User talk:Epf/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

3RR[edit]

Please take note that apart from pure and simple vandalism, there is no excuse whatsoever for breaking the 3RR rule. Now, I won't go and report you to WP:AN/3RR, but I need you to stop this edit warring right now, or then I will have no choice but to report you.--Ramdrake 14:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not want SLR, because I know that he knows, and he will stop. Now, I have no choice but to report you.--Ramdrake 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you count my reverts, as I didn't violate 3RR. I stopped at 3.--Ramdrake 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also suggest that, when you come back to the article, you drop the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude towards the edits and views of others. This attitude is likely to bring you opposition to your views you wouldn't otherwise encounter. Please consider that others may hold views contrary to your perfectly on good faith, and that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Nobody cares about who's right or wrong concerning any one debate; the only important thing is that all points of views are represented accurately.--Ramdrake 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The "'I'm right and you're wrong attitude' towards the edits and views of others" ? What are you talking about ? I have persisted for the most neutral and verifiable version of the article, which has not been supported by Slrubenstein and (possibly) to your yourself. "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth", indeed it is and that has been the primary basis behind the recent edit conflicts in this article, but Slrubensten refuses to admit that and continues to to unjustifiably "verify" his POV and OR statements in the article with sources/references which simply do not support those statements. I have exposed him on three occasions already where he misinterpreted the information to suit his POV and either re-worded or excluded the quotes/entries from the sources for this same purpose. He stubbornly continues with these futile attempts, and I have had to be persistent to counter them to keep with Wiki policy of verifiability and accurate representation of source material. Perhaps you should read some of his comments in our discussion on the Talk:Ethnic group page, with a one-word ignorant response to my clear evidence showing his POV violation as simply that I was "Wrong". You should always try to be neutral and consider both sides in these issues so you gain the whole truth the matter and learn which has the most justification. Epf 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


See[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Thanks. Alun 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • From the article: "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view."

My edits, if you had read them, are by no means "tendentious" and are merely a compromise with and correction of Slrubenstein's version which is clearly biased and not from a neutral POV whatsoever. Thanks for your inquiry though Alun.Epf 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Please read the essay about tendentious editing. Obviously you have not read it. Tendentiousness refers to a pattern of editing and not to the content of the edits. You cannot defend your tendentious editing by making reference to the content of the edit, because tendentiousness is not about content. Clearly reverting six times in a single day is tendentious. Clearly "explaining" your edits, then making edits without seeking consensus is tendentious. It is not good enough for you to claim "I am right and everyone else is wrong", it is not good enough to post on a (user) talk page to "explain" your edit, and then edit war, this is not how Wikipedia works, and you will only get yourself blocked. Talk pages do not exist so you can bully or dictate, they exist for you to discuss solutions, it is not a discussion to simply give your reasons, you need to address the concerns of other editors. Clearly your current pattern of behaviour is only leading to edit warring. You cannot dictate what goes into an article, you can only debate with others and come to a consensus version, whether you like it or not, you do not have the authority. You have engaged in this sort of edit warring in the past, it is clearly a pattern of behaviour with you. You need to accept that other points of view exist and that you cannot dismiss them simply because you disagree with them. Alun 05:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You are correct Alun, and my history of this is no more than yours or many other users. However, I always partake in discussion to settle on a consensus as you know. These edits of mine were made under the reasoning of Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. If you read the discussions, the edit history of Slrubenstien in that article as well as his specific entries into the article, you hopefully will see my point here and most users would agree with me. You are correct though in that I shouldn't have been dragged into the edit war myself and instead should of maintained the "moral high ground" if you will. What caused me to incorrectly disregard this was the behaviour of Ramdrake which clearly showed bias in favour of himself and the other user, re-verting my much more neutral, verifiable version to the other and then lay the sole blame for the edit warring and tendentious edits on me, when this simply was not the case. In addition Alun, I did read the article on tendentious editing and I quoted directly from the article the type of edits which entail such editing. The matter has been let go for the time being and the article still cant be fully or partially re-verted for at least another 7-8 hours, so we'll have to be content with that. Ciao. Epf 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you'd ask yourself why your much more neutral version has been rather systematically reverted. I would dare say that it is because other editors have seen reasons to object to this version, and you have been steadfast in your refusal to address their concerns. The way Wikipedia works is by consensus; that means that even if you think you're right and everybody else is wrong, you must still strive for a version that will be satisfactory to all editors. As Alun said above, you just cannot impose your version, no matter what. I would suggest you take heed of this.--Ramdrake 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you have some bias against my version which is obviously a supported and neutral version. You are simply ignoring the other user's much more POV edit. Epf 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pointing out that your version isn't suppported by any other editors, as far as I've seen. Everybody's trying to tell you that, contrary to your belief, you are the one who's wrong, not everybody else. Please take heed.--Ramdrake 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, only you and one other editor are not supporting my edits. You are the one who is accusing me of being "wrong", and I don't know what you mean by this anyway, we both have different opinions and facts on the issue. Clearly the other version contains much more POV and only you and Rubenstein dispute this (that adds up to TWO users). Stop POV pushing and making false accusations to cover up your bias. I plan on reporting both of you if this persists. Epf 01:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009[edit]

Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009
Wm toronto 2009.png
Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009
The University of Toronto is the planned host site, which I see is where you're a student!

Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.

-- Zanimum 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...[edit]

Rememberance DayLest We Forget.png


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 November Newsletter[edit]

Written by Smithcool, Joelster, and Neranei.


Out of order[edit]

You are seriously out of order. I specifically went and looked for references to support my edits to the Franz Boas article. You will note that I did not revert you systematically, I merely added references to those sections that were disputed. The supporting reference to "father of anthropology" was easy. But the reference to "not identifying as Jewish" was more difficult. But I did find a reference to it, and guess what? It just happened to be a reference that already existed in the article, so I just re-attributed it. There was nothing wrong with my attribution. Please don't remove verified info from Wikipedia in the future, especially material you clearly have not read. Alun 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yet you did not specify a page or details about where you found the reference. Also, if you did find a piece of text where he supposedly admitted such, then why did you not enter it into the article ? There is nothing supporting your claim here. In addition, he is considered by some to be the father of American anthropology, but it is a dubious title. Epf (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ethnicity, kinship, and Boas[edit]

I am willing to stop all insults if you are willing to (1) assume that I act in good faith and (2) assume that I believe I am complying with policies and (2) assume that I have done at least a reasonable amount of research on these topics.

I will not revert your addition ot the ethnic group link to the kinship and descent article, nor of a kinship and descent link to the ethnic group article.

But why can't you believe me when I say that Cole states that Boas did not identify himself as a Jew? What I jost wrote is a paraphrase that is so close to what Cole wrote that there is not point in my providing a direct quote. But the way I see it, it does not matter: if you do not assume good faith, I can quote Cole and you will accuse me of inventing the quote. If you do assume good faith, I do not need to provide a direct quote. either way there is no point in my providing a direct quote. You either believe me or you don't. If you don't believe me you will just accuse me of fabricating the quote. But I ask you to ask yourself seriously: why is it that you doubt me when I provide a full citation with the author's name, book title, and page number?

As for Ethnic Group, I believe I responded fully to every point you made on the talk page. If I stopped commenting it is because I was satisfied that I fully responded to all of your objections, and fully explained myself. To continue to comment would only be to repeat myself. I see two differences between our versions.

First, you wrote, "The international meeting on the Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World (Ottawa, Canada, 1992) noted that: "Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience." I wrote, According to some, "Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience." I do not see how you can accuse me of violating NPOV, or of misquoting, or misinterpreting the quote, which are all things you have accused me of. Since I simply see no evidence for these charges I find it silly to try to respond to them - you may as well demand that I prove that I did not kill my wife. The only differences have nothing to do with the content or meaning of the quote. I add the words "According to some" and this to me is utterly non-controversial: it is a fact that some do hold this view. The next sentence uses the word "others" and for me it is simply good style to use the form "some say x but others say y i.e. if the next sentence says others, the first one should say some. This does not misrepresent, nor does it violate NPOV. The other difference is I leave the source in the reference. Again, there is no misquotation or misrepresentation and no violation of NPOV. It is just consistent style: two major views are presented, and the sources for both are in the citations. This is consistent. To name the source for one in the sentence, and leave the source for the other in the citation, is simply inconsistent and poor style. And it makes sense to put the sources in the citations because these are views shared by many others besides the specific sources. If we name the sources in the sentences themselves, readers may think that only these sources have these views. But this is not the case. In fact, others hold these views; the sources we provide are perhaps exemplary, but examples of people or groups that hold these views. I explained this already, and I still see no misquotation or misinterpretation or violation of NPOV.

Second, your version goes on to say "Other researchers have also stated" where as my version says "Others, however," I feel very strongly that my version complies with NPOV and yours does not. NPOV insists that we present all notable views. People are divided over their understanding of ethnic group, and we need to present alternate views. Saying "Some believe x. others, however, believe y" does just this. Your version implies that the "others" accept the Ottawa statement, but believe something else in addition. This implies that all people agree with the Ottawa statement. This is simply not true. You have to get over your belief that all people in the universe agree with you. You have to learn to accept views you do not agree with. I frankly find it appalling that you accuse me of pushing a POV when I have accepted the inclusion of the view you inserted, while it is you who seem to refuse to accept any other view. So here we have two people: one who accepts only one view, and another who accepts competing views. Do you really think the first person is faithful to NPOV and the second is violating it? Think hard about this. And if you believe I am misrepresenting Friedlander, Wolf, Sider, and others I have cited, like Cohen and Vincent, all I can say is, no, you are wrong. You just have to assume good faith and accept the possibility that somone other than yourself may actually know something.

