![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I thought the formal and politically-correct term was "caucasian." Having a "white people" article seems more like the kind of thing you'd find in an encyclopedia that often uses the words "ain't" and "y'hear." Is there a distinction or very obvious dichotomy that I'm missing? 68.102.179.135 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
People! Caucasian is basically only used in the States. In most European countries a Caucasian is a person or people from the Caucasus! That is to say, someone from the Countries and regions of the Caucasus ( Adygea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Krasnodar Krai, North Ossetia-Alania and Stavropol Krai). Wikipedia must assume a universal NPOV. Thank you. The Ogre 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've discussed before, the genetics section places undue weight on genetic theories for whiteness, and also involves some OR. I think that the information about European genetics is best placed in the article about European genetics, rather than for the general concept of white people.
The main proponent of this OR was User:Lukas19, who is now banned, so we do not have to worry about him anymore. If there are no objections I will remove the genetics information. The Behnam 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading the talk page, it seems that you have made same arguments before, arguing that information about Europeans can not be represented in this page, but were found incorrect by the meditator. Despite this, you have made changes with the ban of Lukas19. That's very irresponsible (deleting 2/3 of the article). Stevertigo:
"Im inclined to agree with Lucas on this one, provided his statements are represented as a list (as they are here), and the purpose of which is to represent the diversity of views on "whiteness" - not selecting examples which exclusively correlate with "Europeanness." Its an issue of a semantic connection (not a "genetic" one, Lucas) between two words which have some relationship but one that differs by source. It would be interesting to know how the US and UK for example differ on the meaning of the term. -Stevertigo 01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Lukas just wants language that says, for the most part white = caucasian and to some extent = European. Just as a semantic statement this doesnt seem improper -Stevertigo 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)"
Do not delete this information again. KarenAE 03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
By bothering me, I mean, not mentioning it to me further as you have just did, so I wouldnt have to write some sort of answer. Just do what you have to do without telling me and let me know when you've filed the report or something.
As for the list, it is not meant as a literal list, but is meant as not breaching the WP:NOR rule. Read the context.
As for definitons, I meant definitions of white people. Most definitions use or define white people interchangeably with Europeans. I dont understand what part of this you dont understand. Clearly, definitions define usage of terms, therefore definitions use certain explanations.
As for the proof of this, this seems to be the usage in Western world. While there are some exceptions (that is, some Middle Easterns may be white), for the most part, white=Europeans in USA, although official defintion differs. This is further explained (with sources)in White American. This seems also to be the case in Canada, as their visible minority (non-white and non-native) status includes pretty much everyone except Europeans (such as Arabs and Latins). Europe pretty much uses OED definition, with UK and Norway sections clearly stating that. So for the most part, that is with some exceptions, Europeans = white. The only exception seems to be Latin America. Therefore, as I said, most definitions use whites and Europeans interchangeably. And European definitions of whites hold more weight than others simply because these racial classifications were devised by Europeans. Latin Americans disputing the meaning of whiteness is a bit like Indians disputing who is Chineese. I'm not saying these views shouldnt be represented. I'm just saying that due to small weight of these views, you shouldnt censor information. Just because there is a dispute that Taiwan is part of China does not mean we shouldnt add any information to the geography section of China. Clearly, almost all naturally blond people are white, therefore mentioning blond hair makes perfect sense. It also increases the readibility of the whole encyclopedia, with articles linking to eachother. I do not understand what you are trying to achieve by constantly deleting this information. KarenAE 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The images on the Caucasian Race page are implying that only Nordics or people with paistey colouring are `Caucasians/Caucasoid'. I propose we supply images similar to the following:
Norwegian people: http://www.bi.no/upload/Grafisk-marked/internasjonal/artikkelbilder/bunader.jpg
Italian girl: http://www.lifeinitaly.com/culture/img/italian-girl.jpg
Berber father and child http://www.worldpress.org/images/berbers.jpg
Rajput man http://pchanez.club.fr/Images/rajput.jpg
I wrote this here as it gets more attention that the Caucasian race discussion does. Can anyone help out? thank you Ruts77
My understanding of the word Physiology is more about the workings of the human organs and cells than it is about physical appearance. Thus by physiology humans are pretty much the same, Its not like there are different methods of digestion, respiration or filtration, excretion metabolism and reproduction, they are the same accross populations . Anatomy, maybe, but under the skin all humans are pretty much alike. Thus phenotypes maybe a better heading. The problem however is that none of the phenotypes are unique to whites or caucasians. They can be found in other populations too. Muntuwandi 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Which version of See also section should be used? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&diff=126321335&oldid=126310169
Whats the rationale in deleting numerous links in the See also section? KarenAE 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has responded, so I have removed this article's listing from RfC. You are welcome to re-add the article if there is still a dispute in progress.-- Daveswagon 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Lead is too long, it should be as brief as possible and least controversial. Some stuff needs to be moved into the main body of the article. Muntuwandi 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that pic is only going to infuse the stereotype that "white" people are only the pale skinned people that wear solid colored polos and drive SUVs in the suburbs. It is a very AMERICAN way of looking at white, which only promotes the pale skinned Anglo as the true white. According to the article itself and actual logic, white can range from pasty pale Anglos to olive skinned Italians in Southern Europe. I think that as an informative website we should have a duty to dispel the horrible useage of "white" in the United States from it only meaning Nordic types. I mean I am meeting Russians, Slavs, and even Blonde Haired Argentinans that think of themselves as NON-WHITE every day because they've come to believe that they are such due to the horrible usage of the label. Can't we atleast post some pics throughout the webpage of OTHER whites like Eastern Europeans, Hispanics and even Middle Easteners?
