Talk:White people/Archive 22

Protect?
Protection might be a good idea for this article. It seems to be vandalized often. Invinciblechampion (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least semi-protect? Alun (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked and it is not yet at levels that require that, in my opinion. Several of the recent are from a single IP, so if problems persist than a block is more egalitarian than stomping on all of our innocent IP brothers and sisters. -  brenneman  12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We would need to know that the IP is not from a public place ... can you investigate that? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's best not to semi-protect. Alun (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP,, traces to Iinet, an Australian internet provider. As for the protection, I have no opinion on the content of this article, but agree that semi-protection seems more than is necessary right now.  Let's lift protection, and then if one specific IP keeps edit-warring, we'll simply block that IP. --Elonka 18:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that this page as well as another were vandalised repeatedly yesterday by IP 209.250.179.214 and I don't really know how to go about reporting this person. Personally I feel that this seems to be a rather significant as well as significantly vandalised page, enough so that some sort of protection seems warranted. :-) --Marshmellis (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Marshmellis that this page needs spme protection, it is far more than one or two IP addresses, and the fact that this page is listed on the Most vandalised pages page is surely enough to justify it. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

White people and humor
Isn't it true that white people have given the gift of humor to the world, that of taking themselves as a joke? I have noticed that white people act in an exaggerated fashion all the time, like they are mocking themselves. I used to just think this was the way white people were, but then I began to think that they were making fun of themselves and that it was sort of an inside joke.

Either way, I think it is important to note on the page something about how white people generally act silly, sometimes ambiguously through sarcastic humor, and sometimes in a merely self-pitying, self-deprecating fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica
I erased Costa Rican section because there is no certain facts of these percentages, the only certain numbers is that 94% are white or mestizo, just like Chilean facts. The recent Costa Rican census only indetifies minorities like black, amerindian or chinese groups, that together make a 6% of the population, and the other 94% fit in the "other" category. Therefore Costa Rica should not be considered as a white majority country, based in these facts and in the perception of anyone who had been there.--Mlnte (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the section because it gives sourced information relevant to the article. As there is no true, absolute definition of white. The section does say that mestizos and whites form 94% of the population. Let's leave it at that and not remove otherwise pertinent information based solely on individual perception of "how white" its inhabitants are.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this section does make clear that 94% of Costa Rican population are either white or castizo, not white or mestizo that is the real fact. And in other sentence assumes that 82% of this 94% are white, and that is the point of discrepancy. The primary source of the CIA World Factbook and other sources are based on Costa Rican National Census, and this Census does not make this assumption. So I´m asking your permission for making this changes to make the article more fiable, specificly to erase that 82% white majority, there is no certain proof of that.--Mlnte (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't have a problem with this revision as it seems the 82% isn't sourced anyway.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

2 MDs from Newcastle
They state that the term white in practice, refers to people of European origin with pale complexions". This statement is totally incorrect for any usage I have ever heard in the US. I can think of no situation where dark complected Greeks, Cypriots, Lebanese, Italians, Spaniards, or Germans would be considered non-white. The black Irish are white in the US if not in Newcastle.Nitpyck (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies to the doctors- what they actually say in the referenced paper is "White is effectively a category for everyone left out of specific racial and ethnic groups." "The US define a white person as a person having origins in any of the original people of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. Until recently persons from India were considered White in the US Census."

the actual gist of the paper is that white is a fairly useless category for medical studies since it includes too many different types to be useful. That is this group is not sufficiently heterogeneous to use for purposes of epidemiology and health research. Since this is the opposite of what is claimed in the article, and they're not presently at Newcastle I have edited the section. Nitpyck (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

History White Lebanon
Based on what I read in Wikipedia, The Middle East was once considered part of southeast Europe, and later it was put in southwest Asia. I don't know why any of these things were done but I am just telling you what I read. Lebanon was Phonenicia, a Phoenician named Fenusius Farsa brought the Ogham language to Ireland. Ogham is the Gaelic language. Tara is in Ireland and it was a Phoencian colony. Maybe that's why the Irish aren't considered white? The Phoencians took tin from Britain and copper from Cyprus and turned it into bronze. They sold the bronze to the Greeks. Maybe that's why the British aren't considered white? Christopher Columbus was from Genoa, Italy. Genoa and Sicily were Phoencian colonies. Maybe that's why the Italians aren't considered white? Raymond of Toulusee came to Lebanon from France in the 1100s during the First Crusade. The French crusaders controlled Lebanon until the 1200s. The French took the Lebanonese Christians to Cyrpus during the crusades. The French and the Lebanese Christians fought against the Muslims in Cyrpus so that they the Muslims wouldn't use Cyrpus as a lauchning point to invade and conquer Europe. They did their part to protect Europe. Some of the Christians in Cyrpus today trace their roots back to Raymond of Toulousse and the Lebanese Christians in the crusades. Raymond is a very popular name in Lebanese Christian circles. France is very popular in Lebanese cricles. Now you know why? The majority of the Christians in Lebanon today trace their roots back to the Crusades and Raymond of Toulousse. The Germans came to the Middle East in the 4th Crusade. However, remember to the Europeans the local Christians in Lebanon were heathens and had to be reeducated. The majority of the people who call themselves Arab Americans in America are Lebanese Christians and trace their roots back to the crusades. I think this is why they write white on the US census. Anyway, hopefully all my information is correct, i got it from Wikipedia, sorry about the mispellings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.227.46 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese in Australia, Caucasoid versus "White":
Why is it that Australia is probably the only country in the Western World where Lebanese have a "stigma" status attached to them? Australia still has a Nordicist view of what "white" is and socialy the term is restricted to Anglo-Celtic, Germanic, Nordic and other kindred people of similar phenotype. Southern Europeans are often referred to as "Wogs" which indicates to a degree that they are not seen as being "white" on the same level as Northern Europeans.

Here is an image of the Australian far-right politician James (Jim) Saleam: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/02/02/PM_australia_wideweb__470x278,0.jpg