Now at the very least I hoipe you will stop all this pretense that you have explained yourself and I refuse to respond to you. I have responded to your accusations and I have explained my edits. I have explained why I believe that your version violates NPOV. I have explained why I believe my version complies with NPOV. As for the interpretation of the sources, Wolf most definitely does not believe that ethnicity is universal, let alone rooted in anything biological, or kinship, and I cited several others who likewise reject this view of ethnicity. You seem passionately opposed to this view of ethnicity but if you really believe every social scientist thinks the way you do, you need to seriously reexamine your view of yourself and the world. It is narcisistic to believe that everyone in the world must think the way you do. Are you utterly incapable of conceiving of the possibility that there are social scientists who do not think the way you do?

If you can accept that I am acting in good faith, seeking to comply with NPOV, and to represent the sources I add accurately, I will reciprocate in kind. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You make some valid points I was already aware of but there is still some matters you continue to somewhat ignore. The consistent childish and groundless insults are unacceptable, no matter what the situation and I really should of followed Wikipolicy by reporting it, but I don't see what good it will do for you to merely receive a temporary ban at the worst. The personal attacks should stop immediately, period (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). I will 'assume good faith' on your part for now, but this doesn't negate the fact that there were two examples where I found quotes that were not entered correctly or accurately (regarding a quote from "The Race Question" and a quote about ethnic continuity from Eric Hobsbawm, see Talk:Ethnic group). The first example was addressed, though the second I am still contending as you know. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability), and although we should act in good faith when working together on articles, I feel all sources should be checked over by other users than those who posted them. I honestly don't have time for this right now, especially at this time of year, but I will co-operate with you on the matter at a latter time. Happy holidays, Epf (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Phoenician Sicily[edit]

Why was the mention of Phoenician settlement in Sicily taken out of the Italians article? I can understand if the dates were incorrect, but now the article makes no mention of their historic presence. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, the Phoenician settlement statement probably should be re-inserted, but not with the phrasing it had before implying it was a colonization on the same level as the Greek one, which is simply not supported by whatsoever. Also, the reference to the "Best of Sicily" website is not credible. You should read these articles critiquing the website and on Sicilian origins: [1][2] Epf (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read those articles, years ago, and then again, months ago. My concern with the veracity of statements pertaining to the Sicilian ethnicity is great, but it's important to keep in mind the ongoing history of the Racial Reality website and its opposition. Both will suppose factual supremacy. I would advise you not to see the website as a place of unbiased presentation. Nevertheless, it is refreshing to meet a fellow Sicilian less ignorant about the history of his ancestral nation. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and I do not see "Racial Reality" as unbiased or completely accurate, but I do consider portions of its presentation more verified and reliable than "Best of Sicily". I should mention though that my Italian heritage in fact isn't Sicilian, it's Abruzzese, although many in my family marry Siciliani, lol. Ciao, Epf (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

French people[edit]

I don't quite understand your "ethnic" dilemma (only I find it to stink a bit) and thus what your problem is with the pictures of worldwide notorious French citizen just because they were not born on French soil. French people are the sovereign people of France, composed of all French citizens, « regardless of ethnic origins or religious opinions ». The article is about all French people, period. - Wikigi | talk to me | 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know what you find about it that "stinks" and my concerns are valid. The French people article has for a long time been debated over and really does not know what it specifically is about (ethnic French, French nationals, etc.). It looks more like a talk page discussion than an article, filled with mainly OR and POV statments. One part of the article mentions French citizens and nationals, but the article also talks about ethnic French. Anyways I have numerous disputes regarding the current photo selection, including mainly non-ethnic French, as well as people who weren't even born or raised in France. Epf (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Epf, please read the tendentious editing essay. I know you are a good faith editor and I know you are passionate about ethnicity, those qualities are to be commended, but you should have realised by now that simply reverting people and arguing that others are always wrong and you are always right does not get you anywhere. Please try to work with people to include all relevant points of view and not simply assume that what you believe is correct and what others believe is incorrect. I think I know you well enough to understand that you are acting in good faith, but I think that you sometimes forget that other editors are also acting in good faith. Most of us established editors have engaged in edit warring at some point or other, but it can never be a solution, no one can "win", ultimately we need to find common ground. This usually means compromising and allowing all points of view to be expressed. All the best. Alun (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed Alun, as always you make excellent points, and I will try harder to refrain from tendentious editing. I will discuss the matters more first on the talk page rather than engaging in any edit conflicts. I do assume most users act in good faith, but this is not always the case and verifiability of the source is paramount to Wikipedia (especially if it wishes to attain any credibility). This is why I have engaged in a bitter conflict with Rubenstein in the past regarding minor instances I noticed where he had manipulated the actual source material, which resulted in him hurling personal insults at me with no actual apology. I myself also did not act in the best way in editing when trying to resolve the dispute. In any case, we've seemed to move past it somewhat and let it go for now, but who knows. Ciao, Epf (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:French people/vote[edit]

  • Hi Wikigy, I noticed you are the one who created the debate and therefore I presume is the one who will mold all the selected pictures together. I have one question and one request: 1) How long will the vote reamin in session before the pictures are selected and 2) I'm hoping that at least some other users vote for French-Canadians or ethnic French not from France, especially if non-French French citizens like Josephine Baker and Marie Curie receive votes. If not, I was hoping you yourself may hear me out and cast at least one vote for a French-Canadian. Few people in the world disagree that Wilfrid Laurier, Pierre Trudeau or Rene Levesque are more French in most respects than those previously mentioned. Ciao, Epf (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1) The poll will stay up until no-one votes anymore (that should be soon) and The Ogre will create the image. 2) I am definitely against having Canadians on the list and at least four other contributors have expressed the same by casting votes against them before it was decided to remove negative votes. 3) It seems you are confused about what French people are. Again, there is no such thing as a French ethnicity.
Beside having been a magnet for immigration since the beginning of human times due to favorable conditions, parts or all of what is today the geographic territory of France has been invaded by all sort of different people for centuries (Romans, Huns, Arabs, Vikings, Britons and later British, as well as Vandals, Visigoths and later Germans etc..). What do soldiers do when they seize a place? They rape the women or at best mate with them and produce descent. The people of France is the result of so many mixing that to try to describe it as an ethnic group is ludicrous, think about that, this is why the population of France is unanimously described as a mixed blend of different ethnic groups such as : Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and other minorities. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "I am definitely against having Canadians on the list..."

They are not simply "Canadians", whatever that term represents. They are Canadian nationals, but ethnically they are also French and specifically French-Canadians.

It appears you are the one who is quite mistaken on French ethnicity. There IS a French ethnic group and the French people article includes the ethnic aspects of France as well as those who are French nationals and citizens. France has not been a "magnet for immigration since the beginning of human times" as if there was some constant flow of migrants to and out of France. This makes no sense whatsoever and few would ever make such a ridiculous claim. The migrations into France have been fairly few and far between. Why do you think there are ethnic cleaveges amongst the indigenous peoples of France ? Bretons, Corsicans, Basques are some of the indigenous ethnic minorities, but the people who created the langue d'oil (French) and langue d'oc (Occitans) cultures are ALSO the indigenous ethnic groups of France (and majority population). They differ distinctly from the foreign and foreign-descended minorities. France was originally settled (like most other Europeans) by distinct peoples in the Paleolithic and Neolithic and eventually stirred up under the Gallic Celts. The Romans invaded but left a large cultural impact like most other regions in Europe they conquered, but not a demographic one. The same can be said about the Germanic Franks who conquered what was Gaul, but had a lesser cultural impact than the Romans. These three groups made what French culture is. There had been no migration of peoples into France on the level of even the Franks (which was still small) between the time of Charlemagne and the 19th century. The Gallo-Roman with Frankish (or as you yourself mentioned: Celtic "Gallic" and Latin "Roman" with Teutonic "Frankish") cultural elements ARE the French culture, common to all who are ethnically French, while most are primarily descended from the Gallic and pre-Gallic elements. This is why those who are indigenous French have common aspects in physical appearance, common descent and a common French culture from these various elements. The current population of France comprises of different ethnic groups but the "Celtic and Latin with Teutonic" is the French ethnic group. None of the Germans, Visigoths, Vandals, Huns or Arabs (they never even conquered much of France or settled at all, they were driven back by Charlemagne) ever significantly influenced what was French culture or settled there in any noticeable numbers. This can not be said about the Vikings tho who did impact fairly significantly the culture of Normandy, but not so much the population. The influence of the Britons (mainly cultural) was confined almost entirely to Brittany and the Bretons, an ethnic group distinct from the langue d'oil speaking French. Currently, France has predominant French and Occitan ethnic populations with various indigenous and foreign minorities. The actual impact of groups who came here depends generally on how long they conquered the land and how much of an impact their culture has. Soldiers come and conquer but they often come in few numbers. The Normans conquered England and had a cultural influence, but they never came in large numbers and the maximum estimate of their population that permanently settled in England by historians is about 5000. The Romans conquered France but there wasn't a mass migration of peoples, rather there was merely a (for various reasons) strong cultural impact.

