User talk:Dark Tea/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Dark Tea/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Feel free to drop me a question on my talk page.

If you need help (which I can’t answer), put {{helpme}} on your talk page. It is also a good idea to explain what your problem on Wikipedia is, it helps you and your helper!


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If another Wikipedian criticizes what you have done check what Wikipedia is not to avoid this happening again/ever. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Want to do something?

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

Need a tip?

Tip of the day...


Use your watchlist

Each user account has its own watchlist. If you want to easily keep track of an article, you can see the most recent edits by adding it to your watchlist. To do this, simply click the watch tab at the top of the page, and the current page you are viewing wll be added to your watchlist. You can add as many pages as you want to your watchlist. To see your watchlist click my watchlist at the top of every page.

Read more: Help:Watching pages

Prior tip - Next tip

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}.
Become a Wikipedia tipster

Have a fun time editing!


Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Supernumerary_Deformed_Tomato.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Supernumerary_Deformed_Tomato.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. BigrTex 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since notifying the uploader is part of the requirements of the process, I don't know how I can not notify you. I do frequently use an automated tool, which just posts it to your old user talk page. In the future, I will try to remember not to go to the trouble of also notifying you here. ~ BigrTex 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration on this issue. I feel your voluntary choice to perform necessary clerical drudgery for Wikipedia to be commendable.----DarkTea 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Lucky 6.9

Hi - as an administrator, user:Lucky 6.9 has the power to delete a page, so he deleted his userpage and his talkpage - he even blocked himself. It is quite possible that in anger or something, Lucky deleted the edits he made out of the history, so it doesn't show up in contribs. According to the contributions, he has left Wikipedia (I assume over some controversy) since Jan 26.

If you feel that an admin has abused their privileges, you must not be scared to discuss it. Admins (for example - me) are not authorities in the regular sense - you can raise the issue by finding another admin from Category:Wikipedia administrators or placing a report on WP:ANI. Cheers, Rama's arrow 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a specific blocking policy that guides all admins, so don't worry that you may get blocked arbitrarily. In case you ever do, you can place this template - {{unblock}} - to ask for another admin to review the block. Rama's arrow 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Will you still sign a RfC for Wobble? I'll open it soon. Lukas19 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to see you go....

...but not reliable for any information? --Lukobe 06:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hello, we may have different points of view on many subjects, but I've always thought you are a very productive contributor to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see you back. All the best. Alun 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongoloid

You removed the term Mongoloid from the article on Central Java. I understand your view, but how do you we call these people then? It is a fact that Mongoloid or Asians or whatever they have to be called, replaced the Australoid people of Java. Do you have a suggestion? BTW why haven't you removed Australoid, isn't this racist as well? Meursault2004 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did remove Australoid. I think the Central Java article should refer to the migrants by their region of origin. It should say, "First, 40,000 years ago Central Java was inhabited by a migratory group related to indigenous Australians and Melanesians. Then, 3,000 years ago a later migratory group of Austronesian speaking people mixed with the original inhabitants."----DarkTea 14:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have given you proof on how the term Mongoloid has been used in academic contexts in non-racist terms (look at Koch dynasty#_note-1). So please stop editing articles indiscriminately. Chaipau 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this "Sarkar 1992, p69 " what you consider to be proof of a good source? I can't check this source, so I can't verify it.----DarkTea 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity (United States Census)

[1]

