User talk:Epf/Archive 2

About vandalizing Finnish people
You wrote: "it is known the Finnic peoples migrated into the Baltic area from farther east in Siberia". Fisrt, no one has claimed Siberia, instead Volga region has been claimed. Second, that is an old theory, abandoned by many researchers. Indo-Europeans, Swedes included, are originally from Asia. Finno-Ugric peoples are older Europeans than you. So stop, you obviosly do not know much about the subject. --Jaakko Sivonen 10:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is an older theory that is still widely held by most academics and Finnic migrations from Siberia are backed by genetic, historical, anthropolgical and archaeological evidence. The easiest evidence to look at is the existence of closely related peoples and languages to the Finns which still exist in Siberia today, liek the Komi people. Swedes do in large part trace alot of origins to the Halstatt Iron Age culture originally from central asia but most Europeans can claim a majority of old Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestry. Epf 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please source your claim of "most academics". It certainly is not. There IS no historic or archaeologic evidence of that. Linguistics links the Swedes to Kurdis and Urdu speakers too... It has been suggested for example that the whole area between the Baltic Sea and the Urals was inhabited by Finnic peoples. Kalevi Wiik's theory is gaining popularity nowadays --Jaakko Sivonen 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

PLease source YOUR claims stating otherwise. There IS ample genetic evidence stating such, just look up Cavalli-Sforzas autosomal analysis on the origins of Europeans. There is obviously also plenty historical and archaeological evidence pointing out to the migration of the Sammi and Baltic Finns from Siberia into lands earlier held by the Balts and other peoples. The Komi are part of the same Finno-Permic family of related languages and the Komi share many cultural aspects witht he Baltic Finns, especially the Saami who have less Germanic cultural influence than the Finns or Estonians. Epf 11:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In another study genetics have also supported genetical closeness to Flanders etc.. You say there are historic and archaeological evidence - please give them! NO ONE here in Finland thinks that the Finns came from Siberia! As I said, Volga area is the traditional view, not Siberia. --Jaakko Sivonen 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources Epf has provided are those that are accepted by virtually all academics in the field. Kalevi Wiik's theories have been soundly rebutted by academics both inside and outside Finland. JdeJ 12:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Älä selitä. Ei kukaan ajattele suomalaisten tulevan Siperiasta. Volgan mutkaa on kyllä ehdotettu, mutta sehän ei ole Siperiassa. --Jaakko Sivonen 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely you must understand that it's impolite to post at a user page in language that the user (Epf) does not understand. I agree with your point, I find the Volga region a more likely Finnish Urheimat than Siberia, but thatäs not the point here. You have been inserting lots of claims without any sources to back them up, reinsterted them when they are edited out and accused Epf of vandalism for no reaon at all. JdeJ 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not want to sound impolite, and I think it is important to fight against nationalistic POV in Wikipedia. But surely you, Epf, are on wrong tracks now. Swedes having their origins in the Hallstatt culture? Certainly not: I have never heard of any Swedish archaeologist suggesting a mass migration from Central Europe to Scandinavia during the Early Iron Age. The Hallstatt culture coming from Central Asia? Are you sure? I think Hallstatt culture developed from the earlier Tumulus and Urnfield cultures in Central Europe. The Komi living in Siberia? Well, some do, but AFAIK they have migrated there during the medieval or post-medieval period. And this is something that strucks me speechless: Historical and archaeological evidence of Sami and Finnic migration from Siberia? Sure as hell, absolutely NO. This theory is certainly not backed by any academic having elementary knowledge of this matter. I cannot possibly imagine where you have got this weird idea. You must have been using obsolete and worthless sources.


 * The following sentences are not POV but a completely neutral summary of the archaeological mainstream view in Finland and neighbouring countries: "Archeological data suggests the spreading of at least cultural influences from many sources ranging from the south-east to the south-west following the geographical realities with gradual developments rather than clear cut migrations". The migrationist view was debunked already in the late 1970´s, and the Siberian Urheimat was never the dominant hypothesis. I can a provide a whole lot of Finnish references, but I presume you would not be able to read them.


 * Kind regards, --217.112.242.181 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, its important to fight against so-called "nationalisitic POV" but so is fighting again "extreme leftist, assimilationist and anti-ethnic POV", but this does not involve either in my opinion. The Swedes do have trace their cultural heritage originally to the Halstatt Nordic (Germanic) Iron Age Culture which did originially migrate from further east in Europe. If you've never heard of this migration of culture and people during the Iron Age, than clearly you do not have much knowledge in the migrations theories or anthropology and archaeology on this subject matter. The Komi do not live in Siberia, your correct, but they live only just west of the Ural mountains. They, along with the other Finno-Permic speaking peoples are widely believed to have originally migrated from further east in Siberia or Central Asia. There is some archeological evidence from Russia and Karelia and definitely historical sources which have suggested an origin further east. In any case, genetic analysis has shown they clearly have an origin somewhere further east, either Siberia or somewhere in Central Asia. I don't know how you diasgree with this because its obviously nowhere considered an obsolete idea and is widely believed by most academics on the matter. All you really need to look into is Cavalli-Sforzas autosomal analysis on the originis of Europeans to see the Finno-Urgic migration from the east.

The migrationist theory was never "debunked" in the 70's and physical anthropological and modern genetic anlysis proves the central asian origins of many Finno-Urgic peoples. Cultural diffusion has itself come under increased scrutiny in recent years and is not held with any more regard by academics on the subject than are migrationist theories (migration theories do not necessarily imply the compelte replacement of an earlier populaton, just that there was a significant movement of people into the area, usually intermingling with the older population). Sorry, I haven't any knowledge of Finnish (though I'd like to learn), I only speak Italian and English fluently and have some knowledge of French. Ciao, Epf 21:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, virtually NO scientist has seriously suggested in the 20th or 21st century that Finnic peoples mass-migrated from Central Asia or Siberia and that is a damn fact. The traditional view was indeed the migration from the Volga area (which is in Europe), but that is not popular among the sientists anymore, that is another fact. Nor do the Finnish history books tell of a mass-migration from the East as a fact anymore, rather as a traditional and disputed theory. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You really do have some crazy and non-academic agenda on this subject don't you. Virtually every anthropologist and professor I've met and read from on this subject area HAS seriously suggested that there was a migration of Finnic peoples from further east in Asia. Where do you think they came from ? We already know the first Europeans were here in the Paleolithic yet Finnic peopels in Europe can trace the majority of their heritage to the Neolithic. The migration from the Volga (and originally further east in central asia) is obviously still mostly held by academics on the issue since barely any new evidence has debunked it, but rather only confirmed it. How could "Finnish history books" tell of some mass-migration that happened many centuries before such literature could be compiled ? The theory is barely disputed by any academics and as I have shown, has been only suported even more my modern genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza (one study which I do consider very reliable, and this is coming forom someone who is very skeptical about current populaton genetics analysis). Ciao, Epf 07:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My answers to Epf
''The Swedes do have trace their cultural heritage originally to the Halstatt Nordic (Germanic) Iron Age Culture which did originially migrate from further east in Europe. If you've never heard of this migration of culture and people during the Iron Age, than clearly you do not have much knowledge in the migrations theories or anthropology and archaeology on this subject matter.''
 * Frankly, this is getting really strange. First of all, Hallstatt culture in the present area of Austria, Southern Germany, Eastern France etc. is usually considered mainly Celtic, not exclusively Germanic and absolutely not Nordic. Hallstatt culture influence in Scandinavia was not that huge; I think that the later La Tené culture had more influence. And in any case, that is just about culture, not about the origins of the population. I am pretty certain that there is not an archaeologically attested theory of a significant migration from the Hallstatt culture to Scandinavia. Of the suspicion of myself having not "much knowledge" in the migration theories in archaeology...well, I really cannot be offended, because I have similar thoughts of you. At least I have read something about the European Iron Age. I know that significant cultural diffusion or migration from the Eurasian nomad cultures towards Central Europe existed, but does that equal "Hallstatt culture" having migrated as an entity...I doubt so.


 * Modern Swedes trace their cultural heritage to Martin Luther, King Gustav Vasa, 19th century nationalism and 20th century welfare state ideology; but the cointinuing archaeological succession of cultures in Swedes starts during the Mesolithic, and AFAIK the last time of a possible major prehistoric migration wave to Sweden was during the Battle-Axe culture.

They (the Komi), along with the other Finno-Permic speaking peoples are widely believed to have originally migrated from further east in Siberia or Central Asia.
 * Hmmm, there is a possibility that you refer to some new information I do not have. But please provide references. And that´s just about the Finno-Permians, not about all Finno-Ugrians.

There is some archeological evidence from Russia and Karelia and definitely historical sources which have suggested an origin further east.
 * Where do you get this from? Please provide sources, if they exist. It is a commonly accepted view that according to archaeology and linguistics the Balto-Finnic populations in Karelia and Finland had reached their present living areas a lot before anybody started to produce any historical evidence of them.

''In any case, genetic analysis has shown they clearly have an origin somewhere further east, either Siberia or somewhere in Central Asia. I don't know how you diasgree with this because its obviously nowhere considered an obsolete idea and is widely believed by most academics on the matter. ''


 * (I presume "they" means here Balto-Finnic peoples, not just some Finno-Ugrians or specifically the Komi. My apologies if I got your point wrong.) I disagree because not a single Finnish scientist - an archaeologist, a linguistic, a geneticist - seems to agree with your point, at least as far as the Balto-Finnic peoples are concerned. Obviously it is considered obsolete (in fact, anti-scientific) idea in Finland. And you do not provide sources.

All you really need to look into is Cavalli-Sforzas autosomal analysis on the originis of Europeans to see the Finno-Urgic migration from the east...The migrationist theory was never "debunked" in the 70's and physical anthropological and modern genetic anlysis proves the central asian origins of many Finno-Urgic peoples.
 * A view of a single scientist, working with a young and developing science? Is this a hypothesis or a fact. Some geneticists and physical anthropologists have produced very different interpretations of their materials, such as the theory of the different genetic origin of the western and eastern Finno-Ugrians. Who should I believe? Edit. Sorry, I noticed only now your words "many Finno-Ugric peoples". I presume that does not mean "all Finno-Ugric peoples". Obviously that does not need to include the Balto-Finnic populations in the present area of Finland, Estonia, Northwestern Russia etc.? My knowledge of the eastern Finno-Ugrians is limited, but they have little to do with Finland. The Finnish archaeology suggests a strong settlement and population continuity from the Mesolithic, or very least from the Sub-Neolithic period onwards in Finland. The distribution of Finnish Sub-Neolithic cultures (Comb Ceramic Culture) has been a matter of migrationist/diffusionist debate in Finland. However, their origin has been traced to the Upper Volga and Upper Dniepr rivers, not further east. Despite our disagreement, best regards and appreciation.--217.112.242.181 09:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

