User talk:Futurebird/Archive 7

Hi, Thanks for the welcome. Wiki Raja 06:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that blanked talk page

Blanking the talk page wasn't all that this user did. Look at this strange edit. futurebird 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why the tool reverts all their edits... not just one. But blanking was the latest, so that's what I called the reversion. ...From your userpage you're a math student? A kindred spirit! Gscshoyru 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Deeeevoice

I am well-aware enough of 3RR, having actively contributed to this site for over 6 months. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX — in my opinion — backs up my decision of removal (quoted verbatim):

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise.
2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics.

The Jena Six and Darfur issues are contentious enough in real-life, and need not be discussed on a site that is already contentious enough both within itself and in the real world. —[[Animum | talk]] 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call

I hadn't noticed that line about blackness but it was indeed silly. Glad you removed it Iseebias 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bell Curve debate

Excellent find of the Cracked Bell by James J. Heckman. Though I'm a pro-Bell Curve kind of guy, I think more people should read that article. It'd stop a lot of the talk page debates before they start. Aron.Foster 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six pictures

I saw that you did some formatting to make all the pictures the same width. To help balance the page, could you move a few to the left side? I would, but I don't know how to do that and I think I'm probably still too new to make any changes on that page anyway. Thank you. NatalieOne 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaining this. I moved one more over to the left and under the correct heading. NatalieOne 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FCC Letter

I posted a suggestion on the talk page [1]. Why don't you try it in the article and we'll see how it goes. I think this perspective should definitely be included. Qworty 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

re: funniest racist vandal ever

That's the second time I've reverted that block of text. Well, at least he's (somewhat) original. CJ 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete deeceevoice's user page? I don't think it's fair the way that people are ganging up on her. I think he essay made valid points about wikipdeia. Is this really the kind of place where criticism is censored? It was not a personal attack it was criticism. I may have been wrong, I don't know the facts-- But, it really looks like people are trying to hide and delete criticism. That is not a good precedent to set. futurebird 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't have the energy to be dragged into a revert war, especially when I protect a page to stop it. El_C 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my question... ? I understand stoping a revert war-- didn't you remove the text from her page? Or was that the other user? futurebird 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"protected to prevent edit warring, Neil has edited it twice; he also unprotected; I want nothing more to with this, or him. Rv back to his version. And he yet to explain it violated that AC ruling)" I get it now! Okay. futurebird 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I think I forgot a how in that last sentence, but whatever. Regards, El_C 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Have a Star

Thanks. CJ 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the barnstar, but you're way too generous. All I did was a little copyediting here and there. But did you click the link to the old, hypenated version? Just ghastly. If it weren't just so tragically wrongheaded and just flat-out racist, it'd be hilarious. I traded notes with the editor, and he really just didn't have a clue how off-the-wall it all was. Another salient argument for an Afropedia. deeceevoice 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose African American culture as this week's WP:ACID winner

CJ 10:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

African American History

"Thanks for the updates. Have you been to WP:AFRO? futurebird 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"

No I was unaware of that page. Thanx for letting me know. i'll be on there ASAP. nice to meet u and i look foward to collabing. hollaScott Free 23:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations)

Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Race and intelligence (Comparison of explanations) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Brusegadi 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My edit to Black flight

I modified your reference to the Great Migration drastically, because not all movements of the African-American diaspora are "black flight" as the term is defined and used. "Black flight" (a term I'm a smidgen uncomfortable with myself) was coined as a deliberate analogy to "white flight" to address the movement of so much of the African-American middle and upper classes out of the inner city into (some) suburbs. --Orange Mike 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC) (p.s. do you know VelmaJ, a lady who goes by the handle Silverbird?)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination

Are you aware of this WikiProject? Thought it might interest you. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And one more quick comment...GREAT artwork! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

White privilege followup

"Wages of whiteness" is referenced in David Roediger's book of the same name at p. 11-13. He quotes DuBois in Black Reconstruction at 27-30, 633-34 700-701. Thanks for your work.--Carwil 02:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a better source than the random book review I found. Feel free to swap out the source. futurebird 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Debunking nonsense

I thought you might be interested in these two books by Joseph L. Graves Jr. THE RACE MYTH: WHY WE PRETEND RACE EXISTS IN AMERICA [2] and The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millenium [3]. Both have sections discussing "race and intelligence" and "race and health", and he does a great job at explaining why all this research is nonsense. I haven't read the books yet, I have just aquired them and plan to read them when I get time. Thought you might be interested though. All the best. Alun 06:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Inequalities in American health care

