Talk:White people/Archive 9

message: My Oxford dictionary idenifies Mediterraneanms as being dark skinned anyway!  why are they classed as `white'??  why aren't Japanese classed as white because they are white skinned?
:There are Japanese people with brown or tan skin too - so want call them White as well? Their skin aren't as pale pinkish White like the Scandinavians. Anyway, their facial structure isn't anything like White people: they don't have high-bridged noses and much of longish face like those of the Caucasoid/White race, what more to say about their eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right; those Mediterraneans are not white.  The true Mediterraneans miscegenated with the darker races from outside of Europe.  In actuality, there are few if any real Mediterraneans left in stock whose racial bloodline runs pure.  This is all explained here: white people or white people--DarkTea 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DARK SKINNED?? 

message: Wow, full of quality and insight. Veritas et Severitas 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just see the above comments. 

message: How about the Black Irish and indigenous Scandinavians with natural black hair? Are they considered Whites too? --203.15.122.35 05:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: White refers to more than just a topical coloration but to a racial stock.  The white racial stock had a minority of people with black hair, but these true Mediterraneans miscegenated with the darker races from outside of Europe.  The Mediterraneans of today are actually not real Mediterraneans, because that would imply racial purity.  There is a lot of misinformation spread by anti-white sources on the internet, but the truth can be found here: white people or white people--DarkTea 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Irish and Scandinavians with black hair

message: Why were the above comments by Veritas included in the section on the usage of the term `white' in Australia?? The Australian section now looks like a complete muddle! I am from Australia not Britain as Veritas surmised and like I have stated, `white' is not used in the census as an indicator of ethnicity.  Regions of Europe are. This is due to the fact that `white' is an opinion based subject, not one based on scientific fact. By the way, I do not deny the British peoples Iberian DNA, but bare in mind that much of Iberian immigration to the British isles pre-dated Moorish occupation as well as African slave importation as well. If the average Australian wishes to use the term `white' to identify what the word literally means, then so be it! It is not a scientific measure anyway. Southern Europeans in Australia would also be considered white if that's what they `looked' like in appearance! Nowadays, the term `Anglo' is becomeing more popular to distinguish Nordics from Meds.  Globally most people would use the word `white' to identify an appearance rather than a person's DNA (which is not cosmetically noticible - lol) or their heritage. Be honest, many Mediterraneans do have an appearance distinctively different to Nordics, so if the appearance differs, then why shouldn't the perception?.
:Then call yourself whatever your prefer, but not white, especially when the sentences that follow say that those hypothetical "whites" are responsible for European and Western civilization. You think we were born yesterday?. By the way, are you really "white"? I have not seen a real white person in my life. Real white, my friend, like the colour of a white piece of paper?. Come on, I know that the people addressed by that kind of rationale are not very sophisticated, but do not come with fairy tales to me. Veritas et Severitas 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woooot youre telling me my girl friend aint' white :P? She has black hair and blue eyes, as far as I know it's very rare :).--DerMeister 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you live in the Mediterranean Veritas et Severitas you will never see a true white person.  The Mediterranean of today is not locale inhabited by exemplarary specimens of the white race.  The people who live in the Mediterranean are actually a mixed breed of the Mediterranean stock with the Arabic stock. The strongest specimens of the white race can be seen in the Nordic countries who have managed to retain their racial purity due to geographical distance from non-whites.  This is all explained here: white people or white people (different hosts needed to verify accuracy by corroboration).--DarkTea 06:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'White' in Australia 

message: Heres a race map made by an american anthropligist made in 1899. The most interesting and relevant thing is that he shows that people living in certain areas of the british isles are of medditeranean appearance. Im sure most people will be unaware of this so i think it has relevance to the article. It also shows germany is not entirely nordic which is contrary to the stereotype . 
race map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg
race article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race
--Globe01 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important info to add 

message: Just two comments:
1. Berbers have always been considered ¨white´by physical anthropology. I do not care about uncle Tom again and the American mental diarrhoea in racial issues, although the US census itself classifies them as ¨white¨¨. So it seems that this mental diarrhoea does not represent Americans officially, but just "some" Americans or others.
 
