Talk:Black people/Archive 10

message: The text has been changed to:
:According to Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data, Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are. 
and still cites Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al., The History and Geography of Human Genes, p. 82.
I'm repeating my request for direct quotes from this cited source about "genetic distance"  between blasians, blacks and whites. It would also be useful if there were a citation to a peer-reviewed publication that discusses "Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data" that supposedly say something about "genetic distance"  between blasians, blacks and whites.
And to be clear, the need to verify this citation can not be satisfied by original research from Wikipedia editors. Specifically, Wikipedia has no place for arguments generated by Wikipedians based on their interpretations of images that do not contain clearly labeled genetic data for "blasians", "blacks" and "whites".  Either we find a verifiable and reliable source for this scientific claim or it must be removed from Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Timelist, that's not the point. I doubt if the cited source says anything about blasians. If the cited source does say something about blasians, I want to know what it says. This is how Wikipedians verify sources. A Wikipedian's interpretation of an image is not a reliable source when we are dealing with conclusions drawn from of a complex scientific data set. --JWSchmidt 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this from the article because this claim has not been verified as being supported by the cited source: "In some cases, according to Cavalli-Sforza's allele frequency data, some Blasians are almost as genetically distant from some blacks as some whites are." --JWSchmidt 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated wording 

message: The "Bladisn" caption now says: "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are." 
Does that sentence mean, "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as Whites are distant from Blacks?"  I printed the chart out and did some measuring, so let's see how the numbers work out.
If Blacks and Whites are measured to be 6.5 units apart from each other, then Blasians are supposed to be 6.5 units from Blacks, right?"  But when you plot it out on the graph, Blasians are 4.25 units from Blacks.
Should that sentence mean, "Blasians may be as genetically distant from Blacks as are Whites?" In that case Blasians are measured to be 4.25 units from Blacks and Blacks ought to be 4.25 units from Whites. But the measured distance is much larger, 6.5 units.
Shouldn't the idea be that Blasians have an intermediate position between Asians and Africans just as Europeans have an intermediate position between Asians and Africans?  But the distances are definitely not equal. Blasians are 4.25 units from Blacks, but Blacks are 6.5 units from Whites. and Asians are 7 units from Whites. 
Perhaps I am missing some way to construe the caption that would make the math come out even approximately, but I don't see it. P0M 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well according to Blasian folk-lore, one drop of North East Asian blood cancels out a drop of black blood, so for this reason many Blasians feel that mulattoes are Black but Blasians are not.  If Blasians are 4.25 units away from being black, they would argue that they're distant enough to not be considered black,  but by your measurements mulattoes would be only 3.25 units from Blacks (half the distance that whites are) and thus would be considered Black. Also, are you sure you measured correctly? Did you measure from the center of each circle?  Also keep in mind that the genetic distance you measured for Blasians assumes that they have 1 parent who is pure African which would bring them closer to Africans, but in reality their black parent is usually African-American (who are typically only 83% African, 17% Europeans) and so the combination of being 1/2 Oriental and 1/6th European, would make them aproximately about as removed from Africans as 100% Europeans are.Timelist 09:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one who finds this sort of reasoning really quite scary? Looks like the sort of thing they used to do in the 1930's to determine who was "Aryan" or not....Gives me the shiveres. Alun 12:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree race is a scary concept that has been badly misapplied, but if wikipedia insist on allowing articles about such antiquated topics, we have to make sure they have their facts right.  Timelist 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time that there has been an indication of people wanting to deny their genetic heritage. I do not find that idea frightening. I find it sad. How can one be a whole person, an integrated person, if one tries to throw away a part of oneself? It reminds me of homosexual J. Edgar Hoover leading a crusade against homosexuals. The worst result, the part that is scary, is that one joins the oppressors in an effort to gain safety for oneself. The devil comes when two groups contemn each other. P0M 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wells map and the Sforza map both show that caucasians branched off of Africans and the North East Asians later branched off of the caucasians.  So if Africans gave bith to Cuacasians and Caucasians gave birth to North East Asians, one might expect that Caucasians would be genetically in between North East Asians and Africans.  Also the climate in which the caucasians evolved was not as warm as Africa, but not as freezing as North East Asia, so climatic selection pressures would have also caused caucasians to be in between Africans and North East Asians. Also since caucasians are geographically in between Africa and North East Asia, they would have recieved gene flow from both groups, which would further cause them to cluster in between and Africans and North East Asians. Timelist 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The second wave of migration out of Africa took a land route into central Asia. Then they did a star burst and one group did a left u-turn and headed into Europe. I guess I could redraw Wells's map and put it up. It's pretty crappy the way they did it in the book, anyway. P0M 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what am I wrong about? Timelist 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If a black parent of "Blasian" is 17% white, that'd reduce the distance between Asian and Black and that makes you even more wrong. I'm going to delete that picture and explanation tomorrow. Lukas19 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and the typical African American is West African and hence farther away from Whites than East Africans...Lukas19 19:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of caption? 

