User talk:Dark Tea/Archive 2

Template:Thomas HuxleyCarolus Linnaeus Racial Definitions

Hi dark tea, I look forward to your "Platonic Racial Definitions with Australia" template. Fred ☻ 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "necessarily" in East Asia article

Hi Dark Tea. I wanted to bring your attention to my undoing of one of your edits in case I misunderstood your intention. You removed the word "necessarily" from the second sentence in this sequence: "In the various "Color" terminology for race, indigenous East Asians are often thought of as the "yellow people" or the "yellow race" in Western culture. East Asians themselves don't necessarily use these terms to refer to themselves." Your comment says "removed the word "necessarily" per WP:WTA on absolutes which advance a point of view."

Actually, removing the word makes the sentence absolute, because it is preceded by "not." So the previous version of the sentence suggests that some East Asians refer to themselves with the terms "yellow people" or "yellow race," whereas the version without "necessarily" states that no East Asians refer to themselves that way. Although the color terms are definitely controversial in East Asia, some East Asians do use them. Japanese rappers, for example, frequently call themselves "kin iroi yatsu" (yellow guys), especially when calling for uniquely Japanese or pan-Asian hip-hop practices.

I wonder, however, if we even need to bring this up on the East Asia entry? Frankly, I'm not sure why the color terminology is even there. Any objections to removing it altogether?Rikyu 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to removing it altogether.----^DarkTea 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for your input. Rikyu 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mix" Argument

