User talk:Dark Tichondrias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Dark Tichondrias, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Contents

[edit] Seek Consensus on Changes to Asian Pages

You should discuss making such drastic changes on the topic's discussion board. It's obvious some people don't approve of your changes and will revert it. Plus, it looks as if you are vandalizing the articles. --Dangerous-Boy

Welcome to Wikipedia. I posted some info above on how the site works. I noticed that you believe passionately in some of the Census racial naming policies. However, before you unilaterily make such a large change, there needs to be consensus on the issue (see Wikipedia:Consensus). To get consensus, raise the issue of racial and ethnic names on an article's talk page. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not put your personal opinion into articles. As strange as it may sound to you Wikipedia tries to be unbiased and factual source of information, not soapbox arena. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your race-related edits

Please see Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically, try to keep your edits neutral and cite sources for them. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

By "soapbox" I mean a place to air your personal beliefs. If you haven't already, refer to the above pages and Wikipedia:No original research. ~~ N (t/c) 23:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. You hover over virtually all race related pages and constantly reshape them to suit your point of view. Sorrowek 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It is important to be neutral when editing and make Wikipedia represent the research of the most knowledgeable authorities in respective subjects.---Dark Tichondrias 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Since User:Sorrowek did not cite any examples of me making race-related pages fit my views, I assume she is referring to the Mongoloid article she reverted. I added the Mongoloid article citation from the Greek Wikipedia, not knowing citations from other Wikipedias are not allowed. This edit does not represent my point of view like User:Sorrowek claimed, but the view I assume the majority of Greek Wikipedians share.---Dark Tichondrias 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion location

Hi Dark Tichondrias, Thanks for contributing to the discussion about the pictures on Asian American, but could you keep your comments on that article's talk page instead of posting them to my personal talk page? I feel the discussion should all be over there so everyone can participate. Thanks! --Lukobe 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] census map

ok I took out Australia and added Hawaii. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ok I put indonesia in the asian group -- Astrokey44|talk 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Template:2000USCensus

Hi. I see you've almost managed a revert war with yourself over whether Template:2000USCensus should be on Pacific Islander. It seems the choices for that template are all somewhat arbitrary. As it is a USA Census template, it should only be on USA-specific articles. For example remove it from Black (race) and put it on African American instead. Please consider removing it (again) from Pacific Islander and finding an NHOPI or Pacific American or similar article to put it on that relates specifically to people in the USA and its territories. Part of my concern for putting this template on these general articles is the mess we'd be in of every nation with a race question in their census tried to put a template that size on every article mentioned. Worse this particular template is for the 2000 census, suggesting there could be another one for the previous and next censuses. --Scott Davis Talk 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to get rid of "mongoloid"

Thanks for getting rid of "mongoloid"--I agree that the term is outdated. But in some cases, your replacements don't make sense. An example, in Korean people:

The "mongoloid" peoples of North Asia and Central Asia have relatively tall statures... ---> The Northern East Asian peoples of North Asia and Central Asia have relatively tall statures...


"Northern East Asian peoples of North Asia and Central Asia," as you can see, doesn't make any sense.

Can you fix the cases in which your edits make the sentences confusing?

--Lukobe 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad too, but like I said, your edits make the sentences confusing sometimes...could you address? --Lukobe 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Another example: in Sharchop, you changed Indo-Mongoloid to Indo-East Asian-looking. It's fine to eliminate "mongoloid" where appropriate, but you have to replace it with something that makes sense and is grammatical. --Lukobe 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of your other edits are problematical, too. As you've changed it, Northern Mongoloid's introduction violates Wikipedia style and is ungrammatical as well.
Carleton S. Coon defined the Mongoloid race, so the Northern Mongoloid is based off of his racial defintions...'
I'm reverting these kinds of changes where I see them. Happy to work with you on how your edits can be made without introducing these kinds of problems. --Lukobe 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About "the racially insulting term"

Hi,

I have objected to your claim that "the racially insulting term" is "offensive" for the following reasons. Firstly it seems to be based on the fact that Down's syndrome was once called ""the racially insulting term"". For a start there are many similar terms that refer to nations and peoples negatively. Bugger derives from "Bulgar" because it was once believed to be a habit of Bulgarians. Syphilis was labelled "The French Disease" by the English and "the English disease" by the French. There is German Measles and Dutch Elm Disease. There is derogatory use of "Jewish" to mean miserly etc etc. Numerous other instance can be cited. In no case do we say that the original national/religious or whatever meaning has become "insulting" because it is used with a negative meaning in another context. The same applies to "Mongol". Mongolia is not changing its name is it? The Mongolians are no less proud to be called "Mongolian". Your whole argument is topsy-turvy. The term "Mongol" is no longer used for Down's syndrome because it is offensive to Mongolians. To assert that Mongol, Mongolian and "the racially insulting term" therefore become offensive terms is as illogical as saying that Jews should no longer be called "Jewish" because in some contexts the term is used offensively. And anyway, why single out ""the racially insulting term"" and ignore Mongol and Mongolian? People with DS, were actually usually called "mongols", not ""the racially insulting term"", so it's not even consistent. "the racially insulting term" is a term for a racial category defined by phenotype. Whether you think the name is appropriate or not is beside the point. That's what it's called. "Caucasian" is a pretty daft name too, but that's the one we have for that category. Whether or not you think the category is scientifially valid or not is also not relevant in this instance, since we are discussing a phenotype.

The problem with them like "South Asia" is that they are highly misleading. Yes, they can be used with a precisely delimited meaning, but the phrase itself just means "the southern part of Asia" - which might mean Korea, Japan or parts of China to most readers. India is far more useful, and historically has referred to the subcontinent as a whole, not just to the modern nation state. Objection to its use arise from political and ethnic struggles over labels, which result in the end with unhelpful and confusing terms like "South Asia", and barely intelligable sentences in which "South" "East" and "Southeast" Asia are throw together in a way that generates obscurity rather than clarity. Paul B 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's always tiresome when people start quoting general logical falacies, as though they apply to specific arguments which do not use the these fallacies. Perhaps I shall call it the fallacy of evading actual arguments by attaching labels of logical fallacies. Firstly the first point was clearly not a "slippery slope" argument. It was designed to emphasise that you are inverting logic by stating that an established meaning of a term in its established sense becomes derogatory because it is used in another context in a derogatory way. All these terms are equal in this respect. There is no "slope". The argument applies to all of them. There is no reason to stop calling Genghis Khan a Mongol on the grounds that it implies he is retarded. To do so would actually be an unsult to Mongolians and to the ethnic term that had been used for centuries. That's the central point you seem unable to recognise. The same argument applies to "the racially insulting term". No slope. This is the term for the racial category. "East Asian" is not established in this sense. It refers to geography. Many people placed in this phenotypical category do not live there.
As for the second argument, it was again about established usage. It is only an "argument from antiquity" in this sense, not in the sense you mean. That is, it says that this usage exists and is established. This is about language and about clarity. In the relevant page under discussion, the term is used for clarity and is specifically not exclusive, since the phrase "other peoples" is clearly added, indicating that the two terms used are given as the most important examples. Paul B 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Now you are shifting your ground. As I have already stated, it is a phenotypical category and it is still used in anthropology and taught in anthropology courses. It is not obsolete, though there is legitimate debate about its usefulness, and genetic arguments have been used to criticise the argument that anthropometrics can be used to accurately identify relatedness of populations. There is a legitimate debate here, but there is no clear consensus. Your evangelism on this topic is indicated by your unappropriate rewriting of my earlier comments to remove "Mongol" as a description of Gengis Khan and elsewhere on the page, despite the fact that this is a usage that is universally accepted. Paul B 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It is most inappropriate to rewrite other people's comments, it gives a false impression to other about what they have said. And no, it is not taught as an obsolete category, though the problems with all models of racial classification are certainly discussed in any course. In fact the image on the "the racially insulting term" page comes from a current anthropology course. Paul B 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Dark Tichondrias, please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable_on_Wikipedia: "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context." --Lukobe 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About "Asia"