Not sure what about "The use of the word ethnicity is considerably more restricted than its conventional meaning, which covers other distinctions, some of which are reported by the United States Census questions titled Race (United States Census) and Ancestry (United States Census).[citation needed]" you are challenging - the use of "ethnicity" for only Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic is undeniably a restricted one. --JWB 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. In the US Census sense, the term "ethnicity" is considerably collapsed and restricted in its scope. I only added the FACT tag to distinguish where my citation's supportive power ended.----DarkTea 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think my text there is suggesting something similar to what the AAA quote says, that the names of the Census questions are somewhat arbitrary and should not be expected to make too much sense.. --JWB 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Technically, all racial/physical terms had something to do with racism, but Mongoloid is general accepted in the same way that Caucasoid is accepted. Saying "Mongolian features" rather than Mongoloid implies that you are saying that the people were Mongolians. For example, Chinese people dont have Mongolian features (as in these facial characteristics are not owned by Mongols or started by Mongols), they have Mongoloid features.Azerbaijani 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid is not acceptable in articles not specifically dealing with it. First, Chinese people bear a strong physical resemblence to Mongols, hence they have Mongolian features. Less appropriately, to say that Chinese have Mongoloid features could mean that they have black skin and a large alquiline nose like the Aztec Indians. Second, if you think Caucasian/Caucasoid is non-offensive and you would be included in that category, then protest its removal. Since I would be included in the Mongoloid category, since it does not correspond to a racial group, and since Coon defined it as less evolved, I am summarily removing it from articles which do not specifically relate to it.----DarkTea 00:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that should be discussed? "Summary removal"--hmm.... --Lukobe 01:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Indians Asians?

In your map you marked Indians as Asians. Why do you think so? IMHO Indians are white people. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 11:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The map is used to illustrate the 2000 US Census definitions of race which explicitly state that Asian Indians are in the Asian racial group.----DarkTea 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source for it? It is important. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source from the US Census Bureau that shows the Asian racial group's members.----DarkTea 10:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest to add it as a source into the article. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mongoloidness"

I don't know who wrote Noin-Ula, but still it'd be better to replace "Mongoloid" with an alternative term, if the former is now considered offensive in English, rather than deleting all epithets wholesale. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added an edit where I tried to keep the original meaning. It is hard to know exactly what to insert as a replacement term, since the artwork under reference is not depicted in the article.----DarkTea 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The terms Caucasoid and Mongoloid and (Paleo)Sibirian are strictly physical anthropological terms and do not carry (and definitely should not carry) any derrogatory connotations. They are used in anthropological, historical, and genetic studies for a general description of the people. In particular, the shape of the eyes is not a trait of Mongoloidness at all, but the shape of the skull, dental fang, and a few others. Thus, to replace anthropological description of Mongoloid with epicanthic eyes is not only incorrect, but is also to imply that for some reasons "Mongoloid" has negative connotations, which it does not. Barefact 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Since Mongoloid is used in different ways, it is hard to know what it means in any given instance. It does not clearly provide discrete information due to its inexactness. It is a derogatory term which is equivalent to retarded no matter how it is used and implies a hierarchial view of race. It is commonly used as a racial slur to insult people outside of Wikipedia.----DarkTea 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongoloid race#Central Asia

Could you suggest a rewrite that will satisfy you? The passage is a summary of facts that are adequately referenced in the specific articles, as detailed in my edit summary. --JWB 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want that section in the article if it remains unsourced. I flagged it for a week as unsourced. Afterwards, nobody sourced it, so I removed it. I don't want to have that section in the article if it violates WP:NOR.----DarkTea 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The first statement is in Haplogroup K (Y-DNA) and is there sourced to [2]. Is this OK for you? Thanks. --JWB 11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk page

Regarding your recent edit on my talk page: I will assume good faith and presume that you mistakenly believed I would understand the meaning of your terse message. If this pertains to my recent comments on Talk:Asian American about your edits on that page, please elaborate with an appropriate addition to that discussion. Otherwise, more specific comments would be most appreciated. --Ishu 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You have made numerous edits since I have posted the above query. If you are going to edit my talk page, please have the courtesy to respond to questions regarding those edits. In light of previous comments you have made, I might construe your lack of response to be evidence of an ill-considered accusation. --Ishu 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Dark Tea,

I found it Interesting what you found out and what you added you added to the Demographics of Argentina Page. Could you explain it to me a little more I am a little confused still. Also could You please add the same thing to the Argentina page in demographics section. Thanks. (XGustaX 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