Dear Dark Tea. Just letting you know that researches such as this and others show there's no such thing as the "Pure Caucasoid" individual. One-drop rule strictly applied in light of such DNA tests shows, for example, that a significant number of White Americans have some sub-Saharan African or Native American ancestry, and leaves few perfectly White-looking people in your definition of the Caucasoid category. Also, regarding the long obsolete 1890 ethnography map, it shows the coexistence of Aryan and Dravidian people in North India, and not necessarily their mixing. Your edits also contradict what the text of the article has to say. Please consider reverting your edits. deeptrivia (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that some Northwest Indians are not mixed with Dravidians, then it would be OR to have an editor decipher the race of a Northwest Indian.----^DarkTea 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please read Caucasian Race about South Asians. It is well documented that Indo-Aryans, like the rest of Indo-Iranians are Caucasian. On the other hand, the picture that really ought to be removed is probably the Kalash girl. This is what the article on Kalash people says: "However, recent genetic testing among the Kalash population has shown that they are, in fact, a distinct (and perhaps aboriginal) population with only minor contributions from outside peoples. In one cluster analysis with K = 7, the Kalash form one cluster, the others being Africans, Europeans/Middle Easterners/South Asians, East Asians, Melanesians, and Native Americans." deeptrivia (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is well documented that the original Indo-Aryans were Caucasian until they moved into India and mixed with the Dravidians. If Kalash are relatively unmixed with Dravidians, this says nothing about the rest of the inhabitants of India.----^DarkTea 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite some references that state that Indo-Aryans ceased to be Caucasians once they moved to India. Also, in that case, please propose to remove the statements from reliable sources all over wikipedia that say that Indo-Aryans are Caucasians. Exteranl sources like this would all agree too. And the Kalash unmixing argument says that they are aboriginals, and therefore not Caucasians. Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add an image again, as I think it adds value to the article by addressing a common confusion that White is synonymous with Caucasian race, and because there is no ambiguity in reliable sources regarding ambiguity of Indo-Aryans being Caucasians. You are welcome to discuss this issue on the talk page. Please do not remove the image before discussing. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the Indo-Aryans moved into India they were doubtlessly still Caucasians. Only when they mixed with Dravidians did they stop becoming Caucasian. Regardless of what other articles on Wikipedia say, Wikipedia cannot be used a source for itself. Dr. Koenraad Est with a masters in Indo-Iranian Studies and a Ph.D. in Hindu Revivalism says, link says, If an Aryan or other invasion is assumed, this evidence shows that all castes are biologically the progeny of both invaders and natives, though perhaps in different proportions. Conversely, if the genetic distance between two castes is small, this still leaves open the possibility that the castes or their communal identities can nonetheless have divergent origins, even foreign versus native, although these are obscured to the geneticist by centuries of caste mixing. ----^DarkTea 19:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatvani, Voiceofdharma, and other 'Hindu revivalist' websites are not reliable sources on wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. Please read the source you yourself cited again. It says: "The Caucasoids are found practically all over the country" . Please check dictionary definitions, such as this and this. I'm not saying there's no mixing, but only that there has been mixing all over the world, and such mixing is not much relevant in defining the term. Little while ago, you wrote in one of the edit summaries that the court rulings found Indians to be Caucasians. Please make up your mind and be clear about it in light of all these sources. I can mention more sources if you want. I hope you at least read the first sentence of the article. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Notice Dr. Koenraad Elst is not a Hindu Revivalist, although he received his Ph.D. in Hindu Revivalism, but is disciplined in Indo-Iranian studies. While it is true Elst claims that the Caucasoids are found all over India, he also claims India is wholly mixed in different proportions. It is possible to label a person "Caucasoid" when they have Dravidian ancestry as well. That is to say there are many Caucasoids in India and many Dravidians. It's just that they overlap because they're mixed. The Supreme Court a while back found Indians to be Caucasian in race. This says nothing since it also found them to be Asian in race which holds to current times. Of course, you'll find other sources for both POVs because it's a contentious issue. I don't feel the picture should be in the article, unless it illustrates the debate.----^DarkTea 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no debate among scholars on this. This issue is pretty clear. Indo-Aryans are Caucasians, and nobody denies this. Even the supreme court decisions were about white or not white, as you correctly pointed out. You have not shown a single source claiming that they ceased to be Caucasians at any point. Even the mixing argument is not based on any evidence or source. The sources, are, in fact, contrary: "Thus (according to Sengupta et al. 2006) current upper Aryan castes in India mostly contain Y-haplogroups R1a1 (45%), R2 (16%) and H (13%). The Aryan tribal groups and lower castes actually consist of subdued Dalits and possibly mysterious Dasya, as the high presence of H (24-33%) and R1a1 (10-26%) shows. Dravidian lineages (L, J2a) are generally rare in Indian Aryans (but possibly much common in Pakistan), which also indicates that Dravidians didn't occupy the whole territory of India before the Aryan invasion - only the Indus Valley." deeptrivia (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Indo-Aryans ceased to be Caucasian. The Indo-Aryans are Caucasian, but their progeny with Dravidians are not. The Elst source shows this. I would like to WP:V your "Sengupta" source. What is its URL?----^DarkTea 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is from the American Journal of Human Genetics:

Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Mehdi SQ, Edmonds CA, Chow CE, Lin AA, Mitra M, Sil SK, Ramesh A, Usha Rani MV, Thakur CM, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Majumder PP, Underhill PA, : "Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists." American Journal of Human Genetics, 2006, p. 202-221

Let me summarize again:

Most dictionary definitions, encyclopedia articles and other sources (such as this and this) include most present Indians, with all the "mixes", in the Caucasian category. This includes the definition that has been the opening statement of this article for years. This by itself should have been enough.

Research shows all people are mixed to some extent. There's nothing like pure Caucasians. So, the argument that mixing makes the current Indo-Aryans of S. Asia (which are always still identified Indo-Aryans and not as something else) non-Caucasians does not hold any more than the statement that current Europeans are non-Caucasian.

In any case, peer reviewed research like that by Sengupta shows that the mixing has been rare.

Contrary to your interpretation, Koenraad Elst (I'm quite familiar with this beliefs), is suggesting something totally different in the article you cited. He's giving evidence in support of the Out of India theory that claims that all Caucasians originated in India (see also Indigenous Aryans (India)).

