User talk:Lorn10

Please try to use edit summaries, especially when deleting content. This will avoid mistaking your contribution to random vandalism. Thanks for undarstanding. Pavel Vozenilek 00:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans / Indoeuropäer
Grüezi. Ihr Artikel schien sich auf die Urindogermanen zu beziehen, zu denen bereits Proto-Indo-Europeans besteht. Daher ist Indo-Europeans als disambiguation page vorzuziehen. Insofern historische oder kontemporäre Sprecher wirklich als "Indo-Europeans" zusammengefasst werden, kann man das sicher vermerken, aber ich bestehe auf der Dreiteilung (1) Urindogermanen, (2) (undifferenzierte) "Indogermanen" (nicht mehr Ur-, aber nicht mit einer Tochtersprache assoziierbar), und (3) "Indogermanen" als (zweifelhaften) Überbegriff von Sprechern historischer Sprachen. dab (&#5839;) 12:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Grüezi Herr Bachmann. Eine Verwechslung in dieser Art habe ich bereits vermutet. Natürlich möchte ich keineswegs irgendeine Annahme meinerseits einfach so "in die Welt setzen". Falls in der englischen Wikipedia bzw. Sprache die Ausdrucksweise "Indo-Europeans" tatsächlich keine Verwendung findet, werde ich dies natürlich so akzeptieren. Nur bin ich wirklich überrascht, dass es in diesem Punkt eine derartige Diskrepanz zwischen der deutschen und englischen Auffassungsweise gibt. Dies verblüfft umso mehr, da gerade im englischen Sprachraum bzw. in der englischen Wikipedia teilweise gar von den Indoeuropäern als "ethnischen Gruppe" (im Sinne eines Ersatzes von "Rasse", "White" oder "Caucasian") die Rede ist. Wie dem auch sei, "die Zukunft" wird in dieser Angelegenheit wohl Klarheit bringen. mfg --lorn10 14:44, 24. Dez 2005 (CEST)

Indo-Europeans vs. Proto-Indo-Europeans
Auch im Deutschen Sprachgebrauch wird "Indogermanisch" sowohl fuer die modernen Sprachen, als auch fuer das "Urindogermanische" verwendet. "Das indogermanische Verbalsystem" z.B. bezeichnet eindeutig das Urindogermanische Verbalsystem, weil der bestimmte Artikel sonst sinnlos waere, fuer die Tochtersprachen koennte man hoechstens von "einem der indogermansichen Verbalsysteme" sprechen. Ich stimme zu dass das nicht ganz exakt ist, aber das trifft ja auf manchen Begriff zu. Im Gebrauch ist es auf jeden Fall. Etwa das "JIES" behandelt durchaus vorwiegend "PIE" Themen. "The Indo-Europeans" wird sogar vorwiegend als Bezeichnung fuer die hypothetischen Urindogermanen verwendet werden. Normalerweise ist das unproblematisch, wenn der Kontext klar ist. "Proto-" uebersetzt "Ur-". dab (&#5839;) 11:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Diese Verfahrensweise finde ich jedenfalls mehr als schwammig. Die Wikipedia ist der perfekte „Ort“ schlechthin um derartige Zweideutigkeiten gezielt aus der Welt zu schaffen. Es kann nicht angehen, dass selbst hier solche „Ungenauigkeiten“ gepflegt werden. Ich finde jedenfalls keinen Trost in der Tatsache, dass dies bei vielen anderen Begriffen ebenfalls der Fall ist. Wenn etwas unsauber zu handhaben Gewohnheit wird, ist es dadurch in keiner Weise akzeptabler. Im Gegenteil, aus meiner Sicht wäre dies ein klarer Rückschritt.

