User talk:Wobble: Difference between revisions

Archives

Apr 2004 - Oct 2006

Oct 2006 - Nov 2006

Dec 2006

Remember: "Assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."

Civility

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Black_people#Examining_Alun.27s_comment. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Lukas19 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's uncivil because you accused me of not bothering to "think outside of my narrow racialist perspective." and "Distorting biomedical research to try to support my dodgy racialist ideas is what I seem to do best". I will take this further if you are not prepared to comply with wikipedia rules. You are POV pushing and accuse others of distorting scientific research to promote your silly and unscientific PC ideas. Please dont do this. Often the accusations you make is untrue which might be considered as a deliberate attempt to undermine the articles. You are turning wikipedia into a joke. If you cannot make civil criticism or maintain a civilized manner, then I suggest that this is not the place for you. You will always be challenged to be civilized here, if you think that someone merely pointing out that you happen to be wrong, uncivil and a POV pusher is breaking Wikipedia rules then you do not understand wikipedia at all. Especially considering the fact that you've been pointing out to WP:SPADE, which is an ESSAY, not an official guideline. Feel free to take this further. Lukas19 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on User_talk:Lukas19. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Lukas19 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas19 has made a habit of accusing every one who does not agree with his extremely narrow point of view of being "uncivil". Lukas19 does not realize that repeated accusations like this are by themselves uncivil. --- Skapur 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thulean/Lukas discussion

1) So, do you have any other example of me "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing", besides English People article? And your interpretation there is still questionable....

Do I need any? Are you asking me to look through your edit history? I will if you like. I have not interpreted these data, I have merely read the paper and commented on the conclusions they have drawn, none of which support your claim. If you think they do then you are free to explain why on the English people talk page. But essentially I am right and I think your edit is totally unsupported by the citation you gave. Even the quote you provided was irrelevant to the article. This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group, or its origins. Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, look at my history and tell me when I "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing". As for English people, I already explained myself [1] Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No you didn't, you are wrong, the paper doesn't say this. Alun 10:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And after a discussion, I stopped adding my material. I again ask you to find another example of me distorting research...Lukas19 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you are.[2]. Took me ten seconds. I could trawl through your edit history if you want. I will surely do this anyway if you want to take this further. If you want to contribute to articles about ethnic groups and their origins then I suggest that you use data and material specifically about the origins of the groups in question. Using sources that are no about this subject is unacceptable. Most of these studies use analyses of mtDNA or Y chromosomes, this is because mtDNA and a large part of the Y chromosome do not cross over, and so we know that these lengths of genetic material are passed on matrilineally and patrilineally without great change. They also use stretches of the DNA that are known not to be under any selective pressure as this interferes with the analysis for obvious reasons. This is the reason why your edit of the Demographics of Ethiopia article was reverted (not by me). Alun 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You've just proved the baselessness and hastiness of your accusations. [3] WASNT my edit. [4] WAS. I'm starting to believe these silly accusations of yours comes from your agenda. And the frequency of these accusations suggests a bad faith effort. Again, either take your accusations seriously or stop making them....Lukas19 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do what? The "baselessness" of my accusations are not "proved". The edit you made to English people is still a distortion. I fail to see why the fact that just because you didn't make this edit, it means that my accusation regarding the English people article is wrong. I am sorry for thinking that you had made this edit, I mus have checked the edit you made to this section and drawn the wrong conclusion, my mistake and I apologise for it. This does not mean that you are not guilty of trying to use citations to support a claim that they clearly do not support. The English people article shows this clearly. I have claimed that your edit to English people was inappropriate. I stand by this. I do not have to produce "more" evidence to support this claim. Youe edit to English people was based on what you want or thought the paper said, and not on what the paper actually says. I also challenged your use of inapropriate data in the White people article as well if you remember, and I still think these data are not applicable, and that their use is something of a distortion. So my accusation is not groundless. There may or may not be more evidence of you doing this, I don't know. But it is clearly incorrect to claim that you have been vindicated just because you did not make this edit. Alun 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2) "It is a matter of your edit history that you have used spurious "warns" against people in the past." This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations. [5]

