Talk:White people/Archive 19

Jossi
User:Jossi reverted to this version of the article because s/he claimed it had a "better quotation". It did not have a better quotation. It did not have a direct quotation from Blumenbach. My version of the article did have a direct quotation. Would Jossi please explain this reasoning?Dark Tea &#169;  16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You deleted a good source. I have re-added it and consolidated Blumenbach's opinions of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to add to Blumenbach stuff, that many of his theories were adopted by nazi Germany. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

lead image
This article needs an image in the lead. I suggest maybe one of Ronald Reagan or someone else who is white and famous. There are millions of white people; it shouldn't be too difficult to find an image.  Yahel  Guhan  02:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the problem, there are too many people so disputes will arise as to whether any one person is representative of the whole group. Muntuwandi 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no one photo that will encompass the large variety of persons that are considered "white". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I understand, but you said yourself, that there "are millions of white people" so how could one image represent all white people? I don't think Ronald Reagan can represent White people IMO, as there will often be those who object. What about Bill Clinton? Again, whiteness is arbitrary, and it is difficult to use one, two or even 4 or more images to cover the spectrum, and every one will have their own view as who is "white". Again how can one image represent the whole "white race", since there are millions, if not billions? Jeeny (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC) UnsignedIP -->


 * Here is another idea. We do something similar to what is done on black people. Have an image which actually is a collection of multiple images.  Yahel  Guhan  23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's go for Osama bin Laden. He thinks he's white. That's kind of the problem with broadbrush definitional terms, isn't it? They depend on whom you're talking to. Grace Note 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. I agree 100%! I don't know if you were here a few months ago (re: this article) There were a bunch, (now indef banned) that wanted only the "pure white race" represented (no tanned whites either), (IE. Aryan, as in German, blonde, blue-eyed, etc.) in the article. Sheesh. lol. Jeeny (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

INTERESTING ADDITION: ANCESTRY AND WHITE PEOPLE
SEE:

According to the study all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans consistent with the hypothesis that all non-Africans are descended from a single African population. Europeans are most closely related to East Asians and least related to Africans. However of all the non-African populations, Europeans are most closely related to Africans. As the genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6) is shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6) and even much shorter than the Genetic distance from Africa to Australia. Cavalli-Sforza proposes that the simplest explanation for this short genetic distance is that substantial gene exchange has taken place between the nearby continents. Cavalli-Sforza also proposes that both Asian and African populations contributed to the settlement of Europe which began 40 000 years ago. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Europe has a genetic variation in general of about a third of that of other continents.

THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS:

1. THE FACT THAT DARK SKINNED PEOPLES, IN SOME CASES VERY DARK SKINNED PEOPLES LIKE INDIANS, NATIVE AMERICANS, NATIVE AUSTRALIANS, ETC ARE LESS RELATED TO SUBSAHARAN AFRICANS THAN WHITE EUROPEANS.

2. THE FACT THAT RACIALIZED EUROPEAN SOCIETIES HAVE MORE OR LESS SPREAD THE MYTH OF US AND THEM (COLORED VERSUS WHITE PEOPLE), THEM BEING ALL THE OTHER "COLORED" PEOPLES, AS IF ALL THE OTHER COLORED PEOPLES WERE CLOSER RELATED, ON THE ONE HAND, AND WHITES FUTHER AWAY FROM THEM ALL.

3. POINTS OUT HOW MEANINGLESS IS SKIN PIGMENTATION AND SUPERFICIAL FEATURES TO TRY AND INFER ANCESTRY, A KEY COMPONENT IN THE CONCEPT OF RACE.

THEREFORE I SUGGEST THAT THIS INFORMATION IS SOMEHOW USED AND ELABORATED ON IN THIS ARTICLE. IT IS VERY INFORMATIVE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MYTHS THAT STILL SURROUND RACIALIZED VIEWS OF WHITE AND NON-WHITE PEOPLES. JAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you solve a problem like Hayden5650?
Banned user Hayden is back and reverting multiple times. I have semi-protected the page, at least for a few days, so we don't have to waste time reverting him. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that semi-protection should be permanent on sensitive articles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Kevin. This one and Negro, Negroid as for the past few days he's been all over them. ~Jeeny (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I will avoid personal attacks, and will strive to be civil, to fellow wikipedians. As far as i see it, banned user are like outlaws. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC) How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection HELP
It says it is semi-protected: "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism." Well, I'm registered, and am a long time editor, well kinda, yet I can't edit. So are we to be punished because of the racist troll Hayden the crusader? -Jeeny (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I goofed. I fixed it now. Sorry. You can go bck to work on it - by the way, I see real improvement on the page, good progress! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that SL goofed and protected rather than semi protected, which was his stated intent. Probably just need to find another admin to fix this if he is off-line. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so too. What a goof. :p -Jeeny (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look on the bright side, it's a good reason to get away from the computer and go dancing. WP will be here tomorrow, but there is only one Saturday night each week.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA
More emphasis on Australian perceptions of white and how the barrier between Nordics and Mediterraneans still exist. Southern Europeans are still not widely regarded as white in that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.58.18 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is somewhat true, but the 2006 census shows that half the Italian population have origins other than Italian, almost overwhelmingly other European origins such as Irish, English, Scottish, showing that the future of Italian-Australians will be multi-ethnic, which shows a growing social acceptance with Northern Europeans; I would highly not consider them to be "divided by a barrier".


 * The government has always considered every European as white including Italians, Greeks, macedonians, Portuguese etc. See White Australia policy. Plus I would consider rugby player Mark Ricciuto, Natalie Imbruglia, and the Veronicas as white persons, but there will always be some who consider them white and others who dont. Galati (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

Well this is all very relative, popular perceptions. In Europe, some Europeans (a bit idiotic in my opinion) do not consider Australians white at all or anyone who is not from Europe, for they are all very mixed and so on.In fact whites in all those places are becoming minorities and some extremists in Europe think that those "whites" remaining are all suspect. But that has to do with extremist views rather than interesting information for a encyclo. To see what I mean look at the population structure of California, which is meaningful in relation to what is going on in those places. Only about 40% identify a white. It is logical that 40% of people who are supposed to be white, living among 60% who are not white, are not that white indeed, and in any case those places cannot be considered white territories anymore. The problem is that this issue has often racist overtones and a lot of people do not want to see that most of the European colonies f the past are not white anymore, although some citizens from those places overreact trying to convince themselves and others that their countries and they themselves are very white. I think a good example is the comment from this user from Australia, a territory of dubious white majorities right now, who likes to claim that he is whiter than other Europeans. It is a interesting case of these types of reactions, which can be understood in very racialized societies that are becoming non-White or which are non-White anymore. John.

WRONG, in CALIFORNIA, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 76.9% of the population identify as White.

By the way, there is a lot of ignorance in relation to skin pigmentation in Southern Europeans and people seem keen to ignore all scientific evidence and continue with their stereotypes. They do not even read the article. See here>:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

It is a scientific study that is already in the article and lots of people here seem to ignore. It measures the skin pigmentation of different populations in areas of the body not exposed to the sun. The Spaniards (samples from two regions in Spain), in spite of living in a Mediterranean area, where a darker skin pigmentation is to be expected due to exposure to the sun, as the article states, show a skin pigmentation in unexposed areas similar or even lighter than that of Northern Europeans. Spaniards have an observed reflectance of around 65. For a comparison, Namibians have around 22-25, North Africans (Tunisians) around 56 (Morrocans) around 54, in Japan 55. What about Europe. In London it is 62, darker than in Spain, although in other areas it is slightly lighter at 66.In Ireland 64-65. In Belgium 63, again darker than in Spain. So much for so much ignorance about the subject, that seems very common in this Anglosphere full of people who think that Spaniards or other South Europeans are like Mexicans. Funny they do not think that Jamacans are not like the British. PS. It should be mentioned, thought, that pale skin is considered unattrative in Spain and that most people will almost kill to get some colour or a good tan, in the beaches or in even using sunbeds. In fact most people do not consider pale skin attractive, so I do not think why so much fuss about such a ridiculous issue. The information is there, in any case. Jan.