NB neutral point of view
I'm not involved in this discussion and am supremely disinterested as to the geographical origins of the people(s) the Finns may or may not be descended from. I would make this point quite forcibly though. Wikipedia is not a soap box. The neutral point of view policy clearly states that when differing points of view exist, all points of view should be given space in an article. If there is no consensus in the academic community as to the origins of the Finns, then all points of view should be included in the article, giving no prominence or undue weight to any particular pov. All this is contingent upon proper verifiability. Alun 15:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will answer this all in due time but I have better things to do right now. Jaako or the numbered user thats editing such (probably him) really is confusing what hes reading and relying too much on unsoruced claims on Wikipedia articles. eg. "The Halstatt culture in the present area of Austria, Southern Germany, Eastern France etc. is usually considered mainly Celtic" -this is ludicras and I've only heard very few academics make such a claim. The culture is defined by technological means and was originally spread from further east in europe. The celts are believed to originally have belonged to this culture but it is ALSO attributed to the proto-Germanic tribes which also belived to have migrated from further east. The La Tene culture is more closely associated with the Celts than the Halstatt. More to follow.... Epf 05:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need to answer this, you just need to bear it in mind while having discussions about what to include in articles. Articles do not exist to provide a single point of view, all points of view should be included. There do seem to be many people on wikipedia who think that only their point of view is the correct one, and that no other should be included in articles. I do not consider you one of these people, though you do have a habbit of trying to dilute povs that you don't share. Alun 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, I do clearly feel as if I need to answer this sicne we want a balanced and neutral POV on articles. You, as usual, are putting claims that have no founding regarding me or my edits, simply because my views apparently contradict with your own ideology. I am not a person who thinks only one POV should be included in articles, I am arguing that the correct facts and balanced POV should and this involves putting arguments against others POV. Unfortunately, this Jakko character can't seem to cope with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Epf 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a person who thinks only one POV should be included in articles,- That's what I said above, did you actually read what I wrote? I wrote There do seem to be many people on wikipedia who think that only their point of view is the correct one, and that no other should be included in articles. I do not consider you one of these people,. You do, however have a habbit of trying to re-word articles so as to imply that certain POVS are less valid than othere, here's as example, there is no encyclopaedic merit in making the change from has added weight to this view to has added some weight to this view. The work certainly did add weight to the view, but you do not support this pov, and so you sought to undermine it by including the word some, implying that the support that was added was of limited merit. This is your judgement and therefore should not be included in the article. In effect though you are allowing the inclusion of other POVs, you are undermining the POVs that you do not support you do not do this for the povs you do support. I refer you to fairness of tone. Alun 07:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no merit regarding that change in terms of referencing or validity, but there is in terms of coming across with a balanced and neutral perspective. I do not disagree with an obviously unfounded POV like that but the study itself adds weight to various theories on the subject, not just that particular theory. Also, with the nature and type of the study, it doesnt add a whole lot of weight to that view whatsoever. Actually, I have done this on several occasions to POVS I do support and for example if there is a populaton genetics study supporting a theory that I agree with, I still acknowledge how limited the testing is and that the level of support it gives IS obviously limited, as with any case. I hopes this clarifies matters for you, ciao Epf 07:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no merit in what you did in regard to neutrality, to claim this is breathtakingly arrogant, it was just your opinion, and no one's opinion is neutral. Your editing is far far from neutral in my experience. The sophistry with which you tried to claim that a Brythonic contribution to the English gene pool still means a common descent, when you had claimed the opposite earlier, is just one example of how you have tried to twist certain facts when they do not support your prejudices. I have no experience of you ever acting in a neutral way. Your recent claim in Welsh people that a certain edit is only the product of a few Y chromosome and mtDNA studies is grossly missleading. You have made this claim before, for the same edit, but the paper cited uses tens of thousands of samples from many different studies, and also, most importantly it uses autosomal alleles, not just Y chromosome or mtDNA. This edit is again just a POV edit that you have made because it does not support your prejudices. You cannot keep contradicting edits that are supported by peer reviewed scientific papers just because you do not like their results. Please rather produce peer reviewed data that show a different result. The fact that all of the genetic data to date show strikingly similar results is not a coincidence as you keep trying to imply, the sooner you reconcile youself to this the better. Genetic studies in this field are few and far between, but there is a consistency in what has been found that is impossible to argue with. Y chromosome data seem to produce the same results as mtDNA data, and these in turn are now being supported by autosomal data. These data will never go away, so you might as well accept them. Alun 09:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There was merit in what I did in regard to neutrality and I don't see how you find it arrogant whatsoever. I don't see how my editing is "far from neutral either" and clearly this is the case with you because our opinions greatly differ on many matters. Again, you misunderstand my edits and I never claimed, ever, that the British did not have a common descent to Brythonic peoples, I only said that it was not maily or entirely to these peoples, but to a mix of the pre-celtic/celtic Brythons and to the Anglo-Saxons. Also, I don't see how any of my edits can be labelled as prejudices ? The study on "Welsh people" used many samples, but not "tens of thousands" from Britain, only a few locations with greatly varying numbers in each sample and no information on the type of people the data was collected from. The information from autosomal allelles is scanty and it is not as easily measured with genetic markers as the MtDNA and Y Chrom. information is. In any case, ''the 80-20 Paleo.-Neo. average percentage'' on the Isles as a whole IS from Y Chrom. and MtDNA only. I can keep criticising these studies whether they disagree or agree with my POV since my criticisms are valid and academically founded. I have produced some studies which show different results but in most cases this is not possible because only very few (4 or 5 tops that can be found on the net) have been carried out. There is no basis that all of the genetic data show "strikingly similar results" and the studies contradict each other in some cases. Regardless of this, the studies use similar sampling techniques and methods in genetic analysis so there is bound to be some similarity, but most importantly, the researchers all clearly have some pre-conceived agenda or opinions. Y-Chrom. data do not seem to produce the same results as MtDNA data and the percentages are different in most cases, some more than others. The autosomal data is not analyzed in a similar manner and currently can not be anywhere as detailed in the same way as the Y-chrom. MtDNA analysis. New data will come and old data will go, new information replacing aspects of the old so I will continue to accept much of the data and also continue to criticise the inconsistencies and fallacies as well. Where are you going with all this Alun ? I have reliable historical and anthropological data I always rely on when viewing these studies which allows me to easily point out founded and unfounded conclusions from them. I findt that the biggest mistake people make is the over reliance on MtDNA and Y-chrom. markers when it comes to making conclusions about the the origins and descent of these peoples. Ciao, Epf 10:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reliable historical and anthropological data I always rely on when viewing these studies which allows me to easily point out founded and unfounded conclusions from them.
 * This is where I am going. Instead of trying to discredit data that do not support your opinion, you should accept these data and also accept the conclusions of the people that write the papers, it is not for us to re-interpret these papers, this would constitute original research. Instead it would be better for you to present the arguments that contradict these findings, and support these arguments by citing the historical and anthropological data you refer to above. I cannot recall a single instance of you actually providing any citable material for your edits on these pages. You make edits that try to undermine what is very good research, without actually providing any sources for this. Please find a source that is published that makes the same claims that you have regarding the genetic research and cite it. As I said above, please provide the evidence that you claim to have that contradicts these data rather than contradicting the conclusions of the authors of the paper based on your own personal interpretation of their work. You are obviously a very intelligent and capable person and are acting in good faith. You clearly have a very good understanding of anthropology, I cannot claim any expertise in this field, but I do understand genetics, I have a degree in genetics, and it seems to me that you don't really understand these papers very well. You have clearly not read the paper that supports the 80%-20% split in the British gene pool. In fact the Admixture Proportions (2 Parental Populations): All Loci section is the one that gives the 80-20 split, and the mtDNA and Y chromosome data alone are used to infer four parental population admixture: Admixture Proportions (4 Parental Populations): Y Chromosome and mtDNA, this gives a 70% Basque: 21% Near East mixture. As for the number of samples used, it's: Overall, 117,140 chromosomes (or 58,570 individuals) were studied, for an average of 427 chromosomes per population. The number of chromosomes analyzed at each locus varied between 15,886 and 31,594. Please read the paper before you make unfounded claims. Alun 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do I have to accept them, especially when there are fallacies and unreliability in the data and other sources which contradict them ? Wikipedia's original research policy does not forbid this or how we interpret the data and of course we are allowed to question it. Obviously the data does have to be interpreted from a neutral and balanced perspective since the data will be seen differently by various users. I have provided many citable sources and material to these articles, it just that one of my main areas of focus on Wikipedia involves population genetic studies which have already been referenced in these articles. The studies are questionable for various reasons I have previously mentioned and this is why it seems like I'm always simply critiquing articles. In articles involving origins of people, the studies are what are always at the forefront which is why they need to be criticized, especially in the way they are interpreted in the article. I have cited information which shares my skepticism about many studies, and its usually taken from the study itself. The only reason you are making claims to the contrary is because it happens that my criticism of these studies does not coincide with your own opinons and edits involving such genetics studies. As with regards to these papers, I also have a (smaller) background in genetics since it is increasingly part of biological anthropology and my undergrad. program actually requires a few courses in it. I do understand these papers quite well, including that one and am not making unfounded claims. As I have already stated, the 80-20 split is from MtDNA and Y Chroms. and you just stated the same thing from the paper. These percentages obviously do not include the autosomal analysis since it is not measured in nowhere near as accurate or similar a manner (i.e. not in markers or haplotypes). The numbers of samples used was fairly significant, but again the 58,570 number is for ALL European samples collected,and the number of British samples and sampling areas is much smaller. As well as this, we again know little from the study what type of people the DNA studied was collected from and more sampling areas per these large regions are needed. Maybe you should also read carefully what I am stating before you make unfounded claims. Ciao Epf 11:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do I have to accept them, especially when there are fallacies and unreliability in the data
 * If you include the data, you must include the conclusions of the authors. If you have information that contradicts the conclusions then you must include this as well, but this information must also be from a reliable source. You cannot claim that they are fallacious simply because you believe it, you must provide evidence in the form of a citation from another academic work that does not accept the data. Wikipedia's original research policy absolutelly does forbid you from interpreting the data in a different way, what it does not forbid is that you provide evidence that these findings are not accepted by the entire academic community, this evidence must be from an academic publication and not just your opinion. Alun 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In articles involving origins of people, the studies are what are always at the forefront which is why they need to be criticized, especially in the way they are interpreted in the article.
 * The way they are presented in the article should reflect the way they are presented in the original paper, if it does not then it should be reworded to reflect what the paper states. Alun 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have already stated, the 80-20 split is from MtDNA and Y Chroms. and you just stated the same thing from the paper.
 * Clearly the Y chromosome and mtDNA data split 20:80, and I have nowhere suggested that they dont. It is also evident from a reading of the paper that autosomal data also split 80:20. I do not understand why you are claiming that the paper does not state this. The section in the paper dealing with a 2 parental population admixture for Europe explicitly uses the autosomal data and explicitly gives a 80:20 split. Why are you claiming that it doesn't? Either you have not read the paper, or you have not understood it, or you are deliberately ignoring the data that you do not like. Here's what the paper says With the increase of the number of systems considered (6 to 8 mitochondrial and nuclear systems, depending on the number of autosomal loci available in each population), the statistical errors of the admixture coefficients decrease substantially (all below 8%; table 4). The Near Eastern contribution is generally high, with a mean of 49.4% across Europe (range: 20.8% in England, 79.0% in the Balkans). I will revert your edit, but I am aware that I cannot revert more than three times in a 24h period, you may revert it again as you have only reverted twice (with an additional edit for the original change). I really hope you do not revert my edit again as it is clear that this finding applies to autosomal data as well as to mtDNA and Y chromosome data. I really do not understand why you are denying something that is explicitly stated in the paper. Alun 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * similar a manner (i.e. not in markers or haplotypes): From the paper: (4–8) five nuclear DNA loci from Chikhi et al. (1998), updated by a Medline search of the recent literature. Four of the Chikhi et al. (1998) loci are tetranucleotide microsatellites (FES/FPS, FXIIIA, HUMTH01, VWA31A), whereas DQ{alpha} is a highly polymorphic gene coding for the {alpha}-chain of the HLA-DQ molecule. Alun 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun, the Wikipedia original research policy does not forbid users from stating that a source or study has limitations or that it is only a small example of evidence used in what conclusions it may or may not claim. In any case, this is always mentioned in the article (i.e. population genetics is a new science; many more studies need to be carried out; results not fully conclusive, etc.) and most of time it is the conclusions and POV that is put into the article and in a different wording from the study which is what I am at odds with, especially when it omits many important points from the study about any consclusions or points which may be drawn from it. In any case, it obviosuly does not just have to be from my opinion, but as long as its from a neutral perspective of various users who also disagree with a sources validity or justification in being included in a section or article.
 * the Wikipedia original research policy does not forbid users from stating that a source or study has limitations
 * The original research policy states that you cannot state that a study has limitations if it is only your opinion, if you are expressing the published opinions of other scientists, that is fair enough. The WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V policies go hand in hand. If you want to cite a study, cite it, if you want to include a criticism of the study, find a reputable source that makes the criticism and cite that. All three policies forbid you to criticise a cited source just because it is your opinion, by all means criticise it, but provide a reputable scientific published source that criticises it, and cite that. If the work is as bad as you claim (though other scientists have peer reviewed it and passed it) it should be easy for you to find a citable source that criticises it. Alun 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, this is always mentioned in the article- cite this then. Alun 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * it obviosuly does not just have to be from my opinion- What I take offence with is that you try to qualify every word. If an article states for example that a certain paper supports a certain position, this is an already qualified statement, it is not claiming that it proves it, just that it supports it. But you are going mad with your qualifications, you are likely to change it to might just about probably support something quite similar to a certain position that might just be close to this. There is no excuse for this excessive qualification of an already qualified statement, it's only purpose is to introduce bias into the article. I have never seen you adding content that detracts from Bede or Gildas, for example, these are hardly reliable sources, but then they support your point of view don't they? You will observe that I have not made any changes to references to Bede or Gildas because I think it is important to include all points of view equally. Alun 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is also evident from a reading of the paper that autosomal data also split 80:20 - I have read this study twice now and please do go and show me where exactly the autosomoal analysis is and how exactly they measure such, or where they are able to claim that the autosomal variatoin in the English gene pool is an 80-20 split. You are misreading the study, especially in what it means by autosomal loci in the analysis. The section from the study you did post does not reflect an autosomal amalysis and this makes sense since the study does claim to be able to make such: With the increase of the number of systems considered (6 to 8 mitochondrial and nuclear systems, depending on the number of autosomal loci available in each population). The percentages are drawn up from the mitochondrial (MtDNA) and nuclear (Y-chromosome) markers, and none of the percentages is from analysis of autosomes (all human autosomal chromosomes themselves are nowhere even near to being completely "mapped out" and understood, so even if some were analyzed it would not be based on all 22 autosomes). I really don't understand how you are claiming that this is explicitly stated in the paper when this i s not the case. There are graphs and data showing various MtDNA and Y-chromsome frequenices, but nothing stating it is from autosomal DNA. Please state where they have used autosomal analysis in the 80-20 percentage since to me, you still have not done so. Ciao, Epf 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the mitochondrial system, a single locus:
 * (1) 2,349 sequences of the mitochondrial hypervariable region I (HVR-I) from 34 samples, collected by Simoni et al. (2000), and repeatedly updated (see Vernesi et al. 2002; Caramelli et al. 2003)


