Talk:White people/Archive 15

Page protection (again)[edit]

I understand that page protection was requested by the cabal mediator. The mediation cabal is not an official process and the mediator has no special rights to call for protection. This mediator is new to WP with about two months of significant editing -- not the experience level to take this case. This page got a bit out of control yesterday and protection was probably warranted; however, unprotecting should be affected as soon as things calm down, and not at the behest of unacceptable mediator. We already have several experienced admins on watch here. --Kevin Murray 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either we just request a new mediator now, or we all agree to give him a fixed period of time (3? 5? 7? 10? days) and if we do not see significant improvement, we then ask him to step aside for another mediator. But I suggest the page stay p0rotected until all agree there has been some progress with mediatio. I once mediated a conflict where we broke the dispute into four or five isseues and as we reached a consensus I made the changes to the article until we had wroked through all major points of contention, at which point I unprotected the page. That seemed to work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to give her a week before making up our minds about whether she's proficient enough to be a good mediator in this case. I also agree with SLR that this page needs to remain protected for now. This in no way stops us from discussing the layout of the article, and the game plan to improve it. It only prevents us from being... too bold at editing, which is fine with me.--Ramdrake 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This mediator has already been rejected. Time to move on. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept longer-term protection if it was roled back to the satus as of Friday, without the recent chnges by new transient participants. --Kevin Murray 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have worked on it since Friday, and I think many positive changes have happened in that time. Why would you want to roll back the version? Also, please bear in mind that some "transient editors" might be here for awhile, if the article piqued their interest.--Ramdrake 13:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with working on a compromise including new improvements, but to have an influx of major changes on a Sunday afternoon, and then long term protection is unacceptable. --Kevin Murray 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there's no deadline for wikipedia, I see no problem with a few days or a week, it really doesn't make it long term. This is especially true if it leads to more constructive editing a more balanced article. I'm not going to make comments of my own on the balance of the article before the weekend, but there are certainly strong feelings that the article wasn't balanced then, and isn't balanced now. As I've said above, it makes sense to try disregarding the current state of the article and instead try to work out from scratch broadly what it should be like. I'm disappointed by the lack of editors willing to participate in building a path forward when compared to editors willing to complain about the conduct of others and dispute the details of mediation. If we can be sensible of our own accord, there's no need for mediation. If there are users who won't be sensible with gentle persuasion and suggestion from a third party, then mediation won't be a help. If people think that there're users who can't or won't behave reasonably, then they should consider arbitration. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't accept a trial period of someone who appears to be a novice looking for resume material. Once established there will be no removing the mediator, or if so, we'll have to start from scratch. --Kevin Murray 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need a mediator with at least two years' experience at WP, preferably with admin status and previous experience in mediation of sensitive subjects. --Kevin Murray 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the role of medcab mediation is to get the parties working together to reach an agreement, and not to arbitrate, I'm not sure that WP experience is particularly important. Experience at mediation (on or off wikipedia) would certainly be useful, however. I wouldn't make any arbitrary quantitative requirements, though. SamBC(talk) 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would see these as goals rather than absolutes, and agree to be flexible. I would certainly be willing to accept real world experience in trade for time at WP. --Kevin Murray 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution here is not just to compromise between two points of view, but to apply the WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR guidelines as has been established in other controversial articles. A mediator who views the goal as merely to find common ground between the parties may not understand the necessary issues. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this, I agree with you and I already made that clear to the current mediator, FWIW.--Ramdrake 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the notes on mediation, it seems that the role of a mediator is not to interpret policy, but to encourage others to do so together and reasonably. Mediators don't hand down decisions. And no-one authoritatively makes decisions on content, only on conduct (that being arbcom). SamBC(talk) 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree with the goal, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that editors have to make this decision collectively, whether it's here, at WP:RFC, or wherever. So why don't we try? SamBC(talk) 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up until this weekend we have been making some progress. I think that we have the balance here to make progress without mediation, but some critical editors have been absent and I think that emotions got overly charged. I think that we need to have some real discussion about the overall scope of the article and why it should or should not be merged with other related topics such as Europeans or Caucasians. There seems to be some underlying justification that this article needs to exist as a counterpoint or balance to the article “Black people” and I see that as unhealthy. --Kevin Murray 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem to adding any and all merge discussions you feel appropriate to the agenda.--Ramdrake 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we brainstorm a bit on likely candidates for merger? Is there a purpose for a simple article, disambiguation, or other signpost at "White people"? --Kevin Murray 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, IMHO, I think this article looks (the way it is) like a cross between "European Peoples" and "Caucasian Race", while being neither. The first avenue I would suggest if we are to consider mergers, is that some content be ported to each of these two articles, and "White People" could become a simple disambig page. I know I'm repeating myself, though... old age beckons. :)--Ramdrake 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's two of us in agreement. Is this a practical goal? If so how do we move forward? --Kevin Murray 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operationnally speaking, I'd make a sandbox copy of the article somewhere, then I would separate out the sections into "what goes into Caucasian race", "what goes into European peoples", "what goes somewhere else", and the stuff we can lose. Once we have four sections, we go into them sentence by sentence to re-sort everything into the first three categories, and to see if there's anything worth salvaging in the fourth. Once that's done, we move the relevant sections into appropriate parts of the concerned articles, and we leave this page as a disambig. Sounds simple enough at first sight. However, getting consensus around this may be tougher than expected. Also, we need to be careful not to bring this controversy with us to these much-less controversial articles.--Ramdrake 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed a couple of articles: Caucasian, White Americans, and Europeans; I see these as logical destinations for the distribution of the better information here. Is there any broad based support for that distribution and establishing a disambiguation page here? --Kevin Murray 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Kevin Murray's initial comment at the top of this page - I initiated page protection on this page after independently verifying that people (including at least one admin who is an active participants in the discussion) were calling for it, and that I believed it was necessary: not just because the cabal mediator requested it. It sounds as though Kevin really has no issue with it being on, but prefers that the mediator had not been the person to request it (apologies if I misinterpret, please). In any case, I believe the protection to be justified, and would, in fact, take the same action had I been asked by any other party to this dispute. The protection can be lifted at any time by any admin, though I believe the admins who are participants in this discussion have made the honorable decision to not initiate or lift page protection themselves. I wish you the best with mediation. - Philippe | Talk 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some pointers:

You cannot "choose" a mediator
A mediator is not a judge
A mediator is not your mother
If you go to mediation, you will have to do the work, the mediator will only attempt to find common ground and assist you in that manner
Mediation is not a substitute for good will.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but mediation is optional predicated on acceptance by a significant number of the parties. No one is trying to choose a mediator. In this case mediation by a rookie is being rejected. --Kevin Murray 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Then the DR will escalate to the next level. In any case, it is way too early for mediation. Editors can explore WP:RFC first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone done an RFC yet? If people have rejected the mediator it is indeed time. Kevin, I think you have bent over backwards to be conciliatory and constructive, but you are one of the people who rejected the MedCab mediators - do you want to put in the RFC? On this page and the MedCab page both I an Alun have explained what we think is the issue but I think Fourdee and Phrac think we are too biased. Or maybe SamBC - in a way you have been trying to act as informal mediator and I respect your intentions but I do not think they are working ... would you put in the RFC? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can take advantage of the protection period to have some discussion on direction including that which may develop consensus below. I'm not opposed to MedCab with an experienced editor; however, I thought that request was premature as I think that under the premise that it is darkest before the dawn, we are making progress in understanding each other and weaving in new dedicated contributors. --Kevin Murray 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Kevin here. We have an opportunity which is looking promising for sorting this out here. If this stumbles too much, then I would not hesitate to open an RFC. SamBC(talk) 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an article titled "White people"?[edit]

(copied from above to begin a clearer conversation)

I think that we need to have some real discussion about the overall scope of the article and why it should or should not be merged with other related topics such as Europeans or Caucasians. There seems to be some underlying justification that this article needs to exist as a counterpoint or balance to the article “Black people” and I see that as unhealthy. --Kevin Murray 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem to adding any and all merge discussions you feel appropriate to the agenda.--Ramdrake 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we brainstorm a bit on likely candidates for merger? Is there a purpose for a simple article, disambiguation, or other signpost at "White people"? --Kevin Murray 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, IMHO, I think this article looks (the way it is) like a cross between "European Peoples" and "Caucasian Race", while being neither. The first avenue I would suggest if we are to consider mergers, is that some content be ported to each of these two articles, and "White People" could become a simple disambig page. I know I'm repeating myself, though... old age beckons. :)--Ramdrake 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's two of us in agreement. Is this a practical goal? If so how do we move forward? --Kevin Murray 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operationnally speaking, I'd make a sandbox copy of the article somewhere, then I would separate out the sections into "what goes into Caucasian race", "what goes into European peoples", "what goes somewhere else", and the stuff we can lose. Once we have four sections, we go into them sentence by sentence to re-sort everything into the first three categories, and to see if there's anything worth salvaging in the fourth. Once that's done, we move the relevant sections into appropriate parts of the concerned articles, and we leave this page as a disambig. Sounds simple enough at first sight. However, getting consensus around this may be tougher than expected. Also, we need to be careful not to bring this controversy with us to these much-less controversial articles.--Ramdrake 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed a couple of articles: Caucasian race, White Americans, and European people I see these as logical destinations for the distribution of the better information here. Is there any broad based support for that distribution and establishing a disambiguation page here? --Kevin Murray 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought a disambig page would be the best solution for this article, but this suggestion has been made several times before, I can't see it reaching consensus. Alun 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you seem to be supporting it, though. Maybe this time we can get a consensus around it. It might avoid a lot of grief.--Ramdrake 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I demonstrated above that there is a considerable body of literature by scholars from some of the best universities in the UK, US, and Canada, writing about "Whiteness" or "White Studies" - i listed maybe fifteen book and believe me it is the tip of the iceberg. I think the existence of a body of scholarship justifies an encyclopedia article that provides a good account of it. So yes, i think there is a place for an article if not called "White people" then at least "White Studies." I agree that much of the current content of this article belongs either in an article on "Caucasion Race" or "European People." By the way, an excellent resource for anyone who wants to work on "European Peoples" would be Wolf and Cole's gem of a book, The Hidden frontier. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly valid point too. The fact that much of this article can be ported to either of these two others doesn't mean that there isn't a place for an article on "Whiteness", or "White studies" - I just think the basis for the content of such an article isn't what we have now, mostly. Hope I'm making sense.--Ramdrake 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see White studies as a logical and legitimate article, with this as a disambiguation page. --Kevin Murray 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Like Alun stated, though, it's been tried before. I believe the same for Black people. These subjects are too ambiguous and very rarely encyclopedic, especially because of the different POVs and how people categorize themselves, and how others construct these terms. To Kevin, I don't know how practical it is, but believe it is rational to try to avoid the ambiguousness, by incorporating this article into another or other articles that exist. Such as Whiteness studies, European people, or Race. - Jeeny ^Talk 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, although, if I may suggest, one problem at a time, please? :) --Ramdrake 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you Jeeny! --Kevin Murray 16:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there's already an article called Whiteness studies, I haven't read it though, so have no idea what it's like. Alun 16:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks Kevin and Alun for pointing that out. i just looked at it. it is not bad but it is practically a stub. It mentions that White studies was influenced by Black Studies and one of the things it looks at is White privilege and racism, which is true, but only a small part of the picture. It also mentions that White Studies was influenced by social constructionism which is also true and in fact this theoretical approach has produced a great deal of scholarship about "Whiteness" (and not just about racism) ... but there resally is no explanation of what social construction means, how it has been applied to the study of Whites, let alone what researchers have as a result learned. Anyway, the case for turning this page into a disambiguation page for these three articles is i think compelling - but man, those articles will need lost of work!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rambrake, I agree we should deal with one problem at a time, but where do we start? - Jeeny ^Talk 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it looks like we have a chance at consensus for turning this into a disambig page. If we achieve consensus, we'll need to partition this page by section for inclusion in the other articles. The work is rather clear-cut and well-defined, but there's lots of it. However, I was mostly referring to your mention of a problem with the Black People article; that's why I said "one problem at a time".--Ramdrake 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I was referring to the Black people article as an example of the problems we may encounter with this one. I didn't mean that we should tackle that one too. Sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned it. We have enough to do. You are correct, one thing at a time. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A disambig page, may be the way to do this. And yes, these articles will need a lot of work ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human skin color may be another destination for some of the information here. --Kevin Murray 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where will we list what definitions are used in different places, ie: "Census and social definitions in different regions" section....KarenAER 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How notable are a bunch of census definitions, I'd like to ask? Maybe a list article.--Ramdrake 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather silly to turn everything, for which there is no perfect consensus on definiton, to disambiguation pages. Because many concepts are like that. Maybe even most of them. Communism is/was different things in China and and USSR but communism is not a disambiguation page. Similarly Conservatism means different things in different countries. The anti-gay position of American conservatives may not be found on Canadian conservatives although both are conservatives. KarenAER 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with KarenAER. There are multiple definitions of white people. The definition of white people can't simply be disambigulated to European people, White American, and Caucasian race. This article already has multiple censal and lexical definitions that don't fit perfectly into the disambigulation options, but there are other definitions that aren't in the article. White people may imply to some people not being Muslim or not being Jewish. There are many definitions of white people, making a the options we have to disambigulate insufficient. This article should stay as a full article and not become a disambigulation page.----^DarkTea © 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White as a term is used in census, in epidemiology, in police work, and a number of other disciplines. However, in each case, and often by country too, it has different meanings (but you already knew that). White people as a WP article is currently torn between the definition of White as a Caucasian (the main understanding in my neck of the woods) and White as an European (the largest collection of ethnic groups which fall into this category). The article tries to give background info (biology, genetics, demographics, epidemiology) on both interpretations, to the point of mutual conflict (we've been there!). So, maybe it's not the ideal solution, but there is material here which relates to Whites as Europeans peoples and Whites as Caucasian "race" which should be moved. You're right that most of what would be left would be census definitions. But I'm not sure of their intrinsic encyclopaedic value to start with, except maybe in a greater article on Census definitions.--Ramdrake 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isnt that unclear. But I'm not surprised why you want that to be the case, given your clear bias and disruptive attitude. All of the Western definitions cited in the article agree, white=European, ie: Canada, Norway, UK. And white is term which was founded by West. The only divergent definition is the US Census. But from my POV, Middle Easterners and North Africans arent USUALLY seen as white even in the US. That's one of the reasons why suggestions of profiling Arabs/muslims in airports carried racial tones and was dismissed as racial profiling. Another example: "Bringing the rich terrain of Arab American histories to bear on conceptualizations of race in the U.S., this groundbreaking volume fills a critical gap in the field of ethnic studies. Unlike most immigrant communities who either have been consistently marked as "non-white," or have made a transition from "non-white" to "white," Arab Americans historically have been rendered "white" and have increasingly come to be seen as "non-white."" [1]

But you admitted it before. Your concern is that article shouldnt look racist (however your defining it). I do believe that supercedes your concerns of being encyclopaedic. KarenAER 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias", "disruptive attitude", again, please be mindful of WP:NPA. Also, please avoid representing census definitions as social definitions. This rather clearly constitutes OR. Otherwise, can someone else answer these issues, looks like even my genuine efforts to help find a solution are disruptive.--Ramdrake 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, it's mainly User:Ramdrake who is tearing for this to be the Caucasian article. From Ramdrake's perspective, it appears that there is an equal-sided tug of war between whites and Caucasians. Often a person's perspective on an issue can alter their perception of the issue as a whole. Ramdrake, you are the one who is pushing to turn this article into the pre-existing Caucasian article, presumeably to proclaim this article would be a content fork once you're done, allowing you to redirect it to the Caucasian article. Most of the sources say that a white is a white and only some of them say a white is not a white, but instead the addition of brown Semites and Negroid/Semite hybrids from India and North Africa. If the main bone of contention is the genetic and physical attributes, because it would only take one point of view, then don't include the genetic and physical attributes sections. The article would be much better with only the contemporary and historical definitions. I think the gallery personalizes the issue too much, making readers feel they have to be defined as a white if one of their people is included in the gallery. The gallery and illustrative pictures should be removed, leaving only the core of the article.----^DarkTea © 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the top of this section, there are about a half-dozen editors in agreement with me so far. Only yourself and KarenAER seem to oppose it.--Ramdrake 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't arrive at consensus by voting. I re-read the section. It appears that many tired editors are worn out and hopeful, but they are short sighted. They have never tackled the issue that white people doesn't perfectly fit into any of the proposed disambigulation articles. They have agreed to the disambigulation idea, but they haven't found a suitable way to resolve the issue of white people being more complex than the proposed articles. For example, the "Human skin color" article doesn't even define anything that could be interpreted as white people. I feel Kevin Murray, Jeeny, and Slrubenstein should address the issue of insufficient disambigulation options before we proceed.----^DarkTea © 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting this is a vote. I just wanted to let you know that your representation of the situation as being "me" pushing for inclusion of the "White as Caucasian" wasn't just me, that other also seemed to agree (Kevin, Jeeny, SLR, Jossi, Alun). Of course, it's not a vote.--Ramdrake 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):::Ramdrake is not the only one, or main one. This is how to gain consensus when there is a content dispute. It's nothing like voting. In fact, it is encouraged for content disputes by discussing the concerns of the article and how to make it better. This is the best thing to do, especially if others do not want to mediate. Let's talk it out without personal attacks, and pointing out other's political leanings. I've been guilty of doing that myself, so I'm not trying to be condescending. I just think fighting and getting frustrated only takes away from the project. As it has with me, and some others. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alun said that in the UK a white person means a white European. He only added that it could also mean a Caucasian, because the US Census almost equates the two. This is not the common understanding. At the start of their immigration, the Middle Easterners who immigrated to the US were Christian. Now, the Middle Easterners who immigrate are Muslim. This fact, coupled with the US being at war with the Middle East, has progressively distanced Middle Easterners from whites in the common US understanding of race. Contrary to the US Census saying that it reflects the common understanding of race in the US, it doesn't. South Asians, Middle Easterners and Mexicans are commonly understood to be their own race. Out of these three, only the Middle Easterners are being classified as part of the majority white group rather than being a minority. This makes the majority opinion of US citizens have more weight on the subject, since the majority is European and they are self-defining their own race. The majority US citizens consider them to not be white, making the social definition in line with the social definitions in the UK, Australia and Canada. If Alun only knew this, then Alun would not have agreed that white commonly means Caucasian in the US.----^DarkTea © 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I can muster, who really cares what Alun, you, or I think or do not think about the subject? In Wikipedia we report significant viewpoints as described in reliable, published sources, and we attribute these opinions to the notable/significant people that hold them. Nothing more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I also want this article to show all significant viewpoints and maintain a neutral point of view, but Ramdrake's idea to disambigulate this article will not create a neutral point of view. Ramdrake's point of view is that whites, as we understand them, do not exist. Ramdrake thinks this article should redirect to the Caucasian article. Rather than being upfront, Ramdrake has decided to propose this article be a disambigulation. This will give undue weight to her/his point of view that a white is a Caucasian and effectively disregard the censal definitions that are cited in this article except the US Census since its definition has its own article.----^DarkTea © 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you pretend to know what I think? If I recall correctly, turning this into a disambig page was also originally at least as much Kevin's idea as my own. I do not think this article should redirect solely to the Caucasian article, although I do think this should be one of the choices included in the disambig page. And I'd like to point out that this attitude of "I'm right and he's wrong" that you exhibit is counterproductive, disruptive and borderline childish to boot. And lastly, please stop quoting census definitions as equating social definitions.--Ramdrake 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list of links from the proposed disambiguation page[edit]

Current list of related articles[edit]

Definitions[edit]

Above Karen makes two claims. I do not understand either one of them. First claim: "All of the Western definitions cited in the article agree, white=European, ie: Canada, Norway, UK." What does this mean? There are non-Whites in Canada and the UK. And many Latin American countries have White people. The Dominican Repbulic is filled with White people many of us would not call white - but an NPOV article needs to consider them as well. Moreover, the article itself makes clear (from the clinal map) that skin color is a function of latitude not nationality. And what do you mean vy "European definitions"? Do you mean definitions of European governmental census bureaus? Okay, but if so the point is not that these definitions are European as such, they are political. And they cannot possibly be all the definitions, so much of the literature on Whiteness comes from non-European countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, "And white is term which was founded by West." As I have pointed out elsewhere: The above is a meaningless sentence and not a helpful step forward. I have no idea which Egyptian definition you are referring to and would appreciate it if you could share it with us. Be that as it may, "white" wasn't "founded," whatever that means, by "Western Europeans" - the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italians, did not "find" the word. It is an English word. 309-380 million people speak it as a first language. In other words, the vast majority of English-speakers are not from England, a country of under 50,000,000 people. English is the language of James Baldwin and Toni Morrison and Langston Hughes, of China Achebe, of Buchi Emecheta and Wole Soyenka, of V.S. Naipaul, of Salman Rushdie, of Arundhati Roy and Amitav Ghosh - in other words, it is not the language of White people - it may be the language spoken by many White people, but many White people do not speak it and most people who speak it are not white (and donot say that the language has its roots in Europe - it does, if you go back part of the way. If you go back farther it has its origins in Asia, in the Indo-Persian steppes where Indo-European first developed). In any event, there is no reason why European definitions of English words should be more important should be more important than the definitions used by most English-speakers who are non-European. That said, I think we should turn to scholarly literature and it doesn't matter what color someone's skin or even native language: if they teach at a prestigious university and are published in peer-reviewed journals or books unpublished by academic presses, their views have an (not the only, but an) authority we must acknowledge. The contents of Wikipedia articles should be dictated by NPOV and research of top scholarly sources, not a racist or nationalist agenda. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to complicate things, but this article really isn't about the word "white" as applied to people. It is about a complex of regionally defined statuses with various definitions, not all in Europe (in fact, many of the first in colonized America), but a shared history in Western racialization, designated with a shared term, which is not always in English. Thus a variety of "white" people as described on color terminology for race (e.g. "white Russians"), as well as others described by the term white with no racial meaning (e.g., the "Whites" in the Russian Civil War) don't belong here.

That said, James Baldwin and Toni Morrison and Langston Hughes, China Achebe, Buchi Emecheta, Wole Soyinka, V.S. Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy and Amitav Ghosh are all perfectly capable of articulating what "white people" means, something I would back Slrubenstein on. In fact, there is an argument (double consciousness) that they may be better placed to articulate it, and they have made no small contribution to inspiring whiteness studies.--Carwil 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein argues that whites and non-whites have an equal say on this issue, but the convention on naming grants the naming authority to the group itself. Slrubenstein claims that the importance of European governmental definitions of whites is that they are political and not that they are the European's self-definition. Similarly, Slrubenstein argues that most English speakers are not white and should have their say about the definition. Slrubenstein's argument fails to note the policy on naming conventions for identity. The policy says that the common word for the group should not be used; the group's self-identified term should be used. The European's self-identified term is "white". If the majority of people who speak English happen to live in India, then the majority of people don't get their say in this issue, because they are not white and they are not defining their own people's term. The UK and Canada are mostly white, so their definition of whites should be taken into account rather than India's definition.----^DarkTea © 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Dark Tea is committing two errors errors here: one, WP:NCI is for choosing the best term that applies to a group, that being usually the name people use for their own group. It is not meant to restrict whom the term applies to or not; it's meant to choose between various alternatives which might be considered equivalent. Second, if one were to apply WP:NCI, any non-European group which chooses to see itself as "White" would have to be deemed white, by the same standard. There lies a definite fault of logic. So, per WP:NCI itself, we see that it cannot be claimed to apply here, lest it generate a nonsensical situation.--Ramdrake 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - response to dark tea) I'd say that this is a bit of a red herring. I don't think most Europeans identify as "white" as a synonym for "European". There is no one definitive group self-identifying as white, thus that naming policy doesn't really apply. Instead, the article (if it continues to exist as a substantive article, something I'm about to comment on) should reasonably represent all groups which tend to self-identify as white, and because this is not definitive also include all meanings of the term supported by reliable sources. SamBC(talk) 22:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What occurs to me from reading all this discussion is that it might be worth making the page a sort of "enhanced disambiguation". That is, the article probably doesn't want to be the definitive point for much information, if any. Instead, it should sectioned (for example, as outlined above, by any of the outlines) and each section contain a "full information" wikilink, and a brief summary to help people find out if that is what they were really looking for. A lead section should cover the breadth of ideas meant by the phrase "white people", helping to illustrate just how non-specific the term is when taken from NPOV. SamBC(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea, you are misquoting policy here. We do not have to describe all viewpoints, only significant ones. See WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark Tea "Alun said that in the UK a white person means a white European." Actually I did not say any such thing. I cannot speak for all British people,, I cannot define what White people means to all British people and neither did I claim such a thing. What I said was that my perception of a White person is that of a White European and that I believe this is due to social conditioning. This may well be because the overwhelming majority of White people in the UK are British and therefore European (unsurprisingly), but it may well be that other British people do not see it like that. Furthermore the US census does not define White as Caucasian, the US census has a far broader definition of White, and indeed it was you that pointed this out some time ago. What I said is that I have the impression that in the US the term Caucasian is used a great deal (it is not used in the UK at all as far as I am aware) and has become almost synonymous with White. I even linked to Princeton Wordnet to illustrate my point, Princeton Wordnet has no connection to the US census whatsoever as far as I know. Here's the link again. I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. All the best. Alun 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Karen "All of the Western definitions cited in the article agree, white=European, ie: Canada, Norway, UK." There are only two definitions in the article, one from an American dictionary (Merriam Webster): "being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin" and one from a British dictionary (Compact Oxford English Dictionary): "to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry". Both of these definitions are from dictionaries produced in industrialised countries with majorities of populations with a White European descent. Neither of these claims that White=European. The rest are not definitions of White but are definitions of census categories from various states, they are produced by and for bureaucrats, I don't really think they have any encyclopaedic value, unless someone wants to produce an article List of definitions of White for state censuses. But this list would have to cover all definitions by all state bureaucracies throughout the world to be comprehensive. All the best. Alun 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not read the article? Besides the definitions in history section, "Even Turkey, which is on the periphery of Europe is seen as a non-white country.[43]" Or the [2] which is about UK too. These are not "produced by and for bureaucrats"...KarenAER 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most Turks see themselves as White and probably European...! The Ogre 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil, I know this subject is very important to some people, but try to remain calm. Indeed I have read the definitions given in the article, neither claim that White=European. I don't really understand what your point is, can you clarify it for me? The definitions at the head of the article clearly don't claim that White=European. I do understand that for some people White=European and I've said this before. The problem is not that White=European, the problem is that often White also includes people who are not European. Now you can deny this as much as you like, but it doesn't really matter because there are also plenty of sources that will confirm this. I don't see that any absolute definition exists that is universally accepted. I would point out that it is fair to claim that Europeans are the only group that are always considered White, whatever definition is used (at least as far as I know). Is this what you mean? Alun 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen you are misunderstanding the purpose of the census. It involves health, farming, political representation of peoples, human rights, roads, housing, etc., etc. Many census are now doing away with race altogether. Even the US has thought of it, but because of racial bias that still exists, they will not be able to keep track of abuses and statistics and they don't know what would happen with the Bill of Rights if they do. That is the reason, only the reason that race matters in the census, and it's mostly a sampling of the population. Again. Please read up on what the Census is really all about. I will not do the work for you. You can yell and talk about census all you want, but you obviously do not know what it is, or means. Also, history and geography are two different subjects. Geography changes, while history is just that.- Jeeny ^Talk 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] + "In 1758, Carolus Linnaeus proposed what he considered to be natural taxonomic categories of the human species. He distinguished between Homo sapiens after and Homo sapiens europaeus, and he later added four geographical subdivisions of humans: white Europeans, red Americans, yellow Asians and black Africans. Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, he used both taxonomical and cultural data in his subdivision descriptions. [70]

In 1775, Blumenbach categorized humans into five races, which largely corresponded with Linnaeus' classifications, except for the addition of Oceanians (whom he called Malay).[70]" + "Whiteness, then, emerged as what we now call a "pan-ethnic" category, as a way of merging a variety of European ethnic populations into a single "race"" KarenAER 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the definitions today. That is history. You confuse your subjects. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen you really aren't making yourself very clear. You clearly don't want to discuss census definitions. The other definitions in this section are social, and as societies re different the definitions vary, obviously. Now you are discussing Linaeus and Blumenbach both of who were trying to introduce scientific classifications, but we don't use taxonomic definitions for humans below the species level. You seem to be moving around different constructions and definitions without explaining what point you think these illustrate. Can you please state the point you want to make because at the moment it's opaque. Alun 06:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Ramdrake, SamBC, Alun, and Jeeny for clarifying what I guess was a too abbreviated expression of my points. Just to add one more, from the science of biology: ever since Darwin mainstream biologists have rejected the model of species proposed by Linneaeus (although his model for nomenclature remains); Blumenbach's categorization of races is based on the same taxonomic principles as Linneaeus and is also rendered obsolete by Darwinian and post-Darwinian science. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to respond to this:

Can you not read the article? Besides the definitions in history section, "Even Turkey, which is on the periphery of Europe is seen as a non-white country.[43]" Or the [12] which is about UK too. These are not "produced by and for bureaucrats"...KarenAER 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have read the source you specifically call attention to in note 12. It is co-authored by an Indian MD., which contradicts your insistence that you are supported by White definitions of Whiteness and your rejection of the views of non-Whites or non-Europeans be significant. Moreover, I quote from your - your - source: "Racial and ethnic nomenclature in the United States is dominated by the classification of the Office of Management and Budget, which was devised by a subcommittee of the Federal Interagency Committee on Education." The article itself calls attention to the sloppy ways words like "white," "Caucasian," and "European" are used to refer to heterogeneous groups, expresses skepticism that agreement on what the word "white" means or refers to will ever be achieved, and recommends that instead of using these or any other "administrative" (which in context I think is equivalent to "bureaucratic") categories, scientists use the terms "reference-", "control-" or "comparison- population" and then carefully describe the population's specific composition. Now, given that you think this article supports your position and somehow disproves mine, I have to ask you, "Can you not read the article?" You asked this question, and I can now answer, sincerely, "yes" - and having done so I have no choice but to ask you the exact same question. Maybe you did not read the very article you claim proves you right, but I am struggling to figure out how I can possibly take you at good faith. I want to. But you either did not read the article, or you are being disingenuous or downright hypocritical. Even assuming you really are well-intentioned, it is now evident that any time you make a point and refer to an article that supports your point, other editors are going to have to read those articles for themselves, because there is no reason to believe either that you read them yourself, or are accurately representing them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not read my arguments? Where did I say "White definitions of Whiteness"? And I was talking about "All of the Western definitions cited in the article agree, white=European, ie: Canada, Norway, UK. And white is term which was founded by West. The only divergent definition is the US Census." The paper was to source the usage of white in UK, not in US, besides the census definitions, ie health, ethnicity research. I posted it because Wobble claimed there were only census definitions in the article. So please do not make silly accusations with less than half understanding of my edits or motives...KarenAER 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for your claiming you suggested that White definitions of Whiteness have priority or more significance than other definitions of Whiteness - that was Dark Tea (inter alia I am glad to learn you disagree with her on that point). As to the remainder of my comment, I stand by it: the article you cite, which you say is about the UK, is not and refers extensively to the US; it also makes it very clear that white does not equal European; it also argues that it is bureaucrats who identify white with Caucasian with people from Europe or European decent; it argues that this is incompatible with scientific research e.g. research on health. Apparently, you still have not read the article, or are assuming most people will not. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say the article was about UK. I said it was also about UK. And I already acknowledge the census definition in USA. You must have lots of free time since you fabricate arguments for me then answer them too. All by yourself. KarenAER 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still misunderstanding or misrepresenting the article. It is not "about the UK," it is about a phenomenon that occurs in both the US and the UK: that people use the words "white," "European" and "Caucasian" in inconsistent ways; that ethnic categories (including "white") in these countries follow bureaucratic usage; and that there is no scientific basis for using terms like "White" or "European" let alone identifying them - in other words, the article does not support the points you claim it does. You claim that the article is not produced by bureaucrats, which is correct - but you use it to make the claim that people other than bureaucrats claim that white=European, which is incorrect. By the way, you still have not produced that Egyptian definition you mentions.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is too long and I dont have time to answer each and all of you. My refusal of disamguation was because:

1) So many concepts have no consensus for their definitions. But they are not Wiki disamb pages.
2) Definition of whiteness is not that disputed, for the most part.
3) If you are worried about too many census sources, find other sources.
4) If this page becomes disamb, where do we explain which definitions are used where?

I still maintain this position. KarenAER 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen, while I disagree with a lot of your arguments, or at least have trouble following them (which could easily be me as much as you), I agree with some of your conclusions. I would oppose the change of this page to a full disambiguation because it would lose the opportunity to include commentary on the different usages of the term "white" (as regards people) and the circumstances and situations in which they are used. It's also worth including what they're based on. I think my suggestion of this might've gotten a bit lost in the debate... SamBC(talk) 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Karen & Sam on disambiguation; there is a clear social meaning being discussed here. Besides, European isn't really an ethnic term in most usage, allowing us to have Arab Europeans and Black Europeans. As for the definitions on the page consider this, though, Karen: "[In Brazil,] White is applied as a term to people of European, Jewish and Arab descent." Or the even more interesting application of "white" racial status to Japanese people in Apartheid South Africa. (To talk about the latter, I'm starting to lean towards a dual definition being included in this article: white as a regulated social category, and as a socially constructed way of understanding the "racial" nature of people. South Africans weren't claiming that Japanese 'were' white, but they did give the rights of "white people", a category they were also policing the boundaries of, with things like the "pencil" and "paper bag" tests no less).--Carwil 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Europe is a continent, not a country, it contains many countries and nationalities. Just as Asia, North America, etc. I wonder how many have thought about that when creating the European people article -- as if to replace this article with the new European people article. I'm asking because I really want to understand what this is all about. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Karen "Definition of whiteness is not that disputed, for the most part." But the only definitions we have are the two at the top of this article, neither of which claim that White=European, which you persistently state. You have pointed to colloquial use (use in the UK or the US by state bodies, or use in different societies) as often identifying White=European. I do not dispute this, nor do I think this should not be mentioned. But these are not definitions they are colloquial usages. So maybe it is correct to claim that in the UK and some other countries the term White is synonymous with White European, but this is not the equivalent of a definition that incorporates all possible meanings of White people, which is, after all what a definition is. The only definitions we have that can be said to be universal definition do not exclude non-Europeans as White, "being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin" and "to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry." I think we need to differentiate here between a definition and differential use of the term by social/state groups. As for your other comments, a disambig page should state that certain uses are used in certain palces and by certain organisations. For example when we state that White people can mean Caucasian, we simply disambiguate and state that in the US White is sometimes synonymous to Caucasian, also in the US White is sometimes synonymous with White European. This is not a problem, the point of a disambig page is that it removes ambiguity, it achieves this by stating when the different uses are applicable. You seem to be implying that a disambig page will lead to ambiguity, but the opposite is actually the case. All the best. Alun 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hi, my username is Singularity, and I have volunteered to be one of two mediators here.

Before we intervene, we will see if this dispute can be solved internally between the parties. If nothing really comes up in a couple of days, then we will try to help find a middle ground. Singu larity 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Singularity, welcome. :) Some parties are blocked: User:Muntuwandi, User:Fourdee, and perhaps inconsequently User:Phral (the latter is just a guess, as Fourdee and Phral may be using the same IP range). - Jeeny ^Talk 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my editing will prove I'm not Fourdee! I wonder how many puppets Jeeny has... or perhaps she and Muntuwandi are Straw Puppets of mine... --Phral 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a claim that you and Fourdee are the same person, just that you were blocked as well, perhaps as a result of being in the same dynamic IP block. Something else might have been implied, but I don't think it's necessary to accuse someone else of sockpuppetry in response. Try to keep this section on-topic regarding mediation. SamBC(talk) 11:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was alleged on another talkpage, but it doesn't worry me. My response was a misguided attempt at humor --Phral 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Phral. In fact, I think you're someone else. :) But, that is just my opinion and I will not do any type of detective work, as I do not believe in "telling" on people. UNLESS, they are obviously and continually pushing a POV, rude and disrupting Wikipedia. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European people[edit]

This is clearly a POV fork of this article. It used to redirect to demographics of Europe but now it is a separate article. Nothing wrong with that but the problem is that much of the material that was rejected in this article has been moved to the European people article. Furthermore it has been racialized. My understanding of the term "European people" basically means citizens of European countries and not necessarily their race. Muntuwandi 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of these issues have already been raised at the article's talk page.--Ramdrake 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi, I do not think that the issue is race versus state. I think the issue is ahistorical versus historical. i can envision an NOR, V, NPOV compliant article that discusses the emergence and transformation of ideologies of nation, ethnicity, and race, along with the reorganization of European society from one being based on local fiefdoms and a soi-dissant Catholic Church to one being based on "nation-states" that would have room for census information on states, but that also recognizes that at different times Europeans have relied on alternate or supplemental identities including race. I think the question is whether this material reflects the best social science and humanities scholarship, which cares about historical and cultural context, or ignores scholarship (claiming it is "fringe") and along with it any context. i agree with you that this cannot be a POV fork. But content forks are allowed, and we should try to think along that framework. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR, an article on European people is perfectly acceptable. But flicking through the article there is little or nothing on social science and humanities scholarship. The focal point in the article is on skin, hair and eye colors. The concept of a European ethnicity is not apparent in the article. Muntuwandi 16:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - I am just trying to lay out what I think the solution would be. It is my attempt to be constructive Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the article is very superficial, skin deep, if I may dare say it? :)--Ramdrake 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is. I put a merge template on the article so it doesn't become or stay as a superficial skin deep POV fork. - Jeeny ^Talk 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that European people article is not European article. X People articles in Wiki refers to ethnic X, ie: indigenous X...KarenAER 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot possibly be correct. White people are certainly not an ethnic group, and neither are European people. The word indigenous is also highly misleading, how long does a group of people have to be living in a region to count as "indigenous"? Some Y chromosome papers about the origins of English people state that the Ancient Britons are "indigenous" and that "Anglo-Saxons" are not indigenous, by this criterion English people would not be considered indigenous to Great Britain. This is clearly absurd. Besides it is incorrect to claim "ethnic x ie: indigenous x". Many Asian and African Caribbean British people are ethnically English or Scottish or Welsh, ethnicity is about identity. Ethnic groups are cultural groups and are not necessarily associated with any particular geographical region. On the other hand indigenous is more usually used to indicate being native to a specific geographical region. The two are far from synonyms. I'm no expert on this sort of thing and there may be some flaws in what I said, but I do know that European people certainly are not an ethnic group, and I do know that indigenous people is not synonymous with ethnic group. SLR is an expert on this sort of thing, I'm sure he can set us both straight. Alun 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alun, but note that there are ethnic groups in Europe, and I see no problem with an article on ethnic groups in Europe - I have mentioned it a few times but Cole and Wolf's The Hidden Frontier is one classic study of ethnic groups in Europe. Another good book is Anastasia N. Karakasidou, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990 Certainly race and ethnicity are two different things. I have suggested here and on the talk page for Europe that a "people of Europe" page could look at the different nationalities and ethnic groups of Europe. A good article will look at this in relationship to the state, because historically there have been nationalities and ethnic groups that formed in tandem with state formation, or that are legally or politicially represented by states, and others that have been excluded or not recognized, and the article should cover the political and economic context as well as social negotiations that go into this process. The two books I mention are just two good case-studies that would provide a start, but there is a host of other stuff. Anyone who would want to research such an article will not have trouble keeping busy! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in Europe and ethnic Europeans are two different things. European people may not be an ethnic group but they are certainly ethnic groups. I'll take Slrubenstein expertise with a grain of salt, given past discussions. And I'm sure many British would disagree with Alun's claim that Asian and African Caribbean British people are ethnically English. If some of those people came to US and became citizens, they wouldnt be called English American or European American but Asian American and African American...KarenAER 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen, I don't understand this statement, "European people may not be an ethnic group but they are certainly ethnic groups." European people are not ethnic groups, European people belong to ethnic groups based on identity. There are thousands of different Ethnic groups and nations in Europe. Most Europeans do not identify as European, they identify with their ethnic group or nation. I am Welsh and British, these are my identities, I do not have an European identity except for the fact that I happen to be from the European continent, the closest thing I have to a European identity is my EU citizenship. I am Welsh and I live in Finland, I do not share any ethnic identity with Finns. There may well be such a thing as an European identity in the USA, there are not the linguistic and geographic boundaries between people with different European descent in the USA. But here in Europe we are much more culturally and linguistically heterogeneous. As for this "And I'm sure many British would disagree with Alun's claim that Asian and African Caribbean British people are ethnically English." I'm sure that some would, so what? There is such a thing as Black British and Asian British and Scots Pakistani, if some people refuse to accept it then that is their prerogative, but it does not mean that it does not exist.[4] And of course there's the Conservative Member of Parliament Patrick Mercer's recent comment "I had five company sergeant majors who were all black. They were without exception UK-born, Nottingham-born men who were English - as English as you and me".[5] Besides a Black British person who migrated to the USA would never be African American, this is an ethnic group and Black British people do not belong to this ethnic group. Believe it or not they have a perfectly good culture of their own, why would they be identified as belonging to a cultural group they have no relationship to? Besides Asian British people are mainly of Indian subcontinental origin, Indians and Pakistanis. We use the designation Asian in a very different way here that they do in the USA. Alun 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not answer all your points since you still clearly do not understand English =/= ethnic English. Those black men may be English, but they are not ethnic English. You are right about that it is hard to establish indigenousness but I'd say that native English are those that are white and Western European. Also note that there is no articles that deal with White Europeans, besides European people You claim that White people has different meanings so we cant turn this article into one. Ok. Then you claim ethnicity is based solely on culture (which is incorrect, it's also based on descent) so European people article should contain Pakistani British? What does that leave us with? Indigenous peoples of Europe ? Oh how nice. That article also gives info about Samis and other isolated groups. White European? I'm sure it'd be nominated for deletion just like White British. This is actually funny. You claim to be leftist [6]. They should, in theory, should support diversity and yet you deny any article on White Europeans. KarenAER 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I want to qualify the initial description of the conflict, which was as one between racists and anti-racists. It may well be a conflict between racist and anti-racist editors, but I do not believe it is a conflict between racist and anti-racist edits. I would suggest rather that it is a conflict between racist and non-racist edits. In other words, it is a conflict between POV edits and NPOV edits. Fourdee has admited he is a racist ("I also wanted to say that while I am not morally opposed to "racism" and would even be proud to promote some varieties of it for some purposes") and that he is intent on pushing his own POV ("My intent here is to prevent the article from having misleading material inserted which implies there is not a genetic cause for physical appearance, that these traits are not heritable, that these traits are not associated with certain ethnic groups, or that there are not differences in genetics between populations - because those are lies.") - and he admitted this even after I reminded him that our NPOV and V policies make it clear that the standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability and not truth. He even admits that the people he is opposed to are not the other editors as such, but academics: in the same edit as the one just cited, he also wrote, "Sometimes lies (and other deceptions) are promoted in academia through various means as part of sometimes shadowy and nefarious and sometimes overt campaigns, and I fully intent to accurately portray any such lies or deceptions as the fringe theories." Note: his confederate Phral has used this argument to justify removing relevant content that expresses this point of view, clearly identifies the point of view, and provides a verifiable and reliable source [7]. The other editors involved in this dispute, e.g. Ramdrake, are not to my knowledge deleting, or demanding the deletion of, any content added by Phral, Fourdee, or others solely because they oppose that view. As far as i can tell they object only to material that violates our NPOV or NOR policies. So it is clear to me that the real issue here is POV-pushing versus NPOV. It so happens that the POV being pushed is racist, but as the above examples make clear, the actual edit conflicts have more to do with Phral and Fourdee deleting any mention of views other than their own from the introduction, and in some cases deleting discussion of views other than their own from the entire article. The other editors only want to ensure that the article is compliant with NPOV by including multiple points of view, and compliant with NOR by ensuring that any verifiable source is accurately represented in the article. They are not pushing a specifically anti-racist point of view, they are pushing for compliance with a neutral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rejoin Slrubesntein's assessment.--Ramdrake 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed at how well Slrubenstein is able to sum up the situation at the article. There has long been a clear attempt to push racist POV here that needs to be dealt with. The Behnam 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not participate in any meditation as long as the discussion starts with such a Witch-hunt, like above, in case anyone cares. If meditation is about comprimise, people shouldnt start it with medieval missionary zeal. KarenAER 23:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with KarenAER on this point. The situation on this page (and talk page) has reached a point where there are people on both "sides" who are misbehaving, but nothing is going to be gained through mediation in assessing the behaviour of each editor. Might I suggest that people all calm down, start a new discussion from scratch and try to work out a set of goals for the article, and how to attain those goals, which is able to meet reasonable consensus. Hopefully informal mediation can make this easier. SamBC(talk) 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody here is trying to assign blame. What happened happened, and I tried to make it clear from the beginning that the goal of this mediation is to ensure the article properly meets Wikipedia's NPOV and NOR standards. I agree that trying to assign blame on anyone is futile in the utmost and counterproductive. However, I *do* believe that there are many NPOV and NOR concerns which need to be resolved for good.--Ramdrake 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO..."This article is caught in a tug-of-war between racist and non-racist positions" KarenAER 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter nonsense. I have repeatedly said that the material that slrubenstein and others are promoting can be included in the article however it should not overwhelm a topic with criticisms rather than a discussion of the actual topic and that I will be watching for anything that is willfully misleading, improprerly paraphrased, and arrangements of material that give undue weight to tiny minority views. There is nothing to mediate as slrubenstein has not introduced any material, I have not introduced any material, and all we have right now is a single vandal inserting the same negro nonsense he is being blocked for inserting on a number of articles that are not about negroes in conflict with quite a number of editors and administrators. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the discussion to the talk page. Neranei (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to suggest that whether or not any particular editor is racist or not, or indeed subscribes to any particular belief, is of little or no practical importance. What's important is what people do and suggest, and I suggest drawing a line under discussions and actions so far and try to start our discussion with a clean slate. SamBC(talk) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourdee writes, "I have repeatedly said that the material that slrubenstein and others are promoting can be included in the article however it should not overwhelm a topic with criticisms rather than a discussion of the actual topic and that I will be watching for anything that is willfully misleading, improprerly paraphrased, and arrangements of material that give undue weight to tiny minority views." It is true that Fourdee has said this, and I believe that his formulation here may provide one possible starting point for mediation. I am sure that all agree in principal that we want to avoid "anything that is willfully misleading, improprerly paraphrased, and arrangements of material that give undue weight to tiny minority views" and another way to frame the dispute is that people disagree over what material fits this description. My first statement on the talk page of the article was to assert that much of the meterial in the article, although sourced, was misleading. Perhaps when first it was not "willfully" misleading, but a number of editors besides myself have since explained how and why it is misleading. Nevertheless, this remains a point of contention that may require/benefit from mediation. Another point for mediation involves Fourdee's sugestion that the views I wish included are "criticisms" of the topic; my position is that they express alternate views. At stake is where the material would go in the article: in a special "criticism" section at the end, or in the beginning as one of several major views. A linked issue is Fourdee's characterizing these views as fringe or minority. I contend that they represent major views within the academy. It is true that many people are ignorant of or reject scholarly research, but I do not believe that this renders scholarly research "fringe" or "minority." I believe that "fringe" or "minorty" can have meaning in an encyclopedia only in relation to a particular community or constituency (mass media, the scientific community, and so on) and are not meaningful in absolute terms. I believe fourdee and others disagree - so this too would be an important area requiing mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random break for edit button, and to draw a line starting a new stream of discussion[edit]

Given that the page has now been protected, much as I suggested on the article talk page earlier, does anyone object to the strategy I previously suggested, which I will now summarise. Any difference between what I say now and what I said before represents reconsideration, and what I say now is what I'm precisely suggesting and asking to be considered.

The page is protected, so let's all sit back and try to work out what the article should be like, ignoring its current structure and, to a certain extent, content. As this leads to more and more refined ideas as to new structure and outline content, we'll reach a position where the page can be unprotected and the new plan implemented. This will only work if everyone involved is willing to participate to ensure that the new plan is acceptable (if not ideal) to everyone. SamBC(talk) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KarenAER's comment[edit]

Mediator's note: This has been moved from the main case page to streamline discussion.

This article is caught in a tug-of-war between excessively politically correct/afro-centric positions and those who want to article be more neutral. There is no issue of racism in the article as noone has tried to instert White supremacist or such content. If possible, we would need a meditator who will disregard blatantly non-sense descriptions of the current situation, ie: Ramdrake's version...KarenAER 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that those on one 'side' claim that the disagreement is racist vs non-racist, while the other "side" say it's excessive PC vs neutrality indicates a common situation in principled disagreements: both sides believe that they are being neutral and just, while the other is pushing an unreasonable agenda. In such cases I have generally found that it's best if both sides can try to understand that neutrality can be subjective, and let go of any assumption of their own neutrality. SamBC(talk) 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how KarenAER's portrait of the conflict is any less a "witch-hunt" carried out with "missionary-like zeal," which is how she characterized my initial portrait of the dispute. Putting her hysterical tone aside, if she is right that the way I framed the dispute was unconstructive, surely this is no better. Following her comment, and another by Fourdee, above, I re-framed my view of the debate with the intention of being more constructive. I'd like Karen to heed her own counsel and see if she can come up with a more constructive way of portraying the dispute that does not villify others, and laying out areas that would benefit from mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be living in a cave if you do not see the "villification" difference between racism and political correctness. KarenAER 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to spell it out for you. I presented my analysis of the dispute as that between people (including you) pushinjg a POV versus those (including me) trying to make the article NPOV. Sambc made the constructive point that "In such cases I have generally found that it's best if both sides can try to understand that neutrality can be subjective, and let go of any assumption of their own neutrality," and in the above section I revised my assessment of the dispute in an attempt to be more constructive. Now you present the dispute as one between people (including me, I assume from your consistently disrespectful and sarcastic tone) pushing a POV and those who want to make the article "neutral" - in other words, your analysis is ultimately the same as mine, except you reverse who is neutral and who is a POV pusher. I was simply trying to take Sambc's constructive point to heart and inviting you to be more constructive. I find it interesting that given the invitation to be constructive, you turn instead to insults. But maybe I really misunderstood you. Maybe despite the structure of your sentence, in which you present your side as "neutral," you do not mean to suggest that the people on the other side of the dispute are not being neutral. Maybe you really did not mean to insult the people you are in a dispute with. Maybe you think that being politically correct is a good thing. After all, isn't it good to be correct? Shouldn't we avoid making mistakes? But what, then can you possibly mean by "excessively correct?" How could anyone be too correct? If I wrote a correct answer on an exam, would the teacher deduct points for my being too correct? I just do not understand what you are saying. Which is it: is being politically correct a good thing, or were you denegrating and dismissing the people you are in a dispute with? once again, I invite you to heed Sambc's wise council and try to be constructive. Try. I am sure you find it difficult, perhaps even painful, but I bet you can do it if you try reaallly reallly hard. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but my analysis didnt include links such look at Fourdee, he accepted his racism, get him NOOOWWW!!11!1!one!. I also like it how you ignored the magnitude of effect of certain labels. Clearly, calling someone racist is more derogatory than calling him politically correct. If you are ignorant of such a basic concept of magnitude, you may also think that killing a person and pinching a person are basically the same thing since both actions hurt a person. Now that would be silly, wouldnt it? And witch hunting mostly referred to Ramdrake's err...I wanna say analysis, but that would be an insult to the English language, so lets say his story...

Oh but anyway, we should be constructive now. I wouldnt have even made any other comment about this if it wasnt for your answer. KarenAER 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh ... so, my analysis was based on evidence, supported with specific sources. Okay, I have no problem with your "criticizing" my reliance on evidence. Anyway, I am glad you want to be constructive now, so you can skip this - perhaps you would rather respond to Alun's comment, which is about content and substantive. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Could everyone please try to keep this discussion civil, avoid personal attacks, and to use one of my favourite quotes, "consider that you may be mistaken". That goes for everyone. SamBC(talk) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

It's funny that Slrubenstein tries to make such an issue of someone's politics when this guy he brought in is well known for ultra-extreme-far-left politics[8] (anti-race, anti-capitalism, anti-nation etc.) which strangely seem to correlate with the material he is trying to insert. Nobody is neutral on this and the belief that this article should read as an attack on the very concept of race and a platform to introduce deceptive genetic arguments designed to mislead people into believing genetics are not the reason for differences in appearance - that is the real POV-pushing here. I'm just being honest that my beliefs are the polar opposite of Alun's whereas he has taken to hiding them.

SLRubenstein has also gone running to an administrator friend of his (who posts his essays on her user page) to try to stop me from editing the article for being a racist despite his significant violations of WP:CIVIL etc. You are right I am racist and unlike some of the other people who work on this I don't try to pretend I don't care about the issue. But the fact is Alun is not neutral, SLRubenstein is not neutral, they are promoting specific agendas and want to overload this article with tangentally-related material and the same old often-repeated attacks on race which are designed to mislead laypeople about genetics. This is as I have said all along an issue of how the article should be balanced to correspond to mainstream beliefs and what is on-topic for the article at all. I don't object to any of their material being mentioned, only it being phrased in a way that is misleading or being used to overwhelm the article.

There no way I can try to work on this if slrubenstein is going to keep trying to get me in trouble with administrators for failing to adhere to acceptable politics like the sort Alun and User:El_C are happy to promote on their user pages and through their edits, and if that behavior continues I will have little choice but to ignore him and his associates on talk pages. Aside from that I am willing to contribute to this mediation process but cannot accept any outcomes as binding. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking at the proposed mediator's sparse edit history I will not be contributing to this page any further. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Picture is Worth 1000 Words[edit]

File:Blackwhitecomic.jpg

This comic fairly well illustrates what is going on here. Expected racism from anyone who dare be white --Phral 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about reasons for mediation[edit]

I don't think this is about racists and non-racists as Ramdrake states, I don't think it's a left-right political issue as Phral states [9] and I don't think it's about afrocentricism (I can see no Afrocentric point of view in the article at all). The issue, as far as I can see it is about whether the term White people is universally identified as a specific race. I think that on the one hand certain good faith editors such as fourdee, Phral and Karen truly believe that it is self evident that the term White people applies exclusively to White Europeans. With this in mind they think that this article should concentrate primarily on this group of people. On the other hand there is another group of people, myself included, who view the term White people as much more amorphous and plastic. We tend to think that this term used to mean different things in different contexts. Both of these points of view are already expressed in the introductory paragraph where two definitions are given (a) "being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin" (b) "a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry". Neither of these definitions actually exclude people with ancestry that is not European. A person can have light coloured skin and have European ancestry and can also have ancestry from a different part of the world. My personal solution would be to include several sections in the article, one of these sections could deal with White people as a term used for people who perceive their descent as exclusively White European (this is a perfectly valid usage and point of view after all), other sections of the article can discuss use of the term when it is not applied to people of presumed exclusively White European descent. For example use of the term White people to mean Caucasian, or use of the term White people as it is used in the census for the USA, which I believe includes people from as far as the far east of Russia. There may well be other uses of the term White people that I am not aware of. Alun 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty reasonable. My major concerns are 1) the volume of material in the article which questions the reality of race (belongs in other articles and can be referenced) and 2) the insertion of pictures which as I have said I find kind of shocking-looking at the top of the article when they are being used to depict subjects who are not the topic of the article. The first picture in an article should depict the clearest, least-controversial example of its topic. At any rate can we please move this back to the article talk page because this mediator does not seem appropriate. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alun, I like you to copy that comment back to the talkpage as the is the kind of constructive attitude that has been lacking, due to the constant onslaught of Muntuwandi and the like, merely trying to turn the article into a soapbox of race not existing, and truly disgusting photos being inserted to push a very fringe theory.

I notice the mediator has opted for editor review, this is perhaps just something he/she is doing to get a good review. No disrespect to her, but more experience with controversial articles, and some knowledge about the content really is necessary. --Phral 10:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may respond here, I am up for editor review because I would like to improve as an editor. I would not consider doing anything just to get a good review. Also, I am of the persuasion that in order to mediate a dispute, I should not have been involved in this article at all, so that I can have an unbiased approach to the dispute. I am a new mediator, so if you do not want me to mediate this dispute, I can find someone else to do it. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may work. The page may look like this:

White people

History of the term

White as European

Who uses this definition? Which countries/regions

Gallery according to this usage

More info

White as Caucasian

Etc

White as.....

