Jump to content

Talk:White people/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Norway

Why the info about Norway was deleted? Thulean 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The source was deleted because it does not say what you claim it says.-Psychohistorian 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"people with Asian background (Turkey included)"[1] So? Thulean 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And???-Psychohistorian 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I claimed that it says, Asian includes Turks. Thulean 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote is, "In Norway, white is an ethnic category and is used interchangeably with European and includes all Europeans besides Norwegians, Sami, Finnish and other Nordics. Other categories are Asian (Turkish included), Black/African/Carribean and other". The article never sets a "white vs. non whites" line of any sort.-Psychohistorian 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what the first source is for. Second source is for "Adding more info. Second source is to cite claim about Turkish". Read edit summaries more carefully before making silly mistakes. Thulean 18:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You claimed my comment was "silly". Oh my god, you are attacking me again! Maybe I should create an RfI! Oh, no wait, I'm an adult.

Taking two seperate articles and creating a synthesis out of them is a form of original research and violates the WP:NOR.-Psychohistorian 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends. Sometimes a good editor will need to put pieces together. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
If you do in-depth research on the internet and books, you'd be able to find that the Turkish are mixture of people from Europe and Asia - Central Asian, Roman, Greek, Celtic, Balkan Slavic, and Persian. The Turkish are originally from Central Asia but they have intermarried the people of the Byzantine Empire who lived in Turkish before them. That's why the Turkish seem to have some interesting mixture. Some look very much like the Bosnians - with blond hair and blue eyes and others don't (some look Mediterreanean but have Chinese eyes). So it remains a complicated issue to say whether or not the Turkish are White. --Fantastic4boy 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Sugaar

Shell Kinney has opened an RfC on my behaviour in relation with the dispute on this article. People involved in it should probably take a look. You can endorse either view or make a separate comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sugaar. --Sugaar 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Revolution in Genetics Vindicates Coon et al.

Scientists have just discovered that races are far more genetically separate than previously thought, read the details (all wikipedia race articles will based on these findings have to be rewritten I think) here:[2].Manticorn

This is differences in gene (cistron) copy number, and is differences between individuals. No mention is made of "race". Your don't even appear to have read the link you point to, these variations obviously arrise during developement, when copy number can be modified in individual cell types even. For examply the DNA in your white blood cells is different due to the generation of diversity required to produce millions (possibly billions) of different antibodies, not to mention the fact that there is no genomic DNA at all in your red blood cells. The article states

Scientists are not sure why the copy variations emerge, but it probably has something to do with the shuffling of genetic material that occurs in the production of eggs and sperm; the process is prone to errors.

Your use of this article displays a complete lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of molecular biology. You appear to have nothing to base your claims on, how can "race" articles be based on copy number variation that is developementally linked, it has nothing to do with hereditary. Alun 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the way this news has been reported is going to tie it to the race issue. I have today's copy of The Independent (British newspaper) in which the news is illustrated with pictures of visibly racially diverse people, as if to demonstrate that this newly identified genetic diversity maps on to visible racial differences. The article does not say that, but the picture encourages us to infer it. Paul B 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well I've had some bad experiences in the past with so called journalists "interpretations" of genetic science on wikipedia before, especially with regard to newspapers and news websites being cited. I'm just glad thet the Reliable sources guideline specifically states that nwespapers and magazines do not constitute reiable sources for science. Alun 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan/Ainu people

Someone added a section about the Ainu people of Japan. I fixed it up for formatting and wording, but I'm not sure if the topic fits the definition of white people in this article. Although they are described as having very light skin, nothing in the Ainu people article indicates that they, or others verbally describe them as white people or consider them white in a social or political sense. Spylab 11:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...Lukas19 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancies between White & Black articles

Why are there no pictures of white people on the white people page? There are pictures of black people on the black people page... what if I don't know what white people look like? what if I want to know who famous white people are? Sabriel20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Most famous people are white, I don't think the problem you described will ever happen, that's why he's called "The Man."--Balino-Antimod 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

you missed my point, which was that the two articles are startlingly unequally written.

Unilateral move

An editor unilaterally moved this article to The white race; I moved it back to White people. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Tag

I'm going to remove it. The meditation is inactive for weeks (I'll reopen it though, on some minor points), there hasnt been any RfC comments for a long time. Every sentence in the article is also sourced so I believe this article is one of the most accurate in Wikipedia. Also we didnt see many comments in talk page recently...Lukas19 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront

FYI, someone on Stormfront (website) has posted a request for help from users of that forum with this article in particular. [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=340624] -Will Beback · † · 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was posted on November 10th, corresponding to us having to protect the article that day. Interesting... - BanyanTree 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit wars had begun on Noverber 9th though. Interesting...Lukas19 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reality, Truth and the facts do matter. It's too bad that so many people are not adhering to principle. But...I do understand why it is so important for so many to think of themselves as WHITE people.

Lukas19's revert

Lukas19 reverted my edit with the edit summary "Do not delete sourced comments by simply saying "fix POV")".

I'm reverting back to my version and explaining my edit here. Please don't start a revert war without further discussion.