 * These are the Y chromosome systems, two loci (these do indeed represent two of the nuclear systems):
 * (2) eleven binary markers from the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome (hereafter NRY) in 42 populations for a total of 3,290 individuals, from Rosser et al. (2000);
 * (3) 22 binary markers of NRY in 27 populations for a total of 1,096 individuals, from Semino et al. (2000) and (for North Africa) Underhill et al. (2000);


 * You will observe that the mitochondrial locus and Y-chromosome loci represent three systems (a single mt system and two Y chromosome systems). In the four parental analysis only these three systems are used. In the two parental analysis they use 6-8 systems. This is because there are five autosomal loci used in addition to the above in the second analysis. In some of the populations a couple of the autosomal systems were not available, which resulted in the use of 6 rather than eight systems. Please observe that autosomal systems are better represented than either Y chromosome or mt DNA systems. There is never more than a single mtDNA system, and never more than two Y chromosome systems, but there is at least three autosomal systems.


 * These are the autosomal systems, five loci (these also represent nuclear systems):
 * (4–8) five nuclear DNA loci from Chikhi et al. (1998), updated by a Medline search of the recent literature. Four of the Chikhi et al. (1998) loci are tetranucleotide microsatellites (FES/FPS, FXIIIA, HUMTH01, VWA31A), whereas DQ{alpha} is a highly polymorphic gene coding for the {alpha}-chain of the HLA-DQ molecule. For each of these five markers, the number of population samples ranged between 33 and 68 with a mean of 55 samples and a total of 278. Overall, 117,140 chromosomes (or 58,570 individuals) were studied, for an average of 427 chromosomes per population. The number of chromosomes analyzed at each locus varied between 15,886 and 31,594.


 * Here is a list of the chromosomes the autosomal systems (4-8) come from:


 * FES/FPS - 15
 * FXIIIA - 6
 * HUMTH01 - 11
 * VWA31A - 12
 * DQalpha - 6


 * This is from Clines of nuclear DNA markers suggest a largely Neolithic ancestry of the European gene pool by Chikhi et al. as cited in the paper I am citing.


 * I really don't see why you are disputing this. It clearly states in the Abstract of the article that they use autosomal analysis. It is clear that the two population model uses these autosomal loci for the analysis. They say it clearly, and Chikhi et al. also publish the number of the chromosome the loci are located on. They also publish a table (for two parental population) where they show the neolithic contribution to the British Isles is about 20%, and a graphic where it is evident that the paleolithic contribution to Britain is higher than it is on the continent. You say you have read the paper twice, I suggest you try to understand it next time rather than assuming you already know what it says. You either just cannot admit when you are wrong, or you seriously do not understand these genetic papers at all. If the latter is the case, that you do not understand this work, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you comment onit? Alun 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I agree that "mainly Celtic" was an incorrect expression, but I think it was really bizarre to call the Hallstatt culture "Germanic" or "Nordic", although, as far as I know, this culture may have included some Proto-Germanic-speaking populations as well. I think it is slightly misleading to say that the Hallstatt culture has been defined by "technological means". I think it is more about style-based artefact typologies. Proto-Germanic migration from east might be some radical new hypothesis I am not aware of, but I am not quite believing it is a mainstream view, at least in Europe. Most researchers agree that there was an Indo-European migration from the east, but that is usually dated to the Neolithic and, as far as I know, before the formation of any Proto-Germanic language. But you do not really need to answer, because I am actually quite disinterested to discuss about the Hallstatt culture. I am only asking you to avoid any radical UNREFERENCED modifications in articles related to Finland, because that can be too easily to be interpreted as biased POV and pushing of fringe theories. I must disapprove some of your recent modifications in the article Finnish people. A significant part of the article, fully in accordance with the established research, was repeatedly deleted by you - and you were not providing any references.


 * By the way, I am not Jaakko Sivonen, and I am not relying on Wikipedia articles but archaeological literature, although I admit having only basic knowledge of the Early Iron Age in Continental Europe. 217.112.242.181 09:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the those who were part of that culture and who were the proto-Germanic peoples which is why I simply referred to it as a "Germanic" or "Nordic" Halstatt culture. Where did I ever say that the Hallstatt culture has been defined by "technological means" ??? The Halstatt and La tene culture are defined in terms of certain artifacts and sturctures, but since we have limited knowledge (if any) of what sort of language they spoke, we can define them most importantly by tools, minerals and other clues displaying their level of technological advancement. Proto-Germanic migration from the east is definitely not some new radical hypothesis and not only has it been around for quite some time, it is widely held by academics on the subject. Obviously the Germanic culture and people spread from further east because we know for a fact it was pre-dated in central Europe by La Tene and earlier cultures. If you disapprove of some of my recent edits on Finnish people, thats fine, but this exactly shows my point: Yours (and Jakkos or whoever) is not the only POV that deserves mention there, especially with its non-academic and controversial nature, but theres supposed to be a balanced and neutral POV. That part of the article which was removed had no references and stank of someones own ridiculous, unfounded and unreferenced POV. Everything you are claiming here is contradicting itself. Epf 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A direct quote from you: "The [Halstatt] culture is defined by technological means" (see your own comment above). As long as you are declining to provide any sources for your often astonishing views it is not your business to call anyone "non-academical". I do not consider some of your claims academical or scientific at all, although I accept you might know more than me about some topics. Your interest to contribute to the article Finnish people is surprising in the sense I find it hard to believe you actually know so much about Finns and their history. The part you suspected as "ridiculous and unfounded" summarized well what the Finnish archaeologists and linguistics have been thinking since the 1970`s. Please do not assume to know better. Only the claim "The closest genetic relatives of Finns are found in Estonia and apart from that, in Flanders and Germany" was a problematic one and POV. There is no contradiction in my claims. However, this conversation does not serve any purpose. Happy autumn, --05:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC).


 * In that quote I am pointing out that it is mainly the "technolgically-related" artifacts relating to that culture that ae key in defining it (tools, structures, etc.). How am I declining to provide any sources for my "asotnishing views" ? My views are not "astonishing" but I find it amusing that you see them as such and clearly you have some crazy agenda on the subject. I have provided genetic sources, specifically from cavalli-sforza, but also from other studies displaying the much larger neolithic and near-eastern input in eastern european populations, including Finns. I do believe its my business to point out who is using non-academic and unsourced opinions and this is exactly what has been the case with you. I do know a fair amount about Finnish and particularly Scandinavian history, but my key area of focus is anthropology and origins of especially European peoples, including the Finnic peoples. I do not understand what you mean by "what Finnish archeologists and linguists have been thinking since the 70's" since although there has been an introduction of different theories, it is still widely held that Finnic-speaking peoples migrated from further east and I have already explained the overwhelming evidence for such which is why it is rarely debated. This does not mean that modern Baltic Finns trace all their heritage to this migration, of course not, and they do trace much to populations already present before such. However, based on genetic, linguistic, archaeological and historical evidence (as well as the current existence of many other Finnic speaking peples further east) it is again widely held by academics that the Finnic language and culture was brought by peoples who migrated from further east into the Baltic region. There are various contradictons in your claims, and that quotation is only one example of your ridiculous and unsourced POV. The conversation never had any purpose I suppose other than hopefully shedding some light to you on a subject which you clearly have an awkward POV. Ciao, Epf 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe this boils down to a mutual misunderstanding. The genetic ancestors of the Finns obviously had to migrate from somewhere: the archaeology suggests cultural (and hypothetically demic) influences from generally eastern or rather south-eastern sources in Russia during the Mesolithic and the Sub-Neolithic. The nature of influences is of course a subject of debate between the Migrationists (always the dominant view here in Finland) and Diffusionists. At the same time, some elements of continuity existed constantly from the Mesolithic period, as Finnish archaeologists have stressed for 20 - 30 years now. One Finnish archaeologists has summarized his views in English:
 * Christian Carpelan: On Archaeological Aspects of Uralic, Finno-Ugric and Finnic Societies before AD 800. The Slavicization of the Russian North. Edited by Jorma Koivulehto. Slavica helsingiensia 27. Helsinki 2006, pages 78 - 92.


