User talk:Dark Tichondrias/Archive 4

race article

It's now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Indians are not Negroid and are only a tiny bit Australoid. Look at the genetic charts by Cavalli-Sforza and stop getting all your information from outdated sources.

Dravidian people

I have made extensive edits to the page. I had nothing to do today or I am going to get fired :-))) Look at it and let me know. I like what you are doing RaveenS 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hayat Khan

It looks like you have added Hayat Khan's reference everywhere. However, the caption of the article itself suggests intention of the whole article. Anyway, what was the basis of Hayat Khan's classification? Does he believe genetic basis of his classification? You have added many a places the genetics does not support the races. However, have you taken care to verify if your sources hold the same belief? There are many anthropologists who still rely on pseudoscience like anthropometry.

Some of the present studies, where these anthropometriphile anthropologists try to reconcile the past racial classification with the present genetic studies, show that, in fact, they believed their anthropometry classification had biological basis. However, they have failed miserably with Australoid race and had to expand definition of many other races and that has changed all those racial classification unrecognizably. Genetically, the erstwhile Indian negrito is Caucasoid.

Also, in your "historically defined races in India" article you have hardly taken trouble to mention all the contradictions(which of course could be found in the sources you have mentioned) and how they have not stood the test of time. I agree anthropometry is a good timepass and could be lot of fun but you must understand it is also very sensitive subject.

Anyway, the question remains, even if we overlook the political nature of some of those articles, whether those anthropologists genuinely believed that their classifications never would be supported by genetic data. Please consider these thoughts. Thank you.

Manjunatha (02 Sept 2006)

I am unable to claim Khan was incorrect about the large Australoid/Negroid/Mongoloid presence in India, because that would be original research. Since Khan claims his racial classifications are supported on genetics, it would be relevant for the "Historically-defined racial groups in India" article to link to Genetic views on race in the see also section.--Dark Tichondrias 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed with your response. Anyway, I do understand that I won't be able to compete with you in editing all these race related articles. May I have some kind of compromise? Could you please make sure you won't add every TDH's views on the race of Indians? I mean the authors with certain political views(Hindu-Muslim, Dalits etc...), or certain relgiious(Christian, Hindu) views should not be quoted. I really thought the gotra based classification was hilarious. You are having good fun. And do you know Ahoms were a Tai tribe who conquered Assam in 13-14th century?

Manjunatha (3 Sept 2006)

I assume "TDH" is "The Hadwa Dom". I do not feel that the political views of the sources discredits them.--Dark Tichondrias 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR report

First, please in the future put 3RR reports in the template form. It makes them much easier to read and deal with. Second, since the IP in question is dynamic semi-protection may make more sense. JoshuaZ 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Maggie again. Can you help me?

Hi there DT. We exchanged a little above during a discussion of white pride. I just thought I'd point out that a user has threatened me with reporting/banning, primarily on the basis of disagreeing with me, and also because I've told off a couple of white supremacists. If you have any ideas they would be appreciated. And if I do get banned, keep a watchful eye on white pride, OK? Otherwise it would be nothing but a validating beer-and-cookies for neo-Nazis. - Maggie --65.95.150.178 13:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though I have not looked at the edit war, their reasons seem unjust, but you should register an account. Since you have a dynamic IP addresss, I haven't been able to look at the edits you have made. If it is true that they are threatening to ban you because you are unregistered, then it is a personal attack based on your affiliations. Calling for a ban or block is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on Civility. It is harder to work with unregistered users, especially ones who have a dynamic IP address. Dynamic IP address prevent using the user talk page to discuss issues and make the 3RR rule harder to enforce, so you should register an account.--Dark Tichondrias 19:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

DT: I'll certainly keep your suggestions in mind, although I have my reasons for not registering - primarily to keep me from spending too much time here! For work reasons, in other words. But I have other reasons as well. If you're wondering which portions of white pride are my contributions, well, it's just about everything that isn't apologistic toward the movement. Thanks for your wonderful contributions to that article, by the way! - Maggie --64.229.186.243 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

		Cookie!
		Thank you so much for awarding me my first barnstar! Here's a little snack for you. :-) Best regards. --Húsönd 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Race article

Please do not remove helpful images from this article. Those images appear in Jensen's book, so they are very appropriate. Also, where did you get this ridiculous idea that the 3 races are only based on craniofacial anthropology? That's only one application of them. Louddavenport 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Races defined by craniofacial measurements are not concordant with genetic groups.--Dark Tichondrias 22:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sunny Leone

