![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the opening of the article should match that of the articles on the other major colors; with a definition that's short, not too technical and is understandable to laymen, along with a simple example - in this case, fresh milk or snow. I think the best source is the Oxford English dictionary definition: "Of the colour of fresh milk or snow; having that colour produced by reflection, transmission or emission of all wavelengths of visible light without absorption, being fully luminous and devoid of any hue." SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This page is completely missing even a definition of a white pigment or material -- something that reflects all light. Giving a summery of the whitest-known materials (reflect maximal amounts of light in different ranges) would be nice...
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.92.74.250 (
talk) 19:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In Hinduism, the people wear white cothing when someone dies
This article, it seems to me, confuses pigment color and light color, or, actually, ignores pigment color. I have no competence in this field, but it does seem that someone who does should take a look. Ortolan88
in some cultures white is associated with death
vietnamese people wear white at funerals, or so i heard
White means peace.
Should the pages for "white", "whites" and "black" ("blacks" just redirects) be standardized somehow? Personally, I'd rather see the racial interpretation of "white" handled via "white (race)" or "white (ethnicity)" or whatever.... - dcljr 18:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday, User:Matthew Stannard added a link [1] to a course at a London community college entitled "The colour white". I reverted it [2]. Matt wrote on my talk page:
I decided to reply here. I don't think the link should be here because
Wikipedia isn't a link farm. But it isn't something I feel strongly about; I'm not going to remove it again. Dbenbenn 17:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I recently created categories for colors as shades of R-O-Y-G-C-B-V. How can white be categorized in this?? Georgia guy 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article says that white "has high brightness but zero hue". In the hue-saturation-lightness color model, at least, you get white when lightness is at a maximum, no matter what the hue. From this point of view, white is the lightest "light red", the lightest "light blue", the lightest "light green", and so on; so it doesn't seem to make sense to say that white has zero hue, because the "hue" of white is irrelevant. Does this make sense, or am I a raving crackpot? — Bkell 07:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone besides me think that mentioning Apple Macintosh computers under the heading 'Computers' is off-topic? -- Andymussell 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I came here looking for the source of the word white. It has this info for days of the week and the names of months. anybody who knows anything about this want to add it?-- Olsdude 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What does white look like? I would like a picture. P.S. I'm blind.
Added reference to Korea, and separated India from East Asia. In India, the symbolic representation of white has similarities with East Asian cultures, but ultimately represents different things. Intranetusa ( talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
the visible part of light is just a small section of a much much larger spectrum, so could an object be visibly white, yet non-visibly black, or vise-versa? that is, an object that, while it reflects all visible light, absorbs infrared and ultraviolet light. this would mean that two different white objects could have much different efficiencies when used to reflect light to keep something cool for instance. just a thought. Sahuagin ( talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of carte blanche in the article.
I think it's about any form of signed document, with the field for purpose left empty, to be filled by the possessor as needed. Meaning a "license for everything". But I'm not completly sure about that, so maybe someone else should add it to the list. 91.67.3.245 ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead is actually not very good (white color can be made with a yellow and blue laser)
Here is new lead it is a bit more technical:
White is a color, the perception which is evoked by light that stimulates all three types of color sensitive cone cells in the human eye in near equal way and with high brightness compared to the surroundings.
Its not the final word but I think it is more accurate -- Thorseth ( talk) 12:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The statement "white is all colors" is so widespread even here on Wikipedia ( White_noise ) that it might deserve its own section, here is my proposal:
Flawed Definition
White is what humans perceive as white, sunlight is a special kind of white light, and the equal mix will give a blue/greenish color quite far from being white. -- Thorseth ( talk) 07:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"White", as taught many years ago, was one of two "Non-Colors" (the other being black). When referencing light, white was stated to be the balanced presence of all color (or as humanly perceived three colors). When speaking of pigments it was said to be the lack of all color. Black, conversely, was the absence of all light, and the presence of all pigment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonroverer ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have changed "tone" to "color" in the lead. The disambiguation tone has no mention referring to color."Color tone" might also be appropriate but Color tone is a redirect to color theory, which I also find a little strange.-- 130.225.235.202 ( talk) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
White is white. It is the absence of colour. Once you tint it blue or yellow or pink or whatever, it's not white anymore because now it absorbs some light, when white should reflect all light. Having said that, can someone explain to me why there is a "Shades of white" section at the bottom, and why the picture of white shows shades of blue and yellow? Thanks, Clem ( talk) 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that off-white is not a scientific name for a color; however, I came here looking to find it. I can tell from the previous discussions here that people want to be scientific and not have this article contain misleading information. However, off-white is in such common use (at least in the U.S.) that I feel it deserves at least a mention here, about what it is and how it relates to "White". It definitely would not merit its own article, and White would seem to be the closest place for it, maybe under a section whose title indicates it is not "scientific" somehow? Thanks for considering it. Fallendarling ( talk) 01:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The bit about stellar class and white dwarfs appears grammatically and factually broken. I had to go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White&oldid=315610470 to see that it appears to have been moved/merged from two previous statements, separately about stellar class A stars and white dwarfs. Even then I'm not convinced by the original explanations.
[Stellar classification] seems to suggest that class A is named by convention alone, related mostly to ionic absorption lines, and not due to their blackbody colour temperature under which they would be considered more towards the blue. ("True white", if it means anything, being related to our own sun's colour temperature which as a class G star is rather cooler.)
[White dwarf] doesn't say why the name was chosen but over time as they cool they fade through a range of colour temperatures. (Maybe as purer blackbody sources than most stars they can be in some sense "white whatever the colour"?)
So this paragraph, while it may have value in some form somewhere in the article, basically boils down to a (short) list of things which happen to have been given the name "white" in the middle of a technical discussion of colour temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.43.80 ( talk) 16:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Why does the first sentence say "White is a color" (or, as one would say on my side of the Atlantic, "white is a colour")? Surely white is the absence of all colours (in the case of paints) or the presence of all colours (in the case of lights) and is therefore not a true colour). ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any accepted definition of the colour region in e.g. the CIE 1931 colour space which is considered white of belonging to an illuminant? In particular, is there a lower and upper limit to the colour temperature outside which the light is no longer called white? For example, almost everyone would agree that sunlight can be called white. Opionions differ about the light of a light bulb − most manufacturers call it "warm white" (which is actually wrong since it is a quite low colour temperature and just the human experience with open fire and similar articifial light sources causes the relation of red to yellow tones as "warm" colours) while many people actually perceive it as something like a pale orange (which it acutally is if displayed in standard RGB with whitepoint D65). Glowing coals at 1000 K are nowhere called "white". Similarly, the blue sky is also quite close to the Planckian locus, but at colour temperatures up to 30000 K. No one would call this white. So, are there any accepted limits and references to these limits?-- SiriusB ( talk) 11:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If the Hue is the main property of a color and white is without hue then how is it considered a color. As much as light produces the color spectrum we can precieve, and the brightest bright of a color is a extreme light of that color. More importantly if the general idea proposed is that white and black are composed of all and absent of all color, then how is white a color? Maybe another term should be used for white and black that can truly define what they are in the color spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk) 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of White's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "osln":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I can understand the need for a more readable and less technical approach, but to me it now reads like a garbled children's book. The sentence on the visible spectrum is just a general misconception, which is demonstrably false, see White#Optics. As I understand the English language, white is NOT the color of pure snow or milk, rather it is almost the opposite: Pure snow is considered to HAVE a white color. I find it very hard to believe that the section is supported by the references given. I will start revising this as soon as I get the time, can anyone explain what happened? -- Thorseth ( talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I put back the first sentence about milk and snow, which had been deleted, to match the opening sentences of the articles on red, blue, green, and the other colors, which all use common objects. The milk and snow comparison is from the Oxford English dictionary, which also says "having all the wavelengths of visible light without absorption, being fully luminous and devoid of any hue."
The Websters New World Dictionary defines white as "having the color of pure snow or milk, of the color of radiated, transmitted or reflected light containing all of the visible rays of the spectrum. opposite to black" the Random House College dictionary uses "of the color of pure snow, of the margins of this page, etc, reflecting nearly all the rays of sunlight or a similar light." Random House and Websters probably took the milk and snow comparison from the OED.
What's a better way to say it? How about "Milk and pure snow both have a white color. White contains all the wavelengths of visible light without absorption, is fully luminous and does not have any hue." This isn't very comprehensible to non-specialists, but it's more accurate. Your advice? SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph has to be clear and comprehensible to non-specialists, and free of jargon. The Oxford English Dictionary is generally considered a pretty reliable and standard source. Here's their full definition: "of the colour of fresh milk or snow; having that colour produced by reflection, transmission, or emission of all wavelengths of visible light without absorption. being fully luminous and devoid of any hue." − − The Petit Larousse, the French equivalent of the OED, says: (my translation), "of the color of snow, of milk. Light resulting from the combination of all the colors of the solar spectrum."