Think about it with an open mind, there's always something new to learn. deeptrivia (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you want the definition of a Caucasian to be anybody with at least partial Caucasian ancestry. Don't add a picture of a person with a strongly Dravidian appearence, because it may not be true that they would have Caucasian ancestry.----^DarkTea 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the definition to be such-and-such, and what I "want" the definition to be, or what "I think" the correct definition is, is not relevant on wikipedia. As all sources point out, and as the article already correctly states, most South Asians belong to the category. It could turn out that the Indian girl's appearance is more Caucasian than that of the European girl's appearance, based on the criteria the anthropologists use to define the category (e.g. relative proportions of bone sizes in the skull, etc.) I wonder what criteria did you employ in concluding that she had a strongly Dravidian appearance. deeptrivia (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources say that most Indians are Caucasian because most (maybe all) Indians are Caucasian/Dravidian mixes. Consequently, I feel that your picture would be alright if the person didn't look all Dravidian, because it may not be true that s/he would have Caucasian ancestry.----^DarkTea 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Mongoloid people in India (Indo Mongoloid). However, let me assure you that the distinction between Caucasian and non-Caucasian is not based on skin color, and Rajasthanis are all Caucasians. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assure you Rajasthanis are all Caucasian, because India is mostly if not all Caucasian/Dravidian mixes.----^DarkTea 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're all mixes. There are no pure races. It's only the extent of mixing that counts, and the mixing has been rarer between Caucasian/Dravidian than between Caucasians and other groups like Negroid or Native American in Europe/America. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many times people with partial Indian ancestry choose to identify only with their native side. Similarly, many times people with partial African ancestry choose to identify only with their African side. It is okay for people in India to identify only with their Caucasian side.----^DarkTea 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Corticopia

Users are allowed to blank their talk pages - constantly reverting to add an archive is disruptive and rude, and will not be permitted to continue. Cheers, Wily D 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette, racist

See what he wrote, and look at his edit history. I'm sick of this crap. You don't know the whole story. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europid

I noticed Europid. Do you think that there is really much reason to have a "definition" article about a term that doesn't appear to be widespread? It seems that WP:NEO is particularly relevant. Maybe it is better for Wiktionary? The Behnam 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it belongs in Wiktionary. It is not widespread.----^DarkTea 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning at User talk:Godongwana

I fully support the warning you gave (since blanked) the above editor for the vandalism of User:Baron von Washington's talkpage. It may, however, have been prudent to remove the vandalism as well. I have now done so. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 14:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Is it possible that you link the "Tea" part of your signature to your talk page instead of linking both to your user page? To read the Europid response I clicked the second one expecting it to go to talk like most people's sigs. I'm on dialup so the big picture on your user page slows things, and besides, I wanted to go to talk not user page. Also, about your user page, why does it say "actor or actress" Tobey Maguire? It seems like he is an actor (not an actress) based on his article. Is that userbox supposed to be some kind of disparaging joke? The Behnam 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox is template. I can't change the she/he part.----^DarkTea 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my signature.----^DarkTea © 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Behnam 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black people

I have modified the lead so that it says exactly what the Dictionary.com reference you cited is saying. The existing sentence had several problems.

First, the definition on that reference talks about "various 'populations' characterized by dark skin pigmentation" not "any individuals with dark skin." There is a big difference between the two.

Second, regardless of what you claimed in the edit summary, the word South Asia, or India, or Indian subcontinent, or Asia, or any related term appears nowhere in that citation.

Hopefully you'll be a bit more careful in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks i did not know how to do the sig Ishmaelblues 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha...

Thanks for correcting me, there. I misread, thought it was altitudes, not latitudes. Thanks for fixin' it, though. Lychosis ^T/C 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny C. McGinley

Hi friend, [1] - Just thought I'd tell you that that is actually a film that he was in :-D - I know how it looks like vandalism but it's not :-) The anon who added it in also said something about it on the article discussion page before adding it in. But good stuff for keeping an eye open! Scarian ^Talk 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White people

