User talk:Dark Tichondrias/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Seek Consensus on Changes to Asian Pages
You should discuss making such drastic changes on the topic's discussion board. It's obvious some people don't approve of your changes and will revert it. Plus, it looks as if you are vandalizing the articles. --Dangerous-Boy

Welcome to Wikipedia. I posted some info above on how the site works. I noticed that you believe passionately in some of the Census racial naming policies. However, before you unilaterily make such a large change, there needs to be consensus on the issue (see Consensus). To get consensus, raise the issue of racial and ethnic names on an article's talk page. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not put your personal opinion into articles. As strange as it may sound to you Wikipedia tries to be unbiased and factual source of information, not soapbox arena. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Your race-related edits
Please see Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. Basically, try to keep your edits neutral and cite sources for them. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! N (t/c) 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By "soapbox" I mean a place to air your personal beliefs. If you haven't already, refer to the above pages and No original research. N (t/c) 23:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You hover over virtually all race related pages and constantly reshape them to suit your point of view. Sorrowek 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is important to be neutral when editing and make Wikipedia represent the research of the most knowledgeable authorities in respective subjects.---Dark Tichondrias 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since User:Sorrowek did not cite any examples of me making race-related pages fit my views, I assume she is referring to the Mongoloid article she reverted. I added the Mongoloid article citation from the Greek Wikipedia, not knowing citations from other Wikipedias are not allowed.  This edit does not represent my point of view like User:Sorrowek claimed, but the view I assume the majority of Greek Wikipedians share.---Dark Tichondrias 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion location
Hi Dark Tichondrias, Thanks for contributing to the discussion about the pictures on Asian American, but could you keep your comments on that article's talk page instead of posting them to my personal talk page? I feel the discussion should all be over there so everyone can participate. Thanks! --Lukobe 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

census map
ok I took out Australia and added Hawaii. -- Astrokey44 |talk 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ok I put indonesia in the asian group -- Astrokey44 |talk 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of Template:2000USCensus
Hi. I see you've almost managed a revert war with yourself over whether Template:2000USCensus should be on Pacific Islander. It seems the choices for that template are all somewhat arbitrary. As it is a USA Census template, it should only be on USA-specific articles. For example remove it from Black (race) and put it on African American instead. Please consider removing it (again) from Pacific Islander and finding an NHOPI or Pacific American or similar article to put it on that relates specifically to people in the USA and its territories. Part of my concern for putting this template on these general articles is the mess we'd be in of every nation with a race question in their census tried to put a template that size on every article mentioned. Worse this particular template is for the 2000 census, suggesting there could be another one for the previous and next censuses. --Scott Davis Talk 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to get rid of "mongoloid"
Thanks for getting rid of "mongoloid"--I agree that the term is outdated. But in some cases, your replacements don't make sense. An example, in Korean people:

The "mongoloid" peoples of North Asia and Central Asia have relatively tall statures... ---> The Northern East Asian peoples of North Asia and Central Asia have relatively tall statures...

"Northern East Asian peoples of North Asia and Central Asia," as you can see, doesn't make any sense.

Can you fix the cases in which your edits make the sentences confusing?

--Lukobe 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad too, but like I said, your edits make the sentences confusing sometimes...could you address? --Lukobe 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Another example: in Sharchop, you changed Indo-Mongoloid to Indo-East Asian-looking. It's fine to eliminate "mongoloid" where appropriate, but you have to replace it with something that makes sense and is grammatical. --Lukobe 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of your other edits are problematical, too. As you've changed it, Northern Mongoloid's introduction violates Wikipedia style and is ungrammatical as well.
 * Carleton S. Coon defined the Mongoloid race, so the Northern Mongoloid is based off of his racial defintions...'
 * I'm reverting these kinds of changes where I see them. Happy to work with you on how your edits can be made without introducing these kinds of problems. --Lukobe 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