message: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_gene.html
Quote taken from book review of "The history and geography of human genes"
How might European gene frequencies come to be part way between Chinese and African? Part of the explanation is simply geographical. The Caucasoids are located in between the territory of the Negroids and the Mongoloids, and presumably have received genes from both groups. The term Caucasoid is used instead of merely European because it is the Middle Eastern and Indian Caucasoids who are best located to exchange genes with both the Negroids and Mongoloids. 
However, a theory of Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza (1973), discussed in this book (p. 108) provides a mechanism for how the Europeans could come to be intermediate in gene frequencies. They argue on the basis of archeological evidence and gradients of gene frequencies in Europe that agriculture, after emerging in the Middle East, spread into Europe by demic diffusion. By demic diffusion is meant that the early farming populations expanded gradually with each new generation moving further into Europe, with the average rate being about one kilometer per year. The alternative to this account is that the technique of farming diffused without movement of peoples. Timelist 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not say that Caucasians are the descendants of African and Asian admixture. Indeed it is impossible that they are, people must have lived in the Near East and sub-continental India before they got to Asia, how else would Asia have been populated? Alun 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's claiming that caucasians are the descendants of an African and Asian admixture.  All that's being said is that Caucasians (like Blasians) are intermediate between Africans and Asians. Timelist 12:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we saying this? I wonder what it's supposed to illustrate? How does it fit into a Black people article, and should it be there? "Race" is a social construct much more than a genetic one. Saying this seems to be denying "Blasian" people their own ethnic identity, even if it's not your intent. Alun 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making my point. Race is partly a social construct, and that's why it's important to point out that people who are socially percieved as black (i.e. blasians) are genetically no more black than people who are socially percieved as white (europeans). We're all Africans under the skin, it's just a matter of degree. Timelist 12:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Race" is a social construct. Wht do you claim that they are "no more Black than Europeans". This is clearly nonsense, if "race" is a social concept, whic you claim to accept, and a "Blasian" person has a Black parent, then they are socially and genetically Black, they are also socially and genetically Asian. They are never socially or genetically European because they do not have European parents, or ancestors. They share some genes with Europeans, but then so do Asians and Africans, we are a single húman population, we are genetically not very diverse as a species, most variation is at the individual level and not the "population" level. Most of our genes occur throughout the whole human population. Alun 12:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Alun, why censor the absurdities of the genetic views on race such as Whites being as genetically related to blacks as Blasians are. And I never said anything about Blasians being European.  This is is a misunderstanding. Just because Blasians and Europeans are both in between Blacks and Orientals, does not mean they share the same genetic profile. Oceanic people are also in between blacks and orientals. Please study the chart. Timelist 12:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to censure anything. But I think these assumptions are based on the idea of "races" being "discrete populations", but they are not. It must be true that all non-African human populations are eually as related to African populations as each other. It must also be true that someone with an African parent is more African than someone without an African parent. I don't understand your reasoning at all. "Blasians" and Europeans are not "both in between Blacks and "Orientals"". This is clearly nonsense. There are no "in betweens", the human species is not divided into exclusive non-overlapping "races" from a genetic point of view. Surely it is simply a statement of the bleeding obvious to claim that any person has (about) half their mother's genes and half their father's genes, if their parents are from different "races" then they share genes from both "races". But the human population is not split up into "races" on the genetic level, genes are clinally distributed, not discreetly distributed. Caucasians have a closer genetic relationship to African than Asian people do because we are geographically adjacent, we are also geographically adjacent to Asia. The chances of gene flow between Caucasian people and Asian people and gene flow between Caucasian people and African people is clearly far greater than the cances of gene flow between Asian people and African people. But the statement that "Blasians" are no more Black than "Caucasians" is completelly nonsense because "Blasians" have recent Black origins, unlike Caucasians. I do not support the inclusion of this, it smacks of racism. Alun 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blasians only have 1 parent of recent black origin.  The other parent is 2 steps removed from Black origin.  Thus on average Blasians are 1 full step removed from Black origin. By contrast Caucasians just have 2 parents who are 1 step removed from black origin and thus are also 1 step removed from Black origin just like Blasians.  I think the unwillingness to admit that Caucasians are just as black as Blasians are is what smacks of racism, but I guess we can just agree to diagree on this minor point Timelist 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also note that the quote states European gene frequencies come to be part way between Chinese and African, not equidistant, but part. It is just as true to point out that African-American gene frequencies come part way between African and European ones. What is it supposed to prove? Alun 12:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to prove that the superficial African appearance of Blasians does not make them anymore black then a blond blue eyed Sweedish person. We're all African under the skin. Not sure why that is such a scary concept Timelist 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's scary that you keep suggesting that people with Black parents should not be considered Black, that's why it's scary. I cannot accept that a person with a Black parent and an Asian parent should be considered no more black than a Swede. Do you also think that a person with a, say Nigerian father and a Finnish mother (I know such a couple) is not Black? Alun 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You find it scary. I find it provocative and interesting.  Again, it's 1 tiny caption in a massive article.  It's not like we're giving it undue weight.  Timelist 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source claims caucasians are in between East Asians and Africans

