Talk:Multiracial people/Archive 2

Notable Multi or Bi-racial people
Why isn't the next president of the USA on this list? I would have thought he was famous enough to make it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.162.25 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of "Notable Multi or Bi-racial people" has become unreasonable. There are more than 100 people included, and more are added every day.

What's the purpose of the list? Does it add any value to the article? Is it possible that a reader might read the article and leave wondering what a bi- or multiracial person is because the article didn't have a list of examples?

I think we should delete the list altogether. We have a picture of Halle Berry and a Eurasian baby. Let's add another picture or two, maybe of some of the notable people on the list, and delete the list.

For others' thoughts on lists such as these, read Avoid trivia sections and Lists in Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this list is as close to pure crap as I've yet seen here. If multiracial means parents of distinct races, most of the names on the list fail that definition. For example one parent being Spanish (joan baez) and the other English doesn' make one multiracial, believe it or don't. Hispanic is a cultural term that includes a variety of 'races'. The whole list should probably be pulled. Lycurgus 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need to give this list an article of it's own. Mumble45 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the section, which continued to grow despite the header that it was too long. Furthermore, there were no criteria for determining what made a person notable, and no sources provided that indicated a person was bi- or multiracial. (See WP:BLP for the reason why such sources are necessary.)
 * In case anybody thinks an article should be created out of the list, I've saved the information I deleted at User:Malik Shabazz/Notable multi- or bi-racial people. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) hi there. I think the list of notable people would make sense indeed if it contained information on where the parents come from plus a source. I looked at it the last year and it did make a lot of sense to me. I am biracial and I was surprised to find so many famous bi-racial people. I just came to this link now because I wanted to check the list out again. I remember when I read it, that it contained also information on the origins of the parents in like 50 percent of the noted persons. One could also put out the list with the information that not all backgrounds are certain, that's why no complete sources. Just like on the link of the best selling artists.


 * Hi Julian. As I wrote above, the list can be found at User:Malik Shabazz/Notable multi- or bi-racial people. It didn't have any information about parents or specific heritage, nor did it include references, which may be a violation of Biographies of living persons.


 * I kept the information, though, in case somebody wants to create a new article such as List of multiracial people. Such a list should include references, the way this list does. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on adding a page of this nature to Wikipedia, but when I saw that one had so recently been deleted, I moved the deleted information to a page on my own encyclopedia here. Anyone interested in contributing can leave me a message there. I don't agree with the deletion, but no point fighting it in this case...

Kitoba (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with an article that consists of such a list. See, for example, List of Jewish anarchists. Such a list should include references. The problem here, in my opinion, was that the list had grown unreasonably long. This is an article about what "Multiracial" means, and a small number of notable examples might be helpful (see, for example, Islam in the African diaspora or Jews and Judaism in the African diaspora) but I think a list of 100 or more is too many. On the other hand, List of multiracial people might be a reasonable Wikipedia article, but it should include references. I'd be happy to help with such an article if somebody else wants to start it. In any event, the deleted content is still available at User:Malik Shabazz/Notable multi- or bi-racial people. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Malik - who are you to decide what is 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' for what actual, real-life Multiracial people consider appropriate? Are you mixed-race? How do you qualify to make this determination? I am the founder and director of a pro-Multiracial organization called C.O.M.R.A.DE (Coloradoans of Mixed-Race Ancestry & Descent) in the Aurora-Denver Metroplex, and I am constantly seeking ways to bring Multracial issues to the forefront and celebrate Mixed-race people whereever I find them. We are seeking an official NAME to classify our racial group (the word Multiracial) which will speak power and existence to our contigency, so that children and adults of mixed-race alike don't continue to feel left out in the 'pick one race' scam. We as Multiracial people should have the same right as you or any other racial group to signify an factual, honest, racial identity for ourselves, as Multracial.

It is my responsibility to others of mixed-race as a concerned, interested, and real Multiracial person to see to it that we are not contiually rendered invisible in our society and that mixed-race are able to see others of Multiracial heritage as a source of confidence, motivatino, power, and similarity, much like blacks (or any other race) are encouraged to seek out other blacks in whatever their field of interest is (for example, if a black child wants to become a physician, parents would direct that child to seek out other black physicians as a source of motivation, i.e., "I can do it if he can do it").