Saleam is said to be born to an Anglo-Celtic mother and a Lebanese father (others say Turkish). Aesthetically he looks "white" (i.e. fair skinned, blue eyes, Caucasoid features and brown hair which turned grey) and in anyone's language he is still fully Caucasian. However, both left and right wingers have criticised him for being an advocate of white nationalism due to his part Lebanese ancestry. To those of you push the POV that Middle Easterners are equally white as Swedes, why is it that Saleam's Lebanese ancestry is something that has not been dismissed and ignored and he is criticised for his political beliefs because of his background? I surmise that Australian society's restricted identification of "white" has something to do with it. Interesting considering that Lebanese are classed as "white" in U.S., South American cencuses and were accepted as white in South Africa during Apartheid.
 * While that’s an interesting question you ask (and, personally, I’d be interested in learning more about it and discussing it), I would like to direct you to this message at the top of the page:
 * Unfortunately, it seems you have come to the wrong place with your question. So unless you are discussing a change to the article, your comment will have to be deleted. Also, please remember to sign your comment with four tildes (~) -- Irn (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My point of this statement is that there have been people deleting sections of the article about the restricted definitions of the term "white". Non-European Caucasoids and Southern Europeans are not always socially percieved as white.
 * The article already says this though doesn't it? The very second sentence states "It often refers narrowly to people claiming ancestry exclusively from Europe." So why pretend that the article doesn't say it? Alun (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and it also says "According to John Tehranian, among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Irish, Germans, Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Hispanics, Slavs, and Greeks.", which covers the European groups that have sometimes not been considered white. Ont he whole the article does cover a great many different points of view regarding where and when different groups have been included or excluded from the category. It's certainly not clear cut or anything like universally accepted which groups the term actually applies to. Alun (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SOUTHEAST ASIA
South-East Asians are neither Caucasoid, Aryan or Indo-European. Why are they listed as white in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.196.39 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I agree with you, the citations mention south Asia but not south east Asia. It's true that people from the Indian subcontinent are often classified as Caucasian, but our cites don't mention south east Asia. It's missleading because it looks like the citations support this claim, but they don't seem to.Alun (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Footnote
The term "white race" or "white people" entered dictionaries of the major European languages in the 1600s.[6] Unless there is a good reference this needs to modified. English (a major European language) didn't even have dictionaries in the 17th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to sources from the dictionary article, what you wrote isn't true; English had dictionaries in 1600s. -- Irn (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "ends with a list of 8000 "hard words". Mulcaster does not define any of them." This 1- hardly constitutes a dictionary and 2- would not have included white race or white people. The cite should be to the first dictionary to include and define white people or white race. In fact the footnote [6] has nothing to do with dictionaries.Nitpyck (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
In the second paragraph under "Origins of Light Skin", these two statements appear:

"This probably explains the greater variety of skin color found outside sub-Saharan Africa.[28]" "Though African populations are relatively dark, according to a recent study[citation needed] they possess a greater diversity in skin complexion than all other populations."

These appear to be a direct contradiction. The second statement has no citation, so perhaps it is unfounded, but it may just be sloppy editing. Be that as it may, both statements cannot be true; if they are conflicting views supported by different academic authorities, that should be stated. However, I don't feel I know enough about the subject to edit, so if someone who knows about this can clarify the situation it would be helpful.

CattOfTheGarage (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitler
Why dont you guys add Hitler to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.47.3 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
One early use of the term appears in the Amherst Papyri, which were scrolls written in ancient Ptolemaic Greek. It contained the use of black and white in reference to human skin color.[4] The cited reference says exactly the opposite. Nitpyck (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Washed-out photograph, Werner Heisenburg
Why on earth did find it necessary to remove the photograph of Bar Refaeli and add a washed-out image of an apparently non-notable unidentified person, File:Blonde girl from Poland.jpg, to this article, with the explanation "Did not feel Israeli model represented the European ethnicity, replaced with a Slavic model." ? May I be forgiven for inferring that concerns over both correct exposure and notability have been subordinated to an Antisemitic agenda? By any reasonable anthropological criteria, Bar Refaeli is obviously white. I particularly note her blue eyes, light complexion, freckles, and Caucasian facial features; see this image from her website for further evidence. Indeed, if her name were "Jane Smith" from Fargo, North Dakota, USA, instead of "Bar Refaeli", from Hod HaSharon, Israel, I doubt we would be having this discussion. Since this is Wikipedia, not Führerpedia, the wacky "the Jews are not white" theory promoted by Adolph Hitler and contemporary neo-Nazi activists has no place here. Furthermore, the fact that Werner Heisenberg was criticized as a "White Jew" by proponents of "Deutsche Physik" due to his support for the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics very much does "belong with main discussion", despite Arjacent's contention to the contrary. This article is describing "whiteness" as a sociological concept, not just as a genetic phenomenon. That Heisenberg's "whiteness" was impugned by elements of the German physics community due to a professional disagreement, with support from the SS, is a compelling example of some of the bizarre ways in which "whiteness" has been socially constructed, particularly by societies that were obsessed with race. Erik9 (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, to editors worried about ridding this article of photographs of anyone "Jewish", you're going to have to remove File:John Key National Party2.jpg too: see John_Key... Erik9 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ARJACENT VS ERIK9 DEBATE ON WHETHER BAR IS WHITE

According to the definition of white race, found on Wikipedia, the term refers to people of primarly European ancestry. Bar Rfaeli, being from an Asian country, does not meet this criteria. John Key, being an Ashkenazi Jew, may and you will note that no attempt was made to remove his picture. The 'may' part is dicussed below.

From both a sociological and genetic point of view, "white people" most commonly refers to people of European descent and not merely those with white pigmentation. For if it did, the defintion would be too general to be of any use. Afterall, some oriental, Semitic, and African people share similar phenotypes such as fair skin and light eyes and would likewise have a claim. Common experience should also tell you that Europeans differ in appearance (height, complexion, etc) and culture (language, food, etc) from other fair skinned peoples, and there is genetic evidence that suggests they are unique. I invite you to read on haplogroups and other indicators of race at the genetic level, here are some links to get you started: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_groups http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf Broadly speaking, R1 at sufficient frequency is an indicator of who is ethnically European, and not the geographical borders.

Next, even if we went under the assumption that Israeli people were white they would represent less than 2% of the white population. Why would such a small fraction be represented so disproportionately, if at all? They would be a poor indicator of what white people and white culture is, by numbers alone and by their proximity to other semitic cultures. This brings me to the topic of Ashkenazi Jews. Because they are a mixture of european and semitic people, they are unique from whites in that they posses a J haplogroup (see links above). Likewise, a lot of them choose to adopt Jewish culture and identify themselves as being Jewish. However, there are others that chose to adopt european culture and physically resemble whites. For these reasons, whether Ashkenazi Jews are regarded as being white varies across individuals and is open to debate. Had John Key been removed your appeal would be warranted.

I feel the picture I chose is appropriate because only Western Europeans (R1b) appeared on the page. The Polish model represents Eastern Europeans (R1a) and the blonde/blue eye phenotype common to northern whites. Both of these groups are a more accurate descrption of what is generally meant by white people. To me, an Israeli model seems to be more of a political attempt at correctness than of exatcness. What is more absurd is claiming she is more notable. Putting aside the fact that notability has no bearing whatsoever when dicussing a general topic like 'white people', by what criteria is she "more notable". Because she has a website and a name? I personally never heard of her and only noticed her because of a picture that I suspected was in the wrong place.

Lastly, on a personal note, I find your charges of implied racism and neo-nazism most offensive. I would appretiate it if you tone down such remarks.

