User talk:Editingoprah

Hi, I have made a slight edit to the Black people article. I want to say that while some biologists accept that race exists as a biological phenomenon, other's disagree. I also think we should say that there is no universally accepted definition of "race" in biological disciplines. I haven't laboured the point, and have kept the edit as minimalist as possible. I hope you can accept it. If you can't then maybe we need to come to a compromise. I don't do edit waring, so if you revert it I won't put it back in. But I do think we need to make some sort of comment here. Having said that I'm not going to make a big deal of it if you can't live with it. All the best. Alun 07:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated

Well...The study I quoted lumps all Sub-Saharan Africans together whether you like it or not. And it's from a credible source. So you cant delete it. You can however add sourced counter arguments. Your hasty reversions are getting annoying...Lukas19 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The study I cited includes hundreds of people from all over the world. And they should be using the normal definition of Sub Saharan Africa which includes Ethiopia...

So please dont delete it next time. However you may add your counter arguments. It's what makes articles written from a Neutral Point of View.

Oh and about: "Africans mutated into Ethiopians who then mutated into caucasians who then mutated into East Asians"...

Everyone mutated, including Africans...And Europe was settled 46,000 years ago [1] while far east was settled 50,000 years ago [2]

And according to multi-regional hypothesis:

And according to other theory, single-origin hypothesis, first humans evolved in Africa and migrated out of Africa, while Africans themselves kept mutating as well...Lukas19 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you comparing a self made picture to a study conducted by Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University??

And if the study I cited talks about where peoples ancestors lived, add it with your claim "a substantial fraction of Ethiopian ancestors are from the middle east" after finding a source instead of deleting everything. Lukas19 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The multiregional hypothesis is dead. No serious scientists gives it any credit any more. The best "multiregionalists" can hope for (and it's more of a political decision than a scientific one) is that there is some truth in the Assimilation Model. But currently the weight of evidence is against this as well. [3]. Alun 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians are equidistant between Caucasians and Africans. This is only the case because the human population does not actually live in discreet populations, but is globally distributed with variations occuring in clines rather than discontinuous populations. The effect of artificially segregating populations into "discrete" groups leads to certain people appearing to fall "between groups". This simply highights the artificial and arbitrary nature of discreet populations rather than anything else. Alun 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must have surely flunked graduate school friend, Ethiopes are not between peoples, they are the closest to the original humans and so also historically have been treated as almost honrary whites. Regards.--LaBotadeFranco 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make personal attacks. What is an "Ethiope"? Is it a word you just made up? Alun 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of

I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current