About "the racially insulting term"
Hi,

I have objected to your claim that "the racially insulting term" is "offensive" for the following reasons. Firstly it seems to be based on the fact that Down's syndrome was once called ""the racially insulting term"". For a start there are many similar terms that refer to nations and peoples negatively. Bugger derives from "Bulgar" because it was once believed to be a habit of Bulgarians. Syphilis was labelled "The French Disease" by the English and "the English disease" by the French. There is German Measles and Dutch Elm Disease. There is derogatory use of "Jewish" to mean miserly etc etc. Numerous other instance can be cited. In no case do we say that the original national/religious or whatever meaning has become "insulting" because it is used with a negative meaning in another context. The same applies to "Mongol". Mongolia is not changing its name is it? The Mongolians are no less proud to be called "Mongolian". Your whole argument is topsy-turvy. The term "Mongol" is no longer used for Down's syndrome because it is offensive to Mongolians. To assert that Mongol, Mongolian and "the racially insulting term" therefore become offensive terms is as illogical as saying that Jews should no longer be called "Jewish" because in some contexts the term is used offensively. And anyway, why single out ""the racially insulting term"" and ignore Mongol and Mongolian? People with DS, were actually usually called "mongols", not ""the racially insulting term"", so it's not even consistent. "the racially insulting term" is a term for a racial category defined by phenotype. Whether you think the name is appropriate or not is beside the point. That's what it's called. "Caucasian" is a pretty daft name too, but that's the one we have for that category. Whether or not you think the category is scientifially valid or not is also not relevant in this instance, since we are discussing a phenotype.

The problem with them like "South Asia" is that they are highly misleading. Yes, they can be used with a precisely delimited meaning, but the phrase itself just means "the southern part of Asia" - which might mean Korea, Japan or parts of China to most readers. India is far more useful, and historically has referred to the subcontinent as a whole, not just to the modern nation state. Objection to its use arise from political and ethnic struggles over labels, which result in the end with unhelpful and confusing terms like "South Asia", and barely intelligable sentences in which "South" "East" and "Southeast" Asia are throw together in a way that generates obscurity rather than clarity. Paul B 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's always tiresome when people start quoting general logical falacies, as though they apply to specific arguments which do not use the these fallacies. Perhaps I shall call it the fallacy of evading actual arguments by attaching labels of logical fallacies. Firstly the first point was clearly not a "slippery slope" argument. It was designed to emphasise that you are inverting logic by stating that an established meaning of a term in its established sense becomes derogatory because it is used in another context in a derogatory way. All these terms are equal in this respect. There is no "slope". The argument applies to all of them. There is no reason to stop calling Genghis Khan a Mongol on the grounds that it implies he is retarded. To do so would actually be an unsult to Mongolians and to the ethnic term that had been used for centuries. That's the central point you seem unable to recognise. The same argument applies to "the racially insulting term". No slope. This is the term for the racial category. "East Asian" is not established in this sense. It refers to geography. Many people placed in this phenotypical category do not live there.


 * As for the second argument, it was again about established usage. It is only an "argument from antiquity" in this sense, not in the sense you mean. That is, it says that this usage exists and is established. This is about language and about clarity. In the relevant page under discussion, the term is used for clarity and is specifically not exclusive, since the phrase "other peoples" is clearly added, indicating that the two terms used are given as the most important examples. Paul B 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you are shifting your ground. As I have already stated, it is a phenotypical category and it is still used in anthropology and taught in anthropology courses. It is not obsolete, though there is legitimate debate about its usefulness, and genetic arguments have been used to criticise the argument that anthropometrics can be used to accurately identify relatedness of populations. There is a legitimate debate here, but there is no clear consensus. Your evangelism on this topic is indicated by your unappropriate rewriting of my earlier comments to remove "Mongol" as a description of Gengis Khan and elsewhere on the page, despite the fact that this is a usage that is universally accepted. Paul B 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is most inappropriate to rewrite other people's comments, it gives a false impression to other about what they have said. And no, it is not taught as an obsolete category, though the problems with all models of racial classification are certainly discussed in any course. In fact the image on the "the racially insulting term" page comes from a current anthropology course. Paul B 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Dark Tichondrias, please see Talk_page_guidelines: "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context." --Lukobe 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About "Asia"
I think we need to go one step further. The word "Asia", applied to a disparate array of civilisations often with little in common culturally, politically, or ethnically, is a completely Eurocentric construct. We need to banish this conception from the English language as it is behind much of the kind of thinking found in the US and Western countries in general that belittles Asian contributions to world civilisation and gives an exaggerated position to Europe. Might I suggest that "Europe" should be renamed "Western Eurasia", the so-called "Far East" "Eastern Eurasia", and "Southeast Asia" "Southeastern Eurasia". We also need to come up with a new unambiguous term for the Middle East (sometimes called "Southwestern Asia"). The "Indian subcontinent" is also a problem as it includes the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are often hostile to India and do not necessarily want to be thrown in with it. How about "South Eurasian subcontintent"?