The Question of Mustafa Hefny as white is a non-issue. He is clearly non-white and probably a black man with decendents from sub-sarahan africa who is from Egypt. You wouldnt label an African American as white simply because he lived in a white majority country. The point is that when it comes to white in the United States, the Southern European, the Middle Easteners of Asia Minor (NOT ALL MIDDLE EASTENERS), and others are rubbed out of the equation due to the erroneous use of the term white being only attributed to Nordic types. The picture just seems to reinstate that for who so ever pops onto the page without reading it or skimming it. I mean I believe this is so because the first image of the white person is whats posted, rather if a picture of an olive skinned Sicilian or Lebanese were on there first, it would be a shock to others.
How about these?
The Behnam 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As for Europeans we could go for say four of:
Just some ideas. Sorry they are all politicians, I don't really know any "celebs", they all seem a bit vacuous and unimportant to me. Alun 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No I dont think that King Abdullah or Arabs as in Saudi Arabians are generally or should be seen as white. Even in the Arab world, other cultural Arabs, know that that most of the white Arabs are concentrated in Asia Minor, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and North Africa. I have Egyptian friends who joke about some Arabs looking too Saudi which means they're dark skinned. They know that they themselves are not TRUE Arabs. I think that what the census is reffering to in the Middle East is the remenants of white caucasian tribes like Berbers, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc. that were there before the Arab invasion and integrated into Arab culture. Since the societies are so mixed that its hard to single out the white arabs from the "real" arabs. So the US Census just labels them ALL white, like they do with ALL Hispanics. The same can be applied to with South Indians, who in my book, are for sure NOT white. I only think that a certain number of caucasian tribes in Northern India are actually white. To recap lets not throw the whole debate into the water by actually considering that EVERYONE the US Census labels as white is really white. I know that its in error to assume that white only means Nordic people from Europe but I believe that the only people in the Middle East that can be labled as white are the people that have significant ancestry to those of the indegenous tribes of the Middle East BEFORE the Arab conquest.
I made some big changes in this section and hope my edit summaries were enough to explain them. Just writing this to give a heads-up. I found the same mistakes in Black people but couldnt edit the article (it was semi protected). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OceanblueY ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
I've been reading the discussion page for the past 2 days. It seems this text was agreed upon and never added. It's currently in Archive 11.
"In an analysis of molecular genetic data, biologist Alan R. Templeton found "all of the genetic evidence shows that there never was a split or separation of the 'races' or between Africans and Eurasians. Recent human evolution has been characterized by both population range expansions … and recurrent genetic interchange."[22]X1 Nevertheless it has been observed that when individual genomes are clustered solely by genetic similarity, individuals sort into broad clusters that correspond to large geographic regions. -Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas appearing in the same cluster.- [23] The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. X2 However, Some individuals, such as Indians, from boundary locations between these regions were inferred to have partial ancestry in the clusters that corresponded to both sides of the boundary. Therefore these clusters may overlap. Also, In many cases, subclusters that corresponded to individual populations or to subsets of populations were also identified. Some scientists reject this clustering approach and claim that human genetic diversity consists of clines of variation in allele frequencies. While some others think that human genetic diversity consists not only of clines, but also of clusters, which STRUCTURE observes to be repeatable and robust.
In references section: X1: By races, authorts mean subspecies. In biology, subspecies is the may mean race but there is no consensus on the definition of race(sources)
X2: By geographic regions, authors mean origin. (or something of this sort. We should explain, by geographic proximity, they dont mean one white and one black roommates)" KarenAE 09:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I was in mediation. I never agreed to the text as listed, though Lukas proposed it. Alun's right, and his comment is consistent w/ my concerns as expressed before.-- Carwil 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Some interesting information about white people's IQs.
First, these studies are very controversial, and to understand them one has to read first the Flynn effect.
Still, some scientists are making tables about races, nations and IQS.
The results are interesting for a number of reasons:
1. The highest scores are to be found among East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), not about white people as some would think, maybe.
2. The highest scores in Europe or any other white countries have been established for Italy in 2006 (Well if Italians are white, then it seems that some people here say they are not, in that case, whites would go further down and if Jews are not white either, then another step down. They would be in 4th position then, after Askenazi Jews, East Asians and Italians).