I think we need to go one step further. The word "Asia", applied to a disparate array of civilisations often with little in common culturally, politically, or ethnically, is a completely Eurocentric construct. We need to banish this conception from the English language as it is behind much of the kind of thinking found in the US and Western countries in general that belittles Asian contributions to world civilisation and gives an exaggerated position to Europe. Might I suggest that "Europe" should be renamed "Western Eurasia", the so-called "Far East" "Eastern Eurasia", and "Southeast Asia" "Southeastern Eurasia". We also need to come up with a new unambiguous term for the Middle East (sometimes called "Southwestern Asia"). The "Indian subcontinent" is also a problem as it includes the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are often hostile to India and do not necessarily want to be thrown in with it. How about "South Eurasian subcontintent"?

As for racial categories, perhaps "Mongoloid" could be replaced with "East Eurasian" (Southeast Eurasia can also be considered "eastern" and the peoples of Northeast Eurasia -- Siberia etc. -- are also considered to belong to the "Mongoloid" peoples.)

Bathrobe 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer to your comment on my user page: "I don't think the change will happen in Eurasia and I hope you don't change wiki around to confuse users to make it fit the Eurasia concept."
I was under the impression that you supported attempts to rectify such undesirable usages in Wikipedia. I guess I will have to seek support for my campaign elsewhere.

Bathrobe 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RaceHist2000USCensus

I suggest you remove the US-centric column from this template, unless you restrict its placement to US-only articles, which you aren't doing... --Lukobe 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man! --Lukobe 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AsianWhite.org

The page's Alexa ranking is in the 800,000s. We generally don't keep webpages that are above about 10,000 unless the webpage is demonstrated to have some other notability (major news coverage, being the leading source of info for a notable community, etc.) Nothing against the webpage, we just don't want to set a precedent for every webpage to try and have an article on Wikipedia. If you can dig up some verifiable sources of notability like what I mentioned above, bring them to the table in its deletion discussion.

[edit] Yellowworld.org Alexa rating

I thought Alexa ratings under 80,000 were acceptable for Wiki. What is the actual acceptable number? #--Dark Tichondrias 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is really no set barrier. Some people say that anything that is below 100,000 is OK, while others, like User:Grandmasterka above, think that only websites with rankings below 10,000 should generally be included. I tend to lean toward the latter view, but I don't have any exact cutoff. Because you seem to have object to the {{prod}}, though, I'll start an AFD. NatusRoma | Talk 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MM

I have been meaning to write the article for a while. It's a start...--Rockero 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been merciless. Please check out the new version. Thx--Rockero 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I was a little hasty.--Rockero 01:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOS

Regarding your edits to Save Our State: You have changed one section heading from "Alleged ties to extremist groups" to "Extremist Groups tag-along with SOS Activities" with the edit summary "changed title so it doesn't imply connections which are unfounded from evidence". In case you couldn't tell, this article was controversial at first, but after input from the various factions, we have been able to come up with a stable version. That is, everything in there is in there for a reason, and it's all worded in a certain way for a reason. I think the section title "Alleged ties to extremist groups" is adequate because while much has been made about connections, nothing has been proven definitively other than that there have been ties. While your phrasing may adequately reflect what SOS members say about their group, it is not "NPOV". It also minimizes the connections, which according to some sources, are substantial. I'm changing it back for now, and I invite you to make an argument on the talkpage in favor of your phrasing if you are inclined to do so, and then let the community decide. Thanks for your contributions,--Rockero 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] image permission

actually now Im not sure about that map since it is controversial. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blumenbach's race is not the same as a Mongolian

Blah, sorry, Guess I should call it a night. I missed this part "It differs because it does not include Southeast Asians..." Carry on. :) Forgive my boneheadedness. Wirewad 10:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of new race articles

Hi, I noticed that you have added a number of new race articles, such as Medish race, Xanthochroi race and Sudish race. Your source for this appears to be the website March of the Giants. This site does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards as regards reliable sources. Are you able to claim otherwise? --BillC 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If the subjects you named are only referenced in March of the Giants and comparable sources, then articles on those subjects do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Do you agree? --BillC 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As per WP:RS, partisan websites should never be used as primary sources of information. In fact, the Stormfront Website is specifically mentioned as a website that should not be relied upon as a prmimary source. March of Giants appears to be a personal website, which is also forbidden per WP:RS. --BillC 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for your civility. However, I must insist that you read through WP:RS, particularly with regard to web-based sources. I draw your attention to WP:RS#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet, in which "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." The sources you have mentioned to me are exactly this: posts on bulletin boards. Wikipedia has no way of assessing the credibility of the information written there. --BillC 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your civility. Articles can only be deleted by an administrator. I can place AfD or PROD notices against those articles, but the process would be considerable speeded up if you yourself were to place {{db-author}} templates at their start. If you don't want to do that, I can understand and will place the PROD notices myself. Thank you. --BillC 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. You may have noticed that an administrator (I don't known whom) has already removed the two articles. I am calling it a night now, but I would welcome a discussion on Insensible race, Wood Eater race and the others in the morning. Regards, --BillC 23:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Historical definitions of race

Can you alphabetize this template? --Lukobe 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to alphabetize the template, but it is hard. Alphabetizing is not easy. If another race is added to the template, the whole thing has to be revised. All the races would have to be pushed down one if the new race started with an A. This is too much work for each new race. I plan on adding more historical definitions of race, so this would be too much work for each race. When the table is more complete, it would be beneficial for it to be alphabetized. -- Dark Tichondrias 09:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How many more historical definitions of race do you plan to add? Do you think you should rethink that in light of the calls for deletion a number of your articles have garnered? --Lukobe 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think you may want to rethink this... --Lukobe 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I count over 50 articles in your template right now. I am sure there are going to be calls for, at the least, some of them to be merged... --Lukobe 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climatic Zone race copyedit tags

