Jump to content

Talk:White people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yami Sasha (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 9 August 2007 (→‎Arbitrary gallery). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12


Photos

There are 29 Photos in the Black People article and only two here, one of an old lady and one of a cave drawing or something. Am going to add some in. --Hayden5650 00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have a point and I have been thinking about the same thing as well. In all fairness more photos are required. However there was an active debate which several editors indicated that there should be no photos at all. The biggest issue is that whiteness and blackness are constructed differently. In general white people do not view themselves as white but more as the neutral race, whereas society has made blacks very conscious of their race. Consequently society is more comfortable discussing blackness than it is whiteness. For example the author of this book once requested some of

The Race Game consisting of a single, but powerful rule:

For the next seven days, she [the white woman] must use the ascriptive term white whenever she mentioned the name of one of her Euro-American cohorts. She must say, for instance, ‘my white husband, Phil,’or ‘my white friend Julie,’ ‘my lovely white child Jackie.’ . . . I guaranteed her that if she did this for a week and then met me for lunch, I could answer her questions using terms she would understand.

It was so incredibly easy for the white woman to use Black as a racial designator, but she failed to use the term white to describe herself and her friends. Describing the disappointing outcome, Thandeka notes, “We never had lunch together again. Apparently my suggestion made her uncomfortable.” race game

Muntuwandi 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is silly. Genetically, white skin is the anomaly. I grant you that all this has lots of sociological implications, which should be all means be discussed. But this is also the article on the white skin phenotype. Why this reluctance to discuss the phenotype and the underlying genetics? People refuse to even show pictures of people of that phenotype? Discussion of correlation of other phenotypes (like eye or hair colour) is effectively suppressed with some political hand-waving. This won't do at all. This article needs to discuss both, the straightforward facts of genetics and distribution, and the socio-political history of the construct. dab (𒁳) 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this article is pathetic. PC libs run it to the point you can't even show pictures of white people in a WHITE PEOPLE article. Manic Hispanic 00:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the situation correctly. But if it is really a matter of "political correctness" to show no images here (why??) that's truly laughable. This article needs the detached treatment of population genetics restored. Its topic is Eurasian genetic history, not US history. dab (𒁳) 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with genetics being included because that is discordant with whiteness. For example sub-saharan mtDNA is found all over Europe, but that does not make the people with African haplogroups any less white. The only genetics that is relevant to whiteness is that which causes light skin.
with regard to pictures, care must be taken, otherwise every editor will try to include their favorite supermodel or pornstar, and the article will look more like a tabloid than discussing the concept of whiteness.Muntuwandi 01:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why a generic picture of a white family is completely appropriate. Who the heck is that old woman, anyway? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the why the cave painting is relevant? Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the figures were "darker than animals" because they only had two colors of paint? We're not going to use the colors in a cave painting as a basis for a scientific approach to who's who, are we?
Agreed, it's not relevent (and probably original research...they look the same shade to me.) --JW1805 (Talk) 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is origins of light skin, the two important questions is when and where. Nobody knows for sure so scientists have to use indirect methods such as prehistoric art.Muntuwandi 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the picture of the black Europeans in the cave painting should be in the article because the POV that Europeans at that time were black is attributed to a Frank Sweet, a reliable source historian. I don't think that the family picture should be in the article because the POV that they're white is not sourced.----DarkTea 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just cut the PC bollocks, everyone knows what a white person is. The family pic is good. Here are some examples of white people: George Bush, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Beethoven, Darwin, Jefferson, Newton, Ford, Queen Elizabeth, Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolf Hitler, John Howard, Don Brash, Bill English, Ernest Rutherford. Need I go on? We hardly need genetic evidence to prove the difference between them and the likes of Rodney King, Condy Rice, Emperor Hirohito, Pol Pot, Aussie Aboriginals, OJ Simpson et cetera et cetera. So why not have a picture of people who we all know are white? --Hayden5650 06:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA2-Blitz-0263Cauc.JPG
portrait gallery of what were considered Caucasoid types in the 1930s. We don't necessarily call these "Caucasoid" anymore, and much less a "race", but the gallery still covers accurately what we consider "white people".
Template:2000 Race US Census map
Compare the geographic range covered by the gallery above with the
current definition of "White" origins for purposes of the US census.


I don't think the "white family" image is a very good choice. Of course it's an image showing white people, but seeing the very large corpus of images to choose from, I am sure we can do better. What we need is a selection of a few portraits showing the range of Eurasian plus North African ethnicities that are considered "white". We need at the very least an European portrait, a Berber one, and a Central Asian one. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to focus on White Americans and White British, as that is the majority of people who read the English Wiki. I mean, how many people look at Yasser Arafat and think, 'Yasser, the white man'??
Just because we are whites of western European descent doesn't mean we have to overcompensate on the correctness by pretending we are not the majority.
The last thing we need is a page full of North Africans and Eurasians. The further east you go, the skin begins to change tone and the eyes begin to increase in curvature. This is best illustrated in Romanian people.
Let's have the bulk of photos representing White British and White American, with a couple of the fringes of white society, including some from the western-most Soviet Union. --Hayden5650 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It doesn't matter who reads the article, what matters is what our reliable sources define the article to be about. I propose the following criteria for image choice:

  • identifiable ethnicity. The image source must give the region of origin of the person depicted, not just generic "white".
  • aesthetic portrait, not just a random snapshot.
  • historical images should be preferred, but they have the disadvantage of being b/w. Ideal are early colour photographs
  • avoid famous people
  • White Americans have their own article. They are not ideal for this one, since their 'ethnicity of origin' can rarely be determined

possibilities matching these criteria I can find are are: Image:Armeniangirl.jpg (two Armenian girls); Image:0000233523-004.jpg (Georgian girl); Image:Persian local woman.jpg (Persian girl); Image:Palestinian girl in Qalqiliya.jpg (Palestinian girl). I am sure we can find many others. The aim should be to present at least four images, covering Europe, Central Asia, North Africa and the Near East. The problem seems indeed to be that white people are somehow not considered "ethnic", and uploaders are often content to just describe the image as "blond man" or similar, without stating region of origin. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why can't we just have normal, everyday white people? Why do we have to have Arabs and pakis and armenians? Why not English and Scottish and German and Dutch, the real white people! --Hayden5650 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hayden5650, your argument borders on racism. The reasons for saying NO! to your rethorical question are so many as to question your encyclopedic intent. The Ogre 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole argument is a liberal joke and I'm not losing my account over it. Night ya'll --Hayden5650 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, Hayden, you are not helping. Certainly we can have an image of a Scotsman or Dutch, as one example of white ethicity, but your racialist innuendos are certainly not productive for this article. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use that ridiculous US census grouping as a reliable source, the history of those categories in the US makes the US Census Bureau nearly worthless as a source on this issue. It's fine when discussing the US perspective but not the world view. Not so long ago if you put Irish on the US census you wouldn't be counted as "white" and suddenly you can put down "Sudanese" you're counted as a white person? And I partially agree with Hayden on this one, instead of showing images of people who clearly represent the vast majority of white people some editors here feel the need to find some one guy that looks white in Pakistan. We might as well start add Asians to this article, after all their skin color isn't very different. JRWalko 15:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was part of the original image dispute that led to an attempted "no images" rule. The problem we encountered derives from the poor definition of the concept of "white people." Some editors advocated a very specific set of people he seemed to feel were "exemplary" whites. This selection focused upon Nordic & Germanic regions but inexplicably excluded Ashkenazi Jews, and of course excluded non-Europeans. I proposed adding Benjamin Netanyahu (of Lithuanian descent) and to a lesser extent, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a possible 'southern' white. Lukas19 couldn't tolerate having Netanyahu pictured (for some reason), so we ended up removing all of the pictures. As the conflict illustrated, Wikipedians, not reliable sources, were using their personal opinions to determine who is white and should be pictured - that is OR. It seems that this is again the case here. The Behnam 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion is a bit absurd. I like the family photo, because it is generic. It is a family of indisputable white people (the name of the article). Of course, there should be more photos here. But, the family photo is perfect as the article lead. Putting some specific famous person like Benjamin Netanyahu or King Abdullah at the top seems strange and unnecessary. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European genetic history

This is not concordant with white genetic history. Many of the haplogroups of Europeans are shared by non-whites. And many whites have non-european haplogroups. haplogroups are not concordant with physical appearance, it is for this reason I believe European genetics should not be in this article but should be in the article European genetic history.Muntuwandi 11:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neither is European genetic history a strict subtopic of this article, nor is this article a strict subtopic of European genetic history, but their are overlapping and should hence be mutually linked. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! The Ogre 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this has little to do with whiteness. In fact it is original research to imply that. there is no such thing as a white haplogroup. for all we know some of the haplogroups that spread into Europe were by europeans who were still black. Early cro-magnons fossils show they had long legs and short trunks and narrow bodies like east african nilotics such as the Maasai. this is indication they were still black because this type of body is adapted to hotter regions. After several thousands of years the cro-magnons evolved shorter legs and longer trunks. Some authors suggest that whiteness may have fully arisen only in the last 11,000 at the end of the holocene. It is thus wrong and original research to ascribe 40,000 years of genetic history to white people when several thousands of years Europeans were black. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf Muntuwandi 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parting note, remember that Northern Middle and Southern white europeans look very different, so we definately need pics showing the differences between Swedish, Germanic and Italian peoples. The faces of each look very different, especially the shape of the nose, hardness/softness of facial features and variations in color. --Hayden5650 12:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with regards to that ridiculous blonde picture, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard finding a pic of a white person with blonde hair! There's hardly such a shortage that we must resort to the odd Negro that has blonde hair --Hayden5650 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just to show that blondness is not concordant with whiteness. You do not have to be white to be blonde. That is why those sections were removed.Muntuwandi 12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about proving whether or not you have to be white to be blonde. As I said earilier, the article Black People has 29 pics, so we certainly don't need even more of them spilling into here. --Hayden5650 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the races are not discrete non-overlapping entities.Muntuwandi 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to halfcasts? Come on man, we all know what a white man is, why can't we just say it? --Hayden5650 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As expected from a buddy of Nordic_Crusader. Muntuwandi 12:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


guys, can you cut the edit-warring, I am trying to improve this article. Muntuwandi, it is not "original research" to state that hair colour is de facto correlated to skin colour, it is "research": of course we need to cite reliable sources discussing the topic. My involvement here is due precisely because I came here because I wanted some references discussing this correlation. I didn't find what I was looking for, but discovered that it was buried in the edit history. Obviously, there can be stray mutations towards blond hair in non-white populations. But these are exceptional, and surely shouldn't be discussed here, but on blonde hair. That said, can Hayden5650 please restrain himself from annoying other editors with his racialist nonsense. This should be a detached discussion of academic literature on the topic. We are not here to prove or disprove anything, but to report on scholarly debate. Krimpet (talk · contribs), I consider this protection somewhat premature. Don't lock down the article after two or three reverts. Often things smoothen out after half an hour or so of confrontation. And we have WP:3RR to take care of individual trouble-makers. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt no editors were trying to seek a consensus and were just steamrolling edits from the past. Most of this controversial material was being advocated for by User:Lukas19 who has since been blocked for promoting Nordicism. There has already been extensive discussion on the use of genetics and the conclusion is that genetics is non concordant with whiteness.
You can see how sub-consciously powerful eurocentric bias is. Dbachman why do you assume that when a black has white hair it is a stray mutation. It is most likely the other way round. The fact that people in the south pacific and Europeans have blonde hair is indicative that blonde hair genes were already in the ancestral population in Africa prior to the dispersal of humans. Both Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians have blonde hair. Since they are considered the first migrants out of Africa it says alot. Cavalli-Sforza states that the vast majority of genetic polymorphisms arose in the millions of years of human evolution prior to the dispersal of humans 50,000 years ago. Most of these polymorphisms came to differ in frequency by drift or selection. What this entails is that though new mutations have been occuring such as the RH-, most polymorphisms only differ in frequency between the "races". Muntuwandi 13:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, I am not interested in disputes between Nordicist and Afrocentric editors. I am only interested in references to academic studies. The sources I cite below show that light hair has been selected for together with light skin in mesolithic Europe. This has happened nowhere else. If you can produce a source for your claim that
"The fact that people in the south pacific and Europeans have blonde hair is indicative that blonde hair genes were already in the ancestral population in Africa prior to the dispersal of humans"
you are welcome to quote it, but in itself it doesn't appeal to me as very straightforward. But even if it was, this frankly wouldn't change anything about the mesolithic scenario. This isn't about blond hair in the South Pacific, this is about light skin, the sexual selection that led to light skin, and the features that co-evolved with this process. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Both-Aborigines-and-Europeans-Rooted-in-Africa-54225.shtml Muntuwandi 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with the article, there are several people who are white and do not have blond hair and there are people who are non-white who do have blond hair. This is why equating whiteness with blondeness from a taxonomic perspective is flawed. Australian Aboriginals are very much related to Europeans. Both groups are members of haplogroup N. This haplogroup is not found significantly in South east Asia or even in Melanesia which are all haplogroup M. Already you can see that both aboriginals and Europeans have straight and sometimes blonde hair. *Mitochondrial footsteps of the Old World human colonization: A single origin, several dispersal hypothesis