3. Moreover, Ashkenazic Jews demonstrate the highest IQ scores in the world.
Do not know if this may be helpful for the article. I am sure it is very controversial. Here it is in any case. 72.144.17.17 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is North Africa, Asia Minor, and all the Middle Eastern countries considered white people? If the article uses out dated and racist 19th century propaganda then wouldn't people in those locations be considered not white? What about people who have black ancestors who now are considered white, due to appearance, and not blood line. Via blood line how many people would be condsidered white? -- Margrave1206 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
While I do agree that the US Census would consider most of those places as being part of the caucasian race, I think that the map should be reformed to exclude the Sudan. The name of the country is actually an arabic word which means land of the blacks, and looking at most Sudanese people you can tell they are pretty black. I think someone may have misinterpreted the definition of North Africa. While it certainly makes sens eto classify most moroccans, algerians, tunisians, and egyptians as caucasian, i highly doubt that the american actually think that sudanese are white when most sudanese are blacker than most black americans. I think the map should be refitted to exclude Sudan, otherwise it is fine
Why is there a White Hispanic page and the White British, White Australian and White Canadian pages have been deleted? The White American page still exists and it appears that Wikipedia is biased as it only exists to suit Americans! Secondly (I am writing from Austrlaia so I'm not 100% sure on what is necessarily implied in U.S. terms), I thought that the term `Hispanic' in the U.S. referred to Spanish speaking people of the Americas, not from Spain itself. I thought their degree of `whiteness' only pertained to how much European ancestry they had and whether they `looked' European in appearance. Finally, there are images of people like Rita Hayworth and Raquel Welch on these pages. Both of them are mixed and have an Irish (Northern European)parent. If this is the case, can I create a page called `White East Indian' and include images of Nikki Bedi, Nasser Hussain and Ronnie Irani on it?
All whites are white, but some are more white than others. But Nordic race realy isn't white, they are pale pink...
You certainly have a point there. In fact if you are from Europe we know that in Southern Europe they are often spoken of as pinkish or reddish or even orange, and there are many jokes about them because of this.
A will give you an example of a Spanish joke:
(This is not to offend anyone, and I hope it does not. It is just to explain this point).
To undertsad pay attention:
When you want to say that something is very good, in the case of a woman very beautiful, in popular Spanish, in Spain, you say:
La madre que te pario = meaning something like (your mother gave birth to a beautiful thing) Parir means to give birth.
Well the joke goes:(obviously the humour is lost in the traslation and the puns but it will be understood for this purpose).
A Swede who did not know Spanish very well saw a beautiful girl and said: "Niña, a ti te pario una madre" and the girl responded "y a ti una gamba". Meaning: a) A mother gave birth to you: Response: And a shrimp gave birth to you.
Shrimps are eaten cooked in Spain and look very red.
Well I could explain dozens of jokes like this. In short, they are not very much perceived as "white" but rather as red, pink or orange in popular culture in Spain, Italy, etc.
This has always been like that but this perception is lately exaggerated because of important immigration from Northen Eruope into countries like Spain. See these articles that deal with the British:
See:
http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/british-immigrants-swamping-spanish-villages/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1588156,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6210358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5237236.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm
We all know that massive immigration always has different types of influences in how people are perceived, often exaggerating certain features and leading to stereotypes.
In any case, the article already states that "white" is a color metaphor for race. It has nothing to do with the literal meaning of the word. 65.11.70.20 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right. North Europeans are called in the Balearic Islands (Spain) Salmonetes:
See a picture of Salmonetes:
http://www.diabetesjuvenil.com/fotos/fotos_recetas/salmonetes_al_horno.jpg
But it has nothing to do with the concept of race, it is just a popular way of calling people. On the other hand, no one is literally white. 72.144.221.103 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the picture of Stephen Colbert (who is obviously White), because it is relevant to race, as he often jokes on his show that he doesn't know if he is White or not, and that he does not see color in race when referring to issues on African Americans.-- PericlesofAthens 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, is this piece of anecdotal evidence (of what?) at all relevant to the article? "Ooooh, look at me! I transcend the census bureau's arbitrary categorizations! I rock!" Come on, people! This article has gotten really good; let's not let the filler start creeping back in. ThePedanticPrick 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
added a picture of a nameless person from I do not where. I hope that this might have less controversy. Muntuwandi 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently saw a study conducted by Harvard that finally showed the reason white people are unable to dance is due to lacking certain enzymes. see also: white people, inability to jump.
Is this really true? I'd like to see a more general source than immigration manuals; immigration departments often don;'t reflect national usage "in the culture" or "in the public".
