User talk:Epf/Archive 1

Image:IMG 4268.jpg
Hi, could you please add a little bit about why you claim that anybody can use this photo for any purpose? I'm afraid I can't find any such statement on the website, VirtualCivilWar. Regards, Thuresson 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I worked at the Old Fort Erie historical site for quite a few summers and and have contacts with the current management there. I also keep in touch with some reenactors who come for various historical events there during the summer. Mike Lynaugh, the person who took this photograph, assured me in an e-mail that it is copyrighted and available for use on other web pages provided he is accredited. Epf 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Italian people
Hi Evan :-) Luckly, we don't need a list of famous Italians under Italian people, because a seperate article which records notable Italians already exist under List of Italians. But the list desperately needs working on, so contributing to it would be much appreciated. Bye, and don't have problems sending me a message if you want help or advice! Aldux 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My name is Mike Lynaugh and I am the photographer of the photograph in question, it is ok that it is displayed here, permission was requested. It is also true that it is ok for people to display my photograph if they like, provided they give me credit as the photographer. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to contact me at mike@mikelynaugh.com

Mike

France
The 40% figure comes from a study by INED. Chronique de l'immigration : les populations d'origine étrangère en France métropolitaine / Michèle Tribalat. - tabl. Enquête "Mobilité géographique et insertion sociale" Sujet spécial du "Vingt-cinquième rapport sur la situation démographique de la France" Bibliogr. Population, revue de l'INED, n° 1, janvier-février 1997, p. 163-219

This study is not available online. You can find a mention of the fact that more than a third of people born in France between 1880 and 1980 had foreign parents of grandparents here. Hardouin 13:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My nationality or ethnicity is totally irrelevant. INED is a very serious research institute. As for Quid, it is a trusted reference encyclopedia, and your accusations of bias are a bit bizarre. Finally, the 40% figure is not at all "ludicrous". So many French people have foreign ancestry: Henri Krasucki had Polish ancestry, Yves Montand Italian ancestry, Charles Aznavour Armenian ancestry, Edouard Balladur Armenian ancestry, Nicolas Sarkozy Hungarian ancestry, Baron de Rotschild German Jewish ancestry, Irène Joliot Curie Polish ancestry, General de Gaulle Irish ancestry, Charlotte Gainsbourg English ancestry and Ukrainian Jewish ancestry, the list is very long. Hardouin 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Should note that several of the ancestry in these people is to a lesser degree than their respective French ancestries and these are a minor example of certain noteworthy French people. Also, the INED and Quid sources are non-existent on the France and France Demographics pages amd Quid is not a trusted reference encyclopedia considering their facts on ethnicity have no reference/source.

I see you also deleted the fact that this figure is comparable to North America. It is. The figure says 40% of French people have ancestors who were not living in France in 1850. Please remember that a good deal of the ancestors of Americans and Canadians were already living in these countries in 1850. For instance in Canada 25% of the population descends from French Canadian who were already in Canada in 1850. A good deal of Canadians with English and Irish ancestry had also their ancestors already in Canada in 1850. Same in the US. So the fact that 40% have ancestors who were not present in France in 1850 is quite comparable to North America. Hardouin 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The date 1850 is already specified, if you care to read in detail. You say all Americans and Canadians have foreign ancestors. But so is the case in France! If you go back long enough in time, everybody in every country have ancestors from abroad. So it's a bit silly to say that. 1850 is a relevant date, because that's when modern migration to France started. Hardouin 16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All French have foreign ancestors ? Everybody in every country have ancestors from abroad ? Obviously this guy Hardouin has a multi-racialist and assimilationist political agenda. The French language originated from the indigenous French peoples, not the 19th century migrants. The indigenous French people trace their ancestry in France back over a thousand years. Non-native peoples in the Americas can only trace their ancestry back there 400 years at best, and thats only a small minority who have an ancestor in America before the massive migrations of the 18th-20th centuries.


 * France takes its very name from an invading people (Germanic). Its language is classified by relationship to a previous invading / overruling people (Romance, from Roman).  French language reflects this history, which is not "indigenous".  Celtic persistance from an earlier population exists only at the margins, and one might debate the indigeneity of the Celts as well.  Do you have a racialist / racial "purist" and separatist agenda?  Such labels are not helpful & you should not confuse your own point of view with NPOV please.  Ngwe 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Spanish people page
I was going to make some demographic changes on that page and you're right that if it's going to be about Castilians it's all gotta change as there were many different people from Spain who went to the Americas. Actually the picture with Loyola has to be changed as he was not Castilian. Tombseye 22:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese people
True, the numbers of Portuguese with lighter hair and eyes isn't occasional. My main concern was the statement that there wasn't a typical Portuguese "look" when the majority of indigenous Portuguese are a Western/Iberian Mediterranean type, even with those of lighter hair and eyes. Epf
 * Agreed! The Ogre 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What is "a Western/Iberian Mediterranean type" please? Can you describe this putative typical Portugese "look"?  Assuming for the sake of argument your "majority of indigenous" statement can make sense & that discounting phenotypical features which undermine your generalization (hair and eye color) is somehow legitimate intellectually, what do you do with the indigenous minority who aren't what you call "typical" -- are they not really Portuguese somehow? Why do you employ terminology derived from the discredited racial science of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Ngwe 07:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A "Western Iberian type" is that "racial type" (based on phenotypic and cranio-facial features) identified by 20th cent. physical anthropologists and is supposedly a major "racial" element in the indigenous population of the Iberian peninsula. I disagree with the whole tpyical classification since it is far to ogeneral and ignores the fact that all indigenous peoples of Iberia share certain elements and it is impossible to label some belonging to a "distinct" certain type and others not. There are obviously a minority of indigenous Portuguese who may have lighter complexions or eye/hair colour, but that does not mean they don't share other (and more important) cranio-facial traits associated with all indigenous Portuguese of the dominant Western/Iberian or Atlanto-Mediterranean "types" as it once was put before the development of population genetics. I employ elements of accepted studies by some 20th cent. physical anthropologists that are only now being resurfaced again (and correlated) with the development of populaton genetics. They've only been discredited by a minority of academics who support some assimilationist and "ethnic nihilist" POV. Ciao, Epf 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Scottish people
Excuse me, please don't revert other users without discussion - you do not own that page. It does not look overcrowded on my page. Your opinion is subjective. You are free to make the images smaller if you like. Many paths are open. If you revert me, without discussion, I can do exactly the same back. You see why this may cause problems? :) - Calgacus 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Buddy, are you like not reading my statements on the history tab for the article ? Look at ALL the other ethnic group sites, they all have no more than 4 photos. The article looks terrible with the number you have on there and the photos will be too small if they get any smaller. All the other sites go with four photos or less of that size or one large photo and that is the norm amongst these articles. Trust me, I know, the only pages I focus on are ethnic groups. If you want to put more photos, put them on the LIST of Scottish people or list of famous Scottish people articles. Ciao, Epf 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you really want David Hume there instead of Sean Connery ? Sean Connery is like probably the most famous Scotsman currently alive and he's also been knighted.


 * Chum, I don't give a monkeys how many the other pages have. You were one revert from breaking the three revert rule. I decided I wasn't going to push it. David Hume was recently voted by Scottish academics as the greatest Scotsman ever. Sean Connery is an entertainer. You decide. - Calgacus 20:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well pal, Connery is the most popular Scottish person in our world today, especially to those who arent one bit Scottish or dont give two craps about Scotland. I know David Hume is a very famous Scot but I was thinking about putting at least one modern famous Scottish person there. Also, you should care about norms in certain articles so that the encyclopedia can get some continuity in types of articles. I mean c'mon, the article was looking real messy and simply not up to standards. By the way, whats this only 3 reverts allowed BS ? Epf 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you STOP switching 'related ethnic groups' back to 'english, cornish, welsh' ... etc. This is totally nonsensical! Technically these aren't even separate ethnic groups. Living in England as opposed to Scotland for example doesn't mean you're a different ethnicity, race, culture. These identities are regional and not grounded in genetics. The people of Britain have common ancestors and have been influenced strongly from north west Europe. The article as it pertains to a Scottish ethnicity itself is contentious but even having a 'related ethnic groups' serves a nationalist agenda, not a factual one.


 * First of all, the study of population genetics is very early in development and is a long way from being considered fully reliable to be included in ethnographic studies. Even if you use this information to support your claims, the results so far have only been on the Y-chromosome which is passed down paternally from the father, grandfather, and so on. This means that no information regarding the equally important maternal line AS WELL as the maternal line of chromosomes (x-chromosomes) which are also passed down paternally. If you wish to read more into this, please check out the article Celt as well as on population genetics.


 * Secondly, just because two ethnic groups may be related genetically doesn't constitute that they are the same "people" or ethnicity. The different peoples of the British Isles have separate cultures and to a lesser degree, languages. The history of each of the home nations is also different from each other and very few Scots, Welsh, Irish, and English would declare that they are the same people. Also, to say the Frisians, other Germanic peoples and the peoples of northwestern Europe as a whole are the same people as the British is another large fallacy as the differences between these peoples (culturally, historically, or even based on some of the findings of Y-chromosomes) is also quite different. The articles in wikipedia stick to only facts which have some verifiability and have been agreed by a majority of readers of a certain article, not to one person's POV. Please discuss this in the discussion section of Scottish people or another related article, notably Celt. Cheers, Epf 12:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Irish people
Hi, I see user 70.30.71.252 has deleted your link to scotchnet because ''scotchnet.com is not a primary source. census reports speak for themselves. people select ancestries they identify with. americans were able to select irish, scottish and scotch-irish''. This makes little sense, the policy on no original research clearly states that both primary and secondary sources are acceptable for verifiability. I would encourage you to put your link back in. Maybe you could re-phrase it to say that the US data may also contain people of Scottish descent or something. This would be nice and neutral and would be supported by a source. One of the problems with people who don't set up a user page is that they cannot be contacted. I also find it galling when people give these sort of reasons for a deletion or edit when they obviously do not know the policy for inclusion, in effect creating their own, more stringent criteria for inclusion. Cheers, Alun 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have left a message for user 70.30.71.252 on Talk:Irish people. I do not know what the relative merits of the scotchnet website are, but it does seem to be the case that this user is simply trying to exclude this information just because he disagrees with it, it really does contradict the spirit of wikipedia. I don't know if this user will read the message, but the talk page seems to me to be the correct place to sort this out. This user is obviously loooking for an excuse to remove this material (hence the fact that he has had to keep changing the reasons for removal). I think the best thing is to try to come to some sort of agreement on the wording of this, rather than just keep reverting all the time.

Alun 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 21:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Epf. Thanks for your note on my talk page. I changed the number from the total population of the island or Ireland, as I suggested on the Talk:Irish people page. The total population figure included, in particular, people who would consider themselves British, as well as all the other ethnic groups, and represents the worst figure we have available. I do not personally like the Ireland-born figure either, but it is better than trying to qualify the total population figure with who it does and does not include. WRT your other changes in the Irish people infobox, I think the qualifications and links that have been added recently belong in the footnotes. WRT the foreign-born Irish in Ireland, I look forward to seeing any figures you can produce. Keep up the good work. zzuuzz (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to comments by An Siarach on his page
Religion which might legitimately class as having strong/unique ethnic ties are very rare, none of which are pertinent with regard to Scots. Etymology is part of language which goes back to the importance of language ( and the lack of any knowledge of the Scottish language by most who would call themselves 'Scots' or claim scottish ethnicity). Familial ties do not make one anything other than what one is. Social-behavioural characteristics are cultural traits and disappear (obviously) with the loss of ones language and culture. Genetic and physical traits are completely irrelevant except to racists and others who espouse related similarly repulsive doctrines. I havent disputed that ones ancestry 'is where you come from' - this has no bearing on the fact that having a scottish/french/carthaginian/martian/divine ancestor does not make you scottish/french/carthaginian/martian or divine. The laughable claims you mention by 'geneticists' isnt worthy of consideration and you should stick to valid, proven, science if you wish to be taken seriously in any conversation. The 50,000 speakers of Scottish gaelic are the only people who can still speak the Scottish language and thus have a tangible tie to native/ethnic Scottish culture. The Scots language is irrelevant and you provide the reason why yourself ; as you say it is related to Old English/Anglo-Saxon and the Scots are not an English/Anglo-Saxon people. Lowland 'Scots' may refer to itself as 'Scots' but this does not make it 'Scottish' any more than the Spanish speaking population of America could give Spanish the status of 'English' and themselves the status of 'Anglo-Saxon' if they started to refer to it as such. Where on earth do i say that the population of Scotland lack a distinct cultural identity? All i have pointed out is that the great majority lack an ethnically Scottish (which is obviously to say celtic/gaelic) identity and simply cannot qualify as ethnically Scottish as they are, and their culture/language is, Anglo-Saxon. An Siarach

I wrote the following in response to the comment by An Siarach seen above (also on her discussion page). I think it is worth a read for anyone interested in ethnicity/connecting with their roots because it outlines the search for identity/ethnicity many people in the new world strive with (in this case regarding Scottish ethnicity):

Hi An Siarach ! Before I start, I want you to realize I don't need you to tell me how to be taken seriously in any conversation and to please lose the negative/insulting connotation in this argument.

To begin with what you said about genetics, I just stated simply that some geneticists believe in a THEORY of inherited memories/experiences and I don't consider it ridiculous since we still dont know what the function of the majority of our genes are and many theories are possible until we have mastered the science of genetics.

Also, you can't simply say that to be "ethnically Scottish" is to be celtic/gaelic considering the history of the people consists of very important Germanic and unkown (Picts) influences. Gaelic culture/language may be an important factor but it isn't the only determining factor of Scottish ethnicity. Lowland Scots are of Anglo-Saxon origin since the land was conquered by the Kindom of Northumbria and their culture integrated with that of the Scotti and Picts to form Scotland. To say the the Irish Scotti cultural element is the only factor or a more imporant factor than the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian (Norse) determining if someone is ethnically Scottish is quite ethnocentric.

