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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Tell me, should we keep the picture of a possibly non white anonymous girl instead of keeping the picture of an actual white women, famous world wide. If Aishwaria Rai is in the gallery, Shakira has the same right to be in it too 201.68.50.209 ( talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I however think that Shakira should still be included in the gallery, to show to some Americans that Shakira is white, since there are plenty of americans who say she is not white. She should serve as an example of a White hispanic woman. InuYoshi ( talk) 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Although there is nothing wrong with including her in the gallery, including Shakira just to "show Americans that she is white" is not a good reason and could be considered POV pushing; however, I agree that more people from the Americas need to be included. Before these recent edits, I believe practically everyone in the gallery was from the "Old World". Not only are there the 2 countries of Canada and the U.S. with white people, but there are several Latin American countries with representation as well (such as Shakira). Kman543210 ( talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was seeing that pashtu girl and yasser arafat on the gallery and I thought we could add some "very white" people like Eddie Murphy, Michael Clark Dunkan, Beyonce, Williams sisters, Barack Obama and Will Smith. InuYoshi ( talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not as if it's not just as easy to revert it X days from now as it is now. Let people have their say, express their opinions about the mix and the spread, and then changes can be made. The previous gallery was not well balanced, and I think this one is better. I could be wrong, but let's allow consensus to determine that -- after all, I see here no obvious consensus for the previous version.
On those grounds, please do not revert the gallery, allow a discussion to take place. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
p.s state your issue with each particular photo and take it from there not change photos first and you also added like a few more photos we dont want the gallery to increase much more no reason to this will be a article of all gallery and no substance-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What is Yasser doing in this article? He doesn't look white. nndb says je is middle eastern. 201.68.196.70 ( talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am glad we have some images at last, but the image gallery is over the top, and appears to be a random collection. It would make sense to present "phenotypes" of all macroregions included in the term, thus, Northern Europe (e.g. Sami), Southern Europe (e.g. Italian), Near East (e.g. Arab, Armenian), Central Asia (e.g. Pashtun, Kyrgyz) , North Africa (e.g. Berber). It seems pointless to just heap up images of celebrities. This would yield something like:
some of these may need cropping (especially the Bedouin and Fellah images). More suggestions are welcome -- the point is that we need to keep the gallery within reasonable limits, aiming at maximual diversity presented within a minimal number of images. -- dab (𒁳) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i still dont see a valid reason to remove the current one thats been up for sometime, besides people just want to put there own spin on the gallery,the current gallery which does have people from very diverse regions, i dont understand the issue it seems nobody wants to add the to the article itself but keep harping on the gallery which is one of the reasons i had sided in favor of the removal of the gallery lets have a valid reason for a removal of the gallery besides people just wanting to pick new pics--
Wikiscribe (
talk)
15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted several new additions to the gallery, as I'm not convinced they add anything to showing the diversity of white people. Comments welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i agree with you and so have i and that pov problem editor has been blocked i am still in favor of the removal of the gallery all together though-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but many articles consider middle easterners as "white", others do not. So, what does Wikipedia consider Indians and other arabs?--S00porz2 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK so Ash Rai's image is deleted and rightly so, but I think her image would be more justified there than the Khazakh president's. Khazaks are central Asian and neither fit under the Caucasoid/Indo-European or Semitic branches of Human kind, hence they don't even make marginal inclusion into the gallery, regardless of what the U.S. Censusu definition would define them. I'm sure that anyone who is not visually impaired would not identify Naazarbayev as white in any context. I would think this Kashmiri girl http://www.kashmir-tours.net/Images/People.jpg would have her image more justified in the gallery. Secondly, The gallery should be put in order for European Caucasoids and non-European images for marginal inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.242.172 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, September 13, 2008
The Caucasoid Race & White people, I propose that this article is getting confused with the definition of the 'caucasian race article' which includes "skull" and "facial/body feature similarities" in parts of South Asia, Middle east etc . The definition "white", seems to be only or atleast mainly used in the majority of the term " Western world" and atleast invented in the western world?...like the term " Blanco" ( White Latin American) in Latin America, refers to people who descend from European settlers from mainly Spain, Portugual ,Italy, Germany etc.. since the term Blanco/Branco was invented by the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers to define peoples Race, since racial mixing occured frequently.
The reason why I suggested a European/nonEuropean divide in the Gallery is that mainstream Western society doen not generally consider non-European peoples as a whole as 'white'. West Asians may be classed as such in the U.S., South America and Apartheid South Africa, but only in Census definitions. Non-Europens would have to look European to be marginally considered 'white' by most Western standards.
It's understood that Middle Easterners fall under white by the u.s. census despite generally not being perceived as white. Indians however do not fall under white despite some being considered Caucasoid. Considering the census doesn't include Indians under white and they are not perceived as such there is no valid reason to include Aishwarya Rai. Yamagishi ( talk) 16:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The vague explanation of "some" definitions of white including Indians when they are officially and socially considered non-white not to mention that Indians do not self Identify as "white". Your argument goes against the census and the general social viewpoints on this issue and is simply invalid. Rai doesn't belong and should be removed. Yamagishi ( talk) 17:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to propose an inclusion of sources to verify the claim made by Yamagishi. According to the US census, a person with origins from the Indian subcontinent falls under the category of Asian in terms of race. [1] CenterofGravity ( talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ramdrake the facts have been provided for you and now it's up to you to accept it.