.... Regarding Deutsche Physik, I also feel it diverges from the main topic. It is not an example of "social whiteness" but rather one of "Jewish hate", and as such more approriately belongs to a thread on antisemitism. At the very most, it deserves a mention via external link. For these reasons I am reverting the picture I had chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjacent (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument regarding Y-DNA haplogroups is rather circular: you're claiming that those people who you define, a priori, as white have certain genetic characteristics, and that these characteristics indicate their whiteness. Furthermore, the claim that "Bar Rfaeli, being from an Asian country", cannot be white, is preposterous: one might as well claim that South Africans whose ancestors were British and Dutch immigrants cannot be white, because South Africa is an African country. Of course, somewhat like South Africa, the Jewish population of Israel is racially heterogeneous: it includes Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated from Europe, Sephardic Jews of Middle Eastern descent, and Ethiopian Jews of African ancestry. One can therefore draw no conclusions whatsoever about the race of a Jewish citizen of Israel solely as a result of their religious and/or cultural identity, and their nation of residence. As explained above, Bar Refaeli quite clearly appears to be of European ancestry; if it were possible for any Jewish person to be white, she should certainly qualify. This brings us, of course, to the wacky racial theories of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Julius Streicher et al, as articulated in Mein Kampf, Der Stürmer, etc: they contended that Jewish people couldn't possibly be white, because the Jews were race unto themselves, separate and alien from "Aryan" Germans. I really hope that you aren't trying to employ Wikipedia for the same purpose...
 * Now, the virtue of including a photograph of Bar Refaeli is primarily that it infuriates white-supremacist racial theorists who seem to take a great interest in this article :) They cannot possibly stand having an image of someone who, based on her name and country of residence, is quite obviously Jewish even from a cursory reading of the image caption, and whose physical appearance is clearly white, since this would constitute rather embarrassing evidence against their "Jewish race" theory (and once that central tenet of neo-Nazism is disproved, every other associated claim collapses like a house of cards). Erik9 (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

.... I fail to see how my DNA haplogroups employ circular reasoning. I used the common definition of white, 'referring narrowly to people claiming ancestry exclusively from Europe' and showed why Israelites, who according to haplogroups share ancestry with other Asian/Middle Eastern country, cannot possibly fit this definition. The distincion between whites of South Africans is that they do, assuming that interbreeding did not take place or exists at small frequencies (because that would make them mulatto). Israelites are semitic, and their culture and food is vastly different from Europeans. Circumcision, Afro-Asiatic semtic langauges, keffiyeh, pitas, etc. are not things typically associated with 'white culture'. How can you call my definition a priori? If by your broader definition of whites Israelites are included, there should be more pictures of other semitic/arabic peoples such as Iranians and Palestinians, and mulattoes and light eyed orientals should likewise be included who likewise have similar phenotypes. You can see why being this general makes the term obsolete, because in virtually all colloquial talk (with the exception of some regions) the common definition is adopted. Yet you say my definition is not pragmatic? White and Caucasian are not synonymous; neither socially nor genetically.

What makes you so certain Refaeli has such a strong European ancestry? What makes you so certain she subscribes to white culture, according to common definition again, is synonomous with European culture (ie. Christmas, Indo-European langauge, pork, etc). You do realize that most Jewish people, regardless of what variety, largely subscribe to Jewish culture and identify themselves are being Jewish. This isn't a label; they CHOOSE to remain distinct as an ethnic group, hence the term DIASPORA. You completely side step the fact that such a small portion is deserving of such over representation (50% of all 'white people' images, less than 1% total general 'white people') - this gives future readers a very poor representation.

You side-step all of my points and continue with your Neo-Nazi accusations. I couldn't care what Hitler thought the white race is. If you are going to take an objective stance you cannot let something so political slant your view (oooo! Hitler did it, therefore it is evil). In fact, you have identified your purpose of posting Bar's picture: "the virtue of including a photograph of Bar Refaeli is primarily that it infuriates white-supremacist racial theorists who seem to take a great interest in this article". Not objective truth, not useful information, but a silly political agenda aimed at annoying few readers.
 * Since Israel, as explained above, is not a racially homogenous society, any argument predicated upon the claim that certain inferences can be drawn about any Israeli citizen due to generalizations about the country is fallacious. Naturally, if you define "white culture" in a way that is deliberately inimical to Judaism, eg, celebrating Christmas or consumption of pork, then no Jewish person could possibly qualify as "culturally white". There is, however, an interesting video of Bar Refaeli demonstrating native-speaker level fluency in one of the world's most common Indo-European languages: English. Is Refaeli still considered "not white" since she also speaks Hebrew at a native-speaker level? Would an otherwise white linguist become "not white" if she became highly fluent in a Hebrew or another Semitic language? Interesting questions to ponder :) Erik9 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not pointing out the similarity of your claims that no Jewish citizen of Israel could possibly be white, even if they are the descendants of Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated to Israel from Europe within the last 60 years, to Hitler, Goebbels, and Streicher's racial theories regarding Judaism for the purpose of making the facile assertion "Hitler did it, therefore it is evil" -- a claim which would be absurd if made with respect to anti-smoking campaigns, freeways, or anything which was only coincidentally promoted by Nazi Germany. Rather, the "no Jews could possibly be white" claim was invoked as a core justification for what is considered particularly evil about Hitler and Nazism: their mass murder of millions of people. That you've come to this article to support a key tenet of Nazi policies of murder by giving dispositive racial significance to a Hebrew name and Israeli citizenship is disconcerting, to say the least. Erik9 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An ethnicity is not something one chooses, it is something one is born into. Genetic studies show that Jewish people, and hence Israelites, are genetically very similar despite being of varied races (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#Israel read Israel tab). This is largely because they choose to marry within Jewish families. Regardless of the fact that they reside in various countries, they rarely assimilate and culturally share more with one another than with the country they reside in. That is THEY CHOOSE TO REMAIN ISOLATED, DISTINCT GROUPS despite how widespread they are. The majority of Jewish people, particularily the Ashkenazi, share some European ancestry. But, according to haplogroups, these numbers are in very low frequencies and hence Israelites do not meet the crietia of 'primarly European descent'. Should 'white people' now refer to anyone who is mixed white? Is Barrack Obama a white president?

I did not choose Christmas, etc to purposefully exclude Jewish people, I choose it because that is what the majority of Europes practiced for many centuries and it is embedded into their culture. It also illustrates how the Jewish community chose to remain distinct from their neighbours, by maintaining their traditions. Residing in a country does not define ones ethnicity. Being fluent in a language does not make you part of an ethnic group either. So no, speaking Hebrew, English, French, Persian or whatever has no bearing on whether Bar is white. I believe Bar is not white because she is mixed Middle Eastern. In my opinion, she does not fully resemble what a typical European looks like - there is a touch of something else. Unless you choose to accept that mixed people subscribe to one ethinicity, or that Middle Eastern people are white, she cannot possibly be white. There are some Ashkenazi Jews, particularily those in New York, that look a lot more European. Even though they don't practice Judaism, they still identify themselves as Jewish before white. Are they white? Their appearance certainly suggests that at the genetic level, the semitic DNA has been watered down, but without actual haplogroups I can only conjecture.

Hitler, from what I understand, was concerned with an Aryan race and viewed anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes as sub-human. Aryan and white are not synonymous. His plan was to eliminate a large number of Europeans as well, particularily the Slavs. Not because he view them as not being white, but because he viewed them as not being Aryan.
 * No really, it's untenable to distance yourself from Nazism only through an absurd caricature of Hitler's racial theories. Adolph Hitler had neither blond hair nor blue eyes, so to claim that "Hitler... viewed anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes as sub-human" is bizarre: Hitler met his end through a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but his suicide was related to Germany's imminent military defeat and avoidance of capture and execution, not due to a belief in his own racial inferiority. Furthermore, to the extent that this article describes a sociological concept, it isn't concerned with genetics, but rather with who is regarded as "white" on the basis of their physical appearance. Bar Refaeli would be regarded as "white" in appearance by almost everyone except Hitler, his fellow National Socialists, and their contemporary protégés. Perhaps her photograph should included with more delicately worded caption to that effect. Erik9 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, do not call me a neo-nazi. Your strawman has no place in this debate. I already said I was not as intimately familiar with Hitler and his racial ideaology as you clearly are. For all I know it could have been a subjective preference for a certain appearance or on genetic analysis that was spot on. His political agendas, even if they were destructive, should not sway objective science. You condemn me for my use of definitions, yet act as if you get to call all the shots. By what token is "white people" a sociological concept? If that were the indeed the case, why would images be needed at all? This line of reasoning suggests that you indeed acknowledge there is a phenotypical aspect to 'white people', and what better way to study this than with genetics? Are you suggesting that your subjective opinion of 'who looks white' take prominence??