What is false about these definitions? I'm glad to re-write the lead to correct a mistake. However, I think a more detailed discussion of optics belongs in the section on that subject. Most of this article is devoted to the cultural history and uses of the color white. Please see the other color articles. − SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What we consider white is the spectrum that the sun emits. But that is a black body spectrum, and contains more green than red, and more red than blue. That means that white light does not have equal power in all frequencies the way white noise does. The article doesn't mention the role of the sun in our definition of white at all, even though it is quite a crucial role, since our visual system has evolved to match its spectrum. So what does true white, where all frequencies have equal power, actually look like? I imagine that it would be a slightly purplish blue (with red and especially blue overrepresented relative to sunlight). Could more information about this be added to the article? I haven't been able to find any sources about "true" white, and I'm not even sure what the scientific term is for it. CodeCat ( talk) 00:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You just deleted everything I add, eh? I am not going to make you any difficulties because this isn’t an article I care much for but think this is a case of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. But you just not appreciated the stuff you didn’t chose yourself. Sure, you are going to tell me that the dog was not white enough, the opal was not clear enough or whatever, and there is always an answer. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. Hafspajen ( talk) 16:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Hafspajen: Thanks for your comment. There are a couple of reasons why this was deleted. First and most important, space; this section is comparable to sections in the colors red, blue, green, yellow, etc; and is designed to show the best-known variants of the color (in the case, alabaster, ivory) and some iconic examples of white (milk, snow, polar bear, White Cliffs of Dover). It's not meant to be an extensive list of everything that's white, there's not enough room for that. I thought a polar bear was a better example than the poodle, since a polar bear is always white, and is famous for its color. As to the opal, it doesn't appear white in the image provided, and I don't see it described as white in the article on opals. It might make sense to have a section on white minerals, however, if you can find an image that would fit. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear SiefkinDR, my problem is that there is plenty of space. The galleries are extremely uneven. The rows are not complete. looks just , well unplesant to me.
Hafspajen (
talk) 02:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
White is, first and foremost, a physical and biological phenomenon. Its position in human culture is then derived from this. The optics section was previously the first section to follow the etymology section (which is generally always first, according to Wikipedia convention), until approximately the November of 2012, when it was unilaterally decided that White's history and art would come earlier in the article (and this happened to other color articles at approximately the same time). Whilst the history and art of a color is relevant and interesting, it definitely is not more important than a detailed explanation about the science that actually constitutes the color. This extends to all color articles that are now in this format, which I would like to see reverted to the more logical format.
I would like to link to the articles
ink,
Primary color,
Color, all of which put the science first and the history afterwards.
Nickc8 ( talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Nickc8
Respectfully, I disagree. I think the history and culture of a color is just as important as the science, and is the main reason why people read the color articles. I vote for keeping the current organisation of the article. SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the original comment: optics first. I don't mean this as a slight to history or culture, I just think it helps to have considered the optical qualities of white to better understand the definition, and so be prepared to continue on to the history/culture information. Being grounded in the physical realities of white will help the reader think about how humans in this or that time, this or that culture, have encountered, related to, and then produced cultural works about, white.
This goes along with a larger thought: science, and technical information, more often enriches, rather than diminishes or drowns out, cultural and artistic content, just like how knowing the species of butterfly you're looking at in a pleasant meadow doesn't take away from all the other ways you appreciate seeing and thinking about that butterfly, but in fact adds to it.
Also, if we moved Optics/Science up to right after etymology, the History/Culture section could lead right into the Symbology section, which just makes more thematic sense. Someone who is truly only interested in those topics can easily hyperlink on down using the Contents box, they don't even have to bother scrolling past the science if they don't want to.
Marmalamarie ( talk) 08:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I just encountered this article today, and I'm unhappy to see that the Optics section, along with some other things in the article, is totally bogus. The definition of white is incorrect -- it can be defined either as a perceptual quality, or as a property of a surface, but it is incorrect to define it as a property of a light source or light spectrum. A white object will be white whether it is viewed by sunlight, incandescent light, fluorescent light, etc -- each of which gives rise to a different emission spectrum. I'm bringing this up here because I'm not sure I'll be able to put in the effort to fix the article, especially with proper references. Looie496 ( talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of this article concerns the history, culture and associations of the color white, and the white horse is a perfect example to illustrate the article. (See image of space at the top of the article on black for another example, or the image of water in the article on cyan.) The grid of different colors that had been put in place of the white horse was misleading; in fact only one color on the grid was white; the others were shades of different colors. Putting a white square against a white page is more accurate, but dull and doesn't convey any information about the meaning of white. For these reasons, I believe we should keep the image of the white horse, which very clearly represents the symbolism and cultural meaning of white. SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see the montage of white now at the top of the page, as a proposed substitute for a white icon. This is an attempt to present the various aspects of white, in art, nature, biology, and culture in a single montage. Please let me know what you think. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, a single montage-image would be better; I just don't know how to make one. SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I think the image be smaller, and represent the major aspects and uses of white; nature, culture, religion, art and architecture. Images in the montage should also be found in the article, with captions. Some examples of other montages are found in the articles on New York and Marseille. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Other good examples of montages are found in the articles on Paris, London and New York City SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Will do that, but please put the montage back, or let me do so, so people can see what is proposed and can make suggestions and and comments. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The articles on the main colors have images that show the different shades, although I'm not sure how useful those are, since they have no explanations or captions, and most of shades shown don't match the information given in the infoboxes. The great majority of the content of the color articles is not about the optics but about the symbolism of the colors and their occurrence and use in art, biology, history, politics, botany, etc. I think black and white should have a different kind of image, since neither by definition has any shades, and since everyone has a pretty good idea what they look like. The black article has a picture of outer space taken from Mars, which I think is more interesting than a plain black square, and its the most read of all the color articles by a wide margin. I think the white article should also have something more interesting than a plain white square on a white page and something that suggests that range of uses and and importance of white in science, culture, history and art SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The talented folks at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab put together the photomontage below as a possible lead image for the article.
Each of these images is clickable. It represent some of the varieties of white that exist in nature, culture, and art, which are explained in the article. I am hoping that it can be made into a single image, so it can be moved around more easily. Comments and suggestions are welcome. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all: I understand, this is the English language version of Wikipedia, and though English is a particularly wide-spoken language, many content writers and editors here will have a natural bias toward what is the mainstream culture of where they most likely live (i.e., in "English-speaking," Western nations). I don't mean to look down on the work already done with this article; I had as much fun learning about the chalky origins of the word "candidate" as the next etymology and history enthusiast, and differences in organizational preferences will always be with us.
However, the bias here is particularly glaring. I think it is also the main part of what keeps the article from having truly good (succinct and accessible) organization.
There is next to no information on the place of the color White in cultures other than those "Classical/Ancient" or European/Western. The "White in other cultures" content is not even filled out enough to exist in a proper paragraphical format. There is no reasonable substantiation I can think of for why those cultures featured in this section are "Other cultures" while those not relegated to this small corner can be presumed to be not-other, "Normal cultures". This confusion continues the rest of the way through this article. Information on the color White in non-Western, non-Christian context is indeed scattered sparingly in those places that are outside the "other cultures" penalty box, seemingly without rhyme or reason. If we're going to keep this cultural bias, we may as well be tidy, consistent, and open about it: all "Other" cultures fully separate and the main history, symbol, etc. sections labeled "European" or "Western" ... or full integration and reorganization.
Summary for action: I'm advocating for doing as much as possible to (1) re-organize these sections both for concision and for bias-removal. The "White in history and culture" section should contain all the history and culture pertaining to the color white from around the world, perhaps further organized into time-, subject- or region-based subsections, and to (2) increase the quality and quantity of content pertaining to the color white in as many diverse contexts as possible into the main body of the article's relevant sections.
If you disagree with any of these criticisms/aims/plans, responding to this here would be a good place to discuss it. Unless there are any expressed and convincing objections, I am going to begin doing my small bit to address this issue in the next few days. Help would be very, very much appreciated.
Marmalamarie ( talk) 08:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As you correctly point out, this article is in the English Wikipedia, and the great majority of readers are in the U.S., UK, and other English-speaking countries, who are naturally interested of the culture and history of the color in western culture. But, as you also correctly state, there could be a lot more about white in other cultures. Two of the three cultural images in the montage at the top show uses of white in Asian culture, and there should be more about that (and other cultures) in the article. I also agree that they shouldn't be buried in a small corner in the lower part of the article. Your contributions on this will be very welcome. Please put your additions about white in other cultures in the history and art section, either chronologically, or, if you think it makes more sense, as a separate sub-section.