2. The lack of reference in the Physical section to dark hair is incredible and should be fixed.
3. The pictures should be fixed and be more representative and less tendentious.
I will not do it myself but I will support other users if they want to do it. Veritas et Severitas 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Berbers have not always been considered white in physical anthropology.  First, white was not a racial group recognized by all anthropologists.  Second, all historical anthropologists did not group them with Europeans.  Thomas Huxley considered them to be racially "Melanochroi" (dark color), Arthur Comte de Gobineau considered them to be "degenerative" formed by the miscegenation of the white and black races, and Eickstedt considered them to be Mediterraneans in a system where he did not envision the greater Caucasoid race which would tie them to Europe.--DarkTea 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All that is needed is the mention of the fact that some indigenous Europeans who are not Jews, Gypsies, Basques, Eastern Europeans, Turkish, Sami, Italians, Greeks, or Spaniards have black hair.  We cannot show that whites have black hair if the questionable whites are used as proof or else it would beg the question if they were really whites. Everyone has seen black hair and most people have black hair, so there is no need to discuss this trait further than a passing note.--DarkTea 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to the Berber note, remember that they are not at all a homogenous group. You have plenty of black Berbers like the Haratin and Tuareg, many indistinguishable from West Africans south of the Sahel, as well as the Siwa Berbers. It is only the highland and coastal groups that have a significant amount of European ancestry (e.g. Kabyles, Chaoui) from paleolithic as well as more recent times. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a bad analogy.  Old stock white Americans and white Australians can trace their bloodlines since they kept record of them, have historically had laws against miscegenation and ostracized multiracial people from white society by the rule of hypodescent.  Brazilians and Berbers have not kept track of their bloodlines.  Brazilians were formed from the miscegenation of whites and blacks whose coupling populated Brazilian society.  The degree of admixture broke the color-line, preventing adequate distinctions between pure whites and blacks.  In a like manner, Berbers live in the borderlands of blacks and brown North Africans, making their blood indiscernable.  If we posit North Africans as white, we can still justify a conclusion that Berbers are not white by the consideration of hypodescent.--DarkTea 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berbers, Mediterranean populations, and Dark hair 

message: I must admit that I am quite amused by these pictures.  I was going to be facetious and insult the pathetic nature of the website (which, BTW, it is inevitable that anyone with common sense would do).  Anyhow, just a logical observation/comment about the pictures of the white people you show.  Why *these* pictures - why not some kind of population average?  Or, better yet, choose a selection of white leaders that white people have historically chosen (you can't tell me that neither Hitler nor Stalin were white - so why discriminate against them.  This would seem to be especially immoral and subversive given the phenonenal contributions that they made to the furtherance of whites.  What amount famous white imperialists?  Why do we choose individuals who are not famous.  By the admition of white populations, it must surely be the case that whites would want to be represented by such individuals (their policies, histories, actions, beliefs are inherently racist - just like their political leaders!).  
Why these pictures, I am under the impression that they create a false positive impression of the white race. 
--Betterfaith.
Yes Hitler and Stalin are considered white, but so are considered a few hundreds of millions of people. Unfortunately the term white has been hijacked in such a way by extremists that I cannot understand how people can still use it to classify themselves. There are a lot of people who would be considered white that are ashamed of the term. I am from Europe, and I can tell you that this term is increasingly being used down here almost exclusively in Neo-Nazi circles. But we are here dealing with an article that is supposed to be about a kind of people and some of us are trying to make the best of it, so that at least the terms European or Western Civilization are not hijacked as well by the same people. Veritas et Severitas 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few notes about the pictures 

message: Look at the history of the article. Well, just a small detail, but interesting how these "some" people go at it all the time.
Dark says that most white people do not have dark hair. So, most white people are supposed to be blond or have red hair. Comments please. Let us see if with a little patience we can unconver all these people once and for all. Veritas et Severitas
:I said there wasn't sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that whites have mostly dark hair, because the Hair Color Map does not give the population of people included in each percentage block and does not account for current indigenous European settling to different parts of Europe. Furthermore, the European diaspora in the US, Canada, South Africa and Australia are mostly the light-haired Europeans, making the actual numbers of light-haired people higher than the map suggests.--DarkTea 02:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the map, the areas with more than 50% light coloured hair are not very highly populated, this area includes Scandinavia, and some big cities, like St Petersberg and some northern British cities, but it's population is very small compared to the rest of Europe, you might call it 30-40 million people as a rough estimate (50 million if you want to push it), but this means that the rest of Europe, about 95% has a majority of people with dark hair, and large parts of western Europe and the Balkans have less than 20% of the people with light coloured hair. Only a tiny part of Europe, both by population and by geography has a majority of people with light coloured hair. Alun 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this a fact or an opinion? I suspect an opinion. As far as I can tell from the European American article, the two biggest European groups to settle the USA are Irish (15%) and German (23.3%), neither of which group has a majority of light haired people according to the hair colour map presented in this article (both have 20-49% light coloured hair). In Canada it is less apparent, but the two largest groups are English and French (excluding Canadians who identify as Canadian), and only a part of England has a greater than 50% light hair colour, while most of France has less than 20% light hair colour. In South Africa the white population are generally descended from people from the Netherlands or from the UK, only the northern part of Great Britain has a majority of people with light coloured hair from these two places, and according to Demographics of South Africa about 60% of White South Africans speak Africaans and about 40% English at home, indicating a majority of people descended from people from an area of Europe with less than 50% light coloured hair. Likewise there is no reason to assume that White Australians display any greater tendency to have light coloured hair than do other British groups (74% of all Australians are described as Anglo-Celtic in Demographics of Australia). So unless you are claiming some sort of selection process whereby only people with a light hair colour were allowed to settle in these regions, I can see no reason to accept this claim. Alun 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark hair 

message: Lukas has introduced one new picture that was proposed by Wobble, but replacing the Frenchman picture. I think he could have left the Frechman as well, but I think he makes a point: Better to introduce known personalities. I will introduce another that is very interesting: The President of the European Union Comission. The closest thing to a President that the European Union has.Veritas et Severitas 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Maybe one of the reasons as to why West Asians and North Africans are considered `white' in the U.S. Census and nowhere else in the Western world is based on the fact that America has a pro-Israel government and for their own contentious claims want to include Israelis as white!! Israel even stakes a claim in the Eurovision Song Contest even though it is not even a part of Europe!! It doesn't look good to state ``White means native Europeans and Israelis' now does it!!??
Again, read comments above: Those people are as white are any white, according to physical anthropology and censuses like the US. Your auntie or mine or theirs do not count. But you are right, some people want to use a "racial" term according to different political agendas. thisw is the biggest problem of this article.
And if some people here mean by white what it literally means, like the comment in the Australian section (a white piece of paper is white), then we should start making up a new term, because there are certainly no white people in the world. Even the picture of the pale American woman. Just, look at her shirt, that is white!, certainly not her skin. Speaking of a term that has been appropriated while being a big lie would be stuff for a long discussion though. Veritas et Severitas 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Easterners 

message: This article belongs in the Uncyclopedia.  This article is sadly obvious.  Who, but racist types, think about this kind of thing?  Someone has a 'White Emperialist' obsession.
THOSE WHO ARE PUSHING THE IDEA THAT MIDDLE EASTERNERS, INDIANS AND NORTH AFRICANS ARE `WHITE', THEN PLEASE REVERT YOUR DISCUSSUIONS TO THE Caucasian Race PAGE!!!! Thank you !!
Add this image of Indian polititian Omar Abdullah on the main page since he is an Aryan and looks `whiter' than José Manuel Barroso!!!
http://164.100.24.208/ls/lsmember/13biodata/2.jpg
Once again this happens here all the time because  people insist on deleting crucial information. Then we have these responses: I introduced physical anthropologists and how they classified those people as white in the 20th century or how in the US census they are considered white. But one user thought it was not necessary to speak about it so much and deleted it, leaving a short comment. Nothing new. Veritas et Severitas 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a Ridiculous Article 

message: I have expressed above the interesting American bias in this article by "some" users, especially at the beginning and how they continue to go at it with a clear Nordicist bias and believing themselves almost the only whites in the world or equating White = "Nordic" (Should we say Aryan?) (Nazism was based on Nordicism for those who do not know). I will continue my own private project here highlighting these types of contributions and the place of origins of these users. It seems that after World War II Americans made a great effort to "de-nazify" Germany and they forgot their own backyard, without realizing how contaminated it was, while these "some" users seem to be oblivious of what people with these ideas in Europe often think about the Americans themselves. It can also serve to analyze the strange and twisted approach to "race" by these people, who seem to want to impose it as a world view.
See the following users' latest contributions and the history of the article and their countries of Origin. I will be posting them one by one from now on:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrandpaDoc  (This guy removed images of Nacy Pelosi and Jose Manuel Barroso).
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Common_Sense7 (This guy removed Germany, from the US section that said that once they were not considered white along with other Europeans and the Nancy Pelosi picture. Does his common sense represents American common sense?
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G  (Just look at this user and his comments about a new race): brown people. Look at the history of the article and statements like: all Mexicans are considered brown. (This place is a sociological gold mine).
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dark_Tichondrias (This user said that Hitler was a good example for the pictures and that stormfronters would be good contributors here and agree that all these positions represent Americans. she also fails to grasp that this article is not about the Americans. There is an article called White Americans for that purpose).
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ju66l3r (this user insits on deleteing the fact that white people are not literally "white") Just look at his contributions here and in brown people.
Veritas et Severitas 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In defense of my American compatriots, their edits reflect common understanding in the US.  Like I said before, Hispanics are often not considered white because they form a separate political entity.  The removal of Mr. Barroso makes a lot of sense in the US standpoint.  Uncle G's contribution was brilliant; I can't believe the brown race didn't already have its rightful place on wikipedia.  You would be surprised how many Mexican Americans try to force other people to acknowledge that they are the brown race, consisting of a singular color and unanimous Mestizo ancestry.  Other Americans consider Mexican Americans to be their own race, since their white racial purity has become indiscernably tainted with the Indian, making their race default to not white by hypodescent even if they look it. I recall British islanders being the first whites whereas all other white Americans were gradually accepted as time progressed.--DarkTea 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Americans apply different standards to people from south of the border.  Many old stock white Americans have a drop of the Indian in their blood, but it's from the United States Indian.  Indian blood from the United States Indian is often cherished and respected, since it gives the feeling being a legitimate American.  In contrast, Indian blood from south of the border is viewed as foreign and is less tolerated.  As a result, Americans apply different unwritten rules to people with ancestry from south of the border.--DarkTea 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: American idiosyncrasies in its diagnosis of the racial type do not globalize as the rule of thumb for this article. The fact that many white Americans with a drop US-Indian ancestry consider themselves white whereas Hispanics are frequently viewed as not white may be hypocrisy, but it represents the American viewpoint. Americans are very complex in said issue and never burden themselves with an overly critical analysis of their beliefs.  Other people should regard white Americans as white simply because it is the American understanding.--DarkTea 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am proposing a single standard.  Where allotted, this article should have what Americans think and in the section for what others think, they can have their standards.--DarkTea
I think what you propose is mainly an extremist and marginal point of view, in the same way as I would consider it an extremist and marginal point of view to speak of Americans according to the fascist site above or to Gobineau. I think that our positions are already clear. Veritas et Severitas 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American sociological research in this article. 

message: Are Arabs and ethnic Jews White people? Surely a lot of them have light hair and skin complexion as fair as the Europeans, for example, Paul Newman and Omar Sharif. --Fantastic4boy 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although fairness in coloration may be associated with the white race, the white race is more than skin deep.  Fairness is by no means an exclusive trait of whites as it is seen in Chinese and related peoples.  Fairness is an attribute of whites, but not the determiner.  Historically, whites were a racially pure group whose appearence could be readily distinguished, but the true Mediterraneans in southern Europe miscegentated with Arabic peoples.  This formed the continuum in physical type which was not already extant.  Today, the peoples in Southern Europe who are incorrectly called "Mediterraneans" are actually a mixed breed with Arabic racial elements taking predominance over white elements.  To say that some Arabs look white or Jews for that matter, is to say that black Africans and American Indians look white because a lot of them have miscegenated and now form a continuum in appearence.  The answer to your question is no; they are not whites.  This is all explained here: white people or white people (different hosts needed to verify accuracy by corroboration).--DarkTea 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Arabs and Jews Whites?

message: People judge color based on comparison and context so that what is one color in one situation or context is another color in a different context or situation. I remember a case of a light skinned self described "black" person who went to Africa and was universally called "white" by Africans. I remember seeing a TV documentary on current African immigration to Holland and one African women said that when she got to Holland she was shocked "because they really were white!" It is all a matter of compared to what. WAS 4.250 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We always use relativity. If I'm carrying 10 kg, an extra 10 gr wouldnt matter. That means 10 kg is heavy? Of course not, considering the weight of ships and stuff. That means 10 gr is light? No way if you are dealing with sub atomic particles. So, when we compare all humans, white is the most appropriate color that may be given to people with predominantly european ancestry. Lukas19 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regard to the above discussion has any one seen the Maid Marian and her Merry Men episode 'The Whitish Knight'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Color comparisons

message: Veritas et Severitas makes very good points, we should take their advice and change the article for the better. --Margrave1206 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the article 

message: March of the Titans either found here white people #1 or here white people #2 is a great source for white history that has not been rejected.  He cites sources, so it meets the verifiability requirement for inclusion.  Sure, Dienekes Pontikos says he's wrong but let's examine Pontikos' arguments against Kemp.  Pontikos first begins with ad hominems about Kemp being a "Nordicist" which are logically irrelevent to Kemp's arguments.  Then, Pontikos claims other people have interpreted the genetics differently.  Similarly, Pontikos claims the ancient artwork could be interpreted differently.  Stewart also claims Kemp is wrong, but his arguments are merely unreferenced statements. It is clear that although people disagree with Kemp, they do not refute Kemp, so the website does is not rejected on those grounds.--DarkTea 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you agree that we can put March of the Titans on external links.--DarkTea 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the "factual innacuracies" and "shoddy logic" in the "History of the White Race" website?--DarkTea 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start with the second sentence on the page:  Most importantly of all, revealed in this work is the one true cause of the rise and fall of the world's greatest empires - that all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else - a nation can survive wars, defeats, natural catastrophes, but not racial dissolution.  Um...yeah, I'm going to have to go with What is hogwash for $1000, Alex.  If there's a useful piece of sourced information in that "book" online, then use the source, but that link is not appropriate here.  ju66l3r 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that was originally part of the book.  I think it was added by the websites that are hosting the book.  It is stated on the website homepage but it is not written into the book's chapters, so I think the hosts are adding their two cents.--DarkTea 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF gives you the benefit of the doubt...so I'm going to assume that you haven't read the "book" very well that you're trying to propose as a source.  Chapter 68 ("The Coming Fall of the West", particularly Part 5) addresses the topic I quoted directly.  Either way, if your assumption that the website hosting the "book" added it, then your previous argument for association fallacy is incorrect.  The fact that it's hosted on stormfront.org (and that they would add content to the title page (and potentially other sections) does influence the reliability and partisanship of the link you're trying to have added...therefore it fails WP:RS.  ju66l3r 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This work is not available from amazon,  wonder why if it's such an accurate history. This Kemp bloke seems to be a very dodgy character. Involved with far right wing politics in South Africa and with the British National Party (a group of right wing racists) in the UK. He doesn't appear to be any sort of expert, nor to be an academic, so I fail to see how this constitutes a reliable source. Alun 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that.  I tried to Google him before, but I couldn't find his biography.  I suppose his person makes him a poor source.--DarkTea 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should try a little harder.  Just searching his name gave this link to a news story about his political roots that points out his speaking at pro-Nazi meetings in Germany and it characterizes your proposed link as a "racist history book".  So, strike three and this link is out.  ju66l3r 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been dealing with people like this on Wikipedia long before I ever saw you here.  I'm only saying that so you don't think I'm dropping in at the last minute to post some biased crap.  Having said that, I side firmly with Voltaire who said "I'll fight to the death for your right to be wrong".  To put it another way, I'm completely against censorship - even when its censoring racists comments.  Hell, as a gay man in a red state who grew up in a holy roller church, I know a thing or two about prejudice.  I'm still against censoring people who do it.  Censoring is just organized bigotry and, as bigotry, is no better than any other kind of bigotry.  The only morally and ethically defensible response to bigots (including racists) is to encourage them to speak more, not less.  Violating policy is a reason for censur.  Disagreeing with what someone says is not.-Psychohistorian 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wit Psychohis, I strongly disagree with Dark Tea on just about everything, but I can also acknowledge that she is a tireless contributor, and has an abundance of energy. She is also interested in correctly verifying sources and high academic standards. We do not hound people we disacgree with, we work together to find a solution, even if the path is sometimes tortuous and stormy. Alun 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March of the Titans should be an external link

message: Are Portuguese, Spanish and Meditteranean people Whites? Their skin colour isn't like the Celts, Slavic, Nordic and Germanic people, and many of them have olive skin. So how can they be White people? --Fantastic4boy 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is white. White people is a cultural/social term. Skin colour is affected by sunlight as well as genetics remember. Do you think Finnish people do not have a dark skin colour? I live in Finland and am from Wales (a Celtic country), there are many Finns with dark skin, and there are many Welsh people with dark skin, we just don't get so much sun. You are realy talking about the amount of pigment in the skin, not whether someone is white or not. Northern Europeans are somewhat more depigmented, but who is white is a cultural/social consideration. In the USA Hispanic people may not be considered white, but people of Near Eastern origin (Arab and Jewish people) are considered White. Indeed until recently people of Indian origin were considered White on the US census.  So whether someone is White" or not has little to do with actual skin colour and everything to do with social and cultural perceptions. Alun 07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian PM, in the article, he is clearly more pigmented than Nancy Pelosi. She is of Italian origin, whereas he is a Scandinavian. Whether he just uses a sunbed is irrelevant, as this just highlights how labile skin colour really is. Alun 07:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one counts Europeans as whites, then yes the Portuguese, Spanish, and other Meditteranean people would be white. About skin color, as stated above skin tone varies in every population group...being "White" doesn't mean being a 'normal American'!!!...and actually in the U.S. a great many Hispanics would be considered White....about half checked White as their race...(and let's not forget what Hispanic actually means) the thing is that if you pass a person of Mexican descent with red hair and fair skin...you will not think of them as "Hispanic" (the way it has come to be) and label them in your head as White. You won't realize they are Hispanic (of caucasian or caucasian/amerindian ancestry, i.e. Mestizo). The number of White Hispanics therefore shrinks as society sees tham as plain White socially... and the fact that most Hispanics do have European genes make them closer to being White than near easterners. Also, a recent study published by a scientist, I forget his name, stated that most of the people in Great Britain are indeed descended from people who came from the Iberian peninsula...that is to say...Spain. The previous thoughts about Celtics and what not are questioned and thought to be incorrect. Cali567 12:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article needs to reflect the fast that white as a term and or grouping of a race is in err. No one is truly white, nor is anyone truly black. This 18th century color coding of people is flawed and foolish. Also it racist to have images of people on this page, it gives people the wrong idea. A real encyclopedia would not have this let alone, the historical section that deems to use ancient documents to poorly support a purely bias stance. Why could, or why should Europeans or anyone be white, or a color? Within each national group people have their race of origin. As do all Europeans, and sub groups of such. Group of people can be considered a race according to their original race/tribe. Ex. French people would be the race of Normands etc. Everyone has their own original ancient tribe to define themselves, which is very true for the Teutonic people. What is the point of forcing people to be in a group as white when this as a term has not logic behind it besides outside appearance. --Margrave1206 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha...he looks the same in every picture, the only thing different is the lighting. Go outside and take a picture of yourself and then take a picture in your house with all the curtains closed....see it now? Cali567 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I get your point..lol, I apologize if I was out of line.....Cali567 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it is a good point. Some editors here have made a big deal about how northern Europeans are "lighter" than southern Europeans. They do not seem to realise that this small variation is as likely to do with the relative amount of sunlight each region gets. I wonder how Scandinavians would look if they spent the whole year in Spain, or California? Likewise if mediteranean people lived in Scandinavia they would be significantly paler. Oddly enough I know several Spanish people here in Finland. Alun 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portuguese, Spanish and Meditteranean people

message: This user continues pushing his point of view as if he owned the article. Right now he is in arguments against Psychohistorian, Carwil and me in different places. I am tired of reverting him. Just look at his conduct. Since he and other users with his positions appeared in this article, this article has had a lot of incredible problems. He often just says: Read previous sections and that is it. He seems to be the boss here, which I think fits very well his view of the world. Veritas et Severitas 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the 3rd or 4th or maybe more time that you have created an entire section to "warn" (with thinly veiled insults) people about my edits. Stop or I will report you for Harassment. This is my final warning to you. Lukas19 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Lukas conduct again