User talk:Andrew Lancaster

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew Lancaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --{{IncMan|talk}} 08:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you think r1a is a domainant haplogroup in Southcentral Asia.

You said that I was trying to dismiss r1a in Southcentral Asia by calling it a pocket. If you look at the map that is clearly what it is. There is a corridor from Russia to Southcentral Asia that ends in a "pocket" or "bubble" or round shaped geographical area, of which the center, where r1a actually reaches more than 50% is an extremely small area compared to the European R1a.

R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men.Jamesdean3295

Maternal origins of European Hunter Gatherers

This may be of some value in these articles....Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers (Found in Science Express)

Nonetheless, it is intriguing to note that 82% of our 22 hunter-gatherer individuals carried clade U [U5-14/22, U4-2/22 and U?-2/22]. ...... Europeans today have moderate frequencies of U5 types, ranging from about 1-5% along the Mediterranean coastline to 5-7% in most core European areas, and rising to 10-20% in northeastern European Uralic-speakers. . .

Kant, nous, intellect

Hi Andrew, I'm not a Kant expert, in spite of my limited knowledge of his thoughts on reason. And I don't really have time to get into an in-depth discussion of intellect vs. mind vs. nous vs. reason. However, as I understand it, for the Greeks, nous was the highest possible metaphysical ideal or form, because it was pure form, and true knowledge for the Greeks was the knowledge that revealed the form that was represented in things. John Dewey wrote a great dictionary entry about nous in 1901:

Nous [Gr. νοῦς, reason, thought]: Ger. Nus (K.G.); Fr. intelligence; Ital. nous. Reason, thought, considered not as subjective, nor as a mere psychic entity, but as having an objective, especially a teleological, significance.

We owe the term, as a technical one, to Anaxagoras. He felt the need of a special principle to account for the order of the universe and so, besides the infinity of simple qualities, assumed a distinct principle, which, however, was still regarded as material, being only lighter and finer than the others. To it, however, greater activity was ascribed, and it acted according to ends, not merely according to mechanical impact, thus giving movement, unity, and system to what had previously been a disordered jumble of inert elements. […] Plato generalized the nous of Anaxagoras, proclaiming the necessity of a rational (teleological) explanation of all natural processes, and making nous also a thoroughly immaterial principle. As the principle which lays down ends, nous is also the Supreme Good, the source of all other ends and aims; as such it is the supreme principle of all the ideas. It thus gets an ethical and logical connotation as well as a cosmological.

On the other hand, nous gets a psychological significance as the highest form of mental insight, the immediate and absolutely assured knowledge of rational things. (Knowledge and the object of knowledge are thus essentially one.) … In man, however, the νοῦς assumes a dual form: the active (νοῦς ποιητικός), which is free and the source of all man's insight and virtue that links him to the divine (θεωρειν), and the passive (νοῦς παθητικός), which includes thoughts that are dependent upon perception, memory -- experience as mediated through any bodily organ. […] The distinction (of Kant, but particularly as used by Coleridge) of REASON from UNDERSTANDING (q.v.) may, however, be compared with it, but the modern distinction of the subjective from the objective inevitably gives reason a much more psychological sense than nous possessed with the ancients.[1]

The distinction between knowledge, or understanding, and reason in Kant therefore mirrors the distinctions between is and ought, or nature and freedom. Nikolas Kompridis similarly connects the knowledge/reason distinction to the discovery in Kant of practical reason's connection to possibility vs. experience:

The great innovation of Kant’s critical philosophy was to reconceive reason as spontaneously self-determining, or self-legislating, such that reason

frames for itself with perfect spontaneity an order of its own according to ideas to which it adapts the empirical conditions and according to which it declares actions to be necessary even though they have not taken place and, maybe, never will take place.

