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.

Getae

The map you deleted wasn't necessarily a real one, only a representation of the Getae people as depicted by Strabo, not by anyone else. I only say this for you to know so there won't be any misunderstanding. Portasa Cristian (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

((re|Portasa Cristian}} I don't think Strabo is clearly describing the situation shown in the map. He admits himself to ignorance of the details. On the Getae article I have added more of what he said in order to show that he did not seem to imagine them stretching west of the Iron Gates. His point about the Suebi and Getae bordering each other is apparently only based on the fact that their territories both adjoin the same complex of forest and mountains. (For example, the Carpathian mountains.) We need to be careful of anything which requires interpretation like this. These are cases where it best to bring in modern secondary sources to help understand how the old texts should be interpreted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your point about Strabo's description of the Getae and their territory is valid. While he provides some insights, he also acknowledges his own ignorance of certain details. It's crucial to recognize the limitations of ancient texts and exercise caution when interpreting them, especially regarding geographical boundaries and interactions between ancient peoples. Incorporating modern secondary sources can indeed help provide a more nuanced understanding of how to interpret these old texts effectively. Portasa Cristian (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And also, as an extra info, the map showed the lands inhabited by Getae families, not their territory. The Getae, like many other tribes, were living in an expanded land among other cultures. I think the map was essential to the page, but that's only my opinion. Portasa Cristian (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not see what sources or reasoning you can use to justify the maps. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Strabo. Strabo is the source of the map. "Strabo one of the first ancient sources to mention Getae and Dacians, stated in his Geographica (c. 7 BC – 20 AD) that the Dacians lived in the western parts of Dacia, "towards Germania and the sources of the Danube", while the Getae lived in the eastern parts, towards the Black Sea, both south and north of the Danube. The ancient geographer also wrote that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language, after stating the same about Getae and Thracians."

Strabo's account of the lands inhabited by the Getae:

"As for the southern part of Germany beyond the Albis, the portion which is just contiguous to that river is occupied by the Suevi; then immediately adjoining this is the land of the Getae, which, though narrow at first, stretching as it does along the Ister Danube on its southern side and on the opposite side along the mountain-side of the Hercynian Black Forest (for the land of the Getae also embraces a part of the mountains), afterwards broadens out towards the north as far as the Tyragetae; but I cannot tell the precise boundaries" Portasa Cristian (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

don't forget that the map was made after Strabo sources, not other sources, only Strabo, so obviously the map is an approximate one, not an accurate one Portasa Cristian (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So to clarify further, this map is solely based on the geographical information provided by Strabo regarding the inhabited lands of the Getae, without incorporating any additional sources, thus reflecting only Strabo's perspective. Portasa Cristian (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

But where does Strabo describe anything like the map you've been posting, stretching almost to France? And where does Strabo say that "the Getae, like many other tribes, were living in an expanded land among other cultures" He describes them, as do other classical authors, living on the lower Danube east of the Iron gates. I think the map is your own creation and not based on Strabo? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The map doesn't stretch to France or even to the Alps; it expands towards Germany, as described by Strabo. I created the map myself, but I didn't upload it to the page. Additionally, I'm not a 'Dacian propagandist' because I've created maps about other empires such as Armenia, Carthage, Akkadian, and Goguryeo. As for the quote regarding the Getae living in an expanded land among other cultures, that's attributed to scholars, not myself. However, it's a valid point as the Getae did live alongside other tribes, even if not precisely in the same lands but in close proximity, such as the Dacians and Bastarnae. This is why the map is titled 'Getae Tribal Lands'. Portasa Cristian (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of the maps I deleted from articles today show the Getae stretching into the Austrian alps at the very least, in an area due north of Italy. You also incorrectly show the Weser-Rhine region as being in the alps. I don't think the maps are carefully made. You mention "scholars". Which scholars? Your remarks about Getae "tribal lands", and about "other cultures", don't add anything because it is not clear what this means or what the source would be. Strabo is not the source for this. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Austrian Alps and the Weser-Rhine region may indeed not align with historical accounts. As for the mention of "scholars," I refer to academic researchers who have analyzed historical texts and archaeological evidence related to the Getae and other ancient cultures. Regarding the remarks about "tribal lands" and interactions with "other cultures," these are interpretations based on scholarly research, although I acknowledge the need for clearer sourcing in the context of the article. despite all of these, what should i do to the map to satisfy you? Portasa Cristian (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

by the way I still want to make the map after Strabo, just tell me what to fix. Portasa Cristian (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

i made a new map, i hope it will satisfy you, if you want i can add more. This map contains all the Dacian tribes, including the Daco-Celts and Daco-Thracians lands as some tribes lived in a tribal Confederation and some in a tribal Federation (tribal union like Bastarnae, Daci, Getae, Costobocii) of course according to Strabo

here is the link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tribal_Federations_and_Confederationd_of_Dacians_and_Getae.png Portasa Cristian (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead of saying "scholars" and "scholarly research" you should name the scholars and their publications. That is a basic point about how we work on Wikipedia. The map still shows the same enormous area being ruled by a "confederation". I don't see anything in Strabo to justify any of this. He does not mention most of these tribes. He also does not mention any of them being in a big confederation. The tribes are not even in their normal places, and some are a mystery to me such as the Daco-Celts in Austria. Where does Strabo mention these? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In that era, Strabo's knowledge of the Dacian tribes was limited, often referring to them broadly as the Getae or Dacians. Indeed, various tribes like the Daco-Celts in modern-day Hungary and Austria, such as the Teurisci, Anarti, and Eravisci, as well as the Daco-Thracians like the Tribalii, Moesi, Corbizi, and Trizi existed. While Strabo didn't explicitly mention these tribes, he encompassed them under the broader terms of Getae and Dacians, which is why he described their territory as extending into the western parts of Dacia, towards Germania and the sources of the Danube. And also, most of them are in their normal places, what tribes aren't in their initial lands? Some tribes, like the Teurisci, Anarti, Eravisci, Tribalii, Moesi, Corbizi, and Trizi, probably may have migrated or expanded beyond their initial territories over time. So, they might not have remained exclusively in their original lands as described in historical records. Dont think i'm a Romanian or Dacian "propagandist" as i'm not even fully romanian and I'll tell you again that I made lots of maps about other entities. So I will ask you again, what should the map have to satisfy you? Portasa Cristian (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about naming specific scholars, but it's challenging for me to provide exact references as there are numerous scholars who have contributed to our understanding of ancient history and tribal dynamics. Scholars from various fields of study have researched and written about historical entities, including the Dacian tribes. As a mapper, I rely on a variety of sources to create maps, and while I strive to ensure accuracy, I am not a historian or a scholar myself. My goal is to present information based on available sources and contribute to the discussion within the limitations of my expertise. Portasa Cristian (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that Strabo is not your source. I have never described you as a propagandist. I do not claim to know what you are thinking. However, this is clearly original research, and not suitable for Wikipedia. You seem like someone genuinely interested to learn more, but you clearly don't have good sources ready to explain these maps. You should FIRST collect good sources, get things clear in your own mind. Wikipedia is not the place to post new ideas or interesting guesses. By the way, you put a lot of weight on Strabo's comment about the sources of the Danube, but he makes confused remarks about where the source was, and he only says the Daci lived along part of that stretch between Bohemia and Romania, and he seems to mean in southern Hungary. there is also another division of the country which has endured from early times, for some of the people are called Daci, whereas others are called Getae — Getae, those who incline towards the Pontus and the east, and Daci, those who incline in the opposite direction towards Germany and the sources of the Ister. and then The Marisus River flows through their country into the Danuvius,​ on which the Romans used to convey their equipment for war; the "Danuvius" I say, for so they used to call the upper part of the river from near its sources on to the cataracts, I mean the part which in the main flows through the country, of the Daci, although they give the name "Ister" to the lower part, from the cataracts on to the Pontus, the part which flows past the country of the Getae. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I also understand your perspective on my map, but it's important to note that many other users have seen and considered it before you. While I respect your opinion, I want to emphasize that despite not being a historical scholar or historian, I've invested significant time and effort into studying Dacian history. It's a topic that fascinates me, and I've extensively documented my research. While the map may contain some errors, they are not major, and I always take care to thoroughly research any map I create before dedicating my time to it. Portasa Cristian (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No you have not taken such care, because you can't name your sources. It is original research. See WP:OR. It is not only the map which is original but also the whole concept of their being an enormous "confederation". This is a very big claim. The geographical errors are also honestly not small. You should look up the location of the Weser river for example. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion regarding the term 'confederation.' It was not intended to refer to anything depicted on the map itself. Regarding the geographical errors, I will carefully review the map to identify and correct any inaccuracies, including the location of the Weser river. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention, and I will make the necessary revisions to ensure the map meets Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and sourcing. Portasa Cristian (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The information for the map was primarily sourced from the Wikipedia page on Dacia, as well as various maps depicting Dacian territories. These sources provided valuable insights into the distribution and boundaries of Dacian tribes, which were used to inform the creation of the map. Portasa Cristian (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that honest explanation. As a next step you could look at the sources for some of the other tribes in the regions your maps cover. For example look at the Osii. Map making which summarizes what the articles are saying and adds no original claims is generally accepted on WP of course. My concern is that your maps sometimes go beyond that, and make very specific new claims. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the new map, I hope you like it. On the map, the darker the green color, the closer it is to the Dacian tribes, while the lighter green color indicates a greater distance from the Dacian tribes. Not all tribes are Dacian; for example, the tribes marked with blue color are Daco-Thracian tribes, here is the link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacian_tribes.png

You have to know that not all the green space is Dacian, only the dark green. Portasa Cristian (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It still stretches way beyond areas normally considered Dacian. It still mentions tribes that are not normally considered Dacian. By removing the explanatory text which called it a confederation it now implies that all this area, and all these tribes were simply Dacian. So in a sense this is worse. Why are the Buri and Osii in these strange positions? Why are the Eravisci not near Budapest? But then again these groups are never normally considered to be Dacian or Getea. Nor are the Roxolani. Please take more time on this. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dacians_tribes.png Portasa Cristian (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it just dawned on me that when I was crafting the other maps featuring the tribes, I inadvertently used a reference map depicting Dacia under Burebista and its campaign against the Boii and Taurici in Pannonia. Consequently, the tribes appeared to extend too far, mirroring the geographical context of that historical period. Portasa Cristian (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)