As for racial categories, perhaps "Mongoloid" could be replaced with "East Eurasian" (Southeast Eurasia can also be considered "eastern" and the peoples of Northeast Eurasia -- Siberia etc. -- are also considered to belong to the "Mongoloid" peoples.)

Bathrobe 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I refer to your comment on my user page: "I don't think the change will happen in Eurasia and I hope you don't change wiki around to confuse users to make it fit the Eurasia concept."


 * I was under the impression that you supported attempts to rectify such undesirable usages in Wikipedia. I guess I will have to seek support for my campaign elsewhere.

Bathrobe 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:RaceHist2000USCensus
I suggest you remove the US-centric column from this template, unless you restrict its placement to US-only articles, which you aren't doing... --Lukobe 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks man! --Lukobe 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AsianWhite.org
The page's Alexa ranking is in the 800,000s. We generally don't keep webpages that are above about 10,000 unless the webpage is demonstrated to have some other notability (major news coverage, being the leading source of info for a notable community, etc.) Nothing against the webpage, we just don't want to set a precedent for every webpage to try and have an article on Wikipedia. If you can dig up some verifiable sources of notability like what I mentioned above, bring them to the table in its deletion discussion.

Yellowworld.org Alexa rating
I thought Alexa ratings under 80,000 were acceptable for Wiki. What is the actual acceptable number? #--Dark Tichondrias 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is really no set barrier. Some people say that anything that is below 100,000 is OK, while others, like User:Grandmasterka above, think that only websites with rankings below 10,000 should generally be included. I tend to lean toward the latter view, but I don't have any exact cutoff. Because you seem to have object to the, though, I'll start an AFD. NatusRoma | Talk 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

MM
I have been meaning to write the article for a while. It's a start...--Rockero 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been merciless. Please check out the new version. Thx--Rockero 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. I was a little hasty.--Rockero 01:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

SOS
Regarding your edits to Save Our State: You have changed one section heading from "Alleged ties to extremist groups" to "Extremist Groups tag-along with SOS Activities" with the edit summary "changed title so it doesn't imply connections which are unfounded from evidence". In case you couldn't tell, this article was controversial at first, but after input from the various factions, we have been able to come up with a stable version. That is, everything in there is in there for a reason, and it's all worded in a certain way for a reason. I think the section title "Alleged ties to extremist groups" is adequate because while much has been made about connections, nothing has been proven definitively other than that there have been ties. While your phrasing may adequately reflect what SOS members say about their group, it is not "NPOV". It also minimizes the connections, which according to some sources, are substantial. I'm changing it back for now, and I invite you to make an argument on the talkpage in favor of your phrasing if you are inclined to do so, and then let the community decide. Thanks for your contributions,--Rockero 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