Do we really mean that two british people on the streets of London, discussing someone as White, have an implicit understanding they are talking about a native British or European originating person?? Surely not. or if they are, then the word "ancestry" needs to be in there, with a more specific cite on cultural usage in the UK. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
this article is clearly about the "white skin" phenotype. Racialist notions associated with it clearly have a place, too, but these have their own main articles, in places like whiteness studies, Caucasoid etc. I don't follow how The Behman can denonce the "genetic approach" above, since the topic of this article is clearly a genetic trait. We obviously don't want any OR. We want respectable genetics studies that trace the particulars, history and distribution of "light skin". The various social issues attached can be mentioned, but they belong delegated to their respective main articles. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically most of it was OR. Whenever we take a study of European genetics and present it as the genetics of white people (in general) we commit OR. You may try looking at the archives for more of the discussion, though the more recent ones are probably clearer. The Behnam 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a genetic section is necessary and useful, since genetics is being used to trace lineage and lineage has always been a fundamentla concept for race. Genetically speaking Europeans are a very homogeneous population and other populations from the Near East and North Africa are also close to Europeans genetically speaking and they are more or less the people who are called white or have been called white by Anthropologies in the past. So I would agree to introduce the genetic section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.137.97 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, to say that Europeans are not the most representative population of white people makes no sense whatsoever. Europeans are the white people par excellence, which does not mean that they are the only white people, but to question that Sub-Saharan Africans are not the black people par excellence is the same (and of course they are not literally black nor are Europeans literally white, but that is an issue already in the article). With this kind of politically motivated reasoning this article can never be good. The genetics about Europeans is the main reference for the genetics about white people. Do people here really question these basic issues? Genetics is the most scientific approach to speak about a group of people in terms of lineage and common biological heritage, the main concepts of race. Anything else is what is really OR and subjective approaches mixed up with fantasies and sometimes political propaganda. I am not putting it back though, but support the re-introduction of the genetic section, probably the most updated and valuable information in this article. And again, if there are people who are called white outside of Europe it is because they can trace their ancestry to Europe and also to other areas like the Middle East or North Africa, like in some censuses or past anthropologists. But the European thing is never questioned. I think that some common sense would be needed here. Jan.
I have to disagree with the idea that this article is primarily about phenotype. It is primarily about the concept of "white race" and its history. This may have been clearer when the article was actually titled White race, and perhaps the article should be moved back to that or another clearer title.
In general I do not think massive deletion is good, but the primary articles for skin color and genetics are Human skin color, Genetic history of Europe, Recent single-origin hypothesis, etc., and contributions on these subjects should go there. The article about "white race" should have links to those articles, but note that science is not the same as sociology, which is what the "white race" idea is. -- JWB 00:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Although she might be anthropologically Caucasian the word "White" generally refers to people of European descent. A picture of another Pakistani Kalash woman who might be her close relative: http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/52130/kalash.jpg Not exactly White.
At least in the UK Pakistanis are not included to the definition of "White" in common usage.
The example is controversial and should be replaced.
MoritzB 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not touching this article but if someone wishes to include the following and decide on what basis one qualifies for 'white people' status then all is good -
There are five basic groups of human in genetic terms:
Eurasians are futher divided into four distinguishable genetic groups:
Typically British people (and one would assume the same for Americans or Australians who are descended from British/Irish) are 65% North European - 35% South European. However 'North European' does not mean the Vikings/Germans from around 1000AD however since it is clear that there were incursions into Britain from Scandanavia before the Romans arrives and even in Neolithic times.
However a significant proportion of 'white' people will have genetic influences from one of the other four groups, a single sub-saharan african ancestor will contribute as much as 8% of your total genetic material.
Genetic make-up is basically a combination of the influences of the previous twelve generations.
RichardColgate 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Richard, suggest you read Genetic history of Europe and related articles then consider contributing there. While a brief summary of genetics may be appropriate in the race (as a social phenomenon) articles, the main discussion of genetics is in the genetics articles.
If you are interested in who "qualifies for 'white people' status", the answer has been rather complicated and differs by place and time, and is often different from what you might expect from genetics. This social history of race is what this article is primarily about.
Unfortunately I think your summary above is a little too pat and not that accurate. Division of humans into five races is somewhat arbitrary and a reasonable case can be made for every number from one through six and higher; in fact at Race#Race as lineage you can see the specific divisions for N=1 through 6 in one study. Same with the division of Caucasoids into categories roughly corresponding to the earlier ideas of Nordic race, Alpine race and Mediterranean race plus an Extra-European Caucasoid category whose existence is very debatable as you can see at the talk page there. Saying that genetic influences go back exactly twelve generations is extremely arbitrary. Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe is still imperfect but I do not see a number of 8% emerging from it.
Oppenheimer is interesting but not all researchers share his views. His studies and conclusions should be mentioned as data points along with and on a par with other studies.-- JWB 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to add on, the references listed above are also secondary if not tertiary references, filtered through a chunk of societal prejudices. The groupings described here derive from specific cluster samples of we discussed before. The systemic problems listed above apply, but also the datasets used (a collection of ¨long term stable¨local populations with no pretense of comprehensive coverage) do not suffice for the ¨There are five basic groups of human in genetic terms¨ generalization. And genetic grouping is specifically discounted by experts in the field, physical anthropologists. What we're talking about here is statistically recurrent clusters in noncoding DNA microsatellite locations. Please let the discussion stay in Race and genetics and Genetic history of Europe-- Carwil 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding:
Some say Iranians are white, while others disagree that he is white or Iranians are white in general, I was thinking that that photo should be added to the section about the light skin issue, where this Ayatollah can be used as an example of the light skin=white arguement.
"Although differences in skin color between southern Europeans and Moors were nearly nonexistent and on occasion, religious conversion was described figuratively as a change in skin color."