Yes, he actually considered them races. I rented a book from the library about the history of the idea of races. Other race scientists at the time commented on his racial system. One said his defintions were foolish. You can remove the copyedit template if this is why you added it. -- Dark Tichondrias 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't why I added {{copyedit}} -- I did so because those articles need copyediting to conform to encyclopedic style... --Lukobe 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongoloid page map

Hey, cool map on human demographic races. But shouldn't the "east African mixed" part also include the Sudan? And also, I would've thought that the "threshold" between the Caucasian and Asian populations be more to the west, including all of Central Asia excluding Tajikistan, up to the Urals? Did Carleton Coon come up with your exact map?Le Anh-Huy 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernier

Could you please elaborate on the historical context of François Berniers racial map ? For the sake of the article ? (84.193.163.31 10:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removal of Template

Another user told me the template was wrong again, but he was not specific enough. He said the Mongoloid went as far as the Ural mountain range. I thought I made them go that far on the map. What is still wrong? -- Dark Tichondrias 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That part is fine, it's just that the Horn of Africa (a very controversial area wrt its classification) is "Caucasoid" according to Coon's map, whereas your map has it "Negroid." Since it says it is based on Coon, it should reflect that. Yom 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestor worship

There is ancestor worship in the The Indian Subcontinent. --Dangerous-Boy 08:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Race

Hi, I saw your site and noticed that you say Taoism is an offshoot of Confucianism, which is wrong. It is more likely to be the other way. See the Wikipedian articles for proof. Thanks GizzaChat © 08:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template_talk:Historical_definitions_of_race

Dark Tichondrias, would you care to comment at Template_talk:Historical_definitions_of_race on the proposed conversion of your template to a category? --Lukobe 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race (historical definitions)

Hello again. I said I would get back to you on your race definition articles. There are a number of issues here, but one of the most important ones is that most of the articles give no context to assert the notability of their subjects. For example, Wood Eater race says in its entirety "Anthropologist James Burnett also known as Lord Monboddo in his book Of the Origin and Progress of Language (1773) defined the semi-human Wood Eaters." We are not told: How did he define them? What differentiated them from other races? Is this race definition still considered valid by anthropologists? If not, when did it fall into disfavour? Who else has commented on this race definition? Did Burnett actually consider that they ate wood? Where were the wood-eaters based? What language did he suppose them to speak? On what evidence did he base his conclusions? And, most important of all: how historically important is this race definition?

You see, without any of this information, all we have is a single sentence that says 'someone in the eighteenth century defined a race'. To be blunt, I have the feeling that quite a few of these many historical race definitions would not survive AfD discussions. What should we do? --BillC 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most of these newly created race articles need to be folded into the main articles for the people who defined those races. --Lukobe 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, Capoid, and Negroid have their own page even though they are part of Carleton S. Coon's system, the other races should have their own page. If the races defined by Carleton S. Coon were all merged to his page, then it would be acceptable to do the same thing to the other race articles. -- I believe your logic here is faulty. There is plenty to say about Carleton S. Coon's races other than the fact that he defined them. There is hardly anything to say about the Wood Eaters race other than, as BillC puts it, "someone in the eighteenth century defined a race." Coon's races have large articles; the Wood Eaters article, for example, will never be anything more than a stub. --Lukobe 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll find some more information on Wood Eaters if I do more research.' -- Is that likely? --Lukobe 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that we don't think there's enough significance here to make an article. This seems to have been a once-off statement by Burnett, a man who was once described by Dr Samuel Johnson as "a man who talks a great deal about nonsense and doesn't know it". We could easily have a thousand articles on the subjects of once-off racial classifications. What is there that demonstrates the significance of this racial classification? Please understand that the comments you have been receiving on this and other issues are not the result of people trying to get at you, but rather that you should consider whether or not these contributions are encyclopaedic material. Perhaps they could be brought together in one article that in itself would be encyclopaedic? --BillC 04:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is important to have an extensive listing of historical race scientists racial classification schemes, becuase it is shows classification is just an opinion. From the book Race The History of an Idea in America, there are records of race scientists disagreeing with each other. Historical race scientists disagreed with each other on who were included in what races and how many races existed. This does not make one historical race system more important than another. All racial classification schemes are important because they show there are no objective races. This is why every historical racial classification scheme is beneficial to have in an encylcopedia.
I'd like to second what BillC says much more eloquently than I--we don't necessarily dispute that having this sort of information in Wikipedia is important and useful, but we disagree on the best way it should be presented. You think it's better to have a multiplicity of short articles, we favor fewer longer articles. People may even be more likely to come across your information if you fold it into the longer articles, which have multiple links pointing to them. Many of your new articles, on the other hand, appear to be linked to from nowhere. --Lukobe 06:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The Mongoloid article is 17kB; which makes it neither a long nor a short article. No-one, least of all Lukobe or I, is suggesting it be shortened. The reason why Mongoloid is not 'as short as all the other race articles' you have created is because the topic has significance: the material is encyclopaedic. Wood Eater race, at least in its present state, does not. This issue is not about Mongoloid, but rather the multitude of articles you have created, that lack incoming links, context or any assertion of the significance of their subject matter. --BillC 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the reason [Mongoloid] is long is not because the "topic has significance"...[Wood eaters and other similar racial classifications] have the same context as Coon's system. They are historical races nobody believes in anymore.
I must disagree. As Race (historical definitions) says, Coon's system is "the most widely referenced 20th century racial classification." It is the one most people know and think in terms of. But I think we're getting slightly off the point here. I can do no better than echo what BillC writes immediately above... --Lukobe 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Louis Agassiz Racial Definitions

Hey, thanks for making this template! -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Wizzard

I admit you are a wizzard on templates, but you should be carefull about how you build up your arguments. Where did you get the idea that "A New Division of the Earth" of François Bernier is a book.[[1]] Needless to say your conclusion about him being a "racial scientist" is a little bit shaky when only based on this particular observation. Would you also describe Herodotus as as a "racial scientist" -you might try it. He also came early, you know, and his observations were way more substantial than those of Bernier. If I remember "The Histories" correctly. Do not worry. All will be revealed, eventually. It's been nice talking to you. So long. (84.193.172.199 19:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

What is A New Division of the Earth? --Lukobe 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You answered The New Division of Earth was a book. I know this because the source also displayed a volume number next to the title. So you haven't read the actual book? Then why didn't you include a citation of your source in the article? --Lukobe 05:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias, do you hold François Bernier to be "one of the first in a long line of racial scientists" because he is the first of the writers discussed in this book? --BillC 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You read part of: "Memoirs Read Before the Anthropological Society of London" -namely Vol 1 1863-64,pp 36O-64 the location of T.Bendyshe's translation of Bernier's contribution to "Journal des Scavans",April 24, 1684; which is basically a transcription of a letter to one of his friends. Only the first half of the letter is about racial classification, the other half is about (universal?) feminine beauty. see [2]