ARGENTINA
The user Dúnadan has removed my entire paragraph of text and replaced it with his, with no reason whatsoever. If you follow his edits, you can clearly see that he has an agenda, as he has been reverting and removing sections from articles concerning Argentine demographics all across the wiki.

I consider my original text was apropiate for the article, yet the one posted by the Dúnadan is a clear copy-paste of what he typed into Demographics of Argentina. In both articles, Dúnadan has reintroduced the controversial UBA study that says 56% of Argentines have amerindian descent. This study has been proven wrong by many others, such as, as well as arguments explaining that the supposed "amerindian" markers analized are also present in Spanish and Galician populations, of which Argentina has plenty of descendants.

As a result, the UBA study was considered too controversial, and a consensus was reached to keep it out of the Demographics of Argentina article. Yet this user has been adding it again, and even worse, HAS REWRITTEN MY COUNTRIBUTION WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER, as he basically posted the same information with a different rewording.

I've made more than 500 contributions to the Wiki, with a dynamic IP, but it's pretty sad to see that so many editors are willing to side against an anonymous editor simply because he's anonymous. I guess I'll have to create a nickname for myself, even though that undermines the purpose of the Wiki itself.

Please take a look on this info I gave you. The genetic study has no bearing whatsoever in the article, unless you also want to include genetic studies on Canada, the USA, Brazil, or Australia, which also show similar levels of admixture. Regards,

--200.117.168.68 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply Dloh  cierekim  Deleted?  01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dlohcierekim. I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:
 * The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina., . This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussion amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:
 * ""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote).
 * A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Wikipedia with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Wikipedia is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition es:Composición étnica de Argentina.
 * I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.
 * I will copy this paragraph to Talk:White American and Talk:Demographics of Argentina and will welcome your opinion on the matter. I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.
 * -- the D únadan 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I am aware of the Dispute Resolution venue, even though, in my past experience, it has been of very little help. Honestly, I don't think this issue merits Dispute Resolution. When an edit is comprehensive and fully reliable, and the other is POV and not referenced, I think that the latter clearly violates Wikipedia's three core principles.
 * -- the D únadan 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've adopted a username and will try to follow your advice. Regards,

--Dharma for one (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm the formerly-anonymous user 200.117.168.68, having finally adopted a nickname to clear up the confusion. I should have brought this argument to you instead of allowing the edit war to escalate.
 * My main beef with your edit in the White People article comes from the fact that you decided to erase my entire contribution as opposed to building up on it, which was a rude thing to do, and from your decision to include the controversial UBA study, which contradicts many previous studies on the matter, such as or . Additionally, I don't believe genetic studies belong in the "White People" article, since this article deals with *social definitions* of "white people", not actual genetics.
 * The UBA study is controversial, because it's based on a sample of 200 Argentineans and uses a form of genetic testing that only traces one lineage from either the mother or the father's side. The overwhelming majority of genetic studies on Argentinian population shows no major differences between the admixtures of white Argentinians as compared to, say, white Canadians or Americans.


 * I'm not trying to deny that there's an amerindian component to Argentine population. Of course there is. But this component may range from 5% to 56% of the population, depending on the study cited, and does not make Argentine demographics any less different from other "Areas of New Settlement". Either we also include genetic studies showing admixture in Canada, Australia, and the US, or we don't include any genetic study at all. The white people article is supposed to deal with cultural and census definitions, after all, and no country in the world uses genetic testing for its census definitions.


 * Regards,
 * --Dharma for one (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to include not only reliable, but pertinent sources into solving any issue. However, this is not the case. Let me outline my comment:
 * I did not erase your "source" that claims that Argentina's population is 97% White. It is still there, however it is contextualized.
 * The UBA study has not been contradicted. The first link you provide is broken (you might have an account that lets you access it, but not us). The second one does not contradict it. It simply says that Whites are majority, and Amerindians a small minority. No mention whatsoever of Mestizos or admixtures. Let's not misuse our sources to claim they say what they do not say.
 * The UBA study was accepted and endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina. Their presentation even states that several other genetic studies actually confirm what the UBA claims. They present it as a way to change the false historical conceptions and to end discrimination.
 * This is not the place to discuss the intricacies of Statistics (I recommend a book on it), but a few highlights will help:
 * This study is the first to include major urban centers of all regions. (All previous studies relied only on Buenos Aires).
 * It is a random sample of 310 individuals not 100.
 * The random was statistically chosen; most studies with over 90% accuracy require as little as 30 individuals if the sample is randomly or stochastically selected and Gaussian normality is assumed. That is the very core or foundation of Statistics: you don't need to test the entire population.

Thanks for registering at Wikipedia. I would recommend you to review the policies and guidelines that rule our community, and wish you a happy editing. -- the D únadan 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot say anything about admixture in the US or Canada, or how it compares (if at all) to Argentine. If you have sources of other genetic studies, we might discuss.
 * Also, the study claims that 56% of Argentines has an Amerindian ancestor. It does not say anything on the "percentage" of Amerindian ancestry per individual. It can be 1% or it can be 100%. Do not confuse what the study claims.
 * Last, but not least, Wikipedia does not work on "content socialism", but on continuous improvement. If you want to include genetic reserach in Demographics of the United States or Demographics of Canada, please feel free to include it there. This is not an "either-or" situation. In this particular case, the inclusion of this genetic study is fully compliant with Wikipedia's rules.

It's good to see that we are both willing to resolve this dispute. Some objections: My text was already "contextualized". All you did was reword it differently.
 * I did not erase your "source" that claims that Argentina's population is 97% White. It is still there, however it is contextualized.

The second study clearly states, and I quote: the minisatellite bin distribution of the metropolitan population is not significantly different from other Caucasian populations., which is quite significant considering Argentina's population is around 90% urban. As for the first study, it gives a 19.4% Amerindian contribution, using the Bayesian clustering algorithm structure.
 * The UBA study has not been contradicted. The first link you provide is broken (you might have an account that lets you access it, but not us). The second one does not contradict it. It simply says that Whites are majority, and Amerindians a small minority. No mention whatsoever of Mestizos or admixtures. Let's not misuse our sources to claim they say what they do not say.

