Talk:Nordwestblock

message: This article seems to me to emphasize the possible Nordwestblock character of many tribes I think most scholars would call uncontroversially Germanic.--Andrew Lancaster 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Is it true that the Hilversum culture is in the "southern region" of the NW-block (i.e., left of the Rhine)? Hilversum itself appears to be located in North Holland... dab (𒁳) 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "the Rhine" is hard to define in the delta of the Low Countries. Elp is situated east of IJssel, the easternmost subsidiary of this delta. Hilversum includes parts of the delta and continues south. I have a better graph instead, showing the archeologscal dispersal. I think the graph actually presented concentrate on the nordwestblock theory, that counters to the enigma that no clear immigration of Celts or Germanics have been found.Rokus01 18:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilversum

message: The Frisians were one of the people that already roamed the area well before the first century. Like the other inhabitants of this area, there are no clues whatsoever on any origin from outside the Nordwestblock area. They share the same origin, and the proof we are still talking about the same people and not about immigrants can be found in archeological facts that are not confined to a special period: to the contrary, much of the real evidence of local continuity is obscured by Roman imports that might wrongly suggest discontinuity. Remember we should not express a view on whether or not the Nordwestblock theory is valid. Archeological indications pointing towards continuity would apparently contradict the theory, unless we assume a good deal of diffusion. Other circumstancial facts are likely to give support to the theory. Features that are not or only partly shared by related people "outside" should be mentioed, since this gives an impression about their real or assumed uniqueness, whether this unique features are related to phenotype, mythology or otherwise. Let the reader decide!
 
In recent archeology the notion that this area was very different from neighboring developments is not all pervasive. The general view is that the area was never isolated and shared developments with both the Northern hemisphere and the Atlantic world. Related people, though never identical, were to be found in Britain, northern Germany and Scandinavia, and southern ties were strong with cultures similar in other ways. The language could be anything, all options are open, although the possibilities a language very different from Celtic or Germanic was spoken are not supported by any evidence and are based on mere speculation. Likewise, there are no real indications the people were anything else but Germanic or Celtic. Actually, cultural differences are the only thing we have to support the view of a different cultural background. Thus, all information that points to local features is "on topic". For instance, the Frisian god Fosite does not have any equivalent in Norse mythology, since Forsite - the only Norse god coming close- is considered (sourced) a Frisian loan. Unique gods from other germanic areas are not so very common. You would have to explain why this is not remarkable or even off topic to an article dedicated to a theory emphasizing the uniqueness - and marginality - of this very region: a view I consider suspect of being tainted by definition anyway. Rokus01 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythology, Frisians and other things called "off topic"

message: removed lengthy rant on how all academics always get it wrong. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , Wikipedia talkpages aren't your soapbox, they are for discussing the article. If you have something to add, do it. If you have a suggestion, tell us, but don't spam the talkpage with 30k essays, nobody is going to read them. dab (𒁳) 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is too lengthy but I found it a very interesting read. He slightly ruins it by calling some academics/scientists liars and using the word fraud. There are no lies/frauds just interpretations. His gist seems to be that the Nordwestblock people shared a common ancestry with all people within the North Sea rim(East England, Western Scandinavia, Friesland etc) due to a shared ancient ancestry via the sunken Doggerland. That may be true, but the Nordwestblock theory would still hold as those peoples were at some point converted to speaking Indo-European and their language (Lower German) is clearly different to other dialects of German, probably due to the influence/blend of the archaic language they spoke on that flavour of proto-Germanic.--92.0.59.150 (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "fraud"

message: ethnic: 
* pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.  
* referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.  
* of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.  
* belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country  
To Berig: Racial (I would prefer genetic and anthropologic) characteristics are implied by usung the word "ethnic". 
To Dbachmann: please source your statement that suggests a "Nordwestblock" identity, being a separate linguistic identity, does not imply an ethnic identity. Isn't this a statement against basic anthropology? Rokus01 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, assertions about what is "truth" are *not* revelant. This is relevant: WP:CITE and WP:OR.--Berig 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Rokus01, are you trolling? I have never used that word on this talkpage, nor in this article. Please, try to stay on topic.--Berig 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not used the word "ethnic" so please stop accusing me of something I have not said. This is a pre-historic archaeological culture, and so we don't know anything about the various "ethicities" that may have corresponded to the culture. You, however, are adding off-topic information about "Dutch myhtology" and the genetics of modern Dutchmen. That borders closely on OR and Dieter may be right in his suspicions about your intentions.--Berig 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic

message: Mythology: these gods were 1st recorded in writing in Latin and the names may have been Latinized and misunderstood, between the 1st and 6th century so how can you be certain they were from prehistory, where's the sources placing them bbefore the 1st century and naming them thus? The smoking gun would be a little figure in a digging that you can identify and carbon date before the 1st century that is unlike anyother place on earth. If there isnt any just be honest say we cant identify gods during this era by name but they may have become the gods known as x, y and z in Latin. IN fact, I'd refer to archeology as the primary source in this article to either prove/disprove there was a distinction to the society. Goldenrowley 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh perspective

message: Wanted some English sources. I can't read or evaluate the main German references given. In addition there may be something translatable in the following references BUT I can't read them: Goldenrowley 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW SOURCES?

message: Could someone who knows how please add a redirect to this article from Nord-West Block which currently doesn't, but perhaps should  exist?  I spent a half hour trying to find this article, (I remembered the name from Mallory 20 years ago) and finally found it after searching page after page of google results.Kjær 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Redirect?

message: I am familiar with all the sources named in the deleted section. None of them discuss anything about the Nordwestblock theory. This section was therefore clearly original research.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I deleted the genetics section 

message: This article includes under Language hypothesis:  I don’t know what this means, and the link to the source is dead. Can anyone elucidate? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request