Muntuwandi 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any particular reason you are saying this? what does that have to do with the topic at hand? It is completely undisputed that the ancestors of Eurasians came Out of Africa some 80,000 years ago. This whole question of polymorphism concerns the mesolithic, about 50,000 years after the separation of Australians and Eurasians. The article you link doesn't even mention skin or hair. Can you try to stay a little bit on topic? Nobody is "equating whiteness with blondness" what are you talking about? dab (𒁳) 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin, hair and eye colour correlation

This is not the place to discuss various hair and eye colours in general. It is the place to discuss the correlation of skin colour with these. Sources relevant to this topic:

  • Barsh GS (2003) What Controls Variation in Human Skin Color? PLoS Biol 1(1): e27 [2]
    The characteristic phenotype of fair skin, freckling, and carrot-red hair is associated with large amounts of pheomelanin and small amounts of eumelanin and is caused by loss-of-function alleles in a single gene, the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) (Sturm et al. 1998; Rees 2000) However, MC1R variation has a significant effect on pigmentation only in populations where red hair and fair skin are common (Rana et al. 1999; Harding et al. 2000)
  • Shriver, M.D. & Parra, E.J. Comparison of narrow-band reflectance spectroscopy and tristimulus colorimetry for measurements of skin and hair color in persons of different biological ancestry. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 112, 17−27 (2000).[3]
  • [4]
    Did sexual selection alter the appearance of Europeans in a number of ways, and not simply by diversifying hair and eye color?
    According to the sexual selection hypothesis, European skin became whiter when Europe was predominantly steppe-tundra 25,000 to 10,000 years ago. If the cause was solely natural selection to promote vitamin D synthesis, or relaxation of selection for protection from sunburn and skin cancer, the depigmentation should have begun as soon as modern humans became established in Europe, i.e., c. 40,000 BP.
  • Female skin is probably at its palest in women of childbearing age and on highly adipose parts of the body, i.e., the breasts, the hips, the buttocks, and the thighs. In any event, this mark of feminity may have been targeted by sexual selection, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter-complexioned women (Aoki, 2002; Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost 2005; van den Berghe & Frost, 1986). This selection is apparent in the tendency of upper classes throughout the world to appropriate the fairest-skinned women available.
  • Aoki, K. (2002). Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited. Annals of Human Biology, 29, 589-608.
  • Frost, P. (2005). Fair Women, Dark Men. The Forgotten Roots of Color Prejudice. Cybereditions: Christchurch (New Zealand).
  • Frost, P. (1994a). Geographic distribution of human skin colour: A selective compromise between natural selection and sexual selection? Human Evolution, 9, 141-153.

Frost, P. (1988). Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 32, 38-58.

  • Madrigal L and W. Kelly 2006. Human skin-color sexual dimorphism: A test of the sexual selection hypothesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (online pub. www.interscience.wiley.com )
  • Sturm, R.A. and T.N. Frudakis (2004). Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. Trends in Genetics 20, 327-332.
  • Sturm, R.A., R.D. Teasdale, and N.F. Box (2001). Human pigmentation genes: identification, structure and consequences of polymorphic variation. Gene, 277, 49-62.
  • Frost, P. (1994). Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 507-514.[5]
  • On the Correlation Between Hair Colour and Eye Colour in Man, by K. P. Biometrika 1904 Biometrika Trust [6]
  • Jablonski NG, Chaplin G. 2000. The evolution of skin coloration.[7]
  • P. Frost, Why Do Europeans Have So Many Hair and Eye Colors? [8]
    MC1R and OCA2 variability should have developed almost entirely during this time window (c. 25,000 - 10,000 BP).
  • Frost, P. 2006. European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27:85-103

According to the 2006 Norton et al. study, light skin colour seems to have been successfully selected for paraphyletically in three unrelated instances in the Mesolithic. In one of these instances (the European one), light skin co-evloved with hair and eye colour polymorphism. This should maybe be treated in greater detail at European genetic history, but it is certainly relevant to this article as well. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) http://news.softpedia.com/news/Both-Aborigines-and-Europeans-Rooted-in-Africa-54225.shtml Muntuwandi 14:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

context? relevance? your point? dab (𒁳) 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is to show that blond hair could have arose in Africa and when australians and Europeans branched off from the common source each carried a set of genes coding for blond hair. Europeans later evolved light skin, australians evolved dark skin. Hence hair color does not covary with skin color. And since this article is about white people, mainly white skin, we need to play down the hair color. Someone just reinstated this hair color I'm not sure whether it is Dbachmann or Hayden. From a social perspective yes we associate blondes with white people just because the other blonds are from australasia are relatively few. But from a taxonomic perspective it is not valid.Muntuwandi 15:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can you cite a reliable source making that claim? Also, by the same token as saying that the "blond" gene was present in the "Out of Africa" population, the "white" gene would also have been present. It was still only selected for in the mesolithic. Whether blond hair in Australia and Europe is due to independent mutation, or a common original mutation, is a meaningful question, but not one that is relevant for this topic. Here, we are talking about processes in mesolithic Eurasia. What may or may not have happened in Australia at the same time is completely inconequential to that. I do have the impression that you are arguing against a statement that no-one has even made. dab (𒁳) 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate question, which is difficult to ask, is where white skin arose. It is not impossible it arose in Africa. Cavalli-Sforza.
At most genetic loci, African populations harbor some relatively common alleles that are absent in non-African populations; however, most of the alleles that are common in non-African populations are also common in African populations. Thus, the pattern of genetic variation is one of nested subsets, such that the variation in non-African populations is a subset of the variation found in African populations.THE Microevolution
while the blond gene is not specifically mentioned the very fact that non-African alleles are a subset of African alleles indicates that it is possible for the blond gene to have arisen in Africa and it is possible that it is still in Africa in some sort of recessive form.Muntuwandi 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, we can well state that hair colour polymorphism also appeared among Aboriginals. That's merely a parallel case. What is on-topic in this article is that skin, hair and eye colour were selected for together in the European mesolithic. Parallel cases like the Australian one may serve to put this into context as more or less normal, although nowhere else has the selection gone quite so far. P. Frost (1994) above indeed states that this selection is apparent in the tendency of upper classes throughout the world to appropriate the fairest-skinned women available -- The European mesolithic has simply pushed this trend farther than observed in any other population, it is by no means in principle unique to Europe. It appears that there would be sexual selection towards light skin everywhere, but in tropical region, this is counter-balanced by the physical disadvantages of light skin. In fact, since your Aboriginals are likewise situated at moderate latitudes, this could even be taken as independent confirmation of the general trend. I find it striking that "gentlemen prefer blondes" should be confirmed at such a fundamental anthropological level in this sense, and yes, this is relevant here, since white skin would probably never have evolved without this sexual selection bias. But if we can lift protection now, I'll be prepared to {{mergeto}} this discussion into Genetic history of Europe: a brief reference here should be sufficient. dab (𒁳) 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we are going to attempt to present certain hair and eye color deviations exhibited by Europeans in the "white people" article, the sources actually need to cite these hair and eye color deviations and characteristics defining "white people," NOT just Europeans. Correlations found within European genetics may be discussed elsewhere but this remains relevant at an article about European genetics, not here, because these sources are about European genetics, not "white people." The Behnam 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Behnam, this is nonsense. Nobody claims "white people" are a unified group. Indeed, if you would read the article, you would note that there are at least three loci of independent (paraphyletic) origin. If you insist that every statement we make here apply to every "white" individual, we might as well delete this article. Instead, we have to address the various subgroups individually. Europeans are just one major subgroup (and of course themselves far from homogenous). Homo sapiens exhibits skin colour polymorphism., and 'white' skin is the innovation. 'White' populations exhibit hair and eye colour polymorphism. Your suggestion that this should not be mentioned here makes about as much sense as demanding that light skin should not be mentioned in human skin colour since it affects only a subset of the population. dab (𒁳) 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This had been discussed before during meditation, with the meditator deciding against Benham Talk:White_people/Archive_11#Behnam.27s_view. He just seems to be making same point over and over...KarenAER 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In trying to define a group of people such as white people we should define them based on the common characteristics of the group. For example those who are identify as black include Africans, melanesians, Australians, and African Americans. In such a situation it is pointless to discuss genetics because the diversity is huge. Many African Americans have considerable amounts of European Admixture, yet they identify as black. I have even seen some with blue or green eyes. So the defining feature of who is black is primarily dark skin the question of whether someone has frizzy or straight hair, brown eyes or a broad nose is not so relevant to blackness. Consequently trying to describe each and every feature of some people who identify as white does not define whiteness. If we decide to describe types then we might as well resurrect the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean subraces, which is a throwback to the 19th century. Furthermore the features that are described are not unique to whites, since blond hair is found amongst melanesians, australians and albinos of all races.Muntuwandi 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blondness, blue/green eyes are ALMOST exculisive to whites. That's why they are RELEVANT to this article. Maybe this issue would resolve itself if we add exactly this to the article and note that there may be non-white blonds, blue eyed people etc...KarenAER 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day scientific racism

The section on physiology and genetics is modern day scientific racism. The section implies that white physiology is fundamentally different from the physiology of other races. Do whites have a different digestive system or a different cardiovascular system. That is nonsense. Furthermore sorry to sound like a broken record but european genetics are non-cordant with race. All "european" haplogroups extend clinally even across geographic boundaries into Asia and Africa. The same with African haplogroups. No scientists has ever described Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) as a "white haplogroup". Furthermore the haplogroups are not naturally occurring groups, these haplotypes have been artificially grouped together by scientists simply for ease of classification. Therefore you cannot conclusively identify someones race based on mitochondrial DNA since millions of whites have "African" haplogroups[9] and millions of blacks have "European" haplogroups.