I thought your recent addition was excellent. Sad mouse 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Race" and intelligence

I see you're still slogging it out in that article (which I still refuse to even read). This came to my attention, and I thought you might find it of interest/useful.[4][5] Another one of God's creatures with tons of intellect -- but, tragically, no real intelligence. ;) deeceevoice 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also been some excellent comment about Watson's racism on the Guardian. [6] [7] Watson was promoting his new book when he made these obnoxious comments, but his promotional tour has been cut short. He was supposed to lecture at the Science Museum in London but they canceled his lecture after his comments. This sort of zero tolerance of racism by mainstream science must be a cause for at least some optimism? Alun 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bird, my latest blog entry[8] might be of interest. Bless. ;) deeceevoice 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Cyprian Ricard → Free Negro

It has been proposed to merge the content of Cyprian Ricard into Free Negro. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 10:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights Riot

Thanks for the kind words. I've decided to lay low, because every time I add one sentence Edstat removes it and replaces it with two paragraphs from his book. Instead of giving Edstat an excuse for his craziness, I'll let him demonstrate his WP:FANATICism.

CJ asked for mediation, so we'll see what happens.

I agree, though, that the use of a single source for so much of the article is very unusual, especially for such a long article. The article also cites a journal article by the same author (notes 1 and 39, which are the same source), a review of the book (note 7), and the book publisher's advertisement for the book (note 14). Nearly 70 references are from Shapiro or based on his book.

In an early comment on the article's Talk page, Edstat said that he lived in Crown Heights during the riot, which explains his strong POV. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please relist Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote

Hi Futurebird: Being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. Futhermore, in the sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), Ashkenazi intelligence was not listed as part of the original group in the AfD until you pointed the article out to the nominator and he then decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what was done. For the sake of clarity, the Ashkenazi intelligence article should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. You should have noted that the Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If you wish to have a new nomination, go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Thank you, IZAK 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SEE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: "I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met: (1) There is a single place to discuss all the pages. (2) It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages. (3) They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created. As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)

On Board

Thnx for the invite and the warm welcome. sorry it took so long to join. don't know how i didn't notice the edit til today, lol. As you can tell by my userpage, i specialize in African subjects. I'm also really interesting in working on subjects where African and African American history interlink. Thnx for putting me on to WP:Afro. I've got some good books on the different dimensions of the African Diaspora on my Sources section. Check them out when u can if u haven't already. i'll check at the project page from time to time. CHEERS :) Scott Free 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackface

Hey, Futurebird. I just reverted blackface from you and reallized I should have asked you about your revert first. Do you think the fact that Sarah Silverman did a blackface joke on her show should really be in the article? It sounds like recentism to me, and it looks like another example of a problem that has plagued Wikipedia for a while. That is, each time some random subject is mentioned on some random TV show or movie, someone edits the article on that subject with information like, "Cheese is mentioned in Episode 328 of The Family Guy." If the Silverman thing is worth mentioning, fine, but I'd like to resist the impulse to add every random mention of blackface to the blackface ariticle. — Brian (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. It's not mentioned anyplace else, though...futurebird 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does mention some modern-day manifestations of blackface, if I remember correctly. As for the Silverman incident in particular, it hardly seems more significant than the time Ted Danson donned blackface (an event that caused a media uproar at about 10 years ago), and that incident isn't in the article either. I guess what I'd like to see is Wikipedia use a third-party analysis of these sorts of modern-day blackface jokes rather than Wikipedia simply reporting, "Actor X did a blackface gag. Actor Y did a blackface gag. The Simpsons did a blackface gag . . . . etc., etc., etc. . . ." — Brian (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

I love the new templte, please post about it at WP:AFRO on the talk page so you can get more feedback. By the way, have you joined WP:AFRO? futurebird 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't joined WP:AFRO. I've actually been too busy trying to work up WP:Gospel. Thanks for the invite though. Absolon S. Kent 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes of blacks

No problem. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blockbusting

Thanks for finding a reference for the "printed card" bit and adding it back in. It sounded vaguely plausible to me, but I have been following User:Donreed around reverting his more substantial edits; they tend to be off-topic, unreferenced, rambling and/or chatty, POV, and otherwise not very useful. He has an annoying habit of adding material that should be referenced, and adding a "fact" tag to it himself! If you look at User talk:Donreed, you will see a long litany of complaints from other editors. So, I'm afraid I deleted the bit on general principles, as yet another piece of unreferenced Donreed material. Brianyoumans 05:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC Help

{{ExampleRFCxxx|Template talk:Discrimination}} DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

FB, let's not go the wrong route. I think that we should look at the policy regarding being bold as JJ has been. If bold and reverted, then discussion should begin; not the opposite that the status quo becomes the most recent set of changes. Perhaps this is splitting hairs.