Multiracial deserve the same fair treatment. Our people deserve to have the right to connect with, research, study, and gain motivation from other successful Multracial people. We are a relatively new race in America, with our people demanding recognition only as recently as 1995 (prior to the 2000 Census) and we are still fighting battles with the Office of Management and Budget to give us an official name to recognize and respect our existence. Prior to the 2000 Census, our biggest opponent was the NAACP. Can you believe these hippocrites? The supposed representatives of an oppressed people had the nerve to speak out against Multiracial people and their right to the same freedom of fair and respectful racial identification that was denied to blacks for hundreds of years.

Could you, Malik, be of that ilk? With a name like Malik Shabazz, you fashion yourself after a black separatist/black supremacist, and the black political intelligentsisa was at the forefront of suppressing Multiracial people (particualarly of partial African descent, as it is obvious and well known in our circles that blacks participate in 'racial kidnapping', or the stealing of the accomplishments of Multiracial people of partial black ancestry to claim them as their own, 'black', accomplishments).

Lycurgus, you think that honoring and respecting the accomplishments of Multiracial people is 'pure crap'? What a genius. You two are obvious anti-Multiracial and wish to erase the concept of distinct Multiracial racial identity. What is the problem? I would love to create and have ownership of this list. I would also like to create a list of 'Multiracial athletes', what was created at one point but was deleted by like minded racist individuals such as yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.193.203 (talk) 03:08, April 20, 2008


 * Please get off your high horse. Who am I to decide? I'm a sensible editor who is familiar with Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons and verifiable reliable sources. An article can't describe people as multiracial without reliable sources that say they're multiracial.
 * Does it matter "what is 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' for what actual, real-life Multiracial people consider appropriate"? Not one bit. This isn't a feel-good exercise in building self-esteem, it's an encyclopedia, and the criteria for what belongs in an article is whether it helps improve the encyclopedia.
 * Am I mixed-race? I don't see what difference it makes, since I'm trying to follow Wikipedia's rules and not my conscience, but yes I am. To read more about me, visit User:Malik Shabazz.
 * Beside its WP:BLP and WP:RS problems, the list had grown too long in proportion to the rest of the article. A small list of notable people is one matter; an attempt to create an exhaustive list in an encyclopedia article is another. For examples of a list of "reasonable" length that is sourced, see Islam in the African diaspora.
 * As I wrote above, List of multiracial people could be an appropriate article of its own. It would still be subject to the WP:BLP and WP:RS rules, but Wikipedia has plenty of lists of people. For an example of such a list, see List of Jewish anarchists. Note that nearly every name has a footnote documenting the fact that the person is Jewish and an anarchist. Likewise, every name in List of multiracial people would need a footnote with a reliable source that says that the person is multiracial.
 * When I deleted the list from this article, I moved all the names to User:Malik Shabazz/Notable multi- or bi-racial people and invited other editors to start that article. It's been almost 8 months and nobody has cared enough to do so. If you think such a list is important, please be bold and start your first article. I'll help with it, but creating that article isn't one of my top priorities.
 * PS - If you'd like to know about my Username, please read User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 5. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Archived Prior Content
Moved old stuff to Talk:Multiracial/Archive1 to make way for more stuff, hopefully better composed. If you make entries please use proper formatting. Two equal signs for a new section not one. Lycurgus 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
Vast sections of this article seem to be based on personal opinion. Citations of sources would help to show where the ideas are coming from. Kemet 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Section title
I've changed the title from "Who is multiracial?" because the answer to that question is a list of people: he is, and she is, and they are.

If my proposed title, "What makes a person multiracial?", isn't acceptable, please explain why and let's work on a better title. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial
As even the term race is controversial, shouldn't mention of this be made in this article? AJKGORDON «»  15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Move of links from See Also to Types of mixed-race people
Hello all. I have decided to move a number of the links from the 'See Also' section to the 'Types of mixed-race people' section. This is because there are too many links on the 'See Also' section, which means it shouldn't even be called that. Earlier, I also changed the scrolling-style textbox for the 'See Also' section to the normal style. If you have any objections, feel free to voice it out here. Angcr (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Government programmes targetting multiracial people
The article makes a clumsy reference to "Nazi soldiers who interbred with Scandinavian women". This is cleary a reference to the Nazi Lebensborn project for the creation of "ubermenschen". It was all about creating racially pure white people (a disgusting ideology). This kind of eugenic / white supremacist program did not involve "race-mixing" by any definition. So it probably should not be in the article.