My proposition is that this article should primarily focus on the social construction of whiteness and not genetics. A small mention of the genetics of light skin such as SLC24A5, but this gene only accounts for 25-38% of light skin. The other genes that are responsible for light skin have yet to be identified. Furthermore the genes for blondism as far as I know have also not been identified. Sexual selection is likely to have played a role but most of the hypothesis regarding this are entirely speculative. It is most likely that drift, and both natural and sexual selection played a role. So sexual selection should not be given undue weight. If this is something that is agreeable to other editors I am willing to request for unprotection.Muntuwandi 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People with your mentality say everything is racist. There is nothing racist about science, only the way that it may be used to prove or disprove a particular point of view.
Our digestive system or cardiovascular system is not that much different to that of an ape or pig either, that is why humans can walk around with a pig's heart in their chest. Are you saying that there is no genetic difference between humans and pigs?
It is in fact your own subconscious racism that is motivating you to try and prevent information being presented. That is why if a picture of a white businessman wearing a suit was put up, you'd delete it, and why if a picture of a negro wearing rags or native costume, ie animal skins was put up, you'd delete it because the racism within you says that the business suit wearing man is better than the negro in his native garb. See this for an illustration of how beliefs and truths both influence knowledge.
Blonde hair is no more racist than brunette or red hair, all of which are produced by genetic phenotypes. The fact that the blonde phenotype is far, far more common in white people is not racist, it's just a fact, and has been long before the days of Adolf or any of your Nordicist conspiracies.
White is a gene, and is quite simply proven by the fact that two white parents produce white babies, just like negro's produce negro babies. Don't bring up albinism. This article isn't about genetic mutations and freaks of nature.
Lastly, I think all the subconscious points of view are best illustrated by the fact that every race under the sun seems to feel the need to try and claim to be white. Why do people not try to claim to be negro or oriental? Those articles certainly don't seem to have the same problems. Except for the sub-saharan negroes, who try desperately to claim North Africans as also being negro, so they can claim such inventions as the Pyramids of ancient Egypt, and all the civilisation that went with it. However, the North Africans are trying to claim ties north, not south with the white civilisation. --Hayden5650 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a lot to learn Dear Hayden. You are a racist, admit it. Be proud of it, take ownership of your ignorance. It's pretty ironic that you say to Muntuwandi that, "your own subconscious racism that is motivating you to try and prevent information being presented". It is you who is trying to put a white superior spin on everything, and you are consciously being racist, yet denying it. It's obvious by your edits. And it is not proven that two white parents produce white children, and vice versa. There have been cases where an obviously white married couple, who knew of no admixture, had a "colored" child. The husband divorced his wife thinking she had an affair, but later found out that his ancestry had a black African, it was he who held the gene for their child to be of color. Although, it's is not the norm, of course, but it can happen. The same for black folks. I've seen children of African Americans as white as Irish, but both parents where "black", well one was 1/4 white. But in America, at the time, and even now, it's considered as black. The one drop rule. You do not know for sure your or anyone else's ancestry, where the "gene" can produce an offspring with traits from an ancestor. And another thing -- the "white gene" IS a mutation. Look it up. If you could see my family, the high school biology that you seem to know, does not fit. As I learned in junior high, when we did the little chart thing of dominate genes. My family didn't fit. My parents have brown eyes, and hair, so do their parents, except one had hazel eyes, but my little sister has blonde hair and blue eyes, though she looks like my father. That did not fit in with the simplified biology chart of dominate genes of hair and eye color. It's more complicated than that. Do some real research in science, genetics and biology. - Jeeny Talk 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One such famous case happened in South Africa to Sandra Laing Muntuwandi 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for that link. I remember my mother telling me the story of the "colored child" and the white parents, and the husband divorcing the mother thinking she had an affair with a "black man". I was very young, and didn't ask any questions, but believed my mum, of course. I wish she were alive today so I could ask her about the "case". I don't believe it was Sandra Laing, as I think it was in America. I found this just now about throw back to the dominate genes. In my early high school biology class I wasn't taught about the complexity, just eye and hair color. As I believe Hayden is going on. I was the only one in my biology class that the simplified chart of dominate/recessive genes didn't fit my family. It did make me want to know more, and further my education, which I did. But then, as a child, I felt like an outcast, but nothing like Sandra Laing, of course. That is so sad. I friggen hate people, sometimes. I'm sorry, I'm in one of those moods. Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwback has probably caused many divorces in the past. Since Hayden decided to raise the issue, I've started an article on Sandra Laing.Muntuwandi 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mom was a school doctor (a GP - back when schools had doctors in Montreal - in the late '70s), and she told me of two similar cases she'd seen in the schools: one where both parents were definitely "black" (as folk taxonomies would call them), but the child was very lightly coloured (could have passed off for a "white" with a nice suntan), and another case where both parents were only very mildly "coloured" (nice suntan type) and the child's skin was a dark, rich chocolate colour. Fortunately, in these cases, she had a chance to explain some genetics to them to convince them that there was no "milkman" involved in either case. Heck, I mostly freckle if I try to tan, while my brother could pass off as being from Southern Italy in the summer. So, if anything, race is indeed something absolutely "fuzzy".--Ramdrake 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, especially in the United States and the Americas, where a lot of people who call themsleves white and who may look very white are not that white indeed. There genetics can tell very interesting stories. ---— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.167.100 (talk • contribs)

Once again the discussion has shifted from the hundreds of millions of people who fit the definition perfectly to the one person somewhere that's somehow supposed to prove something. JRWalko 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because these exceptions have a crucial import to any theory about races, likewise would a ball falling upwards or finding rabbit fossils from the Permian have drastic consequences on the theories of gravity or evolution.--Ramdrake 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people here are making quite silly arguments. Most scientific concepts have their exceptions. This doesnt mean we should throw them out. And here's an interesting piece of information:
"We talk about the prejudicial aspect of this. If you demand that kind of accuracy, then one could make the same arguments about sex and age!
You'll like this. In a recent study, when we looked at the correlation between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus self-description, we found 99.9% concordance between the two. We actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome! 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? No. Also, there is ageism—prejudice related to age in our society. A lot of these arguments, which have a political or social aspect to them, can be made about all categories, not just the race/ethnicity one...." [10]
I do believe some editors here like Muntuwandi are simply trolling....KarenAER 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No we aren't trolling. We're just trying to represent the position, held by most anthropologists, that race is primarily a social construct with relatively little biological basis to it. Thus, establishing some difference between races is as arbitrary as, say, describing the races of humanity as "tall, medium and short". Skin color and features is just one way to categorize human diversity, but in the end, this difference is mostly, litterally skin deep and no more.--Ramdrake 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most anthropologists? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. And besides, there is no claim here that says WHITE PEOPLE IS A BIOLOGICAL RACE. So you are being disruptive and irreleveant. White people is a group of people and I dont see any reason why we shouldnt give some genetic information about a group of people...KarenAER 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [11]: A similar

survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). I'm not being either disruptive or irrelevant, so please mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Ramdrake 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:
biologists 16%
developmental psychologists 36%
physical anthropologists 41%
cultural anthropologists53%"[12]
Since the newer survey didnt ask the question to biologists, I think the overwhelming support of biologists for the concept of race is still valid. Also there is this:
"In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have called attention to the fact that although the concepts of cline, population, and ethnocity, as well as humanitarian and political concerns, have led many scientists away from the notion of race, a recent survey showed that physical anthropologists were evenly divided as to whether race is a valid biological concept. Noting that among physical anthropologists the vast majority of opposition to the race concept comes from population geneticists, any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race."
If you arent being irrelevant, what's your point? There is no claim in white people article which says whites are a biological race. KarenAER 17:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The black and white twins as well Muntuwandi 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well in that case we better redefine race to take into consideration the 0.0000000000001% of people who are freaks of nature. --Hayden5650 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the problem is that multiracial countries like the US die to keep alive myths and lies. Most people who are called black have indeed European ancestry and many who are called white, are of non-European ancestry, be it Amerindian or Native American, African, Asian, Pacific, etc. Only Europeans can properly be called white people, although Americans are famous for their zeal of stealing and appropriating Identities (American is a good example. America existed with that word much before the US existed. Look how they use it now). White people is people from Europe. The rest are the descendants of European colonies, by definition the result of miscigenation or admixture (do not know if miscigenation has negative connotation, that is not my point)and they cannot be white in the same way that they are not Europeans. They can claim some European ancestry, that is all. A person can look as fair as an albino and be of African ancestry (there is a good picture of that). That is an obvious example. Others are less visible. Americans and others will have to face the fact that they are not Europeans. They are a new race, with different shades, that is all. And statistics from that country are funny enough. Even if we rely on such suvbjective things like looks, one just has to visit the US to see that they are manly a mixed nation. Where do they get their statistics from? From people who call themselves white but who are indeed multiracial in many cases and who form the multiracial majority of that wountry. Ther is a section there of Americans saying who is white and who ius not. Who are they to say that? Most funny part. A bunch of Non-whites telling whites if they are white or not. Funny America. Dann.__

Dont be silly. There has been racial mixing in the US but it's been very rare. It's still very rare. And there were other factors like one drop rule which contributed to white Americans retaining their predominantly European ancestry. An example:
"...In European Americans from State College, the West African and Native American contribution is low (0.7% and 3.2%, respectively)..." [13] KarenAER 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is always difficult to keep apart cultural identity and genetic makeup. The two are correlated, of course, but not strictly. Racial demographics of the United States tells us that there is a "multiracial identity movement". People who actually check more than one "race" in the census account for 2.4% of the population, while 5.5% identify as "other". It is still true that White American is a term definable with reasonable clarity. For the purposes of this article, it is enough to state that these make up 75% of US population, and leave it for the specialized article to treat difficulties in definition. Anyway, the main misconception here seems to be that "white" means "European", while in reality (even in the US definition), "white" includes a much larger area, viz. European, North African, Near Eastern and Central Asian (roughly equivalent to: Indo-European, Semitic, Hamitic, Finno-Ugric, Caucasian and Turkic peoples). dab (𒁳) 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the section on genetics because it is not concordant with whiteness for example Blonde blue eyed brit with the DNA of an African.Muntuwandi 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an exception...KarenAER 11:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image

alright, I compiled Image:White people variety.jpg to match Image:Afro diversity.jpg. See commons:Image talk:White people variety.jpg for the thought that went into it (and feel free to compile something better). I know it could be better in principle, but looking through commons:Category:Portraits, you will realize there are limitations of choice. dab (𒁳) 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer, if we are to have Arab type people, that you find whiter ones. They are too dark and would not be seen as white. A Persian (Iranian) would fit the part. I'll have a look round today and post it here on the talkpage first --Hayden5650 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the picture as it is serves to demonstrate the diversity of "White" peoples. After all, this isn't "Aryan Nations". Caucasoids have a range of colors and aspects, and restricting it would do a disservice to the purpose.--Ramdrake 23:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. But this article is not about anthropological Caucasoids, it is about White skinned people. And White is a color, it does not cover a range of colors. That is why we have other colors in our vocabulary, to describe the diversity you speak of. --Hayden5650 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, "White" was synonym to "Caucasoid", and not a subgroup thereof.--Ramdrake 23:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing nothing but OPINIONS and NO SOURCES. The image in black people is uncontroversial while the selection in this picture is exactly the opposite. Once again we have ignored a vast majority of people (see every single discussion on this article) to present diversity where diversity may not even exist. Three out of four of the people in the complilation photo would not even be considred to be white in the historical European context. I strongly disagree with the use of images that do not clearly, uncontroversially depict the subject of this article. JRWalko 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that "White" is restricted to people of European origins only. Can you cite a source for this restricted definition? Thanks.--Ramdrake 23:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, how about the National Library of Medicine replacing their categorization of "whites" with "European Continental Ancestry Group" [14]? Here is my point, look at Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, or Romano Prodi. Is there any definition of "white people" that they do not fit? Now look at the picture in this article and explain to me why, instead of using three people from different countries, who are CLEARLY representative of the close to a billion people of European ancestry who are indisputably "white" it has been decided to use two people from outside of Europe? JRWalko 01:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because there are many millions of whites who are from outside Europe? Please see that the same bulletin you quote also denotes "Caucasoid Race" as now being the "European Continental Ancestry Group". There is no doubt that all four people pictured in the header mosaic are Caucasoid, even if they're obviously not Europeans.--Ramdrake 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For pete's sake, this article is not about Caucasoids!! Just like Black People is seperate from Negroid!! They are not synonyms, Caucasoid refers to anthropological features, pick up a dictionary and see for yourself! --Hayden5650 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, why are you even editing this article when it is clear from the userbox on your user page that you do not even believe in the existence of races? Are you here simply to push that POV? --Hayden5650 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same ? for you Hayden, are you here to push a POV? I'll say in good faith you are trying to better the article, just as Ramdrake is. As you, he is interested in this subject. White color skin is not a race. Just because someone has a different POV, does not mean they cannot edit articles, as long as one provides reliable, verifiable sources to back up their contributions. - Jeeny Talk 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opening a dialogue with an unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry is hardly the best way to engage constructively in a discussion --Hayden5650 04:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. I removed the aka reference, although I was not accusing you as a sockpuppet, but a friend of said user Nordic Crusader. As he so much loved his new name, he was so distraught that he had to give it up. And you had said to me that you had conversed via "cell phone" with said user, it was only natural for me to assume you both had the same agenda. A certain agenda that you have accused Ramdrake of having because of his user boxes. In fact, I agree with you that the black people article is different from the Negroid article, just as the Caucasoid article is different from this article. As they are outdated terms. So now, can you answer the question? - Jeeny Talk 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, can someone explain to me the difference between White People and Caucasoids? I'm honestly asking, because every single reference I looked up says they're one and the same... I'd say these two articles should be merged, as they describe the same populations.--Ramdrake 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I said above:

People! Caucasian is basically only used in the States. In most European countries a Caucasian is a person or people from the Caucasus! That is to say, someone from the Countries and regions of the Caucasus (Adygea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Krasnodar Krai, North Ossetia-Alania and Stavropol Krai). Wikipedia must assume a universal NPOV. Thank you.

The article Caucasian Race states that "In Europe, especially in Russia and nearby, Caucasian usually describes exclusively people who are from the Caucasus region or speak the Caucasian languages."
The same article also says that "The concept's existence is based on the now disputed typological method of racial classification", and was, in fact, a product of Scientific racism.

The Ogre 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As fantastic as that is, the question was about Caucasoids. It is an anthropological definition, where the race/species of the humanoid is determined using many different measurements, including but not limited to: Facial angle, length of arms, length of cubit, length of legs, breadth of shoulders, position of eye sockets, nasal and jaw features, cranial capacity etc. It is a scientific term, often employed in forensics, where there is no longer flesh to identify what species the body is. Racism does not come into it, as there is absolutely nothing socio-related employed in the science of it. --Hayden5650 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:White people variety.jpg
A selection of "white" faces, clockwise: a woman of European origin, a Bedouin man, a Caucasian (Chechen) woman and a Berber man.
File:Woman sunlight.jpg
I get your meaning, but I'd like to have at least one reliable, verifiable source that makes a difference between Caucasoid (not Caucasian, that's altogether something different, we all agree) and White people. Every reference I have tells me these two expressions are fully interchangeable. I know that Caucasoids is based on skin color and skeletal and facial features; however, "White people" probably also is, or else it would qualify all albino people of African, Oceanian, East Asian, etc. descent as well, and become quite meaningless even as a social category in the process.--Ramdrake 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this photo should be included, Dbachmann's photo is biased towards younger women. Aliens visiting earth would get the impression that people who are identified as white are all young.Muntuwandi 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC) young.[reply]

File:Tamil man.jpg
Tamil man

The problem with the definition of the caucasian race based on craniofacial measurement and other features such as nose shape arises because many such people are found in Africa and Asia who are dark skinned. Muntuwandi 12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Many Somali's would be considered Caucasoid in forensics, yet they are mostly very dark, and are Black people of Africa. Same with Ethiopians. - Jeeny Talk 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ONCE AGAIN:
1) Image displaying eye color pigmention, a physical trait of "white people", REMOVED
2) Image displaying the genetic distribution of haplogroups attributed to "white people", REMOVED
3) Image displaying black figures hunting lighter animals, REINSTATED
A few editors with clear POV agendas (look at userpages) have again exchanged sources and reason for a cave painting in a desparete attempt to apread their agenda, get help, it's unhealthy, stop removing facts here and reinterpreting things for what you want them to be. Parts of this article are absolutely ridiculous and useless. You even managed to use Carleton Coon as a source for your cause, the man basically stated that Europeans were the master race! That's not even laughable but rather quite sad. JRWalko 02:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1)Eye color pigmentation is a physical trait of all people, the distribution of the trait is not necessarily related to whiteness. Unless one supports the view that some people are more white than others. Most people who identify as white have brown eyes much like the rest of the world.
2)Euro genetics are not concordant with whiteness for example Blonde blue eyed brit with the DNA of an AfricanMuntuwandi 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3) With regard to the cave painting, well that is up to the other editors, but it is an interesting bit of history. It gives evidence of a putative date for the origin of light skin.Muntuwandi 02:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Then why supress the image of the frequency and distribution of light eye color pigmentation when it is statistically directly related to skin pigmentation and hair color?
2) A man of nearly complete European ancestry has blue eyes and blond hair, what is that supposed to prove? Show me that those traits came from his gene from the African tribe, especially since those mutations did not take place in African populations that were that man's ancestors.
3) Figures in that painting also don't have eyes, am I to assume that sensory organs evolved after the development of the bow?
Why do you insist on proving your points by displaying genetic anomalies? There have been humans born with multiple limbs and heads yet we do not describe "humans" as organisms that are known for those traits. I've said ti several times now: This article fails to address issues common among the VAST majority of populations that are supposed to be covered by it. JRWalko 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think this photo should be included, Dbachmann's photo is biased towards younger women. Aliens visiting earth would get the impression that people who are identified as white are all young.Muntuwandi 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Then why did you add JUST the picture of old woman before on this article if you are so interested at including different age groups and not giving wrong impressions to aliens? And here's an another pic you've prepared: KarenAER 11:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Oceania africa europe.jpg

Turkic peoples

why in "see also" are not mentioned Turkic peoples people?

After looking at the photographs given to represent the Negro race in the Black People article here, I have attempted to mirror the people in those photos with their white 'equivalents', or close to it. The following is a table, comparing the negro photo with the white example:

Negro Position White Position Motherland
Wangari Muta Maathai Doctor, Nobel Peace Prize Wolfgang Ketterle Professor, Nobel Prize Physics Germany
Michael Jordan Sportsman Anna Kournikova Sportswoman Russia
Portia Lucretia Simpson-Miller Jamaican Prime Minister Prince William Prince England
'San Man' Traditional Clothing Scotsman Traditional Clothing Scotland
Dionne Warwick Singer, Actress Dolph Lundgren Actor, Director Sweden
Condolezza Rice US Secretary of State George William Casey Jr Chief of Staff US Army United States
Oromo Ethiopian boys 'Average' lads Girl in Dirndl National costume Germany, Austria

The following individuals are White by virtually all definitions cited in this article.


I hope this will find consensus, I took quite a while to try and mirror the Black People gallery, to prevent any chance of perceived racism or POV --Hayden5650 04:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, as a first glance. Oh, and it's not the "Negro" gallery. It's the Black people gallery. - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just changed my comment --Hayden5650 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second glance, use some brunettes in the gallery. There are more brunettes than there are "natural" blondes in the world. - Jeeny Talk 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, when I find a fair use one I will add it in. --Hayden5650 04:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good concept, but I would avoid using celebrities as the models. I like the captions Austrian Woman and Scotsman -- maybe more of the same. --Kevin Murray 05:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but check out Black People. The idea is to keep the photos as closely aligned as possible, with the Black People Gallery. Therefore, where they have a prominent Negro represented, I have a prominent White person represented, and vice versa with random photographs. This is to prevent any perception of bias or point-of-view going into the choosing of photographs. --Hayden5650 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, just like in the Black people article there was consensus, a while back, to use well known people, so people can easily recognize them. I understand your comment, and I had said the same on the black people article, but it was pointed out to me that known people are less likely to be contested. Because celebrities, politicians, etc. can be checked out. Which I agree. That's why I removed the "white" family, for who knows their nationality or mixture, if any? Hayden, please stop using the word Negro for black people. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I won't, no offence intended. Apparently some people prefer Negro to 'Black', but that's another discussion for another day and a different article at that ;) --Hayden5650 05:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes brunette will complete the gallery. --Vonones 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some children too.
I will find a fair-use Brunette, to everyone: please don't refactor my comment, this includes the gallery as it relates directly to the table above it, and is part of my intent to find a neutral ground. --Hayden5650 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Armeniangirl.jpg
Armenian girls
  • I object to this having to be some type of quid pro quo with the Black article. I think that the gallery can be an important feature, but should give some information about the heritage of the people shown e.g., nation of origin or subgroup. --Kevin Murray 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall add part of the table showing the Motherland of the various examples to below the gallery, would that solve your issue? --Hayden5650 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, can we get the Armenian girl up there? and remove the old guy or muscle guy since its better with culture related, ethinc stuff. --Vonones 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dolph Landgren (the 'muscleguy') is the parallel of a Black woman of similar occupation. And is providing a sample of Swedish descent. The next picture added should be of someone with darker hair --Hayden5650 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how it looks. I'd like to see a wider variety of example including southern and eastern european. --Kevin Murray 05:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin and Hayden, I agree, but like I said the reason to use well known people is to prevent an edit war, and POV objections, if you put random unknown people. Just as the white/black twins. One is obviously white, but is really of mixed "race". Should we add that one to the gallery? - Jeeny Talk 05:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with you there Jeeny, I may include in the article one of those hidden lines of text that people see only if they try and edit, pointing them here to this discussion. Particularly the table of White/Black parallels, so they can see both the articles are as consistent and equally represented as possible. --Hayden5650 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery II - open edits

The following individuals are White by virtually all definitions cited in this article.

The following people have one parent who may be described as "white".

Removed unknowns and poor/redundant examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)

How are Prince William and the Chief of Staff of the US Army poor or unknown? They must be included as being both well known, and worldwide examples --Hayden5650 05:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prince William should stay, as he is well-known and it's obvious he's white. lol. - Jeeny Talk 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both ethnicities are white anyway, there is no doubt he is white --Hayden5650 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go with all the POV again. --Hayden5650 05:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in your mind, but we need a higher level of verifiability. Why use a mixed ethnicity instead of a full Britian?

And also, where is the sense in having a Black/White photo when we are describing color? --Hayden5650 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I agree. And I can't believe it. :) - Jeeny Talk 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them. Now add an another brunette. - Jeeny Talk 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should make half known people, and the other half natural people like in there livestyles cultural ones. --Vonones 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that as long as the pictures tie to an article at WP, where he photo is also displayed --Kevin Murray 06:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two women needed to balance. - Jeeny Talk 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Clinton? former 1st Lady and possible Presedential candidate --Hayden5650 06:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see some women, but Hilary being of mixed heritage does not seem like a good example. I'd rather stick to demonstrating diverse known heritages. --Kevin Murray 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No your saying that because shes a democrat Bush has his spies. --Vonones 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What mixed heritage does Hiliary Clinton have? - Jeeny Talk 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What heritage does she have? She is a meanigless example. I support Hilary and Bill, am an American, but think that US examples are not productive. --Kevin Murray 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Margrethe II of Denmark? A woman, and in a very notable position --Hayden5650 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that, but with Dolf we might be redundant. --Kevin Murray 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Beatrix of the Netherlands, whilst notable, some of these women may have once been brunette, but now are greying --Hayden5650 06:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We old people still have some validity. --Kevin Murray 06:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better. --Vonones 06:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, all the additons are still blondes, now the discussion has died down a bit I'll find a good, notable Brunette to add in --Hayden5650 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennfer anneston! --Vonones 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it coincidence, but I'm watching Friends as we speak and she looks decidedly blonde! Courtney Cox has darker hair --Hayden5650 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol she might be, I wonder how many Hollywood Actresses actually have their natural hair color --Hayden5650 06:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True we might have to research that too :) --Vonones 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict, 3 friken times!) LOL, Hayden, Sofia Loren, and JFK are brunettes. And Tony Blair is kind of in the middle. Don't worry about it for now. Maybe later if anyone has objections. Smoke a cigarette. - Jeeny Talk 06:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus to replace the current gallery with the one in this section? --Kevin Murray 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All in all the black people article has about 30 photos, at least 26 are portraits but with more than 30 people. Of these 10 are celebs the rest are average people. Furthermore a good number of them may be found in multiple racial categories such as tiger woods, chavez and sadat, the coloured family and all Oceanic peoples. This is helpful in understanding how blackness is constructed in different places. Whereas this present gallery suggested for the white people article has no such variation, everyone is just well "white".