Etc

But it should be noted that not all definitions are of same value. White is a term which is founded by West Europeans. So West European definitions should be more important than Egyptian definitions, for instance...KarenAER 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a meaningless sentence and not a helpful step forward. I have no idea which Egyptian definition you are referring to and would appreciate it if you could share it with us. Be that as it may, "white" wasn't "founded," whatever that means, by "Western Europeans" - the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italians, did not "find" the word. It is an English word. 309-380 million people speak it as a first language. In other words, the vast majority of English-speakers are not from England, a country of under 50,000,000 people. English is the language of James Baldwin and Toni Morrison and Langston Hughes, of China Achebe, of Buchi Emecheta and Wole Soyenka, of V.S. Naipaul, of Salman Rushdie, of Arundhati Roy and Amitav Ghosh - in other words, it is not the language of White people - it may be the language spoken by many White people, but many White people do not speak it and most people who speak it are not white (and donot say that the language has its roots in Europe - it does, if you go back part of the way. If you go back farther it has its origins in Asia, in the Indo-Persian steppes where Indo-European first developed). In any event, there is no reason why European definitions of English words should be more important should be more important than the definitions used by most English-speakers who are non-European. That said, I think we should turn to scholarly literature and it doesn't matter what color someone's skin or even native language: if they teach at a prestigious university and are published in peer-reviewed journals or books unpublished by academic presses, their views have an (not the only, but an) authority we must acknowledge. Thecontents of Wikipedia articles should be dictated by NPOV and research of top scholarly sources, not a racist or nationalist agenda. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that WP articles should be NPOV with citations to scholarly peer-reviewed sources to back up, along with certain POVs the same is to cite with reliable sources, not personal opinions or census information. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this particular disagreement between myself and Karen has been discussed far more extensively on the talk page for the article. Now I would like to register that, although Alun's portrayal f the dispute is very different from my original portrayal, I think his approach is very constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out to Karen that we are not discussing definitions here, we are discussing usage. The term White people means different things in different contexts, no single context is more important or correct. The fact that the term means different things to different social/political groups is not contingent upon any definition, it is contingent upon context. A definition is a different concept to a colloquial usage and I have made this point on the talk page of the article as well. It is perfectly acceptable to include colloquial usage in the article, but I see no reason to give undue weight to colloquial use of the term in certain parts of the world. The main definitions that we already give in the article simply state that White people are people that belong to any group that have light coloured skin, I personally see no reason to reject the OED and Merriam-Webster definitions in favour of colloquial usage. Besides in some parts of the world having white skin is not necessarily the main criterion for being considered White.[10] Alun 09:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alun brings up another point which may end up being a point for mediation. I agree that what is at issue is the usage of a word. However, I think that the real issue is not colloquial versus dictionary definitions, but rather colloquial usage (which may vary from ethnic group to ethnic group, from class to class, from country to country) and scholarly usage. I think dictionaries try to capture usage and typically favor the most popular colloquial ussage - often times the dictionary definition of a word is at variance from how scholars use a word. I know this is often the case in anthropology (since anthropologists study human societies, many anthropological terms have entered the general vocabulary; conversely, English-speaking anthropologists rely on English words whose usage and meaning changes based on their research.) Another good example is the use of the word "population" in population genetics - who use the word in a very precise way. Some dictionaries may even provide the geneticists' definition of population, but never as the first definition. And, as Alun is well aware, molecular geneticists, cultural anthropologists, and the general public all use the word "lineage" in distinct ways. I think definitions will always list definitions in order of the degree of common usage. To get to the issue at hand: anthropologists and sociologists have done extensive studies concerning ethnicity and how different ethnic groups understand their identity. This research is based on the careful analysis of considerable empirical data. The conclusions often use the word "ethnicity" in a way that is well-understood by social scientists but that is not in the dictionary. I always have to tell my students: use the dictionary to make sure you spell the word correctly. And use it to find the definition of a colloquial word. But never use it to get the definition anthropologists use. If you want to write on an anthropological topic, find out how anthropologists use the word. Now I want to make two assertions that I think some editors will readily accept and others will reject. First, I think that one important role of an encyclopedia is to popularize current scholarship, and this often (and definitely, in the case of race and ethnicity) means educating a lay audience as to how social and life scientists use certain words, no matter how much they diverge from popular and dictionary definitions. Second, I think research on people must be based on empirical data, and this requires us to turn to peer-reviewed articles and books written by scholars - and not dictionaries. The authors and editors of dictionaries are not social scientists. OED is a fantastic source if you are recsearching etymology. If you are researching Amazonian Indians, or Hatian Creoles, or Ashkenazi Jews, it is at best a very superficial resource. To provide a concrete example, and to be blunt: one cannot argue deductively from a dictionary definition. One cannot say, "According to OED 'ethnic group' means x, and the definition of 'Jews' includes x, therefore Jews are an ethnic group." This is bad research that would never make it through peer-review, and is arguably original research in violation of NOR. To find out what jews are (how they categorize themselves and how they are categorized by others) one cannot turn to a dictionary, one must conduct research among Jews and their neighbors - or read a book or article by someone who has done such research. I suspect a few of my fellow editors will find what I just wrote reasonable and even unexceptional. I bet a few others will think I am out of my mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Do you know of any good general anthropological definitions of White people? Is it in fact possible to produce such a thing? If it is it would be good to include it in the article. Alun 11:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know one, which I will get to in a sec., but I didn't mean to privilege anthropology, it was just an example. Physical anthropologists will not as a rule use "white people" unless for some reason self-identified "white people" is an element of their research design. Most studies are more specific and they will identify people who identiy more narrowly (e.g. Iowans) and talk about populations. When it comes to explaining phenotypic traits associated with (or markers) for whiteness, like fine hair, fair skin, lack of epicanthic-fold or shovel-shaped incisors, they will highlight clinal variation and use geography and environment to explain the traits rather than a racial or ethnic identity. When it comes to cultural anthropology, the best definition I know of is specifically in the context of the Americas: Eric Wolf in Europe and the People Without History defines "White" as the catch-all term for people from Europe who colonized the Americas and their descendents - I think he would argue that prior to the colonization of the Americas there was no White ethnic group (the use of the word white was as an adjective, not a noun) and Europeans identified as Christians (as opposed to Muslims or Jews) or very locally (Benedict Anderson makes a similar argument). His definition of Indians and Blacks follows from his definition of Whites:

Racial designations, such as “Indian” and “Negro,” are the outcome of the subjugation of populations in the course of European mercantile expansion. The term Indian stands for the conquered populations of the New World, in disregard of any cultural or physical differences among Native Americans. The term Negro similarly serves as a cover term for the culturally and physically variable Africa populations that furnished slaves, as well as for the slaves themselves. The two terms thus single out for primary attention the historic fact that these populations were made to labor in servitude to support a new class of overlords. (1982: 380)

But Wolf's book is literally global in that he is analyzing the culture of the world system since Columbus. Other studies are far more focused in their scope and data, and their definitions of races or ethnic groups I think are corresponingly more narrow. For example, two classic studies of native Americans, Friedlander's Being Indian in Hueyapan and Sider's Lumbee: Indian Histories have a view of "Indian" that is entirely consistent with Wolf's statement above - but they focus on "Hueyapan" and "Lumbee" as ethnic identities and their analysis is much more nuanced about the way these identities and their boundaries have changed and the specific ways the political and economic context has shaped that history. There is less research on "Whites" - for Wolf, as I said, "Whites" in the New World are White because of their political relationship vis a vis "Indians" and "Negros" during the colonial/mercantilist period. His analysis of Whites post-Independence/during the capitalist period is different. Like many sociologists he takes a ethnic segmentation model in which immigrants from different parts of Europe arrive in the US (or Argentina or wherever) at different times and mostly occupy narrow economic niches. It is during this period that people abandon older, highly localized identities (such as Tuscan, Piedmontese, Napolitano) and a new "Italian" (or "Italian-American") ethnic identity emerges. Over time, as members of this ethnic group rise in socio-economic status, they become "White." I think for Wolf, this is still in part a function of the continuing subordinate status of most Indians and blacks. Cole and Wolf, in The Hidden Frontier provide an even more nuanced study of ethnio-national identity formation on the Italian-Austrian border. If you look on the "White people" talk page, under the section "Bias in this article," I provide a list of major works in whiteness studies including several by anthropologists - their studies are all consistent with Wolf's model but again, far more nuanced. I think whether anthropologist, geographer, historian, or political scientist, most scholars in White or Whiteness studies generally take the same approach. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point by SLR. However, on this side of the Atlantic, "White" is usually replaced by "Caucasian" (or the older "Caucasoid", even) in anthropological discourse, and while there are arguably differences between these terms, their near-synonymity does tend to complicate things.--Ramdrake 11:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which side of the Atlantic you are on - but I just did a search of AnthroSource, which is a repository of all publications of the American Anthropological Association (which includes four-field and biological anthropology journals, but more cultural/social anthropology journals, starting in the late 1800s up to the present). A search for "caucasian" resulted in 435 hits. A search for "White"+"race" came up with 3,646 hits. I searched the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (the premier anthropology journal in the UK and one of the top two in Europe) from 2000 to the present and came up with 2 hits for "caucasian" and 87 hits for "white"+"race". Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify things, I'm Canadian. If I do a search on Google Scholar, I get 594k hits for "White"+"race" and 273k hits for "Caucasian" (6k hits for "Caucasoid"), so while it looks like "White" is a preferred term worldwide, it looks like "Caucasian" also has a significant following. Personnally, I've seen and heard the term "Caucasian" more often than "White", but that's just my POV.--Ramdrake 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to search "caucasoid" - I just did it on AnthrSearch which resulted in 85 hits; aggregate them to 358, still orders of magnitude less than white race. It would be interesting to graph changing practice over time. I do know that before the 1970s anthropologists seem to have favored caucasion or caucasoid - Marvin Harris uses the term 9over white) in his short Patterns of Race in the Americas, which came out in 1964 and is still one of the classic and essential texts on the anthropological analysis of race. So there certainly was a time when caucasian or caucasoid was prefered; I would suggest that the practice is changing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that "Caucasian" would be more popular versus "White" in epidemiological studies than in anthropology; that would explain my perception on the matter. A Medline search yields comparable results (1500 vs 2000) for Caucasian vs White+race, so it looks like it's a possibility.--Ramdrake 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm alert: I think many MDs (like many people) think that not using colloquial words = being scientific. The term really is no more precise or scientific than "white." In my opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, absolutely; that's why it is my general understanding that these are near-synonyms. Different walks, different usages, that's all I can conclude.--Ramdrake 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think white in the US means a celtic, germanic, slavic or very similar looking person but the government definitions and social ambiguities or niceties may differ. For example, who is routinely described by the mass media and police as white versus arab or hispanic? I think only certain ethnicities look like what is called "white". And what you would address someone as directly to their face, or in certain company, might differ - we should go by the "police & mass media" categories which are to use white exclusively to mean celtic, germanic or slavic looking people and use some other ethnic term like mediterranean or asian or negro for people with some distinct racial or ethnic trait. This is the main concept that the introduction and body of the article should cover - the prevailing concept in English of "white" meaning a purely european person of certain specific ethnicities. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Fourdee, reading your comment, it is obvious to me (and I fully understand it may not be obvious to you) that you're describing your POV and suggesting we define white as per your POV. While you're absolutely entitled to your POV, and to discuss it, your POV has no place in the article. What you should do is bring reliable, cites sources which support your POV, and then it can be included as one of the POVs that exist on the subject, though probably not as the main POV (I don't think there is such a thing on this subject - but hey, that's just my POV).--Ramdrake 12:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC

I'm also quite certain the French, the Italians, the Spanish, Portuguese and the Greeks will be surprised to know they aren't "white". When I was a youth in Montreal (speaking only French), I was insulted to be answered, in my own city, because I spoke the language of the majority there, to "speak White!" (meaning to speak English). I guess some attitudes never change.--Ramdrake 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, you should take Fourdee on good faith. He begins his comment with "I think" - he is being very clear that he is expressing his personal point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, that makes it worse, as the Fourdee's post distinctly says that that POV should be the main basis for the article, seemingly suggesting that other interpretations be presented as 'exceptions'. I would tend to assume good faith in that Fourdee might not entirely understand the subtler meanings of the policy on NPOV. SamBC(talk) 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Sambc! But, it's difficult for me to assume good faith toward Fourdee on this issue. As he knows what NPOV is, as he so argues the point on the very article guideline of NPOV. <shrug> - Jeeny ^Talk 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR, I was assuming good faith on his part, and I was also assuming that in good faith he didn't realize that what he was suggesting amounted to building an article around a personal POV, as he seems to genuinely believe that his POV is shared by a significant portion of the population, even possibly a majority. That's why I suggested he produce cited, reliable sources that backed his claimed POV. I was not trying to attack or belittle anybody, and if it was taken as such, I duly apologize.--Ramdrake 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Ramdrake, i did not express myself well. I did not mean to comment on your reading of Fourdee so much as call attention to the revealing way he opened his remarks. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, whatsoever. :)--Ramdrake 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that it was just a personal opinion Slrubenstein - I was just trying to give us something to work from and clarify whether there is really a distinction in usages between the US, UK and Europe. Sorry Ramdrake, by "celtic" I did mean French and northern Spanish; perhaps a sloppy use of the term. And clearly many Italians and Greeks would be called white, but equally many if not more would not be, so for these I meant they would fall under "very similar looking person". Again, just my personal take - there is something strongly similar about the appearance of a "white" Spaniard that makes him largely indistinguishable from other whites but very distinguishable from a mediterranean person, and my impression is that "white" is largely classified by that distinctive appearance in facial features (coupled with specific skin tones and lightness of skin but not hair or eye color). -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourdee, you are free to express personal opinions here on the talk page and sometimes they actually can help direct constructive discussion of how to improve the article. But given the fact that personal opinions cannot go into the articles, they more often take us off-track. Since the article has to represent verifiable views that are not our own, I think it would be more constructive if we discuss a framework for organizing those views. I mention one, above, Wolf, and noted that his view there relates primarily to the New World. I also mentioned two case studies that focus on Europeans. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures[edit]

Inserting this ongoing discussion below those moved by mediator from mediation talk page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are four pictures of black people in the article but only one picture of a white person (John Kerry). Frankly, it is childish to make examples of black people and tell the reader that they are not white. The purpose of the article is to describe what white people are, not what they are not. MoritzB 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed and the picture of John Kerry, the Asian etc. --Vonones 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the black people images should be removed, especially when there are more than those of white people. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those images are nothing more than spam (POV-pushing disruption) and are the central issue causing edit disputes. The addition of material about alternate interpretations or constructions of whiteness is not really disputed - we can readily compromise on that. It's this insertion of pictures of people who are not white at the top of the article that is the real problem. The God article doesn't start with a picture of the devil. The black people article doesn't start with pictures of white people. The spacecraft article doesn't start with pictures of jet fighters. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the God article does not atart with a picture of God, either. That is because God is an idea. So is "White people." Now, it is true that many people have graphic representations of their idea of God. An NPOV article would have to do three things: first, provide multiple representations of God (Jesus, Shiva, Exu, Zeus, etc.) Second, when there has been contention over whether or not the picture really represents God, we need an account of that contention (e.g. the debates among Jewsi in the first and second century over whether Jesus was God, and then additional debates entirely among Christians in the fourth century as to whether Jesus is God). Third, there are reasons why different people have contrtasting images of God, and historians and sociologists of religion have related these to the social, political and sometimes economic context - an account of these contexts, that make a particular image of God meaningful to a particular group of people, must also be provided. i am glad you brought up the example of God, Fourdee, because i think this provides us with a good model for how to proceed. Following your suggestions I would say that this article woul dneed to include (1) an account of different ideas of whiteness, (2) an account of debates within or between communities over a particular idea of whiteness, and (3) an account of the social and historical (etc.) contexts that make particular ideas of whiteness meaningful for particular communities. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine except the alternate concepts of white are by and large tiny fringe views. Let's consider the photograph used for the Judaism article. Certainly that does not represent all forms of "Judaism". To a reform jew some of those items may not be familiar or necessary parts of his beliefs at all. These are merely stereotypical items representing the most common connotations of "judaism". It would be absurd to replace this article with a collage of antisemitic material depicting jewish bankers, pictures of all varieties of non-jewish semites, and things that may be meaningful to some minority followers of Judaism. Or if we look at the article Jew there are pictures of who would widely be regarded as jews - rather than nonsense examples of black jews or people who are merely a tiny part jewish and not part of the culture. However "jew" is an abiguous term is it not, even moreso than "white person"? The primary image for this article - and there must be some primary (first) image if there are going to be secondary images, galleries and collages - must depict the most stereotypical meaning of this term rather than what amounts to ethnically or racially biased propaganda attacking the very existence of this commonly understood and recognized group. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't always so [11] Muntuwandi 13:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourdee, your comment starts with an affirmation: the alternate concepts of white are by and large tiny fringe views which I hold is demonstrably incorrect. I believe this discussion has plainly demonstrated that there isn't "one" main concept of whiteness and "several fringe or minor views". As for the appropriateness of the pictures, especially the collages, one shows several examples of light skin, but only one person who would be considered "white" among them (although his level of tan may distract from what the collage is trying to say), and the other is an illustration of the "one-drop rule". Both serve to show that "whiteness", contrary to all other so-called "racial" identities, is a surprisingly restrictive identity, and in most cases, does not just take into consideration lightness of skin, but also features, and to a significant measure ancestry too. Now whether any of those collages elong as the lead might be debatable, but to me it is obvious that both collages belong in the article, as they each make an important point as to the restrictive nature of "whiteness".--Ramdrake 10:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material is too voluminous, too distracting, and too far off topic. This article is not "people who are not considered white". The only material along those lines that would be appropriate for this article is pictures of people who are sometimes considered white. And these should be far fewer in number than photographs of people who are always (or generally) considered white, and should be placed toward the bottom as a footnote. Photographs of things definitely not included in the topic of the article just do not belong there, or should be used in a very subdued matter that isn't distracting or confusing. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have expressed their opinion that the pictures add value by clarifying certain views of what is considered white. While you're entitled to your views, if views are irreconcilable and your in a very small minority, it's likely that the most appropriate course is to go with the majority view (large majority as a substitute for true consensus, if you will). SamBC(talk) 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are committing an unintentional mathematical error. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article?[edit]

I'm sorry I've read this article a couple of times and I just can't see a reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia beyond being a disambiguation page. What could possibly justify its existance?AlanD 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. You can try bringing it up for WP:AfD again. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, I listed it and it just took me to the closed discussion on the previous AfD. AlanD 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not even bothering, the last outcome was not a snowballs chance in hell. As racialist as these articles may be, they do reflect real social constructs.Muntuwandi 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific instructions for listing an article that has been listed before. In any case, there is current disucssion as to turning this page into a disambiguation or partial disambiguation above. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. SamBC(talk) 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]