Talk:Pre-modern conceptions of whiteness

Name of article
Ficaia made the right call by moving this content to a new article, but this doesn't entirely address the synth issue. Here's the problem as I see it: There are no pre-modern conceptions of whiteness, because "whiteness" did not exist. Whiteness is not jut white skin, it is, per sources, a racial construct. Specifically, it is a modern social construct.

The lead does a good job of explaining this contradiction, but the contradiction is still present. I think, based on many past discussions, that contradiction will be misinterpreted to imply that "white people" are a a single ancient identity. This misconception is very common, and this name arguably supports that misconception. We need to be careful when dealing with WP:FRINGE positions like this one.

The simplest fix is to rename the article to be explicitly about white skin/light skin/pale skin etc, and not about the ambiguous term "whiteness". I think "light skin" is a broad and neutral way to explain the unifying common thread of all of these sources, so that seems like the best match to me.

Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's as simple as "whiteness didn't exist in the pre-modern world". The sources suggest many societies did think in "coloured" terms and often used those terms stereotypically and inaccurately to classify different groups. The point is, "whiteness" was not a racial term. And I think the article makes that explicit.
 * If others think "whiteness" is an unavoidably racial term, perhaps "Pre-modern conceptions of white skin" would be better, although I don't think that title sounds as nice. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be an improvement, but, for example, the section on Egypt doesn't mention "white" or "whiteness" at all. That section, at least, is not about white skin. It's about pale people, or more accurately "THEMEHU are the fair-skinned Libyans". If we want to say ancient Libyans were "white", we need context from a source explaining exactly what that means.
 * Using color words for skin tone is not necessarily the same as conceiving of whiteness, at least not as that term would be understood by modern encyclopedia readers. I think the lead does a good job of explaining this, so the title should follow the article, not the other way around.
 * I don't think this racial implication is avoidable. In modern English, the term "White" is an idiom or euphemism for a racial group, not a reference to the color white.
 * The phrase "light skin" avoids this, allows for more examples, and includes references to "white skin" by default. This also makes it a bit easier to include secondary source, and hopefully also a few tertiary sources to help us summarize this history in broader terms.
 * I know this may seem overly-fussy, but as I said, based on many past discussions, I think this kind of thing will be misinterpreted to support a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the pre-modern sources seem to describe skin tone in coloured terms: white, fair, cream, milky, snowy, etc. By contrast, "light skin" seems to be a more neutral, modern term used in biological discussions of skin tone: cf. Light skin. I don't see why it's appropriate here, when this article is about the pre-scientific use of "white" (and related colour-words) in relation to the skin tones of individuals and groups. Colour-words were used ambiguously in antiquity, and didn't necessarily map on to the actual properties of the thing described. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Naturally, they will use color words to describe skin color. Comparative terms, like "pale" and "light", are still color words. Color words are also notoriously difficult to translate across time and culture. If this is about the pre-scientific use of "white" than every entry needs to explicitly use the term "white" according to at least one reliable translation. Otherwise, inclusion would be WP:OR, and that would mean the Egypt section has to go. I don't want that. I don't think a title which limits the article to "white" is going to help readers. There is no coherent group of people defined as "white" in either a modern pseudoscientific racial sense or a historical one. But, inadvertently, including all of these semi-random groups as "white" is implying that these people are part of a single group. Like I said, this is a WP:FRINGE issue.
 * Instead, the common thread here is light skin. Some translations of some languages will call this "white skin" and some won't. Does this matter? If a source explains why this distinction matters, or goes into the linguistics of 'white' as applied to skin tone, let's cite it and go from there. Otherwise, I don't think that this quirk of human language is particularly meaningful, but it is potentially very misleading. "Light skin" addresses this.
 * Another option is to expand this article to be about all skin-tones. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost none of the sources refer to "light skin". "White" is far and away the most common term here. And I think the use of "fair-skinned" in the Egyptian source is just an old-fashioned way of saying "white" (the translation is old and written in an archaic style). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two problems with this. Almost none of these original sources use "white", either, they use a term which has been translated into the word "white" from the original language. Calling this old-fashioned is fair, but it demonstrates the problem with this. You, as a Wikipedia editor, have interpreted and evaluated a translation of primary sources and decided that it applies anyway. Even if I agreed, that is too many layers of WP:OR to be workable. As I said, some translations of some languages will call this "white skin" and some won't.