The text I removed is:

In the Statistics Canada Census, white is a racial category in Canada. It is possible to mark more than one box on the Canadian Census and the boxes for Arabs, Latin Americans, and West Asians are separate from the "white" box.[1] One publication by Statistics Canada (but not necessarily representing the views of Statistics Canada) defines a white person as a Canadian of European ancestry.[2]

  • "White" is not a "racial category" in the Canadian Census. It is a possible response in the question about visible minority status, separate from the question on ethnic or cultural origin. StatsCan does not connect colour to ethnic origin.
  • The statement about boxes on the question is misleading, implying that white is exclusive of these other categories, which it is not. Multiple responses are allowed, and the qustion is defined by respondents' self-identification, so people of Arab, Latin American, or West Asian descent can report themselves white.
  • The reference to "one publication" is also misleading—that study, by StatsCan's Business and Labour Market Analysis Division, redefines the census's terms for a very specific purpose: "analysing the economic progress of immigrants". This study has been picked out by an editor to imply that the census equates white with European, which is blatantly false.

 —Michael Z. 2006-12-05 19:33 Z


White seems to be a category here. [3] Question 19 isnt about visible minority status.
Direct quote from [4]:
"We define "whites" as individuals who are of European descent."
The name of this study is "Minorities, Cognitive Skills and the Incomes of Candians". So definitions here may not be that specific. So this document should be used since there isnt much already about Canada. Lukas19 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Questions 17 and 19 represent two orthogonally-opposed statistical variables, and can't be mixed freely.
The variable collected in question 19, where "white" appears as a possible response, is called "visible minority groups", and it is explained here. Question 17 collects data about "ethnic origin": it does not mention "white". Explained here
Are you reading your own sources???? From here, which you gave: [5]
"The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."
Therefore white is not a possible answer to "visible minority groups". White also isnt mentioned in Stubset. However, Arab, West Asian, Latin American is mentioned...Lukas19 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the "we define 'whites'..." quotation is from the authors of a study for the Business and Labour Market Analysis Division, which makes particular assumptions to help them analyse the data for a specific purpose. As you can see, it is contrary to the definition used by the census, which defines visible minorities as people who are not aboriginal and not "non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour". Turn that around, and it means that white people are defined simply as those who report themselves as not visible minorities, or more specifically as either Caucasian in race or white in colour. Caucasian race includes many people of Arabic, Latin American, or West Asian descent, so the "checkbox" discussion is a red-herring argument written by an editor to exclude these people from being considered white. The minority income report was cherry-picked out for the same purpose, not to contribute to a discussion about minorities' cognitive skills or incomes, but merely for the single, out-of-context footnote quotation for the purpose of excluding people the editor doesn't like to consider white.
I have already made these points at talk:white Canadian. Please join in the discussion there. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 00:19 Z
That is not logically correct.
Hm, I see what you mean. That leads to the seemingly silly conclusion that some people who are white in colour are not "white." I think we have to reëxamine the assumptions. A bit sleepy for that now, but I think it's necessary to see how exactly the act's definition relates to census question 19.[6] Or perhaps the census question just does not logically equate to the act's definition, and sidesteps the logic by simply asking people whether they are white.
It's also complicated by the fact that multiple responses are allowed. Is someone who checked both "white" and "Chinese" white? —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 07:13 Z
But I think my assertion still stands, since neither the census form nor the "about this variable" pages equates "European" with white, and even people who are both Caucasian in race and white in colour may still be non-European. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 07:22 Z
This is true. The extent of Blumenbach's Caucasian definition and the extent of people white in skin color cannot be precisely defined in terms of geographic ancestry, since they refer to physical type and not national affiliation.--DarkTea 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas19 has rewritten the section again, but I'm not happy with the change. This:

  • Obscures the significant fact that the census only mentions "whiteness" in reference to colour, and not to ethnicity.
  • Yet again, enumerating the list of possible responses to the question falsely implies that the categories are exclusive.
  • Even though there is a citation of the full list, Lukas19 writes that the total list includes five possible responses, when it actually includes eleven possible responses, plus a write-in "other".
  • The link to the census form where the actual question is visible has been removed.

I'm reverting. Please only make edits which improve the section, especially in light of all of the discussion above. —Michael Z. 2006-12-07 19:51 Z


Definition of visible minorities is not complete. It lacks "'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour'" as defined by The Employment Equity Act. Therefore it's misleading. And the section says "improve it". Why are you putting lots of information to notes section when the Canada section is already small?? Lukas19 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

--Margrave1206 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The visible minorities variable is tangential to the question at hand. "White" only appears in StatsCan's population groups variable. —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 20:21 Z
Who said StatsCan is the only authority in Canada? I'm quoting The Employment Equity Act, not StatsCan. And StatsCan uses the definition of The Employment Equity Act. Please follow the links to sources. Lukas19 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any citations of the Employment Equity Act which defines what a white person is; only a second-hand reference to StatsCan, without an actual citation. Which chapter of the act are white people defined in? —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 21:16 Z
Employment Equity Act doesnt define who is white. It defines who is non-white. Obviously, though, we can draw conclusions from there.
Yes it was a second-hand reference to StatsCan, but since StatsCan is a reliable source, I didnt think it'd be a problem. But here you go, from Canadian goverment website [7]


"Members of Visible Minorities
Legislative Definition
In the 1995 Employment Equity Act, '"members of visible minorities" means persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour'."


"In the 2001 Census, persons who marked-in Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Japanese or Korean were included in the visible minority population."


That pretty much leaves people of European descent which is also the definition of OED for white. Of course I'm not gonna add this, since it's my interpretation but it should be obvious...Lukas19 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove picture of The Birth of Venus, Sandro Botticelli

Please remove the image of The Birth of Venus,by Sandro Botticelli. First of all Venus is a goddess, second she is from Greek mythology, third, the model was more than likely Italian. Italians are Romans. Please do no lump people with real history and unmistakable traditions into a simple category of white. If one is going to use such a term it would be more appropriate for Americans (USA), or those who dream of a white race. Others that have more than 5000 year old ethnic distinction do not have to lower themselves to such a nondescript name. --Margrave1206 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But all people are lumped into category of homo sapiens and they are all lumped to homo, primates, mammals, animals, carbon based life, etc...
While white category is not that biological, it's still legitimate from "white man" European explorers in 15th century to white-Australia policy in 20th century. Lukas19 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the picture of Venus in this article if there is a justification for it. But it seems to lack context and it may be seen as a rather loaded symbol to use. So, what is the reasoning for having this particular image there? --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning is that she's white and this article needs pictures. Check Black people and Asian people, they both have pics. Is this about the fact that her boobs can be seen? Judging from that many users here are American and the incident with Jackson and her boob...Lukas19 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The picture of Venus should not be there due to the fact that she is not white, she is a Greek goddess, also the original model was Italian. It is only ignorant to lump a group into a foolish category as this. White should be only for America (USA), for those who don't have a true linage. Since there is no white race, and the term white is a racial term from 18th century American (USA) then if should only apply to those in the USA. The new world does not set the standard for the past nor the rest of the world. We hope you understand that Renaissance Italians are what they are, Italian.P.S. The breast have noting to do with the image! I own period art and antiques of the 17th century, so it has nothing to do with nudity. The image of Venus on this article is being used as a representative of white women, who should be classified by term in its original meaning. The origin of the term is 18th century American, which means it would apply to women of ca.1730-1920. However as we all know the terms change again due to Americans need to find itself.When one cannot decided to classify themselves as white, or Anglo-Saxon it would be best for Americans not to classify other if they are still finding themselves. America does not set the worlds standards. People who do not have a lineage nor long association with a European Kingdom, Princedom, or ancient European tribe could call themselves white(Americans of the USA). When clinging to such a term as white, it is apparent that some are trying to find themselves. I am sure that Botticelli would not appreciate his works being used as propaganda.--Margrave1206 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you to look up Oxford English Dictionary to see what white means. And Oxford is British, it isnt the new world. It is the old world. And it does set standarts for the usage of English. Oh and also I'm not even American or from the rest of the New World, despite putting the pic here. One can be Italian and white. One can trace "a lineage" or "long association with a European Kingdom, Princedom, or ancient European tribe" and be white, which is more inclusive, ie: a higher set. And also, if you are so concerned about not following standarts of USA, I suggest you to use "havent got"(British English) instead of "do not have" (American English)....Lukas19 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with removal: As of the date of this comment, compare the primary image for Black people with the image for White people. The former is of some random uknown chap standing out in a field somewhere, the latter is an idealized iconic figure that arguably depicts someone's idea of the absolute epitomy of beauty and perfection. I do not have a say either way on the whole 'propaganda' interpretation, but doesn't anyone else sense a little asymmetry here? Why not just some random unknown chap sitting on a park bench for 'white people'? It seems appropriate for the sake of cross-article consistency alone. dr.ef.tymac 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: As an alternative, please note that wikimedia commons is an available option for finding an appropriate royalty-free random image. This should easily resolve the "article needs pictures" problem. dr.ef.tymac 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I do see the asymmetry and I had put the pic. However, I do not understand why you are suggesting to meet in lowest common denominator. Instead of suggesting to remove the pic here, why dont you improve the pic in Black page. You'd surely agree with that a piece of art has more quality than "some random uknown chap standing out in a field somewhere" and in Wikipedia, we try to improve the quality...Lukas19 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Your statements lowest common denominator and improve the pic in Black page implies some kind deficiency in the image for that article. Is that what you intended to imply? If the goal is a non-biased depiction of the subject matter of the article, then the only deficiency at issue is whether subject matter of the article and the choice of image consistently coincide. Showing an idealized, highly stylistic and meticulously rendered painting when a more randomly-chosen statistically representative photograph will suffice simply seems biased. It's like the difference between food photographs in advertisements for fast food, and what you actually get on your plate. Sure, the photographs look great, but they are carefully doctored, illusory, and factually misleading. The article is not about high-concept art, is it? No one here is trying to sell an illusion, are they? You aren't claiming that average, everyday people are unworthy for depicting the subject matter of this article, are you? dr.ef.tymac 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather than "trying to sell an illusion", I was trying to put something artistic, as I said...Lukas19 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note, the analogy was simply to illustrate a potential for bias using an everyday example from the world of advertising, not to impugn your motives. Indeed, I share your appreciation for fine art, but the article title is "white people" .. not "stylized idealistic renderings of white people in fine art". The purpose is not to "lower quality" the purpose is to maintain clinical, encyclopedic authority without potentially misleading implications. dr.ef.tymac 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, would there be any objection to using a picture of a clearly Nordic female with very pale skin to illustrate this article? That would be my preference as it circumvents all dispute about the meaning of the term white, and it well demonstrates what people are trying to distinguish or be proud of in using the term white. I agree that the term "white" is used to mean caucasoid europeans in general, except for particularly dark skinned ones, but we might as well portray the idealized white person to illustrate the article, rather than a mediterranean. Fourdee 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the painting with a real photograph of the least controversial example of "white person" I could find after about an hour of searching appropriately licensed images. A photograph is more appropriate than a stylized image and is subject to less confusion and interpretation. I think the image reflects the widest usage of the term, and the reasons behind the term. Fourdee 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A user called "Don Siano" had a habit of adding this picture because it is of "great significance to white people" (I quote from memory). It certainly seemed to have great significance to him, for some mysterious reason. I suspect the anonymous editor who re-added it is Don again. Paul B 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This one is cool Lukas19 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The image is of someone from Scadinavia, the girl even though nice is not an American (USA). The term white (USA 18th century term) would be more appropriate if the picture is of an American from the 19th century who would be considered white traditionally. This current image is incorrect, for this article is not about Nordic people. The image should be of a American shirecropper or rancher, cowboy, or a confederate or union officer during the American Civil War, a person that considers or considered themself white. If you must have a image of a female which seems to be the case, place an image of an average American woman. White being an incorrect term, especially not a race or correct classification should not be forced upon Europeans or anyone else! The girl in the image might identify herself as Nordic,Scadinavian, or whatever ancient tribe her family originated from.