You might want to take a look. Rubenstein and others are POV-pushing after fourdee and Karen were banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people MoritzB 20:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the genetics section you removed: The previous version was written by Muntuwandi. It was full of original research and utter crap. However, I spent hours making it good. Cavalli-Sforza and other population geneticists do speak of "whites". MoritzB 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources did not seem reliable. Many of the sources that were cited for that section were Sforza's books. One of the sources was a pay-per-view online newspaper. I could not personally verify either of these types of sources. The internet source that I could access was an analysis of Cavalli-Sforza which used the term white, although it is unclear whether or not Sforza used the term in the original source. Anyways, Sforza's work is 20 years old about a science which is relatively new and ongoing, so I don't consider it to be a reliable source.----^DarkTea © 21:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidistan

Hi, Could you explain your reverts on the talk page? Also, where's the anti-dravidian commentary you mention in the edit summary? Lotlil 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wobble

I appreciate your concern but it was not a personal attack. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Behnam

Behnam removed neutral POV cited material and made very clearly false OR claims (that South Asia and Southern Asia). Isn't deleting non-controversial cited information vandalism. People got in trouble for removing Afghanistan and Iran from the South Asia page in the past, why shouldn't he/she. Thegreyanomaly 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are two different terms, then it doesn't appear to be original research. If they were the same terms and s/he claimed that there were two different meanings, then it would be original research. Arguing that people got in trouble for doing the same thing in the past does not matter unless it was grounded on policy.----^DarkTea © 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Southern Asia is just another way of saying South Asia, its not a different term. Thegreyanomaly 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making the original research now?----^DarkTea © 07:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is also that s/he REMOVED neutral POV citations to support his/her view without give any support that his/her view is correct. There were four citations up there that support a concept that Afghanistan is South Asian (they say South not Southern, so it does not support his/her two definition claim) and s/he still took it off. Thegreyanomaly 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite puzzling. It is not clear to me now that there is a distinction between the two terms.----^DarkTea © 08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

basically what s/he did was that s/he moved Iran to Southern Asia and completely removed Afghanistan (which I had plenty of citations for). The removal of cited information seems to be what I most can call vandalism. He also has reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAsian_capitals&diff=155371612&oldid=155338667 two times already (and I believe multiple times in the past 70.48.244.95). I warned him of 3RR in case he strikes again soon. He removes sourced information claiming he has superior sources, but does not show these sources... Thegreyanomaly 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Afghanistan should be part of South Asia. User:Beh-nam is the Afghanistani, so it's her/his race. S/he probably has a good reason for removing Afghanistan.----^DarkTea © 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources from many, many universities and the UN that claim Afghanistan is South Asian. I did add a section to the page that talks about the controversy over the definition of South Asia. Whether Afghanistan should or should not be South Asian isn't the real question, the question is is it or is it not, and so far the scholars are saying it is. The Pashtuns (Afghans) are also the second largest group in Pakistan and those Pashtuns are considered South Asian. Thegreyanomaly 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notifiying about a vote

Hello. The article Stereotypes of whites, which you helped writing, is being nominated for deletion. If you want, you could state your opinion here. Thank you. M.V.E.i. 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results for AfD on Dravidian civilizations article

Hi,

Here is the outcome of the final decision for AfD on the Dravidian civilizations article:

“

The result was no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep. This is most certainly not a 'hoax'; there are plenty of sources to show that this is a valid concept. However, the views of the Community were split down the middle with strong opinions on both sides. What is clear is that there are significant parts of the article that are disputed and the way forward is for those concerned editors to initiate a thorough-going rewrite. TerriersFan 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

Wiki Raja 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so interested in races?