One more thing, I again would ask you to please stop simply labelling the French-Canadians on the list as simply "Canadians". They are ethnically French and I guarantee you that most people in the world would consider Trudeau, Levesque and Laurier (again, another obvious example of likely French descent is their common FRENCH surnames we see here) more French, especially ethnically speaking, than Josephine Baker or Marie Curie. The mother tongue of Trudeau, Levesque and Laurier was French, can you say the same about Baker and Curie ? Trudeau, Levesque and Laurier were all raised from birth in traditional French culture AND they are of French descent, can you again say the same about Baker or Curie ? I think I've made my point quite clear. Ciao. Epf (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Epf, you've made your point quite clear, but you're also quite wrong. You are systematically overestimating the Celtic (Gaulish) influence on the French culture (and I would say underestimating the Frankish influence). How many Celts do you think there were in Gaul before the Roman invasion? Possibly a similar number as the Romans who eventually migrated there, and not too far from the number of Franks who later conquered the territory. You also take Charlemagne as an example. Well, Charlemagne was a Frank, not a Gaul.
As far as the point about French-Canadians is concerned, please be aware that that ethnicity diverged from the French ethnicity centuries ago, I would say about the time France lost Canada to Great Britain. I would suggest, if you wish to be taken seriously, that you start quoting reliable sources that support your view, as right now your position strongly comes across as your personal, unsupported POV, and nothing else.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually Ramdrake, I would say that I am still correct. I am not "systematically overestimating" the Gaulish influence whatsoever. The Gauls were not simply just Celts, but they were mainly the pre-Celtic population of France who had been "Celticized", hence why the Gallic culture (although related) was still distinct from the Celtic cultures of northern Italy, Iberia, and of Britain. In any case, what makes the French language so distinct from other Latin languages is not merely the Frankish influence, otherwise it would be classified differently. The language is classified under Gallo-Romance and there is even a Gallo language (or dialect) which is still spoken in eastern Brittany. The Latin spoken in Gaul was already distinguished from other variants of Latin prior to the invasion of Franks (who again left a cultural influence the most, rather than a demographic one). In terms of Charlemagne, you are obviously correct that he was a Germanic Frank, but again I stress that the Gauls were the indigenous peoples of France who had simply adapted Celtic culture after the invasion of Celtic-speaking peoples during the Iron Age. The Celts also apparently had a smaller numerical presence in Gaul (as in Iberia and northern Italy) compared to say the British Isles.
  • In terms of your comments about French-Canadians, you overestimate how much the French in Canada have diverged from the French in France (indigenous ethnic French). French-Canadians are of the same indigenous French descent and they strongly retain tradition FRENCH culture and language. Remember that although a large amount trace their heritage to colonial French (especially Acadians and Cajuns), many others have heritage from more recent French immigrants who arrived from France, especially during the 18th and 19th centuries. In terms of ethnic groups, they are part of the larger French ethnic grouping, or related to other ethnic French peoples (French-French, French-Americans, etc.). My position is (in part) my own POV and I have already shown Wiki articles to back up my points. There is already references in the 'French people' article itself as well as in the French-Canadian articles I've mentioned. French-Canadians are French ethnically and most people consider them as such. Although there are some differences, there are also many similarities and obviously ethnic French in Canada would be seen by most people to be more French compared to Zinedine Zidane (a [[Berber), Marie Curie (a Pole) or Josephine Baker (an African-American). Epf (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I don't think this contribution can possibly be considered OR. It is point of view though. I've just checked a few sources I have lying around and none support this point of view exactly, they do, however, say that Boas' work shows that skull shape is not genetically determined, and that claims that skull shape differences between groups of people are "innate" or "genetic" are now treated with skepticism. Of course this still means that differences in anatomy can be used to identify what ethnic group a person comes from (as you know being a physical anthropologist), but this does not imply that these differences are genetic in origin. We know that the heads of newborn babies are extremely maleable (indeed many cultures deliberately deform the shape of the head, but this is due to cultural practice rather than genetics). Anyway I agree with you that this pov statement is not supported by a citation at present. If I find one I might put it back in, I do know that anthropologists generally do not think skull shape has any genetic significance. Alun (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You make some good points Alun and as long as you verify it with a source deemed credible by Wikipedia (as well as how to locate it), that's all that really matters (though it is also important to have sources from all points of view on the subject). In terms of the plasticity of cephalic index, the consensus among most anthropologists is that it is a combination of both genetic factors/heredity and environment. The studies in that article by Clarence C. Gravlee, H. Russell Bernard, and William R. Leonard as well as Jantz and Sparks clearly show this. Boas himself (as is shown by the study by Leonard, etc.) did not imply that cephalic index was totally plastic or completely determined by the environment. What Boas and the Leonard study did seek to show is that environment has a significant impact, not the only one. I think it's also notable to point out that all of these studies (including the one by Boas) regard only cephalic index, not other aspects of head shape or form. Perhaps all of this should be included in the article and I will find some other material on it as well as the individual quotes from both the Jantz and Leonard studies. The Boas data itself is quite interesting Alun, and you can see the change because of environmental causes but also how they stay within the category of measurements of the original non-US born parents (as well as the continued distinctiveness in cephalic index between different ethnic groups). Ciao, Epf (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Evan[edit]

Wow its you...lol...thats crazy? Ya for sure. We should work together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talkcontribs) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Evan...how do you get all those ethnic and religious banners from as I want to improve on my page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talkcontribs) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hey[edit]

I appreciate your note and seriously hope we can work together cordially; I will strive to sume good faith always. Just to clarify some outstanding issues: social constructionists like Hobsbawm and Freidlander and Sider do not think that all ethnic markers are of recent invention, but they honestly do think that many and in some cases most are. Now, I acnowledge that there are others who do not see ethnicity the same way as these guys; who either see it as biological or as resting on age-old customs. And I acnolwedge that this other POV must be represented. But let us represent all notable POV's accurately, rather than in wishy-washy fashion. A final note: a see no value in applying the word "ethnic" anachronistically and it would violate WP:NOR to say "according to x, Jewish ethnicity is a, b, and c; according to the following sources Marx posessed traits a, b, and c; therefore Marx was an ethnic jew." This chain of reasoning violates Wikipedia policy. You need to provide a qualified source that states that Marx was ethnically a Jew. Also, we have to comply with WP:NPOV an WP:V which states that Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. At most we cold say that "According to historian M, Marx was an ethnic jew." Would could never say "Marx was an ethnic Jew as that would violate our policy. I hope I have conveyed my reasoning to you in a clear and respectful way. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks! I am looking forward to it also. I see you have read the Ronald Cohen article - I hiope you found it interesting. Joan Vincent wrote an article in the same publication which I recommend - it may be a good source for the ethnic group article, I am not sure, I have not read it in a long time. And I hope one day you have time to read the Friedlander book which is very fun reading and sound scholarship. About Jewish ethnic identity ... I have not done any research on German - Jewish ethnic/national research early 19th century. I am sure that we agree that at least some Germans, not just in the mid 20th or late 19th century but even earlier, had very different notions of the German "nation" (we would have to find out what words besides volk they used, if any properly translate as ethnicity or nation) than not just Hilter but even Bismark. Now, this is very indirect, but if you have any interest in Jewish ethnic identity I highly recommend this as a starting place: Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley: University of California Press. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you check out "Florentine Histories"?[edit]

Florentine Histories is an article I have attempted to translate from it:Istorie Fiorentine - I saw that you speak italian at an "advanced" level, I would appreciate your help.--Kiyarrllston 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am having trouble translating it myself, and much of the grammar in the Italian article is poor. I will post my translation once I've completed it. Ciao, Epf (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethno-linguistic map of the Iberian Peninsula (200 BCE)[edit]