If you look at the present version, all the women are young white women. This is biased,ageism there are several middle aged women on the black people article. Wangari, condi or the Vanuatu woman etc. If aliens looked at the current gallery they would exclude older white women from the race. Muntuwandi 07:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from my ciggy, each edit conflict is worth a pack ;) And Muntuwandi, some of the discussion above is about older people, at the moment I am looking for a notable older women, who still has brunette hair, (i.e, not grey) --Hayden5650 07:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am concerned is that this may deteriorate into some tabloid type beauty contest.Muntuwandi 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again. I and others have worked hard to diversify this. --Kevin Murray 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That photo of Sopho Khalvashi might do the trick, she's not old but does have nice dark hair and is from another country, adding to the diversity. --Hayden5650 07:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the pictures should be of young people. Since blondes, brunettes, and red-heads get white hair or dye their hair when they are old, older whites do not exhibit the associated white traits as well as younger whites. Also, older people loose the even skin coloration of youth and have blotchy skin, illustrating the archetypical white skin less well if the article uses old people. Lastly, older peoples' faces sag, hiding the facial structure of whites.----DarkTea 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's poppycock, white skin is white skin no matter the age. Also, many, many younger people dye their hair. I totally disagree and will protest to delete the whole gallery if only young people are represented. - Jeeny Talk 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteness and blackness are constructed a little differently. This may seem unfair but the reality is that we live in a world that is saturated with images of white people in the media. Consequently using the same images on this article may not add value in defining what whiteness is. Thus I don't believe that the current gallery will survive the scrutiny of other editors for long. I believe galleries have been proposed in the past and they were always taken down. In order to make it more acceptable I propose including multiracials, with a view to explaining why they are not considered white, but black or another race, despite having white ancestry. Also including non-white caucasian to illustrate why they are classified as caucasian but not considered white. Also a comparison of East Asian skin color with white skin color. This is of interest because both populations have light skin. If both a white person and an East asian were to visit some uncontacted tribe of dark skinned people, the tribe may not be able to distinguish the two as of a different race. However in our social constructions we do. Muntuwandi 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to include multiracials, Asians, Middle Easterners just to show how they are not white?----DarkTea 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unreferenced analogy would be as follows: If you had a pottle of black paint, and added yellow paint, red paint, or even white paint, it would still be very dark, possibly even black. It certainly would not then be called white or yellow. However, if you were to take a pot of white paint, as soon as you add another color to it, it would no longer look white, but a shade of the added color. A mother and father who are white/black or black/white will always have a child that looks more black than white. e.g. Halle Berry, and she admits to identifying more as black than white. --Hayden5650 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the US. In other parts of the world mixed race individuals may identify more with their white heritage. In latin american countries such as Brazil, there is no one drop rule. It is possible that some light skinned African Americans would be considered white in Brazil Racial ambiguities in Brazil.Muntuwandi 09:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a suggestion, since on the black people article there are people like Obama, he is half white, though socially constructed black. For example in a matrilineal society people identify with the ethnicity of their mothers. In such a society Obama would be white. Muntuwandi 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about redefining the terms, or what should be. --Kevin Murray 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not redefining terms, in brazil for example the term branca means white but is applied to people who would be considered hispanic in the US. the loura is applied to blonds. this means that whiteness is constructed differently[15].Muntuwandi 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is reaching to make an obscure point. Latin America is a diverse environment including "Native" Americans (basically Asian), Sub Saharan-African, Arabic, and Europeans. The migration from Spain in the 16th century was heavilly populated by Spaniards of Arabic blood seeking refuge from the Inquisition. Most of us in America are of mixed lineage, and make poor examples for displaying traditional white diversity. I think that the topic of further evolution away from White, Black etc. is important, but not specifically germane to this article. --Kevin Murray 10:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final photo selection

I think the 12 photos we now have, 6 Males and 6 Females of various ethnicities within the White race is just about perfect --Hayden5650 11:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a limit, but let's pick a continuity together. --Kevin Murray 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current selection (unless it is changed as I write this) is representative, and has been approved via consensus of other editors. Let's leave it as is --Hayden5650 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need photos of Spanish and Egyptians, they are under constant debate as to what their racial identification is --Hayden5650 11:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no I don't agree that there was a consensus for your changes. Waht I see is support for recognized people and diversity away from a glamor page. Changing Kennedy to Clinton has no discussion. I suggest that we put all of the potential photos up there and then discuss the trimming one at a time. --Kevin Murray 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an encyclopaedia, that's what the talkpage is for, not out there at the store-front where people are constantly reading! --Hayden5650 11:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd say let's get to work on a compromise. --Kevin Murray 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's leave it as is. We don't need a million photos. It is now a fair mirror of what is on the Black People article, is representative, and is fairly non-contentious. Adding Spanish and Egyptians is very contentious --Hayden5650 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with your limit of 12; let's each try to compromise on 12 from below, or others if you feel this is not complete: --Kevin Murray 12:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sick of those Armenian girls, they look like Albinos. The whole first and last row is unnessesary and I don't believe those Spanish photos belong there --Hayden5650 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give up the Armenina girls and Zapatero, Can you sacrifice the Scotsman and Austrian?

We need the youth of the Austrian woman, I'd like to see the Sami woman given up, along with Raina Kabaivanska. She's too old and the picture looks too obviously old --Hayden5650 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I can see getting rid of Sami and Raina - let's see how it looks now.
Why are you insisting on these old photos of Italian actresses etc, they look out of place. Newer photos are better
I'd go with a newer Italian woman. Happy to mak ehtat work if you've got one in mind. --Kevin Murray 12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better now, can we leave it like this for the time being, its 12.30am here and I do have work in the morning --Hayden5650 12:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can compromise at the following and we can see what others thnik. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, let's see what the others think. I'm off now, have a good evening --Hayden5650 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nouri is an Arab. And even Arabs acknowledge that they arent seen as whites, DESPITE the legal definitions, in US. Not Quite White: Race Classification and the Arab American Experience, by the Arab American Institute
In Canada, since he's an Arab, he'd be in non-white and non-native visible minority group.
In Europe, we have UK and Norway sections, and both use white synonymous with European.
So either take him off the gallary or note that he is a non-white according to many definitions...
And TOO many politicans...KarenAER 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kimi Raikkonen qualifying.jpg
Kimi Raikkonen
Karen, welcome to the discussion on this topic; I've been impressed with your cleanup in other areas this evening. There are few good pictures on WP to choose from and it has been easy to find politicians and actors. I too believe that Arabs are separate, but others disagree. I just reach a compromise with Hayden and agreed to let others comment on our compromise, so I am not going to make any more changes now. I'd sure be open to other approaches. --Kevin Murray 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anna Kournikova and Dolph Lundgren are superb examples of ultra-beautiful whites. These two should definitely be used as examples of whites. Kimi Raikkonen should be in the gallery to show a brave white man. The proud Scottish man in the kilt should be included because he shows the continuity of a European cultural tradition that dates back thousands of years in the British Isles. Monica Belluci can be a representative of the darker European. All of the other photos are of old people or are bad quality, so they shouldn't be used.----DarkTea 12:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DT, my objective is to have more than just a collage of white faces at the gallery, but also try to show the variety that comes from regions. I also would like to see the major ethnics groups represented which is why I have pushed for some of the photos. I'm not that concerned over who we use as long as the diversity is represented. What does Kimi Raikkonen demonstrate? I see your point in some ways, but this should not only be about beauty. --Kevin Murray 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about these?

The Behnam 17:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

forget it, most of these are famous. I am automatically opposed to anyone too well known, because recognition of the face will distract from the features we want to illustrate. Also, my suggestion was made in best faith from a perfectly neutral stance. I frankly find it bad style to remove it, and if possible slap a few warning tags on the article: The suggested image wasn't perfect, but it was a fair attempt. It is very easy to criticize things from the armchair, but I would challenge people to present a better solution instead of removing the merely fair one without replacement. dab (𒁳) 18:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave but one suggestion: would it be possible to have a few more non-Europeans (also non-Americans) in the gallery? I think it would speak better of the diversity of the subject.--Ramdrake 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benham, DB, and RD: We had a bit of a tustle laast night getting some compromise. I at fisrt opposed celebrities, but there is smoe insistance that their use allows better verifiability of national origin. We have 12 shots at the gallery which is a compromise from my preference for more diversity. We have a German, French, Iraqi, Georgian, Italian, , Austrian, Basque, Russian, Czech, and Britain. I have opposed the use of Americans because they don't show a regional aspect of adaptation and natural selection. However, the two Americans are genetically either Greek or Irish from both parents. I would be happy to include the Saudi and Israeli. --Kevin Murray 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like if they could be included, as a rough count by country would show (by my reckoning) about 240M "whites" outside of Europe and North America, or roughly 20%, so going by numbers, 3 non-Europeans out of 15 or 16 ought to be representative.--Ramdrake 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some natural ones are good. Like I said, this one is good so far, [16] --Vonones 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok natural as in, not famous, some ethnic ones or at least a few. --Vonones 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean people of non-European ancestry Ramdrake? Whats the justification for this. Here's a research paper analyzing the use of white in research in US and UK. You cant get more scientific than this: [17]
It says, for white: "In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions." So many definitions does not accept non-Europeans as white. So if you insist on putting such people, this fact shoul be noted. KarenAER 22:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's only one of several definitions the paper mentions. It acknowledges that many definitions include people of Middle Eastern and North African ancestry. So, why cherry-pick the one definition in the paper which suits your views? We can certainly include that there is a debate about what constitutes or not "white" (that strikes me as particularly encyclopaedic), but we should definitely let the reader, not us, decide. In any case, that's but one paper, and its goal is partly to acknowledge the debate on the different definitions; I don't see that it should serve as the one and only definition to go by, and neither do the authors seem to suggest it. I stand by my comment that some people of non-European ancestry should be added (a couple of them, no more) in order to be representative.--Ramdrake 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Ramdrake. I agree. "Wow" - Jeeny Talk 22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest to make another gallery for non European people saying these people are only accepted as white by some definitions. Kinda like in the Black people article. And I find it rather odd that you think it's only one paper. Havent you read the article? Many citations sharing the same point of view....
Also, as I said there are too many politicans. Maybe we can change Blair with Prince Harry? KarenAER 03:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with having fewer politicians, but Prince H. is 1/2 German of true heritage, transplanted within recent history, and not representative of the natural evolution or migration to the British Isles. We already have an example of a German person and an Austrian, which gives us two examples of Germanic people. --Kevin Murray 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need to have 100% nationality, etc. to be considered a white person. This is not about nationality, it's an article about people who are considered white. A person who is 1/2 German and 1/2 Brit is a white person. A European. One cannot know, unless tested, how far back in one's ancestry where a relative of another race or nationality may have existed in one's family tree. - Jeeny Talk 05:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we don't need nationality, we need the region of origin. Nationality is somewhat of an indicator, but of course we need to apply common sense here (be reasonable, people!)