As for people with Scottish roots in the new world and elsewhere, you can't just simply lose where you come from. It is true that many people forget the Gaelic or Lowland Scots languages but you disregard the other elements too easily. Genetics and physical features still give an indication of ones origin and just because one is interested in this, it does NOT make one a racist/racial supremacist (hence the rising popularity of population genetics).

In terms of religion, it can be related to ethnicity (as you seem to agree) and the large amount of protestants in the US is clearly a result of many peoples with northern European roots, but there are particulary large numbers of Presbyterians (notably from Scotland, Ulster or the Netherlands) and Lutherans (Germany).

Familial ties and etymology are quite imporant because not everybody in the world can trace their family (and family name) back to Scotland, unless you have some degree of Scottish or Ulster-Scots ancestry (obviously the more you have the more connection you will have with the country of origin). I am also not stating that someone who is like 1/16 Scottish ancestry can be declared Scottish, but I'm talking about a person who can trace a significant proportion of his/her roots to Scotland and the Scottish ethnic group. Since most of the Scottish/Ulster Scots emigrated within the past 300 years, you cant compare their Scottish ancestry with the origin of all European peoples dating back thousands of years.

Next, social/behavoural traits. These are not lost as easily as ones language is and not all of these traits can be simply defined as cultural. It is widely documented by most psychologists and sociologists just how imporant ones upbringing (especially earlier years) can be and just how much it will affect he/she in later life. Even if someone has "lost" all of their cultural/familial roots (which is hard to imagine unless one is adopted), certain behavioural characteristics are passed down to each generation by ones parents/grandparents and a large part of your personality is derived from them.

To summarize, although the surviving cultural traits become less distinguishable, many still remain and the more Scottish or whatever ancestry one can claim, the higher the possiblity of one having more inherited cultural and other traits. In former British colonial countries like the USA, Canada, Australia etc., much of the political and cultural origins of the nation can be derived from the original British migrants and to say that the people have "lost" all elements of where they came from is something millions of people strongly disagree with. As the peoples mixed together in these places, the ancestral and cultural traits became more diluted but of the millions of those people with Scottish ancestry, many of them have much more than 1/16 ancestry and in fact the large majority could claim at least 1/2 or more when the ancestries of both sides of the family are taken into account. I look forward to continuing the discussion. As one would say (I think) in the highlands, Mar sin leat, Epf 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to An Siriach's reply on her page to my original comments above:

Response:

Wow. ok, I am admitting, you have hit an area that you did not want to touch. Also, please, enough with the negative and insulting connotation. I can't believe you have attributed ehtnicity to having to speak the language. WOW. You are saying genetics are irrelevant in the case of ethnicity. WOW. I am making a note to you now that I will spend every Wikipedia moment I have to debate this with you unless you stop discussing this with such a closed mind. Speaking Scottish Gaelic is not a "must" for being of Scottish ethnicity and you speak of a massive lie. The fact you think people automatically lose their ethnicity just because they no longer speak the language is ludicrous. I told you about how social/behavioural customs continue down each family line and make us unique. There are so many elements to culture and identity besides language and no matter how much it has been diluted you can't lose all of the traits of the main ethnic origin of you and your family.

I will first start with the impact of the Anglo-Saxon/Lowland Scots culture. Their impact is quite large and it merged (although not very smoothly and unformly equal) with that of the Highland Scots to create Scotland and the Scottish people. You also can't say that the Scots were native and the Anglo-Saxons weren't when they both came into certain parts of Caledonia around the same time period (the Gaels came from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries while the Angles wee moving into Lothian around the late 6th century). The only group which was native was the Picts who were culturally assimilated by the Scots and Anglo-Saxons. I do acknowledge the Lowland/Highland divide has obviously been important in Scottish history, but as to which is more Scottish is just futile. Both had a large impact on Scottish culture. Also, the Scotti can be described as being descended from "Irish" since that is where they originated from just as the Anglo-Saxons of the Lowlands originated from England (and earlier northwest Germany). The word "Scotia" literally meant in Latin "land of the Gaels" and even King Robert I of Scotland during the Wars of Independence used the terms "Scotia Maiora" for Ireland and "Scotia Minora" for Scotland (The Scots word for Highlanders, Erse, literally means Irish). The Highland Scots are mainly the descendants of the Irish tribe who invaded the northern island of Britain (Caledonia) in 5th and 6th centuries. In your view, the only true modern Scots are those who speak Gaelic and that is quite ridiculous in most peoples opinions (including mine). Scottish culture is a fusion of both the Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon and, to a smaller degree, Norse cultures, but is more prevalent in ceratin areas (the Highlands--> Gaelic, Lowlands--> Anglo-Saxon, Orkneys/Shetlands--> Norse). For example, Gaelic customs (like the clan system) can be easily be found in Lowland Scots cultural areas just as the Scottish Gaelic language has had significant influences from the Scots language and old Norse (compared to the original Gaelic spoken in the Ireland, especially in Munster and Connacht).

"But how on earth else would one determine what is ethnically Scottish other than by the ethnic Scots" ?

According to you, I supppose the only true ethnic Scots are the Irish since you apparently refute the cultural influences of the Lowland Anglo-Saxon Scots and the blending of the cultures of Scotland.

In terms of ancestry, you have some very controversial opinions and are largely your own POV.

"As pointed out Lowland Scots is irrelevant with regard to ethnic Scottishness. Genetics, as previously pionted out, is irrelevant. Being interested in genetics does not make one a racist but tying undue importance to it serves no purpose other than either phony ethnicism or that of a racist cause."

These claims are ridculous and not backed up by anything other than your ethnocentric opinions. Huh, kinda reminds me of how you described my POV:

"You obviously do need to be told how to be taken seriously if you are putting forward unproven theories which few would take seriously to support your own arguments."

Anyways, who are you to decide what is irrelevant and what isn't ? Are you the divine creator of Scotland and the World ? Genetics can be of great value to studying ethnic groups as it again reveals origins, possible shared history with other groups as well as the impact of invasions/settlements of other peoples on an ethnic group. You are also claiming that the Egyptians are merely Arabs and don't have a unique ethnic identity. This is ridculous and the influence of the ancient Egyptians can't just be limited to physical/genetic chacteristics because Egyptians do have a quite distinct identity within the larger Arab world (same goes for Northwest African Arab-Berbers) just as ethnic Indonesian groups, Filipinos and Coastal Malays (Malaysia and Sumatra) have distinct identities within the very large Malay cultural world. Obviously I agree that when the descendants of Scots in the new world or wherever lost their language (Scots or Gaelic) and many aspects of their culture and customs (varying degrees of traditons and customs do remain with many families) they no longer could be declared the "same people" as an ethnic Scotsman back in Scotland. However, like I said, many things do remain such as religion, social/behavioural traits, and ancestral/familial ties to people in Scotland or Ulster and of course genetic and physical characteristics (even if you consider them irrelevant).

"Religion is utterly irrelevant here though it might be different if the American Presbyterian population maintained worship with Gaelic Psalms and other truly Scottish features."

Presbyterianism is a very imporant part of Scottish culture, hence the Church of Scotland (largest denomination in Scotland) being a Presbyterian church ! Just as the majority of English (at one time anyway) are/were Anglican (so many atheists now). Presbyterianism was also prevalent in Holland but alot of its origins are very much tied to Scotland. The large amount of Presbyterianism in the US is without doubt because of the millions of people of Scottish and Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish descent.

"Millions of people in the UK have names of a Norman origin. Does that make them Norman? Of course it doesnt. Have a surname which is MacAnything doesnt make you Scottish and only a fantasist would claim otherwise. It doesnt matter how closely one can trace their roots to Scotland unless one is in posession of Scottish language and culture which is clearly not the case with the VAST majority of those claiming Scottish ethnicity or descent."

Another one of your "proven theories" which many people take "seriously" right ? WOW. Those Norman names go back 1,000 years and the Normans were few in number when they conquered Britain and (just as with the Normans in Sicily) were absorbed by the British population. When you have a Scottish surname you may or may not be able to trace a signifcant amount of ancestry to Scotland but in most cases, people can because they have more Scottish familial linkage besides that from their surname. People who have signifcant amounts of Scottish ancestry can be considered to be descended from ethnic Scots and depending on how they identify thmeselves, ethnic Scots (even if different from those in the homeland). I also told you, many people do retain many traits which pertain to ethnicity and yes a large portion have lost the language and/or varying amoutns of traditonal customs, but that does not mean they can't be considered Scottish whatsoever or unable to reconnect with their roots. In your view, does this mean a Chinese person who's born in Scotland and learns the language and customs is now ethnically Scottish and not Chinese ??? Or are you for example ethnically English as much as Scottish because "you speak the language and are in possession of its culture" ?

"Agreed that behavioural traits do tend to outlast langauge but they are comparatively insignificant and do not long outlast the loss of language and of culture. Social/behavioural characteristics are defined by the society and culture into which one is born and raised and there is no surviving Scottish society in the USA,"

These traits are hardly insignificant and though less distinguishable from other customs and language, are still quite important. Yes, many chacteristics are defined by our surrounding culture but so much of our traits, traditions, personality and how we interact with the society/culture is derived from our upbringing and interaction with those who we spend most of our childhood with and are closest to us which most of the time is our family. So many familes here in Canada nad the US have their own traditions and customs passed down for generations. My family for example has many traditional gatherings and customs passed down from my Great Grandparents who immigrated from Italy. I also acknowledge a degree of my personal traits to my Grandpa (who i grew up around alot as a child) and his grandparents were from the lower Scottish Highlands (the Grahams of/near Loch Katrine) and he has acknowledged how he shared some of them with his father and mother and so forth.

There may be no surviving "scottish society" if what you mean is the majority popualtion of a certain area being ethnic Scottish (exception of Nova Scotia in Canada). However, there are areas where Scottish influence is most detectable, most notably Nova Scotia in Canada where both Highlanders and Lowlanders settled; Kentucky, Tennessee and anywhere throughout the southern appalachian mountains area in the US really where both Highlanders and Lowland Scots heavily settled and is especially detectable in the local accent and customs; various ethnic Scottish towns across both countries, notable a town called Fergus in Ontario, Canada, home of the largest Highland Games in the country. Also, Highland Games, Celtic, Scottish and Ulster-Scots festivals events take place all over both countries annually. There's even a very big one held every year in my hometown, Fort Erie, which is just south of Niagara Falls, Canada.

"To discuss something as unverifiable as this is utterly meaningless while qualifying ethnicity on the basis of something tangible like language is the only meaningful way of classing ethnicity."

You go on further to make claims that one is not English without speaking the language, one is not Japanese without speaking the language. I and practically all respected anthropologists think this is ridiculous as I have told you how cultural, social/behavioural, ancestral/familial, genetic, religious and physical characteristics also are part of ones connection with ethnicity. I mean under this classification, all 200 million or so Americans, and however million more people out there from Australia, Canada, wherever are all ethnic English because their native tongue and, in most cases, only language as well many cultural traits is English or Anglo-Saxon based ? The millions of Italians and Greeks around the world who are very pround of their culture and identity but dont speak their mother tongue aren't ethnic Italians or Greeks ? All of the recent immigrants and descendants of immigrants from the Asian sub-continent, Africa, Carribean, etc. in the UK who only speak English (or in rare cases Welsh) are only ethnic Scottish, Welsh or English ?

Thats all i'm going to say for now, but I don't want you to keep getting angry with this. I do enjoy discussing this. You should however put yourself in my shoes or the shoes of any American, Canadian, Brazilian, Australian,etc. who is descended from various immigrants and, according to your POV, has no ethnicity because our native tongue or only language is not of our very recent ancestors and that no part of who we are comes from them or their culture other than genetics. We see all these newer immigrants here who are allowed to speak their own languages wherever they want and get special status or help from the government while when our ancestors came here (especially if they were Irish catholics or from southern/eastern Europe) got treated only a little better slaves, unless your anccestors actually were African slaves. You are saying we've lost all of our ethnic traits ?, we have lost much but also have retained much and many, like me, are regaining even more as we connect more with where we come from. The way you desribe how to label ethnic groups and how you view those people in the new world, would mean that the people here are in a sense lost and have no concrete identity other than the vague and quite heterogenous tags of "American", "Canadian", "Australian", etc. which have very little ethnic commonality (unless one is of an indigenous native american or australian aborigine tribe).