Hello Epf! Thanks for your note. In fact I was the one that inserted the map that has factual innacuracies in most of the articles, but then, when comparing to other maps and also in some discussions with other editors, and also when comparing to the source map I mentioned, the errors started being to much to accept it. And in fact it is not sourced - I mean, we do know what is the source (yes the site is still on), but the site does not source the map with references, unlike the one I mentioned (which also has some problems and there is an small discussion going on at the Commons), which has an extended bibliography supporting it (see the link for the pdf version). The map you re-inserted has many problems: the Aquitanian area is too small and it does not take into account the ambiguities regarding some of the Astur or Pyrenean tribes and even trans-Pyrenean tribes (for example the area marked A1 is presented as Iberian, when it is know by every other source to be Aquitanian), as well as the ambiguities regarding interpenetration between Iberian and Aquitanian zones; It treats the Oritani as Iberian when many sources say they were Hispano-Celt (there is some discussion about this and the map I made is still not perfect treating them as unambiguously Celtic; the Lusitania area is too big, either because it extends excessively into modern Spanish Extremadura, ither because it goes all the way to the coast (thus erasing the area of the Celtic Turdolorum Oppida); It ignores the Pre-Celtic but Indo-European influence in Gallaecia and Asturias; it exagerates the Phoenician and Greek areas, in the sense that those were merely elite languages and not overall populacional languages; It does not distinguishes the specific area of the Turdetani, which most authors (beginning with Strabo!) say had a different language from the Iberians, being the most consensual and modern hipotesys that is was descendent from Tartessian; It fails to see that by 250 to 200 BCC the Conni area of the Algarve and Lower Alentejo did no longer speak a Tartessian derived language, but was pratically all "celtized" by the Celtici (even if the Conni still existed, there seem to have been a language and cultural shift); The boundaries between languages groups (and now I mean within each big family), are excessively weel defined, not concordant with the specific geographical implantion of tribal groups according to many other sources, giving relevance to some groups and forgeting others, confusing Roman provinvial boundaries with ethno-linguistics one (there were no exact matches) and confusing tribal groups with linguistic ones, inventing language names or varities (see its site) that no source ever mentions!! As you can see there are many problems... The map I made is not at all perfect, but it does try to correct these issues - it still needs work, though. Of course it would be better to be able to work in a better drawing program that the one that produced it, but I can't seem to find how Inkscape works!! Do have any lights on that? Hope to hear from you! The Ogre (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hy again Epf! I see that you reverted my reverts in Cantabri and Asturian people. I'm not going into a revert war with you my friend, only if not because I believe we are basically saying the same thing! "Our" problem seem more on the exact meaning of certain words - we are not defining them exactly in the same way. This little revert episode regards the Celtiberians. You seem to prefer to had add them instead of the generic Celt - it is in fact more specific. Let me tell first of all that populations ar more a less mixed, and of course Celtic speaking populations of Iberia were a mixture (cultural and demic) between the non-Celtic substractum and the Celts. This non-Celtic substractum mixed with latter Celts was the result of several and complex migration processes (see Prehistoric Iberia):
  • Paleolithic (no need to go into details...);
  • Neolitic - has you stressed and quite well in Portuguese people;
  • the Calcolithic, with phenomenons such as the Beaker culture, of Indo-European nature;
  • the Bronze Age devellopements - these were carachterized by the arrival of Central European influences and peoples, some of which can be said to be Indo-European (even in areas latter clearly of Iberian language, such as norther Catalonia), and that spread to all of the peninsula - see also Atlantic Bronze Age;
  • the Iron Age devellopements, chief amongst them:
So, as you can see the processes were complex, and the above is just a simplification, mind you! The question here is that we need an article on Hispano-Celts, that is not reduced to the Celtiberians, even if it explains their central role in the global phenomenon of the celticisation of Iberia. But Celtiberians should not be confused with other hispano-celtic groups. In the same way that non-Indo-European cultures in Iberia should not be confused with the localized and specific Iberian cultures (this seem also to be a linguistic problem, you see, in the modern Iberian Romance languages it is easy to distinguish between the Iberos, or ancient Iberians stricu senso, and the Ibéricos, anything relating to Iberia, as in populations Ibéricas, that is to say, from Iberia, regardless of anything else, and populations Iberas, that is populations that spoke the Iberian language.) What do you say, let's create the Hispano-Celts article and try to solve some of these confusions (even if I must admit I don't have that much time available...)? Hope to hear from you! The Ogre (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The map is wrong about the Baleares Epf - it is not my POV - in fact I also thought that they were Iberians, but Tautintanes‎ corrected me and I researched it (go to the Spanish article on the Baleares for starters). The Lusitanian were Indo-European and Pre or Proto-Celtic (as I have explained to you before) - to the first statement all the sources say so (can you even find one who doesn't?), regarding the second statement there is discussion, since some say they were just Celts - this is not the majority modern view, though. Epf, I can't really understand you. What do you aim since clearly it seem to me you're aiming at something? My objective here it's just to portray the know published facts about such issues, without any POV whatsover. Is this your stance too? Because sometimes it doesn't look like it. I even proppsed to work with you, but your attitude is confrontational, non-cooperative and it desregards sources. What do you want? The Ogre 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not trying to push anything other than what is the facts. You can't change the composition of an image that is based on an external source just because someone's POV disagrees with part of it. I am sying that Baleares should be changed back to being Iberian, since I have a credible source which supports such, the source the image itself is based upon. Epf (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Have we seen the Spanish or the Catalan articles? They clearly state that the Baleares were not Iberians, even the English article only goes so far as to say that there might have been some Iberian elements there. It is funny why you want everyone to be Iberians...! The Ogre (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Lol, it is funny if its coming across that way ! But I only feel that the reference the map uses should also be taken into account. Perhaps on the map legend, you could mention that their classification is both Iberian and the others you mention ? Clearly according to the reputable source the map was based on, the Baleares were Iberian. If they had a distinct culture or society, that may also be the case, but it could also have been a mix with Iberian culture like Celtiberians or the Turdetani. I do not speak Spanish or Catalan though would like to learn ! I actually want to learn more endangered, distinct languages like Basque language and Asturian language to help them survive if I was ever able to. I suggest you do the same if you get a chance since preservation of human ethnic and cultural diversity is a major issue in today's world. Ciao, Epf (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Epf. I would not like you to feel that you are being bashed or anything like that. I believe that you have a genuine interest for the subject but also that you hurry to reach conclussions where things are not very clear. It's surely not your fault, after all there are a zillion theories around, with more or (often) less fundamentals.

Regarding the maps (I understand you were also the author of that other map that ended being deleted), there is a big difference between an objective map like this one (or my own creation: this one) and a biased interpretation like this one. The latter adds maybe some valuable data in some areas where it can be reasonably confirmed (by historical sources, for instance) that were Celtic or whatever but the price it pays is too large, specially for an encyclopedic site like this, because it presumes too much. For instance we have just zero reasons to think that the Cantabri were Celtic and instead we have some reasons to believe they could be Basque/Aquitanian because Roman sources mention they intervened in favor of their Aquitanian "relatives" against Caesar. The situation of Celtization in other areas (Galicia for instance, Asturias even more) is also very obscure. Classical (unfounded but widespread) theories are wiped out by new discoveries, like the Basque texts of Veleia, etc.

We should be more humble and admit we just don't know when we actually don't. This applies for scholars as for laymen. For you, for me and for The Ogre, who happens to be the author of that map (just noticed) and who has comitted a brutal error claiming that the Talayotic culture was still alive in the 2nd century (it ended c. 700 BCE apparently - and I have not the slightest idea of what came next). In such cases it's better to leave a blank.

Regards, --Sugaar (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic group[edit]

Hi, I'm fed up with our constant disagreements about what an "ethnic group" is. I don't think it's productive for either of us. So I've asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups if it is possible to formulate a guideline about how we view ethnic groups on Wikipedia. I've tried to frame the request in a neutral way, but of course I have given my point of view. I think it's only fair for me to leave this message so you can go and give your point of view as well. I'm happy to admit that I might be wrong on this, but I think I understand it. Obviously you think you are correct and I think I'm correct. The best thing to do is to get a good guideline about how we should think about ethnic group membership on Wikipedia, to do this the ethnic group wikiproject is the obvious place. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

using list bullets on talk page comments[edit]

Hello, I have edited the talk page for french people for clarity [3]. I took the liberty of removing the bullet points. If you want to use bullet points on a conversation, try to do it like this (look at the code to see it):

  • 1 epf
2 adsad
  • 3 epf
4 adsdas
7 adasd
8 asdasds
9 adsdas
10 epf
  • 5 epf
6 asdasd

As you can see, you can use the bullet points and indent at the same time, and this helps other editors to see at what comments you are answering to. I hope this was useful for you --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When indenting your comments on a talk page, you should add one colon (:) more to your post than the former post had so it's one more position indented to the leftright. If you put the same number of colons as the post you are answering to, then they both will have the same indentation, and it appears that you are both answering to the post before the one you are replying to. See this diff [4] to see how I added one colon to each of your paragraphs to indent them more to the leftright --Enric Naval (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

evidence[edit]

You did not provide any evidence that the US State Department identifies a French ethnic group. Up the State Department does, you have not provided us with that evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and Basque minorities.

Also:

PEOPLE:

Since prehistoric times, France has been a crossroads of trade, travel, and invasion. Three basic European ethnic stocks--Celtic, Latin, and Teutonic (Frankish)--have blended over the centuries to make up its present population. France's birth rate was among the highest in Europe from 1945 until the late 1960s. Since then, its birth rate has fallen but remains higher than that of most other west European countries. Traditionally, France has had a high level of immigration. More than 1 million Muslims immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from North Africa, especially Algeria. About 85% of the population is Roman Catholic, 10% Muslim, less than 2% Protestant, and about 1% Jewish. However, the government does not keep statistics on religious affiliation, and according to a January 2007 poll, 51% of respondents describe themselves as Catholic, and another 31% describe themselves as having no religious affiliation. In 2004, there were over 6 million Muslims, largely of North African descent, living in France. France is home to both the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe.

US Department of State

I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. You are correct though that it does not specifically mention the "French ethnic group" so I see your point. I already know more accurate and specific sources are needed, so theres not much that can really be added in article right now. It is itself in a current state of massive OR and unverified claims. Epf (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When you find a reliable, notable source that specifically discusses a "French ethnic group" I would be all for including it in the article. Of course, I hope one of the things you have learned in university is to use sources critically - meaning, consider how the source was created, and for what purpose. The State Department surely makes certain assumptions about different countries that suits its needs, political or ideological. Scholars - historians and anthropologists, for example, will almost certainly have other needs and scholarly sources may present a very different view of French history and the origins of people living in present-day France. I am not so sure (but I admit I haven't checked) that Benedict or Gellner, for example, would write of "Celtic" "Latin" or "Teutonic" "stocks." As academics, they have different criteria and procedures than the people who put together State Department websites. I have no problem with providing multiple points of view (as our NPOV policy requires) but points of view should be clearly identified and contextualized. What Barth or Cohen say about ethnicity is not the truth about ethnicity, it is what very prominent anthropologists think about ethnicity. Similarly, what a State Department website says about the French is not the truth about the French, it is how the State Department views French history. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree witht that, but many of these views are based on evidence or facts, so clearly they are accepted viewpoints. As for the State Department, they are not a strictly academic source, but they consult scholars with varying academic backgrounds when compiling such information (as is claimed on their webstie) in their notes on various countries. Ultimately, whatever we are going to use for French ethnicity is going to be based on certain viewpoints which are based on some sort of empirical evidence. Even when we use evidence from anthropology and population genetics, it is still the viewpoint of those who conducted the research and studies. As you most likely know, Wikipedia is not about the "search for truth", but merely about verifiability from "valid sources" and NPOV. Whatever the view of anthropologists, governments or others on French ethnicity, there is not some "greater truth" of one viewpoint over another though there are opinions about which facts or views are the "truth". Even when basing aspects of ethnic identification from objective crieteria, there is always a degree of subjectivity in how people view such criteria, for example, which diacritics "matter" and which do not. Epf (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we disagree. As I have said, I do not believe we should exclude any notable view from a verifiable source - as long as it is accurately and precisely represented, and the view clearly identified and when possible contextualized. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Remarkable[edit]