The profesor of anthropology considers typological classification to be discredited. source I do not want to interpret the reason he says this because that would be OR, but it probably has something to do with the assumption of distinctiveness. Typological classification relies on inconsistently-applied standards to distinguish different physical types based on a variety of visible characteristics. These physical features, although appearing in a greater trend in certain populations, are independent of each other. The professor may consider the possibility of conforming to an idealized physical type to be unscientific. Regardless, my OR interpretation is not important to him being a WP:RS and saying what he said about typological classification.----DarkTea


Very interesting indeed! Thanks for the information. Can you add this as you did to to the other page? Thanks, a pleasure chatting with you.(XGustaX 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm not going to add that to the article. It would be a OR interpreation on my part against WP:NOR. Also, it would be a WP:CFORK of Typology (anthropology).--14:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Why, if you already added it to the demographics section? (XGustaX 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I didn't add the citation to the article. I only used the citation in the edit summary I made.----DarkTea 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Yeah I understand that you did, I am saying cant you do that to main article, Argentina. (XGustaX 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Capoid

If you have a cite that Coon introduced the term, just add the cite! If we do not know that Coon originated the term, it can't be a WP:A violation.

If the article were to become a redirect, it should be merged with and redirected to Khoisan which is already listed as

Main article: Khoisan
in the article.

This is not a WP:CFORK. Race and genetics is not at all the same article. There was no intention to create separate articles in order to shield a POV. Most glaringly, where the two articles do touch on the same topic (genetic distinctness of the Khoisan), they do not express contradictory POV and appear to be in agreement!

It is standard to have a short discussion of a topic as it comes up in an article, and refer to a more specific article for more detail. This is not duplication or WP:CFORK, although of course opinions on the length of the summary may vary. The most detailed discussion of the topic is in fact where you would expect, at Khoisan#Oldest_human_group, and both the Capoid and Race and genetics articles link to Khoisan.

The passage does not say "large" but simply explains what splitting a category implies. The sentence does not advance an opinion of its own as to whether differentiating the Capoid category is justified. If you still feel this is unclear, you can rephrase the sentence. In any case, your reason does not justify removing the whole paragraph. The later part of the paragraph summarizes genetic findings about the Khoisan, and the discussion in my previous point applies. --JWB 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Thomas Huxley Racial Definitions

Hi dark tea. This seems like a lot of effort for something Huxley only wrote one paper on. I could not find the map you refer to at the given reference, do you have another reference for that? Please supply a citation (perhaps including the edition or web link) at the template and image. Thanks ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I left this at your last user name. You might consider archiving that talk page and moving it here. I did find the map elsewhere. I think the use of the template is exaggerating the significance of a short paper, a position that the author did not develop and later recanted. Please consider removing it. Regards ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the source for the map here.----DarkTea 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coon

I know that Carleton S. Coon was a racist and that his research is false. Does Wikipedia have a policy on using outdated information? (XGustaX 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

In WP:A it warns against using "extremist" sources.----DarkTea 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. (XGustaX 14:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Removing foreign words

Please discuss at Limpieza de sangre#Name change. This exceeds what WP:BETTER#Use other languages sparingly calls for. --JWB 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert me without addressing the discussion? The convention is to use English except when the foreign language term is the more common term in English scholarship. "limpieza de sangre" is; please revert all of your undiscussed changes. Dmcdevit·t 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reorg of Italian American

Sweeeeeeet! --CliffC 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Asia

Recapitulating a subjective synthesis and analysis of what Asia is on my talk page, from the Asia talk page, doesn't prove your case. The article already deals with disparate points of view equitably, and (at least three) editors disagree with your incessant, tendentious reframing of content. If you persist, don't be surprised by the results. Corticopia 02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, WP:WEIGHT says both views must be expressed with equal weight, since they are both "majority views" established by their citations from common reference materials.----DarkTea 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No: equitably does not mean equally, and you have not demonstrated anything through your unique presentation/synthesis of information. Corticopia 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