-- Carlon 23:03, 28 July 2007 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I thought the formal and politically-correct term was "caucasian." Having a "white people" article seems more like the kind of thing you'd find in an encyclopedia that often uses the words "ain't" and "y'hear." Is there a distinction or very obvious dichotomy that I'm missing? 68.102.179.135 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
People! Caucasian is basically only used in the States. In most European countries a Caucasian is a person or people from the Caucasus! That is to say, someone from the Countries and regions of the Caucasus ( Adygea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Krasnodar Krai, North Ossetia-Alania and Stavropol Krai). Wikipedia must assume a universal NPOV. Thank you. The Ogre 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've discussed before, the genetics section places undue weight on genetic theories for whiteness, and also involves some OR. I think that the information about European genetics is best placed in the article about European genetics, rather than for the general concept of white people.
The main proponent of this OR was User:Lukas19, who is now banned, so we do not have to worry about him anymore. If there are no objections I will remove the genetics information. The Behnam 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading the talk page, it seems that you have made same arguments before, arguing that information about Europeans can not be represented in this page, but were found incorrect by the meditator. Despite this, you have made changes with the ban of Lukas19. That's very irresponsible (deleting 2/3 of the article). Stevertigo:
"Im inclined to agree with Lucas on this one, provided his statements are represented as a list (as they are here), and the purpose of which is to represent the diversity of views on "whiteness" - not selecting examples which exclusively correlate with "Europeanness." Its an issue of a semantic connection (not a "genetic" one, Lucas) between two words which have some relationship but one that differs by source. It would be interesting to know how the US and UK for example differ on the meaning of the term. -Stevertigo 01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Lukas just wants language that says, for the most part white = caucasian and to some extent = European. Just as a semantic statement this doesnt seem improper -Stevertigo 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)"
Do not delete this information again. KarenAE 03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
By bothering me, I mean, not mentioning it to me further as you have just did, so I wouldnt have to write some sort of answer. Just do what you have to do without telling me and let me know when you've filed the report or something.
As for the list, it is not meant as a literal list, but is meant as not breaching the WP:NOR rule. Read the context.
As for definitons, I meant definitions of white people. Most definitions use or define white people interchangeably with Europeans. I dont understand what part of this you dont understand. Clearly, definitions define usage of terms, therefore definitions use certain explanations.
As for the proof of this, this seems to be the usage in Western world. While there are some exceptions (that is, some Middle Easterns may be white), for the most part, white=Europeans in USA, although official defintion differs. This is further explained (with sources)in White American. This seems also to be the case in Canada, as their visible minority (non-white and non-native) status includes pretty much everyone except Europeans (such as Arabs and Latins). Europe pretty much uses OED definition, with UK and Norway sections clearly stating that. So for the most part, that is with some exceptions, Europeans = white. The only exception seems to be Latin America. Therefore, as I said, most definitions use whites and Europeans interchangeably. And European definitions of whites hold more weight than others simply because these racial classifications were devised by Europeans. Latin Americans disputing the meaning of whiteness is a bit like Indians disputing who is Chineese. I'm not saying these views shouldnt be represented. I'm just saying that due to small weight of these views, you shouldnt censor information. Just because there is a dispute that Taiwan is part of China does not mean we shouldnt add any information to the geography section of China. Clearly, almost all naturally blond people are white, therefore mentioning blond hair makes perfect sense. It also increases the readibility of the whole encyclopedia, with articles linking to eachother. I do not understand what you are trying to achieve by constantly deleting this information. KarenAE 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The images on the Caucasian Race page are implying that only Nordics or people with paistey colouring are `Caucasians/Caucasoid'. I propose we supply images similar to the following:
Norwegian people: http://www.bi.no/upload/Grafisk-marked/internasjonal/artikkelbilder/bunader.jpg
Italian girl: http://www.lifeinitaly.com/culture/img/italian-girl.jpg
Berber father and child http://www.worldpress.org/images/berbers.jpg
Rajput man http://pchanez.club.fr/Images/rajput.jpg
I wrote this here as it gets more attention that the Caucasian race discussion does. Can anyone help out? thank you Ruts77
My understanding of the word Physiology is more about the workings of the human organs and cells than it is about physical appearance. Thus by physiology humans are pretty much the same, Its not like there are different methods of digestion, respiration or filtration, excretion metabolism and reproduction, they are the same accross populations . Anatomy, maybe, but under the skin all humans are pretty much alike. Thus phenotypes maybe a better heading. The problem however is that none of the phenotypes are unique to whites or caucasians. They can be found in other populations too. Muntuwandi 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Which version of See also section should be used? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&diff=126321335&oldid=126310169
Whats the rationale in deleting numerous links in the See also section? KarenAE 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has responded, so I have removed this article's listing from RfC. You are welcome to re-add the article if there is still a dispute in progress.-- Daveswagon 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Lead is too long, it should be as brief as possible and least controversial. Some stuff needs to be moved into the main body of the article. Muntuwandi 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that pic is only going to infuse the stereotype that "white" people are only the pale skinned people that wear solid colored polos and drive SUVs in the suburbs. It is a very AMERICAN way of looking at white, which only promotes the pale skinned Anglo as the true white. According to the article itself and actual logic, white can range from pasty pale Anglos to olive skinned Italians in Southern Europe. I think that as an informative website we should have a duty to dispel the horrible useage of "white" in the United States from it only meaning Nordic types. I mean I am meeting Russians, Slavs, and even Blonde Haired Argentinans that think of themselves as NON-WHITE every day because they've come to believe that they are such due to the horrible usage of the label. Can't we atleast post some pics throughout the webpage of OTHER whites like Eastern Europeans, Hispanics and even Middle Easteners?
