This is an archive of past discussions about White people. 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.
But it refers only to this time. If you take "white" as European, as the author of those comments probably did, you may want to think in the situation 1000 years ago, when Europe was noting but a barbaric peripheric area with probably the economic weight of, who knows!, 2-5% of the global economy?
Well let's be honest here. Fuck the political correctness for a second. White countries are by far the richest, strongest, most modern, and, as for other countries, with fucked up economies, people starving and living in mud huts riddled with AIDS, I think it's a very fair statement. And I don't think that's a racist comment, either. Also, if we are not the most superior race, how come just about every other race is coming over to our countries and abandoning their own? Maybe superior would be a little un-politically correct for you leftists out there. How about, "dominant"?86.139.53.5011:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now but not in the past: think in the year 800 or whatever. Also, what about Japan, Korea and the increasing power of China? And don't tell me they are whites. There's nothing clearly "superior" or "dominant" about white people. Look at Argentina or Uruguay, look at Russia or Albania! They are quite poor countries - now, of course, yesterday or tomorrow it may be different. What about the famines of Ireland in 19th century? Just try to look at peoples in their historical context: what now is the most advanced civilization was just a bunch of barbarians living in huts 1,000 years ago.
I'd gladly discuss the why of misery in Africa and elsewhere but it would take too long and goes beyond the scope of this article. But just think in how the rather stable and affluent African states of the past (Ghana, Nubia, Songhai, Kongo, Monomotapa, Zendj...) were destroyed by whites (Europeans and Arabs) who just wanted gold and slaves from that land. --Sugaar15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
White people in the Americas and Oceania
"Since the era of European expansion, and especially since the 19th century, most Europeans have come to see most other Europeans as White. Hence, one could say that the indigenous habitat of White people is Europe. Nowadays, countries with a majority of ethnic Europeans, whites — or apparently unmixed — include all the nations of Europe, as well as some of the countries colonized by them through the 15th century to 19th century, such as the United States, Canada, the Russian Far East, Siberia, Australia, New Zealand and as for Latin America, the only two countries whose population is composed by an undisputed majority of European descendants are Argentina and Uruguay."
I changed the specification "— or apparently unmixed —" to include all the countries of white majority outside Europe, not only Argentina or Uruguay. There were some indigenous population in all these coutnries before the European arrival not only in these two countries. In fact there were way more natives in US, and many white AMericans have some native blood, the same happen in Canda, and of course in Australia and New Zeland with the maories, some whites have very few maori blood, and the same happen in Uruguay some people could hape some distant native relative, but it also very rare. So I don't know why the specification was only for two countries.
??
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
But the black people page has no issues of neutrality?
Why should there be? Maybe there are in fact, no issues of neutrality on that page? Or maybe because you think that black people have to have everything and more than white people?86.139.53.5011:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Mulattos
i know some mulatto who are whiter than some white folks.
mulatto are half white so they white as they are black to.
Just what the hell are you trying to say? Mullatos are black/white.. DUH!? Thats what the word means... Idiot.
Discussion
I have archived the previous discussion (playfully entitled 'Archive 4'). Discussion may now be resumed. Keep it clean and have fun, folks! :D User:Smith Jones00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]
Sources
This article should not be about what is whiteness. It should be about providing good sources to answer that question as well as what subheadings are appropriate.71.74.209.8202:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes (the Indian case is complex, but well) and that's precisely what white comes to mean. Aren't Jews or Iranians "white"? They are clearly, either genetically, anthropometrically and at first look.
Anyhow the proper term is Caucasoid, Caucasian can refer to the peoples of the Caucasus only.
There's too much reliance on the pseudo-racialist terminology of the US state census, what is not what common international speak actually understands. Let's be cosmopolitan and not provincials, ok? After all English is the international language of these times. --Sugaar10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
i honestly dont get why an encyclopedia calls white people "caucasian". if you're from the caucasus, its true. but, im willing to bet, the vast majority of whtie people are indeed NOT caucasian. Cannibalicious!17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Turks are white, of course!
I am adding this part because it has been archived and I think the debate is interesting:
Turks are white, of course.
I am reading this discussion about Turks.
1. Turks are white. In Europe, no one considers them as non-white. The problem is that we have here an ignorant American with extremenly stupid ideas.
2. People have been using here genetics to say who is white or not. Well here you have this Cavalli-Sforza map. According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view.
3. It is interesting, how acoording to his famous map, some Europeans, of whom there is no discussion here, fall outside the range that is considered European from a genetic point of view, like Finns and many Swedes and Norwegians.
Note how important areas of the Middle East also fall within the European genetic boundaries, colored in green.
And anyone who uses those white supremacist sources to argue who is white or not should be ban from here and I urge administrators to do so.
We are speaking about an anthropological issue, therefore only traditional anthropology or new genetic anthropology should be used if this article is to be taken seriously.
There's debate about who's considered "White". To use pseudo-scientifical and arbitrary grouping to define who is White is ridiculous. You don't cite any sources that claim Turks are White, so it remains a matter of opinion.
)--Ryodox 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC
The anonymous IP User argues that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white when they do not. The anonymous IP User's argument that anthropology only means traditional anthropology or genetics fails to include linguistic and cultural anthropology. Even if we constrict "anthropology" to the two fields anonymous IP User feels like acknowledging, we have disagreement which does not argue for anonymous IP User's point. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has been noted for using a priori defined races, then grouping them genetically. Even though it is true that some populations are more genetically related than others, his races are nothing but his POV. Traditionally, many anthropologists have defined race differently. These two fields only illustrate that opinions on race vary, but do not prove that the Turks are White.--Dark Tichondrias 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Dark T, don't just make vague comments that I'm ignoring cultural anthropology, let's start bringing some intellectual content to the subject (god knows its past time to do that). Just how much have you studied the work of Cavalli-Sforza?
You see, I actually studied Anthropology for four years at the University of Kentucky (and my focus among the four subdivisions was cultural anthropology - which makes your claim that I'm ignoring it curious) and have taken graduate level courses in the anthropology of race and medical anthropology. I'm eager to have someone with which to debate actual intellectual content on this subject. Maybe you are that person? If so, stop holding back. It will be good for the article, too, as actual intellectual content will require sources instead of unsupported claims as has been the overwhelming majority of what has appeared here in the talk page to date.71.74.209.82 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We have been talking about who is white an who is not when we should be talking about what is verifiable and not - what sources can we point to to say what 'white' is. By that requirement, we need to be focused on sources as judged by Wikipedia standards and what they have to say about 'whiteness'. "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view." I think you need to read the article you pointed to, not just look at the pretty pictures.71.74.209.82 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Rather than refute my assertion that genetics has nothing to do with the definition of white people, User:71.74.209.82 pulls a red herring about the amount of anthropology classes they have taken. Are you willing to tackle my assertion that genetics has nothing to do with who is white or sidestep the issue only to return to the Cavalli-Sforza map of genetics? Yes, I admit the Turks are genetically closely related to other Europeans, but your quoted statement that "they also are European, from a genetic point of view" confuses the cause. They are not European because they are closely genetically related. They are either European or non-European and they may also be closely genetically related.--Dark Tichondrias20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I didnt say that genetics did have anything to do with the definition of white people. I dont believe it does. So what am I suppossed to refute? I didnt say that Turks are European from a genetic point of view, Will you be done making up straw men anytime soon?71.74.209.8220:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
For User:71.74.209.82 to deny their argument was that genetics determines who is white is absurd. They have spent a paragraph above and a paragraph in the archive stating the objectivity of human genetics and stating the genetic relationship between Turks and other Europeans. Since they are unable to defend my claim that genetics does not determine who is white, they claim they never made such an argument.--Dark Tichondrias20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
What have you been reading? I did not say that genetics determines who is white. Again, will you be finished posting straw men anytime soon? If you feel that I have, in fact, stated that genetics determines who is white, please quote and reference where I said that.71.74.209.8220:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a quote User:71.74.209.82 added in her/his last post, "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view." After reading this post by User:71.74.209.82, I interpreted this user to be arguing that genetics determines who is European. I feel this is a fair interpretation of the statement originally posted by User:71.74.209.82 and not an intentional straw man argument on my part.--Dark Tichondrias03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Enough of personal opinons: Self research and just opinions are against Wiki rules.
1. If anyone has a reputable and verifiable source that Turks are not white bring it foward (I doubt very much you will find one).
2. Genetically speaking they fall withing the boundaries of the European genetic diversity range.
3. Genetically speaking other peoples, like Finns, peoples from the Baltic and many Scandinavians could be considered non-white, but, of course, Scandinavians are white, because whites are not restricted to Europeans, genetically speaking.
4. Anyway, it is interesting to see how peoples that have been traditionally seen as very pure whites, due to their very pale skins, like Scandinavians and peoples from the Baltic republics, are not only the least European, but also the least Caucasian, genetically speaking, and this is a fact that can be seen both in the Cavalli-Sforza map above and in the Macdonalds Hapmap:
My friend, the funny thing is that the only one who is providing reputable and verifiable sources here it is me. For the rest I only see opinions. Pinball.
Well, maybe you need to go back to elementary school. If you can read a map and if you can interpret a pie, to say that there are no sources is surrealistic. We need to be more serious here. Pinball.
If you actually read his work instead of contenting yourself with looking at the pretty pictures, you would know that a great deal of his book discusses race as a flawed concept. If race is a flawed concept then race-based categories such as Caucasion are as well.71.74.209.8217:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I agree with you 100% on that, if you share Cavalli´s view. In fact genetic research is a blow in the face to traditional racial theories, but if people here are bent on discussing who is white or not on a racial and genetic basis (I think the term white is just a social and a racist concept in itself), then let us use the scientific data available and let us stop using unverifiable and unreputable opinions. Pinball.
The users who are bent on discussing genetic connections between Europeans and Middle Easterners are trying to increase the scope of white people to a larger extent than the common definition. The common defintion in the United States is that European descendents are Whites. The US Census Bureau is the only defintion which provides a more expansive defintion. A number of users in the archive discussion have been pushing genetics to expand white people, but those who argued against them have considered genetics of low relevance or irrelavant. For the users who have pushed that genetics determines who is white, User:Pinball's genetic data has a supportive audience. For the other arguers who have not equated White people with genetics, the data is once again of low relevance or irrelevant.--Dark Tichondrias20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The "common definition" by whom? Neo-racist US state census office?
Sorry "white" is a common term of English language and English is an international language that goes well beyond the borders of US administration. In Europe, for instance, there's no doubt that West Asians are white, as they are clearly Caucasoid (genetically, anthropometrically and at first sight). There may be some doubts on some South Asians or North Africans, who have a more complex background but most people would consider them "white" anyhow (and that's also in great agreement with anthropometry and genetics). --Sugaar10:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying. So, where are your sources for saying that Turks -are- of the 'white' race (you did, after all, frame 'whiteness' in terms of genetics) given that the source you claimed goes to great lengths discussing how the white race doesn't exist?71.74.209.8218:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to ask you the same question: Tell me of a single, reputable source that says that Turks are not white.
And if you claim that Turks are not white and cannot present a source to support it, then tell me please what race Turks are.
Somehow, for some reason, your teachers way back in junior high failed to teach you something pretty important. It is up to the person who makes a positive assertion to prove their point. As you havent proven or even sourced it, theres no need to provide counter evidence.
However, as race doesnt exist genetically (as per the AAA) and is socially constructed (again as per the AAA), whether or not Turks are white depends on who you ask and in which context they exist.71.74.209.8220:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is just plain stupid; most Turks do not have white skin.
They do.
When I was to Turkey on vacation some years ago, at first I was easily spottable as turist because of my pale skin. After a month of sun bathes I passed as Turk easily, as long as I would not speak.
Any one with eyes can account for that simple fact. And most Europeans do not consider Turks, European.
That's only due to cultural reasons. But Europeans are not the only whites, that's clear, and Greek and Turks are extremely close genetically (Turks used to be Greeks or Hellenized not so long ago). --Sugaar10:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this site is full of people who make just cheap contributions. If you want a source, you have the Cavalli´s map. If you want another source, you have the U.S. Census. Still I am waiting for you to tell me one source that says that Turks are not white, and still I insist that you tell me what race Turks are supposed to be. If you say that race does not exist, then no one is white, but if we want to speak about white people, then we must classify people in races, or are Turks of no race?.
Then I have to respond to the other stupid comment, however boring I find to go down to this intellectual level.
1. If you say that Turks have no white skin, it is because you have no idea about Turks.
2. Still, some people with the palest of skins, like many Scandinavians, Baltic peoples and Eastern Europeans, are less white, less European and less Caucasian than most other Europeans and Turks, genetically speaking. In other words, if you are very pale, are blond or ashen blond, and especially if on top of that you have slight Asian-like features in your eyes (quite common among many Northern and Eastearn Europeans)and your ancestors come from Northern or Eastern Europe, chances are that you are less European, less white, even less Caucasian than you may think you are. Pinball is my signature from now on.
As has already been pointed out, read Cavalli-Sforza. Don't just point at the pretty pictures. He makes it clear that race is a bogus concept. As for the US Census, I see no problem at all in describing the US Census and how it defines "whiteness" in the article (making it clear that that definition comes from the US Census and that it is one of many possible definitions for 'whiteness'). That, however, is already in the article.Psychohistorian11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. Census considers Turks, Caucasian. This does not mean the same as white. Nor does it mean European which is basically the same as white.
And I really do doubt that most Turks consider them self white or European, and even if they do consider themselves white it would matter little as others will have to consider them white.
We do. Worry not. Ask anyone in Europe about the whiteness of Turks or Arabs, most will have no doubt. And many will laugh at such petty racialist questions.
I am not really trying to hurt your feelings or anything, but why are you trying to force forward the image that Turks are white, when they are not? There are many Turks living in Europe so it’s not really that hard to look out the window and identify one.
Are you sure. I know of many Spaniards that have been mistaken by Turks/Kurds in Germany, even blond ones. You are confusing "Nordic" and "white". If you mean Nordic, spell it correctly. --Sugaar10:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't unarchive the discussion. Some browsers can't read the content if it gets too long. Further, regular archives promote structured discussions. Without them, the talk page will become hopelessly chaotic.
By the way, this is 71.74.209.82. This is my new user account.Psychohistorian22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, again, no source whatsoever that says that Turks are not white, and then, no user here has been able to tell me what race Turks are supposed to be. And the US Census refers to them as white!. Read it well.
I say it very clearly: they are white. If someone here says otherwise:
1. Produce a serious anthropological source that says otherwise.
2. Please, say in what race you classify Turks.
Pinball.
"Produce a serious anthropological source that says otherwise." That was done already - the AAA's statement on race.
And I have no problem at all with the article stating what the US Census classifies as 'white' as long as it isn't claimed to be the definitive source on this issue.Psychohistorian15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Then your position is very simple. White people do not exist. OK then, we have the following:
1. White people do not exist.
2. White people exist. Then Turks are white. Pinball.
The discussion has come full circle. So now Whites are again anthropological? Only a week ago, it was Whites don't exist and it's a social construct. We are all descended from the same amoeba, but today we celebrate our diversity. If we're all the same, why do we celebrate diversity? So what does "White" mean in 2006? in the English speaking world? on the English version of Wikipedia? White means commonly people of European-descent. This is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue. It is not commonly accepted that Turks, mestizos, North Africans, Arabs, South Asians, etc are White. To say so, there is rule WP:RS, and we have none except the U.S. Census defintion, and the article alreay covers that anomaly. PS This guy didn't think Turks were White!! Vlad III the Impaler and neither did this person Sultan.
Please sign and date your talk page comments according to the instrucitons at the top of the page. Please indent responses rather than using lines. -Will Beback22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Don't know where you got that from. Nobody that I've ever talked to about this never concidered turks as white. Thats just a load of crap, and yes I'm european. German.
2. And what is it based on? Ive never seen that map before in my life, never heard anything about it and it seems to be pretty out-dated.
3. Actually I belive that map refers to the sami peoples of swe/fin/nor. Further that maps seems to document indo-european races, not what is white and not white. If swe/fin/nor ain't whites then I don't know what is. I've been to both Turkey and all the nordic countries and trust me if you want white go to fennoscandia.
4. Still theres no explanation for this map. It seems to document indo-europeans but I'm not sure. Even if it did it would be inaccurate. The map is colored blue all the way from northern scandinavia to Thailand. Same race? I seriously doubt it. Further australia should be colored green, the naitives there are a minority.
That map is obsolete (1992). In 1996 (Genes, languages and peoples), Cavalli-Sforza published a genetic tree that I hand copied it and have stored in ImageShack [1]. The tags are in Spanish but it's easy to identify them, as most ethnic terms are quite international anyhow.
In it you can easily see how Europeans and Western Asians are extremely close genetically, next are North African Berbers, then Sardinians, then Indians (northern and southern equally) and then Lapps, that are quite separate (either because long separation or "Mongoloid" admixture). --Sugaar10:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
And last but not least I think the term white is alot about public oppinion, thats why it has changed from time to time. Nowdays nobody would concider germans a different race from "whites" but a few hundered years back they did.
Back to the public oppinion part, all the people ive talked to about this concidered people with roots from any european nation as white. The "border" would be russia(white russians), Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece(greek part of Cyprus). Anything south or east(north when it comes to Cyprus) from there I don't concider as white.
Will you read what I said please? I said I AM EUROPEAN. What the US or any other government thinks or says matters not. It's all about public opinion, and accoring to public opinion youre not white.--DerMeister21:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone unarchive the discussion? The discussion is long, but some of this stuff is being covered again, when it has already been discussed. Archiving is sometimes used by people who want to hide things. In this article's case (locked) the whole discussion needs to be open and clear, so people can read where we've been and what's been discussed.