There is no violation of WP:SYN like you claim Corticopia. I have not listed citations and then arrived at a conclusion the original authors did not. I have shown that the following authors hold the 3-region POV.----DarkTea 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
“ "Welty, Paul Thomas. The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1 ”
“ The region called Asia in this book stretches from Pakistan on the west to Japan on the east and from the northern borders of China to the southernmost boundaries of Indonesia--Paul Thomas Welty ”
“ "Asia." The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. Rand McNally, USA: 1983. pp.416 ”
“ Nelson, Jane, et al. The World's Great Religions:Volume 1: Religions of the East. Time Incorporated, New York: 1957. pp.62 ”

----DarkTea 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Corticopia 03:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Your failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy: WP:CON. You think that WP:CON overridesWP:NPOV. You try to make the issue boil down to a simple vote, but Wikipedia: Consensus#Exceptions says that "Foundation Issues" are an exception. Foundation Issues include WP:NPOV, so WP:CON does not override WP:NPOV or any other foundation policies.----DarkTea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing impartial in your edits, and is thus not a 'foundation issue.' You dredge up the same old sh*t and employ sophistry to try to compel, but no one is biting. Give it a rest and spend time on worthwhile pursuits; otherwise, your mass deletions of content and refactorings will be rectified. Corticopia 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong about wanting a POV expressed in the article. Read the foundation issues. You like to deride others by claiming they are "POV pushing". The WP:NPOV actually encourages the push for multiple notable POVs. The "N" in "NPOV" stands for neutral POV. It does stand for "no" POV.----DarkTea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with expressing a point of view, but when you deprecate others at the expense of your own -- which you continually do, like through the removal of any number of maps and addition of half-ass substitutes -- that is called POV-pushing, and your continuance of this may constitute disruption. Numerous editors have commented on the talk page about your arguably tendentious editing and that your refactorings and rationale are not compelling -- I refuse to waste more time in feeding your troll-like editorial behaviours, since I remain unconvinced that you are not one. A bientot. Corticopia 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Your failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy: WP:CON. You think that WP:CON overridesWP:NPOV. You try to make the issue boil down to a simple vote, but Wikipedia: Consensus#Exceptions says that "Foundation Issues" are an exception. Foundation Issues include WP:NPOV, so WP:CON does not override WP:NPOV or any other foundation policies.------DarkTea 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In this case, WP:WEIGHT says both views must be expressed with equal weight, since they are both "majority views" established by their citations from common reference materials.------DarkTea 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Providence, Rhode Island

Editor, I've noticed your contributions to the Providence, Rhode Island article. I've just nominated it for Featured Article status. FA page is here. Your feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated.--Loodog 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corticopia

I noticed that you mentioned violations of WP:PROFANITY by User: Corticopia on that users talk page. I started a thead on WP:ANI on him. Please feel free to comment on the user. The thread can be found here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Edits_and_Uncivil_Comments BH (T|C) 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia was blocked for making 3 reverts in 17 minutes on the Canada article. The thread about him on WP:ANI was mentioned in the blocking admins comments. See Here for more information.

Thank You

--BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Eurasian List

Why are you removing South Asians from the List of Eurasians?----DarkTea 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because indians are not asian/mongoloid. Indians are caucasians by forensic and genetic classification. Just because they are geographically from the continent of asia does not put them ethnically into the same group with southeast asians and east asians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.99.9 (talk • contribs)
Eurasian refers to the concept of the Asian and the European, so you're objection is irrelevant. You are right about forensics. Indians are mostly Caucasoid by legal analysis of human remains. Indians are mostly grouped with Southeast and East Asians by genetic and cultural classification. The concepts of the "Asian" and "European" do not refer to the Caucasoid and Mongoloid categories of skull shape. The list is of people with mixed Asian and European ancestry; the list is not for people with an intermediate skull shape that doesn't fall into a common category as you propose.----DarkTea 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Filiusvita & Caucasian Race

About the "Muslim" sex trade... when I gave that user the warnings he provided no citation. He was replacing the group referred to in the source with "Muslim" without basis.