Why do you think the origin has less substance than the nationality? Is their any policy on WP that ignores the origin, and lables people by nationality only? Sunny Leone has been celebrated (take a look at the porn promotionals for her, please) as an Indian, and as far I as I know she has admitted it herself. So, why remove her from Indian Porn Stars category, especially when there are so few of them. One can be an Indian and a Canadian at same time. - Aditya Kabir 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The same argument goes for Angela Devi. - Aditya Kabir 17:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no known policy that state we should ignore ethnic origin or ethnic background, or that we should label people by nationality only. But if the category in question is for Indian nationals, then she would have been incorrectly categorised. The obvious solution here is to make ethnicity-based categories to go along with the nationality-based categories. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The category "Indian Pornstars" by no means indicates a nationality. In fact, by its use, there was, and still is, every reason to accept it as an ethnnic description. Please, check if it indicates a nationality. If not, then I think we can put the category back to Ms. Leone and Ms. Devi's pages, of course, besides the categories indicating their nationality. Aditya Kabir 22:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Notification: I am putting the category of Indian Pornstars back to Sunny Leone, Angela Devi and Nadia Nyce. I think the argument above puts validity behind this action, especially since the points made above has not been refuted or argued wrong since I made them. I any of you here disagree to my argument, please, reply to my talk page. - Aditya Kabir 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

M. Stewart source in Mongoloid article

M. Stewart represents an extreme minority view(see WP:Reliable sources). Although presented as opinion, his views are irrelevant to the article. I think you would agree with me that we should not start filling up every WP article with anything interesting we can find on the net, regardless of its scientific merit. -Pravit 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There were two sources who agreed that South Africans are Mongoloids. It does not seem like a minority view to me, considering that most other sections of the article only have one source.--Dark Tichondrias 23:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Asian

Hello! Thanks for your note, but your commentary seems rather ... odd. There is nothing original about the assertion that 'Asian' is a demonym or an ethnonym for people from (regions of) Asia -- take a glance at that article for examples. I have merely enhanced relevant content regarding this topic, though I am tempted to pull out my usage guides and add s'more. Another editor also supported my change of the section title (including the term) in the Asia article. If anything, most of the content regarding demonymy in that article seems to have been added by you recently -- in addition to attempts to do so long ago -- and by an anonymous IP that edits (IMO) a similar fashion. Cogito ergo sumo 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

White perception in Europe

Tichondrias: you edited my revamp of the Europe section with a [citation needed] tag, that is fine and the following comment: (→Europe - added citation needed tag for a statement I do not believe is true. I plan to remove the statement in a month or so if nobody finds a citation for it.)

Fine too: the comment should have been in the discussion page, which, if you have readed, would have noticed was quite hotly discussed. Recently there was a consensus in protecting the page against anonymous trolls (white supremacists mostly) and cleaning it up. I was personally for supressing the article and recycling it in a disambiguation page but not everybody agreed with that.

I edited the very poor Europe section, where idiocies about Aryan race and stuff like that made no sense and put it the clearest I could base in my experience as European citizen and the discussion in the talk page. I commented my changes quite neatly at the bottom of the page and asked other members to IMPROVE it, if they had more information. The sentence is written carefully with terms as arguably and roughly as to allow for different perceptions of whiteness, which is, as we known, a confuse term.

In any case, if you're going to discuss it, I ask you to go to the talk page and open a discussion on it. I also ask you to document any possible improvements. In any case, it's clear that European perception of race is not like that of the USA or even Britain. There's hardly any concept of "brown" or "grey" in Europe, unless we are talking of people of recently mixed ancestry. West Asians and maybe more arguably North Africans and South Asians are widely considered white, because they are considered Caucasoid.

In old books that I may have studied when I was in school the "races" were four or five: white, yellow, black, red (native american) and sometimes also olive (australian aborigin). More serious texts just considered the anthropometrical races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, with some confuse mentions about Australoids being possibly Caucasoid, along with Ethiopians. So I hope you realize your perception is not universal.

Enjoy. --Sugaar 12:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The European Liberation Front and Stormfront do not consider non-Europeans to be white. These are partially based in Europe, so I do not think that Europeans consider Middle Easterners or South Asians white. Your opinion Sugaar that your race is Caucasoid may not reflect the majority view Europeans hold. Southern Europe may have a higher proportion of people who identify as Caucasoid because Southern Europeans are the darker colored Europeans. For them, the physical difference of Middle Easterners and South Asians may not seem as drastic, since many can pass for one another. This could skew your perception of how many other Europeans identify their race as White (European).--Dark Tichondrias 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the uncited assertion I originally said I would wait a month before removing, since I had free time today.--Dark Tichondrias 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So you base the mainstream perception of whiteness on what a few neonazis say? That's not encyclopedic nor anything. Are you also a neonazi troll?