image permission
actually now Im not sure about that map since it is controversial. -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blumenbach's race is not the same as a Mongolian
Blah, sorry, Guess I should call it a night. I missed this part "It differs because it does not include Southeast Asians..." Carry on. :) Forgive my boneheadedness.  Wirewad 10:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of new race articles
Hi, I noticed that you have added a number of new race articles, such as Medish race, Xanthochroi race and Sudish race. Your source for this appears to be the website March of the Giants. This site does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards as regards reliable sources. Are you able to claim otherwise? --BillC 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. If the subjects you named are only referenced in March of the Giants and comparable sources, then articles on those subjects do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Do you agree? --BillC 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As per WP:RS, partisan websites should never be used as primary sources of information. In fact, the Stormfront Website is specifically mentioned as a website that should not be relied upon as a prmimary source. March of Giants appears to be a personal website, which is also forbidden per WP:RS. --BillC 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your civility. However, I must insist that you read through WP:RS, particularly with regard to web-based sources. I draw your attention to WP:RS, in which "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." The sources you have mentioned to me are exactly this: posts on bulletin boards. Wikipedia has no way of assessing the credibility of the information written there. --BillC 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for your civility. Articles can only be deleted by an administrator. I can place AfD or PROD notices against those articles, but the process would be considerable speeded up if you yourself were to place   templates at their start. If you don't want to do that, I can understand and will place the PROD notices myself. Thank you. --BillC 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You may have noticed that an administrator (I don't known whom) has already removed the two articles. I am calling it a night now, but I would welcome a discussion on Insensible race, Wood Eater race and the others in the morning. Regards, --BillC 23:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Historical definitions of race
Can you alphabetize this template? --Lukobe 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

''It is possible to alphabetize the template, but it is hard. Alphabetizing is not easy. If another race is added to the template, the whole thing has to be revised. All the races would have to be pushed down one if the new race started with an A. This is too much work for each new race. I plan on adding more historical definitions of race, so this would be too much work for each race. When the table is more complete, it would be beneficial for it to be alphabetized. -- Dark Tichondrias 09:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)''
 * How many more historical definitions of race do you plan to add? Do you think you should rethink that in light of the calls for deletion a number of your articles have garnered? --Lukobe 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think you may want to rethink this... --Lukobe 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I count over 50 articles in your template right now. I am sure there are going to be calls for, at the least, some of them to be merged... --Lukobe 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Climatic Zone race copyedit tags
''Yes, he actually considered them races. I rented a book from the library about the history of the idea of races. Other race scientists at the time commented on his racial system. One said his defintions were foolish. You can remove the copyedit template if this is why you added it. -- Dark Tichondrias 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)''
 * No, that isn't why I added -- I did so because those articles need copyediting to conform to encyclopedic style... --Lukobe 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloid page map
Hey, cool map on human demographic races. But shouldn't the "east African mixed" part also include the Sudan? And also, I would've thought that the "threshold" between the Caucasian and Asian populations be more to the west, including all of Central Asia excluding Tajikistan, up to the Urals? Did Carleton Coon come up with your exact map?Le Anh-Huy 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernier
Could you please elaborate on the historical context of François Berniers racial map ? For the sake of the article ? (84.193.163.31 10:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Removal of Template
Another user told me the template was wrong again, but he was not specific enough. He said the Mongoloid went as far as the Ural mountain range. I thought I made them go that far on the map. What is still wrong? -- Dark Tichondrias 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That part is fine, it's just that the Horn of Africa (a very controversial area wrt its classification) is "Caucasoid" according to Coon's map, whereas your map has it "Negroid." Since it says it is based on Coon, it should reflect that. Yom 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancestor worship
There is ancestor worship in the The Indian Subcontinent. --Dangerous-Boy 08:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Asian Race
Hi, I saw your site and noticed that you say Taoism is an offshoot of Confucianism, which is wrong. It is more likely to be the other way. See the Wikipedian articles for proof. Thanks GizzaChat  &#169; 08:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Template_talk:Historical_definitions_of_race
Dark Tichondrias, would you care to comment at Template_talk:Historical_definitions_of_race on the proposed conversion of your template to a category? --Lukobe 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Race (historical definitions)
Hello again. I said I would get back to you on your race definition articles. There are a number of issues here, but one of the most important ones is that most of the articles give no context to assert the notability of their subjects. For example, Wood Eater race says in its entirety "Anthropologist James Burnett also known as Lord Monboddo in his book Of the Origin and Progress of Language (1773) defined the semi-human Wood Eaters." We are not told: How did he define them? What differentiated them from other races? Is this race definition still considered valid by anthropologists? If not, when did it fall into disfavour? Who else has commented on this race definition? Did Burnett actually consider that they ate wood? Where were the wood-eaters based? What language did he suppose them to speak? On what evidence did he base his conclusions? And, most important of all: how historically important is this race definition?

