Talk:Human skin color/Archives/2012/April

Ridiculous part of the article
"Most actors and actresses have light skin,[80] and there continues to be a preference for fair or lighter skin in some countries, including Latin American countries where whites are a minority.[81] In Mexico, light skin is associated with power, as well as attractiveness.[82] A dark-skinned person is more likely to be discriminated against in Brazil.[83] Many Latin American actors and actresses have European features—blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90] A light-skinned person is considered to be more privileged and have a higher social status; a person with light skin is considered more beautiful and it means that the person has more wealth. Skin color is such an obsession in some countries that specific words describe distinct skin tones from "jincha", Puerto Rican slang for "glass of milk" to "morena", literally "brown".[90]"

This part of the article is completely ridiculous and offensive and should be excluded, it tries to make it seem like everyone who is not white thinks we, white people, are more beautiful; it generalizes; it makes it seem like it is some kind of anomaly for a Latin American to have features that are more common in Europe, which is absurd, seeing as most Latin Americans have European descent; it is fully based in vague assumptions; it makes it seem like the names given to different skin tones are due to some sort of sick obsession, which is absurd, and so on...It is so absurd and offensive! --CEBR (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You called the text flawed, but your argument for removing it is flawed. That's why I returned it. That section is about social status and racism, just as the name states. Of course there is going to be things that people consider completely ridiculous and offensive in it, but Wikipedia is not censored and we aren't supposed to delete things simply because we don't like them. The section is saying that many people who are not white think whites and lighter-skinned people in general are more beautiful. This has been true for most parts of the world, and remains true in many or most parts, as the various reliable sources backing this material show. It's not saying that everyone thinks this way; it's saying that many or most do. The section also explains why this is the case and how this line of thinking has changed in recent centuries and decades for some parts of the world. Maybe the paragraph needs tweaking or downsizing, but the whole paragraph shouldn't be removed. You removed all mention of preference for lighter skin in Latin cultures, leaving all the other cultures that prefer lighter skin in there. 61.90.201.57 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, look carefully and you'll see that it is extremely flawed, I am not excluding it because I don't like it, I'm excluding it because it is racist, racism is not accepted in Wikipedia. I have only messed with the part about Latin America because it is my area of expertise and one of the few parts of the article I took a look at, if the rest of the article is as flawed as that part I think something needs to be done about it too! CEBR (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that it's taken me this long to respond, but in addition to initially concerning myself with other articles, personal issues surrounding my sibling's Wikipedia account have kept me from responding to you sooner. I have to say that I don't understand your argument. If you find the paragraph racist, perhaps it is because that section, as I said before, is about social status and racism. It's made up of facts, not opinion (other than the opinion that lighter skin is more beautiful), and these facts are supported by reliable sources. Racism is not allowed on Wikipedia, but discussing racism and colorism is. 108.60.145.58 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)