Why do you only edit articles about classifying races? Don't misunderstand; I'm sure you do a lot of useful work on these articles; I'm just curious why you devote your edits exclusively to this topic.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People like myself who primarily edit articles on race are racialists. These people believe that there is a significance to race. I am not willing to disclose any further details.----^DarkTea © 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an acknowledgement that this is, indeed, a single purpose account. Nevertheless, you seem like a conscientious editor with a deep knowledge of your subject of interest and a concern for sources and site policy. I don't really understand the ditzy girl facade on your user page (are most other "racialists" 22-year-old girls with distorted Asian features who spend their time watching Spongebob Squarepants and longing for cuddly boyfriends?[2]), but I suppose this is some sort of attempt at humor. My user page has its share of tasteless jokes as well, so I shan't call the kettle black. Cheers, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi Dark Tea, I have a couple of questions regarding a map you uploaded and then redrew. The images in question are Image:Louis Agassiz Racial Definition Map.png and it's precursor Image:Louis Agassiz Racial Definition Map.JPG. Firstly, regarding the source of the information, you state that it is "A map of the racial definitions of the historical race scientist Louis Agassiz" as a description, but you do not state where you got the information. I do not dispute that this information is correct, but I think we need to cite this information to a reliable source. As such I have placed a {{fact}} tag on the article Race (historical definitions) article for this map. Can you remember where this information came from? We need to be able to verify that this is indeed an accurate representation of Luis Agassiz's work, for this we need a citation for the map. Thanks for any help you can provide. As a second point I'd like to ask if you think there is a difference between your first map and your second map? It seems to me that the first map shows the British Isles and south eastern Europe (Italy, the Balkans and Greece) as different to other Europeans. On the first map the British Isles and south eastern Europe are coloured grey, whereas the rest of Europe is coloured black, on the second version the whole of Europe is black, including the British Isles and south eastern Europe. Is there a reason for this or is it merely a mistake on the first version? Thanks for any help. All the best. Alun 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, the citation Template:François Bernier Racial Definitions is a dead link. Can you remember what the source was? A proper cite would be best rather than a simple link. We need to be able to verify this as well. Cheers. Alun 08:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information was from a book on the history of race from the library. There were no maps in the book, so I made the maps based on the descriptions provided in the text. I do not know off hand if there was enough information provided in the racial descriptions to distinguish if one of those two maps is in error. If I had to take a guess, the earlier one is more representative of the claims in the book, since I made it when the descriptions were still fresh in my mind. I will rent the book again for the citation and to reintroduce the racial definitions that have been removed. A bunch of editors decided that the maps weren't in-line with Wikipedia policy. I plan to integrate the book's definitions of race back into the article in a text-based form.----^DarkTea © 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Alun 08:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I noticed that you modified Image:Francois Bernier Racial Definitions.jpg to reduce the area that the Sami (Laps) occupy because Lukas19 claimed that Sami only live in northern Scandinavia. I think there are several reasons why this was a mistake:

You should display the region as it is explained/shown in the original source, your source is your reference. Editors do not represent reliable sources. Even if the source is incorrect, it doesn't matter, it is what Francois Bernier thought represented his "Lappish race" and not what Lukas19 thinks is the extent of the modern Sami ethnic group, that the map should portray.
People who identify with the modern Sami ethnic group currently live in the northern most parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and western Russia, forming a contiguous geographic area. But this hasn't always been the case. Over the past several hundred years the area that this ethnic group inhabits has receded northwards as other ethnic groups have encroached on their traditional lands. It may well be the case that when Bernier made his map the region the Sami inhabited extended considerably further south than the region they inhabit today.
The modern Sami are an ethnic group, i.e. they represent a cultural and social group and not a "racial" group. It may be that the modern day criteria for identifying Sami people are considerably more stringent than those criteria that Bernier used. I don't know that Bernier's criteria were, but he may have used criteria that would include people as part of his "Lappish race" that would not themselves have identified as ethnically Sami. This is especially the case if, for example, many people who are the direct descendants of Sami have adopted a "Scandinavian" cultural identity and are not identified as Sami in the modern world. Interestingly Y chromosome analysis shows that the dominant haplogroup in Finland in haplogroup N, which is also high in Sami people and Scandinavia, but is very uncommon in other parts of Europe, so there may well be considerable common descent between Scandinavians and Sami people, even if this is not apparent from an ethnic point of view (map of haplogroup N). This is particularly relevant in Finland and Estonia, where the Sami language and the Finnish and Estonian languages are all Uralic languages and not Indo-European languages.

