Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TaivoLinguist (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 21 April 2011 (→obscure S.Am langs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1·2·3·4· 5·6·7·8·9 ·10·

Talkback

retreating...·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) sorry to hear that Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If its not too late, I will make an effort to hang in there - though I'll need your involvement to keep me motivated. I apologize for leaving you there to fend for yourself... it felt as though I was beating my head against a wall. Logic prevails (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If Logic prevails is User:Maunus under another guise, may I say I thought our discussion about the authorship of the Nican mopohua was a good augury for future cooperation, and for a while I took your silence on Juan Diego as tacit support, but now I see your silence reflects wiki-exhaustion (or worse). I sincerely hope you will rebound - in your own good time. Meanwhile, I have only today discovered that it would have been both more courteous to other talk users and more useful all round if I had put my proposed re-write on my user page (as I have now done with a re-write I am floating for Francis of Assisi). When I can face configuring all the footnotes, I will move my proposed re-write of Juan Diego there too. At first I thought the new article would be far too long, but it is almost done (currently 7,200 words). The real problem is the length of the footnotes - as to which I was expecting a rebuke and am/was hoping for guidance - from you in both cases :) Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Logic prevails is logic prevails. We are not related, he was responding to a statement I made on his talkpage. I have enjoyed working with you as well. Thanks for the concern.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. Logic prevails (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

new looks

Hello Magnus/Maunus,

I've looked at your new looks in the user page and other areas and it looks good. Nice flying bird also. I am glad you are an Admin here at the English WP and I like your areas of interest. To my own completely subjective taste you are one of the nicest Admins I've seen around here. Hope you have time to continue doing the work you've been doing with all the academic responsibilities too. Good luck in general in your career. (I've made also some small additions in my own page lately, that you may or may not be interested to know about.) Regards, warshy 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Biopower

Hello Maunus

Regarding article Biopower,what I am trying to show is that the Foucault use of Biopolitics with which leads to his own theory of biopower has an historical precedent meaning that has beeen used through out recent history and did not arrive with Foucault's use I felt that the audience/reader should at least know.I have presented Agamben Thantopolitics as an example of this in doing so it widens the concept Biopower to future researchers,and is in no way trying to undermine Foucault's term Biopower.Many Thanks Richardlord50 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize that that is what you are striving to do, but the article as it is now gives a much larger amiunt of attention to the non-Foucault usage than to the Foucault usage. That isa problem that is best fixed by giving a more comprehensive descvription of the Foucault and post-Foucault usage. In short I believe you are focusing too much attention on a small corner of the topic and ignoring the more important parts.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try to use more on the post Foucault usage but it was an attempt to give unkown version of the term.Many ThanksRichardlord50 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize and appreciate that, but the article should describe the topic as a whole.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nahuatl and Twitter

Nice to see you back, would have been a shame to loose you altogether - having said that, I'm more often than not on the Gaelic wiki these days, less hassle...

Anyway, I would have sent this in a pvt message if I could find the button but I can't. With your interest in Nahuatl, I thought you might be interested in a resource a friend of mine has been developing to help speakers of smaller languages find each other on the sea of English that is Twitter. So far, there are 5 Twitterers that seem to at least occasionally use it. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an interesting tool. I don't tweet myself - I have enough to do around here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U filing information

At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you seemed to be interested in endorsing an RfC/U regarding User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I have started the RfC/U at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and since I have never done one before, I can only hope it was done correctly. Please feel free to respond to this as you see fit. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of language families

Good morning, friend. There's an editor User:Trikemike who keeps automatically including Japonic in Altaic in this list. Japonic is not generally included in Altaic. He's not talking in either his edit summaries or on the Talk Page. I've posted on his Talk Page as well with no response. If you're not too busy, could you weigh in there? Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but User:Trikemike is at it again--just blindly removing Japonic from the article without bothering to even post an edit summary. --Taivo (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"we liberals"

