Talk:White people/Archive 17

Hold on
There is a hell of a lot here to read since I took a break from this article due to a certain indefinately banned user. I've looked at a few bits but I really don't have the time to go through all of it. Why exactly did this suddenly turn back into a debate on article content when there seemed to be a pretty firm concensus to scrap the article and turn it into some form of disambig page? Much as I love to watch some of the very bizarre debates over whether certain sources should be kept in due to inferred bias by some very odd users why is it being debated at all?

This seems to have gotten out of hand and has been hijacked by extremists.

Let me just ask, quite bluntly:

a) Why is this debate going on at all when the concencus seemed to clearly point to getting rid of this nonencyclopedic article with it being replaced by a disambig? b) Why do admins permit the posting of extremist views? I know Fourdee has been banned for it and I know that avoiding censorship is important but c'mon when folks start making fools of themselves (as one or two users did above with their rather odd rantings) surely commonsense should prevail?

So... what the hell is going on and what happened to the original debate? AlanD 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the source-related stuff came up again during discussion of the consensus-led movement to an "enhanced disambiguation", as there seems to be feeling that basic disambiguation is not entirely in appropriate. The debate is continuing because of a possibly excessive amount of good faith being assumed, leading to attempts to reason with a certain user, most recently towards the bottom of . SamBC(talk) 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Makes sense in some ways but it has gotten out of hand. Do we need sources in a enhanced disambig? Surely it is still fundementally going to be just a collection of links to other articles? Good faith is one thing but when people wear their prejudices on their sleeves...AlanD 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What are we going to do?
Can we now please draw a line under all the neo-Marxist tripe and move on. The vast majority support some form of enhanced disambig page. Can we please start below with a discussion on what form this should take and ignore all ancillary rubbish?AlanD 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for an enhanced diambig page and the wholesale scrapping of this page with the odd useful bit being incorporated into related articles.AlanD 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support for a very short disambiguation page: just a list of pointers. The current article should be binned. It is unscientific and its whole conception fundamentally flawed. Apart from a minority on the extreme right, I think that, like me, most europeans would be surprised that an article with such thinly disguised racist undertones exists on WP. (Of course, to be honest I should add that where I live - in the south of France - almost 40% of the local population voted for Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round of the last-but-one presidential elections. Must have been something in the cheese...) --Mathsci 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Trop de bleu, peut-être? :)--Ramdrake 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support I don't think this is productive as an article. The better information can be included elsewhere. --Kevin Murray 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will support either a short or long disambig page, whatever the consensus is. I think there are strong points to support either position, and that it's not really worth debating too long over which kind of disambig is preferable, so I will support whatever the majority of editors decide.--Ramdrake 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have overwhelming support a disambig page, do we need to vote again? Let's have an RfC Alun 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I have listed maybe tweny books by scholars in various fields (law, poli-sci, anthropology, history, geography) on "whiteness" or "white people" and I think that body of scholarship needs to be represented in Wikipedia and I think this is the place to do it. I oppose suggestions to put that material in the White studies article and here is why: anthropologists study culture, but we do not put all the content in the "Culture" article in the "Anthropology" article.  Geologists study rocks, but we do not put all of the contents in the "Rocks" article in the "Geology" article.  See?  There is a diffence between an academic discipline or approach, and its object of study.  In every other case I know of, Wikipedia has separate articles for both.  The White studies article should be a history of the emergence of the field and trends within it; but there should be a separate article about the object of their study, that draws on the conclusions of their research.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. wasn't there some talk of an article called Whiteness to contain this info? Or is my memory faulty? Alun 10:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think your memory is faulty, but I think we need to acknowledge the extent to which 4D, AirKaren, and Morbitz succeded in derailing constructive talk. Good proposals got mixed in with bad ones, discussions were never finished.  I have no objection to creating another article called something else in which to discuss White ethnicity.  But I believe there ought to be such an article, and I strongly believe it has to be different from White studies.  here we are acting as consensus for disambiguation, but I at least am unsure what the disambiguation would actually be!  I think we need at least a brief discussion and clarification before we act as if there is a consensus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm open to any suggestions. Obviously at the moment I am supporting some sort of disambig page, but I don't have any firm conviction. I don't have the necessary knowledge of how whiteness is characterised in an academic context. My only reason for currently supporting disambig is so we don't continue to have an article dominated by racialist/racist perspectives. I wonder if this article is more likely to be a magnet for supremacist pov-pushers and an article about the academic conception of whiteness is less likely to be? As I say my only strong conviction is against the sort of article that has lots of census definitions and maps of hair and eye colour etc. I am happy to defer to your expertise in anthropology. Cheers. Alun 10:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, I think any article on ethnicity or an ethnic group will - periodically - attract racists and racialists. Just like the Evolution article periodically attracts creationists. The problem is not with the idea of a White people article, but that there is not a stable core group of people expert in the literature produced by White studies to be working on that article.  But here is why I think we do need such an article, desperately:  If we do not create it, within weeks or months a racist will, and they will dictate the initial content, and we wil be back at square one.  Ultimately, the battle against racialists will be fought on the Race article page.  A sophisticated race article that addresses all racialist claims in some way could be a standard point of reference in the sense that, no one should make claims about race in any article (on white people, black people, ethnic groups, Inuit, or IQ) that is inconsistent with the article on Race itself.  That is the real front, everything else is a sideshow and if the Race article is solid, it won't matter whether the article is called White people or Whiteness or White ethnic group or even White race, it will still have to be consistent with the article on Race... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I agree with Slrubenstein in all his reasonings. And white people is a social reality - there should be an article about it, with all the contribution from relevant published sources (namely from the social sciences), and denying racist or even racialist perspectives as sources (they may have to be explained as social phenomena that contribute to the existence of racial divides in specific historical contexts). The Ogre 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have articles on the social usages of the words Negro and Nigger. The Ogre 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Shape of the future
'''There is a consensus for a disambiguation page for this article. There remains some debate about the style. Too long a disambig may be indistinguishable from an article, too short and it may remain ambiguous. See proposed long format or short format. Please reject or accept the proposed long format, or comment on a proposed format.''' Alun 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject proposed (long) version of disambig. I feel that the format proposed will be unnecessarily long. I feel a very brief introduction followed by links to the appropriate related articles will be more than sufficient (as shown in the short version).Strong Support for shortened version. AlanD 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Editted following the format changes made by Wobble.AlanD 08:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support intention behind proposed version, if I can figure out how to get it across... a normal, short disambiguation page will not help readers find what they want, as if they knew what they wanted they'd probably go there first. It makes sense to give an overview of what is meant by the different uses of the term and how they relate to one another. The overall length is not a problem in itself, provided that the material is all relevant, concise, pertinent, and supports the goals of giving an overview, and assisting readers on to the page they want. It's not as if the concept of "being white" isn't important in the world, even if it oughtn't to be. SamBC(talk) 03:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I support an article that can be written without any racial undertones. I do prefer that certain information be in one place. We should also undo POV forks like the European people that was created by blocked user KarenAER. Instead discuss and compare the various definitions in this one article.  Muntuwandi 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. Given that there is a documented PoV using the term "white" (or "white people") racially, we can't very well exclude it. It should not, however, be pervasive or dominant, IMO. SamBC(talk) 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support We just can't have an article called "white people!"  Cheers,JetLover  03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I do not state this as an argument for having such an article, how is it any worse than Black people? While the (generally accepted) existence of that article is no reason for having this article, I would have thought that it at least refutes the idea that "White people" is an unacceptable title. SamBC(talk) 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Jetlover, do you want to support the suggested format of a long disambig page? Or do you want a short one like AlanD proposes? Alun 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