In terms of sociology, Jewish culture and European culture differ a great deal too, as I have already pointed out. So what is it that makes Jewish people and European people so alike as to make them one homogenous ethnicity? Please enlighten me.

And even IF (which the above suggests is not possible) Israeli's were somehow equivalent to European whites, how would a picture of an Israeli be a good representation? They are less than 2% of the population, they subscribe to different cultures, and they are mixed with middle easterners. Hmmmm... sounds like a good candidate for a seperate ethnicity, don't you think?

White person is a misleading term, as skin color is not the only criteria. Even then, 'white skin' is more accurately peach/yellow. Unfortunately it is one we are stuck with. Just like Asian to refer to mongloid people (chinese, korean, japanese, etc) and not to Indians, who make up almost half the people of the continent. Or American refering only to North Americans.

Question
So why is there no mention of the Ainu of Japan? They have white skin. And early anthropologists were perplexed over their anomalous existence, some of them hypothesizing (IIRC) that there was a prehistoric white which connected them to Europeans. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't actually have white skin, just lighter than some of their neighbors. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

images
I can see this article usefully including images. But this will not amount to a gallery of Miss Iceland and assorted other "very white" specimens. It would rather need to be a publication verifiably intended to illustrate skin colour, such as a systematic presentation of Fitzpatrick skin types I to IV, as in the images here. Having no images is better than WP:SYNTH galleries cobbled together based on aesthetic or similarly arbitrary criteria. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you deride as "WP:SYNTH galleries cobbled together based on aesthetic or similarly arbitrary criteria" is, in fact, the accepted method of assembling images for all Wikipedia articles except this one - for instance, the lead photograph in the Tulip article, the featured image File:Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg, was not published in any reliable horticultural source attesting to its botanical designation, and was undoubtedly selected based on "aesthetic... criteria". Fortunately, per No_original_research, the accepted method of selecting images for inclusion in every article except this one is consistent with Wikipedia policy. As Wikipedia is not censored, this article should not be subjected to heightened image source restrictions merely due to certain editors' distaste for its subject matter :) Erik9 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, due to an acute shortage of freely licensed images included in "a publication verifiably intended to illustrate skin colour", the repudiation of No_original_research for this article only would effectively amount to a prohibition of images here. If you do wish to entirely exclude images from this article (while apparently being unconcerned with the fact that the counterpart article Black people is richly illustrated with images largely unpublished in any reliable sources), then it is incumbent upon you to explain why this article deserves a unique, counter-policy treatment. Erik9 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, are you even aware of the long history of debate on image use both here and at Talk:Black people? Before you take this any further, I recommend you acquaint yourself with it. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Light skin" section
it should be kept in mind that at present light skin is a R to section pointing here. The section discussing the purely physiological aspects of skin tone can in principle also become a standalone article, summarized here under WP:SS.

I have added the Fitzpatrick illustrations to that section. They are properly part of the "light skin" topic, and may or may not be retained in the case of an article split. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan admixture
There is a contentious debate regarding the presence of Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. Input is welcome from editors who are interested in the Genetic history of Europe and the Middle East. Megasaurus rex (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am sick of people saying that ALL Europeans should be classified as white just to facilitate for this fallacy that "social construction" (Which as the definition states is an INVENTION) should override fact.

RfC: images
Shall this article include images, and if so, under what conditions? Erik9 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again, this article can usefully include images, but only based on a systematic approach. No random galleries of the "Miss Iceland" kind. My suggestion is to compile a good illustration of "Fitzpatrick types I to IV" (yes, Miss Iceland can be type I). This can appear under the "physical appearance" section. Other images may be appropriate under the "history" section. Nobody is disputing there can in principle be images here. But past experience has shown that allowing random images quickly degenerates into WP:SYNTH galleries of dubious merit. Present your suggested images here and see if they find consensus for inclusion. --dab (𒁳) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * compare the sparing and well-balanced use of images at black people. This is the result of a long uphill battle to remove huge galleries of mugshots. One important point in any presentation of images illustrating "white people" (as opposed to a large range of possibilities of other images, including historical literature, maps, diagrams and the like), will be a decent balance between the various subtypes, i.e. alongside the light "Nordic" type, we'll also need to show the darker tans of the Mediterranean or Arab/Berber "Middle Eastern" type still included under "white". The difficult point is that "white" as a racial term isn't directly related to skin lightness: there are people falling under "colored" in United States which will have significantly lighter skin than Middle Eastern / Eurasian people falling under "white". --dab (𒁳) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review the discussion at Talk:White_people. If the likes of are going to object to an image of Bar Refaeli because maybe she might be of slightly Middle Eastern ancestry, then you're going to have a heck of a time including a photograph of anyone who is primarily of Arab/Berber descent. Furthermore, I find your arguments inconsistent with your editing - removing all images from the article because you disagree with their selection or presentation is somewhat like blanking the text of the article due to a distaste for its rhetorical style. Wikipedia is built through repeated and incremental improvement, not massive page-blanking - please try to do better. Erik9 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If images are to be used, they should be used in a way that increases the reader's understanding of the subject. They should not simply be used for decorative purposes.  So, to begin with, there should be some obvious anchor to the text in the section to which the image is included.  Any images used should also have some sort of encyclopaedic value.  Most people think "northern European" when they think "white".  Images could show diversity in the meaning of the term - for example, "white" in the US includes Arabs and Iranians, but excludes people like Beyonce or Mariah Carey; most Puerto Ricans self-identify as "white"; in Brazil "white" relates in part to SES.  Bob Marley was rejected as "white", while Haile Selassie was embraced as "black".  If issues like that are addressed (not saying they should or shouldn't be), then images are very useful.  But images added simply as a gallery aren't very useful, especially if they only show one aspect of "whiteness".  Guettarda (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to the extent that this article describes a sociological concept, it should clearly illustrate the meaning attached to to usage of the term. Jóhanna Vala Jónsdóttir would be considered "white" under almost any definition. Bar Refaeli would be regarded as "white" everywhere except Nazi Germany, and by contemporary neo-Nazi activists. Mohammad Khatami meets certain definitions of "whiteness", but not others. Surely a restructuring of the image selection to more clearly depict the article's subject matter would be preferable to just blanking everything. Erik9 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought this RFC was about the general issue of including images, not the specific issue of whether this version was preferable to this version. If that's the case, then I definitely support the latter version.  That gallery of images does nothing to improve the article and creates a misleadingly narrow impression of the term.  If images are to be included, they need to be appropriately anchored to text, and they need to convey a sense of the breadth in which the term is used.  A gallery of "nordics" is worse than nothing.  Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "unless it's complete and comprehensive, blank everything" editorial approach is unworkable on Wikipedia. Consider an article that I wrote, Nemifitide. One might correctly observe that the article omits specific information about the results of animal testing, and is attributed to a single source, though a large number of references are available. The proper remedy for such concerns is to improve the article yourself (or to consult with other editors having sufficient expertise in pharmacology). If, instead, you decided to repeatedly blank the entire article, on the grounds that an empty page is better than giving undue weight to Nemifitide's molecular structure and effects on neurotransmitter receptors, you would be blocked for vandalism. [ personal attacks removed by Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ]. Erik9 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort. Please see WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND  Guettarda (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you're claiming that you didn't say what you said, here are some relevant quotations and diffs to illustrate that you did indeed claim that an image selection you perceived as suboptimal was worse than no images at all, while making no offer to improve the article's images in any way:"images added simply as a gallery aren't very useful, especially if they only show one aspect of 'whiteness'.""If images are to be included, they need to be appropriately anchored to text, and they need to convey a sense of the breadth in which the term is used. A gallery of 'nordics' is worse than nothing."Erik9 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you decided to re-insert your off-topic comments about Nemifitide and your false accusations against me, I have removed your false accusations, per WP:NPA. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