Agreed.
 * This is not the place to discuss the intricacies of Statistics

Additionally, you have failed to address my original point, which is that genetic studies have no bearing on an article about cultural and census definitions of white people. In case you didn't notice, the section you edited is titled: Census and social definitions in different regions. The UBA study may be suitable for an article like Demographics of Argentina, but certainly not where you placed it. You might want to read the original talk page of the article to see the previous debates that have already been held on the matter. --Dharma for one (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you don't understand what is meant by "contextualizing"; contextualizing is rewording to reflect the context in which a particular definition is being given. Like you pointed out the title of the section is "census and social definitions..." (no need to bold it, unless you intend something). Well, if you read the other sections, you will see... well... definitions of what "white" means for a certain country both in census and socially. [Please read the other sections]. Your text simply stated that Argentina has 97% Europeans and that they come from this and that country, and that the "most conservative" [btw not true] estimate is 85%. There is no "definition", but a statistical demographic description which happens to be incomplete. How do we contextualize it and make it actually give a definition of what White means for Argentina? Well first by:
 * explaining that there is no description of White in the census, but simply self-ascription (i.e. they asked the population, what do you consider yourself to be? Not surprisingly, the great majority of Argentines say "White". (A similar survey reported that the great majority of Chileans also claim to be White or Europeans, again, not surprisingly).
 * explaining that the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology supports the findings of UBA and other studies that confirm that the admixture has been significant, and that by acknowledging it, it would bring tear down discrimination in the country, as the link suggest. Maybe we should make this more clear in the section so that the reader doesn't have to click on the link to confirm it. For example, the section of US does speak of DNA and white admixture in blacks. So, I guess it is pertinent to talk about it on the Argentina subsection.
 * Finally, again, I cannot confirm the first study: it is a broken link. Links and sources must be WP:Verifiable, yours isn't. The second source simply says that they "do not differ from other Caucasian population" in "metropolitan pops". Two things. "Caucasian population" like the US contain admixture (so there is no contradiction either), and secondly no definition of which urban populations are given. I think a further review of the actual content of the article is needed before claiming that "it contradicts" studies, confirmed by several other studies, and accepted by the Ministry of Education and Science.
 * -- the D únadan 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what the meaning of "contextualizing" is, and I believe my original text was properly contextualized, as it mentioned the fact that the Argentine census is based on self-identification, and it made a comparison with Argentina, and other "Areas of New Settlement", which is the geographic and economic term used to describe countries outside of Europe that obtained the bulk of their populations through European immigration in the XIX century, also known as "settler economies". (Canada, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand and Uruguay)
 * Again, the problem with the UBA study is that it's the higher end of the spectrum. Most other studies put the number lower than that, with one putting as percentage of Amerindian contribution as low as 19.4%. I was able to access this study through two different proxies, as well as my usual internet connection, so I'm afraid your problems in accessing it are local. This does not make the study any less veryfiable, as anyone willing to make a google search can find it for free.
 * If you read through the 18 pages of the talk page archive, you will see that the consensus was to keep genetic studies out, and to try to focus on the social and census definitions instead.
 * Having followed this debate to its logical conclusion, I will now proceed to edit the article accordingly.
 * --Dharma for one (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you decide when "the debate has reached a conclusion", instead of waiting for a more explicit agreement between parties. I have to insist that there is no verifiability for your first source, and I have tried to access it from different computers and locations. Two questions (1) was it a randomly selected sample of the entire population or just of BA (as it is usually the case); (2) can you prove that UBA is the higher end of the "spectrum", given that the report of the Ministry of Education says the results have been confirmed by other studies?
 * Secondly, I fail to see why you need to mention origin of immigrants. It is irrelevant to the "definition" of White? I don't think so. Moreover, you are automatically including Middle Easterns (with the weasel adjective "large" (how large?), which might not necessarily fall into the "White" category.
 * Thirdly, you say "more conservative estimates put it at 85%". Well, not according to the study by UBA. The conservative estimate would be 44%.
 * I will wait for you comments on this matter before doing any changes.
 * -- the D únadan 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Argentine population genetic structure: Large variance in Amerindian contribution study is based on sampling from the cities of Rosario, Santa Fe, Cordoba, Mar del Plata and Buenos Aires. These cities combined and their provinces, the central region of Argentina, represent around 60% of the total population of the country.
 * Secondly, yes, as far as I know the UBA study is the higher end of the spectrum. I may be wrong, however, I invite you to provide a study that shows a greater Amerindian contribution.
 * The origin of the immigrants is relevant to understand the origins of the social classification of "white" in Argentina, given that the article itself states that the term "white race" has its origins in Europe during the post-rennaissance era. Including this is relevant to understand how the social concept of "white" appeared in Argentine society. Middle Eastern immigration is also relevant, to show that ethnic groups such as the Lebanese or Syrians are also considered "white" in Argentine society.
 * Thirdly, "having Amerindian admixture" is not the same as not being white. A white argentine may have a non-visible admixture of 5% to 20%, and still be considered white, just like Spaniards with moorish ancestry, or New Zealanders of non-visible Maori heritage. The point is to show that, according to Argentine standards, at least 85% of the population is visibly white. Nobody is objecting to the Canadian "visible minority" definition of whiteness, yet both definitions use the exact same criteria.


 * If you can't access the study, I suggest using a web-proxy. I've been able to access it that way using two different US-based webproxies, as well as my regular internet connection. In any case, the study is also available in paper. Having an internet link to a document is not necessary for Verifiability, as long as the document is easily available in paper.
 * --Dharma for one (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I could finally access the study. However, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Study shows a large variance of Amerindian contribution within individual Argentines (94 to be precise), whereas the UBA study shows the percentage of Argentines with Amerindian contribution regardless of its weight (i.e. the variance within it can be large). In other words, UBA simply showed that 56% of Argentines had an Amerindian ancestor -based on the other study the Amerindian contribution of each individual in this category could be as low as, say 1% or 19%, or whatever other percentage). So, the study actually complements UBA findings. That was precisely the study I was talking about that some other user had presented a long time ago (probably in the archives). One thing is the Amerindian contribution in an individual's DNA and another the percentage of Argentine population with an Amerindian contribution of whatsoever size.
 * Just like DNA studies were presented in other subsections of the same article, I believe it is appropriate to do so here. "Visibly white" is as subjective as "visibly non-White", and probably biased.
 * Again, I fail to see the point of citing the countries of origin of Argentines. Obviously... all Whites come from Europe. No need to specify countries in order to define what a "White" is. Perhaps it could be useful like you pointed out, to say in the article that in Argentine demographics a Middle Eastern is considered White.
 * Cheers,
 * -- the D únadan 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim i have been looking forward the article white people and this particular user the D únadan  who has been editing all the articles with the UBA study made surprisingly in all white and demographics articles about Argentina I personally think we should report it as vandalism because he cannot just appear and erase all our contributions just because he wants to put a racist study against Argentina and all ending up in a great discution because that's what he has created..well I wait your opinion

Fercho85 02:32 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply.
 * Let's recap. The genetic study comes from the Genetic Department of the University of Buenos Aires, it was confirmed by several other studies, and its findings were accepted and supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina. In fact, the government says that "these findings help fight discrimination". These findings show that the Amerindian contribution is much larger than previously showed.
 * Fercho claims that writing a paragraph that complies with WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability is "racist". He also claims that this study, which, in words of the government of Argentina, will help fight discrimination, is "racist". Moreover, he claims that I am racist (in a very inappropriate insult here). Now he claims that I erase his contributions (not quite true see his contributions) and that I am vandalizing Wikipedia. Isn't everything the other way around?
 * -- the D únadan 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dunadan I understand what you say but you should have proposed to add this study previously. Specially in this article which I personally think does not fit in here because it is not about argentina's demography it is about white argentines so genetic studies shouldn't be included here as Dharma said if we add this study we should add studies on other countries   I have reverted you editions until we get to a final decision with the other users

Fercho85 05:12, 09 Feb 2008

This article needs pictures
I looked at the black people article and there were several pictures there. However, I don't see any pictures on here, there used to be a picture of an extended white family and a few more pictures of other people. I checked again and the only picture there was just an old lady, now there aren't any on the page at all. What's the big deal? Why should it be controversial for pictures of white people on the white people article while I look at the other black people article and it has pictures. I'm pretty sure there are people in countries who never saw caucasions but they'll never get a clear image of them if it's all just text and no images on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.99.64 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IT does need pictures. Any idea on which person best represents white people?  Yahel  Guhan  02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No it does not. This has been discussed at great lenght. Please refer to previous debates. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with pictures here is that it is almost impossible to get any sort of consensus about who to include, practically every European nation wants to have a representative, and then there are other non-European groups that are often considered "white". So the consensus was to have a gallery at the commons, see White people, take a look at the See also section of the article, the "Find more about White people on Wikipedia's sister projects" infobox has a link to "Images and media". So there are pictures of "White people", but they are at the commons and are linked from this article. All the best. Alun (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers and Demographics
Should this article include some information on estimate on numbers of white people in the world, based on some common identifications of the term white? It would be helpful to include some rough numbers, as well as rates of growth and/or decline, to create a complete picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emblazoned (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re organization
Would it be better to classify races by ancestry rather than skin color? For instance, there may be dark skinned peoples in Australia and Africa, but they are of very different lineage. I think that the articles that concern races and ethnic groups such as this article should be classified in the following manner:


 * African Ethnic Group(s)


 * Caucasian Ethnic Group(s)


 * Asian Ethnic Group(s)


 * Native American Ethnic Group(s)

Each article would have information such as the history of each group. Then, there would be an ethnic category, in which all of the ethnic group articles would fall.