 * What concept, precisely, are all these sources describing? Saying they are describing "whiteness" because some sources are translated as "white" is a tautology.
 * When words are translated into a modern term, we have to evaluate it as a modern term, because our goal is to provide context to modern readers. The lead of the article already does a good job explaining this, so adjusting the title would fix this tautology.
 * The second problem is that this article has been compiled recently by editors looking for content about "white people". This is, accidentally, cherry-picking. That's why I'm so insistent that context from secondary sources must be included. According to secondary sources, what is the underlying topic? The common thread? If "white" isn't about light skin, and it's not about the modern concept of whiteness, than what is it? Sources are very clear that this term was not used consistently or coherently across history, so I don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily limit this article to be about an undefinable version of "whiteness". Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The common thread of this article is the use of "white" (and related) colour-words to describe the skin tones of certain groups of people in pre-modern societies. So "Pre-modern conceptions of white skin" might be a more accurate title.
 * But almost none of the sources translate any of the foreign colour-words as "light". It seems to me we should use the most common term from the sources in the title, not substitute our own catch-all term which is not representative of the sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you're right about those translations, but what we need is a secondary or tertiary source to summarize the linguistics of this topic for us. Lacking that, "Pre-modern conceptions of white skin" seems sufficient. I agree it's not exactly elegant writing, but it is what it is. "Pre-modern conceptions of whiteness" just sounds better than anything I can think of, which is why I didn't make a more specific proposal. In this case, though, having a good flow is not enough. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I agree, Greyfell. While there weren't any modern racial post-17th century forms of whiteness, it seems that cultures around West Eurasia had their own unique concepts of what it meant to be "white". For example the East Mediterranean cultures seems to have associated white skin with femininity. For Greeks like Aristotle and Plato being white meant having feminine traits, one of which they considered to be cowardice. This conception and association with the color white could be seen as an ancient form of "whiteness" or a "pre-modern conceptions of whiteness" totally disconnected from any modern racial version. And there are plenty more of these disconnected conceptions on the page. If anything I believe listing all these various, contradictory forms of whiteness undermines any idea of single ancient white identity. All one has to do is read on this page about how different groups saw each other and themselves. There is no united white identity in modernity so you certainly won't find it in history, including the records on this page. Costco nostra (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I more or less agree, but I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The modern concept of whiteness is, as we agree, not the same as any historical examples of whiteness. All of these alternative definitions of whiteness need support and context from reliable, independent sources. It's not enough to list them as isolated facts, as an encyclopedia we need to explain them and give them some context. But also... why fixate on "white" for this purpose? What is really lost by using "light skin" instead?
 * I agree that this disjointed history, such as it is, undermines the idea of a single white identity, but this point needs to be supported by sources. Citing examples to imply a point which is not directly supported by any individual reliable source is a form of WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. We need to summarize what sources are saying about these primary sources. We need to cite sources to explain to readers why a list of historical mentions of light skin supports that whiteness is a modern social construct.
 * Changing the article's name would simplify the goal of making this article informative, and would make it a lot easier to includes these examples without the risk of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All of these alternative definitions of whiteness need support and context from reliable, independent sources.
 * Yes that's fine; we are transitioning from being a subsection on physical records to an article on historical pre modern conceptions of whiteness, so this will all have to be gradually added to.
 * "why fixate on "white" for this purpose? What is really lost by using "light skin" instead?"