(84.193.172.199 11:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)) (moved from Lukobe's talk page)

[edit] Indian American

You should cite the books then instead of the website and create a reference section at the bottom of the page.--Dangerous-Boy 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lapps race

Dark Tichondrias, are you sure Bernier called them the "Lapps race" when writing in French, not the "Lapp race"? Or did he merely call them the "Lapps"? Because "Lapps race" sounds like bad English to me. What's the actual citation from the book? --Lukobe 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So it should be "Lapp race," then, if it's not merged to "Sami people," which I still think it should. Any objections to moving it to "Lapp race"? --Lukobe 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To remember that François Bernier never wrote a book about racial classification would also be nice. Furthermore: [Importance of Historical Racial Definitions] (84.193.172.199 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Francois Bernier's first defined race

Just merged it into the main Francois Bernier article. I'm sure you must understand that in this case there could hardly be made an argument for a standalone article when the race wasn't even given its own name and you had to name it with a phrase? I strongly feel that the other articles you've created mostly need merging into larger articles--do you feel this should be discussed in a wider context than your talk page? I'm happy to see if that can be made possible. (Like BillC, I don't really want to go the AfD route.) --Lukobe 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start doing this for other articles, like Anthropomorpha race, which even if it were decided should be a standalone article, should properly be "Homo anthropomorpha"--"Anthropomorpha race" isn't idiomatic. Thoughts? --Lukobe 04:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This article should probably be merged. His classifications would best be labeled with a "Homo" in front of it instead of the word race behind it.-- Dark Tichondrias 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad you agree. I'll start merging articles when I get some free time. --Lukobe 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does not the argument about Bernier's NO-BOOK count for anything ? What makes you merge this BOOK thing without a doubt ? This is no longer sloppy editing it is intelectual dishonesty. THERE IS NO SUCH BOOK. (84.193.172.199 10:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Redirects

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that, when you make pages into redirects, you can't have a space between "#" and "REDIRECT". If you do, the redirect doesn't work. Thanks!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian

It seems like you are going all over the place trying to post wrong information. Actually, terms like "Caucasian" are still used in forensic anthropology and thus still in scientific use. [3] It doesn't matter what a textbook said as many textbooks can have an agenda. For example I know history textbooks that openly condemn the Viatnam war instead of remaining neutral. And Most Indians ARE caucasians. Ask any forensic anthropologist. So I will remove some of the other claims. Zachorious 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But forensic anthropology is science. That textbook may have said that but the fact that forensic anthropology is science is undeniable. Of course not everyoone in Europe North Africa, Middle East, and South Asia have that description. In some Eastern European countries there people with the epilitcal fold, usually only found in East/Southeast Asians and Amerindians! In Northeast India there are mongoloids and in the South there are negroids. However these people are in the minority and as a whole most Eastern Europe or India are Caucasian.

Terms like Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, ect. may not be widely used in science anymore. This is true. But they are still used to describe major phenotypes in forensic anthropology as well as clines. So while it may not be as widely used they are still in scientific use non the less. Zachorious 06:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you know any anthropologists that classify Indians as not caucasian? Nearly all classifications I see identify 97% of all Indians as Caucasian, with the South having some traces of Australoid (but still mostly Caucasian). The idea that South Indians are a distinct negroid race was an idea invented by British Colonialist in order to divide and conquer India. I will leave the "some and other anthrpologists" in the Caucasian-American article up for now but if you cannot find an anthropological source that shows Indians are a different race/cline, then I'll have to change it back. Zachorious 06:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many of these classifications come from Cloone's work. However nearly all forensic anthropologists use this system in one form of another. Some anthropologists use the terms; "Asian Man, African Man, European Man" but they all follow the same feature testing of Coone's book. I haven't heard "mongoloid" used as much anymore but caucasian (or caucasoid) and negroid are still widely used in forensic anthropology.

I stated "race/cline" not to equate the two terms, so don't get the wrong idea. The term "race" means many things to different people but as far as subspecies goes, yes there are no different racial subspecies. Zachorious 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I noticed that you do not have wikipedia e-mail enabled. Nor do you make contact information available on your website. I'd like to contact you in a way that is not-so-public. Could you email me? I wouldn't mind if it was from a dummy account--I have something important to discuss with you.--Rockero 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No response, huh? The only reason I wanted to contact you privately was out of concern for your anonymity. Is there any possibility I can encourage you to e-mail me? Please?--Rockero 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know all the workings of computer viruses, but I am fairly certain that you have to download something from an e-mail in order to become infected. At any rate, I want to talk to you about one of your websites. Shall I just do it here?--Rockero 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it on more than one article?--Rockero 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding use of Image:Dreadlord-warcraft-iii-image.jpg and Image:Dreadlords.jpg

Kindly remove this picture from your userpage as this is a fair use image which can only be used on respective articlespace. Use of this image on your userpage infringes copyrights. See Wikipedia:Fair use under Policy 9.

Regards,--Dangerous-Boy 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Thanks for creating redirects to Asian American, but I don't believe anybody is going to spell "Asian" as "AZN". Regards, Mike Rosoft 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Vegaswikian 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirects are for Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F several listed reasons. Internet slang or shortcuts is not one of them. Vegaswikian 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If you think these deletes are not correct then you should use Wikipedia:Deletion review to have my actions reviewed. Vegaswikian 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • AZN is internet slang, not an alternate spelling. "Alternate spellings" refers mostly to differences between US and UK English, such as armor (US spelling) redirects to armour (UK spelling). Why don't you try User:SuggestBot to find something more productive to do than adding so many unneccesary redirects? Capable users will be able to find what they need without them. Timrem 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • What I meant was, no one using a print encyclopdia would (I hope) expect to find the article they want on something "Asian" by looking up "AZN." In no formal sources would such language be used, either. Despite its open nature, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. At the very least, I would suggest you add {{R from misspelling}} on the redirects you are creating. Also, the arguement you made to me, "'Slang' when spoken by Asians/ 'Alternative' when spoken by British," is nonsensical when put with the rest of your response. Be it Asian or British (or American or French or Spanish or Australian or whatever), internet slang is rarely spoken, and alternate spellings rarely affect how the word would be spoken anyway. Another thing: when responding to me, you yourself made a distinction between British language alternatives and Asian internet language. Official alternative spellings are worthy of redirects, internet language is not. BR Columbia, for example, does not redirect to British Columbia even though BR is used to stand for British. Like Zoe suggested, you should try to improve the articles you are creating these redirects to instead of adding infinitly many redirects. And I do not "discriminate against the Asian race" as you have claimed, I simply try to help make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be. Timrem 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • A few points:
              1. AZN does not uniquely mean Asian, it can also stand for Azerbaijani manat
              2. I was not looking for a good analogy, and BR Columbia was the best I thought of in a short amount of time
              3. Spelling dictates pronunciation in real life, not the other way around
              4. Instead of addressing the point I made, you just disputed my means of making that point
            • ...and a few errors:
              1. BR is not an acronym, acronyms are pronounced as if they are words
              2. BR Columbia would obviously refer to British Columbia (not Berium Renewal Columbia or whatever), just as Azn American would refer to Asian American in internet slang.
              3. Azn is slang, see AZN
            • I hope this clears things up. Timrem 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • What is with the godzillian Asian American redirects? 'Asain'? This article does not warrent fifty redirects, you're just going to have to assume people can spell. Czolgolz 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