You see, without any of this information, all we have is a single sentence that says 'someone in the eighteenth century defined a race'. To be blunt, I have the feeling that quite a few of these many historical race definitions would not survive AfD discussions. What should we do? --BillC 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most of these newly created race articles need to be folded into the main articles for the people who defined those races. --Lukobe 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, Capoid, and Negroid have their own page even though they are part of Carleton S. Coon's system, the other races should have their own page. If the races defined by Carleton S. Coon were all merged to his page, then it would be acceptable to do the same thing to the other race articles. -- I believe your logic here is faulty. There is plenty to say about Carleton S. Coon's races other than the fact that he defined them. There is hardly anything to say about the Wood Eaters race other than, as BillC puts it, "someone in the eighteenth century defined a race." Coon's races have large articles; the Wood Eaters article, for example, will never be anything more than a stub. --Lukobe 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll find some more information on Wood Eaters if I do more research.' -- Is that likely? --Lukobe 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is that we don't think there's enough significance here to make an article. This seems to have been a once-off statement by Burnett, a man who was once described by Dr Samuel Johnson as "a man who talks a great deal about nonsense and doesn't know it". We could easily have a thousand articles on the subjects of once-off racial classifications. What is there that demonstrates the significance of this racial classification? Please understand that the comments you have been receiving on this and other issues are not the result of people trying to get at you, but rather that you should consider whether or not these contributions are encyclopaedic material. Perhaps they could be brought together in one article that in itself would be encyclopaedic? --BillC 04:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is important to have an extensive listing of historical race scientists racial classification schemes, becuase it is shows classification is just an opinion. From the book Race The History of an Idea in America, there are records of race scientists disagreeing with each other. Historical race scientists disagreed with each other on who were included in what races and how many races existed. This does not make one historical race system more important than another. All racial classification schemes are important because they show there are no objective races. This is why every historical racial classification scheme is beneficial to have in an encylcopedia.
 * I'd like to second what BillC says much more eloquently than I--we don't necessarily dispute that having this sort of information in Wikipedia is important and useful, but we disagree on the best way it should be presented. You think it's better to have a multiplicity of short articles, we favor fewer longer articles. People may even be more likely to come across your information if you fold it into the longer articles, which have multiple links pointing to them. Many of your new articles, on the other hand, appear to be linked to from nowhere. --Lukobe 06:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The Mongoloid article is 17kB; which makes it neither a long nor a short article. No-one, least of all Lukobe or I, is suggesting it be shortened. The reason why Mongoloid is not 'as short as all the other race articles' you have created is because the topic has significance: the material is encyclopaedic. Wood Eater race, at least in its present state, does not. This issue is not about Mongoloid, but rather the multitude of articles you have created, that lack incoming links, context or any assertion of the significance of their subject matter. --BillC 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the reason [Mongoloid] is long is not because the "topic has significance"...[Wood eaters and other similar racial classifications] have the same context as Coon's system. They are historical races nobody believes in anymore.
 * I must disagree. As Race (historical definitions) says, Coon's system is "the most widely referenced 20th century racial classification." It is the one most people know and think in terms of. But I think we're getting slightly off the point here. I can do no better than echo what BillC writes immediately above... --Lukobe 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)