Talk:Dorian invasion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments

It would be cool if 142.173.109.116 could provide a citation for his expansion of this article, for the benefit of the curious. Also, please don't use the first person or a conversational style in writing Wikipedia articles. Thanks - Nat Krause 16:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dorians and the "Dorian invasion"

These two articles essentially belong together at Dorian, supporting one another until some subsection is overwhelmingly complicated and might stand on its own, represented at the main article by a concise paragraph. Perhaps there are three subsections to this part:

  1. "The Greek view"
  2. "Race and Historians: the 19th century view"
  3. "Archaeology and the modern view"

If you see other natural subdivisions, please insert them, and then let's get going with this interesting big article. --Wetman 06:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the text (the previous writers had badly structured it). It still needs to be expanded and further rewritten. Whoever wants to expand it, feel free, because I'm booked. Alexander 007 06:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope the author of the previous version does not decide to treat us to more of his/her work. The Dorian Hexapolis wasn't even mentioned, and the whole text was a wreck that reeked of "nationalism" and extreme anti-migrationist, autochthonic views that most scholars reject outright, and for good reason. Alexander 007 06:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article creation

I just created this article by breaking it out from Dorians. The commentary above this comment is legacy discussion addressed months ago and no longer relevant. My reason for breaking it out is size. The reason for the size is that commentators not copied over to here were struggling with the many issues and seeming contradictions, which needed more explanation than a few paragraphs. The 1911 EB was a major source, but of course this whole field has practically developed since 1911. I'm done with this article for now but Dorians still needs some work. Ciao.Dave (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading skills

Someone whose large-print dictionary, as they confess, omits relict has reverted "a classical theme of relict populations existing in pockets among the Greek speakers" to replace it with the ignorant "relic [sic] populations". Simply reverted my edit. Now an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." is by its very definition a constant compromise with mediocrity, and I'm perfectly aware of the general cultural level, but this doesn't rise to that level. I just can't think of anything to say that won't be judged as condescending. Are we to have adult vocabulary limited to a sixth-grade level? There is a Simple Wikipedia: but if you mention it, the simple are highly insulted. What's to do? "Relic population' is ignorant and just wrong. But I have no patience with this and so am dropping another page from my Watchlist. --Wetman (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First. You didn't read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, I guess?
Second. It was "Webster's Clear Type Dictionary", one of the 2 on my shelf - not a "large print dictionary". I guess that if I did really use a "large print dictionary", that would make me some sort of mental degenerate.
Third. Wow, you'd think I'd have heard of the word relict before today. Unfortunately, I hadn't, and thought the word intended was "relic". Unfortunately, it seems Wikipedia also hasn't heard of the word relict being used to describe human populations, according to the article on the word. Well, silly me, I ended up politely asking if there was some other word, or phrasing, that could be used to make the article more accessible. The response was the above.
Wetman, I know I'm wrong now, but you make me want to revert you again, just to see how much it'll take to make you snap and go on a killing spree. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
. . .

Nevertheless— protestations to the contrary notwithstanding— the following call of "Hep hep" to raise a vigilante posse had at that moment just been posted by User talk:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad at the talk page of Lugnuts. Wetman re-posts it here because the call was for a "straw poll", and surely you should all have a chance to raise the hue and cry:

So, reading the article Dorian invasion, I came across this sentence:

Toward the end of the 19th century the philologist Paul Kretschmer made a strong case that Pelasgian was a pre-Greek substrate, perhaps Anatolian,[6] taking up a classical theme of relict populations existing in pockets among the Greek speakers, in mountainous and rural Arcadia and in inaccessible coasts of the far south.

So I never saw the word relict before, so I changed it to relic.

So I get reverted by User:Wetman, who considers it vile and inhuman that I even suggest simplifying the language in the article.

So, straw poll: am I a moron, or do people generally not use the word relict? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman made the following reply which will be his only remark on this subject:
Wetman never uses "vile" and "inhuman", and did not in this case, which AllGloryToTheHypnotoad must agree is the truth, because honesty is what civility is built upon, and a dishonest report is deeply insulting and fraudulent. So now, after AllGloryToTheHypnotoad reverted Wetman, attacking him with the club of WP:CIVILITY on his own talkpage, the article Dorian invasion now reads
"... a classical theme of relic populations..."
which, being a naïve misuse of relic, does give an appearance of "ignorance" to the reader of ordinary reading skills. Will you call together your fellows, as AllGloryToTheHypnotoad proposes, and lobby to get me blocked for incivility, after having edited Wikipedia since September 2003 without such a threat? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad says on his userpage "I'm an information sponge". Under the circumstances, this might give an appearance of disingenuousness: in the interests of frankness, might that be re-edited and another virtue substituted? (This page is not on my Watchlist, so I shall not return to spar with the posse you may call up.) --Wetman (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Reposted here by Wetman (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Having frequently come across the term relict in the context of palaeontology etc, it never occurred to me that its meaning was not self evident to anyone who knows the word relic. If this is not so it can be found in the Concise OED, ie the very short one, not the 20 volume version . Pterre (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, I wonder how this can be worth your time. Note that my post on a random person's page was a straw poll as to whether I'm dumb for not having come across the word relict, and not an attempt to raise a posse to attack you personally, nor to start any process to have you blocked for incivility. I am sorry if you misread it as a personal threat.

My reminders of WP:CIVIL were simply reminders. I can be uncivil with the best, but here on Wikipedia I do try to be nice, to show respect to the people who contribute to an online encyclopedia that I enjoy reading. I certainly appreciate those who contribute to articles on ancient history. I hope that you never get banned for incivility.

However, you did aim the words "ignorant" and "childish" at me. Also, above, you seemed to insinuate that anyone using a "large print dictionary" (a complete misreading on your part) is inferior - which is an insult to anyone with, say, a visual impairment (which I don't have). I am confident that an impeccably-bred Harvard-educated gentleman with a distaste for mediocrity would be quick to apologize. He knows his excellence comes from being held in high regard.

So, I was ignorant of the term relict. I don't think that this means I'm ignorant. I do have a University education, I work in a technical field, and I do read books. I'm fairly certain that I have expertise in fields where you don't, but wouldn't call you ignorant for that. My suggestion was that there may be simpler language that could be used. The suggestion was only made because I thought if I was unfamiliar with the word, probably at least 90% of Wikipedia readers would also be unfamiliar with it. (One of my own dictionaries was unfamiliar with it.) If the contributors to this page disagree with me, or care less than I, then I'll let it go. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)