Epf 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:An_Siarach"

Reply
Hi Epf,

I merged all the images into one with GraphicConverter. You can do it yourself with another similar program. --Khoikhoi 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to say, a 3 out of 4 of the people that you picked are contemporary. It'd be nice if you could use articles like Tajiks and Persians as examples. --Khoikhoi 07:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation
Re: [User:Wobble], do not edit it again or u will face a penalty. I have never edited this addition to the Irish people article. In fact I have supporterd it's inclusion as a properly referenced and valid POV. Do not accuse me of doing things I have not done. I am very angry about your accusation, I would encourage you to get your facts straight before you make such accusations, the last edit I made to Irish peple was on the 30th of December 2005, and it was about Y-chromosome analysis. This was four days before you first included your information, it is very easy to check this sort of thing in the history tab. I am also angry about you threatening me. You should read the pages on wikiquette and especially assume good faith. I imagine an apology for your unfounded accusations is too much to ask for. Alun 06:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Irish people and User 70.30.71.252
User 70.30.71.252 has once again removed your edit. I have reverted it to it's original form. He seems determined to keep this information out, and has never attempted to justify his actions on the talk page. He claims the web site scotchirish.net is not deemed an appropriate as the content is considered anti-Irish and breeding with intolerance and ignorance in many fronts. I do not know the relative strengths or weaknesses of the website, but I do not think it is acceptable for a user to decide unilaterally that a site is an inappropriate source of information just because it contradicts their POV. He is likely to start an edit war. I have urged him not to remove the information until a proper consensus has been reached on the talk page. I am aware that he does not have a user page and therefore may ignore, or not see my message. If there is an edit war you may have grounds to go to arbitration. Alun 06:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry if I over reacted about your text, I thought it was directed at me. I see user 70.30.71.252 has stopped deleting your edit, which is nice. It's a pity he/she doesn't leave his/her comments on the talk page, it would be easier to have an exchange of opinions there. He/She probably just doesn't know how to do it. It's very difficult to exchange ideas in the Edit summary box, and this is not really the place to go into detail. We should encourage him/her to register as a user and use the talk page more. By the way I have read some of your conversation with user An Siarach and couldn't agree more with you. I'm Welsh (and was fortunate enough to go to a Welsh language school), but non-Welsh speaking Welsh people would (rightly) be mightily offended by anyone claiming that ability to speak a language is the basis of ethnicity. All the best. Alun 06:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

French ethnic
Epf, you have a lot of cliche about french. It is obvious for any french that your knowledges are surfaces. I'll try to give you some undeniable and undenied informations which could be useful for you. Felipeh | babla 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently specializing in anthropology at U of T and Felipeh doesn't know me well enough to understand my extensive historical and anthropolgical knowledge of the native European peoples. Epf 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you said, by exemple, in Talk:French people that we can see there is a common french culture because there is a "french cuisine" or that french nation was born with Charlemagne, it was quite amazing ! Felipeh | babla 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the beginnings of the political entity of the nation of France are considered by many to be with the death of Charlegmagne in 814AD. As for cuisine, I love Crepes and Poutine (even though Poutine is from Quebec I think) but I meant that cuisine is a factor in a common culture and that can be seen in France. Epf 20:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

French nation
Officially, it is born in 1790-1792. Before that, there is a kingdom, absolute monarchy, in a kind of way France is private property of the king. There wasn't one nation, but many (see different languages in France, the main langue d'oc and langue d'oïl which are very distinct. Charlemagne wasn't a french king. After he died, his kingdom was shared between his sons, one part french speaking, and one other german speaking. Some people said that France and Germany were born but actually, it was only the first time that french and german were used in a treaty instead of latin. The kingdom which were create were Francie (country of Franks) Western for today's France and Eastern for today's Germany. After that, what is now France collapsed into many independent entities (Gascogne, Aquitaine, Provence, Bourgogne, Normandie, Bretagne, etc.). In 987, Hugues Capet was crowned king of the french. But at that time, french were the people who lived in France, and France was the area between Oise and Seine river at north of Paris. Until XIIIth century, the kings of France had control only on areas between Paris and Loire river, small area. In south of France, there was an equivalent independant power, count of Toulouse. He was defeated by french lords during the Albigense crusade. That's the first step of France in southern Gaul. Then, the kingdom grew, absorbing independant or foreign-led regions (Britanny, Provence, Gascogne, Burgundy, Artois, etc.). Until Louis XIV in 1661, there wasn't political identity in France, lords had lot of autonomy. The idea of french state is from that period, but there were lot of difference of degree of autonomy between region (pays d'Etat, pays de gouvernement). The idea of nation is formaly born in the french revolution. Centralisation during revolution was not a good thing for lot of regions outside Paris which rebeled: that was so in Britanny, Vendée, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Marseille, Lyon, Normandy, etc. As for all other european coutries, the idea of nation was particulary strong in XIXth century. Before that, as for other european countries, there were regional identities or political (allegiance to a king) identities, but not national identities. To summarize, there wasn't one nation identity in France (except if we say that France was parts of northern today's France around Paris) but there were regional identities or many nations (which were merged in french nation after revolution) identities. Felipeh | babla 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Although there were different lords and vassals of the French kings during the middle ages, Felipeh, you misunderstand my meaning of nation. There was indeed a nation among the ethnic French people and although differing regions had varied autonomy, the people and culture were very related. Nationlism did grow signifcantly in Europe in the 19th century but the peoples and cultures had existed as nations within Kingdoms/Empires since the early middle ages or longer. Most of the modern boundaries of France were incorporated into the Kingdom by the 16th century, however most of the lands of the langue d'oil peoples (the original ethnic French) had been unified into the Kingdom by the 13th century. The idea of a modern poltical union must not be confused with the idea of a national union of an ethnic group that overlaps political boundaries (see Basques, Frisians for modern examples). Epf


 * Well, I could say, that Occitania (or Gascogne, Guyenne, Languedoc, Provence, Auvergne, Limousin) was a nation, at least until French revolution. Former Langue d'Oïl speakers is about just half of today's french population. Felipeh | babla 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with that completely as Occitania even today has a minor independence movement. However, it is currently debated whether they constitute an entirely distinct ethnic group from the ethnic French (langue d'oil peoples) or are ethnic French with some distinct cultural and especially lingustic differences. In a physical anthropolgical sense they are quite similar to the other French but obviously have strong mediterranean elements (see links below physical/genetics discussion). Epf 20:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Common genetics
Saying that french have common genetic ancestry is non-sense. Before the Celts came from Central Europe (VIIth before Christ, same time Greeks came from Mediterranean sea), there were Ligurian people. Ligurian lived in Western Europe : England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy. So, we also can say that Western European have a common ancestry, it's as relevant as to say french people have common ancestry. But it is a little bit more complicated. Romans arrived in south-east in IIth century before J.Christ, and J.César invaded what remainded of Gaul in 58/52 before J.C. At that time, Gaul was divided in about as tribes there are french departements now. And there were for main areas with specific "ethnicity": Aquitaine (south-west, Basques), Provincia (sout-east, Celts with strong presence of Romans and Greeks), Lugdunaise (center & north-west, Celts), Belgique (north & north-east, Celts & Germans). So, southern France have more ancestries in Iberic and Italian peninsula, while the northern France have more ancestries in Central and Northern France. During four centuries, Roman presence was much strong in south than in north. But, with the empire extended from Egypt to England, there was citizens (or slaves) of all these territories who migrated between different provinces, as in Gaul which was one of the most important provinces, specially for the implantation of legions. When the Roman empire collapsed, different germanic tribes invaded Gaul and created different kingdoms. Franks in north, Burgundians in east, Wisigoths in south and Bretons (Celts from England) in Britanny. Franks were stronger and bulit a kingdom which was almost the same size of today's France. So, the germanic influence was more important in north of France. Until Middle Ages, there wasn't a lot of mix between populations : regional people didn't move often outside of their area and they keeped their specific "ethnicity". By exemple: Basque people near Bayonne (linguistic area decreased a lot, but their ethnic influence was very strong in south-west) were very different from Languedocian near Toulouse (large cultural and gentic influence from Romans) ; between them, there are Gascons, who are as Basque as Languedocian (to resume). Note that this Basque people (who are one of the main important "ethnic component" of French) have an ethnic originality, by exemple they have a very strong level of blood type O, I don't remember the statistics but it's much much huger than average european level. Well, during Middle Ages, there was still contribution of blood from foreigners as invaders or as merchants (with permanent installation or even with rape or prostitution). They came from many directions: Vikings, Moors, Syrians, Gypsys, Italians, Germans, Flemish, English, etc. That's not very different until french revolution, except that merchants are more numerous than invaders. France was one of the countries with intense traffics, because of his strategical geographic site: it's the road between Italy and England (very important at late Middle Ages), or between Germany and Spain, between North Sea and Mediterranean sea. It is still like that today. After revolution, there are more mixity and more foreign apports. To summarize, French people until french revolution was made of different ethnicity, and different apports came from different countries: north was influenced by today's England and Germany, south was influenced by today's Italy and Spain. And one more point, if you will travel in France, you will see that there are physical difference we can easily see between "french people": typically, french from south is brown-haired and small, while french from north is blond and taller. Maybe you think to French-Canadian, but they don't represent the whole "French people", since they mostly came from only two region: Poitou (west) and Normandy (north). The geography's book of my father at (public) school, mentionned there was three major human types in France (if I don't forget one) : Alpine, Nordic and Mediterranean.

Epf 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The ethnic French are in fact more homogenous in a physical sense than most of their neighbours and although Nordic elements are present in the north and mediterranean elements in the south, the Alpine element is predominant throughout. Skin type is not the most important factor in the physical anthropological study among peoples and it is easily varied through differing amounts of exposure to the sun. Facial features, stature, crainial size and form and hair,eye colour are considered more reliable and unified in most ethnic studies. The impact of the Romans was not oconsiderable in a physical sense as was the case with almost all of their colonies and their impact was largely cultural. The same can be said of the Germanic Franks and Burgundians as well as the Viking influence in the region of Normandy. I have never heard of any influence of Basques on the ethnic French peoples as they have often kept to their own ethnic boundary that straddles across the France-Spain border around the Bay of Biscay. The influence of the Gallic Celts is currently disputed as with all other areas of Celtic influence and settlement (see Celt) but it is for certain they largely integrated with the original pre-Celtic inhabitants of France. The ethnic French therefore may be Gallo-Roman with Frankish in a cultural sense, but are largely Gallic and pre-Gallic in a physical one. The Romans indeed had a larger impact culturally in the south of France and although the physical impact may also have been larger than in the north, it was still very much insignificant in its overall impact. The mediterranean elements in the south were largely not Italic/Roman or Basque in origin and in fact were from peoples who inhabited the land before the arrival of the Gauls (an affinity with the native Iberian peoples is believed). As for population genetics, it is a very early science that can not be considered reliable yet (only limited Y-chromosome and MtDNA testing has been done; none has been done on the most important X-chromosomes) and no studies have been so far taken on the native ethnic French populations. More will be said on Felipehs page when he responds to me there. For now, read this link on the physical character of the ethnic French by Carleton S. Coon (langue d'oil, langue d'oc peoples): http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII2.htm, http://www.snpa.nordish.net/racesofeurope.htm

Common culture
I leave now because I spend a lot of time to write in english. I'll be back for this part soon. Bye. Felipeh | babla 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing but there is not much you can argue with in terms of the common culture of ethnic French (regional differences exist with many European peoples) as elements of the French culture can date back to Gallo-Roman times and today it is reknowned around the world. Epf 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You can discuss on my page
I've already begun to answer. Felipeh | babla 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Xabi373.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Xabi373.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Qwghlm 13:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fterie.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fterie.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 07:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Political boxes
Hi Epf. I deleted them because various nationalist users kept on insulting me saying that I had a "political agenda" on Wikipedia. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Did some stuff with Catalan people page
Hey what's up? I recall you showing some interest in this region so I wanted your input on what I did with the Catalan people article. Anything you have to add would be appreciated! Ciao. Adios. Tombseye 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz saying hello!
Hi man! been a long time! I only wanted to tell you that i have removed the wikilink made to my name on your comment on the French people talk page. I hope you don't mind, but I refer you to Only make links that are relevant to the context. I know that we can speak reasonably together albeit our different POV, as we have done so before, but I don't think it's a good idea highlighting user names like that (it may encourage attacks ad hominem, if you see what i mean). Best regards, & hope to continue this interesting debate! (ps: to add another brick to the wall, again I'll point out the different cultural POV on this issue, and assure you that when I have to stand my ground in France, I support the multicultural pov! However, I also think that the French Republic POV, no matter how strange it may seem to your eyes, is totally respectable and understandable. Actually, you would probably be surprised to know that last year, I tried a reading of Nietzsche to highlight his use of "race", which has been somehow downgraded because of a certain interpretation of his works, in order to understand better what can human diversity mean. My stance concerning the French people article has to be put in the situation of the French political context. On philosophical issues, I may actually be lot more open than you think -- for example, as far as i know, humanity didn't start with Adam & Eve or just homo sapiens sapiens. In fact, several studies have demonstrated that various species of human being (i'm not entering the details here, but you know what i mean: different homo sapiens) have lived simultaneously for vast periods of time; and it may also be that homo sapiens sapiens itself has appeared simultaneously in various parts of the world...) But this has nothing to do with the definition of the French people, which has done everything to distance itself from the concept of race & ethnic, for good or for worse! Cheers! Lapaz 09:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool man, sorry about highlighting your user name, I still don't know some Wiki policies as I only started on here a few months ago. Ciao, Epf 10:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Crossing flags
Hello to Toronto! Please do not cross flags on your user page. This may offend others and is even considered a crime in many countries. I am sure you are able to express your valuable opinion in a respectful way. Imagine someone crossed the flag of Canada or the UK - also a union. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is my opinon and choice and where I live, we have freedom of speech, so take your comments elsewhere. The EU is not a nation or people and is an abomination that disrepescts the existence of ethnic groups and cultures and discriminates against muslims and other religions. Epf 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Disrespecting several countries is in no way better than disrespecting just one. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

haha. Listen, i'm not disrespecting the EU countries, I'm against the EU organization that is separate from the member states which form it. I have ethnic roots in England and the UK and am proud of my heritage and I believe in the preservation of national identities, not in the destructive policies of the EU "supra-national" organization. I am not against any people whatsoever, I am against the political and organizational ideas and aims of the EU. Epf 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are against the organization you can express that legitimate opinion without crossing out an official symbol that represents several hundred million people. You would not want others to do with the flag of your country - also a union - in case they did not like it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The EU is not a country or a political union in the way the US or Canada are and hopeully never will be. It is not a group of people and it is merely an administrative body that I have a right to protest against. It has memebers just as the UN does, but it is not the same as a nation like Canada, the UK, Germany, etc.. I am against the EU and I have a democratic right to express such an opinion, including crossing out a flag. The EU does not represent all those countries and people and only represents a group of individuals with several policies I consider wrong and injust. Epf 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The EU represents all its member country citizens at the WTO for example just as the US represents all Calfiornians. It is in no way better to show disrespect for a flag that represents a union of several countries than to show disrespect for just one country. ROGNNTUDJUU!