What do all of you think of the idea?-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

The great white illuision
Whoever posted the picture of the lapplander, obviously doesn't know anything about population genetics. A Lapplander is hardly Caucasoid, whether they are 'white' or not is misleading and meaningless. Admixture estimates for Lapps reveal at least a 35% mongoloid component. Compare this to your average Russian carries about ~4% mongoloid - insignificant. As for South Americans, they are not true caucasoids, although one can often see uncanny, conspicious similarities between certain populations of South America and Southern Europe. It is likely that sexual selection has played a role in their apparent phenotypes. Phylogenetic trees show South Americans to have far more in common with surrounding hispanic populations, than they do Europeans. Cavalli-Sforza determined that Hispanics are a mix of 'proto-mongoloids' and Europeans (and, in some regions, African blood), being predominately the former. Hence, it is not surprising that some Hispanics appear Caucasoid (given that proto-races probably looked closer to whites than anything else).

What may long from now, be a quiet part of western history is the fact that the caucasoid race had it's origins near the fertile crescent, and the area around the Iranian plateau. Through the last glacial maxim, the cold savannah's of West Asia provided the only survivable habit, that account for cold-adaption. Europe and central asia were a sheet of ice. Proto-man, naturally migrated southwards, and due to population densities, some men were forced to inhabit west asia (some inhabited viable pockets of land in south africa, south india, southern arabia, southeast asia ect.). It has been determined through haplogroup studies that the vast majority of European (+90%), and middle eastern genes originated between 30,000 to 10,000 years ago in West Asia. At 10,000ybp Europe and the middle east were flooded by populations expanding at the Zagros mountains. With agriculture, the first Caucasoids spread throughout the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.161.85 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian redirect
I've just noticed that caucasian redirects here...Should that really be so? I think Americans may use caucasian=white but in Europe and India Caucasian covers are far broader category of all 'caucasoid' (to use a archaic term) people. i.e. whites, latins, arabs, Indians, Iranians, etc...

Should not the caucasian article more reflect this?--Him and a dog 12:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say so; in some places, "caucasian" is even taken to mean, literally, "from the caucasus". SamBC(talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

latins are whites and many iranians are in fact white there are northern indians who are white also and arabs also not all white people come exclusively from europe go take a trip to syria or lebanon or better yet look at shakira she is lebanese and spainish in decent--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "white" is a complex term that does not always denote skin tone; I think this article makes that point, it certainly used to. In the UK we'd happily call anyone of Iberian descent white, but in the USA they seem to be seperately categorised as "hispanic" (or "latino" if their descent is via latin america, AIUI). SamBC(talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK now and a lot of Iberians wouldn't be white, they'd be latin (though there are a lot of white people in Spain these days), with them it is about skin tone. But then outside of Europe though it certainly isn't and asians are always asian no matter how pale they are--Him and a dog 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was already held in Australia. Here is a fragment: By the way, there is a lot of ignorance in relation to skin pigmentation in Southern Europeans and people seem keen to ignore all scientific evidence and continue with their stereotypes. They do not even read the article. See here>:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

It is a scientific study that is already in the article and lots of people here seem to ignore. It measures the skin pigmentation of different populations in areas of the body not exposed to the sun. The Spaniards (samples from two regions in Spain), in spite of living in a Mediterranean area, where a darker skin pigmentation is to be expected due to exposure to the sun, as the article states, show a skin pigmentation in unexposed areas similar or even lighter than that of Northern Europeans. Spaniards have an observed reflectance of around 65. For a comparison, Namibians have around 22-25, North Africans (Tunisians) around 56 (Morrocans) around 54, in Japan 55. What about Europe. In London it is 62, darker than in Spain, although in other areas it is slightly lighter at 66.In Ireland 64-65. In Belgium 63, again darker than in Spain. Jan.

As to the term Hispanic in the US, wrong, the US census states that Hispanic refers to people of Latin American descend. It is not a racial classification. It also states that People of Latin American descend can be of any racial group.

In fact this is cut and pasted:

note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.) Religions: Definition Field Listing

From here.

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

In other words, in the same way as American is used to denote people form the US in the US, and who may be of any race or mixture thereof.

By the way, I guess that people seriously interested in this matter already know that all Britons are themselves of Iberian origins or descend, as you say. Just some quotes follow.

Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, Caucasian is a disambig page, and Caucasian race is a seperate article. Neither redirects here.
 * That is odd, yesterday I was brought here.--Him and a dog 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Oppenheimer has stated in The Origins of the British (2006), although Basques have been more isolated than other Iberians, they are a population representative of south western Europe. As to the genetic relationship among Basques, Iberians and Britons, he also states (pages 375 and 378):

By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory...

...75-95% of British and Irish (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the Britain and Ireland have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples...

Brian Sykes, in his book based on genetics Blood of the Isles (2006) comes to similar conclusions. Some quotations from the book follow. (Note that Sykes uses the terms "Celts" and "Picts" to designate the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Isles rather than as linguistic terms.)

[T]he presence of large numbers of Jasmine’s Oceanic clan ... says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic seaboard north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about the same time as farming reached the Isles. (...)

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus.... This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland. (...)

They [the Picts] are from the same mixture of Iberian and European Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the Atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

Jan again. Smile.


 * Well one needs to think about this logically. It's probably true that all British people have a paleolithic Iberian ancestry, but one shouldn't confuse this with the claim that all British ancestry is paleolithic Iberian. We all have numerous ancestors, given the great antiquity of the founding populations within Great Britain and Ireland it must be true that all of the Iberian founders are the ancestors of all "indigenous" modern British people. One the other hand this is also almost certainly true for all migrants from the neolithic and so on, we're all descended from Paleolithic, neolithic, Bronze age, Iron age, Anglo-Saxon and Norman people, it'd be hard to argue that anyone is not descended from someone from one of these groups. Think about it, if we go back 1000 years and we assume 25 years per generation, that's four generations per century, that's 40 generations over 10 centuries. A quick calculation shows that we each have 240 ancestors from just 1000 years ago, this works out as 1,099,511,627,776 or about one billion ancestors (one US trillion). Clearly this is impossible, and just highlights how closely related we all are. It should also be remembered that we only get our Y chromosome and mtDNA from two of these ancestors. Indeed all "indigenous" British people are related to each other, as are all European peoples. The level of shared ancestry globally is remarkably high due to the recent origin of our species, the small founding population size of every population and the high levels of gene flow between populations.Alun (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

