Hi welcome to my talk page!
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Black People, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also note that previous vandalism warnings are still in your talk page history regardless of whether or not you blank your talk page. Blanking your talk page is only a sign of bad faith. Please cease removing cited information from articles, if you wish to discuss the citation then do so on the talk page. Strothra 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think we edit conflicted on Black people. I suggest you read what I wrote in the section. It was meant to be a section about how some people pervert science for racist reasons. I didn't actually mention Rushton at all by name, and also commented that this was not accepted by mainstream science. I also removed the stuff about "Eve", we need to reference the correct hypothesis, which is the Recent single-origin hypothesis. I have no problem with your edit though. I suggest we include mention of Coon's Multiregional hypothesis, which speculates that humans evolved independently in five different populations, and indicates that Caucasians are more "advanced" because they "evolved first", then have a discussion about the Recent single-rigin hypothesis, in which humans evolved in Africa. Then go on to contrast Coon's view that Caucasians are "advanced" because they evolved first with Rushton's opposite view that Africans evolved first and are therefore less "advanced". We should then specifically comment that Rushton is way outside the mainstream of genetics, anthropology, biology and evolutionary theory and has been massively criticised by proper scientists. I see that you also got warn ed for "vandalism" from one of the crazies at Black people. Don't let it put you off, these people are acting in bad faith and are in breach of wikipedia policies and guidelines by accusing good faith editors of vandalism. People that don't assume good faith and make these sort of threats damage their own credibility and are usually trying to include bias into articles. Alun 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have made a slight edit to the Black people article. I want to say that while some biologists accept that race exists as a biological phenomenon, other's disagree. I also think we should say that there is no universally accepted definition of "race" in biological disciplines. I haven't laboured the point, and have kept the edit as minimalist as possible. I hope you can accept it. If you can't then maybe we need to come to a compromise. I don't do edit waring, so if you revert it I won't put it back in. But I do think we need to make some sort of comment here. Having said that I'm not going to make a big deal of it if you can't live with it. All the best. Alun 07:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well...The study I quoted lumps all Sub-Saharan Africans together whether you like it or not. And it's from a credible source. So you cant delete it. You can however add sourced counter arguments. Your hasty reversions are getting annoying...Lukas19 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The study I cited includes hundreds of people from all over the world. And they should be using the normal definition of Sub Saharan Africa which includes Ethiopia...
So please dont delete it next time. However you may add your counter arguments. It's what makes articles written from a Neutral Point of View.
Oh and about: "Africans mutated into Ethiopians who then mutated into caucasians who then mutated into East Asians"...
And according to multi-regional hypothesis:
And according to other theory, single-origin hypothesis, first humans evolved in Africa and migrated out of Africa, while Africans themselves kept mutating as well...Lukas19 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you comparing a self made picture to a study conducted by Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University??
And if the study I cited talks about where peoples ancestors lived, add it with your claim "a substantial fraction of Ethiopian ancestors are from the middle east" after finding a source instead of deleting everything. Lukas19 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The multiregional hypothesis is dead. No serious scientists gives it any credit any more. The best "multiregionalists" can hope for (and it's more of a political decision than a scientific one) is that there is some truth in the Assimilation Model. But currently the weight of evidence is against this as well. . Alun 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ethiopians are equidistant between Caucasians and Africans. This is only the case because the human population does not actually live in discreet populations, but is globally distributed with variations occuring in clines rather than discontinuous populations. The effect of artificially segregating populations into "discrete" groups leads to certain people appearing to fall "between groups". This simply highights the artificial and arbitrary nature of discreet populations rather than anything else. Alun 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You must have surely flunked graduate school friend, Ethiopes are not between peoples, they are the closest to the original humans and so also historically have been treated as almost honrary whites. Regards.--LaBotadeFranco 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't make personal attacks. What is an "Ethiope"? Is it a word you just made up? Alun 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. David Fuchs 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)