*Reject proposed long version of disambig. It is indistinguishable from the "Census and social definitions in different regions" section of the original article, which just had lots of different definitions purportedly "proving" that white people were all "European people" sic. Short and sweet. Alun 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional reject disambig. I'm happy to reject a disambig page as long as the current version does not persist as it is. It's one thing to say that this page should discuss historical/social conceptions of "white", but the page as it is doesn't do that, and it doesn't look like this is likely to change in the near future. The only proposed page is a disambig page. Alun 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * reject "disambiguation page". This should be a detailed article on the term and its history, and WP:SS (not WP:DAB) on aspects of the term that have their own dedicated article. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject any and all "disambiguation page". Agree with Dbachmann. See my reasoning (and, more importantly, Slrubenstein's) in previous section. The Ogre 13:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject "disambigulation page". The issue is not as simple as disambigulating to Caucasian race or European people. There are many more intracacies.  It should have a summary style on issues that have their own articles rather than disambigulating to them.Dark Tea  &#169;  03:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject diambiguation per my comment in section above. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I appreciate the opinions of those rejecting any form of disambig page, before we retry to see if there could be a consensus joining this new proposal, a more detailed proposal as to what should be in the article is needed. As of now, we've only managed to kill what was a nascent consensus behind a disambiguation page, and thus the problem remains whole.--Ramdrake 12:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support diambig page. I know I'm late and outnumbered, but what the hey - Jeeny Talk 05:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So how will it look?
Assuming we do not want a disambig page (which is fair enough, perusing the previous discussions this suggestion was made as a compromise, the editors for to whom this compromise was addressed have subsequently been permanently blocked, so we do not need this compromise any more). There certainly does seem to be a big consensus that the article as it stands is totally unsatisfactory. Indeed in it's present form it is little more than a discussion of light skin colour, and some so called "definitions". Many of these definitions are very dubious indeed. If we are not going to have a disambig page and we do not want the article to remain as it is, we need someone who knows what they are talking about to write at least a rough and ready outline of how it "should" look. Personally I have absolutely no idea what it "should" look like, but I'd be happy for someone to enlighten me. Alun 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Defining "White" people
 * Constructing Whiteness by Judy Helfand