The Question of Mustafa Hefny as white is a non-issue. He is clearly non-white and probably a black man with decendents from sub-sarahan africa who is from Egypt. You wouldnt label an African American as white simply because he lived in a white majority country. The point is that when it comes to white in the United States, the Southern European, the Middle Easteners of Asia Minor (NOT ALL MIDDLE EASTENERS), and others are rubbed out of the equation due to the erroneous use of the term white being only attributed to Nordic types. The picture just seems to reinstate that for who so ever pops onto the page without reading it or skimming it. I mean I believe this is so because the first image of the white person is whats posted, rather if a picture of an olive skinned Sicilian or Lebanese were on there first, it would be a shock to others.
How about these?
The Behnam 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As for Europeans we could go for say four of:
Just some ideas. Sorry they are all politicians, I don't really know any "celebs", they all seem a bit vacuous and unimportant to me. Alun 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No I dont think that King Abdullah or Arabs as in Saudi Arabians are generally or should be seen as white. Even in the Arab world, other cultural Arabs, know that that most of the white Arabs are concentrated in Asia Minor, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and North Africa. I have Egyptian friends who joke about some Arabs looking too Saudi which means they're dark skinned. They know that they themselves are not TRUE Arabs. I think that what the census is reffering to in the Middle East is the remenants of white caucasian tribes like Berbers, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc. that were there before the Arab invasion and integrated into Arab culture. Since the societies are so mixed that its hard to single out the white arabs from the "real" arabs. So the US Census just labels them ALL white, like they do with ALL Hispanics. The same can be applied to with South Indians, who in my book, are for sure NOT white. I only think that a certain number of caucasian tribes in Northern India are actually white. To recap lets not throw the whole debate into the water by actually considering that EVERYONE the US Census labels as white is really white. I know that its in error to assume that white only means Nordic people from Europe but I believe that the only people in the Middle East that can be labled as white are the people that have significant ancestry to those of the indegenous tribes of the Middle East BEFORE the Arab conquest.
I made some big changes in this section and hope my edit summaries were enough to explain them. Just writing this to give a heads-up. I found the same mistakes in Black people but couldnt edit the article (it was semi protected). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OceanblueY ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
I've been reading the discussion page for the past 2 days. It seems this text was agreed upon and never added. It's currently in Archive 11.
"In an analysis of molecular genetic data, biologist Alan R. Templeton found "all of the genetic evidence shows that there never was a split or separation of the 'races' or between Africans and Eurasians. Recent human evolution has been characterized by both population range expansions … and recurrent genetic interchange."[22]X1 Nevertheless it has been observed that when individual genomes are clustered solely by genetic similarity, individuals sort into broad clusters that correspond to large geographic regions. -Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas appearing in the same cluster.- [23] The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. X2 However, Some individuals, such as Indians, from boundary locations between these regions were inferred to have partial ancestry in the clusters that corresponded to both sides of the boundary. Therefore these clusters may overlap. Also, In many cases, subclusters that corresponded to individual populations or to subsets of populations were also identified. Some scientists reject this clustering approach and claim that human genetic diversity consists of clines of variation in allele frequencies. While some others think that human genetic diversity consists not only of clines, but also of clusters, which STRUCTURE observes to be repeatable and robust.
In references section: X1: By races, authorts mean subspecies. In biology, subspecies is the may mean race but there is no consensus on the definition of race(sources)
X2: By geographic regions, authors mean origin. (or something of this sort. We should explain, by geographic proximity, they dont mean one white and one black roommates)" KarenAE 09:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I was in mediation. I never agreed to the text as listed, though Lukas proposed it. Alun's right, and his comment is consistent w/ my concerns as expressed before.-- Carwil 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Some interesting information about white people's IQs.
First, these studies are very controversial, and to understand them one has to read first the Flynn effect.
Still, some scientists are making tables about races, nations and IQS.
The results are interesting for a number of reasons:
1. The highest scores are to be found among East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), not about white people as some would think, maybe.
2. The highest scores in Europe or any other white countries have been established for Italy in 2006 (Well if Italians are white, then it seems that some people here say they are not, in that case, whites would go further down and if Jews are not white either, then another step down. They would be in 4th position then, after Askenazi Jews, East Asians and Italians).
