Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnuniq (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 10 May 2024 (→May 2024: not misleading). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Andrew Lancaster's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew Lancaster, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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 . ...... 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 : 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.

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 ’’ 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

1. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. and eds Paul Guyer and Allen Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p. 541.

Teleological argument

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

Aspersions, photos of private mails, etc

More aspersions

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/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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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/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/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)

Please explain why did you remove my definition from this page

the page i am talking about is the this page. why did you remove my definiton of common sense? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Talk:Genetic studies of Jews, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: please explain what you are referring to. If I am not mistaken, aren't you referring to something where you are the main editor who has repeated the same unorthodox and now disputed edit several times? I don't see any justification for this threatening and confrontational threat. You only explanations so far for your drastic deletions has been explained in short edsums. If you have a better explanation give it properly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• You have twice reverted my removal of talk page content started by the sock of a block, racist editor; as an administrator, I think that WP:DENY applies perfectly well here. Now, if you have a better explanation than "there is no emergency here", thereby giving legitimacy to a blocked user who thinks that Misplaced Pages is his own webhost, well. If you want to start a discussion about the wording in the article, feel free to start a thread on that. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have done that. But admins do not have special power to threaten good faith editors in order to get what they want into Misplaced Pages. You should not be brandishing your admin status at all! Admins are not managers or super-editors. Your edit was disputed, and the only (undeleted) discussion was in edsums. My two reversions are based on the idea that you had done your edits in a rush, and that is still my hope. Your deletions of my edits, and the edits of other good faith editors, are clearly NOT justified by DENY (which you cited), unless it is stretched to the point that it becomes meaningless. Extremism and oversimplification of WP certainly won't lead to a better encyclopedia. There is a very clear tradition on WP that the deleting of whole threads of discussion involving long term good faith editors is a very big call. There is another tradition that when a good faith editor gives a reasonable objection, you don't just make threats and start acting aggressively. You need to take those community positions at least as seriously as the aim of reducing the impact of trolls? Admins should support editors, and not start fights.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, everything you say about me, I can say about you: you reverted without a good argument, and you thereby gave a platform to someone who's blocked indefinitely for all the right reasons--but you actually haven't said a word about that. And what do you even mean with "your edits"? You hadn't contributed to that conversation. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: there is clearly a difference. I am a long term editor of that article, and that talk page. I also made no threats to abuse the system and try to make trouble for you for disagreeing with me. I also did not delete the edits of good faith editors. (Deleting is a much bigger call than restoring?) Those are big differences between us. The article you have barged into is clearly a complex and difficult subject which has needed a lot of careful consideration of wildly different opinions which are often associated with controversies. We can't just ignore every aspect of those controversies. I would never dream of coming into such a situation making major deletions and threats.

Our main mission here is to solve those types of editing and balance problems. Troll chasing obsessions should only be a supporting task? The concept of "contamination" which was used to delete the posts of good faith editors does not belong on WP, and I know of no guideline which mentions it. (I hardly ever hear mention of DENY. I don't see it as something with anywhere near the support and consensus which some of the principles you've broken have.) POV pushers do sometimes need special actions, but they have also traditionally sometimes pushed WP editors to see where there might be problems in articles like this. Just calling all such POV pushing editors trolls and deleting everything they "contaminate", including the posts of other editors, is not a good idea IMHO. Threatening people who object to this approach is even worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It is understandable that some contributors to the 💕 have strong feelings about liberty. However, those who have to deal with the inevitable long-term abusers have strong feelings as well. Your comment at Talk:Genetic studies of Jews (diff) was unnecessarily provocative and off-topic for an article talk page. You may not care if an IP was associated with trolling but it is not helpful to use an article talk page to say so. You are free to raise any points that you believe need consideration but you should focus on article content and sources. Do not encourage POV pushers by mentioning them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I accept that others can have strong feelings, and I do care about trolls. Caring about trolls is not the same as disagreeing about how to handle specific cases. Accepting that people can have strong feelings is not the same as accepting that threats and admin credentials should be bandied about whenever someone disagrees with an edit. The "provocation" you refer to is in fact that I objected to receiving a generic threat for disruptive editing because I tried to preserve a question which needs more discussion. My 2 editsums explain this to Drmies, who I clearly thought might not have understood. That is not very "provocative"! It should be possible to have reasonable differences of opinion on matters like this without dramatization and escalation. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

At least half of your comment (see diff above) talks about an IP and how you don't care about trolling and you are wondering if the IP was correct. That is the provocation because it encourages long-term abusers. If you think there is an issue regarding article content, talk about the issue—text that is in the article, or which should be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: thanks for looking at it further, but I'm afraid that is not correct. First of all the threat above was posted before my "provocation" (as you call it), and so you are reversing cause and effect by using the term "provocation". It was a reaction. The provocation is above. Secondly, and connected to that, either you are deliberately twisting my words, or you need to read that post more carefully. "I honestly don't care if the point was raised by an IP associated with trolling." In other words, once again my post is about something and has to be read in context. It says that I think threads involving good faith editors should not be automatically deleted because of association ("contamination") with someone who has been declared a troll. Trolls can in fact make valid points. Obviously we can't have admins going around deleting arguments because trolls might agree with them? I hope you agree, but even if not my opinion is obviously quite different from saying that I don't care about trolls! Hopefully we can agree on that at least.

Perhaps you will also note that there is also an implication in my post that I question how this POV pushing IP was designated as a troll and described as racist. Honestly, I am still wondering about that. Is that "provocative"? The Elhaik article which the IP editor wants to give more emphasis to is controversial, and has been a source of awkward discussions for years. However, I don't think it should be called "racist", as @Drmies: seemed to in the initial edit . Many of Elhaik's specific conclusions are out of date, and were controversial from the start, but that's clearly not the specific point the IP was pushing. Looking for triggers among the IP's priorities, it is not racist to question the idea of there being a single biological Jewish race. I don't think Elhaik, who is an Israeli, is controversial for believing that. The IP's constant references to the influence of "Zionism" are certainly over the top, and tone-deaf, but I also don't think this term is automatically racist. This is clearly the type of article where it can sometimes be referred to in its proper sense. Academics rightfully question whether any ideologies have influenced studies, and such concerns are certainly important in articles about "race". Drmies might have seen something else, but I could not see it at first sight. All or most of the edits of this IP are just pushing the same basic ideas AFAIK. As far as I can see concerning the small edit war on the article, which Drmies entered into with 2 reversions, it was not really a very controversial edit. Perhaps Drmies does not realize that. It involves adding a short summary into the lead, about some information which is in the article already. However, as far as I can see, the decision to designate this POV-pushing IP as a "troll" might even hang mainly upon that little edit war? In any case Drmies gave no specific evidence to justify the strong terms "racist" and "troll". To me, POV pushing is different from trolling, and the different meanings of words in cases like this are worth being cautious about, even if we have "strong feelings" about trolls and racism. Note that I am not sure about the background thinking of Drmies, but I do feel uncomfortable with serious words like this being used in ways in order to quickly get the edits we want. If we are serious about the word "troll" then we won't use it to get the edits we want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what "is not correct" refers to. I was explaining my earlier "was unnecessarily provocative and off-topic"—I was not referring to any provocation you may have experienced. Debates concerning philosophies of running a website are not productive and agreement is unlikely. The take-home message is that there are now two admins warning you that encouraging long-term abusers will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: by now you clearly know very well that you misleadingly described me as saying that I do not care about trolls. Instead of changing the topic or threatening me, an apology would be fine. My post was also certainly not off topic, so you could apologize for that misleading remark too if like. Up to you. Concerning the question of whether I "encouraged" "racists" or "trolls", I think this is obviously deliberately overdramatic. If an editor I do not know deletes a whole thread and claims "racism" without citing any evidence then similar situations can occur? As I noted from the beginning I looked around quickly to for any signs of an "emergency" and did not see any. The editor involved could have chosen to give the evidence after that. At this stage I still have not received any. Instead I received a threat. I would still like to know whether this decision about the IP the result of a community decision, or just a quick decision by one editor?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not hold your breath for an apology. If you cannot see how your actions can embolden a longterm troll, then you have a lot to learn. That you didn't see an "emergency", whatever that is supposed to mean, is not a yardstick for my administrative actions. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am not a new editor, and I can survive without the apologies, but your attitude towards accountability and collegiality needs work IMHO. This is not because of my ideals, but because of what works. Please be more careful about little things like accusations and threats when intervening into situations like this. Rapid escalations and obviously overdramatic attacks on good faith editors, can in fact embolden bad editors, and create more angst (and new trolls) out there in the internet. I agree that there is no point talking about this in circles. However, we should all be able to live with reasonable levels of disagreement, and I hope you can agree with that principle.

FWIW, I've now gone to look at the old SteveBenassi account, which you apparently see as the same editor. There is a familiar pattern and there are many people out there who struggle with these topics about DNA, races, ethnic groups etc., and they will keep coming because of all the nonsense on the internet. We obviously don't need such people as editors but some of the issues they raise can help us to consider points in the article where we need to explain carefully. Carefully written articles on WP can help reduce disruption, because they reduce misunderstandings, and potential disruptive editors can see their questions are handled. You are also right that people concerned and confused about these issues also look at talk pages looking for signs of censorship and so on. I personally try to avoid words like racist and troll except in very clear cases, because both of them require knowledge of what people are thinking. This is just good practice at all times IMHO. You can ignore all of this advice but I offer it in good faith and hope it can help you - at least in understanding my own thoughts on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same editor. I am going to refrain from giving you advice, and I have no intention of coming back here, so there is no need to ping me. One last thing: you seem to think that "racist trolling" is a function of intent; it is not. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

> "misleadingly described me as saying that I do not care about trolls"I said nothing misleading. I gave diff in which you said "I honestly don't care if the point was raised by an IP associated with trolling.". In my 09:23, 8 May 2024 comment above, I summarized that as "You may not care if an IP was associated with trolling but it is not helpful to use an article talk page to say so." Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)