![]() | 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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
I attempted to add this page to Category:White people, but that category has been deleted on several occasions, purportedly because of a deletion discussion (which is not even accessible from the category's deletion log). Should this category be re-created? Jarble ( talk) 04:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If Category:White people were undeleted, then Category:White Americans and Category:White South African people could be included uncontroversially as subcategories, with White people as the main page for that category. Jarble ( talk) 05:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
White people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we can find more significant white women to use for some of the images in the picture grid. It just seems weird and unfair to have Alexis Bledel in the same grid as, say, Queen Victoria. Instead of white American actress Alexis Bledel, how about more influential and acclaimed white American actress Meryl Streep?
Likewise, I'm thinking we don't need five white women best known as contemporary fashion models - Milagros Schmoll, Gisele Bündchen, Esti Ginzburg, Candice Swanepoel, and Fiorella Mattheis. I suggest we keep one (Milagros), but then replace Gisele with Bertha Lutz (also a Brazilian, but a zoologist, politician, and diplomat), replace Esti with Regina Jonas (also Jewish, but the first female rabbi in the world), replace Candice with Olive Schreiner (also a white South African, but a prominent writer), and replace Fiorella with better-known and acclaimed Brazilian actress Arlette Pinheiro Esteves Torres (the first Latin American to be nominated for Best Actress at the Academy Awards and first actress to be nominated for a Portuguese-speaking role.)
For a white Canadian female singer-songwriter of significance, I suggest Joni Mitchell rather than Avril Lavigne.
And yes, all these women I have suggested are white and have their pictures available on their Wikipedia pages.
What do you all think? DiscoTent ( talk) 00:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no opposition to your suggestions, though I wonder if we should pic women rated as of high or top importance by WikiProject Women's history. Dimadick ( talk) 06:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Just popping in to say I had the same concerns when examining the article. Were these pictures chosen as examples of how different white people can look? That's the only reason I can imagine including Alexis Bledel, as her blue eyes and dark hair are unusual. Otherwise, yes, I'd say fewer models and more notable white women would be an improvement. I'll take a look through the high importance articles in WikiProject Women's History for photos in color. EmilyvstheGorn ( talk) 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Why no pictures? Here is a good one: http://www.cuantarazon.com/busqueda/0/guiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:7957:7202:3BF:FFF7 ( talk) 04:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to illustrate the article but I am not sure about the format of the page. The "Caucasian" skull, the Book of Gates image, and Huxley's map seem to be the more appropriate images on the matter and appear in a relevant section. But several of the other images seem to have little connection to the sections that they appear next to. Kennedy and von Braun appear next to a section on 18th-century classifications of race, Ginzburg next to a section about the development of the Caucasian race concept, Putin next to a section about 21st century perceptions of white, Princess Märtha Louise and Bündchen next to a section about white Argentinians, Pope John Paul II next to a section about white Australians, Blanchett next to a section about white Canadians, Lavigne next to a section about white Chileans, Clinton next to a section about the one drop rule, and Tramp next to a section on white Uruguayans.
Perhaps the images require re-arrangement? Dimadick ( talk) 12:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be too picky but you would think by looking at this selection that there are hardly any women that are Brunettes.. with not only one Brazilian of German origin but TWO...in a country with millions more Brazilians of Portuguese, Spanish or Italian origin who form the majority of the European origin of Brazil...two German Brazilians doesn't make sense..and yes I don't mean millions of Italians arnt all Brunettes either. Same goes for many a few other nationalities but this one probably has the most obvious. Carmen Miranda may be a good one to choose although she wasn't actually born in Brazil but went as a baby there. Others that have populations are Cuba with people like Jose Marti being an example. Puertorico1 ( talk)
Yep, thats a step in the right direction... The truth is that its not possible to put examples of all people of European origin or classified as white from all European countries plus those in the European diaspora, but there are hardly any from central or eastern eueope here, what about a Georgian (the country) for a random example... instead 3 Germans, As is said its not possible to put a person from every country but are we only putting examples of people from countries that have a "white" category in their census or are we going by our natural views and know their family origins. I like the fact that there are some more brown haired to "even" it out. Remember there are places in Latin america like Uruguay that are over 88% European for example, mostly of Mediterranean descent. Puertorico1 ( talk)
The second paragraph under "Antiquity and Middle Ages: Physical description" which details the supposed racial categories in the ancient Egyptian "Book of Gates" is based on a modern, edited artistic recreation of the actual depiction of the four "races," in which they all varied very little phenotypically. I can provide links if necessary, but for the time being, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya Volume 2 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox of pictures is already too large. We don't need further expansion. -- NeilN talk to me 17:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
in the infobox are examples of people who may have more influence on the world with their creations or their actions, showing influences in all the sciences, as shown in it, and in all areas, showing that they had contributions in that areas. This article is about of something that is so general, it is "a type of people" that spans mostly western world reaching latitudes of China.-- Vvven ( talk) 17:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
i think that we should show that is most relevants, course not all, but yes those that changed the world (for good)-- Vvven ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
and how about if we put the smaller images like the article Argentines?. that articles also represents a group of people and have more images-- Vvven ( talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
In the black people article has 23 images of black persons-- Vvven ( talk) 18:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
but there 23 images representing and as example of the black people, such as are the same functions of these images-- Vvven ( talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There 14 images (faces) of black persons in the Black People, also dont should reduce the number of images about outstanding black people in that page? same as you propose here-- Vvven ( talk) 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
i will try to fix on twelve images or few more on gallery and others below-- Vvven ( talk) 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor typo under the image of Albert Einstein as the German Jew "physical" rather than physicist. Tabascokid ( talk) 09:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Maradona is mixed race, with a strong Amerindian look. San Martin also was mixed. Examples of famous Argentinian whites are Messi, Pope Francis, Eva Perón, Bernardo Houssay (Nobel award). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.14.4 ( talk) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maradona is mixed race, with a strong Amerindian look. San Martin also was mixed.