03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The EU is a an ambiguous organization that has many injust views and aims I have a democratic right to be against. The EU does not represent the entirety of its memeber countries and it is merely a political movement. It has no citizens, it has no common nationality, but some extreme poople within it unfortunately wish for it to. A country is dfferent because it represents all citizens and people of that nation, the EU does not and it is merely a globalizationist trade union that I have every right to demonstrate against. Enough already, you keep repeating your incorrect and ignorant POV over and over again and its annoying. Epf 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you that you have a democratic right to be against the EU and to show it. I only say that it would be more respectful to do so without crossing out an official symbol. It does represent all its citizens at organizations like the WTO and many people feel represented by it. Some people even use it in demonstrations in order to express their desire to join the EU or to get help from it like recently in Belarus. The EU is much more than a trade union, it helped a lot to spread prosperity and civil liberties in Spain, Portugal, Greece, the new Eastern members and even aspirant Turkey. You would not cross out the symbol of a soccer club because it would be offensive to its supporters, so why do you cross out a symbol millions feel represented by? ROGNNTUDJUU! 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Y chromosome analysis in the British Isles
Hi Epf, my contribution on Y chromosome analysis has been moved from Anglo-Saxons to Sub-Roman Britain if you want to take a look and edit it. I would be grateful if you did this as you clearly know about the subject and I don't think it has been edited by anyone else with a knowledge of genetics. It's always good to get several perspectives on these sorts of papers. Thanks. Alun

Will do Alun, cheers, Epf 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mestizos in Chile
Epf, Alandalus is right when claiming that a vast majority of Chileans are "mestizos". It is true. Most of them do have some indian blood. I disagree with him because the concept of Mestizo is not applicable in Chile as they are mainly European and there is no visible ethnic divide between Chileans with Indian blood and Chileans without it. Some Chileans may be dark and have no indian blood and some may be European looking and have Indian origins. There is no cleavage in society based on race, simply a mental association between fair skin, blonde hair etc.. and the upper classes. This association is reinforced by the strong position Northern European immigrants hold in society (the "anglos" for example). One cannot speak of Mestizos because Chileans do not see themselves this way, it would create an artificial divide between Chileans which does not exist in reality and because the majority of Chileans are predominantly of Spanish origin. The absence of a visible divide based on race in Chile has led the CIA fact book to lump together "whites and white-amerindians (95%)". So 10 million (or even more Spaniards in Chile is correct. Just as it is correct to include in the Italian page those Venezuelan Italians who also have Spanish origins. In the same way it would be incorrect to exclude Canarian Spaniards from the Spanish ethnic group because they have aboriginal Guanche blood. Or excluding those Andalusian Spaniards (there are many) who have some gypsy blood. In any case, race is always a difficult parameter of ethnicity and it should be used with moderation and only when it affects the self perception of a people.

Anyways that is my point of view.

Ciao--Burgas00 13:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with some aspects of your POV, except for the fact that "most Chileans have at least some Indian blood". A large number have at least "some" amerindian ancestry, but this is in most cases very small compared to the mestizos of Peru, Colombia or Mexico for example. The number of ethnic Amerindians compared to the number of those who are white is evidence of this. Compare this to Mexico or Peru where the number of Amerindians is significantly larger. it should be pointed out that very very few Andalusians have Roma ancestry (gypsy is a derogatory term) and although the Berber element is stronger than in other areas of Spain, it still is minimal compared to the majorty descent from native Iberians. As for the Italians in Venezuela, most of that popualtion has remained relatively homogenous (as is the case with most Italian immigrant groups in the diaspora) compared to other immigrant groups in that country. Obviously a significant portion will have other ancestry as well and yes I agree that these can still be labeled as being of Italian descent. The US Dept. of state source I cited in the article is not there because of the statistic of the 95 % who are "white or white-amerindian", but because the section on people clearly states how the majority of Chileans are of primarily Spanish descent. Any Amerindian elements in the Spanish and other European descended popualtion is again very minimal for the most part, especially compared to the more mestizo populations of countries like Mexico. Chile and especially Argentina have long been considered to be the "most European" nations in Latin America in both terms of culture and the people. Epf 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if you want to talk in purely racial terms I am afraid you have lost the argument with al andalus since all evidence is clearly on his side. I still dont agree in classifying them all as mestizos because they have a bit of indian blood. As for Gypsies in Andalusia, over 300,000 Spanish gypsies live in this province alone -although this figure is deemed conservative by many institutions. Andalusia has a population of nearly 7 million. Considering the level of integration of Gypsies in Spain (80% are fully integrated according to the government) how many andalusians do you calculate have at least partial gypsy origins and do not consider themselves gypsy? 1 million? 2 million? In any case, not "very very few".Anyways, none of these are "mestizos". Same goes for Canarians who are all "racially" mixed. Btw the word Gypsy (Gitano in Spanish, or Gitan in French) is not derogative, at least not in spain. --Burgas00 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Burgas, I think what you need to first of all realize is that the Roma (Gypsies is a derogatroy term as most will testify, they prefer the term "Roma") have long been an isolated population group in whatever country they have settled in. If there is 300,000 Roma in Andalusia as you claim, it does not necessarily mean they intermixed with native Spaniards to the degree you claim, especially when Roma do not have much history of large intermixing with other groups. Taking into religious, cultural and other ethnic aspects, I think its easily overstated to say that 1 or 2 million Andalusians could have partial Roma ancestry just because this "integrated" minority lives there. If one is going by the few limited genetic studies on Spanish populations (most representing only a tiny portion of our genetic inheritance, the Y-chromosome), the only significant foreign element found in native Spaniards in Andalusia was a shared genetic marker with the Berbers of Northwest Africa. Any significant foreign markers from the Roma would be more differentiated from those shared with the Berbers since the Roma trace most of their ancestry to South Asia and would have significant non-caucasoid elements. Andalusia clealry has the most significant non-Iberian racial influence of all Spanish regions, but this doesn not mean they are still not primarily descended from native Iberians as has been shown with most genetic and anthropolgical studies. Epf 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not really a part of this particular discussion on the genetic admixture in Spaniards, but to call a Spaniard a "mestizo", whatever his degree of mixture from Gypsies, Guanches, Berbers, etc. origin, with the aim of trying to make a comparison with the case in Chile, is completely misguided.


 * First of all, all and any foreign contribution in Spaniards comes from other Caucasoid populations (Gypsies, Berbers, Guanches, etc. are all Caucasoid peoples), so technically, they are not "racially" mixed even with these non-Iberian foreign elements. Meanwhile, the admixture in Chileans is Caucasoid and Amerindian, two totally separate racial cluster.


 * Secondly, this foreign Caucasoid admixture present in Spaniards is not a generalised phenomenon throughout the entire Spanish populace. Only certain segments of Spaniards here and there present the genetic markers. In Chileans, the Amerindian contribution is generalised in almost the absolute entirety of the Chilean population. Out of every 100 Chileans, perhaps 5 are pure, while the other 95 would all be mixtures, 60 would physically show that mixture to varying degrees, 25 of the 30 that is "European" and all of the 10 who are Amerindian would also have distant Amerindian or European admixture respectively.


 * Third, the foreign Caucasoid admixture in Spaniards is itself nowhere near as "elevated" as that found in the average Chilean. The AVERAGE Chilean is 57% European and 43% Amerindian. Even if we're talking about Mexicans here, the average Mexican is 41% European, 56% Amerindian and 3% African. I seriously doubt that in those Spaniards that do have Caucasoid non-Iberian elements, that those elements themselves would average more than 20% of those particular Spaniards' total genetic make-up. It's an interesting topic, and I will look into it more in depth.


 * And to Burgas00,  I still dont agree in classifying them [Chileans] all as mestizos because they have a bit of indian blood. I'm not proposing we classify all Chileans as mestizo. I am proposing the very opposite. I am the one here who recognises that while almost every single Chilean (bar 5% of the population) has mixed ancestry, at least 30% of them are relatively "pure" European and should be classified as such, 10% relatively pure Amerindian (according to their own classification as Amerindians in the 1992 census, based on race only) and should be classified as such. According to the 2002 census criteria, recognition of Amerindian classification is based on race AND the provision that you also speak a native language and practice the culture, in which case they make up 5%. Nevertheless, both "pure" races are given the value of 5% of the population in Chile. Really, only 60% of Chileans could be considered mestizos (again, in various degrees, but all nevertheless showing visible admixture), and this does still constitute a majority. What I'm arguing against is the suggesting (and pushing of POV into the Spanish people article) that Chileans who are phenotypically White represent a majority (10 million of the 15 million Chileans at that, or close to 70%) that does not make sense in light of all evidence, and plain eye-sight (if you've been to the country). In all honesty, what purpose is served by insisting something that is clearly negated the blatantly obvious. Even if you know squat about the history, statistic, migration, etc. of Chile, and have merely physically been to it, you know that insisting it has an at least phenotypically European majority is a baseless statement. One thing that is true, however (as stated so boldly Chilean government website for tourists travelling to Chile) is that if you were to arrive in Santiago from Lima, Chile appears way more European by comparison, but if you came in to Chile from Argentina, the Indian characteristics of Chileans are quite obvious. And one last thing, even for the 30% of Chile which is phenotypically White, the culture of that 30% could not be considered "ethnic Spanish". Unlike their appearance, one thing their culture is without a shadow of a doubt, is that it is a mestizo culture that they practise, the same culture evey other Chilean practices regardless of his race. The same goes for the culture of Whites in Mexico, or Peru, Colombia, etc. They all essentially practise the same national mestizo culture (or mulatto national culture in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic) as that of the other citizens. The difference here is class and racial appearance, not ethnicity. Ethnicity is defined on much more criteria, such as shared language, customs, culture, cuisune, ancestral relation (althoug not necessarily being of the same single race). Race itself is not a prime factor in "ethnicity". Al-Andalus 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

Epf, I don't mean to hurt any of your sensibilities (just in case you are Chilean), however, I have a very good understanding and am studied on race relations in Latin America (Chile is actually a forte of mine) and believe that you may not (based on my assessment of your understanding at least with Chile). If you have an understanding of the Spanish language, I invite you to the Spanish Wikipedia to read up on the very same topic of Chile's population, the issue of the white population of that country.

Discusión:Demografía de Chile You will notice that not one single Wikipedian, including ALL the Chilean Wikipedians, is arguing whether the White population in Chile (including the mestizos who might be phenotypically European) are the population majority. It is accepted as an undisputable FACT by Chileans or anyone with some knowledge of that country’s colonial history, uunderstainding of Chile's past and modern migration trends, has studied statistics by INE (Chilean Census Institute), or even just by someone who has simply visited Chile - that the majority of the Chilean population is racially mixed and that the country in no way has a White majority of any kind (pure or mixed but phenotypically White).

So, what is the argument then if everyone accepts that Chile is over 90% mestizo? Well the argument is not like there is presently with you (where you actually are insisting a white majority, despite all historic, migratory, statistic, academic and plain eye-witness evidence against it), the contention over Chile demographics is as what to classify the mestizos who may look white; as just the mestizos that they genotypically are, or simply as white and tally them up and present them as such in a percentage (from the estimate 2% to 5% unmixed whites, to around 30% with the inclusion of "mestizos" who are phenotypically white).

Having said that, another point you will notice which is not argued over in the Spanish Wikipedia discussion, is whether Chile as a mestizo majority (again, over 90%) has a population majority which is at least phenotypically white. This is not argued over because again, the accepted FACT as lived by chileans (and again any one who know about in depth about Chile or has simply visited) is that at least 60% of the country's population show that they are mixed in their phenotype (of these, some lighter, some darker, but most in the middle). So, once again, the contention is with that third portion of the mestizo population (over 90%) which DO look white (around 25% to 27% of the total population; not including the unmixed white between 2% and 5% of the total population, which together would bring the total white to aroudn 30%) but which we know from all the evidence (history, migration, etc) is in fact also racially mixed (albeit distantly). Do those consider THMSELVES white? The answer to that is YES! They do. That is just the way racial identity works, and is a direct result of the historic Spanish Colonial Caste System. So then should we then consider them white and tally them up as such? This last question is what was being discussed, and so far it has been reached that the percentages of White should not be placed (but if it were, not above 30%), and since whites cannot be specified neither will the mestizo percentage (despite constituting a majority even without if the phenotypically European mestizos were they to be deducted).

So how it’s been worded is that mestizos are a majority (number not defined, but meaning over 51%), then the statistics of the Amerindians us given, and then a description and inclusion of figures of the trends of the migrations (ie European migration) to Chile including numbers, percentages, giving comparison of those numbers as proportional to the population throughout Chile’s history. That way the ethnography becomes clear without need of percentages (which was given only for the Amerindians).

As for the Amerindian population which I touched on above, in Chile we also have the problem with the Amerindian percentage. If using the Chilean government’s official method of Amerindian classification as formulated for Census 2002 (the most currently espoused), only Amerindians who define themselves as Amerindian AND speak and Amerindian language and follow an Amerindian culture are classed as such (in which case they represent 5% of the population according to government.) However, in the second to last census (1992) the percentage of Chileans reporting themselves as Amerindian was just over 10% of the total population, which is why the government reformulated the question for 2002 (not allowing Amerindians who no longer speak an indigenous language and don't practice an indigenous culture to classyfy themselves as such), and which has already been declared "statistic genocide". This leads back to a reoccurring theme in Latin America, that of decreasing the population of Amerindians, and in countries with extremely large naturally uninflated number of mestizos (over 90%, the best example for comparison to Chile is Paraguay), the attempt to push some of those as white. You even have this in the Philippines, a country with an undoubted native majority (over 95%), where it is the mestizos that are tried to be inflated above the uninflated 2% to 3%. Again, this is to do with remnants of Spanish Racial system.