[…]

As distinct from the rule-governed activity of the understanding (whose rule-governed spontaneity is internally consistent with its concept), reason is a possibility-disclosing activity, proposing ends (‘‘ideas’’) that go beyond what is already given empirically or normatively. This much Kant already understood, if not fully appreciated, which is why he distinguished the possibility- disclosing activity of reason from the rule-governed acquisition and exercise of knowledge: ‘‘as pure self-activity [Selbsttätigkeit]’’ reason ‘‘is elevated even above the understanding . . . with respect to ideas, reason shows itself to be such a pure spontaneity and that it far transcends anything which sensibility can provide it.’

(Nikolas Kompridis, "The Idea of a New Beginning: A romantic source of normativity and freedom" in Philosophical Romanticism, p.34, 47)

References

Teleological argument

Wikipedia:NOENG#Non-English_sources "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians".Tstrobaugh (talk)

Aspersions, photos of private mails, etc

collapsed records

@EdJohnston: you made me think about WP:ASPERSIONS, and I realized this is being cited to me for trying to defend myself from some, which no one seems to have questioned. So just for reference...

The decisive post on the Administrator's Noticeboard by Krakkos:
[2] 14:31, 28 February 2020	Comments by Andrew Lancaster
EdJohnston> Now that the 24 hour limit on 3RR at Goths has expired, Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting.	At least 2 misrepresentations, 1 of which is quite serious and blatant. Which reverting? (or similar); which 24 hour limit? which 3RR? No diff was given.
He does not appear to be abiding with Jens Lallensack's compromise solution.	Seriously misleading, and part of a gas-lighting strategy - i.e. aspersions that any editing by me was somehow known to be somehow like an edit war. This refers to an informal proposal by the GA reviewer, within a good faith discussion. The sentence implies lots of things which just did not happen.
He is removing,[3] against consensus,[4] a citation from Professor Joshua J. Mark, which was added by me.[5]	1 blatant misrepresentation. The link to consensus shows no such thing; there was no consensus or support from others. This is One edit. Not a controversial edit, nor a revert. There had been a lot of talk page discussion about this controversial source, and also about the problem of Krakkos adding up to 14 sources per sentence. note 1 long run questionable strategy in progress: Krakkos has been criticized by editors for creating articles for non-notable sources he wants to use, then posting lots of blue link and red link names in talk page posts to show his sources are better.
Why is he continuing with this behavior one might ask?	1 "Leading question" normally considered a deceptive form of argumentation; e.g. When did you stop beating your wife? BTW Which behavior? Above, nb, there is a link to one edit.
Because it works. At Germanic peoples, Andrew Lancaster flagrantly violated 3RR, and got away with a warning.[6]	Unfortunately yes once I technically broke 3RR without realizing it; because Krakkos started editing at the same time; this is still being used against me. As mentioned there: Hmmm. Just looked in detail and I see Krakkos is counting some earlier edits as reverts. I had not even noticed that because earlier in the day I was working on shortening the article as called for by Krakkos [155]. Some of the material I removed, among many edits, was new HOWEVER, if we are talking history, Krakkos should also mention what happened a few days later when a new attempt to claim edit warring was quickly rejected: [7] Krakkos, in other words, has a systematic tendency to try to make false claims of 3RR or catch people out on technicalities.
After continuing the edit war, he simply received another warning,[8] and the article was protected for two weeks.[9]	2 misrepresentations at least Both of us were told we were "teetering on the edge". As mentioned above and below, 3R is something I technically did by accident on another article, at a different time, but in this very different context the teetering on the edge comment of Doug Weller is being twisted here.