I've been silent in this project for some time, but observant; however, I am concerned with the recent AfD being followed by any major changes. My addition of the test data table was reverted and not supported, so I let it go.

For now I am satisfied that you will look back at JJ's changes with a neutral eye and make the best decision for the project without my further comment. I really see some off-point soap-boxing. Although we look at the world through very different eyes, I have the highest faith in your integrity and devotion to WP. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

out of the blue

By any chance do you have much expertise in current digital photography? If the answer is yws I will ask you a thoroughly self-interested queston ... Slrubenstein | Talk 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too! And I am about to buy a (my first) digital camera and am looking for people who can give me specific advice concerning a range of digital cameras out there ... so I am guessing you can't really help me. Out of curiousity though, do you still use film? Do you think digital is making film obsolete, at least for anyone who does not have her own darkroom? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a few Canons I am considering: S5IS, A570, and A630. The thing is, I am torn between wanting a very convenient (light weight easy to use losts of memory) camera, and one that gives me more control to do more complex stuff (as i have no graphic skills so any artistry I have goes into the photo itself) ... maybe i just need one camera. Do you have any experience with any of these? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speciesism

Hi there, I was thinking about how you couldn't see comparisons among the various forms of discrimination, perhaps this might clear it up for you, please keep an open mind.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967&q=earthlings&total=554&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

It is a documentary called "Earthlings" narrated by Joaquin Phoenix -- Librarianofages 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...ridicule sums it up. I got about 2 minutes in before throwing up my Beef Stroganoff. Let's just start by keeping the humans from killing each other, then phone me. --Knulclunk 01:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry Futurebird, I was lurking!)

African diaspora

Why, Because it is cited that they are 11% (not 84%) of dominicans that are of african descent, you could go to the dominican republic article and see it for your self ont the demographics section, or go to cia world factbook website and see it there aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.56.116 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey, I noticed that you just archived some old talk. Thats good, but I did not notice an edit summury indicating that, so next time try to do that. It looks rather sketchy when 200,000 + disappears from a talk page without proper summary. Thanks, Brusegadi 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/31 The african-diaspora stubs categories are up for deletion. CJ 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me

Maybe I'm being way too sensitive but I keep getting the feeling that deceevoice makes her comments a little too personal? CJ 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about that. I find some of the things that go on around here pretty personnel. But I do see your point. But, you know, 9/10 times I agree with her anyways, so I feel like a big hypocrite complaining. I'm only nice so I can win. And I think it works OK, but some of the time people need a reality check.

Well..... want to go gang up on her and tell her to be nice? (we'll get yelled at, but it might work.) futurebird 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel like any attempt at addressing WP:DICK would go better without my involvement since I know she thinks I deliberately disrespect her. Quite frankly I'm trying to figure out if I should ignore it or take steps to deal with it. As you said, things around here can get really personal especially with the articles we work on and she's a great editor. When it comes to the actual facts I also agree with her. I just don't like her tone. That's what lead to Pegship's "everybody chill" comment at the stub deletion. CJ 01:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have two thoughts for you. First of all I'm not big on jumping all over people with "policies" when normal conversation might work. I don't have much of a problem with Deeceevoice, some of the time I think "that was over the top..." but, she is BY FAR not the most annoying editor I've run in to. She may not play the politeness game that's so important around here, but there are plenty of editors who do play that game who manage to insult and demean others in oblique ways, and to me that's more annoying. So, that's the first point. I agree with you that some of the time Deecee's a bit confrontational, and she might be able to smooth things over more and in that way not annoy so many people. But, in the end that might be a little dishonest, and in any case the "offensive" "confrontational" things she says are said with an aim for improvement. I have respect for that.