Now, I want to disagree with the user that posted to you with the thing that in Chile there is no distinguishing between the castes. That is vaguely true, but not because everyone looks whit, since, it has been established that the majority do indeed look mixed, although with a large minority looking unmixed. The lack of much racial tension is in fact because the uninflated number of mestizos form the majority. As opposed to Mexico for example, which does indeed have a mestizo majority, uninflated at 60%, (though the inflated number is 80%), and a large minority (30%) of Amerindians and large minority of Whites (10%). In Mexico there is more room for racial tensions. Having said that, there still nevertheless a rigid association of class and phenotype even in Chile, as opposed to what the user above would like to thing. What there isn’t open racism towards mestizos from whites, because most of the Whites would in fact also be mestizos, and there is social order. Access to power and privilege although remains largely relegate to those who are white or white-looking, but nonetheless excluding the majority of the population who not only is mixed but also looks it (in whatever degree). I have a really good link discussing exactly that, it was published in Chile, and it discusses the situation in Chile. I will be happy to pass it on to you. Just let me know if you understand Spanish, if not I will be happy to translate it for you.

One last thing, the comparison the user made with Argentina is a flawed one, one I have only heard once made by an ill-informed neo-Nazi. Argentina’s population history is most peculiar, and unique in Latin America, only shared with Uruguay. Immigrants flooded the colonial populations of Argentina and Uruguay. The immigrants turned 1 million colonial inhabitants (the overwhelming majority being mestizo) into 8 million people. Immigrants to Chile never surpassed 5% of that country’s population, the ever-stressed German immigration to Chile was composed of a mere 7,000 immigrants, less than half of a percent of the population. Analysis of the white-looking third within Chile mestizo majority is due not to European migration as it was negligible (in proportion to their own populations, more than Peru, of course, but no where Argentina or Uruguay) but to the circumstance during the Chile’s colonial period. Proportionally, relatively few people in Chile can trace any European ancestry outside of their Spanish-Amerindian mixture dating back to the colonial era. Uruguay and Argentina are the ONLY countries in Latin America where there is no distinction between people who are unmixed white (44% according to genetic tests) and people who are phenotpypically white (the rest of the population, except for 13% which has enough Amerindian mixture to exhibit it phenotypically). It is that 13%, the identifiably mestizos that are the so-called "cabecitas negras" who are discriminated against. Here the population majority is white (unmixed or otherwise). The population of Chile is over 90% racially mixed, of which at least 60% are identifiably mestizo, and thus remain a majority and exempt from discrimination in a country where they form that majority. It is the Amerindians in Chile’s case that are the discriminated against both by the not so much by the white minority (including white-looking), but by the identifiably mestizo (and so identified) majority of Chile. Al-Andalus 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to speak Spanish fluently, so I will need to you to translate some of the text on the "racial" composition of Chileans if need be. I do however find several flaws in your argument, especially with the references to genetics. Very few if any reliable studies have been carried out on Argentines or Chileans and the ones which have only relate to a tiny portion of our DNA (usually the Y-chromosome or MtDNA) and the results are in no way conclusive. Being a student of anthropologly (biological and cultural), this is also my forte, and from most research I have studied, Chileans overall have far less mestizo or Amerindian elements than the largely Mestizo and Amerindian populations of Peru and Mexico (both being the centre of very advanced and populous Amerindian civilizations). I do not disagree that the majority of "White" Chileans have some Amerindian ancestry, but the majority of them are of primarily Spanish descent. Most 20th cent. physical anthropological studies on Latin Ameica (and they are few) reveal how Chile does indeed have a mainly European descended majority, although the mestizo/Amerindian elements is still quite significant, especially compared to Argentina or Uruguay. I will further this response at a later time. Ciao. Epf 23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Papers on Chile's Mestizo Majority
The Socio-Genetic Gradient in Chile and it’s Ethico-Social Implications

Dr. Carlos Valenzuela Y., Human Genetics Programme, ICBM, Faculty of Medicne, Universidad de Chile.

January 2002

"''The Chilean population was formed primarily by the mixture of a Caucasian population and an Amerindian population. As Chile was a military colony for almost 300 years, from Spain came a great contingent of male soldiers who did not bring their wives. The European marriages [ie. both husband and wife being European] that arrived in Chile were insignificant in relation to the contingent of single male soldiers (1). It is from this that the asymmetric mixing between European men and Amerindian women was unavoidable, and which gave origin to the mestizo population that quickly (in a century or three generations) became the majority. From the conquest in 1541, 15 or 16 generations have passed. The Caucasian population had itself separated from the Amerindian one (a branch of Mongoloids) over 35 or 40 thousand years ago (1,300 generations). This asymmetric mixture implied an asymmetric contribution of genetic factors. If we fix the Caucasian contribution of autosomes at 50%, the one for the X chromosome will only be 33%, the Y chromosome will be 100% Caucasian and the mitochondrial DNA 100% Amerindian (2). It is necessary to clarify that the Amerindian groups that participated in the mixing were Atacameños, Diaguitas, Changos, Picunches (primarily) and some others to the north of the river Maule. With the annexation of Antofagasta and Tarapacá (1880) Aymaras and Quechuas incorporated in a greater proportion. The Mapuches in the south did not incorporate themselves into the mixing during the conquest or colony period, but instead, in each generation they have incorporated themselves in low proportions, in the beginning to populations of the regions where they lived and subsequently in the great metropolitan cities of the country. The same has happened with the Pehuenches and Huilliches in smaller amounts. The Chonos incorporated themselves into the mixing more to the south especially to the population of Chiloé and the Tehuelches, Alacalufes, Onas and others of the Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego incorporated themselves very little or not at all. This limits our present genetic studies, because the Picunche and Diaguita ethnic groups, who comprised the majority Amerindian element in the formation of the current Chilean population, no longer exist, and their genetic composition must be inferred from the present Chilean population or from preserved mortal remains, so as extracting genetic information at funeral sites. Additionally, throughout the generations there have been marriages between Caucasians and Amerindians in the regions inhabited by the current Amerindian population, so that pure Amerindian populations no longer exist. Although the black African component was high (up to 10%) it has not been found in the great cities in Chile when looking for them with the traditional genetic markers. There is no a satisfactory explanation for this fact. They are found in remote towns far from the great urban centres. The proposed bi-racial model that seems so simple has in general terms been maintained with moderate or small modifications throughout time and according to the regions. A greater Amerindian component is evident, and in this cases it is indeed Mapuche, in the vicinities of Temuco, and an Aymara component in the Chilean north.''

''When analysing the ethnic composition by social levels we have found ourselves with an important socio-genetic gradient that conditions the structure of mortality according to socioeconomic level and the socio-cultural evolution of Chile (3,4,5,6). From the beginning of the Conquest and the colony, the Spaniards, and specially those that had Spanish families, conserved or preferentially accessed the positions of higher prestige and power, as well as to the propriety of land. Later the criollos came, who were the children born and bred in Chile of a Spanish or European father and mother. Immediately next were the mestizos of various degrees of Caucasian mixture, then the Amerindians and finally came the black African slaves. Being Amerindian was considered pejorative from the beginning and still now to call someone an "Indio" (Amerindian) is considered an insult. With a system of mestizaje (miscegenation) so extended, and with the epidemics that the Spaniards brought, for which the Amerindians had not immunities, pure Amerindians soon disappeared. The arrival of new European settlers was increasing the Caucasian component. These were preferably incorporated into the high levels of society. The women did so almost in their totality. The occasion was rare where the woman married with a Amerindian or mestizo or was kidnapped by some Amerindian chieftain. The European men who arrived also incorporated themselves into the high levels of society or they married with a mestiza. From here came the children with a greater Caucasian component who climbed the social ladder. The men who arrived from Europe (not only from Spain) and were very socioeconomically successful could marry with the criolla women. This destiny could also occur with those mestizos of lesser Amerindian component who were successful in society, and were eventually assimilated into the higher levels ("arribismo", "desclasaje"). We have been able to verify that this model happens at the present time (7). The Blest, Edwards, Morandais, Alessandri, Aylwin and Frei families, among others, are examples of this assimilation and formation of families of not so little importance in the running of Chile.''

''This socioeconomic and genetic stratification remained and remains in place by a rigid system of marriages and inheritance of properties, in addition to a negative social discrimination as rare times is seen in the world. The highest socioeconomic level accumulated most of the power and wealth, besides having the best access to health and privileged education. It is sad to state that Chile had different categories of students with different treatment in the schooling system. The cursed illegitimate child and the "huacho" has recently been eliminated by law, but not yet in practice or even in schools. This racism or "estratismo" (discrimination based on social stratum) is a very marked characteristic in Chilean culture, although tolerated and accepted by the lower strata. The Chilean education system indoctrinates the acceptance of this culture of "a government without counterbalance lead by an aristocracy trampling over the sheepish majority" ("gobierno sin contrapeso de una aristocracia ramplona sobre una tropa de borregos".) The autonomy and cultural creativity of the student are penalised instead of being encouraged. Criticism of the system is prohibited. Studies with genetic markers have revealed that in the selection of a partner to marry and to have children a sharp discrimination exists in the high socioeconomic stratum (3,8). The great majority partners-up to build a family within someone from within the same stratum. Not only is there a sociocultural factor of discrimination, but also a directly genetic since in Chile as in Englands (6,9) phenotype A (Blood Types & the ABO system ) is accumulated in the higher level and O in the low levels. We have newspaper information that this also happens in Japan. '''[For the benefit of context; blood type O is the only type present among Amerindians of Meso-America and South-America. O type reaches levels of 100% in these groups. Any derivation from type O in Amerindians is thought to be as result from admixture from the Spanish conquest onwards.]' ''It is a genetic effect since it does not occur to phenotype B nor to phenotype AB, those that would have to be accumulated in the high stratum like A, but instead, is distributed erraticly throughout the social levels. There is solid evidence that this is not due to intelligence as proposed by the English authors (10). These studies are accused of being racist, but this accusation comes from ignorance and prejudice. These studies describe the racism or "estratismo" that exists is in Chilean society, the studies denounce a situation that belongs to the idiosyncrasy of the Chilean population, and the last thing the studies would be is racist. They help to understand and therefore propose a cure of the human disqualification in Chilean society. Another habitual error is to conclude that genetics determine social stratification, since those most apt to exert positions of power are those better equipped genetically. In this case the individuals of the group A would have to be in the high positions. In this exposition there are several errors, some of which are very serious. Let us suppose that the higher level of society is 5% of the population and harbours 40% of group A, while the low level represents 75% of population and harbours sonly 20% of group A. In total, there will be 2% of the total population that is A from the high level, and 15% of the population which is A from the lower level. For every A in the high level there are 7.5 A in the lower level. If belonging to group A conditions access to power, this 15% A of the lower level &mdash; who have been denied to power for having been born in a disqualified stratum &mdash; would have taken that place without a question...''

''Of our studies the population of Santiago (Chile) could be divided, by broad characteristic, into three socioeconomic/genetic strata. The high stratum that is close to 5% of the population without any Amerindian component. The medium stratum which is near 20% of the population with 20% Amerindian admixture. The lower stratum which is 75% of the population and between 35% to 40% of Amerindian admixture (4)...''" http://www.medwave.cl/ciencia/11.act

The rest of the lengthy paper deals (in a manner too detailed for me to translate) access of Chile’s mestizo majority to opportunities in public and private sectors, private and public services, education, and employment. It also explores the place and role in Chile’s cultural structure of Chile's mestizo majority; their poor representation in the running of the nation, and their apparent invisibility (as the majority that they are) in the image of Chile that is projected to the rest of the world by the large minority of Europeans in power (unmixed or otherwise). Basically it details the denial of access for Chile's mestizo majority to infrasturcture of the country. Chile being a country with Latin America's most progressive economy today, it also has one of the world's worst distribution of wealth. Al-Andalus 07:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

Admixture Studies in Latin America: From the 20th to the 21st Century

Mónica SANS (Human Biology, 2000, 72: 155-177)

Analysed populations: ''The populations of Latin America can be divided in three categories: (1) urban populations, usually di- or tri-hybrids, without considering possible substructurings; (2) the populations derived from Africans in quite isolated communities, and (3) Amerindian groups. In both the last two categories the emphasis is generally on the degree of European mixture.''

A complete revision of the studies of mestizaje (miscegenation) would be a complex and arduous task, especially because many of these were published in magazines or annals that are only obtainable in a few places; nevertheless, it is possible to analyse some data.

Urban populations: ''The different ethnic contributions from Latin American populations can be analysed with consideration to the bio-cultural regions as defined by Harris (1964), and later by others (Morner 1967; Wagley 1968, 1971; Ribeiro 1969; Stepan 1991). Nevertheless, it is important to note that these studies do not consider any quantitative estimation based on the genetic contributions of the different groups to support their ethnic classifications.''

''In general, genetic data are in agreement with the boundary of regions. For example, there is a clear difference between "Amerindian" countries (Mexico, Chile), "European" countries (Argentina, Uruguay), and "African" countries (Brazil), but this is not always so.''

''The population of Mexico is one of the best analysed, but although the population can be considered as a mixture between Amerindians and Europeans, there are some regional differences related to the African contribution. The City of Mexico probably better reflects the overall population: for this population (Lisker et al. 1986) they calculated 41% of European contribution, 56% Amerindian and 3% African. Nevertheless, in Mexico’s Caribbean coast, the African contribution increases: in Veracruz it reaches 26%, and in Tamahihua, in the same state of Veracruz, the estimated value is of 40% (Lisker and Babinsky 1986). These last values are similar to the found ones in the "African" countries.''

''Cerda-Flores and Garza-Chapa (1989) conducted a different analysis of the Mexican population. They analyzed the degree of mixture in three generations of people living in Monterrey and concluded that the eldest generation (born between 1896 and 1925) had greater Spanish contribution than other generations. Another example of a country with Amerindian and European mestizaje (miscegenation) is Chile. For Santiago, Rothhammer (1987) calculated a European contribution of 57%, and an Amerindian one of 43%; a more recent study established that the degree of mixture was related to socioeconomic status. (Rothhammer 1993).''