wth Erik9, can you snap out of your hostile, antagonistic attitude some time soon? This is not how we make progress. You have been told that your suggestions will be considered in good faith as soon as you submit to WP:BRD like everyone else. I would really like this to become a matter of discussion of content, as opposed to the simple matter of user (mis)conduct you have been forcing us to consider this so far. --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion of images. Suggest using people with light colored skin. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditional support Images should be include but only to illustrate the points being made in the text. There is no point in having 'Here are some white people' images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Conditional support Agree 100% with Martin Hogbin. Unlimited problems arise with trying to find pictures to represent "white people" generally. Are US Presidents more white than other white people (seriously)? Is the fact that half of the pictures displayed at present are somehow about jewishness anti-semitic, or is it pro-Jewish bias (seriously)? Have we thoroughly checked the ancestry of all the people pictured? Does that matter anyway? Should we have a picture of Barack Obama? Does a picture of Jennifer Aniston tell me anything new about white people? This is all reduced if we ensure that the pictures are closely related to the text. --FormerIP (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you support "pictures [which] are closely related to the text". The article currently states that "A common definition of a 'white person' is a person of primarily, or wholly, European ancestry." The images, then, illustrate people who would be characterized as "white" per this "common definition" of the term. The objection that we don't actually know the ancestries of the people depicted, and are simply guessing on the basis of physical appearance would be without merit even in an article describing classifications which have genuine biological meaning. The lead image for the cat article, File:Domestic cat cropped.jpg, depicts a non-notable cat of unknown pedigree, whose species is ascertainable only from the visual appearance of the photograph. It may be contended, of course, that as scientists increasingly consider "race" to lack biological significance, we are dealing not with the relative certainty of species-level identification, but instead with the dim and fluid boundaries of "race", rendering purely visual identification impossible. However, to the extent that the article is describing "whiteness" as a social construct rather than a biologically meaningful phenomenon, we are relieved of the burden of making identifications with scientific certainty, since the concept is non-scientific. Primarily, then, the images illustrate people who would be considered "white", as the concept is most commonly socially constructed. Given our preference (when not overridden by other considerations) for depicting notable people instead of non-notable individuals, every person whose image appears in this article has achieved a high level of notability. However, no insinuations should be inferred from the precise identities of the people selected. Erik9 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what I was saying, and what I also think Martin was saying, is that each picture should be closely related to specific wording in the text, not that they should reflect or not reflect any particular notion of white. --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that is right. We should not be trying to simplify the subject by showing, for example, the range of people that might be considered white since much of the text is explaining that there is no general agreement on that subject. As Erik9 said the pictures should relate to specific points being made in the text.


 * As an example of what I mean we might have two pictures illustrating the 'one drop rule' where one would be considered white under the rule but the other, who might actually have lighter skin, would be considered non-white. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed image reconfiguration
It's much easier to criticize than create. Since I welcome the accomplishment of challenging tasks on Wikipedia, I have assembled a new set of images for this article, with topically relevant captions describing various social constructions of "whiteness". Thoughts? Erik9 (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good examples! USchick (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No your captions create a degree of whiteness scale also many of nordic ancestry are not blond hair and blue eyed, can't find somone of nordic ancestry without those features, this will not be turned into a nodicist fun fest,i mean even the jewish girl has nordic features.--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that the person whose photograph was selected to depict people of Nordic ancestry looks too Nordic? What legitimate purpose would be served by deliberate circumlocution and avoidance of the most obvious illustration of the subject matter? Some implicit "degree of whiteness scale" is an unavoidable result of accurately describing sociological phenomena under which some people have been regarded as "white" more often, or "more white", than others. Even wholly justified disagreement with social behaviors doesn't imply that we should censor them - per WP:NPOV, our articles relate actual phenomena rather than our editors' normative ideals. Erik9 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment that "even the jewish girl has nordic features" is ironic given that, in my argument with above, he asserted that "I believe Bar is not white because she is mixed Middle Eastern. In my opinion, she does not fully resemble what a typical European looks like - there is a touch of something else..." This is perhaps a compelling illustration of the extent to which race as a social construct varies according one's viewpoint... Erik9 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Or if we need a nordic why not add bjork last time i check she was of nordic ancestry she does come from iceland you don't get more north than that,and keep the jewish girl who has more sterotypcical nordic features so maybe this article can go outside the sterotype a bit--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Way too much passive voice and vagueness ... a long time ago Wobble had a photo array that was actually educational. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both vagueness and the passive voice are necessary elements in describing social phenomena at a high level of generality. Erik9 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vagueness (and a high level of generality) are not always apropriate and sometimes deceptive, as is the case here. The passive voice is almost never necessary, and usually bad, as is the case here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think someone took it down wobble additions citeing original reasearch--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm Bjork is nordic is she not she is from scandinavia right??Eri(K) yes we are trying to keep it neutral by not leting nordisit turn it into a blond hair blue eyed festival and there are plenty of notations on facts certain societies did not consider certain people white, for one Germans were not white in the united states at one time.In your pic caption nordics have always been considered white so why not add bjork she is nordic she is from iceland...and she is much more well known than that miss iceland fav of yours,or maybe you don't want bjork because she does not fit the stererotype of the nordic that was created by racialist of the viking babe...I am being neutral i swept in just in time most of the pics that were added were of the light hair lights eyes varity along with mostly germanics ethnics...i think the way you want to procede you might be better off working at this article Wikiscribe (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You first raised the issue of hair and eye color. Attempting to find an image of someone of Nordic ancestry who you think looks the least Nordic amounts to the use of Wikipedia for political activism, grossly contrary to WP:NPOV. Erik9 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider, for a moment, the application of your skewed logic to the cat article: "The lead image, File:Domestic cat cropped.jpg, looks too much like a cat. Far from dispelling misconceptions about domestic felines, it only serves to reinforce stereotypes about cat-ness. What the top of the article really needs is a good photograph of a Canadian Hairless..." Erik9 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this "Aryan" nonsense above? Semites were always considered part of the "white" Caucasian race, even in the darkest times of scientific racism. At no point has "white" been equalled to "Aryan" or "Nordic". We need to consider (a) "white people" in terms of skin tone (Fitzpatrick types) and (b) the racial classification "white". The image gallery can only ever illustrate the skin tone thing, and should be restricted to the "light skin" section. The racial aspect obviously varies in history and geographically. But at all times, "white" has been associated with the "Caucasian" race, which included the Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean and possibly other subtypes. The main article for this is Caucasian race, and the relevant image is File:Europaeid types.jpg. Because this is a historical concept of race, we cannot illustrate it with modern images, "in Wikipedia's voice" as it were, but we need to state, here is the 1890 Meyer's Lexicon definition, here is Coon's definition, etc. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your claim that"Semites were always considered part of the 'white' Caucasian race, even in the darkest times of scientific racism. At no point has 'white' been equalled to 'Aryan' or 'Nordic'" is blatantly false. For instance, German physicist Werner Heisenberg was criticized as a "White Jew" by proponents of "Deutsche Physik" due to his support for the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's critics in the "Deutsche Physik" movement adduced the term "white" to their disparagement only to distinguish Heisenberg from an "actual" Jewish person, as their allegations were not that Heisenberg was Jewish in the Nazis' racial sense of the term, but only that he was an active researcher in and proponent of sciences to which Jewish people had made significant contributions. This clearly reflects the use of "white" in the sense of "Aryan", by people who were mainstream Germans at the time. Erik9 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, even Wikipedia uses "white" at least partially in the sense of "Aryan". Consider the following excerpt from our White supremacy article:"White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds... White supremacy has often resulted in anti-black racism and antisemitism."Obviously, this use of the term "white", both in the text of the article, and its title, makes little sense if "Semites were always considered part of the 'white' Caucasian race, even in the darkest times of scientific racism..." Thorough research is always preferable to counterfactual pontifications... Erik9 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a gallery of Fitzpatrick types I to IV, without the highly dubious tangents on Nazi issues that found their way into the image suggestions above for some reason.

