User talk:Genie

Hello there Genie, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 15:22 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. RexNL 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting; the only comment I'd make is that there are much easier ways to do footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. All the best ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osric looks very nice indeed. I have made a disambiguation page for Osrics at Osric (disambiguation) as it seems to have been a rather popular name for Anglo-Saxon kings ! Best wishes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. As you see, I'm working my way through the Hwiccian royal house. --Genie 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BristolCastle.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Genie. I notice that you commented in the Talk page for Aliweb. Since someone just added it to List of search engines it came to my attention. The site www.aliweb.com looks like a pure advertising page! 'Aliweb' is trademarked by Advertising Technologies Corporation, an American company, based in Lexington, Kentucky, and the aliweb.com domain is registered there. The anonymous contributor to the Aliweb talk page who says he is the chief programmer seems to be located in Britain. Martin Koster's paper (cited in the article) mentions the Nexor Co. and gives several links to nexor.co.uk, which is no longer working. There is a British company called Nexor with a live website at www.nexor.com, based in Nottingham, but their web site disclaims any continuing connection with Aliweb.

If you Google search for 'aliweb' at site:nexor.com it tells you:

 301 Error Message: page no longer available at www.nexor.com  Aliweb is no longer available from Nexor. Their site is at:  http://www.aliweb.com/.  Nexor specialises in security solutions, read more on: Nexor's website 

The most serious problem is that the Aliweb search engine is so weak. I type in 'Wikipedia' or 'google' and it can't find either one. Do you have any ideas about what to do? EdJohnston 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's because the original database is being maintained for historical purposes while the new search software is developed. There has never been a reference to Britain in relation to the chief Aliweb programmer. As for advertising - most search engines make the majority of their money from advertising revenue. Aliweb is no different. -aliweb 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the post above was by Aliweb's owner. Please sign posts. --Genie 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the database is maintained at this time for historical purposes - therefore google or wikipedia is not going to be found searching the database. However, I believe google is linked on the links list - and wikipedia will be added shortly. It was state of the art in 1993 when the entire database of all the websites in existance in ASCII - not compressed - was only a 1/2 megabyte file. aliweb 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Bristol.

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Bristol. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all articles relating to Bristol, which includes all subdivisions of the city, major buildings, roads and other related articles.

You can help by:

• Creating new articles.
• Expanding stubs.
• Adding photographs.
• Referencing articles.
• Research topics.
• Anything else really...

For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol and someone will get back to you. — Addbot (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

& any help with the (incomplete) lists of listed buildings eg Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol & Grade II listed buildings in Bristol would be great— Rod ^talk 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've removed the reference to Sally Lunn on the Bath article. Have you also seen the massive copyvio tag on Sally Lunn & can you help sort it out? I noticed you'd edited several other articles on Bath & wondered if you'd be interested in joining the Somerset wikiproject which aims to improve all Somerset related articles?— Rod ^talk 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitations to the Somerset and Bristol projects. I'm not sure how much time I could put into either, but I'll bear it in mind. --Genie 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to obtain a photograph of Richard Lynn, and he is happy for a Wikipedian to take one of him at his residence, but I need to find someone in Bristol to take the shot. If you are at all interested please let me know on my talk page and I will provide further details. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated David Bale, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bale (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Soxred 93 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi genie, I just wanted to say a big thanks for your editing of the beaker page. It has needed a decent clean up for so long it was getting quite embarrassing. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefuguestate (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. I'm not an expert on Beaker Culture, but the regional material on that page seems up-to-date and was contradicting the sections higher up the page, which seemed based on the 1970s/80s outlook. --Genie (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Another user has tagged the article St Catherine's Court for its similarity to http://www.buildinghistory.org/bath/tudor/stcatherinescourt.shtml. I realize based on your userpage that you are almost certainly the copyright holder of this information, but, unfortunately, since Wikipedia does not verify identity on account creation, we do need external verification of this, as set out at our copyright policy.

The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website (which currently bears © Jean Manco) putting the material into public domain or co-licensing it under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material may need to be removed. A statement such as the following would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts."

Alternatively, you may choose to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. (Postal message is very much the slow route.) There is a boilerplate release form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Please provide a clear link to the website in your e-mail and specify by name the articles on Wikipedia in which the material is being used so that the OTRS agent who receives the mail can handle it quickly. Once your e-mail is received and processed, the article's contents will be restored if your release is legally sufficient.

