Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sugaar

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sugaar (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 8 November 2006 (→Massive far-right attack on Misplaced Pages?: deleted thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:03, 8 November 2006 by Sugaar (talk | contribs) (→Massive far-right attack on Misplaced Pages?: deleted thoughts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In English please You are very welcome to post in my talk page but, while I do understand Spanish (and Basque and even some French and Italian) this is the English Misplaced Pages. Other users may be interested eventually in what you say and English is the work language here.

So say what you have to say in the language of this media. Thanks. --Sugaar 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

  • Discussion up to November 3 2006 archived in: Archive 1

Portal: Basque Country? or Wikiproject:Basque Country?

I'm thinking it would be a good idea, in order to systematize, coordinate and expand this area of knowledge in the English Misplaced Pages. --Sugaar 09:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What's a Portal?

Examples of ethnic/national/regional portals

Under construction

Portals that are not yet fully browseable:

... or browse

Finished

... etc.

Possibly related Wikiprojects

What's more correct? A Wikiproject or a Portal? Or both?

Honestly, no idea yet. I started thinking in a Portal but a Wikiproject also makes some sense. Please discuss. --Sugaar 09:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to consider the noticeboard model. See Romanian Wikipedians' notice board for a good example. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Broken link, Jmabel. And my search on Romanian Wikipedians gave no results either. :( --Sugaar 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested?

If you are interested, please comment here. --Sugaar 09:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kaixo Sugaar! I am not a native Basque but I have lived in the Basque Country for many years (and still do). I can speak and write Basque and the language is also my main area of specialisation as a linguist.
I am working at the moment on an article on Basque grammar, which I hope to have ready to post some time in November. You may get some idea of the kind of article it will be by looking at the other articles on grammars of individual languages that I have already written on two native languages of Central America, Nawat and Miskito. I will let you know when I finish the Basque grammar article.
As for your Basque portal idea, it sounds good to me, as long as you are going to have enough time (I doubt I would). If you want to get started on it I will do what I can to support you, however. So if you would like to tell me some more about your plans, please do! Ondo izan eta gero arte! --A R King 12:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have the time, what I don't have is any experience in Wikiprojects/Portals and also is too arid to do these kind of things alone. So far all my apportations have been a series of spontaneous additions in areas I thought I could help. But as I listed them in my user page, I realized that most are on Basque people, Basque Country, Basque geography, Basque history and prehistory, Basque culture... probably because there was a clear lack (or bias in some cases).
Then I stumbled on an article listed as assessed by Portal:Galicia and thought "we need one of those". I am really at loss yet but guess that in a few days I will have a better idea.
By the moment I've managed to discover that what a Wikiproject is:
A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Misplaced Pages; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing.
A WikiProject, in other words, is a central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. It may develop guidelines, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed.(WP:PROJGUIDE)
I think that's what we should start with. The Portal would hence be a daughter of the corresponding Wikiproject.
In fact this is already an informal embryo of a Wikiproject.
I'm glad that you are writing an article on such erudite issue as Basque grammar. My level of Basque is not top but if I can be of any help, please don't doubt asking.
Eskerrik asko etortzegatik. --Sugaar 13:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It sounds good. Good luck and stay in touch. --A R King 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested but probably wouldn't be of much help at the moment; I'll keep you in mind however if and when I'm editting on Misplaced Pages more. See my talk page for a longer answer. Iainsona 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll undoubtedly be a minor participant in this, whatever form it takes. My interest has been mainly that this is an area where there are a lot of POV issues from competing nationalisms. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have my own POV (can't help it) but a reality check never harmed anyone. I mean: you help in keeping things focused and adding a neutral POV opinion will be helpful surely. --Sugaar 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Euskal Portal