I am beginning to think that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "remarkable". This is the OED definition "Worthy of remark, notice or observation; hence, extraordinary, unusual, singular." Every paper that discusses human genetic diversity notes that we are genetically a relatively homogeneous species, these papers are written by people who do seem to think that this information is worthy of remark and that it makes our species unusual, extraordinary or singular. If they did not think it worthy of remark then the papers would not mention it. I have four papers citing this fact, I could introduce many many more that also make this claim. It is therefore remarkable because every paper that discusses this fact remarks upon it. This is simple English Epf. You seem to be under the impression that the word "remarkable" means something like "very" or "exceedingly", it does not mean this, it means worthy of remark, or if you like noteworthy. Alun (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, obviously I know what it means and this is exactly why I don't think that wording should be used with regards to describing human genetic variation. "Extraordinary", "unusual", "remarkable" are not words used in the studies. This is the problem. Epf (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The studies all make a point of remarking upon this because it is not a pattern seen in other organisms studied therefore it is extraordinary (ie not ordinary), it is remarkable (because all studies feel they have to remark upon it) and it is unusual (otherwise the papers would not claim that this pattern is not seem in other organisms). We do not only use words used in articles, otherwise Wikipedia would only publish quotations. I really don't get you at all Epf. You really don't seem to be capable of ever being less than confrontational and intransigent. Wikipedia is not a free for all, it is not acceptable to make a few comments on a talk page and then assume that you have carte blanch to make whatever changes you like and to edit war. You don't seem to have matured as an editor from the very first time you started here, you don't seem to have any interest in neutrality, or in reaching consensus. You don't appear to want to learn anything new, you take the attitude that everyone else is stupid, or wrong or a pov-pusher, even when they provide evidence that you are wrong, or misrepresenting a source. You appear to be more interested with arguing on talk pages and promoting your own personal ideas than constructively writing articles. If someone provides evidence that an expert has produced a theory that contradicts you, instead of accepting that this point of view is valid and relevant, you try to either claim it supports you (when it clearly does not), or that we should not include this theory, or you attack the user who introduces the evidence calling then ignorant, or stupid or biased (you called me all three on talk English people in a single post). You don't seem to be interested in going and reading and understanding the theory, you don't seem to be capable of accepting that two competing theories can both exist and both be valid and both be worthy of inclusion. You prefer to think that only your preferred theory has any merit, and you ceaselessly promote it and edit war. I don't understand you at all, this is not how we should behave. When there is no support for you then you need to understand that and give it up. I really don't understand why you constantly claim that you speak for "most people" or that you have the support of a consensus. You are currently engaged in several very aggressive disputes in several article where there is little or no support for your posts, but you constantly claim that you represent the majority. Furthermore you constantly claim that you speak for the majority of experts in any given field, you constantly state things like "most anthropologists agree with me", which quite frankly is unknowable. Alun (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I never labelled you or anybody with such insults Alun, but only considered some of your arguments as ignorant. The studies claim it is a pattern so far not seen in many other species, but still also found in some other ones. The words "remarkable" and "extraordianry" are however not used by the studies themselves Epf (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The studies remark upon it, therefore it is remarkable. Alun (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your accusations at Talk:English people[edit]

Watch your personal observations, you have called me "ignorant", have claimed that I am "twisting" the points you make, have stated that I have made "ridiculous statements". The fact is I don't "personally disagree with them", I am merely pointing out that the sources don't support you. Indeed I try to make it clear in my posts on Wikipedia that when I am expressing my personal opinion it is just that, my opinion and not from a source, though most of my opinions are derived from evidence and how experts have interpreted it. I always try to support my observations by citing reliable sources and certainly don't have any particular bias, I have no strong beliefs except that we should accurately report what experts in the subject say. You openly admit that you want to include original research when you say "I provided some viewpoints from my own analysis as well as others", Wikipedia does not publish original research, it is not interested in your analysis only the analyses of reliable sources. As for your claim that "My views are clearly supported by genetics and anthropology" this is demonstrably not the case.

  • "No one is making ridiculous claims or assertions that the migrations were only myths and I was explaining this."
Not true, Francis Pryor specifically states that he thinks there were no migrations whatsoever in his book "Britain AD", now you may not agree (and I don't agree with him) but he does clearly make this claim (I can't remember the exact quote, though I can find it, he's talking about Gildas and says something like "there are only eye witness accounts for three ships of the Anglo-Saxon invasion and I doubt the existence of even these three") but he is a reliable source and that's a fact, so it is evident that we can include his comment. So it's not true that no one makes this claim. Again you make a claim to be omniscient about the claims/beliefs etc of all other people, a constant thing with you, ("no anthropologist would say that", "most people agree with me" etc.). You see I am happy to include the observations of academics who have a different point of view to me as long as they are reliable sources.

You need to distinguish between a "migration" and a "mass migration". We can claim that migration is true even if there was only a single person migrating every generation, and very few experts would contend that no migration took place at all. Most experts have formed a consensus that there were probably small piecemeal migrations by elite warrior groups that dominated the native peoples.

Most would now agree that the migrants arrived in mixed groups, not as distinct ethnic bands, as nineteenth century savants assumed.... The migration of the Anglo-Saxons was not a Volkerwanderung like that of the Visigoths into Aquitaine or the Lombards into Italy. It was a piecemeal, cumulative process, extending over two centuries or more....Relations with the native British are still a largely obscure and difficult field. A few historians still hold to a vision of the British being swept westwards into Wales and the South-west. It is much more likely that a large proportion of the British population remained in place and was progressively dominated by a Germanic aristocracy, in some cases marrying into it and leaving Celtic names in the, admittedly very dubious, early lists of Anglo-Saxon dynasties.....As for the Anglo-Saxon groupings, no-one would now dream of thinking in terms of nationhood, either ethnically defined or set within the framework of a polity before the time of Alfred. The very notion of an ethnos: as a coherent, unchanging entity has received a great deal of attention of late from anthropologists, archaeologists and historians, though not much of this has been directed at the problems of early mediaeval Europe. It is clearly right to be cautious, or even highly sceptical, about identifying early mediaeval ethnoi as the ancestors of later peoples or nations...Ethnicity, however defined, is rarely a basis for nationhood and we may not seek the ancestors of the modern English among the migrants of the fifth and sixth centuries, any more than the modern French look back to the early Franks. The roots of nationhood are of much recent growth and they are still tender and vulnerable.
Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth

Whether Germanic languages were already being spoken or not in eastern Britain is open to debate. These native peoples (and they may or may not have been Celtic speaking peoples, the truth is we just do not know) adopted the customs and habits of the elite group over time. Whether this was because they were culturally/linguistically similar, or whether it was due to the unbalancing of the elite group due to differential reproductive success (as the paper "Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England" suggests) is an open question. But the mass migration of several nations comprising hundreds of thousands of people, with a subsequent complete displacement of all "Britons" is a very different proposition, and few reliable academics (geneticists, archaeologists and historians) would support such a theory. Catherine Hills states in her book "The Origins of the English"

In general, there is a problem in this area of research in that geneticists often (and the press almost always) seem to assume that ethnicity is clearly and objectively definable, whereas social scientists, including archaeologists, have come to see it, as argued in this book, as a more fluid and complex phenomenon."

In her conclusions she gives a lucid account of the relationship between modern English people and "Anglo-Saxons"

All forms of evidence are consistent with the establishment of an elite who's cultural, and probably biological, ancestry, lay in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. They took control of eastern Britain, probably piecemeal and over a long period. What that means in terms of population remains elusive because much of the evidence is interpretable in more than one way. The situation is unlikely to have been the same in all parts of England. In some places new rulers may have displaced only the native elite - and married some of their daughters - while elsewhere they were followed, sooner or later, by many humbler settlers. Not only may the "English" of Somerset and Hereford be closer to the Welsh in ancestry than to the East Anglians, but the populations of Wessex and Northumbria may have been different from each other long before the Vikings settled in the north.
In the end, the answer is probably that the English never were and never will be homogeneous, and also that they, like other peoples, are not ancestrally defined and divided from other peoples with a precise origin at any one time in the past. Another place to seek the origins of the English of today is now.

You have made some quite nasty comments about me and my motivations, I am always happy to include reliable sources in any article. I do not support the inclusion of the conclusions Wikipedia editors, this constitutes OR, I do not support the inclusion of single povs, I have never encouraged users not include a pov just because I do not agree with it. I have no strong feelings about the origins of the English, and have never pushed any specific pov, I have only encouraged the accurate inclusion of povs from reliable sources. The mass migrationist/displacement theory of the origins of the English is a relevant theory to include, but it is not the only one, and it is not a theory that has a great deal of support amongst experts. Furthermore many experts do see the mass migrationist/displacement theory of the origins of the English as a "creation myth", see Francis Pryor again but also

The historical sources, then, are now considered by many to be of more use in teaching us about the social and political climate of the periods in which they were compiled, and as records containing first-hand information about the origin myths, legends and traditions of the British people, rather than as strictly factual sources....[t]he 'Coming of the Saxons' is now so much a part of our national mythology that it is often not realised that the origins of the people who lived in the eastern and southern part of Britain, now known as the English, have not always been traced back to Germanic invaders or migrants from the continent...In the latter half of the 20th century, however, thinking about these [historical] sources [eg Gildas, Bede] changed fundamentally, and archaeological research began to focus on context, process and patterning, rather than on fitting in with historians' views of events. The argument over the biological identity of the people of 5th century Britain has since been played down, in favour of the more 'anthropological' aim of determining and understanding evidence for the construction and maintenance of social identity in the early medieval period.[5]

and Margarita Díaz-Andreu makes the point that

Now that archaeologists have begun to deconstruct the naive way in which archaeology has thought about material culture and about "cultures" (Shennan 1989, Diaz-Andreu 1996, Jones 1997) there is no easy way to deal with ethnic identity. I would suggest that, as in many other matters in archaeology, we will never know for certain how ethnicity operated amongst past peoples. Keeping it on the agenda will help us better understand (our healthy lack of knowledge about) them.
Comment on "Archaeologists and Migrations: A Problem of Attitude? by Heinrich Härke

These are all relevant points of view held by reputable expert academics, but none of them support your contention about what experts think. It is incorrect to claim that there is a consensus that supports your belief in this regard, and we are bound to include all points of view, whether we support them or not. The English people article is not primarily concerned with the origins of the English, it is primarily concerned with the English as a modern identity group, much of what I and you have written on the talk page not directly relevant to the article, it's much more relevant to the Anglo-Saxons article and the Sub-Roman Britain article. As such I have left this message here. Alun (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, you've displayed the opinions of four authors here, but my point is that the majority of anthropologists and geneticists are still undecided on the extent of Anglo-Saxon migrations. All your sources claim is that the nature of the relationship between past peoples and current ones is difficult to decipher (obviously not claiming they are either non-important or non-existant), but none of your sources negate the impact of those peoples, ancestrally or culturally, on the modern ethnic group. The origins of ethnic groups are obviously a massive part of the current people since that is where their common descent and culture originates from. Your posts here don't prove anything that your claim and information about English ethnic origins is of course welcome in that article since it is completely relevant. You are right in one aspect though that there is apparently one person, Francis Pryor, who sees the migrations as only myths but none of your other sources make any claims that the migrations (whether in mass numbers or small) were "myths" (Malcolm Todd actually implies the Anglo-Saxon migration was longer and more substantial copmared to the Volwanderung migrations). Oppenheimer and others hae shown the large continental and/or Germanic impact in England, which may be down to either pre-Roman or sub-Roman sources from the area of the Frisian Bight, or both. All of your sources only support my point that barely any rsearchers claim the migrations were only myths, and also that barely any researchers would deny the connection between past peoples and the modern ethnic group, but only that it may be difficult to decipher these connections. I don't have time to go into a more detailed response, but if I had insulted you (which I am positive I did not), it was not my intention. Epf (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the "majority of anthropologists and geneticists" think and I don't think you can possibly know either, unless you can provide a specific questionair that these people have responded to that asked them their opinions on this specific question. To be honest I don't think the majority of anthropologists or geneticists have ever put any thought into this question at all. Besides I don't think it is a question of whether the majority of anthropologists and geneticists are "decided", we include all points of view in Wikipedia (except for tiny minority points of view), and not only those of the majority. I think it is a question of neutrality. We need to include all points of view and not give undue weight to any point of view just because we support it. Actually Catherine Hills also claims that the invasions are "myth making".

One reason for exploring the origins of the English is because their identity matters not only to those who identify themselves as English but also to all the other peoples with whom the English have, and have had, relationships of all kinds. Another is that this is an example of a national origin myth.