If you choose to send an e-mail and let me know (I'll be watching your talk page), I'll try to intercept the letter so we can handle it more quickly.

I'm sorry for the complication here. Certainly, Wikipedia appreciates donations of previously published text. But for the protection of the project (as well as of copyright holders) we do need to complete the verification process.

I'll check back to see if I can help with this. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not want to release my original text into the public domain, I have revised the Wikipedia page, trimming down the content from my original article. I took the liberty of removing the copyright infringement notice. I'm glad to know that other editors are looking out for the interests of us authors. --Genie (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just put up a new article Buildings and architecture of Bath and wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look. With your expert knowledge you might be able to spot anything which should have been included which I've missed or any others errors I've made.— Rod ^talk 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.— Rod ^talk 20:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you would have a moment, could you have a look at a couple of sections raising concerns on R1a? See [1] and [2]. I have not had time to recheck Marmaduke's concern, and concerning the section PB666 wants to change, I would have no problem except that his proposals appear to turn the section involved into a filtered version of the literature as commented upon by him personally? I think you've been watching this field more than me lately.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that PB666 is inserting his own commentary, unsupported by published work, which raises POV issues. This article in the form you left it presents various views on origins in a neutral manner, as is proper.--Genie (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with that, Genie. On another front, while there are age disparities in the various estimates for the different clades, I have a problem with assertions in the piece that M458 was tied to the spread of Corded Ware, and the citations to Underhill supposedly supporting this. As you have blogged, Genie, the marker is now seen as something of a Slavic marker, and as such couldn't have been part of the Corded Ware culture given most age estimates. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to both of you. I fear that I rather rushed to conclusions in my haste yesterday, with other things on my mind. There is a huge problem for editors of genetic Wikipedia pages, in that publications offer a wide range of estimated dates for haplogroups, and, partly in consequence, a wide range of speculations on origin and spread. It is not easy to present these conflicting ideas in a neutral and comprehensible way, which avoids misleading readers. I will now give closer attention to the issues.--Genie (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reworked the section mentioning Corded Ware. Underhill et al do mention that M458 pools today in the area of the former CW Culture, but in the same paragraph point out the lack of M458 in CW R1a aDNA. I have done the same. We may feel that M458 shouts Slavic marker, but we can't say that in Wikipedia unless someone has actually gone into print saying it.--Genie (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to look at this and comment? I am also asking other editors active on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_of_Genetic_Genealogy. It stems from the latest activity on R1a and its corresponding data article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This above mentioned article is probably one where your reading is more up to date than anyone I know, and it certainly needs some help. I have made a draft page also, because the current version is off-putting and probably can not be changed piecemeal. However it remains stuck. I am hoping that just adding bits and pieces to a draft is less time consuming, and might help interested people get things moving. I am also thinking that once a few people are doing that, the job will start to move ahead. I have been working on other things myself, including R1b but not only on Wikipedia, nevertheless with help I could contribute. Many hands... You might also want to have a look at R1b BTW at least just to see if you can help with sourcing. I have finally started deleting stuff there, and I know some people will find that painful. I just don't think there are real "verifiable" sources for most of it (and for some of it there might never be).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't really think we can use the personal website of a building historian as a reference, and I've removed it. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I'll add references to the relevant papers. --Genie (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked a lot on R1b in recent months and I think it is better. It would be interesting to know if you've checked in? Anyway, with the new paper out it is good that the weaker stuff has been pruned. I've a made a first effort with the new Myres paper and a second set of eyes might be good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneously with the Myres et al paper, the expected paper by Cruciani et al on R1b in Europe is now out. I'm still trying to digest them. --Genie (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on the Wikipedia page on R1b has much improved it. I am impressed by the tables. But it looks like someone fiddled with it after you. I have reworked the origin and dispersal section. --Genie (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds about the tables myself in that they take a lot of space; but I see them as a necessary and unavoidable evil in order to avoid those massive paragraphs full of cherry picked numbers which inevitably build up otherwise on these articles. Having tables also makes it easier to see when someone is deliberately customizing the numbers (which perhaps surprisingly also happens a lot on these haplogroup articles, at least the ones I have on watch - it is possibly the most common type of edit on haplogroup articles).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now have the Cruciani article and have continued to adjust R1b after your edits (as have others). I hope you'll check in every now and then as change is likely for a while and a second pair of eyes could help avoid me or anyone else getting it wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you can help in this discussion: [3],[4].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Genie. I require assisstance/ feedback in regard to issues on the Scythians article- which you commented on briefly. Basically, an editor, HonestopL is making POV edits, blindly reverting, and falsifying sources just to so to the opening sentnce in the 'Origins' section read that Scythians came from 'Greater Iran'. Despite the fact that I have numerous times repeated that such a term is vague, and has political connotation, he had disregarded this. Moreover, the actual sources never mention anything about Greater Iran- as I have pointed out in the discussion page. The various sources suggest variuos origins, including the Volga - Ural region, southern Siberia, northern Siberia. All these regions fall outside what is considered Greater Iran.