 * That is the terminology usually used in the English speaking world and since there is a nexus of associated traits it would get cumbersome to have a more accurate title. A more accurate title might be "pre-modern historical conceptions of light skin and the various physical, mental, and behavioral traits, cultural attitudes, and cultural policies associated with it".  Perhaps I'm wrong, but that seems to run on too long. If you can think of anything significantly briefer than that which is more accurate than "Pre-modern conceptions of whiteness" while still gets the meaning of the page subject across I'm willing to use it.
 * Citing examples to imply a point which is not directly supported by any individual reliable source is a form of WP:SYNTH
 * Yes, I was stating my personal outlook (which is why I prefaced it with "I believe", there is no such thing as an objective philosophy or an objective person, imo so I can't pretend to be one), not what the tone or content of the page, which has to be neutral as per guidelines, should be. The article itself has to be entirely neutral and not imply anything not stated, only record historical sources and modern interpretations. To quote the Neutral point of view/FAQ "when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so." Costco nostra (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the terminology used in the modern English-speaking world. So what is this term actually describing? Whiteness? So whiteness is when someone is described as white? As I mentioned above, that's a tautology, so it can't be that. Using a tautology implies something to readers that is not (and can not) be supported by any reliable sources.
 * That's why I'm saying I think the title is subtly misleading in a significant way. It is falsely implying, despite the lead's clarification, that these sources are describing the same thing across thousands of years of history. As we agree, they are not, so we should chose a less confusing title. The problem is not here on the talk page, it's what the article is implying.
 * Also, the article desperately needs a reliable source which describes this nexus of associated traits, as you put it. As many, many past discussions on Wikipedia have clarified, we cannot take this for granted in any article. It has caused too many problems. As far as I can tell, the only unifying trait that matters in all of these primary documents is skin color. A case could be made that proximity to Europe is also part of it, but only if reliable sources spell it out. Even for skin color, we need reliable sources to explain this. We cannot look at examples and come to our own conclusions, because that would be original research. I can't speak for others, but I think that's why SYNTH has come up so much for this. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  So what is this term actually describing?
 * The term is describing the social construct itself and the traits, ideas, cultural beleifs, etc that go along with light skin. It's not light skin by itself, but the social ideas that accompany it, if that makes any sense.  I understand you concerns which is why I'm going to be adding to the intro in a way that hopefully addresses.
 * It is falsely implying, despite the lead's clarification, that these sources are describing the same thing across thousands of years of history
 * I would say it isn't because they are very different ideas. The whiteness of one culture isn't related to that of another. I think the "conceptions" plural in the title denotes this. These are not all one conception, or social construct, but multiple ones
 * A case could be made that proximity to Europe
 * See I think that is wrong as there are multiple forms of whiteness so there are concepts in the Middle East, China, etc. My problem with changing it to mention "light skin" only is that doesn't include all the social and cultural meanings tied into it. It would seem like we should be writing a history section for light skin instead of making a new page.  But this topic incorporates more than just light skin, which is my point.
 *  We cannot look at examples and come to our own conclusions
 * Yes I agree. That's why I'm going back to the books I've read on this topic to use them for this article. Costco nostra (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, the proximity to Europe thing did not clarify my point, but if there is a point to be made, it is that this topic needs context provided by sources, not editors. When talking about race, we cannot be precise, but we can at least try to be accurate.
 * If readers come here looking for info on a specific population, they might skip past the lead completely. From past experience on Wikipedia, I think a significant number of readers could misinterpret the article to support a claim that 'so-and-so people were seen as white by their neighbors', but without any qualifications or context. That's not good enough for an encyclopedia, and especially for a WP:FRINGE issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Miss information about Song of the Songs
it says “ In the Song of Songs a woman praises her lover for being "white and ruddy" while she is described as "clear as the moon". In the verse the woman is described as dark skinned yet very beautiful: “ Dark am I, yet lovely, daughters of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Kedar, like the tent curtains of Solomon.[c] 6 Do not stare at me because I am dark, because I am darkened by the sun.“