Yamagishi ( talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet you have not provided any definition other than your opinion to back this up. Some have considered south Indians to be "black" but it would be invalid to actually include Indians under black people based on that. Yamagishi ( talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do some digging you'll see that at one time Italians and Irish were considered non-white so should we exclude them based on that? The facts still remain the same I'm afraid. Yamagishi ( talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Simply saying that sometimes Indians are considered white is merely an opinion holds very little weight. Middle Easterners are included because the U.S. census lists them as such in spite of the fact that Canada and the U.K. among many other countries do not consider them white. Evidence confirming the fact that Indians are considered white by neither the U.S. census, the Canadian or U.K. racial classifications has been provided. Including Indians based on a vague claims isn't enough. Neither you nor Ramdrake have been able to back up you position with anything but your opinions. Yamagishi ( talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So government and the views of society don't matter only your opinion? Going around in circles and refusing to back up your opinions isn't an acceptable argument. Information has been provided that proves the inclusion of an Indian person in the gallery of "white" people is officially and socially invalid. Yamagishi ( talk) 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
And around we go. The information has already been provided that shows that Indians do not fall under white. You have provided nothing but dead end responses of little substance. Opinions do not stand against facts I'm afraid. Yamagishi ( talk) 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some definitions of Caucasian/white race and their sources:
As a poster previously said, this is assuming that Caucasian and white are synonymous, which many people use them interchangeably, some maybe do not. As you can see, many of the sources do include India in the definition. Kman543210 ( talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yamagishi, it's not correct to say that "Indians do not fall under white", claims like this are difficult to verify, it's very hard to "prove" a negative. Now it is true that there exist definitions of "white" and/or "caucasian" that do not include peoples from the Indian subcontinent, but it is equally true that there exist concepts of "white"/"caucasian" that do include the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Incidentally there also exist definitions of "white"/"caucasian" that include some of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent but not others. All of these points of view are easily verified. Wikipedia is not here to promote
The Truth as any particular editor or groups of editors see it, it's here to give all verifiable points of view, and the claim that sometimes peoples from the Indian subcontinent are considered "white" is a verifiable and a notable point of view. There is no universally accepted "racial" classification system, and many of these classifications are contradictory. The location of the Indian subcontinent places it more or less equidistant from Europe and the Far East, this means that it's population displays characteristics of both, and of course it is a peninsula, which means that there is likely to be an additional axis of clinal variation that is unique to India. The peoples of India have therefore sometimes been classified in the same "race" as Europeans, sometimes they have been classified in the same "race" as the peoples of the Far East, and sometimes they have been classified into their own "race". Incidentally many physical anthropologists include Ethiopians and Somalis as "white"/"caucasian" as well, we should probably include images of people from these groups in the gallery for completeness. There's no hard and fast rule here and we should always be aware that reliable sources may often contradict what we personally hold to be self evident "truths". We cannot fairly exclude reliable sources that do not conform to our own personal world view just because we do not like what they say. In summary, what you are saying is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, we need to include all points of view. I think the article already covers this. Cheers,
Alun (
talk)
05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it curious that the photos of "white people" aren't actually compiled mostly with people of non-European origin but rather people usually not associated with the term. Apparently Indians are white now also I see. It's too bad that all it takes is enough people with a particular point of view to control what's presented on Wikipedia articles regardless if credible or not. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So if I am to understand the entry on the United Kingdom, if a person is a fair complected/fair eyed/fair haired Manx, they are nonwhite British? Castravalva ( talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have restored to examples that were removed. There is no reason why this article shouldn't have any examples other than a gallery at the bottom of the article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
there are maybe 30 pics in the gallery already to give a broad spectrum of examples-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well you may want to go check some other articles then because I see plently of photos on other articles. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why 2 example photos should not be included in 2 relevent sections on this article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why the Black people article has example photos in relevent sections through the article or why articles such as the United States have pictures through the article instead of just a gallery at the end if Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a 'picture book' as you put it? Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I was told to gain consensus before editing this article yet I am the only one using this talk page. Consensus is merely an excuse for blocking edits, as the people reverting edits state gain consensus first and won't attempt to build any consensus as they won't use the talk page while the article is their version, only if they are trying to put it back to their version. I also feel these reverst are racially motivated judging by the editors contributions histories. I will take this to the Admin notice board as I feel there is a racist few here restricting improvement of this article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
However I think it's very poor that I need to take it to the Admins noticeboard to get any response. People seem to have the idea that this is their article and their say goes and any attempt by an outsider to change it from their preference will be responded to with reverts and these outsiders do not deserve any discussion. Usergreatpower ( talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So here's the main point, is a photo of Marylin Monroe in the Physical appearance section a good or bad idea? I feel it's a good idea because she's probably the most iconic example of an idealised appearance of a white person. Usergreatpower ( talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I support JzG's removal of the ridiculous and arbitrary gallery (I just hope he doesn't go and do something silly like protect the article to keep it that way). Now that the gallery is gone, I feel this article desperately needs some sort of lead illustration--perhaps we could use a historical political cartoon containing sort of caricature (perhaps one positive and one negative) of the "white man". Whatever illustration we choose, it should not merely be an image of any old white person; it should be an image about white people. Any ideas?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW I like your suggestion TFMWNCB. Do you have any suggestions to kick things off? Alun ( talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a good image, as it illustrates a previous attempt to define what white features are. I would not recommend using this particular image in the article, because it comes from a Nazi book, and its use would seem to promote the POV that the very study of the white race itself cannot be separated from white supremacy (that's my POV, btw). However, if we could find an older, more innocuously sourced illustration like this, that would work for me. I don't want this article to come off as excessively preachy.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried putting an example photo in the article yet user:wobble again refuses to allow any example photos in the article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth should this article not be allowed to have any example photos added to it? It just doesn't make any sense and only makes the article less informative and interesting. Almost every article of this size on Wikipedia have photos throughout. Plus many people disagree with the pointless gallery which serves only to allow people to add people who they think are white to it over time making it really just a big board for people to post photos of people they think are white. Usergreatpower ( talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The See also section is far longer than is useful, yet most of the links seem relevant. Would anyone object if I converted it into a navbox? the skomorokh 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. There are tens of thousands of article subjects and probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of images depicting people who just happen to be white. Choosing some but not all is arbitrary, choosing all would be entirely arbitrary, and you're never going to find a consensus in reliable sources for the faces which best exemplify whiteness - nor would you want to try. Guy ( Help!) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Also guy i wondered if you checked out the FA on the pashtun people you never got back to me on that
::Like other Iranian peoples, many Pashtuns have mixed with various invaders, neighboring groups, and migrants. In terms of phenotype, Pashtuns are predominantly a Mediterranean people,[39] so light hair, eye colors and pale skin are not uncommon, especially among remote mountain tribes.[40]:: -- Wikiscribe ( talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
saying somebody is white is hardly slanderous and do not compare a statement such as "white people are superior" being put in the article via consensus with the inclusion of a gallery via consensus of people in which there are sources stating these people can be considered white also please dont make ignorant statements about pashtun people unti you read the featured article on them in which there is this sort of sourced statement
so maybe some pashtun can meet your standards of exemplar "WHITE" like that of ms.monroe--
Wikiscribe (
talk)
21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I once thought that a gallery here could demonstrate the broad diversity among people who are considered to be white or cacasian, and by labeling the region we could illustrate the concepts of migration and localized adaptation. But, I don't think that it is practical, and perhaps just not productive. I see this really becoming more of a wp:coatrack than a learning tool. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on Guy! Where did anyone ever claim " Aishwarya Rai as an exemplary white person"? Can you point out to me where in the article this claim was ever made? This sort of straw man "argument" is not what we should be aiming for. Just what is and "exemplary white person?". I must confess that I find the level of systemic bias extremely high in this article, everyone thinks they know what "whiteness" is, but in reality they are really promoting the concept of "whiteness" that is dominant in the society in which they developed. When we analyse these ideas more closely we find that there is no real agreement and there certainly is no "universal norm". You essentially seem to be claiming that what you consider to be an "obvious example" of a "white" person is the same as what is accepted as "obvious" globally and has been "obvious" historically. I don't accept this argument. Any claims for a "universally acceptable" definition of "whiteness" are bound for failure because we will always have reliable sources that contradict any "universal". Who is or in not "white" is clearly dependent on social context, and indeed any recent anthropological text would explicitly say this. There are plenty of examples where subcontinental Indian people are considered "white" by physical anthropologists. The inclusion of images of people from many different populations that have been described as "white" in various historical or social or "scientific" contexts was specifically to illustrate the fluid and socially constructed nature of "whiteness". The argument that inclusion of images of subcontinental Indian people as "white" might be offensive is spurious, images of nudity certaily are offensive to some people (but not to me), but we still include them here, we are an encyclopaedia, we don't censor reliable information just in case we might give offence. Now if you want to claim that in a specific society some of the images included in the gallery represent groups that are not considered "white", that is true, but without including the social context we are pushing the fallacy that "white" = European at all times and in all places, and clearly there are numerous reliable sources that contradict such a claim. Alun ( talk) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
For example what about the
Bai people of China? They call themselves White people.