Are you calling me stupid again? I do not understand how the link to the edit history of your previous user account (User:Thulean) is relevant here, it has nothing to do with me at all, I was totally uninvolved. So why are you including this evidence? You accused editor User:Skapur of vandalism,[6] when he had made a good faith edit to Nordic theory.[7] His edit may have been misguided, I don't know, but it was certainly not vandalism. You should not use vandalism warnings when you have a content dispute. You accused User:Gottoupload of vandalism [8] over another content dispute at Black people, when you engaged in an edit war with him.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] So my accusations are not unjustified, they are not incorrect, and if you are calling me stupid what do you think that is? Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt call you stupid. I stand by my those two warnings. User:Skapur was already warned by another editor. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They were for content disputes, they are not legitimate. Alun 10:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Skapur added his personal opinions several times, despite a discussion. So it wasnt a content dispute. Lukas19 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a content dispute. I'm sure he would accuse you of adding your opinion as well. These warns were not about vandalism, but about your disagreement. Scapur's is not the only example above. If you want to take this further then I don't think you can claim with any credibility that these "warns" refer to vandalism. Alun 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt make any edits to the article in question, besides reverting. It is clear that you are speaking of things you dont know. Again, about your accusations, you are about to cross the line...Lukas19 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A revert is an edit. I don't understand what "line" I am about to cross. You cannot go arround accusing people of vandalism just because you don't like their edit. Revert the article and leave a message on the talk page. This edit is clearly not vandalism, and as I say this is not the only example above. If you really feel that all these edits were vandalism, rather than content disputes then you need to justify that according to the vandalism criteria. Personally I do not think you can. If you think that it is a personal attack for me to point out to you that you shouldn't actually accuse good faith editors of vandalism then feel free to accuse me of a "personal attack". Personally I think it is something of an over reaction. Alun 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3) Another example of your uncivil behaviour: "I'm unconcerned about this, you will almost certainly leave wikipedia long before I do. I have seen POV pushers...". This can be also considered as a personal attack now that you've said this several times. See WP:NPA:

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."

You can consider it what you like, it is not a personal attack. I just said that I am not concerned, you do not intimidate me, how can it be an attack on you, do you think that I should be concerned by this, and that by being unconcerned somehow I am attacking you? Just about any disagreement can be "considered" a personal attack, it doesn't mean that impartial users will think it is an attack. Wikipedia is full of people disagreeing, most people do not consider a content disagereement a personal attack or vandalism. Most people do not consider being called a POV pusher a personal attack. It's not a personal attack when what I say is true, I say it with no malice. Calling someone stupid, now that's a personal attack. Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. If you continue with things like:

"think outside of your narrow racialist perspective."

"Distorting biomedical research to try to support your dodgy racialist ideas is what you seem to do best"

We can ask admins if they are personal attacks or not. I still maintain I havent distorted any research, let alone made it consistent. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Alun 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will if you continue with baseless attacks and incivil behaviour. I'm just trying to settle my dispute with you first which is the step before reporting someone. Lukas19 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