3. Moreover, Ashkenazic Jews demonstrate the highest IQ scores in the world.
Do not know if this may be helpful for the article. I am sure it is very controversial. Here it is in any case. 72.144.17.17 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is North Africa, Asia Minor, and all the Middle Eastern countries considered white people? If the article uses out dated and racist 19th century propaganda then wouldn't people in those locations be considered not white? What about people who have black ancestors who now are considered white, due to appearance, and not blood line. Via blood line how many people would be condsidered white? -- Margrave1206 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
While I do agree that the US Census would consider most of those places as being part of the caucasian race, I think that the map should be reformed to exclude the Sudan. The name of the country is actually an arabic word which means land of the blacks, and looking at most Sudanese people you can tell they are pretty black. I think someone may have misinterpreted the definition of North Africa. While it certainly makes sens eto classify most moroccans, algerians, tunisians, and egyptians as caucasian, i highly doubt that the american actually think that sudanese are white when most sudanese are blacker than most black americans. I think the map should be refitted to exclude Sudan, otherwise it is fine
Why is there a White Hispanic page and the White British, White Australian and White Canadian pages have been deleted? The White American page still exists and it appears that Wikipedia is biased as it only exists to suit Americans! Secondly (I am writing from Austrlaia so I'm not 100% sure on what is necessarily implied in U.S. terms), I thought that the term `Hispanic' in the U.S. referred to Spanish speaking people of the Americas, not from Spain itself. I thought their degree of `whiteness' only pertained to how much European ancestry they had and whether they `looked' European in appearance. Finally, there are images of people like Rita Hayworth and Raquel Welch on these pages. Both of them are mixed and have an Irish (Northern European)parent. If this is the case, can I create a page called `White East Indian' and include images of Nikki Bedi, Nasser Hussain and Ronnie Irani on it?
All whites are white, but some are more white than others. But Nordic race realy isn't white, they are pale pink...
You certainly have a point there. In fact if you are from Europe we know that in Southern Europe they are often spoken of as pinkish or reddish or even orange, and there are many jokes about them because of this.
A will give you an example of a Spanish joke:
(This is not to offend anyone, and I hope it does not. It is just to explain this point).
To undertsad pay attention:
When you want to say that something is very good, in the case of a woman very beautiful, in popular Spanish, in Spain, you say:
La madre que te pario = meaning something like (your mother gave birth to a beautiful thing) Parir means to give birth.
Well the joke goes:(obviously the humour is lost in the traslation and the puns but it will be understood for this purpose).
A Swede who did not know Spanish very well saw a beautiful girl and said: "Niña, a ti te pario una madre" and the girl responded "y a ti una gamba". Meaning: a) A mother gave birth to you: Response: And a shrimp gave birth to you.
Shrimps are eaten cooked in Spain and look very red.
Well I could explain dozens of jokes like this. In short, they are not very much perceived as "white" but rather as red, pink or orange in popular culture in Spain, Italy, etc.
This has always been like that but this perception is lately exaggerated because of important immigration from Northen Eruope into countries like Spain. See these articles that deal with the British:
See:
http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/british-immigrants-swamping-spanish-villages/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1588156,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6210358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5237236.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm
We all know that massive immigration always has different types of influences in how people are perceived, often exaggerating certain features and leading to stereotypes.
In any case, the article already states that "white" is a color metaphor for race. It has nothing to do with the literal meaning of the word. 65.11.70.20 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right. North Europeans are called in the Balearic Islands (Spain) Salmonetes:
See a picture of Salmonetes:
http://www.diabetesjuvenil.com/fotos/fotos_recetas/salmonetes_al_horno.jpg
But it has nothing to do with the concept of race, it is just a popular way of calling people. On the other hand, no one is literally white. 72.144.221.103 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the picture of Stephen Colbert (who is obviously White), because it is relevant to race, as he often jokes on his show that he doesn't know if he is White or not, and that he does not see color in race when referring to issues on African Americans.-- PericlesofAthens 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, is this piece of anecdotal evidence (of what?) at all relevant to the article? "Ooooh, look at me! I transcend the census bureau's arbitrary categorizations! I rock!" Come on, people! This article has gotten really good; let's not let the filler start creeping back in. ThePedanticPrick 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
added a picture of a nameless person from I do not where. I hope that this might have less controversy. Muntuwandi 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently saw a study conducted by Harvard that finally showed the reason white people are unable to dance is due to lacking certain enzymes. see also: white people, inability to jump.
Is this really true? I'd like to see a more general source than immigration manuals; immigration departments often don;'t reflect national usage "in the culture" or "in the public".