My other thought is that, you really ought to tell her what you think and just accept that she might get pissed off. Who cares? Just be direct and open.

That's just what I think. futurebird 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I cross-posted your comment

Hi Futurebird,

Niuce to meet you; sorry it's under somewhat negative circumstances... I cross-posted your comment on WT:ETHNIC re Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Concerns about: Evolution of human intelligence to Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. I'm a linguistics guy, and moreover am working on my dissertation. Sorry I can't do more.... later! --Ling.Nut 01:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

reversion

FB, i'm not trying to revert you, I'm trying to revert a new user who is trying to speedy the article and deleting text. Please do not add new section headers. This is supposed to focus on this one section --Kevin Murray 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

draft

Hello. Please note the creation of this user subpage User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound (per suggestion of Moonriddengirl). Drafts should not be in mainspace. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox moved

User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound is the new location. MRG is a very good admin and amybe she will help us through the process. I hope this works. This gives us a project page and a talk page, where taking it to an extension of the project talk page would not let us have a separate talk page. OK? Let's see if this will work, and if not we can try another approach. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Don't revert again

No problem. I've got enough problems without getting into it with that guy. I think it should be rephrased for clarity but I don't think it's inaccurate at all. And the idea that 33% of Whites having on average 2.3% African DNA being an attempt to change anyone's identity is laughable unless an individual defines their identity based on their being 100% European... CJ 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing isn't it? The article is engaging in the contemporary miscegenation vs purity battle over America's racial composition. It is bound to be a subject of controversy, unless those know-it-alls come into the picture and gobble every word of it, for better or for worse. I don't classify myself and other people according to continents or color, so you can't suspect my motives in bringing this up. Savignac 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and according to the List of diasporas there's not a European diaspora article. There's a ton of them. CJ 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Savignac 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the link!!! futurebird 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame (or is that too much credit) "the man" for the solidarity of African-origin people according to race, because it was simply convenient for the civil rights era people to do so, on behalf of your combined heritage, that did not consciously retain tribal or ethnic affiliations into the present day. In any case, those articles would not assess the racial composition of those people, even if the homelands of such peoples have become changed through immigration, such as the British in India or the Chinese in Africa. The diasporas are almost always accounted for as "pure" in one form or another, regardless of the racial background of the people(s) under the article heading. Savignac 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I can't make sense of this.

Don't blame (or is that too much credit) "the man" for the solidarity of African-origin people according to race, because it was simply convenient for the civil rights era people to do so, on behalf of your combined heritage, that did not consciously retain tribal or ethnic affiliations into the present day.

What? When did anyone "blame the man?" I don't know what you mean by "did not consciously retain tribal or ethnic affiliations into the present day" --Are you you talking about how slavery made it impossible for people to trace their roots to an exact spot? I don't even know.

In any case, those articles would not assess the racial composition of those people, even if the homelands of such peoples have become changed through immigration, such as the British in India or the Chinese in Africa.

What articles? What people?

The diasporas are almost always accounted for as "pure" in one form or another, regardless of the racial background of the people(s) under the article heading.

What do you mean by 'pure'? futurebird 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my rhetoric, but I'll get to the whole point: I saw a large population being painted with a dubious broad brush and nobody likes to see this, unless they take it as a matter of pride, or an insult to the other. I am in neither camp. Savignac 02:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not painting anyone with a brush it's about the diffusion of African cultural traditions and history. Many american cultures are part African. From my perspective it has very little to do with DNA, but I find it fascinating that DNA is one of the ways that we know that people interacted with each other. I think you're missing the whole point of this diaspora stuff. futurebird 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a significant enough point to make in a professional encyclopedia article, but swings undue weight of importance undeservedly into focus, unbalanced as it is anyways. Savignac 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