I would ask you to please keep the order of main sections the same; it follows the format of the other major color articles (black, red, yellow, blue), and most of the other color articles, and, after battles with some editors who felt the article should be almost entirely about optics and wavelength, culture has won out and it's been stable now for several years. I hope we don't have to refight those battles. And, of course, please don't delete the work of other editors that is accurate and correctly sourced.
I look forward to seeing your contributions! SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a problem with the new definition of white that has been substituted for the original definition in the lead, that says: " "the color produced by the reflection by a material of all the wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum."[1][2]
It isn't completely accurate; some white that the eye sees is a reflection, but white light is also produced by various transmitters; the sun, light bulbs, computer screens, etc. You're not seeing a reflection, you're seeing the real thing. The two citations in the article refer to the original and classic definition, a combination of all the colors in the optical spectrum. I think the original definition, per the citations, should be restored. The more detailed description can be included in the section on optics. SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I must say I am puzzled by the wish for a dictionary definition of white, not many other articles on wikipedia will get their first reference from a dictionary (and perhaps with good reason Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Thorseth ( talk) 19:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned in the talk sections Talk:White/Archive 1#Flawed_definition... and Talk:White/Archive 1#Optics_and_more, white light is NOT, no matter how many cites are provided, "...the color produced by the combination of all the colors of the visible spectrum." Certainly, something like white can be created using all frequencies, and we see that from the sun.
But 1) by varying intensities of different parts of the spectrum, the same could be true of *any color you like*, and 2) even if the definition is clarified to add "at equal intensity", this does not distinguish the color from "grey" or indeed even from "black", and 3) it's just demonstrably categorically false anyway, since you can make the color white with only the barest tiny fraction of that spectrum. Specifically, the white background of this page is caused (on most displays) by only three very narrow color bands, Red, Green, and Blue.
So more correct definition might be "...a color which activates all three types of cone cell in the human eye at roughly the same intensity." But intensity is a really vague term there, and I'm not sure how that definition can be distinguished from a definition for "grey". Maybe by adding "... and is at least approximately the highest brightness available in the current (Scene? Environment? What? I'm not sure.)" or "and also significantly activates the rod cells (am I even right about this, or could a non-rod-triggering light still be white?)" But then... if snow is "white", is the snow in a crevasse white, when you are standing outside, looking in? I'd argue yes. Difficult.
The problem here is that the blatantly obviously WRONG definition, which we should not be promoting in any way here, is the definition with all the cites, and the dictionary definition. But the obviously right definition is very OR. How do we address this? DewiMorgan ( talk) 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DewiMorgan but I see the problem a bit differently. There are some scientifically correct definitions out there, for instance in Wyszecki and Stiles "Color Science" but they are not very accessible, and when I tried to formulate something more readable (see Talk:White/Archive 1#Better_lead) it was promptly reversed to the dictionary "definition" which seems mostly to be about the word white and really is just examples of white things, for example a light source emitting at all visible wavelengths. I don't think it's a definition if it just contains a bunch of examples (see Wikipedia is not a dictionary). I have neither the time or the patience for an edit war, so I can help with better references and with some more correct definitions, but if there is no consensus I will leave the article as is (including the misconception). I think it would be good to look at other sensory related articles such as Pain which contain both examples and a technical defintion by a organization working with the subject. Another example is Pitch (music) which has a technical defintion and then some elabotationg text. Would the people with strong opinions on the lead text agree to collaborate on this? Thorseth ( talk) 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
One sentence on white color in biology, that is not very impressive. Further more, I wonder why the gallery seems to suggest that the world of the living only consists of mammals, birds and ... pearls?
How about the birch or this little fellow Olm, not to mention insects, for instance the cabbage butterfly. Thorseth ( talk) 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Green is the only one of the articles on colors that has a "good article" tag. I suggest we try to use the structure and style of that article. What do you say? Thorseth ( talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks I will come up with some suggestions soon. Thorseth ( talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
At what percentage does white reflect sunlight? 59.96.196.209 ( talk) 13:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The dictionary and literal definition of achromatic is "without color". Most everybody knows what a color is, but not many people understand what a hue is; I'm trying to keep the definition in simple and non-technical terms, as it was originally. I welcome your comments. SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
One editor has reverted the meaning of achromatic back to "without hue", but I respectfully submit that that is not the best definition of "achromatic". The Oxford English dictionary defines achromatic as "without color". without reference to hue. Hue by definition is not the same as color. I think it should he reverted back to the definition origiinally given in the citation. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:White/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I have a question about the prism thing. I understand that the white light seperates into the different colors when passed through a prism, but what happens when you pass it through a second prism? I'd really like to know, can anyone help me out? Th3SpazzyKat ( talk) 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe beginning of the lead, needs to be re-written, or, in the case of the first sentence, deleted or moved to the section on optics. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the beginning needs to be nontechnical, without jargon, and easily understandable to ordinary readers. The first sentence should summarize the notability of the subject, why it's important. Also, the first sentence, as its written now, has absolutely no connection or relation to the sources cited for it; they both use very simple and clear language. The optics of white are covered very well in the body of the article; the great majority of the article is about the history and uses of the color, and its appearances in nature, not about optics. I think the opening sentence of Black would be a good model to follow. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
References
The lead is greatly improved, and is just about there. I still have a couple of minor issues, though. First, "Neutral" and "achromatic" are not the same thing. "Neutral" includes beige, gray, pale pink, and other colors which are clearly not white. "Achromatic" means completely without color, and includes just white, black, and shades of gray. I think we can deal with this by saying that "white an achromatic color, literally a color without hue, and a neutral color." The achromatic part is cited in both the OED and Websters.
My other problem is with "bleached materials." By definition, white has no hue or color. "Approximately white" means it has some color, either gray or beige, yellow, brown, or some other light shades of different colors. The OED and other sources go with fresh snow and milk. Another example used in some online definitions is "the color of fresh snow or the margins of this page." What do you think of that? Otherwise, we can just say "fresh snow" and drop bleached materials, since the article is about white and not approximations of white. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There are still some problems with the beginning of the lead; its very wordy and difficult to follow; the MOS says "the lead should be in a clear accessible style". particularly in this case, since the majority of the article is about history, art, culture and symbolism, and most readers don't have a technical background.
I'd suggest that we go with this for the first sentence, taken from the print version of the Oxford English Dictionary: White is the lightest color. It contains all the wavelengths of visible light without absorption, has maximum brightness, and does not have any hue or color. It is the opposite of black. [1]
It may be obvious to us that white is the opposite of black, but its a fundamental part of the definition in most sources, and it's described in detail in the article, so it should be mentioned here.
As for the use of chalk or bleached fabrics as examples of white, I haven't seen any definition of white that uses them. The examples most commonly used are fresh snow and milk. Do you have a source that cites chalk and and fabrics we can use them, but otherwise they should go.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The problems unfortunately still remain. The first sentence is too long, and tries to combine every idea about white into one sentence. It's also confusing when it also throws in treys and black, which isn't necessary. It needs to be worded more gracefully, as it is in the cited works, otherwise you have to read it several times to make sense of it.
The more major problem is the use of bleach and paper as the sole examples. Can you cite a reliable source that defines white with those examples? Merriam-Webster, which you have cited, uses snow and milk, as does the OED. Everything in the article has to be verifiable with a solid source. It's not up to us to define the color, it has to be properly sourced. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
White | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hex triplet | #FFFFFF |
sRGBB ( r, g, b) | (255, 255, 255) |
HSV ( h, s, v) | (0°, 0%, 100%) |
CIELChuv ( L, C, h) | (100, 0, 0°) |
Source | By definition |
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte) |
White is the color of objects that completely reflect (diffusely) all visible light of all colors, and is therefore the lightest color; it is the opposite of black among the achromatic colors. [2] [3]
Light with a spectral composition that stimulates all three types of the color-sensitive cone cells of the human eye in nearly equal amounts appears white. White is one of the most common colors in nature, the color of sunlight, and the color of sunlight reflected by snow, milk, chalk, limestone and other common minerals. In many cultures white represents or signifies purity, innocence, and light, and is the symbolic opposite of black, or darkness. According to surveys in Europe and the United States, white is the color most often associated with perfection, the good, honesty, cleanliness, the beginning, the new, neutrality, and exactitude. [4]
In ancient Egypt and ancient Rome, priestesses wore white as a symbol of purity, and Romans wore a white toga as a symbol of citizenship. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance a white unicorn symbolized chastity, and a white lamb sacrifice and purity; the widows of kings dressed in white rather than black as the color of mourning. It sometimes symbolizes royalty; it was the color of the French kings (black being the color of the queens) and of the monarchist movement after the French Revolution as well as of the movement called the White Russians (not to be confounded with Belarus, literally "White Russia") who fought the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922). Greek and Roman temples were faced with white marble, and beginning in the 18th century, with the advent of neoclassical architecture, white became the most common color of new churches, capitols and other government buildings, especially in the United States. It was also widely used in 20th century modern architecture as a symbol of modernity, simplicity and strength.
