LagApostolos
Joined 2 May 2025
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Doug Weller in topic June 2025
Welcome!
editHi LagApostolos! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! – Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
May and June 2025
edit
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
lack of NPOV and original research June 2025
editYou're adding to the voice Etruscan civilization original research or novel syntheses of published material. In many cases references to studies were already discussed in the article and presented in the most appropriate way. What you are doing does not improve the article in any way. Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- I maintained everything that there was already, but some genetic analysis where particularly missing and NOT discussed. There is no reason to leave them up, the debate is open and many evidence point towards a mixed and complex genetic evolution. M-dna was not discussed, specific sub-clades where not mentioned. G2a found by Antono et al. (2019) in 4/19 samples was not even mentioned. Is there any reason you want to "undo" fine-tuning additions and improvements to this lemma? LagApostolos (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- The idea that the debate is open is a popular belief that does not correspond to the current consensus among scholars. Antonio 2019 did not find any G2a among the Etruscans, all the information you added is outdated, confusing and inaccurate. The studies of Achilli 2007 and Brisighelli 2009 were based on modern samples, not ancient ones, and have been discredited by ancient DNA studies. It is obvious that the two studies are connected since it was the same group of geneticists. The second is a reiteration of the previous one. That of Beekes, an Indo-European linguist not known for his knowledge of Etruscan, is an opinion that dates back to the 1990s, 2002 being the date of his last publication, and has nothing to do with genetics studies. Your edits are still not an improvement to the article.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Posth et al, (2021: DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abi7673), Table S1 report G2a among iron-age Etruscans. Open the Table and see. R.Beekes is one of the most Acknowledged language-experts of 20th Century, you are not in position to "delete" his opinion from a Wikipedia lemma. You are right that Achilli 2007 and Brisighelli 2009 are based on modern samples, however, they still contribute to the whole debate (no need to delete them, the wikipedia-user can read and form his/her own opinion). The mere fact that you disrespect Beekes that has published immense material on non-Indoeuropean Mediterranean languages is characteristic of the way you view this issue. Please let others also contribute, this is in favor of science, you don't have to revert everything back. LagApostolos (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits clearly show that you are focused on promoting the idea that pseudoscientific theories about the Pelasgian world, the pre-Greek substratum, and the notion that the Etruscans originated from Greece or the Aegean remain valid. This appears to be driven by motives unrelated to a genuine interest in the ancient world. However, these theories are not credible. It is a fact, not merely my opinion, that Beekes is not regarded as a leading authority on Etruscan civilization.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, you promote biased opinions that disregard history. But it is not for us to solve it. Leave the published research addition within the lemma, and let people make their own views. You are not to decide which peer-reviewed articles are worth to mention. Beekes is solid researcher in non-Indoeuropean Mediterranean languages, and last time I checked, Etruscan language was one of them. If you delete the certified G2 evidence (Posth et al, (2021), M-dna elaboration, or persist that Beekes is irrelevant, I will have to official report this to the Editors. LagApostolos (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a forum or a blog where you have to leave information for anyone to make up their own mind. It would be a good idea for you to start reading the rules of Wikipedia.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Posth et al examine 2 scenarios: The first scenario proposes an Anatolian/Aegean origin as indicated by the ancient Greek writers Herodotus and Hellanicus of Lesbos. This hypothesis is supported by the presence of Ancient Greek cultural elements in Etruria during the so-called Orientalizing Period, between the eighth and sixth century BCE. The second advocates for an autochthonous development as described in the first century BCE by the historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus (3, 4). According to this hypothesis, the Etruscan population originated locally from people associated with the late Bronze Age (Proto-)Villanovan culture around 900 years BCE.
- What do they actually get? I believe you can perfectly understand the evidence reported. There is a Central Etruscan cluster, and some outliers (either towards Central Europe, or Anatolia). Paternal line at least in Elite-tombs (not representative of all population in the cities and villages!) shifts dramatically towards Bell-Beaker people. Nevertheless of the 13 males extracted, 3 present G2a and 1 J2b. Now maternal DNA as reported in Table S1 shifts towards Anatolian/Eastern Mediter. allele, like :
- T2e, T2d2, T2h2 – Common in Mycenaean, Minoan, Anatolian Bronze Age individuals.
- HV0, HV22 – Widespread in ancient Near East and Aegean.
- W6a, X2b – Seen in Minoan, Levantine, Caucasus ancient samples.
- H13a1a1d – Known in Near East and Aegean Bronze Age contexts.
- Overall, Etruscans maintain a 65% Anatolian autosomal ancestry, while when Antonio et al (2019) model the Iranian/Caucasian separately they found "strong Iran Neolithic ancestry alongside Anatolian/Caucasian ancestry—prior to the influx of Steppe Eneolithic ancestry. This Iranian/Caucasus component appears to increase during the Iron Age, reaching notable proportions by the Imperial Roman period". Now from all this if you still get "autochthonous growth", I am really surprised. All evidence point towards an integration of Aegean/Balkanian people with proto-Villanovian farmers. This could also well explain the "urban civilization" and the "language mystery". Your ancestors made something impressive in terms of culture, together from various origins. You should respect their history and stop masking the truth.
