Talk:White people

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023 (3)
In the United Kingdom section, add a summary about Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. They may ot may not be considered white in the UK census.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/summaries/gypsy-roma-irish-traveller 209.216.77.18 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024
This article is severely lacking in citations. E.g. the paragraph about 17th century use of white to describe people of pan-European identity in the context of racialized slavery. No sources for this claim are provided. Who wrote this? Where are the sources for these claims? For all I know these are just opinions extrapolated from contemporary viewpoints that the author heard from a pundit. How about some actual research on the subject? Some of us are genuinely curious. 2607:D600:986E:7300:49FE:4D3F:C287:CE5B (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thanks for your request. The article is in fact fairly well sourced, with many references throughout the text and further reading listed. The section you are referring to is known as the "lead". The lead serves as an overview of the article content and, although it may include some sources, in cases where the section repeats content from the main body, it does not. In this case, the content in question does come up later and uses reference 18: Dee, James H. (2004). "Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When Did 'White People' Become 'White'?". The Classical Journal. 99 (2): 157–167. JSTOR 3298065. It could certainly be argued that this part of the lead would benefit from being explicitly cited, but that requires consensus – you are welcome to argue that point, but be aware that edit requests should be used once consensus has already been reached, so having the discussion would not be an appropriate reason for re-opening the edit request template. I hope this adequately answered your question and that the source mentioned satisfies your curiosity! Irltoad (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Significant Issues with Population Figures
I might just be radically misreading the chart under "Census and social definitions in different regions," but I'm seeing wild population numbers and nonsensical Year entries. Looks like someone went through and entered or edited numbers at random. CommissarOfMysticalPastaShapes (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly that is entirely normal for demographic data on Wikipedia. An absurd attempt to compile a single table from multiple sources, dating from different times, answering different questions, all in regard to a subject where anyone even remotely familiar with the topic will be aware that 'whiteness' is inherently subjective, and that the same people will give differing responses depending on context. And more often than not, such tables are riddled with 'data' that doesn't match the source cited - sometimes due to ill-informed attempts to 'update' the table without also updating the source, but often simple vandalism, or ethnoboosting for one reason or another - the last clearly assisted through the ability to cherry-pick ones preferred data source to cite in a table. Wikipedia policy on original research supposedly forbids synthesis, and were it properly enforced, would prohibit such data-concoctions, but nobody much seems to give a damn. Tables look like real data, and appearance trumps reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andy makes some very good points here. I've been concerned about this problem for a long time and my suspicion is that any systematic analysis of demographic tables would reveal that the majority contain at least some figures that are made up or not supported by reliable sources. I've sometimes thought about what a serious attempt to deal with this would look like, but the problem feels too overwhelming for me to even know where and how to start that conversation. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When I posted this earlier today, I was reminded of a previous discussion we had about this. I've just found it, at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123. Perhaps we should write an essay on the characteristics of what Andy there called "dubious ethno-boosterism". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2024
Add white trash to see also section. 2600:6C50:7EF0:71E0:850:28DB:D2EE:6D8E (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel that this term is too specific to the US for it to be included here in this more general article, so I'm reverting this addition pending further discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to wade into this when I first saw the edit request (which I just decided to ignore), but I guess I will now that there is a request for discussion. As a white American, yeah, this seems way too specific to the US for a "See also" inclusion. In particular, while anyone described as white trash would be white, that term is heavily class-based and not really applied to white people in general by anyone's usage. And again, I doubt it's used outside the US, making it dubious for this article which is much broader. CAVincent (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up.
We absolutely need more emphasis on the social significance of this topic, and much less bloat consisting of regional definitions of whiteness. This article is severely cluttered with the latter. Alexander Shipfield (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)