Sorry to go an a bit, just thought it was worth mentioning. I know you as a good faith and conscientious editor and hope you take my comments in good faith as they are intended. All the best. Alun 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish edit

Hi Dark Tea, in Asian Fetish at 03:09, 26 May 2007 you attributed a "many thinks..." argument to Vicky Nam. This argument is now marked as "citation needed". Does it comes from Vicky Nam's YELL-oh Girls, cited in the next paragraph? Could you please take a second and confirm that the "many -> Vicky Nam" attibution was not an error? Sorry, please don't be offended, I just want to sort out the sources correctly in this article :) Kaitenbushi 11:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have assumed that it came from the book that followed it. I have not read the book, so I cannot confirm whether it is in there or not.----^DarkTea © 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick reply. Kaitenbushi 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australoid

This is marginal research, being presented as fact. Coon, for example, can only be referenced for Coon's article. His 'theories' are not accepted by other anthropologists. This was established in arbitration and elsewhere. I am happy to take this to a forum for discussion, the assertions are fringe or original research. Cygnis insignis 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertions are certaintly not the latter; all of them are cited and quotations. It is not a fringe theory to describe the indigenous peoples of India as Australoid. They look just like indigenous Australians. They both have black skin, wavy hair or straight black hair, large eyes, prominant browridges, wide noses with flaring nostrils, a medium prominance of the nasal root and big lips. Why do you believe that these two populations do not resemeble each other?----^DarkTea © 05:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you and I believe is neither here not there?! In any case all humans resemble each other, any contentious research that suggests otherwise is neither scientific or systematic. If it is race, it comes down to genetics, and that shows there is only one race of humans on the planet. No substantial research has suggested otherwise and similarity is a specious basis for this marginal research. Your desciption could describe many ethnicities, how this is accounted for is not explained. I mean no offence in challenging your beliefs, but it is not supported by anyone except the highly selective researchers presented in bold type. They were presented in the article as spokespersons for the current paradigm, this is false. They are not even found to be in accord. Shall we take this to the fringe theory notice board? Cygnis insignis 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This passage, "What you and I believe is neither here not there?!", sounds like a riddle. Please explain it. "[t]he highly selective researchers presented in bold type" were not being presented as current authorities; the date of their anthopological publication was presented along with their name, placing all their theories in perspective. You said something which I disagree with, "If it is race, it comes down to genetics". Do you only believe that this race is a fringe theory which would be untenable or do you believe all typological race Caucasoid, Mongoloid, race in forensic anthropology, Negroid, Capoid, Australoid articles should be deleted? It is unclear why you would single out the Australoid race as a fringe theory. Note, Australoid is just as noteworthy in history as Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid.----^DarkTea © 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projects

I think you need to coordinate major changes with other editors rather than carrying them out impulsively, and that it might be useful for you to participate in the WikiProjects covering your areas of interest, such as:

--JWB 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetans as South Asians on Template:Asian Americans

I have never seen a single source identifying Tibetans are East Asians. I have only seen them consulted as South Asians or Central Asians. Please consult South Asia for my list of sources identifying Tibetans as South Asian. The document attached listed Tibetans as Other Asians, so I will shift Tibetan Americans to other Thegreyanomaly 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the document put them as Other Asians rather than South Asians, then that is where they should go.----^DarkTea © 08:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the document put everyone but South Asians under other Asians. In my mind the only reason that Tibetans were not under South Asians was because it would have angered the Chinese government Thegreyanomaly 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of racist publishers

I notice you are citing not the legitimate 1915 edition of Gobineau, but a reprint from Noontide Press, the publishing arm of the Institute for Historical Review, both founded by the leading organizer of modern American anti-Semitism, Willis Carto. I changed the cite in Caucasian race, but it is still there in Mongoloid race and who knows where else.