However, in the past there were have been other governement programmes that have interfered into the private lives of multiracial people, with the aim of enforcing a "solution" to the "problem" of multiracial people (as it was perceived by racist governments at the time).

Here's a brief overview about what I remember about this topic from reading various sources:

In Austriala there were government programs in place until the 1960s which targetted Aborginal children, taking them away from their parents, which has resulted in the Stolen generation. Light-skinned Aboriginal children of partly white descent were treated differently than children with a black phenotype. Light-skinned Aboriginal children were put in seperate schools with the aim of ensuring that these children would become part of white instead of Aboriginal communities, and would gradually be "biologically absorbed" into white society. See also the article on A.O. Neville.

The Australian goverment policy was an extreme example of enforcing a social hierarchy with white people on top, and indigenous/non-white peoples at the bottom, and with individuals of multiracial, partly indigenous/non-white descent somewhere in the middle.

The Australian goverment actively tried to "disolve" the population of multiracical Aboriginals by promoting intermarriage with whites. In various other colonial/white settlers settings there have government programmes/policies which targetted multiracial people as a distinct group that goverments tried either to maintain (attempting to prevent them from merging into a white or black/indigenous populations)

Anti-miscegenation laws, already mentioned, are an obvious example of such policies. See also the artcle on the legal and social status of Coloureds in South Africa during Apartheid. I'll come back and provide sources on these topics. JSTOR and MUSE ar great for online research into these topics, but I haven't got access to them. 195.73.22.130 (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The source on "biological absorption" and the Stolen Generation: Patrick Wolfe, "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race".

Compares government policies of Americanization of Native Americans in the US with policies targetting Aboriginals. Fairlane75 (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the address of the source online: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/106.3/ah000866.html Patrick Wolfe: "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race"

Fairlane75 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no section, discussing the Multiracials of the Philippines
If you look at the history of the Philippines you will see intermingling of differing ethnic groups, and it is estimated that at least 25% of the population can be classified as foreign or multiracial but theres no segment about the Philippines. It angers me ^_^ 122.55.201.128 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

India & Indonesia is multiracial but it isn't discussed here
Aryans, a Caucasoid people once invaded the area now called India and mixed with the native Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic ethno-linguistic groups.

Also, Indonesians, especially those found in the western portion of Indonesia have Indian and Arabic introgression due in part to their proselytizing of Hinduism and Islam during the past centuries. 122.55.201.128 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Diverse admixture among ethnic and race groups world wide
I'm curious if it would appropriate to mention in this article (may create an separate one adjacent to this one) about the admixture within certain long-time/dominant socially, linguistically, culturally and religiously homogeneous groups. For example, the Saami people of Europe, have genetic markers that tie them to Asiatic; and the Oromo People of Ethiopia are said have genetic markers that link them to ancient Hamitic, Semitic, Afro-Asiatic and sub-Saharan African groups. Other examples would be the explanation behind the very wide aesthetic range of Berber and Sahelian people, how nomadic lifestyles of ancient groups affected admixture, the implications about admixture based on Pre-Columbian theories, & how the plight of Jews throughout history has affect admixture within certain geographic areas. Would this fit within the scope of what is discussed in the multiracial article? Bab-a-lot (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Diverse Admixture Among Native and Immigrant Iberian & other Southern European people (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Armenia, Turkey, Greece etc...)
I would like to discuss the possibility of adding this to the article, or simply developing and adjacent article relative to this one. With the new technological advances in DNA testing, more is now being revealed about how the genetic markers of regional populations can link to other ethnic groups, regions and races. With that said, a lot of this is paralleled and further implicated in the history of that particular geographical area. So, with Spain as an example, the history implies diverse admixture among the natively rooted people,as well as in the recent influx of immigrants from formerly occupied Spanish territories. However recent immigrant groups from other European countries (especially Britain, the Americas, Asia, all over continental Africa have added to this admixture. This is especially so over the past 30 years. Does anyone else see this as a pertinent item of discussion within, or relative, to the multiracial article? Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anciently Mixed Populations
Could there be a sub-heading explaining the admixture of anciently mixed groups? It seems to me that popular science tends to disregard the mixed admixture of ancient populations in determining the race of a modern group/person, especially where phenotype and social/cultural identity is concerned. So, would it be useful to have a subsection outlining the implications, or simply acknowledging this? At the bottom of the article where the groups are listed by geographic area, should the ancient mixed groups be listed under a separate category, especially in the case where this admixture is irrelevant the modern racial identity of a modernly linked population? Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