baseless attacks, come on. It's a matter of record that you only ever cite genetic material that supports "racialism", I have never seen you cite any of the scientific papers that conclude that biological "race" doesn't exist. I know you are aware of the existence of these papers because I have cited them in my submission to the meidation for White people.Talk:White people/Mediation/Archive1 I wonder what we call someone who only ever edits from a single point of view, while ignoring research that does not support their opinion? If you take offence at this, then I suggest that you include a more ballanced edit and set of cites, then we'd all be happy. I also note that you have used biomedical research that does not attempt to infer genetic origins as a basis for concluding that certain groups form "races" or are "more closely related". I stand by what I have said. I can show that you have edited from a single POV, even when cites and data are available to you that draw different conclusions. Asking you to think outside your narrow racialist perspective is not any sort of attack and I'm amazed that you could consider it as such. On wikipedia we all need to try and think outside of our own opinions. I am happy to admit that I can be as guilty as anyone of failing to do this. The difference between me and you is that I have a history of at least trying to produce neutrality by incorporating information that I do not agree with if a reliable source is available to support it.Mediation#Wobble.C2.A0.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_count.29 For example there are research papers that conclude that "race" does exist as a biological reality, and there are papers that exist that dispute this. Sometimes these papers even use the same set of data. I would include both of these points of view and give the conclusions and reasoning of both sources. This is how we achieve ballance and neutrality. I can accept the POVs of others, although sometimes I have to think about it first. I am merely requesting that you think outside your own set of beliefs. I am not attacking your beliefs, but it is not neutral and neither is it encyclopaedic to only give a single point of view and to ignore reliable sources that do not support this point of view. See One-sided argument. Possibly you aren't deliberately distorting biomedical research, but distorting it you surely are, even if it's by accident. The reason I claim this is that these papers do not support your claims, they do not say what you claim they say. You may find this offensive for several reasons, but none of them is because it's not true. If this is offensive to you then I suggest that you produce reliable sources that actually specifically claim what you want to include, instead of "infering" a claim that is not made. Alun 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again. Which paper didnt tell what I claim they say? Besides English article...And I did quote this:

Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them[16]

which is one of the biggest, if not biggest argument, of people who say biological "race" doesn't exist. Then I quoted this

In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example [17]

So I gave a balanced perspective. So I still consider your accusations as cheap...Lukas19 13:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep challenging me to produce different evidence besides the English people article? This is the article we are talking about. What you quote above isn't really "ballanced" is it? You quote from a single article that has a specific point of view. You do not quote from or cite any article that gives a different point of view. You also claim that it's rather ignorant to claim that race doesn't exist (yet another of your insults), but no one is claiming that race doesn't exist, they are claiming that race has no basis in biology or genetics. Race does exist, it is one of the most obnoxious concepts to have ever been developed and has led to the murder of millions of people, so of course it does exist, but it's a social construct. Your use of a single source that only gives a single point of view is misleading. It is also misleading to suggest that modern genetic structure entirely supports the concept of biological race. There are numerous papers out there that state that genetic variation is clinal, that genes vary in frequency geographically, that the human population is contiguous and that genetic clines overlap so called "races". No human populations have been shown to have lived in discrete populations, most papers express human "populations" in terms of "partial" isolation. By excluding modern genetic papers that describe human genetic variation as geographically distributed clines you are implying (fallaciously) that modern genetics supports "races" and that what Lewonton said is somehow wrong. But the vast majority of geneticists still agree with his reasoning. The thing is that no one disagrees that there is genetic variation that is geographically distributed. The disagreement is about whether the varitaion can be attributed to "discrete races". Human populations do not live in discreete populations, so there has inevitably been a great deal of gene flow between populations. Besides which this is not an edit to an article mainspace, it is a comment on a talk page. This edit of mine is more neutral, I give both points of view, and cite two articles, one giving the "race" POV and one giving the "race is not biological" POV.[18] I have several papers that claim that human genetic variation cannot be attributed to "race", and they are all modern papers. I also have some papers that give the opposite POV. How can I have an oppinion if I do not know all the facts and points of view? I also note that you link to and quote the abstract of papers quite a lot. I would strongly suggest that you read any paper that you want to cite in full, and also that you link to the paper and not it's abstract. If you cannot link to the paper then read the paper and link to the abstract, but state that only the abstract is available from the link. Often research papers are full of assumptions and provisos that are not present in the abstract, when one reads an scientific paper in full these become apparent and can be incorporated into the edit. Personally I do not like quoting from articles or books. I prefer to read a paper and write about what they say in the article, then to cite the article as evidence of what I have written. I also suggest that you cite papers and books as per WP:CITE, I prefer in line citations, but we should all use the citation style a wikipedia article is already using when we come to edit it. Alun 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