undue weight of importance of what? Of DNA? I'll give you that. I don't think we need to give DNA all that much weight. But, in what other ways is the article "unbalenced" ? futurebird 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The section of the article was trying to make it seem like whites were one way, but did not say anything about the other side, with blacks having white background. A proper section would show both sides accurately. Not that any of this is important, but tribal wars' often emphasized the differences of the tribes, even though most wars revolved around tribal intermarriages (e.g. Helen of Troy) and thus, there is less of the black - white dichotomy in actual fact, even if the culture belongs to one and not the other, despite admixture (just take popular music, for instance). I know I am rambling. The point is "so what"; what difference does it make that there is a crack in the sidewalk? Don't step on it, or you'll break your mother's back! A whole lot of nothing. Savignac 03:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The section of the article was trying to make it seem like whites were one way, but did not say anything about the other side, with blacks having white background. It seems reasonable to mention both, although, histrically and even today statistics about the white ancestry of blacks raise fewer eyebrows than statistics about black ancestry of whites. It's a vestige (of course) of the 'one drop rule.' Because the definition of "what is black" as defined by dominant culture continues to play a an important role in where people live and how they interact with each other we need to describe these practices in the article. That's not endorsing the practices.It's just laying it out. And there is nothing "yes man" about that. In fact, the general inability of people to articulate the nature and existence of modern racism is one of the most pervasive instances if systemic bias in the wikipedia. We learn in school that racism is over, and the only people (most of the time) who find out otherwise and those who face racism. Luckily there are sources that support these ideas with numbers to back them up.

even if the culture belongs to one and not the other

What do you mean by this? futurebird

That was about rock and roll, but a better analogy would be: Louis XVI married Marie-Antoinette, but that doesn't mean Versailles became an Austrian, or even half-Austrian court. South Africa is notable for its white population, but that does not make sub-Saharan Africa white.

Look at the forest for the trees; the fraction is not the same as the whole. Savignac 03:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

South Africa is part Dutch and Brittish. Not just because of the people but because of the culture. It would not be the same place if not for the Dutch and Brittish influnce. It matters. I get the sense that you think it's unimportant. That's really odd. futurebird 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of the same thing as paying attention to somebody's acne or disability, but not that racial mixture is negative. Most would prefer to look at something as almost perfect, rather than point out that "one flaw" (or one drop of blood), that "one inconsistency", totally out of proportion to its worth or ultimate essence. Because it is obvious that peoples have mixed forever and ever, there is no reason to point out the obvious, especially in inexplicable cases, such as this one. It is obvious that blacks and whites both have "eachother's heritage", but not to the same degree or quantity and quality that the other does. If percentages and statistics count for anything, then the abstract inclusion of a minor fraction of DNA in one population customarily considered just one race, is rather irrelevant. If one had a panic over racial consciousness and "threats" to genetic integrity, then it might interest them as something to be worried about. Of course, inflated assumptions about admixture or purity are the domains of two warring social factions. I don't think either is warranted to gloat about, or pretend is universally accurate. All people are neither pure, or wholly mixed, so it is exaggeration. Savignac 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're still talking about DNA and I'm talking about culture. futurebird 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

--And many cultures are "mixed" especially in the Americas. -futurebird 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that rock and roll was begun largely by blacks and thereafter became white, for instance, but DNA is the aspect of the article's dispute I'm attempting to focus on and fix. I don't wish to go on and on tangents of cross-cultural relations, a domain which largely belongs to media critics. Savignac 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool (aesthetic)

I wasn't aware this had been voted for article improvement. I just happened by. You may want to know that I added some material under Jewish cool -- which I frankly think is a fabrication, an appropriation from black folks. I've also asked for citation for a couple of statements.[9] The bit about Jewcy Jews -- that the fashions are rip-offs of '70s black street fashions and the bling of today's hip hop crowd I'll add later. FYI. I just realized that it was you who did the graphic timeline for "cool" -- and that the way Itutu is illustrated, it clearly predates sprezzatura. I left the article in disgust because of some editors who wanted to start Itutu after sprezzatura and didn't notice the backward "fade" on Itutu. I thought it was portrayed in the text as well as in the illustration has having started after -- which had me fed up with the entire article. Good. Very good. :) deeceevoice 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WP:AFRO

Thanks for the invite and your comments on my additions to "Great Migration". I'll sign up. I've been doing a lot of study of late 18th and 19th c. history. I'm adding material to all the Southern states to detail, at a minimum, the population and demographics in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War. There are so many people ready to write about the war and battles, but social history is lacking in many of the state and county articles. Have also been adding material on Reconstruction, some from Du Bois' 1935 Black Reconstruction, in which he lays out some clear facts about progress.

