And around that time, excluding any migration. as a "rule of thumbs" the average skin color would be near that graph pemalite sent.

... but that graph is of the skin tone of "indigenous people" as of 2007, not 1400. If it was, the entire continent of North America would be pretty err... "reddish brown"?. For example, The Innu and Inuit of Northern Canada have lived in that area for millennia. They look pretty similar to other "Native Americans" and they have lived there for thousands of years. But according to this graph, the average skin tone of the "indigenous" people that live in the areas they traditionally inhabited have about the same skin tone of English, French, Irish, Dutch, and Skandanavian people. You know, the people that migrated to that area and have lived there now for 400-500 years.

So unless you want to state with a straight face that these people (Inuit):

have the same skin tone as these people (Norse)



These I think we should stop referencing this graph as relevant to the conversation about what skin tones people had in the area now known as the Czech republic 600 years ago.

Yep, and its kinda noticeable the difference in skin color between the inuit and siberian even thought both are very high latitude and living among the ice

Says the guy starting a thread to whine about a review he didn't like
Boo hoo indeed

Instead of painting the whole site just from one review, would you not just paint the reviewer.  Many sites do not just staff game reviewers but have them on call for articles.  I know I personally look at the reviewer first then decide from their previous work if they have the same taste as me and care when reading their reviews.  I stop associating reviews with a site but instead to the opinion of the actual reviewer.

Even with this review, I see nothing wrong with it.  As with any review, its the reviewer opinion and he does give a description on his concerns.  I as the reader can easily say to myself, "Do I care" or not.  If I do not care then I move on.

Problem is when he isn't objective and also put his opinion as fact and being wrong about the whole thing.

LOL, if anything most people always do this.  From reading the article it reads as his opinion so you can either take it or leave it.  All reviews are an opinion and what bothers one person is nothing to another.  When all is said and done, you either share the same taste and opinion of a reviewer or you do not.  I find it funny when I read comments from a review how people will single out parts and make a big case either good or bad and depending on a person  perspective at any given moment where they sit on the subject.  Its' all objective.

At this moment, the reviewer thought they should be more people of color, developer says one thing, reviewer got information that its another.  If you were thinking this is a historic piece and you saw something missing you might have a different perspective depending on where you sit on the issue.  Maybe you are black or asian and know the time period.  History is a funny thing because there are many version depending on who was in power when it was written.

I have only made a single claim.
You have both agreed that it does contradict my source and that it doesn't.

So which is it? I just want an honest reply from you so I can finally leave this thread, so please stop tip-toeing around the point.

Bolding, Italicizing and underlining something doesn't make it more true.

You could have avoided this, but since you're practically begging for it, here goes.

You have clearly made multiple claims. A few are:

1) You can predict the geographic area someone is from based on a single photo. (You obviously can't using your "citation" but I'll get there)

2) Your picture from an article regarding predicting the hypothetical skin tone people should have in 2007 based on UV index, skin reflectance of "indigenous people", and Vitamin D3 synthesis amongst others, supports this claim. (Yeah, I did read the citation days ago. It's pretty clear you didn't because you completely misrepresented it right from the start, and had the audacity to insult the intelligence of anyone who dared question you)

3) The criteria for determining "indigenous people" in the article is not arbitrary (It is defined in your citation as" those which had existed in their current locations for a long time prior to European colonization." Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, especially considering they use it to predict the skin tone of what people from Europe should be.)

I think that's enough.

Here's my citation. Here's an older version of your citation that's freely available, since the current version is locked behind a paywall.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/011d/4ccb74f32f597df54ac8037a7903bd95038b.pdf

If you are unaware of what a citation is... I am more than happy to educate you on the matter.

Now go tell an Innu and an "Indigenous" Irish person they have the same skin tone with a straight face. K. Thanks. Bye.

If you're not gonna contribute to the discussion in a meanful way then please peddle your non-sense elsewhere.