Alun (
talk)
05:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My Chinese colleague also called "Xin Jiang" people "white", when I asked her what she meant she said that they "look like you" (meaning me). I checked for this group but couldn't find this referenced as a people anywhere. Possibly she means the Uyghur people of Xinjiang autonomous region. For example this image. So that's at least two different uses of the term "white" to refer to people in China who are clearly not European. Alun ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that, better than a gallery, would be to use different photos selectively and strategically to illustrate the diverse and divergent points of view in the article - in other words, spread them out (so one section can have a photo of Marilyn Monroe next to one of Aishwarya Rai with a caption that states: while virtually all sources identify people of European origins as white, some sources include Indians and others do not. Another section could have a photo of Johnny Ventura with the caption explaining that in his native country, the Dominican Republic, he would be identified as Whilte, in the United States he would not. Another section could include a photo of Julian Bond and have a caption, Although Julian Bond has considerable European ancestry, in the United States he is considered Black. Obviously I am supposing all of this can be pegged to sources, but I am sure we can find appropriate sources linked to appropriate illustrations. My main point is not these specific examples but the idea of breaking up the gallery and using individual or small sets of photos to illustrate specific points that come up in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to respectable encyclopaediae such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, British Encyclopaedia? Perhaps we could take a lead from them, since I cannot recall any race riots or front page news reports following their publication—if their approach to depicting white people is uncontroversial, and we take our cue from them, we stand a good chance of not stirring controversy either. Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this is just plain embarrassing. I might expect to see this kind of edit-warring with newer users, but with experienced editors? C'mon, you all should know that edit wars do not work. They are a completely ineffective means of forcing a change to an article. I don't want to protect the article, but if people keep reverting each other, we're going to end up with blocks and/or protection. So please work it out some other way, okay? Please assume good faith, please stay civil, and please try to figure out a compromise which keeps the article in accordance with policies. Thanks, -- El on ka 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
To be more specific, I have three suggestions:
Under your proposal do we as editors have to pick out pictures?-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, many verifiable sources provide their own illustrations. We would need to find out if they are fair use. As for picking out pictures, what is our policy on other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand Wikiscribe's objection. The initial objection to the gallery was because it was a gallery and not due to the images present in the gallery. As long as we can
verify that an image of a person is of someone who comes from a population that corresponds to some construction of "white", then I don't see any problem. Obviously we will never get complete agreement, and images of actual famous people will always be prone to suggestions of some sort of bias (for example why one politician over another), but that's what the talk page is for, we build consensus, and whisper it compromise. While I'm not strongly in favour or against images of people, I don't really see why editors here, acting in good faith, can't come to some sort of understanding about how to proceed. Wikiscribe, can you explain what you would be prepared to compromise on, what would you accept?
Alun (
talk)
09:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Having a section about "Relations with black people" here doesn't really make sense. This is more of an issue in the United States. I think this section should be moved to White American article instead. This article should take a global perspective as per Wikipedia guidelines.
The article argues that the one-drop rule is distinctly American. Try telling that to anyone with any visibly non-European features trying to get a hotel room in the middle of Cape Town. Dg7891 ( talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The White Australia Policy is a misnomer, as it didn't actually target white skin. Christian Indians (India then being part of the British Empire) were allowed to immigrate, as were other non-white ethnic groups. Religion and Dominion was the main determinent for countries whose emmigrants were acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.161.147 ( talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Beside the pale skin, there are also other features, including the skull shape, that make Whites diffrent from other races. In fact, some scientists classify races mostly based on the shape of the skull rather than skin pigmentation, as the latter is more superficial.-- 71.190.91.208 ( talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been bold and and added examples of white people who are undisputably white in an attempt to resolve the dispute of which examples should be shown due to dispute over who is considered white. This should now mean the article does not need to go without examples. Usergreatpower ( talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
i agree and concur with ramdrakes statement-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
i also am "very" supportive of this particular idea and concur with slrubenstein statement and it could put an end to the picture charade within this article--
Wikiscribe (
talk)
20:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent initiative! Although, Alun, we may need to do something about that wordiness of yours!! ;) -- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Why no examples of people who are considered universally to be White? Why just ones who are considered by some to be White? I don't think displaying just examples of people whose status as being White is controversial is going to solve the previous problem of people not agreeing on who is really White. If anything it only exacerbates it. That's why I was in favour of having examples of people where there is no controversy over their status as being White and are universally considered to be White. Usergreatpower ( talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out the Dravidian people are not considered by any measure I know of to be White and references are needed for the such measures mentioned in the image's description. Plus the number of methods which consider Somali people to be White are very few at best and a definite minority position. Usergreatpower ( talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that there are more pictures of people who most people wouldn't call White such as Africans and Indians than there are of ones most people would call White. Usergreatpower ( talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed there appears to be a lot confusion between White people and Caucasian people in this article. This article about White people not Caucasian people. White people are people with European ancestry. Caucasian people are people who belong to the Caucasian race, people who have ancestry from Europe, Middle East, North Africa, and most of India. Usergreatpower ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if the addition of all these new pictures makes much sense. It looks a bit too random to me. There was already a consensus not to have a gallery on the page. This looks like a gallery parsed over the different sections. Further input would be appreciated.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Raj Bhopal says "blah blah blah". We all know how Arabs and south Asians like to call themselves white. White people are people from Europe and some people in the near east but not all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.182.64 ( talk) 11:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article stinks of racism. The whole article disputes even the very existance of the race of White people, especially apparent in the article's introduction and the fact there are more pictures of, by most people's account, non-White people than there are actual White people. The Black people article certainly doesn't make such statements not does it have more pictures of White people or Asian people than it does Black people, hence there is a double standards rascism going on here. A good comparison would be since when does an article on say dogs have more pictures of cats than it does dogs? I added a POV tag to the article yet it was swiftly removed, even though such tags explicitely state Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved, which it clearly hasn't judging by this Talk page.
The article needs a rewrite and if editors here are unwilling to remove the obvious elements of racism from the article then I will have to inform the Administrators' Noticeboard of the article's racist content and those editors forcing that racist content to remain in the article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if we're counting, I count images of eight (and a half) Europeans, two Indians and two (and a half) Africans. How does that equate to "more pictures of, by most people's account, non-White people than there are actual White people"? Besides how do you claim to know what "most peoples account" is? That's just your opinion, no? I don't know what "most" people think is "white", but as I say this is an encyclopaedia, it's not here to say what "most" people think, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nine percent of people in the USA don't believe in evolution, [7] should we therefore say it's not true? I don't think that's a valid argument. Alun ( talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
And yes, I have heard people refer to people from the Indian subcontinent as black. Indeed I have heard British people of Indian subcontinental origin refer to themselves as black. So in answer to your question, "white people" can mean "anyone who is caucasoid", but it doesn't always have to mean that. We're certainly not here to promote any specific "racial categories" as "correct". If you are claiming that we are then I think you are wrong. You may believe that the "racial categories" that are in use in your particular culture are somehow "correct", but Wikipedia is not here to support the ideologies of any particular culture or society. Alun ( talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)"Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" p. 18.
I agree with Usergreatpower and others who feel that the article as racist and defies the common understanding of the term "white people". The semantics of any such term are rough around the edges, but the purpose of this article is not to cling to the most controversial boundaries of such a term. The purpose is to give a good explanation of "white people" as generally understood. The POV tag should be reinstated as this article exhibits clear anti-white racism. I will support the efforts of anyone who works to improve the article in this direction. Feichangdao ( talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
On a more salient note, the problem with Usergreatpower's complain about racism in the article is that he doesn't actually point out any racism. His concern seems to be that in his opinion "The whole article disputes even the very existance (sic) of the race of White people". But that's just a weird comment. What the article discusses is how the term "white people" has been used during different periods of history and in different places. It's just flawed to claim that just because the article shows that the term has different meanings at different times ad in different places, that it is "racist". His analogy to the black people article is also incorrect. That article has images of Africans and images of non-Africans and explicitly states that sometimes the term black refers only to Africans and people with a presumed recent African descent, and sometimes it refers to people with a dark skin colour who do not have a recent presumed African descent. In that sense this white people article and the black people article cover their respective subject matters more or less the same. As for his claims about cats and dogs, that seems to be some sort of satire on the one drop rule as far as I can tell, but the comment is obscure.
There's been much complaint that the article sometimes talks about "Caucasian" and that this term is not associated with "white people". I beg to differ, many sources show that the term "Caucasian" is often used as a synonym for "white", and that indeed the term "Aryan" is also often used a synonym for "white".
In my estimation there are three broad uses for the term "white" in the modernish westernish world, it can mean "Caucasian" or "European" or "Nordic". None of these three is well defined, which people are deemed "Caucasian" is open to debate amongst physical anthropologists and other "race" researchers. Likewise who is an European is open to debate, what about Turkish people for example? Are we to include some Turkish people based on their residence in the European region of Turkey, but exclude others? Likewise when "white" means "Nordic" we are left with a sub-set of Europeans claiming to be the "true white race", but this sub-set is not well defined, it seems to include English people but not Welsh people, based solely on the fact that English is a Germanic language and Welsh is not. I'm not sure the article does a good job of discussing all of these three different ideologies, but it should at least acknowledge that the term "white" when applied to people, does have various different meanings in various different times and to various different peoples. As far as I can see (and I don't claim to have perfect vision) what you, and Usergreatpower are saying is that if the article tries to be neutral, then it is being racist, or maybe what's closer to the mark, when the article challenges your social construction of whiteness, you find it hard to accept. That's normal, but it doesn't make the article racist, it just makes it difficult for you to accept.
Alun (
talk)
08:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
hmmmm.... If "People with white skin are those who are people of European descent," then an awful lot of "black people" are "white people!" Usergreatpower sounds confused. And of course, everyone in Europe is of African descent. So maybe there is just no more point to this rambling, confused and ultimately just disruptive argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And who of European descent has black skin??? Exactly. If your edits are motivated by a sense of rejection of the notion of race then fine. But why do you only edit the white people article and edit it to dispute the notion of race but not the black people article as well? This is what I meant about racism. Double standards. It not a rejection of the notion of race it's a rejection of the notion of white people. The article is racist because the people who edit it are racist. Oh and I know what I'm talking about because I checked all your edit histories. Plenty of edits were made to this article during the article's most recent 500 edits, of which almost all were a furthering of the notion there's no such thing as white people. No edits were made to the black people article during that article's most recent 500 edits, certainly not stating there's no such thing as black people. Usergreatpower ( talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how the photo of Somali and Indian peoples and the false assertion that they are also white people serves any purpose but to confuse. In general some of the ideas in this article just seem to present far too over inclusive and unfocused definitions of "white people" to get much substance from it. Especially when you compare it to the relatively narrow ideas and definitions seen in the "black people" article. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Ramdrake ( talk) 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
There is definately a major difference between caucasian and white. Users slrubenstein and alun are definately taking a racist stance toward this article, and both sides can throw up rules and regs set by wikipedia to hide behind and attempt to justify your points of view (cited sources or not, it's obvious your point of view determines which sources you cite, and or choose not to), but this article as it exists is just wrong. I believe wikipedia would be better served by deleting this article, and adding a new sub-section in the races and caucasian articles if it this is not changed to reflect what 99.9% of the people on this earth consider a 'white person' to be, this 99.9% obviously not including alun & slrubenstein. When it comes down to it, the term 'white person' can't really be defined, it's technically not a race, and any references sited are going to be garbage, as you can find hundreds of them from what could be considered reliable sources that directly defy one another. All that could be done for this article would be to direct it towards a view that most people agree with, or delete it entirely, but as it currently exists, I say again it's a joke. You can cite all the references you want, and state all the wikipedia rules you want, you just can't understand that what you believe just isn't what an overwhelming majority of the rest of the human race does, and as I said before, there's no way of either side proving the case for either side here, as 'white people' don't scientifically exist. So, since you guys are obviously the type that will fight to the bitter end for some worthless cause, even though you have to know that most everyone disagrees with your understanding of what a 'white person' is, just do us all a favor and either delete this article (since there is no factual ground for either side to stand on), or just accept that the overwhelming majority of people see this differently from you, get over it, and let the majority rule on this article about a group of people that doesn't scientifically exist. /end commafest 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.71.199 ( talk) 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I really don't care if you personally disagree with this point of view, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. I wish some of the editors that come here would take the time to go and find out about our core content policies, understand about things like neutrality, no original research and verifiability. It would save a great deal of time if people actually understood that Wikipedia does not exist to promote their own personal opinion or world view, before they came to talk pages and gummed them up with reasons why their own personal opinions are the truth. As for accusing other editors of "taking a racist stance", I should be careful, there are many things that are unacceptable here on Wikipedia, calling other editors racist is not productive isn't any sort of argument. Alun ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supporters the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" Bonnet, Alastair (2000) White Identities p. 18
There are plenty of reliable sources that say that the terms "white" and "Caucasian" are often used interchangeably, and that's all this article says. When they are used interchangeably it is acceptable to claim that Caucasians other than Europeans could be thought of as "white". Alun ( talk) 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Maijinsan you don't appear to have actually rread any of the posts on this talk page. if you had it would be obvious to you that what I have said is not actually "my opinion". It certainly is sourced, and I have quoted the source ad nauseum here on the talk page. Pretending that this source doesn't exist doesn't make sense, and is certainly not any sort of "argument". The point is that this is not about being "right", if you think it is then you clearly don't know anything about wikipedia neutrality policy. It's not true that the terms "white" and "Caucasian" have universally understood and well defined, accepted and distinct meanings. That's what the article says, and we have sources to support this. Now there are sources that support what you say when you say that the terms can mean distinct things. but it's not true to claim that these terms have universally recognised and understood distinct meanings. Feichangdao, you are simply wrong, those sources do not "suggest ... all white people are Caucasian, but not all Caucasian people are white". The source I am using states clearly and unambiguously that the terms "white", "Caucasian" and "Aryan" are used interchangeably, it sates "Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white)". Furthermore the source goes on to quote from a 1914 publication which clearly labels Somalis, Masai and Abysinians (Ethiopians) as "white". "The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'". That clearly contradicts what you say above. There is no evidence that the confusion betweenn these terms is "fringe". Indeed I'd say the opposite. the constant claim that "white" means something clearly distinct to "Caucasian" is something that is only understood in certain academic disciplines (e.g. physical anthropology) and amongst a certain group of racialist groups. For most people the terms are generally amorphous, having different meanings to different people.