I'll say again that I object to having images of famous people (politicians, stars, etc.). Come on, there are billions of non-famous people, it must be possible to find some faces that aren't widely known. dab (𒁳) 07:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage is you know cleary who and what they are, the Black People article also has prominent people presented --Hayden5650 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Gallery#Mainspace_galleries. We don't want articles cluttered with random galleries. If you're into creating galleries, your work is welcome at commons:White people. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Much as in Caucasian race I support not having the arbitrary gallery. The Behnam 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no gallery. There should be no gallery in the Caucasian article either.----DarkTea 08:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Census section

I've removed this from the article because of it's complexity (being simplified here), and not relevant to this article. The US Census is going through a lot of changes. In fact there has been talk of getting rid of it altogether. But, the implications and complexities are too great. Because of the racist agenda, the Bill of Rights, and to keep track of cases of racism, discrimination, and equal opportunity, etc. - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant

I find it rather odd that people deleted the reference to Immanuel Kant. He's a famous and great man. He should be in the history section...KarenAER 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kant believed the difference between whites and blacks in color mirrored their different mental capability. He also believed blacks lacked the ability for rationality and morals. Due the beastial nature Kant ascribed blacks, he saw fit that blacks should be slaves to whites. He is not a WP:RS.----DarkTea 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kant's statement was in the history section which is supposed to address the evolution of the term, I don't understand how is it inappropriate for that part of the article given the fact that Kant is one of the most influential thinkers in the world? JRWalko 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Tea, there is no provision which justifies your actions. You should read WP:RS yourself and stop trolling...KarenAER 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source in this subject must have expertise relevant to this subject. Kant is a philosopher and a even if he were deemed an anthropologist it wouldn't matter, because the label as applied then means little today. Black people clearly have the capacity to reason, so Kant has shown his ignorance with regard to race.----DarkTea 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are saying a great thinker mentioned white in a book of his. That's entirely reasonable and and within WP:RS. And it is also in the history section and we arent saying Blacks are irrational and cite Kant. Please stop trolling and get reasonable...KarenAER 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

white exceptionalism

The section physical appearance is written with a tone of exceptionalism. for example

  • 1)According to the study, the results also strongly suggests that Europeans and East Asians have evolved light skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanisms.

there are several genes that are involved in producing skin color. currently only two are known. MC1R and SLC24A5. Without information about the other the several other genes it is premature to make "strong" and "distinct" conclusions.

  • 2)Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception:.

Big exception is POV. This is human exceptionalism because it is overemphasizing hair and eye color in humans. But when one considers the animal kingdom there is significant variety in hair and eye color. So I added some info on the evolution of MC1R for context. Besides peter frost hypotheses is really strange. He says a shortage of men arose because of hunting in the tundra. this resulted in many women chasing after few men. So men became choosy and selected different hair and eye colors. Isn't this guy just projecting his fantasies into his research.Muntuwandi 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 2 continues to be just plain false. Most Europeans have only one hair color and one eye color, as well. Removing... --Carwil 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disruption

Hayden5650 obviously has a nordicist agenda, and Muntuwandi obviously has an afrocentrist agenda. Both aren't welcome. Their aggressive behaviour is disrupting constructive efforts at this article. I ask both editors to stand down and stop edit-warring. If they cannot do this, I ask other editors involved here to revert controversial edits from both sides and let the disruptive editors run into WP:3RR. The alternative is locking down the article again, which is in nobody's interest. Constructive progress is difficult enough among bona fide editors, there is no room for prancing around with fringe ideologists. dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave too if you are going to dare accuse me of that crap. Look at all the talk above, I have been discussing and discussing and discussing to gain consensus, and have been as accommodating as possible to other editors' opinions, it seems to be you that has a problem with discussing changes --Hayden5650 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it was me, by the way, who proposed the article this time round, and posted here on the talkpage first --Hayden5650 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's commendable, of course. The upshot is still that the article is now protected again. You've been working on a gallery, that's fine, but neither this article nor the black people one should even have a gallery. Consider moving it to commons:, where it will be most welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is not necessary at this stage. The same problems will arise when the page is unprotected. Better to discuss changes. My major problem is the tone of the section on physical appearance is one of exceptionalism. This I believe to be unscientific. It is written in a manner that tries to distance europeans from other races. Muntuwandi 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding their polar positions, I find both Hayden and Muntwandi to be reasonable editors. I don't see the need for protection, but we all could use some temperance on our edit warring (me included). --Kevin Murray 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines

I am amazed how easily people are disregarding Wiki rules:

1) Jeeny and Dark Tea deleted CITED information referring to Kant because he was racist. That's censorship. And what they deleted wasnt offensive neither. [18] [19]

2) Jeeny deletes the map because SHE THINKS it's wrong. [20]

3) Muntuwandi keeps adding uncited material by EDIT WARRING. [21]

Well, your opinions are irrelevant. If you think a cited info is wrong, find another source which holds a different POV and add that to the article. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. It's very sad that Wikipedia is so ineffective against such trolling. KarenAER 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned here and at other related articles that a lot of information is being presented by unestablished sources, based on the premis that if it's published it's credible. The standards for an encyclopedic article are differest from the standards for an essay or magazine article. --Kevin Murray 17:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I removed the map, it was one person's POV, as there is evidence there are light color hair and eyes in different parts of Africa, not just the one area included on the map. - Jeeny Talk 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions are irrelevant. The source of the map was this: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html
It's academic and reliable. Find such a source to support your POV and add it to the article. Until then shut up...KarenAER 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is about "Europeans" not about "white people." Hence it is OR to use anyway. This very source has already been discussed before. Don't you all get tired of beating a dead horse? OR is OR... until the source changes "European" to "white people" it will remain OR. The Behnam 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Europeans and whites are synonymous according to many definitions. Get over it...KarenAER 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYN. The Behnam 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to look up synonymous in the dictionary. So the case here is not A,B,C. Or 8,9,10. It is 8 and VIII. KarenAER 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person, Frost, is not a geneticist. Peter Frost. Just because it is one person's view, in ONE academic article, does not make it accurate, nor even reliable. - Jeeny Talk 21:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frost is an anthropologist with a PHD. [22]. Educate yourself, his field is very relevant. KarenAER 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that you started this section with that heading, and you are ignoring the rules and guidelines by attacking people, and being quite uncivil. Also, European is not synonymous with white. - Jeeny Talk 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not being kind but I'm not being uncivil neither. Do not expect kindness when you are acting quite silly. KarenAER 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I said it is, according to many definitions. Here:
"Morgan Godwyn, found it necessary to explain to the English at home that, in Barbados, 'white' was 'the general name for Europeans."
"According to the Norwegian Social Science Data Service, white is a possible answer to ethnic/people group category question. After Norwegians, Sami, Kvens and other Nordics, it is mentioned as White/European."
"In the UK white usually refers only to people of native British and European origin"
And almost synonymous, Oxford dictionary definition: "to a human group having light-colored skin, especially of European ancestry."
Here's a research paper analyzing the use of white in research in US and UK. You cant get more scientific than this: [23]
It says, for white: "In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions."
So, please remain quite about things you have no idea about. KarenAER 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh have "quite" an idea. You don't want to "get it". I know what Frost is, he's one PhD, with one academic article of "his views". Not acceptable in this case. Also, you seem not to know the word synonymous, it does not mean 'some', 'usually', 'only to', 'almost', or 'possible'. But, I do know you know the real definition, as you so flippantly pointed out to User:The Behnam. You're grasping at straws to push a POV. - Jeeny Talk 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to delete cited material, you have to find another reliable source which says otherwise. Until then, what you THINK is irrelevant. Get over yourself...KarenAER 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not quite how it works. The cited material may be deleted if it fails undue weight or notability concerns. Right now, I could say there are enough problems with the view cited that it may fail either due to being that of a vanishing minority of people (one researcher arguing about a lack of male population at a time when there is no indication of such a bottleneck). This could be resolved and the view unarguably included if the view was reprised in a secondary source (a review paper, for example); until then, its inclusion is debatable baswed on the fringe-like quality of such view.--Ramdrake 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But none of you have proven that Frost is in the minority or has any opposition yet. All I'm seeing is YOUR opinions. Please source your claims.... KarenAER 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a Google scholar search returns that this particular article is not itself cited anywhere in the literature by any other paper, a telltale sign that the view is a very minor one.--Ramdrake 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In New Zealand, we use the term New Zealand European to refer to white people. It means white, the terms are interchangeable. --Hayden5650 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN for "synthesis," not "synonym." I suggest you read WP:SYN because it is what you are advocating here against policy. Some may consider the two synonymous but we cannot project that interpretation onto this source - we can only use the source for what it directly supports, without any original synthesis. The Behnam 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:SYN is for "synthesis," not "synonym." Thats why that policy is unapplicable here since we arent making a synthesis. European/White is synonymous according to many sources and thats why information about Europeans is valid in this article. And we are NOT sayin "most whites have one hair and eye colour..." then cite source about Europeans. That would be synthesis. It is amazing you are still unable to get it... KarenAER 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your "amazement" to yourself. It actually is still synthesis because this source does not treat the two as synonymous - in fact it doesn't make any claim about it. You are taking a definition used by some other sources and applying it to Frost's speculation about European genetics in order to forward an association with the topic "white people." This could very well be misusing the source, as we do not have anything from Frost suggesting that Frost supports associating these particular Europeans traits to "white people" in general. The Behnam 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are NOT taking a definition used by some other sources and applying it to Frost's speculation about European genetics in order to forward an association with the topic "white people.", since we arent saying "white people has diverse hair and eye colour, etc etc" and then cite Frost. We are citing Frost when we are saying "European people etc etc". So there is no synthesis here. The question is whether that info is relevant in this article or not and it is indeed relevant. You've been repeatedly told similar arguments over and over, this will be my last attempt since you seem to be unable to comprehend and I dont wanna waste more time...KarenAER 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You synthesis is the ground affirmation that White==Europeans. There are many other definitions.--Ramdrake 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That's why I'm not against them putting similar info about Mid Easterners, as long as that doesnt exceed info about Europeans in length because that would be giving undue weight, since majority of the definitions cited in this article does not regard them as white....KarenAER 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good to know that you are "fair" about synthesis, but I am sorry to inform you that it is still against Wikipedia policy. The Behnam 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You arent any authority about Wiki policies. KarenAER 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I don't have to be an "authority" to apply and argue from policies. Under that logic, none of us would actually be able to use or cite policy because we aren't "authorities." I'm sorry, but it is difficult to take your post seriously, especially since you've also attempted to use policy at time. You know, I've seen people blocked for "playing dumb." Are you playing with us? The Behnam 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By placing it in this article you associate it with the topic. If it isn't relevant to the topic then it shouldn't be here. The Behnam 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is associated to the topic and it is relevant [24]. It's very odd that you claim otherwise...KarenAER 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, thanks for pointing out another one of your synthesis-advocating posts. How does it make it relevant? The Behnam 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not? KarenAER 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made the affirmative statement. The burden is on you, buddy. The Behnam 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not your buddy. Second of all, it is clear that they are relevant since many sources use them as synonymous. DUH....KarenAER 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you from earlier - "We are NOT taking a definition used by some other sources and applying it to Frost's speculation about European genetics in order to forward an association with the topic "white people.", since we arent saying "white people has diverse hair and eye colour, etc etc" and then cite Frost" - yet you are claiming it as relevant to "white people" because some sources equate the two. That, my friend, is associating it with "white people." The Behnam 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are associated. You just understood this? KarenAER 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that you were trying to associate Frost's work to white people by applying definitions used elsewhere. The quote has you denying it, but now you are admitting it. Why did you lie to us? In any case, we still can't associate Frost's work with "white people" based upon definitions not clearly supported by Frost himself. Sorry. The Behnam 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody contests that white (or light complexion) is associated primarily with European people (or people of European ancestry, including most North Americans), or at least that these represent demographically most of those that are considered "white". What most people contest is the exclusive adequation you seem to make (Whites==Europeans). AFAIK, this is very much a minority view, not a majority view.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you just don't get it. Second, it is NOT clear that they are relevant at all. European is not synonymous to white. This is exactlly what's wrong with Wikipedia, when people that have no reasoning abilities are able to edit articles. DUH, is right. lol. Third, I thought you were going to give up trying to make people understand your nonsense? - Jeeny Talk 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said white people and European people are associated. And you interpreted it as me lying? LOL KarenAER 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not then, perhaps now, but I'll be nice and assume you are very confused and angry, therefore you're unable to think clearly. Because it's all here, where you said they were synonymous. - Jeeny Talk 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example of a post you made:

"I suggest you to look up synonymous in the dictionary. So the case here is not A,B,C. Or 8,9,10. It is 8 and VIII. KarenAER 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

LOL. - Jeeny Talk 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You said more than that. You said that Frost's work was relevant to "white people" because the two terms are associated. You originally said that you weren't trying to associate Frost's work with white people by applying others' definitions, but later argued that Frost's work is relevant because the two are associated. As it has remained clear that this "association" is made by other sources (not Frost), you were indeed trying to put Frost's work in here based upon others' definitions. This contradicts your original statement (that you weren't trying to do this), so I conclude that you are lying. I'm wondering why you lied to us. Lying doesn't help us resolve the content dispute. The Behnam 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We werent talking about association, we were talking about synthesis. Please use more dictionary. KarenAER 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we were talking about both. The Behnam 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but you implied I associated Frost's work to white people to create a synthesis. That was never the case. KarenAER 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the synthesized part is that Frost's work is relevant to white people. You determined this relevance based upon others' definitions - this is not warranted as this is not necessarily Frost's intention. The Behnam 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesized part is that Frost's work since he is not used as a source for white people. He's used as a source for Europeans. There is no association in the sense to create a synthesis. You are repeating your points....KarenAER 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they still apply. To repeat another point that you neither refute nor heed, it seems that Frost is talking about European people, and as we lack proper grounds to construe that his work is relevant to "white people," we have no reason to consider it relevant, and hence it should not be in the article. The Behnam 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. I have tried to explain enough. Your views are against the opinions of previous meditator and other editors such as dab. Any removal of this information would be against a consensus. Maybe you should open a Request for comment or discuss this in the talk page of relevant wiki policy since you still do not understand it. KarenAER 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you contention were right that White==Europeans, then the content of this article should be merged with Europeans and the article itself should be deleted. Also, please be aware that consensus can change, and in this case it looks lke your position is now in the minority.--Ramdrake 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't ever a majority. It is interesting that you (Karen) are somehow familiar with the previous mediation, and that you bring up that specific quote. I remember you brought it up already here, and it was discussed heavily. Are you aware that the mediator changed his view within that very day? See [25] - he makes the statement at "01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)." Now see [26], where he says "I find myself agreeing with Benham that tying two subjectives together may be tantamount to OR" at "07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)." So there is some inaccuracy in claiming that the mediator agreed with you - even if he had, he quite clearly changed his mind. Not that a mediator is God anyway - they can wrong too - but I figure you might just want to know this, as you have remained unaware all of this time. The Behnam 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody contests that white (or light complexion) is associated primarily with European people (or people of European ancestry, including most North Americans), or at least that these represent demographically most of those that are considered "white". What most people contest is the exclusive adequation you seem to make (Whites==Europeans). AFAIK, this is very much a minority view, not a majority view.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"
If you dont contest that, you should be OK with providing info about Europeans in this page. As for Whites==Europeans, that's the majority of definitions cited in this article. KarenAER 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you conflate census definitions with etymological definition, maybe there's an even number that include non-Europeans as those who exclude them, but if you put them aside (as many of them have since been abolished, like the Australian one), definitions of "white" which exclude non-Europeans are a distinct minority.--Ramdrake 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The modern UK, Norway and Canadian sources exclude non-Europeans. So does the research community in practice in US. Those vs US census are a distinct minority? KarenAER 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans are a big exception

Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green.

Muntuwandi 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, those are so fake! Give me 10 minutes on either Paintshop Pro or Photoshop and I can do the same thing, probably even better --Hayden5650 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Some if not all of these photos are real. yes you can use CS3 to do play around with the colors but I have seen people like this in real life[27]. Muntuwandi 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and have seen many, black people with natural red hair also. - Jeeny Talk 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is leaning towards OR based off of some flickr photos (either to justify including blacks or removing the "exception" remark). Do we have a point to make involving RS rather than original judgments of unreliable pictures, or is this just an inappropriate use of the talk page? The Behnam 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that eye color is not concordant with skin color. In other words one does not have to be white to have various eye colors. Muntuwandi 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those people have blue/green eyes because they have some European admixture. LOL. That shouldnt be so hard to understand. Avarage European blood in an African American is around 20%...KarenAER 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe Europeans have African admixture. In any case if these individuals were to be reproductively successful these genes could spread in the black population to become as frequent as in the white population.Muntuwandi 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL KarenAER 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The average black man has dark eyes. The average white man may have a range of colors, bu none usually as dark as the black mans. Blue eyes are certainly more predominant in whites than blacks. Use some common sense, there will always be exceptions. Flickr is hardly reliable, those photos are both obviously doctored, and even if they are not, it's not hard to put in some fake contact lenses.
Wearing blue contact lenses is especially common amongst Indians and Orientals, who see blue eyes as a sign of beauty. This, of course, is a fairly recent advent, but those photos are also new. --Hayden5650 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors would be more likely to compromise if we weren't comparing the "average" black man with the "diversity" of the white man. Yes, "whites" have more variability in eye and hair color than "blacks", but let's not forget that all whites are descended from blacks (which is the original skin color of our species). Whether the mutations for different eye and hair colors appeared before or after the northward migrations which gave rise to the "white" skin color, is a matter for debate. From the few people with dark skin and varied hair and eye color that exist, it looks likely that it existed prior to skin tone change, but got preferentially selected when the skin tone of some humans changed after moving northward.--Ramdrake 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KarenAER. Those "blacks" were not all black. Real blacks have black skin. Real whites have white skin. Anything between these two extreames is not a black or a white. A lot of people wear contacts, so the pictures show little verifiable proof that those colors were natural eye colors.----DarkTea 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, how in the heck do you know who is "real" white. Do you mean as pure 100%? That's what seems to be suggested on this article, that only those considered 100% white, are white people. Which is inane. As Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal are European countries. They are not 100% by any means. Only those who have had their DNA tested from both maternal and paternal lines can be sure what part of the world one's ancestors are from. You say anything inbetween is not black nor white? Then what about those who have an African grand parent but look very "white" and do not know of the grand parent? That's the problem today, with the DNA test they have now, people can be very surprised as to their own admixture. How many people are 100% anything? So the question is who or what is considered "white" people? You can't say Europeans are the white people. Also, like Americans, there are many people born in the UK and other countries, that are not white and their nationalities go back a long ways. At one time Irish people where not considered white by the British. Do they now? Are Greeks white? Are the Portuguese white? Who defines the term? And is it POV, when one does not know their ancestry a few generations back? Is it those who look white? And whose POV decides that? - Jeeny Talk 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, southern Europeans are "white" - in Iberia, in fact, they seem to be the oldest european genetic stock of all! Have you ever been there? LOL! This article is becaming a discussion based on completely surpassed concepts of race and colour! The Ogre 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion as a white is a multifaceted issue with various POVs that exist.----DarkTea 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. Then what can we do to help this situation? Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these are for real Gary Dourdan from CSI Muntuwandi 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a very close friend who had those green eyes, but lighter skin, and medium, to light brown hair, when I was 16-17. His mother was very dark, very "African" in appearance. His father was lighter, but still black in all appearences. - Jeeny Talk 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just stop this? This section is a mix of inappropriate forum talk (and this is not a forum) and moves to draw original conclusions based upon unreliable photos. The Behnam 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section hair and eye colors in the article is what is inviting "inappropriate forum talk".I think it was User:Alun who removed the section, and then someone reinstated it. The article by Peter Frost is also inappropriate and sexist. If written from a purely scientific view, there may be some value in these hair and eye colors. These traits may have significance in the development of the white identity since they sometimes serve as tools for intraracial stratification among whites. Muntuwandi 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I did go off topic, sorry. Again, who's to decide who is white? And what qualifies that? Southern Europeans? That's why I proposed to use well-known people in images, who can be verified as much as possible, opposed to having generic people. As that would draw individual "conclusions based upon unreliable photos". I realise that can also be said of the "well-known" too, but again, there is at least some references to go along with thier images, rather than the unknowns. - Jeeny Talk 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dare suggest that the section on "big exception" be treated with the same usual suspicion we reserve to superlatives in Wikipedia, i.e. it would need to come from a more authoritative source than a primary source (even though it's a research paper from an anthropologist); we should really look to a secondary source (a review paper stating so) to make the point. Until then, I think it should be withdrawn from the article.
To Jeeny, we can't decide who's white; we can at most acknowledge that there are several definitions and present them with an importance commensurate to their weight in the "real" world.--Ramdrake 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I was trying to get across, but you did a much better job of it. Thanks. :) - Jeeny Talk 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! An encyclopedia is not about what the world is, but about what people say the world is. The Ogre 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate quote suggestion:

The common occurrence of lighter iris colours is found almost exclusively in Europeans (i.e. recent monophyletic, non-East Asian, non-Native American and non-African lineages) and individuals of European admixture.

Straightforward, nuanced, and a RS. Citation: Sturm RA, Frudakis TN. Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. Trends Genet. 2004 Aug;20(8):327-32.