White is an important color for almost all world religions. The Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, has worn white since 1566, as a symbol of purity and sacrifice. In Islam, and in the Shinto religion of Japan, it is worn by pilgrims; and by the Brahmins in India. In Western cultures and in Japan, white is the most common color for wedding dresses, symbolizing purity and virginity. In many Asian cultures, white is also the color of mourning. [5]
The white color on television screens and computer monitors is created with the RGB color model by mixing red, green and blue light at equal intensities. citation needed
The white color on television screens and computer monitors is created with the
RGB color model by combining red, green and blue lights (serving as
additive
primary colors) at their maximum brightnesses.
citation needed
White is the lightest color, as white objects completely reflect (diffusely) the entire visible spectrum of light, and it is the opposite of black, with shades of gray falling in between.
When layers of colored filters (e.g., layers of low-scattering or non-pigment-based ink printed on white paper without side-by-side dithering or halftoning) are overlaid, each layer absorbs characteristic amounts of light at different wavelengths of the illuminating light . The result after each filter absorbs some of the light is therefore darker than any one of them alone, i.e. they are said to mix subtractively.
References
I undid revision by SiefkinDR that ignores the discussion we are having on the talk page (except his own contributions to it) & removes still-relevant citation because it doesn't match his prefererred text.
"Original" before the edit:
"new edit" that I undid for the moment, pending continuation of discussion above:
I had made numerous small changes in order to incorporate the input from editor SiefkinDR, but not any further edits that moved it further away from his input.
Let's discuss further: QuoJar ( talk) 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"text3": White is the lightest ( brightest) color. It is the color of objects that fully reflect and scatter all visible wavelengths of light. Since it imparts no hue to the light, it is achromatic like black (it's opposite) and the grays. [5] [6] It is the color of milk, snow, and chalk.
References
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
Interesting comments. We seem to be making some progress, little by little.
As the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) says, the lead should be written as much as possible in non-technical language, for general readers, avoiding jargon, particularly for an article where most of the text is on a topic which is predominantly non-technical.
Here's the lead as it is now:
White is the lightest ( brightest) color. It is the color of objects that fully reflect and scatter all visible wavelengths of light. Since it imparts no hue to the light, it is achromatic like black (it's opposite) and the grays. [1] [2] It is the color of milk, snow, and chalk.
First, following the Manual of Style, the lead, especially for a largely non-technical article like this one, needs to be be written in non-technical language. The section the optics of light can be more technical, but not the lead.
1. "Brightness" and "Lightness" are different things, but the lead the way it's written now makes is sound like they're the same. This should be "lightest and brightest".
2. It should explain simply why it's the lightest and brightest color: because it reflects all the wavelengths. It should say something like: "White is the lightest and the brightest color, the result of the complete reflection of all the light in the visible spectrum", or something very similar.
3. The sentence about achromatic should be written in plain English; very people know what achromatic means, and it should be quickly defined: White is an achromatic color, literally a color without color or hue, like black and the grays. "
4. The present version writes: "it is achromatic, like black (it's opposite) or the grays." The phrase "achromatic like black {its opposite) seems to suggest that there's a connection between being achromatic and being opposite. These two should be separate.
5. Do you mean to have the apostrophe in "it's opposite"?" I think to be clearer you should say, "It is the symbolic opposite of black, so it's understood by ordinary readers what you mean. I'm not sure you need to mention "grays" at all, since this article doesn't talk about them.
6. The examples: to match the citation, it should say "fresh snow, milk, and chalk." Chalk is not mentioned in the citation, but we can put it outside the citation.
So the final lead could be something like: "White is the lightest and the brightest color, the color of fresh snow, milk and chalk. It is the result of the reflection and scattering of all colors of the visible spectrum. Like black and gray, it is an achromatic color, meaning literally a color without hue, and is the literal and symbolic opposite of black." All of that (Exceot maybe the chalk) falls within the current citations.
7. Footnotes: the current version cites the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary, but I prefer to cite the print edition; it's more complete and detailed, which is much The on-line version is a promotion for the the sale of the full version, which is sold by subscription.
On the broader subject of describing the symbolism of white in the lead: according to the Manual Style, the lead needs to briefly mention the major topics covered in the article, which include history, culture and symbolism. All of the major color articles follow a similar format, and devote a substantial amount of space to history and culture and he primary associations, so this one needs to as well.
Please note that the images in the montage of each of the color articles are chosen to illustrate aspects of the color mentioned in the lead.
if you really want to have an article that talks exclusively about science, I'd suggest you do a separate article on "White Light". There's no such article now, and it could be interesting. It could link to this one, and you can be as technical as you want.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask if you've written any other articles for Wikipedia? Forgive me for asking, but I think you have some misconceptions about how it works. This article (and the lead) have been in place for a bit over five years now, with no major changes. The original version was worded a little differently, because it was based on the print edition of the Oxford English Diectionary, and the wording is slightly different than in the much shorter on-line version. If the lead of an article has been in place for such a long time, it's very unusual for an editor to come along and completely replace it. if this were a new article, this kind of debate about basic terms would be useful, but this is not a new article, and this endless debate about the wording is not helpful.
You also need to remember that your opinion or mine aren't isn't what matters here, it's that the definition is based on a reliable source (Like the OED, for instance). Unless you provide a better source, it's the normal rule in Wikipedia that you don't change something.
Also, please remember, as I think I've mentioned before, this article not not primarily a technical article bout the physical qualities of white. Everybody reading this article knows what white is, and most people have a general idea that it's a mix of the other colors. The great majority of this article is about the history, culture and symbolism of the color. If you've read the Wikipedia Manual of Style, you know that the lead of an article of this kind should be in the most non-technical terms possible; the scientific parts can, of course, use more technical language.
You'll also see that the leads of all the basic color articles follow the same standard group of information, and all have quite short, not highly technical leads, and devote devote most of their space to culture and history.
In short, unless you find something that's clearly wrong in the lead of a long-established article, you shouldn't feel that it's necessary to re-write it completely.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
References
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, and chalk, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, and chalk, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
One question has been the use of the words hue or color in describing achromatic. Color is ambiguous but hue might not be familiar. Another term is colorfulness, or a related term, chroma (though not in the sense of chroma (video)). So we could use one of these or similar:
[edit:] I don't think we need the "literally" but if we do I think it should have a comma because it isn't that achromatic means "literally non-colorful" but rather that achromatic's literal meaning is "non-colorful".
Just some ideas...
QuoJar (
talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Second, the whole sentence needs to be broken into separate phrases, like the definitions of other major colors, and not be connected by a "because." Right now it reads as though white is achromatic only because it reflects or scatters all of the visible wavelengths of light, but that's not the only reason. The phrase "reflects all the visible waves of light" refers to the color white is general, not just to the fact it's achromatic.
I have also removed the US Survey from the lead - it really is trivial compared with the rest. Undue weight. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ QuoJar: The other thing that I would put in the lead is some science/nature examples - e.g. see White#White_objects - maybe something on why snow and clouds appear white. I find this is also a more sophisticated way of introducing the whiteness of clouds without saying "clouds are white" (which invites, "well, stormclouds certainly aren't!!"). A sentence or two after the chalk/snow sentence would slot in nicely... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs)
Citations are very much needed in the lead of this article, as the last week of disputes and challenges of information that has long been in the article has clearly shown.
References
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:
"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
There is no consensus yet here on the definition of white; the definition needs to be clearly sourced to a reliable source.
Second, the text on most common associations needs to be restored to where it was, with the citation. There's a very good reason for this. In the no-so-distant past, before this section had a citation, editors added a long list of what they felt were the common associations of white, without citations at all. This sentence limited them to an objective standard, listing only those which scored the highest in surveys. Without that, there will be a flood of new associations.
The lead news to represent the range of contents of the article, not be entirely devoted to the scientific definition.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
As to the placement of the citations, I don't have any problem with putting the citation at the end of each individual paragraph within the lead, as long nothing is inserted in that paragraph which isn't in the citation. I just want to make sure that nothing in the lead lacks a reliable, verifiable source. SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC) SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
References
SiefkinDR, does this "almost" capture a reasonable variant of your proposal (to within minor grammatical & link differences), aside from the three words I feel are important and you might oppose {which appear in braces}?
I believe that without "and scattering" (or "diffusely reflecting"), the use of "reflecting" by itself defines a mirror and not a white object. The word "particular" is needed in order to mitigate your/Oxford's amusing but confusing apparent paradox of white being a color that has no color (with two senses of the same unqualified word "color", where the second one is being used to mean hue and/or chroma).