Something like this? Alun 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you commie anarchist hippie!Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot "scum"!!! Alun 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn! I can't remember everything!  Pfft! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ... or like this? Mathsci 16:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * YES! Slrubenstein  |  Talk

How it might look

 * Intro
 * History of the term
 * White as a legal category
 * White people in the "science of race"
 * Physical appearance
 * Whiteness as a social category / Social construction / Privilege
 * Census and social definitions in different regions

However an outline might not be the best way to start this discussion. Maybe work on an introduction would let us flesh out the combination of historically constructed legal status, folk understanding of who is white on the basis of physical characteristics, social boundaries as they change over time, and more recent perceptions. All built of course on verifiable, reliable sources.--Carwil 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if an outline isn't the best way to begin this is damn constructive! Thanks! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That actually sounds great to me, on first gut reaction; it even allows a place for the racist/racialist perspective, duly identified as such. I think the outline existing will help with writing an intro, which will then inform a more final outline. Anyone care to do the honours at the compromise sandbox already in place? SamBC(talk) 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Carwil's suggestion for how it should look is, on the whole a good one, but I still don't understand the section "Physical appearance". This again seems to be trying to introduce some idea that "white people" can be defined by physical anthropological typology somehow, but the Wikipedia article on typology states that "the typological model in anthropology is now thoroughly discredited". If we go into all of this again we are going to have MoritzB putting Coon's clssifications back in, and others including stuff about hair and eye colour again. I suggest we simply have a link in the "see also" section to Caucasian to address this. Alun 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with commie scum, er, Alun. No way can physical appearance be in this article. It's arbitrary. - Jeeny Talk 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I agree in principle, I think that physical experience ought to be in the article because it is something that many, probably most, people consider central in their internal concept of human 'whiteness'. It might not be academically rigorous, but no-one said that everything in wikipedia had to be. If there aren't reliable sources about the popular conception of whiteness as related to physical appearance, I'd be surprised. It's not about proper anthropological typology, or any real anthropology, it's about what people think and feel. Just because someone has an internal concept of what a white person looks like, or a range of appearance for such, that doesn't make them either a bigot or stupid. I expect that everyone here has such a concept, however much we're commie/socialist/marxist/neo-marxist/obsessively politically correct and so on. SamBC(talk) 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the exact problem though? Many people may well have an internal concept of what a white person should look like, but that is unverifiable, it is a personal conception. However, I have no problem with discussing different social conceptions of white people. For example in the USA it may be the norm to assume that a white person is a person who looks European (whether they are actually European or not), whereas we have reliable sources to say that in Brazil a white person does not have to look like a European. As long as we don't try to say that all concept of white conform to a universal set of criteria I think it's OK. I also don't think we should have nonsense about hair and eye colour. Of course "looking European" is a subjective conclusion, but is probably citable from a reliable source, but it is not universal neither geographically nor historically. See the article I link to above, where it is apparent that many groups identified as white in the USA today would not have been identified as white in the past. All the best. Alun 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we may, some of us, be talking at cross-purposes. What Alun suggests here is roughly what I mean, although it's probably worthwhile mentioning what "looks european" might mean, at least vaguely, or mentioning the commonalities in typical appearance between those different views. All this if there are suitable references, which I'd be surprised if their wasn't. Physical appearance may certainly have a role in any history of the use of the term. However, what Alun refers to immediately above as "social conceptions of white people" would typically, I expect, be what most people would expect to see under "appearance", and would look there. A section on social conception could then refer to the appearance section. Heck, for anyone wanting to push a certain PoV, it's worth having the section in order to say that there's no generally agreed appearance for white people. SamBC(talk) 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have two comments hare that may be helpful. First, is: remember NOR.  The question is, does the literature on white people discuss skin color or other physcial traits.  If it does, we include it; if it does not, we do not - in other words, we need not make the decision; the sources make it for us.  