I will be reverting. Please discuss thi in the talk page and try to reach a consensus with other interested editors before modifying further. Thanks. --Sugaar 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Deuce Bigalow Rob Schneider.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Deuce Bigalow Rob Schneider.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Thugaboo Lissette.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thugaboo Lissette.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Races of anthropology

Your recent edit to Races of anthropology (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

White people

I see your point and I think it has value, but don't see an easy way out of it. The question of what 'white people' means as a term is something which needs to be explored. As it is socially constructed and not an objective racial category, that needs to be part of the exploration of the term. Now, I think your core point is right in that the article shouldn't encrouch on the material which should be addressed by other more general articles on race, but I don't see how to meet both of these requirements. Do you have any suggestions? -75.179.159.240 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The White people article used to be good, because it had a discussion on the various definitions of White people. After users Sugaar and Veritas Sevitas reworked the article to remove this and make the bulk of the article about how the White race does not exist, the article now is less informative. None of the other race articles have a major portion of their content undermining their credibility, so I don't think the white people one should have this. The racial construction discussion belongs in a general article on race. The article should look like it did before, but I do not feel like engaging in an edit war with two users.--Dark Tichondrias 05:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You Dark Tichondriac are sicko racist you need to be taught vandalesson like thulean.--Euskata 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean is a self-claimed racist, that says it all. You decide.--Euskata 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

kakamerke! That's all I got to say.--Euskata 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC

Light has been f inally shown on your ratfinckness we know you maniplate White people thru sock puppets and that you yourself are puppet with Thuleans hand up your skirt.By concerned anonymis

the pictures

Hey Dark Tichondrias. Pictures should be removed. You are not an Asian Canadian so you should have no business with this article. I am an Asian Canadian. Understand? I will add the pictures in the article. Sonic99 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Thank you Dark Tichondrias for your high quality edits. Your tireless contributions and strive for increasing the standard of our articles, especially those related to the field of Anthropology, is truly appreciated. Keep up the good work! Thank you, Signaturebrendel 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You've earned it! Signature^brendelNow under review!

Historically-defined racial groups in India

The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historically-defined racial groups in India. utcursch | talk 11:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know I'm not actually that someone supposedly being impersonated, if that's the case then it's not really impersonation is it. But you'll never know will you. I (whoever I am) am simply too smart for you chinky.--Getxo 20:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How's it a racial slur? It's basque and it means know-nothing or dumbhea (literally little one, infant), alternatively spelled txinki.--Getxo 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I used a an online translator and "chinky" did not translate across the languages.--Dark Tichondrias 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Duh, that's cause it's spelled txiki, no "n".--Getxo 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On November 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Canadian, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo kindly nominated this effort of yours. Well done! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

White people

Please come and join the mediation for the White people article at Talk:White people/Mediation, I think you could make some valuble contributions. Alun 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for joining in the mediation at Talk:White people/Mediation. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

White Australian Asian Australian

Ethnic groups have a similar geneology and ancestry (Greeks, English people, etc). I have no idea what persauded you to write articles on census classifications and pretend they are ethnic groups, but can I ask that you stop now and remove all the articles you've naively created? Not only are the articles grossly inaccurate, but many an Australian (regardless of their ethnicity) would be quite offended when you dumb them down to simply being 'white' or 'asian'.

In addition, the 'White Australian' page is less about ethnicity, and more a petty tirade against 'racism'. michael ^talk 01:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Europe and Asia are both cultural entities, so ethnic groups founded on European or Asian ancestry get to have an ethnicity box. I am sure some would rather say they are Vietnamese-Australian, but others would say they are Asian Australian. It varies with the individual.--Dark Tichondrias

Cultures are not ethnicities. Asia and Europe have many various and differing cultures that cannot be represented as one. Australia has one mainstream culture that does not distinguish between ethnicity. Australians aren't simply a generic colour; I am, for example, an Australian of English, Cornish and Swedish ethnicity. I'm not a 'White Australian'. michael ^talk 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Europeans are considered an ethnic group due to their shared culture, religion and history. The same thing goes for Asians. Second, you would rather identify with specific European ancestral groups while others with your ancestry would call themselves white. It varies with the individual.--Dark Tichondrias 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Europeans are a group of the caucasian race with their origins in Europe. The English are an ethnic group. Australia has a culture. You haven't correctly answered my point. Ethnic groups are nothing to do with culture, religion and history and everything to do with geneology and ancestry. 'White Australians', which you have naively and incorrectly decided is an ethnic group, is not; it is a general census classification for people of many different ethnic groups.