I see we have another, "turks are white" poster similar to the previous "Mexicans are White types", and then when told/proven they are not, they retort, well "nobody is White then....ah I know! It's a social construct!!". It's totally hypocrtical, as the below illogic points out. It's hilarious:
3. "OK, b-b-but then no White people exist, it's just a social construct!! We're all the same."
4 But we must "Celebrate our Divesity", including that of European-descended people, aka White people.
Any questions?
If people are all the same (which we are not), then why do we "Celebrate Our Diversity"? White people exist and the term in 2006 means "people descended from indigenous Europeans" (see the example from Encarta in archived Discussion). Please do not say next "there are no indigenous Europeans", they exist too, as do Amerindians.
If no White people exist, then why is the "White race" always singled out as having committed crimes towards the amerindians or responsible for colonialism, or routinely criticized for discrimination of Turks in Europe? Stop the hypocrisy please. Turks, Mexicans/mestizos, North Africans, Arabs, and South Asians are not commonly considered White and no sources have been provided. Caucasian doesn't equal White either, that's an outdated concept that's been covered in Talk that's unfortunately been archived. Thanks.
There are too many anti-White people that want to confuse a simple issue because of either their POV or blatant hatred and bigotry against Whites.
--
We need some serious structure to this talk page.
The following is my attempt to do so. It is not meant to be "debate space" but a description of the debate. Im asking that, if you feel I have not described the debate correctly, to make corrections to my description, but to not engage in actual debate in the description. Okay?
Now, here goes..
Whiteness either exists or it doesnt, of course the answer to this question may depend on how one defines "whiteness". One can define it genetically, socio-culturally, using both of those, or using neither. "Anthropological" descriptions mean a combination of genetics and socio-culturally. To build this article, we need sources for definitions of whiteness, not claims to what those definitions are. There have been four such sources offered; the US Census (whose definition seems not to be in debate), the work of Cavalli-Sforza (which is in debate, one side is using the picture in the Cavalli-Sforza article, the other side is using the actual writings of Cavalli-Sforza), and the AAAs statement on race.
In response to User:Psychohistorian, the word "anthropological" does not have to mean both genetics and socio-cultural. Anthropology encompasses physical, linguistic, socio-cultural, genetic etc. The use of the word "anthropological" is vague without the specific field of anthropology describing it as an adverb.--Dark Tichondrias08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the lesson, but as I explained otherwhere, I have a four year education in Anthropology already including several graduate level courses. I do know what "anthropological" means. I was addressing Sultan's comment, "So now Whites are again anthropological? Only a week ago, it was Whites don't exist and it's a social construct" which, to my reading, suggests that he is not aware of that. I was attempting to explain the four divisions of Anthro (actually, "applied" is sometimes considered a fifth and "computational" is working towards becoming a sixth - the four divisions are a bit old school Anthro 101 kind of stuff and there's also a question of what extent they are even legitimate in that regard when looked at as a matter of praxis - look at, for example, ethnobotany for a good example of how those branches aren't so distinct in praxis, but, to my knowledge, those four are still the only official branches).Psychohistorian11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "White" exists, we all know it. The sky is also blue. The term "White" is used hundreds of million of times, and has been used probably billions of times, and henceforth will be used billions of times. The goal here is how to write an article in the 2006 Wikipedia, English version, for the English-speaking world. Today, in the English-speaking world, the term means commonly: "people of European descent". Why is this so difficult? It's tiresome that this is controversial. Nobody has a problem with the article amerindians or says that they don't actually exist, they're only a "social construct". How can anyone not define them similarly via genetics, anthropology, or socio-culture? Why are only Whites controversial? Answer: because there are people that hate Whites, but don't also choose to pursue hatreds at Amerindians similarly. Does anyone need a source for the article Amerindians or the "sky is blue"? Geez. What we must do is defend against POV pushers that want to say the sky is "sometimes red, orange and yellow", etc. and make that the central subject. Yes, but let's focus on the the article's main point and be honest. Come on, be honest and fair to Whites. We must focus on the basics, not the exceptions. This an encyclopedia, not a soap-box or a blog, or a place for bigotry like whiteness studies or race traitor. They have their own articles. Celebrate diversity, and that includes White people. Thanks. PS I have asked before: "what would someone call a person (of which there are hundreds of millions) who is of mixed European descent, say 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Polish, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 German?? This represents the "vast majority" of White people in the world, especially those from the USA, Canada and Australia. There are hundreds of millions of White people that cannot be called anything else but. A European-descended person its White, a Turk is a Turk, an Arab an Arab, a Mexican/mestizo a mestizo. However what we have here, is so many that have their own personal POV issues to deal with, that they impede the progress of the article about the basic uncontroversial people it represents. Kindly reread the last archive discussion. Yukirat06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Indian, Black, Asian and Hispanic identities are also individual and social constructs that have changed significantly over time, including recent history. To take one of the most recent examples, the number of Americans reporting Native American race has expanded greatly in recent censuses, much more than birthrate can account for. Acknowledging the evolution of racial identities is not hatred of any of these groups, it's just history.
Cavalli-Sforza's book does not use the term White to identify populations.
I don't know of any criticism of "Whites" for discriminating against Turks in Europe. Nationalities like Germans have been criticized. Turkey, just like the Southern European countries, has people of physical appearance ranging from Mediterranean to Central European. The Ottoman Empire was a primarily European state centered in the Balkans for much of its history, before later conquering most of the Middle East. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Turkey received large numbers of Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Russia, who were of European appearance. Europeans acknowledge Turkey to be at least partly European. --JWB13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am the Fool Who Archived This Discussion
I am the one who archived this discussion, on the suggestion of another Wikipedian. I would love to un-archive it for you but I don't know how. Either you do it or you give me a link to a page that shows me how to do it. Four tildes == Smith Jones18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Southern Italian/Sicilian "whiteness"
In the article it mentions that Northern Italians did not think southern Italains were white. As a southern Italian my skin is a light brown color. I also knw of someGreek-Americans with a similar skin shade. I know of an ethnic arab (fro the UAE) who has lighter skin and he event ans to a lighter color then my skin. The term "white" is obviusly inacurate to describe all Europians.
Have you really ever seen someone that is reaaly white? I mean, white is the colour of a sheet of paper.
It doesn't matter really, you skin tone, your genetic is caucasian/europid. You have white traits too, no black, native american, or asiatic. That's because each of these groups have common genetic. And a common culture. Ypu have white genetics and your ancestors lived in Europe for thousands of years, and had an European culture. Of course there are sub-groups in all races but in a broad sense you're white.
It is a bit misleading to say that all Europeans are white. As a Southern Italian, I also have light brown skin and have been called non-white on numerous occasions. Maybe as far as "anthropology" goes the first poster and I are possibly "caucasoid," but we are not really "white," and skin color and facial features are really what matters in most societies. And there is no way to prove that Southern Italians have no African or Arabic ancestry (although according to anthropology, Arabs are "white" as well.) I am Southern Italian, and I feel it may be very possible I have some distant non-white ancestry, as does it seem with many other Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners. Do not be offended. I may be completely wrong. I am not one of those close-minded believers in outdated racial theories. However, many dark Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners are not "white," regardless of anthropology. But, hey, a person who is white to you is non-white to some one else. Race can be an ambiguous thing. I'm not trying to start an argument here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callmarcus (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 19:27, 19:32, 19:35 and 2006-08-21 01:41.
The reason for the dark skinned greeks and southern italians is that they are of mixed genetics. In southern Greece north African and Turkish genes are common, in Italy north African genes are also common (same goes for all south European nations).
There are also very light skinned greeks and Italians and belive it or not in the northern parts of both the nations blue eyes and blonde hair isn't too uncommon.--DerMeister16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This place is full of White Nationalists
No hope for the article to be written seriously. Full or even hijacked by Nazi-like tendencies and ignorance. It should be scrapped all together. HCC
And I'm sure that the "pc-police" constantly slandering this article are doing the right thing? This article has been leaning to the left. Wikipedia should be non-partisen. --68.192.188.14220:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's funny how "left-leaning" wikipedians seem to think that they are better then everyone else and that they should comprmise Wikipedia's non-partisenship.
White Nationalists? What's wrong with that eh? am i supposed to be shamed of being white? Am i supposed to be a hippy?
Indeed, racism is all around the article, only some white-supermen don't want to see it. Sad article, nasty propaganda for the wikipedia. Uniemelk16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Racism? What racism is here?? NAME IT
Please help fix a link
Hello. I am helping with the fixing of links to disambiguation pages. I am working on pages which point to the term "Celtic." When this page is finally editable again, would somebody be so kind as to fix the link in the section "Whiteness and white nationalism" in the last paragraph. The link is now to "Celtic." It should point to "Celt." I will try to keep an eye on it, but would appreciate the help from someone who is "on the spot" when the page is made editable. It's bugging me. I have a list of pages to fix, and I am clearing them off one by one, but I can't clear off this one. Grrr...... Thanks. --Sean Lotz17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Unprotected
I have unprotected the article as it has been fully protected for over two weeks. Also due to the lack of constructive dispute resolution dialogue here, I recommend that the editors of this article restrict themselves to the one revert rule (1RR) especially Al-Andalus & Yukirat (who were involved in the previous edit war & had been blocked for 3RR). Any further edit-warring will lead to immediate blocking of the involved parties and re-protection of the article. --Srikeit(Talk | Email)09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Why?
Are you sure that it's so soon to completely unprotect it? I mean, this article has FOUR pages of discussion and we've barely reached any sort of a coherent discussion, much less an actual consensus. Maybe we should at least make people register in order to edit it so that we don't get un-regged trolls. Smith Jones17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring already - send to RfC
Don't edit war in the article. If you can't settle your differences, please create an RfC. It looks like Dark T just barely missed violating the 3RR on this.Psychohistorian16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Scrap this article, start over
It has been noted that this is a awful article in many places in the comments already, but I will second those ideas, this article should be scrapped and started anew. There is way too much pseudo science and opinion in here, a encyclopedia should not ever have opinion unless the article is talking about a specific persons opinion. Race as it is measured in todays terms is not a genetic stand point but a ideological standing, if you want science in the article refer the readers to a 'Human Genetics' page where science is involved, not ideology. - 209.248.175.8218:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is, the article has painful amounts of detail on a few topics, and missing or unbalanced coverage of other topics. Also, the current article title invites argument about the basic disagreement between essentialist vs. historical/social views of race. The existing content that is still worth saving might be better split up among more specific existing or new articles, something like:
As per Wiki policy, all identified unsourced material will be removed from this article seven days after it has been identified as unsourced unless a proper source is provided by then ("proper" defined by Wiki policy). Anything currently in the article identified with [citation needed] will be removed from the article on August 24, 2006. To provide time, I will wait until then to mark anything else in the article as unsourced.Psychohistorian18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
---
I am removing some of the "unsourced material" tags when the wikilinks within the marked sentence in fact provide extended descriptions of the sources. For example, one of these concerns the sentence "The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA." the [citation needed] tag is at the end, so it presumeably is calling for some source that describes using ancient DNA to understand the prehistory of the European peoples. However, one can easily see that "ancient DNA" refers to a wikipedia article that does exactly that, with many primary sources. A footnote is therefore not called for in this case, and in fact would be superfluous. That is what wikilinks are for. DonSiano21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
---
You cannot use Wikipedia as a source in this articles (see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources - it states, "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference.") As many of the tags you removed were done so on the basis that they are referencing Wikipedia, they were improperly removed. Wikipedia cannot self-referene and, so, these statements do not have a source. I really wish you had posted in the discussion page before removing tags as now I have to go back in and replace them manually. If you have an issue with any of the tags which I have put in the article, please discuss your issue here before removing them. Also, the sources need to be clear, for example, please replace the Klein reference with a quote from Klein's book on the subject stating something to the effect of "Richard G. Klein stated in xyz, "<his quote here>". Please do the same for Torroni and Wade.Psychohistorian23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of the citation tags seem to be on obvious, tautological, or noncontroversial sentences. I can't see how this is helping the article. JWB05:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the reliable sources policy is to avoid circular reference, Wikipedia making statements that are backed by Wikipedia and no outside source. If this article quotes information about, say, DNA, and that information is adequately sourced and explained in the DNA article, this is not circular reference and does have an outside source. JWB05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's discuss the specific tags which you think are obvious, tautological, or noncontroversial. Point them out and we can discuss whether a source is needed or not.Psychohistorian11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's one. "About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable." The fact tag is at the end, which merely points out the obvious that people don't live on glaciers very well. The tag implies that this is controversial or not obvious! But on the other hand, one cannot help but notice that there are pedants abroad who would question that the sun will come up tomorrow....DonSiano12:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The actual Ice Age didn't start until about six million years ago according to this link. The climate started cooling about 22 million years ago, but a cool climate does not automatically mean glaciers. I suspect that the glaciers in Europe didn't start until the Ice Age.Psychohistorian13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You really need to look up the history of the ice age in Europe, and try to learn the difference between millenia and millions. We don't need to cite undisputed and accepted facts otherwise we'd get statements like "Michelangelo[citation needed] was an Italian[citation needed] artist[citation needed]", with demands to footnote evidence of his name, his nationality and his profession.Paul B13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that "millenia" is not the same as "million years". I should have caught that. I didn't. Thanks for pointing out my slip. However, I still believe that a cite should be included as I had to go looking for the actual date of the Late Glacial Cold Stage. I'm no longer convinced, however, that a cite is required for that statement.Psychohistorian14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that the term refers to people with origins in the original peoples of Europe [citation needed]: You would need to find a statistical study to prove or disprove this, but I think most would agree it is true. Do you have another plausible candidate for most common feature?
Across the globe, and especially throughout the Western Hemisphere, a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings [citation needed] including definitions based for such purposes as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, affirmative action, and racial quotas [citation needed]. : So vague, it's not even falsifiable.
By this definition, the areas of the world that are considered to have a predominantly population "White" include all of the countries of Europe, as well as Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, and Uruguay [citation needed]: Not sure what doubt you have about this. Documented in many articles, no controversy.
The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA [citation needed]: Not sure what doubt you are expressing here either. If it were a claim that prehistory can be completely traced, it would be wrong, but it's not.
The human species (homo sapiens) began to colonize Europe from Africa about 35 millennia ago, arriving along two major channels on either side of the Black Sea [citation needed]: A source on this period would be good (and easy to find in the right Wikipedia articles), but saying that at least some migration happened on these routes is hardly a strong or controversial statement. Period is covered in Cro-Magnon, Aurignacian, Middle Paleolithic and others.
About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable [citation needed]: any article on the Ice Ages, such as Last Glacial Maximum. Also a basic fact not under controversy.
When the glaciers receded about 16 millennia ago, the populations that had taken refuge were joined by many other waves of peoples from Asia and Africa to re-colonize the newly inhabitable region [4], [5]. Their descendants became the hunter-gatherers who occupied Europe until the advent of agriculture [citation needed]: This is saying there was migration from various places (obvious), and that pre-agricultural people had a pre-agricultural economy (tautological). Or is it the timeline you have doubts about?
The Basques of the Pyrenees and the Saami of Finland both have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers [citation needed] Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques [citation needed]: Not controversial, but relatively recent work that I agree could use references if not already covered in Wikipedia; maybe someone who is up on genetics has it handy. Well publicized in news stories on BBC and other sites in recent years. [2]. Googling "saami genetics" immediately gives a source: [3]
The one-drop rule is historically recent.[citation needed]: One-drop rule covers it at length.
In short, if you're going to dispute points, you should either know something about the field in question, or be willing to do a little basic research. Otherwise you're just taking effort away from clarifying the points that really are controversial. JWB22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not contesting whether the content is factual. I'm contesting how it is verified/verifiable. Veracity takes a back seat to verifiability according to Wiki policy. Further, as I already pointed out, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. As soon as you quote any statement in any Wiki policy article which states that this is meant to apply only to circular references, I'll drop that issue. But until you do, we must go by Wiki policy as stated.
You are missing the difference between citing Wikipedia as a source (Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is about mentioning Wikipedia) and wikilinking a mentioned term to the primary Wikipedia article on that topic, which has the detailed discussion and references. (see Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain_wikilinks#What generally should be linked) Nothing says that every passing, secondary mention of the same fact in every other article has to duplicate the entire referencing process.
"Documented in many articles, no controversy." "Also a basic fact not under controversy." "this is the best known fact about the Basques" all mean that it will be easy for you to add cites for them.
The point was exactly that it is easy for you to add cites for facts you claim are not Wikipedia:Common knowledge and not already referenced in Wikipedia.
"I think most would agree it is true" is not a source. If most do, indeed, agree it is true, it will be easy for you to add a cite for the statement.
You are omitting the comment that it would be hard to find statistics on that point, which is obvious enough (near-definitional) that it is unlikely to be explicitly mentioned in research.
"This is saying there was migration from various places (obvious)" No, its not. Its saying more than that.
OK, then which part are you disputing?
"Not sure what doubt you are expressing here either." Its not about doubt, its about verifiability.
It's about playing a constructive part in the verification effort. Suggest you concentrate on the kind of cases listed in Wikipedia:Common knowledge#When to seek professional help rather than on tagging facts that are common knowledge, or already referenced in Wikipedia, or sentences that are explanation or simple logic rather than assertion of new facts.
"So vague, it's not even falsifiable." if its truly that vague, then the statement offers no content and should be removed from the article.Psychohistorian23:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you should rewrite the sentence to be more useful or remove it, not citation-tag it when it's unclear there are even any assertions to be referenced. JWB07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"You are missing the difference between citing Wikipedia as a source (Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is about mentioning Wikipedia) and wikilinking a mentioned term to the primary Wikipedia article on that topic, which has the detailed discussion and references. (see Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain_wikilinks#What generally should be linked) Nothing says that every passing, secondary mention of the same fact in every other article has to duplicate the entire referencing process." The policy is quite clear here. It makes no exceptions for any kind of self-reference.Psychohistorian23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you do agree, though. Wikilinks are not to be identified as a source in an article. That means that you can't cite another Wiki article as a source in this article. All sources for this article must be referenced in this article.Psychohistorian04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to make other articles References for the article (as opposed to pointing out to you relevant information in articles during a Talk discussion, or Wikilinking when mentioned in the article). The point is that if a fact is adequately referenced to external sources in the proper article on that topic, it is not necessary (and in fact a waste of space and effort) to repeat all the same external references every time the fact is mentioned in another article. JWB18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the instant you can point to a policy which actually says that, I'll drop the issue. Until you do, I'm going to stick to policy and policy states that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and cannot be used as a reference in an article.Psychohistorian19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The ignorance here is too much!
Just to comment on a comment that has been done obove and which is in the article: ¨Basques share genetic markers with the Welsh¨, and then they are presented as if they were a genetic minority in Europe!. Man, the genetic markers that you are speaking about is HgR1b. This Haplogroup, genetic family or genetic race, is the most common in Western Europe: About 90% of Basques, Irish and Welsh. About 75% of Scots. About 70% of non-Basque Spaniards and Portuguese. About 60% of the English. About 55-60% of the French. About 60% of Belgians. About 55% of Danes. Have a look at some basic information and avoid writing on an issue that you obviously do not know. See just here a few examples and sources: R1b and 123
HCC
Nobody is saying other populations don't have the same haplotypes at lower levels; in fact the next sentence says exactly that. JWB07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This is actually what the section reads:
The Basques of the Pyrenees and the Saami of Finland both have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers [citation needed] and speak non-Indo-European languages [citation needed], though it is possible their languages may derive from post-Paleolithic but pre-Indo-European migration. (Dene-Caucasian and Uralic hypotheses) Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques [citation needed].
It says: Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques [citation needed].
You think that is precise? All of Western Europe share high levels of those markers with the Basques (more than 50%)! and the Basques are very different from the Saami, who share a lot of their genes with Asian populations. In short, a mess. HCC.
It doesn't contradict either of those assertions. Most genetic markers differ by level; hardly any show 100% vs. 0% differences by population. Neither is there any reason to assume the Basques have anything in particular in common with the Saami. If you feel it needs clarification to avoid those unlikely assumptions, go ahead and add it to the passage, nobody has been stopping you. JWB18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the scenario being discussed still has the pre-Neolithic European population as the main contributor to current European genes, with Neolithic or Indo-European migrants as smaller contributors. So naturally genes of the oldest populations would still be frequent in most later populations. It's hard to see how you are reading the passage the opposite way. JWB18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
comments about Spaniards
I have introduced this comment in the Hispanic Americans:
Do you mind to explain why it makes no sense? HCC.
Also, the paragraph refers to nationalities of origin. Even if it were specifying race, "White European Spaniards" is redundant. You don't write "White European Germans" every time you write German. Al-Andalus04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Al-Andalus. Taking into accout the cultural level of the people reading and participating in this article it needs to be mentioned. I do not know if you know the Americans, but a high percentage of them think that Spain is somewhere in South America. It also emphasizes the ridiculous way in which the term is used. The comment is more than relevant, so please leave it. HCC.
Split "Historical use of the term in the United States" into new article
The section "Historical use of the term in the United States" is already long enough to be a separate article, and it shouldn't dominate this one. Let's split it into, say, Whiteness in the United States, and replace it with a summary. Melchoir19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. This is about white people in general. HCC
I have tried to introduce a comment about Spaniards that some people delete. OK, I am deleting the reference to Spaniards. In fact, to mention Spaniards under Hispanic Americans is absolutely ridiculous. HCC.
White Nationalism
That section is not worthy of this article. I propose deleting it. All other attempts to try and relate Neo-Nazis to what should be a neutral article about white people should be deleted too. Veritas22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. This article should be about discussing White people as a race, not talking about a form of extremism. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ralph Nader and all Lebanese Christians are White and NOT ARAB!!
In case you people don't know the history of the lebanese christians, let me inform you. Lebanon was formery known as Phoenicia. The Phoenicians colonized Italy, Spain and what is today known as the UK. They were NOT Arabs!!! Arabs are from Arabia. The Arabs later invaded Phoenicia and brought Islam to the nation. Many christians fled to the mountains where they lived undisturbed for hundreds of years. Some of them did integrate with the Arabs but had to convert to Islam. According to Islamic law, any muslim (Arab) who converts to Christianity, or any other religion, was killed. Because of this, the Christian bloodlines remained "Arab free". So if you claim Lebanese Christians are "non-white" you will have to say the British, Germans and most other Europeans are "non-white" too for the simple reason that they are THE SAME PEOPLE!!!!'''''''
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.43 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC).
This is very true. Even Stormfront, the white nationalist site has accepted that Lebanese christians are white and need to be saved from the Muslim Arabs that are ruining their country.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.43 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC).
Phoenicians did not in any meaningful sense colonise Italy or Britain, though they did have some colonies in Spain and on Italian islands (Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia). Their genetic contribution to modern Italian and Spanish populations was probably tiny, especially since the Romans expelled them and heavily recolonised Spain themselves. There's no serious evidence for any colonies in Britain. That doesn't makes them either "white" or "non-white". There can never be a clear dividing line. Paul B22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the Phoenicians did colonize Britian. It was an uninhabited group of islands before they came. Even if you listen to celtic music, you can easily hear the middel eastern connection.
These are not serious scholarly websites. There is no archaeological evidence of Phoenecian settlements or of any Semitic language elements in Celtic languages. If Britain was uninhabited why didn't Semitic dominate, not Brythonic? Paul B12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Christians in the Middel East, excluding Arabia are white. But we need to make it clear to people that the Christians have no Arab blood.
Paul B, you cannot simply deny the facts. This is an Encyclopedia, not a place to vent your own ideas based on nothing but your own ignorance.
Go to this site in a few days:
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-prehistory.html
Their is a link to the connection between the British and Phoenicians. It's not working yet but try it in a couple of days.
The heading is there already.
Now you are simply revealing your own silliness and ignorance. Go read a serious book on the Phoenicians. Sabatino's The Phoenicians is quite accessible. And look at some proper academic literature on the population history of Ancient Britain. Paul B13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul B, your outlook on this subject is far too closed minded. You can go study the subject if you want. It is of no importance to me because it is true that the Celts are decended from the Phoenicians. Even if you try to argue that, it still doesn't change the fact that the Lebanese Christians are not Arabs and should be accepted as white.
The never ending question of the Near East.
People from the Near East are white, anthropologically speaking, and the US census considers them as such, for example. We should put an end to these criteria that are so close to Nazi propaganda, ignorance and superstition. The genetic contribution of the Near East in Europe is fundamental. The cultural contribution is even more important, from the introduction of Agriculture in the Neolithic to the influences of the first advanced civilizations, that originated in the Middle East, before Greece and Rome, and are a milestone in the history of Western Civilization. Shall we remind here that Jesus, the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, Moses, Abrahan, etc, were all Near Easterners?In any case, have a look at this impressive Oxford piece of research. It takes into account scores of studies and analyses 8 different genetic loci, including autosomal, mitocondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA.: [4][5][6]
If Near Easterners are not white for the simple reason of being from the Near East, then Europeans are not white either, because Europeans are a hybrid people of different origins, but mainly of Proto-Basque and Near Eastern origins. We cannot have it both ways or just in an absolutely arbitrary way. Veritas00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
People have to realise that the estern border of europe is basically non existent. The british drew a map of what is Europe today a long time ago. There is no natural border so it is logical that their would be "white" or European equivilent people in the Near East.
Where do you get the idea that the British decided what the border of Europe was? "White" is not a scientific term. It has been used in a variety of ways in different countries at different times, in legal, colloquial and anthrpological terms, though typically more scientific texts adopt technical terms not ordinary-language terms. Paul B12:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I will introduce this comment: White people are also common acroos Northern Africa and the Middle east.
deletion of unsourced material
I want to remind you all that the content currently marked with [citation needed] will be removed from the article tomorrow unless a proper source in accordance with Wiki policy is found by then. (as I mentioned six days ago) If there are any outstanding issues, I recommend that you either bring it up now or create an RfC.
After removing it, I'll work on identifying more unsourced content in the article for removal. I'm hoping to have all the unsourced content sourced or removed by the time I'm done. Psychohistorian12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Expecting anyone to "source" statements like "a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings" is utterly silly. Removal of such statements would be totally destructive to the authorship of reasonable summaries. The legal, colloquial and other aspects are addressed in the article. This kind of "policy" pedantry is more reminiscent of newspeak than anything else. Paul B13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Then I encourage you to make an RfC on the issue. I am making this article confirm tightly to policy considering its ongoing habit to engage in edit wars, its history of being locked down due to edit wars, recurring vandalism, huge amount of unsourced commentary and editorials, and politically charged content. I will not get into the slippery slope of deciding which parts are okay to ignore policy on and which parts are not. I believe that it is better to risk being draconic than to risk that slippery slope. As for the specific comment you mentioned, I believe that the American Anthropological Association's statement on race can be used as a source on that, but its been a couple of weeks since I've read it.Psychohistorian13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What the article most needs is balanced presentation and clear explanation. Removing all sentences not followed by a link is not going to improve that. Racists or other POV-pushers can find references in support of their arguments just like anyone else; they may likely be more willing to spend a lot of time digging up references than less invested editors.
Looking at your recent edit, Chile is now listed as predominantly white with two references, while Argentina has been dropped. In fact Chile is primarily meztizo, and one of the references states this prominently, while the other doesn't comment on the whole nation's composition but studies 3 populations, none listed as white and one mestizo with estimated .49 Amerindian; and Argentina is much more European. Anyone looking at the Chile and Argentina articles would have caught this. This is a great example of how blind application of referencing or any other policy can actually reduce accuracy. JWB16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"White", here is defined as "from Europe". Mestizo heritage is part European and part indigenous, so they do, in fact, trace their heritage to Europe and, so, are white by this definition. So, saying that Chile's population is predominately white, by the definition provided, is correct. Argentina's article (as with all the countries' articles which were removed from this list) has no source for saying that it is primarily European and, so, that comment was removed from this article as being unsourced.Psychohistorian17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Demographics of Argentina has at least one source for Argentina. Please do not remove information that is already properly sourced in Wikipedia as well as correct.
Your interpretation of the European-descent definition as partial descent flagrantly contradicts the normal one. By this criterion, half of African-Americans are white. It is incredible that you can present bizarre, confusing positions like this as noncontroversial, and still pose as an expert vetting the statements in this article. (Chileans are no doubt white by many sociocultural definitions, but I hope you are not missing the difference.) JWB22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As soon as you can source a "normal definition of white", we'll start talking about it. Until then, I don't see much point in assuming that there is a "normal definition of white". And I assure you that I won't remove information that is already properly sourced in Wikipidia. I will remove information that is not already properly sourced as per Wiki standards. Your objection seems to be with the definition given, not with the application of it. In that case, I'm inviting you to provide another definition - a sourced definition - which won't have the same problem.Psychohistorian00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean a "normal definition" (the difference between various definitions is most of what this article is about, and each of the major viewpoints needs to be mentioned and summarized per Wikipedia policy on controversial issues) but the normal interpretation of that particular definition. Do you have any source for a definition of "white" as of European descent, but including people of half European and half non-Caucasoid descent? JWB02:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says that the "normal" interpretation of that particular definition does not include people of half European and half non-Caucasoid descent? You want to say "this is the definition". I apply that definition. You go on to say "this is an exception, do you have a soure saying that this is not the exception?" The thing is, however, that it is your positive assertion that "this is an exception" that requires a source. It is additional information and additional information requires sources. I don't need a source to keep additional information (I think its more noise than information, but that's beside the point) out of an article.Psychohistorian03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Insistance by some people, such as Al-Andalus, to ignore policy is starting to cause a problem. I recommend, again, that any issues people have with adhering to written policy be turned into an RfC.Psychohistorian03:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not claiming anything is an exception. I am telling you you can't redefine black as white. European descent means European descent. Please list a source for whatever definition you are putting in the article, or else it is as eligible for deletion as unsourced material. (unlike the statement about Argentina which you are deleting despite sourcing) I'll be away for a week or so, have fun. JWB05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not redefining anything. I'm using the definition as is. Your objection is with the fact that the definition you are trying to use is leading to results you don't like. The problem is in two parts. 1.) the definition itself is unsourced 2.) the exception to the definition that you want is also unsourced. European descent means European descent. We agree on that. If a person can trace his lineage back to Europe (as can be done with Mestizos, for example), they are of European descent. That's definitional.Psychohistorian12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the wording a bit, to see if it helps. It was "Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that it refers to people with origins in the original peoples of Europe." Obviously, if there are various features to any single definition of white, then the most common feature among all the definitions of white couldn't "refer to people with origins...". If something "refers" then that means that that is in fact the actual definition.
I have reqorded it to read "Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature among them is that it encompasses people with origins in the original peoples of Europe." Al-Andalus03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You readded the other countries which have no source for them. However, I reviewed the policy on 3RR and it turns out that it only applies after the third revert. You've only reverted three times so far. So, I jumped the gun.Psychohistorian03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I've only reverted twice, my previous edits where edits, not reverts. You have done three reverts today, that were all revers, none were edits. I'm about to go to do my third. Do it after me an you'll be on your forth. Al-Andalus03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
White Nationalism section
I said several days ago that I was going to delete that part. To restore it without discussion is vadalism. Veritas20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Willbeback, I have explained it above. I have waited several days since my comments and I only got one response from a user that agreed with me. What do you have to say to that? Veritas22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because
Just because no one bothered to put forth any effort in giving feedback on you doesn't mean that you aren't a uncircumsized philistine! Aroint thee, o manipulator of articles! Get thee back into Uncyclopedia!
Seriously though, you should put comments so that stuff like this doesn't happen. we're not telepaths here and even if we were why would we spend our time reading your mind to figure out where you explained what you did. Jeez, it's like a bleeding jungle in here. Where are the elephants!? Smith Jones04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why is it godawful? It's not just neolithic, and it's relevant as a short summary on the subject. I don't understand what WP:MNFSPOV is supposed to mean. I'm restoring it. Please discuss such major changes before making them. Note that I don't disagree that the section needs a lot of work to flow with the rest of the text, but I still think it shold be included in some way (the current version, e.g., is much abridged as it should be). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, you've reverted it, I'm discussing it. WP:MNFSPOV is, of course, the as-yet-unwritten wikipedia policy against the "Makes no fucking sense point of view." The neolithic and the paleolithic are terms for eras of cultural development, not groups of people. Talking about how they are interbreeding is like saying "The Greeks were descended 75% from the Stone Age and 25% from Post-Punk" or something to that effect. Plus, it isn't cited, because there's nothing to cite. The rest of the section is maybe, maybe, an atrocious attempt to talk about the geneography of Europe. But nothing previously in the article has discussed why we are talking about the genography of Europe, and in any event, the section in question is not really helpful to the reader, it is simply a fistful of random, disarticulated claims that are presumably supposed to establish some kind of scientific basis for whiteness. Ethan Mitchell02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Basketball world cup. US vs Argentina for bronze medal.
Needless to say how some/many Americans die to present themselves as a white country, while like so much to present others as non-white, for example all Hispanics and all Hispanic countries as a rule. Watch the game on the 2nd of September 2006. It is very funny to see white America play versus non-white Hispanics. By the way, they won the broze medal. Tomorrow is the final: Spain/Greece. Veritas et Severitas13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when Argentines are not white?!! lol. They are whitter than the Amnericans check out the article.
What about Hispanics in the US?
I have posted this in the Hispanic article and in the White American article, but I think it is also of interest here:
Often I have to see how the term Hispanic is used in the US with non-white/non-European connotations or as if Hispanics were just newly arrived aliens in the country. In fact they were there much before and have been there much longer than the rest of Americans.
Then we have the following:
1. Hispanic refers obviousy to a huge group of people from different countries.
2. These peoples are bonded together by their language and culture.
3. These peoples come from countries with very diverse racial make-ups and which derive from the Spanish Empire, which by the way included almost the entire US, which was for centuries part of this Empire under the name of New Spain. Yes, very funny, is it not? Almost the entire US were part of New Spain!.
4. Just look at the extension of the Spanish Empire to have an idea of what he term Hispanic can encompass.
But the most funny thing is the following:
Hispanics are not considered white as a rule of thumb in the US, as if the US was a country
whiter than some Hispanic American Countries like Argentina or Uruguay, which is not.
Then we have the mother country for all Hispanics, Spain.
So, what is up with Spaniards, are they Hispanic or not?. Are they white or not?.
I couldn't believe when they asked my "race" when I went to study to a US High School. The lady doing the interview first thought to class me as Hispanic (I have passport from Spain). I really couldn't care less - but sometime later, she seemed to realize that Spain wasn't in America but in Europe and decided to write down "white".
Personally, I think the whole topic should redirect to Caucasoid people. Else it's based in some US-American prejudices that are anything but universal.
Well, they are Hispanic all right, in the same way that the English are Anglos.
So, we have a group of Hispanics, who are responsible for the name itself (Hispanic comes from Hispania and Hispania is Latin for Spain) who were the colonial power in the US for centuries and who happen to be white/European. White? Well, some people say that Southern Europeans are not that white. Let us see:
In fact, according to new genetic research they happen to be the whitest/most genuine European nation in Europe. See the following:
If you are not familiar with genetic anthropology note that R1b is the oldest and most common genetic family in Europe, and where does it show the highest concentration? In Spain.
But if you do not have enough with Haplogroups, and want more genetic loci tested, let us see:
Well, this Oxford article takes into acount 8 genetic loci, quite complete indeed. Spain is refered to as IberiaS.
What is the result? Again, Spain has the highest concentration of Native European genes, called Basque genes in this study and Iberian genes in other studies, followed closely by the Britons, the Portuguese and the North Italians.
Conclusion:
The fathers of all Hispanics happen to be the whitest/most European people in Europe. As a result, there are a lot of Hispanics that are whiter than those who think themselves as the genuine white people/European-Americans in the US. And all this according to serious, rigorous genetic science, not to concepts and ideas that are sometimes close to mental retardation. Veritas et Severitas 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC
I have removed this statement twice but I had my edit reverted. "The Middle East is a special case, since anthropologically it is a natural continuation of Europe, or Europe a natural continuation of the Middle East."
The statement does not make sense. The Middle East is genetically similar to Europe and Middle Easterners may share physical features with Southern Europeans, but this does not imply a "natural continuation of Europe". The original research argument is appeal to appeal to nature, trying to argue that Middle Easterners should be White. Of course, it is inconsequential that Middle Easterners are genetically similar to Europeans when White means origins from Europe. Since it is original research and irrelevant to being white, I have removed it. --Dark Tichondrias15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
1. White does not equal Europe. That statment has been only held traditionally by extreme White Nationalists, but never by serious anthropologists, like Coon. See this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Races_Of_Europe
2. The Middle East shares a lot of genetic markers with all Europeans, in some cases, more with North Europeans than with South Europeans. In fact it is one of the two main genetic components of Europeans, stemming from the Neolithic, along with the Basque or Native European Component, stemming from the Paleolithic. See this:
We can argue that traditional anthropology is outdaded and proven wrong in many aspects, which is true, but then we only have Genetic Anthropology.
According to Genetic Anthrology, Europe is a natural continuation of the Middle East, as DNA analysis is proving and you can see in the links above. So I am restoring it. Veritas et Severitas00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
And for Ismael, the sources that I introduce are global, therefore better by definition. People should try and use global sources. When people try and use individual studies we run the risk of presenting a distorted picture or just a wrong picture, because often non-specialists try and come to their own conclusions, and also because all things, also in genetics, must be presented in their context. Veritas et Severitas00:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Coon used Caucasoid and White interchangeably. The genetic argument for the including Middle Easterners as White is still original research. To synchronize the statement with the sources, the statement should say that Middle Easterns are genetically similar to Europeans. Saying that they are a "natural continuation", is original research. National governments and White supremacist organizations are also good sources for determining who is white.--Dark Tichondrias03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Veritas you will not stop people from getting the "wrong picture" by blanking sections of articles and deleting sources. If there is some info in it which you dislike or you find offensive (maybe you are Greek, Albanian or Spanish?) please discuss it here beforehand rather than POV pushing.... Your article is interesting although, in my opinion, not very informative on recent north african admixture. It shows a Map in which Scandinavians are presented as "Near Easterners" and is more likely to present "a wrong picture" than any.
Ismael, I am Spanish, Basque by the way. Where are you from? The section of the article that we are discussing has a lot of mistakes, which are difficult to understand if whoever wrote it is supposed to know just basic things about genetic anthropology.
1. Haplogroup E3b did not originate in the Horn of Africa. It did in the Middle East, and there were Neolithic migrations from there into Africa and Europe. Just check Cavalii-Sfroza, or on-line, the Genographic Project by National Geographic.
2. To use individual sources in the hands of obvious amateurs is one of the biggest mistakes that people can make in genetics and probably in anything else. Some of them are not duplicated, others are contradictory and they are often presented out of context.
3. It is very important that the sources that we use are global. Taking into account scores of other studies, elaborating on weighted averages. Otherwise we will be confronted often with manipulation or errors.
4. So, please provide as many global studies as you can, elaborated by experts.
I think that the section right now is a mess, sorry, but it is one of the worst sections in the article, so it should be removed. By the way, why do you remove mine, which is on global conlusions drawn by experts about the whole of Europe and not by a Wiki amateur on some aspects here and some there?
As to Dark, sorry but Nazi or White Nationalist groups have no credit at all, let alone in an Encyclopeadia. Anyway, I have no problem with that part of the version as it reads right now. I will add, "and traditional anthropology". If you want sources I can give you some.Veritas et Severitas17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
White supremacist organizations are a very good source for finding a point of view about who is White. I do not know of the Wikipedia policy that says racist organizations cannot be used as sources.--Dark Tichondrias04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Haplogroup E3b did not originate in the Horn of Africa. It did in the Middle East." You've got to be kidding me. E3b is known to have originated there, specifically probably in the Somali male population.
For E3, "Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably originated in eastern Africa. This inference is further supported by the presence of additional Hg E lineal diversification and by the highest frequency of E-P2* and E-M35* in the same region" (Semino et al. 2004).
For E3b, "An estimate of 25.6 ky for the TMRCA was obtained for the haplogroup E3b, which most likely originated in Eastern Africa" (Cruciani et al. 2004).
For E3b1, "The frequency of haplogroup E3b1* in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup" (Sanchez et al. 2005). As you can see, it is very clear that E3, E3b, and E3b1 all derived in East Africa. Some of E3b1's derivatives also originated there, though a few developed after their expansion into North Africa, the Southwestern Asia, and Southeastern Europe. Case closed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This section started out with the concerns for the statement that the Middle East is anthropologically "a natural continuation of Europe, or Europe a natural continuation of the Middle East". I also have those concerns, but for a different reason.
The Middle East may anthropologically be a natural continuation of Europe or vice versa, however, the Middle East is as much a natural continuation of North Africa (ie. Egypt and the Maghreb) and the Horn of Africa (which colides with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the Oman by way of the the narrow Gulf of Aden) or vice versa. Then North Africa and the Horn of Africa are natural continuations of Sub-Saharan Africa or vice versa. You get the point. Al-Andalus01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ismael, stop your Vandalism.
Ismael, I have been trying to reason with you. You have no idea of genetic anthropology, yet you continue picking up one study here and another there just to please yourself. If you can provide global studies made by experts, provide them. To use individual studies the way you do, without context, weighted averages, comparison among countries, is an old trick that is only being done by manipulators: Just see this: http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/spain.htm
You are doing the same thing. I am going to be here, stopping amateurs or maipulators like you. If you can provide one single global study about Europeans, encompassing all of them, do it. Otherwise, stop it. Veritas et Severitas00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about LSLM. You choose one study that's not very descriptive to make your claims and delete the numerous studies (and very specific regarding lineages, i.e. E3b, J, etc.) represented before and you accuse others of dishonesty? Citing stormfront, a white nationalist site, is not going to help your cause any. In fact, the link provided is about Spain, not at all about the areas described as most affected: Sicily, Greece, and Southeastern Europe. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In any case practically ALL European lineages come from the Middle East, Asia and Africa originally, only some came later than others. The section, following a historical timeline, is on modern (i.e. the last 1000 years) admixture with modern middle easterners and modern north africans... The source provided by Veritas seems to be manipulative of concepts since it divides Europeans in 2 basic elements: Paleolithic peoples and post-Paleolithic- calling all post-paleolithic peoples neareasterners (and in Veritas' mind non-white). Thus Scandinavians, Germans and Poles are considered "neareastern" and "less white" than Sicilians, for example. His source is not relevant to the section, although it may be relevant to the first section regarding prehistoric movements of people.
This type of manipulation is typical, in my opinion, of Southern European (in this case Spanish) racists who go ballistic when they read stuff on how they are "racially mixed" on neonazi websites such as the one mentioned above. Ismael7611:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The main problem here is the level of ignorance of people who want to contribute:
1. All Europeans are mixed. They are a hybrid people of course. I have been trying to point this out from the beginning. I have also been trying to state that "white" does not equal "European" etc. BUT WE HAVE TO BE MORE RIGOROUS.
2. If people here continue to claim that they can draw their own conclusions from some individual studies, while they try and ignore global studies that have been carried out by experts, taking into account scores of other studies, calculating weighted averages, taking into account results that have been duplicated, putting them in the European context, etc. then we have a BIG PROBLEM with the quality of the article.
3. One example of the capacity of some people participating here is that they claim that E3b originated in the Horn of Africa, when everyone knows that it did in the Middle East. I have already mentioned where to find the informaton, but it seems to no avail, while Ismael continues to say the opposite but does not give a single source. Eventually we all come from Africa, but we need rigour to obtain credibility.
4. Another example is when some people here speak about the time frame.
a) One thousand years seems long for written history.
b) Four thousand years or ten thousand years is nothing for biological, human evolution and genetic history. And this part is about that. Maybe some people have not realized that.
c) One million years is nothing for geology.
In short, people here confuse concepts, and speak of genetics and human evolution as if the time frame was just traditional History.
5. Some people here do not even read the links. The Oxford article (some people here think that Oxford is a piece of crap) has used thousands of people for their research. It has used 21st century people form Anatolia (Turkey), Irak and the area as a reference for what is called Near Eastern and 21st century poeple from the Basque Country for what is called Basque. Not people from Prehistory. And it is from 2004.
6. Whatever you say, your methodology and articles are the same or very similar to those used by pages like Stormfront. What a good technique!.
7. Some people here seem to find it difficult to believe that a Southern European people, like the Spanish, show a higher proportion of Basque, or Native European genes than the rest of Europe, in spite of the fact that the majority of Basques are themselves Spanish. Why? No one, at the moment,familiar whith Genetic Anthrolopogy, even questions that. In fact, the genetic family that originated those markers came from Spain and can be seen easily in hapmaps and in global studies.
8. The North African and Near Eastern Admixture in Spain is obvious. The thing is that that admixture is as important or even more important in the rest of Southern and Nothern European countries.
9. Some people here continue to try and spread the idea that Northern Eurpeans are whiter and less mixed that Southern Europeans, as can be seen in some of the comments above, following the very serious Nordicist and Afrocentrist tradition, in sptie of all the evidence available, and it seems that when people use the same arguments that they have traditionally used to say that, for Example, Spaniards are more charateristically European than North Europeans, they begin to go around as much as they can, because that obviously contradicts they preconceived views of reality and wishful thinking.
10. And to conclude. None of you has been able to provide a single global study of Europeans, that take them into account as a whole. But you seem so badly interested in deleteing them! Right now the most complete global study on Europeans has been published by Oxford and done in 2004 and you continue to erase it. What is your kind? I would like to know.
Anyway, I have seen that somebody has restored the page as it was some time ago. I think it is all right like that (though with some mistakes that I will analyse later on when I have the time and the energy). But do not erase again the 2004 Oxford article on Europeans or you will be reported as a very suspicious Vandal. Veritas et Severitas17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to erase it but I think it should be incorporated on the neolithic expansion section. Both the paleolithic and neolithic expansion section are in a mess. Veritas instead of arguing over the who is whiter than who, you could help fix the first two sections and incorporate your references into them, since they refer to the neolithic and "Aryan" expansions into Europe. Ismael7618:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I also wanted to say that Veritas, you have a wrong concept about the importance of the time frame. You say tens of thousand years are nothing for genetics when many of these genetic markers we are talking about are only 20,000 years old. The first modern europeans settled the continent (from the middle east and Africa) around 35,000 years ago. The (according to you less "white") neolithic settlers carriers of haplogroups E3b among others arrived 10 thousand years ago, dividing in the Thesalo Danubian Branch which colonised Northern Europe and the Mediterranean branch which colonised Southern Europe. Since they arrived through Turkey, the genetic imprint of these settlers is obviously stronger in the east of the continent than in the Atlantic fringe.
The division of neolithic settlers as non-whites and paleolithic hunter gatherers as whites is a gross misconception and a product of your imagination. Both came from outside Europe originally and both were probably not phenotypically white-skinned when they arrived. It is funny because it makes the Basques (i.e. you) the most "white" people in the world! You dismiss proof of modern exchanges across the Med as irrelevant because they are nothing in comparison with the neolithic invasion of "non-whites" which you have fabricated. I think you should stop with this fantasy because it is confusing for people who are not acquainted with this issue.
Ismael, I think that at the end of the day we may be closer than we think. I have been insisting in this article that white does not equal European, and a lot of people have been insisting on the opossite and erasing my comments about the Middle East. I have just gone down the line following the rationale of those who insists that white is European, as if the Europeans were a race apart, and have pointed out the conclusions that you can arrive at following such stupid premise. Veritas et Severitas19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am glad we agree on this basic conception. At the end of the day we are arguing on an article which deals with a social construct and not a "race". I dont think you are a racist, but in fighting racist perspectives, I feel you are unintentionally using similar racialist arguments and discourse. That is why I attacked you and you have to admit that you did fall for the "we spaniards/basques are as white as everyone else" argument.
The problem is that the original "whites" do not really exist biologically or historically and that should be our starting point. In this sense, this article should perhaps deal with white identity from a social constructivist perspective and not attempt to offer a supposed genetic history of an imagined homogenous ethnic group. Ismael7619:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There I do not agree with you. Why? Because the term white has often, very often been used in conjuction with ancestry and genetics concepts by people like Nordicists, Nazis later, and then important sectors of societies in many countries, that although not Nazis themselves, were fundamentally influenced by these ideologies in the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, still today lots of people respond in some societies to the stereotypes forged by those ideologies. Therefore it would be tendentious to ignore genetics now that DNA analysis is available and is turning on those theories and their lingering influence in many minds.
On the other hand, the term white has been used in anthropology. It is sad that we devote so much to the concept just as it was proposed by said ideologies. That is why I admit that I am often suspicious of people here, because I cannot understand that they want to devote so much to the part of the concept developed by Nazis and think that it is normal to do so. It is as if we would elaborate on concepts here according to the world view of the Talibans. Veritas et Severitas20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In any case can you please help fix the paleolithic and neolithic sections. Your oxford references would be helpful there. I have deleted statements saying that neolithic and Indoeuropean influence was minimal since, considering your sources and the hapmaps, it is evident that this is not true. I also think that much of what is written in the neolithic expansion section (relating to basques etc...) should be in the paleolithic section... We seem to agree on the basics on all points related to these sections so i leave it in your hands. Ismael7622:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you. Only one commnent. It is healthy not to mix concepts. When we speak of genetics we speak of Nearn Eastern or Neolithic. Indoeuropean is a lisguistic concept and to mix it with genetics right now is wishful thinking. Anyway, I am leaving the Wiki English world for some time, I will concentrate on some French articles, so I encourage you to do those changes yourself. Veritas et Severitas17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Do not erase verifiable contributions from reputable sources. I am not erasing any. I am citing sources published in Oxford Journals and carried out by Universities and as recent as 2004.
Ismael, all verifiable and reputable sources have the right to be mentioned and cited in relation to any point. You know well Wiki rules.
I do not have the right to erase any of your comments, as long as you introduce a source to support them, in spite of the fact that I think that you want to know more than the Oxford Article scientits that have done the job of analysing Europeans as a whole, taking into account many more genetic loci and many more studies than the ones that you are presenting. You seem to be trying to do what they have done, come to global conclusions. Well, I do not deny you the right to do so, this is Wiki, but do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself. It is a very simple and civil principle. On the other hand, when and if I introduce a comment that is not verifiable or properly sourced, please tell me, I will try and see, and if you are right, I will erase it myself.
As to the technique of using single studies, isolated and out of context, using just one sinlge genetic marker, read this:
The questions asked in this and in comparable studies are of the type: When did a certain group of people come to occupy a certain area? How extensive was the admixture between them and other groups? These are questions about population history, and they need be addressed considering simultaneously as many independent alleles as possible. Analyses of single or physically linked alleles or haplotypes, no matter how informative they appear to be, are unlikely to contain all the information needed to infer and quantify population processes, and may also, if selected a posteriori, produce biased inferences.
This is in the discussion section of the Oxford article.
Read also this:
"With one exception, previous estimates of the Paleolithic and Neolithic contributions to the European gene pools did not consider the entire genetic diversity in the populations of interest. Rather, admixture rates were equated with the frequencies of haplotypes whose distribution was supposed to be a result of Neolithic admixture (Semino et al. 2000; Richards et al. 2002). In the only study so far that explicitly models the admixture process at the population level, Chikhi et al. (2002) described Y-chromosome patterns supporting a significantly greater genetic contribution of Neolithic farmers than did previous studies based on the same data (Semino et al. 2000) and an east-west gradient of Neolithic admixture across Europe. In this study, we found similar patterns"
As you can see, this is not just another study. As it states, this is the only piece of research (along wiht another mentioned there and with which it coincides) that has taken into account the entire genetic diversity in the populations of interest.
See also this:
The Y chromosome, and mtDNA, can be regarded as single, if very large and polymorphic, loci. Because gene flow processes, including admixture, affect the entire genome, the greater the number of systems considered, the more robust the inferences about admixture (e.g., Bertorelle and Excoffier 1998). Eight systems are not many, but this is the first admixture study of Europe based on multiple loci'. Its results suggest that the main components in the genomes of Europeans may be referred to admixing populations whose genes resembled, respectively, the modern Basque and Near Eastern populations. Only a small fraction of the European alleles seems to come from North Africa, whereas a fourth component of Northern European (and ultimately, perhaps, Northern Asian) origin is nonzero, but it is largely restricted to the northeast of the continent. Near Eastern admixture is less than 30% only in the British Isles and exceeds 50% over much of the continent, with a decrease of this contribution as the geographic distance from the Near East increases (figs. 3 and 5).
As you can see, it states that it is the first admixture study of Europe based on multiple loci: Eight systems are not many, but this is the first admixture study of Europe based on multiple loci.
It is also important to remind people of this: Its results suggest that the main components in the genomes of Europeans may be referred to admixing populations whose genes resembled, respectively, the modern Basque and Near Eastern populations
In other words, we can argue about why this is so, but the similarities are 21st century, among the present populations discussed, as it is obvious. I say so, because sometimes people speak as if the similarities were among the Prehistoric peoples. the connection can be more o less ancient, but the relationship is among populations in the 21st century.
This is also of interest: First of all, in general, low levels of genetic differentiation are observed among present-day European populations at the genomic level (Romualdi et al. 2002; Rosenberg et al. 2002), which does not support the idea that drift was the main evolutionary force affecting them.
Which means that Europeans have drifted virtually nothing in biological/genetic terms for the last 10.000/4000 years.
Well, read please the article carefully. As you will understand it is exhausting for me to have to expalin everything.
To finish, I could also make use of other partial studies (I call them partial because they only make use of one or very few genetic markers, and therefore are not so reliable to trace population movements), like this one, dated also 2004 and thus very recent: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf, but I use the Oxford one because as it is obvious it is much more complete than anything done before.
"Which means that Europeans have drifted virtually nothing in biological/genetic terms for the last 10.000/4000 years." Not true. See Brace et al. 2005, "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form." The title itself demonstrates the large variation. I don't understand why you put a slash after 10 000 and put 4 000 after it. Are you saying little changes took place between 10 000 BP and 4 000 BP or saying that there has been little change for 10k or 4k. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Admixture from Neolithic expansion from Anatolia vs. North African admixture
It seems necessary to make a distinction between these two elements. The Neolithic element in the European gene pool is huge and even dominant in much of Eastern and South Eastern Europe. North African admixture seems to be inexistant in most of Europe except for Iberia and Sicily.
This can be seen from an analysis of the various subclades of Y-chromosome Haplogroup E3b which distinguish between those of Balkan/Anatolian origin (such as E-M78) and those of recent North African origin (E-M81). See : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965
Of all E3b subclades in North africa (E3b is carried by an overwhelming majority of North African populations) E-M81 is by far the most common, E-M78 (the most common European subclade) being minor or absent in most population samples.
Taking Italy as an example, an analysis of E3b in different regions of the country shows that this haplogroup is of continental origin (reaching the peninsula either from the North or from Greece) except for in Sicily where about 5.5% of male lineages can be ascertained to be of North African origin (see table 1).
Similar conclusions can be extrapolated from Mtdna analysis.
I agree with you on the percentages for North African influence. Sometimes I have the feeling that we are discussing things and then we basically agree on them. A 5.5% percentage of North African admixture for Sicily, for example, is very much in line with most research done in that area, take or add 1 or 2. So, where do we not agree?.
Why do you oversee that the Near Eastern element is highest in Scandinavia?
No disagreement here. As I said on the Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe talk page, we have to consider that the 5.5% comes from E3b with specific mutations that arose in North Africa, but that all of these migrations (Neolithic agriculturalists and North African admixture) are themselves simply vectors for an E3b that originated in East Africa. I don't mean to stress this, but sometimes I feel as if people put a lot of weight on later developments in an attempt to separate the gene from its actual sub-Saharan origin. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am happy to agree with you on this 100%. It is true that I expressed myself wrong on this issue, but I never made any changes in the body of the article in this respect. E3b seems to have spread into two branches from the Near East into Northern Africa and Europe in the Neolithic, but if we go back enough it originated in Africa. In fact, all modern humans originated in Africa and populated the rest of the world starting about 80.000 thousand years ago, as we all know. Still, E3b originated as a later mutation in our DNA also in Africa (maybe it should be stressed that the mutations that we are talking about are extremely small and marginal, just enough to make subdivisions into population groups but nothing more that that, just in case that some people think that we are talking here of big or important mutations. Maybe we should also include in the beginning of the Genetic section that all modern humans originated in Africa and colonized the rest of the world starting about 80000 years ago. Veritas et Severitas18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, sorry about the Africa comment. It is already in the Paleolithic section. Yet, I have to say that there is a mistake. When humans arrived in Europe 350000/40000 years ago, they did not come directly from Africa, which they had left about 40.000 years before. In any case, I do not want to make that change myself. If you agree with me do it yourselves. Still, to be rigorous is fundamental for the credibility of any article. Veritas et Severitas19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Veritas the articles you are citing are misleading. There is a decreasing cline of Neolithic component as one moves west along the northern shore of the Mediterranean. This is not an issue. However, North African admixture has not been detected anywhere in Europe except in Sicily and Iberia according to all studies available.--Ismael7617:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ismael, you cannot accuse Oxford University Press of publishing misleading articles. You now that better than me, I am sure. Remember the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, here you have the second:
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
You are citing studies and I have expressed my opinions about them, read above, but I am not deleting them. Verifiable and reputable sources that express different opinions about an issue have the right to be cited, all of them, not some yes and others not. So I think you should retore yourself the citation of the article that you have deleted. I think it is just fair and according to Wiki standards. Otherwise, I will do it myself after a couple of hours. Veritas et Severitas17:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my reversions. I had misread where your additions had gone; I thought that you were saying that the E3b studies had been contradicted by other studies, and not studies on mtDNA from North Africa (i.e. I thought you had added that note under the section on E3b, not specifically under the part about North African genetic influence). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Veritas: I think you are not following my line of argument. It is as follows:
The genetic landscape of Europe is basically formed by two major components, both originating in the Middle East: The Paleolithic component which entered Europe around 35,000 years ago and the Neolithic component which entered around 10 000 years ago, both entering across the Bosphorous. The Paleolithic component is strongest in the west of the continent (particularly in the British isles and in the Basque region) and the Neolithic component is strongest in the Balkan region. North African admixture is practically absent from the entire continent except for Sicily and Iberia, where it can be found at low levels. Low levels of admixture from Asian populations can equally be found in peripheral regions in Eastern parts of the continent decreasing rapidly west of the Urals. Low levels of Subsaharan admixture are also found in Western Europe, reaching their peak in Iberia.
The article you cite is perfectly valid, and it concludes that there is a decreasing cline in the Neolithic component along the western shore of the Mediterranean. No one is denying this straightforward fact. However, you have placed it in the section related to North African admixture and this is misleading. Furthermore, the article is already cited in its corresponding section related to Neolithic expansions.
I have the impression that your contributions to this article are conditioned by a desire to minimise the "non-european" element in the country of your nationality and maximize that of the rest. You should take a step back and try to take a more professional approach. It is simply a question of language so as not to confuse readers.
The reason I erase your edit to the section is because the language and the context of the citation is wrong. Your source has not been erased, it is already present in its corresponding section.
--Ismael7619:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, now you try the ad personam argument. Is that the best you can do?. The citation is absolutely relevant because it refers directly to the issue discussed. Absolutely no reason to erase it, let alone because you do not agree with it. It is not my words. It is a citation and it is in perfect unison with what you have pasted above, so please refrain form deleting realible and verifiable material. How often have I to repeat basic concepts. I do not agree with many of your sources and comments, but I do not delete them. Let them both be there and read again the second pillar of Wiki. Veritas et Severitas21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry for the ad hominem but there are elements in your behaviour which point to this accusation. In what way do the hapmaps or the Oxford article contradict the study on Haplotype 5? You are making the section nonsensical. I would also like to point out that your citation is not from the source provided but from a 1999 study, which seems to contradicts more recent publications. Please reformulate your edit rather than reverting, so that it has some form of coherence rather than a nonsensical "yes but all of the above is rubbish because...".
--Ismael7621:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ismael, you are atacking me personally. The citation is in the Oxford article. The straw that breaks the camel's back is that you say that the citation in not in the article. You resort to denying the obvious. Or maybe you have not read it and you are discussing it and reverting without reading!? You just want to impose your point of view and delete others, even with verifiable and reputable sources. You ignore Wiki pillar number 2 about different points of view, and all Wiki principles. Even Yom, after reading well my comments, has said that he was sorry for reverting my contribution.
Still, following my style of respect, rigour and effort to undestand other parties I am going to reformulate it. I hope that it pleases you now. Yet, you will understand that I am not going to be discussing this ad infinitum. This is the last time. I dislike it profoundly to take these measures, but you are leaving me no choice. Next time that you revert VERIFIABLE AND REPUTABLE SOURCES you are going to be reported and we are going to see who is breaking the rules and not following Wiki standards and procedures.
Veritas et Severitas00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You just want to impose your view and only your point of view no matter how, deleting other's contribution's and imposing yours. You do not respect other contributors at all and make changes without using the discussion page. I am going to report your behaviour. Veritas et Severitas17:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleting MY comments in here will do nothing but piss me off
Haplotypes are a Joke
-
- You guys are so funny with your haplotypes and DNA. DNA did not play a role in deciding who or who was not white at anytime in history prior to the past 20 years (which totally is after the fact anyway). No court order, legal policy, or referendum was ever devised to describe whiteness based on DNA. You guys are hilarious. Some of you hope that DNA will somehow prove (or vindicate in your POV) that whiteness is a scientifically based "real" racial concept, that of course ultimately relates to the justification of racist ideologies about intelligence, entitlement and white priviledge. OH cross your fingers and hope the haplotypes win the day!
- Let me reply for those of you who wish to refute me, because the replies are the same "Oh Zaph, although we admire your commitment to equality and what not, it is true that DNA haplotypes are found in a particular pattern consistent with the racial category of whiteness, so that means that race is real and whiteness is based on DNA". Let me explain why this kind of reply is nonsense. DNA variations relates to the results of population changes and migrations and what not over time. They do not instigate these changes. So there wasn't some "original" white kid or family born somewhere thousands of years ago that decided to unilaterally seperate into their "functional race". In addition, the Western European ancestors did not magically become white, they gradually interacted over time to develop their traits. These traits are not however unique to them, as they developed also in other NON white people (like blonde hair, a so called Caucasoid skull, colored eyes, straight hair, etc). Each group of people have traits that combine to form a unique "race" but all of these traits are found in "other races". To say "oh all of those traits came from some pure white ancestor and were divided up through admixture over the generations" is so crap. If the traits can be environmentally adapted to create white people in Europe, why cant some of these same traits be created from enviromental conditions elsewhere? Think before you conclude! --Zaphnathpaaneah04:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And deleting MY comments in here will do nothing except attract my attention more so to this website. Doing so without a reason only incites me more. doing so ANONYMOUSLY without a reason activates me to such a degree that I will reign over this article crushing all opposition. You do not want me to be in here. Do not delete my comments. --Zaphnathpaaneah09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
69.141.3.45 - stay a coward. But know this, I will restore any and all content I contribute if deleted on this talk page. thank you for attracting my attention moreso to this article. --Zaphnathpaaneah09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Race as Social Construct
I think it's important to remember that race is a social construct. Scientists no longer believe that there is a valid, scientifically identifiable concept as "race." It is important to remember that, just like with any category of identity, who is considered white changes with context.
The annonymous user below wrote "Turks are white. In Europe, no one considers them as non-white. The problem is that we have here an ignorant American with extremenly stupid ideas." Racism is an extremely stupid idea. The question is not what is the "right" or "wrong" category, but what is viewed as true within a given context. The nature of a social construct is that the policial context determines the identity. For instance, if turks are considered white in Europe, then in Europe they are white. If they are not considered white in the US, then in the US they are not white. It is not a simple process and there is no "scientific" truth as to what a socially constructed category refers to.
For instance, until relatively recently (anybody know when?) Irish, Jews, Greeks, Italians weren't considered White. The category didn't even exist until 18th century or so, when Western Europeans created the concept in order to justify colonization.Fokion06:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Many scientists do believe that race is a useful concept, and many would say that the term "social construct" is far to amorphous to be useful. Every concept is a "social construct", including medical ones such as, say, "schizophrenia". That category also didn't exist until it was defined at a specific moment in history. That's not the same as saying it isn't real or that "the political context determines its identity". It's certainly possible to imagine a political context in which the "schizophenia" could not exist as a diagnosis, or in which it could not be imagined (after all we have a socio-political context in South Africa in which the HIV model of AIDS being denied). But to say that is to say that politics is a potentially determinative condition, not that it is, by definition, determinative. Indeed the weight of scientific evidence is often a powerful force in itself. I think you also confuse popular categories (such as "white") with scientific definitions, which have often contradicted popular categories. The construction of typologies in race, as in many other areas, has certainly changed over time and has been contested territory, but the attempt to map and label human populations if the world is as valid as the attempt to map and label physical geography of the world. It is false to say that Irish, Jews etc etc have only been considered white recently. It would be truer to say that in some contexts their status in relation to that term was disputed. Paul B07:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you link to -one- statement by a mainstream scientific association (such as the American Sociological Association, the American Medical Association, etc.) which states that race is more than a social construct? I mean, if you want the idea that "many scientists" believe in race as more than a social construct to be taken seriously, you need to point us to a scientific association which is taken seriously which has stated so. Frankly, I think these "many scientists" you are talking about are just like the "many scientists" who believe in Intelligent Design, that is to say, -not- scientists at all. -Psychohistorian13:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
See the Race page: (Risch et al. 2002), (Bamshad 2005). Neil Risch argues: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! ... you can undermine any definitional system... In a recent study... we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome [than] between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus [racial] self-description, [which had a] 99.9% concordance... So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility"(Gitschier 2005). Note also (Harpending and Rogers 2000), (Bamshad et al. 2003), (Edwards 2003), (Bamshad et al. 2004), (Tang et al. 2005), (Rosenberg et al. 2005): "If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe". Note also the section on Arthur Jensen's work, discussed here. As Rich says, any system of categories can be shown to be problematic, like periodization in history. That does not make it fiction. Paul B13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be conflating sex and gender. Gender, like race, is socially created. Sex is not. His data shows that gender is a problematic category. It does -not- show that sex is. Until science progresses to the point that a man can get pregnant from another man, sex categories seem pretty absolute. -Psychohistorian14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Risch is quite clear about the the fact that there are two separate but related issues: sex-identification and models of gender difference. He says that even sex-identification cannot be precisely correlated to markers on the X chomosome and that in addition to that there is also the distinction between sex and gender. I assume that he is correlating the latter distinction to that between genetic and social categories of race. Paul B14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"He says that even sex-identification cannot be precisely correlated to markers on the X chomosome" - unsurprising considering that self-identification of sex is a gender issue, not a sex one (both Kleinman and Harroway were my introduction into the idea of the body as socially marked - perhaps they would be a good place for you to start if this concept is confusing). It seems that you are saying that he's saying "the distinction between gender issues and gender issues are unclear and this proves that race has a genetic basis". -Psychohistorian14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make silly patronising comments. If this issue is confusing it is because it is confusing, and terminology is contested. It's not because I'm confused and you aren't. That's why there is no clear consensus. There is no absolute or "correct" usage of the distinction between the terms "sex" and "gender". However, I was trying to clarify what seemed to be Risch's usage in this passage. Hense my use of the expression sex-identification (i.e. identification as male or female). You are also wandering off on a tangent to avoid acknowledging the central issue. Paul B11:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to be patronizing, though reading back, I see how my post might have come across that way. Sorry. But, to be honest with you, I don't think the distinction between gender and sex is all that confusing. One male is not able to impregnate another. One self identified man can impregnate another self identified man (say, if one of them is in the middle of a sex changing process and already identifies as the other sex). I'm trying to figure out what you see as the central issue (I can't avoid it because I don't even know what it is) and I'm trying to see some sort of central issue in the context of this gender vs. sex thing in a way that makes sense. This gender vs. sex thing just isn't relevant and Risch, from the way you've described his work, doesn't even seem to understand what gender and sex are. -Psychohistorian12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
One thing that is striking is that, while there are two words, "sex" and "gender" to distinguish between the biological and the social construct, there is only one word-- "race"-- which stands for both. Although many gender theorists (sorry, i can't drop any names at the moment) are beginning to question the clear-line distinction between sex and gender. My point with race is that it is much more complicated than a simple biological fact. Yes, there are observable distinctions between people. However, there is a much more complicated story involved. For instance, why is it that somebody with one black parent and one white parent is considered black in the United States? Why were Irish not considered white (in the United States) until recently? why, as a previous writer has stated, are Turkish people considered white in Europe but not in the United States? Mexican-Americans were largely classified as white in the United States until the Chicano movement in the 1960s.
Yes, there are distinctions that can be made between people, but they are not clear-cut, and the creation of these distinctions has served more of a political, prescriptive role than an actually useful descriptive role. My point is that you cannot treat race as a simply scientific issue, as an issue of "figuring out" through genetics and other studies what the "true" identity of a person is, because that is not what's relevant for determining somebody's race. What determines somebody's race is how they are percieved in a political context. Fokion17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has gone through a lot of edits since the last time I did any work on it. Instead of criticizing me for working on it, why don't you get off your high horse and do some work on it? Its easy to criticize. Its harder to do good edits. Further, I am trying to edit it slowly so that people have time to comment and make their own edits in between (I want it to be a collaborative effort). So, if your gripe with me is that I'm taking my time, well, tough.-Psychohistorian11:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The current introduction is appalling. This is not an article about opinion in the "United States", nor should it be leaping to judgements in the opening sentences. The quotation from the AAA is also distorted to give a conclusion unwarranted by what it actually says ("However, the American Anthropological Association states that "there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them" meaning that there is no objectively demarcated "European phenotype"."). The quotation clearly refers to genetic variation. This does not support the claim that there is "no objectively demarcated European phenotype." (indeed, if there weren't we would never be able to even recognise that a person had European ancestry). This is argumentation to make a point, not description of usage, which is what is needed here. Paul B11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
its talking about genetic variation. Phenotype refers to genetics. Saying that there is more variation within the 'racial' group then between it and others means precisely that there are no objectively demarcated racial phenotypes. We can't recognize that a person has a European ancestry. We can only make a ton of assumptions about whether a person has a European ancestry.