well i guess what been corrected been corrected by jan and alun i need not say more--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Chile
Chile have an important percentage of white people (around 45%). After Argentina, Uruguay and Brasil, Chile was the country that received most europeans inmigrants during 1850-1950 period. To this, we have to consider that the white spanish population was already, before that inmigration, numerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.122.122 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article
Folks, as per talk page consensus above, there was a decision not to have pictures for this article, as it leads to too much disagreement on who is and isn't considered typically white. Now, two things can happen: we can either respect the existing consensus, or ask again to see if the consensus has changed. In either case, I would ask all editors not to unilaterally reinsert pictures of "White" people until this matter is settled again. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. Images are at the commons as per consensus. The article does have a link. Alun (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus on Images
This whole 'no photos' rule is patent nonsense. The Black people article is crammed with photos, they seem to have no problem deciding who is black. We all know George Bush is white, Queen Elizabeth II is white, John Howard is white and the list goes on. How is there not already a consensus?? --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking up the talkpage here there seems to be many people asking why there are no photos, and saying photos should be included. However every one of these comments is followed by Alun saying there isn't a consensus. I'd say there is quite a clear consensus, and that is to include photos. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Prince Paul, I personally think there should be at least two images in the article. --Fercho85 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I disagree with you, and agree with Alun. If you re-read the talk page, you will also see there are many other editors who feel as we do that images shouldn't be included. Please don't assume the consensus has changed yet.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And here's some reasoning; if we include only those cases that are unambiguously white, there is the implicit assertion that no others are white; it's just too much of a tangled mess if we wade into it. SamBC(talk) 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * However, images of historical references from various works on the matter might make sense. SamBC(talk) 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * However, images of historical references (such as the drawings which appeared on the page recently) are plagued with the same problem: would putting up the picture of a German as an example imply that Turks shouldn't be considered "White"?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on context; if you're referring to them as historical examples of a particular historically-attested understanding of the term, rather than saying "these are white people". SamBC(talk) 12:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would it? You are letting social problems interfere with what should be a straightforward exercise. I know there are alot of Turks in Germany and I know the Germans don't like them there. But how having a photo of a German is in anyway denigrating to the Turks is beyond me. That's some fucked up reasoning. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be sensible enough to realize that Turks are, for the majority, "White", but if you look at the revision history of the article, you'll see that pictures of non-European Whites (such as Turks) and Muslim Whites (such as Chechens) have been removed from the article because some editors did not agree with their inclusion as "Whites". The only non-controversial pictures, we found, were those of Christian European Whites of Nordic descent (some Spanish and Italian people's pictures were also removed on the grounds of their subject being too swarthy). I guess what everyone is trying to say, is that if we want to fairly include a variety of "White" people, this will become a magnet for bigots and racists to replace some of the pictures with others they agree with. If, on the other hand we include only pictures everyone agrees with (including the bigots and the racists), then the selection will look skewed in a rather unsavory way. This is why it was decided it would be less trouble in the long run to forego all pictures of "Whites", so as to avoid these unwanted situations.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know how many white people there are in the world?? 24.160.145.53 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No pictures
In stark contrast with black people, white people has absolutely no photos of white people at all? JayKeaton (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a perfectly good gallery of white people in the commons which is linked in the see also section of this article. There has been an inordinate amount of squabbling about whether this article should or should not have any images of white people, but there is even more squabbling when someone tries to include an image, everyone has a different opinion about who should be included. In this particular article images have just led to edit wars, so the best policy has been to have the gallery at the commons. This also sorts out the problem of unfree images because the commons only contains free images. There are several threads above about this subject if you want to see the numerous discussions about this subject. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the fuss is about. There is enough room in this article for an old female, a young female, an old man, a young man and a baby. It doesn't really matter who they are just as long as it relates to the article, which is white people. Could even mix it up a little by showing one or two images of white people from history. I don't think we should let someone elses squabbles spoil the quality of this article, that's like letting the terrorists win. JayKeaton (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added one picture that I believe is certainly controversy-proof. 69.107.76.201 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL
An article discussing a color of people using only black and white photos. Very sensible. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the worst part is that this article (and it's corresponding articles) gives the impression that this is a real classification and not a product of ignorant over-simplification. The media talks about white and black people, rights activists say "white people do this...", "black people do that...", but both "blacks" and "whites" are really a huge collection of different ethnicities (which is the point so often missed).

Even the indigenous people of a single country are often a mixture of many different peoples. Are even African Americans from the same ethnic group? Were the slave traders only abducting people from one part of Africa? Do all Africans have the same culture and language?

Yes, you can eventually get the right impression by reading through the article in full, but the introduction gives the impression that this is a "real" classification. As is the case with other imaginary/derogatory/ignorant classifications (such as "nerd"), Wikipedia should be clear on whether it is talking about a popular misconception, derogatory terms (and their basis), or a real classification (for example, "nerd" is akin to the nature of racism, is based on the same irrational hatred, jealosy, and discrimination, but the article here is written as if it is a legitimate non-offensive term for a factual class of people). Likewise, dividing the world into "black" and "white" is both ignorant and racist, or at least ethnically insensitive. Are all two-legged animals "birds"? Are all four-legged animals "cats"? There are historical reasons for this error in classification, but the classification itself is unreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.210.187 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

controversy and citation in opening
To the user Ramdrake: I find it a little hard to believe that there is truly no controversy associated with the completely unsourced assertions made in the last para of the opening of this article. Simply by the nature of this topic pretty much everything on this page is probably controversial to someone somewhere. But even if we accept your claim that they are uncontroversial, what has controversy got to do with the need for citation anyway? Surely *all* statements must be cited, regardless of controversy status. For a start, how are we to know that these statements are as uncontroversial as you say without sources to back that up? --81.129.138.48 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Wikipedia policy, uncontroversial statements need not be sourced. Second, most of those statements can be easily checked, if one reads up on the subject (see Race (classification of human beings) for the explanation to most of those statements. If you wish to confirm that these statements are really uncontroversial, please read just about any introductory book 1) in anthropology and 2) in population genetics. Also, tagging every single sentence in a paragraph without an explanation is considered bad form.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in general statements like that should be sourced; just because they're in any introduction to the topic doesn't mean they're obvious to everyone. However, statements in the lead don't have to be cited if the same facts are cited later in the article, generally. Oh, and there really shouldn't be any info in the lead that isn't elsewhere in the article. SamBC(talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that quite simply, it is NPOV not to have any pictures, so I inserted one that I believe to be controversy-proof. 69.107.76.201 (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

neutrality
there is no real need for the whole article to be disputed this article seems to be very tame and not very controverial at all there is no need or do not see any valid reasons for the whole article to have that particular temp up on the page--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a little checking, and as far as I can tell the neutrality and cleanup tags were introduced into the article by Kevin Murray on the 8th of May, but there was no discussion started on the talk page regarding these tags. As far as I understand it, without a proper discussion on the talk page regarding Kevin's concerns these tags should be removed. For example Kevin states in his edit summary This article and especially the lead appear to be expressing narrow opinions of "experts" selected to represent a POV and the format is not consistent with WP standards. If Kevin believes this, then he should have started a serious discussion about the neutrality of the article, including evidence that different "experts" hold different opinions. Likewise if there are format problems. I don't think it is good practice to include these sorts of tags in articles, leave a curt edit summary that lacks detail, and then refuse to start a serious discussion explaining exactly what the concerns are on the talk page. As you say the article is quite innocuous, besides you started a talk page discussion specifically to address Kevin's concerns, to which no one (not even Kevin) has replied in eight days, I suggest that we simply remove the tags. Alun (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro definitions
The definitions in the intro may be far from perfect, but they are direct quotes from dictionaries, and are cited as such and quotation marks in the text explicitly show that these are direct quotes from a source. Whether any individual agrees with what the sources say, or whether the sources are appropriate is a different matter. These sources have been in the article lead for some time, considering they are direct quotations it seems odd that some editors feel that they need to alter them. When we quote a source we say what the source says, we cannot quote a source as saying what we want it to say, we can only quote it verbatim. Please refrain from changing quotes. Alun (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also "ethnic group" is not the same thing as race or ancestry. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should rewrite the definition without quotations so then a consensus can be reached without the fear of misquoting a source. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your position. What is your objection to the quote that refers to European ancestry? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul, the sources are not misquoted, you can check this, there are direct links to the sources used for the quotes in the footnotes section. As SLR points out ancestry is not a synonym for ethnic group, one can certainly have European ancestry without identifying as belonging to any European ethnic group (for example someone in North America may acknowledge English ancestry without identifying as belonging to the English ethnic group). Conversely one can identify as belonging to an European ethnic group without having European ancestry (for example many people of Indian, Pakistani or West Indian ancestry in the UK identify as British, or even Welsh, English or Scottish). We should avoid Easter egg links, see Piped_link. Alun (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies I should have been more clear. What I mean is, we should not use quotations in the lead to an article. It seems to give the feel that Wikipedia is not competent enough to write her own lead. What is so hard about simply saying "White people are a racial group characterized by their light skin, of European origin"? That is simple, straightforward, and I fail to see how it can be debated. Looking through the talk and merely observing the page and how it fails to progress it is evident it has largely been hijacked by a few editors of similar ideologies and beliefs who consistently tagteam against editors who wish to change the article. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well firstly they are not necessarily of "European origin", though this is one way of thinking of "white" people, it is not the only way. Indeed the current quotes don't actually say this do they? They say that "white" people have light coloured skin and that the term especially refers to Europeans, but especially is not the same as exclusively. On the other hand I have no problem with paraphrasing the quotes that we do have and removing the direct quotes, but we cannot say that "white" people are only from Europe, the article specifically shows that "white" is not a constant, either geographically or historically. The rest of your comments seem simply to be ad hominem attacks on editors who not agree with you. Alun (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Racial group"
In the lead User:Ramdrake changed "an ostensible racial group of human beings" to "a racial group of human beings" with the edit summary "Removed word which had no business there". I was the person who originally inserted the word, and I quite disagree.