While they're at it, the authors also note the lack of evidence as yet as to "whether lighter iris colours are exclusive to the continental European populations, as opposed to unadmixed Middle Eastern or Central and/or Southern Asian populations with whom they share some common ancestry." Now, for what it's worth, many of those "individuals of European admixture" are still not of course white people by prevailing social definition, so we have the same Euro/white problem as before. But at least we can be clear.--Carwil 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I stumbled upon this article, to me it was clear that "Whites" was just another term, totally synoymous to Caucasoids. Now, I'm not so certain, but that's because the definition of "white" seems to change depending on the epoch and the corner of the world one happens to live in, unlike "Caucasoid" which is quite standard everywhere. However, it would seem to me that we need to put some more emphasis on the fact that 1)White is a social, not a biological or anthropological definition 2)White has many different meaning, more or less restricted depending on whom you ask. 3)Much of the rest of the description of "White" would just as well do in the article about Caucasoids. So, and you'll forgive me for being blunt, but in all earnest, we might want to make these points clearer, lest people start to mistake this for a racist POV-fork of "Caucasoid". Apologies if I offended anyone (that's absolutely not my intent), but I believe this is a point this talk page keeps missing. Just my tuppence' worth.--Ramdrake 23:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section should be withdrawn or deemphasized . There are plenty of people who are white but do not have blue eyes or red hair, but they are still white. Furthermore there are also people who have blue eyes and blond hair who are not white. Stressing hair colors almost seems like a nordic agenda.Muntuwandi 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really interesting that black Africans have the most diverse DNA, but "white people" have appearances that appear to have more variation. Blonde (blue, hazel, brown eyes), Red hair (blue, hazel, brown eyed), brunette (blue, hazel, brown eyed), black hair (blue eyes, hazel or brown.). Not counting skin tones. But black African have different skin tones, and facial differences too. But not too many with hair and eye variation. Hmmmm. - Jeeny Talk 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This is absurd. Instead of Hayden getting blocked for a massive 3RR violation, nobody can edit the page. Anyone have an idea how to resolve this? I don't recall any policy & guideline-based consensus (or any other type of consensus, for that matter) existing for including the gallery - in fact, including any image is generally quite problematic. It seems that Hayden was acting out of line. It is hard to justify locking everyone out of the article because of a lone 3RR-violating edit warrior. Any ideas on how to resolve this situation? The Behnam 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block Hayden forever! The Ogre 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! And KarenAE whatever. PS, I'm being sarcastic, not uncivil. sheesh - Jeeny Talk 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was being sarcastic too... Relax Dark Tea! Smile! The Ogre 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it takes two to tango, wasn't just me reverting! But the end result was an excellent compromise with the other editor, so who cares? All's well that ends well. The ends justify the means. --Hayden5650 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should remain under permanent protection, it's good right now. --Hayden5650 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if it's good right now, I suppose a consensus has been reached. I've gone ahead and unprotected the page. =) --Krimpet 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you gotta keep it protected, it's gonna turn to dog tucka within 12 hours if it's not protected! --Hayden5650 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the tags? The Ogre 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krimpet, do you realize that you just accepted that it is "good right now" from the lone edit warrior I was talking about? The Behnam 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, I know that Dbachmann and I were against the gallery. Also, right after you took Hayden's word on the current version, Dark Tea also opposed the gallery [28]. Anyway, it is unprotected so technically we could take it out, but I know Hayden will put it right back in. I'm going to look into other options based upon some new information I've received. The Behnam 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest opening an RfC so as to ascertain community consensus on this.--Ramdrake 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking that all of this is necessary just because of Hayden. Checkuser Jpgordon has confirmed that Hayden is identical to the indef blocked User:Nordic Crusader. Please see User talk:The Behnam#FYI... The Behnam 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is interesting there was a case opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nordic Crusader that found no evidence that they were socks. Muntuwandi 06:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he was just being clever. Jpgordon said on my talk page that the checkuser was evidence was not at all ambiguous. The Behnam 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was being a little sarcastic when I said that, I apologize. =/ I realize Hayden was being disruptive; the real reason I unprotected it because, as you said, it was clear by this point he was the only one going against a mostly solid consensus, and was even gloating over his preferred version being the protected one (the complete opposite of what protection is intended for). Now that he has been exposed and blocked as a previously blocked user, hopefully constructive work can continue on the article. --Krimpet 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have another one, just after the unprotection User:KarenAER started right in. He/she has been reported. :/ - Jeeny Talk 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hayden hasn't been blocked yet. The Behnam 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Hayden is blocked. The Behnam 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the gallery mainly because the images that kept getting used as examples were so ridiculous that the gallery is a better alternative. If we're going to include nearly everybody in this article then it defeats the purpose of its existence. One thing that bothers me is that editors here who aren't even "white" are trying to suppress elements of this article that don't fit their personal views. Removals of portions of the history of the term and scientific studies from this article are unacceptable. The premise of the gallery is simple: "Is this a white person?" If anyone can say NO then the person can't be used as an EXAMPLE because that's what EXAMPLES are. It's as if I used a person of Chinese descent as an example of an "American". It's not that people of Chinese descent aren't American, it's that they do not represent a significant enough population to be used as an example.

Look at the articles on Black people and Asian people. Black people uses images that are CLEARLY and UNCONTROVERSIALLY black while the Asian people article uses a classification scheme by country and does not use images because they're too controversial. JRWalko 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that non white editors should not edit this article. Muntuwandi 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I picked up from that. Am I white or just half-white? It depends on how you define "white"... :-) The Behnam 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the racism, JRWalko's post seems to inadvertently highlight just how arbitrary this gallery & similar images are. "If anyone can say NO then the person can't be used as an EXAMPLE." Anyone? Why don't we measure by sources anymore? Heck, somebody could just say "no" to all of them... The Behnam 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is that by looking at your user pages one can easily tell that some (not all) of you have your own agendas. Muntuwandi finished with his frequently edited articles and came to this one where he was trying to educate us how an African person can have blue eyes resorting to such stupid things as finding Flicr images of random dark people of dubious ethinc background that had "blue eyes". This was of course after he was trying to qualify an albino image as a "white person". Then of course there are those editors here who don't even believe in the existance of races yet are providing "NPOV" opinions in this article. Then there's the whining on how white people aren't special and blah blah blah. If you want to expand the images on eye and hair color to the world image please do so, it won't change the fact that white people have the same frequencies of those genes. I have suggested articles where editors here should look for guidance on what to do here. If you're going to be putting images on they have to be uncontroversial. Present STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT content and I won't complain. JRWalko 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no difference between the skin of an Albino and that of a white person in that they both lack pigment. The difference is that white people produce melanin in small amounts, enough to tan and protect the skin. Albinos do not produce any melanin at all and thus they cannot tan, so their skin is so sensitive to sunlight and is easily injured from sunburn. Albinos are even whiter than white peoplefacts about albinism. Muntuwandi 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the point of eye colors is that these traits are not necessary linked to skin color. They are discordant. You can see this in animals, they have all the range of hair coats, skin colors and eye colors
Well obviously but this article is about people whose ethnic groups are white, not about individuals who are white. JRWalko 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why should we limit whiteness to an ethnic group. Both africans and australians are considered black, but they are not one single ethnic group. The word Albino means "white" in Ancient Greek. While albinos would be culturally and genetically african their skin is white.Muntuwandi 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the authors of sources 1 through 5 in the article. JRWalko 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why skin color is not the only determinant of white people. These Africans, who are very rare, have light skin but they are still not white: [29] [30] [31] KarenAER 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
White people have white skin, those people have white skin. They are white people. - Jeeny Talk 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. KarenAER 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have white skin, but yes they are not "caucasoid". Muntuwandi 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is interesting is that you have albinos who have white skin but African features such as tightly coiled hair. Then some Somalians are as black as the night, but they have straight or curly hair and aquiline noses, 100% caucasoid. Muntuwandi 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? All whites are Caucasoid but not all Caucasoids are white. All whites have light skin but not all light skinned people are white. KarenAER 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? - Jeeny Talk 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admixture

A statistical analysis done in 1958 using historical census data and historical data on immigration and birth rates, concluded that 21 percent of the white population had black ancestors. The growth in the white population could not be attributed to births in the white population and immigration from Europe alone, but had received significant contribution from the American black population as well. AFRICAN ANCESTRY OF THE WHITE AMERICAN POPULATION The author states in 1958:

The data presented in this study indicate that the popular belief in the non-African background of white persons is invalid. Over twenty-eight million white persons are descendants of persons of African origin. Furthermore, the majority of the persons with African ancestry are classified as white.

Considering the last 10 generations, the majority of African Americans( at least one African ancestor) are white. Muntuwandi 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admixture goes the other way too (I've seen a 26% cited from a study by Cavalli-Sforza), but what is the point of this? Is there something in particular about the article that is in question here? I feel like this isn't the first time you've started a vague/forum-ish post - can you clarify just what we are supposed to do about this information? Thanks. The Behnam 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The white american subsection should make a mention that many white americans have recent sub-saharan ancestry as well. Especially those who have had ancestors in the US for more than 10 generations.Muntuwandi 06:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the point Muntuwandi is trying to make only highlights the fuzziness of racial categories (much like the question whether "whites" includes non-Europeans). Either of two things can happen: either we accept that people with a majority of features that can be said "white" are actually white, or we apply arbitrary, even silly rules like the one-drop rule that eliminate a lot of people from the category, and possibly a majority of the population on this planet falls out out each race into some vague "admixture/multiracial" category. However, I guess my question is more of a social comment than one about what to do with the article, though, but it should be seen as a warning against this article trying to decide what the "truth" is (as opposed to reporting on the different existing definitions). Sorry, getting off my soapbox! :)--Ramdrake 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YAWN! "Second, the Black and White groups are not symmetrical. The mean African admixture among White Americans is low—roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture." [32] KarenAER 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You refer us to a blog... The Behnam 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unlike many blogs, this one contains real references, which possibly are usable themselves; and of course there's nothing wrong with citing less-than-reliable sources on talk pages, as long as they lead us to reliable sources. However: we can't just pluck the references from the unreliable sources without verifying them (that's the point fo the sources being unreliable; unreliability includes being unreliable about references.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been looking up the author, Frank W. Sweet. It seems that he self-publishes, rather than in peer-reviewed journals. Even so, there may be a better place to find those ideas than his blog - I imagine that his blog isn't the only place he has published his papers. The Behnam 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are unable to follow bibliography, the source is: Mark D. Shriver and others, “Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping,” Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99, Table 2, which I didnt link directly because you have to pay to see that whole article. KarenAER 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KarenAER, as you seem unable to find a free link to the article you cite, here it is: [33]. You will also find the evidence is misquoted (see table 2 at the bottom of page 391 of the article), as it is the result of tests conducted on a small group, in a single college in a single state in the United States. This cannot be construed as representative of a national average by any stretch of the imagination. Please properly research your references, next time.--Ramdrake 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting quite tired of your incivility, but anyway, I was looking at the reliability of the author, as it is fairly important to trusting material that he cites. With my 26%, I take that out of the textbook 'Evolutionary Biology', 3rd ed., by Douglas Futuyma, and as such I feel that I can trust his cite of Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer's work. The Behnam 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." As for our gallery:

  1. Notability - While the people pictured are generally notable, no source has yet indicated that they are notable relative to the article's topic. Hence, they do not satisfy the WP:IMAGE notability requirement.
  2. Relevant - Normally with content we determine relevance based upon what source's say about the item in question, but with pictures it can be a bit tricky because of the liberal WP:OR#Original images, where we are encouraged to use images so long as they do not "propose unpublished ideas or arguments." Unfortunately, each picture in our gallery does this, with the unpublished idea being that the pictured person matches this or that source's definition of a white person. If no source has cited them as somehow definitive or illustrative to the concept, we cannot properly establish the relevance critical to meriting inclusion.

Generally, galleries are for Commons anyway, while images on Wikipedia are used only to support the text. Hopefully, if we consider image inclusion based upon these criteria and start working from direct statements by sources, we will not have to deal with this arbitrary image-switching on the gallery. The Behnam 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't think the Brazillian of German ancestry makes a lot of sense, but I won't remove the image. I do think that it is important to clarify the heritage though which makes for a long caption. My goal is to demonstrate the diversity within the term "white people" and show typical examples from regions. --Kevin Murray 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and reverted to the image that was there before. But, had to undo my revert because I'm being reported for violation of 3RR. So if you can change the image that was there before, as I can't because of the report. That may solve the issue, but the editor keeps inserting Gisele as Brazilian. <shrug> - Jeeny Talk 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the image that was replaced with Gisele: Image:Sopho Khalvashi-tight.jpg Georgian singer Sopho Khalvashi. - Jeeny Talk 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my suggestion to create a second gallery for people of non-European descent since many sources does not accept them as white. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Nouri al-Maliki wouldnt be accepted as white in Canada, Norway, UK and Australia. Why is this objected against? KarenAER 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm Canadian, and I can tell you for a fact they'd be considered "white". In any case, as I already pointed out earlier, you seem to confuse census categories (which are notable for overlapping and having gaps too) with the societal definition of the term in the appropriate countries. Second, this kind of exclusionary view seems to me to smack of racism and I would much rather not have a gallery than having such a racist-looking gallery.--Ramdrake 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the Iranian and Arab photo, those would easily be seen as white by any country. They perfectly look white, and thus would not standout as all if placed in a group of other white people, thus these pictures are good to stay. Remember, trying to exclusively keep white a term only for Europeans is racist, as many people who are from the same Caucasian race as Europeans are look just like Europeans and have skins on the same level, thus its fair to keep them.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people&oldid=150260429"