Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 22 December 2007

• I also have a normal life
• I might be very busy at the moment doing something else
• I hate people that love to destroy information
• Archive 01

Please write your comments here below (if any)

DYK

On 29 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elp culture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your equation of the Jastorf culture with the Suebi is either original research or POV-pushing, or at best an exhibition of innocent ignorance or misunderstanding, because tribes that are not universally considered Suebic are also associated with the Jastorf culture. The way you changed the text to add this information made the text highly confusing, and my revert was highly qualified.--Berig 10:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mister, read Germania of Tacitus and you will have a definition of Suebi, they comprised about half or more of what he knew to be Germanic. To compare the unbiased map of Jastof culture with the Elb region "OR"? You will rather have problems correlating Jastof with the fringe area west of the Weser. I hope I don't have to explain what is WP:OR: the combination of separate facts to new statements. Better watch out of accusing me of forging new facts. The previous statement, equating Jastof with West Germanic, was a better example of OR, innocent ignorance and POV pushing, "because tribes that are not universally considered descending from Jastof are definitely West Germanic". I'm sorry for you, it seems you can't see things in the right proportion and your revert things for your lack of understanding. Anyway, I did not mind the reverting itself: I mind you did not revert as well the nonsense my edit was directed against. This is what I call unbalanced. Rokus01 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you consider me to be in the wrong because of Tacitus' definition of Suebi, then you are barking up the wrong tree. According to Tacitus' all Germanic tribes north and east of the Suebi were also Suebi and that included the Suiones in Scandinavia.--Berig 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, just put your hair in a knot and nobody will know the difference.Rokus01 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over Nietzsche, but you need to justify some of your edits.

• Tou seem to be confusing moral nihilism, which Nietzsche did accept, with nihilism more generally and the Nihilist movement is specific, which Nietzsche was opposed to. The differences between all of these must be kept very clear.
• The source material you reference does not itself refer to any source for the claim that Nietzsche accepted the Nihilist label. Nor does it even explain what is meant by what amounts to a very unclear sentence. To a native English speaker, the sentence is very ambiguous. It could just as easily mean that Nietzsche recognized the existence of the label, but not that he accepted it for himself. Regardless, the whole thing is just an unwarranted assertion made in the first paragraph and never backed up.
• If Nietzsche was the first to study Nihilism, who was he studying and responding to? This claim can't possibly be true.

Please justify these edits, or I will revert them. Thank you. Postmodern Beatnik 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, indeed it would be better to engage into an editwar with somebody else. Nobody ever pretended Nietzsche is easy to understand, another thing he himself readily acknowledged (his estimation was it would last a hundred years before he would be understood, I guess he was an optimist). Thus, your understanding of Nietzsche could easily be different from mine, or from anybody else. However, to make your understanding acceptable to Misplaced Pages standards I would insist on proper sourcing. Expose your different view by quoting recent sources of scholars who studied this subject.

• First of all, Nietzsche was the first to describe Nihilism. The sources I quote confirm this, if you have any different information I will readily take this into consideration.
• Second, you have to understand that the notion of nihilism nowadays differs from how it was received over a century ago. Indeed, Nietzsche would not be a nihilist in the modern sense. I hope you would agree to this modern definition: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." This kind of nihilism does not value moral, as it does not value anything, thus certainly would be opposed to whatever you call "moral nihilism".
• So, Beatnik, what kind of Nihilism do you think Nietzsche was talking about, when he wrote: "I praise, I do not reproach, arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength." (Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13)?? Or would you prefer to contradict the general interpretation of such to be nihilism? To this question my reference gives an answer, or at least this will give you an impression to what kind of "acknowledgement" of the label is meant. In the modern sense, Nietzsche would not classify as an nihilist since his "nihilistic" destruction is ultimately meant to construct.

If you have any other information, don't hestitate to notify me. Rokus01 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, indeed it would be better to engage into an editwar with somebody else.

• When I said I wasn't going to get into an edit war, all I meant was that I wasn't going to escalate anything. I don't get into edit wars with anybody. I'm not sure why you felt the need to get haughty on the issue.