As soon as that protection expired, he escalated the edit warring even further.[10]	links to nowhere; presumably it shows 1 edit; I believe there was NO edit warring
I refrained from edit warring and tried to resolve the situation at the talk page,[11]	no normal person will agree with this description Just look at the "drastic" title of the section, which was misleading in itself. Below, furthermore, Krakkos complains that I was very active on the talk page. Krakkos was unconstructive, received no support from others, and started to look ridiculous, using strong words but then unable to define realistic edit proposals, and also being caught misrepresenting sources. Krakkos soon gave up completely.
and my concerns were shared by several other editors.[12][13][14]	at least 2 blatant misrepresentations diff1. TrynaMakeADollar (not a regular editor on the article, but interacted with Krakkos in category work in the past) whole post: "I agree with Krakkos on this one specific issue." Note this second post "@Andrew Lancaster, I appreciate some of the things that you've done for this article". diff2. Srnec a regular editor of this article and many others I work on, and probably also Krakkos. There is a discussion about one sentence, where I was asking for advice and received it, and a change was made. I had no strong position. This is how normal editors work together. diff3. Another broken link! How does this keep happening, and why did no admin check any links?
Andrew Lancaster meanwhile flooded the talk with dozens of long sections, thereby creating confusion and discouraging other editors from participating in the discussion.[15][16]	at least 2, arguably 3, blatant misrepresentations diff1. Post by user Ermenrich, agreeing with a post by user Austronesier, on Doug Weller's talk page. Both editors were writing in a neutral manner to an admin, concerning the disputes on the Germanic peoples article. Both editors supported and advised in big rewrite which Krakkos objects to, as can be seen at various places such as [17] diff2. Talk page of user Florian Blaschke, who has history working on articles with Krakkos. The cherry picked remark is a short expression of frustration about the debate in general: "I can't even tell what the hell you two are arguing about". After my reply, trying to explain my ideas, the response starts was: "Obviously I agree ... But the differentiation and delineation of the topic is the whole problem here." [18]. Has not been active in such discussions since then or before.
My concerns were ignored and the article was completely rewritten to its present poor state.[19][20]	It was re-written based on those dozens of discussions which Krakkos expresses such anger about. Krakkos stopped posting to that talk page or editing it. Krakkos has repeated constantly, on other articles etc, that the article is now "mutilated" etc (Krakkos always like dramatic language) and I have asked several times for him to give constructive feedback at that article, to no avail.
The lesson learned from the Germanic peoples dispute is clear and simple: Edit warring, stonewalling and gaslighting works.	major misrepresentation What caught Krakkos off-guard apparently was the strong consensus, and the straightforward policy-based, consensus-based, step-by-step approach I took. Needing to cooperate with others, Krakkos simply gave up on all participation and went looking for other articles to try to instill with the same POV vision. So the words used here match no events, not even debatably. You can't edit war, stonewall or gaslight someone who is not even active on the article. It seems to me the words gaslighting and stonewalling describe the complaints Krakkos gets from other editors though. See the Goths talk page for examples of stonewalling: constantly saying the same disputed things over and over.
Andrew Lancaster is applying this lesson flawlessly at Goths. As soon as the GA-review on Goths started,[21] he began complaining about the quality of the article,[22] and made fundamental rewrites of key parts of the article.[23] He had never edited the article before becoming aware that i had nominated it for GA.[24] This is obviously WP:HOUNDING. In the last few days, he has started more than a dozen new sections at Talk:Goths, posting long walls of text containing the same arguments and attacks over and over again.[25]	This story, as a story, actually does not sound very similar to what I supposedly did on Germanic peoples. This new case sounds more like a classical article ownership claim? For the record, Goths is one of a large group of articles about Germanic peoples, in which I am one of the main content contributors. Krakkos certainly sees it that way because apart from being very busy on categorization, Krakkos's unique editing style often involves placing the exact same footnotes, sources, sentences, into a whole group of articles at once. Also note that Krakkos also portrays the Goths dispute as a continuation of the previous Germanic peoples dispute which is an article I have a longer history editing that Krakkos. I was surprised to read I had not edited Goths, but don't see it as relevant to this long dispute which is about patterns of similar editing on many different articles, also in the future.
He has yet again violated 3RR.[26]	major misrepresentation Actually this is the first time I think anyone has said I violated 3R? I thought the "edit warring" accusation was being made on some kind of subjective "everyone knows it when they see it" basis, and not revert counting. I certainly don't believe I was edit warring, or violating 3R. I also asked several times for someone to look at those diffs and confirm if they can really be called edit warring. It is very frustrating that Krakkos can post this ASPERSION, and not have the claims examined.
Because of his habit of completely rewriting quality articles, and apparent immunity from sanctions, many productive members of the community are afraid of him. His editing style has already successfully driven away a number of long-time productive contributors.[27][28][29][30]	. blatant misrepresentations diff1. User Obenritter. "Some of the behavior exhibited by Krakkos in creating offshoot articles is a result of your intransigence " Obenritter expressed frustration at the debates several times and has not been editing much. But Krakkos will certainly be aware of the comments on the RfC which Krakkos started [31] such as, "Agree with @Ermenrich: entirely here, while concomitantly disagree wholeheartedly with Krakkos", or this discussion: "you have been correct in many of your rebuttal edits and deletions to contributions made by Krakkos" ...and... This page and the associated Talk Page have become so convoluted that it's hard to tell which direction to go and yes, I find Krakkos culpable for much of this. His carte blanche approach to editing the Germanic peoples Wikipage has indeed, mutilated this article, taken some of the information out of context, and created an editorial conundrum. Not sure what to do about all of this and so frustrated with the incessant bickering that I decided to just step away from this one. Other high-caliber editors like Florian Blaschke, Austronesier, Joshua Jonathan, Ermenrich, Carlstak, or Johnbod may be able to untangle this, but I don't have the sufficient bandwidth right now and my this has gotten on my nerves–meter is pegged. I am surprised no admin remarked about the two png files that are posted.
As long Wikipedia continues to reward his edit warring (as happened at Germanic peoples), he will grow even bolder, and additional productive editors will be driven away. Something needs to be done about this, but adding a protection template (as happened at Germanic peoples), will only give him more encouragement and make the situation even worse.	WP:Aspersions anyone?

More aspersions

collapsed records

Krakkos [32]	remarks
Andrew Lancaster and i have been warned several times against edit warring.[33][34][35]	diff1 Germanic peoples case in January. See my comments here. Krakkos leapt on my accidental reverts which happened because Krakkos was editing while I was editing. Krakkos later tried again soon after, but was rejected. And of course recently Krakkos pulled it off on Goths, by edit warring and then complaining, but without demonstrating any edit warring by me, only editing. diff2 Doug Weller 20 Jan wrote "you and User:Krakkos should probably stay away from that page" and I was doing that anyway. I saw it as practical advice and it was similar to my own thinking. diff3 This also refers to 20 Jan and same case with Doug Weller.
I subsequently refrained from further edit warring, while Andrew Lancaster completely rewrote the disputed page.[36][37]	I did a lot of work writing drafts and using talk pages etc to try to get as much consensus as possible
Rather than fixing that page further, Andrew Lancaster has now began to hound me, and sought, through edit warring, threats, personal attacks and casting aspersions, to remove my contributions entirely.	deliberate distortion. No diffs are given here (and see below for other diffs) but in effect, as can also be seen by other Krakkos posts, what Krakkos is referring to here is that I started trying to work on Goths. To be clear, what Krakkos wants is that I not be allowed to work on that
He's threatening my "exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all" my edits.[38]	blatent and serious misrepresentation and aspersion
He's been hounding me at articles he has not edited before, such as Early Germanic culture[39][40] and Category:Romance-speaking countries. [41][42]	deliberately misleading aspersions Apparently any editing at all can be called hounding (and/or edit warring). Germanic culture, just as one example, is an article that at that time was effectively a new split off from Germanic peoples!
Most recently, the same thing happened at the article Goths,[43][44][45] and i complained once more at WP:AN3.[46] User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston warned us against editing warring and personal attacks,[47] and forbade us from additional editing at Goths.[48]	Missing back story! In effect, Krakkos was arguing unclearly, using misleading diffs, that any editing by me on Goths should be seen as "edit warring". This succeeded. EdJohnston, refused requests by me to give any examples from the diffs which could show me edit warring and said when pushed that he had inspected as much as policy demands.
Andrew Lancaster was later specifically warned against casting further aspersions against me.[49]	Deliberately out of chronological order, which makes one event look like several, and has nothing to do with here. Also, the description is wrong. EdJohnston said that the "language" or "phrases" could mean my post could be interpreted as a personal attack. No mention was made of WP:ASPERSIONS to me. EdJohnston mentioned to Krakkos that he might have a case if he tries to use that against me.
After EdJohnson's ruling, Andrew Lancaster posted a bullying message at my talk page, accusing me of "shameless dishonesty", said that i "lie and screw others", and that he and his "community" would cause my "exit from Wikipedia" and "the removal of all" my edits.[50]	blatant (indeed shameless) misrepresentation; here are two of the quotes in longer form: "Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the community quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a chance." "I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples you did the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and this is going to lead to your exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all your edits eventually?"
At Talk:Goths he later calls me a "sycophantic bully boy"[51]	blatant misrepresentation. I said that a specific bit of text in an article used "sycophantic minor book reviews" and achieved "deliberate tabloid quality partisanship" making Wikipedia itself into a "sycophantic bully boy" for the favored hero of Krakkos, Peter Heather, who Krakkos openly demands to be the only source used to decide what is in or not in the article.
and has accused me of "hypocritical abuse".[52]	crude misrepresentation: deliberately leaving out the rest of the words which show why Krakkos is not the sort of editor who normally gets taken this seriously: "your hypocritical abuse of WP:RS never ceases to amaze. Despite all your supposed concern about the low academic status of Christensen, you have no problem citing two very minor book reviews of him, despite there being so many positive big name reviews, which happen to defend Peter Heather!! [53], [54] Do you realize how crude you sometimes appear? This is cherry picking from weak sources while you are STILL censoring the best known sources. The use of these reviews in this biased way is not something for a lasting and stable version. We are not writing an article about the beliefs of Peter Heather. We should not take his side on every issue, or censor or caricature any people who disagree with him."
Jens Lallensack tells him that he will not participate in a discussion characterized with such personal attacks,[55][56] but Andrew Lancaster refuses to stop.[57]	Lallensack was never involved in article writing, but indeed made a complaint into the middle of a content discussion that I should not say that Krakkos "abuses" his OUP access privileges when he constantly claims that a dictionary article behind a paywall justifies everything, AND (incredibly) that ONLY this source should be used! Lallensack claimed, I believe wrongly, that WP:NPA says that "It is irrelevant whether or not an alleged abuse can be demonstrated." A bit debatable? Context a bit relevant?
This makes it impossible for Lallensack to continue his WP:GA review of the article, which he earlier considered in "good shape" and wanted to improve.[58]	By the accounts of Krakkos and Lallensack themselves, it was the successful fake edit war complaint of Krakkos which disrupted everything, not me. There is something I must be missing about this whole GA review thing. If it was in good shape when the review started why did Krakkos (certainly not me) then proceed to totally change the article? In fact, the timing connects only to Krakkos giving up on Germanic peoples, and this goes together with numerous spin-off actions by Krakkos jumping to related articles, or moving materials from Germanic peoples to other articles. Lallensack was disappointed in the situation generally.
As a result of the continued personal attacks, i post a complaint at the talk page of EdJohnston.[59] EdJohnston gives Andrew Lancaster another warning for his blockable personal attack, and instructs him to make a revised post without personal attacks.	Sort of. EdJohnston said it was debatably blockable, and suggested a reworded version. I can't prove it, but I actually already wanted to do that. BTW, this specific event is reported twice in the listing of Krakkos. See above.
[60] Andrew Lancaster rather makes a non-apology apology, doubling down on his attacks, trivializing them as "colorful rhetoric", says that he is "willing to defend" them, and concludes that i should "just stop trying to work against WP policy".[61]	My expressions of real concern, pointing at real events, and asking how to work in the future are clearly not ad hominem personal attacks. EdJohnston's message to me was that the language or phrasing, on its own, made my message debatably a personal attack. So indeed it was a good idea to separate the language use, and the actual "accusations" concerning verifiable editing, talkpage and noticeboard facts. Krakkos should not deliberately try to re-confuse things or fabricate, if Krakkos has positive intentions.
He further states that he is just trying to "help Krakkos be a normal editor".[62] He also states that "the recent "win" at the edit warring noticeboard is going to make Krakkos a worse editor", that " the "win" is not a real win.', and that he will "have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos".[63] This suggests that the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior behavior is far from over.	Twisting my words. Obviously I was explaining that I think the battleground behaviour of Krakkos is far from over.
Even after EdJohnston's repeated warnings against personal attacks, he writes that i have "a systematic tendency to try to make false claims"[64] and "misrepresent facts".[65]	Correct. And nothing says "your can trust me to be honest" like forum shopping for admins to try to put other editors out of action
EdJohnston long ago considered Andrew Lancaster's personal attacks blockable,[66] and has recommended me to file a complaint elsewhere.[67] The previous failure of such complaints to deal with the problem, has however convinced me that only an Arbcom ruling can effectively deal with the situation. A member of Arbcom has privately encouraged me to contact this committee.	"long ago" was on the same day as Krakkos wrote this text. Furthermore this is another case where one incident is being described as if it were several incidents.
The poisonous atmosphere has discouraged or driven away productive editors from editing the subject area,[68][69]	serious misrepresentations. Concerning Obenritter see my comments about similar aspersions here. The second diff is yet another attempt to double or triple mention various incidents, and it refers not to a content editor, but the GA reviewer again.
which is in the process of degenerating into a one-man show.[70]	blatant rewriting of history. Krakkos ran away from the article because no one agreed with Krakkos. While the article was protected I worked a lot with others on the talk, and a special drafting page, and read a lot, posting constant updates notes and proposals. So I had a lot to add, and many people had helped contribute to that - including Krakkos, whose input when (rarely) it is constructive, I always try to take into account.
Terrified editors have contacted me about this privately, but are afraid to do it in the open, because they fear they will become the next target. I request the Arbitration Committee to review this unfortunate situation, in hope of having some sort of WP:IBAN imposed on Andrew Lancaster or even the both of us.	"People say..." This type of constant performance of over-dramatic dishonest aspersions is not really normal. But apparently it has worked in the past? The record of Krakkos should be looked at by more Wikipedians to check.

Germany diaspora German

not sure the vast majority of this unsourced material is worthy of keeping ...... I consider you the steward of the article...... Is this worthy of keeping.... and trying to find sources? Moxy🍁 17:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy: I have not looked at it, but as I have indicated on the talk page I am interested to know if this is for example a large copy-paste meant to be the start of better editing. I have my concerns though. We have had several rounds of discussion, but many of the visiting editors seem to be more into putting on a show than actually doing to the hard slog of finding sources, and editing in a way which matches the WP project's aims. Perhaps the problem is that me and a couple of other history-oriented editors are willing to do that, while no one interested in other Germany topics seems willing or able.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Congrats

Yes,it was a joke,dont tell Wikipedia ThatOneSovietVolunteer (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Ariovistus

When and if you have some time Andrew, the Ariovistus page could use some additional work. I've already eliminated a lot of unsourced (or only primary sourced) redundant content. However, there is certainly room for additional expansion and improvement. Take a look when you get a chance. Please use the traditional "sfn" sourcing format for consistency's sake when adding substantiated content. Whatever help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. Obenritter (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: thanks for the vote of confidence! I won't promise anything because I am entangled in some other things, but I'll keep looking at it. I'm not sure it could contain a lot more - because in the end there is so little known about him? In terms of sources, there are some quite good ones already, and a lot of neat footnoting. I notice no use of the Reallexikon article I mentioned, which would be worth comparing to to see if there are any more differences. Concerning footnotes, on this type of article I sometimes like to keep primary references with links, because I think they can be useful to our readers and editors interested in these subjects. But in those cases I tend to use "ref" style mark-up, with the other bits fitted into it. (If there is a neat division between straightforward primary citations, and then sentences which give modern commentary on them, then the footnotes can be simpler.) I guess what I am asking is whether it is a big concern if there are any deviations from sfn?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - one of the things I tend to do is use the "efn" notes for primary sources and expand there, also linking accordingly. Sometimes if a source is widely published, I will use the sfn style for the page but also include the primary source reference location like I've done for references to Caesar. One could theoretically add an "efn" citation behind each instance that is primary and link to the Loeb library version or whatever online ref available as well for the reader. Your call. It's really a matter of keeping the page consistent. Regards --Obenritter (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I have done some additional work, including adding some citations that could use quality review; particularly the ones in French, which is not my strongest language by any means.--Obenritter (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavi (Germanic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ostrogoths

Andrew--Recently, I added substantive content based on new archaeo-genetic research concerning the Goths and Jordanes’ Scanzda migration narrative. I recognize that my perspective is not entirely unbiased, so I would appreciate it if you could review the linked and cited articles by Speidel and Stolarek and refine the content as needed. I have aimed for objectivity, but since we may approach this issue from different viewpoints, your input and adjustments or any additional material you deem fit to include to ensure a more balanced interpretation, would be especially valuable and appreciated. Obenritter (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: it is a good case to look at. I already noticed it and wrote a lot of notes. These articles will keep getting better and more relevant so whatever we do in this case it is a good thing to discuss and think about. They present some policy concerns by the way, because I know many good editors see such as articles as primary sources like lab results. In the big mathematical models they often give their variables names which imply a connection to real world places and periods too, which is difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - Glad to hear you are taking the time to review and make notes—your perspective on both the substance and the policy dimensions is really helpful. You’re right that the Speidel and Stolarek studies occupy a somewhat complex position between primary and secondary material, especially given that the archaeo-genetic data itself is essentially "lab results," while the interpretive framing can verge on linking those results to historical ethnonyms or geographic labels. That’s precisely why I thought your input would be valuable here, to ensure we handle the balance between citing cutting-edge scholarship and observing Wikipedia’s sourcing policies carefully.

If you think my current phrasing leans too far toward presenting the genetic findings as definitive historical conclusions, I would welcome your suggestions for how to reframe them in a way that emphasizes their provisional and interpretive nature. I agree that this is a topic likely to evolve rapidly as further studies appear, and setting up the article in a way that makes room for ongoing developments while staying within policy boundaries is an important goal. Please do feel free to adjust, prune, or supplement as you think best—your judgment will help ensure the section stays both accurate and policy-sound. Regards.--Obenritter (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sir - I asked you to rework the section, not try and assume this represented an attempt to include specious content. Instead, you prosecuted the addition to the nth degree on the Talk page, despite my request that you rework/adjust it. That is not collaboration. I was working quickly to try and integrate recent research under the auspices of it needing reviewed, not publicly lambasted. So much for a pleasant working editorial relationship. I deleted the content wholesale since your concerns were so excessive. I understand your qualms with genetic research and Jordanes, but the truth is there is evidence that some of what he reported was correct. That's all this was meant to express. #Highly offended. --Obenritter (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: I posted my detailed comments on the article talk page before I saw your message here. I posted in detail because I didn't want to write something short which may have seemed dismissive of either you, or of genetics studies. I feel bad that you've taken it this way, but I really wonder how you would have reacted if I just started editing in a strong way. I've done my best, and spent time on this, and I couldn't think of a better approach. To avoid misunderstandings, I think that among better history article editors I've had contact with I would probably count as fairly pro-genetics, and I've often tried to find ways to create reduced versions of such sections, which stick more closely to the sources. I made an effort to help you for future cases. For example: how to think about the problems caused by the way variable-names sound like places and peoples; or how the data has big holes in it which the authors would assume that their colleagues realize. However, in this particular case there is another simpler problem which is that the studies cited have nothing to do with Ostrogoths. The Ostrogoths article is not about the Wielbark culture. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

My point was that recent DNA evidence now reveals that (at least a substantial slice of) the people archaeologists call "Wielbark culture" in Roman-period Poland were, genetically, very close to Early Iron Age Scandinavians—exactly the sort of north-to-south linkage Jordanes implies with his Scandza origin story about the Goths. In my excitement at the research, I obviously over editorialized and ended up closer to something like original research. Nonetheless, it's obvious that I am just not up to this anymore. Mach's gut. --Obenritter (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: yes (to a certain extent) but this is a discussion for the Wielbark culture article, and indeed there was already a discussion there which you could/should have been part of. I suppose you probably still haven't noticed that. In that context you might have seen my long feedback as helpful? The simple problem is that we can't (yet) use raw data about reconstructed "Scandinavia like" DNA to DISPROVE the idea that the Wielbark immigrants were from the Przeworsk and/or Jastorf cultures (which are the other common proposals). A major problem here is that many of these cultures used cremation, so there are massive gaps in the data. The geneticists know this. Nevertheless the new studies should (according to me) be reported on the Wielbark article. (Many would not agree.) But this just has nothing at all to do with Ostrogoths. Maybe you're right to step back for a while. I can't help notice that after threatening to leave Wikipedia (not the first time, I believe?), you then used the attention you attracted on your talk page to let people know that I am supposedly editing with an "agenda". Lovely. How rewarding! I don't appreciate that, after spending all that time to try write such detailed feedback to help you understand this topic better. You recently asked me to work according to your instructions on both Ostrogoths and (prior to that) Ariovistus, but maybe you were setting me up? I don't know how else to understand this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Andrew - you are not the problem here. My personal Talk page message was about my general frustrations and you were not named at all. It's not about you. Another editor is actually annoying me with their insistence on a certain citation format far more than you are -- that was the agenda I meant. Unfortunately, your bad-timed lengthy attack on the content via the Ostrogoths Talk Page lambasting the additions did not help with my mood. Especially since it was not at all what I asked you to do. Honestly, we would have made far more progress working via a sandbox (however one does that) on it but I figured that the live edits would generate quality work on the genetic section once you made your astute, well-substantiated points, even if it meant deleting some of the content or adding counter-argument via academic disputation. Why would I set you up and in what way? We've agreed and disagreed for years without major incident. I just found your approach distasteful in this last case and it coincided with me being annoyed with other editors. Whether you realize it or not, I have come to your defense more than once over the years, even when I disagreed with you. Honestly, it's shame we cannot just chat this out over a good Doppelbock, but I am in the States these days far more than I am in Europe and at my age, travel is just not as fun as it once was. Neither is editing, which is why I need to do exactly as you've stated. Step away -- thanks for encouraging me to do so. Happy editing. --Obenritter (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Obenritter: this is surely going to come across as annoying, but there are things in this reply which you should think about. Should other editors (including whoever else has annoyed you) have to worry about timing their posts, or about whether they are doing what you told them to do? Anyway, I did not write an attack, and it is as simple as that, so there is my concern, take it or leave it. I made a big effort to help you. But yes WE have defended each other while also often disagreeing over the years, and I do appreciate your side in that story. I hope this goes both ways though! I would certainly love to have a beer with you so we have a strong point of agreement there, but I also now travel less. Communicating online is not as fun! As to taking breaks I think that is often a good idea for all of us, so I don't feel any need to argue for or against that. Do what works for you, and hopefully that will involve editing whether it be next week or next year.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)