Übrigens, so (verdreht) wie diese Thematik nun gegenwärtig auf der englischen Indo-Europeans Seite postuliert wird, findet es sich in keiner anderen Sprache. Im Gegenteil, mir scheint, dass im Allgemeinen eine korrektere Unterscheidung von Indo-Europeans bzw. Proto-Indo-Europeans vorherscht, auch in der deutschen Wikipedia. Folgende Formulierung wäre um einiges tragbarer:

Diese Bezeichnung umschreibt in erster Linie die Sprecher von indoeuropäischen Sprachen, findet gelegentlich aber auch noch in Verbindung mit (den) Proto-Indoeuropäern seine Verwendung. --lorn10 17:25, 11. Jan 2006 (CEST)

Irish people
Hello, genetic tests have shown people in England have a large non Germanic ancestry, Scottish and Welsh people both have significant amount of Anglo Saxon and Norwegian ancestry, and 60% of the mitochondrial DNA and 20% of the y chromosome DNA of Icelanders trace to Ireland not Scandinavia. That is why it is inaccurate to divide them in such a way. Regards Arniep 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but in a cultural and linguistic sense the devisions are acurate. It depends on whether we define 'related' ethnic groups as 'geneticaly related' (Which is a ridiculous notion) or 'Culturaly' (which makes much more sense.) Plus, according to the BBC, your assertion that Welsh people have a "significant amount of Anglo-Saxon and Norwegian ancestary" is somewhat exagerated. For more info, check out the BBC report listed under the links at the bottom of the 'Celts' article. However, I too disagree with the division of the related groups into Celtic and Germanic Cultures as there are many Cornish people who would resent the 'germanic' label as well as many lowland Scots who would resent the 'Celtic' label. Cheers! Fergus mac Róich 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now recognize what you mean. But I think there is a great misunderstanding between our definitions of “related ethnic group” User:Fergus mac Róich has absolutely right, it extremely depends what someone understand under this topic.

If I read you definition, I believe you make a mistake. Genetic numbers and percent are nice and very interesting, but this is NOT the central point in this debate. The question is, who are the related ethnic groups.

For me that also means, which real origin has every own related group. Please note, absolutely no ethnic group is 100% “purely” or “clean” in his genetic structure. Therefore it’s impossible to say X or Y is 100% Celtic or Germanic. But I am sure; there is a possibility to define one original source. And so, there is no question, that all Scandinavians, Saxons or Angles have a Germanic, Welsh, Manx or Bretons a Celtic origin. And at the next greater classify they are all Indo-Europeans.

And by the way to make a link to something Germanic (and therefore Germans) is in reality also a political question. Particularly in England exists in this matter a lot of aversion. (Please observe I am not German.) However, in fact there is absolutely no valid reason to deny such a relation. For example in English the term “Nordic” is often used to describe “something Scandinavian” or “from the north”. In fact, it’s a “technical term” to avoid the use of the word "Germanic". (J. R. R. Tolkien leaves greetings) --lorn10 22:04, 05. April 2006 (CEST)

Ukrainians
My main goal at the time I edited the related ethnic groups on the page Ukrainians was to remove links to the disambiguation page "Indoeuropean" by either pointing directly to the appropriate direct link or (sometimes) removing the link where there is no appropriate direct link. As Indoeuropean is primarily a linguistic term, and not the name of any article about an ethnic group (unless you count Proto-Indo-Europeans, which is, I suppose, something of a hypothesized prehistoric ethnic group, but still really tied only be language), I chose rather than leaving a misleading link to leave only links to closely related present-day ethnic groups.

If there is source we can cite for the hierarchical view of ethnic groups that was there before, then someone should create an article on Indoeuropean ethnicity and restore the hierarchical view. If there is no such source, I'm not sure of the value of presenting the hierarchical view. mfG Dpv 17:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However, it seems that this topic is totally disputed. For me, that’s just frustrating. It’s really so hard to find one obvious definition? There are lots of opinions which see in “Indo-Europeans” also an ethnic aspect. People with this point of view say that in modern time there are several indices that make an ethnic definition possible. Otherwise there are also many people, primarily linguists, which just accept a language related sight.