4) "Unless my memory is faulty you have accused good faith editors of vandalism, when it is clear that they have not engaged in vandalism, and you have accused people of personal attacks before just because they happen to disagree with you." Your memory is faulty. I again note that you accuse others even when you admit your memory might be faulty. The least you can do would be to limit your annoying behaviour of throwing accusations about things which you are sure of... Lukas19 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See above, where I have provided evidence of you accusing good faith editors of vandalism. No one else would consider these edits vandalism, they are content disputes, nothing more and nothing less. You have also accused both myself and Sugaar of "personal attacks", but I note in the RfC that the majority of people there do not consider Sugaar's posts personal attacks, but merely a healthy scepticism of your motivation. Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And I note it wasnt a majority. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See these three outside views. [19] Alun 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See [20]. Some people like Crossmr and Dtwarren havent commented on main page but condemned Sugaar's behaviour. Addhoc has back downed. And Durova didnt support Sugaar's behaviour. Lukas19 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they "condemned" his behaviour. They were critical of it, for sure. Sugaar was under pressure and lost his temper. Your behaviour was far from good, and many people also noted this. This is a no win situation. The outcome was not conclusive, neither you nor Sugaar came out of this covered in glory, you were both criticised. Alun 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Isnt that the point? Sugaar's behaviour was criticised by the majority. The majority didnt consider it as "merely a healthy scepticism of" my "motivation". And while people criticised my behaviour, they didnt suggest that I was supposed to be blocked etc. The only thing that was suggested was a RfC about my nick, I believe...Lukas19 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well many thought that Sugaar shouldn't have been blocked. As I say neither you nor him came out smelling of roses. I do not think you can claim that the RfC supported you at all. You were heavily criticised. Alun 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not answer you further before you read and understand my comments and relevant material. Ex:

Alun: "Are you calling me stupid again?" me: "This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations". Is your name "accusations"?

• Are you trying to provoke me? Or are you trying to be funny? I can't decide. I asked if you were calling me stupid, I never said you were calling me stupid. I wanted clarification, and you have called me stupid it before.[21] Indeed you have accused another editor of making idiotic accusations over at Sugaars RfC [22] and he assumed you were calling him an idiot [23] so there's a pattern of abuse here. Most native speakers of English would interpret someone calling their actions stupid as equivalent to calling them stupid. Maybe you didn't know. Never mind. I note that you have avoided answering. I wonder why that would be? Alun 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to provoke me when you keep mispelling my nick? And I had answered that editor [24]. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't keep meaning to spell it incorrectly. I only just noticed. You still did actually call someone an idiot though. Alun 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Alun: "This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group....."

Article: "Overall, the analysis of sequence variation allowed the authors to distinguish individuals with northern European ancestry (Swedish, English, Irish, German, and Ukrainian)"

• Article, section Materials and methods

  European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study......The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain......For the European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom, northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded.