message: :::::::"Blasian" is not a legitimate category or label, please, we as a group should know better. Secondly, you can't lump all Europeans into one basket so to say, countless genetic studies have demonstrated that Germans, Russians and to a lesser extant the French, have a far greater Asian genetic influence than do for example Basques or Scots. I strongly suggest we drop the "Blasian" issue altogether, it's a very dead horse.--Albinomite 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says? Alun 12:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an entire article on Blasians.  I'm curious as to why 1 small little caption has suddenly become so controversial. What's really going on here? Timelist 12:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said there aren't people who call or are called "Blasians," I meant to say that  it is not a term frequently employed by scientists or academics. "Blasian" is simply a neologism for metis or mulatre.--Albinomite 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term black is not frequesntly used by scientists either. Timelist 12:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No such thing exists. We make changes by consensus. "Voting" is a last resort and will take some time. If there are things you would like to discuss regarding the article discuss them here first. If you attempt to force a vote on issues that have not been extensively discussed then they will simply be reverted. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Alun 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do, it is your prerogative. Remember this article is very contentious, you have not been involved in the discussions very much, if you edit against consensus then your edits will likely get reverted. Alun 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why create controversy where none has existed?  The article is fine. I'm tired of all the talk about how the article is doomed or has no future. The more you say it, the more it comes true. Timelist 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The article is fine" <-- I do not agree. This article is full of statements that are not supported by verifiable and reliable sources. This article is edited by many people who do not seem interested in the requirement that the content of the article come from verifiable and reliable sources. --JWSchmidt 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aricle is just a collection of opinions about how to define black people.  Oprinions by definitions are unsupported conclusions, but that's what the article is about. Black people don't exist in factual reality, they're just a social construct, and this article simply documents the history of that social construct, and all the nutty ideas along the way Timelist 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JWSchmidt. Even if the article refers to an opinion, it must be cited. P0M 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the best cited aticles on wikipedia Timelist 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the statements of fact and the assertions regarding the opinions or judgments of various people that have to be cited. P0M 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blasian illegitimate?

message: Drastic edits that replace the term "black people" with the word negritude which is a  different concept, and remove big blocks of text including references, are not a good idea, unless they have been discussed first.--Filll 13:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't stand when people remove stuff forom articles or make massive changes.  Several sections are very controversial and required cooperative editing on the part of people with opposing views.  New editors making even small changes could very rapidly destabalize the article. Timelist 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not, see WP:SOCK#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets. You can be banned for this. You have already broken enough rules to get a block I think. Whatever I've asked for the article to be protected from editing. Alun 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you want to "win"? You want to remove the phrase "black people" and replace it with "negritude"? Why? What do you want? And if you manage to get your changes put in for a few hours before getting them reverted, they will not last. Someone else will revert them. And if you become pushy, you will just get banned. So it is better to discuss these things first.--Filll 13:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At last, someone who gets what the article is about. Timelist 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When I see comments like this, I have to admit the the "falangists" just seem like they are pulling our legs and are being funny. It is like one huge practical joke.--Filll 13:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you have made a single constructive comment since you have been here. Please keep your posts relevant to the article. We've seen your version of "balance and reason". I see neither therein. Alun 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic edits

message: ::* There are a lot of strange comments about how Ethiopians are not black: This is true I think. You do not think the article has a lot of this material?
There's also a whole section about how Ethiopians DEFINED black people in the ancient world. I think it's a perfect balance. Show both sides__ Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are a lot more than two sides here. If you think there are only two sides, you have not been following this discussion very carefully. Ethiopians might be important from a number of perspectives, but lots of people disagree with that.--Filll 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The English is poor: I have to agree. It is poorly written. That is "alls" I can say. You disagree?
It's poorly written because there's been so many disagreements and counter-arguments. This can sometimes hurt the flow. Not a huge problem __Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a written document. So bad writing is a problem. It is meant to be accessible. So bad writing is a problem. It is supposed to be scholarly. So bad writing is a problem. Of course it is impossible to clean up the English when people are fighting so much. That is just reality. And you are one of the people fighting.--Filll 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So what is so bad about what he said? I disagree with some of what he says, but I think he makes some good points. I do not care if he is white or not.--Filll
Virtually nothing he had to say is even remotely worthwhile.__Whatdoyou 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a ludicrous statement. See above.--Filll 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments about Alun's statement