Kaixo! Thank you for contacting me (btw you placed you comment on a subpage's talk page, I moved it to my main talk page). I do speak some Basque although I'm still in the beginner's level. The Basque Country is a subject that interests me a lot, and I'm quite excited about your ideas (how could I have not thought of a Basque Portal before?!?). I have some experience on creating Portals (see Portal:Iceland), so it'll be a pleasure to create/maintain one for the Basque Country. :-) Just tell me if you would prefer me to create the portal, or you create it yourself and then I can help maintaining it/add content. By the way, I see that you are a native Spanish speaker. If you wish, you may contact me in Spanish, and I can reply in English or Portuguese. Eskumuinak.--Húsönd 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I liked the Iceland Portal. If you read above, I linked as an example of what a portal is. Right now I'm thinking that's maybe better start with a Wikiproject and make the Portal a "daughter" of it. Definitively, your Wiki-experience will be of help. I'm still a little lost (but focused).
Language is not any issue, I just used the Category:User eu as a listing of people that might have some interest (the logic: knows Basque > is Basque or somehow related, though my logic may fail in the case of linguists). Personally I prefer to conduct all Misplaced Pages discussions basically in English - the last one who wrote to me in Spanish was to insult (see archive) but it's basically a matter of Wikiettiquete (so others can follow up, if needed).
I'm feeling that, as soon as there are a handful of interested editors, I'll create the Wikiproject and redirect the discussion there. It will surely be a better space to talk on the details, including the Portal. --Sugaar 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. However, it is my impression that WikiProjects are very prone to stagnate without many willing collaborators, whereas portals not only require fewer people to maintain as can also effectively attract more participitants to the relevant WikiProject. My suggestion would be creating a portal first, and a WikiProject afterwards. Regards.--Húsönd 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I accept your experience and suggestion. If you think you can create it (the skeleton), please go ahead. I just thought the Wikiproject was easier to start with and excellent for discussion on tasks, particularly (but not only) the Portal. I was also somehow in wait to see who else replies - after all only a few hours have elapsed since I "spammed" all users with some Basque-speaking ability.
In any case, so far I'm feeling quite possitive about how this may go. And your enthusiastic reply is an important reason to feel that way.
If you feel that creating the whole portal is too much for you, I'll make all I can.
Eskerrik asko. --Sugaar 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then, I'll give a start to the portal tomorrow I guess. I'll have you know when the skeleton starts to get meat on it. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thumbs up, applause and thanks a lot, Husond. :) --Sugaar 05:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Arratsaldeon. Thank you for contacting me, but I'm not Basque and I've never been in Basque Country. I hope to go there next summer, but it's not done yet. I'm very interrested in languages, and those times I learn Basque. I read "Harry Potter eta Sorgin-Harria" every morning in the commuter train while going to work, but I can't read more than one page every morning. I have absolutely no oral practice. My level doesn't permit me to write articles in Basque language, but I'm proud to have written: eu:Aita Santuen zerrenda. I agree to participate in this portail, but I'm afraid my contribitions will be totally void. Švitrigaila 12:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not bad at all. Aita Santuen zerrenda, I mean.
At some point of my "spamming" the User-eu category, I thought that maybe some of you could be linguists with no other relation with the Basque Country that a professional interest in the language. But I decided it would require more work to try to find out and just wrote to you all.
Whatever your ability or interest you are very welcome to stay around and help according to your posibilities/desires. --Sugaar 14:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, David, I knew you'd be around. You've been making a lot of useful editions on Biscayan geographical subject mainly. Your apportation will surely be significative. --Sugaar 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a WikiProject is a grat idea, in part as a place to better discuss the nationalist tensions that have plagued discussions, and in particular naming conventions. There will be controversy about Navarre (and even about Iparralde, ridiculously) being in its scope, but that's no reason not to try. I don't think I will be able to contribute much myself, however, for the time being. Martín (saying/doing) 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The more I think about it the more the Wikiproject seems to make sense. In fact all this discusion would not be misplaced there.
On Navarre (and Iparralde), I certainly think there is strong precedent in many actions taken recently like the creation of the page Basque Country (historical territory), etc. Also there is quite a consensus among Basques, including Navarrese on that, as long as it is seen as the historical-cultural region, with not necessary political implications. But anyhow, all can be discussed.
I think the Wikiproject should be called "Basque" and the Portal "Basque people", they seem more neutral to me, though in Basque language you don't make a difference between country, nation and people (all is herri(a)) --Sugaar 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal draft

I've created a draft for the future portal as a subpage of my userpage: User:Sugaar/Basque Portal draft. For all interested people: feel free to add or modify and comment in the corresponding discussion page.