- As for the last: Open the S4 table of Posth et al (2021). You might get surprised. LagApostolos (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a forum or a blog where you have to leave information for anyone to make up their own mind. It would be a good idea for you to start reading the rules of Wikipedia.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, you promote biased opinions that disregard history. But it is not for us to solve it. Leave the published research addition within the lemma, and let people make their own views. You are not to decide which peer-reviewed articles are worth to mention. Beekes is solid researcher in non-Indoeuropean Mediterranean languages, and last time I checked, Etruscan language was one of them. If you delete the certified G2 evidence (Posth et al, (2021), M-dna elaboration, or persist that Beekes is irrelevant, I will have to official report this to the Editors. LagApostolos (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits clearly show that you are focused on promoting the idea that pseudoscientific theories about the Pelasgian world, the pre-Greek substratum, and the notion that the Etruscans originated from Greece or the Aegean remain valid. This appears to be driven by motives unrelated to a genuine interest in the ancient world. However, these theories are not credible. It is a fact, not merely my opinion, that Beekes is not regarded as a leading authority on Etruscan civilization.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Posth et al, (2021: DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abi7673), Table S1 report G2a among iron-age Etruscans. Open the Table and see. R.Beekes is one of the most Acknowledged language-experts of 20th Century, you are not in position to "delete" his opinion from a Wikipedia lemma. You are right that Achilli 2007 and Brisighelli 2009 are based on modern samples, however, they still contribute to the whole debate (no need to delete them, the wikipedia-user can read and form his/her own opinion). The mere fact that you disrespect Beekes that has published immense material on non-Indoeuropean Mediterranean languages is characteristic of the way you view this issue. Please let others also contribute, this is in favor of science, you don't have to revert everything back. LagApostolos (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- The idea that the debate is open is a popular belief that does not correspond to the current consensus among scholars. Antonio 2019 did not find any G2a among the Etruscans, all the information you added is outdated, confusing and inaccurate. The studies of Achilli 2007 and Brisighelli 2009 were based on modern samples, not ancient ones, and have been discredited by ancient DNA studies. It is obvious that the two studies are connected since it was the same group of geneticists. The second is a reiteration of the previous one. That of Beekes, an Indo-European linguist not known for his knowledge of Etruscan, is an opinion that dates back to the 1990s, 2002 being the date of his last publication, and has nothing to do with genetics studies. Your edits are still not an improvement to the article.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
edit
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:LagApostolos that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Doug, what was exactly this not civil comment? Please be specific on this, it is important for me. LagApostolos (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- "You should respect their history and stop masking the truth." Doug Weller talk 10:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- How is this offensive? We had an civilized argument based on exchange of knowledge. Respect of history is a positive meaning, while distortions could happen when some information are missed out (in this example R.Beekes opinion, Thoucidides testimony etc...) In fact Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC) wrote to me: "Your edits clearly show that you are focused on promoting the idea that pseudoscientific theories". Is this civil? Implying that i promote pseudoscience when I refer to prof.Beekes and Thucidides? LagApostolos (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed by that editor in any case. But I don't know if you are adding pseufoscience. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not adding pheudoscience, when I actually complete in the Etruscan lemma some important published data that are left out, or not sufficiently discussed. My edits are based on solid historical references (that I precisely quote). R.Beekes has written an article on the "origin of Etruscans" that particularly analyzed why the connection with Lemnian Stele and Aegean tribes is not to be neglected, providing a 14-points argument. Robert Stephen Paul Beekes (1937 - 2017) was a Dutch linguist who was emeritus professor of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University and an author of many monographs on the Proto-Indo-European language. He is largely acknowledged, but Chiorbone da Frittole claims he is "irrelevant". There are some editors behind this lemma that largely "filter" what should be in and what should be left "out", so as to create an certain impression. Another such an Editor is named Tursclan, who uses multiple id's and names to UNDO multiple times almost all edits. This is serious violation of Wikipedia rules, in my view. LagApostolos (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Multiple IDs and names? Retract that now or prove it. Those are your only choices. User:Tursclan you may want to see this. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I said NOW. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Multiple IDs and names? Retract that now or prove it. Those are your only choices. User:Tursclan you may want to see this. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not adding pheudoscience, when I actually complete in the Etruscan lemma some important published data that are left out, or not sufficiently discussed. My edits are based on solid historical references (that I precisely quote). R.Beekes has written an article on the "origin of Etruscans" that particularly analyzed why the connection with Lemnian Stele and Aegean tribes is not to be neglected, providing a 14-points argument. Robert Stephen Paul Beekes (1937 - 2017) was a Dutch linguist who was emeritus professor of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University and an author of many monographs on the Proto-Indo-European language. He is largely acknowledged, but Chiorbone da Frittole claims he is "irrelevant". There are some editors behind this lemma that largely "filter" what should be in and what should be left "out", so as to create an certain impression. Another such an Editor is named Tursclan, who uses multiple id's and names to UNDO multiple times almost all edits. This is serious violation of Wikipedia rules, in my view. LagApostolos (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed by that editor in any case. But I don't know if you are adding pseufoscience. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- How is this offensive? We had an civilized argument based on exchange of knowledge. Respect of history is a positive meaning, while distortions could happen when some information are missed out (in this example R.Beekes opinion, Thoucidides testimony etc...) In fact Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC) wrote to me: "Your edits clearly show that you are focused on promoting the idea that pseudoscientific theories". Is this civil? Implying that i promote pseudoscience when I refer to prof.Beekes and Thucidides? LagApostolos (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- "You should respect their history and stop masking the truth." Doug Weller talk 10:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Misrepresentation of sources and false claims someone is a sock.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)