If you take the time to read the AAA's statement on race in its entirety, you'll see that it says exactly what I was getting at when I made that edit to the article. -Psychohistorian12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There isn't much work I can do since your whole perspective seeks to prove that there is some genetic basis for classifying the "White" race. Phenotype certainly refers to genetics, but our human capacity to distinguish a "lightskinned" black person from a "swarthy" Arab or Italian doesn't come from a genetic anything, it comes from a socialization and attitudes. The reason I sarcastically respond is because too often the idea is to somehow prove that phenotype is proven via "genotype" when obviously people who are so genetically different (Australian Aborigianls, Africans, Aeta, etc) look so similar. Furthermore "European" ancestry only relates to the region, not to the fictitious "race". Certainly non-Aryan (or whatever you want to call it) people have been inhabiting Europe throughout ancient history. No haplotype anything is going to help you figure out if they looked like a pink skinned german with a pointy nose, or an Ethiopian with kinky hair and a flat nose. Haplotyping is just another form of stereotyping. And even if it gives a good indication today, it does nothing to go through history. One Ethiopian who looked like a black man could have been the progenator of all the white E3-whatever hapoltypes that you all rely on to find the "real white race". how do I know this is realistic? Because this haplotyping does not make one white nor black. --Zaphnathpaaneah08:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Or let me put it in a nutshell: haplotyping => historical relationships => racial justification => generalizations about different races => assumptions about those differences in abilities => assumptions about intellectual ability based on these prior historical relationships => classifying some as inferior and superior => justifying racism. (remember, IQ references are or were in this article and many seek to retain them)
I am here to make sure people realize that nothing genetic can reliably explain or justify any 'race' anything. The genetic similarities amoung Europeans are valid and obviously make sense, but those genetic expressions that are unrelated to skin color, facial features, and hair texture are therefore unrelated to the 'race' of white people. If these haplotypes (or whatever else) can propegate throughout black people in abundance, then they certainly could have in antiquity the other way around. --Zaphnathpaaneah08:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
let me put it yet another way. YOu cannot reliably trace backwards in time the subtle variations in people which appear on their faces by simply looking into their genetic profile. It would be like trying to figure out which group of butterflies in Africa were responsible for the storms that came across the Atlantic and hurricained the American coastline. You can assume the progenators looked a particular way, but even a 1% presence in ancient Europe of black africans is enough to certainly affect the demographic in history. And remember thats just 1% from those genetic fingerprints that are agreed to be UNQUESTIONABLY "black". We don't deal with those variations that cross the gamut between the races. I have seen pictures of Black African looking Sicilians from the 19th century in photographs. I am sure your haplotype sequencing would show the same 1% Sub-Saharan DNA. So what. It obviously no longer matters. --Zaphnathpaaneah08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is why the argument of whether or not race is real is such an invalid argument. For some who choose to view race as a genetic profile, it's obviously real to them, but they won't cope with the visual variations that defy their expectations, so in reality race is not "real", it's idealized or idolized in the minds of those who wish it to be so. It's like the skull craniometry all over again. Start off by calling a certain group of skulls caucasoid, then you find skulls in the same area same time period that are more similar to the 'non-caucasoids'. First order of business, you discount THOSE. If that doesn't work, then you simply change the category (narrowly define it), if THAT doesn't work, then you expand it, and then those non-caucasoids simply become some distant caucasoid cousins that just appear to not be caucasoid. How on earth do you guys expect some ancient Ethiopian progenator to give you a good indicator of the entire white 'race'? You know the man didn't look like a Danish boy with blonde hair, blue eyes, a big chin jutting out and long lank hair! How many different ways do I need to explain the obvious? --Zaphnathpaaneah08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
"There isn't much work I can do since your whole perspective seeks to prove that there is some genetic basis for classifying the "White" race." You don't ever bother to actually ead other peoples' comments before replying to them, do you? I mean, my entire point is that there is no genetic justification for race groups in Hss. The fact that you miss my point when I feel like its been spelled out clearly is something which concerns me.-Psychohistorian18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychohistorian, you are right. I don't really bother, you know why? Because I am not here for personal vindettas. I am not arguing against you personally nor am I addressing you personally. The "you" is in fact the collective contributions. If there was a way i can convey "you" in the plural... maybe using "yall" instead, or the general atmosphere, then perhaps I can get a point across. The point is, this article is based on first demonstrating a genetic foundation for the white race. Since the contributors are hell bent on holding on to that myth (obviously to keep their subconscious sense of superiority intact), there is no point on me going to the other areas. Do I see pictures of white people on this article? No. How can an objective person get any idea what the heck a white person is, if they have to rely on some silly genetic variables that certainly would not do the job? Oh this kinky haired, dark skinned Ethiopian is white because they have haplotype "Bu11-CRAP" in their genetic code. I contributed to this article many times in the past, when it was still in the Caucasoid skull stage. give me credit, at least I helped neutralize that nonsense. --Zaphnathpaaneah06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
White as "Anglo" versus Hispanic, with non-white connotations.
More interesting stuff about the term Hispanic and White. As I have already expressed, the term Hispanic comes from Spain, and is related to Spanish people. In the US the term white has often been used with “Anglo” connnotations, that is, coming from England, and then, from the British Isles.
OK, let us see further:
As I have already pointed out, in addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes inot account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:
Now we have another Oxford book whose reference has been just published two days ago and is appearing all over the British Isles in different newspapers, in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought.
It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.
I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:
A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.
The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.
People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."
Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.
Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.
The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.
These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles.
"Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.
In short, it seems that the Spanish had acquired a taste for boat building and ocean going much before they arrived in America.
It also seems that the term Hispanic, with the sense of relating to Spain or the Spanish or for people with such ancestry, is in fact much broader than it was previously thought, and it actually should include the English and other Britons. Life is full of surprises, is it not? Veritas et Severitas14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Genetic History of Europe
The article mentions several times that "white" does not necessarily mean on a global level that the person came from Europe. That being the case, the section on the genetic history of Europe seems like a very poor fit for the article. I recommend that it be moved to the article on the genetic history of Europe and that a link to that page be made in the references section. -Psychohistorian18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The European genetics section is irrelevant to determining who is White, so it should not be in the article. It might not even be good as a link in "See Also".--Dark Tichondrias04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Then who determines who is white, the Americans? What Americans? The Afgans, what Afgans? White is being used here referring to a race, and obviously therefore in terms of biology and ancestry: It is not something that you can convert to, like religion. You inherit it, in your genes. The problem is that ancestry could never be proven as it can now, and a lot of ideas, concepts and myths about whites and their ancestries, that were taken very seriously before, are now going down the drain. White refers to a race. In the 21st century you cannot talk of race anymore and ignore the only scientific basis to determime what a race is: Biology, becasue biology is the only fully scientific basis that provides information about both, ancestry and links and similarities between groups of people. If you want to talk about nationality, that is different, if you want to talk about ethnicity, that is different too, but if you talk about race, then race is biological, simple and short.
It is about time that infantile, puerile and flat out stupid concepts about race are abandoned, especially in what is supposed to be an Encyclopeadia, like the concepts of White, Brown or Black, putting together a person from Sri Lanka and a Native American from Ecuador under the same group, "brown", while the person from Shri Lanka can be racially much closer related to a European than to a Native American, or a Native Australian and a Sub-Saharan African under the same race "Black". Ignorance should not be tolerated anywhere, let alone in a place like this, and in terms of race, only biology has an objective and scientific claim.
So I do not only think that the section is necessary, in any case it should be expanded to include all the peoples that traditional anthropology has grouped together as white, and even the name of the section should be changed, because it is not only about genetic history, but about genetic relationships right now, in the 21st century and as we are discussing here. Veritas et Severitas17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Traditional anthropology does -not group people together as white, brown, or whatever. In fact, as is stated in the article itself, the AAA flat out disagrees with everything you just posted Veritas. At the minimum, you should have to provide reputable sources to prove why this section belongs in this article (that is, to prove that race is genetic and 'white' is tied to European genetics). Unless you can do that, then the only sensible thing to do is to side with the evidence and since the evidence makes it clear that 'white' and European genetic history are apples and oranges, the section doesn't belong in this article.-Psychohistorian18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, that is what some ignorant people have been doing, people who continue to use White and Brown to refer to people and classify them in races, like the president of the US recently and repeatedly, for example. And he is no freak, he just expresses the public ignorance of the people of his country. What happens is that some people in some societies have a big problem with race, and they do not know how to handle it because they have no idea about race. Traditional anthropology has always spoken of white people as the native people of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, but since the beginning in this article a lot of people have been introducing concepts about whiteness that are based on pure ignorance and racism. As I said, if you want to talk about race, do it the only way possible. Ad populum arguments are not acceptable in an encyclopeadia, especially when those ad populum arguments reflect just a bunch of ignorant racist mindsets disguised in a veil of political correctness.
Some people in some places continue to think that Presindent Bush is whiter that Sadam Hussein, based of course on a biological concept of race. If they are so ignorant as to believe so, they need a scientific response, and that response is in genetics and biology, that is why I even propose expanding these section to include the Near East, North Africa, India, etc, all places with clear racial, genetic and biological links to the so-called white people.
Another option is to delete the genetic section, of course, but in that case the article should be very clean, describing white people as the people that I have mentioned, without a single residue of white nationalism in it and without a single trace of ignorant ad populum arguments. In that case I agree that the genetic section would not be necessary. Veritas et Severitas21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"describing white people as the people that I have mentioned" Why should we write the article describing white people in that way when you can provide no reputable sources for it??? -71.74.209.8222:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No reputable sources?. Just read some basic anthropology. We cannot start here from elementary school. But if you want absolutely reputable and 21st century scientific sources, then continue with the genetic section. Veritas et Severitas23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Anthropology was my major. I studied it for five years in college at the University of Kentucky. Frankly, I don't think you're prepared for that discussion. Can you compare/contrast Boaz and Malinowski? Can you contextualize symbollic vs. structural-functionalist models? Have you ever even read Evans-Pritchard? Can you explain Harroway's contributions to critical and postmodern anthropology? Trust me, if you think you're going to get by with 'read some basic anthropolgoy', you are really going to have to up your game. In fact, given that what you are claiming (that race is grounded in genetics) contradicts actual anthropological research, I think you need to read some basic anthropology. -Psychohistorian00:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Then I think that we basically agree, because I endorse it 100%. And I agree with Cavalli-Sforza, who stated that all the attempts to try and classify people like birds have been proven to be wrong by modern genetic research. So, what can we do about the article?Veritas et Severitas15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You agree that "any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations [is] both arbitrary and subjective"? Because that's a 180 from your earlier statements to the effect that race is grounded in genetics. -Psychohistorian17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I use that argument when people want to talk about race and use old-fashioned concepts. I agree with Cavalli, scientifically/biologically speaking the term Race is obsolete in the 21th century. Cavalli speaks of population groups. I agree with him, because objective science like biology is demonstrating that they do not overlap with the traditional concepts of races. We cannot forget that the traditional concept of race, was based on supposed common ancestry and supposed shared biological traits that were passed down from generation to generation. The one-drop rule in the US is just an example. In short, it was based on the concept of biology, when applied to animals and humans.
In fact I have been making contributions that seem 100% coherent to me, like the fact that a lot of people all over the world, especially in the American Continent, are also of partial white ancestry, if we call Europeans white. Then as it is well known, many people who identify in the US as African American or Native American are also partly of European descend. Well, contributions like that have been continuously erased, which speaks of the ideologies of many of the people who frequent this article. Still, I do not blame them much, because in some countries, like the US, a person with 3/4 white and 1/4 "black" is still labled as black by most of their countrymen, which speaks of the extremist way in which race is viewed in some societies. So if a bunch of ignorant racists want to fequent this article, they will be confronted with the same biological argument that they have always tried to use, only that this time without their manipulation and wishful thinking. Just with results from population genetics. Veritas et Severitas21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"I agree with Cavalli" Which of Cavalli-Sforza's works have you read in their entirety? There are some other issues in your last comment, but I'd like to get an answer to this question before I go on.-Psychohistorian22:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no point in discussing his work with you if I don't know where to start - what you aleady know of his work. If I assume that you're already at the Calculas level, starting at the kindergarten level is wasteful. If I start at the kindergarten level and you are ready for the Calculas level, then that's wasteful too. Now, given your demonstrated lack of knowledge of basic anthropology (honestly, everything I mentioned earlier; Malinowski, Boaz, etc. is stuff any 2nd year student would know if not deeply), I should reasonably assume that you haven't read any of Cavalli-Sforza's work, but then you wouldn't have brought him up if you'd read none of his work in its entirety (along with peer review and so on), right? So, it should be clear why I need to know which of his works you've read from front to back (peer reviews would be a nice bonus). -Psychohistorian00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to try the ad personam argument this is the wrong place. Do not be afraid. I will understand you. Go ahead with your message, or you do not have any? If you do not have any messages do not make me waste my time. Veritas et Severitas00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I owe you an apology. I went back over your statements and I think I misread them. If you take your comment, "Traditional anthropology has always spoken of white people as the native people of Europe" and your comment, "a lot of people all over the world, especially in the American Continent, are also of partial white ancestry, if we call Europeans white", all you are really saying is that, "anthropology claims that European people and a lot of people from the American continent came from Europe and that, if we decide to call them 'white', then we can say that white people came from Europe". I agree, that's not controversial at all.-Psychohistorian01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then we agree on that. I also think that white people are also common in North Africa and the Middle East. The US census and anthropologists like Coon, agree on that. Anyone who would assert that white people are not common, for example, in Iran, should simply respond to this question: What race are Iranians? Because I guess that they are some race. Veritas et Severitas18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have heard an American person of Iranian descent identify their race as Middle Eastern. They said they felt the White race did not include Middle Easterns.--Dark Tichondrias03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The Middle East is a geographical and cultural concept. It has nothing to do with race. To claim that there is a Middle Eastern Race, would be to claim that there is a European race or one race for each geographical-cultural division that we can make in the world. And I do not think that basing our arguments in individual and personal opinions is a good methodology. I could say that I know a person who is green and that he considers himself blue. It may be OK for him or her, but it has nor furhter value. Veritas et Severitas22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You want to arbitrarily call people from North Africa and the Middle East 'white' as well? As long as you can keep in mind that it is completely arbitrary, again, I don't see much controversy in that. Personally, I wouldn't do it (as its loaded language and promotes the misconception that race has genetic roots and people who are knowledgable about race are likely to mistake you for someone who is uneducated on the subject), but whether you do it is up to you.-Psychohistorian18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Not just him: near everybody does. Even the US census does!
White is by definition arbitrary and it does not mean European but it's a rough synonim of Caucasoid. The concept of "white people" or "white race" only appeared as Europeans and Arabs entered in contact with Black Africans and Native Americans. By default everybody they knew from before is white, wether tanned or not, fair or dark haired, blue or brown eyed. You can find that variety in Denmark! --Sugaar13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Terminology problems
"White is a term sometimes applied to a broad and increasingly vague subset of the human species with a predominance of light skin color, and higher percentages of light-colored eyes and hair than are found in other segments of the population."
That's true only among certain people in certain parts of the world - not a universal as the statement implies. In other words, the statement violates WP:POV.
"The designation Caucasian was first used in the 19th and early 20th centuries by scholars who believed that Whites originated in the Caucasus region of southeastern Europe. In the United States and a few other countries, the term Caucasian has been commonly used to refer to all white people. In Europe, Caucasian usually refers exclusively to people who are from the Caucasus region, or speak the Caucasian languages."
This article is about white people, not Caucasions.
"The center of the white population is usually considered to be Europe and the Americas, although the spread of Whites into North and South America began only a few centuries ago. "
I agree with your assesment of that section. However, I wikified the word Caucasian later in the article to go Caucasian race because now it is the first appearance of the word. If I didn't direct it to that link, someone else would likely direct it to the Caucasian disambiguation page. Only the United States and a few other countries have used the word Caucasian as a synonym for white. Spcificallly in Russia and the surrounding area, Caucasian has a specific meaning that doesn't refer to all white people.Spylab16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
How is it "impossible to objectively quantify what a race is" because "the overwhelming majority of genetic diversity occurs within so called 'races' rather than between them"? As I wrote, this "looking genes one at a time" method is disputed because the reasoning ignores genetic correlations. So instead of impossible, it should be unknown or disputed. Noone has proven that it's impossible yet. And that's what the start of paragraph says by "From a purely biological perspective there is no genetic basis for a discrete definition of a white race". So should I delete this whole sentence: "And, in fact, the overwhelming majority of genetic diversity occurs within so called 'races' rather than between them - making it impossible to objectively quantify what a race is." - Thulean, Oct 31 2006
I suggest that this article is deleted.
Well, this article is a shame for Wikipedia. People who frequent sites like Stormfront come back here with their propaganda (Just a couple of days ago I had to delete an external link to March of the Titans, a History of the White Race). And I am afraid that a lot of people with distorted and strange views about race, coming from places called US, etc, want to impose their arbitrary and egocentric views on the subject.
You do not know where those places are?. Yes, of course, the same places where kids, from very early age are encouraged to classify themselves in different "races" in official documents. In some other places that sounds like Nazi Germany, placing the David star on this one or that one on their chests, but for them it is completely natural. You know, that way they can fight racism.
This article is a nest for Neo-Nazis, Nordicists and also Afrocentrists and all sorts of people with similar agendas and twisted ideas, all different sides of the same coin. One just have to see some of the latest comments and positions: "White is not the same as Caucasian", "Arabs and Berbers are not white", (They have even proposed a new race for them: Middle Easterners. It seems that we are going to discover new races here, good job!).
I know that a lot of these people will come back here all the time, so I just hope that honest people will read this part and propose the deletion of the article. Wiki cannot be a platform for Neo-Nazis, Nordicists, Afrocentrists and the like. They have already managed to get rid of the genetic section. It seems that they did not like it. Now they seem to read Stormfront and similar scientific sites for inspiration. Veritas et Severitas13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be deleted, because there is an article on Black people and other racial groups. Deleting this article won't keep the racists away. Either someone will soon recreate the article again (perhaps with a slight change to the title), or they'll concentrate their efforts on the other articles that are focussed on the white race (or other races). There has to be an article to describe white people, or else in articles that mention racial backgrounds (such as an article mentioning black and white players on a team or band), many people (at least ones from the USA) will use the out-of-date and technically innaccurate term Caucasian. The solution is for unbiased people to keep an eye on these articles, to make sure they aren't distorted to promote a political agenda. I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw a problem with that Peter Frost stuff about clines. I had already deleted it once, but then added citation requests when the person re-added it — to emphasize that there wasn't any legitimate outside source to back it up. That editor also previously added a sentence that mentioned "Jewish facial features" or other such nonsense, which I also deleted.Spylab13:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I see you added the comment about Caucasian after I posted my response. The reason that Caucasian is not the same as "white people" is that the term Caucasian peoples specifically refers to people from the Caucasus or speak the Languages of the Caucasus. I know it has been common in the United states to use the term Caucasian to refer to all white people (even i nofficial government documents) but as you can see if you read those links, that is not an accurate use of the word — and it is not used that way in most other countries (especially in Europe). Wikipedia is not supposed to be from an United states-centric view, but unfortunately it ends up being that way much of the time.Spylab14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I added it without reading your comments. We were probably writing at the same time. Anyway that is not the main problem for me here. The concept of race itself has become a mess with the emergence of population genetics, but still, since the article is about white people, a lot of people want to introduce the concept as seen by the ideologies that I have mentioned. Some people here seem to think that there are races like, white, middle eastern, berber or jew, and that the most sophisticated ones. Others just see the world in white and non-white. That is why, after watching the article for some time, I think that there is no hope for it. Of course we can look at it all the time, but taking into account that it attracts certain people like flies to a cake, it is an exhausting task. Veritas et Severitas15:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your assesment of the situation, but I don't think deleting it is the solution. A group of people commonly described as white undeniably exists, so there should be an article to reflect that fact (keeping in mind that there is no single, unchanging definition). Yes, all those pseudo-scientific attempts at defining distinct racial groups are largely based on faulty research and result in weakly-supported conclusions. The truth is that there has been so much mixing within humanity that there is no such thing as racial purity, and no specific line that separates the beginning of one race and the end of the other. However, the social and political affects of racial classifications have been significant in history, and should be documented. If you don't have the time or desire to keep an eye on the race-based articles, others are probably willing to step up. Often when the extremists post content to promote their agenda, it's pretty obvious that it's not backed up by legitimate sources. There are many topics on Wikipedia that have persistent agenda-driving editors, but that's the risk of having sites like this where anyone can edit.Spylab15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I vote for the deletion. White people should be a disambiguation page (the term is obviously very ambiguous) and should direct to a variety of more specific cathegories. For example: Caucasoid race (primary), Race classification in the USA, Race classification in (put here the old-fashioned country that still uses those things), Europeans, Western Eurasians, etc.
I strongly disagree. Of course the term is ambiguous, as is Black people and every other racial classification. The articles such as Caucasoid race and White Americans are about specific concepts of race, in certain times and places, which may or may not be accurate to describe all people who have been described as white. Besides, disambiguation pages list terms that look or sound similar; they are not collections of similar topics with totally different names.Spylab21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
Disambiguation pages also serve as multidirectional redirect: you are looking for "white people", you may be thinking in "white people" according to the US census, to "white people" as Caucasoid race, etc.
It is a very ambiguous term and it deserves a disambiguation page to redirect people to more specific topics. This is a encyclopedia after all, not an anthropology discussion forum. --Sugaar10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not what disambiguation pages are for. The White people article already links to those different topics. If any are missing, feel free to add the links.Spylab12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I think the fact that the article points out that the term is so heavily disputed and means different things in different parts of the world is, itself, a valuable contribution and reason for the article to continue to exist.-Psychohistorian21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
But it is likely to be vandalized once and again by racist trolls that are not of any use to te encyclopedic object of Wikipedia. If it exists it must be perpetually protected, so only registered users can edit (what is sort of guarantee against vandalism).
It must also focus in the different perception of whiteness and link to more specific articles adressing those issues (working in the end as a disambiguation page anyhow, even if by other name). --Sugaar10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that an article is likely to be vandalized is not a reason to delete an article. I agree with having it permanently protected though. The criteria for deciding if an article stays or goes is whether the subject matter is worthy of an article. This article does in fact already "focus in the different perception of whiteness and link to more specific articles adressing those issues." Improvements are always welcome though.Spylab12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I added the protection. The neutrality and cleanup tags are there too, so most people will understand that they should not accept everything in the article as 100% fact.Spylab18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab
Good! I cleaned up the European section, removing a confuse and probably irrelevant mention to "Aryan race" and stating that most European countries don't have racial classification and that the overall perception of whiteness is [b]arguably[/b] equivalent to Caucasoid. Check the new text, please and improve it if you can. --Sugaar08:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
please ignore the following question if it is illegal for you to read it
Does the irish blood liable and/or laws against it apply only to white people ???
edits by 193.167.41.45
I thought anon edits were disabled. How did someone manage to create an anon account which has no contribution history and edit this article with it? -Psychohistorian14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This user, suspiciously extremely active in "race" related pages, is ignoring the discussion space in the Talk page and acting unilaterally on issues discussed here. I've reverted. Anyhow, for the sake of clarity our main discrepance was in my phrasing of European perception of White as arguably and roughly synonim of Caucasoid. Her discrepance, only expressed in her talk page is as follows:
The European Liberation Front and Stormfront do not consider non-Europeans to be white. These are partially based in Europe, so I do not think that Europeans consider Middle Easterners or South Asians white. Your opinion Sugaar that your race is Caucasoid may not reflect the majority view Europeans hold. Southern Europe may have a higher proportion of people who identify as Caucasoid because Southern Europeans are the darker colored Europeans. For them, the physical difference of Middle Easterners and South Asians may not seem as drastic, since many can pass for one another. This could skew your perception of how many other Europeans identify their race as White (European).--Dark Tichondrias 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the uncited assertion I originally said I would wait a month before removing, since I had free time today.--Dark Tichondrias 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
She took less than 24 hours and didn't bother in discussing in the talk page.
Obviously vandalizing a page because Stormfront (a neo-nazi organization of minimalistic representativity) thinks like her is not any good reason.
Therefore I've reverted and insisted her to discuss any further changes here, in the discussion page. --Sugaar09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You Sugaar are the only one who wants to make the White people article disambigulate to Caucasoid. Psychohistorian and Spylab disagreed with you. There was no consensus on your position.--Dark Tichondrias17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, I think there was some other people saying the page should be entirely deleted. And when I said disabiguate I meant that: disambiguate not just to Caucasoid but also to Race in US Census, Race in UK Census, etc. The consensus was to protect it and not to vandalize it. What you are doing.
Whatever the case, that's no reason to delete the asertion that most European countries (as far as I know all but the UK) do not use race classification of any sort in their census or identitiy papers. That's what I mean when I say you are vandalizing: you are deleting everything without any sort of justification (where are your comments on your massive edits in this page?).
I also found her claim that the AAA's statement was incorrect curious. 1.) Its not her role to decide whether what a group of experts on the matter claim is correct 2.) The AAA article is making a distinction between genetics and social perceptions. "Physical appearance" is subjective - it depends on how someone appears to someone else - which is subjective - and simply means that the original statement is correct.-Psychohistorian12:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said the AAA statement was incorrect. I just said it was irrelevant, because it was talking about genetics. It belongs on the genetics views of race article. It does not belong on every article about race.--Dark Tichondrias16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is about white people, it is nonsense to try to claim that we should keep biology and/or genetics out of it. It is all very well to claim that biological information belongs on a genetic views of race article, but you cannot keep it out of here either. Indeed one cannot separate these concepts, biology has been used to justify societal racism throughout history, these are not mutually exclusive concepts. Alun05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd revert, but's already done.
I'm not sure which is the disciplinary procedure for member vandals, but I'm under the impression that DarkTichondrias should be blocked or something (after the adequate investigation). --Sugaar20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Notice that DarkTichondrias has re-reverted claiming consensus that is nowhere. I will wait 24 hrs and will re-revert, using the 3 reverts rule before asking for arbitration and considering other measures.
You have no reason to revert many of the parts you reverted before. The only part you disagreed with was that in Europe white is equivalent to Caucasoid. The other parts you reverted about the hallmark of whites being light coloration from Neil Painter and Peter Frost were cited. The other parts about the world distribution of whites under the common definition of being from Europe were also cited. If you do a massive revert to an older version again, state a reason for removing the cited material.--Dark Tichondrias23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And much more relevant: the part where said that most European states do not use the concept of race in any official paperwork. You erased that along with a bunch of other stuff that I don't know if you were right or not: you just didn't bother discussing why you did it.
Personally I support that the biological concerns regarding race must have a space in any page on racial issues, therefore at least some of your other editions (i.e. erasing capriciously the AAA declaration) were also agains my criteria, as well as against the criteria of other wikipedians.
What annoys me particularly is your attitude: you are taking unilateral decissions, without even bothering discussing them and (worse!) claiming a consensus that is not even in your imagination. That's why I asked before if you are one of those nazi trolls, a question that you haven't yet answered.
The only argumentation you have given so far is Stromfront and that other gang (white liberation front or something) that only seem to exist in the Internet (and better that way). --Sugaar20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, you only have provided us with your personal opinion that in non-British Europe White is equivalent to Caucasoid.--Dark Tichondrias09:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the reasons why I said that the article should be deleted or protected was because of people like Dark T. One just has to have a look at his-her contributions to see what I mean. People with her extremist positions should be banned from here. She is trying to base all the time the definition of white people according to Nordicist and Neo-Nazi definitions and concepts that are not taken seriously anymore, with the exceptions of a few crackpots. But as I said, the danger of this article is to have a lot of people with these ideologies intruding all the time. Veritas et Severitas00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason I feel compelled to work on this article is that some people believe race implies genetics. Race means different things to different people. For the people who consider race to mean genetics, reading about a racial concept defined by other criteria does not bode well. For these people, adding information on genetics improves the quality of any article about race even if the particular race in question was not conceived on genetic grounds. Outside of Sugaar and Veritas et Severias' contacts, there are those who identify as White (meaning of European descent). These are not a "few crackpots" and they are not all Neo-Nazis.--Dark Tichondrias09:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
'white skin' does not make someone a 'white person', so what's the relevance of this content?
indeed light skin colour is simply due to fewer and smaller numbers of melanosomes. This may now be associated with a loss of function mutation in the SLC24A5 gene that seems to be a nearly fixed mutation in European populations, but is normally expressed in other human populations.SLC24A5, a putative cation exchanger, affects pigmentation in zebrafish and humans. by Lamason RL, Mohideen MA, Mest JR, Wong AC, Norton HL, Aros MC, Jurynec MJ, Mao X, Humphreville VR, Humbert JE, Sinha S, Moore JL, Jagadeeswaran P, Zhao W, Ning G, Makalowska I, McKeigue PM, O'donnell D, Kittles R, Parra EJ, Mangini NJ, Grunwald DJ, Shriver MD, Canfield VA, Cheng KC. (2005) Science, 310(5755):1782-6. Abstract retrieved 15 October 2006Fish Gene Sheds Light On Human Skin Color Variation from Medical News Today, 20 December 2005. Retrieved 15 October 2006."
Anonymous user, some people would indeed say that white skin colour makes someone a white person. This research is relevant as it explains why European people have a light skin colour. Usually White people are considered European or of European descent. Alun11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I logged on as the prevous anon by accident. Sorry about that. In the section which states -who- (and when and where) 'white people' is defined as people with white skin (and which provides a source for that claim), you might be able to find a place for that statement. It would still be tenuous, in my opinion, but if the consensus is to leave it in, I'd support it. -Psychohistorian11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
We would need some good historical research of the concept of "white". I'm under the strong impression that it arose as contrast to Black people ("yellow" and other color-racialization being a secondary developement). The first syonims of "black" we find in the Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, Hebrews, Greeks) when refering to Kushites, Nehesi and Ethiops later among Arabs (Bilal as-Sudan: the land of the Blacks). This obviously means that many West Asian and Mediterranean people didn't feel "black" themselves but implicitly "white" by contrast. The widespread use of "white" probably didn't appear until colonial expansion after the 15th century, when an informal color-racialization took place. Yet, I cannot document this impression (except for the parallel article on Black people), that nevertheless seems quite correct. --Sugaar12:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Opening sentence
All Wikipedia articles require a definitive opening sentence that starts: "Article topic is ......." If the wording of the current sentence in this article isn't acceptable, improve it instead of deleting it. Without that sentence, the article seems like the beginning got cut off and it's jumping right into the various concepts without providing a base definition. Spylab20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
From those links, "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and characterize the terms." What this article does is explain the different meanings of the term 'white people'. So, it's lead section needs to be something along the lines of "the term 'white people' has meant different things in different times and in different parts of the world - these various definitions have been shaped by X, Y, and Z." The rest of the paper then goes into the varous definitions as well as X, Y, and Z. -Psychohistorian11:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
When you delete the opening sentence, the sentence that remains doesn't meet those requirements. Before an article gets into different variations of a topic, a simple starting point has to be established. I really don't see how anyone could disagree with the statement in the opening sentence. If for some reason you disagree with it, improve it instead of deleting it, because the sentence that follows is not a proper opening sentence. Spylab13:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
according to wordnet.princeton.edu, "characterized" means "of the meaning of words or concepts; stated precisely" this means that the sentence you want to open with means that 'white people' precisely means 'people with light skin color'.
In poiint of fact, however, the article itself gives examples of people who do not share your belief (see the Bai, for example). I'm also pretty sure that you wouldn't call an albino nubian a 'white person'.
Now, you claimed it the statement you want is uncontroversial, but when the article itself gives examples of people who don't share your defintion and when an example can be provided which you, yourself, are unlikely to accept, your statement's controversy should become quite clear.
When the article itself makes clear that there is no objective defintion for the term being discussed, there is no need to start the article with a definition masquerading as objective.-Psychohistorian14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who deleted the sentence before because it had the words "often considered" or something similar. You said those were "weasel words," so I deleted those words. Make up your mind. Without a proper opening sentence, the article does not have the proper format for an encyclopedic entry.
Quote the specific statement in the policy which states that an article must begin with "<subject> is defined as <description>". Until you can do that, I'll no longer respond to your comments about the article needing such a statement. The article already has a good opening statement. "Often considered" -is- weasel words. What you need to do is name a reliable source which states that -globally- 'white people' means 'people of light colord skin'. -Psychohistorian14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
White people (also White race or Whites) are a certain segment of humans characterized by light skin color and sometimes other factors.
There have been several variations of that sentence, and you opposed them all, for different, and contradictory reasons. First you implied that it was too wishy-washy, and now you say it's too definitive. Please be constructive and offer solutions instead of deleting relevant content. I don't understand what you mean that the sentence is ethnocentric. The whole topic is about race and ethnicity, so how can that be avoided? Are you one of the people who thinks the article should be deleted altogether? Do you deny that there is a group of people commonly described as white? Again, look at Black people and other racial/ethnic articles to get an idea of how this article should be structured. Spylab14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to change it right now because I don't want anyone to throw the 3 revert rule in my face, but I can't comprehend how anyone can deny that white people are a segment of human beings that are mostly defined by the colour of their skin (and sometimes other factors). If a space alien or blind person came up to you and asked you to define white people in one sentence, what would you say? That answer is what the opening sentence should be. The second sentence expands on that, and says there have been different variations of the definition. That covers everything. Spylab15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming that the definition which makes sense to you is normal, uncontroversial, and globally applicable. Another name for that kind of assumption is 'ethnocentrism'. -Psychohistorian16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not ethnocentrism at all. The basic definition of white people is applicable in all places and time periods. There have been many variations to the specific people who are considered part of that group, but there is no denying that the key defining characteristic of white people is lighter-coloured skin. There are no cases showing otherwise (in the context of race/ethnicity). Spylab16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great. If that's the "basic definition" globally, then you'll have -no- problem providing a reliable source which says that that is the basic definition used globally. Do that and the issue is over. -Psychohistorian17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly: a Mediterranean (European or not) with quite intense skin pygmentation is normally considered white, while a light skinned Japanese (for instance) won't be considered such. Many East Asians are clearly less pygmented than many "whites", so skin tone is not the primary difference, except by contrast with "blacks". The primary reference for the "white" analogy is European, Euro-Mediterranean or West Eurasian "racial type" (i.e. Caucasoid). Non-Caucasoids are by definition not whites, no matter their skin tone (in this color-related racialist speech) and the only discussion is wether all Caucasoids are "whites" or some are and some are not. This has no consensus though the trend (as can be seen in US census definitions) seems to be to accept that white and Caucasoid are synonyms.
There was already a source and you rejected it. Do you deny that the definition is true? What is incorrect about it? What's your alternative definition? You haven't justified anything. Are you going to go to the Black people article to delete their introduction and make the same demand? What about the White American article or other race-based articles? If not, you're not being consistent, and it makes it look like you're using Wikipedia to promote some sort of agenda. Spylab18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I give you an alternative definition: White=Caucasoid (source US census, almost any book on racial anthropology that is not written by a Nazi, neo-Nazi or proto-Nazi...). --Sugaar20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the meaning and the motives behind the usage of "white" in some countries, especially Anglo-Saxon countries. When governments use adjectives like "white" to classify people, they have a big problem that they have not solved yet. Just let us see: When and for what purpose were racial classifications introduced to indentify people in these countries using those adjetives? Well, we all know it. The fact that they continue to do so is amazing and betrays their subconscious. Anyone who knows Europe will know that the term "white" is now almost exclusively used in the mouths of extremist and Neo-Nazi organizations, with the exception of Britain, where they have exactly the same problem.
Then we have the extremely infantile and puerile approach to the concept of race by some people as we can see in the comments below and their insistence. Do you know why there is so much discussion here trying to present the Arabs as a different race that is not white, even if they have to invent a new race? Because of Bin Laden, of course. They are the enemy. If they are not white, they are a more hateful enemy. Veritas et Severitas21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
All the variations of who is considered white is discussed in the rest of the article. That's where those issues should be addressed. However, that still doesn't change the fact that all Wikipedia articles need a simple opening sentence as a starting point. And that starting point is that all people who have been considered white people have this in common: they are human beings, and they have lighter-coloured skin. Beyond that is where the disagreements start, and those disagreements are meant to be fleshed out in the rest of the article. Spylab23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the Chinese 'white people' do not have light skin, further "all people who have been considered" is using weasel words. Considered by whom? You keep saying that this is uncontroversial and well known. If so, you'll have no trouble finding a source which says this applies globally.-Psychohistorian12:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't think Chinese people have light skin? It's not as light as say, an Irish person, but it's still on the lighter side of the colour scale. I've never seen a Chinese person with dark skin. It seems that you're being ethnocentric in your definition of light skin. Spylab12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you are trying to expand your definition of 'light skinned' to such an extent that it carries very little meaning. Adding sentences which have no substantial content to the article isn't making the article better, it's just making it wordy (wordy isn't good). Specifically how are you using the term 'light skinned'? Does an albino count? Why? Why not? What shade of skin, specifically, is the cut off point? (you said it was uncontroversial, so there should be some shade which everyone agrees is the cut off point)-Psychohistorian13:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I use the term light-skinned or lighter-skinned because there is no specific scientific grading of skin colour tones. As I mentioned earlier, there are two undeniable truths about those who have been labelled white people, no matter the time and place. They are human beings, and their skin tone is on the lighter end on the colour scale. There are no white people who are not human, and there are no white people with dark brown skin (without being altered by the sun, burns or chemicals). It's basic logic.
All of the exceptions and variations beyond that definitive statement are (or should be) dealt with in the body of the article. The exceptions and varations don't change the fact that all Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) articles need a simple, basic opening sentence as a starting point. Plenty of topics on Wikipedia aren't totally explained in the opening sentence. Otherwise every entry would only be one sentence long. This is basic, basic stuff that I'm surprised I have to explain here. Spylab14:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Vivienne Walt quote
"France is undergoing a changing demographic with immigration from the Middle East and North Africa who they do not regard as White, according to Vivienne Walt a resident of France. In France, Holland and Spain according to Walt, "the mental image of the European in the world at large and on the continent is of somebody who is white and has very old roots on the continent. " as opposed to Muslim residents with ancestry from the Middle East or North Africa.[1] " This says what they consider Europeans to be, not what they consider whites to be. To put it another way, it says that people believe Europeans to be white, but not that whites are necessarily European. Consequently, it may belong in a "European peoples" article, but not in a "white people" article.-Psychohistorian12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"latin america"
In the "Latin America" section, "In some Latin American countries" should be replaced to "South American countries" as "Latin America" deems it to be a form of political correctness only recognized in the US. Crud3w4re08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Latin America" (in quotation marks) is a term. A term lacks a brain and therefore can't deem anything. It's hard to understand what you're saying, but perhaps it's that "Latin America" is a term that's only used in the US. If so, no, it's used elsewhere: see the hits in The Guardian (a British newspaper), for example. -- Hoary09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
But they aren't of any latin descent, so it is false. A mainstream POV. South is better, more neutral, don't you say? Crud3w4re19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if you're right, you're wrong, since (as you've been told repeatedly; perhaps it needs a few more times to sink in) Wikipedia records current usage, not what any of us think current usage should be. (And if it's not obvious, the "Latin" in "Latin America" means "the part of the Americas in which Romance languages are spoken", not where people with Roman ancestors live.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆20:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that Romance languages are spoken in North American countries too. Mexico is not in South America. That's exactly why the term Latin America is used. Paul B22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Terminology: Thulean's edits
This user Thulean has added a lot of material on Lewontin's Fallacy criticism of the AAA's statement on race. It's not just because I naturally tend to distrust heavily some new user with a typical Nazi nickname (maybe he chose it because he's from Iceland, aka Thule - who knows?) that has only edited this article in all his/her history as Wikipedian... it's just: wouldn't it be better with making a link to the Human race article. All that junk adds nothing but confussion: it's saying: "race is very irrelevant (AAA) but it actually means a lot (Thulean/Lewontin)".
What do you think? --Sugaar16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Basically the definition of white race is inconclusive. So, if you are going to say "From a purely biological perspective there is no genetic basis for a discrete definition of a white race", you should also say it's not biologically meaningless as well, hence giving the two sides of the story. Thulean, 31 Oct 2006
While you can make an argument that racial differences are not entirely socially mandated, you cannot make a claim that racial categories are anything but socially mandated. Man didn't evolve on islands and the lines between groups is not distinct. Every article which you've presented so far says something to the effect of "*if* we split mankind into these groups, *then* we find X, but *if* we split mankind into these other groups, *then* we find or will find Y". -Psychohistorian17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Terminology: Thulean's edits
This user Thulean has added a lot of material on Lewontin's Fallacy criticism of the AAA's statement on race. It's not just because I naturally tend to distrust heavily some new user with a typical Nazi nickname (maybe he chose it because he's from Iceland, aka Thule - who knows?) that has only edited this article in all his/her history as Wikipedian... it's just: wouldn't it be better with making a link to the Human race article. All that junk adds nothing but confussion: it's saying: "race is very irrelevant (AAA) but it actually means a lot (Thulean/Lewontin)".
What do you think? --Sugaar16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Basically the definition of white race is inconclusive. So, if you are going to say "From a purely biological perspective there is no genetic basis for a discrete definition of a white race", you should also say it's not biologically meaningless as well, hence giving the two sides of the story. Thulean, 31 Oct 2006
While you can make an argument that racial differences are not entirely socially mandated, you cannot make a claim that racial categories are anything but socially mandated. Man didn't evolve on islands and the lines between groups is not distinct. Every article which you've presented so far says something to the effect of "*if* we split mankind into these groups, *then* we find X, but *if* we split mankind into these other groups, *then* we find or will find Y". -Psychohistorian17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's how science works. You make a hypothesis by saying "if" and then try to prove it. Anyways:
"Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity."
[2]
That disproves what you said: "making it impossible to objectively quantify what a race is". I can understand the argument of no discrete definition but "quantification" is possible. Because of this and because you didnt answer my previous question in Terminology problems part, I'm going to delete that.
Btw, This was the report I was trying to link previously. I hope you wont portray this as an alleged study at scientific American.com as well since the name of scientists are given and it's the same that was mentioned by Dr Leroi in Ny Times and also in his site.
Furthermore the part you deleted was not editor's note, it was the conclusion of the scientists at Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. That paper studied the latest genetic data in great detail.
[3] So unless you find credible scientists concluding research or analyzing data thinking race is biologically meaningless, please dont remove it again. : Thulean18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"That's how science works. You make a hypothesis by saying "if" and then try to prove it."
But the point is that there is nothing objective saying that one categorization scheme is better than another - therefore there is nothing saying, objectively, what qualifies as a race (the people on the east end of the valley vs. the people on the west end - where' the line?) and, therefore, there is nothing providing objective quantification on race. "That disproves what you said"
No, it doesn't. It simply means that genetics differentiate over geographic distance. That says nothing about race. "the part you deleted was not editor's note" then quote the specific part which you are referencing and cite it.
1) The line is where there is a cluster. Whites cluster together so it'd be illogical to say french are different race than germans. Howevers, traditional anthropological races cluster in different areas and hence an objective "quantification". Besides you still havent proven that an objective "quantification" is impossible. So I'm going to delete that. Agreed?
2)Well it says. A dr at Imperial College London thinks it says. And his conclusions are more important than yours unless you got published studies at this field.
We could be discussing in circles for centuries. I just mean that for the sake of clarity, the section should be rather succint and link (for more in depth discussion on the concept of race, to Human race aaticle. There's no point on discussing the same issues here that are discussed in the other article and more properly belong to it.
I think the section should be in the lines of: White people (race) is a diffuse term of racial classification that talks of Europeans/Western Eurasians and other peoples that are simmilar to them in appearence. The AAA has strongly questioned the validity of the concept of race (brief explanation). For a more in-depth discussion of this problematic see: Human race. See also: Caucasoid. (This was Sugaar - I forgot to sign this, sorry)
I think people like you 2 are making this article non-objective. If you are going to include statements of AAA and write things like "From a purely biological perspective there is no genetic basis for a discrete definition of a white race.", you are only giving one side of the debate, which is against the existance of races and hence white race. That's bias. And that was how the article was before I edited it. You have to balance the argument by bringing the views of other side, which is for the existance of races and hence white race. It's simple as that. Bringing both sides of the argument into debate is a very basic concept so "discussing in circles" is irrelevant.
As for the length, do you people seriously believe this article is too long? It's already very short and a background information about the race debate wont hurt. And such a short (compared to race debate) background information is necessary for terminology part which is the integral part of this article. Because the terminology part should tell readers that the existance of races and hence white race/people is disputed from a biological/genetical persepective and that's precisely what terminology part does now.
Besides, while discusing an issue, giving a thousand links reduces the readibility. You keep clicking and at the end you forget what you were looking for at the first place.
There's one clear thing: the concept(s) of race and, in this case White people, are subjective and somewhat variable. There are other articles that deal with the specifics of race (in general, i.e. Human race) and classical anthropometrical races (in our case, Caucasoid race).
The article is about White people as a percieved human group and one thing that has been clear in this discussion and the history of the article is that some people (mostly anonymous vandals but also some registered users) that have strong feelings on the issue (mostly White racists) have been trying to make the article their own platform for propaganda. And that is against the rules (see WP:NOT).
In the previous discussion (read it, please) it was finally consensuated that the AAA statement should be there as sort of disclaimer. You need more? Add a link to the article Human race. That's enough.
There are two reasons why the article is limited: (1) that there's not so much to say, (2) that many information is as unclear as the viewpoint of the people who adds it. In any case the article is about white people: what is white people, different perceptions of whiteness, "white" cathegory in official census. Really there's no much more to say about it. And the more we say, the less we will agree.
For instance, let's say we board the issue of religions among white people. If I write that "white people are majoritarily, Christian, Muslim, Hinduist, Atheist and NeoPagan", someone, amybe you will come and say: "no, Indians (or Arabs or whatever) are not whites". And we would start again all over. There's no clear "history of white people", no clear "boundaries of white people", no clear anything about white people but our subjective perception that some people seem to fit in this cathegory.
I was of the opinion that this article should be a disambiguation page (see above), what would make things easier by directing to more specific cathegories like Caucasoid, Race in US census, Race in UK census, etc. But my opinion was rejected. I still think that the more limited, the better. And then link to more specific articles. --Sugaar11:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I know there is no universal definition of race. That's why this sentence is there: "From a purely biological perspective there is no genetic basis for a discrete definition of a white race." And the article DOES point to the subjective nature of white, with several references, ex: "Whether any individual considers any other individual as white often comes down to whether the person looks white; however this is a very subjective judgement."
HOWEVER, AAA's statements can not be a disclaimer, since they have no authority on genetic matters and rest of the biological matters besides anthropology. They are certainly not a world wide authority. Therefore their statements are only the one side of debate and including just that would make the article biased.
And listen, we are debating white people here. So asking "what is white people?" is a perfectly natural and entirely relevant question. In order to try to answer that question, a background info on race debate is necessary. That's why terminology part is there. Oh and humanity is NOT a race, it's a species.
And your suggestion about linking everything without background information reduces the readibility. An ex would be:
Canada:
.......for border disputes look at border disputes.....
Russia:
.......for border disputes look at border disputes.....
You state, "rest of the biological matters besides anthropology and genetic matters". What other biological matters besides genetics do you think are relevant to race?
I edited it, it was meant to be: "they have no authority on genetic matters and rest of the biological matters besides anthropology." : Thulean17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, AAA statement is outdated. It was in 17 May 1998. That was before: a 'rough draft' of the genome was finished in 2000; Ongoing sequencing led to the announcement of the essentially complete genome in April 2003, five years earlier than planned.[4] In May 2006, another milestone was passed on the way to completion of the project, when the sequence of the last chromosome was published in the journal Nature.[5][5] Serious advances in genetics are ignored in that statement. : Thulean17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the issue of whether or not the AAA is an organization which includes authorities on genetics. I'm only going to point out that your claim that it isn't seems to be original research. While the AAA's claim is old, it does serve as supporting evidence for other statements in the article and, further, its core claim has not been disproven. We don't remove claims by authoritative bodies simply because they are old - that'd be like saying that Einstein shouldn't be mentioned in the article on relativity. -Psychohistorian18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm NOT arguing for AAA's claim to be removed, read what I write carefully! I'm arguing that it cant stand alone as a disclaimer because 1) it's old. 2) It only points one side of the argument.
Do you have any authority that claims the opposite? Else it's your own POV and independent research.
In any case, the point is that this issue should be discussed in the proper article: Human race and this article should direct there for further information.
Furthermore, I don't think that 1998 can said to be "old". Most of Cavalli-Sforza's work and many other population genetic studies were available earlier. True that some aspects of genetics have advanced since then but it can hardly be said that any of those advances refutes the AAA statement. I just was reading today on red hair genes present in Black Africa (not manifest), for instance.
Regarding the authority of anthropologists on this matter, I know of no biologist institution that has discussed them. Many anthropologists (including AAA members [7]) are specialized as biological anthropologists and medical anthropologists, what is quite a qualification in this matter. Furthermore, most geneticists are rather uninterested in population genetics and archaeogenetics and prefer to deal with matters of medical relevance. If you are subscribed to or browse journals on genetics you should know.
We are trying to give the less POV/biased encyclopedic description of the common term "white people", what is not any scientific object of study as such. When in scientific literature the term rarely happens and it's more commonly seen as either Caucasoid (classical) or Western Eurasian (modern geographic descriptive term). That's why I was reluctant to have an article on this matter: it's a matter of opinion, as it can be wether Britney Spears is a talented musician.
The comparison you make with those border disputes is ridiculous. You are trying to discuss the issue of existence of race as such (all races, any race). It's like if you were discussing the concept of nation in the article on Spain. It's pointless and off topic. Maybe Basques dispute that Spain is a nation but for the sake of encyclopedism, we try to be as objective as possible. The proper discussion should be in the entries nation, nation-state, nationalism, etc. Maybe even there should be a section explaining separatist nationalism in Spain (and directing to the corresponding articles for further details.
In brief: you are trying to make this article according to your own taste/opinion/POV and not to make a good Wikipedia entry, like the rest of us are. You don't seem willing to compromise to others' viewpoints, the already discussed consensus (I wonder if you have bothered to read the disussion above at all) and Wikipedia standards (see WP:HELP and specifically: WP:5P, WP:SR and WP:WQT).
"A caricature of Lewontin's argument is that because humans share 50% of their DNA with carrots, we must be 50% the same. A caricature of Edwards's argument is that since (presumably) Swedes and Norwegians could be distinguished if we examined enough genes, they must be of different races.[8] However Dr Leroi does not think that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. He states
The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world's more prominent features—the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains—names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.[9]"
And this part was cited.
2) He had removed the fallowing part as well, couple of times, claiming it was editors note while it wasnt, again without any discussion:
"Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless."
3) He changes the words of scientists. Nowhere in the article "distinct" mentioned. He does this despite being warned.
4) "Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless."
changed to
"Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations.[2]"
(1 and 2) As stated above, I support Psychohistorian's edition (I was going to do it myself, after the discussion here seems to have a reasonable consensus).
(3)I'm not sure what you mean
(4)It's actually a concession to your insistence. I still think all discussion on the concept of race should be dealt with in the proper entry: Human race, nowadays all browsers are tabbed.
I disagree that he's vandalizing. I think he's acting as a sensible editor. That most people here seem to diagree with you is not vandalism. That you are trying to make the article look in accordance to your POV can be. Anyhow, check WP:RD. --Sugaar09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I note your statement of belief that I'm vandalizing. I won't respond to it here any further. In the discussion page, I'd like to focus on the article, not on other editors. However, Wikipedia has a mediation process if you feel that your concern is legitimate.
Having said that, I'll try below to focus on the content dispute rather than the personal dispute.
1.)While I didn't realize that I removed this, I support its removal because the content is in the Lewontin's fallacy article and we can link to that article.
2.)You say its not an editor's note, but you don't reference it and that makes it unreferenced. Unreferenced content is removable by anyone at any time.
3.)While I think I know what your issue is, I'm not sure. Like Sugaar, I'd like you to expound on this point.
4.)Your complaint seems to be that an unreferenced comment was replaced with a referenced quote. Is that really your complaint here?-Psychohistorian12:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the whole part is deleted, the discussion is unneccessary at the moment. However, by your own admission, you werent aware that you removed part of the article. That clearly shows your haste and careless attitude while you are editing. Thulean19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I love using quotes; they're a great tool to get something across and built a reader's trust in the article. But this article's terminology section has too many of them. Even for someone like me who loves quoting in my own articles, there are too many. WP articles are not quote collections, the vast majority of the text needs to be written by the contributors themselves and be based on references fact. I have added {{cquote|}} templates to make looking at the section easier, nonetheless there needs to be more text, fewer quotes or both. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review!21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted those quotes, because none of those quotes were specifically about whites, which is the topic of the article. Maybe one or two of the quotes could be re-inserted into one of the other sections, but not all of them. That section was too much of a diversion from the actual topic of the article. Spylab22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Good job. I wanted to delete all the quotes which should have been in a more general discussion of race. I also thought they were not specifically about whites, but I thought other editors came to a consensus about their inclusion.--Dark Tichondrias02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3176/humangenealogyux0.gif){kind=link}