Waggg

--- >you were French, nationalistic, making POV mods, and not reading the >edit history

nationalistic : not that much - that is, not up to accept to be blinded by nationalism. The changes I made seemed logical to me.

making POV mods : Saying that the French didn't surrender but signed an armistice (a kind of truce) and saying that Japan was not controlling Indochina by 1940, seemed OK to me... I didn't see it as Point of View but as a non-debatable truth.

not reading the edit history : I wasn't aware of all that. I usually just read Wikipedia, I don't know the details.

Armistice implies a truce ... If Hitler had refused to sign an armistice and continue the war (it is pretty obvious he would have won) then France could have surrendered - that's nothing to do with POV but with widely available definitions of words .... But well, whatever, I give up, I guess that's just a detail anyway knowing the situation of France in the end of June 1940. I still think "In 1940, Japan occupied French Indochina (Vietnam) upon agreement with the Vichy Government, despite local Free French, and joined Axis powers Germany and Italy" isn't really the truth but I perhaps not understand quite well what "occupy" means in English (a language I don't master). Whatever.

Have a nice day. Sorry for the trouble.

---

Hey, if you've discovered the history function & NPOV, I should be the one that says sorry and welcomes you to Wikipedia! In fact, the next time I'm in Paris, I'm stopping by Gilbert Jeune near Notre Damme again and buying some French language WWII histories. You've made me really curious. I personally think english language sources for info on the Battle of the Bulge and the V2 attacks on Antwerp are also pretty light on details. Jok2000 20:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

henry vi french soveriegn de jure 1422 to 1429

Henry VI was king of England and king of France as the de jure monarch of france he was ordained by the law to hold this position while in the other hand charles was a rebel of the soveriegn i.e henry VI since he wasnt ordained by the law to hold the position of king and wasnt even allowed to any legistlation to de facto of the south.Henry VI was the therotical monarch of france in other words from 1422 to 1429.The whole country would be seen as his de jure even though in practice it is held by rebels in the south.Charles VII was able to crown himeself legaly in 1429 so he took the de jure possition held by Henry VI earlier.Henry VI WAS CROWNED IN 1431 WAS AS A MERE GESTURE TO REGAIN HIS OLD DE JURE POSSETION FROM THE NEW OFFICIAL KING OF FRANCE CHARLES VII WHO SUCCSESFULLY FULFILLED THE 8 TH SACRAMENT.the situation would be looked upon as the english occupying the north but not holding it under soveriegn suzzerity anymore since it was now under the therotical control of now charles VII and the realism of a union between the 2 countries earlier from 1422 to 1429 was now dimminished.after 1429 Henry vi would be a claimaint rather then the soveriegn of the country anymore since he lost the possition to rebels whom wernt even formally regognized as a seperate monarchy by law or papacy.pope martin V was an english supporter to the war rather the france until formally regognizing france as a seperate monarachy in 1534.henry vi can be said to be a titular king of france not reigning since he was in infancy but dosent mean he is a pretender,he is an official french monarch.henry vi of england could also be called henry ii of france but the reason why french writters didnt call him that title is because if they were to call there 2nd henry henry iii of france then it would have undermined the legitimacy of the valious claim thus calling themselves rebels as if charles usurped the futur crown of henry vi and declaring themselves as an unofficial monarchy under the de jure rule of england.in theroy there are 3 henrys whom were kings of france.henry vi is even a dauphine when upon his birth in 1421 until 1422 the 13th of august he was given the title dauphine count of valentoise and diose since he was the heir aperant.the regents for henry wernt only regents of his possetions in the realm of france they were the official regency goverment in the whole country and were supported by the estates general in paris.john the duke of bedford is the official ruler or regent of france not charles.charles only assumed de facto control of the south without permission from the official regency goverment. because henry vi was crowned after charles vii dosent mean he is not king of france. official king of france 1422 to 1429.claimaint after 1429 corination in 1431 in support by the papacy unti lost in 1434.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

R1a article

Hello. Concerning your edit which I deleted; the removal of our discussion from the talkpage, and your reinsertion of all the same material again, again without looking at how it fits in the article, is not good. Expect this to be deleted again. I suggest you read you should always read through any article you want to edit, and check whether all of what you are saying is relevant, and in the right section and whether it has already been inserted by others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of just deleting it, I have tried to edit it and move it around. I hope it helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I got your post on my talk page. If your message is mainly about one particular article it is better to put it on that article's talk page, so that all discussion about it is in one place, but it is not a big problem because I guess this is a bit of a practice anyway. Also, can you remember to sign your talk page messages? You do this by pressing the tool button for this, or else by just typeing --~~~~.

I'll go through your message:

• I checked and I didn't see anything about any of the informations I mentionned. You say that the Eulau findings has been mentionned but I wasn't able to find it in the article with research w/ words such as "Eulau" or "corded" & "ware". Can you help me to see it ?

The town Eulau is not mentioned, and indeed there is no reason to mention all the details about every article we cite. That would make this article way too big. However, if you look at here you'll see "On the other hand, support for a significant pre-Slavic presence of R1a in Central Europe has come from testing of ancient samples, which appear to show that R1a was common in this region well before Slavic languages are thought to have arrived." And there are three references given, not just the Eulau data, but two other ones. We need to format those citations a bit eventually though.

• Your revision of my input seems to leave too much informations aside.

If I understand correctly what you are saying is that the material I removed is relevant because it explains the extra non genetic information that led the authors to think this R1a came from the West. I agree. But once again we do not have to say everything that was in the cited article, only what is relevant to R1a. So I accepted that we should keep something but instead I put something which I thought covered your point: "This culture showed signs of having migrated from Europe, and to have been a carrier of an Indo-Iranian language (the same family of languages as is commonly associated with R1a in modern India)."

If it does not cover the point you wanted to make, we can talk about that, or you can try improving it again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"But once again we do not have to say everything that was in the cited article, only what is relevant to R1a"

I agree, but I think this is relevant to R1a1 because it associates clearly this hg in that population (almost exclusively R1a1) with an European phenotype, hinting clearly the origin of the population - Which is the point of that particuliar section. :It's not like the section is oversized.

"This culture showed signs of having migrated from Europe" is not specific enough, it could be understood as being some sort of archeological reference, by the readers, while the clue is actually in the nature itself of the population (in the results of the DNA testing).

-Also, I think the date (2009) sould be added.

- You also removed the percentages which IMO are pretty meaningful, especially in their historical context.

.

I also think this should be added somewhere : "The current Indian R1a1 haplotypes are practically indistinguishable from Russian, Ukrainian, and Central Asian R1a1 haplotypes, as well as from many West and Central European R1a1 haplotypes." from http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2733/version/1

.

What's with the minimalist approach ?

Waggg (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion of Eastern European Origins section at R1a

I had to start a new section, sorry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Continuing_discussion_of_Eastern_European_Origins_section --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)