Besides the fact that present-day anthropologists largely reject racial classification of human beings, the term "white" at different times and places has included or excluded the Irish, the Gypsies, the Jews (sometimes including the Ashkenazim and excluding others), most Middle Easterners (sometimes including Levantines and excluding North Africans) and Southwest Asians, the Finns, the Sami, the Southern Italians, and the Slavs (I'm sure I've left something out). Even granting the racial theory, the word pretty clearly cannot refer to a particular race. Hence "ostensible"; I'd be hesitant ever to refer to a "racial group of human beings" without adding a qualification like that.

What is the basis for "had no business there"? - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry,but it is not sometimes and in some places: all that information you have provided refers to the US. When you and other people like you begin to understand that the US is not the world but just an ex-European colony full of wannabes, then these types of comments will end up where they belong: in US social perceptions, the ideas of a bunch of ignorants, who happen to be one of the most mixed population in the world but who happen to think that they are white and others not. If black Americans were the elite in the US I would not be surprised to find comments stating that the Angolans are not black but the Americans are. Most people do not care about the opinions of ignorant Americans in an article that is not about Americans and their poor and sad racial complexes, although you do not have to be one of them to talk like them. If tha is the case, watch out and do not be infected with their stupidity. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding your soapbox rant completely. The U.S. does not state that it is a white country and no one else is white. The U.S. Census bureau includes many groups within the white/caucasian category such as people from Europe, the Middle East, parts of North Africa, and even parts of India.  But that is just one definition. Other definitions in the world exist as to what constitutes "white". Kman543210 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume the "rant" remark is aimed at the anonymous contributor, not at me.
 * FWIW, I'm pretty certain that the racial status of Slavs and especially of Jews and Gypsies (Roma) are historically much more contentious in Europe than in the U.S. I don't think I was particularly U.S.-centric in my examples. And the issue of Southern Italians is certainly a current issue in Italy, what with the Lega Nord's attitude that "Africa begins at Rome".
 * I stand by my statement that pretty much any racial grouping should be qualified by a word like "ostensible". I don't see anything in the anonymous remark to indicate otherwise. I assume that this anonymous remark did not come from User:Ramdrake, who I was addressing: he writes English well & knows how to punctuate. I had left a note on his user talk page right after making my remarks here, so I certainly hope to hear from him. - Jmabel | Talk 21:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exchange copied from User talk:Ramdrake


 * Sorry, I thought I already answered. In my book, "ostensible" has a meaning of for show, which is different than the meaning you seem to assign to it (and which is why I found it incomprehensible initially). Maybe then an alternate epithet would work?--Ramdrake (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is one of this meanings, but here I intended it in its other meaning, which the Merriam-Webster gives as "being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real " which seems to me to be precisely correct. Can you suggest another word? - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

End copied exchange


 * May I suggest something along the lines of "variably-defined", or somesuch. In my background, I was always taught that if one uses a term which can have two different meanings, one always ran the risk of someone interpreting the word as having the other meaning, thereby causing confusion (such as the one I fell prey to). This is why I would suggest wording which can only have one meaning. Sorry if this is a compound expression, but that's the closest I could come to your intended meaning. Please don't take this the wrong way.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good thought. I'll turn that to "variously defined" to avoid the hyphen. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree 110% with this. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

About he soapbox rant comment, sorry but American views on this subject just look like that, they are soapbox rants by definition, like Jmabel, speaking of Jews and Slaves in Nazi Germany, who never used white versus non white, by the way, in these cases. People here continue introducing real soapbox rants like the Lega Nord now etc, naming all types of marginal and extremist organizations made up of border line people. This is ostensibly an article by imbeciles and I would bet full of personal issues, so I am out of this stinky place. Good luck with your stupidity disguised as intellectual discussion. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.105.211 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Argentina's Amerindian Admixture
Can someone tell me what is wrong with these sourced edits?..."while up to 56% have Amerindian ancestors, and some posses Afro-Argentine ancestry. "

These are deleted every single time by User:Fercho85. He seems to have fun deleting many sourced edits from a great many articles. Does anyone else agree that these should be added into the article about White Argentines? The Population in the Argentines is not wholly European, as some would have you believe and studies and censuses in Argentina itslef (University of buenos Aires) say so.Cali567 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm

http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html

There are many studies, often contradictory, about Argentina and about the US etc. Either they are all there or none. The man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.52.43 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi... I'm from Argentina. The link you cite is from a very controversial study that was conducted on only 322 people, mostly from northern provinces (which are sparsely populated in comparison to the rest of country), thus the study not only used a very small sample, but failed to take population distribution into account. More serious studies put admixture at around 10-15% of the population, like this one from UNAM which puts admixture at 11% of the population. . All in all, it's a very controversial topic that doesn't belong in this article, which deals with *social* and *cultural* definitions of "whiteness". That was the consensus if you take a look at the archive. --201.253.67.83 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above anon poster (201.253.67.83) that usually these studies take into account very small sample sizes, and sometimes from only one area. Statistically, a few hundred out of millions is not a good sample size. Usually these cited tests only measure either the mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA from the mother) or the Y-DNA (from the father) and only measure one single line out of thousands of recent ancestors.  One person could have had one Amerindian great, great....grandmother down the maternal line, but for all intents and purposes, that person would be predominantly of European ancestry.  These DNA tests can be very misleading if not put into proper context. Kman543210 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i am in agreence with the ip and kman about the study,and this article is about white people not there possible admixture of non caucasian ancestry there seems to be no reason to add such studies and serves no purpose, also there are studies that cite that about 30 percent of white united states americans having non caucasian admixture but nobody seem to interested in that, but there is this peculiar intrest in argentina exact background,i think in the case of this article all that matters is the census and what the people there identify themselfs as and the percentage of argentines who identify themselves as white is over welming in the 90's percentile. argentina is known for being the europe of south america--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about identity and not ancestry. Identity is not about whether someone has x% ancestry for one group or another, it's about how people self identify irrespective of ancestry. If we are going to claim that a great many self identified "white" Argentinians have European and/or Near Eastern ancestry, well that's fine, but it does not preclude native American ancestry either. The section about Argentina is itself contradictory, it claims, without any sources, that "White Argentines are mainly descendants of immigrants who came from Europe in the late 19th century." but then goes on to say "Censuses are conducted on the basis of self-identification.", so anyone can self identify as a "white" Argentinian in the census. If we need to discuss ancestry at all (which I personally doubt) then at least have some reliable sources that say specifically that "white" Argentinians are descended from Europeans, or is the truth that in reality "white" Argentinians believe that they are descended from Europeans? Indeed the fact is that "white" Argentinians can be descended from Europeans and indigenous native Americans, just because one is descended from Europeans, it does not indicate exclusive descent from Europeans. After all the overwhelming majority of African Americans in the USA are descended from Europeans, but it does not mean they necessarily identify as "white". Identity is not the same as ancestry, very few people know their ow ancestry more than two or three generations back in time, so what we believe about our ancestry and how it affects out identity is more important that the "facts" that we do not know about our actual ancestors. Alun (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientific studies that deal with genetics serve no puropse, since when? The introduction to this article includes criticism about the broad classification of white used by contemporary demographic surveys. The inclusion of the study reinforces that critique. The IP identified user is also wrong by saying that the study was done on just 322 people in the northern provinces but rather over 12,000 individuals spread across Argentina. Removing the sourced content is only diminishing the value of reasearch that was done. CenterofGravity (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with CenterofGravity, if we are going to make bold claims about ancestry then we need to include all points of view from reliable sources. Persoanlly I'd prefer to stick to self identity rather than drag ancestry into it, but when claims of ancestry are in it we need all points of view. If the current section about Argentina only gives a single point of view about ancestry, and a different point of view exists, then we need to include that different point of view as well, that's how we ahceive neutrality. Is there some sort of controversy in Argentina about the extent of indigenous American ancestry to Argentinians? If so could someone find a source that discusses this controversy? Then we could include the controversy int he section in the article. Thanks. Alun (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * this is an idenity article demographics is what counts here not genetic background,the only thing i would suggest is that in the begining paragraph we add that many white popluations have non caucasian ancestry some how--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Demography has got nothing to do with identity, demography is the study of populations in a non-biological sense. If the article is about identity and not ancestry, then we should remove most of the section about Argentina because it currently states White Argentines are mainly descendants of immigrants who came from Europe in the late 19th century. Most of these immigrants came from Spain and Italy, as well as France, the United Kingdom and people from other European countries, among them European Jews. Others counted among the White population of Argentina came from countries of the Middle East, primarily Lebanon and Syria. We cannot make this claim about ancestry if we are talking about identity. One's ancestors are a biological and genetic fact, one's identity is a question of culture. You can't have it both ways, either you include the references to "white" Argentinians being the descendants of Europeans and include the genetics section, or you don't include either. One solution would be to say that "white" Argentinians believe they are the descendants of Europeans. But anyway it doesn't cut the mustard, just because someone is the descendant of an European, it does not mean that they are not also the descendant of a non-European and it does not necessarily make them "white". If "white" Argentinians are defined only as the descendants of Europeans and Near Eastern people, then anyone with only a single ancestor from these places can be "white", even if this ancestor was a single great-great-great-grandparent, for example. Saying that "White Argentines are mainly descendants of immigrants who came from Europe in the late 19th century." tells us precisely nothing about "white" Argentinians. Alun (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the section on Argentina offers little to no encyclopedic value on the subject and omits any kind of interdisciplinarity study while the unsourced census lacks any kind of social definition. CenterofGravity (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN, the Corach study was deeply flawed, as it was conducted on 322 subjects and did NOT take even population distribution into account.