You can't masquerade census classifications as ethnic groups. michael ^talk 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree to all your points except one. I agree English are an ethnic group, indigenous Europeans are Caucasian, and Australia has a culture. My point of disagreement is your defintion of ethnicity. There are multiple definitions of ethnicity, but I think the common definition is religious, cultural, historical, ancestral, self-identification affiliations. The un-common definition is the 2000 US Census' cultural and linguistic affiliation definition. If I were to concede that your definition of ethnicity is acceptable, then the White Australian still exists as an ethnicity. They have ancestry from Europe and they live in Australia. They are an ethnicity by your definition.--Dark Tichondrias 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicities aren't created out of thin air! You're apparently supposing that you can lump some similar groups together (based on culture, religion, close ethnic affiliation, etc) in a particular place, and tada, they're a new ethnic group called [general ethnic definition] [location]. I haven't agreed with this by any means; I've stated that ethnic groups are based on ancestry and geneology and not by anything else. What I have agreed on is that similar groups, based on culture, religion, close ethnic affiliation, etc, are appropriate as census classifications.michael ^talk 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If we concede that your definition of ethnicity is acceptable, then White Australians are an ethnicity. They have ancestry from Europe. By your definition of ethncity, their "ethnicity" is white/European/Caucasian. The information about them is too large for the White people article, so the White Australian article should be its own article. A summary should be in the main white article, but the bulk of the content will be in the White Australian article. As a side note, I am glad you agree with the methods of the census for definining its groups. I feel the census' groups make sense.--Dark Tichondrias 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously ignored my point about creating ethnic groups out of thin air as you are continuing to claim that "[by] you definition... White Australians are an ethnicity". However, passing your ignorance, I would be satisfied if the article (and Asian Australian, etc) was rewritten to designate White Australians as a census classification and not an ethnicity.

I still think it's an ethnicity. If we rewrite it to not be an ethnicity like you want, then I don't see what the difference would be. Should I add that they are whites who live in Australia in the introduction? Would this mean no ethnicity box? I don't know what the distinction you're making would actually entail.--Dark Tichondrias 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would remove the ethnicity box and make it known that 'White Australian' is a term used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as a general classification for Australians of a European Caucasian ethnic group. I would do similar with 'Asian Australian'. michael ^talk 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The ABS uses neither of those terms.--Dark Tichondrias 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right; which, incidentally, further backs up my original claims of no such thing as a defined 'White Australian'. michael ^talk 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "White American" also is not used on the US Census or in common practice in the US, but we can't add its contents to the main white people article. If we added its contents to the main white people article, the byte size warning would say it was too large for lower connection speeds.--Dark Tichondrias 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The term 'white' (used in a racial context), as said in the white people article itself, is an 'informal label' and not a properly or scientifically defined ethnic or racial term. I do not believe there is any need for a white people article, or a black people article, or a yellow people article, or anything else of that sort. Following on from this, I see no need to create false ethnic groups out of thin air on 'whites' settled in various countries. I would support the deletion of every poorly-defined racial / ethnic article and request that broad racial classifications concentrate on caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid; and that more specific racial classifications concentrate on English people, Han Chinese, etc. michael ^talk 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Some argue that the white race can be scientifically defined e.g. Arthur Kemp's [http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr1.htm White Race] contrary to what the white people article currently says; it is best not to use Wikipedia as a source for your claims. The white people article should exist because it is not an obscure term and it is notable. Wikipedia would not represent an NPOV on the race issue if the white race, had no article.--Dark Tichondrias 06:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The piece linked is from a very, very, unreliable source. I will be removing ethnicity boxes from census classifications and will be redirecting undefined and improperly defined terms. Bunk science and poor definitions do not make good (or accurate) articles. Wikipedia's coverage of race and ethnicity is absolutely hopeless and the articles you have created are not helping. michael ^talk 08:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm absolutely perplexed by the notion of ethnicity and race being clouded and redefined as white people, black people, etc. Are there not the proper scientific terms such as caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid to be used in conjunction with proper scientific defintions of ethnic groups based on ancestry and geneology? michael ^talk 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems we lack the proper racial terms at times.--Dark Tichondrias 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Darkti where are you? We are sorely missing your input at the black peope page.Regards.--LaBotadeFranco 04:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

White Canadian

Hi Dark Tichnodrias - I wanted to give you a heads-up. I've listed White Canadian, which is an article that you started, as an article for deletion. I'm sure that you and I will disagree about the outcome, but I thought you should know, because there's no way that it could be a fair discussion without you at least knowing it was happening. AshleyMorton 20:23, 4 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 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Your maps in White people page are cool. Good work... Lukas19 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)