I find it odd that you say "the last edit User:Filiusvita made regarding the ascription of sexual slavery to Muslims was not vandalism, because User:Filiusvita had a citation" because he clearly never provided a citation for "Muslim" ([3][4]), and I can see that it was you, not Filiusvita who added the citation [5]. Please explain yourself.

Also, note that an African Christian activist site like the one you provided as a source is not an acceptable source on the "Islamic" slave trade (or other Islam-related issues), and hence the addition of "Muslim" will again have to be removed. It amazes me that you'd try to put something unreliable like that right next to an academic source.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you are defending that vandal. He was blanking a number of parts of the page, including the "See also" section (for no apparent reason). He changes a sourced description to "Muslim" despite the source not supporting this, even after warnings about his conduct. I revert, showing the particular part of the source and how it supports the original wording, but he blindly undoes this as well. You then add the source. But why are you defending this vandal? I see he has now gone to Arab slave trade and changed the "Arab" in the beginning to "Islamic" without justification [6], even as the article already discusses the "Islamic slave trade" term in the second paragraph of the lead using reliable sources.

Please explain what you are thinking here. I'm probably going to report him to AIV now. Thanks. The Behnam 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you seem to have put in the citation because he later found a citation and mentioned it on his talk page. Of course his editing is still unacceptable but I see what you were doing there. Just letting you know before you say I missed something in my description. The Behnam 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The source that User:Filiusvita found I considered to be WP:RS because it had multiple citations and was written by a doctor. The source cited sources itself which it listed, showing its methodical fact checking. The author of the source is also doctor. It is not clear if he is a doctor in religion or history and his published works Faith Under Fire In Sudan and The Greatest Century of Missions do not clearly indicate what his doctorate was in. The relevant doctorate to his reliability would be history.----DarkTea 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Peter Hammond's biography shows that his doctorate was in "divinity" and "missiology" which do not make him a WP:RS in history, but he does cite sources. Is his article not true?----DarkTea 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is summarizing material from the Nell Irvin Painter paper [7] cited in the previous paragraph. It should not need further citations as support unless you find it is not summarizing accurately. The new source appears to be a weaker one to me.

As for the religious aspect, both Muslims and Christians imported slaves but were not supposed to enslave their own group. The Caucasus was a non-Muslim area (until the 17th century when Islam started to make serious inroads) and so it was Muslims who imported slaves from that particular area. --JWB 06:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If the citation appears to be off WP:TOPIC, then it shouldn't be in the article.----DarkTea 06:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We will certainly not cite "christianaction.org.za" as a reliable academic source. We can at the very best cite it as an example of Christian propaganda in Africa. The point made might be appropriate to the article Arab slave trade, but certainly not in a discussion of the historical origins of the term "Caucasian race", where it is obviously just a cheap potshot at Muslims and does nothing towards the aim of the article. Please use some minimal amount of common sense. If you are interested in denouncing the Arab world for their history of slavery, do it at the dedicated article, Arab slave trade. dab (𒁳) 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is always important to help new editors out with editing, because biting them scares them away from editing. Many times new editors do not know Wikipedia's mark up of using the ref tag, so they don't cite the sources they find the correct way.----DarkTea 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is good that you meant well, I think that the editor in this case probably wasn't the best investment. Oh well. The Behnam 08:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should invest in research? All that is done here is invention. THE TURKISH WERE THE LARGEST MEDITERREANEAN SLAVE TRADERS AFTER THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, THEY WERE MUSLIM!!! THEY WERE NOT ARAB!!!! THE TITLE IS MEANINGLESS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiusvita (talk • contribs)

yeah yeah -- look, we cannot write an encyclopedia while people with foam at their mouths are shouting at us in allcaps. If you want to contribute, calm down and start bringing on the detailed reliable sources. If you do that, Filiusvita, you have a chance of influencing article. If you just keep shouting at people, you'll just be blocked. dab (𒁳) 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan American

can you please explain why you decided to change or redirect Afghan American to the incorrect "Afghanistani Americam"? the name "afghan" is 3 times older than the name "american", afghan existed way before modern-state afghanistan was born in 1747 and also after. there are probably millions of sources to the name "afghan", while there are only some mentionings of "afghanistani", mainly on blogs, used by error in a newspaper article or in free encylopedia where it is same as wikipedia, anyone can edit and change official names to something only he or she may want. cia factbook has "afghan" for people of afghanistan, afghanistan's government is clear about this. you should change the article afghanistani american to "afghan american" or leave seperate articles.Mirrori1 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources I have seen indicate User:Beh-nam's POV is in line with policy. I made the article reflect User:Beh-nam's POV that the term "Afghanistani" is a demonym for someone in Afghanistan while the term "Afghan" is an ethnic group term. User:Beh-nam's POV is supported by respectable sources while I have seen no sources for the term "Afghan" being a demonym for an citizen of Afghanistan, so User:Beh-nam's POV has more WP:WEIGHT which is shown here and here.----DarkTea 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's far less common:

None of the links Behnam provided even attempt to assert the term is preferred by the group itself - all are Western or Indian news stories, blog comments or dictionary entries.

It is quite possible that the term has recently been promoted or is gaining some traction, like Rossiyane, but no evidence so far quantifies this, much less shows there is a consensus to use this term.

It is true that etymologically "Afghan" originated as the name of a specific ethnic group, however current usage seems to be entirely "Afghan" for the country and "Pushtun" for that specific ethnic group. --JWB 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

if you check the word "afghan american" on yahoo search, it'll show that the word has been used in 33 million places. if you check the word "afghanistani american", it'll show that this word has only been used in 56,000 places.Mirrori1 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"afghanistani" is totally wrong, it's the same as calling people of pakistan as "pakis". why don't you just check cia factbook, which has these information about every nation. according to cia factbook on afghanistan, it says.. Nationality: noun: Afghan(s) adjective: Afghan. see afghanistan here >>>[8] you may also chech britanica, and other reliable sources than to rely on the work of an ordinary person who mistakinly called people of afghanistan as "afghanistanis". why are all the sources inside the article mentioning "afghan american" but the article has different name used? that sounds to me like if a group of people are standing and looking at the blue sky, but one person from the group yells and say that the sky is pink. we all know that "afghan" is the correct term, but you want to say "no it is afghanistani".Mirrori1 10:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Although both POVs have support, it now appears that the term "Afghan" has more weight. The term is not derogatory like shortening the term "Pakistani", so it is not "the same". User:Beh-nam appears to have provided reliable sources which support the "Afghanistani" POV while the "Afghan" POV seems to have more WP:WEIGHT, so Afghan should be used on the article.----DarkTea 04:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
calling people of pakistan "pakis" is an insult, in this regard it is "the same" when people of afghanistan are called "afghanistanis". if i were to call you "japanian" you wouldn't like that and i would be wrong because we only use japanese, even to one individual from japan. anyway, afghanistan's contitution is clear about the word "afghan", here what it says:Article Four, of the constitution of afghanistan:
“ National sovereignty in Afghanistan shall belong to the nation, manifested directly and through its elected representatives. The nation of Afghanistan is composed of all individuals who possess the citizenship of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. No individual of the nation of Afghanistan shall be deprived of citizenship. The citizenship and asylum related matters shall be regulated by law. LINK ”
The term Afghan: a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" in antiquity, has been synonymous with Pashtun. However, since the establishment of the modern state and the ratification of various versions of the Afghan constitution, all individuals within the borders of Afghanistan are referred to as Afghans and are bound by the same rights and responsibilities under the law:webster dictionary
so please be 100% sure before you make contravercial name changes.Mirrori1 11:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hair color map

Are you sure u drew it accurately? Some details differ. Is it adjusted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N33 (talk • contribs) 06:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC).