposes no etymology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an uncertain etymology, I was about to tone down this statement. I know it is discussed by von Petrikovits (1999), which I'm currently reading again.
 * Ps: I have also prepared a draft for the site of User:Alcaios/Atuatuca, could you review it on occasion? Alcaios (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not looking at any particular statement, but I have been looking around at these articles, and I remembered I never found much about the etymology of Famenne. Then I noticed that Famenne articles now exist. Gysseling: http://bouwstoffen.kantl.be/tw/facsimile/?find=famenne . It shows that the original forms were something like Falmenna. I will look at your draft.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Made some quick comments on the draft talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Eburones in placenames
I was looking for some place where Gysseling might have written his thoughts up in more detail. Just as a quick note, a local retired philologist who has published numerous works in this area (some academic, and some more "local history" oriented) also has a blog where he analyzes local placenames including even old street names etc. Here he describes how he reads Gysseling on this: http://users.skynet.be/paul.kempeneers/sprokkel-6-048.html He says: "Gysseling zoekt voorzichtig naar een verbinding met namen als Averbode en Avernas, en twijfelt om Avendoren in verband te brengen met de volksnaam Eburonen." So he says Gysseling was cautious and doubted the link, but he did mention it. Probably Gysseling published a longer note on it somewhere but a lot of older Belgian journals do not come up easily in google searches.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that nowhere Gysseling explicitly says that Averdoingt, Averbode and Avernas (which stretch over a large territory from Wallonia to northern France) are linked to 'Eburones'. From what I read, he is only comparing them with the Romance form of Avendoren ("voor de vormen cf. Averbode"). Elsewhere he just writes "cf. Avendoren, Avernas". How could Gysseling imagine that names like Aver-doingt, Aver-bode, Aver-nas, all stem from Ebur-ones, apart from the common prefix? Alcaios (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems a stretch indeed, apparently also to him. Averdoingt is however there on p.86. The others are in more-or-less the right place by the way. Throughout his work he often suggested names which would imply a settlement from a far away place, such as Hesbaye being derived from the Chatti, or the widely dispersed places which seem to have the Tungri in their name. I can see the argument for removal but suggest toning it down first on a WP:DUE basis, and just did a first attempt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For 'Averdoingt', he is only writing 'cf. Avendoren' again, and it's not clear whether the 'cf' is related to the form or to the etymology. I agree with letting "Avendoren" since Gysseling explicitly links the etymology to "Eburones", but the other place names are too unclear to be included in the article in my opinion. This was the original intent of my edit. Alcaios (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, I'm convinced that Gysseling is only comparing the prefix 'aver' (< *ebur: elm). Nègre (basically the French Gysseling) gives the following etymology for Averdoingt: 'perhaps eburos [if] + o-dunom [fortified settlement]', which appears logical to me. Alcaios (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What you say makes sense to me, but I don't really see Gysseling explaining it that way, which is why I mentioned the blog. Unfortunately Kempeneers gives no bibliography but what he literally says, looking at it again, is that Gysseling was careful about Averbode and Avernas, but had doubts about doubts about Averdoren. We have already removed Averdoingt. Now I'll remove Averdoren. I suppose one day we'll find a better source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tricastin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tricastin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tricastin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Durocasses
You added a reference to in that article, but without a full citation it's impossible to know what the reference is. Could you add it please?
 * Delamarre 2003

Also if you use User:Svick/HarvErrors.js, you'll be notified of these errors in the future. If you don't know how to install it let me know, I'll walk you through it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks it's corrected now. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frau Holle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermann Vogel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Frau_Holle check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Frau_Holle?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The delta peoples
I understand you have been sticking to peoples in Gaul. I wonder if your books include notes on the Taxandri, Frisiavones, Marsacii or Sturii? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the late reply. I've tried to improve the article Toxandri yesterday (which should be renamed 'Texandri' as per oldest attested inscription; we need to check what spelling is the most common in scholarship). I don't have in mind a book that talks about these peoples in particular (except the Reallexikon), but send me an email from my talk page, I'll give you an access to my cloud where all my books are stored. Alcaios (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is not an obvious one concerning which spelling to pick. The earliest attestation is not always best. Also this article is still filling in for the medieval and Roman era region, and not only the Roman era people. I suppose you looked at the Bijsterveld and Toorians article? I will mail you, but for topics where medieval pagi are important I also have Ulrich Nonn's Pagus und Comitatus, though not in pdf. (I have been playing with GIS software to try to find ways to make nicer maps for those topics.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * The Six Swans ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Six_Swans check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Six_Swans?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Anne Anderson
 * The Wolf and the Seven Young Goats ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Wolf_and_the_Seven_Young_Goats check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Wolf_and_the_Seven_Young_Goats?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Hermann Vogel

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a warning template, it is and should be given to even the most experienced and trusted editors, and I've given them to myself for all the sanction areas. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

position of eburones relative to aduatuci
Maybe we need to add another footnote, such as Wrightman, but the positions are always proposed the same way. I am in a rush but here is an example from that one primary source: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001:book=5:chapter=38&highlight=aduatuci --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Similarly when Caesar won at Sabis in Nervian territory, the next step was attacking the Atuatuci.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From your secondary sources I see Petrokovits p.92 and Schön both mention the Aduatuci as west of the Eburones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I had forgotten to reintroduce it yesterday night after working on the article Alcaios (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Freyr ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Freyr check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Freyr?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Gothic
 * Suessiones ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Suessiones check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Suessiones?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Pommiers

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About the lede of the article about the Identitarian movement
Hello, You make valid points about my sentence being complicated, but I disagree with you on the fact that it is unnecessarily so. Right now, the first sentence "The Identitarian(...) ideology asserting the right of peoples of European descent to culture and territory claimed to belong exclusively to them." seems to present Identitarianism in such as manner as to focus on people of European descent instead of Europeans. Sure, all Europeans are of European descent, but not all people of European descent are European, thus creating a bizarre situation of having Europeans and Australians claiming that Europe and its culture is theirs. But it is not so.

From my understanding, the phrase "(...) political ideology asserting the right of Europeans and peoples of European descent to Europe and its culture, in addition to certain territories outside of Europe, e.g. Australia and New Zealand, which is claimed to belong exclusively to people defined as European." to be more truthful, unfortunately, more complicated. A definition has to be all-encompassing and clear, so as to not point the reader in an incorrect direction. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree that the lede was already bizarrely worded, and I agree that your rewording is not incorrect, but we need to find an in-between solution with a well-worded and comprehensive definition.
 * Identitarianism is a racialist (although not necessarily racist) philosophy: they don't regard as fully Europeans the individuals that are not culturally European (in the best scenario), or not racially European (in the worse case). They consider that Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, the US or Canada are 'European'/'Western' (read 'white') territories because they were settled and ruled by people of European descent/culture. So yes, they claim that Australians and Europeans belong to the same Western/White culture, and have a historical right to rule Australia and the European continent, respectively. Alcaios (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just modified the lede, perhaps it is now exactly how it should be? --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Jared Taylor
Hi Alcaios. I thought it best to revert much of what you've been doing with the Jared Taylor because of what appears to be far too heavy reliance upon an interview. Also, please use edit summaries, especially when editing such a controversial article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Curtis Yarvin
Great work! - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I second that. Thanks for your work on the Yarvin article. Chisme (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Alcaios (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And third!. Jlevi (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Friberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antifa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Daniel_Friberg check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Daniel_Friberg?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)