Admixture in Urban Dihybrid or Trihybrid Latin American Populations http://backintyme.com/admixture/sans02.pdf

For the purpose of comparing two countries with a mestizo majority population, the table only shows admixture figures for Chile and Mexico.Al-Andalus 09:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

Mestizos in Chile 2
I have dealt with most of the issues above, however, I would like to address one part of your last post, specifically the sentence "Chileans overall have far less mestizo or Amerindian elements than the largely Mestizo and Amerindian populations of Peru and Mexico". Again, the misinformation about Chileans having an "overall far less mestizo or Amerindian element" has already been deal with the various personal posts and Chilean papers above. So, now to the other part of that sentence. While it is true that Mexico has a large Amerindian population, it must be noted that it is in fact a MINORITY. Amerindians in Mexico ARE the LARGEST minority, that is TRUE, but a MINORITY nonetheless. The MAJORITY of Mexico remains the uninflated mestizo population, with the second LARGEST minority (after Amerindians) being White Mexicans (10%). So the comparison to be made of Mexico is not between Mexico and Peru, but indeed with Mexico and Chile*. Peru has an Amerindian MAJORITY, and that country’s LARGEST minority are the mestizos, then followed by White Peruvians. '* Even though both Chile and Mexico are mestizo majority countries, and they are better compared to each other than Chile to Argentina or Mexico to Peru, there are somewhat better corresponding mestizo majority countries to be paired for both Chile and Mexico instead of each other. I have written them below, check the end of this message.'

I would like to say that I do realise where this topic is trying to be pushed, an I do mean of the attempt of aligning Chile with Argentina/Uruguay, but I’ve already addressed the flaw in that above with colonial, migrational, statistical, historic factors, and current self-evident physical facts that argue against it.

The question with Chile has never been as to whether the majority of population is not mestizo, since IT IS. The question has been; what is the degree of admixtures in the typical Chilean mestizo? And how does the average Chilean mestizo compare to other mestizos from other countries. This analysis is made by the effects carried onto the majority by the LARGEST minority of the given country.

In Latin America, the degree of admixture in the main body of a country’s majority population is defined by its second LARGEST minority. Note that in Latin America there is essentially no pure person of any race or race mixture, just people who can be defined as relatively pure (thus white, black, amerindian) or visibly mixed (mestizo, mulatto, zambo). Therefore in Mexico, their visibly mestizo population (around 60% of the population) will be defined by the Amerindian population since they are the largest minority (30%, pure Amerindian or phenotypically Amerindian). Now, the ratio of a "true" mestizo is defined as 50:50, however, nobody is exactly this ratio unless they are a first generation mestizo. In the case of Mexico, the Amerindian admixture in the AVERAGE Mexican Mestizo (again, visibly mestizos being 60% of the population) will hover around 55% Amerindian admixture and 45% European admixture. Individually, the visibly mestizo can register up to 70% on either side and be classed a mestizo, but any more and they’d be classed as either White or Amerindian (depending which side the 70% is representing). If the admixture fell over 75% of whichever race in any person, then that person would already have been counted as solely that race and not a mixture, since they would not have physically shown their admixtures. So, what’s the verdict? The average visibly mestizo Mexican, comprising 60% of the population, hovers at around 45% European admixture and 55% Amerindian admixture. This result roughly coincides with the study above (Admixture in Urban Dihybrid or Trihybrid Latin American Populations), where Mexico City (the nation's capital) is taken as representative of the country's average admixture; 41% European, 56% Amerindian, 3% African. (For the purposes of phenotypic analysis of the Mexican population majority [ie. mestizos], my results lacked a percentile representation for an African admixture. The reason for this is I did not include the African population it in my equation, as it is almost inexistant as an independant ethnic group in Mexico, at less than 1%. The results of African admixture shown in the study itself, 3%, also proved this.)

Chile is a country with a mestizo majority population (this time I say visibly mestizo, and I will use the figure 60%), and its LARGEST minority are White Chileans (30%, pure White or phenotypically White), followed then by Amerindians (10%). Once again, the ratio of a "true" mestizo is defined as 50:50, and nobody is exactly this ratio unless they are a first generation mestizo. In the case of Chile, the Amerindian admixture in the AVERAGE Chilean Mestizo (again, visibly mestizos being 60% of the population) will hover between 45% Amerindian and 55% European. And once again, individually, the visibly mestizo can register up to 70% on either side and be classed a mestizo, but any more and they’d be classed as either White or Amerindian (depending which side the 70% is representing). If the admixture fell over 75% of whichever race in any person, then that person would already have been counted as solely that race and not a mixture, since they would not have physically shown their admixtures. So, what’s the verdict? The average visibly mestizo Chilean, comprising 60% of the population, hovers at around 55% European admixture and 45% Amerindian admixture. Here also, this result roughly coincides with the study above (Admixture in Urban Dihybrid or Trihybrid Latin American Populations), where Santiago de Chile (the nation's capital) is taken as representative of the country's average admixture; 57% European, 43% Amerindian, 0% African.

Let’s do this for Argentina and Peru, the first of which you tried to compare with Chile and the second you tried to compare with Mexico.

Argentina is a country with a White or phenotypically White majority population (85%), and its LARGEST minority are mestizo Argentine (c. 12%, the visibly mestizo), followed then by Amerindians (c. 3%, the pure or phenotypically Amerindian). In the case of Argentina, the Amerindian admixture in the AVERAGE Argentine White will be determined by the largest minority. Since the visibly mestizo are themselves a small minority, the majority of White Argentites will have admixture (as has even been proven by genetic test by the University of Buenos Aires) but to such a small degree that it does not show phenotypically. And thus the population is white, and there is no questions about it, and determining the degree is irrelevant for the majority of the population since they are phenotypically white. We could try to determine the admixture of the visibly mestizo Argentines (the largest minority), and that will be determined on the majority population (the whites). The average Argentine mestizo (already representing c. only 12%) would be around 35% Amerindian and 65% white.

Peru is a country with an Amerindian or phenotypically Amerindian majority population (50%), and its LARGEST minority are mestizo Peruvians (c. 35%, the visibly mestizo), followed then by White Peruvians (c. 15%, the pure or phenotypically White). In the case of Peru, the European admixture in the AVERAGE Peruvian Amerindian will be determined by the largest minority. Since the visibly mestizo are the largest minority in this country, the majority of Amerindian Peruvians will have admixture but to such a small degree that it does not show phenotypically. And thus the population is Amerindian, and there is no questions about it, and determining the degree is irrelevant for the majority of the population since they are phenotypically Amerindian. We could try to determine the admixture of the visibly mestizo Peruvians (the largest minority), and that will be determined on the majority population (the Amerindians). The average Peruvian mestizo (already representing only 35%) would be around 65% Amerindian and 35% white.

If you have been to any of these countries discussed above, know any of their population histories, and have read up on any recent genetic research for the corresponding nations, it will all make sense.

The following is the pairing of countries by population similarity I talked of earlier. Even when two countries are mestizo majorities, as with Chile and Mexico, there are better suited country pairs for comparison.


 * As a White (or predominantly White) majority country, Argentina’s population counterpart would be Uruguay.
 * As an Amerindian (or predominantly Amerindian) majority country, Peru’s population counterpart would be Bolivia or Guatemala.
 * As a mestizo majority (with a White or predominantly White largest minority) country, Chile’s population counterpart would be Paraguay or Costa Rica.
 * As a mestizo majority (with an Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian largest minority) country, Mexico’s population counterpart would be Ecuador.
 * As a mestizo majority (with and equal White or predominantly White, and Mulatto/Black or predominantly Black largest minorities) country, Colombia’s population counterpart would be Venezuela.

With this info, and noting that Colombia is also a mestizo majority country (58%); what do you think the admixture of Colombia's AVERAGE mestizo would be, given that Colombia's largest minority status is shared by both Whites (c. 20%) and Mulattos/Blacks (c. 20%), with the next significant minority being Amerindians (c. 2%)? Al-Andalus 14:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of importing text to your talk page, and lengthening it even more, you can go to this link on the talk page of the Mestizo article. Talk:Mestizo. The topic was touched on back then too. Al-Andalus 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC).


 * I agree with alot of what you're saying as my only question was to the level of the Amerindian element in Chile's mestizo population and what the percentage of PRIMARILY European descended people in Chile was. It would just seem to me from what I've seen here and in other studies that Chile's people (including mestizo's) have more European (mainly Spanish) ancestry than in other mestizo countries such as Mexico which has such a massive Amerindian population (over 30 million). I will read into the mestizo article and links you have posted above and discuss more as soon as I can, but right now things have been quite busy for me so I'm sorry for any delay. Ciao, Epf 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Try not to look at the Amerindian population in Mexico as a real number, but as a percentage. If you say such a massive Amerindian population, at 30 million, you must also say and look at is a 60 million mestizos and 10 million White Mexicans. The 10 million White Mexicans in fact outnumbering the 4.5 million (30% of the population) Whites in Chile, despite being 10% of Mexico. Al-Andalus 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC).


 * Yes, that is true, and 30% of over 100 million people should signify predominant Amerindian elements compared to 9-10% who are European in Mexico. The significantly larger percentage of Whites/European in Chile compared to the much smaller percentage of Amerindians can show a stronger European/White element in Chile. As you say before, the term Mestizo varies between these countries in the sense of how much Amerindian ancestry is present in that population. I'm pretty sure we are in agreeance that the mestizos of Chile have much more European (Spanish) ancestry than those of Peru and Mexico ? Epf 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're looking at it as a real number. I have already discussed the effect of the largest minority on the majority population. I am vaguely in agreement as to what you say, that the visibly mestizo in Chile (60%) have more European ancestry than Mexicans, but only slightly higher, just over 50%. Remember that we have already deducted those mestizo that would be phenotypically white, and that's why the mestizo population in Chile for this purpose is being quoted as 60%, not as 95%. The average Mexican mestizo has his European ancestry just under 50%. The difference among the visibly mestizo Mexican and Chilean is not that large, both cluster around 50%, one just beneath the other just above. Your constant comparison of Mexico with Peru is not going anywhere, that country is of an Amerindian majority, with a large visibly mestizo minority, of whom the average European admixture is slightly less than the average Mexcian mestizo. The Chilean's closest comparison is the Paraguayan, then the Mexican, then the Colombian, and last the Peruvian/Argnetinian/Dominican for their respective reasons. Al-Andalus 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC).


 * I don't understand what your meaning is by "real number". The fact is that the percentage of Mexico's Amerindian population (30%) is higher than that in Chile and the European/"White" population (visibly) in Chile (30 % as you claim) is higher than the 10 % in Mexico. I don't understand your point here, I'm speaking in terms of the proportion of the population. I also doubt the 60% number of Chile being visibly mestizo since it ignores any small percentage that are Amerindian. Even so, with 90% of Mexico being visibly mestizo or Amerindian and only 60% of Chile being visibly mestizo as you claim, it would seem that most Mexican mestizos would have a greater amount of Amerindian ancestry compared to those from Chile. As for my comparison with Peru, I only mentioned it because most of Peru's mestizos, like Mexico, are mainly of Amerindian descent. The European (Spanish) element is proportionally more significant amongst Chileans, even when one goes by the 30 % number you cite that are phenotypically "white". Most of those 60% which are visibly mestizo (whatever that entails) in Chile have more Spanish ancestry than most mestizos from Mexico. All aside, one can't deny the fact that the majority of Chileans are primarily descended (over 50% of ancestry) from Spaniards. Epf 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Mestizos of Mexico are of similar Spanish ancestral origins as you claimed before, then they can be included on Spanish people article as much as the Chileans can. Obviously alot of those numbers of people in the other countries with Spanish ethnic origins includes millions who are not of full Spanish descent either.

Hello, everyone. I've been reading the comments and opinions about Chile's ethnic or racial composition, and I'm curious to know how Al Andalus has come up with that notion of 60% of Chilean population being visibly mestizo. That percentage just seems way too high to me. I'm by no means an expert, but I'm from Chile. I was born there, grew up there, all the way through college. I lived in the northern regions for a few years. It's often said that people in the north of Chile are predominantly mestizo or Amerindian, but this is not the case. I went to a public (state-run), middle-class schools there, and I can say that 2 thirds of kids were Caucasian-looking (with no discernable Amerindian admixture). Brown (often-times light-brown) hair and eyes, fair skin were most common. About 25% of all students had at least one non-Spanish last name (people in Chile use 2 last names). There were fairly big numbers of descendants of people from Croatia, Italy, Greece, Germany, England, and other European countries. The other third was visibly mestizo-looking. Very few kids were Amerindian-looking. Then I moved to Santiago. Again, I attended a middle-class public school in the northern part of Santiago. And pretty much the same ethnic composition was there as well. 2 thirds European/Caucasian-looking, one third mestizo or Amerindian-looking. Then I went to college in Santiago. It was one of the 2 top universities in Chile, and most of the students were from upper-middle class (not rich). The ethnic composition here was about 90% European-looking (about 40% to 50% with at least one non-Spanish European last name), and 10% mestizo or Amerindian. I've traveled all over Chile, and European-looking people (again, with NO discernible Amerindian features, i.e., not "visibly mestizo") are definitely a majority in the country, except for some remote areas in the far north (altiplano) bordering Bolivia and Peru, the Araucania region, and the Chiloe archipelago, where Amerindians and mestizos with discernable Amerindian features ("visibly mestizos") are more numerous. I've visited different areas of Spain and other European countries. Many people there are dark-skinned and have black hair, among other features. They have features that are common among people from the Mediterranean (Spain, southern France, southern Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc.). I've noticed that some people, especially in Europe and North America, see those features in someone from Latin America, like Chile, and they they tend to attribute them right awat to Amerindian admixture. Why is that? Why can't they be Mediterranean features? That's the type of features that can be most commonly found in Chile. So, again, where does that figure of 60% of the population in Chile being "visibly mestizo" come from? Aren't those allegedly Amerindian features rather Mediterranean features? I think they most likely are. 60% of the population being visibly mestizo in Chile seems way too high. According to my personal experience, it's more like 30 to 35% only.