okay, but how many redirects does one article need? YOu have at least twenty tagged for speedy deletion. Czolgolz 20:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! Especially when all of your redirects are misspelled. It's Bhutan, not Butan. It's Asian, not Asain. It's Hmong, not Mong. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies do not allow for ridiculous numbers of misspelled redirections. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, those articles you're creating multitudes of redirects to are only one-sentence microstubs with no content. Why not spend your time actually creating content in those articles instead of creating huge numbers of ridiculous redirects? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

DT, I must agree with the other posters here. While I don't think your redirects need deleting (I think they're harmless), I also think they're kind of a waste of your time. Wikipedia will benefit far more from your fleshing out the articles these redirects point to than from your creation of the redirects themselves (especially the more implausible ones). --Lukobe 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You've created hundreds of redirects from Spanish titles. These are absolutely unnecessary. Please stop, now. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asiaphile see also links

Just because they're slurs (egg) or perversions (Asian fetish, though I bet some would disagree with you on just what constitutes a perversion) doesn't mean they're not related to Asiaphile--they're very related. The egg article as much as says egg is synonymous with Asiaphile except for the pejorative nature of the former. --Lukobe 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP ADDING REDIRECTS

Stop adding redirects from Spanish-language versions of names. There is no reason to believe that anyone would type these phrases into the English wikipedia to look for the article in English. The appropriate thing to do is to link from the Spanish wikipedia to the English articles. As it stands you are only creating immense amounts of work for others who will have to go through deleting the redirects you have created. You have been asked to desist before, if you don't heed this advice you will be blocked from editing. The Land 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noted the message you have placed on your User page. Disliking the Spanish Wikipedia's policies is not an excuse to disrupt this one. We also have a policy, WP:POINT, which says 'don't disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point', even about other language encyclopedias. The Land 09:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Reread policy

It says English redirects to Spanish pages, not the other way around, so no more Spanish-language redirects.--_Dark Tichondrias 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The Land 09:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Asiaphile Asian Love.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Asiaphile Asian Love.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races
Teresa Lourenco
Inter-American Defense Board
Black Muslim
Carl Meinhof
Asian Pride
NAAAP
Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research
Pierre-André Taguieff
Sexual objectification
The Bounty
Wild type
Phigus Simenon
Koryak language
Macanese people
Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture
José Vasconcelos
Cheyenne Silver
Peru Highway 1
Cleanup
Race in biomedicine
Nisei Japanese American
Rob Schneider
Merge
Mansions of Rastafari
Racial purity
Ethnic Japanese
Add Sources
Multiracial
List of Japanese Americans
List of Vietnamese Americans
Wikify
Filipino Chinese cuisine
Mark Rudd
Kirant
Expand
Contemporary views on race
Azeroth (world)
Letter of the two sorries

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Asian Pro-Contrary

just curious what your division of watched users into the above categories means. --Lukobe 08:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of all ethnic categories

Have you noticed what is being proposed to be done to all the categories named 'xxx people by ethnic or national origin' (such as Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and all ethnic/national origin subcategories?

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

There does not seem to be anyone interested in this, but me. Are you? Do you know others? Thanks Hmains 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] INCOTW

You voted for Indian American, this week's Indian Colloboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race (U.S. Census)

Please cease your change from Asian to Asian American and White to White American. Not all Asians counted in the U.S. Census are Americans and not all whites are Americans! Stop now. I will revert your changes in a bit. Please cease from changing the U.S. Cencus information. 12.40.26.171 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You do know that white people came from Europe or do you not know this. Not all white people in the U.S. are Americans. If I came to the U.S. from Germany and filled out the census while in the U.S., I would mark "white" but I am not a white American. Stop your changes now! 12.40.26.171 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am really not from Germany—that was only an example. The person would only be an American if he/she becomes a U.S. citizen. 12.40.26.171 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Same for Asians, not all Asians in the United States are Americans. 12.40.26.171 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not stopped changing these things. Please cease now! 12.40.26.171 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not done reverting your edits yet—I will continue later when I get home and sign on as a registered user. Just know that I will be monitoring all of your edits from now on! Have a great day. 12.40.26.171 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop changing Caucasian to white or Caucasian to white American. The rest of the Western world (including Australia) use the term "Caucasian" over white. It is only in the U.S. that the term "white" is more popular. The term Caucasian is a more precise term for the racial designation by the world and scientists, not "white." 12.40.26.171 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
On the European American page, not all European Americans are white. 12.40.26.171 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a class in college dealing with race and ethnicity before you continue to change racial/origin terms in articles. Are you or have you been in college yet? 12.40.26.171 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you would learn so much more about this issue if you take a class on it. It can be very interesting! Or at least read about it in textbooks if you are not at age or have graduated from college. No personal attacks there at all. Just reality! 12.40.26.171 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought we came to an agreement. Why are you re-inserting back the term and reverting my reverts? 12.40.26.171 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't I tell you that not all white people in the U.S. are Americans? 12.40.26.171 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USC

USC has an international student population that hovers near 10% of its 28k students. These include large numbers from the Pacific Rim and a big contingent from the UK and Europe. Assuming the breakdown is "____-American" isn't really going to work in the context of the student population breakdown. --Bobak 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for understanding. Happy editing! --Bobak 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Kitchener, Ontario

Thank you for experimenting with the page Kitchener, Ontario on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Paul Cyr 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you putting "American" terms in Canadian articles? --Lukobe 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It was in this article, Kitchener. That's what Cyr is talking about. --Lukobe 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Racemap.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Racemap.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Jkelly 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Personal Attack by Jkelly and Musical Linguist

This following unsigned comment by User:Dolgo Xwost has been unnecessarily removed by two users, User:Jkelly and User:Musical Linguist because they believe it is against the policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, but this is not official policy. The actual policy states,"The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly."--Dark Tichondrias

Personal attack by banned user removedCheers! Jkelly 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is a wiki. Comments may be edited here. If you really want a guideline in the Wikipedia namespace that specificies what may be removed from your userspace, see Wikipedia:Userpage, but common sense should tell you that we don't want to be publishing scatalogical attacks on editors left here by banned users. Jkelly 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi there. I've noticed that you added a userbox to the listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality. Would you mind if I also included that userbox at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality? —Mira 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood me. I don't want to copy the userbox, I just want to add a link to it from my page. —Mira 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you mind if I did the same thing with your cross-dressing box? —Mira 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurasian Genetic Supercluster