mtDNA, Y/CS25, haplogroups, haplotypes
Could there be a section going over this as it relates to being multiracial? Could it discuss how a diverse range of genetic markers within an otherwise considered 'full blooded' population that exhibits a phenotype of one race would be interpreted in regards of being multiracial. An example might be the admixture among some of the population in Sudan, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, New Zealand and Russia.
 * I'm confused about this claim of DNA testing to see what percent someone is. The article states "Meanwhile the company DNAPrint Genomics analyzes DNA to determine the exact percentage of...", but from my understanding, you can only test your Y-DNA (paternal) and MtDNA (maternal) lines which only shows 2 single lines out of many ancestors.  Am I missing something here, or can they really test what percent of what race?  I'm pretty sure they can only get your haplogroups and then break those down, but only of 2 acestral lines. Kman543210 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Welsh and Irish are not races!
The section about Britain says the following: "In England many multi-racial people are from the British Caribbean and if they have some African ancestry they may be said to be Afro-Caribbean. Many people are partly Welsh or partly Italian or partly of Irish Descent but it is hard to tell how many".

Welsh and Irish are not separate races to English. There's no way someone could consider themselves mixed race because they are part Welsh (and as half Welsh, half English, I should know!). Is it ok to just remove this? I am sure others agree? Or does the author mean many part black people in britain are also part Welsh (true to some extent, but 'many' is pushing it a bit and very un-encyclopedic as well... 79.69.29.167 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, they are.


 * The English – Franco-Norman ruling class mixed with Saxon and other German former ruling class mixed with Roman former ruling class mixed with Celtic and Brythonic people who took over from other pre-Indo-Europeans... – are as much a race apart and multiracial as the Han Chinese. The entire concept here is massive fail. — LlywelynII  10:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

bad timing for Obama picture
I'm reverting from the Obama photo. It's bad political timing, and there's plenty of other examples. Cretog8 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually don't mess with pictures in articles, but I've seen Obama's pictures in many different articles now. Although I think he's a good example of someone who is biracial, I agree that he may be over exposed right now, especially in the middle of an election year. I think Tiger Woods might be a better example. Kman543210 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was responsible for posting the photo; I guess an argument could be made re: political timing, but it definitely had less to do with politics than the fact that he's arguably the most high-profile multiracial individual out there right now. And being that Wikipedia is a dynamic site, if he becomes less relevant, his picture can be replaced or other individuals can be added.  Tiger Woods is a good suggestion; should there be some sort of collage like the ones I've seen in articles for specific ethnic groups?. 71.135.226.156 (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not strongly opposed to a picture of Obama, but his picture seems to be on many black-related articles. Interestingly on the talk page for African American, many users identify him as black only and not multiracial. The reason I thought Tiger Woods would be a good example is that he is not just biracial and is 1/2 Asian, 1/4 white, and 1/4 black. Again, I don't strongly object to it, but I don't know that I agree that the photos have to be only of high profile people. I can see both sides of the coin. Kman543210 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that putting a picture of Obama in a place of prominence might seem like a political endorsement. Adding him in the middle of the article would be a different story. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still new to wiki-ness so I'm not an authority, but it feels like a good rule of thumb to avoid referencing someone currently running for office unless there's something significant to be gained by it. Then it's weighing the gain. I'm not impugning your motives, 71.135.226.156. But I think in this case what's gained is little--honestly I wouldn't be at all surprised if more people would recognize Halle Berry than Barack Obama. (I have no particular advice on alternatives.) Cretog8 (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Barack Obama is probably the most famous multiracial person in the entire world right now, and certainly moreso then Halle Barry or Tiger Woods. The collage isn't a bad idea. I don't get how it's a political endorsement? Cladeal832 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I would say in the entire world, but definitely in North America and possibly the western world. "At this time" is the key phrase though. My concern wasn't as much a political endorsement (although I can see why someone might say that) but rather that I don't think every article necessarily needs a famous person to represent an entire group of people. Specifically, Obama is showing up in many articles, and I don't think it's necessary to feature him in 3 different racially-based articles: African American (2 pictures), Multiracial, and Mulatto (plus his main and sub articles). Kman543210 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess Wikipedia does have a bit of crush on Obama, but even without the picture at the top, there ought to be one mention of him in this article. I guess I was just in Africa (not Kenya though) and they were going crazy for it so his popularity in the rest of the world is growning for sure. Still think there at least ought to be a mention of his name in the article. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that he can be mentioned in the article. I guess since his father's Kenyan, that makes sense that he'd be popular over there; never really thought about that before. Kman543210 (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is silly.