 * Somehow I understood you were referring to the obsolete theory of the Balto-Finnic migration during the early Iron Age. Possibly this was because you mentioned "historical sources" referring to a Finnic migration from east; this is nonsense, as the Finnic peoples are almost undocumented before the 13th and 14th centuries CE. The Siberian Urheimat of the Finno-Ugrian peoples is one of the many different theories; apparently it still has supporters among the Hungarian Finno-Ugrists, but not among in the ones in Finland. Unfortunately, this is often discussed in Finnish and/or published in local journals, so many foreigners will find it hard to get a comprehensive over-view of the Finnish research.


 * My crazy and awkward POV is my wish to present correct summaries of the recent and generally accepted academical views of thge origins of the Finns. Of course, Canadian views of this subject might differ from the Finnish views. I like to think we have more expertise here in Finland, but that´s POV, after all.--217.112.242.181 07:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jaakko Sivonen 11:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Epf has not vandalised any article. He and Jaakko Sivonen have different opinions about a certain topic and I find it wrong of Jaakko to accuse Epf of vandalism just for disagreeing with him. The fact that Epf has provided sources for his statements and post claims in accordance with contemporary academic views make the accusation of vandalism all the more absurd. JdeJ 12:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Source this
Please provide a source for this claim about the Swedophones in Finland: Percentages, polls and such, thank you. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "actually a great deal, the majority have some degree of significant Swedish ancestry and acknolwedge such".


 * Please provide a source arguing (your point) against such. Epf 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems you do not understand the burden of proof. You made a positive claim, you must be able to prove it. But fine, I have discussed with many "Finland-Swedes" and most of them do not acknowledge their "Swedish ancestry"... --Jaakko Sivonen 11:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you can not claim the "burden of proof" by somehow making yourself an exception to it. You have equally not provided references to support your opposing claims. There arent some special allowances for you in any case, especially on Wikipedia. I have viewed many topics on Finland-Swedes and the fact remains most acknolwedge the Swedish elements of both their descent and culture. Epf 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever discussed about the matter with one? I have. There are certainly some exceptions, Ida Asplund is one. She has indeed emphasized a "Swedish heritage", but Jan-Erik Enestam, the then leader of the Swedish People's Party, called her the "greatest enemy of Finland-Swedes" because of her comments... It was different a hundred years ago, but nowadays most consider themselves Finns or "Finland-Swedes", but not just "Swedes", as I know one who is insulted if he is called merely a Swede. About the burden of proof: you made a positive claim, i.e. that something is something. That has to be proved first before anyone has to give evidence to the contrary: for the same reason a prosecutor in court must first tell what the defendant is charged of and give evidence... --Jaakko Sivonen 17:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever dicussed the matter with Finland-Swedes from every region they are concentrated in? or even a significant number of Finland-Swedes at all ? I find it surprising if you ever did since their identification is a complex issue and invovles their ethnic origins/ancestry as well as their current national affiliation. I think you forget that the majority of this population after World War I actually desired to remain part of Sweden. I never said that they all consider themselves simply "Swedes" but that a significant number of them would consider themselves "Finland-Swedes" acknowledging elements of their distinct Swedish culture and heritage. Jan Enestam clearly is an ignorant person to label Ida Asplund as an enemy and by using such a quote you just did a great injustice to any argument you were trying to make. As for the burden of proof, I know all about this, but this is not a court of law and it still does the fact remains you equally havent or can not provde sources/evidence to support your own opinion. This is an encyclopedia and everyones opinions that they wish to include need to be supported by verified sources. I have found you to be an abusive and arrogant user btw and I'd appreciate if you'd stay off my talk page. Ciao, Epf 07:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I think you forget that the majority of this population after World War I actually desired to remain part of Sweden." Majority of the Åland Islanders, you mean. They are a distinct minority among Finland-Swedes, and I quess they feel themselves as "ethnically Swedish" more often than the rest of Finland-Swedes do. Of course, some early 20th century Finland-Swedish nationalists maintained similar wishes in Southern Ostrobothnia, calling themselves as East Swedes, but I have never heard of it being a majority opinion. BTW, Jan Enestam's hostility towards Ida Asplund, a leading figure in a very small organization, was shared by all Finland-Swedes I personally know (although I admit that my friends live in bilingual towns of Southern Finland and do not represent all Finland-Swedes). Also the Hufvudstadbladet, the leading Swedish newspaper in Finland, criticized Asplund's extremist views strongly.--217.112.242.181 07:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow up comment and question

 * JS (and his ip number too) clearly has limited knowledge about the situation after WWI - the area of what is called Sweden-Finland (Svenskfinland) was up for territorial and cultural autonomy after the independence (Folktinget, 1920/petition by Gabriel Nikander and Ernst von Born), the cultural issue was partly fulfilled with the creation of the constitution and the language act of 1922. The territorial requirement only to a lesser part (Borgå stift for instance). The term Svenskfinland was however quickly adopted in the 1920's. By the way, Epf, you seem quite well-read on the subject, have you dealt with this before? MoRsE 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Something you might find intersting
Here's an article about Anglo-Saxons and English identity you might find interesting. I don't think you'll agree with it, but I think it is at least an academic source that supports what I have been saying. Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth by Malcolm Todd. All the best. Alun 10:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Autosome
WHen it says "autosomal loci", its obviously referring to the MtDNA anal. An autosome is a chromosome in the nucleus of an eucaryotic cell. Mitochondrial DNA cannot, by deffinition be autosomal. C'mon Epf do you think I don't know what I am talking about? An autosome is any non-sex chromosome. Humans have 22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes. Mitochondria have a single circular strand of DNA, very similar to a bacterial chromosome (which is not really a chromosome at all). When the paper refers to autosomes it is refering to nuclear non-sex chromosomes, as I said you clearly don't know what you are talking about. These authors are geneticists and are unlikely to have made a mistake with their own data, the paper is also peer reviewed, so when they say autosome, they mean autosome, when they say mtDNA they mean mt DNA. They are not the same thing. See Autosome, Mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome.Alun 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I know what autosomes obviously are and I have significant knowledge in the area of population genetics. I do konw what I am saying and I havent found anywhere in the study in which the data figures are solely represented from autosomal DNA. Who do you think your talking to Alun ? Clearly I know the paper is peer reviewed and when they mention autosome, they mean autosome. This is not what I was saying however and I believe it is how you understood what they meant by their autosomal analysis which is what was misleading. I have to say this has been the most pointless entry you have made in this discussion and clearly you do not understand what points I am trying to make. I will elaborate further below in response to your other discourse. Ciao, Epf 07:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * havent found anywhere in the study in which the data figures are solely represented from autosomal DNA.
 * I have never claimed that the data are derived exclusively from autosomal loci. You have claimed that these data represent exclusively Y chromosome and mtDNA samples, which is incorrect, they have used autosomal loci as well. Alun 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I claimed that the 80-20 figure was exclusively from MtDNA and Y-Chromosomes, but yes you are right, this was not the case.


 * Who do you think your talking to Alun ?
 * Who do you think you are talking to? You have point blank stated that this paper uses no autosomal loci, something the paper explicitly claims to have used. When you blatantly make false claims like this it seems apparent to me that either you are so biased that you will not acknowledge the truth, or you simply do not understand the work. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your knowledge of molecular biology is not great, rather than that you are deliberately trying to distort the work. Alun 09:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I blantantly did not say that this paper did not use autonsoal loci, just not in the 80-20 figure for Paleo./Neolith. contribution to the the sampled populations. My knowledge of molecular biology is quite significant as I've alraeady pointed out to you. As for the autosomal analysis, I explain in a subsequent discourse below why I did not at first perceive that autosomal analysis was included in the figures for Neolith./Paleo. contributions to the sampled populations. Epf 06:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Data are for autosomal DNA
Here's what is says in the article for Paleolithic:Neolithic split for autosomal data.


 * (4–8) five nuclear DNA loci from Chikhi et al. (1998), updated by a Medline search of the recent literature. Four of the Chikhi et al. (1998) loci are tetranucleotide microsatellites (FES/FPS, FXIIIA, HUMTH01, VWA31A), whereas DQ{alpha} is a highly polymorphic gene coding for the {alpha}-chain of the HLA-DQ molecule. For each of these five markers, the number of population samples ranged between 33 and 68 with a mean of 55 samples and a total of 278. Overall, 117,140 chromosomes (or 58,570 individuals) were studied, for an average of 427 chromosomes per population. The number of chromosomes analyzed at each locus varied between 15,886 and 31,594.
 * These are the five autosomal genes that were used in the analysis.