  so no actual samples from England (or the UK) were used, and US citizens self identified as having grandparents from the United Kingdom, not England. The samples were exclusively from US citizens who had self identifyer grandparents from the United Kingdom. Clearly in the abstract of the article they have mistakenly conflated England with the UK, it is very common for foreigners to do this. Did you actually read the article? Not checking where the samples actually come from is a bit of a blunder, how can they say anything about England when no samples were collected there? Alun 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If Americans of English ancestry have no link to the English, then why US English population is included in the table in English people?? Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says that Americans of English ancestry have no link to English people? I didn't say that. I said that in this paper they are using Americans of UK ancestry, this means that their sample is a mix of people who are descended from Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English people. Therefore their sample doesn't represent an English population, or even the descendants of an English population. Their sample represents the descendants of British people not English people. Do you actually know the difference? No actual samples were taken in England or the UK, and people self describing as of UK origin cannot be assumed to be English. Alun 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know they didnt get seperate samples as in Scottish, Welsh and English and called all samples from United Kingdom? English, not British is mentioned in the article. Lukas19 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the materials and methods section the only samples of British origin were collected from North Americans who identified their grandparents as being of UK origin. There is no mention of these samples being collected seperatelly, neither is there any mention of England in the text of the article. The only mention of English people is a reference in the synopsis of the article. This mention in the synopsis is in direct contradiction to the text of the article. You want to defend the paper, you explain it. The paper does not claim that samples were collected seperatelly for Americans of Welsh, English, Scots or Irish ancestry, I am not about to assume something that is not specifically stated in the article. This highlights what you have been doing with scientific papers all along, you are making assumptions about what these papers show that are not supported by what the papers actually say. I would also suggest that you read the discussion section of the paper, where no mention is made of the origins of English people, or indeed how English people are related to any other European people. There is a wealth of genetic data out there on the origins of European and especially British people, this paper does not represent any sort of study regarding the origins of European populations, nor of te origins of English people. Alun 07:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people of English ancestry may not be ethnic English but ancestry here is relevant to the discussion about genetics of ethnic English. Lukas19 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely, but how does this paper apply? It is not a paper about the origins of the English, nor is it a paper about the genetic history of the continent. There are a plethora of research papers that cover this specifically and in detail I can let you have seven or eight papers about the genetic origins of Europeans and British people if you like. They all show a a paleolithic ice age origin from ice age refugia, followed by a neolithic expansion into Europe from the Near East. This paper is not relevant either to English people (it has nothing to say specifically about them), nor is it about the origins of the English. Alun 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It applies because I was trying to show that Iberian connection is ancient and modern ethnic English is more closely related with modern ethnic Northern Europeans rather than ethnic Southern Europeans (including Iberians) Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This research is done with modern populations, modern English people, living in England today have a predominantly Iberian origin. No one except you disputes this. Other Northern Europeans do not have a predominantly Iberian origin, they have a predominantly Balkan origin. All modern Europeans also have a neolithic component that is derived from the Near East. Europeans are a hybrid population. This section is about the origins of the English. The paper you quote has nothing to say about the origins of the English. It certainly does not claim that English people are more closely related to Northern Europeans than to Southern Europeans. The only claim the paper makes as far as I can see is to state that there is a decernable and identifiable genetic difference between Northern and Southern Europeans, this is equally as true for Eastern and Western Europeans. It is equally true about English people and Welsh people, or British people and Norwegian people. The problem with drawing artificial barriers in clinaly distributed genetic variation is that one can draw the arbitrary line anywhere. We can clearly draw a line in the west of Europe and show categorically that western Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to eastern Europeans, this would group British people with Spanish people, and Scandinavian people with Russian people. It can be done, and one could statistically "prove" it. It does not prove that these people are necessarily more closely related to each other. Not only does the paper you cite not support your assertion, but you are trying to use it to contradict the vast majority of research into this field, indeed it doesn't do this, because it doesn't actually say what you claim it says. I am assuming you either just don't understand this work, or that your English is not good enough for you to understand what they actually are saying. The alternative is that you are deliberately trying to distort what this paper says for racialist reasons. Either way it does not support your claim, it does not say what you claim it says. Furthermore, you cannot claim that what might apply to "Northern Europeans" and "Southern Europeans" as general large "populations" is applicable to more specific populations like English people and Basque people, this is illogical, it is a logical fallacy that assumes that all sub groups in the "Northern European" population are identical and homogeneous, and that all sub-groups in the "Southern European population" are identical and homogeneous. That is, it supposes that what may apply to "Northern Europeans" equally applies to "English people" and "German people" and "Swedish people", but it doesn't, and there is no reason to make this assumption. Alun 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you accept "distorting research" was just one possibility among the ones you can think of. I admit my wording could have been better. Instead of more closely related, I could have written difference in this talk page. However, in my edit, I didnt use closely related. [25] And indeed English is included in "northern" European population group since it says "...distinguish individuals with northern European ancestry (Swedish, English, Irish, German, and Ukrainian)..." despite it doesnt specify English in Materials and methods...Lukas19 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