Sorry. I can see how that must sound to a liberal who doesn't agree with me. From now on, I'll say something like "Liberals like me aren't afraid of race-crime statistics." And whether you're a "liberal like me" or some other kind of liberal will be entirely up to you. Leadwind (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you have a need to label yourself like that anyway, but at least that would be an improvement.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FTR, I'm a Scandinavian-descended liberal interested in history, religion, linguistics, and culture. That doesn't qualify me to be a liberal like you, but I wouldn't be surprised if you and I were actually closer than our differences on evolutionary psychology might suggest. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AE

its live at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miradre The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 8:34 pm, Today (UTC−4

r/K selection theory

Hi Maunus. Just a quick question. I wouldn't disagree with your recent edits to the r/K selection theory article, but in deleting reference to latter day use of r/K selection theory, it obscures the fact that it is still frequently used (as a quick Web of Knowledge trawl reveals). Anyway, I appreciate that what was there before was WP:SYNTH (and I had a hand in that), but I was wondering if you had any advice about how to alter the article so that it was clear to readers that, rightly or wrongly, it is still being used by researchers today? I figure trying to find a more recent review (post-Stearns 1992) would be a start, but perhaps you have a better idea. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

First question is whether it is important that the theory is still used once in a while? Lots of antiquated theories are still sometimes applied either by researchers that didn't get the memo for some reason or for reasons that have to do with the particular study (maybe it is trying to replicate results of a previous experiment, maybe it is just using the model as a heuristic). If we can find a secondary source e.g. a biology textbook that mentions r/k selection theory then maybe it also mentions the current status post 1992 and maybe gives more detail about the contexts in which the theory is currently used. I think looking for mentions in recent textbooks would be a good way to go about it.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good shout - once it's back open after refurbishment, I'll have a look in our library. My own ecology textbooks are altogether too old to be helpful here! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

break

2 weeks, got "real" writing to do, if such a thing still exists? Happy Easter, if you celebrate it, belated solstice, goddess Eostre and all that. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Former possessions of Norway

I have responded here. -- Nidator 11:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad you understand my concern.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Do you have acess to "Inteligence"?

The journal "Intelligence" is cited in Race Differences in Intelligence (book). I am little concerned about the reviews there being accurate representations of the actual reviews. That concern is compounded since each one of those People in the recpetion section is a presumably a living person. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are accurate, but only represents the conclusive paragraph of the review in Loehlin's case, and leaves out some serious criticisms from Mackintosh. Loehlin also faults Lynn for his incorrect definition of race and his use of the notion of "pure races": "I would, however, find fault with Lynn's treatment of race in at least two respects. First, he does not emphasize that the vast majority of genetic variation is not between populations, but among individuals within them. Race differences are fairly small potatoes, if what you are interested in is the variation in the intelligence of humans. And second, he is not always as careful as he might be in the language he uses. A statement like “clines are hybrids between two pure races” (p. 13)—is simply to invite trouble. The phrase “pure races” is bound to evoke old-fashioned racial stereotypes— baggage that Lynn does not need. And the statement is imprecise as well. To the population geneticist, clines are simply geographic gradients of gene frequencies. Such gradients may result from interbreeding between previously separated populations, as Lynn suggests, but this does not define them, as they may occur for other reasons as well, such as differential selection in different parts of the range of a species, a notion that should not be theoretically objectionable to Lynn." And he mentions that " I checked a sample of 40 of the 615 rows in the IQ tables against their sources— selected mostly on the basis of being readily accessible to me. Result: 14 of the 40, about 1 in 3, showed discrepancies, although mostly minor ones." Mackintosh's review amounts to a full rejection of the validity of Lynn's scholarship.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Egregious Omissions that totally misrepresent a living person's position on topic such as Race an IQ would seem to a BLP violation you think? A statement like that in my University's department would likely lead to firing... or if Emeritus position would at least cause limiting of any future grants from the University. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? That Lynn should befired for misrepresenting Mackintosh? But wikipedia BLP policy doesn't apply to Lynn...·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure We are clear with each other with what we are communicating to each other here. You have indicated that here that Mackintosh criticism have been left out thus

I wouldn't say that the text as it currently is misrepresents him, it just leaves out some of the criticism, but it doesn't exactly give the impression that Mackintosh loves Lynn's work. Which he clearly doesn't. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading it again the summary of MAckintosh doesn't leave out the criticism, its just in the prose summary not in the quote. I think the text fairly summarises Loehlin and MAckintosh's views. I don't think there are BLP issues here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

its pain to have to scrutinize these editing sprees but the integrity of the Encyclopedia depends on it. Take care The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles of interest