I don’t know what is right or wrong. I can only talk about my observations and experiences in this topic. However I wish that the future bring more clarity in this confusing situation. If it’s necessary, someone (ethnologe and linguists) must start a general discuss in the Wikipedia. --lorn10 19:11, 19. May 2006 (CET)


 * I can understand the frustration. The family of language articles related to the Indo-European languages shows the relationship among the languages pretty well.  The problem with doing something similar with ethnicity is that there is not yet a consensus in any published works that have been cited, and Wikipedia is not the place to debate and present original work or personal observations on the topic. (see No original research)


 * When I mentioned a citable source, I meant something that fits the Wikipedia policy on verification (see Verifiability and Reliable sources). The sections in White (people) do cite such sources, but they speak of genetic origins rather than ethnicity, and they further state that the majority of European DNA does not come from Proto-Indo-European sources.  The article Ethnic group (while not yet in Wikipedia shape) defines such a group as a "human population whose members identify with each other".  I have not seen anything supporting the idea that all speakers of Indo-European languages see themselves as a unified ethnic group (from India to Iceland; Tocharians to Portugal).  If we are talking about the Proto-Indo-Europeans, there is support for the idea that they were at one time an ethnic group.  The unsupported leap there is their relationship to a modern-day ethnic group like the Ukrainians.


 * I agree that wiser minds than mine need to figure this out (and publish their findings somewhere else). There has been some related discussion that I have seen at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group and further down that talk page. Dpv 11:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this clear and founded explanation. For me, this is one of the first times in the English Wikipedia, that someone makes such a clear difference between Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans. I now begin recognize where starts some of these little misunderstandings.

It seems, that there are also a few small and finely differences in the definition of “ethnic group”. The German Wikipedia ethnic group article says for example:

…. oder Turkvölker, die manche Forscher auch als ethnische Einheiten begreifen, ohne dass hier ein Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl nachzuweisen wäre.

In English, this means that some “research scientist” describes something as an ethnic group, without that theses members identify himself with each other. So, with this point of view exist an ethnic group of the Turkic peoples. However, its looks that in German there is more of a genetic / racial aspect in the term “ethnic group”.

And by the way, please take al look on the Indo-European people article. Actually, there is writing:

''Indo-Europeans are speakers of Indo-European languages. The term may apply to….. The Proto-Indo-Europeans''

This is an unfortunate description, it postulate a wrong connection. --lorn10 12:23, 25. May 2006 (CET)

Kalasha
I don't know all the details, but disambiguation pages aren't necessarily there to go into the full depth of details and fine points; it's there to point people in the direction of articles that have the information they want. I don't know all the details of this, I just went on what was written before and attempted to clean up the page to conform to our manual of style. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your positive intention. What me very bemused are the following arbitrative things.

- The Kalash (or Kalasha), a people of northern Pakistan, who speak the Kalasha-mun language

This text makes the impression, that the "real and only one" Kalash are there in northern Pakistan (Chitral). In the end effect, it says, the term Kalsha(a) only applies to this tribe. But that is so absolutely not correct, it should be like:

- The Chitral Kalash (or Kalasha), a people of northern Pakistan, who speak the Kalasha-mun language

- The Kalash (or Kalasha) of Chitral, a people of northern Pakistan, who speak the Kalasha-mun language

The second text is also deceptive.

- The Nuristani (or Kalasha of Nuristan), a people of Nuristan in Afghanistan, who speak the Kalasha-ala language

This text makes the impression, that the Kalash(a) of Nuristan are relative, and there belongs for real to the (not existing) "Nuristani ethnic group". It should be like.

- The Nuristan Kalash (or Kalasha), a people of Nuristan in Afghanistan, who speak the Kalasha-ala language

- The Kalash (or Kalasha) of Nuristan, a people of Nuristan in Afghanistan, who speak the Kalasha-ala language

Regards, --lorn10 11:17, 16. April 2007 (CET)
 * Yeah, I realize that I probably dropped some qualifiers that were in fact necessary. Feel free to change it yourself, since you have a better understanding of the situation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kalash
Hi, I've replied here. Khoikhoi 06:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)