The sources do not state that the relationships between past and present identity groups are difficult to decipher, they claim that it is 'impossible to know how people in the past identified, we cannot ask them, and it is inappropriate to make judgments about the identity of past peoples from material culture. But the point is that I am not trying to "prove" anything, (except that there are reliable sources that contradict you, even though you claimed no such sources exist). I am merely pointing out that the "mass migration" idea is a theory and other theories exist that interpret the evidence differently.
I don't really understand what you are trying to imply by stating that Oppenheimer has shown massive Germanic impact in England (at least from a genetic point of view, there is no such thing as a "Germanic" gene/chromosome) possibly you have not read his book or you have misunderstood it. He claims that one cannot make the simple claim that all haplogroup I1a Y chromosomes that exist in the British isles are of "Anglo-Saxon" origin, or indeed that they are of any sort of "Germanic" origin. He shows that if one did this (as Capelli et al. do) then the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion would have to have been deeper and broader than anything ever claimed by even the most extreme migrationist theory, the existence of these haplogroups in Ireland, for example, would mean that the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion would have to have penetrated to Rush in Ireland (see Supplemental data for Y chromosome census paper that gives an admixture of 0.291 for North Germany/Demnark in Rush, which would indicate that nearly a third of the ancestry of these people in Ireland is "Anglo-Saxon", clearly a nonsense figure). He then postulates that the land area that is now the British Isles was colonised from two directions during the paleolithic/mesolithic, one colonisation deriving from the Iberian refuge (moving north) and the other from the Balkan refuge (moving north west up Europe's main rivers). The people coming from the Balkan refuge carried versions of the haplogroup I Y chromosome and settled in that part of Doggerland and the regions that are now eastern England, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. So he thinks that the reason haplogroup I chromosomes are so predominant in eastern England is because they are "indigenous" to the North Sea region even before it was a sea. To claim that these people were Germanic is an anachronism, I know of no reputable source that would claim that the paleolithic peoples of Europe practiced a recognisable Iron Age culture or spoke Indo-European languages. As I understand it the earliest estimates for the introduction of Indo-European languages into Europe are the neolithic, and even this date is contested. The early settlement of peoples with I haplogroup Y chromosomes into the region that is now the east of Great Britain gives plenty of time for these chromosomes to have migrated even as far as Ireland from normal reproductive processes. His claims are also supported by evidence he provides, that some I chromosome types that exist in the British Isles are appear to be of "indigenous" origin, they have a very old footprint in the British Isles and do not occur outside the British Isles, though we would expect them to have a high frequency all over the North Sea regions if they had been introduced into the British Isles as recently as a millenium and a half ago. Likewise there are Y chromosome and mtDNA types in non-British North Sea regions that are not found in Great Britain, that we would expect to see if there had been a huge migration during the sub-Roman period. So his conclusion is that there has always been a close link between the peoples of the North Sea, they have always been culturally close peoples, and migration has probably been going on (back and forth) for many millenia. His thesis is that when Indo-European languages were adopted by northern Europeans, peoples in the west of the British Isles were influenced by other peoples on the Atlantic facade of Europe, because these were the peoples with which they had the closest and oldest affinities (and therefore spoke a form of proto-Celtic), and peoples on the eastern side of the British Isles adopted the languages of the peoples of the North Sea, because these were the peoples with which they had the oldest and longest affinities. The main argument is that the seas/waterways were the "highways" of the paleolithic/neolithic, during these times it was easier to travel across water from eastern England to northern Germany than it was to travel over land from eastern England to western Wales. On the other hand I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that there has not been a substantial "Germanic" influence on the peoples of England, and I have not claimed this (although you appear to think that I have made this claim). English is a Germanic language, the sub-Roman peoples who lived in at least the east of England, shared deities with their close cultural relatives across the North Sea (Odin/Woden etc.). Furthermore Oppenheimer does provide evidence that there was a smallish migration event during the sub-Roman period, but he contextualises this as part of an ongoing sharing of peoples across the North Sea region that was at least as old as the neolithic, he also points out that these series of migrations/invasions also include the Viking attacks of a few centuries later. In other words we can view the Viking attacks/invasions as a continuation of a pattern of behaviour that includes the Anglo-Saxon invasions and probably previous raids/invasions/military takeovers that had been going on back many centuries or even millenia, because of the shared deep ancestry/culture of these peoples. These invasions/attacks needn't be seen as a unidirectional event, the bidirectional movement of peoples across the North Sea may therefore be a very old and continual event even before that sea even existed. If you want to discuss Oppenheimer, then please do it in correct context, he does not support a mass migration and displacement event during the sub-Roman period and he specifically states this.
The debate amongst archaeologists and historians surrounds the significance of the evidence, both written and material. Archaeologists seem to accept that the material evidence is not de facto proof of mass migration, though it does support some sort of migration event in specific regions suc as East Anglia and possibly along the coast to Yorkshire. Historians also accept that the two written sources (Gildas and Bede) are not contemporaneous (they were both written several centuries after the events) and that both authors had primarily contemporary aristocratic audiences in mind, they can be viewed as political/eclesiastical texts and not objective history (though this does not necessarily invalidate their claims), essentially the sources need to be taken with a great deal of scepticism. None of this invalidates the mass migrationist theory, but it does mean that we need to be balanced and not give undue weight to any particular theory just because we personally prefer it.
You appear to be arguing against a point of view I have not expressed. I do not dispute the Germanic nature of the English language (that would be stupid), I do not dispute the fact that in sub-Roman times the peoples of what is now England shared a great deal of their cultural heritage with the peoples of the North Sea region, especially their religion. I do not dispute that there is plenty of evidence that some sort of migration occurred during sub-Roman times. I do not dispute that the mass migrationist/displacement theory is still generally held as "fact" by the lay person. I do say that this theory has been used as a creation myth, it has been used by racists to suggest the "superiority" of English people in the nineteenth century, it has been used to make claims that the English have a distinct "biological" identity that makes them a homogeneous people and it has been used to justify English rule of Great Britain and the British Empire (due to the "innate" superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon blood"). These claims have all been made and they are a myth, because few if any people would now claim that all English ancestry is derived from a single mass migration that actually exterminated a whole population of some four million and completely replaced them with people that moved en mass from a different region of Europe. Not only does the genetic evidence not support this scenario, the archaeological evidence does not either. People from eastern England have an ancestry that is part western European (ie derived from the western Iberian refuge) and partly eastern European (ie derived from the Balkan refuge), in this they are similar to other peoples from the North Sea region, and indeed from the central/western regions of Europe. It is a fact that the R1b haplogroup is very predominant in the west of Europe generally, and that haplogroup I becomes more dominant as one moves east, the mixing of Iberian refuge peoples and Balkan refuge peoples in this admixture zone is a facet of the whole of Europe and not restricted to Great Britain. I do dispute that "Anglo-Saxon"=English, and I do dispute that the peoples of "Anglo-Saxon" "England" identified as a unified ethnic group at this point in time. We do not know how these people identified, we do not know the relationship between this group and the modern English group. We can say that the modern English group claims a direct cultural and ancestral link to the ancient groups, but we do not know what this link is above and beyond the belief of modern people. Alun (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One example from your source by Malcolm Todd: "By the time the Anglo-Saxons had been unearthed and clad in cultural garments, they had long ceased to be a leading and distinct component of the British nation." I disagree with Todd on several points (is he even a reknowned scholar in this area or a valid source?) but even he specifies here the 'British nation', not the 'English' (displaying his 'British unionist' POV in this 'essay' of his) whie also mentioning that Anglo-Saxons were no longer a distinct (as in separate) component, but not that it was no longer a component at all. I do not know what he meant by "leading" other than the basis for the aristocracy, but clearly, in termos of ancestry and especially culture, the Anglo-Saxons are a major component in the cultural origins and descent of the English people (along with the Celtic and pre-Celtic and the more minor influences of Danes and Normans). Also to compare the role of the Anglo-Saxons in the English to tthe Franks in the French is hysterical to me since we know the large contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to our ancestry, language, culture and identity. In any case, when Todd refers to the role of the Anglo-Saxons as ancestors to the modern English, he is referring to how the Anglo-Saxons had mixed with and incroporated the Celtic/pre-Celtic and Norse elements by the time of the Norman era and so the 'English' people and/or nation themselves do not exclusively originate from, ancestrally or culturally, the Anglo-Saxons. A word most common amongst scholars today is to refer to the English people an identity as 'Anglo-British' rather than 'Anglo-Saxon' since it combines the Norse, Celtic/pre-Celtic and Anglo-Saxon elements that make up who the English are, both cultually and ancestrally. We also know that the impact of the Franks in the French was far less than that of the Anglo-Saxons in England, linguistically, culturally and ancestrally. Epf (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
See Malcolm Todd. Let's face it it is completely irrelevant whether you disagree with Todd or not. Wikipedia is not here to publish your opinions. He is a reliable source and therefore his views can be included in Wikipedia. You amaze me, you like to set yourself above proper experts in a field, as far as I know you have no expertise in this period of history, have made no significant contributions to the academic field and are not recognised as anything like an expert in anything. We all have our favourite theories, but it is not acceptable to question the authority of an expert just because you disagree with them. I state above that one of your tactics is to disparage reputable experts that contradict the point of view you want to push, and this is just another example. Whittering about "British unionism" is absurd, the man does not mention "unionism" at all. You cannot make claims as to this person's political beliefs from this statement, and to do so also shows a breathtaking lack of objectivity and amounts to an ad hominem attack. You do not even seem to understand the difference between the "British nation" and "British Unionism". Unionism refers to the Union, ie the United Kingdom, it is specifically about a political belief that all constituent countries of the UK should stay as part of the same state, and yes many people refer to the UK as a "nation state". On the other hand the British nation is that group of people who identify as belonging to a British nation. Britishness does exist outside of politics, many people who do not support the Union may identify as British, myself included. There is not necessarily a contradiction between accepting the existence of a British nation and accepting the existence of a Welsh nation, we all have a lot of different identities, like it or not. British is used to identify so many different aspects of life and culture that to claim that it is not a valid concept is just wrong. Besides you do not even appear to understand what Todd is saying. By the time the "Anglo-Saxons" had been discovered and clothed it was the nineteenth century, the British nation existed and what the "Anglo-Saxons" represented was already obscure, he's specifically discussing material culture "discovered and clothed". What he is saying is that prior to the discovery and identification of "Anglo-Saxon" material no one knew very much about them, so they had lost their relevance with respect to the identity. We know a great deal more bout the "Anglo-Saxons" now than we did when they their material culture was discovered, and many claims have been made as to the significance of these peoples with regard to the origins of the English, but all of this has happened subsequently. You don't have to agree with him, but you shouldn't misrepresent what he is saying and you don't have to attack him or his motives. I get the impression that everything is "black and white" in your world and that you have difficulty accepting nuanced arguments. Archaeologists and geneticists show that there is evidence of migration in some regions of England, but less in others, when archaeologists say the evidence is conflicting, when archaeologists say that this is a complex series of events that cannot be summed up in simplistic ideas of "total replacement" or "no migration", then these are a nuanced argument. Origins are always complex and are rarely as clear cut as "English people have 'Anglo-Saxon' ancestry" and "Welsh people have 'Celtic' ancestry". Alun (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Seeing your comments on Talk:French people, I have to tell you that WP:3RR is not a free pass to revert three times per day the same change without addressing the issues on the talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No, but I was making supported edits, not simply re-verts. You yourself need to heed more Wiki policy, especially with rgards to reliable quotes. Epf (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the time when you were doing direct reverts, and not rewordings to adapt the text for some purpose (altough the policy defines reverts also as "deleting content or restoring deleted content", not just to cliking the undo link, so it still applies!). There is a list of reverts that don't fall under the 3RR, and your edits don't apply to any point of the list.
Also, excuse me for implying this, but I think it's you that didn't read 3RR, since its page says it's intended to stop edit wars and does not make any distintion between supported edits and unsupported ones (that would be entering on questions of content), and on my comment here I was talking about this exact sentence: "Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks". I was not saying that you are on poor light, btw, I was just saying that you appeared not to understand that 3RR is not only a mechanical count of reverts done per day. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed you were warned before for 3RR and that you made the exact same argument of "I only made 3 counts per day so I didn't break 3RR". You appear not to be understanding the policy. Please read it again and try to keep to it. From this point on, if you use the same argument, I'll have to consider that, either you aren't going to understand the policy, or you are wikilawyering about the meaning of 3RR --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

French people debate, etc.[edit]

Hi. I hope you don't take my last comments as turning against you. You have very valid points. Personally, however, I've always had some misgivings about making this a "Science", so I naturally lean towards the more liberal interpretation. Nonetheless, I think the term has room for a broader definition to include the "perception". The defence is too strong.
On another note, I removed Occitans from Italians because I think the intent is to compare the northern Italians to Central Europe. Again you are 100% correct, but this is after all Wikipedia. :) Dionix (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

True, I see your point, and thanks for taking part in the discussions in any case. Epf (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Epf. I read your comments on Talk:Italians, but they do not really respond to my question- which is in effect directly a response to the issue on the French talk page. Also, I'm not versed in this sort of stuff (I'm more of a history buff), but I don't agree with your assessment of Italians as a homogeneous people. As I understand it, the base is actually many original peoples (Brutti, Oscans, Venetics, Etrucscans, etc.) and also early waves of Greeks, Phoenicians, Gauls, etc., which became Latinised but not necessarily Latin. Add to this later waves of Lombards, Saracens, Albanians, Slavs etc., etc. and you definitely do not have a homogeneous people. Looking at it this way, and in the spirit of the French debate, the situation is such that we are talking about a cultural group- not an ethnic group. Perhaps it is because the "mixing" came earlier that we delineate the Italian situation from the French? The entire ethnic definition seems dubious to me unless it is broadened in scope- as you very well know, something the people on the French page do not support. Dionix (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not know how my comments didn't respond to your earlier question, but I will have to re-read it. If you are a history buff, then anthropology and related subjects will most likely interest you (at least somewhat) since the two disciplnes often coincide. The question of homogeneity is not straightforward and just what 'level' a people is 'homogenous' varies. Even if a people have some varied origins, they may still be 'more homogenous' than another group. Han Chinese for example are quite diverse and much more heterogenous in their composition than nearby Koreans for example, a highly homogenous people. Compared to many groups, even the French, Italians are fairly homogenous in various aspects of ethnicity due to more persistent 'binding' forces acting to coalesce the Italian people throughout their history. This is in contrast to a state like France where the whole sense of a commmon people, nation and/or ethnicity has been less prominent. The basic, indigenous Ancient Italic peoples were not all the same, but were very closely related in many characteristics and many had common or similar origins. Ancient Greeks densely settled the south (Calabria, Puglia and Sicily) amd intermixed with these peoples, giving to the main cultural and especially linguistic distinctions between these regions and the rest of Italy. The Celtic Gauls mainly influenced the culture of northern Italy, and the Phoenicians had very little impact in Sicily (even in this case, only in the west), both demographically and culturally. Like most other regions in the Mediterranean they colonized, they mainly established small, concentrated settlements or ports. The Greeks (and later the Romans) won supremacy over them with regards to Sicily and the demographic impact of the Greeks was substantial, both culturally and demographically. The Etruscans and Romans were localized Italic developments of central Italy and, as you know, the culture of the Romans would spread across the peninsula and unify the peoples both politically and culturally . As for the later invasion of Germannc tribes (eg. Lombards), Arabs, and Normans, they left mainly political impacts, had little influence culturally and even less so demographically. There were some localized Slavic and Albanian (Arbereshe) populations who settled in Italy centuries later, but those who were not absorbed into the indigenous Italian population formed distinct ethnic communities or enclaves. Jews also have had a minimal presence in Italy, especially Rome, for centuries, but again those who were not assimilated or absorbed into the main ethnic Italian population maintained their own distinct ethnic community. Ethnicity involves various aspects, including cultural ones (itself with varied elements) and the Italian people are both an ethnic (in terms of descent) and cultural group, just as the French are. Unlike the French however, there is less controversry around indigenous Italians' ethnic identity and its widely recognized to both them and non-Italians. This is largely down to differing histories over numerous centuries, especially the strong role of 19th century nationalism in Italy that was more absent in France. In terms of ethnic origins and especially culture, Italians are a fairly homogenous people with a notable north-south regional difference that is very gradual, and in my opinion would be more homogenous than the French desite strong local and regional identities in addition to the common Italian one. Epf (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ethnicity[edit]