Do we really mean that two british people on the streets of London, discussing someone as White, have an implicit understanding they are talking about a native British or European originating person?? Surely not. or if they are, then the word "ancestry" needs to be in there, with a more specific cite on cultural usage in the UK. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
this article is clearly about the "white skin" phenotype. Racialist notions associated with it clearly have a place, too, but these have their own main articles, in places like whiteness studies, Caucasoid etc. I don't follow how The Behman can denonce the "genetic approach" above, since the topic of this article is clearly a genetic trait. We obviously don't want any OR. We want respectable genetics studies that trace the particulars, history and distribution of "light skin". The various social issues attached can be mentioned, but they belong delegated to their respective main articles. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically most of it was OR. Whenever we take a study of European genetics and present it as the genetics of white people (in general) we commit OR. You may try looking at the archives for more of the discussion, though the more recent ones are probably clearer. The Behnam 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a genetic section is necessary and useful, since genetics is being used to trace lineage and lineage has always been a fundamentla concept for race. Genetically speaking Europeans are a very homogeneous population and other populations from the Near East and North Africa are also close to Europeans genetically speaking and they are more or less the people who are called white or have been called white by Anthropologies in the past. So I would agree to introduce the genetic section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.137.97 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, to say that Europeans are not the most representative population of white people makes no sense whatsoever. Europeans are the white people par excellence, which does not mean that they are the only white people, but to question that Sub-Saharan Africans are not the black people par excellence is the same (and of course they are not literally black nor are Europeans literally white, but that is an issue already in the article). With this kind of politically motivated reasoning this article can never be good. The genetics about Europeans is the main reference for the genetics about white people. Do people here really question these basic issues? Genetics is the most scientific approach to speak about a group of people in terms of lineage and common biological heritage, the main concepts of race. Anything else is what is really OR and subjective approaches mixed up with fantasies and sometimes political propaganda. I am not putting it back though, but support the re-introduction of the genetic section, probably the most updated and valuable information in this article. And again, if there are people who are called white outside of Europe it is because they can trace their ancestry to Europe and also to other areas like the Middle East or North Africa, like in some censuses or past anthropologists. But the European thing is never questioned. I think that some common sense would be needed here. Jan.
I have to disagree with the idea that this article is primarily about phenotype. It is primarily about the concept of "white race" and its history. This may have been clearer when the article was actually titled White race, and perhaps the article should be moved back to that or another clearer title.
In general I do not think massive deletion is good, but the primary articles for skin color and genetics are Human skin color, Genetic history of Europe, Recent single-origin hypothesis, etc., and contributions on these subjects should go there. The article about "white race" should have links to those articles, but note that science is not the same as sociology, which is what the "white race" idea is. -- JWB 00:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Although she might be anthropologically Caucasian the word "White" generally refers to people of European descent. A picture of another Pakistani Kalash woman who might be her close relative: http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/52130/kalash.jpg Not exactly White.
At least in the UK Pakistanis are not included to the definition of "White" in common usage.
The example is controversial and should be replaced.
MoritzB 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not touching this article but if someone wishes to include the following and decide on what basis one qualifies for 'white people' status then all is good -
There are five basic groups of human in genetic terms:
Eurasians are futher divided into four distinguishable genetic groups:
Typically British people (and one would assume the same for Americans or Australians who are descended from British/Irish) are 65% North European - 35% South European. However 'North European' does not mean the Vikings/Germans from around 1000AD however since it is clear that there were incursions into Britain from Scandanavia before the Romans arrives and even in Neolithic times.
However a significant proportion of 'white' people will have genetic influences from one of the other four groups, a single sub-saharan african ancestor will contribute as much as 8% of your total genetic material.
Genetic make-up is basically a combination of the influences of the previous twelve generations.
RichardColgate 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Richard, suggest you read Genetic history of Europe and related articles then consider contributing there. While a brief summary of genetics may be appropriate in the race (as a social phenomenon) articles, the main discussion of genetics is in the genetics articles.
If you are interested in who "qualifies for 'white people' status", the answer has been rather complicated and differs by place and time, and is often different from what you might expect from genetics. This social history of race is what this article is primarily about.
Unfortunately I think your summary above is a little too pat and not that accurate. Division of humans into five races is somewhat arbitrary and a reasonable case can be made for every number from one through six and higher; in fact at Race#Race as lineage you can see the specific divisions for N=1 through 6 in one study. Same with the division of Caucasoids into categories roughly corresponding to the earlier ideas of Nordic race, Alpine race and Mediterranean race plus an Extra-European Caucasoid category whose existence is very debatable as you can see at the talk page there. Saying that genetic influences go back exactly twelve generations is extremely arbitrary. Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe is still imperfect but I do not see a number of 8% emerging from it.
Oppenheimer is interesting but not all researchers share his views. His studies and conclusions should be mentioned as data points along with and on a par with other studies.-- JWB 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to add on, the references listed above are also secondary if not tertiary references, filtered through a chunk of societal prejudices. The groupings described here derive from specific cluster samples of we discussed before. The systemic problems listed above apply, but also the datasets used (a collection of ¨long term stable¨local populations with no pretense of comprehensive coverage) do not suffice for the ¨There are five basic groups of human in genetic terms¨ generalization. And genetic grouping is specifically discounted by experts in the field, physical anthropologists. What we're talking about here is statistically recurrent clusters in noncoding DNA microsatellite locations. Please let the discussion stay in Race and genetics and Genetic history of Europe-- Carwil 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding:
Some say Iranians are white, while others disagree that he is white or Iranians are white in general, I was thinking that that photo should be added to the section about the light skin issue, where this Ayatollah can be used as an example of the light skin=white arguement.
"Although differences in skin color between southern Europeans and Moors were nearly nonexistent and on occasion, religious conversion was described figuratively as a change in skin color."
-- Carlon 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)