User talk:Gottoupload

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do I say race is a load of nonsense: 1. Well even though it has some historical relevance, my understanding is that a lot of the conclusions drawn before based on race (lower IQ, greater sex drive, etc) have not really stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Those areas are politically incorrect and thus not well studied so we don't really know. But just because race exists does not means some races are smarter than others. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
One can find scientific arguments and data on both sides of this issue. You are right. We do not know. I think that is quite accurate.--Filll 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Even though there are some differences between different ethnic groups in terms of genetics, there is a huge overlap of the distributions. The within-group variance is larger than the between group variances.

There's huge overlap between men and women too but that doesn't mean sexes don't exist. There's overlap between different animals too. Races represent central tendencies, not discrete mutually exclusive categories. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well men and women are a lot different than the difference between races. The genetic differences between men and women and structural differences are immense. There are also a huge variety of different types of intersex individuals (maybe a percent or two of the population), plus people whose bodies do not respond the same way to male and female hormones, plus homosexuals (some of who might have a biological basis for their preferences, although the science is still a bit unresolved). So actually even in the well separated cases like men and women, there is still huge overlap. And in other species it is even worse because there are more than 2 sexes, and sexes can change over the animal's lifetime etc. But I agree that races are sort of vague arbitrary directions with big error bars on them, in a very high dimensional space.--Filll 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3. There can be some structural differences (like the distribution of fast and slow twitch muscles), but this becomes muddled when there is migration and interbreeding thrown into the mix. Then there are the exceptions and outliers to also consider.

Of course there's interbreeding. Many people can not fit into race or another. But most people can clearly be identified as belonging to one race or another.
Maybe. But it still leaves a substantial fraction that cannot. And those categories are somewhat arbitrary anyway, at least as near as the data appears so far (to the best of my understanding).--Filll 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

4. There has been more migration in the past than we would like to admit; consider the Lemba or the Japanese/Ainu situation or Kennewick Man for example.

The concept of race is getting weaker all the time, but it still remains quite strong. Most people can be classified genetically as coming predominantly from one region of the world or another. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the trend in the data over the last few decades has been to make race look weaker and weaker. There is recent results about the "junk DNA" that have just come in that might reverse this trend. We will just have to see.--Filll 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

5. It can be very difficult to determine race by "inspection" in many cases. If there are a significant number of strange exceptions, like genetic distance between Africans and Europeans being closer than the genetic distance between Maoris and Africans, then the concept of race starts to mean less. Or what about Indians that are classified in some schemes as causacians and in other schemes as blacks, or coloreds? It all is so capricious and flakey that it is not a very good measure of anything.

Indians are not classified as black by biologists. They are clearly Caucasoid and genetically cluster close to people from Europe. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Many Indians are craniofacially Caucasoid due to skull shape, but they genetically cluster closest to indigenous Australians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians according to Dr. Eduardas Valaitas--Dark Tichondrias 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the metrics you choose in the high dimensional space of human characteristics.--Filll 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think studying genetic characteristics and untangling some of the migrations and interbreeding is far more likely to help us understand human history and capabilities than if a given group of people have nappy hair or not.

We already know that most of us are predominantly descended from people that settled on one of the major geographic areas and we also know that certain physical characteristics (i.e. nappy hair) make it very obvious what part of the world one is from. A few people have much more complex genetic histories, but this doesn't invalidate the concept in the main. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

However, that does not mean that racial stereotypes should not be addressed and explained in an article, because I believe that is what a person who looks in an encyclopedia needs to know to understand the world.--Filll 00:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On that we agree. This is just a little discussion on the side. Gottoupload 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I did not respond sooner. I missed this I guess.--Filll 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West african type

I find it odd that you support this article when you claim not to believe in race. This article is a clear support of race science using a phrase which is not even used in anthropology to describe these ideas. These ideas are also being presented as current and encyclopedically true. These ideas are, however, antiquated and there is little published research supporting them. The user is twisting origional research to support his antiquated ideas. The author even considers "coon" to be proper terminology when refering to people of African descent. --Strothra 04:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The author of the article was refering to the anthropologist named Carleton Coon, not the racial slur.--Dark Tichondrias 10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black People

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Black people, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Thulean 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


You have reverted parts or all of the article more than three times now and have violated 3RR rule. Failure to revert your last edit will cause you being reported. Thulean 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you put a vandalism warning on my talk page?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but putting up a vandalism warning on somebody's page without even specifying what the supposedly vandalistic edit was is certainly not easily understood behavior. It is likely to be interpreted as hostile.

Your posting of the vandalism warning occurred a couple of days after I made my last edit, and my last edit got reverted by somebody who did not like the content I supplied. So unless you went back in the history of the article to find out the edits I made you wouldn't even be aware of them. And, from my standpoint, having made several edits in good faith I have no idea of which one you find to be vandalism. P0M 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding Talk: Black people, Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Thulean 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning?

I resent being "warned" for "vandalism" when I have merely made perfectly acceptable edits. Please read the vandalism policy. It is a serious offence to accuse other editors of vandalism when they are editing in good faith. Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I feel that I need to take this further as you have clearly been making thhese false allegations against other editors. Alun 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warnings

You have posted vandalism warnings to the talk pages of three other editors. As far as I can see, I cannot find any evidence of vandalism by these editors: please note that merely making edits that you do not agree with does not constitute vandalism. Please do not do this again, or you, rather than they, will be likely to be blocked from editing for being deliberately disruptive. -- The Anome 11:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people (with a capital B)

I'm not certain what you're getting at with this article. It looks like possibly a POV fork and the title is probably not correct either. I've requested additional input. exolon 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but I've reported it as a copy of Black people. If you are trying to split the article in good faith then I apologise. Certainly the titles would need some work. exolon 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's already gone. I'd suggest getting consensus on the talk page to split the article, but given the emotive nature of this topic that might be difficult. Again - nothing personal - just the article looked a bit suspect, especially at that title. exolon 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see you've recreated it (albeit with different content). I think you're going to have problems with POV fork here, and the title certainly doesn't follow conventions. You'd need two articles along the lines of Black people (African) and Black people (generic?) or similar. Since administrators are now aware of this page, they may well delete it anyway. Please consider my suggestion of getting consensus to split the article. If the current discussion on Black people is not getting anywhere, try an WP:RFC or similar. exolon 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people

if you'd like to change the name, the proper procedure is to use the "move" tab at the top. Copy and paste moves are extremely frowned upon because they destroy the page history. See WP:MOVE for information on how to move a page properly, but I'd recommend that you don't try to move the page without getting consensus from editors first. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people

See my comment regarding this split. -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my redirect? We're trying to divide the black people article into 2 different articles. One for all dark skinned people black people (generic) and one just for people of African ancestry black people (ethnicity) Gottoupload 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people is marked as a controversial article, so you need to discuss such a major split on Talk:Black people before making it. Additionally, copying the text from one article and pasting it into another is not the proper way to carry out a move. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Jonestown, Demerara" is safe

(If you feel like answering, please do that here. I'll "watch" this page.)

Hi. I saw the comment you posted on Night Gyr's talkpage, 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC), saying "Please don't delete just trying to change the name to solve a conflict among editors." Thanks for your support. The AfD was promptly withdrawn and closed, though, so there is no need for protective action and, in particular, no need to change the article's name. Thanks again. -- Lonewolf BC 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Before making claims that make you look like an idiot I suggest you check my contribs, SqueakBox 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 12:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White people

  • Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. JuJube 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Reginald Lewis.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reginald Lewis.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mohammed-Al-Amoudi140.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mohammed-Al-Amoudi140.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)