Examples of famous Argentinian whites are Messi, Pope Francis, Eva Perón, Bernardo Houssay (Nobel award), Gustavo Cerati (rock star), Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Astor Piazzolla (tango composer).
186.59.14.4 ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
a boat
that can float!
(happy holidays) 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)I'm just curious, does this article only include ethnic Europeans, or does It also include West Asians & North Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The660 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The current photo array has twelve men and only one woman. It's almost as if someone is trying to make a WP:POINT about the lack of female editors on Wikipedia by creating a deliberately biased article. My preferred revision of the article was more gender balanced, and used higher quality images. The current selection of photos seems to reflect a low-quality, design by committee approach, and uses photos of ugly people in a way that is defamatory towards the ethnic group depicted. I suggest that reverting the images would greatly improve the quality of the article. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The inherent fuzziness of the subspecies concept and ability of animals of different subspecies but the same species to interbreed virtually guarantees that there will be edge cases, animals about whom biologists cannot agree about subspecies designation. This closely mirrors the situation for races of humans. I am suggesting that edge case photos of people who may or may not be white not be included in this article, and that all photos be of people who are clearly white according to the predominate sociological meaning of the term. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
* This picture illustrates how a white horse looks like. How relevant ? Pldx1 ( talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
x
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Colombian)) to ((Colombia))n
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
White people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no census for "white" in the Russian Federation. If you click the attached link (provided you know Russian) you'll see that. That infrormation is misleading. 113,545,521 whites? Where did these figures come from? Out of thin air? Please edit.
Yours, Russian wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslan saidgaliev ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I accede to Ruslan saidgaliev's note. Form used in the 2010 census does not provide information on race, it asks a person on 'national origin' which is relevant to ancestry, affiliation, cultural heritage but does not necessarily indicates a person's race. A person may consider her/himself a Russian (Tatar, Bashkir, etc.) but she/he may belong to White or Asian race or be of mixed origin.
If we take a concept of 'race' as a social construct then concept 'national origin' as it is used in Russia still does not correspond to race as it is impossible to clearly define which 'nationality' corresponds to which 'race'. Are Tatars who mostly live in Europe belong to Asian or to White race? What about Mordvins? Chuvash? Russians?
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible how a number of 113,545,521 was calculated: which race is deemed White and which is not?
I propose to exclude link to http://www.perepis-2010.ru/results_of_the_census/result-december-2011.ppt from the table on Regions with significant populations and either to delete Russia from that table or to replace it with link which clearly indicates numver of white people in Russia. 91.212.179.8 ( talk) 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Since images at this article have been a source of contention, I'm stopping by to alert editors to this matter; see WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I don't care if the images remain; I'm only giving you all a heads up. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The conclusion from the discussions was that ascribing racial categories based on appearance of people in images was considered original research. I'm not sure how much I agree with that conclusion, but it is certainly sometimes true. Persian, Egyptian, Turkish, Lebanese, Mexican, and Armenian people often consider themselves White but I doubt many Westerners would categorize them as such. The images reflect individual and cultural understandings of racial boundaries and do not necessarily reflect the identity or self-categorization of the people in the images. Unlike with people, animals don't have self-identifications. But there are also national and international bodies that set (arbitrary) standards for what qualifies an animal as a particular breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 00:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Drawing from the
White Latin American page make a page only for the Spanish-speaking countries in America.
Derekitou
Talk 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Accept that you add to the white population of Hispanic Americans countries together, since there are none hispanic american informative and interesting it is to represent the entity invicible Hispanoamerica , thanks!!-- Derekitou ( talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This is in the lede: "The "most white" people in Europe are the Finns, who have nothing to with colonization and the slave trade to do." Irrespective of this claim, the grammar hurts my brain. Please someone with appropriate powers change it to "The "most white" people in Europe are the Finns, who have had nothing to do with colonization or the slave trade." or similar, or teach me proper English. The article is locked, sans explanation, otherwise I would do it myself. 50.242.94.205 ( talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow what a mess of a page lacking definitions, and poorly sourced. There is no mention of the Christian religion being associated with the "white" skin colour. I would suggest adding pictures of the following historically significant people that belong to the white skin colour people group- Scientists- Isaac Newton, Gailileo, Kepler, Thomas Edison, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Writers- Shakespeare is already there but also needed- Milton, Dante, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Emily Dickens, the list would be long but stop there. Musicians- Mozart, Beethoven. Artists - Michelangelo, Da Vinci. These people are considered geniuses, they were white skin colour, which I am assuming that is the definition of "white" is because it is not possible to get a proper definition from this page, and they should be mentioned. And to clarify what white means exactly- what do the editors of this page consider Scarlett Johansen because she has very white skin, very blonde hair, and very blue eyes however she is Jewish, not Christian faith? So is she still "white" or is white a un spoken synonym for Christian? JohnathanSilverstein ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not all white people live in Europe and the map shows simply Ethnic Europeans. Shouldn't the map show white people (who come from Europe, North Africa, and the MIddle East.) or move the "European" map to an article about europeans? The current map misleads over where people live and who is white. The article mentions that white people are from Europe, North Africa, and the MIddle East but the map fails to reflect that. I think a change is in order to better the cohesiveness of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffmaster1000 ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What's up with that? The Jews article mentions in the lead, "Despite their small percentage of the world's population, Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields, including philosophy, ethics, literature, business, fine arts and architecture, religion, music, theatre and cinema, medicine, as well as science and technology, both historically and in modern times." The same could be said about whites, especially considering that Jews are often considered white. St. claires fire ( talk) 20:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There seems to be a bit of confusion in the "Regions With Significant Populations" section. I propose it be changed to 'Countries & Regions with significant populations.' to accommodate both classifiers.
Additionally it says "The following countries" but lists Hispanic America, which is a region not a country. This could cause some confusion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.cultura.gob.pe/concursobpi/sites/default/.../concursobpi.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/Ethnic%20Group%20-%20Full%20Detail_QS201NI.XLS{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I certainly think this would be relevant. Loonball5 ( talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of White people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "one.cu":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention of their Neanderthal gene would be useful to the general reader. 2.27.120.93 ( talk) 09:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
From the main wiki page ( /info/en/?search=European_Costa_Ricans) it states that Costa ricans are according to DNA studies, around 67%[4] of the population have some level of European ancestry.
However this wiki page says: "2009, Costa Rica had an estimated population of 4,509,290. White people (includes mestizo) make up 94%". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevePeroMortal ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Researcher123456 ( talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
According to a 2014 research published in the journal Genetics and Molecular Biology, European ancestry predominates in 69% of Nicaraguans, followed by African ancestry in 20%, and lastly Native American ancestry in 11%, making Nicaragua the country with the highest proportion of European ancestry in Central America. [1]
References
I made this page considerably more sophisticated. For example, the page previously implied-with no sources--that all Europeans, since the 17th century, have believed that all of Europe was one race. To dispel this nonsense, which no one of any learning could countenance, I added the historical fact that National Socialist Germany and fascist Italy regarded slavs as racially inferior. (The German plan to subjugate, exterminate, or deport slavs-- General Plan Ost--was rooted in racism.) I provided good sources for these claims, which within living memory resulted in the invasion of two countries and millions of deaths.
And I also removed the completely spurious claim that North Africans of non-sub-Saharan African descent regard themselves as white. (There is prejudice against sub-Saharan people in these countries, but the majority does not 'identify as white,' nor would they be considered white in Western countries.) Edaham deleted my hard work with no explanation given. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First of, sorry for the lack of hotlinks and possible mistakes. I'm new to to this part of Wikipedia. In the section "18th century beginnings", "Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, his descriptions of these groups included cultural patterns and derogatory stereotypes.[38]" The source, however, does not use the last two words, instead stating "Although Linnaeus intended an objective classification, he used both biological and cultural data in his subdivision descriptions." The wiki article on "Scientific Racism" does not use the wording of "derogatory stereotypes" in its section about Carl Linnaeus, instead referring to quite a few sources giving a wider picture of how to view Linnaeus work in this field. It should be obvious to any reader that a 18th century biologist has view on other ethnic groups that differs wildly from really any modern person, but to provide such an angled wording seems to me unwise, especially considering the significance of Linnaeus' work in general. Linnaeus' classification of races does not appear to even imply any sort of hierarchy and the various cultural patterns included within the classifications are, as far as I can tell, possibly eurocentric and do not deserve to be referred to as "derogatory stereotypes". I suggest someone provide a credible citation for the wording or change it to something more in line with the present citation. Ofodrums ( talk) 01:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The 1735 classification of Carl Linnaeus, inventor of zoological taxonomy, divided the human species Homo sapiens into continental varieties of europaeus, asiaticus, americanus, and afer, each associated with a different humour: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively.[50][51] Homo sapiens europaeus was described as active, acute, and adventurous, whereas Homo sapiens afer was said to be crafty, lazy, and careless.[52]I don't have access to all of those sources to confirm this, but trying to fit humans into the four humours is certainly derogatory stereotyping. A reliable source cites Stephen Jay Gould as saying that these categories were as much about cartography as biology, and extends that to to say that "the Linnaean categories are also hierarchical and essentialist, even if not overtly ranked". This supports the idea that these categories where derogatory stereotyping, but not the exact wording. I don't see this as a major problem, since we are expected to use our own phrasing, anyway, to avoid plagiarism. Can you suggest a change which conveys the substance of these sources? Do you have additional sources to propose that support an alternative view?
The majority of people from Central Asia are white. the pamiris for example ( /info/en/?search=Pamiris#/media/File:Tajik_Pamiri_children.jpg) sculptures with white for skin found in Uzbekistan. ( /info/en/?search=Uzbeks#/media/File:Kaunakes_Bactria_Louvre_AO31917.jpg). Several other examples as well.-- 2601:3C5:8200:B79:7CC6:EF05:9A7F:FCB2 ( talk) 02:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&oldid=810660352 (850,000,000 + 11.5% of the total world population
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&oldid=810527676#Census_and_social_definitions_in_different_regions (480,000,000 + 6.5% of the total world population
You think Zimbabwe looks like a white country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreKarlsson ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Colored is a French term found in their territories such as the American South meaning mixed black-white. It by no means is "non-white", and it shows as much because no other ethnic group is called colored. Putting for that colored means non-white, is a racist propaganda put forth racist groups. Take for instance white and black are both all the colors combined, so that either represents all colors. If you can put forth that white-is no other color, then so can it be for black. So then you can call people of color non-black. When the think tank put forth the term colored to be used to define non-white people, it was a ploy at a racial separation of all other ethnic groups from white people in a us-vs-you tactic. This tactic to use color to mean non-white people is very recent and very racist. Return colored to being mixed white/black on this page, and remove the "non-white" part because it is completely false. If the part "colored or non-white" is not suppose to mean that colored is the same as non-white, then I retract my statement. It reads like it was saying colored and non-white are the same terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.29.26 ( talk) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the citation needed tags. The citation needed tags make the article look ugly and messy. Do something about the dead links and messy references too. This article for White people needs a clean up. Make the article look perfect. 217.146.2.27 ( talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
All racist scientists have always used the term "white" as a synonym for Caucasoid, from the creator of the definition by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach[ [2]] to the present day (between those who understand race and the history of racism), so why did removed white Muslims from the Mediterranean? Like North Africans, Levantines, Iranians etc.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral place, it's not because you hate them that they stop being part of your race.
/info/en/?search=Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach#Beliefs_on_races . https://census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
Also, remember that they belongs to the Mediterranean race, so if they are not "White", then you should also remove Iberians, Italians, Greeks etc because they are all Mediterranid. Exactly like the [ [3]] of the 19th and 20th century did.
/info/en/?search=Mediterranean_race . /info/en/?search=Madison_Grant#Nordic_theory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorb2 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is regarding this edit
@ NightShadow23: Carleton S. Coon's position is not representative of modern science, and using scientific racism from the 1930s in a modern context is inappropriate. If your contention is that not all white people are from Europe, you will need a much better way to present it than this chart, which is only of encyclopedic use as a historical relic. At no point should this article advance pseudoscience or obsolete science as factual. If you want to discuss the geography of the Caucasian race, please discuss this using reliable modern sources. Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The very concept of "European peoples" is contested.". Using the chart here conflates European with white. That's a relatively common as a starting point for defining whiteness, but I don't think that's good enough. Jumping from "European ancestry" to "white" is supporting the misconception that white has a common definition. The reality is that it has many definitions depending on region, history, convention, and prejudice. The article explains this, but the chart is not entirely clear. At a minimum, moving it from the lede seems like a good idea. Grayfell ( talk) 02:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionaries: "The term white has been used to refer to the skin colour of Europeans or people of European extraction since the early 17th century. Unlike other labels for skin colour such as red or yellow, white has not been generally used in a derogatory way. In modern contexts there is a growing tendency to prefer to use terms which relate to geographical origin rather than skin colour: hence the current preference in the US for African American rather than black and European rather than white".
"In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific (see Mongoloid), the term Caucasian has acquired a more restricted meaning. It is now used, especially in the US, as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin’, as in the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties".
I think the problem is solved. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) ( talk) 06:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at the edit history on the page. The map appears to be contested. I'm confused, tbh, because the map seems to suggest white people are Europeans. But that's not correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The author wrote in the description: "This is NOT a map of the White race, just an "European ancestry" map. Thats the reason North African, Middle Eastern and Indo-Iranian peoples majority territories are not shaded. Anyway, some countries don't specify the origin of "White people" in their censuses so I'm taking "Caucasian" and "White" self identified people in censuses mostly in countries in the Americas as having "European ancestry", so Lebanese ancestry people in Colombia or Morocco ancestry people in the USA are counted as "European ancestry" peoples in this map because of lack of data. Despite of that, numbers and percentages wouldn't be so different considering those details and I encourage everyone who is reading this to do the math and realize these facts.". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) ( talk) 08:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not think this is addressed in the map's presentation here in this specific article. The caption only says Distribution of European ancestry in the world
. That's not explaining very much, is it? The chart has multiple related problems that I can see: It implies that white people are of European ancestry, which isn't going to work. In doing this it treats Europe as a discrete entity, which is messy, to say the least. It also combines data compiled using different definitions and goals into a single statistic. This is reasonable for some purposes, but is it reasonable here? None of these are simple issues, and they would need so much qualification that I'm not sure that it's worth it. What does the
boundary between Asia and Europe have to do with 'white people'? Does this belong in the lede? This isn't personal. This is an impressive bit of chartsmithing, but that doesn't make it appropriate for the lede of this article.
Grayfell (
talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Except form the UK (which is often consider to be outside Europe) there is no section about white European people. Someone Not Awful ( talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedia editors. There is at least one missing word in a sentence of the Mexico section:
Europeans began arriving in Mexico with the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, with the descendants of the conquistadors, along with new arrivals from Spain formed an elite but never a majority of the population. CryMeAnOcean ( talk) 05:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "Australia ( white Australian)" should be removed from the lead as Australians no longer, in general, describe themselves as "white" and so fit in more with what is described in the lead as "the rest of Europe". Note also that the link above is a redirect to European Australians. User:HiLo48 was correct and gave a good reason. -- Bduke (Discussion) 03:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hilo48, please see the final section of the Talk page, before Edit Warring further, and explain how the case of Australia is any different from the other countries listed in the third paragraph of the lede. Your comments here about the Australian census are not relevant to that issue. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:31, 4 August 2018 (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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
I attempted to add this page to Category:White people, but that category has been deleted on several occasions, purportedly because of a deletion discussion (which is not even accessible from the category's deletion log). Should this category be re-created? Jarble ( talk) 04:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If Category:White people were undeleted, then Category:White Americans and Category:White South African people could be included uncontroversially as subcategories, with White people as the main page for that category. Jarble ( talk) 05:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
White people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we can find more significant white women to use for some of the images in the picture grid. It just seems weird and unfair to have Alexis Bledel in the same grid as, say, Queen Victoria. Instead of white American actress Alexis Bledel, how about more influential and acclaimed white American actress Meryl Streep?
Likewise, I'm thinking we don't need five white women best known as contemporary fashion models - Milagros Schmoll, Gisele Bündchen, Esti Ginzburg, Candice Swanepoel, and Fiorella Mattheis. I suggest we keep one (Milagros), but then replace Gisele with Bertha Lutz (also a Brazilian, but a zoologist, politician, and diplomat), replace Esti with Regina Jonas (also Jewish, but the first female rabbi in the world), replace Candice with Olive Schreiner (also a white South African, but a prominent writer), and replace Fiorella with better-known and acclaimed Brazilian actress Arlette Pinheiro Esteves Torres (the first Latin American to be nominated for Best Actress at the Academy Awards and first actress to be nominated for a Portuguese-speaking role.)
For a white Canadian female singer-songwriter of significance, I suggest Joni Mitchell rather than Avril Lavigne.
And yes, all these women I have suggested are white and have their pictures available on their Wikipedia pages.
What do you all think? DiscoTent ( talk) 00:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no opposition to your suggestions, though I wonder if we should pic women rated as of high or top importance by WikiProject Women's history. Dimadick ( talk) 06:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Just popping in to say I had the same concerns when examining the article. Were these pictures chosen as examples of how different white people can look? That's the only reason I can imagine including Alexis Bledel, as her blue eyes and dark hair are unusual. Otherwise, yes, I'd say fewer models and more notable white women would be an improvement. I'll take a look through the high importance articles in WikiProject Women's History for photos in color. EmilyvstheGorn ( talk) 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Why no pictures? Here is a good one: http://www.cuantarazon.com/busqueda/0/guiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:7957:7202:3BF:FFF7 ( talk) 04:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to illustrate the article but I am not sure about the format of the page. The "Caucasian" skull, the Book of Gates image, and Huxley's map seem to be the more appropriate images on the matter and appear in a relevant section. But several of the other images seem to have little connection to the sections that they appear next to. Kennedy and von Braun appear next to a section on 18th-century classifications of race, Ginzburg next to a section about the development of the Caucasian race concept, Putin next to a section about 21st century perceptions of white, Princess Märtha Louise and Bündchen next to a section about white Argentinians, Pope John Paul II next to a section about white Australians, Blanchett next to a section about white Canadians, Lavigne next to a section about white Chileans, Clinton next to a section about the one drop rule, and Tramp next to a section on white Uruguayans.
Perhaps the images require re-arrangement? Dimadick ( talk) 12:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to be too picky but you would think by looking at this selection that there are hardly any women that are Brunettes.. with not only one Brazilian of German origin but TWO...in a country with millions more Brazilians of Portuguese, Spanish or Italian origin who form the majority of the European origin of Brazil...two German Brazilians doesn't make sense..and yes I don't mean millions of Italians arnt all Brunettes either. Same goes for many a few other nationalities but this one probably has the most obvious. Carmen Miranda may be a good one to choose although she wasn't actually born in Brazil but went as a baby there. Others that have populations are Cuba with people like Jose Marti being an example. Puertorico1 ( talk)
Yep, thats a step in the right direction... The truth is that its not possible to put examples of all people of European origin or classified as white from all European countries plus those in the European diaspora, but there are hardly any from central or eastern eueope here, what about a Georgian (the country) for a random example... instead 3 Germans, As is said its not possible to put a person from every country but are we only putting examples of people from countries that have a "white" category in their census or are we going by our natural views and know their family origins. I like the fact that there are some more brown haired to "even" it out. Remember there are places in Latin america like Uruguay that are over 88% European for example, mostly of Mediterranean descent. Puertorico1 ( talk)
The second paragraph under "Antiquity and Middle Ages: Physical description" which details the supposed racial categories in the ancient Egyptian "Book of Gates" is based on a modern, edited artistic recreation of the actual depiction of the four "races," in which they all varied very little phenotypically. I can provide links if necessary, but for the time being, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya Volume 2 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox of pictures is already too large. We don't need further expansion. -- NeilN talk to me 17:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
in the infobox are examples of people who may have more influence on the world with their creations or their actions, showing influences in all the sciences, as shown in it, and in all areas, showing that they had contributions in that areas. This article is about of something that is so general, it is "a type of people" that spans mostly western world reaching latitudes of China.-- Vvven ( talk) 17:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
i think that we should show that is most relevants, course not all, but yes those that changed the world (for good)-- Vvven ( talk) 17:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
and how about if we put the smaller images like the article Argentines?. that articles also represents a group of people and have more images-- Vvven ( talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
In the black people article has 23 images of black persons-- Vvven ( talk) 18:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
but there 23 images representing and as example of the black people, such as are the same functions of these images-- Vvven ( talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There 14 images (faces) of black persons in the Black People, also dont should reduce the number of images about outstanding black people in that page? same as you propose here-- Vvven ( talk) 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
i will try to fix on twelve images or few more on gallery and others below-- Vvven ( talk) 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor typo under the image of Albert Einstein as the German Jew "physical" rather than physicist. Tabascokid ( talk) 09:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Maradona is mixed race, with a strong Amerindian look. San Martin also was mixed. Examples of famous Argentinian whites are Messi, Pope Francis, Eva Perón, Bernardo Houssay (Nobel award). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.14.4 ( talk) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maradona is mixed race, with a strong Amerindian look. San Martin also was mixed.
Examples of famous Argentinian whites are Messi, Pope Francis, Eva Perón, Bernardo Houssay (Nobel award), Gustavo Cerati (rock star), Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Astor Piazzolla (tango composer).
186.59.14.4 ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
a boat
that can float!
(happy holidays) 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)I'm just curious, does this article only include ethnic Europeans, or does It also include West Asians & North Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The660 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The current photo array has twelve men and only one woman. It's almost as if someone is trying to make a WP:POINT about the lack of female editors on Wikipedia by creating a deliberately biased article. My preferred revision of the article was more gender balanced, and used higher quality images. The current selection of photos seems to reflect a low-quality, design by committee approach, and uses photos of ugly people in a way that is defamatory towards the ethnic group depicted. I suggest that reverting the images would greatly improve the quality of the article. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The inherent fuzziness of the subspecies concept and ability of animals of different subspecies but the same species to interbreed virtually guarantees that there will be edge cases, animals about whom biologists cannot agree about subspecies designation. This closely mirrors the situation for races of humans. I am suggesting that edge case photos of people who may or may not be white not be included in this article, and that all photos be of people who are clearly white according to the predominate sociological meaning of the term. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
* This picture illustrates how a white horse looks like. How relevant ? Pldx1 ( talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
x
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Colombian)) to ((Colombia))n
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
White people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no census for "white" in the Russian Federation. If you click the attached link (provided you know Russian) you'll see that. That infrormation is misleading. 113,545,521 whites? Where did these figures come from? Out of thin air? Please edit.
Yours, Russian wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslan saidgaliev ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I accede to Ruslan saidgaliev's note. Form used in the 2010 census does not provide information on race, it asks a person on 'national origin' which is relevant to ancestry, affiliation, cultural heritage but does not necessarily indicates a person's race. A person may consider her/himself a Russian (Tatar, Bashkir, etc.) but she/he may belong to White or Asian race or be of mixed origin.
If we take a concept of 'race' as a social construct then concept 'national origin' as it is used in Russia still does not correspond to race as it is impossible to clearly define which 'nationality' corresponds to which 'race'. Are Tatars who mostly live in Europe belong to Asian or to White race? What about Mordvins? Chuvash? Russians?
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible how a number of 113,545,521 was calculated: which race is deemed White and which is not?
I propose to exclude link to http://www.perepis-2010.ru/results_of_the_census/result-december-2011.ppt from the table on Regions with significant populations and either to delete Russia from that table or to replace it with link which clearly indicates numver of white people in Russia. 91.212.179.8 ( talk) 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Since images at this article have been a source of contention, I'm stopping by to alert editors to this matter; see WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I don't care if the images remain; I'm only giving you all a heads up. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The conclusion from the discussions was that ascribing racial categories based on appearance of people in images was considered original research. I'm not sure how much I agree with that conclusion, but it is certainly sometimes true. Persian, Egyptian, Turkish, Lebanese, Mexican, and Armenian people often consider themselves White but I doubt many Westerners would categorize them as such. The images reflect individual and cultural understandings of racial boundaries and do not necessarily reflect the identity or self-categorization of the people in the images. Unlike with people, animals don't have self-identifications. But there are also national and international bodies that set (arbitrary) standards for what qualifies an animal as a particular breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 00:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Drawing from the
White Latin American page make a page only for the Spanish-speaking countries in America.
Derekitou
Talk 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Accept that you add to the white population of Hispanic Americans countries together, since there are none hispanic american informative and interesting it is to represent the entity invicible Hispanoamerica , thanks!!-- Derekitou ( talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This is in the lede: "The "most white" people in Europe are the Finns, who have nothing to with colonization and the slave trade to do." Irrespective of this claim, the grammar hurts my brain. Please someone with appropriate powers change it to "The "most white" people in Europe are the Finns, who have had nothing to do with colonization or the slave trade." or similar, or teach me proper English. The article is locked, sans explanation, otherwise I would do it myself. 50.242.94.205 ( talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow what a mess of a page lacking definitions, and poorly sourced. There is no mention of the Christian religion being associated with the "white" skin colour. I would suggest adding pictures of the following historically significant people that belong to the white skin colour people group- Scientists- Isaac Newton, Gailileo, Kepler, Thomas Edison, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Writers- Shakespeare is already there but also needed- Milton, Dante, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Emily Dickens, the list would be long but stop there. Musicians- Mozart, Beethoven. Artists - Michelangelo, Da Vinci. These people are considered geniuses, they were white skin colour, which I am assuming that is the definition of "white" is because it is not possible to get a proper definition from this page, and they should be mentioned. And to clarify what white means exactly- what do the editors of this page consider Scarlett Johansen because she has very white skin, very blonde hair, and very blue eyes however she is Jewish, not Christian faith? So is she still "white" or is white a un spoken synonym for Christian? JohnathanSilverstein ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not all white people live in Europe and the map shows simply Ethnic Europeans. Shouldn't the map show white people (who come from Europe, North Africa, and the MIddle East.) or move the "European" map to an article about europeans? The current map misleads over where people live and who is white. The article mentions that white people are from Europe, North Africa, and the MIddle East but the map fails to reflect that. I think a change is in order to better the cohesiveness of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffmaster1000 ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What's up with that? The Jews article mentions in the lead, "Despite their small percentage of the world's population, Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields, including philosophy, ethics, literature, business, fine arts and architecture, religion, music, theatre and cinema, medicine, as well as science and technology, both historically and in modern times." The same could be said about whites, especially considering that Jews are often considered white. St. claires fire ( talk) 20:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There seems to be a bit of confusion in the "Regions With Significant Populations" section. I propose it be changed to 'Countries & Regions with significant populations.' to accommodate both classifiers.
Additionally it says "The following countries" but lists Hispanic America, which is a region not a country. This could cause some confusion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.cultura.gob.pe/concursobpi/sites/default/.../concursobpi.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/Ethnic%20Group%20-%20Full%20Detail_QS201NI.XLS{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I certainly think this would be relevant. Loonball5 ( talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of White people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "one.cu":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention of their Neanderthal gene would be useful to the general reader. 2.27.120.93 ( talk) 09:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
From the main wiki page ( /info/en/?search=European_Costa_Ricans) it states that Costa ricans are according to DNA studies, around 67%[4] of the population have some level of European ancestry.
However this wiki page says: "2009, Costa Rica had an estimated population of 4,509,290. White people (includes mestizo) make up 94%". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevePeroMortal ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Researcher123456 ( talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
According to a 2014 research published in the journal Genetics and Molecular Biology, European ancestry predominates in 69% of Nicaraguans, followed by African ancestry in 20%, and lastly Native American ancestry in 11%, making Nicaragua the country with the highest proportion of European ancestry in Central America. [1]
References
I made this page considerably more sophisticated. For example, the page previously implied-with no sources--that all Europeans, since the 17th century, have believed that all of Europe was one race. To dispel this nonsense, which no one of any learning could countenance, I added the historical fact that National Socialist Germany and fascist Italy regarded slavs as racially inferior. (The German plan to subjugate, exterminate, or deport slavs-- General Plan Ost--was rooted in racism.) I provided good sources for these claims, which within living memory resulted in the invasion of two countries and millions of deaths.
And I also removed the completely spurious claim that North Africans of non-sub-Saharan African descent regard themselves as white. (There is prejudice against sub-Saharan people in these countries, but the majority does not 'identify as white,' nor would they be considered white in Western countries.) Edaham deleted my hard work with no explanation given. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First of, sorry for the lack of hotlinks and possible mistakes. I'm new to to this part of Wikipedia. In the section "18th century beginnings", "Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, his descriptions of these groups included cultural patterns and derogatory stereotypes.[38]" The source, however, does not use the last two words, instead stating "Although Linnaeus intended an objective classification, he used both biological and cultural data in his subdivision descriptions." The wiki article on "Scientific Racism" does not use the wording of "derogatory stereotypes" in its section about Carl Linnaeus, instead referring to quite a few sources giving a wider picture of how to view Linnaeus work in this field. It should be obvious to any reader that a 18th century biologist has view on other ethnic groups that differs wildly from really any modern person, but to provide such an angled wording seems to me unwise, especially considering the significance of Linnaeus' work in general. Linnaeus' classification of races does not appear to even imply any sort of hierarchy and the various cultural patterns included within the classifications are, as far as I can tell, possibly eurocentric and do not deserve to be referred to as "derogatory stereotypes". I suggest someone provide a credible citation for the wording or change it to something more in line with the present citation. Ofodrums ( talk) 01:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The 1735 classification of Carl Linnaeus, inventor of zoological taxonomy, divided the human species Homo sapiens into continental varieties of europaeus, asiaticus, americanus, and afer, each associated with a different humour: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively.[50][51] Homo sapiens europaeus was described as active, acute, and adventurous, whereas Homo sapiens afer was said to be crafty, lazy, and careless.[52]I don't have access to all of those sources to confirm this, but trying to fit humans into the four humours is certainly derogatory stereotyping. A reliable source cites Stephen Jay Gould as saying that these categories were as much about cartography as biology, and extends that to to say that "the Linnaean categories are also hierarchical and essentialist, even if not overtly ranked". This supports the idea that these categories where derogatory stereotyping, but not the exact wording. I don't see this as a major problem, since we are expected to use our own phrasing, anyway, to avoid plagiarism. Can you suggest a change which conveys the substance of these sources? Do you have additional sources to propose that support an alternative view?
The majority of people from Central Asia are white. the pamiris for example ( /info/en/?search=Pamiris#/media/File:Tajik_Pamiri_children.jpg) sculptures with white for skin found in Uzbekistan. ( /info/en/?search=Uzbeks#/media/File:Kaunakes_Bactria_Louvre_AO31917.jpg). Several other examples as well.-- 2601:3C5:8200:B79:7CC6:EF05:9A7F:FCB2 ( talk) 02:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&oldid=810660352 (850,000,000 + 11.5% of the total world population
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=White_people&oldid=810527676#Census_and_social_definitions_in_different_regions (480,000,000 + 6.5% of the total world population
You think Zimbabwe looks like a white country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreKarlsson ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Colored is a French term found in their territories such as the American South meaning mixed black-white. It by no means is "non-white", and it shows as much because no other ethnic group is called colored. Putting for that colored means non-white, is a racist propaganda put forth racist groups. Take for instance white and black are both all the colors combined, so that either represents all colors. If you can put forth that white-is no other color, then so can it be for black. So then you can call people of color non-black. When the think tank put forth the term colored to be used to define non-white people, it was a ploy at a racial separation of all other ethnic groups from white people in a us-vs-you tactic. This tactic to use color to mean non-white people is very recent and very racist. Return colored to being mixed white/black on this page, and remove the "non-white" part because it is completely false. If the part "colored or non-white" is not suppose to mean that colored is the same as non-white, then I retract my statement. It reads like it was saying colored and non-white are the same terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.29.26 ( talk) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
White people has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the citation needed tags. The citation needed tags make the article look ugly and messy. Do something about the dead links and messy references too. This article for White people needs a clean up. Make the article look perfect. 217.146.2.27 ( talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
All racist scientists have always used the term "white" as a synonym for Caucasoid, from the creator of the definition by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach[ [2]] to the present day (between those who understand race and the history of racism), so why did removed white Muslims from the Mediterranean? Like North Africans, Levantines, Iranians etc.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral place, it's not because you hate them that they stop being part of your race.
/info/en/?search=Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach#Beliefs_on_races . https://census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
Also, remember that they belongs to the Mediterranean race, so if they are not "White", then you should also remove Iberians, Italians, Greeks etc because they are all Mediterranid. Exactly like the [ [3]] of the 19th and 20th century did.
/info/en/?search=Mediterranean_race . /info/en/?search=Madison_Grant#Nordic_theory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorb2 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is regarding this edit
@ NightShadow23: Carleton S. Coon's position is not representative of modern science, and using scientific racism from the 1930s in a modern context is inappropriate. If your contention is that not all white people are from Europe, you will need a much better way to present it than this chart, which is only of encyclopedic use as a historical relic. At no point should this article advance pseudoscience or obsolete science as factual. If you want to discuss the geography of the Caucasian race, please discuss this using reliable modern sources. Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The very concept of "European peoples" is contested.". Using the chart here conflates European with white. That's a relatively common as a starting point for defining whiteness, but I don't think that's good enough. Jumping from "European ancestry" to "white" is supporting the misconception that white has a common definition. The reality is that it has many definitions depending on region, history, convention, and prejudice. The article explains this, but the chart is not entirely clear. At a minimum, moving it from the lede seems like a good idea. Grayfell ( talk) 02:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionaries: "The term white has been used to refer to the skin colour of Europeans or people of European extraction since the early 17th century. Unlike other labels for skin colour such as red or yellow, white has not been generally used in a derogatory way. In modern contexts there is a growing tendency to prefer to use terms which relate to geographical origin rather than skin colour: hence the current preference in the US for African American rather than black and European rather than white".
"In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific (see Mongoloid), the term Caucasian has acquired a more restricted meaning. It is now used, especially in the US, as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin’, as in the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties".
I think the problem is solved. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) ( talk) 06:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at the edit history on the page. The map appears to be contested. I'm confused, tbh, because the map seems to suggest white people are Europeans. But that's not correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The author wrote in the description: "This is NOT a map of the White race, just an "European ancestry" map. Thats the reason North African, Middle Eastern and Indo-Iranian peoples majority territories are not shaded. Anyway, some countries don't specify the origin of "White people" in their censuses so I'm taking "Caucasian" and "White" self identified people in censuses mostly in countries in the Americas as having "European ancestry", so Lebanese ancestry people in Colombia or Morocco ancestry people in the USA are counted as "European ancestry" peoples in this map because of lack of data. Despite of that, numbers and percentages wouldn't be so different considering those details and I encourage everyone who is reading this to do the math and realize these facts.". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) ( talk) 08:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not think this is addressed in the map's presentation here in this specific article. The caption only says Distribution of European ancestry in the world
. That's not explaining very much, is it? The chart has multiple related problems that I can see: It implies that white people are of European ancestry, which isn't going to work. In doing this it treats Europe as a discrete entity, which is messy, to say the least. It also combines data compiled using different definitions and goals into a single statistic. This is reasonable for some purposes, but is it reasonable here? None of these are simple issues, and they would need so much qualification that I'm not sure that it's worth it. What does the
boundary between Asia and Europe have to do with 'white people'? Does this belong in the lede? This isn't personal. This is an impressive bit of chartsmithing, but that doesn't make it appropriate for the lede of this article.
Grayfell (
talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Except form the UK (which is often consider to be outside Europe) there is no section about white European people. Someone Not Awful ( talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedia editors. There is at least one missing word in a sentence of the Mexico section:
Europeans began arriving in Mexico with the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, with the descendants of the conquistadors, along with new arrivals from Spain formed an elite but never a majority of the population. CryMeAnOcean ( talk) 05:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "Australia ( white Australian)" should be removed from the lead as Australians no longer, in general, describe themselves as "white" and so fit in more with what is described in the lead as "the rest of Europe". Note also that the link above is a redirect to European Australians. User:HiLo48 was correct and gave a good reason. -- Bduke (Discussion) 03:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hilo48, please see the final section of the Talk page, before Edit Warring further, and explain how the case of Australia is any different from the other countries listed in the third paragraph of the lede. Your comments here about the Australian census are not relevant to that issue. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)