Wikiscribe, I am not sure what the above is supposed to be. I hope this isn't something you propose for inclusion. In my book, it is a crass illustration of why we need to be careful with images here, because that is what tends to happen to articles if we are not. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

These are sets of images (if you have edited here before dab) that were already in the ariticle--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think both dab and Wikiscribe make siginifcant advances over EriK's initial proposal. dab's proposal is POV, but this is as much a virtue as a vice. Virtue: dab clearly identifies the POV (Fitzpatrik scale); I appreciate this. Vice: it is only one POV, and NPOV requires us to provide all significant POVs. But this is a problem that can be solved: provide deliberately contrasting galleries, each one illustrating a distinct POV. I would not object to this. Wikiscribe provides an alternative, which is to provide clusers of photos that illistrate problems in defining/classifying "whiteness." I like this too. What both dab and wikiscribe's proposals have in common is to use photos to illustrate specific parts of the text, although they are illustrating very different elements. I think this is the right direction. As long as any editor tries to create a gallery of "white people" we will probably be violating NOR by imposing an editor's own view of whiteness. But if we use photos to illustrate specific parts of the article, we both avoid NOR problems, and significantly add o the educational value of the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fitzpatrick scale isn' a "pov", it is the standard for classifying your skin tone to tell you about your risk for skin cancer. What the hell is "pov" about this? As I said, this is about skin tone exclusively, to be included under the "light skin" section, and it does not have any direct relation to racial classifications. It is hardly "pov" to state that some people have lighter skin than others, and that dermatologists usually put them into six categories for classification purposes, one "black", one "brown" and four grades of "white". --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

slruberstein those images on the left and right of beddoe warren harding etc etc  which indroduced thought provoking images to the article,  those were the images that were in the article previously which were produced by  user wobble.Also dab this is not the "skin color" or a dermtalogical  article and it is pov trying to pick out who is this type and that type  and also gives the appearence of degrees or priority of whiteness that is not even necssary,how is what you are proposeing any better than the other gallery that use to be up(which i have found from the arhcives and is up here right now) ,it's just a randon gallery of people i.e i would rather put up pics of people that can be considered white by various governmental sources rather than trying to impose sub types which could place undue on certain scales  as the admin further up expressed concern about, what i see is people trying to use a dermatalogical scale as cover to indroduce 19th centruy  racialism into the articles main focal point which i know by experience here will be in fact the gallery. This is not about skin cancer dab--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * dab, Wikipedia articles do not provie truth, they provide verifiable points of view. Our articles provide accounts only of views - if it is not a "view," o does not pertain toa view, we do not put it in.  My identifying the scale you use as a POV is not a put down. My comment was supporting your edit; oce again you seem to be so defensive I do not understand.  Wikiscribe, I fear you and dab both seem to miss the point of my post which is that illustration is a good principle for deciding on photos. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * you are right, Slrubenstein, if you are coming from a really far-out solipsistic or mysticist point of view, it is indeed "only a view" that there is a planet known as "Terra" populated by beings known as "hoo-mans", covered by a strange sort of membrane known as "skin". But there is also WP:DUE and WP:REDFLAG which saves us from that sort of approach.
 * but I am indeed glad we agree on something, and I am not being defensive. I am saying we need to approach this with common sense, and we need to find common ground. Extreme interpretations of "only views" would make it impossible to display any images at all on most Wikipedia articles. What we need to do is recognize the problems involved here and find a way to tackle them that is acceptable to everyone interested in bona fide debate. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * dab, did I write something insulting or patronizing to you, as your comment was to me? If so I apologize, it was not my intention to insult you.  We sometimes disagree but disagree in in and of itself is not an attack or insult.  If I did something o justify your attempt to mock me, I apologize. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bachman, how come images illustrating ideologies such as the one drop rule, or the one showing that people from India or Somalia are sometimes considered "white" (both cited from reliable sources) are "[a] crass illustration of why we need to be careful with images here"? I assume it's because you personally can't stomach images of people who aren't lily white on the article. On the other hand you want people allegedly to be of "Nordic" ancestry in the article who conform to your personal interpretation of who is "white enough" for the article. You continue to push (often without any argument, only insults or put downs) for the removal of any image from Wikipedia that isn't white enough for your personal tastes, as you have always done. Alun (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Illustrations of who was historically considered "white" during the period described in White_people should be relevant images produced at the time; to apply the historical standard of "whiteness" articulated in the "In scientific racism" section to modern photographs of present-day inhabitants of India and Somalia is quintessential original research. As modern scientists have largely abandoned attempts at racial classifications, the contemporary standard of "whiteness" described in this article is largely a social construct, appropriately illustrated with images of people widely considered to be white on the basis of their physical appearance. Per the text of the article "A common definition of a 'white person' is a person of primarily, or wholly, European ancestry", while the inclusion of "peoples from Asia and North Africa" within the conception of "whiteness" is described as "not a commonplace definition". Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, the "common definition" of "white people" should guide most of our illustrations of the term. The photographs in this version of the article quite successfully serve the purpose of depicting the social construct which the article describes, and indeed remained largely unchallenged until got a bee in his bonnet about the presence of a photograph of a Jewish woman, supporting his image removal with a warmed-over rehashing of Hitler, Goebbels, and Streicher's racial theories regarding Judaism, repackaged as original research concerning "haplogroups and other indicators of race at the genetic level"  (further discussion of this issue, at great length, is at Talk:White_people). What needs to be appreciated, however, is that while the neo-Nazi activism of editors like Arjacent is certainly more offensive than activism to deconstruct the concept of "whiteness", per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR, biased editing from activists of all stripes is inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose to produce an encyclopedic reference work. Erik9 (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ho! A bee in my bonnet? A neo-nazi activist?