Second point: some people have characterized braxil as a pigmentocracy rather than a racist society because there are many more opportunities for upward mobility of people of slave/African descent, and therefor (so some claim) many people of very dark skin who are not victims of racism.  Nevertheless, there is a discourse in which white=good and black=bad - people with African features who have graduate degrees and wealth do not change their physical appearance but may be described as having lighter skin.  Skin color therefore does not refer to a physcial trait but is metaphorical for social status.  The point is that "skin color" can be relevant in ways othe than the actual color of skin.  Now, this is probably so because slaves were from Africa and masters from europe, so I would not expect this to apply in Europe itself.  I raise the example only to illustrate how the ways people talk about physical traits may be culturally very very significant.  I think we should just keep our eyes open to this possiblity as we research the topic.  Either way, the point is not to provide a phenotypic profile of Eurpeans, but rather be open to the possible ways European ethnic groups may signify their identity via reference to physical type.  I know Jews often make jokes about their noses, even ones with relatively small noses.  This is I acknowledge different from what perhaps was originally proposed.  But if there are problems with that proposal, the alternative need not be to exclude any discussion of physical traits.  The point is to contextualize it in terms of how different European ethnic groups talk about their identity and the identity of others. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. My point was not "we must talk about physical appearance" (although I doubt there is a complete lack of reliable sources about that). My point was that we mustn't say, before we even start, "we mustn't talk about physical appearance". If that makes sense. Saying "we must not talk about it" is almost as sweeping and odd as saying "no article entitled 'White people' should exist". SamBC(talk) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hair and eye color polymorphism
This section was added by Dbachmann. It is certainly relevant and should be included to the article.MoritzB 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you care to give an argument other than "certainly relevant"? Blind assertions aren't generally convincing. SamBC(talk) 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the comment on your revert interesting - the general practice of WP:BRD suggests that someone make a change, it be reverted, and then it be discussed before being un-reverted. Not make a change, it be reverted, un-revert it, then discuss. SamBC(talk) 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is important to describe features which distinguish whites from East Asians and in some those Caucasoids who are in some definitions "non-white".MoritzB 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this so called "important description" presupposes that "whites" conform to your personal opinion of what "white" is. Just because you personally think that somehow light hair and eye colour are indicative of "whiteness" does not mean that these are particular characteristics that are universally held as applying to "white people" in all cultures at all times in history. Furthermore it is obvious from even the most cursory glance that the majority of people of European descent do not actually possess either light hair or eye colour. Indeed this sections seems little more than a thinly veiled attempt to introduce a nordicist point of view into the article. It is certainly not neutral to claim that these phenomena are indicative of "whiteness". If you want to include this in an article there is are perfectly good ones called Nordicism and Nordic race where this sort of gibberish can be consigned to the dustbin of historically stupid ideas where it belongs (just like phlogiston), along with typological race and craniometics. What next, will you introduce astrology? There used to be an article called Celtic toe, possibly you also believe that so called Celtic people predominantly have their second toe longer than their first, as some people insist? There is a strong consensus on this talk page that this article is not about any concept of an European "typological race". You have consistently failed to influence this consensus with your blind insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you might like to take a look at Assume bad faith. I also note that Dbachmann did not discuss his changes on the talk page before making this major edit, so he has not even attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Alun 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I cut it out of the article and add it here for discussion.

Man, even the darkest european countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy) have a notable percentage of light haired people and an even higher percentage of light eyed people. Belive me, I am Portuguese and I do have dark brown hair and brown eyes. Guess what, I can see reality around me! It isn't Nordicism, it is just a fact! Face it! I too think it is something which ressembels "whiteness" as you put it. DS2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.98.138 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance
Although there is no single universal definition of whiteness, some traits that are associated with Europeans are associated with whites. The most notable trait describing people who identify as white is light skin. People who are white lack epicanthic folds. Other physical features sometimes associated with white people include a variety of hair and eye colors.

