User talk:Geog1

Geo-genetics: A call concerning the current state of research
This is a call to all who follow the current researh on genomics/geo-genetics to please use the data responsibley by not posting it in Wiki's that concern archaeology and linguistics unless the methodology was implemented properly. If you would like to discuss this with me please feel free.

Geog1 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Geog1

sorry, I hadn't seen your post. I very much agree with you that this is a recurring problem. A rough sketch of what this is about is located at Historiography and nationalism. Moreschi's "The Plague" is also insightful regarding the on-wiki dynamics. A pertinent "discussion" can be found e.g. at Talk:Nordwestblock. An all time favourite of course is Indigenous Aryans. dab (𒁳) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, I see you've clashed with in particular. I daresay he is well known for  his oblique crypto-nationalism. I don't have time to look into the Ahrensberg case right now, but I assume this will fall under the general framework of Rokus' campaign here. The relevant policy is WP:SYN. He is great at shaping disparate sources into apparent support of his rather far out ideological "geo-racial" fantasies. dab (𒁳) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks DB! Yes I have seen some peculiar info disemminated not only by that user (see also our little skirmish on the Scythians article) but also many others here on Wikipedia.  Sometimes I feel the "free" in fact does refer to free for all.  I also invite you to view an "undo" that I did today (March 06 2008) on the Hittites article especially if you want a good laugh and see more retarded physical anthropology views in action.  Oh well hopefully I'll be able to get more opinions going on here for a consensus.  Thanks again. Geog1 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1


 * It is a good idea but it could mean creating a guideline for easier implementation. In this sense, it's worth to mention the recent proposal to create a "Genetic History" Wikiproject (that I believe should have some other name, but anyhow). It's much easier to centralize discussion in such matters, coordinate efforts and develope sectorial guidelines if needed, when there is such a project (alternatively a task force would do - but I think there's enough interested people for a WikiProject anyhow).
 * I think no one opposes genetical findings being mentioned in proper and duly justified contexts. Nevertheless, I believe that, when possible, these should be mentioned in separate sections of historical/archaeological articles, and not the introduction or hanging anywhere in the main body. --Sugaar (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Geog1 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

WikiProject Human Genetic History draft and vote
I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid (talk · edits) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Geog1 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article
As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh
This is starting to make alot of sense now. All of your edits are Kurgan theory based and you cut and edit paragraphs to little or no description at all and then put it somewhere else. You start expanding and positioning older studies that point towards a european homeland. Quite BIAS!!! Interesting to see you who associate with, the sock puppets who live on wikipedia..I wouldn't be surprised if are one of them on a different account. Your so bias is leeks out onto the page. You guys just can't create a standard for one... you don't own these pages or wikipedia. (talk) 12:05, 05 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Look who's finally decided to try and open a dialouge.

Look, I don't care if you want to write about the Out of India Theory as its clearly your favorite most cherished theory in the world, however other users and myself, clearly can detect a strong bias on your part in favor of this stance. Such verbage as "seminal" and "prominent" in describing Oppenheimer while downplaying others' theories by describing them as "older" exemplifies this to a tee (see any of your R1a edits in case you are having a memory lapse). I mean c'mon you really expect us to believe that that's not bias? But why the bias? Often I found that such strong words and opinions not only indicate a weak cause but also illustrate a strong nationalistic sentiment. Its no different than trying to place the "Aryan Homeland" in the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia or anywhere else for that matter.

I write about archaeology and genetics two things I am interested in. Not just "Kurgan theory". Furthermore all your edits are geared to Indo-Iranian Out of India Theory. Say are you leeking by any chance? Leeking of bias? But seriously accusing me of some sort of association with sockpuppetry is also quite wrong. I'm not so sure if you should be the one making such an accusation in the first place as some of the activity displayed around the time a few months ago on the Scythian article page may essentially illustrate the pot calling the kettle black (another reoccuring theme here on Wikipedia).

As for "owning" Wikipedia I don't think anyone should or would lay claim to this but your editing behavior is quite abusive in its own right and I'm thinking that you are the one with ownership issues.

At the end of the day we have a choice on Wikipedia. To either be scholarly which would entail a degree of professionalism or lunatic fringe. Right now your veering wildly off into the second of these two.Geog1 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1

Man chill out. I don't understand why you have to fight all the time and pick one word and claim the whole thing is rotten. That's not following wikipedia policies on civility and faith. I have no problem if you label the study name in which it's published, like I just did with Oppenheimer but your confusing Position (Job placement) with Source Links (Where it has been published in). Let's both honestly try to make this better man. Both of us provide good services here by showing balance and putting more into this page ;). (talk) 10:032, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should be telling anyone to chill out. You seem to like to use the exclamation mark way to much for me, or anyone else to view you as the cooler head here.

That aside format wise we really don't need to have in the body of the text book or even article citations. It clutters up the body of the article. To do this for every single bit of information as you suggest doesn't make any sense. It also makes whats being written look bias or as if the information is more prominent than the rest of whats being written. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia says there's no common format, because its just common sense. You don't write an academic paper by constantly putting bloc quotes and citing books and articles in the text. That's what a reference or footnote section is for. What you aim for is a more fluid article. Excessive quotes and book citations in the text hinder rather than promote this. Adding such citations in is actually more unencyclopedic than leaving them out. I've never seen an encyclopedic article that in any of my hard copy World Books or anywhere else constantly citing or quoting things like "Oppenheimer says in his year whatever book...".

I'd like to assume good faith but it's nearly impossible to do this here on Wikipedia because of a myriad of problems stemming from underlying objectives/agendas and bias from certain users. This is a reoccurring problem and I've seen too much cherry picked info surface over the years to be optimistic about user intent. Anyone can take advantage of civility and faith here. At the end of the day I choose not to be naive and use common sense. Geog1 (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1

R1a
Hi George I was wondering if you could tell me why you think that my description of the distribution of R1a was vandalism. It is a fact that the geographical area of the range of R1a in Europe is much larger than the range in Asia. If you look at the map showing the pocket of R1a in Asia, you can clearly see that there is a corridor leading to a pocket of R1a between Russia and Southcentral Asia. There may be just as many men in Asia carrying the R1a lineage because of the dense populations of India and Pakistan. These are simple facts about the Haplogroup R1a and I don't see why anyone would say this is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdean3295 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * JD: As you're probably aware there's a fury of activity on the R1a page lately involving some serious non-neutral POV pushing. I couldn't tell whether or not your edits are tied with Cosmos or not.  I can only assume good faith though that's nearly impossible to do here.  If you are who you say you are and are not connected with anyway then I don't really have a problem per say with the distribution of R1a in India.  Again my problem was geared more towards the less than neutral POV pushing of Cosmos.  I hope that good faith is not being taken advantage of here.

Geog1 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1

Hi! As a recent editor on the article your perspective on the talk page discussions right now would be appreciated. Things are slightly messy, but a few outside views might work wonders. I am writing to all recent editors of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it looks hard to get into but that is just because of the failed discussions on the talkpage. I have tried to make it easy with a diff, so that you can compare two proposed versions of the R1a article. Most differences of opinion have been to do with wording, and the question of what is encyclopedic. For example, is the word haplogroup jargon that should be removed from this article about a haplogroup? See .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)