 * Here's the List of Samples Used to Estimate the Contributions of 2 Parental Populations to European Populations.. As you can see, these are autosomal genes, not the mitochondrial or Y chromosome genes.
 * These are the results to Estimate the Contributions of 2 Parental Populations, this uses 6-8 genetic systems, ie the mtDNA, the Y-chromosome DNA and the autosomal DNA. Due to the use of many more systems (and four of the systems are autosomal) the results are more reliable, hence the statement With the increase of the number of systems considered (6 to 8 mitochondrial and nuclear systems, depending on the number of autosomal loci available in each population), the statistical errors of the admixture coefficients decrease substantially (all below 8%; table 4). This indicates that these data are far more reliable due to a much lower sampling error, as there are significantly more samples. As you know, in statistics the more samples one has the better one's results are. The samples used clearly incorporate autosomal genes, and the paper states this categorically. In this two population system it is clear that in western Europe there is about a 50:50 mix of paleolithic:neolithic contribution, this itself is very different from previous Y chromosome data. Even though these data clearly show that in places like France, for example there is a greater neolithic input than previously indicated by mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA sampling, the same does not apply to England, where the relative contributions are 20:80.
 * I find it tedious in the extreme to have to lead someone by the hand through these data, they are clearly not simply the product of Y chromosome and mtDNA sampling, and the paper explicitly states that they use autosomal genetic markers for their work. I really cannot understand why you have persisted in denying what is written in black and white on the page in front of you. Alun 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On a slightly different note, I find it strange that you have so hotly disputed these data, this is not only nothing new, but surely it is not abhorrent to claim that the European population is largely descended from the paleolithic and neolithic populations of the same continent? I really do wonder just where exactly you think the modern European population is derived from if not from the ancient European population? Alun 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, after reading through your discourse here I have followed up by more thoroughly analyzing the study and I do understand which autosomal loci and chromosomes were analyzed, but it was not as apparent to me originally in the graphs which I thought was only resembling MtDNA. Clearly it is a combination of both MtDNA and Autosomal analysis in but I obviously overlooked where it mentioned previously in the article about the source of the markers in the autosomal analysis. I admit I was extremely tired while editing last night and should of spent more time reading through this study. I disputed the data so easily because I simply found it hard to believe they were able to analyze Autosomal DNA so thoroughly, (although this is obviously not the case and they have identified only 4-5 loci from one or two autosomoes and are no where near to mapping out even a majority of human autosomal markers). As you know I have long agreed that Europeans originally descend from two broad migrating populations, the Paelolithic (or earlier existing peoples) and Neolithic populations and I only contested the data so hotly because of my own fallacies when analyzing the study. I appreciate what time you took out for explaining sectoins of the study and I usually am not so careless when analyzing these genetic studies. Ciao, Epf 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, we all get tired and miss things. It's a difficult paper to read. In actual fact the human genome has been mapped for some years now. There are of course alleles that are as yet unknown, and the vast majority of genes do not as yet have a known function, but we're getting there. Here's a site where one can actually retrieve sequences from the human genome, I have used it for mous BAC (BActerial Artificial Chromosome) work, it's great as one can actually search for a sequence in the whole genome. Alun 10:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding our discussions in different articles.
Epf, as we can see (You, Alun and me)we are contributing in different articles at the same time. It seems obvious that we have common interests. On the other hand it seems obvious that we also have different positions. Sometimes the debate gets a bit heated up, but I guess that that happens in Wiki. But we can also make an effort and try to go ahead in a reasonable way. In relation to Syke´s and Oppenheimer´s works, Alun and I have agreed to buy and read the books well, before we continue this debate, that obviously affects a few articles. I understand also that it is not peanuts. We are actually speaking of a theory that is coming up and that is claiming something that would have a great effect in many fields and that is very different from what it was previously thought. I think that we all agree that these two population geneticicts are highly regarded. So, instead of engaging in senseless revert wars we may agree to work together and share our readings of the books, before we go back to the articles. What do you think? Veritas et Severitas 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not take much stock in either of Sykes or Oppenheimers (both making ridiculous and hasty "conclusions" in many researchers opinions) works but I will look into the key points from both. We are also speaking of a theories based on evidence that does not clearly acknowledge any clear cut conclusions relating to their opinions. The evidence interpreted by these authors actually can be seen to contradict the theories held by either of them. Oppenhemier and Sykes are held with soem regard in the academic world, but no-where near as much as other researchers and they are basing much of their opinions from studies by other researchers which in many cases disagree with their perspectives on the studied populations. I agree we need to co-operate on related articles, but your opinions and theories drawn up from these population genetic findings (that are nothing new btw) do not follow those whatsoever which are made from such studies (themselves acknoledging how no such fully-drawn conclusions can be made). Ciao, Epf 07:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not take much stock in either of Sykes or Oppenheimers
 * It doesn't matter what you think of these analyses. This is an encyclpoaedia, not the world according to Epf, these represent authoritative and reliable sources. They are eminently citable and their data are sound. Their interpretation of the data may need to be scrutinised, but you need to find a study that criticises the analysis in order to make this point on in the article. Your opinion counts for very little this is an encyclopaedia, we should try to keep out own opinions out of the articles and only use verifiable material. Alun

09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alun, and I think that you can also understand that Epf. In any case, as said, let us wait and read the books ourselves and then we can come back here. Veritas et Severitas 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, my opinion as well that of most other contributing user to these articles, does matter and it helps bring a neutral and balanced POV. For someone who consistently enjoys re-stating Wikipedia rhetoric and policies, I'd think you would realize this. These sources are hardly "authoritative" and "reliable" sources when you look at the details of the primary studies they are drawing upon. The genetic studies these books make their opinons from are already used in many articles and in these works are only being interpreted from the strange POV of these authors. Most of the researchers of the studies which are cited in these works do not (and they emphasize such) make any ridiculous or full-blown conclusions, and this is in contrast to such being made by Oppenheimer and Sykes. You must distinguish between primary and secondary sources here Alun. These books are only the perspective (incorrect to me in many ways) from one or two individuals on data which may or may not support such. I can easily find the find the studies they themselves used which clearly rebuff making any such "conclusions", including theirs, on the subject matter due to the early state of population genetics science (and limited sections of DNA currently able to be tested) and the so-far limited amount of studies in general. Epf 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry section of the Spanish people article
Epf, what do you think of this version? Veritas considers it is "Afrocentric", I dont know why... All statements can be backed up with proper sources.

According to archeological and genetic studies, the genetic landscape of Europe has been shaped by two major influences from the Levant: One occuring during the upper Paleolithic period, when modern humans entered the continent around 40 000 years ago, and the second occurring around 10 000 years ago during the Neolithic expansion of agriculturalists.

''The Iberian peninsula, is considered to be among the regions with less Neolithic impact due to its geographic position, consistent with the demic diffusion model of Neolithic expansion from the Balkans into Western Europe. This explains the high frequency of Paleolithic genetic markers and more specifically Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, which, according to one recent study is present in around 60% of the Spanish males. The frequency of R1b reaches highs of 90% in the Basque region which straddles Northern Spain and Southern France and lows of 40% in Malaga province, although in most of peninsular Spain the frequency of R1b surpasses the 50% mark. Classical markers, Y-chromosome variation and Mtdna studies show that the strong Paleolithic element is the most salient feature of the Iberian gene pool.''

''The Paleolithic component, however, seems to be much stronger in Basques than in other Iberian populations. Alonso and Armour showed that the Basques diverged from other European populations by retaining less diversity and having a higher proportion of ancestral (paleolithic) autosomal alleles. Furthermore, the presence in high frequencies, of a number of rare haplotypes, both in Mtdna and Y-chromosome analysis, suggests that the action of genetic drift may have further accentuated their distinctiveness. For these reasons, genetic studies of Western European populations have tended to concentrate on the Basques, to the detriment of other Iberian populations.''

''A number of other studies have also examined the extent of African gene flow in Iberian populations. This region has historically had close relationships with North Africa due to its geographic proximity and particularly due to the nearly 8 centuries of Islamic rule in Iberia. Genetic results are, to a degree contradictory. Although classical markers have failed to detect this influence, around 9% of Y-chromosomes and up to 18% of Mtdna have been estimated to be of this origin. Moreover, unlike the rest of Europe, the presence of genetic markers of African origin, Mtdna U6 and Y-chromosome E3b point to recent historical admixture as opposed to the result of more ancient Neolithic population movements. The presence of E-M81, a subclade of Haplogroup E3b, is perhaps the most irrefutable evidence of the genetic impact of the Islamic period in Iberia. This clade, which is the most common in North Africa, has the lowest variance and a compact network, indicating either its relatively recent origin followed by expansion or its recent expansion after a bottleneck. In Europe, this clade is restricted to Iberia and some peripheral Mediterranean regions such as Sicily and Malta. The absence of microsatellite variation suggests a very recent arrival from North Africa, consistent with historical evidence. Nevertheless, historical North African admixture in Iberian populations should not be exaggerated and it is only relevant insofar it represents a significant portion of the non-paleolithic gene pool.''

''This cannot be said for the two million Canarian Spaniards, who have strong Guanche admixture (the original inhabitants of the Canaries) and whose gene pool can be considered to be half way between their North African and Iberian putative parents. Anectodally, sub-saharan influence in the Iberian peninsula (with a strong peak in Southern Portugal) seems to be higher than in the rest of Europe, as can be seen by the high frequency of Mtdna Haplogroup L. This can be explained by the slave trade which started in Muslim times growing to its peak in the 16th century.''

This version looks decent to me in some respects, but I particularly find fault with the claim that the sub-clade E-M81 has some presence in Sicily, which even if so, should be noted as being very minimal (as in Spain). I disagree with tthis statement: "is considered to be among the regions with less Neolithic impact due to its geographic position" because Spain actually has a significant Neolithic component of its population (compared to the Basque region or parts of the British Isles), even if going by merely MtDNA and Y-chrom. lineages. There also seems to be lack of discussion involving the Neolithic contribution to Spain's population (and its association with the Neolithic Iberians, mostly thought to have come from the East Mediterranean). I can also see how a user would claim this version has an "African tinge" to it in that the section about North African contribution is quite large compared to the rest. I think the difference between native North African and sub-sharan African markers needs to be noted here, since sub-sharan Africans have very little-no presence in sampled populatons in Iberia, Sicily or anywhere else in Europe proper for that matter. I think the current version looks fine to me, but if users want this to be included, I have no issues with it, just as long as it is properly referenced and that it is emphasized that these tests are in the early stages of development and that much more is neeed to udnerstand the origins of Spanish and other peoples. Epf 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Epf. Thanks for your feedback.

Regarding the neolithic impact, I take it we both mean by this word the peoples which came into Europe across the Bosphorous and expanded from the Balkans in what is known as the Demic diffusion 10 000 years ago. If you look at the maps of haplogroup E and J on this article http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965 it is clear that the neolithic expansion had little or no effect on Spain. Look at Figure 1A: It is evident that all clades of this haplogroup are of North African and not Balkan origin. E-M81 is naturally North African but (in Spain) so are E-M78 and E-M35. The former 2 are present in the Eastern half of Europe (including Italy) with their epicenter in the Balkans. However the diffusion of these haplogroups does not seem to have reached Iberia where they seem to have arrived across the straights of Gibraltar (as opposed to from France).

As for Haplogroup J, I have already discussed this issue with Veritas on the talk page of the article. The region where this haplogroup is most common is in Cadiz province (18%) (South West) and generally in the South West Quadrant of the peninsula. This also implies an origin other than Neolithic, (Phoenician or North African/Tartessian?) The Mediterranean Coast and the North East (where the Iberians lived primarily) has relatively low levels of E and J).http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf In my opinion, Iberians were (as is generally the case) very reduced in number conquering and ruling largely native Paleolithic populations. The same can be said for the Celts. Studies have shown that in the UK for example, Celtic invasions were more a cultural transfer than a physical movement of populations.

As for E-M81, I wouldnt say that it has very little presence. It is strikingly common compared to the rest of Europe. In Malaga province, for example, 11.5% of male lineages belong to this subclade, which is present throughout the peninsula.

I would not like to impose my version, I am simply getting really interested in this subject which as you say is a new science and much is left to be understood.

Perhaps you are right that the sentence on Subsaharan influence should be scrapped. --Burgas00 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I had another look at what i wrote on the English people talk page and I'm sorry for it. I was not intending to cause offence, but on reflection I can see that I crossed the threshhold between disagreement and name calling. Sorry about that. I've had a bit of a change of heart with the English people page. I had not intended the Contributions to section to be about ethnic groups as such, this is why ethnic groups are not mentioned there, but on relfection it seems to me that this section is in effect a duplicate of the Regions with significant populations in section. So I don't see the point in it. As for whether there is an American ethnicity, I think it's not relevant to the English people article. Alun 07:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazed
I am amazed by your insistence that you are genotypicaly and phenotypically English. You claim to be of Scots and English and Italian descent. By your own criteria you cannot be genotypically English, you must have Italian genes and Scots genes. It must also be true that your psycho-behavioural (whatever that means) characteristics must be partly Italian as well. Let's face it you are living proof that your racial ideas are bunk. You claim to be genetically English, but you are clearly no such thing. It seems to be common for people from North America to have ancestors from several different nationalities, but this is unusual in England, outside of British ancestry. I've also done some checking into Carleton Coons, and he's just a racist biggot who seems to have zero academic credibility. Just some racist that supported segregation. If he'd had his way your mum and dad wouldn't have been allowed to marry. Here's a rather obnoxious quote from him "Genes that form part of a cell nucleus possess an internal equilibrium as a group, just as do the members of social institutions. Genes in a population are in equilibrium if the population is living a healthy life as a corporate entity. Racial intermixture can upset the genetic as well as the social equilibrium of a group, and so, newly introduced genes tend to disappear or be reduced to a minimum percentage unless they possess a selective advantage over their local counterparts" So genes form an internal equilibrium? Form a social equilibrium? What nonsense. If such a thing is true, then it is true only in the sense that mutation or chromosomal translocation/Nondisjunction can cause hereditary illness or mental handicap. I was a mental handicap nurse for five years before I went to study genetics. When a person has gross genetic defects they are physically and mentally handicapped, often they are a pleasure to nurse, it is a period of my life I remember with great affection. The idea that Homo sapiens compromises five different races or sub species is a myth. Indeed the biological species concept emphasises that the only important barrier is the reproductive one, i.e. the species one, all else below the species level always allows gene transfer. Indeed any geneticist worth his salt understands that the truth is the opposite. The greater variability in a gene pool then the greater the chances of avoiding inbreeding and producing viable offspring. In any population of organisms, the more inbreeding the worse, the more interbreeding with other populations the better. One can clearly see it in small close knit communities where rare genetic disorders are common. Why is this? Because of the simple reason that the smaller the gene pool, then the more likely it is that lethal recessive genes will segregate into the same organism. Coons ideas make no evolutionary or genetic sense. They appear to be based on facile ideas derived from a bygone age when natural selection was deliberately distorted in order to promote the ideas of racial purity and dominance. Your are clearly an intelligent and articulate person, I urge you to forget this fantacy and concentrate on real science. Alun 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I am profoundly pissed, so excuse my poor spelling and punctuation. Hope it's legible. Alun 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maltese people
Hi, could you please fix the infobox on this page - more specifically, the width of both columns since it's all screwed up. Thanks a lot. Marcus1234 16:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Remark.
Be sure to leave notes to the right people, we wouldn't want ininvolved people to get offended by your false remarks. Like this one. Thank you. Rex 13:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok then....... Epf 09:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Good to hear from you. I quite agree, editing can be stressful, especially when a really agressive contributor makes nasty personal attacks like Eoganan did. I'm glad there is no bad feeling between us, I feel the same as you, I've always enjoyed our discussions even if we disagree. I was also misguided in thinking that the anonymous user may have been you. I had thought it was someone who knew a lot about wikipedia, and as you say you had some similar interests to Eoganan, and it was only by chance that I noticed that an IP editing last August was associated with Eoganan and was very similar to the one being used by the offensive anonymous editor. I was so relieved that it wasn't you, but I should have known, there was such a big difference between your calm considered approach and the hysteria of Eoganan. I've just been reading Stephen Oppenheimer's book, about the origins of the British and I think you would enjoy it. Indeed he supports many of your ideas. Basically he thinks that eastern Great Britain has a long association with Scandinavia that predates the Roman occupation, hence the genetic similarity between the east of England and other North Sea peoples, he also indicates that Germanic languages may be as old in eastern England as Celtic ones are in Wales (even to the neolithic). He draws a distinction between Angles and Saxons, claiming Saxons are associated with Belgae and are Germanic, and Angles are associated with Norway/Denmark, and thinks that the English north/south divide (still evident today) is a result of much older divisions than the Danelaw, though he thinks that this is the basic dividing line between Angles and Saxons. He also seems to think that Pictish might have been a Norse type Germanic language similar to Scandinavian language of Shetland and Orkney, and that the basic division on Great Britain is east west. It's an interesting book, though he does not support a mass Anglo-Saxon migration, he does a good job at explaining why there may be social, cultural, linguistic and genetic differences between east and west Britons. Anyway, all the best, hope you had an excellent Christmas and New Year. Cheers. Alun 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:20041219RomaMontella1wp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:20041219RomaMontella1wp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Image:Ilgauskas101.jpg has been marked as a replaceable fair use image, and Image:Fterie.jpg needs information on who owns the copyright. 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi Epf. You can check out How to archive a talk page. Basically you can make a sub-page by creating a page called User talk:Epf/archive1 (you can make lots of subpages if you want, I have some I use for experimenting with articles and layouts and especially templates, which I find a bit tricky and develop empirically). Once you have created this page you can copy and paste your discussion page info there and save it. Then you can just delete all of the text from the main talk page. You will want to put a link to the archive on your main talk page, and you can do this by just piping it like this Archive 01. Hope this is of some help. I'm currently trying to make an article about prehistoric settlement of the British Isles up to 1066. It can cover all points of view regarding the origin of various British Isles populations and hopefully will complement the Immigration to the United Kingdom articles. I also think that this will allow the origins of actual people to be removed from the ethnic group articles, these articles can then concentrate on other aspects of ethnicity and we can link to the settlement article. I've not got any concrete plan yet, but I have a rough idea in my head. At the moment the article is called Population genetics of the British Isles, but I think the scope of this article is too limited. I'm trying to get a consensus to rename the article. I'm also hoping to include pre-modern human habitation. Well I'll see how it goes, I tend to work slowly and methodically as I have very little opportunity for extended sessions on Wikipedia, I have three boys, the oldest of which is now five, so the wife doesn't appreciate me locking myself away for extended periods of time. All the best. Alun 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Orkney and Shetland
EPF, why are changing Orkney and Shetland Islanders from a British people to a Scottish people? What is your justification for this? I reverted your change a few months back and pointed out to you that to do this is kin to stating that the Cornish are an English ethnic group. Are you going to tell me that "most Orkney Islanders regard themselves as Scottish before British"? Would you also tell me that "most Cornish people regard themselves as British before English"? Or "Cornish before English"? English, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, Shetland, Orkney, they are all British ethnic groups, and there are others within them too. I would like to know why you are persisting in this. Enzedbrit 07:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Form my understanding, and I admit it's far from complete, Orcadians and Shetlanders certainly do not identify as Scottish, but neither do they identify as British. I have the understanding that they clearly see themselves with a Norse heritage, especially Shetlanders seem to identify strongly with Norwegians. Just an observation, I'm not looking to pick a fight. By the way Shetlanders and Orcadians also seem to have a genetic affinity with Norwegians as well. Alun 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun! You didn't go!  Mae hi'n well i mi!  You're right in that the genetic makeup of these peoples has been shown to have more Norse heritage than Briton, but the people remain part of the United Kingdom and are British.  They are British peoples by default whether or not they subjectify themselves as such. Enzedbrit 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish people
I wrote the "anti-ethnic, anti-Portuguese non-sense POV" that you deleted without any discussion. For your information I am Portuguese, and am proud of my culture, language and heritage. In no way would I accept an imposition of Castillian culture or language on my country. Still what I wrote is true and supported by the mainstream historical community. user:LSLM, who I suspect is from Spain had already deleted that passage which now was reinstated by someone else (not me). I refer you to his talk page for the arguments i had with him.

I notice you are Scottish so it may be difficult for you to understand this matter. Just as Scottish and English peoples can be said to be "British" so can the Portuguese and Spanish be said to be "Iberian". Iberia in Greek is exactly the same as Hispania in Latin or even originally Spain in English. If a modern state today uses that name, the Portuguese should be excluded from discussions about that state or nationality. However if you discuss "Spanish people" and even talk about some south-americans being "Spanish" we are speaking about ethnic, cultural identification. In that sense Portuguese people are as Spanish as any other, and you have no right of denying us portuguese of this identity and ascribing everything spanish to our neighbours, just because they use that name officially! It is as if you deny americanness to canadians and latin americans just because one country usurped that name. Many Portuguese consider themselves to be Spanish even when rejecting the Castillian supremacy that exists within the state with that name.

If people in your country find it strange that portuguese can feel "spanish" today thats only because "spanish" for you means "castillian". The fact is that the word, the culture, the way of life and the identity of being spanish are much older that the state of spain, created only in 1580 (precisely at the time of the (ephemerous) union of the "Kingdom of Aragon and Castille" with the Kingdom of Portugal"). Why else do people speak of "Spanish Reconquista" (not Iberian Reconquista), "Roman Spain" (not Roman Iberia), "Muslim Spain" (not Muslim Iberia), the "Phoenicians in Spain", the "Germanic invasions of Spain", "Visigothic Spain", "Spain of the Feudal Kingdoms", "Neolithic Spain", "Pre-Historic Spain", "Celtic Spain". The Portuguese and their forebears were as as much a part of all this historical developments as any other so called "Spanish people". By excluding us from Spanishness you rob us from our history and identity.

Notice that my discussion on this point was from a moderate point of view and it was written in the "Related peoples" area. I accept that a majority of people including perhaps a majority of portuguese, dont see themselves as a spanish people. They do however see themselves as "iberian" and this means precisely the same! The old term was only abandoned for political convenince and to avoid political implications of cultural terms. The culture, ethnic make-up, language etc of the Portuguese make them as much one of the group of "Spanish peoples" (Castillians, Andalucians, Galicians, Catalans, Basques) as any other. Their independence means squat because this is about the identity and cultural, ethnic, linguistic factors and not politics. Swiss people speak dialects of German more distant to northern German than Portuguese is to many other Spanish languages and they can be said to be German (see German people).

Still the majority of scholars, linguists, historians or anthropologists will, I assure you, include the Portuguese in the Spanish group. If they wish to avoid political sensitivities they use the term "iberian" but that is a term used only since recently, and usually interchangeably with "spanish".

Galician people speak a language and have a culture almost equal to Portuguese, much less related to Castillian culture and language and they are Spanish. Catalans are not more related to the Castillians than the Portuguese! Yet all these people are "Spanish". Point is either there is no Spanish people, only Catalans, Castilians and Galicians, or the Portuguese must be mentioned in the article about it. Maybe the Portuguese are not Spanish in some ways, but in others they are and it only benefits people who read the article to understand this.

If Sweden renamed itself "Scandinavia" tomorrow would that rob Norwegian people of their Scandinavian identity? If Scotland declared independence and England retained the name of "Great Britain", that wouldnt make you any less British. The Portuguese people were a Spanish people for centuries from the time of the Romans to 1580. To deny them their Spanishness is to deny them the very essence of their identity and history. We are not Castillians. We chose not to be ruled from Madrid by people speaking a foreign tongue. We rejected being a part of "Spain". But that cannot take from us our Spanishness. If we choose to affirm it, and very many do.

