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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
The WP:DATED problem introduced by this unexplained edit caught my eye. Leaving that aside, I quickly noticed that this cited supporting source does not mention a figure of 52.7%, and seems to be discussing Latin America as a whole rather than specifics of Chile. This content re 52.7% was initially added in this January 2009 edit and, as I don't read Spanish and I'm not an expert on population ethnicities in Chile, I haven't done any edits re this. I do want to raise a concern here, though. I also want to raise a concern that the Chile section here appears to contradict the Demographics of Chile article, contrary to WP:SS guidelines. I thought about placing {{ contradict other}} hatnotes in both articles to draw wider attention to this, but haven't done that either. Could someone who knows something about this please take a look at this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The entire flagged second ¶ should be removed and a subordinate clause, or sentence added to first to the effect that "It is composed of ethnic groups originally from Europe or Western Asia". 72.228.190.243 ( talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have made a larger scale edit on the section of ‘’European-descended peoples’’ which may require clarification. Equating ‘European ancestry’ with the social definition of the “white” category (which usage is limited to a few countries of the world), and listing countries and regions according to it, especially where the “white” category is not used, is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, there is already an article with the same topic as the subsection, Emigration from Europe. FonsScientiae ( talk) 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
for the sentence "As a result of centuries of having children with white people, the majority of African Americans have European admixture, and many white people also have African ancestry."
A statement like this should cite at least one study, or include it as a quote from an expert in the field. It could obviously be verified by DNA analysis these days. It is talking about the amount of admixture, so we are not talking about socially defined defined groups. If there have been different DNA analysis studies done, they should all be listed so we can compare their results. If it is not based on DNA analysis, then this is hypothesizing. The statement that follows shows that there isn't a common consensus: "easily one-third of black people have white DNA" (maybe less that 50%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.93.37 ( talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Does Japanese are considered as white people? they placed second on the table of countries white pop. Pankoroku 3 ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In a biography of Frank Sinatra, I found an interesting passage on p. 22 at the bottom. Moreover, there is a 1995 book by Noel Ignatiev titled How the Irish Became White. It appears that Americans with "Nordic" (Northern/Central European) origins or ancestry at times (to be exact, a mere century ago) considered darker "Mediterranean" types "almost black", or "half-black". (I have seen the former not-quite-white status of Italian and Irish immigrants in the US mentioned elsewhere, too; it seems to be a well-known historical fact that should be easy to source.) Precedents to this thinking are easily found for example in Thomas Huxley, who surmised that Mediterranean types (his Melanochroi) had arisen from a mixture of light-skinned Northern European types (Nordic types, his Xanthochroi) and dark-skinned Australoid types, or in Giuseppe Sergi, who considered Mediterraneans neither white nor black (negroid) but brown (though their own category, not merely a mixture of the others), and as of African origin. Nice demonstration of the flexibility of the concept "white race", surely worth working into the article. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&diff=557009223&oldid=556968476
I see no valid reason to remove it, and given that nobody else has objected to it over the past couple of days, I believe it is well within the parameters of acceptable content. If someone wants to beef up the descriptions accorded to Arabs, Chinese, etc, they are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary removal of sourced content, and arguably constitutes vandalism or POV editing/IDONTLIKEIT. Evildoer187 ( talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You can claim to be anything you want, Evildoer, even a rabbi. If you have ideas and opinions to push, especially in this field, then maybe a message board is the place, not an encyclopedia. Yuvn86 ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, this text isn't encyclopedic. The text violates WP:NOT#ESSAY; it basically violates WP:COATRACK; it totally violates Godwin's law (I know that's not WP policy). It even rambles:
Argumentative, off-topic (Egypt? Did Jews get regarded as not white there?), and opinion asserted as grounds for a position ("I'm thoroughly convinced"). If you could provide a concise summary without these flaws, that would be a start.-- Carwil ( talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reworked the end of this paragraph - the old text was disjointed and cumbersome to read and felt like a series of hlaf-relevant add-ons to the main thrust of the paragraph (which is that the definition of 'white' is 'contested and always changing'). Also some of the refs didn't mention "white" at all, and much of the content was not mentioned in the refs, including the list of nationalities. I've tried to keep the main points of the original content (where supported by the refs) and relate them back to the rest of the paragraph. My apologies if I've stepped on anybody's POV toes. Tobus2 ( talk) 06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this section. I would encourage people who want to collaborate in improving it to read the beginning of the "census and social definitions" section in which it appears. Friends, Africa is not one big country; it's a continent with multiple racial dynamics, at least five colonial authorities, and some uncolonized areas, many more state languages, a major sub-Saharan/North African distinction, and a wide range of skin phenotypes. So, no to the "rest of Africa" as a regional category. If you want more of Africa in this article, start with one case and work up.
Here's the text in question, with broken in comments on problems.
"Represented" is an appalling euphemism. Who are these people and how did they get there? Also, who was "white" in which place? How did these people become labeled as white, while these people became non-white? How did such definitions happen in different places?
Just bad writing. Decolonisation shouldn't be the subject. "European-descended settlers" is. If we want to explain their movements, great, but that should be done clearly and based on reliable sources.
South Africa isn't in the "rest of Africa." Rhodesia doesn't exist anymore. Leaving isn't "extinction." Also, who qualifies as "white" now in the Algerian, Angolan, Kenyan, Congolese, Mozambican, Zimbabwean, and Zambian contexts? Is the term socially relevant? Are Arabs in these countries "white" or not?
Every time the article says "white" is equivalent to "of European descent," it misunderstands how "white" came to be defined in the first place, and how "white" continues to be defined differently in different places.-- Carwil ( talk) 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit (and some earlier ones which I have not looked at in detail), see [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article assertions don't appear to match what the cited source has to say in these various places. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
White are already a minority in the US in therms of newborns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
You are right to some extent. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, therefore they can be of all races. That said, 3/4 of Hispanics are of Mexican origins and Mexicans who emigrate to the US are mainly Mestizo or Amerindian. In short, most Hispanics in the US are not white. US Hispanic whites may be a minority of about 10-15 per cent. On top of that, about 20 per cent of the US population who are not Hispanic and identify as white may not be white either. In short, there are reasons to believe that the article is quite right. It is also the impression that you get if you travel the country. On the other hand, of course, if we are to classify whites just by self-identification, then the issue is very different. But in that case you can also end up with a population that is actually mixed but who consider themselves white. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if it is not important for such an article to include the fact that according to the US Census, Whites are a minority of new borns in the country, which means Whites are increasingly a minority in the US:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/minorities-in-america-census_n_3432369.html
I think it is most relevant, taking into account the contribution of the US to the concept of "whiteness".
Pipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2013
Well, I think this news is very important indeed. If you want to be picky, then you can refer to non-Hispanic whites. If you still think it is not worth elaborating on, I find it difficult to understand,even more when the article already says:
A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, Non-Hispanic white Americans will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005.[133] White Americans made up nearly 90% of the population in 1950.[127]
So, this is just an update on those previous studies confirming the trend. Why is it now wrong? I do not understand, but do as you please. I do not want to offend anyone, but all this is beginning to smell like "to be in denial". Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone editing here care about the gallery at the commons, [6]? I think its an odd assortment. I have an idea to place images of traditionally adorned native peoples of the various european ethnicities, along with notable whites in other countries outside europe. a gallery of notable whites is probably unnecessary. If anyone else wants to try to work on it, im in no rush. I dont like it being linked from here and not being of reasonably good quality or purpose yet. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It may not be up to the caliber of some of the other problems discussed here, but this page has at least one kind of annoying typo in it: maybe halfway through the third paragraph in the section on social definition in the United States, we find "(and the Supreme Corut agreed)". Since the page is protected, I can't fix it. User:tmager (11:24 am, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
Regarding these edits by User:Afro-Eurasian:
Firstly, as per WP:BRD, when an edit you make is contested please leave the page as is was before your edit until you get consensus for your changes. I have again reverted to the state it was before these two contested changes and I expect you to leave it at that state until we have agreed here to do otherwise.
Regarding the "black people" link, your edit summary is "Ethiopians, though may be dark skinned, are not Negroids, so it is incorrect to link it to black people". This shows you think the Black People is equivalent to the Negroid page, which it isn't. The Black People page is devoted to various social constructs that use the term "black" to refer to a distinct social or ethnic grouping. It's not about "Negroids", it's about any population that is or has been labeled "black", so it's perfectly legitimate and helpful to link to it in this context.
Regarding the "native peoples" change, I'm ambivalent about it (although "Negroes" is a poor choice of wording) but since User:Carwil has reverted it you need to discuss a solution with him instead of just reverting with no reason. It's probably just a matter of coming up with alternative wording as I think you are both talking about the same thing.
Lastly, re the "spelling" edit summary, it's irrelevant to this discussion, but if you look at the diff [7], it's clearly a revert, not just a simple spelling change as the summary might suggest. My apologies for suggesting subterfuge if none was intended, but it was the revert I was undoing, not the difference in spelling. Tobus ( talk) 04:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Aethiopians/Ethiopians" that Herodotus et al. wrote about were actually the peoples who inhabited ancient Aethiopia in the Upper Nile region in the present-day Sudan - see Aethiopia. Soupforone ( talk) 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The text abouth the black race in Argentina shoud be moved to a page about the black race. This page is about the white race, and not about black, asiatic, aboriginal, neither any other race. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
186.59.70.134 (
talk)
09:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the page for "Black People" by comparison, I think this wikipedia page about "white people" can be considered what constitutes as "hate speech". What a disgusting display of accusations, negative historical relations, and indictments. Wikipedia is slowly isolating itself as a sociology-political tool rather than educational. This is shameful (and I'm of mixed race as most people are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.243.211 ( talk) 09:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that there are articles on White American, White Canadian/ European Canadian, etc. Shoudn't these titles - as well as the heading in the infobox all be in the plural? If not, then the first sentence in each must also then be in the singular, as is the case with White South African. In terms of consistency, I see that various naming styles are used, with a number of pages titled "European" and not "white". White Canadian falls in this category, but still has the issue of plural/ singular. In the case of Argentina it is even worse - Argentines of European descent. Then to crown it all, Australia has both White Australian and European Australian, with a year-old merge proposal that has not attracted any attention, bar one contribution. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
in chile the white people is 52% — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Drussen2014 (
talk •
contribs)
22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have one question to ask my esteemed colleagues, do we consider "some people feel" and someone's suggestions (even if they are a professor's) as encyclopedic in nature? I am just getting into being a responsible wikipedia contributor and I think this is a good test case to get a feel for the climate.
As Bilbo Baggins commented on the dangers of getting swept away when stepping out your door, so too does the internet present such a danger. I started doing research on the Chechen War and some how got here. :) DocHellfish ( talk) 22:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My "unsourced categorisation" is that the children are white - which they are. What is supposed to constitute proper proof that they are white? Should some sort of certificate of ethnicity be attached to the photo or something?
"Identifiable minors" As far as I'm aware, there is no rule on Wikipedia which states that a photograph of a child isn't allowed. But if you're opposed to the photo of children, then perhaps we could find a photo of a "white adult in Britain" or something? Surlyduff50 ( talk) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a different objection to Andy's (although I agree with his points). It seems curious for an article about the concept of white people to use images of children engaged in activities that are quintessentially British. Such a choice may imply an identity between notions of "Britishness" and "whiteness" that would be both factually incorrect and morally repugnant. Furthermore, using images of children adds an additional emotive element that amplifies the undesired implication. CIreland ( talk) 01:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I see now this point has already been raised above. CIreland ( talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the re-addition of a maypole image which is captioned as being of a group of white children dancing around it. There is no correlation between children playing around a maypole and the white ethnic origin, be it in 2014 or in historic times. To imply otherwise amounts to inapprporiate connotations that those of any other ethnic origin do not play around a maypole and has no place in this or any such project. Tmol42 ( talk) 22:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Evidence for the connection of non-Africans to Neanderthals is gronwing stronger and its effect on skin and hair: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 ( talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you just do not like it, HuH. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 ( talk) 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Modern humans have other MCR1 variants that are also less active resulting in red hair and pale skin. The less active Neanderthal mutation probably also resulted in red hair and pale skin, as in modern humans. ... The specific MCR1 mutation in Neanderthals has not found in modern humans (or occurs extremely rarely in modern humans). This indicates that the two mutations for red hair and pale skin occurred independently and does not support the idea of gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. Pale skin may have been advantageous to Neanderthals living in Europe because of the ability to synthesize vitamin D.This may or may not have sufficient topical weight for inclusion in the article, I just mention it because it seemed relevant to this discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AndyTheGrump has repeatedly reverted the insertion of a photograph [13] labelled 'White Australian children wave Australian flags during an Anzac Day parade'. The photograph has been repeated inserted by Surlyduff50. The children in the photograph are certainly white. AndyTheGrump's reason for removing the photograph is that he claims the children have not described themselves as being white and labelling them so is wrong ('ethnicity and race are social constructs ... the only opinion worthy of consideration is that of the individual concerned'). Both users are now under investigation for edit warring at WP:ANEW. In order to resolve the content situation, the consensus of the community is being sought. In case it is relevant, there are multiple other pictures on the page with similar descriptions: these might be affected by this decision. 31.49.243.63 ( talk) 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have read the requirements that Andy has mentioned. The RFC request is not neutral. I think we can still comment on it. In this case if the children do not identify as "white" so it would be best to leave it out of the article. I think this would also comply with WP:BLP because there is no evidence the children pictured self-identify as white. I hope my comment is helpful. Thank you. PNGWantok ( talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As a consequence of the above discussion, I have removed all pictures where the subjects didn't explicitely identify as white, including those that identified as "Welsh" etc. because not all immigrants from Europe identify as white. FishDestroyer ( talk) 06:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I find this article to be swayed in the direction of anti-white racism, particularly with defining "whiteness" as a social construct, whereas the page for "black people" ( /info/en/?search=Black_people) regards it as "belonging to a "black" ethnicity in their particular country, typically having a degree of Sub-Saharan African ancestry".
This is enforcing a negative bias upon the reader base of Wikipedia, a widely used site, that could sway them to hold convictions against white people simply for the color of their skin. If we are to view race as a social construct, which is not my opinion, we must uphold this for all peoples as opposed to the current system of preferential treatment for non-white groups.
Thank you for your time. EuropaLegionarii ( talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OCA2 ( talk) 03:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As per prior RFC, images of people not self identifying as white shouldn't be identified as white people. There are plenty of images identified with the race of the people in them available to be used. SPACKlick ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've read the post of user "EuropaLegionarii", and I agree with him, I just want to say - I don't know if I even could, since I don't visit Wiki as a registered user for like four years; but I think mentions about social construct should be replaced with something similar to mentions in the "Black people" article, and it'd look like this:
"White people is an English-language term often used in socially-based systems of racial classification or of ethnicity to describe persons who are defined as belonging to an ethnic group whithin white ethnicity (like Slavs or Germanic peoples), or who are perceived to be light-skinned relative to other racial groups."
If you see it wrong, or whatever, just answer me, I can discuss with you. HAND
78.99.55.99 ( talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The table claimed that Germany had an entry for skin color - Whites - in the census. This is not so. However, migratory status is recorded. Note that migrants are not grouped by Whites and non-Whites.
I guess other entries are made up, too. -- Zz ( talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
186.106.28.218 ( talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC) in Chile white people is 52% no 20% and the mestizo people in chile are white phenotype
Chilean white 53% http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.28.218 ( talk) 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, with the advent of genetic research, many people and history related articles in Wiki have big contradictions. For example in the Colombia article it states: Within 100 years after the first Spanish settlement, nearly 95 percent of all Native Americans in Colombia had died.[99] Then there is reference to a genetic study that states: According to a genetic research by the University of Brasilia, Colombian genetic admixture consists in a 45.9% European, 33.8% Amerindian, and 20.3% African ancestry.[98]Even though there are always people who try to cut the cake in all pieces possible, to state both things does seem to be a clear contradiction.
This gets even more serious when one reads articles like the Puerto Rico article, stating something like Native Americans somehow disappeared, and the population is mainly European only. A recent genetic study shows that as much as 60 per cent of the people of Puerto Rico are of Native American ancestry: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20108/abstract;jsessionid=38B9FCCC76D60A38690DA7339093E849.d02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance These articles are not only inaccurate, they are also weird. In other words, suspicious of racism, and with a general tendency to deny the Native American contribution. Pipo. User:76.26.48.77 ( User talk:76.26.48.77) 03:03, 9 February 2014
White people are not a social construct; they are an admixture of those who descend from Cro-Magnon; Neanderthal decent of the Caucus steppe, more so than that of Denisovan descent of the Pacific Islanders. This article describes segregation, oppression, eugenics, and marginalization is a trait only for white people, like it wasn't practices by the Persians, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine empire, Khazaria, or Mongolians.
Again, I am highly offended that this page is so completely biased AGAINST whites, yet I have a feeling those who edited, will not care about the concerns of White people, for they already made up their mind to justify their own racial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctirderp ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the term white comes with a lot of connotations, paths and explanations, but I once read a reasoning which is one of possibly many other causes for the maintenance of the term with certain social overtones. I unfortunately do not remember where I read it, but sometimes I come across statements that make me remember it. I think it was by an English writer. What are those statements? I often read in the net disproportionate comments about being white linked to being Irish-American, Scottish-American, Polish-American, and even a sizable amount of Jewish-Americans, etc. The theory goes that the social overtones of the term white were linked to the historical supremacy of several European peoples at different times in history: Greeks, Romans and therefore Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English and Russians, to speak of the main imperial nations of Europe. In this context, members of ¨lesser¨ nations, and I mean by ¨lesser¨ those who were not imperial nations, and often oppressed by the former, found in the term white a blanket term to identify with and, interestingly, adhere to in the attempt to be identified with the historical deeds of the imperial nations. Of course the premise of this idea is based on racism, but I think that the term white is shrouded in strong racist connotations. What do you think about it? Have you read about the theory? Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:65CD:64C2:F887:C0C4 ( talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
In the American section we can read:
According to John Tehranian, among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Germans, Greeks, white Hispanics, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs and Spaniards.[135]
Then I have looked for that document that you can see here: http://www.onellp.com/parts/pubs/Tehranian_Performing_Whiteness.pdf
But I cannot find it. Maybe I read too fast. Can you find it?
Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:B01C:E5B5:426F:5E1D ( talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Puerto Rico isn't really a country, seeing as it is still USA territory (ok, a "commonwealth", same difference). Puerto Ricans are Americans. So why include it on the list of countries? That's a bit like calling Washington, D.C. a country. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I just drew this map, it shows people of European ancestry, which may be linked to the article topic.
The problem is that "white" is used in various related senses, not exclusively of "European ancestry". It may be used either more inclusively (North Africans, Arabs, etc.) or less inclusively (excluding Southern Europeans). Because en-wiki is mostly edited by US Americans (because of their sheer predominance in native-English-speaking population), there is always a risk that this article tends to be dragged in the direction of White American. But any US-specific material should really go to the US-specific page. The "European ancestry" map is certainly interesting, but perhaps more relevant to an article explicitly about Europeans, such as European people (which is of course highly pertinent to this article, so surely there can be WP:SS style overlap). -- dab (𒁳) 10:12, 17 July 2015 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
The WP:DATED problem introduced by this unexplained edit caught my eye. Leaving that aside, I quickly noticed that this cited supporting source does not mention a figure of 52.7%, and seems to be discussing Latin America as a whole rather than specifics of Chile. This content re 52.7% was initially added in this January 2009 edit and, as I don't read Spanish and I'm not an expert on population ethnicities in Chile, I haven't done any edits re this. I do want to raise a concern here, though. I also want to raise a concern that the Chile section here appears to contradict the Demographics of Chile article, contrary to WP:SS guidelines. I thought about placing {{ contradict other}} hatnotes in both articles to draw wider attention to this, but haven't done that either. Could someone who knows something about this please take a look at this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The entire flagged second ¶ should be removed and a subordinate clause, or sentence added to first to the effect that "It is composed of ethnic groups originally from Europe or Western Asia". 72.228.190.243 ( talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have made a larger scale edit on the section of ‘’European-descended peoples’’ which may require clarification. Equating ‘European ancestry’ with the social definition of the “white” category (which usage is limited to a few countries of the world), and listing countries and regions according to it, especially where the “white” category is not used, is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, there is already an article with the same topic as the subsection, Emigration from Europe. FonsScientiae ( talk) 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
for the sentence "As a result of centuries of having children with white people, the majority of African Americans have European admixture, and many white people also have African ancestry."
A statement like this should cite at least one study, or include it as a quote from an expert in the field. It could obviously be verified by DNA analysis these days. It is talking about the amount of admixture, so we are not talking about socially defined defined groups. If there have been different DNA analysis studies done, they should all be listed so we can compare their results. If it is not based on DNA analysis, then this is hypothesizing. The statement that follows shows that there isn't a common consensus: "easily one-third of black people have white DNA" (maybe less that 50%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.93.37 ( talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Does Japanese are considered as white people? they placed second on the table of countries white pop. Pankoroku 3 ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
In a biography of Frank Sinatra, I found an interesting passage on p. 22 at the bottom. Moreover, there is a 1995 book by Noel Ignatiev titled How the Irish Became White. It appears that Americans with "Nordic" (Northern/Central European) origins or ancestry at times (to be exact, a mere century ago) considered darker "Mediterranean" types "almost black", or "half-black". (I have seen the former not-quite-white status of Italian and Irish immigrants in the US mentioned elsewhere, too; it seems to be a well-known historical fact that should be easy to source.) Precedents to this thinking are easily found for example in Thomas Huxley, who surmised that Mediterranean types (his Melanochroi) had arisen from a mixture of light-skinned Northern European types (Nordic types, his Xanthochroi) and dark-skinned Australoid types, or in Giuseppe Sergi, who considered Mediterraneans neither white nor black (negroid) but brown (though their own category, not merely a mixture of the others), and as of African origin. Nice demonstration of the flexibility of the concept "white race", surely worth working into the article. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&diff=557009223&oldid=556968476
I see no valid reason to remove it, and given that nobody else has objected to it over the past couple of days, I believe it is well within the parameters of acceptable content. If someone wants to beef up the descriptions accorded to Arabs, Chinese, etc, they are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary removal of sourced content, and arguably constitutes vandalism or POV editing/IDONTLIKEIT. Evildoer187 ( talk) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You can claim to be anything you want, Evildoer, even a rabbi. If you have ideas and opinions to push, especially in this field, then maybe a message board is the place, not an encyclopedia. Yuvn86 ( talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, this text isn't encyclopedic. The text violates WP:NOT#ESSAY; it basically violates WP:COATRACK; it totally violates Godwin's law (I know that's not WP policy). It even rambles:
Argumentative, off-topic (Egypt? Did Jews get regarded as not white there?), and opinion asserted as grounds for a position ("I'm thoroughly convinced"). If you could provide a concise summary without these flaws, that would be a start.-- Carwil ( talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reworked the end of this paragraph - the old text was disjointed and cumbersome to read and felt like a series of hlaf-relevant add-ons to the main thrust of the paragraph (which is that the definition of 'white' is 'contested and always changing'). Also some of the refs didn't mention "white" at all, and much of the content was not mentioned in the refs, including the list of nationalities. I've tried to keep the main points of the original content (where supported by the refs) and relate them back to the rest of the paragraph. My apologies if I've stepped on anybody's POV toes. Tobus2 ( talk) 06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this section. I would encourage people who want to collaborate in improving it to read the beginning of the "census and social definitions" section in which it appears. Friends, Africa is not one big country; it's a continent with multiple racial dynamics, at least five colonial authorities, and some uncolonized areas, many more state languages, a major sub-Saharan/North African distinction, and a wide range of skin phenotypes. So, no to the "rest of Africa" as a regional category. If you want more of Africa in this article, start with one case and work up.
Here's the text in question, with broken in comments on problems.
"Represented" is an appalling euphemism. Who are these people and how did they get there? Also, who was "white" in which place? How did these people become labeled as white, while these people became non-white? How did such definitions happen in different places?
Just bad writing. Decolonisation shouldn't be the subject. "European-descended settlers" is. If we want to explain their movements, great, but that should be done clearly and based on reliable sources.
South Africa isn't in the "rest of Africa." Rhodesia doesn't exist anymore. Leaving isn't "extinction." Also, who qualifies as "white" now in the Algerian, Angolan, Kenyan, Congolese, Mozambican, Zimbabwean, and Zambian contexts? Is the term socially relevant? Are Arabs in these countries "white" or not?
Every time the article says "white" is equivalent to "of European descent," it misunderstands how "white" came to be defined in the first place, and how "white" continues to be defined differently in different places.-- Carwil ( talk) 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit (and some earlier ones which I have not looked at in detail), see [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article assertions don't appear to match what the cited source has to say in these various places. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
White are already a minority in the US in therms of newborns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
You are right to some extent. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, therefore they can be of all races. That said, 3/4 of Hispanics are of Mexican origins and Mexicans who emigrate to the US are mainly Mestizo or Amerindian. In short, most Hispanics in the US are not white. US Hispanic whites may be a minority of about 10-15 per cent. On top of that, about 20 per cent of the US population who are not Hispanic and identify as white may not be white either. In short, there are reasons to believe that the article is quite right. It is also the impression that you get if you travel the country. On the other hand, of course, if we are to classify whites just by self-identification, then the issue is very different. But in that case you can also end up with a population that is actually mixed but who consider themselves white. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if it is not important for such an article to include the fact that according to the US Census, Whites are a minority of new borns in the country, which means Whites are increasingly a minority in the US:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/minorities-in-america-census_n_3432369.html
I think it is most relevant, taking into account the contribution of the US to the concept of "whiteness".
Pipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2013
Well, I think this news is very important indeed. If you want to be picky, then you can refer to non-Hispanic whites. If you still think it is not worth elaborating on, I find it difficult to understand,even more when the article already says:
A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, Non-Hispanic white Americans will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005.[133] White Americans made up nearly 90% of the population in 1950.[127]
So, this is just an update on those previous studies confirming the trend. Why is it now wrong? I do not understand, but do as you please. I do not want to offend anyone, but all this is beginning to smell like "to be in denial". Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 ( talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone editing here care about the gallery at the commons, [6]? I think its an odd assortment. I have an idea to place images of traditionally adorned native peoples of the various european ethnicities, along with notable whites in other countries outside europe. a gallery of notable whites is probably unnecessary. If anyone else wants to try to work on it, im in no rush. I dont like it being linked from here and not being of reasonably good quality or purpose yet. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It may not be up to the caliber of some of the other problems discussed here, but this page has at least one kind of annoying typo in it: maybe halfway through the third paragraph in the section on social definition in the United States, we find "(and the Supreme Corut agreed)". Since the page is protected, I can't fix it. User:tmager (11:24 am, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
Regarding these edits by User:Afro-Eurasian:
Firstly, as per WP:BRD, when an edit you make is contested please leave the page as is was before your edit until you get consensus for your changes. I have again reverted to the state it was before these two contested changes and I expect you to leave it at that state until we have agreed here to do otherwise.
Regarding the "black people" link, your edit summary is "Ethiopians, though may be dark skinned, are not Negroids, so it is incorrect to link it to black people". This shows you think the Black People is equivalent to the Negroid page, which it isn't. The Black People page is devoted to various social constructs that use the term "black" to refer to a distinct social or ethnic grouping. It's not about "Negroids", it's about any population that is or has been labeled "black", so it's perfectly legitimate and helpful to link to it in this context.
Regarding the "native peoples" change, I'm ambivalent about it (although "Negroes" is a poor choice of wording) but since User:Carwil has reverted it you need to discuss a solution with him instead of just reverting with no reason. It's probably just a matter of coming up with alternative wording as I think you are both talking about the same thing.
Lastly, re the "spelling" edit summary, it's irrelevant to this discussion, but if you look at the diff [7], it's clearly a revert, not just a simple spelling change as the summary might suggest. My apologies for suggesting subterfuge if none was intended, but it was the revert I was undoing, not the difference in spelling. Tobus ( talk) 04:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Aethiopians/Ethiopians" that Herodotus et al. wrote about were actually the peoples who inhabited ancient Aethiopia in the Upper Nile region in the present-day Sudan - see Aethiopia. Soupforone ( talk) 02:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The text abouth the black race in Argentina shoud be moved to a page about the black race. This page is about the white race, and not about black, asiatic, aboriginal, neither any other race. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
186.59.70.134 (
talk)
09:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the page for "Black People" by comparison, I think this wikipedia page about "white people" can be considered what constitutes as "hate speech". What a disgusting display of accusations, negative historical relations, and indictments. Wikipedia is slowly isolating itself as a sociology-political tool rather than educational. This is shameful (and I'm of mixed race as most people are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.243.211 ( talk) 09:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that there are articles on White American, White Canadian/ European Canadian, etc. Shoudn't these titles - as well as the heading in the infobox all be in the plural? If not, then the first sentence in each must also then be in the singular, as is the case with White South African. In terms of consistency, I see that various naming styles are used, with a number of pages titled "European" and not "white". White Canadian falls in this category, but still has the issue of plural/ singular. In the case of Argentina it is even worse - Argentines of European descent. Then to crown it all, Australia has both White Australian and European Australian, with a year-old merge proposal that has not attracted any attention, bar one contribution. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
in chile the white people is 52% — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Drussen2014 (
talk •
contribs)
22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have one question to ask my esteemed colleagues, do we consider "some people feel" and someone's suggestions (even if they are a professor's) as encyclopedic in nature? I am just getting into being a responsible wikipedia contributor and I think this is a good test case to get a feel for the climate.
As Bilbo Baggins commented on the dangers of getting swept away when stepping out your door, so too does the internet present such a danger. I started doing research on the Chechen War and some how got here. :) DocHellfish ( talk) 22:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My "unsourced categorisation" is that the children are white - which they are. What is supposed to constitute proper proof that they are white? Should some sort of certificate of ethnicity be attached to the photo or something?
"Identifiable minors" As far as I'm aware, there is no rule on Wikipedia which states that a photograph of a child isn't allowed. But if you're opposed to the photo of children, then perhaps we could find a photo of a "white adult in Britain" or something? Surlyduff50 ( talk) 00:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a different objection to Andy's (although I agree with his points). It seems curious for an article about the concept of white people to use images of children engaged in activities that are quintessentially British. Such a choice may imply an identity between notions of "Britishness" and "whiteness" that would be both factually incorrect and morally repugnant. Furthermore, using images of children adds an additional emotive element that amplifies the undesired implication. CIreland ( talk) 01:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I see now this point has already been raised above. CIreland ( talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the re-addition of a maypole image which is captioned as being of a group of white children dancing around it. There is no correlation between children playing around a maypole and the white ethnic origin, be it in 2014 or in historic times. To imply otherwise amounts to inapprporiate connotations that those of any other ethnic origin do not play around a maypole and has no place in this or any such project. Tmol42 ( talk) 22:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Evidence for the connection of non-Africans to Neanderthals is gronwing stronger and its effect on skin and hair: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 ( talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you just do not like it, HuH. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 ( talk) 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Modern humans have other MCR1 variants that are also less active resulting in red hair and pale skin. The less active Neanderthal mutation probably also resulted in red hair and pale skin, as in modern humans. ... The specific MCR1 mutation in Neanderthals has not found in modern humans (or occurs extremely rarely in modern humans). This indicates that the two mutations for red hair and pale skin occurred independently and does not support the idea of gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. Pale skin may have been advantageous to Neanderthals living in Europe because of the ability to synthesize vitamin D.This may or may not have sufficient topical weight for inclusion in the article, I just mention it because it seemed relevant to this discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AndyTheGrump has repeatedly reverted the insertion of a photograph [13] labelled 'White Australian children wave Australian flags during an Anzac Day parade'. The photograph has been repeated inserted by Surlyduff50. The children in the photograph are certainly white. AndyTheGrump's reason for removing the photograph is that he claims the children have not described themselves as being white and labelling them so is wrong ('ethnicity and race are social constructs ... the only opinion worthy of consideration is that of the individual concerned'). Both users are now under investigation for edit warring at WP:ANEW. In order to resolve the content situation, the consensus of the community is being sought. In case it is relevant, there are multiple other pictures on the page with similar descriptions: these might be affected by this decision. 31.49.243.63 ( talk) 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have read the requirements that Andy has mentioned. The RFC request is not neutral. I think we can still comment on it. In this case if the children do not identify as "white" so it would be best to leave it out of the article. I think this would also comply with WP:BLP because there is no evidence the children pictured self-identify as white. I hope my comment is helpful. Thank you. PNGWantok ( talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As a consequence of the above discussion, I have removed all pictures where the subjects didn't explicitely identify as white, including those that identified as "Welsh" etc. because not all immigrants from Europe identify as white. FishDestroyer ( talk) 06:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I find this article to be swayed in the direction of anti-white racism, particularly with defining "whiteness" as a social construct, whereas the page for "black people" ( /info/en/?search=Black_people) regards it as "belonging to a "black" ethnicity in their particular country, typically having a degree of Sub-Saharan African ancestry".
This is enforcing a negative bias upon the reader base of Wikipedia, a widely used site, that could sway them to hold convictions against white people simply for the color of their skin. If we are to view race as a social construct, which is not my opinion, we must uphold this for all peoples as opposed to the current system of preferential treatment for non-white groups.
Thank you for your time. EuropaLegionarii ( talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OCA2 ( talk) 03:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As per prior RFC, images of people not self identifying as white shouldn't be identified as white people. There are plenty of images identified with the race of the people in them available to be used. SPACKlick ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I've read the post of user "EuropaLegionarii", and I agree with him, I just want to say - I don't know if I even could, since I don't visit Wiki as a registered user for like four years; but I think mentions about social construct should be replaced with something similar to mentions in the "Black people" article, and it'd look like this:
"White people is an English-language term often used in socially-based systems of racial classification or of ethnicity to describe persons who are defined as belonging to an ethnic group whithin white ethnicity (like Slavs or Germanic peoples), or who are perceived to be light-skinned relative to other racial groups."
If you see it wrong, or whatever, just answer me, I can discuss with you. HAND
78.99.55.99 ( talk) 15:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The table claimed that Germany had an entry for skin color - Whites - in the census. This is not so. However, migratory status is recorded. Note that migrants are not grouped by Whites and non-Whites.
I guess other entries are made up, too. -- Zz ( talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
186.106.28.218 ( talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC) in Chile white people is 52% no 20% and the mestizo people in chile are white phenotype
Chilean white 53% http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.28.218 ( talk) 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, with the advent of genetic research, many people and history related articles in Wiki have big contradictions. For example in the Colombia article it states: Within 100 years after the first Spanish settlement, nearly 95 percent of all Native Americans in Colombia had died.[99] Then there is reference to a genetic study that states: According to a genetic research by the University of Brasilia, Colombian genetic admixture consists in a 45.9% European, 33.8% Amerindian, and 20.3% African ancestry.[98]Even though there are always people who try to cut the cake in all pieces possible, to state both things does seem to be a clear contradiction.
This gets even more serious when one reads articles like the Puerto Rico article, stating something like Native Americans somehow disappeared, and the population is mainly European only. A recent genetic study shows that as much as 60 per cent of the people of Puerto Rico are of Native American ancestry: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20108/abstract;jsessionid=38B9FCCC76D60A38690DA7339093E849.d02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+27+October+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance These articles are not only inaccurate, they are also weird. In other words, suspicious of racism, and with a general tendency to deny the Native American contribution. Pipo. User:76.26.48.77 ( User talk:76.26.48.77) 03:03, 9 February 2014
White people are not a social construct; they are an admixture of those who descend from Cro-Magnon; Neanderthal decent of the Caucus steppe, more so than that of Denisovan descent of the Pacific Islanders. This article describes segregation, oppression, eugenics, and marginalization is a trait only for white people, like it wasn't practices by the Persians, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine empire, Khazaria, or Mongolians.
Again, I am highly offended that this page is so completely biased AGAINST whites, yet I have a feeling those who edited, will not care about the concerns of White people, for they already made up their mind to justify their own racial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctirderp ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the term white comes with a lot of connotations, paths and explanations, but I once read a reasoning which is one of possibly many other causes for the maintenance of the term with certain social overtones. I unfortunately do not remember where I read it, but sometimes I come across statements that make me remember it. I think it was by an English writer. What are those statements? I often read in the net disproportionate comments about being white linked to being Irish-American, Scottish-American, Polish-American, and even a sizable amount of Jewish-Americans, etc. The theory goes that the social overtones of the term white were linked to the historical supremacy of several European peoples at different times in history: Greeks, Romans and therefore Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English and Russians, to speak of the main imperial nations of Europe. In this context, members of ¨lesser¨ nations, and I mean by ¨lesser¨ those who were not imperial nations, and often oppressed by the former, found in the term white a blanket term to identify with and, interestingly, adhere to in the attempt to be identified with the historical deeds of the imperial nations. Of course the premise of this idea is based on racism, but I think that the term white is shrouded in strong racist connotations. What do you think about it? Have you read about the theory? Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:65CD:64C2:F887:C0C4 ( talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
In the American section we can read:
According to John Tehranian, among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Germans, Greeks, white Hispanics, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs and Spaniards.[135]
Then I have looked for that document that you can see here: http://www.onellp.com/parts/pubs/Tehranian_Performing_Whiteness.pdf
But I cannot find it. Maybe I read too fast. Can you find it?
Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:B01C:E5B5:426F:5E1D ( talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Puerto Rico isn't really a country, seeing as it is still USA territory (ok, a "commonwealth", same difference). Puerto Ricans are Americans. So why include it on the list of countries? That's a bit like calling Washington, D.C. a country. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I just drew this map, it shows people of European ancestry, which may be linked to the article topic.
The problem is that "white" is used in various related senses, not exclusively of "European ancestry". It may be used either more inclusively (North Africans, Arabs, etc.) or less inclusively (excluding Southern Europeans). Because en-wiki is mostly edited by US Americans (because of their sheer predominance in native-English-speaking population), there is always a risk that this article tends to be dragged in the direction of White American. But any US-specific material should really go to the US-specific page. The "European ancestry" map is certainly interesting, but perhaps more relevant to an article explicitly about Europeans, such as European people (which is of course highly pertinent to this article, so surely there can be WP:SS style overlap). -- dab (𒁳) 10:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)