 * Articles on the health care legislation or – to take one example I know personally – the death panels article are the places where Wiki needs to be more fair and balanced. That involves calling things what they are and looking at the facts.


 * Here, the fact is: like him, lump him, the man is the poster child for multicultural families for good and ill. Of course his picture should be here & white-washing it would be the mistake. — LlywelynII  10:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to make some changes to: Multiracial in U.S.
I was thinking of expanding multiracial in U.S. maybe by adding historical events such as Loving V. Virginia. I was also was thinking of putting quotes of people’s thought about being multiracial most likely Famous.--Dirk digler (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Loving V. Virginia, but I wouldn't object to these additions as long as sourced (maybe just a few quotes). I was actually thinking of reducing the section on the UK just because it lists a bunch of cities/regions with significant number of multiracial populations, but I'm wondering if it would be better just to list the top three in the above paragraph. Kman543210 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Loving V Virginia isn't fully relavant. It's about legality interracial marriage, not multiracial children.  I'd leave it out.

West Midlands statistics
The figure of 5.50% mixed race people in the UK region of West Midlands for the 2001 census is not correct. The right figure is 2.14%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.18.195 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Levin
I don't think that Michael Levin's opinions should be included in this article, as he could be described as a racialist. The fact the he prefers to fit multiracial people into distinct racial categories and that he, as a racialist, emphasizes the differences between racial groups is insulting to multiracial people, such as myself. Encouraging multiracial people to assimilate into the established racial groups is a step towards eliminating the subject of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.145.111 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't remove a respected authoritative opinion simply because you disagree with it. Wikipedia articles have to include all notable views. Historically there ARE differences between races, which may be explained by environment, social circumstances, religion etc. but may not--MartinUK (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But Levin's views are not just included, they are key to the introduction and form the very basis for the whole tenor of the article. The notion that his views are "notable" is decidedly biased. Hitler's views were also notable, but they aren't appropriate here. Levin's notions of race are firmly rooted in philosophy and his own views, but are on very shaky ground scientifically. He has an axe to grind, and a racist opinion to espouse. That does not make his views pertinent to a Wikipedia article. If this stuff is left in, it should be clearly labeled as what it is: racism masquerading as science. We've seen this before. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Levin's fringe views are given undue weight by their place of prominence in the first section of the article. In addition, he's being cited as if he were a WP:RS, not a fringe theorist of white supremacy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Levin's viewpoint regarding black African multiraciality is a fringe point of view. Whereas he says a non-African and non-African mixture is always considered multiracial, he says that for a black African mixture to be considered multiracial it must involve a lot of non-African DNA.  I have never heard this from a reliable genetics source before.  This sounds similar to the One Drop Rule, but that is regarded as a social custom rather than a genetic reality.  I think his viewpoint is given undue weight and should be removed.Dark Tea  &#169;  16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it bizarre that this Levin person - a philosopher - is being cited when geneticists have long deprecated the concept of race as a clear concept. I am removing (collounsbury (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

United States - Stereotypes
The second two sentences of the first paragraph of this section are very biased and limited. While government-mandated racial segregation cannot be defended, it almost certainly existed for reasons (again, not defensible ones) other than covering up the hypocrisy of white slave owners who fathered interracial children with female slaves. Also, the fact that "white communities regularly rallied around issues of alleged assaults to white women by black men," while motivated by ignorance and prejudice, was not just projection of the behavior of white men, and if it was, some citation of evidence of this should be required. --Joel7687 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Genetic Benefits?
I was hoping to see a section on the genetic benefits of being a multiracial person. I know very little about this, and am interested in learning. Do you think a section like that would fit here? Delsydebothom (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it will fit well here. It'll just need a reliable source. --ClaudioMB (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

the term is heterosis. But I think that heterosis in humans is anecdotal at best. But maybe you'll be able to find some quotable reference. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hatred towards multiracial
There should definitely be a larger section on hate/discrimination/anti multiracialism on wikipedia. Wikipedia has vast pages no things such as judaism/antisemitism/african american and little to nothing about bi-racial/multiracial topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.247.181 (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay but we need to mention racism by multiracial people. Mixed people tend to have more psychological issuesYVNP (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)