User talk:Lamprecht

What's wrong with my edit?

See http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Race_as_strongest_predictor_of_crime_in_America.png Upplysning 16:50, 3 June 2015 (CEST)

So you made both images. There are various problems with unclear sources, dubious sources, incomplete sources and variables, dubious arguments, and on. But let make this simple. Homemade calculations are not appropriate for these topics on which thousands of real scientific studies have been published. I am deleting both images. Upplysning 19:34, 3 June 2015 (CEST)

Problematic editing

• You are trying to insert covert and confused race denialist arguments, like here https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races.
• Do not link to pirated copyrighted material.
• Do not link to forum threads and make this look like article links.

Upplysning (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with this? - for https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_race_mixing

LTA4H, or "leukotriene A4 hydrolase" is found on chromosome 17. An allele of this gene increases the risk of heart attack in African Americans by more than 250%, but only 16% in Whites and Asians. The gene boosts inflammation and uses it to fight infections generally absent in Blacks. 30 percent of Whites have this allele, yet they have evolved genes to counteract it. The 6% of Black Americans who acquired the gene from race mixing with Whites haven't. * Helgadottir et al. (2006) A variant of the gene encoding leukotriene A4 hydrolase confers ethnicity-specific risk of myocardial infarction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16282974

Also why did you delete all of my updates to the ancient egypt race page? see: https://en.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&curid=111114&diff=435414&oldid=435384

• You are trying to insert covert and confused race denialist arguments, like here https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races. Upplysning (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Those are not "Race denialist" arguments either. I said "It is wrong to assume that being a valid biological category and being a social construct are mutually exclusive" <--- that means, saying "race is a social construct" does not imply "race is not a biologically valid category"...

Plus, all of those studies that I put showed more caucasoid affinities for ancient egyptians with regards to: Cranial metric, Cranial non-metric, dental metric, dental non-metric, prognathism. Further, I showed that Y-dna and mtdna affinities for modern egyptians are more similar to caucasoids. I also showed how ancient east africans were more similar to caucasoids. I have used these exact arguments and studies in debates against afrocentrists. I think, you didn't even read them. The multiple lines of evidence quite plainly support the allegation that ancient egyptians were caucasoid.

The current article totally lacks all morphological evidence, it's just some DNA samples from a small number of remains.

- Lamprecht (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the leukotriene article, it is comparing Blacks (who have a small ancient admixture) and Whites in the United States, it is not on recent mixed-race individuals, another misleading attempt by you to confuse the issue. Regarding the Ancient Egyptians, no serious researcher have denied that they are Caucasians, although the degree of European influence is controversial. Your material is a confused jumble of strange, weird, and ancient claims in addition to your own original "research" claims, which make Metapedia look bad, likely your intention. Upplysning (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Blacks (who have a small ancient admixture)" What? Blacks in America have 15-25% white admixture. This is not "Ancient" it is within the past few generations. Further, the gene being found in Blacks is specifically a result of admixture with Whites. There's nothing misleading, and it is not irrelevant. In fact, it is mentioned in one of the sources that is linked from the article...

What totally looks bad is you have a page on the ancient egyptians race has no mentions of morphological Caucasoid affinities, when I have proven that ancient egyptians have caucasoid teeth and skulls... It is not "Ancient" and there are no more recent studies on this specific topic. You have only a very small sample of DNA remains. Your evidence is weak, and you get mad that I offer more evidence to support the same theory?

Simple question is: What did I say that was incorrect? Answer is: Nothing.

- Lamprecht (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Adding material like this article: Ray peat Weird nutritional speculations. Makes Metapedia look bad, again likely your intention. Upplysning (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Weird nutritional speculations" Nonsense. How many of his articles did you read? Zero. Further, it only links to some information, so people can research it themselves. The article takes a totally objective/unbiased view. Ray Peat has taught at University of Oregon, Urbana College, Montana State University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Universidad Veracruzana, the Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Mexico, and Blake College. Ray Peat also patented Progest-E.

Funny you would call his ideas "weird" simply because they are not mainstream, when nutrition is literally the most corrupt field of science that exists. How many other points made on this webste are "weird" by that standard? Many. And, there are no "speculations" at all, how about you read some of his work? Try: http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/01/14/essential-fatty-acid-deficiency-resistance-to-traumastressshock/

What did Ray Peat ever say that was wrong? I don't think you can answer that...

Your claim that I am trying to make metapedia "look bad" is laughable. I think you're not even reading the updates. Ancient Egyptians had caucasoid skull-shape and teeth. You think posting this information to support the thesis on the page makes Metapedia "look bad"? Funny, when the page right now cites no actual morphological data whatsoever... You complain about the dates of the studies (which are irrelevant, given that the technology at the time was perfectly fine, and that there are no more recent studies addressing the topic. Yet if you do the research into the brain size differences between races, you will see all the actual studies are old: https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence:_The_genetics_or_not_debate#Brain_size

Only the "Meta analysis" of these old studies on brain size is relatively new. Which doesn't invalidate the findings at all.

Once again "Simple question is: What did I say that was incorrect? Answer is: Nothing."

Meanwhile, I made a few fixes on other articles, fixing errors. Just off the top of my head, a misattributed quote from the "Jewish supremacism" page, something that would make the site "look bad" hmmm...

You are the one removing valuable information proving that ancient Egyptians were caucasoid. LOL!

Lamprecht (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation, lack of original source when actually using a text written by someone else, insertion of off-topic problematic claims

In the gun control article, do not massively copypaste copyrighted material, state the source and make it clear if you are actually quoting material written by someone else, do not insert off-topic, problematic, unsourced claims. Upplysning (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Reconsider

You may have seen that Upplysning appears to have departed Metapedia and you may wish to consider resuming your participation, albeit with co-operation with the rest of us and discussion of anything controversial before posting. Matt58 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)