Nobody ever pretended Nietzsche is easy to understand, another thing he himself readily acknowledged...

• Agreed. That's why we must be very careful not to make rash generalizations or controversial statements that cannot be well-backed. I find your recent edits to do just this, however. That is why I asked for clarification.

However, to make your understanding acceptable to Misplaced Pages standards I would insist on proper sourcing. Expose your different view by quoting recent sources of scholars who studied this subject.

• Such as myself? Ah but that is besides the point as I am not arguing for anything. My primary concern was to remove a poorly sourced claim you added to the page. And this is precisely my complaint about your source. The article does not itself validate the claims that you put onto the page. My explanation follows:

First of all, Nietzsche was the first to describe Nihilism. The sources I quote confirm this, if you have any different information I will readily take this into consideration.

• I find no support for this claim in Michels' article. I see support for the claim that Nietzsche studied Nihilism exhaustively and carefully mapped out his understanding of it; but by no means do I find support for the bald claim that Nietzsche was the first to study Nihilism. As for the other claim that I took issue with, namely that Nietzsche readily accepted the label of "nihilist," I find that the article you cite treads very lightly on that issue. It is only is a specialized sense, after much parsing and qualification, that Nietzsche accepted the term. To properly explain the context of this acceptance in the Nihilism article would require a significant expansion of the Nihilism and Nietzsche section, perhaps requiring its own article. I have no objection to this being done; however, your own abbreviated edits do not do the issues justice and are, thus, misleading as they stand.

Second, you have to understand that the notion of nihilism nowadays differs from how it was received over a century ago.

• I do understand that. The article, however, is about nihilism today. Any departures from that understanding must be noted. Your edits, made in reference to Nietzsche's own understanding, fail to do such. As you yourself stated: Indeed, Nietzsche would not be a nihilist in the modern sense. See the problem?

I hope you would agree to this modern definition: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy."

• I have no problem with this definition.

This kind of nihilism does not value moral, as it does not value anything, thus certainly would be opposed to whatever you call "moral nihilism".

• And here is another place where you fail to understand me. The modern definition of general nihilism is not at all opposed to "moral nihilism" (which is no invention of mine, by the way, so the phrase "whatever you call" in your above quote is really quite uncalled for). Moral nihilism, to put a slight gloss on it, is the thesis that there are no moral truths. General nihilists accept this thesis, they just go further. So the point is that while all general nihilists are moral nihilists, not all moral nihilists are general nihilists. Nietzsche was certainly a moral nihilists (though with very important and particular first order qualifications). He was not, however, a full-fledged nihilist--not even in the way he understood the issue. Moreover, your own reference article supports my point. To wit: "If nihilism is a sort of inaction, then Nietzsche’s philosophy points away from nihilism, not to it. The will to power is nothing if not a doctrine of action." Also: " if it is impossible to avoid thinking nihilism, it is essential that we avoid living nihilism." And from one of Michels' own sources (see note 32): Nihilism "is the problem to which the Will to Power is the answer." Robert C. Solomon, "Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Morality," Nietzsche: A Collection of Critical Essays, Robert C. Solomon, ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 203. To suggest a direct relation as you do is simply unsupportable. Even your own sources betray you.

So, Beatnik, what kind of Nihilism do you think Nietzsche was talking about, when he wrote: "I praise, I do not reproach, arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength." (Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13)?

• He is, of course, talking about general nihilism. That is obvious. But you have terribly misinterpreted the quote. As Steven Michels himself says in the article: "Nietzsche’s philosophy does not so much celebrate nihilism, as it recognizes the overcoming of nihilism as the only true foundation upon which culture can thrive (UD 3)." This is the standard interpretation of Nietzsche in the philosophical literature, and I see no reason for the article at issue to state otherwise—particularly since your own source does not stray from this mainstream interpretation. You yourself seem to acknowledge this:

In the modern sense, Nietzsche would not classify as an nihilist since his "nihilistic" destruction is ultimately meant to construct.