Raj Bohpal's paper defines "white" and Caucasian thus:
In his comments on these terms he states:
So we see that many sources state explicitly that the terms "Caucasian" and "white" are often used interchangeably. Pretending these sources don't say what they clearly do say is not a very good argument. I repeat, this is not about being "right" or "wrong". One can be "technically" correct, when one is using a term as it is used by a specific set of experts or academics. But that does not mean that the term is used universally in this way. In this case it is almost certainly the opposite, the technical way this term is sometimes used is a minority usage, and the majority usage and understanding is probably that "white" and "Caucasian" have poorly understood and ill-defined amorphous meanings that are almost always used interchangeably. Alun ( talk) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Tell me, should we keep the picture of a possibly non white anonymous girl instead of keeping the picture of an actual white women, famous world wide. If Aishwaria Rai is in the gallery, Shakira has the same right to be in it too 201.68.50.209 ( talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I however think that Shakira should still be included in the gallery, to show to some Americans that Shakira is white, since there are plenty of americans who say she is not white. She should serve as an example of a White hispanic woman. InuYoshi ( talk) 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Although there is nothing wrong with including her in the gallery, including Shakira just to "show Americans that she is white" is not a good reason and could be considered POV pushing; however, I agree that more people from the Americas need to be included. Before these recent edits, I believe practically everyone in the gallery was from the "Old World". Not only are there the 2 countries of Canada and the U.S. with white people, but there are several Latin American countries with representation as well (such as Shakira). Kman543210 ( talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was seeing that pashtu girl and yasser arafat on the gallery and I thought we could add some "very white" people like Eddie Murphy, Michael Clark Dunkan, Beyonce, Williams sisters, Barack Obama and Will Smith. InuYoshi ( talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not as if it's not just as easy to revert it X days from now as it is now. Let people have their say, express their opinions about the mix and the spread, and then changes can be made. The previous gallery was not well balanced, and I think this one is better. I could be wrong, but let's allow consensus to determine that -- after all, I see here no obvious consensus for the previous version.
On those grounds, please do not revert the gallery, allow a discussion to take place. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
p.s state your issue with each particular photo and take it from there not change photos first and you also added like a few more photos we dont want the gallery to increase much more no reason to this will be a article of all gallery and no substance-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What is Yasser doing in this article? He doesn't look white. nndb says je is middle eastern. 201.68.196.70 ( talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am glad we have some images at last, but the image gallery is over the top, and appears to be a random collection. It would make sense to present "phenotypes" of all macroregions included in the term, thus, Northern Europe (e.g. Sami), Southern Europe (e.g. Italian), Near East (e.g. Arab, Armenian), Central Asia (e.g. Pashtun, Kyrgyz) , North Africa (e.g. Berber). It seems pointless to just heap up images of celebrities. This would yield something like:
some of these may need cropping (especially the Bedouin and Fellah images). More suggestions are welcome -- the point is that we need to keep the gallery within reasonable limits, aiming at maximual diversity presented within a minimal number of images. -- dab (𒁳) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i still dont see a valid reason to remove the current one thats been up for sometime, besides people just want to put there own spin on the gallery,the current gallery which does have people from very diverse regions, i dont understand the issue it seems nobody wants to add the to the article itself but keep harping on the gallery which is one of the reasons i had sided in favor of the removal of the gallery lets have a valid reason for a removal of the gallery besides people just wanting to pick new pics--
Wikiscribe (
talk)
15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted several new additions to the gallery, as I'm not convinced they add anything to showing the diversity of white people. Comments welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
i agree with you and so have i and that pov problem editor has been blocked i am still in favor of the removal of the gallery all together though-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but many articles consider middle easterners as "white", others do not. So, what does Wikipedia consider Indians and other arabs?--S00porz2 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK so Ash Rai's image is deleted and rightly so, but I think her image would be more justified there than the Khazakh president's. Khazaks are central Asian and neither fit under the Caucasoid/Indo-European or Semitic branches of Human kind, hence they don't even make marginal inclusion into the gallery, regardless of what the U.S. Censusu definition would define them. I'm sure that anyone who is not visually impaired would not identify Naazarbayev as white in any context. I would think this Kashmiri girl http://www.kashmir-tours.net/Images/People.jpg would have her image more justified in the gallery. Secondly, The gallery should be put in order for European Caucasoids and non-European images for marginal inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.242.172 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, September 13, 2008
The Caucasoid Race & White people, I propose that this article is getting confused with the definition of the 'caucasian race article' which includes "skull" and "facial/body feature similarities" in parts of South Asia, Middle east etc . The definition "white", seems to be only or atleast mainly used in the majority of the term " Western world" and atleast invented in the western world?...like the term " Blanco" ( White Latin American) in Latin America, refers to people who descend from European settlers from mainly Spain, Portugual ,Italy, Germany etc.. since the term Blanco/Branco was invented by the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers to define peoples Race, since racial mixing occured frequently.
The reason why I suggested a European/nonEuropean divide in the Gallery is that mainstream Western society doen not generally consider non-European peoples as a whole as 'white'. West Asians may be classed as such in the U.S., South America and Apartheid South Africa, but only in Census definitions. Non-Europens would have to look European to be marginally considered 'white' by most Western standards.
It's understood that Middle Easterners fall under white by the u.s. census despite generally not being perceived as white. Indians however do not fall under white despite some being considered Caucasoid. Considering the census doesn't include Indians under white and they are not perceived as such there is no valid reason to include Aishwarya Rai. Yamagishi ( talk) 16:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The vague explanation of "some" definitions of white including Indians when they are officially and socially considered non-white not to mention that Indians do not self Identify as "white". Your argument goes against the census and the general social viewpoints on this issue and is simply invalid. Rai doesn't belong and should be removed. Yamagishi ( talk) 17:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to propose an inclusion of sources to verify the claim made by Yamagishi. According to the US census, a person with origins from the Indian subcontinent falls under the category of Asian in terms of race. [1] CenterofGravity ( talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ramdrake the facts have been provided for you and now it's up to you to accept it.