I agree that the article shouldnt say that Portuguese are Spanish. But it should definitely mention what I wrote previously in the related peoples section. 84.90.18.136 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Roma Montella.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Roma Montella.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. Ytny (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:IMG 4268.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:IMG 4268.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. Ytny (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/LSLM
You may wanna comment on this...Lukas19 23:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wanna...wanna...learn to spell.....Alun 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear

 * Descent and resultant traits are obviously an integral part of ethnic identification despite the disagreements of users like Alun, LSLM and Globe who are clearly a vocal minority in these matters. Honestly, I sometimes wonder how some people are raised. Anyways, there clearly is an anti-ethnic, assimilatoinist agenda with some of these users often associated with extreme-leftist political viewpoints.
 * Thought you were a decent chap untill I read this. I guess now I understand exactly what your political and social opinions are. So you're just like Lukas19 and Eoganan? You have no right to comment on how I was brought up, you know nothing about it. I am not "anti-ethnic", I am anti-racist. And I am not ashamed of this. I suggest you take a long hard look at European history and ask yourself who you might have been fighting for during the war, I know exactly where I would have been, both during the Spanish Civil War and during the Second World War. Alun 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I really don't care whether you think I'm a "decent" chap or not Alun, but I know I am a respectable person and perhaps I should clarify matters here. I am by no means "just like Lukas19 and Eoganan", whatever is meant by that statement and you should take note that I stated how some of these users were raised, not you specifically. I do not know for sure whether you are against ethnic diversity and maintenance of ethnic identities beyond political/national boundaries or not (including the role of descent and family upbringing in such), but I know that you are anti-racist, as I myself am. I would assume you are however also to be anti-"race" in general and in turn also unfortunately anti-diversity in human genetic and cultural variation. I have "taken a long hard look" at European history for many years now as it has been a passion and area of focus/study of mine just as much as European anthropology has been (as they are both related areas). I in fact also know exactly what side you would have been on during the Second World War, and that is on the same side that pointed a nuclear arsenal against the Western world during the nearly 50 years after the conflict. You are a communist, an anarchist and self-admit to being a far left-wing extremist (even though I disagree with such opinons, that is your choice and that is OK). I am however not a far-right extremist, see myself as a political moderate and would have fought on the same side as my grandfather did during the Second World War (i.e. the Allies). Unlike you however, during the Cold War I would have supported the side of Western European culture and society, capitalism, democracy and freedom. Perhaps it is you who needs to re-evaluate your socio-political allegiances, lol (take it easy, only kidding here). Anyways Alun, it is still good to see you are considering my arguments and facts, and I hope all is well on Wikipedia (don't let anonymous vandals and ignorant users stop you from pursuing neutral POV and factual accuracy !) and in life in general. Ciao, Epf 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that anarchists support Communists, then you do not know your European history as well as you claim. To an anarchist, who believes in freedon above all else, the USSR is indistinguishable from fascist states. The communists violently suppressed the anarchist revolution in the Spanish civil war, and were largely responsible for the victory of fascism there. I would never fight for communism, I would never fight for fascism, I would never fight for a coercive state, I would fight for freedom. Please see Anarchism_in_Spain. Alun 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for your claim that I am "anti-diversity", whatever that's supposed to mean. Well I support the American Association of Physical Anthropology statement on "Biological race", especially "Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications." I am all in favour of diversity, what decreases diversity are Imperialism (no Liberal ever conducted a genocide, where are those native Tazmanians, what happened to Native Americans?) and Globalisation, why is there a Macdonalds in every town I have ever lived in since 1991? (Even in Llantrisant now). There are Starbucks everywhere. This sort of cultural creep is what destroys diversity, and it's certainly not down to people who think that power should be vested in local regions, where diversity would be preserved, rather than in faceless multinationals, where all societies must eat the same food, drink the same drinks and talk the same language. Alun 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. I know my political views must appear extreme, but they don't seem extreme to me (obviously). I have come to my position from years of thinking about these things, and years of disapointment, with Thatcher, Major and now Blair. I have come from the position of someone who, 25 years ago was an avid supported of the Liberal Democrats in British politics and would have considered themselves neither left or right, but I have seem too much injustice to feel that the status quo is either just or fair, but that's another story as they say. Today I think I would support the Green part or Plaid Cymru, but I don't vote in British elections. In Finland I vote Green, but cannot vote for the President or the Parliament. I agree with you, politics is probably not a very constructive subject to be arguing about. I didn't mean to imply that you were far right wing fascist, and if I did then I am sorry for that and any offence it may have caused. I was mostly offended by what I perceived as an attack on my upringing by you than anything else, but again maybe it was more perceived by me than real, such are the vaguaries of communication without personal contact. I know you are a decent chap, and I respect your views. You have enlightened me on a number of issues due to your knowledge and willingness to comunicate your expertise, and I'm grateful to you for that. I wonder what you think of the new look Briton article? Someone has been making a big effort to turn it into an ethnic group style article, and an Irishman as well as far as I can see. Personally I think this is a reasonable proposition, but I know you have never been keen on tha idea that British people can be considered an ethnic group. One of the many areas that we disagree upon. Cheers. Alun 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Genetics of British settlement
Hi again. I just wanted to point out to you that the haplogroup R1xR1a1 is part of R1b, if one subtracts the frequency of AMH+1 (a haplotype associated with R1b) from R1b the resultant haplotype is calles R1xR1a1. Or if you like, add R1xR1a1 to AMH+1 to get the frequency of R1b for these places, see how in Ireland the frequency of R1b approaches 90% when AMH and R1xR1a1 are added together, just as one would expect. They use the Atlantic Modal Haplotype because it allows them to break their data down into more discrete haplotypes. What really are interesting about this paper are the supplemental data here, which seem to indicate very high levels of admixture between "indigenous" populations and Norway and North Germany/Denmark. For example they estimate a 0.3 North German/Danish admixture in Rush. This seems exceedingly high to me. I would not have noticed this, except that it is pointed out in Stephen Oppenheimer's book that this implies that the "Anglo-Saxon invasion" had deeper and wider effects than anyone seriously believes. I wonder what these results mean? Oppenheimer concludes that it implies that this paper overestimates the proportoíon of "Germanic" Y chromosomes in the British Isels, or if you prefer certain Y chromosomes are being counted as "Germanic" when they are not "Germanic", because no one really believes that there was a 30% North German/Danish admixture with Irish people in Dublin do they? What do you make of it? Alun 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have had a go at making a map of European SNP diversity and genetic clustering based on Seldin's 2006 paper. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Seldin's data are well presented for the purpose of biomedical study, but are far from well presented for the purposes of studying ancient European population movements. For example they display diversity for several large geographical groups, what they call Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe, but also for some specific states, Sweden, Finland, Italy and Spain. So we have a mix of large geographical regions, and specific localised populations. Anyway I have tried to present them on a map of Europe. I'm currently working on making similar maps for Bauchet's 2007 paper, which uses more SNPs, but far fewer samples. Bauchet's paper uses less than 300 samples, so it's a bit of a small sample. Still they use over 9,000 SNPs, which is quite impressive. Again Bauchet's paper is moastly interested in biomedical research, so their data are not really analysed in a way that would help elucidate the relationships between various populations. For example it seems to me that the best way to infer relatedness between populations is to identify the SNPs that specific populations hold in common, rather than try to identify SNPs that cluster. What I mean is this, can we identify a group of SNPs that are held in common between certain eastern parts of Great Britain that are not held in common with the western parts of Great Britain, which of these are also held in common with other North Sea Germanic speaking populations? This sort of approach would go a long way to answering questions about the level of shared ancestry between English people and speakers of other Germanic languages, the same sort of thing could be done for western Britain and Ireland and Iberia, likewise what SNPs are shared by British people but not by non British people? These questions are relevant and I believe it is only a matter of time before some population geneticists who are interested in British population history start to ask these questions. I suppose the problem is partly that studying Y chromosomes is relatively cheap compared to studying autosomal genes. The Affymetrix chips used in the Bauchet paper are extremely expensive, I know because we have used them in our lab. There's little money in population research relative to biomedical research, where drugs companies can make huge sums of money for good specific drugs. Anyway I digress. Have a look at my sandbox, I'd appreciate your comments. It's nice to have you back by the way:) Alun 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence" of sockpuppetry
You don't have to convince me. I am just collecting evidence. There is plenty of evidence that Eoganan and his various socks and IPs are from St. Catharines in Ontario, and that he is associated with the University of Toronto. You have edited from the same IPs with the same address, and I know you are at the University of Toronto. these same IPs have obviously been used by Eoganan and his socks and also by you. I don't know if you are the same person or not. When I have finished collecting evidence I will post it on Suspected sock puppets where the Wikipedia community can discuss it. You will get plenty of chance to defend yourself there. However I should point out that Wikipedia does not recognise a difference between Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets (see WP:SOCK), so even if you are different people, if you are acting together it is still considered a sockpuppet offence. Given your very similar edit histories, your similar IP addresses, the association with University of Torronto etc. I think there is strong evidence against you, but it is not my descision to make, the community will decide if this evidence is strong enough to block this account or not. Alun 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun, to be fair, I believe alot of this is based on pure speculation from this so-called "evidence". I have been aware of this nuisance of a user (or users, I do not know for sure) for quite some time, and he has vandalized my own user page on several occasions. In my spare time when I am home from school, I have been trying to find out via different IP-monitoring websites and the network provider itself (Bell Canada) to try and find out who exactly this person is. I am not sure whether I have mentioned it in the past, but I am originally from Fort Erie, Ontario which is about 35 min from St. Catharines, and approximately 1hr 40min from the U of T campus in Toronto. Our internet service provider at home is, as I'm sure you've figured out by now, Bell Canada. I often come home on weekends (and sometimes during the week) throughout the year to get a break from the urban jungle of Toronto, amongst other reasons. Worryingly for me, this anonymous user(s) (Eoganan, Pan-ethic, whoever) is from the same Bell Canada network as that which I use when back at home in Fort Erie. I have also somewhat monitored this issue you are currently having with this vandal(s) and it appears he has claimed to be the from USA, but then also goes further to mention that he goes to school in Canada, and assuming from his IP, in this region. There is not much else I can say at the moment to help you in this issue because I am swamped with studying for my final exams (I am graduating in June, so I really want to simply be done with it !). I would also like to remind you that I have already admitted to you in the past to editing some of my own edits (albeit quite some time ago) without logging in, because of log-in problems and sometimes just forgetting to do so. I can give you my word and assure you that this anonymous and disgusting vandal (or vandals) is not me or anyone affiliated with myself. The fact that I have had to reveal such personal information about me and my location is irritating and worrying enough for me, especially given everything else I am dealing with right now. I will leave this up to your own personal opinion on the matter, but there is little more I can say for the time being other than to trust me on this. Anyways, I hope everything else is well with you. Ciao. Epf 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also explained that some of the anonymous edits from long ago were in fact me, due to reasons I have already stated. Although the users(s) is from the same region as where I am originally from, I do not know where you see any connection that this user is at U of T ? I have analyzed your evidence and edit histories and none of the anonymous users we know to be Eoganan, Pan-ethnic, etc. have stated anything about such. I am almost certain, at least based from his own admittance on Wikipedia, that this user goes to Brock University, or at least some other institution in the Niagara Region. Ciao. Epf 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't really explain how you seem to be online at the same time. I note that his vandalism of your page was conveniently immediately after you found out I was collecting evidence against you. I am more and more convinced you are this person, and I am sad to say this. If I am wrong then I will be happy, but I am not the only one to have noticed the similarity in your editing style and your beliefs, and this is without mentioning that you both seem to attend the same University, edit from the same IP address and are online at similar times and certainly there is a correlation between the days when you both edit. Alun 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seem to be online at the same time ? Perhaps there is a correlation in some of the times and some of the days, yes, but this is also the case with several other users. I am in university and so are many other users on Wikipedia. Many of us are frequent night-owls for obvious reasons, and I am clearly one of these. Again, I question where you are basing this assumption from that we attend the same university ? I have not seen anything which indicates this abusive user goes to school there, although he evidently is from the same region I am normally from (i.e. the same region where my hometown is located in). His vandalism of my page ended "conveniently" because the three or four IP's he was using were banned, but whether or not he comes back, I can not explain because I am not him. Think what you will but I am fed up with all of the finger-pointing and false accusations I and several other users receive on Wikipedia. I am in fact quite aware of a couple other users who share your "thoughts" on this matter, and know this, they too have tried to accuse me of similar things, albeit months ago. Anyways, I am too frustrated and pre-occupied with other matters to deal with this all night, so good night (or afternoon I should say where you are). Ciao. Epf 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What accusations? What finger pointing? We are discussing evidence, and I have already stated that this is not an "accusation", evidence can be misleading, and I hope this evidence is wrong, but it is still evidence for sockpuppetry all the same, even if it's wrong. I still have to check more histories etc. But as I say it is telling that you edited this morning between 08:23-08:26 then anon between 08:35-08:40 then you 08:42-08:44, then the anonymous IP 08:46-08:49 then you continue editing 08:51 then him 08:54-08:57, then he stops. Seems you edited alternately this morning, he edited when you did't and you edited when he didn't. Maybe we should request a checkuser, it would tell us if you had been using the same IP as the anonymous user during this time, but anon changes his IP frequently. Alun 08:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for editing on your sandbox page of "evidence", but I felt it was necessary to point out two anonymous edit histories you posted there from the past that were linked to me. Since it is you collecting evidence and discussing the issue, then I leave it to you to decide on what to do further, though I will defend myself when appropriate. As for the edits earlier this morning, there is not much I can say other than I was editing and trying to counter the abusive user's edits at the same time. You are also trying to make correlations between that user and myself based on a matter of 2-3 minutes (one instance he edits just 2 minutes before I did, him at 06:49 and then me at 06:51), but I am limited to my internet connection speed and can only type/post/edit so fast. I only hope that the user doesn't try to purposely escalate the matter for me by performing or not performing edits so that I appear to be incorrectly related to that user, therefore resulting in a ban for me. Whoever this user or these users are, I really do not have the patience right now to deal with them, especially after some very hurtful insults to me on a few occasions. Ciao. Epf 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From my point of view I am still suspicious of this anonymous editor and his apparently close relationship to you. If he were to just disappear then I am happy to let this issue drop. I do not want to force this. If you are the abusive editor (and I am almost certain you are) then I only want you to stop these edits and simply use your Epf account to edit constructively, you do have to understand that most people do not share your point of view, you'll just have to live with this and accept that on Wikipedia you cannot force your will on an article. I understand that if you are not this editor then there is little you can do about it, but I will pursue this further if I need to. Working on the assumption that this abusive editor will now just fade away (he has been mysteriously inactive at the same time that you have) I welcome you back openly. I am certainly not one to bear a grudge and hold no hard feelings (even if it was you who said all those nasty things about me and my family). If it wasn't then it makes no difference and I still am happy to see you back contributing to the project. Cheers. Alun 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun, I understand why you would remain suspicious of this anonymous user or group of users, as well as his geographic proximity and somewhat similar interests to myself. I do not know whether this person(s) will disappear for good or not, but in any case it is detrimental to my own defence in this matter. You can convince yourself that you are "certain" we are somehow the same person or even related in some way all you wish, but I can and will continue to assert that this is simply not the case. In terms of my POV (I do not know which exactly you are referring to here, or even whether you are referring to some of the similar interests I have in common with this anonymous user/users), I again question where you are basing "most people" from or your point in regards to this. I also have to admit Alun that you are hardly a good example of a user who can justfiably stand on a pedestal and criticize me, or anyone else for that matter, on "forcing your will on an article". We both know your own history of this on past ethnic group or history-related articles we have disagreed upon. I will hopefully be editing Wikipedia more and more often over the coming weeks regardless of this issue or if you happen to "welcome me back openly" or not. You are not an administrator or any other user of significance in most articles that I edit or will be editing. It is quite unfortunate the vulgar behaviour and vandalism you have had to deal with from these anonymous IP's (amongst other users) and I sympathize with you, but I myself have been a victim from similar abuse on various occasions, so it is nothing new to me. If this anonymous user(s) does happen to fade away (and I have a feeling that he or they won't), then it is largely unrelated to myself and/or my editing/browsing. In fact, I have been more active on Wikipedia since my last incident with that anonymous vandal than in the previous weeks/months. Most of the IP's that users(s) was using have been succesfully blocked, though obviously this may not prevent future vandalism. In terms of this issue overall, I again leave it to your own discretion as to what to do further since I am focusing on editing/browsing when possible amongst other real matters in my life right now. Anyways, hopefully we can edit and discuss articles with as little of this intrusion as possible, although your unpopular (although not unwanted) and "unique" POV on various matters in a few ethnicity-related articles may make progress in some areas difficult. Best of luck, ciao. Epf 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation

Invitation to vote
You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

AE and Race
Hi Epf.. I've addressed a few of your asinine comments, here.. Feel free to respond accordingly if you wish but please do not expect some drawn out debate, exchanging personal opinions and unsubstantiated views, as it is a violation of WP:TALK. If you do have any genuine concerns or advice on how we may progress, please add your constructive input, but this is not a battle between "afrocentrism" vs. your opinion, and I'll be the first to let you know that..Taharqa 01:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Asinine comments ? This is exactly my point. Whenever you have strong evidence that disagrees with you from a valid, academic debate, you resort to simply belittling or attacking the user and/or the user's comments, simply because it disagrees with your extremist, Afrocentric viewpoints. There is by no means a "battle" between Afrocentrism and my viewpoint since I am from a neutral perspective on this and am merely pointing out your own ridculous, Afrocentric tendencies in the discussion. My opinion is merely a statement of the most widely held view amongst academics, Egyptians themselves and the most accepted facts presented. All of my inputs have been constructive, if you deem it otherwise then perhaps you need re-evaluate how you carry youself on this respective discussion board. Ciao, Epf 01:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop cluttering the talk page with your carefully selected photos? Please see WP:TALK, this is not a web forum and I shouldn't have went there either. A battle over the subjectivity of pictures and what wiki editors think about them has nothing to do with the article, even though I did provide expert opinion on Old kingdom statuary, and I can easily post pictures of people like Mentuhotep, Tye, Tut, Sesostris, and even Narmer and "boast" about how "African" they look, but that does nothing to help the article and coming from a non-qualified source, it doesn't nothing to prove my point either... Anyways, watch out for that. As far as the debate, it's going nowhere and is a bit disruptive, so maybe you should take it to the web forums where stuff like that is welcome.. Peace..Taharqa 00:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it to the web forums where that stuff is welcome ?? I think you may in fact belong there, especially since you have a clear Afrocentrist perspective. I was using the photos there to justify my arguments, and the use of other images in the article like Khafra, which clearly show rulers who didn't have a Nubian origin or have features of Nubians and other East Africans. The debate is going nowhere simply because you keep ignoring my discussions and quotes, re-wording what I say and making personal attacks to justify your argument. If we can keep thigns more civil, and you perhaps take time to read and consider what I have said (as I have done with your arguments and evidence), it may go somewhere useful, but I really think neither of us have the time. Epf 01:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, the only time a neutral perspective, verified by cited quotations can be seen as "Afrocentric", is usually from someone who has no cited to present themselves and have no idea what they're talking about so they use that as a cop-out. Again, take your nonsense to storm front. You are already in danger of violating 3rr by reverting those ridiculous pictures and disrupting the talk page with your personal attacks and biased, crack pot, Eurocentric point of view that has no basis in physical anthropology. Your arguments come straight from stormfront which s why you can't hold your ground in a technical conversation and resort to debunked nonsense like the "Mediterranean Caucasian" race, pretending in your delusioned mind that these people had anything to do with Europeans even when I show you a citation reporting that northern patters were intermediate between northern Europeans and west Africans, while southerners were closer to tropical aftricans period. Overall that is nowhere near what anyone would describe as "Caucasian', which is what you're trying to prove and ultimately failed to do and only made your self look silly by using all of those fallacies, crying conspiracy, and not producing any citations. Obviously you were left in the dust.Taharqa 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Again! This is not a forum and what you call 'evidence" is the subjective opinion of an editor. You provided no expert opinion, only yours, and that is original research. You obviously did not read WP:TALK, since wikipedia is not a place to house your biased views. Revert again and you'll ber blocked for vandalism like the IP address who kept doing that yesterday. That is extremely disruptive and you're acting very childish because you can't get your way or people to agree with your fallacous reasoning..Taharqa 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did provide several evidence and the fact you keep denying this makes you look simply ridiculous. Did you even read my discussions or the sources I entered ? I am not entering biased views here whatsoever and am entering summarization of evidence as well as the quotes directly themselves (as I did later in my discussion). You clearly are entering biased views and ignoring and denying anyone else who challenges your extremist opinions. If you re-vert again, you will be blocked as well since it is my discussion and I have a right to keep the data I entered unless only an administrator says otherwise. You are accusing me of acting childish ? Look at your own comments in our discussion, the personal attacks and the abrasive behaviour. You keep removing my pictures I used to help support my point in the discussion, when they are allowed to be there. If you read that article, it doesn't state anything about not posting pictures when they are deemed necessary by a user. You simply are angry that you can't get your own way and that someone is putting evidence and opinions which easily refute yor clearly fringe and 'fallacious' opinions. Clearly the photos have struck a nerve with this as well since you are the only one who seems to have an issue with it. Epf 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes easily refuting aspects of Taharqas argument which were never responded to
"Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. (Batrawi A (1945). The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.; Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.; Keita SOY (1990). Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.; Keita SOY (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254.)"

"Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples. (Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544). Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. (Keita 1992, p. 251)"

"Most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt, because the silt of the Nile River was more heavily deposited at the delta region, and most delta sites from the predynastic period have since been totally buried. (Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 10.) Although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown. (Redford)"

"from the Tasian period onward, it appears that Upper Egypt was influenced strongly by the culture of Lower Egypt. (Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. p.35. Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1988.)"

Many scholars debate whether the Sphinx was built at the time of Khafre, including Robert M. Schoch who has stated that the "sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre". )

ethnicity
thanks for your comments - I have responded on my talk page, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Glad the problems with the troublesome user were resolved. Though I had for a while connected him with you there were some odd incongruities. For example your editing styles were really distinct, and I think this is what made me most sceptical. But because you shared IP addresses it did seem suspicious. Obviously coming from the same neck of the woods was always going to make things more difficult for you. Anyway welcome back. I also try to keep and eye out for Eoganan and his socks and have taken to reverting all of his edits. He's a banned user and troublemaker and has left some very offensive and racist comments on peoples talk pages and user pages. I don't even keep any information about myself on my user page any longer because of the vandalism he has perpetrated there. I'm not as active as I used to be on Wikipedia, but am trying to get some sort of coherent discussion regarding human genetic variation and diversity. At the moment it is just at my sandbox because I'm still looking through different points of view. I'm also looking into adding to the articles about subspecies and species, because there is a great deal of info thatis relevant to these articles that is also relevant to "race". But at the moment I'm taking it easy. All the best. Alun 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)