• If you feel the need to use inverted commas around "nihilistic" then I would suggest you already know that Nietzsche is not a nihilist in the sense the Nihilism article is getting at. The relationship between Nietzsche and Nihilism is more complex than your edits let on. Postmodern Beatnik 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are just talking two different languages. I fully agree with your "The relationship between Nietzsche and Nihilism is more complex than your edits let on." However, I still think these edits introduce a much more comprehensive overview from what it was: "Nihilism is often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche, despite his explicit denunciation of the position, due to his extensive work on the subject". This was too simple, and does not take into consideration that, in a way, he also classifies for being a nihilist. Your quote "If nihilism is a sort of inaction, then Nietzsche’s philosophy points away from nihilism, not to it" does not take into consideration the word "If". Read well and find out this "if" refers to an approach considering only one type of nihilism, or rather a possible result of nihilistic thinking he indeed tried to avoid.
The historic context was already made clear by adding "a label nowadays largely contested." Maybe you could try and attribute him with an unequivocal stance towards modern nihilism, however, then you would neglect the importance of the very source of nihilism, the "moral nihilism" (it is clear to both of us now what it stands for) that might easily be taken for granted in a nihilistic present time, as it seems you are doing here as well, but surely would be the one and only reason why he (in quite a different time and culture) would have "acknowledged" to be a nihilist himself. General nihilism? You mean a "basic" kind of nihilism? Anyway, this way of thinking essentially belongs to nihilism. Then: "Nietzsche’s philosophy does not so much celebrate nihilism, as it recognizes the overcoming of nihilism". I do not see any contradiction here: why should he celebrate nihilism "as is"? Nihilism must have been the natural result of his nonconformist way of thinking, and I fully agree this would rather have dispaired him. His subsequent drive to try to overcome nihilism is what distinguish him from just a nihilist: however, this does not make him so much different from a nihilist, rather this makes him more than a nihilist. Thus, your source saying "There is a common misconception that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was a nihilist" only applies to the whole set of characteristics commonly ascribed to nihilism. Read well and notice Astin Cline introduce nuance lateron to this bold statement. Also, notice how careful Steven Michels choose his words in defining the real thoughts of Nietzsche: "Nietzsche may be said We limit ourselves here to saying that the movement of Nietzsche’s thought can be understood as Existentialism is the attempt to free Nietzsche’s alleged overcoming of relativism from the consequences of his relapse into metaphysics or of his recourse to nature." This would be sufficient to warn against any certaincy contained in phrases like "his explicit denunciation".
He being the first - should be corrected in: he being the first to study nihilism extensively, agreed on this one. Rokus01 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we are just talking two different languages.

• In fact, I believe this is the heart of the problem. I believe a language barrier has caused at least one of our primary disagreements. More on this below.

I fully agree with your "The relationship between Nietzsche and Nihilism is more complex than your edits let on." However, I still think these edits introduce a much more comprehensive overview from what it was...

• I must agree with you that the original version is not satisfying, either. And I do appreciate the quality of the Steven Michels article. The problem, I think, is with your English syntax. In the context of the article, the phrase "nowadays largely contested" suggests that modern interpreters are blithely ignoring Nietzsche's own pronouncements and interpreting him in whatever way they like. Your last comment on this page, however, suggests that what you really mean is that Nietzsche's nihilism is not the same as contemporary nihilism. This I would agree with, but it is not what your first edit says to a native English speaker.

Your quote "If nihilism is a sort of inaction, then Nietzsche’s philosophy points away from nihilism, not to it" does not take into consideration the word "If".

• It is not my quote. It is a quote from the Michels article you used as a reference. I agree that the word "if" is important, but I only brought up the quote to note the complexity of Nietzsche's relationship with Nihilism. It was not meant to prove anything else.

General nihilism? You mean a "basic" kind of nihilism?