Hardly surprising from the man who makes up facts and refuses to accept them. The debate was won from the beggining, because Jewish people are not 'wholly European'. You yourself contend to this in your very post 'Asians are not white according to the common defintion'. Israelis are Asian. Thereofore Israelis are non-white. Haplogroups are not original work by me and only served to validate the phenotypical difference that I observed which you so clearly didn't; you in fact asserted my observations were sociological mechanisms at play. You either provide a rational reason not motivated by political correctness as to why Israeli's are white or admit that you are motivated by egaliatarism and are pushing for sociological propaganda.

Lastly, this video is all too familiar with my dealings with Jewish people, who in fact push to be seen as distinct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjacent (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

apartheid-picture
Is it really necessary to have the segregated-beach sign from South Africa in this article? Whoever put it there, please provide a reasonable rationale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb az86556 (talk • contribs)

I will certainly not insist on any particular image, so feel free to remove it for now. The rationale is as follows: this article is about two related concepts: The former is simply a physiological point: skin can be lighter or darker, and this has a certain genetic background etc. But the idea of "whites" as a self-designation, in contrast to non-whites or coloreds, originates in the context of colonialism and slavery, and historical instances of racial segregation along the lines of "white" vs. "colored" is illustrated by signs saying "whites only".
 * the phenotypical phenomenon of light skin in individuals
 * the notion of "white people" or a "white race" as an identifiable group

Note that from an US perspective, "racial segregation" as it were automatically implies a separation of "white" vs. "colored", but as the article points out, this is due to the special situation in the colonies. When there was racial segregation in Europe, it wasn't, of course, along the lines of "white", because everybody was white anyway. It was along less visible, not necessarily phenotypical criteria. The images of signs saying "whites only" illustrate the existence of a racial notion of "whites" in the former colonies. You would be hard put to find a similar sign in Europe. The European racists notoriously came up with the idea of "Nordic" or "Aryan" vs. "Alpine" or "Semitic", all of these categories being entirely within the "white" label. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I tell Seb az86556 above, I certainly do not insist on any particular image, and I fully submit to WP:BRD here, but if it comes to edits like this, anonymous image removals without any edit summary let alone talkpage participation, I would suggest that semiprotection would help in keeping this entirely above the board. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alun (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

dab -- Your reasoning for keeping the picture might make sense if this article was about "Certain White People in Former Colonies Outside Europe." Since it is simply about "White People," it could easily lead to the impression that all person labeled as such were/are in favor of racial segregation. Therefore, I still have my doubts about the image's necessity. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat what I have already elaborated. It isn't my fault if you refuse to read. The entire point is that historically, the notion of "white people" developed in the context of de facto racial segregation. It is hardly "in favour of racial segregation" to point out this historical fact. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * if that is so, then the article contradicts itself. it says under "history" that terms like that were used in antiquity. (And please do not give personal attacks like "it's not my fault if you...") Seb az86556 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was Putin removed?
He's an excellent example of a white person. Just because he's slavic and not germanic?--VladimirPutinNickGriffin (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

um, Putin is "an excellent example of a white person"? Well, yes, like about 2 billion other living people. Are you suggesting we turn this into a comprehensive "list of white people" or what? --dab (𒁳) 17:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image of Vladimir Putin was removed, along with every other photograph in the article, by activists who are using the article as form of propaganda to deconstruct the concept of "whiteness" - naturally, permitting illustrations of sociological concepts which you're trying to deconstruct is counterproductive :) Putin is, of course, a member of the significantly smaller subset of "white" people who are sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of articles about them. Not everyone even within this subset can be depicted via photographs in this article; however, as it would hardly be argued that the impracticality of illustrating all possible examples implies that we shouldn't illustrate anything, in any article except this one, such an absurdly high standard for image inclusion has no legitimate place here, either. Erik9 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "deconstruct?" Isn't deconstruction an important form of sociological analysis?  Nevertheless, I am not sure what part of this article provides a deconstruction of race. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * wtf, Erik. The question "why isn't this indivdual shown on the white people page" is so patently ludicrous that no answer is necessary. This is like asking "why have you removed the snapshot of my cat from the house cat article." The answer is, if it must be given, that we cannot show every white person for reasons of space, and that the images are thus the result of a process of careful deliberation aimed at illustrating certain aspects of the material addressed in the article text. If we are talking about "subsets", Putin would probably be within the same subset of skin type currently illustrated by Roger Federer. We are showing Roger Federer and not Putin simply because we happened to have a good GFDL portrait of the former. There are probably thousands of possible alternatives to the Federer mugshot, and if you have a candidate image that is in some way objectively superior in quality to the one currently on display, by all means suggest its replacement.
 * this article doesn't "deconstruct" the notion of race, it encyclopedically discusses the notion of a "white race" in particular, including the historical origin of this notion in 17th century colonialism, and its continuing importance particularly in the New World. To call this a "deconstruction of race" would be like claiming the democracy article is "deconstructing democracy" because it is pointing out that the Athenians probably invented it. This is silly, and it is a non-debate, and we (myself included) should go back to sticking to WP:TALK. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Turks are mixed phenotypically
Hello there. I am a Turk and I notice on the article there is a quote which says "brownish as the southern Europeans, Turks". I think it would be better to include an excerpt from the book "The Turks Today" by Andrew Mango. He describes the racial situation of the Turks perfectly: "The Turkish nation took shape in the centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman power. The nomadic Turkish conquerors did not displace the original local inhabitants: Hellenized Anatolians (or simply Greeks), Armenians, people of Caucasian origins, Kurds, and - in the Balkans - Slavs, Albanians and others. They intermarried with them, while many local people converted to Islam and 'turned Turk'. They were joined by Muslims from the lands north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus, by Persian craftsmen and Arab scholars, and by European adventurers and converts, known in the West as renegades. As a result, the Turks today exhibit a wide variety of ethnic types. Some have delicate Far Eastern, others heavy local Anatolian features, some, who are descended from Slavs, Albanians or Circassians, have light complexions, others are dark-skinned, many look Mediterranean, others Central Asian or Persian. A numerically small, but commerically and intellectually important, group is descended from converts from Judaism. One can hear Turks describe some of their fellow countrymen as 'hatchet-nosed Lazes' (a people on the Black Sea coast), 'dark Arabs' (a term which includes descendants of black slaves), or even 'fellahs'. But they are all Turks."

Obviously the whole of this piece may be too much. But maybe the final part that explicitly describe the range of phenotypes one can find amongst the Turks would fit well into this article?

