Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:::then stop your editorializing. You are attempting to squeeze some positive statement of "distinct ethnicity" out of Kuhn's careful statement. Don't do that. If you find a discussion of some scholar speculating about "distinct Nordwestblock ethnicities", refer us to that, but stop contorting out of context references to suit your personal tastes. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
:::then stop your editorializing. You are attempting to squeeze some positive statement of "distinct ethnicity" out of Kuhn's careful statement. Don't do that. If you find a discussion of some scholar speculating about "distinct Nordwestblock ethnicities", refer us to that, but stop contorting out of context references to suit your personal tastes. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
First, a Germanic superstrate at the time of Arminius has only been theorized, not proven. You can't turn this statement into a proven fact, as you are doing in your last edit. But your edits are very contradictory, as if you prefer to focus on what the Nordwestblock wasn't and don't allow a focus on what it might have been - adding some valuable circumstancial information. The Illyrian alternative has been ridiculized, but the "Nordwestblock" entity has been referred to by others suggesting the existence of some (pre-Indo European or other) substrate cultures. I don't see any reason why this should be censorized, for this is what it looks like. So please try some neutrality. The things you remove are not off topic and are completely valid, don't insist on your POV. This is getting quite boring. [[User:Rokus01|Rokus01]] 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
First, a Germanic superstrate at the time of Arminius has only been theorized, not proven. You can't turn this statement into a proven fact, as you are doing in your last edit. But your edits are very contradictory, as if you prefer to focus on what the Nordwestblock wasn't and don't allow a focus on what it might have been - adding some valuable circumstancial information. The Illyrian alternative has been ridiculized, but the "Nordwestblock" entity has been referred to by others suggesting the existence of some (pre-Indo European or other) substrate cultures. I don't see any reason why this should be censorized, for this is what it looks like. So please try some neutrality. The things you remove are not off topic and are completely valid, don't insist on your POV. This is getting quite boring. [[User:Rokus01|Rokus01]] 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:my edits may seem 'contradictory' to you because (unlike you), I do not have an agenda. I am merely trying to keep this clean of fantastic speculation. That there was a Germanic superstrate by AD 1 is undisputed, the question is ''when'' did Germanization begin, in 600 BC, or only in 100 BC. I frankly don't give a hoot, and don't think we can know. We can speculate about "distinct identities" or Illyrians for the period 600 to 100 BC all we like, that's so much hot air, what we know is that by the 1st century BC, Germanic influence became dominant. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:46, 5 June 2007
This article seems to me to emphasize the possible Nordwestblock character of many tribes I think most scholars would call uncontroversially Germanic.--Andrew Lancaster 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This article seems biased to me: This nordwestblock certainly participated in the Great Migrations, since the Saxons and Frisians inhabited England and the Franks went south to go on and practically claim the whole of Europe. Older northwestern Germanic tribes exclusively participated to the formation of Franks. The mere fact this block was excluded from Nordic immigration does not contradict local Germanic continuity within an ancient Germanic Sprachbund. Rokus01 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
nordish.com
http://nordish.com/ is a website by a bunch of university students (who duly remember to disclaim any "responsibility for any referral to this site from politically motivated websites"), indulging in the "revitalization" of 19th century "racial types" nonsense. It is unacceptable as a primary source. If you use their material, for better or worse cite the sources they are using, not the website. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, I've expanded on this. However, to call racial types nonsense is not very encyclopedic. Rokus01 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strange you deleted my contribution on this subject even now I complied to your request to specify the primary sources. I don't agree you implore to consider politics. The Nordwestblock hypothesis exposes the people as an ethnic group being distinct from Germanics and Celtics. Within this context, material on racial composition is relevant and encyclopedic. You just can't delete information because you don't like it to be mentioned.Rokus01 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, the present version presents that "Nordic vs. Mediterranean vs. Alpine races" nonsense as if it was state of the art anthropology. This is outdated racial nonsense and at best of interest as a historical curiosity. If you want to discuss genetics, discuss genetics, that is, recent studies of mt or Y DNA haplogroups etc. Don't give us this "races" stuff. You can discuss this at Race (historical definitions), but it really has no place here. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
nordish.com is apparently inspired by the Nordish race of Richard McCulloch. We are in pure white supremacist territory here. This has no place in an article on archaeology. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are imposing a political view. Nordish.Com are not white suprematists and since I refer to anthropologists and not to their views this assumption would even be immaterial. I do not agree to the stance phenotype differences do not exist or without encyclopedic value. In fact, phenotype differences are important to archeologists in defining migrations, mixing of cultures or local continuity. If you want to insist on the validity of your stance that those differences should not be described, or have been described without knowledge or professionalism, I would like to request anthropological sources supporting this, or we can resume to third opinion. Otherwise, destroying information "just because" would be vandalism. Rokus01 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hilversum
Is it true that the Hilversum culture is in the "southern region" of the NW-block (i.e., left of the Rhine)? Hilversum itself appears to be located in North Holland... dab (𒁳) 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, "the Rhine" is hard to define in the delta of the Low Countries. Elp is situated east of IJssel, the easternmost subsidiary of this delta. Hilversum includes parts of the delta and continues south. I have a better graph instead, showing the archeologscal dispersal. I think the graph actually presented concentrate on the nordwestblock theory, that counters to the enigma that no clear immigration of Celts or Germanics have been found.Rokus01 18:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Mythology, Frisians and other things called "off topic"
The Frisians were one of the people that already roamed the area well before the first century. Like the other inhabitants of this area, there are no clues whatsoever on any origin from outside the Nordwestblock area. They share the same origin, and the proof we are still talking about the same people and not about immigrants can be found in archeological facts that are not confined to a special period: to the contrary, much of the real evidence of local continuity is obscured by Roman imports that might wrongly suggest discontinuity. Remember we should not express a view on whether or not the Nordwestblock theory is valid. Archeological indications pointing towards continuity would apparently contradict the theory, unless we assume a good deal of diffusion. Other circumstancial facts are likely to give support to the theory. Features that are not or only partly shared by related people "outside" should be mentioed, since this gives an impression about their real or assumed uniqueness, whether this unique features are related to phenotype, mythology or otherwise. Let the reader decide!
In recent archeology the notion that this area was very different from neighboring developments is not all pervasive. The general view is that the area was never isolated and shared developments with both the Northern hemisphere and the Atlantic world. Related people, though never identical, were to be found in Britain, northern Germany and Scandinavia, and southern ties were strong with cultures similar in other ways. The language could be anything, all options are open, although the possibilities a language very different from Celtic or Germanic was spoken are not supported by any evidence and are based on mere speculation. Likewise, there are no real indications the people were anything else but Germanic or Celtic. Actually, cultural differences are the only thing we have to support the view of a different cultural background. Thus, all information that points to local features is "on topic". For instance, the Frisian god Fosite does not have any equivalent in Norse mythology, since Forsite - the only Norse god coming close- is considered (sourced) a Frisian loan. Unique gods from other germanic areas are not so very common. You would have to explain why this is not remarkable or even off topic to an article dedicated to a theory emphasizing the uniqueness - and marginality - of this very region: a view I consider suspect of being tainted by definition anyway. Rokus01 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"fraud"
removed lengthy rant on how all academics always get it wrong. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Efjke (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talkpages aren't your soapbox, they are for discussing the article. If you have something to add, do it. If you have a suggestion, tell us, but don't spam the talkpage with 30k essays, nobody is going to read them. dab (𒁳) 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic
ethnic: [1]
- pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
- referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.
- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.
- belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country
To Berig: Racial (I would prefer genetic and anthropologic) characteristics are implied by usung the word "ethnic".
To Dbachmann: please source your statement that suggests a "Nordwestblock" identity, being a separate linguistic identity, does not imply an ethnic identity. Isn't this a statement against basic anthropology? Rokus01 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
just cite your sources Rokus, don't embark on contorted syllogisms. Who said Nordwestblock was a linguistic unity? Your attempts to squeeze a national myth out of Kümmerkeramik are not a pretty sight, especially in light of your insistence on nordish.com style racialist anthropology. dab (𒁳) 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Proper logic based on the proper use of your own dictionary is perfectly valid. To deny the ethnicity of any people speaking a different language would be at risk of being called a racist crime against humanity. The Nordwestblock has been presented as a linguistic block - even though for some obscure reasons you like to call this "contorted syllogism". It seems you are taking my sourced opposition against your obsolete points of view a bit too personal now, since I do not understand this bitter remark about Kümmerkeramik. Did I complain when you indulged in describing the bad quality of this kind of pottery? To the contrary, I encourage truth to prevail, although in your case I would like to encourage also some kind of true interest to the subject. Rokus01 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, assertions about what is "truth" are *not* revelant. This is relevant: WP:CITE and WP:OR.--Berig 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Berig, we are not talking about derived opinions here, thus your accusing of OR and bad sourcing does not make any sense. Your struggling with the meaning of the word "ethnic" is a semantic problem that should be solved by your dictionary. Be brave and ask a third opinion on this. Rokus01 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rokus01, are you trolling? I have never used that word on this talkpage, nor in this article. Please, try to stay on topic.