--Margrave1206 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see such articles as Weißsein [8] in the German Wikipedia for evidence it is used in Germanic countries. At any rate, what someone describes themselves as is irrelevant, this is not a Swedish language article, this is an English-American article which should reflect how the term is used in places which speak English. The photograph accurately reflects someone who would be labeled white by the people who use that term. Your attempts to diminish or ridicule the term by limiting it to "confederates", "cowboys", "sharecroppers" and "ranchers" do not reflect the actual usage of it. If I were to replace the photograph with an American, which I do not intend to do at the time, it would be of a Germanic one probably from the north of the country. Further, you are wrong that the term white is not used as a racial category in Europe. Fourdee 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments below in #Historical Usage of Black and White which clearly outline the European origins of the term white to refer to skin color and race. Fourdee 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Fourdee you placed an image of a Swedish woman, however the article is about a term that originated in the United States. Your personal preference for Teutonic, or Scandinavian women does not take preference over a non bias view of the term white. You state "If I were to replace the photograph with an American, which I do not intend to do at the time, it would be of a Germanic one probably from the north of the country." First of all if an image of an American woman is found the picture shall be changed, also the image does not have to be of a Germanic female from the north. Do you own the article? I would like to suggest since the term white is from an 18th century USA, we should at least use a photograph of a woman who considers herself white from the 19th or 20th century, or an average young girl who represents what one finds these day. Perhaps a young lady with tattoos, multicolored hair, etc. Must she have blonde hair? Where is it stated that one who is white has blond hair and blue eyes?--Margrave1206 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Where on earth do you get the idea that the term "white" "originated in the United States"? The OED gives the first racial usage in English to 1671. The same meaning exists in other languages. Paul B 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You are completely, utterly, absolutely, 100% incorrect that the terms black and white originated in America. They go back to ancient times in europe and were used in Greek and Latin as is well attested in the historical record. Such a Swede would definitely be described as a white person. As the article already says, Germanic people are the most clear incontroversial usage of the term white. Also her eyes are green not blue. A photograph of someone with tattoos or dyed hair would not accurately portray what the term "white person" means as it does not show their natural features. There is no reason to remove this photograph. The photograph in the "black people" article is of a "black person" in his original ancestral home, so should the white person be. Fourdee 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If the person of color is in his original ancestral home then shouldn't the "white person" be in their natural environment? The by all means if Africa is the ancient home of blacks, from where should the whites be shown in their original environment. It is quite obvious that they migrated to European thousands of years ago. Yes,? So to correctly show someone who is white in their original ancestral home you would not only have to show them in their original costume but in the tribe they came from. We all know the major and minor Germanic tribes, so it would be only fair to show them in their natural state.--Margrave1206 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The picture I provided corresponds to the "black people" photograph in that it is a recent photograph of a healthy, natural-appearing person in his/her traditional home wearing his/her usual clothing. And as I pointed out, the term "white" is not American in origin, despite your claims, the most prominent taxonomist in history, Linneaus, a European, is the major source of it as a racial classification. So, the term describes Europeans, it was coined by Europeans, and the use of it in English, especially in the British Isles, as the article suggests, is most universally applied to Germanic people, so this picture is quite appropriate. Fourdee 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If one is going to show a photo of a white person in their ancient home, it would be best to show a white person in their place or origin. We need to know the place from which all white people came from thousands of years ago. We all know that Teutonic people did not crawl out of the oceans, nor did they fall from the heavens. So where did they originally migrate from?? We know the African man is wearing his traditional clothing worn by his tribe for thousands of years. However the Swedish girl is not wearing her traditional tribal peasant garb, if a white European is going to be show they should be in there original peasant dress, this would only be fair. The barbarians (modern Teutonic and Nordic people) that pillaged and burned civilized Europe did not wear modern jacks, so why would you show someone of an ancient tribe not in traditional clothing???--Margrave1206 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1) this article is not "ancient white people" or "tribal white people" or "those damn barbarians" - it's "white people". 2) The African is depicted as he is seen today. He happens to be wearing "clothing" his people have worn for a long time. That's due to the fact that they still dress like that. 3) "black people" is its own article; who's to say that its choice of pictures is the standard for anything 4) The caption says "historic home" which is correct, the historic home of Swedes and Germanic people in general is Scandinavia. Whether or not they arose there is a matter of prehistory. 5) you sound hateful of people with light skin (from your original comments on this article which even Psychohistorian, a fellow race-denialist, found offensive enough to insult you for) and of Germanic people (barbarian comments above), perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing the article. Fourdee 06:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I only compared the black article only because both of you (Fourdee,Lukas) where the ones that threw the black article up as a smoke screen. The black article should have not be brought up however we know that is how some people operate. Also how is historical fact offensive, if people originated from barbarians what is wrong with that? Please show he historically where the Teutonic people did not come from tribes, so you would deny their barbarian origin, and what about those pillaged cities that did not happen? As stated the past cannot be changed it is history. Some countries where founded by peasants during centuries past, others were built by serfs. History is history and the past will always be, do you have a problem with the past? I enjoy the truth, and historical truth is the way. I find racial classifications as white or black to be so boring, as boring as tricksters. I shall not recuse myself from anything, so far I have not edited one thing. However I feel the article is no place for bias propaganda or personal preference. I don't judge people based on race, or skin color, that is so common, and unenlightened. I pity those obsessed with racial purity and or with placing people into these ridicules nonsensical categories. By all means if one is going to judge another why shouldn't it be upon their noble blood, however that is besides the point.--Margrave1206 16:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Margrave: 1) Obviously the Teutonic people were organized in tribes. And some of those tribes were part of the Roman empire or cooperative with it. I do not believe it is any more or less accurate to say that Germanic people subsisted on pillaging than that the Romans did. However, you will find that some Roman commentators, such as Tacitus, had a much higher esteem of the ethics and culture of Germanic people than for his own. Your generalizations show a clear bias, especially when taken in light of your earlier comments about skin color. 2) The US was not originally settled by peasants; the Puritans, Mennonites, Huguenots and other Protestant settlers had left Europe for primarily religious reasons. The most cursory examination of the Puritan, Huguenot and many other early American genealogies will indicate descent (in general) from the merchant, gentry and noble classes. Admittedly many later American settlers were "peasants", for whatever it matters, but I dont see that as a good cause for your vicious insults when you first came to this article against people without a noble lineage. 3) It seems you find your self worth, from your comments, in a noble heritage. That's fine. Other people may find it in their physical appearance, others ethnic heritage, others find it in religious beliefs or heritage, and others on things not related to their heritage at all. Until you can learn some respect for what other people consider important you are going to have trouble operating in an open forum such as Wikipedia. 4) You have not raised any reasonable objection to the current photograph. Fourdee 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Re-Re-Definition vs Photograph: With respect to User:Margrave1206, the image is a photograph of a human being, and it's not a stylized painting, and it meets *someone's* definition of "white." The validity of the term itself is a separate issue from the image. If you have an alternative photograph that you think more fairly and accurately depicts the subject of the article, and it is fair use, please submit it! But note that re-debating terms, and questioning the validity of the subject matter of the article itself are separate issues and are not likely to bring this specific matter any closer to consensus. A picture is worth a thousand words, just a thought. dr.ef.tymac 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive club

Lukas19 and Dark Tichondrias removed the Kalasha and Pashuns from this article, with the edit summaries:

No evidence that these Pashtun and Kalasha people are Whites? Let me tell you that they are considered Whites. How come the pictures I see on google have Kalashas and Pashtuns with light hair and blue eyes then? Surely they are light-skinned people too.
None of those people have blue eyes and only one of them, the "afghanboy", really looks anything like "white" and he is still a bit "ethnic" looking. They are clearly Caucasian, but white is used to describe Europeans with pale skin and lacking unusual ethnic facial features. Your original research aside, if you want them called white in the article, find a citation for it. Fourdee 18:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely, I'm not making this up after the pictures have been seen. I'm using logic - there's no need to prove it further if you've seen it yourself in enough details - evidence is not all on pen and paper - they may be physical stuffs too (like the website images I've displayed above). I mean no offense but just wondering about it. What do you define White people to be then - just people like Scandinavians, Germans, French and Dutch? On the other hand, I'd also like give correction about the people of the "Bai" tribe of China do not look Whites at all. It may mean "White" but the "tribe of people do not look Whites" - the colour 'white' must be a symbolism of some sort to this tribe rather than a race of people and there surely isn't enough evidence to prove that they're Whites.

Please don't indulge in wikilawyering. What is the definition of white people? White people are "a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry." The Kalasha of Chitral "are known to have light skin, eyes, and hair, similar to what one would find in Southern Europe.... researchers describe the possibility of Greek lineage among the kalasha as unclear." Pashtuns "overall are predominantly a Mediterranean Caucasoid people". Caucasoid "was used to describe "European Continental Ancestry Group."

This isn't original research. It's quoted directly from the Wikipedia articles linked. If you have an aversion to central Asian peoples being called "white," then I suppose you'll just have to swallow it. Don't start your revert wars here. —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 10:26 Z

I checked the Caucasoid article and the citations dont support some of the material. I'll change it. You'll have to swallow Wikipedia:Verifiability. Lukas19 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying Caucasoids are not white people?. Why did you delete the Kalasha again? —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 20:27 Z
Yes, not all Caucasoids are white. White is a sub group of Caucasoid. I think it was Coon who coined this term "Caucasoid" and he said the same thing...Lukas19 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So you removed the Pashtuns because you say "Mediterranean Caucasoid" peoples are not white?
Why did you remove the Kalasha people from the article? The article says they have light skin and possibly European lineage. Where does it say that they are not white? —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 21:19 Z
I'm sure if they can't put a date on their purported migration out of Europe then it is in pre-history. In reality, every human is related. I'm sure specifications of ancestry imply recent and knowable ancestry as oppossed to "possible" ancestry. It is an argument from ignorance to seemingly argue that she should be included as a white simply because she has not been proven not white. The burden of proof is on your back to prove she's white by citation.--DarkTea 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Coon called Caucasoids whites at times, but it doesn't mean they should be in this article. He really didn't distinguish whites a sub-grouping of Caucasoids from my reading. Does that mean all Caucasoids are white? No, just because Coon tried to hoodwink the white American masses into his fanciful racial construct by calling it the white race does not mean they are the same thing. Coon's article is the Caucasoid article. Coming back to the subject, Pashtuns do not live in the Mediterranean coastal regions, so you must have arrived at that conclusion by Biasutti's classification scheme. Look, today most people consider Mediterraneans from the real Meditteranean to be whites, but "Meditteraneans" from Pakistan are not considered white. Again, Wiki is not about arguing over semantics but about citations. Show us a reliable source that says Pashtuns are considered whites.--DarkTea 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Light skin, hair and eyes? I looked at the Kalasha of Chitral article and there was a picture of a girl with medium-dark skin, dark hair and very dark eyes, and a picture of an old man with gray, cloudy cataracts which was labeled as him having "blue" eyes (fixed). If your statements are true it shouldn't be hard to find photographs and citations that reflect them. Perhaps you can add them to the Caucasoid race if you feel some need to have them mentioned, or find a citation for them being called "white" in some context. Fourdee 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguments based on two photos in the argument prove nothing, either way. That the Pashtuns don't live in the Meditteranean doesn't make them non-white.
So what are you saying the Whites are from? Just Europe? Why are they Whites living in the Asian part of Russia then and that there are many whites. What if these people originally have light skin and light hair and have turned tan because they've been in the sun? They're not Whites then?
The article says that the Kalasha of Chitral "are known to have light skin, eyes, and hair, similar to what one would find in Southern Europe." I didn't write that article, and I don't have a citation for it. If you have evidence that it is incorrect, then please cite the evidence and remove the statement. But it is a clear definition of white people. No one can "prove" they are white, any more than you can prove you are white. The point is that there is academic controversy over whether these light-skinned people are of European descent. That makes them relevant to this article. —Michael Z. 2006-12-14 21:10 Z
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." See Wikipedia:Verifiability So we dont have to prove it's incorrect. They have to prove it's correct. You have to come up with a source which connects whites and Kalasha...Lukas19 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Kalasha article at this time does not make any mention of hair, eye or skin color. When I edited it, the photo of the old man with gray-colored cataracts was labeled as "blue eyes are very common" which was uncited and not an accurate description of the photo. I do not see any other statements in the article about coloration. Perhaps you are thinking of a different article, or perhaps someone else has removed uncited statements in the interim. Nonetheless, as far as I am aware, "white people" is used to refer to Europeans with (more or less) light skin, and at some point darkness in complexion causes this term to be no longer applied - Italians and Greeks are approximately the cutoff for this, some Spaniards would be called white and some would not. But that's just my impression of common use in American English, other countries may mean different things by white people - I understand in Britain and Ireland it is sometimes used to refer to Germanic people at the exclusion of Celts. Fourdee 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lukas19 expunged whiteness from the Kalasha article, after you edited it.[9]
If some Spaniards are not white, then what are they? "Italians and Greeks are approximately the cutoff for this" seems to be your unsupported personal view, and shouldn't be used to whitewash the content of Wikipedia articles. A number of editors here seem to really want the definition of "white" people to be restricted only to Europeans, or apparently even just some Europeans, and to have this article avoid mention of non-European peoples. But the English language doesn't restrict the definition this way, not even according to dictionaries of U.S. English:
  • New Oxford American Dictionary: "2 belonging to or denoting a human group having light-colored skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction)."
  • Dictionary.com "3. (of human beings) marked by slight pigmentation of the skin, as of many Caucasoids. 4. for, limited to, or predominantly made up of persons whose racial heritage is Caucasian."[10]
  • American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "4. ... Of or belonging to a racial group having light skin coloration, especially one of European origin."[11]
  • WordNet, Princeton University: "2 of or belonging to a racial group having light skin coloration.... [ant: black]"[12]
 —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 02:02 Z
Who calls non-Europeans white? I've never heard that usage except perhaps when applied to partly European Jews. At any rate, going by the pale skin and general appearance measure... This man is Spanish and not white [13]. These men are Spanish and not white [14]. Many of these people pictued in Spain are not white [15]. This Spanish man is not white [16]. What are those people, you ask? I don't really know what to call them, but I don't think many people would call them white. They're dark skinned mediterraneans (and look like they have some even stranger blood at that). Fourdee 10:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

attempt at NPOV enhancement

Revised intro: The intro simply seemed to argue with itself and called for a bit more professional tone. The purpose of the change was not to substantively introduce anything new or take sides. The lead-in with OED is appropiate as a starting point, and the self-referential OED authoritativeness endorsement was taken out as superfluous. dr.ef.tymac 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But OED has really got such a reputation. So I moved it to references section...Lukas19 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OED Reputation OK: No dispute on the reputation of OED, however:
  • self-referential claims of authoritativeness have arguably dubious neutrality (even for a highly-respected resource such as OED);
  • resolving the previous issue is easily done with references to verifiable resources that talk *about* OED, but then this article is not about OED anyway;
  • excessive emphasis on authority of a resource sometimes has the unintended effect of making that authority seem questionable ("why is he emphasizing it so much? aren't *all* encyclopedic references supposed to be authoritative?")
  • authoritative definitions for ordinary English usage do not always coincide with "context-specific" definitions (e.g., statutory definitions, colloquial definitions, religious and emotional connotations, etc.)

Anyway, just some thoughts, and rationale for the change. Hope that makes sense. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed that part. It was copied verbatim from Oxford's book jacket text, and can be found on their web sites. Sources can sometimes be evaluated, based on other verifiable sources, if there's some relevant issue. But we don't need to praise the OED in this article, it just comes across as terribly self-concious. —Michael Z. 2006-12-14 22:08 Z

Historical Usage of Black and White

Margrave1206 keeps insisting that the term "white" first arose in America in the 19th century. This is not the case at all. Not only is the term used in European languages, and was made popular as a racial classification by Europeans such as Linneaus and Kant, it has a history of usage which goes back to very early historical records in Greece and Rome. On this basis he claims that "white person" only describes Americans (which would be absurd even if the term originated in America), and that the photogrph on the page should depict an American.

  • The Amherst Papyri (Ptolemaic Greek) use the terms black and white
  • Linneaus in Systema naturae (1735) used the terms rufus (red), albus (white), luridus (yellow), niger (black) to describe the races.
  • Immanuel Kant in Von den verschiedenen Rassen den Menschen (1775) uses the term weiß (white).

-- Fourdee 04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear not signed.The article stated the term white arose in the 18th century?? Or did'nt it? Where did I say the term arose during the 19th century? Don't you mean the 18th century? If you have more historical information in dealing with the term white, why don't you place it in the article?--Margrave1206 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Where are you from Margrave? Lukas19 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you had suggested that someone from the 19th century should be pictured. At any rate, it's clear that the term is not "American" but rather was used by distinguished Europeans in the 18th century, as well as in early history as the Amherst Papyri show. It's also clear that this term is used currently in Europe as the Weißsein article I linked from the German wikipedia shows. Fourdee 04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If it was used in Ptolemaic Greek, then it may have been used throughout the Mediterranean world, Persia, and as far as India. If it was used by Linnaeus, then it likely spread throughout the world along with western science. I'm sure this terminology for people's skin colour wasn't restricted to Europe. —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 17:15 Z

It is funny how the article is doing.

I have left this article alone. I can see how some extremists continue elaborating on the article and continue using it for their ludicrous agendas. I will come back in about a few months again, to continue having a good time at the expense of the most biased article in Wikipedia. Have a look at user Lukas (I think before Thulean) and D. Tichondrias. Two interesting users among some others. Veritas et Severitas 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, these people like a lot Peter Frost (interesting as he may be), while they did all they could to erase the genetic section in this article (often showing a very different picture of reality). Just a reminder. Veritas et Severitas 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

About the picture, I have already said it. Pictures have to be representative of most units encompassed by one concept. Most white people do not look like that and most white people are not even blond. I think this is about enough with so much POV pushing. Veritas et Severitas 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends what usage of white people you mean. In English, particularly as used in the British Isles, "white" often refers to Germanic people versus Celtic, and the surnames like White, Whited, Whitehead refer to blondness. For that narrowest use of "white" in English, the photograph is very accurate. Even for the broader use of the term, there is controversy as to the boundaries of what qualifies as "white" - certainly we would need to use a photograph of someone with pale skin. Fourdee 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The definitions that you are giving for white are only embraced by the most extreme Neo-Nazi organizations. I mean the most extreme of extreme. In fact I cannot find anything more extreme. I do not know where you got your ideas about race or why you think that the most extreme points of view in the question of race should be even taken seriously about an article dealing with white people who are usually quite decent people and who are fed up and ashamed of their name being used in such a fanatical and fundamentalist way. Veritas et Severitas 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Many people who are not Nazis use the terms "black and "white" in reference to British and Irish people, not to mean skin color but hair color. At any rate, people of the Nordic type, in general, have the palest skin so are the "most white" by anyone's definition. Fourdee 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The palest people in the world are Slavic people, in fact those who were called Baltic-Orientaloids, If you want to play that game. In any case, from the point of view of European origins and civilization, which is often associated with the term white, "Nordic" people as you call them, played a very secondary role and from the genetic point of view, some of them are among the least characteristically European. I think that your position is already clear and we know who you are and what you stand for. Nordic people have nothing to do with any real race and genetics, which traces ancestry, tells a very different story. In fact, from the genetic point of view, Basque people could be considered the whitest people, because they are genetically the most characteristically European: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf, far more than those that you call "Nordic" people. In fact they are neither whiter nor less white than any other European (caveat: not only Europeans are white). Those games only belong to the most fundamentalist of extremists, those who are using this article for their agendas. But I am not wasting a single second more with people of your silk. I have more important things to do. Maybe some intelligent readers can drop by and see what is going on here. Veritas et Severitas 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, the Basque people are very uniformly R1b, that doesn't make them the "whitest" or the most European. It does make them quintessentially western European, for what it's worth. Baltic people are definitely often blonde and pale, but they are not slavic at all (and slavs have darker hair and eyes, generally) and they are geographically and to an extent genetically linked to Scandinavians. The distribution of pale skin is quite clear[17]. I think the portrayal of a Scandinavian person reaches a good balance between the British/Irish usage of white to mean blonde or Germanic, and the more general usage of it to mean having pale skin and being of European origin. Fourdee 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You continue with your puerile concept of white people, that would be infantile if it did not have behind what we all know. Maybe you forgot that this article is about a racial classification. Those old-fashioned maps that you are showing have nothing to do with any real distribution of "races". In fact, population groups, or "genetic races" do not overlap at all with that. But obviously Nordicists do not want to talk much about genetics, which is the only real scientific definition to speak about population groups, which is the closest biological concept to race. The reason is because their extreme views look laughable in the light of science and they just stick to concepts forged in the 18th and 19th century and which are now obsolete. It does not matter, let us just spread the propaganda and perpetuate the lies.

And you do not have to tell me that Basques are not more European or whiter than others, I have already said it myself. You are the one who says that Nordics and Germanic people are whiter than others. We all know what ideology is behind all that.

And I can see, and anyone can see in the Hapmap above, how Baltic and Nordic people are related, by having a huge percentage of the genetic marker called Haplogroup N: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Haplogroup_N_Y-DNA%29, a Haplogroup that is not even Caucasian. In that respect Many Scandinavians and Baltic people are less Caucasian than North Africans, who by the way are perfectly Caucasian. All this scientific evidence must be painful to Nordicists. That is probably why some of them come here to try and satisfy their hurt egos, because they thought themselves the purest whites and genetic evidence is kicking them in the ass. And I mean Nazi-Nordicists, not the very decent and respectful people of Scandinavia, who are usually tired to see their name being stained by these fundamentalists. Veritas et Severitas 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Veritas et Severitas 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Haplogroup N is Caucasoid and represents the ancestor group for the other Caucasian haplogroups. I'm sure many Russians, Finns and Baltic people would be shocked to hear that they are not Europeans. Sure look like it to me. I never denied, and in fact have stated, that there is some vagueness in the difference between Mongoloid and Caucasoid as far as how the mutations arose. That doesn't matter much to a "white people" article. At any rate, Swedes and Norwegians don't have significant portions of N. If you think "white people" or "nordic people" are "lies" that is your perogative however I don't think other people find the terms very difficult to apply. Fourdee 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Also you have some trouble sticking by your word to leave the article, but my perception of that dishonor may be a result of my cultural and/or ethnic and/or racial insensitivity. Fourdee 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said that other Europeans are more or less white. Haplogroup N is what it is. It does not matter what you say and how you want to go around it. All Europeans are equally European or white, if you want.

So a black European citizen is equally white? Fourdee 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Europeans are increasingly of many races. In my own country immigrants already make up about 10 per cent of the population and we have never been better off. But that is not the discussion here. The discussion is that you insist on presenting Germanic peoples and Nordics as whiter than others. Veritas et Severitas 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is you, again, who claim that some are whiter. I am just responding to your arguments. And what ethnicity are you? I am a European, a Spanish and German citizen, born in Spain to a Basque mother and a German father, and a supporter of the European Union, and I interfere a lot with fundamentalist and radical views, like yours. But you are probably right. We come from two different worlds. Europe and America. In Europe people with your views are only found among the most radical Neo-Nazi organizations. And even those I think are not that radical in their views. Maybe people with your views are considered normal in America, but I doubt it. Veritas et Severitas 02:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you are, you cannot stand by your word at all and have no shame about going back on it. Again, perhaps I am not being sensitive to your cultural/ethnic/racial/whatever traditions. Fourdee 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have changed my mind now. Especially after getting to know you better and your ethnic traditions. You got a problem?Veritas et Severitas 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, now I am leaving the article for some time, so you can manipulate it again. I just hope that my conversation with you will help other people know who are the ones around here. Veritas et Severitas 04:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I leave this article alone again.

Just see the last contributions.

About Germanic peoples.

About the picture

About deleting the contribution about dark hair.

And about the comments above.

If some administrators want to leave this article for these people it is up to them and a shame for Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Fellegi, Ivan P. Statistics Canada. 2001 Census. 2001. November 8, 2006. [18]
  2. ^ Finnie, Ross. Statistics Canada. Minorities, Cognitive Skills, and the Incomes of Canadians. [19]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people/Archive_7&oldid=1086329225"