Light skin
White people are archetypically distinguished by lighter skin, and in general, Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer) than other ethnic groups. While all mean values of skin reflectance of non-European populations are lower than Europeans, some European and non-European populations overlap in lightness of skin, as noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, which stated in a 1923 lawsuit over whiteness that the "swarthy brunette[s] ... are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races".

Humans have pigment cells, which contain pigment granules called melanosomes. In people of European descent, the melanosomes are fewer, smaller, and lighter than those from people of African ancestry, while the melanosomes of East Asians show intermediate properties. The melanosomes are located in the top layer of skin known as the epidermis. In actuality the epidermis of light skinned people is not actually white. The underlying layers of collagen and adipose tissue are white in people of all races. In lightly pigmented people, the epidermis is an almost transparent layer of film. Consequently the epidermis allows the underlying white tissues to become visible. Blood vessels interlaced between the adipose tissue produce the pale pink color associated with light skin. Pigments known as Carotenes found in the fat produce a more yellow effect. In darker skinned people the epidermis is filled with melanosomes that obscure the underlying layers.

Most mammals have a thick layer of body hair that protects the skin from the sun's rays and also keeps the body warm at night. Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to humans. Since they have light skin covered by hair, scientist believe that the common ancestor humans share with the chimpanzee would have been the same. Only a few mammals have lost their hair for a variety of reasons, these include aquatic mammals, hippopotami and Naked mole rats. As human evolution progressed, brain size increased. The increase in brain power would have required a finer thermoregulatory system since the brain consumes large amounts of energy and is very sensitive to heat. As a result humans evolved more sweat glands, especially on the face. For effective evaporation from these sweat glands the loss of body hair was necessary. Though naked skin is advantageous for thermoregulation, it exposes the epidermis to destructive levels of UV radiation that can cause sunburn, skin cancer and birth defects resulting from the destruction of the essential vitamin B folate. Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin.

The skin of albinos is similar to Europeans and East Asians in that it is depigmented relative to other populations. However in whites and East Asians the enzymes that produce melanin are still active and produce relatively small amounts of melanin to provide some coloration to the skin. With albinos, the enzyme that produces melanin is defective, thus they produce virtually no melanin resulting in the palest skin of all humans. Since melanin protects the skin from the UV radiation, albinos have no natural protection and their skin is vulnerable to sunlight that can be tolerated by other light skinned peoples. Furthermore in the presence of more intense levels of UV radiation from the sun, the skin cells of whites and East Asians are able to produce additional amounts of melanin to tan the skin to a darker complexion, providing extra protection, while albinos lack the ability to tan. Albinism is very rare. For example, one person in 17,000 in the U.S.A. has some type of albinism.

Origins of light skin
Skin color is a quantitative trait in that it is varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified, however two genes are known that do contribute to skin color. They are the MC1R and the SLC24A5 genes.

Since early humans would have been barely clothed or naked, any mutation that produced lighter skin color would have been a severe disadvantage to those living under the hot African sun. For example light skinned individuals exposed to strong sunlight have lower levels of vitamin B folate, which essential for a healthy pregnancy. Folate deficiencies are known to cause birth defects, hence lighter skinned humans would have had less reproductive success. Light skinned individuals living in the tropics in places such as Australia have some of the highest rates of skin cancer. Together with sunburn, the combined effects would have made light skin a liability.

When humans left Africa 50,000 years ago for less sun intensive regions of the world, the selective pressure on lighter skin would have been relaxed and different versions of the genes such as MC1R would increase in frequency. Hence a greater variety of skin colors are found outside Africa. Lighter skin colors may have been advantageous at higher latitudes since they allow greater penetration of the sun's UV radiation, a requirement for vitamin D synthesis. This may have further increased the adaptive value of the gene.

