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.

A warning message without association to deprecation

I've been thinking for awhile that having a warning message separate from deprecation would be helpful. With a message about UGC, self published or circular sources etc. Obviously not all of them, but just ones that waste editors time by being often readded as references. It therefore wouldn't include the additional aspects and limitations of deprecation. Do you have any feedback on the idea, would if be more acceptable then using the deprecation process? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chamavi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vienne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bergakker rune

I saw you removed details about the Bergakker rune and it's meaning according to the scientists. I like to inform you that the source from my input is on the page of the Bergakker rune which i added a link too. Damianooss (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Damianooss: I looked there and found a only a reference to some museum information which was clearly being used wrongly. But maybe I missed something. If there is a source then let's make that more clear in order to avoid misunderstandings. But what is it? For now, I don't think there is any consensus about any full translation at all, and so it can't prove very much? I see scholars tend think it represents a Germanic language, but not all Germanic speakers were Salian Franks, and I see no source describing the language as specifically Dutch-like?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

https://deorreader.wordpress.com/tag/bergakker-inscription/

http://www.arild-hauge.com/PDF/Runes-around-north-sea-c9.pdf

These are two links with more information. Damianooss (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems the exact words i quoted are no longer on the page and i don't know who exactly said it, but basically it is a conclusion of which is discovered. The discovery is also in line with the accounts given by the ancient historians Ammianus Marcellinus en Zosimus. Damianooss (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Damianooss: you can see who changed the page by looking at the page history. (For example I removed some of the claims, but the article is still problematic.) Do you know how to do that? I do not know which name you were editing under. The first source you cite is a blog which in fact even cites Wikipedia. We can't use that on WP as a reliable source. The second source does not make any strong conclusions about any of the objects discussed being Frankish, let alone Salian. Also keep in mind that in WP if you claim there is an academic consensus for something you need very good sourcing for that because it is a strong statement. Concerning Ammianus I am not really sure what you mean, but once again you have to make sure you avoid original research. In general the only sources which mention the Salians mention them as people who were living near non-Salians in a situation where people were moving around. There were Salians, Chamavi and other inhabitants on Batavia for example, and it seems the region had been lightly populated and unstable since the 3rd century. (A source about this: Roymans, Nico; Heeren, Stijn (2021), "Romano-Frankish interaction in the Lower Rhine frontier zone from the late 3rd to the 5th century – Some key archaeological trends explored", Germania, 99: 133–156, doi:10.11588/ger.2021.92212) So I don't see how the written sources can help us determine whether a weapon was specifically Salian? Anyway, if you want to find more sources for this type of thing you could perhaps start by checking which papers have been posted on academia.edu. Try a google search for this: Bergakker site:academia.edu . One of the articles there is this one: https://www.academia.edu/101506575/Frisian_Runes_Revisited_and_an_Update_on_the_Bergakker_Runic_Item and this https://www.academia.edu/44900239/A_Possibly_Misidentified_Rune_and_other_Graphemic_Peculiarities_on_the_Bergakker_Scabbard_Mouthpiece --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the Chamavi lived there too? I like to learn more. I quote from history of Ammianus Marcellinus, book 17, chapter VIII: He then attacked the Chamavi, who had been guilty of similar audacity, and through the same celerity of movement he slew one portion of them, and another who made a vigorous resistance he took prisoners, while others who fled precipitately he allowed to escape unhurt to their own territories, to avoid exhausting his soldiers with a long campaign. And when ambassadors were afterwards sent by them to implore his pardon, and generally to do what they could for them, when they prostrated themselves before him, he granted them peace on condition of retiring to their own districts without doing any mischief. Julianus sent them back to the districts in 358, it does not say where that was. The Franks however were allowed to stay and got subjugated according to the same chapter i quoted from. Damianooss (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You have a point. But they were at least clearly living in Batavia before Julian's attack. Other sources show they were living in the delta south of the Rhine in the late third century. (When various emperors claimed to have expelled them.) When the sources for Julian's time say that he expelled them the implication is indeed that they were pushed completely out of the empire including even Batavia, but the sources are not that detailed. As to whether they were fully subjugated, remember we are reading political propaganda. According to the Roymans article I cited the Romans had given up on the whole area a long time ago as far as normal government was concerned, except some of the forts. It seems Julian managed to re-man some forts and secure a path for grain shipments. He clearly needed an agreement with the Chamavi, and could not completely subjugate them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Quadi in the Marcomanni article