Yamagishi ( talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet you have not provided any definition other than your opinion to back this up. Some have considered south Indians to be "black" but it would be invalid to actually include Indians under black people based on that. Yamagishi ( talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do some digging you'll see that at one time Italians and Irish were considered non-white so should we exclude them based on that? The facts still remain the same I'm afraid. Yamagishi ( talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Simply saying that sometimes Indians are considered white is merely an opinion holds very little weight. Middle Easterners are included because the U.S. census lists them as such in spite of the fact that Canada and the U.K. among many other countries do not consider them white. Evidence confirming the fact that Indians are considered white by neither the U.S. census, the Canadian or U.K. racial classifications has been provided. Including Indians based on a vague claims isn't enough. Neither you nor Ramdrake have been able to back up you position with anything but your opinions. Yamagishi ( talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So government and the views of society don't matter only your opinion? Going around in circles and refusing to back up your opinions isn't an acceptable argument. Information has been provided that proves the inclusion of an Indian person in the gallery of "white" people is officially and socially invalid. Yamagishi ( talk) 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
And around we go. The information has already been provided that shows that Indians do not fall under white. You have provided nothing but dead end responses of little substance. Opinions do not stand against facts I'm afraid. Yamagishi ( talk) 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some definitions of Caucasian/white race and their sources:
As a poster previously said, this is assuming that Caucasian and white are synonymous, which many people use them interchangeably, some maybe do not. As you can see, many of the sources do include India in the definition. Kman543210 ( talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yamagishi, it's not correct to say that "Indians do not fall under white", claims like this are difficult to verify, it's very hard to "prove" a negative. Now it is true that there exist definitions of "white" and/or "caucasian" that do not include peoples from the Indian subcontinent, but it is equally true that there exist concepts of "white"/"caucasian" that do include the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Incidentally there also exist definitions of "white"/"caucasian" that include some of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent but not others. All of these points of view are easily verified. Wikipedia is not here to promote
The Truth as any particular editor or groups of editors see it, it's here to give all verifiable points of view, and the claim that sometimes peoples from the Indian subcontinent are considered "white" is a verifiable and a notable point of view. There is no universally accepted "racial" classification system, and many of these classifications are contradictory. The location of the Indian subcontinent places it more or less equidistant from Europe and the Far East, this means that it's population displays characteristics of both, and of course it is a peninsula, which means that there is likely to be an additional axis of clinal variation that is unique to India. The peoples of India have therefore sometimes been classified in the same "race" as Europeans, sometimes they have been classified in the same "race" as the peoples of the Far East, and sometimes they have been classified into their own "race". Incidentally many physical anthropologists include Ethiopians and Somalis as "white"/"caucasian" as well, we should probably include images of people from these groups in the gallery for completeness. There's no hard and fast rule here and we should always be aware that reliable sources may often contradict what we personally hold to be self evident "truths". We cannot fairly exclude reliable sources that do not conform to our own personal world view just because we do not like what they say. In summary, what you are saying is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, we need to include all points of view. I think the article already covers this. Cheers,
Alun (
talk)
05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it curious that the photos of "white people" aren't actually compiled mostly with people of non-European origin but rather people usually not associated with the term. Apparently Indians are white now also I see. It's too bad that all it takes is enough people with a particular point of view to control what's presented on Wikipedia articles regardless if credible or not. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So if I am to understand the entry on the United Kingdom, if a person is a fair complected/fair eyed/fair haired Manx, they are nonwhite British? Castravalva ( talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have restored to examples that were removed. There is no reason why this article shouldn't have any examples other than a gallery at the bottom of the article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
there are maybe 30 pics in the gallery already to give a broad spectrum of examples-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well you may want to go check some other articles then because I see plently of photos on other articles. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why 2 example photos should not be included in 2 relevent sections on this article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why the Black people article has example photos in relevent sections through the article or why articles such as the United States have pictures through the article instead of just a gallery at the end if Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a 'picture book' as you put it? Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I was told to gain consensus before editing this article yet I am the only one using this talk page. Consensus is merely an excuse for blocking edits, as the people reverting edits state gain consensus first and won't attempt to build any consensus as they won't use the talk page while the article is their version, only if they are trying to put it back to their version. I also feel these reverst are racially motivated judging by the editors contributions histories. I will take this to the Admin notice board as I feel there is a racist few here restricting improvement of this article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
However I think it's very poor that I need to take it to the Admins noticeboard to get any response. People seem to have the idea that this is their article and their say goes and any attempt by an outsider to change it from their preference will be responded to with reverts and these outsiders do not deserve any discussion. Usergreatpower ( talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So here's the main point, is a photo of Marylin Monroe in the Physical appearance section a good or bad idea? I feel it's a good idea because she's probably the most iconic example of an idealised appearance of a white person. Usergreatpower ( talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I support JzG's removal of the ridiculous and arbitrary gallery (I just hope he doesn't go and do something silly like protect the article to keep it that way). Now that the gallery is gone, I feel this article desperately needs some sort of lead illustration--perhaps we could use a historical political cartoon containing sort of caricature (perhaps one positive and one negative) of the "white man". Whatever illustration we choose, it should not merely be an image of any old white person; it should be an image about white people. Any ideas?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW I like your suggestion TFMWNCB. Do you have any suggestions to kick things off? Alun ( talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a good image, as it illustrates a previous attempt to define what white features are. I would not recommend using this particular image in the article, because it comes from a Nazi book, and its use would seem to promote the POV that the very study of the white race itself cannot be separated from white supremacy (that's my POV, btw). However, if we could find an older, more innocuously sourced illustration like this, that would work for me. I don't want this article to come off as excessively preachy.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried putting an example photo in the article yet user:wobble again refuses to allow any example photos in the article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth should this article not be allowed to have any example photos added to it? It just doesn't make any sense and only makes the article less informative and interesting. Almost every article of this size on Wikipedia have photos throughout. Plus many people disagree with the pointless gallery which serves only to allow people to add people who they think are white to it over time making it really just a big board for people to post photos of people they think are white. Usergreatpower ( talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The See also section is far longer than is useful, yet most of the links seem relevant. Would anyone object if I converted it into a navbox? the skomorokh 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. There are tens of thousands of article subjects and probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of images depicting people who just happen to be white. Choosing some but not all is arbitrary, choosing all would be entirely arbitrary, and you're never going to find a consensus in reliable sources for the faces which best exemplify whiteness - nor would you want to try. Guy ( Help!) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Also guy i wondered if you checked out the FA on the pashtun people you never got back to me on that
::Like other Iranian peoples, many Pashtuns have mixed with various invaders, neighboring groups, and migrants. In terms of phenotype, Pashtuns are predominantly a Mediterranean people,[39] so light hair, eye colors and pale skin are not uncommon, especially among remote mountain tribes.[40]:: -- Wikiscribe ( talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
saying somebody is white is hardly slanderous and do not compare a statement such as "white people are superior" being put in the article via consensus with the inclusion of a gallery via consensus of people in which there are sources stating these people can be considered white also please dont make ignorant statements about pashtun people unti you read the featured article on them in which there is this sort of sourced statement
so maybe some pashtun can meet your standards of exemplar "WHITE" like that of ms.monroe--
Wikiscribe (
talk)
21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I once thought that a gallery here could demonstrate the broad diversity among people who are considered to be white or cacasian, and by labeling the region we could illustrate the concepts of migration and localized adaptation. But, I don't think that it is practical, and perhaps just not productive. I see this really becoming more of a wp:coatrack than a learning tool. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on Guy! Where did anyone ever claim " Aishwarya Rai as an exemplary white person"? Can you point out to me where in the article this claim was ever made? This sort of straw man "argument" is not what we should be aiming for. Just what is and "exemplary white person?". I must confess that I find the level of systemic bias extremely high in this article, everyone thinks they know what "whiteness" is, but in reality they are really promoting the concept of "whiteness" that is dominant in the society in which they developed. When we analyse these ideas more closely we find that there is no real agreement and there certainly is no "universal norm". You essentially seem to be claiming that what you consider to be an "obvious example" of a "white" person is the same as what is accepted as "obvious" globally and has been "obvious" historically. I don't accept this argument. Any claims for a "universally acceptable" definition of "whiteness" are bound for failure because we will always have reliable sources that contradict any "universal". Who is or in not "white" is clearly dependent on social context, and indeed any recent anthropological text would explicitly say this. There are plenty of examples where subcontinental Indian people are considered "white" by physical anthropologists. The inclusion of images of people from many different populations that have been described as "white" in various historical or social or "scientific" contexts was specifically to illustrate the fluid and socially constructed nature of "whiteness". The argument that inclusion of images of subcontinental Indian people as "white" might be offensive is spurious, images of nudity certaily are offensive to some people (but not to me), but we still include them here, we are an encyclopaedia, we don't censor reliable information just in case we might give offence. Now if you want to claim that in a specific society some of the images included in the gallery represent groups that are not considered "white", that is true, but without including the social context we are pushing the fallacy that "white" = European at all times and in all places, and clearly there are numerous reliable sources that contradict such a claim. Alun ( talk) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
For example what about the
Bai people of China? They call themselves White people.
Alun (
talk)
05:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My Chinese colleague also called "Xin Jiang" people "white", when I asked her what she meant she said that they "look like you" (meaning me). I checked for this group but couldn't find this referenced as a people anywhere. Possibly she means the Uyghur people of Xinjiang autonomous region. For example this image. So that's at least two different uses of the term "white" to refer to people in China who are clearly not European. Alun ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that, better than a gallery, would be to use different photos selectively and strategically to illustrate the diverse and divergent points of view in the article - in other words, spread them out (so one section can have a photo of Marilyn Monroe next to one of Aishwarya Rai with a caption that states: while virtually all sources identify people of European origins as white, some sources include Indians and others do not. Another section could have a photo of Johnny Ventura with the caption explaining that in his native country, the Dominican Republic, he would be identified as Whilte, in the United States he would not. Another section could include a photo of Julian Bond and have a caption, Although Julian Bond has considerable European ancestry, in the United States he is considered Black. Obviously I am supposing all of this can be pegged to sources, but I am sure we can find appropriate sources linked to appropriate illustrations. My main point is not these specific examples but the idea of breaking up the gallery and using individual or small sets of photos to illustrate specific points that come up in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to respectable encyclopaediae such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, British Encyclopaedia? Perhaps we could take a lead from them, since I cannot recall any race riots or front page news reports following their publication—if their approach to depicting white people is uncontroversial, and we take our cue from them, we stand a good chance of not stirring controversy either. Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this is just plain embarrassing. I might expect to see this kind of edit-warring with newer users, but with experienced editors? C'mon, you all should know that edit wars do not work. They are a completely ineffective means of forcing a change to an article. I don't want to protect the article, but if people keep reverting each other, we're going to end up with blocks and/or protection. So please work it out some other way, okay? Please assume good faith, please stay civil, and please try to figure out a compromise which keeps the article in accordance with policies. Thanks, -- El on ka 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
To be more specific, I have three suggestions:
Under your proposal do we as editors have to pick out pictures?-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, many verifiable sources provide their own illustrations. We would need to find out if they are fair use. As for picking out pictures, what is our policy on other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand Wikiscribe's objection. The initial objection to the gallery was because it was a gallery and not due to the images present in the gallery. As long as we can
verify that an image of a person is of someone who comes from a population that corresponds to some construction of "white", then I don't see any problem. Obviously we will never get complete agreement, and images of actual famous people will always be prone to suggestions of some sort of bias (for example why one politician over another), but that's what the talk page is for, we build consensus, and whisper it compromise. While I'm not strongly in favour or against images of people, I don't really see why editors here, acting in good faith, can't come to some sort of understanding about how to proceed. Wikiscribe, can you explain what you would be prepared to compromise on, what would you accept?
Alun (
talk)
09:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Having a section about "Relations with black people" here doesn't really make sense. This is more of an issue in the United States. I think this section should be moved to White American article instead. This article should take a global perspective as per Wikipedia guidelines.
The article argues that the one-drop rule is distinctly American. Try telling that to anyone with any visibly non-European features trying to get a hotel room in the middle of Cape Town. Dg7891 ( talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The White Australia Policy is a misnomer, as it didn't actually target white skin. Christian Indians (India then being part of the British Empire) were allowed to immigrate, as were other non-white ethnic groups. Religion and Dominion was the main determinent for countries whose emmigrants were acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.161.147 ( talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Beside the pale skin, there are also other features, including the skull shape, that make Whites diffrent from other races. In fact, some scientists classify races mostly based on the shape of the skull rather than skin pigmentation, as the latter is more superficial.-- 71.190.91.208 ( talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been bold and and added examples of white people who are undisputably white in an attempt to resolve the dispute of which examples should be shown due to dispute over who is considered white. This should now mean the article does not need to go without examples. Usergreatpower ( talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
i agree and concur with ramdrakes statement-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
i also am "very" supportive of this particular idea and concur with slrubenstein statement and it could put an end to the picture charade within this article--
Wikiscribe (
talk)
20:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent initiative! Although, Alun, we may need to do something about that wordiness of yours!! ;) -- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Why no examples of people who are considered universally to be White? Why just ones who are considered by some to be White? I don't think displaying just examples of people whose status as being White is controversial is going to solve the previous problem of people not agreeing on who is really White. If anything it only exacerbates it. That's why I was in favour of having examples of people where there is no controversy over their status as being White and are universally considered to be White. Usergreatpower ( talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out the Dravidian people are not considered by any measure I know of to be White and references are needed for the such measures mentioned in the image's description. Plus the number of methods which consider Somali people to be White are very few at best and a definite minority position. Usergreatpower ( talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that there are more pictures of people who most people wouldn't call White such as Africans and Indians than there are of ones most people would call White. Usergreatpower ( talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed there appears to be a lot confusion between White people and Caucasian people in this article. This article about White people not Caucasian people. White people are people with European ancestry. Caucasian people are people who belong to the Caucasian race, people who have ancestry from Europe, Middle East, North Africa, and most of India. Usergreatpower ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if the addition of all these new pictures makes much sense. It looks a bit too random to me. There was already a consensus not to have a gallery on the page. This looks like a gallery parsed over the different sections. Further input would be appreciated.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Raj Bhopal says "blah blah blah". We all know how Arabs and south Asians like to call themselves white. White people are people from Europe and some people in the near east but not all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.182.64 ( talk) 11:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This article stinks of racism. The whole article disputes even the very existance of the race of White people, especially apparent in the article's introduction and the fact there are more pictures of, by most people's account, non-White people than there are actual White people. The Black people article certainly doesn't make such statements not does it have more pictures of White people or Asian people than it does Black people, hence there is a double standards rascism going on here. A good comparison would be since when does an article on say dogs have more pictures of cats than it does dogs? I added a POV tag to the article yet it was swiftly removed, even though such tags explicitely state Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved, which it clearly hasn't judging by this Talk page.
The article needs a rewrite and if editors here are unwilling to remove the obvious elements of racism from the article then I will have to inform the Administrators' Noticeboard of the article's racist content and those editors forcing that racist content to remain in the article. Usergreatpower ( talk) 05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if we're counting, I count images of eight (and a half) Europeans, two Indians and two (and a half) Africans. How does that equate to "more pictures of, by most people's account, non-White people than there are actual White people"? Besides how do you claim to know what "most peoples account" is? That's just your opinion, no? I don't know what "most" people think is "white", but as I say this is an encyclopaedia, it's not here to say what "most" people think, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nine percent of people in the USA don't believe in evolution, [7] should we therefore say it's not true? I don't think that's a valid argument. Alun ( talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
And yes, I have heard people refer to people from the Indian subcontinent as black. Indeed I have heard British people of Indian subcontinental origin refer to themselves as black. So in answer to your question, "white people" can mean "anyone who is caucasoid", but it doesn't always have to mean that. We're certainly not here to promote any specific "racial categories" as "correct". If you are claiming that we are then I think you are wrong. You may believe that the "racial categories" that are in use in your particular culture are somehow "correct", but Wikipedia is not here to support the ideologies of any particular culture or society. Alun ( talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)"Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" p. 18.
I agree with Usergreatpower and others who feel that the article as racist and defies the common understanding of the term "white people". The semantics of any such term are rough around the edges, but the purpose of this article is not to cling to the most controversial boundaries of such a term. The purpose is to give a good explanation of "white people" as generally understood. The POV tag should be reinstated as this article exhibits clear anti-white racism. I will support the efforts of anyone who works to improve the article in this direction. Feichangdao ( talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
On a more salient note, the problem with Usergreatpower's complain about racism in the article is that he doesn't actually point out any racism. His concern seems to be that in his opinion "The whole article disputes even the very existance (sic) of the race of White people". But that's just a weird comment. What the article discusses is how the term "white people" has been used during different periods of history and in different places. It's just flawed to claim that just because the article shows that the term has different meanings at different times ad in different places, that it is "racist". His analogy to the black people article is also incorrect. That article has images of Africans and images of non-Africans and explicitly states that sometimes the term black refers only to Africans and people with a presumed recent African descent, and sometimes it refers to people with a dark skin colour who do not have a recent presumed African descent. In that sense this white people article and the black people article cover their respective subject matters more or less the same. As for his claims about cats and dogs, that seems to be some sort of satire on the one drop rule as far as I can tell, but the comment is obscure.