According to a 2006 study, lighter pigmentation observed in Europeans and East Asians is due to independent genetic mutations in at least three loci. They concluded that light pigmentation in Europeans is at least partially due to the effects of positive directional and/or sexual selection. According to the study, the results also strongly suggest that Europeans and East Asians have evolved light skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanisms. Mixed race individuals of Afro-European descent with the European version of gene had skin color that was 25-38% lighter than mixed race individuals without the gene based on the melanin index. It should be noted that scientists have identified at least 100 other genes associated with pigment processing but whose function is not yet fully understood. It is most likely that many of these genes were already present in the ancestral population in Africa prior to their dispersal. Though African populations are relatively dark, according to a recent study they possess greater diversity in skin complexion than all other populations. This is evidence that many of the genes for lighter skin are already present in Africa. When humans migrated out of Africa, the lighter skin causing alleles may have accumulated in one population, either by genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection or a combination of these effects. Since their effects are additive it is possible light skin could arise over several generations without any new mutations taking place.

A historian suggested that Europeans may have retained their dark skin until as early as 13,000 years ago. This is based on Magdelanian cave art in which the painters depict hunters as darker than the animals hunted. . Other scientists speculated that white skin mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. - Jeeny Talk 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Jews "white"?
This subject has been explored in some academic literature. Should the Jews be discussed in the article? Cf. "Is the Jew white?" by Leonard Rogoff. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_jewish_history/v085/85.3rogoff.html MoritzB 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If it belongs anywhere, and I'm not certain that it does, it probably belongs in an article on jewishness as an ethnicity (not sure which article that is), or in a discussion specifically on racial divisions in the southern US. Not here, IMO. SamBC(talk) 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it definitely belongs here. The question of whether Jews are White people is precisely the kind of question that forces people to think hard about what they mean by "White people."  There are two important books on the theme which demonstrates its notability:

Two important scholars, from different mainstream disciplines, each teaching at two of the best universities in the US. PS: funny, you don't look Jewish! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rogin, Michael Paul. Black Face, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Melting Pot (Michale Paul Rogin passed away but was a professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley)
 * Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks: and What that says about Race in America (Karen Brodkin is a professor of Anthropology at UCLA)
 * Disclosure: I am a Jew, and I can hardly be described as a "white people" :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Discolsure: I am a Jew and neither I nor my family consider ourselves White. But, there are other cases of people who think they are white but whom others do not consider white, and people who consider themselves black but pass as white - if this article is going to cover the full range of the issues, it will draw on such borderline cases (including the Irish) as well as unambiguous cases. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disclosure, I am 100% British (as far as I know, so at least for four generations), and I don't consider myself "white" either. Indeed the idea of being "white" came as something of a shock to me when I had to identify as "white British" in the 1991 UK census. 1991 was the first time "ethnic" identity was recorded in the Uk census. I consider myself Welsh and British, "white" is just a way some people might describe my physical appearance, it's got nothing to do with identity in the UK, at least as far as I know. Indeed the article I link to above states "According to Theodore Allen, the knowledge, ideologies, norms, and practices of whiteness and the accompanying "white race" were invented in the U.S. as part of a system of racial oppression designed to solve a particular problem in colonial Virginia. Prior to that time, although Europeans recognized differences in the color of human skin, they did not categorize themselves as white." I think the part I highlighted is largely still true. Alun 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a disagreement, or an argument, just a very startled question - since when are Irish people ever considered anything but white? SamBC(talk) 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is all a matter of opinion, either individual opinion or societal opinion over time. This is such a subjective topic, maybe it is not really encyclopedic beyond the disambiguation concept.  On the other hand, you can't spend an hour here without learning something new.  --Kevin Murray 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a matter of scholarship - in the sense that historians can analyze historical texts to document how people identified themselves or were identified by others in the past. In the US at least in the 1800s, I would not be surprised (but have no positive knowledge) if in England in the 1600s as well. I know historians have pointed out tremendous similarities in English attitudes towards the Irish and Native Americans when they began colonizing both peoples in the 1600s. In any event, if this at all interests you, I urge you to read this very well-received and (when it came out at least) popular book, You might find it a valuable source for developing this article! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White (Ignatiev is a professor of Critical Studies at the Massachussetts College of Art and a Fellow at Harvard university; this book is one of the foundational texts in Whiteness studies and is very widely cited)
 * My motto is: if there is a body of scholarship on the topic, then it is a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I substantially agree with your last sentence. However, the scholarhip is regarding the history of the use of a term based on changing opinions over time.
 * This is one of the most interesting cases of how race and ethnicity are social constructs. To note there are Jewish people who are black( Beta Israel), brown and light skinned. Muntuwandi 17:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most interesting cases of how race and ethnicity are social constructs. To note there are Jewish people who are black( Beta Israel), brown and light skinned. Muntuwandi 17:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Read this How the Irish became White. Being white is basically a social construct. And this Jews and the Problem of Whiteness. - Jeeny Talk 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between being an ethnic Jew and being a member of the Jewish religion. For the purposes of this article we are discussing ethnicities.  You can't erase past wrongs or present attitudes by ignoring them, or white-washing the history. --Kevin Murray 17:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue, as I understand it, is whether or not Ashkenazi Jews, specifically, are white - different groups have different opinions. I'm not sure what they generally consider themselves to be, but I think it is possible to show what other groups consider them to be. For example, we know that white supremacist types (such as the recently banned users) highlight certain characteristics to measure "whiteness" (e.g. deviant hair and eye color) but entirely exclude Ashkenazim (even if they fit the phenotype). On the other hand, there are some Palestinian and other Arab ideas that Israelis (mostly Ashkenazim) are in fact "white" and not of "the House of Shem" - apparently this is based upon appearance and also a desire to paint them as the "white colonists/imperialists." If we discuss the matter here or elsewhere, I think that we should touch upon these particulars. The Behnam 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! --Kevin Murray 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be also noted that many influential people were of Jewish ancestry, Benjamin Disraeli, Judah Benjamin and David Ricardo for instance.MoritzB 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of Behnam or MoritzB's comments. Let us avoid Original Research. Let us instead stick to what reliable sources, like the books Jenney mentioned, say.  Maybe Jeeny can just start using those books to add content to the article? (Muntuwandi is of course wight - to say that some Jews may or may not be considered White does not mean all Jews are.  Jews are considered white -as Kevin correctly points out - only under certain historical and political and social conditions ... but this is true of all whites! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wasn't advocating OR, but merely stating that we should attempt to mention the views of Ashkenazi 'whiteness' as they differ across groups. My concern right now is that I don't think many RS will necessarily discuss the issue in terms of 'white' rather than "European."  The Behnam 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided two reliable sources that do discuss Jews and whiteness - surely two books is plenty of source for what should be just one section of the article. And given that we have the two books, there is no need for any speculation (I know you were not explicily calling for OR but it seemed like you were speculating in the absense of sources which is just unnecessary given two good sources just listed). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I wasn't calling for speculation in the article, but was merely discussing views that I think I've seen out there that may be worth mentioning in the article.  If you feel you already have enough sources, that's fine - I don't care to do anything more here.  The Behnam 23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