English is not used, it is mentioned once and is apparently used to mean UK. This paper may show that there are genetic gradients between northern and southern European populations. The English people article is not about this subject. The section on the English people article you edited is about the origins of the English. This paper does not make any comment on this. Read the discussion section, it doesn't mention English people or England, or the origins of the English. It doesn't state that northern Europeans are more closely related to each other than southern Europeans. The only thing it does state regarding specific northern European populations is that Finnish people do not belong to the northern European group at all.

The Finnish participants were a notable exception in that 11 of 12 individuals showed predominant affiliation with a unique population group (cluster) when the number of groups (k) set in the STRUCTURE analysis was greater than 7.

I suggest you read this paper about Y chromosome haplogroup I in Europe before you claim that there is evidence for a closer relationship between English people and "northern" Europeans, than between English people and western Europeans. Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe You should also read A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles. which shows that the Atlantic Modal Haplogroup (AMH) is very common in all of the British Isles. AMH is the quinticential Atlantic marker, and is associated with Haplogroup R1b the Atlantic haplogroup. Your edit was not relevant to the article. It does not improve the article, it has nothing to say about English people or their origins. It is irrelevant. The section you quoted made no mention of English people, the discussion section of the paper makes no mention of English people. The section of the paper that does mention English people is contradicted by the section describing how the samples were collected. The quote you included only made mention of "northern Europeans". Well norther European is not synonymous with English. What applies to a pooled group of northern and southern Europeans does not necessarily apply to any sub groupings. The paper nowhere claims that the many detaied studies that show that the majority of people from the British Isles are descended from paleolithic people from the western Ice age refuge are incorrect. There is no reason to include this in the article. It is of no relevance to the article or section, it does not improve the article. Can you give any reasonable expanation for it's inclusion? The "expanation" you gave on the talk page maked little sense to me. Please use relevant articles to show your point. I suggest you start by looking for some articles that are about the origins of the English rather than about research into population structure and drug resistance. Alun 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• So you accept "distorting research" was just one possibility

No you are distorting the research. You may be doing it because you do not understand it, rather than deliberately. Either way you are promoting something that the paper does not claim. Alun 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The English where originally a Celtic-Iberian race, much like present day Galicians, King Arthur was for example a Romano-Celtic-Iberian king and his fame in the middle ages was so wide-spread he was even known and sung about in Spain, the land of his ancestors.--Balino-Antimod 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Alun. I'm not sure if you are still participating in the discussion at Talk:White people/Mediation, but if you are, could you please update your opinion? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good luck editing then. And thanks for the liking my practical joke. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Black People

Thanks for your vote of confidence. People are fighting about just nothing, frankly. It should be obvious to anyone that people do not agree. And they want to fight about whether they agree or not? It is amazing the number of different views, and racists of various stripes. The one good thing is that it does reveal a lot of the divergent beliefs, and even turns up more material and references. But wow...some of these people are sure difficult.--Filll 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just was slammed by our young friend who claims he can tell at a glance immediately who is black and who is white. He also claims that there is no controversy in the scientific world about the existence of races. When I found quotes to that effect in the very references he quoted, he claimed it was because the authors were incompetent and did not know the literature (which might be true, but a bit besides the point, since it was published in Nature). He also put some drudge in there about the American whites being less racially pure than the Europeans, which is just a complete misunderstanding of the science, as far as I can tell. So he gave me some incivility warnings and then when another editor removed them, he went on a wild diatribe on that editor's talk page. I do think he found a couple of good references, and I would like to see this article at least have some scientific content and references to science.--Filll 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thulean/Lukas19