What do others think? QuoJar ( talk) 03:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the opening of the article should match that of the articles on the other major colors; with a definition that's short, not too technical and is understandable to laymen, along with a simple example - in this case, fresh milk or snow. I think the best source is the Oxford English dictionary definition: "Of the colour of fresh milk or snow; having that colour produced by reflection, transmission or emission of all wavelengths of visible light without absorption, being fully luminous and devoid of any hue." SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This page is completely missing even a definition of a white pigment or material -- something that reflects all light. Giving a summery of the whitest-known materials (reflect maximal amounts of light in different ranges) would be nice...
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.92.74.250 (
talk) 19:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In Hinduism, the people wear white cothing when someone dies
This article, it seems to me, confuses pigment color and light color, or, actually, ignores pigment color. I have no competence in this field, but it does seem that someone who does should take a look. Ortolan88
in some cultures white is associated with death
vietnamese people wear white at funerals, or so i heard
White means peace.
Should the pages for "white", "whites" and "black" ("blacks" just redirects) be standardized somehow? Personally, I'd rather see the racial interpretation of "white" handled via "white (race)" or "white (ethnicity)" or whatever.... - dcljr 18:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday, User:Matthew Stannard added a link [1] to a course at a London community college entitled "The colour white". I reverted it [2]. Matt wrote on my talk page:
I decided to reply here. I don't think the link should be here because
Wikipedia isn't a link farm. But it isn't something I feel strongly about; I'm not going to remove it again. Dbenbenn 17:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I recently created categories for colors as shades of R-O-Y-G-C-B-V. How can white be categorized in this?? Georgia guy 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article says that white "has high brightness but zero hue". In the hue-saturation-lightness color model, at least, you get white when lightness is at a maximum, no matter what the hue. From this point of view, white is the lightest "light red", the lightest "light blue", the lightest "light green", and so on; so it doesn't seem to make sense to say that white has zero hue, because the "hue" of white is irrelevant. Does this make sense, or am I a raving crackpot? — Bkell 07:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone besides me think that mentioning Apple Macintosh computers under the heading 'Computers' is off-topic? -- Andymussell 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I came here looking for the source of the word white. It has this info for days of the week and the names of months. anybody who knows anything about this want to add it?-- Olsdude 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What does white look like? I would like a picture. P.S. I'm blind.
Added reference to Korea, and separated India from East Asia. In India, the symbolic representation of white has similarities with East Asian cultures, but ultimately represents different things. Intranetusa ( talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
the visible part of light is just a small section of a much much larger spectrum, so could an object be visibly white, yet non-visibly black, or vise-versa? that is, an object that, while it reflects all visible light, absorbs infrared and ultraviolet light. this would mean that two different white objects could have much different efficiencies when used to reflect light to keep something cool for instance. just a thought. Sahuagin ( talk) 18:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of carte blanche in the article.
I think it's about any form of signed document, with the field for purpose left empty, to be filled by the possessor as needed. Meaning a "license for everything". But I'm not completly sure about that, so maybe someone else should add it to the list. 91.67.3.245 ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead is actually not very good (white color can be made with a yellow and blue laser)
Here is new lead it is a bit more technical:
White is a color, the perception which is evoked by light that stimulates all three types of color sensitive cone cells in the human eye in near equal way and with high brightness compared to the surroundings.
Its not the final word but I think it is more accurate -- Thorseth ( talk) 12:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The statement "white is all colors" is so widespread even here on Wikipedia ( White_noise ) that it might deserve its own section, here is my proposal:
Flawed Definition
White is what humans perceive as white, sunlight is a special kind of white light, and the equal mix will give a blue/greenish color quite far from being white. -- Thorseth ( talk) 07:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"White", as taught many years ago, was one of two "Non-Colors" (the other being black). When referencing light, white was stated to be the balanced presence of all color (or as humanly perceived three colors). When speaking of pigments it was said to be the lack of all color. Black, conversely, was the absence of all light, and the presence of all pigment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonroverer ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have changed "tone" to "color" in the lead. The disambiguation tone has no mention referring to color."Color tone" might also be appropriate but Color tone is a redirect to color theory, which I also find a little strange.-- 130.225.235.202 ( talk) 12:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
White is white. It is the absence of colour. Once you tint it blue or yellow or pink or whatever, it's not white anymore because now it absorbs some light, when white should reflect all light. Having said that, can someone explain to me why there is a "Shades of white" section at the bottom, and why the picture of white shows shades of blue and yellow? Thanks, Clem ( talk) 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that off-white is not a scientific name for a color; however, I came here looking to find it. I can tell from the previous discussions here that people want to be scientific and not have this article contain misleading information. However, off-white is in such common use (at least in the U.S.) that I feel it deserves at least a mention here, about what it is and how it relates to "White". It definitely would not merit its own article, and White would seem to be the closest place for it, maybe under a section whose title indicates it is not "scientific" somehow? Thanks for considering it. Fallendarling ( talk) 01:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The bit about stellar class and white dwarfs appears grammatically and factually broken. I had to go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White&oldid=315610470 to see that it appears to have been moved/merged from two previous statements, separately about stellar class A stars and white dwarfs. Even then I'm not convinced by the original explanations.
[Stellar classification] seems to suggest that class A is named by convention alone, related mostly to ionic absorption lines, and not due to their blackbody colour temperature under which they would be considered more towards the blue. ("True white", if it means anything, being related to our own sun's colour temperature which as a class G star is rather cooler.)
[White dwarf] doesn't say why the name was chosen but over time as they cool they fade through a range of colour temperatures. (Maybe as purer blackbody sources than most stars they can be in some sense "white whatever the colour"?)
So this paragraph, while it may have value in some form somewhere in the article, basically boils down to a (short) list of things which happen to have been given the name "white" in the middle of a technical discussion of colour temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.43.80 ( talk) 16:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Why does the first sentence say "White is a color" (or, as one would say on my side of the Atlantic, "white is a colour")? Surely white is the absence of all colours (in the case of paints) or the presence of all colours (in the case of lights) and is therefore not a true colour). ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any accepted definition of the colour region in e.g. the CIE 1931 colour space which is considered white of belonging to an illuminant? In particular, is there a lower and upper limit to the colour temperature outside which the light is no longer called white? For example, almost everyone would agree that sunlight can be called white. Opionions differ about the light of a light bulb − most manufacturers call it "warm white" (which is actually wrong since it is a quite low colour temperature and just the human experience with open fire and similar articifial light sources causes the relation of red to yellow tones as "warm" colours) while many people actually perceive it as something like a pale orange (which it acutally is if displayed in standard RGB with whitepoint D65). Glowing coals at 1000 K are nowhere called "white". Similarly, the blue sky is also quite close to the Planckian locus, but at colour temperatures up to 30000 K. No one would call this white. So, are there any accepted limits and references to these limits?-- SiriusB ( talk) 11:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If the Hue is the main property of a color and white is without hue then how is it considered a color. As much as light produces the color spectrum we can precieve, and the brightest bright of a color is a extreme light of that color. More importantly if the general idea proposed is that white and black are composed of all and absent of all color, then how is white a color? Maybe another term should be used for white and black that can truly define what they are in the color spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.116.14 ( talk) 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of White's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "osln":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I can understand the need for a more readable and less technical approach, but to me it now reads like a garbled children's book. The sentence on the visible spectrum is just a general misconception, which is demonstrably false, see White#Optics. As I understand the English language, white is NOT the color of pure snow or milk, rather it is almost the opposite: Pure snow is considered to HAVE a white color. I find it very hard to believe that the section is supported by the references given. I will start revising this as soon as I get the time, can anyone explain what happened? -- Thorseth ( talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I put back the first sentence about milk and snow, which had been deleted, to match the opening sentences of the articles on red, blue, green, and the other colors, which all use common objects. The milk and snow comparison is from the Oxford English dictionary, which also says "having all the wavelengths of visible light without absorption, being fully luminous and devoid of any hue."
The Websters New World Dictionary defines white as "having the color of pure snow or milk, of the color of radiated, transmitted or reflected light containing all of the visible rays of the spectrum. opposite to black" the Random House College dictionary uses "of the color of pure snow, of the margins of this page, etc, reflecting nearly all the rays of sunlight or a similar light." Random House and Websters probably took the milk and snow comparison from the OED.
What's a better way to say it? How about "Milk and pure snow both have a white color. White contains all the wavelengths of visible light without absorption, is fully luminous and does not have any hue." This isn't very comprehensible to non-specialists, but it's more accurate. Your advice? SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph has to be clear and comprehensible to non-specialists, and free of jargon. The Oxford English Dictionary is generally considered a pretty reliable and standard source. Here's their full definition: "of the colour of fresh milk or snow; having that colour produced by reflection, transmission, or emission of all wavelengths of visible light without absorption. being fully luminous and devoid of any hue." − − The Petit Larousse, the French equivalent of the OED, says: (my translation), "of the color of snow, of milk. Light resulting from the combination of all the colors of the solar spectrum."