--Berig 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please try to qualify for talk. What are you talking about? What word you never used? Dear Berig, please be so intelligent as to grasp the meaning of your own words and accusations! If you talk about CITE and OR, you are talking about opinions! If we are talking about ethnicity we are talking (also) about (cultural) anthropology! Please don't waiste my time by defying reason in order to wage a senseless war, and don't waist yours by (again) deleting things you don't understand. This would only give you a bad reputation. I repeat, you could ask third opinion. Is this trolling? Rokus01 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have not used the word "ethnic" so please stop accusing me of something I have not said. This is a pre-historic archaeological culture, and so we don't know anything about the various "ethicities" that may have corresponded to the culture. You, however, are adding off-topic information about "Dutch myhtology" and the genetics of modern Dutchmen. That borders closely on OR and Dieter may be right in his suspicions about your intentions.--Berig 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Off-topic sections
Rokus01, do not add off-topic subjects like the genetics of modern Dutchmen. If you could find a study of pre-roman Nordwestblock skeletons, it would be a different matter.--Berig 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't accept your definition of off-topic, since the Nordwestblock theory clearly insinuates a separate ethnicity. To be clear about this: I do not support the Nordwestblock hypothesis and think other, more recent views are more credulous: having pre-Celtic (Linear Pottery) resp. Celtic and Corded Ware/Beaker resp. Germanic people intricately interrelated on this strip of land split in two parts by the Rhine. But why should you bother? Didn't you adhere to the Germanization of a separate and immaterial Nordwestblock area? Rokus01 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care about whether the Nordwestblock people were the original Germanics or whether they were anything else. What I do not like is the addition of irrelevant material such as the genetics of modern Dutchmen and and "Dutch mythology" with far reaching speculations based on careful wordings in the source material. This is an archaeology article.--Berig 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not. The Nordwestblock proposition was also linguistic and thus introduced issues that concern cultural anthropology.Rokus01 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- indeed. You can do a "genetics" section on Dutch people, or you can do a Dutch mythology. You can even link to these from here, but such things are patently offtopic on this article. It's a blatant attempt to build some sort of Dutch national myth. Wikipedia is not for that, write a book about it first. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I made this impression. I think it is exaggerated: Belgium is mentioned three times, "Dutch" is employed two times and always in relation to other neighbours. Unfortunately the Dutch region is part of the Nordwestblock, and also the Frisian region. Of the Belgiums we don't know very much (at least they did not preserve their original culture as well, as far as we know of), and I explicitly expanded on the whole region including (German) Rhineland. The Rhineland region we know of in Roman times was centred in Bonn and Xanten and shared some ancient beliefs I mentioned. Rokus01 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- then stop your editorializing. You are attempting to squeeze some positive statement of "distinct ethnicity" out of Kuhn's careful statement. Don't do that. If you find a discussion of some scholar speculating about "distinct Nordwestblock ethnicities", refer us to that, but stop contorting out of context references to suit your personal tastes. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I made this impression. I think it is exaggerated: Belgium is mentioned three times, "Dutch" is employed two times and always in relation to other neighbours. Unfortunately the Dutch region is part of the Nordwestblock, and also the Frisian region. Of the Belgiums we don't know very much (at least they did not preserve their original culture as well, as far as we know of), and I explicitly expanded on the whole region including (German) Rhineland. The Rhineland region we know of in Roman times was centred in Bonn and Xanten and shared some ancient beliefs I mentioned. Rokus01 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
First, a Germanic superstrate at the time of Arminius has only been theorized, not proven. You can't turn this statement into a proven fact, as you are doing in your last edit. But your edits are very contradictory, as if you prefer to focus on what the Nordwestblock wasn't and don't allow a focus on what it might have been - adding some valuable circumstancial information. The Illyrian alternative has been ridiculized, but the "Nordwestblock" entity has been referred to by others suggesting the existence of some (pre-Indo European or other) substrate cultures. I don't see any reason why this should be censorized, for this is what it looks like. So please try some neutrality. The things you remove are not off topic and are completely valid, don't insist on your POV. This is getting quite boring. Rokus01 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- my edits may seem 'contradictory' to you because (unlike you), I do not have an agenda. I am merely trying to keep this clean of fantastic speculation. That there was a Germanic superstrate by AD 1 is undisputed, the question is when did Germanization begin, in 600 BC, or only in 100 BC. I frankly don't give a hoot, and don't think we can know. We can speculate about "distinct identities" or Illyrians for the period 600 to 100 BC all we like, that's so much hot air, what we know is that by the 1st century BC, Germanic influence became dominant. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)