I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Census

I think you undestand perfectly. There are three categories for blacks on the UK census that they are free to choose as they see fit. I do not get the impression that there are harsh penalties for choosing the wrong category, although I have not researched this carefully. I do not even know if it is "against the law" to choose the wrong category as the editor suggested. I think there is a category for African blacks, a category for Caribbean blacks (which obviously could overlap with African blacks, depending on the viewpoint of the census respondent or possibly fine print rules of the census, which I have not found), and a category for blacks who do not fit the other two categories. I do not see how South Asians that want to call themselves black or Aborigines that want to call themselves black or Aeta or any others that want to call themselves black are precluded from choosing this "other black" category. When I realized that the editor in question was unable to read the census categories in an honest and open-minded way, I decided that there was something seriously wrong that I did not undestand. Probably a serious misunderstanding or inability to understand from some unknown cause, or some sharply divergent and distorted view of logic and the world. It is pointless to continue discussing anything with someone like that obviously. They might be delusional, or deranged. They might be just trying to play a trick or make a joke. It might be a bunch of fraternity brothers at a university just trying to make fun of us. It might be a troll just itching for a fight and trying to start one. Whatever the reason, it is best to just back away at that point. I tend to just humor them. I have stated my case. I believe it is eminently clear. They are making no sense. Why bother discussing it further? They have revealed their true nature.--Filll 12:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

You will not get exactly your preferred definition of who is black, so what is wrong with a phrasing that accomodates different viewpoints? --Ezeu 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation case

Now that I have skimmed the Mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08 Black people) I see that we have a much bigger problem than I realized. Editingoprah and his or her sock puppets have been causing problems for a long long time. I think that if Editingoprah/Kobrakid/Timelist etc does not want to adopt their own article to edit and leave this one alone, we should get them barred from this article. It is clear that they have had some sort of crazy irrational agenda for many months that no one else agrees with. I am sorry to sound so harsh but that is what it looks like to me. I should have realized this sooner.--Filll 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Problem

Suspected Sockpuppets of Editingoprah:

• User:64.230.72.185
• User:Aquadaqua
• User:Cardriver
• User:Kittykash
• User:Kobrakid
• User:Timelist
• User:Vexel
• User:Liketoread
• User:Whatdoyou

Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah.M This is one person who has been harassing other users here for months and months and ignoring mediation attempts. We have a problem.--Filll 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty angry when I realize I and maybe 20 or 30 other editors have been arguing with just one person with multiple names. I think we should get this person banned. I do not know how, but I think that is the only option. I do not know the correct procedure so I will rely on your judgement. I will be glad to back you. --Filll 16:35, 9 December 2006

(UTC)

Black people (ethnicity)