This page was removed from Wikipedia before I even had an opportunity to view it (my guess is JWB is the culprit). I would suggest that a single sentence mention of this proposed supercluster of population should be added to the Eurasian page, as JWB will not allow any mention of it elsewhere. -- Gerkinstock 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw this comment now. I actually put a lot of effort into improving the previous Northern Eurasian Supercluster page instead of requesting deletion. However, someone later did nominate it for deletion, and the vote was for deletion. Given that, I think it makes sense to respect the previous vote. I did mark the new page for possible speedy deletion as a recreation of a page earlier voted down, and whichever admin processed it judged it to be such and deleted it. --JWB 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salazar's Castle

Just so you know, I am removing the picture of the island from Salazar's Castle. It serves no purpose as Salazar's Castle is not on the island and the island is not under any control by Salazar. Best regards, Philip Gronowski Contribs 02:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European-American

By your logic regarding Christina Aguilera been Eropean-American, then almost every latin america could also be considered european-american. Correct?, by the way notice that I haven't changed anything in the articles, i'm just asking. Cjrs 79 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

Hi Dark Tichondrias. Please stop adding copyrighted pictures to the Asian people article (or any other). It is not fair use to use these pictures in articles which aren't about the people they depict. It goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. They need to be removed or replaced with free pics. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your self-portrait on Asian people

it makes us look unreliable the same way your drawings of Asians on the Asian American page made us look unreliable. The art looks unprofessional. --Lukobe 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you put it back, someone else is just going to take it off. --Lukobe 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tripartite Asian and Bipartite Asian

I'm looking at Google hits for "tripartite asian". There are only 238. They seem to fall into these categories:

  • Your uses in Wikipedia and mirrors. Not usable as references.
  • Your own website.
  • ILO Tripartite Asian Regional Seminar. It's not clear what "Tripartite" means here as it's listed only as a book title, but I can't find evidence that it's the meaning you are using. Maybe the seminar has three parts.
  • References to an alliance of Russia, India, and China. This is not the meaning of EA/SEA/SA that you're using.
  • Someone's blog where they appear to be talking about a group of three friends.

"bipartite asian" gets only 7 hits.

  • your Wikipedia usage
  • two-part Asian and African musical instruments exhibition
  • spam sites with nonsense text.

I have to conclude the words are neologisms (Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms)and original research (WP:OR). --JWB 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attitude

By the way, User:Dark Tichondrias, I must remark that your attitude is very "WASPY", doing everything only "in accordance" to everything, and pretending to be "civil"- thinking that you are taking some sort of "ethical", "high road". That's not a "personal" attack, is it? Pretending to follow some kind of convention while being overly defensive about nothing may reveal some kind of guilt or pathology on your part. Why so angry and defensive? I think the discussion pages should be for issues not fully discussed. ie. for instance, why you are insistant on how the Asian people page has to conform to your standards, on not to others. And I must remark, that anonymous edito'rs comments on the Asian page was just silly and uncalled for, and not specifically aimed at anyone. AND YET, YOU interpreted it as a "personal attack"? What kind of pathology are you experiencing? Maybe you are guilty of something. Le Anh-Huy 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What Le Anh-Huy said is my reply as well.--D-Boy 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Dark Tichondrias, please, let's come to a consensus on issues, and please don't spread your original research around Wikipedia. --Lukobe 16:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] three-region map

The three region map illustrates the point of the section called who calls themself Asian in the Asian people article.

It doesn't really add to the article, though. Sometimes illustrations are unnecessary. --Lukobe 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] watching users

Hi there, Just curious why you're "watching" us... --Lukobe 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --Lukobe 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Some users edits are more watch-worthy.--Dark Tichondrias 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice way of putting it :) --Lukobe 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack on MFD against Nathan

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — The King of Kings 04:11 June 25 '06

[edit] For the record.

For the record, I'm bi (I can go either way relationship-wise) but asexual (don't care about sex - it is not a big part of my life, nor will it ever be). I neither like nor dislike anal sex. I don't care about it, but that shouldn't be read as a dislike (it shouldn't be read as a like either, I just don't see the appeal). You get the idea.

However, this should not be read as: "I don't like it, I don't want anything to do with it, so I allow that to affect my decisions on Wikipedia." — Nathan (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The MfD is especially not for that. Please re-read WP:MfD. The MfD/AfD/anything "for deletion" is only a discussion about whether something should be deleted/kept/archived somewhere/userfied/etc. All that is required from you is either keep/delete/etc and a brief (brief! not extensive! not three-four paragraphs, brief) rationale. I don't think you're getting the idea so please, please read WP:MfD again. Thank you. — Nathan (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asiaphile site

http://www.xanga.com/cec32

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/369114013/football-season.html

"It seems that I've had the honor of having a new title bestowed upon me recently. You can see just what that is here at this chick's site in her Oct 12th entry. She's the leader of an adorable blogring composed mainly of exotic little sex kittens entitled "STOP FETISHIZING US ASIANS" whose members claim that they "are tired of being FETISHIZED" and want to know that they're hot as "individuals" and are NOT "exotic little sex kittens" (Reading that one had me rolling on the floor). If this sexy bunch (35 members strong, so far) of Oriental dolls only knew just how arousing they really are by denouncing guys like me I'm sure they would immediately shut their blogring down. However, I sure hope that doesn't happen. In fact....I hope I've helped their recruitment. Mmmm!"

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/390745403/a-poll-for-those-of-us-who-have-a-thing-for-asian-girls.html

"A few weeks ago I mentioned the sexy leader of an adorable Xanga blogring mostly composed of exotic little sex kittens (I say "mostly" because there are currently two male members) entitled "STOP FETISHIZING US ASIANS" , who honored and distinguished me with a very special title after I left a comment on her site. Well, recently I was viewing the group's membership (35 strong, so far) and was having a difficult time deciding which one of these Far Eastern cuties is the most appealing (in a strictly carnal sense) and decided that I would create a poll for the visitors to my site to respond to."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/429780864/a-rarity-and-yes-im-still-reading-the-above.html

"It's not too often that I post pictures of NON-Asian chicks in my entries here..."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/452937793/the-chamber-of-horrors.html

"I was recently asked (in an adorable Far Eastern accent) by a young cutie to have her image and name removed from an entry of mine at this site..."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/472508031/new-poll.html

North Korean women and South Korean women are NOT different ethnicities. It is a political division.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.124.114.26 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Hi, Dark Tichondrias

Hi, Dark Tichondrias, thanks for the feedback and advice on my talk page. I have been enjoying your edits at the Asian fetish article, and think you and several of the newer editors are usually right on target.