Racial Reality as a source for ancestry issues
Epf I have noticed that you have changed your position with regards to the validity of this website as a source. I remember you used to be in favour of its use... What is your personal opinion on it?

Cheers --Burgas00 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The site includes several valid sources and I believe its intentions (refuting politically biased multi-ethnic, assimilationist, racist, fascist, racial supremacist and "purist" BS) are overall well-mannered, but its obvious to see how some of the sources have been slightly altered or edited to express that authors opinons. Much of the "racial" views on European peoples, (I prefer to basically say physical characteristics/appearance rathern than "race") do have quite a bit of merit though he also tends to overemphasize and over-rely on inaccurate photos and a few sources with some controversial theories and bias (eg. Carleton Coons works and even older anthropolgical studies used on the site like John Baker). Ive read Coons work on the peoples of Europe and there is much information on phenotypic traits/characteristics he was quite accurate on, especially considering it was from 1939. One day if I ever have enough time to finish the research, I intend to make an article on some of the correlations of his work with findings of modern popuation genetic studies. Coon obviously also had very numerous fallacies, incorrect assumptions, incomplete data and some very controversial and plainly unacceptable views on several topics. This is why although I consider his work useful as a source for certain subjects, I never put as much emphasis on it as some very bizarre and "racially" obsessed propenents out there do (I hope you never have to read some of the ridiculous viewpoints of Richard McCulloch or the "SNPA"). Overall, in my opinion "Racial Reality" is definitely not a site that can be used as a reference, but the actual/original version of information and references collected there can and the author has mainly valid viewpoints which clearly separate the site from alot of the "racial" garbage that can be found on the internet lately. Anyways, glad to see things resolved decently on the Spanish people page and let me know what some of your plans are with regard to the ancient Iberians article (I think you mentioned something about that). Ciao, Epf 10:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I guess the use of the racial reality is to help refute even more outrageous theories and statements out there. Actually the author claims that that is his purpose. The problem is that he crosses the line of neutrality. For example he tries to make northern Europeans seem as mixed and non-european as possible while denying any possibility of miscegenation in southern europe. I guess this is done to counter the nordic or nordicist brand of white supremacism. But claiming that a few pheonician traders visiting Cornwall had a huge impact on the gene pool of Western Brits and Irish while denying any impact from 8 centuries of muslim domination in Spain is a bit paradoxical in my opinion.

As for the Iberians the question is who were the Iberians, the main problem is definition. In Spain Iberians can be restricted to an Indo european people which colonised eastern Spain. It can also mean all the preceltic people which lived in Iberia (including the basques). In any case there was little in common with regards to culture, origin and ancestry of these peoples. I will have a look on the Spanish wiki and keep u updated.

--Burgas00 12:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the Gitanos, I hope you dont feel that you have been defeated by a bunch of Spaniards with an assimilationist ideology and have had to compromise. Really I promise you this is not the case. There is no ideology behind claiming that gitanos are ethnic spaniards. (there 'was' in the "french people" debate on whether immigrants were French- French wikipedians said there was no such thing as "ethnic French"). Gitanos simply are ethnic spaniards in their own minds and in the minds of spaniards despite their ancestry. It is very strange I know, and this is not the case as far as I know in any other country. I guess the reason is that (central and southern) Spaniards have co opted Gypsy culture while Gypsies have adopted andalusian culture as their own....Anyways, enjoy your sunday

cheers --Burgas00 13:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From Anglo-Saxon Talk
EPF, I believe it might just be you who has indeed stated that the English are ethnic Germans, but am willing to accept it's not. An IP user has made what looks to be over 100 editing corrections to EPF's discourse with me over the course of several hours. This is the same user that added the comments about English being ethnic Germans if you look on the history of this article. Whether or not it is EPF, it is quite scaryEnzedbrit 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did I anywhere state the English are ethnic Germans ? Here you go again misinterpreting things and making ingnorant and false accusations. As for the anon you speak of, I dont know who it is, but whoever it is has also vandalised my user page several times in the past until I contacted the admin. Cheers, Epf 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that you cannot read or don't understand what you read. I believe it might just be you who has indeed stated that the English are ethnic Germans, but am willing to accept it's not is what I have clearly said, right before your Here you go again misinterpreting things and making ingnorant and false accusations.  What part of 'willing to accept it's not' is unclear? Enzedbrit 03:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Willing to accept" sounded as if you have some sort of case where I claimed somewhere English are ethnic Germans. Just admit you were wrong about it, lol. I no where made such a claim and a large part of English idnetity is of Germanic origins, but obviously theyre not "ethnic Germans". As I pointed out in discussion as well, the numbered user was not me as my IP address is a 69 # no where near the IP number of whoever it was that edited pretty much every single comment on the Anglo-Saxon discussion page. Epf 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ciao, Epf 11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * note, Enzedbrit is one of the more insulting, offensive and prejudicial users on Wikipedia and much of his comments and POV should not be considered in this dicussion or several others. His previous vandalism of my user page as well as misinterpretation and disregard of other users POV should be taken into account by any readers of his comments or Wikipedia edits.

Hi
There's no problem from my perspective on Talk:Irish people. You make your case strongly, but that's the cut and thrust of talk pages. You always have good and valid reasoning and sources, and I think good sources are the bedrock of any POV. Even if we see things from a different perspective to each other, I always enjoy reading your posts, they are well argued and make me think a lot about my own perspective, which is a good thing. There are often problems on talk pages when contensious issues are being debated and often people take things personally. I think most people come to wikipedia with a specific series of beliefs, which are really POVs in wikipedia parlance, and then find it hard to accept the validity of other people's POVs. I know I have fallen into the trap of thinking my opinion must be the correct one. I have also made the mistake of trying to think in terms of facts or truth, which are not recognised criteria for inclusion in wikipedia articles. These days I usually try to see things in terms of the verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research policies. I find that these policies are very good at helping people to come to a consensus. For me it helps if I try to think in inclusive terms, by that I mean accepting all POVs (as long as they comply with the three policies above) in an article for ballance, while also thinking in terms expressing them neutrally. I also think there is a general misunderstanding about the NPOV policy on wikipedia, I have often seen people accused of including a POV in an article edit, as if it is a breach of the NPOV policy to include a POV in an article. It is not, as long as other POVs are also included and they are all verified in the usual way. I suggest you try to come to some sort of consensus with Enzedbrit, it's always good to try to work constructively, and you might actually find more common ground than you realise. I suggest you have a little think about how you can include his POV and your POV in a neutral way, and then suggest this solution to him, you might have to negotiate a bit on wording, hopefully simply making the suggestion will help to diffuse the animmosity. Sorry if I've prattled on a bit. Thanks for the link to the paper, I'll have a look when I get some time. Take care, and happy editing. Alun 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Just a note on your comment ''Look at Cavalli-Sforza's autosomal analysis of the 5 main waves of European migrations into Europe. Uralic is one of them and the markers are strongest in North-Eastern Europe and decline significantly as one moves west and south''. I do not dispute that Finns have some differing allelic frequencies to some other european populations, but are they discernable in physical appearances? I think the problem with your analysis is that you are confusing the specific with the general. Yes one may be able to determine, given a large enough sample, that there are measurable statistically significant differences in phenotype between Finns and Brits. But they would not necessarily be important or apparent to the casual observer. One might be able to discern, for example that Finns are, for the sake of argument, on average a centimetre taller than other europeans (Finns are quite tall in my observation), but this does not mean that short Finns do not exist, likewise blond peple may be rarer in Italy than in Scandinavia, but it does not mean that there are no blonde Italians. I think you have some preconceived ideas about race and are not prepared to take any other interpretation of the data into account. I do not think that there is any evidence for your assertions. If the peoples of europe were so easily categorised by physical appearence, then their origins would be apparent by observation, and we wouldn't need molecular biology to show us that we are all really descended from the same populations. The fact that molecular biology can show us that neolithic migrants did not displace the paleolithic population, but rather supplemented it, shows us that the old idea of mass migration with massive population displacement is wrong, and that the idea of discreet populations representing peoples with differing origins is a nonsense. It seems more likely that when new peoples did migrate into europe, they supplemented and inter married with the indigenous populations. In effect we do have the same origins. Let's put it this way, all europeans are descended from the paleolithic european population and also from the neolithic immigrants (the data show this clearly). So we all have the same origins from that point of view. Some europeans may also have ancestors from other migrations, but all europeans are descended from numerous and multiple source populations, some of the source populations may be mutually exclusive (there may be no Slavic contributions to the British population, for example), but it is also true that all europeans are also descended from the paleolithic and neolithic inhabitants of europe (even Finns). It is a nonsense to claim differing origins, because there are multiple origins for all europeans, some of which are exclusive and some of which are inclusive. I'm not sure that I have made my point clearly, but i think it is important to understand the multiple origins of all european populations, and that a group having an exclusive contribution by one immigrating people, does not exclude it from also having contributions from inclusive indigenous populations as well. Alun 06:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what you say, but I do not have preconceived ideas about "race". Im not even sure if I agree with most biologists/geneticists that "Race" exists. I only am trying to emphasize how different European peoples have some physical variations (more so between some groups than some, but overall minor differences) resulting from different ancestry/genealogy and differing migrations of peoples into these groups. One thing I need to point out here, is that physical human variation consists of noticeable features besides stature, hair type/colour, eye colour or skin colour. Even in those respects there can be obvious differences of averages between European groups. I am not saying anywhere that all members of a certain group have the same exact characeterisitcis, of course not. However, these ethnic groups have certain phenotypic traits which are not shared with all other European groups. There is also much variation among groups in facial features, head form and size and even diferences in body frame. In physical anthropology, head form/size and facial features take precedence because they are less variable in populations compared to other traits I have mentioned. Most people of a relatively homogenous ethnic group share certain traits in common and this does not say that all of the people of a group have the trait (although in a few cases this can be true) but a majority do. Members of a group may have differing physical characteristics, but they also share at least some in common that they may or may not share with someone from another ethnic group. Regardless of physical variation, I think the most important thing I should point out here is how you misunderstand my meaning of "origins". I am speaking of more recent ancestry (within the past 10,000 years), since all humans descend from the same origin. Different European peoples descend from largely the same groups of people but also from different populations/migrations which have caused some genotypic and phenotypic distinction (albeit minor) between groups. Like you say, some groups encountered differing contributions of peoples yet also share much in common with other peoples because of other contributions (either "indigenous"/Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic or later migrations). Also, the old ideas of mass migration and mass displacement have been shown to be wrong in many cases but this may not be universal and there may be many cases where native populations were displaced. Even so, genetics do not show that the mass migrations themselves did not take place and there obviously were different migrations of peoples into different areas. Obviously it would require massive differences between the groups to completely replace an existing native population (e.g. Natives and Northern Europeans in North America) and in most cases the groups mixed as you say, in turn forming the base "origins" for modern European peoples. Overall, I think we agree on most of what we are debating about but it just seems that we misunderstand much of what were are trying to say. The differences between many groups are smaller than between others and phenotypic differences are easier to notice between certain groups than others, depending on ones POV. I mean, a person like me who has an interest in and studies biological anthropology would be able to distinguish Finns and Brits easier than the average person, but for the most part it obviously isnt as simple as distinguishing Caucasians from Blacks or Asians. Each European ethnic group has different phenotypic elements which it shares with some groups and doesn't with others. Obviously no groups have the exact same variation of genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, but these characteristics are almost never exclusive to any one group in particular. Finnic and Baltic peoples for example would share much in common that would make it difficult to distinguish them from each other solely on appearance, but distinguishing them from Brits or peoples of the Balkans would be somewhat easier. Genetically, the differences generally vary in a similar context. Genes of English and Scots for example are much more similar than between English and Finns. I enjoy discussing this Alun but Im going to try and make my comments shorter as time is something I dont have plenty of right now with exams approaching. Even a procrastinator like me needs to buckle down eventually. Cheers, Epf 07:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I think we agree more than disagree. Nice to get a different perspective. Good luck with the exams. Cheers. Alun 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

British people pages
I'm no longer going to do any work on these pages. I'm fed up with the bickering and blatant POV peddling. I am also sick of the fact that no one seems to want to try to get consensus, they just want to argue their own particular POV add infinitum. As far as I'm concerned you are free to produce the most POV and least accurate, unreferenced article on wikipedia, I wash my hands of them all. I also thought that it is odd of you to claim that wikipedia is not taken seriously by academics because of it's lack of proper sources (but you will find no references in any other encyclopedia), then to go on to say that this is a good reason not to include references. Alun 05:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern ethnic group of Saxons vs. modern day Saxons
Sorry Epf, your statement is not or only partially correct. Right is; the term Saxon / Saxons is often used to describe not original Saxon related things. For example, the “Free State of Saxony" has completely no connection to the ethnic definition of Saxon. Their citizens are ethnically south Germanic origin, like Bavarians or Swabians. For more information about this please see the German wikipedia article about “Saxons”. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsen_%28Volk%29)

In any case there exist a (present) ethnic group with the name Saxons (Westphalia & Lower Saxony), and more or less; they are beside the English people also the descendants of the historical Saxons. Such as, there exists as well the ethnic group of Bavarians, historical Bavarii, or the Swabians, historical known as Alamanni.