What is false about these definitions? I'm glad to re-write the lead to correct a mistake. However, I think a more detailed discussion of optics belongs in the section on that subject. Most of this article is devoted to the cultural history and uses of the color white. Please see the other color articles. − SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What we consider white is the spectrum that the sun emits. But that is a black body spectrum, and contains more green than red, and more red than blue. That means that white light does not have equal power in all frequencies the way white noise does. The article doesn't mention the role of the sun in our definition of white at all, even though it is quite a crucial role, since our visual system has evolved to match its spectrum. So what does true white, where all frequencies have equal power, actually look like? I imagine that it would be a slightly purplish blue (with red and especially blue overrepresented relative to sunlight). Could more information about this be added to the article? I haven't been able to find any sources about "true" white, and I'm not even sure what the scientific term is for it. CodeCat ( talk) 00:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You just deleted everything I add, eh? I am not going to make you any difficulties because this isn’t an article I care much for but think this is a case of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. But you just not appreciated the stuff you didn’t chose yourself. Sure, you are going to tell me that the dog was not white enough, the opal was not clear enough or whatever, and there is always an answer. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. Hafspajen ( talk) 16:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Hafspajen: Thanks for your comment. There are a couple of reasons why this was deleted. First and most important, space; this section is comparable to sections in the colors red, blue, green, yellow, etc; and is designed to show the best-known variants of the color (in the case, alabaster, ivory) and some iconic examples of white (milk, snow, polar bear, White Cliffs of Dover). It's not meant to be an extensive list of everything that's white, there's not enough room for that. I thought a polar bear was a better example than the poodle, since a polar bear is always white, and is famous for its color. As to the opal, it doesn't appear white in the image provided, and I don't see it described as white in the article on opals. It might make sense to have a section on white minerals, however, if you can find an image that would fit. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear SiefkinDR, my problem is that there is plenty of space. The galleries are extremely uneven. The rows are not complete. looks just , well unplesant to me.
Hafspajen (
talk) 02:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
White is, first and foremost, a physical and biological phenomenon. Its position in human culture is then derived from this. The optics section was previously the first section to follow the etymology section (which is generally always first, according to Wikipedia convention), until approximately the November of 2012, when it was unilaterally decided that White's history and art would come earlier in the article (and this happened to other color articles at approximately the same time). Whilst the history and art of a color is relevant and interesting, it definitely is not more important than a detailed explanation about the science that actually constitutes the color. This extends to all color articles that are now in this format, which I would like to see reverted to the more logical format.
I would like to link to the articles
ink,
Primary color,
Color, all of which put the science first and the history afterwards.
Nickc8 ( talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Nickc8
Respectfully, I disagree. I think the history and culture of a color is just as important as the science, and is the main reason why people read the color articles. I vote for keeping the current organisation of the article. SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the original comment: optics first. I don't mean this as a slight to history or culture, I just think it helps to have considered the optical qualities of white to better understand the definition, and so be prepared to continue on to the history/culture information. Being grounded in the physical realities of white will help the reader think about how humans in this or that time, this or that culture, have encountered, related to, and then produced cultural works about, white.
This goes along with a larger thought: science, and technical information, more often enriches, rather than diminishes or drowns out, cultural and artistic content, just like how knowing the species of butterfly you're looking at in a pleasant meadow doesn't take away from all the other ways you appreciate seeing and thinking about that butterfly, but in fact adds to it.
Also, if we moved Optics/Science up to right after etymology, the History/Culture section could lead right into the Symbology section, which just makes more thematic sense. Someone who is truly only interested in those topics can easily hyperlink on down using the Contents box, they don't even have to bother scrolling past the science if they don't want to.
Marmalamarie ( talk) 08:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I just encountered this article today, and I'm unhappy to see that the Optics section, along with some other things in the article, is totally bogus. The definition of white is incorrect -- it can be defined either as a perceptual quality, or as a property of a surface, but it is incorrect to define it as a property of a light source or light spectrum. A white object will be white whether it is viewed by sunlight, incandescent light, fluorescent light, etc -- each of which gives rise to a different emission spectrum. I'm bringing this up here because I'm not sure I'll be able to put in the effort to fix the article, especially with proper references. Looie496 ( talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of this article concerns the history, culture and associations of the color white, and the white horse is a perfect example to illustrate the article. (See image of space at the top of the article on black for another example, or the image of water in the article on cyan.) The grid of different colors that had been put in place of the white horse was misleading; in fact only one color on the grid was white; the others were shades of different colors. Putting a white square against a white page is more accurate, but dull and doesn't convey any information about the meaning of white. For these reasons, I believe we should keep the image of the white horse, which very clearly represents the symbolism and cultural meaning of white. SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see the montage of white now at the top of the page, as a proposed substitute for a white icon. This is an attempt to present the various aspects of white, in art, nature, biology, and culture in a single montage. Please let me know what you think. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, a single montage-image would be better; I just don't know how to make one. SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I think the image be smaller, and represent the major aspects and uses of white; nature, culture, religion, art and architecture. Images in the montage should also be found in the article, with captions. Some examples of other montages are found in the articles on New York and Marseille. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Other good examples of montages are found in the articles on Paris, London and New York City SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Will do that, but please put the montage back, or let me do so, so people can see what is proposed and can make suggestions and and comments. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The articles on the main colors have images that show the different shades, although I'm not sure how useful those are, since they have no explanations or captions, and most of shades shown don't match the information given in the infoboxes. The great majority of the content of the color articles is not about the optics but about the symbolism of the colors and their occurrence and use in art, biology, history, politics, botany, etc. I think black and white should have a different kind of image, since neither by definition has any shades, and since everyone has a pretty good idea what they look like. The black article has a picture of outer space taken from Mars, which I think is more interesting than a plain black square, and its the most read of all the color articles by a wide margin. I think the white article should also have something more interesting than a plain white square on a white page and something that suggests that range of uses and and importance of white in science, culture, history and art SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The talented folks at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab put together the photomontage below as a possible lead image for the article.
Each of these images is clickable. It represent some of the varieties of white that exist in nature, culture, and art, which are explained in the article. I am hoping that it can be made into a single image, so it can be moved around more easily. Comments and suggestions are welcome. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all: I understand, this is the English language version of Wikipedia, and though English is a particularly wide-spoken language, many content writers and editors here will have a natural bias toward what is the mainstream culture of where they most likely live (i.e., in "English-speaking," Western nations). I don't mean to look down on the work already done with this article; I had as much fun learning about the chalky origins of the word "candidate" as the next etymology and history enthusiast, and differences in organizational preferences will always be with us.
However, the bias here is particularly glaring. I think it is also the main part of what keeps the article from having truly good (succinct and accessible) organization.
There is next to no information on the place of the color White in cultures other than those "Classical/Ancient" or European/Western. The "White in other cultures" content is not even filled out enough to exist in a proper paragraphical format. There is no reasonable substantiation I can think of for why those cultures featured in this section are "Other cultures" while those not relegated to this small corner can be presumed to be not-other, "Normal cultures". This confusion continues the rest of the way through this article. Information on the color White in non-Western, non-Christian context is indeed scattered sparingly in those places that are outside the "other cultures" penalty box, seemingly without rhyme or reason. If we're going to keep this cultural bias, we may as well be tidy, consistent, and open about it: all "Other" cultures fully separate and the main history, symbol, etc. sections labeled "European" or "Western" ... or full integration and reorganization.
Summary for action: I'm advocating for doing as much as possible to (1) re-organize these sections both for concision and for bias-removal. The "White in history and culture" section should contain all the history and culture pertaining to the color white from around the world, perhaps further organized into time-, subject- or region-based subsections, and to (2) increase the quality and quantity of content pertaining to the color white in as many diverse contexts as possible into the main body of the article's relevant sections.
If you disagree with any of these criticisms/aims/plans, responding to this here would be a good place to discuss it. Unless there are any expressed and convincing objections, I am going to begin doing my small bit to address this issue in the next few days. Help would be very, very much appreciated.
Marmalamarie ( talk) 08:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As you correctly point out, this article is in the English Wikipedia, and the great majority of readers are in the U.S., UK, and other English-speaking countries, who are naturally interested of the culture and history of the color in western culture. But, as you also correctly state, there could be a lot more about white in other cultures. Two of the three cultural images in the montage at the top show uses of white in Asian culture, and there should be more about that (and other cultures) in the article. I also agree that they shouldn't be buried in a small corner in the lower part of the article. Your contributions on this will be very welcome. Please put your additions about white in other cultures in the history and art section, either chronologically, or, if you think it makes more sense, as a separate sub-section.