There's been much complaint that the article sometimes talks about "Caucasian" and that this term is not associated with "white people". I beg to differ, many sources show that the term "Caucasian" is often used as a synonym for "white", and that indeed the term "Aryan" is also often used a synonym for "white".
In my estimation there are three broad uses for the term "white" in the modernish westernish world, it can mean "Caucasian" or "European" or "Nordic". None of these three is well defined, which people are deemed "Caucasian" is open to debate amongst physical anthropologists and other "race" researchers. Likewise who is an European is open to debate, what about Turkish people for example? Are we to include some Turkish people based on their residence in the European region of Turkey, but exclude others? Likewise when "white" means "Nordic" we are left with a sub-set of Europeans claiming to be the "true white race", but this sub-set is not well defined, it seems to include English people but not Welsh people, based solely on the fact that English is a Germanic language and Welsh is not. I'm not sure the article does a good job of discussing all of these three different ideologies, but it should at least acknowledge that the term "white" when applied to people, does have various different meanings in various different times and to various different peoples. As far as I can see (and I don't claim to have perfect vision) what you, and Usergreatpower are saying is that if the article tries to be neutral, then it is being racist, or maybe what's closer to the mark, when the article challenges your social construction of whiteness, you find it hard to accept. That's normal, but it doesn't make the article racist, it just makes it difficult for you to accept.
Alun (
talk)
08:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
hmmmm.... If "People with white skin are those who are people of European descent," then an awful lot of "black people" are "white people!" Usergreatpower sounds confused. And of course, everyone in Europe is of African descent. So maybe there is just no more point to this rambling, confused and ultimately just disruptive argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And who of European descent has black skin??? Exactly. If your edits are motivated by a sense of rejection of the notion of race then fine. But why do you only edit the white people article and edit it to dispute the notion of race but not the black people article as well? This is what I meant about racism. Double standards. It not a rejection of the notion of race it's a rejection of the notion of white people. The article is racist because the people who edit it are racist. Oh and I know what I'm talking about because I checked all your edit histories. Plenty of edits were made to this article during the article's most recent 500 edits, of which almost all were a furthering of the notion there's no such thing as white people. No edits were made to the black people article during that article's most recent 500 edits, certainly not stating there's no such thing as black people. Usergreatpower ( talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how the photo of Somali and Indian peoples and the false assertion that they are also white people serves any purpose but to confuse. In general some of the ideas in this article just seem to present far too over inclusive and unfocused definitions of "white people" to get much substance from it. Especially when you compare it to the relatively narrow ideas and definitions seen in the "black people" article. Siddhartha21 ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Ramdrake ( talk) 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
There is definately a major difference between caucasian and white. Users slrubenstein and alun are definately taking a racist stance toward this article, and both sides can throw up rules and regs set by wikipedia to hide behind and attempt to justify your points of view (cited sources or not, it's obvious your point of view determines which sources you cite, and or choose not to), but this article as it exists is just wrong. I believe wikipedia would be better served by deleting this article, and adding a new sub-section in the races and caucasian articles if it this is not changed to reflect what 99.9% of the people on this earth consider a 'white person' to be, this 99.9% obviously not including alun & slrubenstein. When it comes down to it, the term 'white person' can't really be defined, it's technically not a race, and any references sited are going to be garbage, as you can find hundreds of them from what could be considered reliable sources that directly defy one another. All that could be done for this article would be to direct it towards a view that most people agree with, or delete it entirely, but as it currently exists, I say again it's a joke. You can cite all the references you want, and state all the wikipedia rules you want, you just can't understand that what you believe just isn't what an overwhelming majority of the rest of the human race does, and as I said before, there's no way of either side proving the case for either side here, as 'white people' don't scientifically exist. So, since you guys are obviously the type that will fight to the bitter end for some worthless cause, even though you have to know that most everyone disagrees with your understanding of what a 'white person' is, just do us all a favor and either delete this article (since there is no factual ground for either side to stand on), or just accept that the overwhelming majority of people see this differently from you, get over it, and let the majority rule on this article about a group of people that doesn't scientifically exist. /end commafest 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.71.199 ( talk) 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I really don't care if you personally disagree with this point of view, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. I wish some of the editors that come here would take the time to go and find out about our core content policies, understand about things like neutrality, no original research and verifiability. It would save a great deal of time if people actually understood that Wikipedia does not exist to promote their own personal opinion or world view, before they came to talk pages and gummed them up with reasons why their own personal opinions are the truth. As for accusing other editors of "taking a racist stance", I should be careful, there are many things that are unacceptable here on Wikipedia, calling other editors racist is not productive isn't any sort of argument. Alun ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supporters the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" Bonnet, Alastair (2000) White Identities p. 18
There are plenty of reliable sources that say that the terms "white" and "Caucasian" are often used interchangeably, and that's all this article says. When they are used interchangeably it is acceptable to claim that Caucasians other than Europeans could be thought of as "white". Alun ( talk) 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Maijinsan you don't appear to have actually rread any of the posts on this talk page. if you had it would be obvious to you that what I have said is not actually "my opinion". It certainly is sourced, and I have quoted the source ad nauseum here on the talk page. Pretending that this source doesn't exist doesn't make sense, and is certainly not any sort of "argument". The point is that this is not about being "right", if you think it is then you clearly don't know anything about wikipedia neutrality policy. It's not true that the terms "white" and "Caucasian" have universally understood and well defined, accepted and distinct meanings. That's what the article says, and we have sources to support this. Now there are sources that support what you say when you say that the terms can mean distinct things. but it's not true to claim that these terms have universally recognised and understood distinct meanings. Feichangdao, you are simply wrong, those sources do not "suggest ... all white people are Caucasian, but not all Caucasian people are white". The source I am using states clearly and unambiguously that the terms "white", "Caucasian" and "Aryan" are used interchangeably, it sates "Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white)". Furthermore the source goes on to quote from a 1914 publication which clearly labels Somalis, Masai and Abysinians (Ethiopians) as "white". "The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'". That clearly contradicts what you say above. There is no evidence that the confusion betweenn these terms is "fringe". Indeed I'd say the opposite. the constant claim that "white" means something clearly distinct to "Caucasian" is something that is only understood in certain academic disciplines (e.g. physical anthropology) and amongst a certain group of racialist groups. For most people the terms are generally amorphous, having different meanings to different people.
Raj Bohpal's paper defines "white" and Caucasian thus:
In his comments on these terms he states:
So we see that many sources state explicitly that the terms "Caucasian" and "white" are often used interchangeably. Pretending these sources don't say what they clearly do say is not a very good argument. I repeat, this is not about being "right" or "wrong". One can be "technically" correct, when one is using a term as it is used by a specific set of experts or academics. But that does not mean that the term is used universally in this way. In this case it is almost certainly the opposite, the technical way this term is sometimes used is a minority usage, and the majority usage and understanding is probably that "white" and "Caucasian" have poorly understood and ill-defined amorphous meanings that are almost always used interchangeably. Alun ( talk) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)