Talk:White people/Archive 7

message: Why the info about Norway was deleted? Thulean 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was deleted because it does not say what you claim it says.-Psychohistorian 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And???-Psychohistorian 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What you wrote is, "In Norway, white is an ethnic category and is used interchangeably with European and includes all Europeans besides Norwegians, Sami, Finnish and other Nordics. Other categories are Asian (Turkish included), Black/African/Carribean and other".  The article never sets a "white vs. non whites" line of any sort.-Psychohistorian 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You claimed my comment was "silly".  Oh my god, you are attacking me again!  Maybe I should create an RfI!  Oh, no wait, I'm an adult.
Taking two seperate articles and creating a synthesis out of them is a form of original research and violates the WP:NOR.-Psychohistorian 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends. Sometimes a good editor will need to put pieces together. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do in-depth research on the internet and books, you'd be able to find that the Turkish are mixture of people from Europe and Asia - Central Asian, Roman, Greek, Celtic, Balkan Slavic, and Persian. The Turkish are originally from Central Asia but they have intermarried the people of the Byzantine Empire who lived in Turkish before them. That's why the Turkish seem to have some interesting mixture. Some look very much like the Bosnians - with blond hair and blue eyes and others don't (some look Mediterreanean but have Chinese eyes). So it remains a complicated issue to say whether or not the Turkish are White. --Fantastic4boy 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway

message: Shell Kinney has opened an RfC on my behaviour in relation with the dispute on this article. People involved in it should probably take a look. You can endorse either view or make a separate comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sugaar. --Sugaar 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Sugaar 

message: Scientists have just discovered that races are far more genetically separate than previously thought, read the details (all wikipedia race articles will based on these findings have to be rewritten I think) here:.Manticorn
:This is differences in gene (cistron) copy number, and is differences between individuals. No mention is made of "race". Your don't even appear to have read the link you point to, these variations obviously arrise during developement, when copy number can be modified in individual cell types even. For examply the DNA in your white blood cells is different due to the generation of diversity required to produce millions (possibly billions) of different antibodies, not to mention the fact that there is no genomic DNA at all in your red blood cells. The article states Scientists are not sure why the copy variations emerge, but it probably has something to do with the shuffling of genetic material that occurs in the production of eggs and sperm; the process is prone to errors. Your use of this article displays a complete lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of molecular biology. You appear to have nothing to base your claims on, how can "race" articles be based on copy number variation that is developementally linked, it has nothing to do with hereditary. Alun 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid the way this news has been reported is going to tie it to the race issue. I have today's copy of The Independent (British newspaper) in which the news is illustrated with pictures of visibly racially diverse people, as if to demonstrate that this newly identified genetic diversity maps on to visible racial differences. The article does not say that, but the picture encourages us to infer it. Paul B 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well I've had some bad experiences in the past with so called journalists "interpretations" of genetic science on wikipedia before, especially with regard to newspapers and news websites being cited. I'm just glad thet the Reliable sources guideline specifically states that nwespapers and magazines do not constitute reiable sources for science. Alun 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolution in Genetics Vindicates Coon et al.

message: Someone added a section about the Ainu people of Japan. I fixed it up for formatting and wording, but I'm not sure if the topic fits the definition of white people in this article. Although they are described as having very light skin, nothing in the Ainu people article indicates that they, or others verbally describe them as white people or consider them white in a social or political sense. Spylab 11:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan/Ainu people

message: An editor unilaterally moved this article to The white race; I moved it back to White people. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral move 

message: I'm going to remove it. The meditation is inactive for weeks (I'll reopen it though, on some minor points), there hasnt been any RfC comments for a long time. Every sentence in the article is also sourced so I believe this article is one of the most accurate in Wikipedia. Also we didnt see many comments in talk page recently...Lukas19 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Accuracy Tag

message: FYI, someone on Stormfront (website) has posted a request for help from users of that forum with this article in particular.   -Will Beback · † · 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was posted on November 10th, corresponding to us having to protect the article that day. Interesting... - BanyanTree 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit wars had begun on Noverber 9th though. Interesting...Lukas19 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stormfront 

message: I have left this article alone. I can see how some extremists continue elaborating on the article and continue using it for their ludicrous agendas. I will come back in about a few months again, to continue having a good time at the expense of the most biased article in Wikipedia. Have a look at user Lukas (I think before Thulean) and D. Tichondrias. Two interesting users among some others. Veritas et Severitas 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what usage of white people you mean.  In English, particularly as used in the British Isles, "white" often refers to Germanic people versus Celtic, and the surnames like White, Whited, Whitehead refer to blondness.  For that narrowest use of "white" in English, the photograph is very accurate.  Even for the broader use of the term, there is controversy as to the boundaries of what qualifies as "white" - certainly we would need to use a photograph of someone with pale skin.  Fourdee 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Many people who are not Nazis use the terms "black and "white" in reference to British and Irish people, not to mean skin color but hair color. At any rate, people of the Nordic type, in general, have the palest skin so are the "most white" by anyone's definition. Fourdee 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From my point of view, the Basque people are very uniformly R1b, that doesn't make them the "whitest" or the most European.  It does make them quintessentially western European, for what it's worth.  Baltic people are definitely often blonde and pale, but they are not slavic at all (and slavs have darker hair and eyes, generally) and they are geographically and to an extent genetically linked to Scandinavians.  The distribution of pale skin is quite clear.  I think the portrayal of a Scandinavian person reaches a good balance between the British/Irish usage of white to mean blonde or Germanic, and the more general usage of it to mean having pale skin and being of European origin.  Fourdee 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haplogroup N is Caucasoid and represents the ancestor group for the other Caucasian haplogroups.  I'm sure many Russians, Finns and Baltic people would be shocked to hear that they are not Europeans.  Sure look like it to me.  I never denied, and in fact have stated, that there is some vagueness in the difference between Mongoloid and Caucasoid as far as how the mutations arose.  That doesn't matter much to a "white people" article.  At any rate, Swedes and Norwegians don't have significant portions of N.  If you think "white people" or "nordic people" are "lies" that is your perogative however I don't think other people find the terms very difficult to apply.  Fourdee 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also you have some trouble sticking by your word to leave the article, but my perception of that dishonor may be a result of my cultural and/or ethnic and/or racial insensitivity. Fourdee 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So a black European citizen is equally white?  Fourdee 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever you are, you cannot stand by your word at all and have no shame about going back on it.  Again, perhaps I am not being sensitive to your cultural/ethnic/racial/whatever traditions.  Fourdee 02:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is funny how the article is doing. 

message: Just see the last contributions.
About Germanic peoples.
About the picture
About deleting the contribution about dark hair.
And about the comments above.
If some administrators want to leave this article for these people it is up to them and a shame for Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well I leave this article alone again.