Have also added material to Louisiana based on Gwendolyn Midlo Hall's research, in which she found that 2/3 of the slaves imported in the French period came from Senegambia. The concentration of peoples from one place so early in the state's history meant they had a big influence on the culture.--Parkwells 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warning. I do have a habit of getting sucked into arguments. I've warned him about the number of policies he is currently breaching. If it continues then maybe I'll just report him to AN/I for edit warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks. Should be enough for a short block I'd imagine. All the best. Alun 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because your vitriolic prejudice about me from the get-go was very heart warming. Kick me out on the street, I'll be back like any bum. Savignac 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, you do realize that Alun was trying to lynch me. He first stated that he has "a habit of getting sucked into arguments", then follows this with a threat to off me by using the Wiki-system and making a spectacle, as if "edit warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks" are uniquely my fault. Savignac 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED FROM WOBBLE'S PAGE TO HERE:

About you:

Judge, judge, judge with your microscope. High horse, ivory tower, it's all the same thing: elitism and snobbery. Savignac 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About Wobble:

Look, it's not my, your, or Wikipedia's place to "teach them". People are people; let them be complacent in their conventions and customs, even if they seem wrong to you. You are not appointed by anybody, to make them see the light. I don't like racist science, for any motive. Savignac 06:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

MY PLEADING:

How do you get off excusing his behavior? He enjoys edit warring...it's so obvious. Savignac 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

??? I don't see your point. futurebird 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article African Diaspora

Hi Futurebird. To answer your question about the numbers in the study, here is a direct quote from the study:

"Our analysis with AIMs shows the average European ancestry in African Caribbeans is 10.2% vs 18.6% in African Americans from Washington D.C. The differences in admixture are also evident in the plot of individual ancestry in these two samples. The results of this study are in accordance with previous studies showing that the average admixture of US African Americans is higher than that in the former British Colonies in the Caribbean. A notable exception is the Gullah population from South Carolina and Georgia, for which historical, linguistic and also genetic evidence indicates a very low European admixture (Parra et al. 2001). The genetic data also indicates the presence of African and native

American admixture in the European-American sample from State College, a finding that has been noted in other European-American populations (Parra et al. 1998). However, the admixture in these populations is on average low,

with less than 5% estimated non-European admixture in the State College sample."

Please let me know if you would like the pdf file with the article in question e-mailed to you.

IMO, the problem with the section under discussion is that the information, as it appeared in the article, was data compiled by a journalist (Steve Sailor),[10] who made use of information from several sources, including what appears to be an interview with Mark D. Shriver, one of the 17 researchers involved in the study described in "Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping", as well as other studies, both by Shriver and by other scholars and scientists. I therefore made that section invisible, while instead adding some information from the study that more accurately reflects that source. Time permitting, I'd suggest the other studies mentioned by Sailor are introduced individually, in order to replace the information compiled by him (especially data from the studies by C. Jones, A. Massac and R. A. Kittles of the National Human Genome Center, Howard University). Best, Afv2006 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, Afv2006. Thanks for looking in to this. futurebird 13:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird: It seems to me, that people think of Shriver as a microcosmic, model example of the white American. His own results from testing are his issues, not a significant portion of the white American population. The nature of the study is not comprehensive, so strutting about like it's all the facts, is just what a crackpot would do. If you think my POV doesn't matter, because it's negative on something you agree with, then why is your positive POV appraisal of the source not to be questioned? Savignac 13:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shriver is cited because he is a reliable source, he is a reliable source because he is published in a peer reviewed journal. The points you make about his research may be valid, his sampling may well ahve been biased. But to claim this was deliberate amounts to slander does it not? Besides even if his sampling was biased it doesn't matter, you still need to produce a reliable source that makes this claim, your personal opinion, which appears to be based on the spurious belief that this work is somehow a personal insult to you, is irrelevant. Alun 13:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make this source your personal crusade for progress, then it ought to really save people. Chasing phantoms is no delight. It's like spam, with the facade of legitimacy. Savignac 13:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:John Ogbu.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Worth watching (and correcting) are edits by User: Mikmik2953. He's POV edit warring at Corn rows and Zahi Hawass and elsewhere. deeceevoice 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I Progress

Hi. I'm satified that the section we are working on is good enough to enter to the article, but I would have like to see broader participation if just for people to say it looks OK. I put a notice on everybody's page the other day, but no result. Do you think that we should wait or try to get our result put into the article and start a new section at MRG? If so should we take on the whole rest of the subsections at one time, or just one at a time? Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Per your message. Will do and agreed. --Kevin Murray 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate issue

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. THe other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)