` :Why do you keep linking to gnxp? That is a totally unreliable website occupied by racists. I also noticed that you linked to another racist website, ``racialreality`` on the ``Genetic history of Europe`` talk page. Do you have some sort of agenda here Jan? Frankly anyone who links to these sorts of websites has zero credibility in my book when it comes to discussions about genetics. The people who run these websites are not interested in genetics, they are interested in racism, and they are interested in distorting science, in lying about what science tells us, so they can pretend it supports their twisted agenda. Is it so difficult to actually link to the original paper, where you can read what the scientists who publish the work say, rather than sites like gnxp where everything if distilled through a racist filter? Here are the two papers Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe `` and ``Genes mirror geography within Europe. I notice that you make a big deal that the Asian influence in Europe is greater than the African influence in your post at Talk:Genetic history of Europe. I think you need t be very careful what you are saying Jan. I'm suspicious of people making claims like this, especially when they link to and defend white supremacist websites.     ::BTW of course they don't mention lineages, this is a study using autosomal genes, autosomes do not form lineages, only Y chromosomes and mtDNA do that. We cannot infer migrations or time depth from autosomes. Whereas Y chromosomes and mtDNA give the impression that there are discrete groups of people in the world, this is misleading because they only trace a single lineage. A man's Y chromosome represents only a single ancestor out of thousands, ditto a person's mtDNA. Autosomal analysis shows us just how mixed up we all are. These papers are instructive because they show that humans in Europe do not cluster into discrete groups, but that diversity is isolated by distance. This means that one's cultural group is not a good indicator of one's genetics (ie French or German or English), but the geographical region one comes from is a good indicator of one's genetics. These papers provide evidence that researchers like Seldin et al. and Bauchet et al. were wrong when they conducted clustering analyses on genetic data from Europe. Genetic diversity does not cluster into groups, it is distributed along gradients, as anthropologists have been telling us for decades, there are not ``races``, there is a smooth continuum of change. I expect your friends at ``racialreality`` and ``gnxp`` have managed to pretend that these papers say the exact opposite.     Well, sorry for the links. I could not find the other links. The funny thing is that I agree with you on most. Race is just an arbitrary term. Where do we draw the line to call it race?, at an individual leve, family level, village level, and so on, or just continental level?. It is all just arbitrary. Anyway, I think we are drifting away from the main issue here and you know what?, I am tired, so whatever. Jan.  ==edit by me== This was me. Sorry must have logged out by mistake. Anyway I think it's good to keep this info in, but we cannot claim that these people identity as English because they clearly identify as Canadian, though we can of course say that their ancestors probably identified as English.     * There is nothing mentioned there which discusses their identity as Canadian, I only mention how many who previously listed their origins as English now listed it as Canadian, that is all. There is no issue here and I am merely stating what is said by the source. For someone who is (wrongfully) claiming I am disagreeing with valid sourced material on other articles (I only wished to enter what the sources actually claimed), you yourself are hypocritically doing the same right here.      ::I also stated what the source says, but in a different way.      I just scrolled down this page and saw too much of the word ``English``. I don't even know why I'm on this page I'm Irish!!!!!! (Emmie)  