Thanks for letting me know - I've looked at three you listed, and what is happening is discouraging on many levels, not the least to have Misplaced Pages be a good source. I'm a historian, not a scientist, but have enough sense of the current consensus to see that it is being misrepresented in many of these articles. Will try to see where I can help.Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I don't think it is necessarily a scientist that is needed, but rather somone able to put the science into its proper social/historic perspective. Any help an attention will be gratefully received.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

I have reported you to the ANI. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maunus_accuses.2C_tags.2C_and_deletes_comments_of_new_editors_as_being_sockpuppets_without_evidence_or_justificationMiradre (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

, nice try. If that is not Mikemikev then its a meatpuppet brought in by you.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's editing

I would appreciate input from other editors about the issues I raised with Volunteer Marek's editing here.Boothello (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

opinionated self published sources

It is meaningless whether its considered bt some to be reliable WP:RS - it is still a self published opinionated sources attacking other people and as such fails clearly WP:SELFPUB please don't replace it without discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, and you are editwarring.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please not post out of the timeline, its generally confusing and it makes it very difficult for users to understand the discussion correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Any confusion is due to your posting a new thread about a topic that was already being discussed.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

White flight

This is really trying my patience. Miradre is insulting. I've been going back to his sources to see what they say, and try to paraphrase if I think it's needed. Just finished about a month working on very contentious issues on Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, and am not sure I want to do this again. Isn't anyone else working on these articles? He makes endless lists, conflates data from 30 years apart without indicating when the data is gathered or evaluated, and insists on every paragraph citing "white flight" or thinks it doesn't count. No one has been so aggressively rude in my years on Misplaced Pages. Everything I add to try to provide history and context, he labels OR or synthesis. There may also be issues of Copy Vio. Is Book Rag a mirror site? If not, the Urban Decay paragraph was copied from there, together with its sources.Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded by e-mail.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

^ Ping.... You got Mail The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

obscure S.Am langs

Hi Maunus,

I was wondering if you could advise me on a couple points. The Kariri languages might now be classified. Ethn. calls them "Kariri-Xoko" kzw and gives alt names of Xoko and Xukuru. Xukuru is listed separately xoo and also given the alt names of Kariri and Kariri-Xoko. Am I safe in redirecting Xoko language and Xukuru language to Kariri, or are those names common to several languages? Kaufman says Xukuru is a lang only Greenberg would dare to classify, and I see that Catembri is called 'Kariri' as well.

Similarly, is there another Salumã language that remains unclassified? And does Patagon go under another name? Is our claim justified that Teushen and Haush were Chon languages? (Claim made at Tehuelche language.)

Also, I can't find an iso3 code anywhere for the Lule language, on Ethn. or LingList, and it might still be spoken. Not assigned?

I'm trying to clean up the red links in the S.Am. language listings, even if it's nothing more than assigning an iso3 code so we can keep the languages straight for future ref. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

South of Panama I am really out of my element with classification. The most recent stuff I have on those areas is Kaufman's now dated work. I will look at what I can get my hands on.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnologue classifies Vilela as a Lule-Vilela language, but there are no other languages in that grouping. Lule then seems to be unclassified.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Lule has to be extinct: . ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If I may butt in, Lule was never listed in Ethnologue because it was extinct and in S.A. Ethnologue often ignored the extinct languages (thus ISO 639-3 is also spotty in dealing with the extinct lgs). The only evidence for Lule is a grammar and vocabulary written from 1732. There is a nice summary of the language in Willem F.H. Adelaar with Pieter C. Muysken, 2004, The Languages of the Andes (Cambridge), pp. 385-391. Xoko and Xukuru should not be redirected to Kariri yet. The Kariri languages are clearly listed in various sources, but never include Xoko or Xukuru. I'll do a little more digging, but they should not redirect to Kariri at this time. --Taivo (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most sources link Lule and Vilela. Adelaar says that's probable but at a relatively deep time depth. --Taivo (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Adelaar also seems to treat Lule-Tonocote as one language.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Campbell 1997 follows Kaufman in leaving both Xukurú and Xokó unclassified. --Taivo (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I set up Xukuru languages and attempted to address the naming confusion there and on Kariri languages. However, both Ethnologue and LinguistList conflate Kariri and Xoco. I don't know if this is simply confusion over the naming, or if it was a conscious decision. LingList might simply have copied Ethn on this. ?

I wouldn't expect a language extinct as long as Lule to have an ISO code in Ethn. But I thought there would be one in LingList that Ethn. might ever direct to. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The ISO 639-3 codes were originally based on the Ethnologue codes for all the languages that did not have ISO-639-2 codes. No new ones were added with the expansion of ISO 639-2. New ones are added when linguists working around those languages find a hole in the codes and submit the paperwork for a new code. I've added about a dozen codes that way. Many Native American linguists have an anti-SIL prejudice because they are a missionary organization, so adding ISO codes isn't a priority for them. I hadn't noticed that Lule didn't have an ISO code, so I'll add it to my current list for which paperwork is needed. --Taivo (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently Xokó language is still a rd because Kariri is where they are discussed. But it would be nice if we could know if Ethn. is correct on this point. Maybe Ribeiro? — kwami (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Found this interesting little quote from a dissertation (Sílvia Aguiar Carneiro Martins, 2003, "Gender and Reproduction: Embodiment Among the Kariri-Shoco of Northeast Brazil", University of Manitoba PhD dissertation, pp. 14-15): "According to language classification...different authors have considered Kariri as a specific language. Lowie (1946) and Nimuendaju (1981), based on grammatical accounts from Capuchin missionaries during the seventeenth century, have the same opinion that Kariri was used as a common language by different groups through four dialects: Kipéa, Sabuja, Kamuru, and Dzubukuá. According to the geographic location, Dzubukuá was recognized as the dialect that people used in the region where Kariri-Shoco live today. Rodrigues (1986, 49) identifies Kariri as a language that belongs to the Macro-Gê language family...All dialects of the Kariri language have disappeared....Northeaster indigenous groups in Brazil today are mostly monolingual in Protuguese, including the Kariri-Shoco." --Taivo (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another dissertation separates Kariri-Shoko and Shoko: Clarice Novaes da Mota, 1987, "As Jurema Told Us: Kariri-Shoko and Shoko Mode of Utilization of Medicinal Plants in the Context of Modern Northeastern Brazil", University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation. Only the abstract is available through ProQuest, but it includes: "Two societies of indigenous descent--Kariri-Shoko of Alagoas state and Shoko of Sergipe state..." --Taivo (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another search of the Biblioteca Digital Brasileria de Teses e Dissertacoes (bdtd.ibict.br) yields a totally different set of results if you search for "Xukuru" than if you search for either "Kariri" or "Xoko" (which yield the same results). --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I found a dissertation from the Federal University of Pernambuco on the phonology Dzubukua and have ordered it through interlibrary loan. --Taivo (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

White Latin American AfD

Twinkle did not create the actual nomination page, so I went ahead and removed the tag on the article and the transclusion on today's AfD list if you want to try again. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was creasting it manually. Could you please add it back and perhaps act less quickly in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you're not going to like this one: you forgot to include the boilerplate template in the AfD. Favonian (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm experiencing some connectivity issues screwing it up for me. I think I got it now.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The frigging system is running in molasses, so you and I were stepping on each other's toes. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I thought I had added this page to my watchlist, but I had not. Everything seems to be fine now, but in the future I would recommend creating the nomination page before adding the transclusion on the AfD list to avoid this kind of thing. I was not aware you could have Twinkle do only 2/3 of the process, which is why I thought it was a glitch. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a glitch due to server lag, twinkle froze in mid process. But I was doing it manually while you deleted the afd notice on the article. If you had waited a few minutes with deleting it I wouldn't have had to do it twice. It doesn't matter now, but sometimes it is good with waiting to fix others problems untill you are sure they aren't doing it themselves. Thanks for keeping an eye out though. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it was almost 15 minutes before you created the page, which seems long enough to me for a normal nomination, but since your nomination was longer and more thorough, it obviously took longer than I would expect. But as you said, it doesn't matter now. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WLA

Hello, Maunus. I'm Pablo Zeta from Argentina. I've read your user page and your alleged credentials are impressive. I don't doubt your knowledge on anthropology, but I think you are missing some points here. I see your expertise field is Amerindian culture, languages, etc in Mesoamerica, so I won't even attempt to discuss with you any of those topics, for your knowledge will surely far surpass mine. But we're dealing with White people here; and as I am born and raised in Latin America, there are aspects of the region's culture and racial/ethnic identity that you don't know or you don't understand. I think that you are simply applying your knowledge on anthropology in a context you're not familiar with, and so I see things very differently. The concept of "White pople" in Latin America is more relaxed than in the US; since colonial times, a person who was at least 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian could be considered "White" no matter that small degree of admixture. In LatAm, if you have a Caucasian phenotype, European/Middle Eastern ancestry, and you act and dress like an European, you are considered White. That's the criteria I use to justify the restoration of the photograph.--Pablozeta (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are arguing based on personal experience, not academic knowledge of the topic. I have read extensively about race and ethnicity in Latin America and there is no one definition of "white" that is valid for all of Latin America, and White Latin Americans do not form a group. A person who is White in Colombia may be pardo in Brazil and vice versa. You say you were raised in Latin America and so you have some kind of mystical knowledge about the entire continent - that is nonsense - you may have knowledge about the particular place where you were born or have lived, but knowledge about all of Latin America comes from reading about it - something which I have done. I can refer toacademic studies that back up my statements, I doubt that you can do that.Secondly wikipedia policy on attribution of people to racial, ethnic, religious and sexuality based categotries strictly requires that individuals selfidentify as members of that category - someones subjective judgment of their "phenotype" is never enough. Also: you are not living in colonial times. The casta system and the pureza de sangre laws are no longer in effect anywhere in Latin America - nobody counts how many quarts of "white" blood anyone has. Countries like Mexico have not counted "white people" since 1921, it is not even a valid statistical category there - the same applies in other countries. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Maunus making accusations of White nationalism at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/White Latin American

Hello, Maunus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Miradre (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexican Genetic Study

My mistake, the source for the ASHG presented Mexican Study of mestizo genes shows up the Abstract page for the 2006 meeting (http://www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg06s/). But, click on that link, then go to where it says "SEARCH ONLY", then there'll be several little places where to type stuff you want to search (on the left hand side). Go to the one that says "Abstract/Presentation Text" and type in "Mexican mestizo" and you should get 9 results. The 7th result is the study I put on the Mexican people article. It should be titled "Evaluation of Ancestry and Linkage Disequilibrium Sharing in Admixed Population in Mexico." Then you'll see that I did not put false information. I'm not sure why the link won't take directly to that page (I think it's because it's a pop up little screen from a Java command). Have a good day!--Fernirm (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to find out how to make a source out of it that will take one directly to that page and not to the general abstract page for the 2006 meeting.--Fernirm (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think if it is a notable study you should be able to find references to it in peerreviewed publications, referring to such instead of an online reproduction of the results would spare you the problem of finding a way to link directly to the content. A good day and a pleasant evening to you too!·Maunus·ƛ· 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, did you see the study though (I gave you the instructions above); But can you help me find a way to make a reference out of it that takes one directly to that page, because it is a valid study, and I don't think it's fair for people here to be putting unsourced information about Mexican's race and genetics, while there's a genuine study that's not being put here. I'm not very knowledgable on computers and that stuff, so do you know how I could make it into a source that'll take one directly to that page instead of the general search page?--Fernirm (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The link does not take me to the source. I am not a member of that website and I do not wish to be. Sorry, but I can't check it. I think you should try to find a reference to it on another website that does not reuquire membership. Or better yet in a peerreviewed journal.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be a member to access stuff there (I accessed it originally without a membership), plus to be a member all you have to do is to create a username and a password (no e-mail, etc. required). I put another link, I'm hoping it works now, because it worked for me.--Fernirm (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That new link you included works. Conference paper abstracts are not very good sources though, and I encurage you to look for one published in a peer reviewed journal. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is one place that I know published the study, but it was on a blog, but the blog's link takes one to the homepage of the ASHG website. I'll try to find a publisher though.--Fernirm (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci's involvement in race articles

I just asked a member of Arbcom about Mathsci's current involvement in race articles, since Mathsci has promised to permanently stay out of these articles was a condition for his topic ban being lifted in December. I feel that Mathsci's dominating of Miradre's noticeboard threads is unhelpful so I'm notifying some other people who have been involved in those. Risker suggested that this is dealt with in an arbitration amendment thread. I haven't been involved recently, so I don't think I'm the right person to request an amendment. But I think the rest of you might want to consider Risker's suggestion, if Mathsci continues to be this heavily involved.-SightWatcher (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know MathSci has not edited any race related articles. If you think he is breaking his promise perhaps you should bring it up with him?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is my understanding too. I have added a section on Sweden to White flight, but that only concerns immigration to Sweden. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Whites in Latin America. escrito por Robert Lindsay. Word Press, 2010.