However one thing that must be established is that Turks do not call themselves white, regardless of phenotype. Maybe some members of the Turkish diaspora identify themselves as white to fit into the racial categories of the West, but in Turkey itself there is only one racial/ethnic self-description and that is Turk. Whether fair skinned with staight blonde hair or olive skinned with curly black hair, Turks call themselves Turk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.167.69 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

AUSTRALIAN SECTION TO BE RE-WRITTEN:
The section on Australia should be re-writtten. This article is about the contemporary usage of the term "white". The Australian Census does not categorise people in terms of race. The Australian section has just given a brief history of European immigration to Australia and a breif history of the White Australia Policy. The usage of the term "white" remains subjective to opinion in Australia. Generally speaking it is used in a much narrower term than most other Western nations. Often it socially excludes Mediterranean Europeans and non-European Caucasoids. The ethnic slur "Wog" often is used to denote Southern Europeans and Near East people. I don't care what some people think. the word wog in Australia IS a connotation for non-whiteness. If you don't wish to agree, then see where the White Australian article re-directs you to!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.244 (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Zenedin Zidane?
Issnt Zezo of algerian ethnicity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.47.104 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Algerian are white and mediteranean. North africans are white, you don't need to be blond with blue eyes and be born in Europe to be white!!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fol2choco (talk

Skin pigmentation in different populations
Why are the pictures representing a gradient of skin pigmentation that is not scientific. This article seems to rely on old beliefs based on speudo science. Here Celtic populations are presented as the lightest while accordint=g to the only 21st century objective study carried out about skin pigmentation they just have an average skin pigmentation, just like Spaniards or even darker, who are supposed to be, as Southern Europeans much darker according to popular belief and pseudoscience. In any case, Celtic populations are among the lightest people, of course, but not among the lightest in Europe, just about average. The Reference about Mediterraneam, again, is based on cheap, simplistic terminology of 19th century spseudoscience. Just look at the values for Mediterranean Europe, represented here by Spain, and North africa, for example.

See:

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

If are too lazy to read it here is a summary. The link is to a page that is controversial but the summary is good. In fact you can check it in the original paper if you are diligent. I include it here for those too lazy. You can also see some shocked reactions that reflect the preconceived vision of reality and its reactions before facts.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

In short, this article continues to be based on the same type of pseudoscience, often influenced by political propaganda, ignoring objective science. Again, the degrees of lightness represented by the pictures do not represent objective reality but the preconceived view of the world of some users here. this preconceived view of relaity is probably also influenced by the fact that people confuse hair and eye color with real skin pigmentation. Bembo.

By the way, I see that all this is based on the old fashioned, abandoned, von Luschcan Scale.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Luschan%27s_chromatic_scale

No more comments. It seems that just another article used for propaganda.

In the meantime you may continue to ignore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrophotometry

Bembo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.201.11 (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

look, Wikipedia has lots of articles on obsolete stuff. The von Luschan scale article isn't "propaganda" any more than the phlogiston article.

Also, what is obsolete is the claim of racial categories based on pigmentation. This is different from saying that measuring pigmentation is obsolete. It is, of course, perfectly possible to measure the skin pigmentation of any given individual. You will just not be able to determine that individual's "race" based on that measurement. The Fitzpatrick types are exactly that: a scale for measuring sking pigmentation in individuals, not for "racial" purposes but purely as a matter of dermatology, notably in order to assess that individual's risk of skin cancer.

People need to stop jumping from "skin pigmentation" to "race". Skin pigmentation is a perfectly objective feature -- in an individual, not in a population, as a population doesn't have "a skin", it has as many skins as it has members. --dab (𒁳) 17:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, still, the Von Luschan Scale, which is obsolete, is clearly given more importance than the spectophotometry studies, which are now used as objective studies of skin pigmentation, therefore, the highlighting of one and the almost hiding of the other is a clear example of cherry picking of information of the worst kind and therefore has to do with two possible causes: 1. Ignorance on the subject. 2. An agenda that tries to distort the real state of things in a given discipline. The latter is a clear type of propaganda. Bembo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.234.148 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC) i agree also and made note of this in earlier topic that you got editors trying to sway this article to some sort outdated 19th and early 20th century mindset of a certain few ,this article is about white people modern with of course some historical additives of course but i feel nordicist are trying to take over the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

also of course there are more modern sciences for skin color which are much more accurate and true than von luchan scale which is prob based on sterotypes created by nordicist in the time this map was created --Wikiscribe (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

wikiscribe, "white people" is intrinsically a racial topic. It doesn't need to be "taken over" by nordicsts to be discussing nordicism and the like, that's just what the article is about. Of course without endorsing any kind of ideology in Wikipedia's voice, that goes without saying.

Now perhaps we should disentangle the skin pigmentation part from the racial part, because that seems to cause a lot of confusion. Sure, "white" is still a racial category today, on a more or less purely descriptive (phenotypical) basis. But the "modern" notions of "whites" are simply a direct continuation of the historical racial categories, just without the legal inequality (hypodescent and anti-miscegenation laws).

So I am afraid the discussino of "outdated 19th and early 20th century mindset" you complain about is perfectly on topic.

The Fitzgerald scale, otoh, isn't intended for racial profiling, and the dermatological part should perhaps be exported to skin pigmentation along with the gallery. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, and so we may continue to spread Nordicist propaganda instead of updated objective information. The dramaz is that this information is very dear to Afrocentrists alike and since both of them are very common is the US this article has no hope. Just propaganda. OOps.

a lapsus calami?
"Raj Bhopal and Liam Donaldson state that white people are not a heterogeneous group"- don't they claim that "populations described as White... are heterogenous"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirOnWiki (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely. The sense was reversed in this edit, and I'm going to rephrase it now. --

Ale And Quail (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

American Racial admixture section...
Claims made in this section reference a professor from the Ohio State and a study based on linear regression analysis that aims to predict the relative contribution of African genetic contribution to European lineage in the United States. While few would content that significant admixture is present in "African Americans," common sense would suggest that admixture varies for the "white American" population in the United States depending on such things as geography and demographics, i.e. admixture may be far more commonly seen in Mississippi than in Northern Maine (owing to area racial demographics). But not to digress too much into "common sense" arguments, the article could be substantially improved, if rather than pulling from a 1950s linear regression based "guess" on admixture, if instead one were to cite modern DNA based admixture studies. If someone could please find some updated data in this regard and update the article accordingly, that would make for a much stronger article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark4124 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkish White/Non-White classification
Turkish people are generally thought of as a non-white people, however many Turks could pass as White in Europe and America. Turks with fairer skin and lighter hair and eyes could pass as European or as White American, whereas Turks with olive complexions wouldn't be classed as White in these countries. However these darker Turks could possibly pass as White according to definitions in Europe, as would lighter Turks. There are also Turks who would find it difficult to pass as White in any European country. Nonetheless most Turkish families are diverse and a variety of looks can be seen amongst them. In Turkey itself there only exists a concept of Turkishness and people view their ethnic and racial identity as solely Turkish regardless of appearence. 94.193.167.69 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

White is a tint. If one is lighter of colour, then they are whiter than blacker. Colours, how ever, are much more complicated; hence the reason why there are only two "races:" white and black. Yellow people are white people, unless extremely shaded. I do not under stand the debate as to what white is. White people are simply pale in comparison to those with colour + black (appearance). WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)