Give me proof please that Zosimus made a mistake appart from modern scholars. If that was the case, i assume some other historical scholar would have mentioned it. This is necesary to back up such a big claim. Second give me a source where it says that the Quadii were Suevii. Damianooss (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

As previously discussed between us, on Wikipedia we report what the scholars have published, and not what we think of that. We don't need to discuss further than that. Stop working against that principle. I thought you agreed to work according to those rules? Apart from that: (1) Concerning the Quadi, they were a very well recorded Suevian people. They have their own article which I recently worked on. It has sourcing including references to the primary sources. (2) You should already know the evidence for the mistake in Zosimus because we recently discussed it and I explained both the primary and secondary evidence. Did you ever bother looking at any of the evidence I gave, for example on the Salian Franks talk page? See in particular the explanation about what Eunapius (appanrently the source of Zosimus) originally said [71]. This is apparently something you are still unaware of from your personal research, but please read the explanations people give when they are trying to help you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The source you quoted from Eunapius does not proof that Zosimus is wrong. The attack of the Quadii did not have to be conquest. Ammianus explicitly stated that they moved into Roman territory in the same audacity as the Salii. Nowhere does Zosimus say too that the Quadii were expelled afterwards. According to Ammianus, book 17, chapter XII, the Quadii were better in raiding than in warfare, i quote: These tribes are more suited for raids than for regular warfare. Later he says this, i quote from the same chapter: as partners in their danger, the Quadi, who had previously participated in injuries inflicted on us. This is written after the account given by Ammianus on the Chamavi and Salli entering the Roman territory. Unfortunately you use a lot mental gymnastics to try to disprove Zosimus. The source of Eunapius you mentioned and Ammianus do not say who attacked the Salii. You have not pursuaded me with you're evidence why it were not the Quadii, you should know that is known that they lived above Pannonia. Maybe those that attacked the Salii lived closer, maybe. I am not the one that has to give evidence for my claim, you should, and those that say that a historical scholar is wrong without evidence to back it up. Damianooss (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because the Quadii lived next to the Suevii, that does not mean they were automatically Suevii. Because this is you're reasoning even tho it has been contradicted too. Just as i said earlier, if you have any different kind of evidence to back this up, i like to see it. Please respond to this discussion rather than the other page because we were talking on the page of a different subject. Damianooss (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to disprove Zosimus. You know very well (if you have read any of this material) that published experts think the text has an error in it. We summarize what they say. You are coming here with no modern secondary source, and demanding that others prove that you are wrong, and modern experts right. That is NOT how we work. Are you going to work according to Wikipedia rules or not? Please decide. Also:

• The quote you give from Ammianus 17 is about the Quadi who lived near modern Slovakia, near the Marcomanni and Iazyges.
• Zosimus says the "Quadi" in Batavia were part of the Saxons and one of the peoples of that region.
• I guess you did not notice that the stories of the Chamavi of Eunapius and the Quadi of Zosimus contain identical details such as the son of the king being captured by Julian. The story of the king who believed his son dead, breaking down and crying, only to find him being held by the Romans, is identical. Published experts mention this as part of the relevant evidence when discussing whether the Zosimus text contains an error.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Concerning the Quadi near the Danube they were described as Suebi by Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus, and many others. Furthermore, once again, modern experts are unanimous about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

For this reason there is a discussion page, in disagreement we should try to resolve the disagreement. If you make contributions to pages. It is a must that you can give proper account for you're addition or adjustment, in the same way you did to me on this page and i accepted it. I ask of you if you can give me a more detailed reference to the chapter where Eunapius said this. You said you were going to share a copy of the page link but i think you forgot to do that. I am looking into it right now btw, i can see the simular stories. Concerining the Strabo, Pliny, Tacticus, again can you please give me a detailed reference so that i can look it up myself? Damianooss (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I already gave you a link and a full translation on the Salian talk page, and you seem to be deliberately wasting my time now. If not then it is very concerning to me that you are willing to act and write in an aggressive way, making strong accusations and insults, but at the same time you do not even read the information I have posted for you. I was trying to help you. Concerning whether there were Quadi living near the Danube I think you can best go to the Quadi article and post questions on the talk page there (if you really have any). Personally I find it stunning that someone who claims to know more than published experts is raising this question at all. The Quadi are a very big topic, covering centuries, with much more evidence available than for the Chamavi or Salians. Please note that the following two points need a response, and please don't keep changing the subject:

• Do you accept that you need to work according to Wikipedia rules, which is to report what modern expert sources publish?
• Will you self revert your deletion of the Quadi from the lead in the Marcomanni article? I can't see how any of these points you've raised can justify deleting them from the lead as if there were no Quadi living near the Marcomanni! (Even if they were called Saxons it would not matter.) The Quadi should be mentioned in that lead, because the lead summarizes the article. In WP articles most sourcing is normally in the article, not the lead.

I suggest you revert that deletion and if you still have a real concern please explain it on the Marcomanni talk page in a clear way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, i did not bother you're message to me, i think it was out of place and you misrepresented my input but which you apologized for, so no worries. I can admit that because of this you're message on Eunapius went over my head. You did not bring a link, i checked? You copied the text from ChatGPT you said and only mentioned fragment 12. And i am talking about the Salian Franks page, you did not give proper reverence to the evidence you claim to have. And i have never used insults? I'm not deliberately wasting you're time? Stop with the accusations please, talking about typing in an aggresive way. I have never claimed to know more than experts? But i only care abour the evidence of the experts for their claims which is what matters, so that i can understand it and see if i might made a mistake. Please give me a functional reverence before you suggest me to revert a deletion so that i can come into a agreement first. Like it should be. Otherwise you can say anything and i can't know wether you're claim is true. If you refuse you have not give proper explanation for deleting my adjustment. And you too should try to follow the given Wikipedia rules. I have not deleted the Quadii on the Marcomanii page because they did not live there? No, they lived there, that was not the statement, the statement was that they were a group of Suevii. Which i ask you to quote who said this. Asking questions is being aggresive? I tried to continue the conversation on you're talk page but you refused for a reason unknown? I think that would be proper place to continue this conversation. Damianooss (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Not only did I post a link to Eunapius texts on the Salian Franks talk page, but I also posted the link again in THIS discussion!! You clearly haven't tried to check what sources have been given at all. You just keep demanding more information that you will never read. Please post your questions about specific articles on the article talk pages. Don't delete material like you did on Marcomanni. Try first to read and understand what is in the BODY of articles, including reading the sources, and reading what is said to you on talk pages. Also make sure you never delete or change articles to match your personal opinions. If modern expert publications say something then that is good enough in most cases. Your personal ideas about what Zosimus originally wrote are not to be published on Wikipedia. Can you work that way or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop jumping all over the place and let's first get to one point at the time. You say you shared a page link of the chronicle of Eunapius, but i looked and do not see it. We can blame eachother or try to resolve the matter Damianooss (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think there is only one link in this discussion, which is in my first reply to your first post. As explained in that reply, that link shows that I gave you a link to a webpage with Eunapius fragments on the Salian Franks talk page. But I think you are still working on the basis that I have to prove to you that modern experts are right. I don't. This is Wikipedia and not a place for you to publish your personal opinions. I have been trying to help you by putting in extra efforts which I did not need to make. Please don't expect people to work this way on Wikipedia! Put in some effort yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/126457850/Julians_Batavian_Campaign_an_Embezzlement_Trial_in_Britain_and_Barbarian_Access_to_the_Annona_Militaris This is the only link you shared, which is not about the fragment of Eunapius okay? Damianooss (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, please learn to do your own homework, and stop pushing others to do your work for you. Here is the link once again https://www.dfhg-project.org/DFHG/digger.php?what%5B%5D=author%7CEUNAPIUS+SARDIANUS&onoffswitch=on (I got to this link in a couple of seconds by following the same advice I just posted.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay this discussion is absolutely terrible, asking for you're sources is like doing no homework to you. I am actually done talking to you for now. It seems you have a hard time explaining yourself, but you should if you make edits on Wikipedia. But thanks for eventually sharing this link. I will redo the deletion although you refuse to give me a secundary and primary source that says that the Quadii are considered Suevii. Damianooss (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

All the sources are there for you when you have the time and energy to just look at them. When you have a question please raise it on an article talk page. everything can be improve but do not delete material that you have no clue about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)