Yes, I called User:Wzhao553 a "racist," on another user's talkpage not only because he promotes racial segregation in the point of view promoted in his edits, but also because he has previously attacked editors like user:Gnetwerker because of their race. I also called him a "liar" when he said he had never heard of anyone but white males claim that promotion of the "Asian fetish" concept was a means of promoting racial segregation, when he had discussed exactly such an article by an Asian-American male just a short time ago. Indeed, this article is still linked at his pet project, the Asian fetish article. (I would have to go back and check, but I believe this is also your position on the issue?)

I believe the evidence supports the use of both of those labels, and, regardless, I think that you can see I did not mean them to be baseless personal attacks, but to point out the actual behavior of the editor. I trust that Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages does not prevent us pointing out the truth, even if it is sometimes not very pleasant.

I am a white male who is very happily married to an Asian woman, and would do it all over exactly the same way again if I had to. I was turned away from the article by the negativity I encountered during my short stay there both from editors like WZhao553 and from the repusively anger- and hate-filled nature of so many of the sources I read there. I have encountered very little of this sort of attitude in real life, and prefer to avoid negativity and work on the positive whenever I can.

Anyway, I hope you keep up the good work on the article, and thank you again for the feedback. Human Fetishist 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, also, Dark Tichondrias. I want to compliment you on your dedication to the article asian fetish. Here is a link to WZhao533's blog, in case you're interested. If you read it, I would be curious as to your thoughts about his TV show ideas. Logoi 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MfD Result Notice

Hi,

I have closed the MfD on your user subpage "Userboxes/Receive Anal Sex." The result was no consensus/default keep. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothesis

I'm sure you knew when you changed the article name to "asian fetish theory" that you will inevitably get some dissent. Why not go all the way and call it the "asian fetish hypothesis" or "asian fetish conjecture"? It's entirely untested, so I don't think it should enjoy the status of being a theory yet. Perhaps there could be a separate article "Asian fetish (politics)" that locates the term in its politicized context. Logoi 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing the name to hypothesis, but it seemed more standard to use the word theory. I understand that since it has not withstood any critical analysis it should not be called a theory, but I felt the term theory was more used in standard practice. It should really be called a hypothesis. I think hypothesis is more fitting than conjecture because conjecture is not a standard term. If they are synonymous in meaning, then I think hypothesis would be better. I would like it if it were changed to hypothesis. You could move it.--Dark Tichondrias 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Image:USA Census 2000 logo.gif

There are a few minor problems with what you stated on this logo. First, this is a public domain image because it is a work of the U.S. Government. Fair use does not apply, and this image is therefore free. Second, the preferred format for this image is PNG, not JPEG. The JPEG format degrades logos like this severely. It is great on photos and 3D images where changes from pixel to pixel are mostly smooth, but abrupt changes like those on logos are bad for JPEG. Third, this image should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons because it is a work in the public domain. Fourth, you need to specify the source of the image. Jesse Viviano 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Asian man

Hi, not that I disagree or agree with the article, but i feel that the page was incomplete, and that section was discribing a WEBSITE about Angry Asian Males, rather than the stereotype of the Angry Asian male. The paragraph summarised the website, but I feel that the website would have been fine as a link at the bottom of the page and is not significant or directly relevant enough in defining the Angry Asian Man to warrant a summary. The site that was summarised, although probably a good example of the stereotype, was made by a few individuals for humourous purposes and can be classified as anecdotal at best. Perhaps if you were to quote something, it might be a more landmark article, study, or essay rather than that particular site. Sunawave

[edit] No

No. When people are ignorant and say stupid things, I have to tell them. As we say in my country: It is charity to teach those who do not know.

I would seriously consider changing your userpage stuff on you enjoying anal sex. It doesnt seem very serious...

--Ismael76 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument that the exception to the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks is when the user is actually ignorant could be said of all personal attacks. There are more civil ways to argue against other user's arguments than saying they are ignorant.
The template survived AFD due to Wikipedia not being censored. I'm sure this personal information does not detract from my arguments.--Dark Tichondrias 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to censor your template. I was giving you advice. Such details of your intimacy are not the best way of introducing yourself on wikipedia. Its a bit freaky... But thats just my opinion. I have nothing against anal sex.:-) --Ismael76 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes of Asians

Hey, thanks for all the picture contributions to the article! Articles are no fun without pictures. --Drenched 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not stop on the Black People article.

Please don't give up. I wish to know more about how you feel about this. Please talk on my user talk page. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is your rationale for removing my contribution???

Dark Tichondrias, I'm prepared to argue for the inclusion of this piece authored by me which you deleted for some reason:

Counter-criticism. These stereotypes are held by many Asian American men (AAM) to have the malicious effect of setting them back in an unfathomable range of social domains, including work relations, schools, intimate relations and the service industry, in which indisputable trends and mounting anecdotal accounts of racial prejudice point to racial stereotypes. With reference to the markedly low incidence of interracial dating involving AAM and white women [14] [15], it is thought that white American women have been suggestible to these stereotypes and thereby deterred in having relations with AAM. A similar line of reasoning exists in relation to the phenomenal rate of out-dating among Asian American women, in particular to white American men. This is thought to affirm the privileging of the dominant in-group, concomitant to the preclusion of AAM via processes of media representation.

It's a coherent, cogent piece of writing and is no less relevant than is a lot of the content preceding it. Importantly it contextualizes the problem of Asian stereotypes and places an interesting spin on the topic. Moreover, it contests the Criticism section, which, from a scholarly point of view is valuable because it further problematizes the issues in question. What the overall article neglects to consider are the EFFECTS of racial stereotypes. It is no more than a listing of various stereotypes without this.

I felt some of the statements which are given as facts need a citation from a qualified source in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The first part says "held by many Asian American men" when the sources only show a select few writers expressing this view. The Wikipedia:Verifiability needs "reputable publishers" for this statistic to include this claim. The most pertinent reason why I feel the paragraph should not be in the article is because the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy only allows for "reputable publishers", but Asian American professors are not reputable in psychology. It is part of their field to catalogue stereotypes and count interracial marriages , but it is not part of their field to interpret stereotypes to cause the disparity. In this matter they are unqualified to be a reliable source. A psychologist must be cited who claims stereotypes cause the dating disparity for the main part of the paragraph to meet Wikipedia's policy. If you find a psychologist who claims this, then her/his name should be included along with the Asian American professor. On the other hand, if the opinion of the Asian American professor is mentioned as just his opinion rather than stated as a fact, then it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Dark Tichondrias 11:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I forgot the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy demands the source be a "reputable publisher", so even if the Asian American studies professor had his name added, the paragraph would still be unacceptable.--Dark Tichondrias