--Sugaar 17:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work with the Portal Draft. That material will be particularly useful to create a template such as this one on Portal:Portugal. I'm a little busy today so it might take a day or two until I get started with the portal skeleton. Regards.--Húsönd 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Sugaar. I will try to help a bit by throwing you a few ideas (off the top of my head) for possible improvements to your draft:

  • If you look at the table of contents, you can see something seems to be wrong with the structure because it begins with 1 - Basque people, and there is no 2, 3...
  • Basque history: needs to be brought down to the present (or at least to a more recent period).
  • Basque geography: instead of a first-level division into iparralde, Navarre and "Vascongados", followed by subdivisions for the provinces, I think it would be more in line with Basque thinking (rather than Spanish or French discourse) to have a flat seven province structure. (If necessary you could add a further, "super-imposed" grouping to allow discussion of particular areas, e.g. the Basque Autonomous Community, but I propose not treating these as primary.
  • I am a professional translator and have also worked as an English-speaking Basque specialist for thirty years. Based on my experience, although I do not claim this to justify ruling out futher discussion, I would like to make the recommendation of the following spellings for the Basque provinces in English: Araba, Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa, High Navarre, Low Navarre, Lapurdi, Zuberoa.
  • Literature: include more recent and modern Basque literature as well as the classics.
  • Christianity: how about calling this section Religion? Then it could include other religions, e.g. Judaism or Islam, as well as ancient Basque religious beliefs.
  • Diaspora: as well as Boise, other centres in the U.S. such as Reno, California...
  • How about a section on Basque institutions and organisations?
  • Basque press and media?
  • Basque business and industry?
  • Immigration (to the Basque Country)?
  • Basque education (ikastolas, university...)
  • The Basque language movement (EHE, AEK, Kontseilua, euskaldun berriak...)
  • Famous Basque writers and intellectuals (e.g. Sabino Arana, Unamuno, Koldo Mitxelena, Txillardegi...)

and so on. Just trying to help you flesh it out. There will be lots of other things I haven't thought of, so others should do the same. Hope this helps. --A R King 12:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most of your comments ar totally valid, please modify the draft page accordingly (or I will later).
Some "buts":
(1) Basque people: obviously Basque people would be the title of all the Portal. There's no 2. All would be under Basque people. Basques ourselves say Euskal Herria that can be translated depending of contexts as Basque People, Basque Country or Basque Nation/Ethnos.
(2) Basque history should also be extended to fascism and its consquences, though it's still a controversial subject, specially because much evidence has been buried, burnt or sold for recycling. Lat fascism and democracy are a single piece of current history for Basques. Of course, an article on Basque history should adress it but mostly linking to the specific topics.
(3) Some subjects, such as literature clearly require attention and expansion but they must be in anyow. Others such as immigration require clear work (just see the pathetic state the corresponding section of Basque people is in - and it should be under Basque Country, not in Basque people, obviously, unless we are pondering integration of immigrants or 2nd generation people as "new Basques", that actually happens but is not adressed anywhere.
(4) Also, I may agree partly with your proposal for standarization of Basque toponyms. Yet at least Biscay (and apparently Guipuscoa too) are English names. Labourd (Lapurdi) was part of the English Angevine empire and probably known as such in English too. Most problematic are surely Soule-Zuberoa (also called Xiberue in their dialect) and Álava-Araba. Also it may be very problematic those toponyms that have double names in Basque and Spanish or Basque and French. For instance Bayonne or Baiona? (the first is oficial, the second native), Miarritze or Biarritz? Biarritz is widely known internationally. Etc. In the Autonomous Community all municipalities and most neighbourhood have an oficial Basque name (sometimes co-oficial with an Spanish name, it's mostly a local decision) but in the rest of the country (i.e. Navarre and the North), Spanish and French names are mostly the only ones with oficial status and (specially in Navarre) this issue may be controversial. Guess we'll discuss further in the Wikiproject, that I'm feeling is really necesary.

--Sugaar 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have numbered your points to make it easier to respond to them.

(1) Basque people (= Euskal Herria): Sorry, you have me quite confused here. I don't think you can translate Euskal Herria as Basque People. Of course Herria can be translated (sometimes) as "people", but that doesn't mean it always means "people", and it seems certain that in Euskal Herria that is not the case. I could give you several reasons (but I don't really want to make a big polemic out of this!). Notice first of all that nobody (including Basques themselves) translates Euskal Herria into Spanish or French as "Pueblo Vasco" or "Peuple Basque" but always as "País Vasco"/"Pays Basque". Secondly, in Basque the grammar shows which meaning is always intended: if Euskal Herria referred to the people, you couldn't say "Euskal Herrian" for "in the Basque Country", but would have to say "Euskal Herriarengan", which sounds quite wrong in Basque, actually. This is a pretty definite demonstration, from the Basque language's point of view, that the country or the place is being referred to, not the people as such (which is not to deny that the people form part of the country, obviously). So I repeat, from the fact that "herria" happens to have several different translations into English it cannot be assumed that we are free to choose how to translate it in each context: the context itself must determine that, as it does in this case. ("Basque people" in Basque would probably be expressed as "Herri euskalduna", by the way.) Another point to consider is that if what you want is to have a portal/project specifically about Basque people and not about the Basque Country/Euskal Herria, then I think the preferred solution in English would probably be to call it "(The) Basques" rather than "Basque people". Perhaps first of all we need to clarify what our intention is about that, so that we can focus the discussion better.

(3) Immigrants: In your third point your comment "and it should be under Basque Country, not in Basque people" is what has set me wondering whether I have misunderstood your purpose and provoked me to make the previous comment at the end of the last paragraph. What I assumed you wanted was a portal or project about the Basque country and people (understanding that Euskal Herria covers both, in effect). Am I wrong?

(4) Toponyms: I agree to postpone further discussion of this until we have sorted out some more important questions of content and substance.

Cheers --A R King 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) I don't think you are right: Herria is by definition the People (the Nation) and only by extension the Country (territory). Basques in general would be euskaldunak or euskaldunok (plural necessarily). Basque territory is euskal lurraldea. Politicians use phrases as Euskal Herriak nahi du... (The Basque people/country/nation wants). You use Euskal Herrian for "in the Basque Country", naturally because it also has that territorial meaning (herri also means village, btw, so herri can be declined as location naturally - it doesn't sound strange). But you can also say eman diot opari hau Euskal Herriari which is a personal declination (nori). You can use both but it's clear that Euskal Herria has primarily that meaning of people/nation (which may derivate from village or viceversa) and only as a natural derivate that of country. Well, I've never had a single doubt about it but I will see what more I can find. You posibly can use Euskal Herriarengan if you want to mean specifically that: Basque people, though I've never heard it but neither herriarengan either. Norengan is used for particular homes (or business) mostly.
(2) My idea is to create a portal on everything specifically Basque, and Basque people (as ethnicity) seems the primary element of union. Basque Country is where Basque people mostly leaves and what that Basque people regards as its national/ethnic homeland, so, as I see it, it's a derivate, the same that Kurdistan is where Kurds basically live and the territory they consider their homeland.
(3) That's my feeling: that immigration is more properly adressed in the territorial article than in the the ethnic one. It seems absolutely logical to me: if you are a Pakistani that has just arrived some years ago and you aren't yet integrated, you just are (yet) a Pakistani living in the Basque Country: you maybe leave tomorrow because your cousin in Madrid or Lahore is offering you a good opportunity... or you may settle and integrate and become partly Basque by adoption). The article on Basque people talks (or should talk) on Basques as ethnicity and living community of people but I see no reason to include people that don't feel Basque in that article: they belong to the demographics section of the territorial article. I really can't understand your point: when you talk of Latvians you don't talk of Russians living in Latvia, that's in the Latvia article, but you may talk of Latvians living in Russia or elsewhere.
(4) Ok. --Sugaar 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject created

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Basque

I have also moved the Portal project page to a subpage of this WikiProject: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Basque/Basque Portal (draft).

Please, let's move the discussion there. I'll copy-paste the above discussion as an archive page of the Wikiproject talk page ("Archive 0" probably) and, after some cautionary time, I'll archive it here also.

Please help me wikifying the project page: categories, directories, etc. Thanks. --Sugaar 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget to add yourselves in the list of members... --Sugaar 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Basque created

Hi Sugaar. I've created Portal:Basque and already filled some boxes. Feel free to modify it as you please. Still a lot of work to do there. Oh, and consider listing yourself as a maintainer of the Basque Portal on Misplaced Pages:Portal/Directory. Best regards.--Húsönd 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll list myself as maintaner... tomorrow. Today I've been very busy with the WikiProject. It looks very nice. Thanks. --Sugaar 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Euskal portal

Hi Sugaar: thanks for inviting me to organise the Basque portal, but I'm afraid I won't have much spare time to contribute. Sorry. Some thing I'm thinking for the future though is a project for applying computer assited translation techniques (basically example based and memory based methods) to easy the translation of English articles into Basque. But is going to take some time to set up the project. Would you be interested? I've to find out how are transaltion logistics orgainised at Misplaced Pages. Best, --JosebaAbaitua 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Joseba. Really I have no idea on your area of interest. Sorry. Translation logistics? Uh! Guess you just go and translate by hand if you can and it's needed. Hmmm... --Sugaar 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joseba, There should not be a translation logistics in Misplaced Pages, I think, because in principle at least there are no translations. Each Misplaced Pages in a different language constitutes a separate encyclopaedia; they are not multilingual translations of a single encyclopaedia. In theory, therefore, each articles in each language represents an independent composition in every respect. That having been said, there is of course no rule against an article in language A being used as a source, a major source, or even an exclusive source by the writer of a corresponding article in language B, if she or he wants to do that, or even of just translating it, but that is an individual editor's decision and in any case, as an article is repeatedly edited by different users, it can eventually be expected to start diverging from an article on the same subject in one of the other Wikipedias even if they do derive from the same initial source. Therefore, in the systematic sense that interests you at least, I would say there is no translation logistics in this case, and it would go against the project's philosophy for there to be one. Cheers, Alan --A R King 12:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Aupa, Sugaar! Mila esker for your invitation to contribute to the Basque Portal. I'll keep an eye on it, but just now I have too many things in mind (e.g. my Ph.D. in chemistry) to be of much help. Zorionak for your good effort, and keep the Basque language and culture high! Isilanes 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Aupa. I hope you hang around now and then at least. We need of all the people with an interest. Assume just the compromise you can or wish. --Sugaar 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette

Your statement "I keep my conviction that I'm on the truth: that you two are members of some racist organization" on this edit directed toward User:Dark Tichondrias is an accusation that two users are racists, making it against Misplaced Pages's policy on etiquette. Misplaced Pages's policy on etiquette suggests to not accuse other users of being racist.--Dark Tichondrias 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Wikiettiquete says:
Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.
This seems to be the issue of dispute. Yet racism is at the heart of this discussion, specially because DT and Thulean are percieved by all the rest as people with such an agenda.
I'm pondering to start a project called WP:Honesty: Say things clear (without falling in insults), don't hide in word games, don't make threats that make no sense (bravados), don't edit capriciously ignoring the discussion, etc. Play fair and demand others to do the same.
You pretend that I'm making ad hominem attacks, yet I'm just pointing out who's misbehaving and why. Something that is obvious to all, including you two.
If you would be even minimally sincere you would not be trying to corner me against arbitrarily selected Wikipolicies but you would have protested your innocence, first of all. You are just playing legalism.
If you want me to refrain from denouncing your behaviour and your agenda the least your could do is to is to protest your innocence, to explain your reasons, to pretend at least that you are not racist. But you only make attacks ad hominem against my honesty and sincerity.
Keep it that way. I don't mind. --Sugaar 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks which you made in Talk:White_people. Or next time you will be reported to WP:DP. Thulean 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not making any personal attacks. I honestly think you are a nazi (or close equivalent, if you want to dwell in the small letter and word twists). You haven't even bothered in denying it, so why should I think otherwise.
If you think that stating that is a personal attack, please say why. I don't think that openly declaring the (apparent) truth is any personal attack but just that: stating facts, so we can discuss honestly.
What is being discussed in that article's talk page is largely ideological and some people of certain ideology (you and DarkTichondrias) are trying to manipulate the participative process of Misplaced Pages in your favor, editing ignoring the consensus. I honestly believe it is my duty to fight such behaviour and defend the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. And I will do it.
If you still arent satisfied, you can ask a request for investigation, but I must warn it can well backfire. --Sugaar 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I wont dignify your silly personal attacks with a response. And you repeated your personal attack with your response. I'll be reporting you. Thulean 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. --Sugaar 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling another editor a nazi, regardless of whether you think it is true, is completely unacceptable. If you continue, you may be blocked for personal attacks. Please find a more civil way to discuss your concerns about the article. Shell 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Stop being hyporcitic and stop spamming my talk page Thulean. I have enough with what Shell Kinney said. --Sugaar 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

White People

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to White people, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

You may delete uncited or incorrectly cited meterial. But deleting whole cited sections (population section) is considered vandalism. Thulean 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing but editing in agreement with consensus. You are POV-pushing it and acting unilaterally.
I'm not worried about your threats. You can't block me: you would have to initiate an investigation, what I will be glad to be involved in such process as it might help to solve the conflicts the disputed article is involved in. (And I guess it will be you who may be disciplined instead).
Stop spamming my user page and keep the discussion civil and in its proper place: the corresponding article's talk page. Thanks. --Sugaar 18:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to report warnings to users talk page. Anyway, I reported you. Thulean 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the first time in 2 years that anybody reports me. I have mixed feelings about it but I feel that I have acted in full accordance with Misplaced Pages's spirit. So I have no fear. --Sugaar 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Your RFI seems to have been resolved before I found out about it. I tend to agree with you, it was little more than a time wasting excersise. It also beggs the question, is it an attack to infer someone's political sympathies, surely it's only an attack when it's meant to be offensive or insulting? I'm a bit concerned generally, Misplaced Pages seems to be overrun with racists at the moment, I don't know if it is a concerted effort, or if it's just that they've discovered it as a way to promote their vile ideology, but still there seems to be a lot of racist/racialist opinion creeping onto quite a lot of pages at the moment. Oh well, all we do is follow proper wiki procedures, they should be robust enough to stop neo-fascist ideology from being promoted. I wondered what you might think of this paper Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease, it's cited in the Race and multilocus allele clusters. Personally I think this sort of paper is very dangerous, if scientists want to define human populations in this way I think they should avoid the loaded word race, and emphasis the small nature of geographic variability. The other worying thing is that this sort of paper is being published in such a high impact journal. As a geneticist and scientist myself these people make us all look very bad. Alun 06:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The RFI is still not fully settled. I've appealed the warn, so please pass by and comment anyhow.
If you are right that there's a lot of nazi content-attacks, this may be a major issue worth of discussing somewhere else. I'll look for appropiate spaces. What was of Wikipedians against Racism?. --Sugaar 08:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the paper: it's disputable. Some population clustering is a fact and it may be relevant to dealing with certain diseases (for instance Western Eurasians and specially Basques have high Rh disease probability, while East Asians and Native Americans don't - Africans are intermediate), the re are other papers that dispute this (on the grounds that race classification, as arbitrary as it is, provides no valid medical info and that many of these "racial diseases" actually overflow any racial/ethnic border in most cases) and is a subject of current debate.
The article doesn't seem to have been attacked by "white nationalists" who would probably consider it "too pro-Caucasoid" and therefore against their pseudo-Europeist approach to "white race". --Sugaar 10:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Category: