Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:21, 19 February 2007

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Merge genetic history to "Genetic history of Europe"

So, I'm proposing a merge of the genetic information off this page. Why?

• It's lengthy, specialized and not central to most people's understanding of "white people" - Unlike even the appearance information, haplogroup membership is irrelevant in nearly all settings to the categorization of whether people are or are not white.
• At least 174 million white people do not have their genetic history adequately covered, and cannot have it adequately covered without including the entire genetic history of Africans in the Americas and Native Americans. The number comes from adding 74 million White Americans of some African descent to 100 million White Brazilians, nearly all with some nonwhite ancestry. Considering other whites in the Americas would clearly mean more.
• The haplogroup info perpetuates a category error - It imagines that "white people" forms a genetic category that is clearly inherited along with genes when it isn't (consider Colored people, African Americans etc. for noninheritance), and biological coherence attaches to the category (consider Mexican descendants of Spaniards whose status a white people changes when they enter the United States or Canada). In other words, haplogroup members aren't all white people.
• Putting it a little stronger, one main purpose of the term white people, in say the United States or England, is to differentiate people from non-white people who may even be their own children (with a nonwhite partner).
• Haplogroup info could theoretically be part of any social group page, but the reasons for including it are weak, especially if the category is much more recent or very different in scale than the relevant migrations (so Europe is a reasonable category, but Czechoslovakia or Naples almost certainly not). Since haplogroups are primarily used to study genetic and migratory history, it would be more relevant to reproduce the relevant historical information in the actual article and defer genetic details to an article about genetics.

I see two reasonable alternatives for the merger:

• The genetic section could be eliminated. - This would most clearly reflect the category error concern above, but would eliminate interesting information, and is unlikely to produce consensus among editors.
• The opening paragaphs could stay and change and a quick genetic/migratory history summary added with reference to Genetic history of Europe.

--Carwil 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Re-proposed and copied to Talk:Genetic history of Europe. Please continue discussion on Talk:White people#Merge genetic history to "Genetic history of Europe".--Carwil 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. The genetic section does not perpetuate anything. Haplogroups just show how Europeans and other "whites" share lineages with Asians, Africans, etc. Ancestry has always been important in the concept of race. Genetics show a very different story from the one that has been assumed for a very long time. Lineage has always been a fundamental concept to races and to being white or whatever. Lineages are scientifically proven by Haplogroups. In any case the Mitocondrial DNA should be extended. Right now it is misleading. Mitocondrial DNA shows even better how Europeans are related to other peoples. It is one of the most important parts of the article. This is not about creating a fallacy about the white race. It is about analysing whether a social concept has solid scientific value. Genetics shows that the "white" race or any other is very different in fact from what it was assumed and from what many people still want other people to believe. And please, just a reminder, this is not about White American people, or about White people according to the Americans. For that there is the article White American.

Again, American bias is one of the most serious problems of Wiki. One example again is the question of the white Mexican. A "white" Mexican is a "white" Mexican. Nationality or culture is not "race". Even the US census leaves it clear. Only very ignorant people or some equally ignorant extreme white supremacists in the US or people with similar approaches can say that a "white" Mexican, Peruvian or Argentinian is not white while a "white" American is white. Again, following that line of reasoning we could say that "white" Americans are not considered white, because some Nazi organizations say that they are half-Jews. It surprises me constantly how some people think that this article is supposed to be written according to spurious and extremist views. No one in the rest of the world is interested in the "white" fantasies of "some" Americans, who think that they are the only "whites". By the way, in Spain Americans in general have never been regarded as very "white" by some people, for the simple reason that Spain was the European colonial power and the American areas the colonies. In the case of the US most of the country, by the way, a fact that some Americans seem to ignore: Just see New Spain. Still you can hear people say in Spain that Americans just have feathers in their heads, when they make decisions like going to war against Irak. Besides, "white" Americans just make a tiny fraction of the population of the world that is defined globally as white, so enough is enough with these continuous attempts to try and impose sectarian radical views of "some" Americans, especially when these Americans are so educated that they think that a "white" Mexican is not "white" because he is Mexican but a "white" American is white because he is American or that Spain is somewhere between Mexico and Guatemala. An encyclopeadia is not the place to spread American or any other type of ignorance.

In short, we are speaking about "white people" as a racial classification. Today genetics has a lot of information about "white people" and it must be shown. Anyway I would agree with the following:

1. Just a few sentences stating something like:

Genetic research has demonstrated that Europeans and other peoples traditionally considered white share the same lineages (ancestry) with other populations from Asia or Africa and that no discrete boundary can be established between "white people" and other races. As the population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza has stated, from a genetic point of view we can speak of population groups, but not races, and these population groups cut across all the traditional races.

Well something like that or just the introduction as it is. Then we could merge it as said and just leave a link to the Genetic History of Europe article. But I am afraid that "some" users here would start reverting such statements. In that case, I vote for the section to stay as it is now. I prefer much more a scientific approach than a bunch of Nazi-Nordicist rants about the white race, which is what has been happening with this page very often.

Anyway, it surprises me that the genetic section is again the issue, and not the Physical section, where people seem only interested in speaking about blond and red heads, while the immense majority of people who are defined as white have dark hair. Very interesting again. Veritas et Severitas 03:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

your right in the issue of blondes and redheads, the vast majority of white people have dark hair and dark eyes. Even if blondism or red hear is exclusive to whites (which it isnt as the north african berbers can be frequently blonde or red haired aswell as austrlian aboriginies and indian ocean islanders).

Perhaps the photos should show a group of white people as opposed to just one person, just one photo only showing people with white skin from all over the globe. That seems less nationilistic to me anyway. --Globe01 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree that most of the genetics content should be moved to Genetic history of Europe, because that's what the whole section is about; the genetics of Europeans. The content could also go into other articles related to genetics. As has been pointed out many times, whiteness is largely a social designation based how people are percieved by others; not a scientific designation based on genetic tests. Spylab 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And as I have said several times, a lot of people try to infer from that sociological perception that "whites" are a race. Veritas et Severitas 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1)Genetics and white people are relevant concepts as proven by the Risch study. Whether or not that this is central is your subjective opinion. There is a relationship and hence it is relevant and hence it should be summarized here, with the main article being genetic history of europe.

2)Where did you reach 74 million for Americans? 30% that is cited in the article? That 30% is only for college students in a certain area of USA. Not reliable. And less than 90% is vague. What if 90% of that 30% have 89% European ancestry? Please do not waste time with insufficent data.

3)This is a Non sequitur. It forms a genetic category only for people with PREDOMINANTLY European ancestry. Lukas19 10:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

White people edit war on the relation of the term to the literal meaning of white prompted protection. In larger discussion, there is debate about whether (1) to describe white as literally inaccurate; (2) skin pigmentation/melanisation might be a better description; (3) the European historical context and/or Eurocentrism should be specified in the text; (4) whether color metaphors for race is an acceptable link. (5) Relevancy of definition of white in physicsLukas19 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Contentious Text

The term white is a misnomer. Most white people are some kind of brown shade, some may even look pinkish or reddish, but none of them looks literally white. The term is the result of a eurocentric view of race. (posted by LSLM)

Discussion so far

See Talk:White people#Protection. Also see Talk:White_people#Literal_White

Proposed text

To facilitate discussion, I compiled 5 options from the discussion. Lukas has added a sixth.--Carwil 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The term white people is not a literal description as it is used regardless of the fact that nearly all the people described are pinkish, reddish, tan or brown in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people. In the phrase white people it functions as a color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.
2. White people are not literally white, but they all have a significant depigmentation of their skin. In some regions White people have a near complete depigmentation, whereas in other regions, White people may have a small degree of pigmentation. The degree of melanisation is not a purely inherited trait, the amount of pigmentation can vary due to exposure to sunlight, age and sex. Indeed the amount of pigmentation may vary on an individual, especially extremities that may get more exposure to sunlight may have a darker more brown hue than those regions that are covered such as the torso. The term extends the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people. In the phrase white people it functions as a color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.
3. The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se; the people described can be pinkish, reddish, white, tan or brown in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people. In the phrase white people it functions as a color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.
   1. The term white people primarily describes a relative degree of depigmentation, and is not a literal description of skin tone. The term is also applied by some as a social construct to imply European ancestry or culture.
   2. The term has been discredited by some as being scientifically unsubstantiated or based on an invidious and antiquated classification of human beings based on race.
4. The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se; the people described can be pinkish, reddish, white, tan or brown in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people.
5. No reference to misconceptions, extensions, or European context/Eurocentrism.
6. With the exception of albinos, people with lightest skin color are those who are of predominantly European descent (see the map). Therefore, the word white is used more as a comparison to darker shades of skin tone. The usage of term is also affected by eurocentric view of race.
   1. Europeans have lighter skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth. (Also, refer to the skin colour map) Therefore, the word white is used more as a comparison to darker shades of skin tone. There may be exceptions to this, however, some people recognized as white by some definitions are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the "brown or yellow races ," as the Supreme Court of the United States recognized in litigation over whiteness in 1923. (source). Hence, the phrase white people is also affected by a racialized, European historical context. (add sources here which are already on the "History of the term" section)
7. The term white or white race is in err and quite incorrect, and by all means should not be used as a category or subcategory of any race of ethnicity of any peoples in the world. (added by Margrave1206) -- futurebird 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

VOTES:

I vote for number 1. Veritas et Severitas 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for number 7. --Margrave1206 01:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an RfC, it is not a vote. We should discuss the relative merits of esch suggestion, and come to a compromise wording through consensus. We could have a vote I suppose if no consensus were reached. Alun 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The term is the result of a eurocentric view of race. This sentence should stay in. If not number 3 7 works best. All one needs do is look at old categories for example "white" vs. "colored" --or the way "ethnic" once referred to anything non-white (that misguided idea that white people have no ethnicity and that, once no longer ethni,c European immigrants to the US "became white") to see why a mention of the historical context is need. I was not here for the whole debate, so forgive me if I'm rehashing old points. White implies a "default" color, this has a lot to do with the eurocentric view of race. The term is the result of a eurocentric view of race. should stay. -- futurebird 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) edited by futurebird 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality: As an editor who recently took some effort to reform the lead section to be as encyclopedic and professional sounding as possible, (such as starting the article with the dictionary definition, unifying obviously separate contributions, reducing the 'self-argumentation', etc.) all of the above contain some unacceptable 'editorializing.' It should not be possible to read a contribution, and be able to easily guess what "camp" the author is in. That's unencyclopedic and unprofessional.

Number 3 is the closest to a workable text (modified, however by 3.1 below) because it clarifies the dictionary definition, which already includes Europe and skin-tone. Well-researched dictionaries take great pains to produce definitions that are consistent and professional, as discussed previously. Good luck with trying to keep this article "neutral". dr.ef.tymac 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 3.1 too. Other proposed introductions aren't as concise or neutral. The other introductions which further add the fact that whites can get tans are so obvious that they seem to be unnecessary. Some of the definitions should not be used because they give the impression that even the concept of white people is somehow wrong when they describe it as "Eurocentric".--Tea 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Eurocentric is not bad, it is a fact, and you can clearly infer it from the history section.

2. That the term "white" is a misnomer is as clear a water and should be clarified. People who are called white can look many different colors, but never white, unless you can find people who look like this in their faces, hands and body:

http://www.kabuki.ne.jp/mitsugoro/images/main_image.jpg

So, it is true that this is an Encyclopeadia, the place to uncover superstition and ignorance and to analyze it, not to perpetuate it.

So, I support number 1 and the original number 3, without the reference to white, since there are no white people in terms of color. On the other hand, since white refers to a color and color seems to have been very important in this discussion most of the time, I see no reason why we should not speak of the real colors of so-called white people.

I think we have now two votes for number 3, if we omit "white".. Veritas et Severitas 14:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And two for #7, as is.futurebird 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I also would support the idea in number 7, but it should be obviously better elaborated, so I would propose to merge 7 and 3. Still we may risk getting off the subject. That idea can be clearly incorporated in other parts of the article. Veritas et Severitas 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose 7 based solely on wording: Ignoring for the moment the factual propriety of 7, the current wording simply sounds entirely didactic and unencyclopedic. For example, what is the justification for "should not be used"? Moral? Ethical? Scientific? Grammatical? Philosophical? Social? Public safety? Civility? To put that wording, uncited, into the intro would diminish the credibility of this article. At the very least it needs to be reworded for tone. dr.ef.tymac 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I could think of ethical, moral and historical. The term is the result of a strong racialist if not racist tradition by people of European ancestry and it is strongly abused by fascist movements following that tradition. Still I think that it is covered in the article, though the idea could be reinforced. Right now we may risk getting off the subject. So as said, I support original 3 without white. Veritas et Severitas 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ok, makes sense, for an example of a possible rewording to include concepts from 7, see 3.2 above, which could be a sentence immediately following 3.1. Mea culpa if I misrepresented the point that was being made in 7, but you helped to clarify it a bit. dr.ef.tymac 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your wording is perfect and I would support adding it to the original 3, without white. I would just add something like "supposed races" instead of "race". Veritas et Severitas 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with 1,3,4 is "brown". If you people are so careful about "literal colours", I suggest you to click brown. In the upper right corner, you can see the "literal" brown. People with this skin color would be called black. So first of all, brown should be changed to "a shade of light brown". But even then, this is incorrect. A light brown trousers and a light brown skin will differ in "literal" sense of the colour. The human skin would have that reddish, pinkish alive look to it.

And what is the "perceived color of skin"? If you are going to change "perceived color of skin" to just "color of skin", then we should add non-coloured, transperant to the list as well, since we know that many white people are depigmented in the skin and the "perceived color of skin" is due to fat cells, according to Wobble. But if you are going to continue with the "perceived color of skin" there are other concerns.

For example, depending on the body hair, that perceived color can change due to distance. If you get closer to the person you can see the brown, blond or red hue in their "perceived color of skin" due to their body hair. Also, when I look at my arm, I can see blue blood veins. And they definately make a difference in my "perceived color of skin".

So you see where I'm getting at? The color discussions here are unencyclopaediac. They are subjective, unsourced and not scientifically backed (remember the discussion of white in physics)). So even if a couple editors agree on a text here and hence reach a "consensus", they are still bound by core Wiki policies such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. So if you agree on a text but add it without citing a reliable source, I'll enforce the rules regardless of the outcome of RfC. If that leads to edit war, we'll take it to meditation. But wiki is clear: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." Misplaced Pages:Consensus

I never was against inclusion of "....one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context." I was only against it being presented as the ONLY reason why the term white emerged. Because this ignores the fact that European people have the lightest skin color, on avarage, and hence the relationship between white and light and lightEST. So, this is my offer again:

Europeans have lighter skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth. (Also, refer to the skin colour map) Therefore, the word white is used more as a comparison to darker shades of skin tone. There may be exceptions to this, however, some people recognized as white by some definitions are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the "brown or yellow races ," as the Supreme Court of the United States recognized in litigation over whiteness in 1923. (source). Hence, the phrase white people is also affected by a racialized, European historical context. (add sources here which are already on the "History of the term" section) Lukas19 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lukas seems to be threatening every one with his sophistry. I do not agree with you and version 3 has now 3 votes, I think. Veritas et Severitas 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of brown to apply to human skin colors has plenty of support. Lukas, please scroll down the Brown page for examples of overlapping tones with people designated as white people. 1 and 3 remain preferred for me. 3.1 is factually incorrect, as "white people" doesn't describe a phenotype of skin color, but a set of socially determined people. I remain hard against anything that doesn't recognize this. "Europeans have lighter skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth" isn't a characteristic of white people, a group that includes some 200 million U.S.A. residents and 100 million Brazilians. Nor does "Europeans" (in your skin tone description, per the map) include numerous Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, etc. who are darker than many Japanese people.

Veritas et Severitas is right, we are seeing a broad support for some version of 3. Which returns us to the reason for the RfC: do we have an external judgment on whether to override some of the original editors' objections. Please don't be shy, outsiders, let us know.--Carwil 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again. Those are shades of brown, not brown. Please look up at top right for the "literal" brown color.Lukas19 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

200 million USA residents are descandants of Europeans, so that sentence applies.Lukas19 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"numerous Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, etc. who are darker than many Japanese people"? That's just a silly unbacked claim. In the map, they are in the same zone, while majority of Europeans are lighter.Lukas19 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Broad support is irrelevant, if you cant source it...Lukas19 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lukas, please consider the map at human skin color. Outside observers, please offer a way out, as I think these literalism discussions are irrelevant. Everyone, please recall that the word "literal" is no longer at issue in the proposed edits, given the growing consensus around 3.--Carwil 18:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If literalism is no longer relevant, then you have to call most white people white since that's the colour most suiting, given its hue is closer to ther real thing than other colours. Lukas19 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote 3. It doesn't bomble around, and it includes all the issues. ~ Flameviper 18:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citations

My sociological citations from credible sources were removed and they should be put back in. I had reputable sources that said the Jews weren't considered as White Americans until recently, but Veritas et Severitas removed them. Veritas' fallacious appeal to pity argument was that they were obviously white given the tribulations they have gone through(this happened along time ago on in the article). By removing the cited statements, Veritas violated Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. These sources came from credible sociologists. They claimed that historically Europeans defined themself as white and Christian often discriminating against Jews. Additionally, the KKK historically terrorized Jews. Sociologist David Sidorsky attests to the fact that they were not considered white in the 1900s. Even as late as the 1980s, Jewish Americans reported significant discrimination according to sociologist Joe R. Feagin. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability and citations, so the citations Veritas removed should be added back.--Tea 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All reasonable points. futurebird 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, you mean in the US. Dark, I hope that you understand that that this is not a US article. For the 100th time, there is an article called white American for that purpose. Still, that Jews were once not considered white in the US is already in the article, look well.

In the second place, you and others, apart from saying that Hitler would be a good example for the pictures or that Stormfornters would be good contributors here, have been insiting on calling Jews and others marginal whites or simply non-Whites, right now, which is very different from what you say. Needless to mention your continuous insitence on introducing March fo the Titans, as a reliable link and source, a " Nazi propaganda book" that states that all civilizations were Nordic, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and a long etc. and that all civilizations went down due to racial miscigenation and that that is going to happen again with "white" countries. The book would be funny if it was not for the hedious agenda behind. Some people here think that freedon of expession allows for everything. Well, I do not. Rape is a crime, it is not an ideology. Your positions and those of others are a crime, not just an ideology. As usual, you continue manipulating information and fooling people who have just met you hiding behind the face that you are Japanese. Even if you were, so what? It would be just exotic to see a person of Japanese ancestry insisting on those views. Still, the trick is very old. Veritas et Severitas 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC

I think the goal here is to make the point that racism has affected many people and the point that definitions of race are not rigid. That's why I support including this information about Jewish people. futurebird 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead then, but watch out because some people here seem to have some strange obsessions with Jews. Veritas et Severitas 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that from that link you posted! futurebird 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

More about Stormfront

Some comments have been made in my personal page and they should be public. Here they are:

I feel it would create a better article if all the Stormfronters were to come here and work on it. Remember, Misplaced Pages's policy on personal attacks states that users' affiliations are irrelelant to their contributions and should never be used to dismiss their views. It further notes to comment on article content and not the character of other Wikipedian users.---Tea 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Check yourself what Stormfront is all about: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

In other words, according to Dar T, the members of the most Nazi website in internet should come here to work on this article. The more the better.

These people are pulling our legs, the Administrators legs and Misplaced Pages's legs.

Veritas et Severitas 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are south Asian, not white. Jews don't consider themselves white and Nancy Pelosi is of Jewish origin raising her kids to be Jews.

For a complete history of the white race go to white history.com I suggest you put white history.com into the related links on the white people page too.-unsigned

• Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for the white power movement, so should not publish your racist opinions as fact. Nor should it link to the racist propaganda site that you recommended. That link goes to March of the Titans, which has been discredited on this talk page. Spylab 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The author was dismissed based on his personal involvement in racialist politics, but the book found here: white people or here:white people itself was never refuted.--Tea 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The book itself has, in fact, been discredited. Please scroll up to read the discussion. Anyone who clicks on those links can see that it is racist propaganda, pure and simple. Spylab 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Stormfronter or a member of the white power movement in any way. However, I'm curious now. Is Nancy Pelosi Jewish? Whether she is or isn't, is it important to distinguish between ethnic jews and religious jews in this context? Perhaps it would be better to avoid questions like these by selecting a different white politician to feature? Everwill 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The photos should show various types of people who are considered white by a significant number of people. I'm not sure if Nancy Pelosi is Jewish, and her Misplaced Pages article doesn't say. However, even if she is Jewish, that doesn't disqualify her from being considered white. Spylab 11:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Unsourced Text

Please remove, "The word white is not used in the sense of the color, but was first used in comparison to darker shades of skin tone."

And

"The term white is a misnomer. Most white people are a shade of brown, or pinkish or reddish in tone, but only albinos approach the actual color of white." in the Light Skin section. They are not written from NPOV and they do not conform to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Noone outside the already involved editors are commenting on RfC. Lukas19 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not carried out for now. Can you explain why they are not written from a neutral point of view? Additionally, I note from the above threads that this change is not one that would necessarily have a broad consensus behind it. Proto::► 15:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You need a consensus to delete unsourced statements? They are not written from NPOV because their criteria for description is not consistent. For ex, they exclude "colour" white because it is not a "literal" description but they include color brown despite the fact that it is not a "literal" description neither. And not only albinos actually approach "the actual color" of white. Many people, especially red heads are just as pale. And the actual color of white would be the hue of white light. "The term white is a misnomer" may be correct but white as a colour is a misnomer too, since white is not a colour. So why do people identify only certain misnomers? Lukas19 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentences seem reasonable to me. I'd like to see if other editors on this page support the request. Proto::► 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability : "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source."

And what seems reasonable to you is incorrect anyways. Lukas19 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This little bit of trivia has been annoying me, so I finally had to respond to it. Lukas states that white is not a color. I'm assuming he's basing this on the claim that white light is composed of multiple wavelengths of light rather than just one. However, what we normally call 'blue', 'green', 'orange', etc. are also composed of multiple wavelengths. Blue light, for example, ranges from 450-495nm. So, if it is true that white is not a color because it is composed of multiple wavelengths, then it is true that every other color we see in everyday life isn't a color either. Of course, this isn't even getting into the issue of colors like brown which are composed of a lot more wavelengths.-Psychohistorian 12:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I've said. Read previous sections. Lukas19 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

1) Text supported by editors should comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Current text doesnt.Lukas19 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

2) "Europeans became uniquely fair-complexioned, with lighter tone than any other group on earth, regardless of latitude"

"In any event, tables with unconnected data points, and maps with or without interpolated cline contours, all tell the same story: Europeans have lighter skin (and hair) than any other group on earth. Conversely, equatorial Native Americans are not even remotely as dark as other groups at the same latitude. The traditional explanation was that Europeans had had more time to adapt. The traditional explanation no longer works."

"The most eye-catching feature on the above maps is that the lightest complexion on earth is native only to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas."

So it must be your imagination that only people native within 600 miles of Baltic are lighter than non-Europeans. The text doesnt specify. It may be that people native within 600 miles of Baltic being the lightest and the rest of europeans still being lightER than non-Europeans. Dont add your biased interpretations to the text. Lukas19 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading contour lines isn't "a biased interpretation of the text." But who cares. On the agreed upon text per RFC, I've added some citations. On the verifiable color range of white people ("pinkish, reddish, white, tan or brown"), I think there's sources for everything, but it seems pedantic to add examples of each color. For any specific fact that not's verified in your opinion, please just add a {{fact}} tag, okay?--Carwil 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Pinkish what? Reddish what? Tan isnt brownish? The whole sentence is far away from being an encyclopaediac sentence. Besides, according to which definition? The "literal" brown people would be considered black in Norway. So still not verified, vague and definately not staying in the lead. Lukas19 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

2)The experience with Japan does not neccessitate that the whole concept was based ONLY on a historical context. So still unsourced. If you want to say that the application of whiteness has changed, that's already in the article. "The definition of whiteness has varied in different time periods and locations." Lukas19 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Our dispute on color is the subject of an RfC process above. It's cited now, except for reddish and white (which I suspect you have a reference for). Leave it, or we can go to arbitration.

Kowner and others don't just discuss Japan. Read the articles before you delete the material they source.--Carwil 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is it cited that white people have brown skin? Where is it cited that there is one universal definition of whiteness and this includes "pinkish, reddish, white, tan or brown in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people"? What is the criteria for inclusion of temporary skin conditions such as tanning? Why dont we also include skin paintings? The "perceived" skin colors of these white people are blue. Should we also say white people can be blue? I'm sure we can find more such temporary examples, even if we are risking being "pedantic". Should we also say white people can be bordeaux, purple with yellow dots, etc...?

And you still havent proven that whiteness emerged ONLY as a result of sociological reasons (ie: racialized european historical context.) While this may be partly true, and it says in the article: "race today is largely considered a sociological construct, the definition of which is subject to change as society evolves", you havent proven that this is the ONLY reason. And that's what is implied in the text you are including. And this is NOT a NPOV summary of the article, given the numerous cited examples of how genetics and whiteness is correlated, etc...

I'm fine with any DR process but we have to try meditation first. Lukas19 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing Criticism

Here's the text in dispute:

The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se; the people described can be pinkish, reddish, white, tan or golden brown in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people. In the phrase white people it functions as a color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.

Now, let's talk about what's wrong with each part. (Please put everything on the table, as we've been through one process already.):

• The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se i.e., people whose skin is not white in appearance can still be called white by any of the categorization schemes talked about on the page.

• the people described can be pinkish, The cite refers to, "The pinkish colour of 'white' people ."

• reddish,

• white,

• tan or golden brown Lukas says "What is the criteria for inclusion of temporary skin conditions such as tanning?." Carwil replies tanning occurs when in the sun in a latitude where there's enough sun to tan, a perfectly natural condition that is only temporary if we remove that person away from that sunlight. Indoors, or only in certain latitudes, is not a more "natural" state for humans. Further, people who meet the criteria for whiteness below, yet who have tan or brown skin in the shade are still white, because it's not a phenotypic category.

• in skin color, extending the perception of white skin to a much broader set of people. This means the same thing as the first clause, except it indicates that the phrase "white people" describes people whose skin "is" white and "is not" white. Thus, "extends the perception." This is the result of a very long approximation process coming out of the word "misnomer," an RfC, etc.

• In the phrase white people it functions as a color metaphor for race, Carwil says, "Heavily cited material about the emergence of "whiteness" as a metaphor for race. Again, one is ascribed the color white, or called a "white person" based on membership in the social category (and historically, based on evaluation of one's civilizational evolution, as discussed on Japan, China and the South Pacific)."

• one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context. Carwil says, "This would be true just as a summary of the historical section, but it's also talked about in the cite." Lukas says, "And you still havent proven that whiteness emerged ONLY as a result of sociological reasons (ie: racialized european historical context.) While this may be partly true, and it says in the article: "race today is largely considered a sociological construct, the definition of which is subject to change as society evolves", you havent proven that this is the ONLY reason. And that's what is implied in the text you are including. And this is NOT a NPOV summary of the article, given the numerous cited examples of how genetics and whiteness is correlated, etc..." Carwil replies, "This text, read it carefully, says nothing about reasons, much less the only reason. Nor does it say anything about 19th century head measurements, 20th century facial typing or 21st century genetic studies, because it talks about where white people emerged as a term and a metaphor. So, two points of fact: was that context European? and was it racialized? I think the answers are well cited."--Carwil 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1) This is a half truth. Almost nothing is actually white. So if you are going to add "The term white people does not refer perceived color of skin per se", I'm gonna add that as well so people can have a reference as to actually what little is really white. Lukas19 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

2) First of all, why is tan and golden brown seperate? As in why not just tan?

Second of all, your edits violate WP:NOR, specifically WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. You get pieces from multiple sources, including tannig books (And I dont think a tanning book is a reliable source) and create YOUR own argument. For ex, you argue that tanning is natural and this is unsourced, it is your own personal opinion. I'm guessing you are not white yourself? First of all many people can only tan with the aid of sun creams. Otherwise we get red. And most people tan while lying down in holiday resorts which they fly to with planes. So, for many people, tanning is not natural. Most people do not tan while working in the fields. As for the remainder, are they white? According to which definition? Sources?

If it is natural, there are other natural temporary skin changes as well. Body paintings are made of natural ingredients and one may argue that it is also natural. Or some people who are suffering from hepatitis become yellow. While diseases are unpleasant, they are natural. So what's the criteria for inclusion of natural or unnatural temporary skin color change? None, other than your subjective opinion.

Besides, what is "perceived colour of skin"? If I'd see a tanned white and brown Asian whose skin hues are similar, I'd assume the white guy to "whiten" as time passes while the Asian more or less stays same. So even if they have similar skin hues, my perception of their skins may differ due to my fore-knowledge of the temporary effects of sun. And actually, almost noone gets full sun tan, since most people wear at least some clothes. I guess "perceived colour of skin" may change depending on the fact that if you see the person naked or not.

Hence, according to your logic, we should say perceived color of skin of white people can be of any color (body paintings, diseases, lightening, etc....) And adding that would be really stupid. Not to mention, it'd probably also violate WP:NOR. To make it short, there are lots of holes in YOUR synthesis, which you fill according to your POV. None of the sources you cite try to define the skin hue variance in whites.

And you said: "Further, people who meet the criteria for whiteness below, yet who have tan or brown skin in the shade are still white, because it's not a phenotypic category." This is also unsourced. You dont know who is considered white or not in every part of the world. Lukas19 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3)According to Carolus Linnaeus, Europeans were "white, gentle, and inventive" hence he called them the white race. So not everyone thinks whiteness is a metaphor. So your lead is not NPOV, again. To me it's relativistic. Europeans are lightest and hence called white and Africans are darkest and hence called blacks. The colour/"colour" continuum is squeezed to fit into humans. And this relationship is by definition invalidates the usage of metaphor, since metaphor is used to relate things that are seemingly unrelated. See Talk:"Color"_terminology_for_race#Will_Change_the_Title. And color metaphor for race has been changed to "Color" terminology for race.

And Eastern Asians arent white. I was told, in this talk page, that Aiunu were the "really white" native Japaneese. And their reflectance spectrophotometry results are less white than even Turks.

And note that, in your article, it is Sothern Europeans calling Japaneese white. We dont know if all Europeans agree. My point is that there is no standart definition of white so you cant say it's a metaphor, based on southern definition, at one point. Lukas19 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

4)Have Americas emerged from European historical context? No. It was already there. However, it experienced significant changes due to European historical context. If white people concept has a genetic correlation, it means that it didnt emerge from an European historical context. It was already in the "nature". You may argue that race is just a concept. Well, so is a continent. It's just a landmass and it is us who name it as such just because it is surrounded by large mass of water. You may think whiteness is totally social construct but not everybody agrees and this is cited in the body of the article. So to say "In the phrase white people it functions as a color metaphor for race, one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context" is not a WP:NPOV summary of the article.

So to summarize, you violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, 2 of the 3 core policies of Wiki. We may either reach a compromise here or go to meditation. Lukas19 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

References for this discussion

1. "Referring to races by colors, such as White, Black, and Brown, tends to ob-. scure the fact that skin color and race are not the same." Frank F. Montalvo, "Surviving Race: Skin Color and the Socialization and Acculturation of Latinas," Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 13:3, 2004.
2. "The skin. What the skin is. Why skin colour varies. Skin problems. Look after your skin", Public Health News, 19 Jul 2004.
3. "TAN-TASTIC!; How to look good and stay skin safe.," Wales On Sunday (Cardiff, Wales), May 25, 2003, p42.
4. For extensive discussion on skin color as a metaphor for race (and not just in encounter with Japan), see Rotem Kowner, "Skin as a Metaphor: Early European Racial Views on Japan, 1548–1853," Ethnohistory 51.4 (2004) 751-778. See also, Christine Ward Gailey Politics, Colonialism and the Mutable Color of South Pacific Peoples," Transforming Anthropology 5.1&2 (1994). On historical antecedents during the European medieval period, see James H. Dee, "Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When Did 'White People' Become 'White,'?" The Classical Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2. (Dec., 2003 - Jan., 2004), p. 162ff.
5. ^ Gregory Jay, , 1998.
6. "Referring to races by colors, such as White, Black, and Brown, tends to ob-. scure the fact that skin color and race are not the same." Frank F. Montalvo, "Surviving Race: Skin Color and the Socialization and Acculturation of Latinas," Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 13:3, 2004.
7. "The skin. What the skin is. Why skin colour varies. Skin problems. Look after your skin", Public Health News, 19 Jul 2004.
8. "TAN-TASTIC!; How to look good and stay skin safe.," Wales On Sunday (Cardiff, Wales), May 25, 2003, p42.
9. For extensive discussion on skin color as a metaphor for race (and not just in encounter with Japan), see Rotem Kowner, "Skin as a Metaphor: Early European Racial Views on Japan, 1548–1853," Ethnohistory 51.4 (2004) 751-778. See also, Christine Ward Gailey Politics, Colonialism and the Mutable Color of South Pacific Peoples," Transforming Anthropology 5.1&2 (1994). On historical antecedents during the European medieval period, see James H. Dee, "Black Odysseus, White Caesar: When Did 'White People' Become 'White,'?" The Classical Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2. (Dec., 2003 - Jan., 2004), p. 162ff.

This article is racist

Why is their big stars from hollywood and so in the "white people" article. and then " a kenyan man" in the "black people" article in the top???? this is soooooo racist and its also so wrong to devide people into Black and White its like in the 40s or something.This page realy frightens me. i think we need to discuss putting this page into deletion or a totall re write. /matrix17

If you dont like it, go to black people page and put Denzel Washington instead of the Kenyan man...Lukas19 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

... or Bryant Gumbel or Mariah Carrey or Michael Jackson ... or ... then again, why use celebrities at all if the article is not about celebrities, *regardless* of which article. If this were an article on anatomy, would it be necessary to depict the chin of Jackie Chan? the uvula of Uma Thurman? the spleen of Selena? the colon of Colin Powell? the sternum of Stalin? the optic nerve of Optimus Prime? *smirk* Hhmmm ... hey wait, that sounds good! I've always wondered what a famous uvula looks like! dr.ef.tymac 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sense anonymous poster. You consider the exemplarary pictures to be "racist" which would logically mean they should get changed, but you conclude this article should be deleted. Not all things related to white people are racist, so detractors should stop making that tired argument against this article. None of the other races get that argument flung against them. It is sad that whites are stereotyped as being racist, so their racial article must periodically defend the allegation that its existance is racist.--Tea 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive erased dark teas racist crap, frankly I see him more as an advertiser to neo-nazi websites then a positive contributor to wiki. EvilPropagandaMan (still learning to write stuff but I think I did the right thing by erasing advertisments)--— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilPropogandaMan (talk • contribs)

Proposed addition to the history section

At the end of the history section, I think a sentence or two needs to address the way white is used currently. It would complete the section if something were added such as, "Today, the term white is primarily conceived as a synonym for the indigenous European people and their diasporic populations in English-speaking countries although its application may be less used to describe darker-colored European people. Other peoples who are not seen as indigenous Europeans such as ethnic Jews and Roma are frequently not included in stricter definitions used by white nationalists."--Tea 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you would think uncited racist opinions belong in the History section. That has nothing to do with history, and isn't encyclopedic at all. Spylab 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If I could cite such a statement would that be okay in your book?--Tea 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no "primary conception" in a worldwide sense that would conform to concerns about WP:CSB. Each of the regional sections go extensively into who among the European diaspora is and is not categorized as white according to local norms.--Carwil 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean the way the word is used currently by your beloved uncle, right? Give us a break and go elsewhere with your propaganda and with your Jewish obsessions or other types of obsessions. We all know who you are. The part about English-speaking countries is especially funny, by the way, but we are not here to waste our time with you anymore. Go to the Nazi website that you always like to introduce here so much, you will get a much better audience there. What do you think, that white nationalist (a bunch of laughable and border-line (sorry this may be an insult for border-line people) Neo-Nazis are the ones who define terms in an encyclopeadia? Anyway, you seem to be very selective about what Neo-Nazi groups think. Here you have again what some think about those white Americans of the English-speaking world. I introduce it again because your memory seems very weak:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/category/business-industry/

If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

See also here what these moronic racists that you like to mention so often think of Anglo-Saxons in general: Anglos = Jews: and of course they regard Jews as a different, evil race.

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/09/03/anglo-saxons-as-the-worlds-chief-plunderers/#more-1353

Again if you are lazy I cut and pasted this part:

"Dr. Joseph Goebbels used to like to describe the English as Europe’s Jews".

But read it yourself, there is plenty of interesting and academic information, according to your own criteria.

You can also check what "some" Europeans think about Americans in Anti-Americanism.

If you are too lazy to read I will help you cutting and pasting:

Racialism

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the racialist theories of Arthur de Gobineau and others spread through Europe. The presence of blacks and "lower quality" immigrant groups made racialist thinkers discount the potential of the United States. The infinite mixing of America would lead to the ultimate degeneracy. Gobineau said that America was creating "greatest mediocrity in all fields: mediocrity of physical strength, mediocrity of beauty, mediocrity of intellectual capacities - we could almost say nothingness."

More about Anti-Americanism and analogies with Jews:

Cut and pasted from here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7444

"Americans: The Jews of the World"

And more about the same here:

http://www.adl.org/Terror/terrorism_attacks.asp

There you have again your white nationalists and idiotic extremists and some other idiots belonging to the same ideological branch that you have been insisting on introducing here for months and other cheap hatemongers.(Oops, I forgot, these ones you do not like to mention!) So, stop introducing crap here because the crap belongs anywhere else but certainly not here. It is incredible how as a American you ignore how much prejudice and bias there is out there against Americans themselves while you insist on introducing Neo-Nazi positions and websites. Do you live in a bubble? Veritas et Severitas 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

1. Look again at our friends Lukas and Dark T. What a good argument!: The order of the pictures according to "latitude", not alphabetical. My god! What kind of people we have here!. Watch out again, they will not rest. Their mission is clearly important.

2. Lukas is constantly deleting the version about skin color that was agreed upon here.

Veritas et Severitas 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to align pics according to last names. As a 1/4 Finn, I'm not offended that Räikkönen's pic is below others'. Lukas19 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do it yourself. And put back yourself the definition of white people skin that was agreep upon. Veritas.

Read previous sections. If you want to rant, go elsewhere. Lukas19 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a version that was agreed upon here. This article was locked until that agreement was achieved. You unilaterally keep deleting what was agreed upon by the majority of voters. There is nothing else to read. The rest is the usual sophistry of people of your ilk. Other people who have participated have seen it by themselves. Veritas et Severitas 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. You can not violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV just by "voting". Lukas19 07:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is just what you dictate. Veritas et Severitas 15:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

They are now by alphabetical order according to first family name: Fox, Kidman, Pelosi and Raik.Veritas et Severitas 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The most sensible arrangement is by latitude, because it adds another layer of information to the pictures. If this were an article about alphabetical categorization or categorization in general, then it may be most suitable to arrange the pictures by their surnames, but this is an article about white people. In an intuitive sense, the term "white people" is a description of the peoples whose coloration resembles white due to lack of pigment. This physical characteristic manifests itself most strongly as one travels farther north of the Equator, corresponding directly with ancestral geographic latitude. A cartegraphical and physical sense of white people is added by arranging the pictures by latitude whereas alphabetical categorization provides no additional information pertinent to this topic.--Tea 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop it and give us a break. Northern Europeans are lighter, but not whiter. Stop your propaganda and obsessions here. In fact they also tend to look much more reddish and pinkish, an observation any kid can make, whatever you say, in spite of your pathetic and infantile arguments about the literal usage of "white" when it suits you but then deny it when it does not suit you. Besides, Kidman is from Australia, in the extreme South of the planet. There are Sub-saharan Africans, in Africa, from different countries, that are darker than others, or less dark than others, it does do make them more of anything, the same applies to Asians. We have been already through that. What will you next attempt be, to say that some Asians are also more Asian because the are lighter or darker. Come on, your continuous insistence on taking us for idiots are too much. Let us not start again with genetics to see who is "whiter". In fact genetics does not make anyone whiter either, as does not make anyone whiter if they look like an albino, pinkish, reddish or whatever. The fact that we did not pay attention to you when you proposed Hitler for the pictures does not mean that you must be interfering with them all the time. Veritas et Severitas 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics