![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Most actors and actresses have light skin,[80] and there continues to be a preference for fair or lighter skin in some countries, including Latin American countries where whites are a minority.[81] In Mexico, light skin is associated with power, as well as attractiveness.[82] A dark-skinned person is more likely to be discriminated against in Brazil.[83] Many Latin American actors and actresses have European features—blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90] A light-skinned person is considered to be more privileged and have a higher social status; a person with light skin is considered more beautiful and it means that the person has more wealth. Skin color is such an obsession in some countries that specific words describe distinct skin tones from "jincha", Puerto Rican slang for "glass of milk" to "morena", literally "brown".[90]"
This part of the article is completely ridiculous and offensive and should be excluded, it tries to make it seem like everyone who is not white thinks we, white people, are more beautiful; it generalizes; it makes it seem like it is some kind of anomaly for a Latin American to have features that are more common in Europe, which is absurd, seeing as most Latin Americans have European descent; it is fully based in vague assumptions; it makes it seem like the names given to different skin tones are due to some sort of sick obsession, which is absurd, and so on...It is so absurd and offensive! -- CEBR ( talk) 18:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, look carefully and you'll see that it is extremely flawed, I am not excluding it because I don't like it, I'm excluding it because it is racist, racism is not accepted in Wikipedia. I have only messed with the part about Latin America because it is my area of expertise and one of the few parts of the article I took a look at, if the rest of the article is as flawed as that part I think something needs to be done about it too! CEBR ( talk) 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Most actors and actresses have light skin,[80] and there continues to be a preference for fair or lighter skin in some countries, including Latin American countries where whites are a minority.[81] In Mexico, light skin is associated with power, as well as attractiveness.[82] A dark-skinned person is more likely to be discriminated against in Brazil.[83] Many Latin American actors and actresses have European features—blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90] A light-skinned person is considered to be more privileged and have a higher social status; a person with light skin is considered more beautiful and it means that the person has more wealth. Skin color is such an obsession in some countries that specific words describe distinct skin tones from "jincha", Puerto Rican slang for "glass of milk" to "morena", literally "brown".[90]"
This part of the article is completely ridiculous and offensive and should be excluded, it tries to make it seem like everyone who is not white thinks we, white people, are more beautiful; it generalizes; it makes it seem like it is some kind of anomaly for a Latin American to have features that are more common in Europe, which is absurd, seeing as most Latin Americans have European descent; it is fully based in vague assumptions; it makes it seem like the names given to different skin tones are due to some sort of sick obsession, which is absurd, and so on...It is so absurd and offensive! -- CEBR ( talk) 18:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, look carefully and you'll see that it is extremely flawed, I am not excluding it because I don't like it, I'm excluding it because it is racist, racism is not accepted in Wikipedia. I have only messed with the part about Latin America because it is my area of expertise and one of the few parts of the article I took a look at, if the rest of the article is as flawed as that part I think something needs to be done about it too! CEBR ( talk) 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)