Hi Wobble, I'm going to very busy over the next few days as very serious personal problems have come up. Sadly I will not be able defend my ethnicity article against your nomination, so if you insist on getting rid of it, just redirect it back to the black people article and save yourself the nomination effort. I don't think I could stand to read all the harsh criticism a nomination for deletion would generate. Thank you for your constructive criticism Timelist 03:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on any action. I think that the article can be made whole and be defended. We should not attack when he or she is not able to defend their work. I think that Timelist can become productive and we can move this whole enterprise forward in a constructive manner. There is a huge amount of material to organize so I am fairly optimistic if we can all start pulling together instead of butting heads. Just my 2 cents.--Filll 04:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a POV fork. It should not exist. The only reason it exists is because Timelist has refused to accept that any other POV but his/her own exists. This is clearly a breach of the WP:NPOV policy and the guidelines regarding WP:POVFORK. This appears to be little more than an attempt at moral blackmail. I fail to see how an article which was only created in order to provide a One-sided argument and that is about a subject that doesn't exist, can be "defended". Indeed what is indefensibel is Timelist's behaviour throughout this episode. The information from the mediation made me realise that this person and their meatpuppets/sockpuppets are not interested in being constructive, they are only interested in pushing their personal opinion. Well this is an encyclopaedia. It is not here so people like Timelist et al. can include their personal opinions. I'm really tired of constantly repeating the same wikipedia policies and guidelines to people who will not listen because they are so biased. I've had enough. It's time to put an end to this. People that will not even attempt to try and reach any sort of compromise should not be "bribed off" by POV forking their opinion, this is not a school classroom, we are not producing essays or including personal opinion. We are not here to argue the toss over who is right and who is wrong, this is why we have an NPOV policy, it's not about right or wrong. Alun 13:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also thinking about having this list of people investigated for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. Again the mediation in August made me realise that these people (this person?) will stop at nothing to get their own way. Even creating (possibly meatpuppet) accounts to support their POV in the mediation. This is a clear breach of the rules. This person (these people) really should be investigated. I am going to have a look through their collective edit histories to see just how widespread this is, and to look for appropriate diffs for a proceeding to get underway. This should have been done in August when it was clear during the mediation that these people (this person) was using meat/sock puppets. Alun 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not blame you for being annoyed. This person or group seems to push the system to the breaking point. They have kept this article from being edited for months on end. I think a case for another article can be built but I do not think Timelist has done a very good job of it. And the article itself is sort of sad and needs more effort, clearly. I think we can work out some sort of reasonable compromise so all of us can work together and be productive. I think this new article might start as a POV fork, but can be expanded to a much fuller article with its own unique contribution.--Filll 15:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well what's making me so sad is that I'm looking at Wobble's user page, and he and I have so much in common when it comes to politics and religion. And yet this one trivial issue has driven us so far apart. Honestly Wobble, not all battles are woth going to war over. You could investigate me for disruptive editing (I do admit that I was overprotective of the article, acted like I owned it, and that was wrong) and I could try to investigate every accusation ever made against you (pesonal attacks), but in the end we'd just be wasting enormous amounts of our time and stressing ourselves over nothing and contributing nothing productive to wikipedia in the process. But honestly, I am not your enemy here. We agree far more than you'll ever realize and you're allowing a minor cultural difference from preventing you to see that. Not all battles are worth going to war over. I thought the ethnicity article was a good idea but if you feel I'm being pushy and stopping at nothing to get my way, then by all means redirect it. I'll leave it up to you and Fill to decide the fate of that article and will take myself out of it. I sure don't need the added stress. Timelist 16:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We could investigate him or her and get them nailed to the wall. However, I would rather hold off and have it hang over their head. It could be revived quickly if needed. In the meantime, the threat would ensure cooperative behavior. It will waste a lot of time and energy for all concerned to do this investigation. If we get the results we want without the hassle, why bother with the hassle? Just to punish someone? We are not a court here or a legal system. I just want a certain outcome. If we can get the outcome or better with no hassle, why not?--Filll 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "punishing" anyone. I just don't understand why people don't comply with wikipedia policies and guidelines. No one is "at war" here. I don't think anyone wanted a fight. The fight was forced upon us by people who would stop at nothing to get their POV expressed in their way. There most people are prepared to accept that this POV exists, but it wasn't good enough for it to be a single POV amongst many. It had to be expressed as the dominant or most correct POV. I don't understand this at all. It doesn't help to improve the article, and leads only to confrontation and bad feeling. I don't want to have anyone investigated, I want to include as many people on wikipedia as we can. But I see no reason to insist that a single POV is the correct and only one. So let's compromise. I dont like the Black people (ethnicity) article. I see no reason not too keep it if it had a name that reflected the content better. So I suggest we try to think of a way of renaming this article and keeping it with the new name. What does the article best reflect? Let's ahve a think and come to a consensus shall we? Alun 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok good. Let's think of a better name. I would also ask P0M and everyone else to put on their thinking caps and brainstorm. Lets try to get as many potential names as we can, put them in a list and consider them and make a decision based on some sort of rough consensus if possible.--Filll 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have removed Genetics, a whole cited section. The sources were quite reliable. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Caucasoid race. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lukas19 13:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)