I would ask you to please keep the order of main sections the same; it follows the format of the other major color articles (black, red, yellow, blue), and most of the other color articles, and, after battles with some editors who felt the article should be almost entirely about optics and wavelength, culture has won out and it's been stable now for several years. I hope we don't have to refight those battles. And, of course, please don't delete the work of other editors that is accurate and correctly sourced.
I look forward to seeing your contributions! SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a problem with the new definition of white that has been substituted for the original definition in the lead, that says: " "the color produced by the reflection by a material of all the wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum."[1][2]
It isn't completely accurate; some white that the eye sees is a reflection, but white light is also produced by various transmitters; the sun, light bulbs, computer screens, etc. You're not seeing a reflection, you're seeing the real thing. The two citations in the article refer to the original and classic definition, a combination of all the colors in the optical spectrum. I think the original definition, per the citations, should be restored. The more detailed description can be included in the section on optics. SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I must say I am puzzled by the wish for a dictionary definition of white, not many other articles on wikipedia will get their first reference from a dictionary (and perhaps with good reason Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Thorseth ( talk) 19:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned in the talk sections Talk:White/Archive 1#Flawed_definition... and Talk:White/Archive 1#Optics_and_more, white light is NOT, no matter how many cites are provided, "...the color produced by the combination of all the colors of the visible spectrum." Certainly, something like white can be created using all frequencies, and we see that from the sun.
But 1) by varying intensities of different parts of the spectrum, the same could be true of *any color you like*, and 2) even if the definition is clarified to add "at equal intensity", this does not distinguish the color from "grey" or indeed even from "black", and 3) it's just demonstrably categorically false anyway, since you can make the color white with only the barest tiny fraction of that spectrum. Specifically, the white background of this page is caused (on most displays) by only three very narrow color bands, Red, Green, and Blue.
So more correct definition might be "...a color which activates all three types of cone cell in the human eye at roughly the same intensity." But intensity is a really vague term there, and I'm not sure how that definition can be distinguished from a definition for "grey". Maybe by adding "... and is at least approximately the highest brightness available in the current (Scene? Environment? What? I'm not sure.)" or "and also significantly activates the rod cells (am I even right about this, or could a non-rod-triggering light still be white?)" But then... if snow is "white", is the snow in a crevasse white, when you are standing outside, looking in? I'd argue yes. Difficult.
The problem here is that the blatantly obviously WRONG definition, which we should not be promoting in any way here, is the definition with all the cites, and the dictionary definition. But the obviously right definition is very OR. How do we address this? DewiMorgan ( talk) 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DewiMorgan but I see the problem a bit differently. There are some scientifically correct definitions out there, for instance in Wyszecki and Stiles "Color Science" but they are not very accessible, and when I tried to formulate something more readable (see Talk:White/Archive 1#Better_lead) it was promptly reversed to the dictionary "definition" which seems mostly to be about the word white and really is just examples of white things, for example a light source emitting at all visible wavelengths. I don't think it's a definition if it just contains a bunch of examples (see Wikipedia is not a dictionary). I have neither the time or the patience for an edit war, so I can help with better references and with some more correct definitions, but if there is no consensus I will leave the article as is (including the misconception). I think it would be good to look at other sensory related articles such as Pain which contain both examples and a technical defintion by a organization working with the subject. Another example is Pitch (music) which has a technical defintion and then some elabotationg text. Would the people with strong opinions on the lead text agree to collaborate on this? Thorseth ( talk) 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
One sentence on white color in biology, that is not very impressive. Further more, I wonder why the gallery seems to suggest that the world of the living only consists of mammals, birds and ... pearls?
How about the birch or this little fellow Olm, not to mention insects, for instance the cabbage butterfly. Thorseth ( talk) 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Green is the only one of the articles on colors that has a "good article" tag. I suggest we try to use the structure and style of that article. What do you say? Thorseth ( talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks I will come up with some suggestions soon. Thorseth ( talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
At what percentage does white reflect sunlight? 59.96.196.209 ( talk) 13:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The dictionary and literal definition of achromatic is "without color". Most everybody knows what a color is, but not many people understand what a hue is; I'm trying to keep the definition in simple and non-technical terms, as it was originally. I welcome your comments. SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
One editor has reverted the meaning of achromatic back to "without hue", but I respectfully submit that that is not the best definition of "achromatic". The Oxford English dictionary defines achromatic as "without color". without reference to hue. Hue by definition is not the same as color. I think it should he reverted back to the definition origiinally given in the citation. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:White/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I have a question about the prism thing. I understand that the white light seperates into the different colors when passed through a prism, but what happens when you pass it through a second prism? I'd really like to know, can anyone help me out? Th3SpazzyKat ( talk) 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe beginning of the lead, needs to be re-written, or, in the case of the first sentence, deleted or moved to the section on optics. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the beginning needs to be nontechnical, without jargon, and easily understandable to ordinary readers. The first sentence should summarize the notability of the subject, why it's important. Also, the first sentence, as its written now, has absolutely no connection or relation to the sources cited for it; they both use very simple and clear language. The optics of white are covered very well in the body of the article; the great majority of the article is about the history and uses of the color, and its appearances in nature, not about optics. I think the opening sentence of Black would be a good model to follow. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
References
The lead is greatly improved, and is just about there. I still have a couple of minor issues, though. First, "Neutral" and "achromatic" are not the same thing. "Neutral" includes beige, gray, pale pink, and other colors which are clearly not white. "Achromatic" means completely without color, and includes just white, black, and shades of gray. I think we can deal with this by saying that "white an achromatic color, literally a color without hue, and a neutral color." The achromatic part is cited in both the OED and Websters.
My other problem is with "bleached materials." By definition, white has no hue or color. "Approximately white" means it has some color, either gray or beige, yellow, brown, or some other light shades of different colors. The OED and other sources go with fresh snow and milk. Another example used in some online definitions is "the color of fresh snow or the margins of this page." What do you think of that? Otherwise, we can just say "fresh snow" and drop bleached materials, since the article is about white and not approximations of white. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There are still some problems with the beginning of the lead; its very wordy and difficult to follow; the MOS says "the lead should be in a clear accessible style". particularly in this case, since the majority of the article is about history, art, culture and symbolism, and most readers don't have a technical background.
I'd suggest that we go with this for the first sentence, taken from the print version of the Oxford English Dictionary: White is the lightest color. It contains all the wavelengths of visible light without absorption, has maximum brightness, and does not have any hue or color. It is the opposite of black. [1]
It may be obvious to us that white is the opposite of black, but its a fundamental part of the definition in most sources, and it's described in detail in the article, so it should be mentioned here.
As for the use of chalk or bleached fabrics as examples of white, I haven't seen any definition of white that uses them. The examples most commonly used are fresh snow and milk. Do you have a source that cites chalk and and fabrics we can use them, but otherwise they should go.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The problems unfortunately still remain. The first sentence is too long, and tries to combine every idea about white into one sentence. It's also confusing when it also throws in treys and black, which isn't necessary. It needs to be worded more gracefully, as it is in the cited works, otherwise you have to read it several times to make sense of it.
The more major problem is the use of bleach and paper as the sole examples. Can you cite a reliable source that defines white with those examples? Merriam-Webster, which you have cited, uses snow and milk, as does the OED. Everything in the article has to be verifiable with a solid source. It's not up to us to define the color, it has to be properly sourced. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
White | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hex triplet | #FFFFFF |
sRGBB ( r, g, b) | (255, 255, 255) |
HSV ( h, s, v) | (0°, 0%, 100%) |
CIELChuv ( L, C, h) | (100, 0, 0°) |
Source | By definition |
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte) |
White is the color of objects that completely reflect (diffusely) all visible light of all colors, and is therefore the lightest color; it is the opposite of black among the achromatic colors. [2] [3]
Light with a spectral composition that stimulates all three types of the color-sensitive cone cells of the human eye in nearly equal amounts appears white. White is one of the most common colors in nature, the color of sunlight, and the color of sunlight reflected by snow, milk, chalk, limestone and other common minerals. In many cultures white represents or signifies purity, innocence, and light, and is the symbolic opposite of black, or darkness. According to surveys in Europe and the United States, white is the color most often associated with perfection, the good, honesty, cleanliness, the beginning, the new, neutrality, and exactitude. [4]
In ancient Egypt and ancient Rome, priestesses wore white as a symbol of purity, and Romans wore a white toga as a symbol of citizenship. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance a white unicorn symbolized chastity, and a white lamb sacrifice and purity; the widows of kings dressed in white rather than black as the color of mourning. It sometimes symbolizes royalty; it was the color of the French kings (black being the color of the queens) and of the monarchist movement after the French Revolution as well as of the movement called the White Russians (not to be confounded with Belarus, literally "White Russia") who fought the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922). Greek and Roman temples were faced with white marble, and beginning in the 18th century, with the advent of neoclassical architecture, white became the most common color of new churches, capitols and other government buildings, especially in the United States. It was also widely used in 20th century modern architecture as a symbol of modernity, simplicity and strength.