On the Kinship talk page you said we are making progress. I hope so, and would be glad. Now, to answer your question, I still maintain that descent groups like lineages and clans, and referential systems like kinship terminologies, are not relevant to ethnicity. They are relevant to "tribes" but tribe and ethnic group are not synonymous - that would void both terms of analytic rigor. Cohen rightly points out sometimes the words themsleves are misapplied. But when one could (and perhaps for Cohen should) refer to so-called tribe as an ethnic group, what makes it an ethnic group is something that transcends and is beyond descent groups and kinships systems. They just are not connected.

You are correct that there is another view of ethnicity, which you are associating with "descent." I would like to be constructive and cooperative and suggest to you a way that you can explore this dimension within the terms of mainstrean anthropology. I think the key thing is to understand that "descent" means many things, and can be defined narrowly and broadly, and there is a narrow usage that is related to kinship but NOT ethnicity. There is a broader sense that is related to ethnicity, but not kinship.

So how to talk about the stuff you are so interested in? The key word is "primordial ties" and "primordialism." You will notice that I recently added an extensive quote fromn Eric Wolf to the Ethnic Group article. It represents what I believe is the mainstream view of anthropologists as to the nature of race and ethnicity, and should not be removed. But I acknowledge that it is by no means the only notable important view held by social scientists. Wolf himself, in this extended quote says he rejets primordialism. What I propose to you is that in order to maintain balance in the article, you add a new section on "Ethnicity and primordial ties." This does not mention the word decent but I think you will find it addresses that view you think I am neglecting.

I suggest you draw on two sources in developing this section:

  • Edward Shils, 1957, "Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties" in British Journal of Sociology 8: 130-145 (this is the classic statement)
  • Clifford Geertz, 1973, "The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States" in The Intepretation of Cultures 255-310

The views expressed in these two essays are usually presented by anthropologists as the "alternative" to Frederick Barth and Eric Wolf. I think the "Ethnic Group" article should and could never present one unified or synthetic view of ethnic groups, but it would be complying with NPOV and helping educate readers if it clearly explained the differences between Shils/Geertz, Barth, and Wolf.

I just added a lot of Wolf. At some point perhaps one of us could add more Barth. Giuven your own interests and concerns, with respect I suggest to you that you find the Shils and Geertz article and work on incorporating their views into the article. Searching good academic databases may yeild to you more articles published in major peer-reviewed journals (like American Anthropologist, Current Anthropology and American Ethnologist) that discuss ethnicity in relation to the ideas set forward by Shihls and Geertz ... articles that cite the two essays I cite above. You would problably enjoy such articles. I promise you, as long as you do not present theirs as the only or best view of ethnic groups, and do present them as different from Barth and Wolf, I will make no objection to your adding their views and explaining them at length. If I understand your intereses correctly, you should enjoy working through their stuff. I hope you do. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


PS After you read Shils and Geertz, I would recommend you look at some recent stuff that is critical of them e.g.: Henry Hale, 2004, "Explaining Ethnicity" in Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, 458-485

If you are really interested in anthropological studies of ethnicity, you should read actual ethnographies and not just articles. This book is among the most cuting-edge (I have not read it, I do not know what it says, i can only tell you it got fantastic reviews and is heavily cited and assigned in university courses: Liisa Malkki, 1995 Purity and Exile, Chicago: Univesity of Chicago Press Cheers, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

reply[edit]

You ask, "Considering the pertinence between the two articles, do you agree for now with at least leaving the current link to Kinship on the Ethnic group article ?" No for the simple reason that what they mean by kinship is not what the article on kinship talks about - they are not refering to the institutions, roles, and the body of theories anthropologists study as "kinship." I hope you can find the articles and we can discuss appropriate ways to incorporate them into the Ehnic Groups article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Roman Britain[edit]

Rather than let this develop into an edit war, which could happen, could you please discuss this here? [6] - thanks, hopefully we can come to a consensus on this. Doug Weller (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Another comment, please tone down your language in your edit summaries, see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Doug Weller (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I will discuss it on the talk page, my apologies. Epf (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do as Doug says and tone down your language, comment on content and not users. This edit summary is totally unacceptable. See WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. You've now been warned twice, please take these warnings seriously. Alun (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You might want to heed such warnings yourself and we should both try to act more civil when it comes to disagreements. Epf (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Epf (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll do my best. Alun (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


R1B and AMH[edit]

You are mistaken. AMH+1 is the Antlantic Modal Cluster, this is the Atlantic Modal Haplotype and all other haplotypes that are only a single mutational step from it. Don't mix up haplotypes and haplogroups, R1b (and all haplogroups) is defined by a specific SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism), so all R1b haplogroup Y chromosomes have the M343 mutation. Haplotypes are defined by Y-STRs (Y-Short Tandem Repeat), that is they are defined by the number of repeats in a series of short tandem repeats, they are not defined by any SNP. AMH (Atlantic Modal Haplotype is a specific set of STR loci that contain a specific set of alleles at these loci, this pattern of YSTR is exceptionally prevalent in R1b haplogroups across western Europe, but does not define any R1b haplogroups. In fact it's possible for a non R1b Y chromosome to have the AMH, though probably at a low frequency. The FMH (Frisian Modal Haplotype) for example is part of the Atlantic Modal Cluster, it varies from the AMH by only a single mutational step. In Capelli et al. they do not genotype for any R1b marker at all, instead they genotype for the R1 marker (M173) and the R1a1 marker (M17). So their analysis technically does not include any R1b identified haplogroups at all, they have identified only those Y chromosomes that belong to R1 and then a sub set of these that belong to R1a1, the cladogram at the bottom of page 982 shows this clearly, R1a1 is a sub group of R1xR1a1. R1xR1a1 defines that paraphyletic group that contains all R1 haplogroup Y chromosomes that do not have the R1a1 mutation. For Europe this is more or less equivalent to R1b (though there could, for example, be R1* Y chromosomes, though they would be extremely rare). What Capelli et al. do in order to further subdivide the R1xR1a1 haplogroup, which is enormous given that it contains well over 70% of all Y chromosomes from the British Isles, is to genotype all R1xR1a1 Y chromosomes for the AMH+1 haplotype and call this a sub set of R1xR1a1. So technically you can't identify R1b Y chromosoems from this study, but practically you can generate this figure by adding the AMH+1 and R1xR1a1 numbers together. Likewise 2.47+1 is a sub-set of haplotypes that has been derived from the IxI1b2 haplogroup (all I Y chromosomes excluding those belonging to I1b2), to get haplogroup I one needs to add IxI1b2 + I1b2 + 2.47+1, this is more correct because they do actually genotype for M170, the SNP that defines haplogroup I. The Y chromosome tree has changed quite a bit over the last year or so, and the haplogroup I1b2 no longer exists, the mutation M26 now defines the haplogroup I2a2. What used to be called I1a is now called I1, and what used to be called I1b is now I2.[7] These are sensible rationalisations of the tree. Interestingly the greatest division in Europe on a Y chromosome scale is the subdivision of haplogroup F into groups IJ and K. Subgroups of IJ include haplogroup I, subgroups of K include P (including R1a) and NO, N being dominant in north Eastern Europe (Finland for example) and Asia and O being dominant in East Asia. It's odd but from a Y chromosome perspective Mongolians and Chinese N and O Y chromosomes are closer to Finnish N3 and western European R1b/R1a1 than any of these are to eastern English and central European I Y chromosomes. The subgroups of P are distributed throughout Europe, east Asia and the Americas, Native American Q Y chromosomes are much closer to European R Y chromosomes that European R Y chromosomes are to European I Y chromosomes. Alun (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe Y semino.png

Self-published book[edit]

I'm working on compiling a book containing information about almost all Non-indigenous ethnic groups living or working in Pakistan. The population of a particular ethnic group would be obtain respectively from their diplomatic missions in Pakistan including regions with significant populations, languages spoken and religious affiliations. I'm not very good with writing so it would be great, if you would like to collaborate with me.--116.71.53.25 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Please see Talk:English Defence League#Facebook support regarding you last edit to that article. __meco (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

February 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Muammar al-Gaddafi, you may be blocked from editing. You've been on here for 6 years; you very well know what you did was in fact vandalism. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)