 * I quote, from the original study :

"Using this criteria the laboratory from the Service of Digital Fingerprints of the Faculty of Farmacy and Biochesmistry of the University of Buenos Aires selected at random some 320 biological samples from a total of 12,000 from male unrelated individuals from nine Argentine provinces" This means only 320 samples were analized from only 9 Argentine provinces. There are 24 provinces in the country.


 * Then, the article states:

"samples were grouped in three regions: Northeast (Salta, Formosa, Misiones, Corrientes, Chaco, Santa Fe y Entre Ríos) number of individuals (N) =102, Southwest (Chubut y Río Negro) N=100, and Center (Buenos Aires, Santa Fe y Mendoza) N=120."

Now, if you are familiar with Argentine demographics, you would know that the distribution of the population is extremely uneven; 60% of the population lives in three provinces of the Central area alone (Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba), and the rest of the country is sparsely populated in comparison. For this reason the study is flawed, as it fails to acknowledge this population distribution and gives equal importance to the north of the country (which does have a significant amerindian ancestry) as to the center. Likewise, it's very suspicious that the second most populated province in the country (Cordoba, 3 million people) was not even included in the study, neither was Tucuman, the most populated province of the northern area (900k people).

I really don't understand why we need to bring this sort of controversies to articles that deal with social and not genetic definitions. First of all, having an Amerindian chromosome does not automatically make someone non-white, 30% of white Americans have African or Native admixture but nobody is raising eyebrows about that. This is because the Amerindian contribution, in these cases, is too low to be noticeable, thus allowing people with little admixture to identify themselves as white, because for all intents and purposes, they look white!

Secondly, the majority of studies give Argentina an admixture of 10-20%, not the ludicrous percentage on the Corach study. . This correlates perfectly with Argentine history, as the country was the second-largest recipient of immigrants in the Americas after the United States, in absolute numbers, and suffered a population jump from 2.4 million in 1880 to 11.8 million in 1930 and 20.7 million in 1960 at the end of the migratory wave, meaning the population of the country multiplied by a factor of 10 in 80 years mostly due to this European immigration. You will see that Cali567, the user that started this controversy, has been trying to include this Corach study in every article that deals with Argentine demographics while ignoring the countless others that contradict it. Just looking at his edits its obvious that this user seems to have an agenda or some sort of grudge against the country, he has spent the last weeks getting into constant disputes with argentine users for making disruptive edits. I don't want to be offensive, but people like him are one of the reasons I originally left wikipedia and closed my account.

All the article says is that "White Argentines are mainly descendants of immigrants who came from Europe in the late 19th century.", which is true. Nobody is adding genetic studies about the admixture of white Americans, the admixture of white Brazilians, Uruguayans or New Zealanders, even when some of these countries probably have an equal or higher level of admixture, so why single out Argentina?

I will try to edit the article to make it as neutral as possible and include different census definitions, but it's frustrating to see how a disruptive user relying on only one unrelated link cause such a ripple effect on the site. --201.252.75.196 (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * here read this article from national geographic about argentina it may shed some light and demographics on a census does have something to do with idenity who do you thinks fills out the census the government(no) the people, if they were not white why would they be identifying as white that does tell us about idenity

--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and i am against adding any thing about admixture to any single white population unless there is a nuetral statement stateing that all white populations may have non white admixture--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Argentine 2001 national census
For the editor that included the source to the census, may you please indicate which page or section the claim that 95% of Argentines self-identify as being white is made.
 * http://www.indec.mecon.ar/webcenso/index.asp CenterofGravity (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is ONE opinion for no image
Every other editor wants an image. A consensus has clearly been reached. Therefore, it is included. EgraS (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see no consensus to have this image. Indeed your statement is bizarre, there are three editors against an image and two in favour in the section you post to, yet you claim that there is consensus for an image and only a single editor against. Take a look Ramdrake and PaulBC dissent from having an image, and Paul and Fercho want an image, if you include my dissent as well, it means a majority against an image. The problem has always been that there has never been a consensus to have any specific image. Indeed it always gets to the point where every little group wants to include an image of someone from their region. Having a gallery didn't help this situation. So it was decided to have a gallery over at the commons. Not only are you incorrect to claim that only one editor disagrees with you, you are incorrect that there is a consensus for an image, a consensus is not the same as a slim majority. I suggest that if you want to seek a consensus then the place to start is with making some suggestions for images to be included, at least we need two images, one of a man and one of a woman. Preferably this should not be a "beauty contest", we are not only looking for "attractive young people", neither should we include famous people. On problem is that no image can reflect what a "white person" looks like, because the term "white person" is subjective and has different meanings depending upon context. The point is this though, if you want to get consensus around an image or two, then post the image here and ask people to comment upon it's acceptability. If there is a clear majority for an image then we can post it on the article page. If you provide several examples of appropriate images, then people are at liberty to discuss the relative pros and cons of any given image. I warn you though, this has in the past been a very difficult process. I have no problem with opening it up again, hopefully it'll be easier this time, but let's do it properly. There is no consensus for the image you included in the article, let's see if we can get some consensus for an image before including it in the article shall we? Alun (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That image clearly illustrated features of the white race such as light skin color so clearly written in the article. It is irritating that there are many pictures for every other race, but not white people. EgraS (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? For a start I don't know what "features" are associated with the white "race", this article deliberately avoids typological observations. Light skin may something white people always have, but there are also many peoples who have light skin colour who may not be considered "white" under certain circumstances. This article is not about a typographic classification, and who is or is not considered white is socially constructed, with different societies having different norms for identifying "white people". Besides the bloke is wearing sunglasses, so you can't even see his eyes. How is that clearly illustrating these features? Furthermore you claim above that there is a consensus in favour of the inclusion of an image, something I see no evidence of. Now you are not even making this claim. As far as I can see you just want to spread the image of this pretty boy around as many articles as possible with little justification. I assume you are also 69.107.76.201 from Texas? Alun (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that picture was especially good because it doesnt show eye color. Almost all white people do have white skin, but not all white people have the stereotypical blue/green eyes. Also, your reasoning doesnt appear to make sense. Non-white may have white skin, but that doesn't mean you can't include a picture because it depicts white skin. For example, would you take away photos from the Raccoon article because animals other than raccoons have fur? EgraS (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the picture is good because it shows the typical features of a "white" person, while it's also good because it masks a good portion of the person's face? You don't even attempt to address what these typical features are. The torso is not displayed, only the head, and even then the sunglasses obscure a great portion of the face, not just the eyes. Essentially you are saying "this person is white because he has light coloured skin". Well we could include pictures of a lot of people who would not be considered "white" under certain circumstances even though they too have light coloured skin and even though they have a significant degree of European ancestry. You also claim that masking his eyes is good because we don't want to show blue eye colour as a "white" trait, but one could argue the same for his hair colour, the majority of European people do not have blond hair, and yet we have a picture of someone with blond hair. Why the sensitivity about eye colour but not an equal sensitivity about hair colour? Besides the issue is one of consensus. Let's get consensus for a specific photograph (or possibly two, a man and a woman) and then include them. Whiteness is a social construction, and it is not a universal monolith, different societies have different concepts of how a "white" person is identified. Take a look at the older version of the article when it contained a gallery here for some ideas. Alun (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn't anywhere state that we shouldn't include a picture of a person with light coloured skin "because it depicts white skin". What I said was that many people who do have light coloured skin, who also have a significant degree of European ancestry (indeed a majority of European ancestry in some cases) would not be considered "white" in many societies. This is not the same thing. This is part of the problem though, what are the criteria for considering someone "white"? So far you seem to be saying that it's only light skin colour, but you also freely admit that many people with light skin colour are often not considered "white". So what are the additional criteria for being "white"? Are they universal across different societies and cultures? Can you provide evidence that they are? I think the article currently shows clearly that different societies and cultures have very different ideas about the criteria for identifying a "white person". No single individual picture can meet all of these criteria. In the past this has lead to the inclusion of a gallery, but this gallery in and of itself became a very contentious issue. The problems we had before were not about the inclusion or otherwise of pictures, so much as the difficulty in agreeing what pictures are representative of a "white person". In many ways it's a shame because there are images in the Black people article that have a consensus, but it's been more difficult here. Besides we do actually have a gallery at the commons so it's a really easy matter for any visitor to this article to go to the commons and view these images. Alun (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