What's more, user Ian.Thomson appears to have a personal vandetta against me under the cloak that he is upholding WP: AFG and WP:CIVIL. But his carry on [5] plainy exposes his hypocrisy. he has taken it upon bimself to support HonestopL by randomly googling things about Scythians - and showing to me that they were indeed Iranian. they both appear unable to grasp that speaking an Iranic language doesn;t mean that a people come from the geographic region of Iran, greater or not. The Scythians were various groups sharing a similar, nomadic culture from the Eurasian steppe, well north of Iran, with a way of life which was foreign to the type of civilizations in the Iran/ Afghan region, such as the Achemenids and their successors. It's like hitting one's head against a brick wall with these two. i'd really appreciate your advice against what I think is unfair behaviour on their part. Hxseek (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:YDNAR1b-SRY2627.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - fixed. I think. --Genie (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation. I wonder if you can address the issue of the user generated map's percentages assigned to Ethiopia and the Caucasus. Please review the map, the work of Tofanelli et al, Hassan et al, and comment in the discussions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y)
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/figure/FG1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
Essentially, the issue is whether J1 dominates in Sudan and the Caucasus at over 60%. John Lloyd Scharf 19:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think you can help on this more than I can. See [[6]]. Dougweller is referring to these discussions:- [7], [8].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I think Doug has doubts whether the cited Keyser article has any direct connection to Scythians. Perhaps its a matter of reading the article in its entirety, because there is indeed a large section of the article devoted to earlier periods, ie the "I-E" and "Indo-Iranian" stages. However, the study samples also included burials from a "Scythian" group in southern Siberia. They were not the "Black Sea Scythians" but they were Scythians by all classifications nevertheless- whether its historical, chronological or archaeological. In fact, this region is where certain scholars argue the Scythians first emerged. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have commented to this effect. --Genie (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of JohnLloydScharf (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf. -- Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genie, honestly I do not know what is best when dealing with a person like this. Maybe the above, or maybe not. I am calling for opinions basically because he can no longer read me or write anything rational to me or anyone else who has been involved in recent edits, making everything very personal and huffy-puffy. Other less involved editors have tried to contact him only to be chased off sometimes with large chunks of quotes from journal articles pasted on to their talkpages. So maybe just having a new experienced third party who knows the subject a bit give some advice would help calm things down again. I think you know there were recent big edits to J1. Here is the article 4 August, a few weeks ago [9] before I started working on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! See [10] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a courtesy note because I mentioned your J1 edits today on the talk page of J1, and adjusted them a bit in the article. It is explained in detail here, but especially in my recent posts here and then more to the point, here.

In a nutshell, there has been a slow edit war where User:Pdeitiker has been deleting all mention of Semino et al's 2000 theory that part of J1's distribution might be from the Arab expansion in historical times. The sentence is one I wrote and you kept when you changed it, but while struggling to find a solution I noticed that you had separated mention of that theory from mention of the articles which raise questions about it, and I have moved things slightly now to cover this.

I am certainly not saying that you have any responsibility for the slow edit war! This should have been a simple discussion and easy fix. It is a minor point of how to place sentences to get the right flow. But as it stands right now, I am not sure if this will stop the deletions and silliness. (See the talk page of Pdeitiker.) Discussion of this article has just become awkward for the time being, as has happened before on genetics articles after someone cleans them up. I believe the article is now at least good enough that it can remain relatively stable now for a while, and the worst silliness has been removed. (Though you can still see "what might have been" on JohnLloydScharf's J1 draft page.