Are you purchasing from these Nazis? Somehow I doubt their books are stocked in libraries. --JWB 09:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the citation to cite Google books in the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Historical definitions of races in India articles.----^DarkTea © 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case

I have closed your sockpuppet case. I decided that even though the accounts involved committed infractions of editing policy, enough time has past since the last time they edited that blocks are not necessary. Please keep an eye on them, however, and let me know if further corrective action may be needed. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award

Hope you like the barnstar. Keep up the good work! Wiki Raja 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race - India section

Excuse me Dark Tea, nobody said anything about Indians being 'pure Caucasians'. I certainly didn't. It seems as though you have a hidden agenda - to push your numerous citations in the hope of proving that Indians aren't 'pure' Caucasians. Who said anything about 'pure Caucasians'? Now, if we're talking about what is laughable, your 'pure Caucasian' remark takes the biscuit.

That section is far too specific to be on a general page about the Mongoloid Race. By all means add it to a page specific to the racial make up of India. Why justs single out ONE country? Why not add sections equal in length about other nations with Mongoloid influence such as China, Japan, North and South Korea and the nations of South East Asia? Why not comment on the Mongoloid influence in Central Asia and Western Asia, such as the Hazaras, of Persianised Mongol origin.

In fact, your remark was overtly aggressive, especially the 'face it' part. It seems like the only person worried about making people aware of how im'pure' Indians are is you.

Face it.

I'm removing the section. Add it to an India - specific page. That is where it belongs.

Toodles.

Pureaswater 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my Indian friend. You are not all Caucasians. Deal with this truth. The Mongoloid racial composition of India does not belong on the India article. It belongs on the Mongoloid race article.----^DarkTea © 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid race, 3rr

Hi. I hate to butt in like this, but y'all are going into an edit war and are perilously close to violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I would suggest that you leave the article alone for 24 hours and use the time to discuss a compromise, seek a neutral third party, and just gain a sense of perspective. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race - India section

Haha.

I'm not even Indian!

I KNOW all Indians aren't Caucasian. In fact, the overwhelming majority aren't. Only specific populations such as the Punjabis can lay claim to being Caucasian, and they represent a small minority on the Indian Subcontinent, so that's not saying much is it.

If you want to be so painstakingly specific, then add large sections about the Mongoloid influence of all other nations that have a degree of Mongoloid influence, such as the Far East, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia, and parts of Western Asia.

That is completely reasonable.

Otherwise, stop singling out India on pages non-specific to nations. You're pushing an agenda that is painfully obvious for all to see.

Maybe you should create a page on the racial make up of India where your information would sit more comfortably.

Many thanks,

Pureaswater 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will add the Central Asians and parts of West Asia to the Mongoloid article sometime in the future.----^DarkTea © 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race - India section

I understand.

For the time being, I think its best to leave out the section on India until all other sections about other nations with Mongoloid influence are added, so that there is a balance.

I just want to clarify something. I am not trying to push the 'all Indians are Caucasian' lie. That's absolutely ridiculous. As I stated before, the overwhelming majority of Indians are definitely not Caucasoid by any definition of the term. The only populations with the Caucasian label in India are the Punjabis and Kashmiris, and they only number roughly around 40 million in India, which is tiny, compared to over 1 billion people.

The vast overwhelming majority of people on the Indian Subcontinent are by no means Caucasian.

I'm glad we both agree on that.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iseebias

This guy appears to be launching an attack on the Asian Americans article, attempting to remove Indian American content. Considering that you appear to be his lead opponent, I feel you should know. I, as an Indian American, have been considered Asian American by most of the people around me, and the buffoonery of people such as Iseebias enrages me. Thegreyanomaly 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Asian pride

An editor has nominated Asian pride, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Music Charts

Hi, I'm just writing to you to request your help and assistance in referencing the Japanese Music Charts. Through out alot of popular english songs I have viewed I have noticed that they have been noted as performing well in Japan and have also read that the Japanese music market it very big. But in saying this every song I have seen has not got a Japanese chart position in the charts box. So if you are into music and willing to try and provide information on the Japanese Music Charts it would be greatly appreciated so then wikipedia users can start adding the Japanese chart positions into the chart boxes for popular songs. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]