[edit] White pride revert

Hi there. I just thought I'd leave a message to explain why I reverted your changes to White Pride. The principal reason is that, by changing "White-European" extraction or "Caucasian" extraction to something like Caucasian American (without the quotes), you give credence to the existence of "races", which is something that geneticists et al dispute. (I.e., there's more genetic variation within "races" than there is between them.) "Races" are only useful from the perspective of social analysis, with history in mind - because it is true that certain "races" are cultural groups who have been advantaged/disadvantaged socioeconomically primarily on the basis of the legacy of "race". But, by removing the quotes, your edits vaguely legitimate racialism - and suddenly the article is not NPOV anymore - it implicitly advocates some of the arguments of the White Priders. (Furthermore, limiting White Pride to hyphenated-Americans is inaccurate - the opening sentence stresses primarily in the United States, although there exist many sympathizers in Canada, Western Europe and Australia.) - Maggie --64.229.64.62 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that changing "White" to White American makes the racial term imply genetics, but I do agree that White pride is not limited to USA.--Dark Tichondrias 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the White Pride article again and I originally added White American and European American because they were specifically in the United States context. I still do not see how removing the quotes makes the term more legitimate. I feel that by not specifying an American context, the term White seems to transcend culture, giving it more credence. Could you elaborate on how linking the racial term to its American context increases its legitimacy?--Dark Tichondrias 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
My wording (for it is mine) is very, very careful: "White-European" extraction. The key word is "extraction". With the quotes, the implication is: "White-European" is a shorthand term for a cultural' group (extraction/ancestry/derivation/mythology, etc.) without genetic/scientific basis. whereas White American very baldly means White people from America. All the subtlety is lost. It is also factually incorrect, for the reasons agreed above. Read the Talk page on the White Pride article for evidence of the very fragile compromise the current text represents, and the kind of racist, homophobic etc. nonsense I've had to put up with in rewriting it. - Maggie --64.229.64.62 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The White and Caucasian articles include more people than just Europeans in their scope, so I think the group should be changed to European American. The term "European American" does not solidify itself as a race, unlike the other two terms.--Dark Tichondrias 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But it's just plain wrong to suggest that, say, a Scottish proponent of White Pride is "celebrating the heritage of persons of European American extraction". Ditto Canada, although there's an argument to be made for a term like "Italian American" or "African American" also applying to individuals from other North or South American countries (thereby making most Columbians "Spanish American"). So...no. - Maggie --64.229.64.62 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Unregistered yes, but troll? I resent that. Take a look at my other contributions - particularly on music-related articles. I provide a lot of useful content, and am, in point of fact, smarter than you, Avsn. -Maggie --64.229.64.62 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DT: Thanks for perservering. Your most recent edit to White Pride was a good one. I'm mulling over what to do with the term "race traitors" - it's not recognized as a cohesive cultural group by anyone but racists (unlike homosexuals or jews, etc.) so it makes me feel uncomfortable to give it such play in the opening paragraph, as if it were a legitimate term. Instead I've used "certain other groups" to signal down to the section on Usage, where I've put the term, with an explanation of what the term is, who uses it, and cetera. Thanks. - Maggie --64.229.64.62 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I got the message, now stay off my page

DT: I removed the "personal attack" from your page. As to the "policy" you quote, it is not official. I prefer to keep my user page cleaned up. STAY OFF MY PAGE! Whatever message you wanted to send has been sent. Avsn 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DT: Once again, Stay off my user page. I now long ago removed the "attack" you were worried about, and the policy you quote is not official. Avsn 15:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Census

  • Hi - not sure I understand the point of the template you just added to the census page. Can you please explain on the article's talk page how it helps. Thanks - sorry I am confused.--Arktos talk 11:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Having sought a second opinion I will be removing the template from the article and proposing it for deletion. Regards--Arktos talk 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Australian Census Broad Groups

Template:Australian Census Broad Groups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Arktos talk 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanian

Hi. The reference you added then removed to Pacific Islander uses "Oceanian" as a "cultural" term, not racial. It is quite broad, and includes anybody of any race who identifies as culturally from somewhere in Oceania, including Australia and New Zealand. For example, someone who is white, and ethnically from Europe/Britain, but is second (or more) generation Australian-born and identifies themselves as Australian would count as Oceanian. So do Australian Aborigines, New Zealanders, and people from other Pacific Islands, indigenous or not. Not sure if this is helpful or not. The term is used by the ABS for statistical purposes, but is not a commonly-used term otherwise. --Scott Davis Talk 13:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity in Australia

  • It really is different here. Hence I don't feel comfortable at all about your assertion The 2006 Australian Census did not ask for respondent's race but for their national origin group, because the Australian Census Bureau felt that bunching together data on separate ethnic groups made the data less useful. How do you know what the ABS (Not the census brureau ioncidentally) felt the ref doesn't tell you that. And moreover why on earth do you think Indigenous peoples of the Americas would be statistically significant in an Australian context? I will revert your edit.--Arktos talk 09:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the reference to the ABS document where they state they are trying to not bunch together ethnic groups because the data would be less meaningful. The reason that "Peoples of the Americas" needs clarification is because the nations in North and South America are not thought of as a single people. Because the citizens of North and South America do not think of each other as a people, when they read this category they will assume that it refers to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Dark Tichondrias 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a personal attack - I commented on your content exhaustively, including that once you had been advised of the organisation's name you continued to mislabel it - how do you think that reflects on your research abilities? Your edits have misquoted references and you are pushing an inappropriate POV. Please review WP:NPA which states: Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. Your persistent mislabelling of the organisation is wrong and together with misquoting references, thus casts doubt on the credibility of anything you write.--Arktos talk 10:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that calling a statement wrong is not a personal attack, but that is not what you said on the edit you made here.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What I said was: There is no "Australian census bureau - there is an Australian Bureau of Statistics - misnaming organisations is inaccurate and casts doubt on the accuracy of anything else you have written. This was after having pointed out to you once already that you had got the name wrong. Coupled with the other errors you had made, I don't regard it as a personal attack but a strongly worded statement that your edits on the Australian census article lack credibility - it wasn't after all just one slip. I do not resile from that position. You want credibility, you need to make more accurate contributions.--Arktos talk 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
PS the "here" link above doesn't point to an edit of mine but your comment - your comment does not thus make sense!--Arktos talk 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The link points to a discussion on your edit which includes a link to your edit.--Dark Tichondrias 11:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you don't link to my edit, then you should say something like but that is not what you said on the edit I referred to here. Need to watch that detail and think are you saying what you mean to say. In this case yet again you weren't.--Arktos talk 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Policy Violations

You got me. I suppose Wikipedia should take action against me. Just like they have done against EditingOprah for sockpuppeting and misrepresenting my position. Oh that's right they didn't DO ANYthing. He's still around still doing his silly crap. His page shows no citations, no action, no warnings. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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! SignaturebrendelNow under review!

[edit] 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)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Mediation

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

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Your maps in White people page are cool. Good work... Lukas19 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/r/User_talk%7EDark_Tichondrias_506c.html"