White is an important color for almost all world religions. The Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, has worn white since 1566, as a symbol of purity and sacrifice. In Islam, and in the Shinto religion of Japan, it is worn by pilgrims; and by the Brahmins in India. In Western cultures and in Japan, white is the most common color for wedding dresses, symbolizing purity and virginity. In many Asian cultures, white is also the color of mourning. [5]
The white color on television screens and computer monitors is created with the RGB color model by mixing red, green and blue light at equal intensities. citation needed
The white color on television screens and computer monitors is created with the
RGB color model by combining red, green and blue lights (serving as
additive
primary colors) at their maximum brightnesses.
citation needed
White is the lightest color, as white objects completely reflect (diffusely) the entire visible spectrum of light, and it is the opposite of black, with shades of gray falling in between.
When layers of colored filters (e.g., layers of low-scattering or non-pigment-based ink printed on white paper without side-by-side dithering or halftoning) are overlaid, each layer absorbs characteristic amounts of light at different wavelengths of the illuminating light . The result after each filter absorbs some of the light is therefore darker than any one of them alone, i.e. they are said to mix subtractively.
References
I undid revision by SiefkinDR that ignores the discussion we are having on the talk page (except his own contributions to it) & removes still-relevant citation because it doesn't match his prefererred text.
"Original" before the edit:
"new edit" that I undid for the moment, pending continuation of discussion above:
I had made numerous small changes in order to incorporate the input from editor SiefkinDR, but not any further edits that moved it further away from his input.
Let's discuss further: QuoJar ( talk) 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"text3": White is the lightest ( brightest) color. It is the color of objects that fully reflect and scatter all visible wavelengths of light. Since it imparts no hue to the light, it is achromatic like black (it's opposite) and the grays. [5] [6] It is the color of milk, snow, and chalk.
References
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
Interesting comments. We seem to be making some progress, little by little.
As the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) says, the lead should be written as much as possible in non-technical language, for general readers, avoiding jargon, particularly for an article where most of the text is on a topic which is predominantly non-technical.
Here's the lead as it is now:
White is the lightest ( brightest) color. It is the color of objects that fully reflect and scatter all visible wavelengths of light. Since it imparts no hue to the light, it is achromatic like black (it's opposite) and the grays. [1] [2] It is the color of milk, snow, and chalk.
First, following the Manual of Style, the lead, especially for a largely non-technical article like this one, needs to be be written in non-technical language. The section the optics of light can be more technical, but not the lead.
1. "Brightness" and "Lightness" are different things, but the lead the way it's written now makes is sound like they're the same. This should be "lightest and brightest".
2. It should explain simply why it's the lightest and brightest color: because it reflects all the wavelengths. It should say something like: "White is the lightest and the brightest color, the result of the complete reflection of all the light in the visible spectrum", or something very similar.
3. The sentence about achromatic should be written in plain English; very people know what achromatic means, and it should be quickly defined: White is an achromatic color, literally a color without color or hue, like black and the grays. "
4. The present version writes: "it is achromatic, like black (it's opposite) or the grays." The phrase "achromatic like black {its opposite) seems to suggest that there's a connection between being achromatic and being opposite. These two should be separate.
5. Do you mean to have the apostrophe in "it's opposite"?" I think to be clearer you should say, "It is the symbolic opposite of black, so it's understood by ordinary readers what you mean. I'm not sure you need to mention "grays" at all, since this article doesn't talk about them.
6. The examples: to match the citation, it should say "fresh snow, milk, and chalk." Chalk is not mentioned in the citation, but we can put it outside the citation.
So the final lead could be something like: "White is the lightest and the brightest color, the color of fresh snow, milk and chalk. It is the result of the reflection and scattering of all colors of the visible spectrum. Like black and gray, it is an achromatic color, meaning literally a color without hue, and is the literal and symbolic opposite of black." All of that (Exceot maybe the chalk) falls within the current citations.
7. Footnotes: the current version cites the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary, but I prefer to cite the print edition; it's more complete and detailed, which is much The on-line version is a promotion for the the sale of the full version, which is sold by subscription.
On the broader subject of describing the symbolism of white in the lead: according to the Manual Style, the lead needs to briefly mention the major topics covered in the article, which include history, culture and symbolism. All of the major color articles follow a similar format, and devote a substantial amount of space to history and culture and he primary associations, so this one needs to as well.
Please note that the images in the montage of each of the color articles are chosen to illustrate aspects of the color mentioned in the lead.
if you really want to have an article that talks exclusively about science, I'd suggest you do a separate article on "White Light". There's no such article now, and it could be interesting. It could link to this one, and you can be as technical as you want.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask if you've written any other articles for Wikipedia? Forgive me for asking, but I think you have some misconceptions about how it works. This article (and the lead) have been in place for a bit over five years now, with no major changes. The original version was worded a little differently, because it was based on the print edition of the Oxford English Diectionary, and the wording is slightly different than in the much shorter on-line version. If the lead of an article has been in place for such a long time, it's very unusual for an editor to come along and completely replace it. if this were a new article, this kind of debate about basic terms would be useful, but this is not a new article, and this endless debate about the wording is not helpful.
You also need to remember that your opinion or mine aren't isn't what matters here, it's that the definition is based on a reliable source (Like the OED, for instance). Unless you provide a better source, it's the normal rule in Wikipedia that you don't change something.
Also, please remember, as I think I've mentioned before, this article not not primarily a technical article bout the physical qualities of white. Everybody reading this article knows what white is, and most people have a general idea that it's a mix of the other colors. The great majority of this article is about the history, culture and symbolism of the color. If you've read the Wikipedia Manual of Style, you know that the lead of an article of this kind should be in the most non-technical terms possible; the scientific parts can, of course, use more technical language.
You'll also see that the leads of all the basic color articles follow the same standard group of information, and all have quite short, not highly technical leads, and devote devote most of their space to culture and history.
In short, unless you find something that's clearly wrong in the lead of a long-established article, you shouldn't feel that it's necessary to re-write it completely.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
References
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, and chalk, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, and chalk, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
white, noun. Definition of white: 1 :the achromatic object color of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum
white, adjective. 1. Of the colour of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of all visible rays of light; the opposite of black.
One question has been the use of the words hue or color in describing achromatic. Color is ambiguous but hue might not be familiar. Another term is colorfulness, or a related term, chroma (though not in the sense of chroma (video)). So we could use one of these or similar:
[edit:] I don't think we need the "literally" but if we do I think it should have a comma because it isn't that achromatic means "literally non-colorful" but rather that achromatic's literal meaning is "non-colorful".
Just some ideas...
QuoJar (
talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Second, the whole sentence needs to be broken into separate phrases, like the definitions of other major colors, and not be connected by a "because." Right now it reads as though white is achromatic only because it reflects or scatters all of the visible wavelengths of light, but that's not the only reason. The phrase "reflects all the visible waves of light" refers to the color white is general, not just to the fact it's achromatic.
I have also removed the US Survey from the lead - it really is trivial compared with the rest. Undue weight. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@ QuoJar: The other thing that I would put in the lead is some science/nature examples - e.g. see White#White_objects - maybe something on why snow and clouds appear white. I find this is also a more sophisticated way of introducing the whiteness of clouds without saying "clouds are white" (which invites, "well, stormclouds certainly aren't!!"). A sentence or two after the chalk/snow sentence would slot in nicely... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs)
Citations are very much needed in the lead of this article, as the last week of disputes and challenges of information that has long been in the article has clearly shown.
References
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says:
"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
There is no consensus yet here on the definition of white; the definition needs to be clearly sourced to a reliable source.
Second, the text on most common associations needs to be restored to where it was, with the citation. There's a very good reason for this. In the no-so-distant past, before this section had a citation, editors added a long list of what they felt were the common associations of white, without citations at all. This sentence limited them to an objective standard, listing only those which scored the highest in surveys. Without that, there will be a flood of new associations.
The lead news to represent the range of contents of the article, not be entirely devoted to the scientific definition.
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
As to the placement of the citations, I don't have any problem with putting the citation at the end of each individual paragraph within the lead, as long nothing is inserted in that paragraph which isn't in the citation. I just want to make sure that nothing in the lead lacks a reliable, verifiable source. SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC) SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
References
SiefkinDR, does this "almost" capture a reasonable variant of your proposal (to within minor grammatical & link differences), aside from the three words I feel are important and you might oppose {which appear in braces}?
I believe that without "and scattering" (or "diffusely reflecting"), the use of "reflecting" by itself defines a mirror and not a white object. The word "particular" is needed in order to mitigate your/Oxford's amusing but confusing apparent paradox of white being a color that has no color (with two senses of the same unqualified word "color", where the second one is being used to mean hue and/or chroma).
What do others think? QuoJar ( talk) 03:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)