• No. By "general nihilism" I mean the whole collection of partial nihilist theses. You can be a moral nihilist without also believing that the there is no such thing as truth or knowledge or meaning. You can be an epistemological nihilist without also believing that there is no such thing as absolute value. A general nihilist, however, is one who is completely described by the definition of nihilism that you offered: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." Is that clearer?

Thus, your source saying "There is a common misconception that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was a nihilist" only applies to the whole set of characteristics commonly ascribed to nihilism.

• Exactly my point. Your edits implied otherwise, however. That was my problem with them.

Read well and notice Astin Cline introduce nuance lateron to this bold statement. Also, notice how careful Steven Michels choose his words in defining the real thoughts of Nietzsche: "Nietzsche may be said We limit ourselves here to saying that the movement of Nietzsche’s thought can be understood as Existentialism is the attempt to free Nietzsche’s alleged overcoming of relativism from the consequences of his relapse into metaphysics or of his recourse to nature." This would be sufficient to warn against any certaincy contained in phrases like "his explicit denunciation".

• Very true. Like I said, I don't particularly like either phrasing. However, to the uninformed reader of Misplaced Pages, I think the earlier phrasing is less misleading than your edit. But you are correct: the former phrasing is also incorrect. This should be addressed.

He being the first - should be corrected in: he being the first to study nihilism extensively, agreed on this one.

• I am glad we agree on this.

Now that this is all said, I propose the following solution: I have created a draft on my personal sandbox subpage that I think represents the consensus you and I have come to that acknowledges the complexity of Nietzsche's position without misleading readers into thinking he fully endorsed Nihilism. I would then like to get your approval of this draft. One of us will then edit the page accordingly. Does that sound fair? Postmodern Beatnik 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't read your sandbox. However, I largely agree to your explanation here - the difference between his rejection of universal values (his moral nihilism) against his denunciation of inaction (of general nihilism) is very important. You can edit the phrases you think are not clear. Rokus01 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. I want you to look at it first, though, because I have made quite a few changes. For one thing, you had previously added your edits onto the beginning of the Nihilism and Nietzsche section. The older introduction, however, was left intact. That made the section strange to read as it seemed to have two mutually exclusive introductions. I think the edit on my Sandbox makes the section progress more logically. I would like your thoughts on it. (By the way, I started the Sandbox with the current version of the Nihilism article, so you can see the changes by clicking on "history." Hopefully that will make it easier to review my changes.) Postmodern Beatnik 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you've made another edit to my Sandbox page. Are you satisfied with the current version, then? If so, I will edit the actual page. Postmodern Beatnik 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent!Rokus01 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remover merger tags

Please don't remover merger tags. If you want to oppose a merger then do it on the respective talk page. The merger for Nordic race into Nordic theory wasn't adequately discussed on it's talk page and it lead not no consensus. I've started a new discussion bringing up new points which you can address here ]. Don't remove the tag unless a new consensus is made. Thanks. Wikidudeman 13:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nehalennia

Hello I am interested in sources used for the history and etymology for Nehalennia, and that page is begging for some more scholarly sources. The etymology proposing various words in German and Celtic seems a bit like original research. As you helped write most of it, you're invited to discuss the etymology at Talk:Nehalennia Goldenrowley 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PIE

Hi, Rokus. There's a cite error (Passarino2002) at Proto-Indo-Europeans re: the Ahrensburg culture. Thanks. SamEV 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't see it.Rokus01 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuity vs. Replacement

Hi, Rokus. I've been watching the development of the discussion on PCT, and I was wondering if you had ever given any serious thought to doing some heavy research into the terms Continuity and Replacement in relation to anthropology and other fields. If you take a look, you'll notice, for example, that Misplaced Pages - as far as I can tell - has no articles on these very important terms - though they play notable roles in the academic literature (take a look on Google to get an idea). Also, you might want to check out The Four-Field Approach.