I believe this link to the (present) ethnic group of Saxons (and therefore Germans) is in reality a political question. Particularly in England exists in this matter a lot of aversion. (Please observe I am not German.) However, in fact there is absolutely no valid reason to deny a connection with the present ethnic group of Saxons. --lorn10 10:05, 04. April 2006 (CEST)

English as Germanic ( vs Enzedbrit)
Just saying thanks for replying to him on my talk page and basically saving me the bother - i really couldnt be assed. Ive had the odd look at some of this guys edits and ive noticed your somewhat ongoing 'battle' with him over a few pages and you have my sympathies - i really dont have the patience to deal with that kind of user. An Siarach

Hey there
Hi Alun. I hope Im not coming across too harshly on the Talk:Irish people page as it is not my intention and I am not trying to force my POV onto others or compeltely disregard others POV. I am just trying to present the facts and information that I believe and know are correct. But I do accept others POV and opinions. User:Enzedbrit has been very very irritating to me, editing my user page a few times and has been consistent with insults and ridiculous behaviour when it comes to discussions. In short, he has some serious personal issues to contened with and this is why debates with him go nowhere as he seems to be greatly threatened by my discussions/POV as well as any evidence and reasoning to support it. As to what we were debating on the Talk page for Irish people, I belive you should really read some of the works by Carleton Coon. Yes his typological and "race" models are obsolete, but much of the historical information and physical appearance/characteristics data gathered on European peoples showing their variation is the best available (even if from 1939). His history relating to his conclusions is also quite reliable but yet again, it needs mentioning just how false and out of date much of his theories are also. The most striking matter of his work is not only the obvious correlations with the commonly observed physical apperance of different European groups and regions, but also with modern findings of populatoin genetics. I really am working hard on finishing an article revealing these correlations. Some of Coons data from 1939 can be viewed here: Cheers, Epf 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

EPF, you are a liar and a trouble maker, and I have NEVER edited your user page. Enzedbrit 03:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this just goes to show how you cant be reasoned with on anything in Wikipedia. Dont you recall the time you put your ignorant comments on my user page ? What about your incessant insults and petty name-calling during debates and discussions ? What about your arrogant and derogatory viewpoints ? You are an ignorant and abusive user who misunderstands peoples comments and obviously cant be taken seriously on any topic. Read the history of edits of my user page on the date of January 14, 2006 (vandalism by Enzedbrit). There is no understanding with you on anything. Enough already. Epf 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin
Hi Epf, you could do me a favour if you have the time. I recently did a major edit of Rosalind Franklin and have now submited it for peer review. You seem to have a good eye for detail and good observational skills, you are also a good critic. I would be grateful if you could find time to read the article and make some comments on the article's peer review page. I would very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance if you have time, if you don't have the time or inclination then I understand. Alun 10:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

English people
French people has again been added to the related ethnic groups section. Please do not remove it without an explanation on the talk page. You cannot leave out French people because it might be offensive, since the Norman invasion French culture and language have had a profound effect on English ethnicity and identity, if someone finds it offensive then I would suggest it says more about them than anything else. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about what ethnic groups to include or exclude, please join the discussion so we can get consensus before making unilateral decisions to remove an ethnic group. I see Cornish has been added, but there was a consensus on the talk page to remove it. One of the problems with this article is that the talk page is not being used properly. Talk pages are for discussing what to include and what not to include in the article, instead the talk page seems to be devoted to disagreements over definitions and various theries, while there seems to be a general free for all on the article page. This is what leads these petty edit wars. Alun 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Alun ,as you know I have been very busy with school although it is almost over (only two more exams to go) amongst other matters. Whatever time I do have on here has been mainly focused on a few others which are more important right now. Lol, I only meant that as a joke since my dad's family is English and obviously there is a long period of rivalry between French and English peoples. I do have to say that from what I did read on the talk page, there was no consensus whatsoever on not including Cornish people and I will argue why it deserves to be included at a later time. The Norman invasion of 1066 to me doesntm erit French inclusion, the Normans were in no way representative of either the wider French culture and ethnicity at that time or of it now. Most of the influences they brought into England were in widespread contintenal usage (e.g. feudalism) and the only really French impact they had was on certain parts of the language. In ethnic terms, I think it should be remembered that the Normans were themselves Vikings and Viking descendants who adapted aspects of northern French culture, language and surnames while on their fairly brief continental sojourn in Normandy. Epf 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Normans were Franco-Norsemen in much the same way that in the Danelaw there were Anglo-Danes. Related ethnic groups are not the same as derivative ethnic groups, and the number of Normans introduced into the country is irrlevant, we are not talking about race. It also doesn't matter that they were the descendants of Vikings (and incidentally native Normans as well), as you point out they adapted aspects of northern French culture, language and surnames, but this is at the heart of ethnicity, they adopted a French ethnicity. If you read the Ethnic group article you will note that ethnic groups can be of recent creation, they do not have to be ancient and they do not have to be racial, though there may be a perception of both, the perception may be false. I don't understand what you mean by their fairly brief continental sojourn in Normandy, the Kings of England remained Dukes of Normandy untill 1204 and claimed Normandy untill 1259. The whole English aristocracy was replaced by foreigners who spoke French, and the language of the court of England remained French for several centuries after the conquest. The Norman usurpation had a profound and dramatic effect on England and the English, the whole social structure was changed and England fought numerous wars with the French king because of the association of the English King with Normandy, most notably the Hundred Years' War. The Queen still uses Norman French language when she gives Royal Assent to parliamentary Bills. We have Dukes, Counts, Viscounts and Barons because of the Normans. One only has to look at the list of King's names to see that these changed dramatically after 1066, there are primarily French names after this time, whereas there were Old English names before this time. This is also reflected in names in society at large, John for example is a common name in England, but this is derived from the French Jean, but how many Egberts are there? Likewise numbering of Kings starts affresh after 1066, and no (or very little) Anglo-Saxon history is taught in British schools, we go straight from the Roman Empire to 1066 with no real mention of the intervening time. I would suggest that this is the most important and profound event in English recorded history and culture, the English were suddenly being ruled by a French speaking foreigh nobility, and their whole orientation for the next 400 years or so would be towards France. And of course there is the not insignificant fact that English Kings also held other parts of France many were Counts of Angou for example. Of course there is also the small matter of the Frankish people being ethnically related to the Anglo-Saxons as well. I really think you want to remove the French because you personally don't like them being there rather than for any other reason. I am going to copy this discussion to the English people talk page so it is available to others. Please ad any additional comments there. Alun 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun ,again this is me you are talking to, I know my English medieval history and you do not have to re-iterate it here (trying to spare you some time in future discussions). The Normans adapted aspects of French culture and language but that is not solely ethnicity and the Normans were always considered separate and distinct from the rest of the peoples of France and the French aristocracy (they were vassals to the French crown until the incorporaton of the English monarchy)). They retained several aspects of thir Scandinavian roots and incorporated these influences as well to create the Norman language which was fairly distinct from Parisian French then and still today remains to be a different dialect. One of the main factors, and in most cases the most dinstinguishing factorin ethnicity, is descent/common genealogy and this is something the Normans also did not share mostly with the peoples of France as again, they were largely of Viking origins. What I meant by brief continental sojourn is that the Normans had only settled in Normandy (as well as every where else they went) in relatively few numbers and were there for a short period of time before they went on to conquer other lands such as England and Sicily. The Normans themselves only constituted of the upper-most classes wherever they went, and even when they conquered England, the Anglo-Norman form of French was seen as distinct from that spoken by the court of the French monarchs in Paris. I do not deny that they did not have a massive effect on England, but in ethnic/descent terms they did not have a significant impact and in terms of culture, they did not introduce anything into England or English ethnicity/identity which can be considered distinctly French. The only uniquely French influence was on the language but the amount of loanwords and other linguistic influence can be compared to the level of Frankish Germanic influence on the French language. Linguists also often debate that many English words which are often attributed to Norman-French origins, could easily as be attributed to Latin influence from the Church both prior to and after the Norman conquest. In terms of ethnicity/descent, culture and identity, I as well as I have to admit most historians and anthropologists, do not consider the English in any way related to the French people or culture on the same scale as with other groups, and especially when one considers the fact that the Normans themselves assimilated into the cultures wherever they went, including England, where they became (Anglo-Normans). They were long known to be aristocrats and warriors who were always adaptive of the culture of the lands in which they gained/conquered and the "Norman" influences on English culture and identity were not distinctly French in any shape or form. As regards to the Franks, they were somewhat culturally related to the Franks in the sense they were both Germanic but it is believed by most historians that one of the largest reasons for the Anglo-Saxon migration was pressure from the Frankish and other tribes of the Holy Roman Empire moving into their homelands near the Frisian cost and southern Jutland. It is widely agreed that the Anglo-Saxons/Frisians were separate Germanic peoples from those of the rest of Germany (and the Frisians continue to be so to this day). The Franks did have an influence on France in forming its aristocracy and monarchy as well as having an impact on the Gallo-Romance languages there, however, I do not see how this results in the English being significantly related to the French as it isn't really accepted that Frankish tribes took part in the Anglo-Saxon migrations (again largely due to the fact it is believed they were part of its cause in the first place). To end on a different note, I have no problems whatsoever with French and in fact I am insulted by that since many of my friends are French-Canadian, I myself am bilingual and I live in a country where French culture is very important to the national identity. I'm sorry to say I wouldn't expect such a comment like this from you Alun. Cheers, Epf 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

British people pages
I'm no longer going to do any work on these pages. I'm fed up with the bickering and blatant POV peddling. I am also sick of the fact that no one seems to want to try to get consensus, they just want to argue their own particular POV add infinitum. As far as I'm concerned you are free to produce the most POV and least accurate, unreferenced article on wikipedia, I wash my hands of them all. I also thought that it is odd of you to claim that wikipedia is not taken seriously by academics because of it's lack of proper sources (but you will find no references in any other encyclopedia), then to go on to say that this is a good reason not to include references. Alun 05:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said anywhere that Wikipedia's prevalence of POV and lack of sourcing/referencing is a "good reason not to include references". You, as is the case in many of our discussions, misunderstand what I've said and in fact I supported your comments on how proper referencing is needed. I merely point out that Wikipedia is often expressed as being unreliable in academic circles in various news articles, reports, etc. Epf 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fterie1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fterie1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Hi, you've been reported for violating 3RR at WP:AN3. I wasn't the one who blocked you, so I am afraid your questions to me are misdirected. I can see that the opponent (who reported you) was blocked as well. Here's a record from your blocklog: 02:56, 28 May 2006 William M. Connolley blocked "Epf (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (Dutch people) Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish people
Hi, we need some images of modern Irish people that are in the public domain or are under a free license, unfortunately there aren't that many. There are quite a few of Seamus Heaney on uni type sites who might release the image under a free license. Arniep 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about the revert on Immigration, daft git that I am, didn't see the second page of the article. Alun 10:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't really follow football, but will probably watch a few England games, I always like to support the home nations when they make it to a big tournament. At least we will get them at a sane time of day this time, unlike in Korea/Japan, but I suppose it will not be so great for you. All the best. Alun 13:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Evan, I do miss our frank exchanges, would like to exchange emails if it's OK with you? I may have appeared intransigent during our discussions, and I'm sorry if you ever percieved that I was personally against you, it was never the case. I can be stubborn, I blame my Geordie grandmother, she was a stubborn old so and so. I would be very interested to have more one to one conversations about life the universe and everything with you if you are up for it? I'm quite interested in Canada, I used to listen to Radio Canada International up untill quite recently, and was very interested in the suggestion on your talk page about comparing genetics with physical anthropology. I think you are right when you say that we probably have more in common than than we realise, I think we are both aggressive posters on talk pages, but that we both take the other perspective into account and respond to it, even if we do not agree with it. If you would like to take me up on my offer then you can mail me at alun.parsons and it's @helsinki.fi. All the best, no bad feelings if you decline. Alun 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism on Spanish People Article
Hi Evan

User GustaX is doing some serious damage on the Spanish people article. He has erased half of it and is trying to impose some funny ideas. Please give me a hand and if you know any administrators try to get the page protected and this user banned.

Thanks--Burgas00 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks for the thought Epf, but I'm a graduate student in medieval Scottish history, I'm not really in need of basic information about Norse settlement in Scotland; and even if I were, I have ready access to better sources than anything on the web. Thanks anyway. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Help fight systematic bias
Dear Epf,

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Popsicle. If you are interested in helping to counter systematic bias towards North America, and instead establish Wikipedia as an international website, then please feel welcome to contribute with your opinions. Thank you. EuroSong talk 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaners...
Hi Epf... regarding this edit: why are you adding Dutch? I've looked at the talk archive and can find no argument for why this is necessary. Afrikaners speak Afrikaans, not Dutch. In fact, I speak Afrikaans but have a lot of trouble with Dutch. Mi kk er (...) 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did see that sub-section (language) but fail completely to see how that supports adding Dutch. People who speak Portuguese can also understand quite a bit of Spanish, those who speak Afrikaans can also understand quite a bit of Flemish, but in neither of these cases (nor in the hundreds of others) is it appropriate to add these languages to boxes in articles on other languages. If, for example, u favour adding Dutch to Afrikaans u also have to favour adding Afrikaans to Dutch, etc. etc.


 * The statement "the two are so closely related that it can be difficult to distinguish in some cases whether the person is speaking Afrikaans or the more standard form of Dutch" is completely false BTW. Maybe it is difficult to tell for an outsider but I know immediately what someone is speaking. In fact, when someone speaks Afrikaans who is Dutch (i.e. they've lived in SA for a long time) I can *still* tell, as can most people. (Jokes abound about this). And, erm, in which schools are Dutch taught? I have a big Afrikaans extended family (plenty of children) and I don't know anyone who is learning Dutch.


 * I can understand Dutch if I try very hard (I've practised on a Dutch TV channel for a bit) but it is sufficiently different for it to stand out. Mi kk er (...) 22:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Afrikaans was considered a Dutch dialect until the late 19th century, when it began to be recognised as a distinct language, and it gained equal status with Dutch and English as an official language in South Africa in 1925." . Mi kk er (...) 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This doesnt't negate the fact that many Afrikaners other than you understand and speak standard Dutch easily and that there are numerous linguists that still classify it is a dialect of Dutch since it is more mutually intelligible to standard Dutch than are other Dutch dialects in Belgium and the Netherlands. Since "Afrikaan" itself is simply the Dutch word for "African", I suppose it can stay as is but the whole "Afrikaners" article reeks of some very extereme-nationalist agenda to make Afrikaners some amazingly disinct group although they are quite heterogenous and many still feel part of their various European ethnic origins. Epf 04:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)