If anything this presents blackness as beautiful cause in this story the woman is treated as the epitome of beauty yet she is black. 2001:1308:2C16:EF00:494A:FF75:C624:D2F1 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Who vetted this stupid article?
Has anyone here ever heard of the confirmation bias?2003:C0:6F40:6CF1:7456:5C1:8A22:E4A9 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

translation of aethiops - other contested translations

 * Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page with caution/precision with translation of terms, especially when citing older sources. Some translations run the risk of smuggling in our modern concepts of race, especially when they're older, or not about race necessarily.


 * Ficaia reverted an edit, for example, about the translation of Aethiops, a term used in the ancient world to point to an ethnicity with some overlap with our modern conceptions of "blackness." I had proposed leaving the term aethiops and linking to wiktionary for context. I don't necessarily defend this particular solution, and I'm open to other suggestions for this type of contextualization.
 * I am worried about the translation of "aethiops" as "blackamoor," though. It's from Loeb, a well-known publisher of accessible facing-page translations of the classics, but it is from 1924, and it shows.  "Blackamoor" is an early modern to 20th century term pointing to an outdated racial concept, much like "negro." It is offensive and derogatory. The OED has this usage note:
 * I am worried about the translation of "aethiops" as "blackamoor," though. It's from Loeb, a well-known publisher of accessible facing-page translations of the classics, but it is from 1924, and it shows.  "Blackamoor" is an early modern to 20th century term pointing to an outdated racial concept, much like "negro." It is offensive and derogatory. The OED has this usage note:


 * "Now archaic and offensive 1. A black person, esp. an African; (formerly) spec. †an Ethiopian (obsolete). Also: any dark-skinned person."


 * In 1924, the social scientific consensus of the communities for which Loeb was publishing was still biological racism, right. The author puts a racial term from the early modern era in Juvenal's mouth, in a context when it was routinely assumed that race was an essential, biological, and transhistorical category. The current Loeb translation, from 2004, disposes with "blackamoor": “Shall I be in awe of you, Sextus, when I see you wiggling your arse?; says the notorious Varillus. 'How am I worse than you?' It should be the man who walks upright who mocks the man who limps, the white man who mocks the black." This is a better translation for now, and it is arguably appropriate to translate albus/aethiops antithesis with our categories white/black to convey what is clearly a form of antiblack racism.
 * The problem is that Aethiops as an ethnic term is clearly used here for the contrast with the color term albus, but it doesn't really map on to our modern idea of a "Black African" — Aethiopes were also placed in India, for example, or at the extremes of the earth. Many Greeks and Romans critiqued Scythians for being too pale, and as a separate ethnic group, so translating as albus/aethiops as white/black might give the misleading idea that what's at stake is our modern racial categories. But translating "aethiops" as "Ethiopian" is also weird because it's now a much narrower term, for people from this one nation state.
 * There's been a lot of shifts in preferred terminology and understandings, even in the last 20 years, so I think newer translations should be preferred when there's doubt.
 * This same issue with outdated racial terminology happens in the Mervyn Alleyne source, which is also from the early 2000s. Saying that albus came to "be used in reference to Caucasian peoples" is also weird, unless it means people from the Caucasus, because it implies that these ancient peoples really were of the "Caucasian race."
 * There's been a lot of shifts in preferred terminology and understandings, even in the last 20 years, so I think newer translations should be preferred when there's doubt.
 * This same issue with outdated racial terminology happens in the Mervyn Alleyne source, which is also from the early 2000s. Saying that albus came to "be used in reference to Caucasian peoples" is also weird, unless it means people from the Caucasus, because it implies that these ancient peoples really were of the "Caucasian race."
 * This same issue with outdated racial terminology happens in the Mervyn Alleyne source, which is also from the early 2000s. Saying that albus came to "be used in reference to Caucasian peoples" is also weird, unless it means people from the Caucasus, because it implies that these ancient peoples really were of the "Caucasian race."

* reposting from earlier comment in its own section, with narrower focus Recognitor (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is completely biased towards western-american views.
The sources are incoherent and there is no logic behind this article other that to confirm the biases of western-american readers. The fact that this page exists ONLY in English is also a great indication of that.

Good job to whomever vetted this. 2A02:8440:6208:DEAE:0:45:E0F7:6901 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible image
I wondered whether any watchers would be interested in an image that seems to illustrate what the article calls "mixed race relationships" in Rome or at least a couple with contrasting skin color. This is a wall painting from Pompeii that is interpreted as a bride (because of her clothing) awakening to sexuality on her wedding night. The two figures standing by are taken to be slaves. My source on the image is John R. Clarke, Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 B.C.–A.D. 250 (University of California Press, 2001), pp. 99–101. Just thought I'd drop it off here in case it might be considered useful—the article has too much of a backstory for me to feel comfortable adding anything. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)