I write to you just to try to avoid misunderstandings and keep you up to date. If you can help in the discussion or editing it would of course be great also!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about a thing Andrew. --Genie (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have expanded the section on clusters and clades, and re-structured it, in order to avoid all the silly misunderstandings, whether they were real or not. In doing this I ended up covering everything in the origins section you split out, but I consider this just a new way of splitting things up, so in the spirit of your edits also. The difficulty of avoiding this was coming from the way that our sources all work with apples and origins - some with STR defined clusters, some with some SNPs, others a different set, and so on. I have therefore spelled out the apples and oranges aspect a bit, using it to structure discussion, in a way which I hope is still readable, or is maybe even better. Comments welcome of course!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See if I can scan the reference for you so you can see it in full. If I can I will post it here after I finish work (I'm an Aussie).Jembana (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book Celtic from the West. I can see exactly what McEvoy and Bradley said. The problem is that they identify the haplogroup in question only as I1c (an old name for M223 - back in 2005! http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2005-05/1115846091 ). You have to go back to some of their other work to find out that what they are talking about is a subclade of M223 found in Britain i.e. M284. --Genie (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've moved the position of the text to the subclade above but the problem if that is the case is that the wording for that subclade in "...found almost exclusively among the population of Great Britain, suggesting that the clade may have arisen in that island..." whereas McEvoy and Bradley clearly say that the subclade they are talking about (the 2010 chapter) is relatively common in continental Europe and their suggestion that the La Tene cultrure may have been accompanied by some migration. They are clearly talking about the Upper Rhine La Tene marker subclade.Jembana (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jembana - I understand your confusion. La Tene is mentioned by McEvoy and Bradley in connection with their "I1c". La Tene has been mentioned by Hans de Beule in relation to the clade he has been investigating for several years - I2a2b (L38/S154). But that doesn't make them the same haplogroup. McEvoy and Bradley won't have the faintest clue about the work of Hans, which has only been published fairly recently and not in any journal that McEvoy and Bradley will have read. McEvoy and Bradley say that that McCartan and McGuinness men carry a Y-chromosome "belonging to a family ..I1c". In other words they carry a subclade of the one on the continent. This fits M284, found in Britain, a subclade of M223, which has a peak in Germany. Here is the result of one McGuinness : "My Paternal Lineage: Surname McGINNIS. Y-DNA Haplogroup is I1b2a. Apparently my brother has a rare mutation called M284." http://olivetreegenealogy.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/my-y-dna-mtdna-surnames-haplogroups.html --Genie (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genie, point taken - I have fixed the wording so it now makes sense. Thanks for your input.Jembana (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, large-scale removal of material as here should not be done without explanation. For example, I do not understand why you removed the sentence "Also, the spread of farming does not seem to have been a uniform process or to have been achieved everywhere by population migration." It sounds like a valid objection, and if you think a source is needed, just tag it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Florian. I despaired at the time of finding a single source for a sentence that sums up a highly complex topic. (A sentence with which I agree completely, by the way.) However I think I can do it now. --Genie (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Bell-Beaker R1b. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Nice to be in contact with you again. Noticed the work on Belgae. Did not look in detail, but I think one change is that you've removed reference to the fact that Caesar called the Belgae Gauls sometimes, and introduced an implication that he made a strict distinction between the Gauls and Belgae (always using Gaul type words for the Celtae)? Was that intended? (Or perhaps I have just missed it with things being moved around.) Also concerning translation differences, note that we can save space and just look at the Latin if there is anything that might affect the article. Wikipedia policy allows for the fact that people can read other languages, and so we do not need to use translations in order to be sourcing properly. So if we can read it, we can report it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - The original statement was vague. I have just replaced it with a specific example which should make the problem of interpretation clear. Genie (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why write as if there is only one example? From the opening sentence Caesar describes the Belgae and Celtae as both being in Gaul and Gaulish. Your own way of writing makes Caesar simpler to understand, but does not seem quite the same as how he or secondary sources write. He treats the Celtae as a type of Gaul, whereas you call it a translation. I see the difficulty of course. Caesar certainly does use the term in both a broad and strict ways (also Belgae). But you are saying this can be deciphered as geographical which seems too neat to me. Are the Belgae in Britain not also Gauls?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - The opening sentence at least is very clear. "Gaul comprises three areas, inhabited respectively by the Belgae, the Aquitani, and a people who call themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls." So we have a geographical area called Gaul (Gallia) by the Romans. It was called Keltike by the Greeks (though earliest Greek travellers considered Keltike to extend into Iberia.) The term Celts was taken from the Greek Keltoi and would appear to be a Greek name applied by them to speakers of what we call Celtic languages. Caesar gives us to understand that the Gauls (Galli) applied it to themselves, so we can take it that by his day at least some Gaulish-speakers had adopted the collective name. Sims-Williams has discussed the possibility that Keltoi, Galli, and Galatae are variants of the same name transmitted through different channels (CMCS 36.21–9), but this is by no means a certainty for Keltoi, and I do not call Celtae a translation of Galli.Genie (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we have any evidence that Gaul as a geographical area was not just the place where Gauls lived, or even if we have any evidence that Caesar would have found it important to have clear definitions of such words. Similarly I think where you suggest that Greeks used the term Keltike to refer to an area where a language was spoken is taking the 21st century approach and assuming it can be applied to classical writers, which of course is not something we will find any consensus for in secondary sources about those writers. In any case you have given one example already in the article to show that you know Caesar describes Belgae as Gauls and not just living in Gaul. I was wondering why you have felt it necessary to imply that we know for sure that this was just loose talking, as opposed to a stricter definition which no classical source gives us, and why you imply there is only one such example. The new wording I am concerned with is this:

The fact that the Belgae were living in Gaul means that in one sense they were Gauls. This may be Caesar's meaning when he says "The Belgae have the same method of attacking a fortress as the rest of the Gauls."

I understand this to be a replacement of the following?

He describes the Belgae as both Celtic (or at least Gaulish) and Germanic (at least some of them, and at least by descent).

Can I suggest this instead:

He describes the Belgae as both Gaulish (possibly in a geographical sense) and Germanic (or at least to some large extent descended from ancestors from east of the Rhine).

Perhaps also we could adapt this at the same time, to take into account your concerns:

While Caesar or his sources described the Belgae as distinctly different from the Gauls, Strabo stated that the differences between the Celts (Gauls) and Belgae, in countenance, language, politics, and way of life was a small one, unlike the difference between the Aquitanians and Celts.

change to something like...

While Caesar or his sources described the Belgae as distinctly different from the Gauls who called themselves Celts, Strabo stated that the differences between the Gauls and the Belgae, in countenance, language, politics, and way of life was a small one, unlike the difference between the Aquitanians and Celts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - I do not feel that your suggestions would be improvements. The previous text confused someone posting on Anthrogenica to the point that I arrived here to revise it. Caesar does not describe the Belgae as Germanic in the sense that this word is now understood i.e. as an ethnicity or Germanic-speaking. That is accepted by modern scholars. To continue to assert or suggest that his meaning was ethnic or linguistic flies in the face of modern scholarship. To deal with specifics:

→"Not sure we have any evidence that Gaul as a geographical area was not just the place where Gauls lived, or even if we have any evidence that Caesar would have found it important to have clear definitions of such words."

Of course Gaul was so named by the Romans because that is where Gauls lived. The complication (which Caesar felt obliged to explain) was that Belgae had entered north-east Gaul from east of the Rhine in living memory and displaced the Gauls who had previously lived there. So the region was still considered part of Gaul, but a people regarded as relative newcomers (rather than long-established Gauls) lived there. It was not just Caesar who described the boundaries of Gaul. They were described by geographers Strabo (not all that long after Caesar): http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/home.html and Ptolemy (a couple of centuries later). http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/home.html

→"Similarly I think where you suggest that Greeks used the term Keltike to refer to an area where a language was spoken is taking the 21st century approach and assuming it can be applied to classical writers, which of course is not something we will find any consensus for in secondary sources about those writers."

Of course it is a 21st-century approach. It is me trying to explain rapidly to you that Keltike and Keltoi were not necessarily the exact counterparts of the Roman Gallia and Galli, but had a complex relationship. It is not included in the Wikipedia page on the Belgae. For more on the topic see Jean Manco, Blood of the Celts (2015). Genie (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Genie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Hello, Genie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Genie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]