White lies: Race and the Myths of Whiteness ISBN 0374289492. Muntuwandi 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

People thought that Mariah Carey was white?
"Prior to revealing her ethnic background in 1992, many people assumed she was white."

This extraordinary claim is not sufficiently supported by the source. A vague statement about an anonymous critic is not enough to make a generalization about the whole population:

"MARIAH CAREY has a score to settle. Last summer, soon after her debut recording started racing up the record charts, she says a music critic referred to her as "another White girl trying to sing Black." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n5_v46/ai_10405332

Thus, the paragraph should be deleted as OR. MoritzB 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't be deleted because of OR, because it is not, there were many (most, if not all) people who assumed she was white before she reveled her heritage. I'll be gathering more "evidence" to support the paragraph, as it is very important to the subject as white is in the eye of the beholder, until proved otherwise. - Jeeny Talk 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not OR, it's weasel words. Try to avoid terms like "many people believe" or "some consider". If there is a newspaper article that states this, which probably there is, then we can cite the article, saying that this article makes this claim. Alun 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was trying to be fair, using "most", and "many". Now I see that they are weasel words, but there are many weasel words throughout Wikipedia. I personally know that people thought she was white period, and I did too, but that is not a reliable source, of course. I'm still searching. Tomorrow will do more, I hope. - Jeeny Talk 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there are lots of uses of weasel words on Wikipedia. It's very easy to use them, I have used them myself lots of times inadvertently. I don't have a problem with saying that Mariah Carey was perceived as white, it's just a difficult thing to get a source for. The media would not report on her perceived "race" unless she was considered something other than "white", then when they find out she has a mixed ancestry they might have a headline "Mariah Carey not white shocker" or some such drivel. As if we don't all have a mixed ancestry!! Cheers. c. scum 06:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Prior to revealing her ethnic background in 1992, people thought she was white" The sentence is even worse now. That kind of claim is extraordinary and there no source for it. MoritzB 09:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)