Talk:White people/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photos[edit]

There are 29 Photos in the Black People article and only two here, one of an old lady and one of a cave drawing or something. Am going to add some in. --Hayden5650 00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have a point and I have been thinking about the same thing as well. In all fairness more photos are required. However there was an active debate which several editors indicated that there should be no photos at all. The biggest issue is that whiteness and blackness are constructed differently. In general white people do not view themselves as white but more as the neutral race, whereas society has made blacks very conscious of their race. Consequently society is more comfortable discussing blackness than it is whiteness. For example the author of this book once requested some of

The Race Game consisting of a single, but powerful rule:

For the next seven days, she [the white woman] must use the ascriptive term white whenever she mentioned the name of one of her Euro-American cohorts. She must say, for instance, ‘my white husband, Phil,’or ‘my white friend Julie,’ ‘my lovely white child Jackie.’ . . . I guaranteed her that if she did this for a week and then met me for lunch, I could answer her questions using terms she would understand.

It was so incredibly easy for the white woman to use Black as a racial designator, but she failed to use the term white to describe herself and her friends. Describing the disappointing outcome, Thandeka notes, “We never had lunch together again. Apparently my suggestion made her uncomfortable.” race game

Muntuwandi 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is silly. Genetically, white skin is the anomaly. I grant you that all this has lots of sociological implications, which should be all means be discussed. But this is also the article on the white skin phenotype. Why this reluctance to discuss the phenotype and the underlying genetics? People refuse to even show pictures of people of that phenotype? Discussion of correlation of other phenotypes (like eye or hair colour) is effectively suppressed with some political hand-waving. This won't do at all. This article needs to discuss both, the straightforward facts of genetics and distribution, and the socio-political history of the construct. dab (𒁳) 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this article is pathetic. PC libs run it to the point you can't even show pictures of white people in a WHITE PEOPLE article. Manic Hispanic 00:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the situation correctly. But if it is really a matter of "political correctness" to show no images here (why??) that's truly laughable. This article needs the detached treatment of population genetics restored. Its topic is Eurasian genetic history, not US history. dab (𒁳) 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is absurd. I'm adding back the picture of the white family. There is no one in the world who can dispute that this is a photo of white people. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with genetics being included because that is discordant with whiteness. For example sub-saharan mtDNA is found all over Europe, but that does not make the people with African haplogroups any less white. The only genetics that is relevant to whiteness is that which causes light skin.
with regard to pictures, care must be taken, otherwise every editor will try to include their favorite supermodel or pornstar, and the article will look more like a tabloid than discussing the concept of whiteness.Muntuwandi 01:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why a generic picture of a white family is completely appropriate. Who the heck is that old woman, anyway? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the why the cave painting is relevant? Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the figures were "darker than animals" because they only had two colors of paint? We're not going to use the colors in a cave painting as a basis for a scientific approach to who's who, are we?
Agreed, it's not relevent (and probably original research...they look the same shade to me.) --JW1805 (Talk) 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is origins of light skin, the two important questions is when and where. Nobody knows for sure so scientists have to use indirect methods such as prehistoric art.Muntuwandi 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the picture of the black Europeans in the cave painting should be in the article because the POV that Europeans at that time were black is attributed to a Frank Sweet, a reliable source historian. I don't think that the family picture should be in the article because the POV that they're white is not sourced.----DarkTea 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just cut the PC bollocks, everyone knows what a white person is. The family pic is good. Here are some examples of white people: George Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Beethoven, Darwin, Jefferson, Newton, Ford, Queen Elizabeth, Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolf Hitler, John Howard, Don Brash, Bill English, Ernest Rutherford. Need I go on? We hardly need genetic evidence to prove the difference between them and the likes of Rodney King, Condy Rice, Emperor Hirohito, Pol Pot, Aussie Aboriginals, OJ Simpson et cetera et cetera. So why not have a picture of people who we all know are white? --Hayden5650 06:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA2-Blitz-0263Cauc.JPG
portrait gallery of what were considered Caucasoid types in the 1930s. We don't necessarily call these "Caucasoid" anymore, and much less a "race", but the gallery still covers accurately what we consider "white people".
Compare the geographic range covered by the gallery above with the
current definition of "White" origins for purposes of the US census.


I don't think the "white family" image is a very good choice. Of course it's an image showing white people, but seeing the very large corpus of images to choose from, I am sure we can do better. What we need is a selection of a few portraits showing the range of Eurasian plus North African ethnicities that are considered "white". We need at the very least an European portrait, a Berber one, and a Central Asian one. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to focus on White Americans and White British, as that is the majority of people who read the English Wiki. I mean, how many people look at Yasser Arafat and think, 'Yasser, the white man'??
Just because we are whites of western European descent doesn't mean we have to overcompensate on the correctness by pretending we are not the majority.
The last thing we need is a page full of North Africans and Eurasians. The further east you go, the skin begins to change tone and the eyes begin to increase in curvature. This is best illustrated in Romanian people.
Let's have the bulk of photos representing White British and White American, with a couple of the fringes of white society, including some from the western-most Soviet Union. --Hayden5650 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It doesn't matter who reads the article, what matters is what our reliable sources define the article to be about. I propose the following criteria for image choice:

  • identifiable ethnicity. The image source must give the region of origin of the person depicted, not just generic "white".
  • aesthetic portrait, not just a random snapshot.
  • historical images should be preferred, but they have the disadvantage of being b/w. Ideal are early colour photographs
  • avoid famous people
  • White Americans have their own article. They are not ideal for this one, since their 'ethnicity of origin' can rarely be determined

possibilities matching these criteria I can find are are: Image:Armeniangirl.jpg (two Armenian girls); Image:0000233523-004.jpg (Georgian girl); Image:Persian local woman.jpg (Persian girl); Image:Palestinian girl in Qalqiliya.jpg (Palestinian girl). I am sure we can find many others. The aim should be to present at least four images, covering Europe, Central Asia, North Africa and the Near East. The problem seems indeed to be that white people are somehow not considered "ethnic", and uploaders are often content to just describe the image as "blond man" or similar, without stating region of origin. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why can't we just have normal, everyday white people? Why do we have to have Arabs and pakis and armenians? Why not English and Scottish and German and Dutch, the real white people! --Hayden5650 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hayden5650, your argument borders on racism. The reasons for saying NO! to your rethorical question are so many as to question your encyclopedic intent. The Ogre 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole argument is a liberal joke and I'm not losing my account over it. Night ya'll --Hayden5650 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, Hayden, you are not helping. Certainly we can have an image of a Scotsman or Dutch, as one example of white ethicity, but your racialist innuendos are certainly not productive for this article. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use that ridiculous US census grouping as a reliable source, the history of those categories in the US makes the US Census Bureau nearly worthless as a source on this issue. It's fine when discussing the US perspective but not the world view. Not so long ago if you put Irish on the US census you wouldn't be counted as "white" and suddenly you can put down "Sudanese" you're counted as a white person? And I partially agree with Hayden on this one, instead of showing images of people who clearly represent the vast majority of white people some editors here feel the need to find some one guy that looks white in Pakistan. We might as well start add Asians to this article, after all their skin color isn't very different. JRWalko 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was part of the original image dispute that led to an attempted "no images" rule. The problem we encountered derives from the poor definition of the concept of "white people." Some editors advocated a very specific set of people he seemed to feel were "exemplary" whites. This selection focused upon Nordic & Germanic regions but inexplicably excluded Ashkenazi Jews, and of course excluded non-Europeans. I proposed adding Benjamin Netanyahu (of Lithuanian descent) and to a lesser extent, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a possible 'southern' white. Lukas19 couldn't tolerate having Netanyahu pictured (for some reason), so we ended up removing all of the pictures. As the conflict illustrated, Wikipedians, not reliable sources, were using their personal opinions to determine who is white and should be pictured - that is OR. It seems that this is again the case here. The Behnam 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion is a bit absurd. I like the family photo, because it is generic. It is a family of indisputable white people (the name of the article). Of course, there should be more photos here. But, the family photo is perfect as the article lead. Putting some specific famous person like Benjamin Netanyahu or King Abdullah at the top seems strange and unnecessary. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European genetic history[edit]

This is not concordant with white genetic history. Many of the haplogroups of Europeans are shared by non-whites. And many whites have non-european haplogroups. haplogroups are not concordant with physical appearance, it is for this reason I believe European genetics should not be in this article but should be in the article European genetic history.Muntuwandi 11:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neither is European genetic history a strict subtopic of this article, nor is this article a strict subtopic of European genetic history, but their are overlapping and should hence be mutually linked. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! The Ogre 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this has little to do with whiteness. In fact it is original research to imply that. there is no such thing as a white haplogroup. for all we know some of the haplogroups that spread into Europe were by europeans who were still black. Early cro-magnons fossils show they had long legs and short trunks and narrow bodies like east african nilotics such as the Maasai. this is indication they were still black because this type of body is adapted to hotter regions. After several thousands of years the cro-magnons evolved shorter legs and longer trunks. Some authors suggest that whiteness may have fully arisen only in the last 11,000 at the end of the holocene. It is thus wrong and original research to ascribe 40,000 years of genetic history to white people when several thousands of years Europeans were black. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf Muntuwandi 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parting note, remember that Northern Middle and Southern white europeans look very different, so we definately need pics showing the differences between Swedish, Germanic and Italian peoples. The faces of each look very different, especially the shape of the nose, hardness/softness of facial features and variations in color. --Hayden5650 12:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with regards to that ridiculous blonde picture, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard finding a pic of a white person with blonde hair! There's hardly such a shortage that we must resort to the odd Negro that has blonde hair --Hayden5650 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just to show that blondness is not concordant with whiteness. You do not have to be white to be blonde. That is why those sections were removed.Muntuwandi 12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about proving whether or not you have to be white to be blonde. As I said earilier, the article Black People has 29 pics, so we certainly don't need even more of them spilling into here. --Hayden5650 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the races are not discrete non-overlapping entities.Muntuwandi 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to halfcasts? Come on man, we all know what a white man is, why can't we just say it? --Hayden5650 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As expected from a buddy of Nordic_Crusader. Muntuwandi 12:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


guys, can you cut the edit-warring, I am trying to improve this article. Muntuwandi, it is not "original research" to state that hair colour is de facto correlated to skin colour, it is "research": of course we need to cite reliable sources discussing the topic. My involvement here is due precisely because I came here because I wanted some references discussing this correlation. I didn't find what I was looking for, but discovered that it was buried in the edit history. Obviously, there can be stray mutations towards blond hair in non-white populations. But these are exceptional, and surely shouldn't be discussed here, but on blonde hair. That said, can Hayden5650 please restrain himself from annoying other editors with his racialist nonsense. This should be a detached discussion of academic literature on the topic. We are not here to prove or disprove anything, but to report on scholarly debate. Krimpet (talk · contribs), I consider this protection somewhat premature. Don't lock down the article after two or three reverts. Often things smoothen out after half an hour or so of confrontation. And we have WP:3RR to take care of individual trouble-makers. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt no editors were trying to seek a consensus and were just steamrolling edits from the past. Most of this controversial material was being advocated for by User:Lukas19 who has since been blocked for promoting Nordicism. There has already been extensive discussion on the use of genetics and the conclusion is that genetics is non concordant with whiteness.
You can see how sub-consciously powerful eurocentric bias is. Dbachman why do you assume that when a black has white hair it is a stray mutation. It is most likely the other way round. The fact that people in the south pacific and Europeans have blonde hair is indicative that blonde hair genes were already in the ancestral population in Africa prior to the dispersal of humans. Both Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians have blonde hair. Since they are considered the first migrants out of Africa it says alot. Cavalli-Sforza states that the vast majority of genetic polymorphisms arose in the millions of years of human evolution prior to the dispersal of humans 50,000 years ago. Most of these polymorphisms came to differ in frequency by drift or selection. What this entails is that though new mutations have been occuring such as the RH-, most polymorphisms only differ in frequency between the "races". Muntuwandi 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, I am not interested in disputes between Nordicist and Afrocentric editors. I am only interested in references to academic studies. The sources I cite below show that light hair has been selected for together with light skin in mesolithic Europe. This has happened nowhere else. If you can produce a source for your claim that
"The fact that people in the south pacific and Europeans have blonde hair is indicative that blonde hair genes were already in the ancestral population in Africa prior to the dispersal of humans"
you are welcome to quote it, but in itself it doesn't appeal to me as very straightforward. But even if it was, this frankly wouldn't change anything about the mesolithic scenario. This isn't about blond hair in the South Pacific, this is about light skin, the sexual selection that led to light skin, and the features that co-evolved with this process. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Both-Aborigines-and-Europeans-Rooted-in-Africa-54225.shtml Muntuwandi 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with the article, there are several people who are white and do not have blond hair and there are people who are non-white who do have blond hair. This is why equating whiteness with blondeness from a taxonomic perspective is flawed. Australian Aboriginals are very much related to Europeans. Both groups are members of haplogroup N. This haplogroup is not found significantly in South east Asia or even in Melanesia which are all haplogroup M. Already you can see that both aboriginals and Europeans have straight and sometimes blonde hair. *Mitochondrial footsteps of the Old World human colonization: A single origin, several dispersal hypothesis

Muntuwandi 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any particular reason you are saying this? what does that have to do with the topic at hand? It is completely undisputed that the ancestors of Eurasians came Out of Africa some 80,000 years ago. This whole question of polymorphism concerns the mesolithic, about 50,000 years after the separation of Australians and Eurasians. The article you link doesn't even mention skin or hair. Can you try to stay a little bit on topic? Nobody is "equating whiteness with blondness" what are you talking about? dab (𒁳) 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin, hair and eye colour correlation[edit]

This is not the place to discuss various hair and eye colours in general. It is the place to discuss the correlation of skin colour with these. Sources relevant to this topic:

  • Barsh GS (2003) What Controls Variation in Human Skin Color? PLoS Biol 1(1): e27 [2]
    The characteristic phenotype of fair skin, freckling, and carrot-red hair is associated with large amounts of pheomelanin and small amounts of eumelanin and is caused by loss-of-function alleles in a single gene, the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) (Sturm et al. 1998; Rees 2000) However, MC1R variation has a significant effect on pigmentation only in populations where red hair and fair skin are common (Rana et al. 1999; Harding et al. 2000)
  • Shriver, M.D. & Parra, E.J. Comparison of narrow-band reflectance spectroscopy and tristimulus colorimetry for measurements of skin and hair color in persons of different biological ancestry. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 112, 17−27 (2000).[3]
  • [4]
    Did sexual selection alter the appearance of Europeans in a number of ways, and not simply by diversifying hair and eye color?
    According to the sexual selection hypothesis, European skin became whiter when Europe was predominantly steppe-tundra 25,000 to 10,000 years ago. If the cause was solely natural selection to promote vitamin D synthesis, or relaxation of selection for protection from sunburn and skin cancer, the depigmentation should have begun as soon as modern humans became established in Europe, i.e., c. 40,000 BP.
  • Female skin is probably at its palest in women of childbearing age and on highly adipose parts of the body, i.e., the breasts, the hips, the buttocks, and the thighs. In any event, this mark of feminity may have been targeted by sexual selection, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter-complexioned women (Aoki, 2002; Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost 2005; van den Berghe & Frost, 1986). This selection is apparent in the tendency of upper classes throughout the world to appropriate the fairest-skinned women available.
  • Aoki, K. (2002). Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited. Annals of Human Biology, 29, 589-608.
  • Frost, P. (2005). Fair Women, Dark Men. The Forgotten Roots of Color Prejudice. Cybereditions: Christchurch (New Zealand).
  • Frost, P. (1994a). Geographic distribution of human skin colour: A selective compromise between natural selection and sexual selection? Human Evolution, 9, 141-153.

Frost, P. (1988). Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 32, 38-58.

  • Madrigal L and W. Kelly 2006. Human skin-color sexual dimorphism: A test of the sexual selection hypothesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (online pub. www.interscience.wiley.com )
  • Sturm, R.A. and T.N. Frudakis (2004). Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. Trends in Genetics 20, 327-332.
  • Sturm, R.A., R.D. Teasdale, and N.F. Box (2001). Human pigmentation genes: identification, structure and consequences of polymorphic variation. Gene, 277, 49-62.
  • Frost, P. (1994). Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 507-514.[5]
  • On the Correlation Between Hair Colour and Eye Colour in Man, by K. P. Biometrika 1904 Biometrika Trust [6]
  • Jablonski NG, Chaplin G. 2000. The evolution of skin coloration.[7]
  • P. Frost, Why Do Europeans Have So Many Hair and Eye Colors? [8]
    MC1R and OCA2 variability should have developed almost entirely during this time window (c. 25,000 - 10,000 BP).
  • Frost, P. 2006. European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27:85-103

According to the 2006 Norton et al. study, light skin colour seems to have been successfully selected for paraphyletically in three unrelated instances in the Mesolithic. In one of these instances (the European one), light skin co-evloved with hair and eye colour polymorphism. This should maybe be treated in greater detail at European genetic history, but it is certainly relevant to this article as well. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) http://news.softpedia.com/news/Both-Aborigines-and-Europeans-Rooted-in-Africa-54225.shtml Muntuwandi 14:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

context? relevance? your point? dab (𒁳) 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is to show that blond hair could have arose in Africa and when australians and Europeans branched off from the common source each carried a set of genes coding for blond hair. Europeans later evolved light skin, australians evolved dark skin. Hence hair color does not covary with skin color. And since this article is about white people, mainly white skin, we need to play down the hair color. Someone just reinstated this hair color I'm not sure whether it is Dbachmann or Hayden. From a social perspective yes we associate blondes with white people just because the other blonds are from australasia are relatively few. But from a taxonomic perspective it is not valid.Muntuwandi 15:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can you cite a reliable source making that claim? Also, by the same token as saying that the "blond" gene was present in the "Out of Africa" population, the "white" gene would also have been present. It was still only selected for in the mesolithic. Whether blond hair in Australia and Europe is due to independent mutation, or a common original mutation, is a meaningful question, but not one that is relevant for this topic. Here, we are talking about processes in mesolithic Eurasia. What may or may not have happened in Australia at the same time is completely inconequential to that. I do have the impression that you are arguing against a statement that no-one has even made. dab (𒁳) 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate question, which is difficult to ask, is where white skin arose. It is not impossible it arose in Africa. Cavalli-Sforza.
At most genetic loci, African populations harbor some relatively common alleles that are absent in non-African populations; however, most of the alleles that are common in non-African populations are also common in African populations. Thus, the pattern of genetic variation is one of nested subsets, such that the variation in non-African populations is a subset of the variation found in African populations.THE Microevolution
while the blond gene is not specifically mentioned the very fact that non-African alleles are a subset of African alleles indicates that it is possible for the blond gene to have arisen in Africa and it is possible that it is still in Africa in some sort of recessive form.Muntuwandi 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, we can well state that hair colour polymorphism also appeared among Aboriginals. That's merely a parallel case. What is on-topic in this article is that skin, hair and eye colour were selected for together in the European mesolithic. Parallel cases like the Australian one may serve to put this into context as more or less normal, although nowhere else has the selection gone quite so far. P. Frost (1994) above indeed states that this selection is apparent in the tendency of upper classes throughout the world to appropriate the fairest-skinned women available -- The European mesolithic has simply pushed this trend farther than observed in any other population, it is by no means in principle unique to Europe. It appears that there would be sexual selection towards light skin everywhere, but in tropical region, this is counter-balanced by the physical disadvantages of light skin. In fact, since your Aboriginals are likewise situated at moderate latitudes, this could even be taken as independent confirmation of the general trend. I find it striking that "gentlemen prefer blondes" should be confirmed at such a fundamental anthropological level in this sense, and yes, this is relevant here, since white skin would probably never have evolved without this sexual selection bias. But if we can lift protection now, I'll be prepared to {{mergeto}} this discussion into Genetic history of Europe: a brief reference here should be sufficient. dab (𒁳) 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we are going to attempt to present certain hair and eye color deviations exhibited by Europeans in the "white people" article, the sources actually need to cite these hair and eye color deviations and characteristics defining "white people," NOT just Europeans. Correlations found within European genetics may be discussed elsewhere but this remains relevant at an article about European genetics, not here, because these sources are about European genetics, not "white people." The Behnam 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Behnam, this is nonsense. Nobody claims "white people" are a unified group. Indeed, if you would read the article, you would note that there are at least three loci of independent (paraphyletic) origin. If you insist that every statement we make here apply to every "white" individual, we might as well delete this article. Instead, we have to address the various subgroups individually. Europeans are just one major subgroup (and of course themselves far from homogenous). Homo sapiens exhibits skin colour polymorphism., and 'white' skin is the innovation. 'White' populations exhibit hair and eye colour polymorphism. Your suggestion that this should not be mentioned here makes about as much sense as demanding that light skin should not be mentioned in human skin colour since it affects only a subset of the population. dab (𒁳) 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This had been discussed before during meditation, with the meditator deciding against Benham Talk:White_people/Archive_11#Behnam.27s_view. He just seems to be making same point over and over...KarenAER 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In trying to define a group of people such as white people we should define them based on the common characteristics of the group. For example those who are identify as black include Africans, melanesians, Australians, and African Americans. In such a situation it is pointless to discuss genetics because the diversity is huge. Many African Americans have considerable amounts of European Admixture, yet they identify as black. I have even seen some with blue or green eyes. So the defining feature of who is black is primarily dark skin the question of whether someone has frizzy or straight hair, brown eyes or a broad nose is not so relevant to blackness. Consequently trying to describe each and every feature of some people who identify as white does not define whiteness. If we decide to describe types then we might as well resurrect the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean subraces, which is a throwback to the 19th century. Furthermore the features that are described are not unique to whites, since blond hair is found amongst melanesians, australians and albinos of all races.Muntuwandi 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blondness, blue/green eyes are ALMOST exculisive to whites. That's why they are RELEVANT to this article. Maybe this issue would resolve itself if we add exactly this to the article and note that there may be non-white blonds, blue eyed people etc...KarenAER 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day scientific racism[edit]

The section on physiology and genetics is modern day scientific racism. The section implies that white physiology is fundamentally different from the physiology of other races. Do whites have a different digestive system or a different cardiovascular system. That is nonsense. Furthermore sorry to sound like a broken record but european genetics are non-cordant with race. All "european" haplogroups extend clinally even across geographic boundaries into Asia and Africa. The same with African haplogroups. No scientists has ever described Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) as a "white haplogroup". Furthermore the haplogroups are not naturally occurring groups, these haplotypes have been artificially grouped together by scientists simply for ease of classification. Therefore you cannot conclusively identify someones race based on mitochondrial DNA since millions of whites have "African" haplogroups[9] and millions of blacks have "European" haplogroups.

My proposition is that this article should primarily focus on the social construction of whiteness and not genetics. A small mention of the genetics of light skin such as SLC24A5, but this gene only accounts for 25-38% of light skin. The other genes that are responsible for light skin have yet to be identified. Furthermore the genes for blondism as far as I know have also not been identified. Sexual selection is likely to have played a role but most of the hypothesis regarding this are entirely speculative. It is most likely that drift, and both natural and sexual selection played a role. So sexual selection should not be given undue weight. If this is something that is agreeable to other editors I am willing to request for unprotection.Muntuwandi 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People with your mentality say everything is racist. There is nothing racist about science, only the way that it may be used to prove or disprove a particular point of view.
Our digestive system or cardiovascular system is not that much different to that of an ape or pig either, that is why humans can walk around with a pig's heart in their chest. Are you saying that there is no genetic difference between humans and pigs?
It is in fact your own subconscious racism that is motivating you to try and prevent information being presented. That is why if a picture of a white businessman wearing a suit was put up, you'd delete it, and why if a picture of a negro wearing rags or native costume, ie animal skins was put up, you'd delete it because the racism within you says that the business suit wearing man is better than the negro in his native garb. See this for an illustration of how beliefs and truths both influence knowledge.
Blonde hair is no more racist than brunette or red hair, all of which are produced by genetic phenotypes. The fact that the blonde phenotype is far, far more common in white people is not racist, it's just a fact, and has been long before the days of Adolf or any of your Nordicist conspiracies.
White is a gene, and is quite simply proven by the fact that two white parents produce white babies, just like negro's produce negro babies. Don't bring up albinism. This article isn't about genetic mutations and freaks of nature.
Lastly, I think all the subconscious points of view are best illustrated by the fact that every race under the sun seems to feel the need to try and claim to be white. Why do people not try to claim to be negro or oriental? Those articles certainly don't seem to have the same problems. Except for the sub-saharan negroes, who try desperately to claim North Africans as also being negro, so they can claim such inventions as the Pyramids of ancient Egypt, and all the civilisation that went with it. However, the North Africans are trying to claim ties north, not south with the white civilisation. --Hayden5650 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a lot to learn Dear Hayden. You are a racist, admit it. Be proud of it, take ownership of your ignorance. It's pretty ironic that you say to Muntuwandi that, "your own subconscious racism that is motivating you to try and prevent information being presented". It is you who is trying to put a white superior spin on everything, and you are consciously being racist, yet denying it. It's obvious by your edits. And it is not proven that two white parents produce white children, and vice versa. There have been cases where an obviously white married couple, who knew of no admixture, had a "colored" child. The husband divorced his wife thinking she had an affair, but later found out that his ancestry had a black African, it was he who held the gene for their child to be of color. Although, it's is not the norm, of course, but it can happen. The same for black folks. I've seen children of African Americans as white as Irish, but both parents where "black", well one was 1/4 white. But in America, at the time, and even now, it's considered as black. The one drop rule. You do not know for sure your or anyone else's ancestry, where the "gene" can produce an offspring with traits from an ancestor. And another thing -- the "white gene" IS a mutation. Look it up. If you could see my family, the high school biology that you seem to know, does not fit. As I learned in junior high, when we did the little chart thing of dominate genes. My family didn't fit. My parents have brown eyes, and hair, so do their parents, except one had hazel eyes, but my little sister has blonde hair and blue eyes, though she looks like my father. That did not fit in with the simplified biology chart of dominate genes of hair and eye color. It's more complicated than that. Do some real research in science, genetics and biology. - Jeeny Talk 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One such famous case happened in South Africa to Sandra Laing Muntuwandi 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for that link. I remember my mother telling me the story of the "colored child" and the white parents, and the husband divorcing the mother thinking she had an affair with a "black man". I was very young, and didn't ask any questions, but believed my mum, of course. I wish she were alive today so I could ask her about the "case". I don't believe it was Sandra Laing, as I think it was in America. I found this just now about throw back to the dominate genes. In my early high school biology class I wasn't taught about the complexity, just eye and hair color. As I believe Hayden is going on. I was the only one in my biology class that the simplified chart of dominate/recessive genes didn't fit my family. It did make me want to know more, and further my education, which I did. But then, as a child, I felt like an outcast, but nothing like Sandra Laing, of course. That is so sad. I friggen hate people, sometimes. I'm sorry, I'm in one of those moods. Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwback has probably caused many divorces in the past. Since Hayden decided to raise the issue, I've started an article on Sandra Laing.Muntuwandi 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mom was a school doctor (a GP - back when schools had doctors in Montreal - in the late '70s), and she told me of two similar cases she'd seen in the schools: one where both parents were definitely "black" (as folk taxonomies would call them), but the child was very lightly coloured (could have passed off for a "white" with a nice suntan), and another case where both parents were only very mildly "coloured" (nice suntan type) and the child's skin was a dark, rich chocolate colour. Fortunately, in these cases, she had a chance to explain some genetics to them to convince them that there was no "milkman" involved in either case. Heck, I mostly freckle if I try to tan, while my brother could pass off as being from Southern Italy in the summer. So, if anything, race is indeed something absolutely "fuzzy".--Ramdrake 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, especially in the United States and the Americas, where a lot of people who call themsleves white and who may look very white are not that white indeed. There genetics can tell very interesting stories. ---—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.167.100 (talk • contribs)

Once again the discussion has shifted from the hundreds of millions of people who fit the definition perfectly to the one person somewhere that's somehow supposed to prove something. JRWalko 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because these exceptions have a crucial import to any theory about races, likewise would a ball falling upwards or finding rabbit fossils from the Permian have drastic consequences on the theories of gravity or evolution.--Ramdrake 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people here are making quite silly arguments. Most scientific concepts have their exceptions. This doesnt mean we should throw them out. And here's an interesting piece of information:
"We talk about the prejudicial aspect of this. If you demand that kind of accuracy, then one could make the same arguments about sex and age!
You'll like this. In a recent study, when we looked at the correlation between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus self-description, we found 99.9% concordance between the two. We actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome! So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? No. Also, there is ageism—prejudice related to age in our society. A lot of these arguments, which have a political or social aspect to them, can be made about all categories, not just the race/ethnicity one...." [10]
I do believe some editors here like Muntuwandi are simply trolling....KarenAER 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No we aren't trolling. We're just trying to represent the position, held by most anthropologists, that race is primarily a social construct with relatively little biological basis to it. Thus, establishing some difference between races is as arbitrary as, say, describing the races of humanity as "tall, medium and short". Skin color and features is just one way to categorize human diversity, but in the end, this difference is mostly, litterally skin deep and no more.--Ramdrake 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most anthropologists? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. And besides, there is no claim here that says WHITE PEOPLE IS A BIOLOGICAL RACE. So you are being disruptive and irreleveant. White people is a group of people and I dont see any reason why we shouldnt give some genetic information about a group of people...KarenAER 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [11]: A similar

survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). I'm not being either disruptive or irrelevant, so please mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Ramdrake 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:
biologists 16%
developmental psychologists 36%
physical anthropologists 41%
cultural anthropologists53%"[12]
Since the newer survey didnt ask the question to biologists, I think the overwhelming support of biologists for the concept of race is still valid. Also there is this:
"In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have called attention to the fact that although the concepts of cline, population, and ethnocity, as well as humanitarian and political concerns, have led many scientists away from the notion of race, a recent survey showed that physical anthropologists were evenly divided as to whether race is a valid biological concept. Noting that among physical anthropologists the vast majority of opposition to the race concept comes from population geneticists, any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race."
If you arent being irrelevant, what's your point? There is no claim in white people article which says whites are a biological race. KarenAER 17:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The black and white twins as well Muntuwandi 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well in that case we better redefine race to take into consideration the 0.0000000000001% of people who are freaks of nature. --Hayden5650 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the problem is that multiracial countries like the US die to keep alive myths and lies. Most people who are called black have indeed European ancestry and many who are called white, are of non-European ancestry, be it Amerindian or Native American, African, Asian, Pacific, etc. Only Europeans can properly be called white people, although Americans are famous for their zeal of stealing and appropriating Identities (American is a good example. America existed with that word much before the US existed. Look how they use it now). White people is people from Europe. The rest are the descendants of European colonies, by definition the result of miscigenation or admixture (do not know if miscigenation has negative connotation, that is not my point)and they cannot be white in the same way that they are not Europeans. They can claim some European ancestry, that is all. A person can look as fair as an albino and be of African ancestry (there is a good picture of that). That is an obvious example. Others are less visible. Americans and others will have to face the fact that they are not Europeans. They are a new race, with different shades, that is all. And statistics from that country are funny enough. Even if we rely on such suvbjective things like looks, one just has to visit the US to see that they are manly a mixed nation. Where do they get their statistics from? From people who call themselves white but who are indeed multiracial in many cases and who form the multiracial majority of that wountry. Ther is a section there of Americans saying who is white and who ius not. Who are they to say that? Most funny part. A bunch of Non-whites telling whites if they are white or not. Funny America. Dann.__

Dont be silly. There has been racial mixing in the US but it's been very rare. It's still very rare. And there were other factors like one drop rule which contributed to white Americans retaining their predominantly European ancestry. An example:
"...In European Americans from State College, the West African and Native American contribution is low (0.7% and 3.2%, respectively)..." [13] KarenAER 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is always difficult to keep apart cultural identity and genetic makeup. The two are correlated, of course, but not strictly. Racial demographics of the United States tells us that there is a "multiracial identity movement". People who actually check more than one "race" in the census account for 2.4% of the population, while 5.5% identify as "other". It is still true that White American is a term definable with reasonable clarity. For the purposes of this article, it is enough to state that these make up 75% of US population, and leave it for the specialized article to treat difficulties in definition. Anyway, the main misconception here seems to be that "white" means "European", while in reality (even in the US definition), "white" includes a much larger area, viz. European, North African, Near Eastern and Central Asian (roughly equivalent to: Indo-European, Semitic, Hamitic, Finno-Ugric, Caucasian and Turkic peoples). dab (𒁳) 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the section on genetics because it is not concordant with whiteness for example Blonde blue eyed brit with the DNA of an African.Muntuwandi 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an exception...KarenAER 11:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

alright, I compiled Image:White people variety.jpg to match Image:Afro diversity.jpg. See commons:Image talk:White people variety.jpg for the thought that went into it (and feel free to compile something better). I know it could be better in principle, but looking through commons:Category:Portraits, you will realize there are limitations of choice. dab (𒁳) 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer, if we are to have Arab type people, that you find whiter ones. They are too dark and would not be seen as white. A Persian (Iranian) would fit the part. I'll have a look round today and post it here on the talkpage first --Hayden5650 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the picture as it is serves to demonstrate the diversity of "White" peoples. After all, this isn't "Aryan Nations". Caucasoids have a range of colors and aspects, and restricting it would do a disservice to the purpose.--Ramdrake 23:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. But this article is not about anthropological Caucasoids, it is about White skinned people. And White is a color, it does not cover a range of colors. That is why we have other colors in our vocabulary, to describe the diversity you speak of. --Hayden5650 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, "White" was synonym to "Caucasoid", and not a subgroup thereof.--Ramdrake 23:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing nothing but OPINIONS and NO SOURCES. The image in black people is uncontroversial while the selection in this picture is exactly the opposite. Once again we have ignored a vast majority of people (see every single discussion on this article) to present diversity where diversity may not even exist. Three out of four of the people in the complilation photo would not even be considred to be white in the historical European context. I strongly disagree with the use of images that do not clearly, uncontroversially depict the subject of this article. JRWalko 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that "White" is restricted to people of European origins only. Can you cite a source for this restricted definition? Thanks.--Ramdrake 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, how about the National Library of Medicine replacing their categorization of "whites" with "European Continental Ancestry Group" [14]? Here is my point, look at Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, or Romano Prodi. Is there any definition of "white people" that they do not fit? Now look at the picture in this article and explain to me why, instead of using three people from different countries, who are CLEARLY representative of the close to a billion people of European ancestry who are indisputably "white" it has been decided to use two people from outside of Europe? JRWalko 01:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there are many millions of whites who are from outside Europe? Please see that the same bulletin you quote also denotes "Caucasoid Race" as now being the "European Continental Ancestry Group". There is no doubt that all four people pictured in the header mosaic are Caucasoid, even if they're obviously not Europeans.--Ramdrake 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For pete's sake, this article is not about Caucasoids!! Just like Black People is seperate from Negroid!! They are not synonyms, Caucasoid refers to anthropological features, pick up a dictionary and see for yourself! --Hayden5650 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, why are you even editing this article when it is clear from the userbox on your user page that you do not even believe in the existence of races? Are you here simply to push that POV? --Hayden5650 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same ? for you Hayden, are you here to push a POV? I'll say in good faith you are trying to better the article, just as Ramdrake is. As you, he is interested in this subject. White color skin is not a race. Just because someone has a different POV, does not mean they cannot edit articles, as long as one provides reliable, verifiable sources to back up their contributions. - Jeeny Talk 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opening a dialogue with an unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry is hardly the best way to engage constructively in a discussion --Hayden5650 04:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. I removed the aka reference, although I was not accusing you as a sockpuppet, but a friend of said user Nordic Crusader. As he so much loved his new name, he was so distraught that he had to give it up. And you had said to me that you had conversed via "cell phone" with said user, it was only natural for me to assume you both had the same agenda. A certain agenda that you have accused Ramdrake of having because of his user boxes. In fact, I agree with you that the black people article is different from the Negroid article, just as the Caucasoid article is different from this article. As they are outdated terms. So now, can you answer the question? - Jeeny Talk 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, can someone explain to me the difference between White People and Caucasoids? I'm honestly asking, because every single reference I looked up says they're one and the same... I'd say these two articles should be merged, as they describe the same populations.--Ramdrake 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I said above:

People! Caucasian is basically only used in the States. In most European countries a Caucasian is a person or people from the Caucasus! That is to say, someone from the Countries and regions of the Caucasus (Adygea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Krasnodar Krai, North Ossetia-Alania and Stavropol Krai). Wikipedia must assume a universal NPOV. Thank you.

The article Caucasian Race states that "In Europe, especially in Russia and nearby, Caucasian usually describes exclusively people who are from the Caucasus region or speak the Caucasian languages."
The same article also says that "The concept's existence is based on the now disputed typological method of racial classification", and was, in fact, a product of Scientific racism.

The Ogre 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As fantastic as that is, the question was about Caucasoids. It is an anthropological definition, where the race/species of the humanoid is determined using many different measurements, including but not limited to: Facial angle, length of arms, length of cubit, length of legs, breadth of shoulders, position of eye sockets, nasal and jaw features, cranial capacity etc. It is a scientific term, often employed in forensics, where there is no longer flesh to identify what species the body is. Racism does not come into it, as there is absolutely nothing socio-related employed in the science of it. --Hayden5650 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:White people variety.jpg
A selection of "white" faces, clockwise: a woman of European origin, a Bedouin man, a Caucasian (Chechen) woman and a Berber man.
File:Woman sunlight.jpg
I get your meaning, but I'd like to have at least one reliable, verifiable source that makes a difference between Caucasoid (not Caucasian, that's altogether something different, we all agree) and White people. Every reference I have tells me these two expressions are fully interchangeable. I know that Caucasoids is based on skin color and skeletal and facial features; however, "White people" probably also is, or else it would qualify all albino people of African, Oceanian, East Asian, etc. descent as well, and become quite meaningless even as a social category in the process.--Ramdrake 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this photo should be included, Dbachmann's photo is biased towards younger women. Aliens visiting earth would get the impression that people who are identified as white are all young.Muntuwandi 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC) young.[reply]

File:Tamil man.jpg
Tamil man

The problem with the definition of the caucasian race based on craniofacial measurement and other features such as nose shape arises because many such people are found in Africa and Asia who are dark skinned. Muntuwandi 12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Many Somali's would be considered Caucasoid in forensics, yet they are mostly very dark, and are Black people of Africa. Same with Ethiopians. - Jeeny Talk 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ONCE AGAIN:
1) Image displaying eye color pigmention, a physical trait of "white people", REMOVED
2) Image displaying the genetic distribution of haplogroups attributed to "white people", REMOVED
3) Image displaying black figures hunting lighter animals, REINSTATED
A few editors with clear POV agendas (look at userpages) have again exchanged sources and reason for a cave painting in a desparete attempt to apread their agenda, get help, it's unhealthy, stop removing facts here and reinterpreting things for what you want them to be. Parts of this article are absolutely ridiculous and useless. You even managed to use Carleton Coon as a source for your cause, the man basically stated that Europeans were the master race! That's not even laughable but rather quite sad. JRWalko 02:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1)Eye color pigmentation is a physical trait of all people, the distribution of the trait is not necessarily related to whiteness. Unless one supports the view that some people are more white than others. Most people who identify as white have brown eyes much like the rest of the world.
2)Euro genetics are not concordant with whiteness for example Blonde blue eyed brit with the DNA of an AfricanMuntuwandi 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3) With regard to the cave painting, well that is up to the other editors, but it is an interesting bit of history. It gives evidence of a putative date for the origin of light skin.Muntuwandi 02:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Then why supress the image of the frequency and distribution of light eye color pigmentation when it is statistically directly related to skin pigmentation and hair color?
2) A man of nearly complete European ancestry has blue eyes and blond hair, what is that supposed to prove? Show me that those traits came from his gene from the African tribe, especially since those mutations did not take place in African populations that were that man's ancestors.
3) Figures in that painting also don't have eyes, am I to assume that sensory organs evolved after the development of the bow?
Why do you insist on proving your points by displaying genetic anomalies? There have been humans born with multiple limbs and heads yet we do not describe "humans" as organisms that are known for those traits. I've said ti several times now: This article fails to address issues common among the VAST majority of populations that are supposed to be covered by it. JRWalko 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think this photo should be included, Dbachmann's photo is biased towards younger women. Aliens visiting earth would get the impression that people who are identified as white are all young.Muntuwandi 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Then why did you add JUST the picture of old woman before on this article if you are so interested at including different age groups and not giving wrong impressions to aliens? And here's an another pic you've prepared: KarenAER 11:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Oceania africa europe.jpg

Turkic peoples[edit]

why in "see also" are not mentioned Turkic peoples people?

The Definitive Image Gallery[edit]

After looking at the photographs given to represent the Negro race in the Black People article here, I have attempted to mirror the people in those photos with their white 'equivalents', or close to it. The following is a table, comparing the negro photo with the white example:

Negro Position White Position Motherland
Wangari Muta Maathai Doctor, Nobel Peace Prize Wolfgang Ketterle Professor, Nobel Prize Physics Germany
Michael Jordan Sportsman Anna Kournikova Sportswoman Russia
Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller Jamaican Prime Minister Prince William Prince England
'San Man' Traditional Clothing Scotsman Traditional Clothing Scotland
Dionne Warwick Singer, Actress Dolph Lundgren Actor, Director Sweden
Condolezza Rice US Secretary of State George William Casey Jr Chief of Staff US Army United States
Oromo Ethiopian boys 'Average' lads Girl in Dirndl National costume Germany, Austria

Gallery[edit]

The following individuals are White by virtually all definitions cited in this article.


I hope this will find consensus, I took quite a while to try and mirror the Black People gallery, to prevent any chance of perceived racism or POV --Hayden5650 04:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, as a first glance. Oh, and it's not the "Negro" gallery. It's the Black people gallery. - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just changed my comment --Hayden5650 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second glance, use some brunettes in the gallery. There are more brunettes than there are "natural" blondes in the world. - Jeeny Talk 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, when I find a fair use one I will add it in. --Hayden5650 04:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good concept, but I would avoid using celebrities as the models. I like the captions Austrian Woman and Scotsman -- maybe more of the same. --Kevin Murray 05:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but check out Black People. The idea is to keep the photos as closely aligned as possible, with the Black People Gallery. Therefore, where they have a prominent Negro represented, I have a prominent White person represented, and vice versa with random photographs. This is to prevent any perception of bias or point-of-view going into the choosing of photographs. --Hayden5650 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, just like in the Black people article there was consensus, a while back, to use well known people, so people can easily recognize them. I understand your comment, and I had said the same on the black people article, but it was pointed out to me that known people are less likely to be contested. Because celebrities, politicians, etc. can be checked out. Which I agree. That's why I removed the "white" family, for who knows their nationality or mixture, if any? Hayden, please stop using the word Negro for black people. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I won't, no offence intended. Apparently some people prefer Negro to 'Black', but that's another discussion for another day and a different article at that ;) --Hayden5650 05:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes brunette will complete the gallery. --Vonones 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some children too.
I will find a fair-use Brunette, to everyone: please don't refactor my comment, this includes the gallery as it relates directly to the table above it, and is part of my intent to find a neutral ground. --Hayden5650 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Armeniangirl.jpg
Armenian girls
  • I object to this having to be some type of quid pro quo with the Black article. I think that the gallery can be an important feature, but should give some information about the heritage of the people shown e.g., nation of origin or subgroup. --Kevin Murray 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall add part of the table showing the Motherland of the various examples to below the gallery, would that solve your issue? --Hayden5650 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, can we get the Armenian girl up there? and remove the old guy or muscle guy since its better with culture related, ethinc stuff. --Vonones 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dolph Landgren (the 'muscleguy') is the parallel of a Black woman of similar occupation. And is providing a sample of Swedish descent. The next picture added should be of someone with darker hair --Hayden5650 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how it looks. I'd like to see a wider variety of example including southern and eastern european. --Kevin Murray 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin and Hayden, I agree, but like I said the reason to use well known people is to prevent an edit war, and POV objections, if you put random unknown people. Just as the white/black twins. One is obviously white, but is really of mixed "race". Should we add that one to the gallery? - Jeeny Talk 05:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with you there Jeeny, I may include in the article one of those hidden lines of text that people see only if they try and edit, pointing them here to this discussion. Particularly the table of White/Black parallels, so they can see both the articles are as consistent and equally represented as possible. --Hayden5650 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery II - open edits[edit]

The following individuals are White by virtually all definitions cited in this article.

The following people have one parent who may be described as "white".

Removed unknowns and poor/redundant examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)

How are Prince William and the Chief of Staff of the US Army poor or unknown? They must be included as being both well known, and worldwide examples --Hayden5650 05:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prince William should stay, as he is well-known and it's obvious he's white. lol. - Jeeny Talk 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US chief of staff is not a specific example of a heritage
    • Prince William is half German and half British. --Kevin Murray 06:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both ethnicities are white anyway, there is no doubt he is white --Hayden5650 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go with all the POV again. --Hayden5650 05:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in your mind, but we need a higher level of verifiability. Why use a mixed ethnicity instead of a full Britian?

And also, where is the sense in having a Black/White photo when we are describing color? --Hayden5650 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I agree. And I can't believe it. :) - Jeeny Talk 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them. Now add an another brunette. - Jeeny Talk 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should make half known people, and the other half natural people like in there livestyles cultural ones. --Vonones 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that as long as the pictures tie to an article at WP, where he photo is also displayed --Kevin Murray 06:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two women needed to balance. - Jeeny Talk 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Clinton? former 1st Lady and possible Presedential candidate --Hayden5650 06:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see some women, but Hilary being of mixed heritage does not seem like a good example. I'd rather stick to demonstrating diverse known heritages. --Kevin Murray 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No your saying that because shes a democrat Bush has his spies. --Vonones 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What mixed heritage does Hiliary Clinton have? - Jeeny Talk 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What heritage does she have? She is a meanigless example. I support Hilary and Bill, am an American, but think that US examples are not productive. --Kevin Murray 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Margrethe II of Denmark? A woman, and in a very notable position --Hayden5650 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that, but with Dolf we might be redundant. --Kevin Murray 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Beatrix of the Netherlands, whilst notable, some of these women may have once been brunette, but now are greying --Hayden5650 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We old people still have some validity. --Kevin Murray 06:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better. --Vonones 06:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, all the additons are still blondes, now the discussion has died down a bit I'll find a good, notable Brunette to add in --Hayden5650 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennfer anneston! --Vonones 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it coincidence, but I'm watching Friends as we speak and she looks decidedly blonde! Courtney Cox has darker hair --Hayden5650 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh I thought she was a brunette :P --Vonones 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol she might be, I wonder how many Hollywood Actresses actually have their natural hair color --Hayden5650 06:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True we might have to research that too :) --Vonones 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict, 3 friken times!) LOL, Hayden, Sofia Loren, and JFK are brunettes. And Tony Blair is kind of in the middle. Don't worry about it for now. Maybe later if anyone has objections. Smoke a cigarette. - Jeeny Talk 06:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an eastern european and an Iranian. Let's get a couple of diverse women. --Kevin Murray 06:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus to replace the current gallery with the one in this section? --Kevin Murray 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect parallel construction of gallery[edit]

All in all the black people article has about 30 photos, at least 26 are portraits but with more than 30 people. Of these 10 are celebs the rest are average people. Furthermore a good number of them may be found in multiple racial categories such as tiger woods, chavez and sadat, the coloured family and all Oceanic peoples. This is helpful in understanding how blackness is constructed in different places. Whereas this present gallery suggested for the white people article has no such variation, everyone is just well "white".

If you look at the present version, all the women are young white women. This is biased,ageism there are several middle aged women on the black people article. Wangari, condi or the Vanuatu woman etc. If aliens looked at the current gallery they would exclude older white women from the race. Muntuwandi 07:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from my ciggy, each edit conflict is worth a pack ;) And Muntuwandi, some of the discussion above is about older people, at the moment I am looking for a notable older women, who still has brunette hair, (i.e, not grey) --Hayden5650 07:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am concerned is that this may deteriorate into some tabloid type beauty contest.Muntuwandi 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again. I and others have worked hard to diversify this. --Kevin Murray 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That photo of Sopho Khalvashi might do the trick, she's not old but does have nice dark hair and is from another country, adding to the diversity. --Hayden5650 07:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the approxiamte ages are roughly: 49,26,35,45,43,70,53,65,60,53,57,& 21. --Kevin Murray 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the pictures should be of young people. Since blondes, brunettes, and red-heads get white hair or dye their hair when they are old, older whites do not exhibit the associated white traits as well as younger whites. Also, older people loose the even skin coloration of youth and have blotchy skin, illustrating the archetypical white skin less well if the article uses old people. Lastly, older peoples' faces sag, hiding the facial structure of whites.----DarkTea 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's poppycock, white skin is white skin no matter the age. Also, many, many younger people dye their hair. I totally disagree and will protest to delete the whole gallery if only young people are represented. - Jeeny Talk 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteness and blackness are constructed a little differently. This may seem unfair but the reality is that we live in a world that is saturated with images of white people in the media. Consequently using the same images on this article may not add value in defining what whiteness is. Thus I don't believe that the current gallery will survive the scrutiny of other editors for long. I believe galleries have been proposed in the past and they were always taken down. In order to make it more acceptable I propose including multiracials, with a view to explaining why they are not considered white, but black or another race, despite having white ancestry. Also including non-white caucasian to illustrate why they are classified as caucasian but not considered white. Also a comparison of East Asian skin color with white skin color. This is of interest because both populations have light skin. If both a white person and an East asian were to visit some uncontacted tribe of dark skinned people, the tribe may not be able to distinguish the two as of a different race. However in our social constructions we do. Muntuwandi 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to include multiracials, Asians, Middle Easterners just to show how they are not white?----DarkTea 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unreferenced analogy would be as follows: If you had a pottle of black paint, and added yellow paint, red paint, or even white paint, it would still be very dark, possibly even black. It certainly would not then be called white or yellow. However, if you were to take a pot of white paint, as soon as you add another color to it, it would no longer look white, but a shade of the added color. A mother and father who are white/black or black/white will always have a child that looks more black than white. e.g. Halle Berry, and she admits to identifying more as black than white. --Hayden5650 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the US. In other parts of the world mixed race individuals may identify more with their white heritage. In latin american countries such as Brazil, there is no one drop rule. It is possible that some light skinned African Americans would be considered white in Brazil Racial ambiguities in Brazil.Muntuwandi 09:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a suggestion, since on the black people article there are people like Obama, he is half white, though socially constructed black. For example in a matrilineal society people identify with the ethnicity of their mothers. In such a society Obama would be white. Muntuwandi 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about redefining the terms, or what should be. --Kevin Murray 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not redefining terms, in brazil for example the term branca means white but is applied to people who would be considered hispanic in the US. the loura is applied to blonds. this means that whiteness is constructed differently[15].Muntuwandi 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is reaching to make an obscure point. Latin America is a diverse environment including "Native" Americans (basically Asian), Sub Saharan-African, Arabic, and Europeans. The migration from Spain in the 16th century was heavilly populated by Spaniards of Arabic blood seeking refuge from the Inquisition. Most of us in America are of mixed lineage, and make poor examples for displaying traditional white diversity. I think that the topic of further evolution away from White, Black etc. is important, but not specifically germane to this article. --Kevin Murray 10:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final photo selection[edit]

I think the 12 photos we now have, 6 Males and 6 Females of various ethnicities within the White race is just about perfect --Hayden5650 11:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a limit, but let's pick a continuity together. --Kevin Murray 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current selection (unless it is changed as I write this) is representative, and has been approved via consensus of other editors. Let's leave it as is --Hayden5650 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need photos of Spanish and Egyptians, they are under constant debate as to what their racial identification is --Hayden5650 11:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no I don't agree that there was a consensus for your changes. Waht I see is support for recognized people and diversity away from a glamor page. Changing Kennedy to Clinton has no discussion. I suggest that we put all of the potential photos up there and then discuss the trimming one at a time. --Kevin Murray 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an encyclopaedia, that's what the talkpage is for, not out there at the store-front where people are constantly reading! --Hayden5650 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd say let's get to work on a compromise. --Kevin Murray 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's leave it as is. We don't need a million photos. It is now a fair mirror of what is on the Black People article, is representative, and is fairly non-contentious. Adding Spanish and Egyptians is very contentious --Hayden5650 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with your limit of 12; let's each try to compromise on 12 from below, or others if you feel this is not complete: --Kevin Murray 12:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sick of those Armenian girls, they look like Albinos. The whole first and last row is unnessesary and I don't believe those Spanish photos belong there --Hayden5650 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give up the Armenina girls and Zapatero, Can you sacrifice the Scotsman and Austrian?

We need the youth of the Austrian woman, I'd like to see the Sami woman given up, along with Raina Kabaivanska. She's too old and the picture looks too obviously old --Hayden5650 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I can see getting rid of Sami and Raina - let's see how it looks now.
Why are you insisting on these old photos of Italian actresses etc, they look out of place. Newer photos are better
I'd go with a newer Italian woman. Happy to mak ehtat work if you've got one in mind. --Kevin Murray 12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better now, can we leave it like this for the time being, its 12.30am here and I do have work in the morning --Hayden5650 12:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can compromise at the following and we can see what others thnik. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, let's see what the others think. I'm off now, have a good evening --Hayden5650 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nouri is an Arab. And even Arabs state that they do not self-identify as whites, DESPITE the legal definitions, in US. Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience, by the Arab American Institute
In Canada, since he's an Arab, he'd be in non-white and non-native visible minority group.
In Europe, we have UK and Norway sections, and both use white synonymous with European.
So either take him off the gallary or note that he is a non-white according to many definitions...
And TOO many politicans...KarenAER 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kimi Raikkonen qualifying.jpg
Kimi Raikkonen
Karen, welcome to the discussion on this topic; I've been impressed with your cleanup in other areas this evening. There are few good pictures on WP to choose from and it has been easy to find politicians and actors. I too believe that Arabs are separate, but others disagree. I just reach a compromise with Hayden and agreed to let others comment on our compromise, so I am not going to make any more changes now. I'd sure be open to other approaches. --Kevin Murray 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anna Kournikova and Dolph Lundgren are superb examples of ultra-beautiful whites. These two should definitely be used as examples of whites. Kimi Raikkonen should be in the gallery to show a brave white man. The proud Scottish man in the kilt should be included because he shows the continuity of a European cultural tradition that dates back thousands of years in the British Isles. Monica Belluci can be a representative of the darker European. All of the other photos are of old people or are bad quality, so they shouldn't be used.----DarkTea 12:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DT, my objective is to have more than just a collage of white faces at the gallery, but also try to show the variety that comes from regions. I also would like to see the major ethnics groups represented which is why I have pushed for some of the photos. I'm not that concerned over who we use as long as the diversity is represented. What does Kimi Raikkonen demonstrate? I see your point in some ways, but this should not only be about beauty. --Kevin Murray 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about these?

The Behnam 17:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

forget it, most of these are famous. I am automatically opposed to anyone too well known, because recognition of the face will distract from the features we want to illustrate. Also, my suggestion was made in best faith from a perfectly neutral stance. I frankly find it bad style to remove it, and if possible slap a few warning tags on the article: The suggested image wasn't perfect, but it was a fair attempt. It is very easy to criticize things from the armchair, but I would challenge people to present a better solution instead of removing the merely fair one without replacement. dab (𒁳) 18:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave but one suggestion: would it be possible to have a few more non-Europeans (also non-Americans) in the gallery? I think it would speak better of the diversity of the subject.--Ramdrake 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benham, DB, and RD: We had a bit of a tustle laast night getting some compromise. I at fisrt opposed celebrities, but there is smoe insistance that their use allows better verifiability of national origin. We have 12 shots at the gallery which is a compromise from my preference for more diversity. We have a German, French, Iraqi, Georgian, Italian, , Austrian, Basque, Russian, Czech, and Britain. I have opposed the use of Americans because they don't show a regional aspect of adaptation and natural selection. However, the two Americans are genetically either Greek or Irish from both parents. I would be happy to include the Saudi and Israeli. --Kevin Murray 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like if they could be included, as a rough count by country would show (by my reckoning) about 240M "whites" outside of Europe and North America, or roughly 20%, so going by numbers, 3 non-Europeans out of 15 or 16 ought to be representative.--Ramdrake 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some natural ones are good. Like I said, this one is good so far, [16] --Vonones 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok natural as in, not famous, some ethnic ones or at least a few. --Vonones 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean people of non-European ancestry Ramdrake? Whats the justification for this. Here's a research paper analyzing the use of white in research in US and UK. You cant get more scientific than this: [17]
It says, for white: "In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions." So many definitions does not accept non-Europeans as white. So if you insist on putting such people, this fact shoul be noted. KarenAER 22:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's only one of several definitions the paper mentions. It acknowledges that many definitions include people of Middle Eastern and North African ancestry. So, why cherry-pick the one definition in the paper which suits your views? We can certainly include that there is a debate about what constitutes or not "white" (that strikes me as particularly encyclopaedic), but we should definitely let the reader, not us, decide. In any case, that's but one paper, and its goal is partly to acknowledge the debate on the different definitions; I don't see that it should serve as the one and only definition to go by, and neither do the authors seem to suggest it. I stand by my comment that some people of non-European ancestry should be added (a couple of them, no more) in order to be representative.--Ramdrake 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Ramdrake. I agree. "Wow" - Jeeny Talk 22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest to make another gallery for non European people saying these people are only accepted as white by some definitions. Kinda like in the Black people article. And I find it rather odd that you think it's only one paper. Havent you read the article? Many citations sharing the same point of view....
Also, as I said there are too many politicans. Maybe we can change Blair with Prince Harry? KarenAER 03:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with having fewer politicians, but Prince H. is 1/2 German of true heritage, transplanted within recent history, and not representative of the natural evolution or migration to the British Isles. We already have an example of a German person and an Austrian, which gives us two examples of Germanic people. --Kevin Murray 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need to have 100% nationality, etc. to be considered a white person. This is not about nationality, it's an article about people who are considered white. A person who is 1/2 German and 1/2 Brit is a white person. A European. One cannot know, unless tested, how far back in one's ancestry where a relative of another race or nationality may have existed in one's family tree. - Jeeny Talk 05:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we don't need nationality, we need the region of origin. Nationality is somewhat of an indicator, but of course we need to apply common sense here (be reasonable, people!)

I'll say again that I object to having images of famous people (politicians, stars, etc.). Come on, there are billions of non-famous people, it must be possible to find some faces that aren't widely known. dab (𒁳) 07:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage is you know cleary who and what they are, the Black People article also has prominent people presented --Hayden5650 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Gallery#Mainspace_galleries. We don't want articles cluttered with random galleries. If you're into creating galleries, your work is welcome at commons:White people. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Much as in Caucasian race I support not having the arbitrary gallery. The Behnam 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no gallery. There should be no gallery in the Caucasian article either.----DarkTea 08:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Census section[edit]

I've removed this from the article because of it's complexity (being simplified here), and not relevant to this article. The US Census is going through a lot of changes. In fact there has been talk of getting rid of it altogether. But, the implications and complexities are too great. Because of the racist agenda, the Bill of Rights, and to keep track of cases of racism, discrimination, and equal opportunity, etc. - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant[edit]

I find it rather odd that people deleted the reference to Immanuel Kant. He's a famous and great man. He should be in the history section...KarenAER 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kant believed the difference between whites and blacks in color mirrored their different mental capability. He also believed blacks lacked the ability for rationality and morals. Due the beastial nature Kant ascribed blacks, he saw fit that blacks should be slaves to whites. He is not a WP:RS.----DarkTea 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kant's statement was in the history section which is supposed to address the evolution of the term, I don't understand how is it inappropriate for that part of the article given the fact that Kant is one of the most influential thinkers in the world? JRWalko 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Tea, there is no provision which justifies your actions. You should read WP:RS yourself and stop trolling...KarenAER 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source in this subject must have expertise relevant to this subject. Kant is a philosopher and a even if he were deemed an anthropologist it wouldn't matter, because the label as applied then means little today. Black people clearly have the capacity to reason, so Kant has shown his ignorance with regard to race.----DarkTea 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are saying a great thinker mentioned white in a book of his. That's entirely reasonable and and within WP:RS. And it is also in the history section and we arent saying Blacks are irrational and cite Kant. Please stop trolling and get reasonable...KarenAER 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

white exceptionalism[edit]

The section physical appearance is written with a tone of exceptionalism. for example

  • 1)According to the study, the results also strongly suggests that Europeans and East Asians have evolved light skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanisms.

there are several genes that are involved in producing skin color. currently only two are known. MC1R and SLC24A5. Without information about the other the several other genes it is premature to make "strong" and "distinct" conclusions.

  • 2)Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception:.

Big exception is POV. This is human exceptionalism because it is overemphasizing hair and eye color in humans. But when one considers the animal kingdom there is significant variety in hair and eye color. So I added some info on the evolution of MC1R for context. Besides peter frost hypotheses is really strange. He says a shortage of men arose because of hunting in the tundra. this resulted in many women chasing after few men. So men became choosy and selected different hair and eye colors. Isn't this guy just projecting his fantasies into his research.Muntuwandi 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 2 continues to be just plain false. Most Europeans have only one hair color and one eye color, as well. Removing... --Carwil 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disruption[edit]

Hayden5650 obviously has a nordicist agenda, and Muntuwandi obviously has an afrocentrist agenda. Both aren't welcome. Their aggressive behaviour is disrupting constructive efforts at this article. I ask both editors to stand down and stop edit-warring. If they cannot do this, I ask other editors involved here to revert controversial edits from both sides and let the disruptive editors run into WP:3RR. The alternative is locking down the article again, which is in nobody's interest. Constructive progress is difficult enough among bona fide editors, there is no room for prancing around with fringe ideologists. dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave too if you are going to dare accuse me of that crap. Look at all the talk above, I have been discussing and discussing and discussing to gain consensus, and have been as accommodating as possible to other editors' opinions, it seems to be you that has a problem with discussing changes --Hayden5650 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it was me, by the way, who proposed the article this time round, and posted here on the talkpage first --Hayden5650 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's commendable, of course. The upshot is still that the article is now protected again. You've been working on a gallery, that's fine, but neither this article nor the black people one should even have a gallery. Consider moving it to commons:, where it will be most welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is not necessary at this stage. The same problems will arise when the page is unprotected. Better to discuss changes. My major problem is the tone of the section on physical appearance is one of exceptionalism. This I believe to be unscientific. It is written in a manner that tries to distance europeans from other races. Muntuwandi 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding their polar positions, I find both Hayden and Muntwandi to be reasonable editors. I don't see the need for protection, but we all could use some temperance on our edit warring (me included). --Kevin Murray 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines[edit]

I am amazed how easily people are disregarding Wiki rules:

1) Jeeny and Dark Tea deleted CITED information referring to Kant because he was racist. That's censorship. And what they deleted wasnt offensive neither. [18] [19]

2) Jeeny deletes the map because SHE THINKS it's wrong. [20]

3) Muntuwandi keeps adding uncited material by EDIT WARRING. [21]

Well, your opinions are irrelevant. If you think a cited info is wrong, find another source which holds a different POV and add that to the article. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. It's very sad that Wikipedia is so ineffective against such trolling. KarenAER 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned here and at other related articles that a lot of information is being presented by unestablished sources, based on the premis that if it's published it's credible. The standards for an encyclopedic article are differest from the standards for an essay or magazine article. --Kevin Murray 17:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I removed the map, it was one person's POV, as there is evidence there are light color hair and eyes in different parts of Africa, not just the one area included on the map. - Jeeny Talk 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions are irrelevant. The source of the map was this: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html
It's academic and reliable. Find such a source to support your POV and add it to the article. Until then shut up...KarenAER 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is about "Europeans" not about "white people." Hence it is OR to use anyway. This very source has already been discussed before. Don't you all get tired of beating a dead horse? OR is OR... until the source changes "European" to "white people" it will remain OR. The Behnam 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Europeans and whites are synonymous according to many definitions. Get over it...KarenAER 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYN. The Behnam 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to look up synonymous in the dictionary. So the case here is not A,B,C. Or 8,9,10. It is 8 and VIII. KarenAER 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person, Frost, is not a geneticist. Peter Frost. Just because it is one person's view, in ONE academic article, does not make it accurate, nor even reliable. - Jeeny Talk 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frost is an anthropologist with a PHD. [22]. Educate yourself, his field is very relevant. KarenAER 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that you started this section with that heading, and you are ignoring the rules and guidelines by attacking people, and being quite uncivil. Also, European is not synonymous with white. - Jeeny Talk 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not being kind but I'm not being uncivil neither. Do not expect kindness when you are acting quite silly. KarenAER 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I said it is, according to many definitions. Here:
"Morgan Godwyn, found it necessary to explain to the English at home that, in Barbados, 'white' was 'the general name for Europeans."
"According to the Norwegian Social Science Data Service, white is a possible answer to ethnic/people group category question. After Norwegians, Sami, Kvens and other Nordics, it is mentioned as White/European."
"In the UK white usually refers only to people of native British and European origin"
And almost synonymous, Oxford dictionary definition: "to a human group having light-colored skin, especially of European ancestry."
Here's a research paper analyzing the use of white in research in US and UK. You cant get more scientific than this: [23]
It says, for white: "In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions."
So, please remain quite about things you have no idea about. KarenAER 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh have "quite" an idea. You don't want to "get it". I know what Frost is, he's one PhD, with one academic article of "his views". Not acceptable in this case. Also, you seem not to know the word synonymous, it does not mean 'some', 'usually', 'only to', 'almost', or 'possible'. But, I do know you know the real definition, as you so flippantly pointed out to User:The Behnam. You're grasping at straws to push a POV. - Jeeny Talk 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to delete cited material, you have to find another reliable source which says otherwise. Until then, what you THINK is irrelevant. Get over yourself...KarenAER 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not quite how it works. The cited material may be deleted if it fails undue weight or notability concerns. Right now, I could say there are enough problems with the view cited that it may fail either due to being that of a vanishing minority of people (one researcher arguing about a lack of male population at a time when there is no indication of such a bottleneck). This could be resolved and the view unarguably included if the view was reprised in a secondary source (a review paper, for example); until then, its inclusion is debatable baswed on the fringe-like quality of such view.--Ramdrake 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But none of you have proven that Frost is in the minority or has any opposition yet. All I'm seeing is YOUR opinions. Please source your claims.... KarenAER 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a Google scholar search returns that this particular article is not itself cited anywhere in the literature by any other paper, a telltale sign that the view is a very minor one.--Ramdrake 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In New Zealand, we use the term New Zealand European to refer to white people. It means white, the terms are interchangeable. --Hayden5650 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN for "synthesis," not "synonym." I suggest you read WP:SYN because it is what you are advocating here against policy. Some may consider the two synonymous but we cannot project that interpretation onto this source - we can only use the source for what it directly supports, without any original synthesis. The Behnam 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:SYN is for "synthesis," not "synonym." Thats why that policy is unapplicable here since we arent making a synthesis. European/White is synonymous according to many sources and thats why information about Europeans is valid in this article. And we are NOT sayin "most whites have one hair and eye colour..." then cite source about Europeans. That would be synthesis. It is amazing you are still unable to get it... KarenAER 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your "amazement" to yourself. It actually is still synthesis because this source does not treat the two as synonymous - in fact it doesn't make any claim about it. You are taking a definition used by some other sources and applying it to Frost's speculation about European genetics in order to forward an association with the topic "white people." This could very well be misusing the source, as we do not have anything from Frost suggesting that Frost supports associating these particular Europeans traits to "white people" in general. The Behnam 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are NOT taking a definition used by some other sources and applying it to Frost's speculation about European genetics in order to forward an association with the topic "white people.", since we arent saying "white people has diverse hair and eye colour, etc etc" and then cite Frost. We are citing Frost when we are saying "European people etc etc". So there is no synthesis here. The question is whether that info is relevant in this article or not and it is indeed relevant. You've been repeatedly told similar arguments over and over, this will be my last attempt since you seem to be unable to comprehend and I dont wanna waste more time...KarenAER 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You synthesis is the ground affirmation that White==Europeans. There are many other definitions.--Ramdrake 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That's why I'm not against them putting similar info about Mid Easterners, as long as that doesnt exceed info about Europeans in length because that would be giving undue weight, since majority of the definitions cited in this article does not regard them as white....KarenAER 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good to know that you are "fair" about synthesis, but I am sorry to inform you that it is still against Wikipedia policy. The Behnam 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You arent any authority about Wiki policies. KarenAER 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I don't have to be an "authority" to apply and argue from policies. Under that logic, none of us would actually be able to use or cite policy because we aren't "authorities." I'm sorry, but it is difficult to take your post seriously, especially since you've also attempted to use policy at time. You know, I've seen people blocked for "playing dumb." Are you playing with us? The Behnam 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By placing it in this article you associate it with the topic. If it isn't relevant to the topic then it shouldn't be here. The Behnam 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is associated to the topic and it is relevant [24]. It's very odd that you claim otherwise...KarenAER 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, thanks for pointing out another one of your synthesis-advocating posts. How does it make it relevant? The Behnam 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not? KarenAER 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made the affirmative statement. The burden is on you, buddy. The Behnam 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not your buddy. Second of all, it is clear that they are relevant since many sources use them as synonymous. DUH....KarenAER 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you from earlier - "We are NOT taking a definition used by some other sources and applying it to Frost's speculation about European genetics in order to forward an association with the topic "white people.", since we arent saying "white people has diverse hair and eye colour, etc etc" and then cite Frost" - yet you are claiming it as relevant to "white people" because some sources equate the two. That, my friend, is associating it with "white people." The Behnam 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are associated. You just understood this? KarenAER 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that you were trying to associate Frost's work to white people by applying definitions used elsewhere. The quote has you denying it, but now you are admitting it. Why did you lie to us? In any case, we still can't associate Frost's work with "white people" based upon definitions not clearly supported by Frost himself. Sorry. The Behnam 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody contests that white (or light complexion) is associated primarily with European people (or people of European ancestry, including most North Americans), or at least that these represent demographically most of those that are considered "white". What most people contest is the exclusive adequation you seem to make (Whites==Europeans). AFAIK, this is very much a minority view, not a majority view.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you just don't get it. Second, it is NOT clear that they are relevant at all. European is not synonymous to white. This is exactlly what's wrong with Wikipedia, when people that have no reasoning abilities are able to edit articles. DUH, is right. lol. Third, I thought you were going to give up trying to make people understand your nonsense? - Jeeny Talk 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said white people and European people are associated. And you interpreted it as me lying? LOL KarenAER 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not then, perhaps now, but I'll be nice and assume you are very confused and angry, therefore you're unable to think clearly. Because it's all here, where you said they were synonymous. - Jeeny Talk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example of a post you made:

"I suggest you to look up synonymous in the dictionary. So the case here is not A,B,C. Or 8,9,10. It is 8 and VIII. KarenAER 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

LOL. - Jeeny Talk 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You said more than that. You said that Frost's work was relevant to "white people" because the two terms are associated. You originally said that you weren't trying to associate Frost's work with white people by applying others' definitions, but later argued that Frost's work is relevant because the two are associated. As it has remained clear that this "association" is made by other sources (not Frost), you were indeed trying to put Frost's work in here based upon others' definitions. This contradicts your original statement (that you weren't trying to do this), so I conclude that you are lying. I'm wondering why you lied to us. Lying doesn't help us resolve the content dispute. The Behnam 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We werent talking about association, we were talking about synthesis. Please use more dictionary. KarenAER 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we were talking about both. The Behnam 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but you implied I associated Frost's work to white people to create a synthesis. That was never the case. KarenAER 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the synthesized part is that Frost's work is relevant to white people. You determined this relevance based upon others' definitions - this is not warranted as this is not necessarily Frost's intention. The Behnam 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesized part is that Frost's work since he is not used as a source for white people. He's used as a source for Europeans. There is no association in the sense to create a synthesis. You are repeating your points....KarenAER 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they still apply. To repeat another point that you neither refute nor heed, it seems that Frost is talking about European people, and as we lack proper grounds to construe that his work is relevant to "white people," we have no reason to consider it relevant, and hence it should not be in the article. The Behnam 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. I have tried to explain enough. Your views are against the opinions of previous meditator and other editors such as dab. Any removal of this information would be against a consensus. Maybe you should open a Request for comment or discuss this in the talk page of relevant wiki policy since you still do not understand it. KarenAER 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you contention were right that White==Europeans, then the content of this article should be merged with Europeans and the article itself should be deleted. Also, please be aware that consensus can change, and in this case it looks lke your position is now in the minority.--Ramdrake 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't ever a majority. It is interesting that you (Karen) are somehow familiar with the previous mediation, and that you bring up that specific quote. I remember you brought it up already here, and it was discussed heavily. Are you aware that the mediator changed his view within that very day? See [25] - he makes the statement at "01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)." Now see [26], where he says "I find myself agreeing with Benham that tying two subjectives together may be tantamount to OR" at "07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)." So there is some inaccuracy in claiming that the mediator agreed with you - even if he had, he quite clearly changed his mind. Not that a mediator is God anyway - they can wrong too - but I figure you might just want to know this, as you have remained unaware all of this time. The Behnam 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody contests that white (or light complexion) is associated primarily with European people (or people of European ancestry, including most North Americans), or at least that these represent demographically most of those that are considered "white". What most people contest is the exclusive adequation you seem to make (Whites==Europeans). AFAIK, this is very much a minority view, not a majority view.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"
If you dont contest that, you should be OK with providing info about Europeans in this page. As for Whites==Europeans, that's the majority of definitions cited in this article. KarenAER 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you conflate census definitions with etymological definition, maybe there's an even number that include non-Europeans as those who exclude them, but if you put them aside (as many of them have since been abolished, like the Australian one), definitions of "white" which exclude non-Europeans are a distinct minority.--Ramdrake 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The modern UK, Norway and Canadian sources exclude non-Europeans. So does the research community in practice in US. Those vs US census are a distinct minority? KarenAER 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans are a big exception[edit]

Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green.

Muntuwandi 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, those are so fake! Give me 10 minutes on either Paintshop Pro or Photoshop and I can do the same thing, probably even better --Hayden5650 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Some if not all of these photos are real. yes you can use CS3 to do play around with the colors but I have seen people like this in real life[27]. Muntuwandi 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and have seen many, black people with natural red hair also. - Jeeny Talk 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is leaning towards OR based off of some flickr photos (either to justify including blacks or removing the "exception" remark). Do we have a point to make involving RS rather than original judgments of unreliable pictures, or is this just an inappropriate use of the talk page? The Behnam 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that eye color is not concordant with skin color. In other words one does not have to be white to have various eye colors. Muntuwandi 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those people have blue/green eyes because they have some European admixture. LOL. That shouldnt be so hard to understand. Avarage European blood in an African American is around 20%...KarenAER 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe Europeans have African admixture. In any case if these individuals were to be reproductively successful these genes could spread in the black population to become as frequent as in the white population.Muntuwandi 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL KarenAER 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The average black man has dark eyes. The average white man may have a range of colors, bu none usually as dark as the black mans. Blue eyes are certainly more predominant in whites than blacks. Use some common sense, there will always be exceptions. Flickr is hardly reliable, those photos are both obviously doctored, and even if they are not, it's not hard to put in some fake contact lenses.
Wearing blue contact lenses is especially common amongst Indians and Orientals, who see blue eyes as a sign of beauty. This, of course, is a fairly recent advent, but those photos are also new. --Hayden5650 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors would be more likely to compromise if we weren't comparing the "average" black man with the "diversity" of the white man. Yes, "whites" have more variability in eye and hair color than "blacks", but let's not forget that all whites are descended from blacks (which is the original skin color of our species). Whether the mutations for different eye and hair colors appeared before or after the northward migrations which gave rise to the "white" skin color, is a matter for debate. From the few people with dark skin and varied hair and eye color that exist, it looks likely that it existed prior to skin tone change, but got preferentially selected when the skin tone of some humans changed after moving northward.--Ramdrake 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KarenAER. Those "blacks" were not all black. Real blacks have black skin. Real whites have white skin. Anything between these two extreames is not a black or a white. A lot of people wear contacts, so the pictures show little verifiable proof that those colors were natural eye colors.----DarkTea 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, how in the heck do you know who is "real" white. Do you mean as pure 100%? That's what seems to be suggested on this article, that only those considered 100% white, are white people. Which is inane. As Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal are European countries. They are not 100% by any means. Only those who have had their DNA tested from both maternal and paternal lines can be sure what part of the world one's ancestors are from. You say anything inbetween is not black nor white? Then what about those who have an African grand parent but look very "white" and do not know of the grand parent? That's the problem today, with the DNA test they have now, people can be very surprised as to their own admixture. How many people are 100% anything? So the question is who or what is considered "white" people? You can't say Europeans are the white people. Also, like Americans, there are many people born in the UK and other countries, that are not white and their nationalities go back a long ways. At one time Irish people where not considered white by the British. Do they now? Are Greeks white? Are the Portuguese white? Who defines the term? And is it POV, when one does not know their ancestry a few generations back? Is it those who look white? And whose POV decides that? - Jeeny Talk 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, southern Europeans are "white" - in Iberia, in fact, they seem to be the oldest european genetic stock of all! Have you ever been there? LOL! This article is becaming a discussion based on completely surpassed concepts of race and colour! The Ogre 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion as a white is a multifaceted issue with various POVs that exist.----DarkTea 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. Then what can we do to help this situation? Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these are for real Gary Dourdan from CSI Muntuwandi 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a very close friend who had those green eyes, but lighter skin, and medium, to light brown hair, when I was 16-17. His mother was very dark, very "African" in appearance. His father was lighter, but still black in all appearences. - Jeeny Talk 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just stop this? This section is a mix of inappropriate forum talk (and this is not a forum) and moves to draw original conclusions based upon unreliable photos. The Behnam 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section hair and eye colors in the article is what is inviting "inappropriate forum talk".I think it was User:Alun who removed the section, and then someone reinstated it. The article by Peter Frost is also inappropriate and sexist. If written from a purely scientific view, there may be some value in these hair and eye colors. These traits may have significance in the development of the white identity since they sometimes serve as tools for intraracial stratification among whites. Muntuwandi 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I did go off topic, sorry. Again, who's to decide who is white? And what qualifies that? Southern Europeans? That's why I proposed to use well-known people in images, who can be verified as much as possible, opposed to having generic people. As that would draw individual "conclusions based upon unreliable photos". I realise that can also be said of the "well-known" too, but again, there is at least some references to go along with thier images, rather than the unknowns. - Jeeny Talk 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dare suggest that the section on "big exception" be treated with the same usual suspicion we reserve to superlatives in Wikipedia, i.e. it would need to come from a more authoritative source than a primary source (even though it's a research paper from an anthropologist); we should really look to a secondary source (a review paper stating so) to make the point. Until then, I think it should be withdrawn from the article.
To Jeeny, we can't decide who's white; we can at most acknowledge that there are several definitions and present them with an importance commensurate to their weight in the "real" world.--Ramdrake 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I was trying to get across, but you did a much better job of it. Thanks. :) - Jeeny Talk 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! An encyclopedia is not about what the world is, but about what people say the world is. The Ogre 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate quote suggestion:

The common occurrence of lighter iris colours is found almost exclusively in Europeans (i.e. recent monophyletic, non-East Asian, non-Native American and non-African lineages) and individuals of European admixture.

Straightforward, nuanced, and a RS. Citation: Sturm RA, Frudakis TN. Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. Trends Genet. 2004 Aug;20(8):327-32.

While they're at it, the authors also note the lack of evidence as yet as to "whether lighter iris colours are exclusive to the continental European populations, as opposed to unadmixed Middle Eastern or Central and/or Southern Asian populations with whom they share some common ancestry." Now, for what it's worth, many of those "individuals of European admixture" are still not of course white people by prevailing social definition, so we have the same Euro/white problem as before. But at least we can be clear.--Carwil 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I stumbled upon this article, to me it was clear that "Whites" was just another term, totally synoymous to Caucasoids. Now, I'm not so certain, but that's because the definition of "white" seems to change depending on the epoch and the corner of the world one happens to live in, unlike "Caucasoid" which is quite standard everywhere. However, it would seem to me that we need to put some more emphasis on the fact that 1)White is a social, not a biological or anthropological definition 2)White has many different meaning, more or less restricted depending on whom you ask. 3)Much of the rest of the description of "White" would just as well do in the article about Caucasoids. So, and you'll forgive me for being blunt, but in all earnest, we might want to make these points clearer, lest people start to mistake this for a racist POV-fork of "Caucasoid". Apologies if I offended anyone (that's absolutely not my intent), but I believe this is a point this talk page keeps missing. Just my tuppence' worth.--Ramdrake 23:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section should be withdrawn or deemphasized . There are plenty of people who are white but do not have blue eyes or red hair, but they are still white. Furthermore there are also people who have blue eyes and blond hair who are not white. Stressing hair colors almost seems like a nordic agenda.Muntuwandi 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really interesting that black Africans have the most diverse DNA, but "white people" have appearances that appear to have more variation. Blonde (blue, hazel, brown eyes), Red hair (blue, hazel, brown eyed), brunette (blue, hazel, brown eyed), black hair (blue eyes, hazel or brown.). Not counting skin tones. But black African have different skin tones, and facial differences too. But not too many with hair and eye variation. Hmmmm. - Jeeny Talk 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

This is absurd. Instead of Hayden getting blocked for a massive 3RR violation, nobody can edit the page. Anyone have an idea how to resolve this? I don't recall any policy & guideline-based consensus (or any other type of consensus, for that matter) existing for including the gallery - in fact, including any image is generally quite problematic. It seems that Hayden was acting out of line. It is hard to justify locking everyone out of the article because of a lone 3RR-violating edit warrior. Any ideas on how to resolve this situation? The Behnam 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block Hayden forever! The Ogre 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! And KarenAE whatever. PS, I'm being sarcastic, not uncivil. sheesh - Jeeny Talk 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was being sarcastic too... Relax Dark Tea! Smile! The Ogre 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it takes two to tango, wasn't just me reverting! But the end result was an excellent compromise with the other editor, so who cares? All's well that ends well. The ends justify the means. --Hayden5650 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should remain under permanent protection, it's good right now. --Hayden5650 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if it's good right now, I suppose a consensus has been reached. I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. =) --Krimpet 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you gotta keep it protected, it's gonna turn to dog tucka within 12 hours if it's not protected! --Hayden5650 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the tags? The Ogre 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krimpet, do you realize that you just accepted that it is "good right now" from the lone edit warrior I was talking about? The Behnam 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, I know that Dbachmann and I were against the gallery. Also, right after you took Hayden's word on the current version, Dark Tea also opposed the gallery [28]. Anyway, it is unprotected so technically we could take it out, but I know Hayden will put it right back in. I'm going to look into other options based upon some new information I've received. The Behnam 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest opening an RfC so as to ascertain community consensus on this.--Ramdrake 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking that all of this is necessary just because of Hayden. Checkuser Jpgordon has confirmed that Hayden is identical to the indef blocked User:Nordic Crusader. Please see User talk:The Behnam#FYI... The Behnam 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is interesting there was a case opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nordic Crusader that found no evidence that they were socks. Muntuwandi 06:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he was just being clever. Jpgordon said on my talk page that the checkuser was evidence was not at all ambiguous. The Behnam 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being a little sarcastic when I said that, I apologize. =/ I realize Hayden was being disruptive; the real reason I unprotected it because, as you said, it was clear by this point he was the only one going against a mostly solid consensus, and was even gloating over his preferred version being the protected one (the complete opposite of what protection is intended for). Now that he has been exposed and blocked as a previously blocked user, hopefully constructive work can continue on the article. --Krimpet 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have another one, just after the unprotection User:KarenAER started right in. He/she has been reported. :/ - Jeeny Talk 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hayden hasn't been blocked yet. The Behnam 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Hayden is blocked. The Behnam 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the gallery mainly because the images that kept getting used as examples were so ridiculous that the gallery is a better alternative. If we're going to include nearly everybody in this article then it defeats the purpose of its existence. One thing that bothers me is that editors here who aren't even "white" are trying to suppress elements of this article that don't fit their personal views. Removals of portions of the history of the term and scientific studies from this article are unacceptable. The premise of the gallery is simple: "Is this a white person?" If anyone can say NO then the person can't be used as an EXAMPLE because that's what EXAMPLES are. It's as if I used a person of Chinese descent as an example of an "American". It's not that people of Chinese descent aren't American, it's that they do not represent a significant enough population to be used as an example.

Look at the articles on Black people and Asian people. Black people uses images that are CLEARLY and UNCONTROVERSIALLY black while the Asian people article uses a classification scheme by country and does not use images because they're too controversial. JRWalko 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that non white editors should not edit this article. Muntuwandi 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I picked up from that. Am I white or just half-white? It depends on how you define "white"... :-) The Behnam 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the racism, JRWalko's post seems to inadvertently highlight just how arbitrary this gallery & similar images are. "If anyone can say NO then the person can't be used as an EXAMPLE." Anyone? Why don't we measure by sources anymore? Heck, somebody could just say "no" to all of them... The Behnam 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is that by looking at your user pages one can easily tell that some (not all) of you have your own agendas. Muntuwandi finished with his frequently edited articles and came to this one where he was trying to educate us how an African person can have blue eyes resorting to such stupid things as finding Flicr images of random dark people of dubious ethinc background that had "blue eyes". This was of course after he was trying to qualify an albino image as a "white person". Then of course there are those editors here who don't even believe in the existance of races yet are providing "NPOV" opinions in this article. Then there's the whining on how white people aren't special and blah blah blah. If you want to expand the images on eye and hair color to the world image please do so, it won't change the fact that white people have the same frequencies of those genes. I have suggested articles where editors here should look for guidance on what to do here. If you're going to be putting images on they have to be uncontroversial. Present STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT content and I won't complain. JRWalko 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no difference between the skin of an Albino and that of a white person in that they both lack pigment. The difference is that white people produce melanin in small amounts, enough to tan and protect the skin. Albinos do not produce any melanin at all and thus they cannot tan, so their skin is so sensitive to sunlight and is easily injured from sunburn. Albinos are even whiter than white peoplefacts about albinism. Muntuwandi 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the point of eye colors is that these traits are not necessary linked to skin color. They are discordant. You can see this in animals, they have all the range of hair coats, skin colors and eye colors
Well obviously but this article is about people whose ethnic groups are white, not about individuals who are white. JRWalko 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why should we limit whiteness to an ethnic group. Both africans and australians are considered black, but they are not one single ethnic group. The word Albino means "white" in Ancient Greek. While albinos would be culturally and genetically african their skin is white.Muntuwandi 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the authors of sources 1 through 5 in the article. JRWalko 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why skin color is not the only determinant of white people. These Africans, who are very rare, have light skin but they are still not white: [29] [30] [31] KarenAER 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
White people have white skin, those people have white skin. They are white people. - Jeeny Talk 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. KarenAER 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have white skin, but yes they are not "caucasoid". Muntuwandi 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is interesting is that you have albinos who have white skin but African features such as tightly coiled hair. Then some Somalians are as black as the night, but they have straight or curly hair and aquiline noses, 100% caucasoid. Muntuwandi 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that picture is of a albino of Africa origin. Not an area where ethnically white people are from. His skin may be white in color but he isn't a ethnically white person.

So? All whites are Caucasoid but not all Caucasoids are white. All whites have light skin but not all light skinned people are white. KarenAER 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? - Jeeny Talk 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admixture[edit]

A statistical analysis done in 1958 using historical census data and historical data on immigration and birth rates, concluded that 21 percent of the white population had black ancestors. The growth in the white population could not be attributed to births in the white population and immigration from Europe alone, but had received significant contribution from the American black population as well. AFRICAN ANCESTRY OF THE WHITE AMERICAN POPULATION The author states in 1958:

The data presented in this study indicate that the popular belief in the non-African background of white persons is invalid. Over twenty-eight million white persons are descendants of persons of African origin. Furthermore, the majority of the persons with African ancestry are classified as white.

Considering the last 10 generations, the majority of African Americans( at least one African ancestor) are white. Muntuwandi 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admixture goes the other way too (I've seen a 26% cited from a study by Cavalli-Sforza), but what is the point of this? Is there something in particular about the article that is in question here? I feel like this isn't the first time you've started a vague/forum-ish post - can you clarify just what we are supposed to do about this information? Thanks. The Behnam 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The white american subsection should make a mention that many white americans have recent sub-saharan ancestry as well. Especially those who have had ancestors in the US for more than 10 generations.Muntuwandi 06:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the point Muntuwandi is trying to make only highlights the fuzziness of racial categories (much like the question whether "whites" includes non-Europeans). Either of two things can happen: either we accept that people with a majority of features that can be said "white" are actually white, or we apply arbitrary, even silly rules like the one-drop rule that eliminate a lot of people from the category, and possibly a majority of the population on this planet falls out out each race into some vague "admixture/multiracial" category. However, I guess my question is more of a social comment than one about what to do with the article, though, but it should be seen as a warning against this article trying to decide what the "truth" is (as opposed to reporting on the different existing definitions). Sorry, getting off my soapbox! :)--Ramdrake 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YAWN! "Second, the Black and White groups are not symmetrical. The mean African admixture among White Americans is low—roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture." [32] KarenAER 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You refer us to a blog... The Behnam 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unlike many blogs, this one contains real references, which possibly are usable themselves; and of course there's nothing wrong with citing less-than-reliable sources on talk pages, as long as they lead us to reliable sources. However: we can't just pluck the references from the unreliable sources without verifying them (that's the point fo the sources being unreliable; unreliability includes being unreliable about references.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been looking up the author, Frank W. Sweet. It seems that he self-publishes, rather than in peer-reviewed journals. Even so, there may be a better place to find those ideas than his blog - I imagine that his blog isn't the only place he has published his papers. The Behnam 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are unable to follow bibliography, the source is: Mark D. Shriver and others, “Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping,” Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99, Table 2, which I didnt link directly because you have to pay to see that whole article. KarenAER 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KarenAER, as you seem unable to find a free link to the article you cite, here it is: [33]. You will also find the evidence is misquoted (see table 2 at the bottom of page 391 of the article), as it is the result of tests conducted on a small group, in a single college in a single state in the United States. This cannot be construed as representative of a national average by any stretch of the imagination. Please properly research your references, next time.--Ramdrake 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admixture in European American population
% Non-white admixture Frequency
0-10 68%
10-20 22%
20-30 8%
30-40 < 1%
40-50 < 1%
50-60 < 1%
>60 0
I'm getting quite tired of your incivility, but anyway, I was looking at the reliability of the author, as it is fairly important to trusting material that he cites. With my 26%, I take that out of the textbook 'Evolutionary Biology', 3rd ed., by Douglas Futuyma, and as such I feel that I can trust his cite of Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer's work. The Behnam 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Shriver study, in this particular sample, most european americans, 68%, possess less than 10% non-white admixture. However 30% possess non-white admixture that is significant, between 10-30%. Though overall the average african admixture was only 0.7%, This average is influenced by the 68% who possess little or no admixture. African admixture is concentrated in one third of the white population. Mark Shriver himself has 11% African admixture(picture of Mark D Shriver).Muntuwandi 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, can one make any reliable conclusions based on such a limited sample? AFAIK, the authors don't even claim that. My question remains.--Ramdrake 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a limited sample, I am surprised that a more comprehensive study hasn't been done. Maybe they assume there isn't much admixture to be found. For african americans, studies have been more comprehensive. However Shrivers study is still consistent with the analysis from 1958 that indicated 21% of european americans had recent african ancestry.Muntuwandi 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary gallery[edit]

Per WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." As for our gallery:

  1. Notability - While the people pictured are generally notable, no source has yet indicated that they are notable relative to the article's topic. Hence, they do not satisfy the WP:IMAGE notability requirement.
  2. Relevant - Normally with content we determine relevance based upon what source's say about the item in question, but with pictures it can be a bit tricky because of the liberal WP:OR#Original images, where we are encouraged to use images so long as they do not "propose unpublished ideas or arguments." Unfortunately, each picture in our gallery does this, with the unpublished idea being that the pictured person matches this or that source's definition of a white person. If no source has cited them as somehow definitive or illustrative to the concept, we cannot properly establish the relevance critical to meriting inclusion.

Generally, galleries are for Commons anyway, while images on Wikipedia are used only to support the text. Hopefully, if we consider image inclusion based upon these criteria and start working from direct statements by sources, we will not have to deal with this arbitrary image-switching on the gallery. The Behnam 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ansering your question (below) to me below in the context of your assertion:
1 (above) notability at WP is pertinent to the inclusion of an article, not the content in the article. Once notability of the topic is established the only verifiability is required. In each case the photos I have advocated have verifiable information about the person's heritage at the bio of the person on WP. --Kevin Murray 10:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 (above) I don't believe that WP has yet defined relevance, but perhaps it should be. There is a proposed guideline making some headway at: Wikipedia:Relevance of content. I share your concern about some potential photos. I also question the purpose of this article as written; however, I could see value if it was structured to explain diversity, migration, and evolution -- that's another can of worms. --Kevin Murray 10:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Brazillian of German ancestry makes a lot of sense, but I won't remove the image. I do think that it is important to clarify the heritage though which makes for a long caption. My goal is to demonstrate the diversity within the term "white people" and show typical examples from regions. --Kevin Murray 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and reverted to the image that was there before. But, had to undo my revert because I'm being reported for violation of 3RR. So if you can change the image that was there before, as I can't because of the report. That may solve the issue, but the editor keeps inserting Gisele as Brazilian. <shrug> - Jeeny Talk 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the image that was replaced with Gisele: Image:Sopho Khalvashi-tight.jpg Georgian singer Sopho Khalvashi. - Jeeny Talk 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my suggestion to create a second gallery for people of non-European descent since many sources does not accept them as white. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Nouri al-Maliki wouldnt be accepted as white in Canada, Norway, UK and Australia. Why is this objected against? KarenAER 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm Canadian, and I can tell you for a fact they'd be considered "white". In any case, as I already pointed out earlier, you seem to confuse census categories (which are notable for overlapping and having gaps too) with the societal definition of the term in the appropriate countries. Second, this kind of exclusionary view seems to me to smack of racism and I would much rather not have a gallery than having such a racist-looking gallery.--Ramdrake 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the Iranian and Arab photo, those would easily be seen as white by any country. They perfectly look white, and thus would not standout as all if placed in a group of other white people, thus these pictures are good to stay. Remember, trying to exclusively keep white a term only for Europeans is racist, as many people who are from the same Caucasian race as Europeans are look just like Europeans and have skins on the same level, thus its fair to keep them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yami Sasha (talk • contribs)
Ramdrake your POV as a "Canadian" does not matter, because it can't be sourced. The reliable source is the Canadian government's POV of West Asians as visible minorities, meaning they're not white. The US Census POV of Middle Easterners as white is unique, so it should have less WP:WEIGHT than the POV that a white is a European.----DarkTea 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Caucasian article is not relevant to this one Yami Sasha. A historical anthropologist also included American Indians with Europeans. Another historical anthropologist considered Middle Easterners to not be include with Europeans. The POVs in regard to who is the same race with Europeans historically varies. The Iranian looks Iranian and the Arab looks Arab. They only "look perfectly white" if we define Middle Easterners to also be white, then their appearence would appear perfectly white by definition. Too often whites are stereotyped as being racist. For those who decry "racism" when Middle Easterners aren't getting included on equitable terms due to that POV having less weight, maybe you should argue that blacks get in the gallery. After all why should your nonsensical accusation of exclusionism/racism stop at Middle Easterners?----DarkTea 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a census category is not the social definition of what is white and what isn't. The census category may have a White/European category, without that society thinking that only Europeans can be "white". Furthermore "Iranians look Iranian and Arabs look Arab" confuses race (as socially defined) with ehtnicity.--Ramdrake 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your advocacy for your personal POV as a "Canadian" sounds like OR unless it can be sourced. Are you claiming Iranians don't look Iranian? I don't understand how saying Iranians look Iranian confuses race and ethnicity.----DarkTea 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italians look Italian, Greeks look Greek, Germans look German, but they don't look exactly alike, but similar due to them all being Caucasoids, which shows how Iranians and Arabs also have a similar look to those people as well yet not exactly the same.--Yami Sasha 22:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting mixture, these populations look quite distinct. Italians look like some Greeks. Germans look like some Italians and Greeks. Out of the original regional distinctions in Europe, modern Europeans have emerged out of a blending of previously distinct groups due to constant warfare. If we were to discount the exceptional appearences that come out of a long history of warfare, then Germans do not look like Italians and Germans do not look like Greeks. Just like Europeans, Middle Easterners have mixed as a result of warfare, but pure Persians certaintly do not look like Germans.----DarkTea 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greeks actually look way more like Iranians than Italians you know. Also Arabs and Iranians have a way bigger difference than Iranians and Greeks you know.--209.161.220.83 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also why does region matter to you so much Tea? shouldn't the definition of white simply be a caucasian with light skin? rather than just someone from Europe, because they is just plain ol biased, that someone who could easily pass off as being from Europe. My friend is Iranian, and he looks just like a Greek, and everyone else easily thinks he is as well, until he reveals it. Thus your just plain biased!--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.220.83 (talk • contribs)

Does anybody else see this constant squabbling over which images are best as an expected result of the fact that they are decided based upon original conclusions? I've made my case against our current use of images based directly upon WP:IMAGE above, in addition to elsewhere. Dab has argued that it is an inappropriate use of a gallery in mainspace. I propose removing the arbitrary images (and hence the gallery). Does anyone have policy/guideline-minded reasons to oppose this proposal? I'd like to discuss this and see if we can get rid this gallery soon, not only for the content reasons I've provided, but also because it puts all of us in unnecessary conflict. The Behnam 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gallery should be removed.----DarkTea 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On this one, I concur.--Ramdrake 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with removing the gallery, but we should develop a method of consensus to determine the inclusion of photos. --Kevin Murray 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had mentioned earlier that the gallery runs the risk of deteriorating into a celebrity fan site or a gossip magazine cover. Someone was already trying to slip a picture of paris hilton [34], next it will be miss spears. Muntuwandi 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kevin - Thanks for telling your position - I can see that you seek to cooperate with other users on this page - but I was more interested in a discussion about why we should keep it from a policy/guideline as well as stylistic (per Dbachmann) perspective. In other words, for those who support keeping the gallery, I'm interested in seeing a response to my case against it, and Dbachmann's as well. The Behnam 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Because I'm Canadian, and I can tell you for a fact they'd be considered "white". In any case, as I already pointed out earlier, you seem to confuse census categories (which are notable for overlapping and having gaps too) with the societal definition of the term in the appropriate countries. Second, this kind of exclusionary view seems to me to smack of racism and I would much rather not have a gallery than having such a racist-looking gallery.--Ramdrake 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"

Ah. I'm not surprised that you are more concerned about not racist looking than presenting the information in the best possible way, ie: more encyclopediac. And the mere fact that you are thinking that it'd be racism betrays your sub conscious thinking that Mid Easterners are indeed different. If we singled out Germans, many would think that as odd but wouldnt consider it as racism, since their whiteness isnt questioned...KarenAER 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checking to see if my undeserved block was reversed - Jeeny Talk 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to use this photo to illustrate how whiteness is constructed, though they are several groups of people with light skin, who are not considered white. Since wikipedia advocates a scientific aproach, we do not necessarily have to strictly adhere to Folk taxonomy. This is why there is much dispute over who is white and who should be placed in the gallery. Also it should be noted that folk taxonomies are not geographically consistent. A light skinned african american or people who are called "hispanic" in the US would be considered "branca" or white in Brazil. Langston Hughes disillusioned with racism in America decided to travel to Africa to trace his roots. Being a light skinned African American with straight hair, he was frustrated in Africa because he was treated as a white man, and not a fellow African. The one drop rule is unique to the US, hence in this article we need not adopt a rigid definition of whiteness that excludes regional variation. Muntuwandi 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your collage interesting, but by what set(s) of criteria are these people defined to be white or non-white? And are the lineages verifiable. I could support this in the article, but do not see it as mutually exclusive to the exisiting gallery. --Kevin Murray 11:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would not be an alternative to the gallery, but just meant to illustrate how light skin does not necessarily equate to the social construction of whiteness. The criteria is light skin, which is already established for Asian and some southeast asian populations. Outside of the US and Europe, whiteness is more flexible. In brazil, a person is assigned a racial classification based on physical appearance regardless of a person's ancestry. Full siblings may identify as different races if the differ in complexion or hair texture.
Was just passing through when I saw this photo, it would seem a tad odd to have a photograph of an Albino (who is black but suffering a genetic mutation) and an Asian in the article. I don't see how it is necessary --देसीफ्राल 06:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it statistically relevant if you compare a deeply tanned white, with a mixed woman ("Newton was born in Zambia, to a Zimbabwean health-care worker, Nyasha[2][3], and a white English lab technician and artist, Nick Newton.[35]), whom you called Afro-European, and some random East Asian and an albino? Albinos are very rare. Does the East Asian represent most East Asians or is she unusally whiter? Maybe she has some European blood too? KarenAER 06:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the "East Asian's" ancestry for sure. In her own descriptions of her pictures she speaks French. The pictures are taken in India. Maybe she is a French national Eurasian and maybe her Asian part is not East Asian.----DarkTea 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is most important is that she is light skinned, but most people would probably not identify her as white.Muntuwandi 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That photo collage seems to be trying to show that white folk are darker than all other races, why don't you have a proper Black in there? --देसीफ्राल 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just aims to show that some of the classifications are arbitrary.

In parts of Brazil, the supposed races are different again (Fish, 2002). A loura has straight blond hair, blue or green eyes, light skin color, and a narrow nose and thin lips. A branca has light skin color, eyes and hair of any color, a nose that is not broad, and nonthick lips. In Brazil, Fish pointed out, a branca is White. In the United States, a branca individual from Brazil would more likely be classified as “Hispanic.” Then there is a morena, who has brown or black hair that is wavy or curly but not tightly curly and has tan skin, a nose that is not narrow, and lips that are not thin. Morenas in the United States are classified as Black or Hispanic. There are a number of other Brazilian terms used to describe socially constructed racial categories, such as mulata and preta, and to the Brazilians these terms are every bit as real as the Black, White, and Asian categories are in the United States. They are real. But as in the United States, they are folk, not biological, taxonomies used to socially stratify people, often in the name of science.[36]. Muntuwandi 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the question, again[edit]

Seems to me like this article is a wrestling match between the article on "Caucasoids" and the one on "Europeans". If one says that the term is identical to either of these, then the contents should be merged into the correct article and this one be deleted. If this concept is different from either definition, it should attach itself to defining its differences with either definition (as they are not likely to be obvious to the casual reader!). This is something I don't (or maybe can't) see. Could we maybe regroup and try to describe the different social definitions of "White" (census categories ain't it) rather than battle over what the definition should be (i.e. Wikipedia isn't about truth, as we all know)? Please let me know.--Ramdrake 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funny, I was having the same thought. --Kevin Murray 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why this article seems to be a wrestling match is because you're the one wrestling to turn this article into the Caucasoid article. This article is about the White race not the Caucasoid race. The reason the censal definitions are given is because they are RS. There are other non-RS POVs such as [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3720206&postcount=10 non-Jew European], but we are limited to the RSs on the subject. Your call to have multiple POVs represented must require the POVs to be from RSs and not OR discussions.----DarkTea 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about the census definitions of "white", then it shouldn't pretend to address "whites" as either a social construct or even less as any kind of biological grouping. A census definition is a statistical grouping; conflating a statistical grouping with a social construct and worse with some idea of a biological grouping makes no sense to me, at least (not talking about the other editors, just me). Problem is, this article (and the various editors behind it) try to twist information into what they think the "white" race should be, rather than describing what reliable sources (such as anthropologists, epidemiologists, etc.) have been saying.--Ramdrake 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how you could distinguish the censal definitions as being "statistical groupings", but I can't see how they are not also social constructs, defining a POV for whites within an established RS.----DarkTea 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to explain again: census definitions are "statistical groupings"; we'd need a reliable source for at least a few of them that states that the society indeed views itself accordingly; i.e., that these statistical groupings are indeed real, functional social groupings used by that society. Otherwise, these statistical grouping could be assumed to be somewhat arbitrary and (most importantly) not reflective of the way society views itself. Is this any clearer?--Ramdrake 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The POVs given by censuses just can't be described as representative of society's view unless they explicitly say this like the US Census, but they are still RS POVs.----DarkTea 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, do you agree that we should tweak how they are presented in the article, and try not to use them to say that "a majority of people think non-Eurpoeans shouldn't be considered white?". That's my main beef. If we present them as "these are the views of the respective national census bureaus, which may differ from societal views in those countries", and just leave it at that, I'll stop pestering the lot of you. :)--Ramdrake 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, present the POVs given by the censuses as their respective views, but the US Census says that its views represent society's views.----DarkTea 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem there: if the census explictly states it reflects society's view, then it does. I'm only against assuming that census represents society's views when it doesn't explicitly say so. I hope that's logical enough. --Ramdrake 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems appropriate to include the various definitions, as long as we represent that these represent the POV of particular governments, organizations, or cultures. This can be done without endorsing any POV; just report the facts. --Kevin Murray 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we can assume that a particular census definition represents the official views of the government in question (or the societal view of its constituents) on that particular matter. The census category may have been designed and named a certain for convenience' sake, or because some government official somewhere thought it was convenient to categorize people a certain way, without the government ever endorsing (for example) that because a certain category is called "White/Europeans", its official position is that non-European Whites don't exist.--Ramdrake 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeny's behavior[edit]

[37] How come this article which is titled "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labelling in Research on Race, Ethnicity and Health" not relevant to white people. In these study, authors analyze the usage of whie in Research on Race, Ethnicity and Health and conclude that, in table 1, page 3, "In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions." How come ref do not match statements?

Very simply, because that's not the conclusion nor the point of the paper. The table is just there to collect the definitions that research group has encountered in its specific research.--Ramdrake 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come Norway section is irrelevant? It defines white people as synonymous to European. KarenAER 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the section on Norway is probably not to different than other country definitions. in which case it is better to include definitions that are more diverse.Muntuwandi 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so you admit POV pushing in the sense that you only want to preserve the definitions you like (ie: more diverse)?? KarenAER 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if norway, the US, germany, italy for example all have the same definition, is it necessary to list them all. To be more informative would be to list a significant divergence from these "standard" definitions.Muntuwandi 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, stating others as pushing a POV and accuse me of trolling, yet you find tiny statements in a reference article that goes on about how problematic it is to define race. You put in Norway, as a representative white race, when it states pale complextion, and in your POV represents Europeans. Which it does not. You are the biggest POV pusher and "troll" on this article, and you continually accuse others of which you are its worse offender. Now you make a heading with me as it's subject. Who is the troll here? - Jeeny Talk 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary to list the Norwegian government's definiton of white even though it's the same as the British government's definition because they are not the same country.----DarkTea 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted KarenAER [38] about what seems to be an inappropriate allegation of "trolling" against Jeeny. As for the content dispute itself, I think that it is appropriate to include Norway, but to simply include this in a list with its reference, rather than giving a full section to it. Such as something like: Country A[1], Country B[2], and Norway[3] treat "white" as synonymous to "European." However I'm willing to hear a case for a full section about Norway. The Behnam 06:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norway[edit]

The problem with your suggestion is that Norway is the only census that explicitly defines white as a European.----DarkTea 07:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you are saying, but it's too small of a section, Dark Tea. But please do not refer to a "white race" as you did on this talk page. There is no such thing as a white race, just as there is no such thing as a "black race", it is a social concept. Also, the US is not a RS to define race, as it does not represent society as a whole. It is ever evolving though, because of social pressure. It still exists because discontinuing it would cause more problems then it would solve. IE. racial discrimination, equal opportunity, among other things. People are free to not comply with the US Census, it is not mandatory. It is not a law of the land, it is for protection of civilians. People can choose one or many more definitions on the census, or none at all. - Jeeny Talk 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well well, that is unique. I suppose I don't mind mentioning that in its own section since we should aim to cover the spectrum of significant views about the scope of the racial classification. We just need to make sure that we don't advocate or favor a particular point of view - I'll continue observing development to make sure that this is not the case. The Behnam 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeeny, it is somewhat unreasonable to ask people not to mention "white race" on the talk page about the "white people," a racial concept. The Behnam 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thank you, you're right. See your talk page. - Jeeny Talk 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that demonstrating and discussing the different official, historic, and scientific (if there is one) definition of "white people" is pertinent. --Kevin Murray 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of scientific, is it just me or this is the scientific race generally called "Caucasian race?" This particular article has always felt odd because it seems caught in between the biological classification of "race" (based upon phenotypic characteristics and geography) and the social notion of "are you white." The Behnam 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been thinking the same since I stumbled across this article.--Ramdrake 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific race is the white race. Science is the pursuit of knowledge using objective methods. The term white is used in current investigations involving race such as the US Census.----DarkTea 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the most used term is the "Caucasoid Race" (more common in North America), or the "Caucasian race" (more common in Europe, AFAIK). There isn't currently a scientifically recognized "white" race (the term is obsolete scientifically, but not altogether socially). And the US census is primarily a governmental, demographic, statistical endeavor. Its data has been used in many scientific studies, but its primary purpose isn't to do science; it's to keep tabs on many people are in the country, and to categorize them.--Ramdrake 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Caucasoid race; there is only the white race. The Caucasoid race was the imagination of Carleton S. Coon whose hatred of blacks drove him to redefine many black peoples into his race. East Africans and South Asians suddenly had to not be black, because they had an advanced civilization. The white race has existed ever since the people in Northern Europe first adapted to low sunlight. The term white race is still used in social science. Science involves the method for objectively looking for knowledge, so the social scieces are true sciences. Social sciences recognizes the white race as real, so science backs the white race.----DarkTea 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The social sciences, such as Sociology and Anthropology, treat races as a social construct, not as a self-evident objective biological reality. Races are seen as social processes of categorization based upon highly variable manipulated interpretations of perceived physical appearence, social and cultural features and supposed psychological traists. Just the opposite of what you said, in fact! The Ogre 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like exactly what I said.----DarkTea 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of examples of white by country[edit]

Has anyone noted that 4 out of 6 examples of a definition of white come from countries that are partly or predominantly from an Anglo-Saxon tradition (US, UK, Canada and Australia). I'm concerned this assemblage may be skewed, am I the only one? Maybe we should have others, like France (or another European non-Anglo-Saxon country), a second Latin American country, etc.--Ramdrake 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion along ethnic subgroups of "Whites"[edit]

Consider the groupings at: Template:Indo-European topics. Are these valid subgroups and is it producutive to discuss their origins, evolution, relevance, and status?

Albanians
Anatolians
Armenians
Balts
Celts
Germanic peoples
Greeks
Indo-Aryans
Indo-Iranians
Iranians
Italic peoples
Slavs
Thracians
Tocharians
Turks

--Kevin Murray 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not productive to discuss these groups in the article unless a specific RS's POV makes an issue about their white status in such a way that it demands a discussion of their specific history.----DarkTea 12:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your buzzword abreviations make your logic hard to follow. --Kevin Murray 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are all "White" people or considered. --Vonones 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Anatolians no such thing. --Vonones 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only some of them are white. The ones from outside of Europe are only white by one RS, the US Census. Indians are not whites.----DarkTea 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Tea tell me why would the ones from outside Europe (other than Indians) be considered non-white if they are from the same origin as those from Europe, such as the Iranians, who have a mediterranian European and light skin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.211.133 (talk • contribs)
It is the other way around. Iranians are not a migration group out of Europe. Europeans are a migration group from somewhere around Europe. Iranians and real Mediterraneans (around the Mediterranean) have a similar coloration, but a direct correlation of ancestry from appearence may not be the case. Convergent evolution has made the coloration of Southern Europeans and Middle Eastners and North Africans a continual gradation, but does not imply a direct ancestry.----DarkTea 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Europeans were originally from outside Europe, so it makes no sense for you to say that Iranians could have migrated from Europe. Remember all Caucasian People which includes Indo-Europeans, Semetic and a few groups like Georgians came from the Caucus Region, thus the definition of white should be a light skinned Caucasian, rather than a small area you call Europe, which cuts out Russians who live in Asia, Armenians, and Iranians who are also all of European Decent and have light skin.

--209.161.222.66 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These "RS" aren't about who's white and who isn't according to societal definitions, except the US one, which states that it represents social definitions, and happens to recognize non-Europeans as whites. Indians are Caucasoids, and are likely to be the ancestral group of all "European" types. The existence of the Indo-European languages is a testimony that Europeans originated in India (sometime after the Out of Africa migrations).--Ramdrake 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three different but related groups- White, Caucasian and European. The concept of whiteness would mainly be about skin color and would arise when there is contact between whites and non-whites, mainly in multicultural societies such as the US, Brazil or South Africa. Whereas caucasian is an attempt to use more scientific methods at classification, such as craniofacial anthropometry. In which case skin color is less of an issue since caucasoid crania are found in africa and India. Europeans concern Europe to the exclusion of other asian or african caucasians. but the problem is political boundaries do not necessarily coincide with phenotypic boundaries. All these terms overlap and are used interchangeably, however for this article we should focus more on whiteness and less caucasian, because arguably most caucasians would come from Asia and not Europe, since India has 1 billion people.Muntuwandi 03:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ramdrake, it's more likely that the Aryan Invasion Theory is true instead of the Out of India Theory. The Out of India Theory is discredited. The fact that the Dravidian languages does not share a genetic relationship to Indo-European languages shows that it is not genetically related to Indo-European. It shares words by proximity to Indo-Aryan. Why is this hard to imagine this when the spread of the Indo-European languages has been forced over various people by European colonial empires. Languages similarity does not prove similarity in ancestry. The Indians are Negroid/Australoid/Dravidoid not Caucasoid.----DarkTea 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
they are mixed race, One study showed that most mtDNA lines are from the earlier Asian inhabitants, possibly the dravidans. Y chromosomes are predominantly European. Upper castes tend to have more european y and mtDna than castesgenetics of indian caste populations Muntuwandi 04:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery again[edit]

I again bring up the gallery because the attempt to get a real discussion on it at Talk:White people#Arbitrary gallery was distracted by other issues. The main thing I was looking for are policy/guideline-minded responses to the cases already made against the gallery and, in general, the use of some images at this article. Kevin, I remember you wanted the gallery but the distractions occurred before you could make the case - shall we continue where we left off? The Behnam 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing bias in article[edit]

Would said user please take his/her issues to the talk page and work totward consensus first before pushing his/her POV without a single comment (besides the edit summaries, when there is one). Thanks!--Ramdrake 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of Thomas Paine's edits. I think the exhaustive discussion on the origins of light skin should not cover the evolution of dark skin in Africa per WP:TOPIC. Also, I thought it was clear that most editors do not want the gallery in the article. Dbachmann, Dark Tea and The Behnam want the gallery gone.----DarkTea 21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen Thomas attempting to discuss any of his edits. Muntuwandi 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and while User:Dark Tea may agree with most of the edits, I happen to disagree with most of them. Since they haven't been discussed either, I think it would be most appropriate for all parties involved if there was a proper discussion of those edits prior to their insertion. To name just one, one of the edits actually went something like: The U.S. Census currently defines "white people" as actual white people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. (emphasis on the change). Such edits, IMHO are needlessly inflammatory. And same user didn't remove the gallery from the article (this gallery I admit I could also do without), but only the two non-European Whites in the gallery. If there is going to be such controversy on this point, I'd say it's one more reason not to have the gallery at all.--Ramdrake 22:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the "actual white" addition, because it takes one POV makes it seem more true than the other POVs. This is against WP:NPOV.----DarkTea 22:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been a mess folks. It was nominated for deletion, so don't even try to defend it. Don't load it up with questionable speculation, off topic ramblings, inaccurate generalizations, and so on. Stop trying to make it a soap box for some politcal agenda. Thomas Paine1776 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also realize that unilaterally editing the article to fix the problems you perceive is not the way to go, either. This article has its problems, granted. Let's discuss what you feel they are and how to fix them. Also, please note that this article did survive deletion, so the community must have thought it was worth defending.--Ramdrake 23:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs drastic edits and deletions. The deleted material cannot be fixed, its rambling. Don't even try to defend it, just look at the history of the article. You all can't even get a simple definintion right. It seems the user who initiated the speedy keep of the article from deletion was later banned. The title of the article was spared,but don't take that as any sort of acceptance of the content. The history of the article has no consensus and no consistency. The article doesn't just have problems, its junk. It has so many inaccurate generalizations, it would be like talking in circles. Start from scratch and completely rewrite it. (BTW, Albino doesn't belong in the classification). Ramblings about chimpanzees and so on is simply off topic. The deletions made restored a semblence of neutrality to the article, and a new starting point for you all to make the article better. As it is now it is unacceptable. Don't waste time defending junk. Rewrite it. Thomas Paine1776 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the article needs work, its not to hard and not impossible to rewrite it, but what is needed is specifics rather than generalizaions. There is always debate about how much science to include in articles involving race. Some editors prefer to focus only on the social construction of race. But that is up to the other editors.Muntuwandi 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either of two things can happen: if this article is so bad, it can be renominated for deletion, or it can be changed through consensus on the talk page. Unilateral, arbitrary actions won't help. Inserting in a definition that the US census defines as whites those that are "actually white", or deleting images of non-European white persons looks to me like it's trying to push a POV, not to attain neutrality. Also, as has been discussed here, "white" doesn't have a "simple" definition: its definition has widely varied according to epoch and locale.--Ramdrake 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that you take my selected deletions and use it as a starting point to improve the article. Don't defend off topic ramblings, peripheral issues, and inaccurate and questionable generalizations. Some are just manipulating the topic. Keep it on topic, and move on to another article. Stop wasting your time on the distortions selected for deletion in this article, make it neutral, and move on, not a political agenda. From the history others attempted to add some meaningful charts and science, only to find their work deleted by some of the political disrupters. The selected deletions have so much junk that its not even worth trying to salvage, take it as a favor. It probably has too much focus on science in general, and questionable science at that. What wasn't deleted has some merit. So it was left for you all to improve.Thomas Paine1776 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darktea is making some progress removing East Asians, this was just one of the inaccuracies. Removing original research claims is also good. Making questionable/controversial or highly speculative claims sound like facts, even if they are cited, is another problem with this article. Overemphasizing science is another probable issue. Many more to go. Less peripheral science, (eg. moles, chimpanzees, overemphasis of pigment) Focus on making it more clear and concise. Thomas Paine1776 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, all that is included is relevant to the origins of skin color. My only concern with it is that it may be too detailed, but the information presented is part of modern science. For example some of the genes and the mechanisms that are involved in skin pigmentation were only identified after studying albinos, like the OCA1a gene. Many people find discussing albinos uncomfortable, I can understand that. But they have played in an important role in learning how both blacks and whites produce pigments. And those meaningful charts and science that you mention are more part of an agenda and original research. I have heard people say stuff like "Haplogroup K is resonsible for virtually all of science, philosophy, technology and art". Those were the charts that were in the article, trying silently to promote an agenda using manipulative charts. Muntuwandi 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about pigmentation mechanisms, human skin color genetics, the East Asian, the albino and European migrations out of Africa. This article should only have a summary of skin color as it relates to white people. Something like, "White people are archetypically distinguished by light skin. Europeans adapted a lighter skin color due to their latitudenal distance away from the Equator. This is especially true of Northern Europeans whose skin color is the lightest due to being farthest away from the Equator. Light skin color was functional as it helped absorb vitamin D from the sunlight, promoting normal growth."----DarkTea 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is one of taxonomy, who are "white people". We have assumed that white people are only Europeans, that is the traditional classification. Hypothetically if an alien were to come from outer space and was informed that white people have light skin as measured by skin reflectance. How would they distinguish an Albino, an east asian, or a light skinned multiracial from a white person. In the black people article, there is a difference, but this is also cultural and historical. Aboriginals and melanesians are considered black because they have dark skin, yet they are more related to Asians than to Africans. Yet a similar standard is not applied to Asians and Europeans who have similar skin colors. This is an arbitrary construction of racial or ethnic boundaries which is unscientific. If we were to use an objective scientific method, using a spectrophotometer to measure skin reflectance to classify whiteness, then albinos, east asians, europeans and some light skinned multiracials would be white. I think that is demonstrated in the picture. Muntuwandi 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Muntuwandi's disagreement highlights why the article should not overdwell on science (speculative at that) and idiosyncratic theories. Pigmentation is only one factor among many, thus it should not be overemphasized or represented as defining. A brief mention is not a problem. Darktea's point is well taken, there are separate articles for pigmentation mechanisms. Overdwelling on theories and speculative explanations for why this or that, invites distortions. No need to pile speculation on top of theory. Also, there are separate articles that deal with pigmentation mechanisms. There are other aspects for these sorts of articles such as historical and social.Thomas Paine1776 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your POV, but please don't try to force it on other editors by false arguments to authority. We all are different individuals, with different worldviews, and nobody carries the sacrosanct Truth in his or her opinion. White as a racial/social concept is a matter that is open to some interpretation, maybe even to open debate. Denying that is misconstruing reality. Please remember that Wikipedia is about verifiabilty (i.e. significant opinion should be voiced), not "Truth" (i.e. telling the reader which opinion is correct).--Ramdrake 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One drop rule on the white people article[edit]

The one drop rule exists in everyday life as part of our folk taxonomy of classifying people. But it has no scientific basis. Consequently the notion that only "white" people should appear in this article is extending the unscientific one drop rule to wikipedia. It is just employing the personal biases we have from everyday life. On the black people article, there are pictures Tiger Woods who is half asian, Obama who is half white, and Hugo Chavez who is probably 1/4th black( father is a mulatto and mother is a mestizo). Why is it okay to have multiracials on the black people article but not in the white people article. I find this disturbing. Muntuwandi 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is racist that the Black People article should have pictures of mixed race people, while White people are purported as some sort of pure master race. --Godongwana 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The black people article only has multiracials because a WP:RS says that they are considered whites. There is no reliable source that says half blacks are white. If there was a reliable source that said this, then it would certaintly be a minority point of view. By WP:WEIGHT, its POV would have to have less significance in the article. Its POV should not be represented by a black/white multiracial at the very top of the article, because that gives its POV too much weight. Your addition of the Barack Obama portrait to the top of the article seems to be due to your desire to make a point about the construction of whites. Please do not contentiously edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. If you can find an RS that says half black/ half whites are considered white, then it may be allotted its place in the article, proportional to its weight.----DarkTea 01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"in the U.S. one drop of black blood makes someone black. In Latin America one drop of white blood makes you white." race in latin americaMuntuwandi 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some are misconstruing the topic where there is not a need for it. Instead of trying to disrupt the topic and misrepresent it, and continuously inject speculative theories, and inaccuracies, why not simply have a section in both articles about history and social understandings among people. The sort of objections about photos in other articles should be discussed in those respective articles. Thomas Paine1776 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that it places too much emphasis on white people who are 'pure' whites, and not on those who are mixed and may be considered white. --Godongwana 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Muntuwandi both seem to be trying to push a very minority point of view. Perhaps just leaving the article for a while may allow it to develop a little more neutrally? --देसीफ्राल 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that editors defending one POV leave so that the POV of the article is changed is usually not a good thing to recommend...--Ramdrake 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a minority point of view. The problem is that many have become to accustomed to the system in the US. Outside of the US whiteness is constructed differently. This is well documented especially in latin america. For example in colonial latin america a person with 1/8 native american ancestry was legally white. see Criollo (people). Muntuwandi 02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are different interpretations of white around the world but this is the American Wikipedia. --देसीफ्राल 02:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, this is english wikipedia, see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
Wrong again - this is the English language Wikipedia! The Ogre 13:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not include a section to discuss the social aspects of individuals who may wish to identify with one group or another, as suggested, disuss the feelings. The title is what it is, there is no reason to disrupt the topic or misrepresent it, or to make accusations about people. No need to misrepresent the US either as though latin america is somehow above it all. Thomas Paine1776 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the topic has several divergent definitions, and the article should try to accurately represent that, and not present the subject as if everyone agreed on a single POV, which is not the case.--Ramdrake 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to your point, we can't either present this article in a US-centric viewpoint as though the US is "somehow above it all".--Ramdrake 02:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas you say that "individuals who may wish to identify with one group". This is unfortunately the old way of thinking. Many people of color have white ancestors, it is the norm to claim the heritage of ones' ancestors, and it is the abnormality not to be able to claim ones heritage. With regard to Thandie Newton, Roger Ebert writes about the movie crash
A cop (Matt Dillon) thinks a light-skinned black woman (Thandie Newton) is white.roger ebert Muntuwandi 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That cop must've been in serious need of glasses. And this is the English encyclopedia, and to English speakers a "white person" is a European without any obviously foreign features. "One drop" is something introduced by mud-slingers to muddle the issue when it's quite clear how the expression "white person" is used in English. Someone who obviously looks part negroid or mongoloid is not "white". -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (edited 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have no problems with people's personal opinions about who is and who is not white. But scientifically many people of mixed heritage, east asians and albinos have a skin reflectance in the range that white people have. Muntuwandi 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Albino or something? Why are you so obsessed with them? --Baron von Washington 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, that's not what the term "white person" means. White means a more-or-less pale-featured European without atypical ethnic features. It's not only about skin color but also facial features and perceived or actual ethnic identity. I am saying as a native English speaker there is absolutely no precedent for calling anyone other than European-looking people white. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and I know who is white when we see them. But the term white mainly means skin color. So why do we selectively apply it to Europeans and not others who have similar skin color. If we used the term caucasian, then the topic of skin reflectance is not necessary, since caucasian is largly based on other "atypical ethnic features". The question of skin color is a legitimate taxonomic question, and I am not trying to impose whiteness on to non-whites. I fully understand the folk taxonomy that we use. But any kid who has not been socialised into the racialized world we live in will ask the same questions, why aren't some light skinned people not white.Muntuwandi 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the purpose in trying to deconstruct the term "white people" when it is so widely used and understood but I can't stop you from intoducing cited material that questions it directly. The photo galleries are something we will have to work out through compromise as there is no good authority for what should be in them. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Shriver study, they found skin reflectance for Europeans with no admixture in the range 20-40 on the Melanin index. For African americans in the sample the range was 32-80. Though a small sample, there is an overlap in the range that it is possible for an African american to have lighter skin then a white american. This is the basis for passing for whiteShriver et al
Back to the topic at hand, If it is acceptable to have people of even 1/4 black ancestry on the black people page, then why is it not acceptable to have someone of partial white ancestry on the white people article. Being an encyclopedia, this is about education. We do not need to have rigid self segregation that we observe in the real world. That is the difference between cyberspace and reality.
One last example of the fallacy of the one drop rule is the role of race and biomedicine. Multiple sclerosis is considered a "white" disease because it is found mainly among Europeans and it is largely absent in Sub-saharan Africa. But many African americans who identify as black are affected by MS because of Admixture eg Richard Pryor and Montel Williams. The one drop rule does not make them avoid MS. Muntuwandi 03:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the reason is: that is how the terms are used in English. In English white means a person who is or appears to be all-European. Of course many "white people" have some small part of non-european blood, particularly Q or N haplogroup, whether recent or ancient, but the thing is that if they are called white it's because they appear to have only the archetypal features. For example should Bjork's picture appear on this page? Probably not, since she was ridiculed as "china girl" growing up in Iceland. This article is not about Montel Williams or Richard Pryor, and it is may be about Bjork but I don't think her picture would be the right sort to include for this article. This article is not about "people who are never called white by english speakers" or "people of uncertain or fringe features or ancestry" or "objectively absolute and discrete classifications of humans as white" or "people who are called mixed race, mulatto or eurasian" it's about people who are called white and what that means is pretty darn clear. So yes, in common usage being part white does not make a person white but being part black does make them black. I view all this nonsense, handwringing, extraneous POV, original research etc. to be near-trolling and vandalism since it is so clearly not directly pertinent to the topic of the article. If you can find some kind of expert to cite who thinks that "white people" is not actually used in English to mean only people who appear to be completely European, cite it, otherwise please stop. <beavis voice> Thank you, drive through.-- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even in the article, it is demonstrated that your definition isn't the only definition of the term. I also think that your definition fails to take into account the "fuziness" of racial grouping; however, saying that being part-black and part-white makes one always black rather than sometimes black and sometimes white (or mostly multiracial) strikes me as enforcing a needlessly inflammatory viewpoint. I find most of the points that Muntuwandi brings as being relevant to understanding the social construct that being "white" means,on the contrary. It helps understand some of the arbitrariness of the construct. And the cites you're asking are already in the article; for example, just look up the census definitions of "white" in the US (an English-speaking country!) and in Brazil.--Ramdrake 12:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section of the discussion is way off the topic anyway, it really isn't part of this article. The topic doesn't have divergent definitions as some attempting to sell. It seems to have those who want to obfuscate it and disrupt the topic. This is not an article about pigmentaton mechanisms, create another one for it if that is your interest. Mentioning it is not so much the problem. Its just a factor. The article overdwells on off topic ramblings. The title is what it is, stop misconstruing it. Neither is it a who's who in heritage topic. Find another venue or topic for idiosyncratic theories. There are other articles where some of the points may be appropriate. Or perhaps create different articles with different titles and stop disrupting and miscontruing this topic. Offers to compromise are brushed aside. It seems some are attempting to advocate a double standard, a blame the other guy mentality to justify misconstruing the title, thinking it will sell in a new millenium, its an old way of thinking. There are as many counter examples to illustrate a double standard. Thomas Paine1776 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there is no divergence of opinion as to what constitutes "white"?--Ramdrake 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that all recognized (currently or historically) verifiable definitions of the term "white people", are valid topics for inclusion in this article. --Kevin Murray 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point, exactly.--Ramdrake 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about not having the section with definitions used by various census bureaus in different countries. That's just recognized information. Thomas Paine1776 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

This should be included, it shows definitively the true white form --Baron von Washington 02:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all white people are like that, racism and non neutral point of view will not be tolerated. DarthGriz98 03:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, smear campaigns and the racism of multiculturalism and the attack on white ethnic identity will not be tolerated. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a better image and a less incendiary example.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's incendiary about it? Why isn't for example what User:El_C has plastered all over his user page incendiary? His are certainly extremely offensive to me. Including one picture like this would seem very appropriate to the article. I don't object to including pictures of italian people like you linked however there are certainly better pictures of italians. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the right wing is always racist and facist. Communism seeks to include everyone and is socially acceptable --Godongwana 03:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handsome communists with berets bad, handsome S.S. members good. Or vice versa. This is an unbelievably dopey conversation; all I'm saying rather than post a picture that's going to rile people up, why not include an instructive and apolitical picture the handsomest white man of all?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A man undergoing a severe bout of constipation? --Godongwana 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's perfect.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skin color in various ethnicities, Clockwise from upper left: European American, an albino boy, an Afro-European, an East Asian. Only the European American would be referred to as white

Yuck. Between this trolling picture and the POV-pushing OR "collage" (the one with John Kerry), there is a lot of image-related crap going on here. I suppose it only serves to demonstrate why I am against arbitrary image use. The Behnam 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Kerry et al collage. It serves to show how people who are white skinned are categorized otherwise. I think this truly illustrates the folly of the issue; and I don't mean that the article is folly, just the underlying topic. --Kevin Murray 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is already in the article:
"White people are archetypically distinguished by lighter skin, and in general, Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer) than other ethnic groups.[6] While all mean values of skin reflectance of non-European populations are lower than Europeans, some European and non-European populations overlap in lightness of skin,[7] as noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, which stated in a 1923 lawsuit over whiteness that the "swarthy brunette[s] ... are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races" .[8]" KarenAER 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is an illustration of what you mentions. Muntuwandi 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then to be NPOV, we should put 10000 pics of whites, blacks and asians with clear skin color differences. Because there is SOME overlap in skin colors BUT "Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer) than other ethnic groups" You are putting RARE cases together to illustrate a point. That is POV-pushing and disruptive. Stop...KarenAER 23:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Albinos have the lightest skin, not europeans. Muntuwandi 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message moved to here from main page[edit]

Bruce1314 (talk · contribs) added this message to the main page so i moved it here, as he does have a right to state his opinion, but on the right page:
I've been warned by Wikipedia to be polite, but this is what upsets me on the TOP of the page:

'The term white people functions as a color terminology for race;[3] one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.[4][5]'

'Racialized, European historical context.' ??

Is this NEUTRAL??? This whole article is tripe and contrived by some fresh faced kid out of college, brainwashed by some hypocritical professors (probably white themselves, living a comfortable lifestyle off the 'Man').

READ THIS ARTICLE. It's BIASED against THOSE of EUROPEAN ANCESTRY.
Again, User:Bruce1314 added this message, not me. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 07:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The European man has had his say for too long now. 'White' represents a wide range of colors and ancestries, saying otherwise is the product of bigoted eurocentrist propaganda. --Godongwana 07:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The European should be able to self-define their own people, using the terminology they see fit. Wikipedia articles must abide by the terminology the group prefers for its own people per WP:NCI. If Europeans like to call themselves the term "white", then by Wikipedia policy that is the name their article should be called.----DarkTea 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albinism, East Asian, and other[edit]

I want to directly address the irrelevant albinism and East Asian issues, and the pointy comparative OR picture. Let's begin with a information about the classification of race (in the human context):

Physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, shape of the incisors, and stature vary geographically in humans, and have been used by various authors to define anywhere from 3 to more than 60 "races."

— from p. 737 of Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. by Douglas J. Futuyma (Sinauer).

What is important to note when working with the race sometimes designated as "white" (but also "Caucasian") is that it does not simply include anyone with light skin. The definition of the "white" race varies depending upon what combination of phenotypic characteristics are considered and what degree of distinction is applied to each as it varies across geography. The classifications are decided from population patterns across geography, not from individual exceptions. As it classifies populations, ancestry is generally asserted such that white people have white children, black people have black chidren, etc.

To get to the points:

  1. Albinism is not relevant because it is a mutation that affects only one of the characteristics pertinent to the "white" classification. Also, since "race" works from populations, exceptions (such as a hypothetical white child who, by mutation, looks completely black) don't negate the definitions any more than a person born with 12 fingers negates the generalization that humans have 10 fingers.
  2. East Asians are (in every RS treatment I have seen) are not classified as "white" because the combination of their physical characteristics are sufficiently different from those that are used to define "white people" - again, skin color is never used alone to define "white."

I encourage others to comment, and please, until this issue is resolved, stop adding info and images using albinos and East Asian to the article. Especially that unencyclopedic comparative picture. I envision this article as simply covering RS definitions of "white people" as they vary across country, and where available, the criteria looked at in deciding these definitions. It shouldn't "explore" the legitimacy or basis of the racial classification except where RS have challenged it. The Behnam 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi has been synthesizing new arguments about the extent of the white race without attributing the point of view to an outside source. All of Muntuwandi's sources that cite the East Asian and albino skin color do not claim that these two groups are the same race as the European. His/her addition of these sources is merely his/her attempt to imply the East Asian and the albino should be included as whites. This is a special case of original research which is prohibited.----DarkTea 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I think would help clear up any misunderstanding would be to note that "white" and Caucasoids are near-synonyms, and that a short definition of "white" would be "light-skinned Caucasoid" (on which I hope pretty much everybody should agree). Then, we wouldn't burden ourselves with a definition based solely on skin color, and the confusion to which it gives rise.--Ramdrake 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we base our definition on light skin, Europeans have lighter skin than any other group, on avarage. So Mutawandi's examples are exceptions, such as albino people or multiracial people with European admixture. So I hope we can bring a closure to this issue and move on...KarenAER 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Caucasoid race does not exist; only the white race exists. The Caucasoid race is the legacy of two creative minds. Johann Blumenbach's fascination with the Georgians made him fantasize that Europeans arose there and branched out to the Middle East. This is false, since Europeans probably migrated out of Persia and did not backtrack into the Middle East in a large scale. The Caucasian race later gave way to the Caucasoid race. The Caucasoid race is part of the imagination of Carleton S. Coon whose fascination with Indian culture made him need to include all of India as part of his race. Ironically, India is a shinning example of Negroid civilization, but Coon's hatred of black Americans would not let him conclude they had an advanced civilization. This article is about the white race; not non-existent races. Your short definition seems to falsely imply that the Jews, Iberians/Hispanics and the Middle Easterners are also part of the white race.----DarkTea 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Caucasoid race "does not exist", why would there be 6510 references in Google scholar alone for this term? (And 282,000 references for Caucasoid in Google proper, and 271,000 references for "Caucasian in Google scholar). You are free to think that "Caucasoid/Caucasian" is a misnomer, but the facts say that this racial term indeed exists and is used in the science literature and elsewhere.--Ramdrake 23:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.----DarkTea 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since white people is a color metaphor for race, then the article should focus on the phenotype of white skin. We should have an open mind about this and not rigidly cling to our social constructions. It is not my intention that east asians, albinos and multiracials be placed in the "white race", that is original research. But it is not original research to say and to portray that east asians, multiracials and albinos have skin that is comparable to europeans in terms of skin reflectance or the melanin index. That is mainly to show that other phenotypical features are taken into account when classifying races. The notion that "white people" are somehow unique because of light skin color has no basis since east asians have light skin that in appearance is almost indistinguishable. Maybe east asians tan a little differently but in normal conditions there isn't a noticeable difference in skin lightness. Therefore it is arbitrary to assign the term white to one group and not the other.

Another issue is the boundaries of where whiteness begins and ends are also arbitrary constructions, if we include middle easterners then some will be darker than some african americans who self identify as black. This is why the image is something that illustrates these arbitrary constructions. Muntuwandi 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that the East Asian and the albino aren't part of the white race and you are not trying to argue that they should be included in it, then there is no relevance for including them in this article. Including them in this article would be off-topic. Your second point is well taken. It is ridiculous to place pictures of Middle Easterners next to pictures of whites when Middle Easterners may be darker than people who identify as black.----DarkTea 01:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is to illustrate that white skin is not unique to European populations and that the phenotype is observed elsewhere. For example the term "People of color" is used to refer to all Non-whites. This term includes "white skinned" east asians and black skinned Africans, when in fact east asians have as much "color" as whites.Muntuwandi 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the story continues, Langston arrives in Africa. “My Africa, Motherland of the Negro peoples! And me a Negro! Africa! The real thing to be touched and seen, not merely read about in a book.”15 But, ironically, the Africans looked at Langston and would not believe that he was a Negro. In fact, “they only laughed at me and shook their heads and said: You, white man! You, white man!”16 Langston readily admitted that that was the only place in the world that he was ever called a white man. Langston Hughes. Muntuwandi 02:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "people of color" is just a phrase. It's not meant to be taken literally. Since the term "non-whites" connotes exclusion, the term "people of color" is used to connote unity although they are not synonymous. The more exact term is "non-whites" because it refers to the white race. The term "white race" is the self-identified term that Europeans use to label their own people. At the time of European colonialism, referencing skin color was sufficient to distinguish their people from United States American Indians, black Australians, black Asian Indians and black West Africans. If European colonialism was primarily with North Chinese, then they would have come up with a different term than "white".----DarkTea 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget what I said about Muntuwandi violating WP:SYN in regards to albinos being in this article. I have found the argument that albino Africans are the same as white Europeans here.----DarkTea 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a more of a racist afrocentric argument presented in the article. Albinism and light skin are similar phenotypes but the arose by different mechanisms. Albinism is a Mendelian trait, Two black parents carrying the recessive gene can have a completely white albino child. The child of an albino with a black person will be black. Whereas light skin is quantitative, the child of a light skinned person and a black person will be intermediate. So while it takes one generation to produce an albino, it would probably take several generations of selection of quantitative traits to arrive at the white skin phenotype from the original black skin. This is why white skin still possesses the ability to produce melanin and to tan, a reminder of its black origins. So contrary to what was being mentioned that SLC24A5 gene swept through Europe and everyone instantly became white is probably not accurate. Muntuwandi 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the term "People of color" or Non-whites embodies the problem with the article. Some of the people lumped into the non-white category are white skinned but not socially constructed as so. The notion that aboriginals and africans are black because of their skin, but asians are not white though having the same skin color as Europeans is an arbitrary construction of boundaries. Muntuwandi 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"White" is an arbitrary (empirical) construct to start with, I think this much is clear.--Ramdrake 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frost's Maps[edit]

Since there is NO sources which contradict his data and since his work about this was reported in a news paper [39], I'm going to restore maps...KarenAER 12:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons already mentioned above (his views are not cited anywhere in the scientific community), as per WP:UNDUE these views should not be included. That a newspaper article was written on it does not mean his views are endorsed by the scientific coomunity. If we include his views, we should include every single fringe opinion about what is "white". I don't think so.--Ramdrake 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE requires an opposition in the majority. There is no opposition to Frost's views...KarenAER 13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE does not require any opposition. It requires that a view be represented in an article proportionately to its importance in the "real world".--Ramdrake 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only fringe view is his mating selection theory. This theory will most likely not be found in other reliable sources on the internet. If it were included in this article, then it should get less weight, but it is not being included in the article. The part that is being included is his work on hair and eye color. It is obviously true that Europeans, particularly Scandinavians, have lighter hair and eye colors than non-Europeans. Since this is the majority viewpoint with nobody arguing against it, Peter Frost, a professor of anthropology, should be enough for its inclusion in the article.----DarkTea 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On this, I've written two articles. The first one was barely noticed, but the second one caught the eye of The Sunday Times (London), which reviewed it under the catchy title "Cavegirls were first blondes to have fun." The story was picked up by papers from Brazil to South Korea, including such Canadian media as The National Post, The Discovery Channel, The Edmonton Journal, The Regina Leader Post, The Brandon Sun, The Toronto Star, The Ottawa Citizen, and The Gazette." KarenAER 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blond black
Not to mention that his research was published in Evolution and Human Behavior journal [40]. Do you have any basis for your behaviour whatsoever? KarenAER 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what do they have to necessarily do with whiteness. Do we need to measure the broadness of one's nose to determine how black they are. No these are features that accidentally correlate with dark skin. The same with the frost articles. The OSR theory is hardly supported elsewhere and the "cavegirls were first to have fun" could be factually incorrect since blonde hair may have arisen after Europeans left caves to build homes of mortar and brick following the spread of Agriculture. Muntuwandi 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Light eye and hair color is part of the more general light color attribute associated with whites, whereas a broad nose does not darken someone's color.----DarkTea 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not necessarily. Muntuwandi 14:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That person is not as black as a pure black. Pure blacks have black hair, black eyes and black skin.----DarkTea 14:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100% all black blond family Muntuwandi 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the overemphasis on hair and eye colors because many if not the majority of whites still possess darker hair and eye colors. Its inclusion is all about promoting a Nordic Agenda, that only Northern Europeans are "true whites". Muntuwandi 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True whites do not possess darker eye and hair colors. These true whites are mostly Northern Europeans although other people inside Europe may also be true whites.----DarkTea 14:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidly, is that your POV, or do you have a source for that? Or are you just trying to test the limits of the argument? (I don't think I have to tell you what that "true white"/"not true white" sounds like?)--Ramdrake 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to tell me what it sounds like. I know what it sounds like. It sounds like the truth. I have never tried to introduce the "truth" into the article because I don't have a source for it, so don't bring up the RS issue.----DarkTea 14:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Most European civilizations began in the south where they have darker hair and eye colors. The greek and the roman civilizations were all mediterranean. Agriculture arrived from the middle east spreading North. Now all of a sudden Northern Europe is the center of whiteness. According to Jared Diamond,
The peoples of Northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years; they simply had the good luck to live at a geographic location where they were likely to receive advances (such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy) developed in warmer parts of Eurasia guns germs etc. Muntuwandi 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is a Red Herring with no relevance to the "truth".----DarkTea 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot treat race in isolation. Nordicists promote Northern European phenotype to be the ideal of whiteness. But they forget that Europe was developed by non-northerners.Muntuwandi 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the Northern European could acknowledge that people living in Southern Europe contributed to European culture or they could choose to not acknowledge this. We can't make blanket statements about all Northern Europeans here. Northern Europeans generally have the archetypically white features. Their acknowledgement that they look the most white does not rest on Southern Europeans cultural contributions.----DarkTea 15:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that many northern europeans seem to be quite laid back and are disinterested in the fascination that other europeans have in them. Nordicists are wannabes.Muntuwandi 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The darker Europeans' fascination aside, the maps are relevant because illustrate the general definition of a white as relating to being light in color and European in ancestry.----DarkTea 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What bugs me is that these maps state that light hair and eye color are non-existent outside of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. That information is clearly wrong. Admittedly, these traits are indeed very rare outside these regions, but not altogether inexistant. Also, Frost's maps and article talk about the Europeans, not whites. Presenting them as representative of the "white people" is inaccurate.--Ramdrake 15:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The maps may be rounded to the nearest percent. A handful of people in the 0% regions may not be enough to create a half a percent in that region, necessitating rounding down and having that region be labeled as 0%. The maps are relevant to this article because the general definition of a white relates to European ancestry and light color.----DarkTea 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how much more difficult is it to label "<1%" rather than "No light hair"? The definition of white and European are related, which is not to say they are identical. Thus a map applying to Europeans may not apply to whites.--Ramdrake 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he were using whole numbers throughout the map, then he may have not wanted to break the pattern. It is very unlikely that the regions brake into 5%, 10%, 15% ... These numbers are clearly estimates. The map of Europe applies to the common definition of whites. The US Census' viewpoint is unique for its function as a catch-all category which includes people who identify their race as "Mexican" and "Muslim" and people who were previously too few to categorize as their own race. Its point of view's weight is properly given by a map that only depicts Europe.----DarkTea 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to beat a dead horse here? Frost's work is not about the "white" race. We can't deem it appropriate here by applying the "European=white" synonym that Frost doesn't necessarily hold. The Behnam 16:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of the article that don't discuss a point of view should be removed from the article. This includes the physical appearence section, the gallery and the pictures. The foundations of this article are the history section and the censuses section. The gallery is a redundant reiteration of the point of views already discussed in the history and census section. Accordingly, the gallery should be removed. None of the sources go into the kind of depth needed to have a section on red hair, blond hair, brown hair, blue eyes and green eyes. This physical appearence section is an original research of the general definition of white person as being light in color. Similarly, any discussion about light skin given that a source says whites deal with light skin is original research. We editors can't interpret what light skin exactly referes to, so the genes that Muntuwandi has found are her original interpretation.----DarkTea 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to removal of gallery/pictures and to the physical appearance section. In the future, we may discuss physical features (since racial classification looks at physical characteristics), but only as it is taken directly from an RS about "white race." Even if an RS says that they looked at hair color, we can't take information or maps from a different work to bolster their view. We should let the RS do the work, and we just report it. The Behnam 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since white is a color terminology for race details on the genetics of skin color maybe necessary. Scientific observations are the only ones that are to some extent devoid of human bias. In fact this is most important since the editors of this article will never agree on who or not is white. I personally believe that whiteness is a social construct and it just depends on the context. A more liberal definition of whites may include anybody who is light skinned, eg east asian, mixed race, mestizo, middle easterners all have validity to be termed white. A more conservative definition is cultural and historical and is limited to those of "unmixed european descent". In the interest of being an encyclopedia it is better to include all the different interpretations and we should put away our personal definitions so that we can accomodate a variety of views. Muntuwandi 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


" "On this, I've written two articles. The first one was barely noticed, but the second one caught the eye of The Sunday Times (London), which reviewed it under the catchy title "Cavegirls were first blondes to have fun." The story was picked up by papers from Brazil to South Korea, including such Canadian media as The National Post, The Discovery Channel, The Edmonton Journal, The Regina Leader Post, The Brandon Sun, The Toronto Star, The Ottawa Citizen, and The Gazette." KarenAER 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that his research was published in Evolution and Human Behavior journal [40]. Do you have any basis for your behaviour whatsoever? KarenAER 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC) "

So I believe there is no issue of WP:UNDUE anymore. KarenAER 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is also one of WP:NOR, as Frost is talking about Europeans and we're talking about Whites, and frost never said Whites==Europeans.--Ramdrake 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why we arent saying color of hair/eyes distribution in whites in the maps. We are saying color of hair/eyes distribution in Europeans per Frost. And info about Europeans is relevant to this article. There is no issue of WP:NOR KarenAER 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KarenAER, again, inclusion of these maps has been deemed as OR by several editors here, based on the fact that Frost is talking about "Europeans", not "Whites", and your remarks about the map including parts of Africa and Asia doesn't change that fact. You are turning out to be the worst POV-pusher of any of the editors here.--Ramdrake 14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behnam's knowledge of OR is wrong. There is no synthesis going on with the maps. They are eye and hair color maps and their scope, area is relevant to the article. Those maps are not claiming to be representing all whites. So there is no equation such as scope of the map = whites. It is your imagination. You may note something like this, however, if you insist: "the scope of this map may not include all whites". And please dont be hostile...KarenAER 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that Benham, RD and MW oppose inclusion with Karen and DT in support. I discount Benham's position that because the subject of Frost's work was not specifically labeled as "white people" the use of these images is OR. That makes no sense to me. The subjects of the sections are about hair color and eye color within the regions with indigenous white populations. how could it not be germane? I'd respect an argument which refutes Frost's credibility, but to that end I only see innuendo. For now I support the inclusion with better and consistent formatting between the displays. --Kevin Murray 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A major objection which makes me doubt the validity of these maps are the broad areas outside of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East which are labeled "No light color hair" and "No light-colored eyes". We all know that although the frequency of light colored hair or eyes in these regions is very small, it is non-null (I think MW has produced many a photogrph that illustrates the point). If such an obvious oversight (or oversimplification) was committed by the author, it sheds doubt on the accuracy of both maps. I believe this would be my main objection.--Ramdrake 14:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH? It was undue weight first, then OR and now this? It seems your throwing whatever you can. As for your last (hopefully) silly reason, what you know is irrelevant. See WP:V. I hope your not opposing for the sake of opposing, since that seems to be what you are doing, ie: disrupting Wikipedia. KarenAER 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, take a look higher up and you'll see I raised this objection before. Here is my list:
  1. Frost is but one anthropologist, (undue weight?)
  2. This particular article is uncited in the entire literature (notabilty?)
  3. The diagrams have at least one very obvious error in each (encyclopaedicity?)
  4. The author was talking about the Europeans, not the White people (original research?)
You are free to reject any one of these, but I believe all these observations taken together amount to casting grave doubt on the encyclopaedicity of including this material in this article. Hope this disambiguates my position.--Ramdrake 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reject #4 as invalid. Per #1 can we corroborate with other literature? #2 statement is unclear. # 3 this is a problem. --Kevin Murray 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the user made version of the map of hair colour is quite inaccurate to peter frosts original map. peter frosts original map shows northern scotland has being 20-49% light colour hair but this one shows it as 50-79% light hair. I suspect t was done on purpose by dark tea who shows nordicist tendencies.

The map needs to be changed to the original accurate map made by frost either by being redrawn or using frosts original maps as the image.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.17.237 (talk • contribs) (copied from below).

Kevin, while I appreciate you effort to correct the "No light hair" problem in the maps, this leaves us with another problem, namely that our maps don't say exactly the same thing as Frost's maps, which may constitute OR now. I guess I'm not looking for a challenge, but just for an editor familiar enough with policy to say whether this change might be construed as OR. If it isn't, fine. However, I can't help but doubt that if this article isn't cited by anybody else in the scientific literature, it might be because someone else found other serious objections to this research. Would anybody with a good enough anthropology or ethnology background care to chime in? If we can have confirmation on this point too, I'd withdraw all objections. BTW, I wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts to keep this debate sane. :)--Ramdrake 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution is to eliminate the mention of the black colored area as in the eye map. I'll do that. --Kevin Murray 17:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is Ramdrake's imagination that the black area covers all of the rest of the world. That is not the case. KarenAER 11:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation cabal, anyone?[edit]

I think this content dispute is starting to degenerate, with POV-pushing and incivility becoming more and more comme every day. Anybody up for referring this to the Mediation Cabal?--Ramdrake 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. If we can't make any progress soon, we should mediate. The Behnam 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose mediation, though I'm not sure that we need it here. Can we stop battling on the details and come up with a direction for this article? I see a highly talented and diverse group of contributors here, but no real direction. I have worked with several of the regular participants here and elsewhere; although we don't always see eye-to-eye, I think that they are dedicated to the best interest of the WP project. I would propose that we leave the main article alone and take the "battle" to a sandbox location. Any takers? --Kevin Murray 18:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we seem not to be able to agree on a direction for the article is what prompted me to suggest mediation. We can wait some more, see if we arrive at some form of consensus, but I think it may eventually be a good idea to try this route. Just my tuppence'.--Ramdrake 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should the article contain?[edit]

  • If we're going to try to sort out this situation, would anybody object to stating their position as to what the article should contain or not contain (possibly tying it in with what's already in the article)? Thanks.--Ramdrake 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give it a go:
  • I'd like to see a comparative section regarding the various definitions of who is white and who isn't. I liked MW's small collage with Kerry. I also like the Mariah Carrey example, though I don't see the value of the other photos, and would prefer to see some other examples of very light people who are considered non-whites. Although I really think this thinking is really obsolete in the mainstream. --Kevin Murray 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a section on various ethnic groups which are considered white and the migration patterns which established these in various regions of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. --Kevin Murray 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a higher standard for the sources that we attribute. I am concerned that people are slipping in POV under the guise of authoritative information -- just being published does not make it any less POV. --Kevin Murray 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake says:

  • I'd like to see a better comparison of the term with near-synonyms such as "Europeans" and "Caucasoid/Caucasian".
  • I'd like a section showing our current understanding of how "white" skin evolved.
  • I'd like a better sourcing of the societal views of who is and isn't white. Census definitions are fine, but nothing assures us that they faithfully reflect the social views of their country (except in the couple of exceptions where they specifically say so).
  • Otherwise, I'm fine with Kevin's suggestions, and acknowledge that many of them are already in the article, at least partially.--Ramdrake 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm good with all the above and agree that for the most part we are already touching on most topics. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



The Mariah Carey pic[edit]

Would user देसीफ्राल please discuss here why he/she thinks the Mariah Carey pic is original research? It is verifiable that her father is African American (of Venezuelan descent) - it says so in the article on her. The One-drop rule is also clear and documented, enough so that it should be uncontroversial that, according to the One-drop rule, she would be considered Black. I don't see any unwarranted leaps of logic that could be called original research.--Ramdrake 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to play the fool yes? The picture is original research. Who on earth is the Reliable Source that says if you put Angelina Jolie with some unknown Black you'll come out with Mariah?
It's completely unscientific and is just another example of you and Muntuwandi (sockpuppets??) trying to insert as many photos of blacks into the White People article as possible --देसीफ्राल 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Ramdrake, you say quite clearly on your userpage that you don't believe in the existance of races, so for what reason are you here other than to discredit the white race? --देसीफ्राल 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your concern and left only Mariah Carey's image in the article, with the same caption. And I have a right to my POV, don't I? Just as you have a right to yours.--Ramdrake 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is still aimed at making an original observation - no RS is talking about the whiteness of Mariah Carey. The Behnam 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as giving an example of how the "one-drop rule" might apply, no more and no less. I'll change the caption to the conditional, to reflect that, but I don't see that there's any leap of logic here: the one-drop rule and Mariah Carey's ancestry are both verifiable, and that's all that's required here.--Ramdrake 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't allow original research just because it may seem reasonable to us. The only things that are allowed are converting .75 to 75% and stuff like that. We don't know if an RS would treat Mariah Carey as a good example to narrate, and her picture itself certainly doesn't add anything. The Behnam 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're allowed to do quite a bit more than just convert .75 to 75%, as long as there are no leaps of logic. We don't need a previous RS that has stated this before, because both the One-drop rule and Mariah Carey's ancestry are RS. What you're asking is akin to asking for a source that says putting 2 and 2 together makes 4. I think what needed to be demonstrated has been demonstrated, unless you want to contest that the one-drop rule would find Mariah Carey a non-white (in this specific case, a black).--Ramdrake 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:One drop rule.jpg
According to the one drop rule Maria Carey is black because her father is Afro-Venezuelan
This is not original research, it is common knowledge that Mariah Carey is biracial. In any case photos that have not been manipulated are largely exempt from Original Research. See WP:NOR, the section on original images states
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles.
It is incorrect therefore to claim original research about an Image. If one does not think the image is appropriate for the article, other reasons should be cited other than original research. Muntuwandi 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is original research. You are making a comparison involving Mariah Carey, but we don't have any RS doing this, much less using those specific people in comparison. The purpose of being more liberal with images is to gain free substitutes for obvious pictures. For example, if we want a picture of a famous cathedral but don't want to make a fair use claim, an editor goes to the cathedral and takes an original picture. To confirm the original claim made by the photographer that this particular photo genuinely describes its subject (such that it isn't a picture of something else or manipulated), a simple comparison to a reliable but copyrighted photo of the cathedral is all that is needed. That is an acceptable use of an original image.

Your comparison, however, is original research that posits a comparison not found in any RS as a legitimate observation/example about the one drop rule. Is the comparison legitimate? Without any RS making this particular comparison of people, there is no way to answer this in the affirmative. And we need an affirmative answer, as it is our responsibility not to potentially mislead readers by doing our own research here. Again, leave it to the RS. The Behnam 05:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images are exempt from original research. Because one could easily place the individual photos from the collage and there would be nothing wrong. Unfortunately wikimarkup is not flexible to allow images to be placed right next to each other without text and images wrapping around each other (or maybe it is and I don't know how). You are free to disagree with the use of the photos, but not based on original research. If in the caption there was something mentioned that tried to connect the individuals in the photos, that would be original research. But the only thing mentioned is facts of Mariah's ancestry. Of course the selection of photos is very deliberate, to induce a visual comparison, Its use is mainly dependent on the consensus of other editors. My main concern is that I have noticed some editors simply do not want a picture of anyone with non-european ancestry on this article. I think that is original research. Muntuwandi 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo's are often exempt, when taken by oneself and only to support reliable, sourced information, not to push your own point-of-view. --देसीफ्राल 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments deleted by Muntuwandi[edit]

Muntuwandi was justified on this one. The section started with some IP posting his personal opinions on the topic, and the forum-ish discussion continued from there. I should have posted a 'not a forum' message when I first noticed that IP's section. Anyway, I think we all ought to know better (despite this happening a lot on this page), so let's all just stop this section. The Behnam 06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree[edit]

I agree totally! We need to go by what mainstream opinion in society consider as "white". I propose the Middle Easterners used in the Gallery should be deleted as they are only considered "white" by U.S. census definition and almost nowhere else, possibly not even by most European Americans. Mediterranean Europeans need to be taken on an individual basis regarding their `whiteness'. In the U.K. for example, the Police Ethnic Code (EC) or Identity code (IC) in identifying criminal suspects usually places Mediterraneans as "EC2/IC2" separate from 'White' ("IC/EC1"), despite the fact that Southern Europeans are classed as `Other white' in the UK Census. The Image gallery should have a section known as 'Marginal whites' stating, "The following people are considered `white' by census definitions but not always in society". The Following Images could be included: [41], [42]. In my Webster's Dictionary, Mediterranean in terms of race is as follows: 3:of or relating to a group of the Caucasian race charachterised by medium or short stature, slender build, dolichocephaly, and a dark complexion. Can having a dark complexion as a physical feature attributed to a person's race really identify them as `white'? Many non-Europeans I have met (namely Africans and Asians) do not consider ALL Southern Europeans as `white' by appearance. Since non-Europeans constitute the majority of the world's population, then their views should strongly be taken into consideration. See Mediterranean race and it also includes people from as far east as India, people whom `Dark Tea' are trying to contend are `black'. Speaking of which, I am wondering as to why there is so much inclusion of the Middle East and North Africa in this article and why so many people are stuck in a quandry about South Asia. A significant amoungt of `Negroid' phenotypes are found among Arabs both on the Arabian Peninsular and in North Africa and they look more phenotypically `black' than most South Asians I have seen and would probably be percieved as such by most Americans, despite what their census includes. The following people from the Indian subcontinent look significantly Caucasian, can claim `Aryan' heritage and are Indo-Europeans: [43], [44], [45]. Finally here is a section from a website called `The Phora' [46]. It is titled "East Indian/White mix" and discusses why this offspring usually `looks' European. Why should this cause any astonishment? I would be slated if I commenced an article called `Southern European/White mix'or "Arab/Persian/White mix" and included images of this following celebrity of Greek Cypriot and Swedish ancestry and who self Identifies as `mixed race' on his own website [47]. thank you - unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.253.148 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, your "mainstream" opinion is anything but that. One of the more common synonyms given for "white" is Caucasian/Caucasoid, which encompasses a lot of people south and east of Europe, not to mention all of Europe too. So, I would suggest you come up with a reliable (mainstream), verifiable source that agrees with you if you want your opinion included. In any case, the definition of "white" is a matter of some debate, and Wikipedia rules being what they are, we are bound to describe the different significant views about "white", and not to decide for the reader who is and who isn't "white".--Ramdrake 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is hard to avoid in a topic which is superficial in nature. Right or wrong, we can't deny the historical definitions used to segregate people. Our duty is to report history accurately. The goal is to learn from history so as not to repeat it. --Kevin Murray 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, not all Anglo/Euro Indians `look' European, but then again, not all Middle Eastern mixes with `whites' look European either. Also consider the image I supplied of Cat Stevens who looks anything but Swedish despite that being his mother's ethnic background.

(Removed personal rant that had nothing to do with THIS article) It wasn't the mother that upset me so much, as the comments on that article. Peace. - Jeeny Talk 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very suspicious of someone who didn't care what their mate or children looked like. Anyway, this talk page is not for personal rants. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jeeny is quite upset in fact her talk page indicates she has retired from wikipedia. I think it would be a good idea not to stoke the flames. Muntuwandi 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/07/i_love_my_mixed.php]? Most sensible piece I've read on the topic in a long time. I wonder if we can work that into the article somehow. I'm honestly shocked that someone could not only not get what the woman is saying, but be so offended by it they had to go hide. I wonder if there have been any studies done on this sort of adverse reaction of mothers to mixed race babies. It seems quite a natural reaction to me and I am guessing is much more common than people would like to admit. Let's find the research. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White people article should deal only with white people. That could be incorporated into a Mixed Race or Colored article. (to me, colored means mixed rather than negro as in USA) --देसीफ्राल 11:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I was being slightly sarcastic. All the discussion of mixed race people belongs elsewhere. The canonical article seems to be Multiracial. Perhaps we could move this there and address some of these genuinely interesting topics and leave the white people article in peace to discuss actual white people. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely --देसीफ्राल 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Timeface.jpg

Lowri Turner is just ignorant, Ann Dunham was an amazing woman, she and many others have done a wonderful job of parenting. Lowri just illustrates how many people are stuck up on these superficial traits, she is a poor parent. Here are the original articles. [48], [49]. the original article was picked up by American Renaissance, the white racialist website. Of course this was just the stuff they wanted to hear. But face it, society is heading down the Road of mixed race, its inevitable. The Race of the future is just around the corner.Muntuwandi 12:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that Ann Dunham didn't raise Obama, he was raised primarily by his grandparents, and she apparently couldn't stay with this father either, staying with him a whopping two years after Obama was born? And if Obama's is the face of the feature, I'm definitely with Lowri. Why on earth should we not care about aesthetics? Anyway, all this agenda-pushing is totally out of place on this article and should be at least moved to Multiracial. I think you have shown your true colors here and should refrain from further edits on this article. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She did raise Obama, He only moved to his grandparents when he was 10, and even they were white. Muntuwandi 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, suggesting an editor refrain from editing an article because you don't agree with his views is the opposite of what Wikipedia is about, I respectfully suggest you just live with it. Also, since there are so many restrictions (according to some) on what is and isn't "white", a section that speaks about the import of multiraciality on "whiteness" is important, as white is probably the "race" with the most restrictive membership in existence, according to some views. This, in and of itself, is an encyclopaedia-worthy fact.--Ramdrake 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a section on the noticeboard for User:देसीफ्राल since he has been wikistalking some of my edits at noticeboard
Muntuwandi 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting picture muntuwandi. I prefer these. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mrpolly2.jpg

stop Let's stop now, this is forum-ish and counterproductive. Some of it may even be trolling. The Behnam 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Muntuwandi's edits[edit]

He seems to be adding material which isnt even mentioned in the source. Ex:

  • "Light skin is not unique to human populations, in fact it is the default state of most mammals." [50] (Adding the info), [51] (Adding the source). There's nothing remotely similar in the source: [52]
  • "The skin of albinos is similar to Europeans and East Asians in that it is depigmented. However in whites and East Asians the enzymes that produce melanin are still active." [53] [54]. Again, there isnt even mentioning of "Asian" in the source [55]. I suspect he's trying to advance his POV that albinos and east asians are also white [56]

Or he seems to blatantly misrepresent sources:

  • "Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin. Bare skin may have become sexually attractive as a sign of health, hence sexual selection favored darker skin colors." [57]
    • Source: ""In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians" [58]

KarenAER 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection, Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest, it then became subject to sexual selection, the development of features in one sex that appeal to the other. Among the newly furless humans, bare skin would have served, like the peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness.
As soon as the ancestral human population in Africa started losing its fur, Dr. Rogers surmised, people would have needed dark skin as a protection against sunlight.[59]

I don't see how this is a misinterpretation of the facts. Muntuwandi 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take these one by one:
  • "Light skin is not unique to human populations, in fact it is the default state of most mammals."
I'll assume you didn't engage in advanced biology courses, or you would be familiar with this. As mammals generally have fur, they have little use of a dark pigment to protect the skin. There are of course exception in every single species (cats, dogs, pigs, name it), but usually under all this fur, you tend to find pale skin more often than anything else.
  • "The skin of albinos is similar to Europeans and East Asians in that it is depigmented. However in whites and East Asians the enzymes that produce melanin are still active."
Again, something you would know had you taken advanced biology: albinism is due to the incapacity of the skin cells to produce melanin. The skin cells of both Europeans and East Asians are generally (if we exclude albinos in each case) able to produce melanin (hence we tan in the summer), they just produce less melanin than dark skin.
  • "Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin. Bare skin may have become sexually attractive as a sign of health, hence sexual selection favored darker skin colors."
Here is another passage from the same article:
Humans acquired dark skins in Africa about 1.5 million years ago to shield their newly hairless bodies from the sun. Its ultra-violet rays destroy folic acid, a shortage of which leads to birth defects.
I don't see any undue reinterpretation here either.
I would back Karen on this one. I think that MW is drawing a conclusion not offered in the source. I'd rather see information presented closer to the quote above. --Kevin Murray 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would advise you again to refrain from personal attacks and unwarranted conclusion based on incomplete information. You are here challenging two rather uncontroversial facts (you might have wanted to just put in a ((fact)) template, BTW), and another where the passage from the source that was used for the article is very plainly recognizable. Maybe you should consider asking for explanations next time rather than accuse someone of pushing an agenda when all they were doing was inserting non-controversial facts and rewording a source.--Ramdrake 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not about correctness but about verifiability. He's adding material which is not in the source.KarenAER 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the correct action in this case is usually to add a {{fact}} template to the statement.--Ramdrake 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear here. If the citation is provided, but does not actually support the assertion, how is adding a "fact" tag fixing the problem? --Kevin Murray 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever someone writes a section (or paragraph) which is mostly supported by the source given (usually at the end of the paragraph or section), if a statement in that particular section seems unsupported by the source, either of two things are suggested:
  1. Inserting a {{fact}} template at the end of the sentence which needs further sourcing (what I personnally consider most polite)
  2. Removing the sentence and bringing it to the talk page to request sourcing (which is also correct, but with most responsive editors, they'll end up finding you a source and putting it back up anyway)

In either case, publicly accusing an editor of pushing an agenda based on the insertion of non-sourced but uncontroversial facts isn't the best way to go.--Ramdrake 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt. But Ramdrake is too biased to comprehend that...KarenAER 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi's inclusion of the East Asian in this article is against WP:NOR and WP:NCI. The sources s/he is adding do not argue that the East Asian is a white. This is Muntuwandi's original interpretation of the sources that talk about East Asians' skin color. East Asians do not have white skin. Whites have a chalky white, pinkish color unless they get sunburned in which case they have a flayed color. Rather than being whites, East Asians may be viewed as blacks. Since East Asians do not call themselves whites, it is against naming conventions to include them in this article. Europeans are the ones who developed the term "white" for their own people, so they are the ones who should be in this article by the naming conventions.----DarkTea© 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I substantially agree, although some mention of the similarities in skin tone seems relevant along with an expanation of why they are not considered "white". --Kevin Murray 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example, there is no "adipose" in the source [60] KarenAER 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific inclusion are we talking about? Can you quote the passage, please? To Karen: adipose==fat, mentioned in the second paragraph.--Ramdrake 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"In actuality the skin of Europeans is not actually white but the underlying layer of fat, the adipose tissue, is white. Adipose tissue is white in people of all races. In Europeans the upper layer of skin, the epidermis, is an almost transparent layer of film. Consequently the epidermis allows the white adipose tissue to become visible. Blood vessels interlaced between the fat produce the pale pink color associated with Europeans. In darker skinned people the epidermis is filled with melanosomes that obscure the underlying layers of fat[4]."

Again, in the source it doesnt say adipose tissue/fat is white in people of all races. It doesnt say "In actuality the skin of Europeans is not actually white but the underlying layer of fat, the adipose tissue, is white". There is no "transparent" in the source. [61] KarenAER 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, skin fat tissue is white in all species that are known to have such tissue, The fact that skin in whites is also (nearly) transparent shouldn't need a source either: look at your skin and see the veins coursing where the skin is thin (especially on the back of the hand and on the wrist)? This observation alon should be proof enough. You're asking for sources for basic, uncontroversial biological facts. This sounds more and more like a WP:POINT and is mostly a waste of time.--Ramdrake 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Karen is right. The article does not specifically support the statement in our article. That being said I do beleive the statement is correct, but should be sourced. Is the anthro.palomar.edu site a bona fide source? If so there is a lot of good information there which we should use. --Kevin Murray 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please tell me again which specific part of the statement you find unsourced (I'm a bit dizzy here from this back-and-forth), and I'll find you a source, it should be simple enough.--Ramdrake 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the skin of Europeans is not actually white but the underlying layer of fat, the adipose tissue, is white" --Kevin Murray 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should also have a source confirming the transparancy (translucent?) of epideral layer. --Kevin Murray 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About transparency of the skin, I have this (requires subscription) [62] or this link from Google which shows that the specific info you're looking for is indeed in the article [63]
About the adipose layer of the skin being white: (again requires subscription) [64] and this is from Google scholar showing that "subcutaneous adipose tissue" is indeed white. [65]. Please let me know if this is satisfactory. If not, I'll search some more.--Ramdrake 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your integrity and judgment in this and all matters. --Kevin Murray 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also known as white adipose tissue Muntuwandi 04:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an observation from a (relatively) uninterested third party who stumbled here, but spends a lot of time on policy/guideline discussions, it seems that the fundamental question here is of original research and/or synthesis; combining two or more sources to draw or imply a conclusion counts as original research. I make no comment on whether that has happened or not, as I provide this observation based on reading this discussion, rather than the material or sources. It might be entirely irrelevant. SamBC(talk) 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it does look like synthesis often - starts out uncited then evolves to synthesis after being challenged. A bunch of unrelated citations are combined to promote his agenda. If Muntuwandi is going to introduce this propaganda in articles why shouldn't counter arguments be introduced as well? Where does it stop? All these controversial articles will end up with a bunch of socio-political propaganda rather than the material they are supposed to be about. I'd just like to ask everyone to work together and avoid introducing material they know is going to cause a problem. Consider the objections you might encounter before making an edit and try to make it fair - save us the trouble. That means, on an article like this, cite every statement and balance it with any opposing points of view. If you on the one hand introduce a source that says whites should accept mulattos as white, what about a source that says they shouldn't or can't? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human skin color[edit]

The article at Human skin color seems to cover many of the topics discussed here and with some good sources. --Kevin Murray 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

skin color map

The skin color map shows that east shows europeans as in the range 1-14 on the Von Luschan's chromatic scale of skin lightness. Mediterranean Europeans fall in the range 12-14. East asians fall in the range 12-14 as well. East asians are not socially constructed as white, but their skin color is in the same range with Europeans. So I don't believe it is Original research to discuss East asians with regard to light skin. Muntuwandi 04:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely original research. You're taking some material that says one thing and drawing conclusions from it. Unless you can find an expert who equates the two, conclusions drawn from the map are synthesis. This is not hard to understand. Please take the time to understand the citation process on wikipedia and the full meaning and implications of the policy against original research. Also, you'll note that "white people" as it's most often used includes the populations from the area indicated as 1-12 on that map so I don't even begin to understand what you are trying to say. At any rate "map says X, and Y is true, so Z" is prohibited synthesis. Please do not (re)introduce any material at all whatsoever to this type of controversial article that is not cited from an expert source. It will be deleted. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis would involve using more than one source and combining their statements to draw a new conclusion that is not reached in either source. The map clearly says East Asians have the same color as Iberians and Italians, but this does not mean East Asians are also white. The White Race does not actually include Iberians, since the Iberians Arabized by with the Semitic race and Negroids from India. Also, Turkish Mongoloized by the Mongoloid Race. Italy miscegenated with the Negroid Race of Africa and the Semites Race of the Middle East when the Romans allowed racial mixing. In terms of a convenient social construction, the "white race" has been simplified by some to mean European, but in truth, Italians, Iberians, and Turkish are mulatto, Eurasian, Semite/white hybrids.----DarkTea© 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your coments on Iberians are completely delirious! And you cite a site called white-history.com?!? You know nothing about Iberia and its populations genetics or history. And it's apparent you've never been there. Your comments are racist and offensive to most southern Europeans! The Ogre 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is making interpretations from the map original research. Surely we can see according to the map which regions overlap. East asia overlaps with Europe, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Muntuwandi 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that drawing any conclusions at all from a map is original research, which only comes into play in controversial articles or where it has been challenged. Maps are pictures, they don't say anything. To interpret them with authority would require being an expert on the matter. At any rate, all that map shows to me is that whites are in fact not what you are trying to say, but conversely the area colored for 1-12 in skin color. Hence the need for expert interpretation. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big problem with this is that Von Luschan's technique has been outmoded by reflectance spectrophotometry for over 50 years. Despite it being "obvious" (if it were really obvious, that technique probably would have been more consistent) that Europeans and East Asians share a similar skin tone, is there a source that says that? If it covers the topic in any depth, it will probably mention that the social construct defies the science, which is something that should be included in any discussion of similar skin tones.--Chaser - T 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what absolute twaddle. All this source ever talks about is the Von Luschan's chromatic scale. The image is derived from the GFDL image Image:Map of skin hue equi.png (not "free use" as you claim. You have violated the GFDL by not attributing me as the author of the original). Maybe you could be bothered to transfer the original image description which includes the caveat This map has gained broad circulation in several widely distributed publications (Barsh 2003, Lewontin 1995, Roberts 1977, Walter 1971), despite the fact that, for areas with no data, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas. dab (𒁳) 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Section[edit]

"The authors concluded that white people, in practice, refers to "people of European origin with pale complexions."" [66]

How come this is incorrect? KarenAER 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, that is not their conclusion, that is but one of the various definitions they considered in the paper.--Ramdrake 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In table 1 they summarize the definitions used in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK. Under comments and recommendations it says: "in practice, refers to "people of European origin with pale complexions." The "race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK." was actually included in the previous version. So how's this: The authors commented that white people, "in practice, refers to "people of European origin with pale complexions" in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK. KarenAER 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article and table interesting, but it is only another example of an opinion. What value is it for us to have this opinion, and encourage MW to post another obscure source in rebuttal? I think that we are better served using definitions with broader recognition. --Kevin Murray 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it clearly shows there are different attitudes WITHIN the US which is discordant with US Census. KarenAER 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but I think we open Pandora's box. I'd like to establish some standard for sources so that we don't open the door for a jumble of special interest sources. --Kevin Murray 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, again. I don't think anyone wants to start quoting the KKK on who's white and who isn't, even though they're a verifiable source and they represent the views of some (tiny) segment of the population (hoping you'll pardon me this exaggeration to make the point).--Ramdrake 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont pardon your exaggeration because it is irrelevant. My source is a RS which analyses all the usages in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK. It does not represent a tiny minority. KarenAER 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article do they state that they review the entire medical literature? Besides, here is some of what the authors says about the use of the term "White": The term White includes persons of Scottish, New Zealander, Greek, Spanish, English, Canadian, Welsh, Irish, and-in the United States-Iranian and Moroccan descent and has little value in gauging ethnicity or race. It encourages the division of society by skin color, reinforcing racial stereotyping, and hides a remarkable heterogeneity of cultures.--Ramdrake 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RD, it seems that some editors including MW are painting people into corners with their attempts to soapbox here. DT makes a good point below. I'd rather that we get this article up on a higher plain where it doesn't have to read like a debate. --Kevin Murray 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In page 3, it says "Table 1 summarizes the qualities of most of the terms for nominority populations in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK". And that quote of yours is the official US definition, which is included in the article, not the definition used in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK and certainly not "in practice". KarenAER 14:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What quote of mine? Or are you repsonding to RD? If so don't indent from my comment. --Kevin Murray 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that there is a right or wrong here, but multiple definitions of an abstract term. I think that our job here is to explain the various historical and contemporary definitions, while avoiding creating new definitions or being judgmental. --Kevin Murray 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Ramdrake 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source Karen AER found should be in the article. This is not the kind of defintion Muntuwandi can disprove by counter example. Muntuwandi can only counter a definition of whites that is based on skin color alone. The source that Karen AER found says a white is both European and has a "pale complexion". Muntuwandi's East Asian and albino African can't disprove this claim because they are not European. Contrary to Kevin Murray's synopsis, this source impedes Muntuwandi's argument.----DarkTea© 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, the article relates that this is only one of several definitions they came across; quoting this one to make a point and not quoting the others seems lopsided to me, especially when their recommendation is that this use of the definition be abandoned.--Ramdrake 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion from their table is valid regardless as to what they recommend for future action, the latter not being specifically germane to the section. Yes they discuss several definitions but criticize these as being too broad. --Kevin Murray 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main conclusion they come up with is that "White" is a misnomer and shouldn't be used in epidemiological research because its definition is too vague. --Ramdrake 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support RD's addition regarding the recommendation by the authors. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frost maps[edit]

I'd like to hear RD's point about the Frost maps being original research. --Kevin Murray 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also prefer to see the formats similar, and the presentation be taken out of the template for the hair color. --Kevin Murray 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has a section up in the talk page already. KarenAER 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! My continued comments will be added to the section above. However, after reading that discussion, I more likely support inclusion of the maps. --Kevin Murray 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments in the other section above. I've outlined four points which make me want to exclude these maps. This could be used as a basis for discussion.--Ramdrake 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the user made version of the map of hair colour is quite inaccurate to peter frosts original map. peter frosts original map shows northern scotland has being 20-49% light colour hair but this one shows it as 50-79% light hair. I suspect t was done on purpose by dark tea who shows nordicist tendencies. The map needs to be changed to the original accurate map made by frost either by being redrawn or using frosts original maps as the image.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.17.237 (talk • contribs)

Original research[edit]

John Abizaid

Is is original research to say these guys are white and not European. Muntuwandi 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that's true, why does it matter? (After all, you're the one who inserted the recent section with their pictures.)--Chaser - T 04:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Abizad is 3/4 white, so of course he is going to be lighter. The thing with Arabs and the like is that they have a broad range of skin coloring, the bulk of them being rather darker. The same with Indians, many are very dark, the same color as an African Black (different tone though). Whereas some, particularly Actors and Actresses are much lighter, often looking very pale in films and photos. This is because white is seen as very beautiful, so that is what you are shown. I'd hazard a guess that 90% of arabs would be sufficiently dark as not to pass for white, and that the 10% who are lighter are greatly over represented for aesthetic reasons. The difference with the white race is that they are all very white (without tanning). Note that this is uncited so hasn't been put in the article, don't see why you think you're any different, Muntuwandi --देसीफ्राल 04:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But most Arabs are considered as "caucasoid" even if they are darker. In fact I just copied the definition from the caucasian race article into this article. So it is not original research.Muntuwandi 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is about White People, why would you start talking about caucasoids here when there is a Caucasoid article? The question is rhetorical, I know you are just pushing your agenda. --देसीफ्राल 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake and Kevin had suggested a comparison between the terms European, white and Caucasian. There is no harm in that and it may even be necessary since these terms are used interchangeably. Muntuwandi 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee. The evolution of a naked, darkly pigmented integument occurred early in the evolution of the genus Homo. A dark epidermis protected sweat glands from UV-induced injury, thus insuring the integrity of somatic thermoregulation. Of greater significance to individual reproductive success was that highly melanized skin protected against UV-induced photolysis of folate

Physiological models have demonstrated that the evolution of hairlessness and an essentially modern sweating mechanism were coordinated with the higher activity levels associated with the modern limb proportions and striding bipedalism (Montagna, 1981; Schwartz & Rosenblum, 1981; Wheeler, 1984, 1996; Chaplin et al., 1994). Throughout this transitional period,the critical function of the integument in thermoregulation was maintained through evolution of an increased number of sweat glands, particularly on the face (Cabanac &Caputa, 1979; Falk, 1990), that increased the maximum rate of evaporative cooling available at any one time (Wheeler, 1996; see also Mahoney, 1980). The brain is extremely heat sensitive, and its temperature closely follows arterial temperature (Nelson & Nunneley, 1998). Evolution of a wholebody cooling mechanism capable of finely regulating arterial temperature was, therefore, a prerequisite for brain expansion and increased activity levels. Naked skin itself affords a thermoregulatory advantage because it makes for a reduced total thermal load requiring evaporative dissipation (Wheeler, 1996). As the density of body hair decreased and the density of sweat glands increased, the need for protection of subepidermal tissues against the destructive effects of UV radiation, particularly UVB, also increased. This protection was accomplished by an increase in melanization of the skin. Jablonski and Chaplin

this is the text from the article, what is the difference. Muntuwandi 05:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Many animals have a thick layer of body hair that protects the skin from the sun's rays and also keeps the body warm at night. Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to humans. Since they have light skin covered by hair, scientist believe that the common ancestor humans share with the chimpanzee would have been the same[5]. Only a few mammals have lost their hair for a variety of reasons, these include aquatic mammals, hippopotami and Naked mole rats[6]. As human evolution progressed, brain size increased[7]. The increase in brain power would have required a finer thermoregulatory system since the brain consumes large amounts of energy and is very sensitive to heat. As a result humans evolved more sweat glands, especially on the face.[7] For effective evaporation from these sweat glands the loss of body hair was necessary.[7] Though naked skin is advantageous for thermoregulation, it exposes the epidermis to destructive levels of UV radiation that can cause sunburn, skin cancer and birth defects resulting from the destruction of the essential vitamin B folate.[7] Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin.[7]


Muntuwandi 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ White=Europe, says Country A
  2. ^ Aye, says Country B
  3. ^ Norway source
  4. ^ Skin Color Adaptation
  5. ^ Why humans and their fur parted ways
  6. ^ [http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Pagel-BL-270-S117.pdf A naked ape would have fewer parasites]
  7. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference jablonski was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people/Archive_13&oldid=1137318856"