These are just a few random thoughts I had reading through your comments. Maybe you can get something from them, maybe not. Aryaman (☼) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Varoon, there are some excellent studies that proof the demic diffusion and subsequent absorption and virtual (physical) disappearing of the Neolithic "Anatolian" wave in favour of the Eurasian indigenous (Mesolithic) population. As such, the Neolithic expansion was nothing but a temporal stage that is neither continuous nor replacing previous populations. However, I don't seek to involve this evidence in PCT. I changed my mind about PCT, I think it basically stands alone. I think Broad Homeland hypothesis reflects regional continuity a lot better. Rokus01 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

New users impersonating yours

Hi Rokus01, it seems there have been new users creation that impersonating your user name and they only edited once of an unsourced fact about the Netherlands. I guess from your user page that you're a Dutch. Here are the new users and you can check their contributions:

• Rokus00 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus02 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus03 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus04 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Rokus05 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

If they are in fact a vandal and you know who (s)he is, then perhaps you can report them at WP:ANI. Dekisugi (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I reported this at WP:ANI and asked administration to start an investigation. Rokus01 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked them, since you state they are impersonators not doppelgangers. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your commenton the admin noticeboard

I'm pretty sure you don't want to get clobbered for trolling an already heated discussion so I removed your comment from the noticeboard. Please feel free to restate it in less inflammatory terms. Thanks, Guy (Help!) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed , I don't intend to have my observation "clobbered for trolling an already heated discussion", since my comment might be mistaken for "inflammatory" in this context. However, I feel my opinion was properly pronounced in this same words:

"Being a neutral bystander without any bearing to the articles involved, I urge for an exhaustive and independent investigation concerning possible cryptofascist cabalgrouping in Misplaced Pages. I have serious doubts against many names mentioned in this dispute, as well against their methods."

If you could help me instead to redirect my deep preocupation in order to evade such an involuntary participation in an already heated discussion that after all is of no concern to me, I would be very grateful. Rokus01 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Rokus01, can I ask you a favor, if you some time left? Some users (Dbachmann (talk · contribs), Hornplease (talk · contribs), and Paul_Pieniezny (talk · contribs)) are making claims that Koenraad Elst is a Vlaams Belang supporter, or even a neo-nazi or neo-fascist. (See , )

Now I saw that you speak Dutch, and since Elst has written some of his online articles in Dutch, it would be helpful if you could comment on Elst's opinion on the Vlaams Belang (which you can read in this article Het VB en de islam, and in some other Dutch articles on his homepage ). Merry Christmas. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I can read the claim of his affiliation to VB is based on a speech in 1992, were he sought to make a fist against islam and not - so he writes - against foreigners. His choice to make a speech right there at that time was not a good one, since at this opportunity VB proposed the 70 points against immigration that actually effectuated the political "cordon sanitaire" against VB. In the article you mention he indeed strongly opposes to any such claim. I am not Flemish and I can't give you any "inside information", all I know is in Belgium the "cordon sanitaire" signifies a successfull campaign against VB that would damage the reputation of anyone coming too close. However, on the very moment of the speech the "cordon sanitaire" was not in vigour yet, so in this sense he can not be blamed to speak out on his own terms in this peculiar association. About those 70 points: Did he know? Did he care? His act certainly was a grave political error, but to my opinion his fight is a different one and not in support of the political program of VB. I am not aware of how the Flemish press thinks about this. Still, anyone accusing him of being a VB supporter would need some more substantial evidence - and I figure such kind of evidence would be the least you'll need to accuse him of being a neo-nazi or neo-fascist. And even so, all claims should be properly sourced to deserve a place in Wikpedia. I know Dbachmann has a reputation of defaming opponents, opinions and people, including scholars, often without using published references and by sheer WP:OR as if his deductions are of the same level as scientific articles and his opinions of the same level as the most esteemed opinion magazines. Unfortunately he can count on the help of a whole gang of grateful POV pushing editors eager to return him a favour. If you see any evidence of his violations against WP:NPOV (especially where he tries to smother multiple views) or WP:OR (making unsourced claimes), outright violations of WP:CIVIL or anything else of the kind, I urge you to help making Misplaced Pages a better place and denounce this behaviour asap at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Thanks. Rokus01 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)