the opposition to having images in this article is ridiculous, and frankly disruptive. The Black people article has eight or nine images, no problem. The Asian people has an image of Tuvans for some reason. Why not. It could also have a bunch of image of other groups. This hysterical fear of showing images of "whites" is irrational. Yes, there is a link to commons:White people. Then what the hell prevents us from selecting a few good images from that category like we would for every other article on Wikipedia? I am sorry, but if this strange refusal to treat this article on the same footing as others, I will have to insist to tag it with NPOV until a reasonable selection of images is possible without all these bizarre obstruction tactics. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion or otherwise of images is not a POV issue. How is the Asian people similar to the white people article? Asian people are from Asia, it's a geographically defined region and not a "race", there is no geographically defined "white" region. Wikipedia is full of systemic bias, take a look at Human and see how many images of "white people" are there compared to images of people from other groups. Looking there one would come to the conclusion that about 90% of all Humans are "white" and that all art, culture and science is produced by this "white" group. It's absurd to claim that this hugely overrepresented group on Wikipedia somehow lacks enough images. The term "white" is very problematic, I don't personally have a problem with having images, I'd like to see images in this article just as there are images on the Black people article, but no one wants to start a serious discussion regarding which images should be included in the article, and when images are discussed there is always some bias in favour of blond, blue eyed Europeans (surprise surprise), as if they are the only "white people", and it has become something of a "beauty contest" in the past. I don't have a problem with a gallery as long as there is plenty of variation, including people from the near East, north African and south and central Asia, as well as Europeans, white has a lot of different meanings depending on context. If you've ever seen the Axis of Evil Comedy Tour you'll know that Maz Jobrani, an Iranian, describes himself to the audience as as "white like you", implying that he does not consider his Arab colleagues (Ahmed Ahmed, Aron Kader, Dean Obeidallah) "white" (Iranian = Aryan = white, you see), but of course Arab people would be considered "white" if "Caucasian" is considered a synonym for "white". It's so contextualised that it's hard to get a handle on. Therefore the only way to make a gallery work is to use the most inclusivist concept of "white" we can find. Even then I don't think it'll be very easy, but I'm prepared to give it a shot. Alun (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose an inclusive gallery such as Alun is suggesting either; however, I would be very concerned that it would become a magnet for drive-by trolls and racists. This is the very reason that first brought us to the conclusion that it was better off not to have images in the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Two options spring to mind, either a gallery or a collage of images as seen in some articles. One way to start the process is to have a sort of "nominating" period, where editors can nominate pictures for inclusion in the article. Then we close the nominating process, decide how many pictures we want to include, and have a vote, with the top pictures being included in the article. We may have to have some sort of handicapping system, in order to ensure a good heterogeneous and inclusive set of images, for example putting a cap on the proportion of images representing any given "phenotype", so we don't end up with 20 or so images all showing an idealised blond blue eyed northern European, but that shouldn't be a problem. Here's some random pics, please add, remove or discuss. Alun (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems very odd to have 3 Jews (all secular), two Arabs, and no non-Jewish Central Europeans. And are the Sami at all widely considered "white"? I thought the aboriginal circumpolar peoples were generally not so considered. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i think so far this collage is fantastic it has a great regional diversity of white people--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the remarks about blondness above: certainly there should be at least one clearly blond person (yes, most white people are not blond, but equally clearly blonds are pretty much necessarily white) and at least one redhead (possibly a Circassian?). - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * the prez of finland is redhead--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not that it is important in this case, but there is a significant population of blonde people among the Australian Aborigenes (western Australia).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to start the polemic from scrach, are there credible sources for each one of these individuals that they are perceived as white in some context (namely their's). Is king Mohammed VI of Morocco seen as white in Morocco (I believe his father's mother was caled "the black one" in the country, by the way)? Does that category even has any pertinence there? I wonder. The Ogre (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article definitely needs pictures so a no to the removal from me. --Zero g (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We should include Papa Doc Duvalier - he had at least one drop of white blood. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

to avoid further delays in adding pictures to this article, just add a new picture there are enough white people in the world ,so do to the justified concerns raised by an editor and do to the constant fillibuster mode of some other editors which shall remain nameless, i just added a new picture of somebody else from the north african region,now lets just add the collage to the freaking article and see if it flys this is no longer waiting for a consenus it has become a fillibuster i have been patient with this weighted in from time to time but this is out of hand now--Wikiscribe (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i am seeking a consenus to add an indian to the gallery being they can be classified as white also, and the removal of a european maybe either the prez of finland or the sami women being they are 2 northern europeans

i would like to add indian actress Aishwarya Rai--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aishwarya's parents do not look white.Dark Tea &#169;  22:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What does the fact that you personally believe they do not "look white" have to do with it? I don't know what it means to "look white". Whiteness is a social construct, and sometimes it is a legal status, but it means very different things in different contexts. As Wikiscribe points out some legal concepts of "white" include people from the Indian subcontinent as "white". We have decided to have the most liberal interpretation of "white" that we can for the gallery, and we can show that under the US census at certain points in history people from subcontinental India were considered "white". I'm not personally sure what or who constitutes "white" or a "white person", and I suspect that the gallery, or indeed any image is really a red herring, but we decided to give it a go as there was quite a lot of complaint that there were no images at all in the article. I'll support the inclusion of Aishwarya Rai. Alun (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i support her inclusion also of course but did not want to force the issue if i no other editor came along and supported it--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

well i guess with that picture there would never be a consenus--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The gallery is missing someone from South America. CenterofGravity (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And from the Caribbean. I will add Papa Doc Duvalier  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sami woman is considered white because Samis are an indigenious people but they inhabit the far north of the Scandanavian Countries