Talk:White people/Archive 13

message: The following individuals are White by virtually all definitions cited in this article. 
Image:Professor_Wolfgang_Ketterle.jpg|German Professor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Image:Anna_Kournikova_Blackdress.jpg|Russian athelete Anna Kournikova
Image:Dolph_Lundgren_poster.jpg|Swedish actor Dolph Lundgren
Image:Sophia Loren Hotel Ritz 1979 - 01 - 1024.jpg|Italian actress Sophia Loren
Image:John F. Kennedy, White House color photo portrait.jpg|Irish-American US president John F. Kennedy
Image:Beatrix05.jpg|Dutch monarch Beatrix of the Netherlands
Image:OlympiaDukakis.jpg| Greek-American actress Olympia Dukakis
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svgImage:Vaclav havel.jpg|Czech politician Vaclav Havel
Image:Ségolène Royal - Royal & Zapatero's meeting in Toulouse for the 2007 French presidential election 0276 2007-04-19 cropped.JPG|French politician Ségolène Royal
Image:Nouri al-Maliki with Bush, June 2006, cropped.jpg|Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki
Image:Sopho Khalvashi-tight.jpg|Georgian singer Sopho Khalvashi
The following people have one parent who may be described as "white".  
Image:Lenny Kravitz (Brasilia, 2005).jpeg| Lenny Kravitz
Image:Mariah Carey13 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg| Mariah Carey
Image:Halle Berry fleet week.jpg| Halle Berry
Image:ObamaBarack.jpg| Barack Obama
Removed unknowns and poor/redundant examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 
:How are Prince William and the Chief of Staff of the US Army poor or unknown? They must be included as being both well known, and worldwide examples --Hayden5650 05:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prince William should stay, as he is well-known and it's obvious he's white. lol. - Jeeny Talk 05:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ethnicities are white anyway, there is no doubt he is white --Hayden5650 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no doubt in your mind, but we need a higher level of verifiability.  Why use a mixed ethnicity instead of a full Britian?
And also, where is the sense in having a Black/White photo when we are describing color? --Hayden5650 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL, I agree. And I can't believe it. :) - Jeeny Talk 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed them. Now add an another brunette. - Jeeny Talk 06:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We should make half known people, and the other half natural people like in there livestyles cultural ones. --Vonones 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would agree with that as long as the pictures tie to an article at WP, where he photo is also displayed --Kevin Murray 06:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two women needed to balance. - Jeeny Talk 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer to see some women, but Hilary being of mixed heritage does not seem like a good example.  I'd rather stick to demonstrating diverse known heritages. --Kevin Murray 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No your saying that because shes a democrat Bush has his spies. --Vonones 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What mixed heritage does Hiliary Clinton have? - Jeeny Talk 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What heritage does she have?  She is a meanigless example.  I support Hilary and Bill, am an American, but think that US examples are not productive.  --Kevin Murray 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How about Margrethe II of Denmark? A woman, and in a very notable position --Hayden5650 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm good with that, but with Dolf we might be redundant.   --Kevin Murray 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We old people still have some validity. --Kevin Murray 06:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If it makes you feel better. --Vonones 06:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Jennfer anneston! --Vonones 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: True we might have to research that too :) --Vonones 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: {edit conflict, 3 friken times!) LOL, Hayden, Sofia Loren, and JFK are brunettes. And Tony Blair is kind of in the middle. Don't worry about it for now. Maybe later if anyone has objections. Smoke a cigarette. - Jeeny Talk 06:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery II - open edits

message: All in all the black people article has about 30 photos, at least 26 are portraits but with more than 30 people. Of these 10 are celebs the rest are average people. Furthermore a good number of them  may be found in multiple racial categories such as tiger woods, chavez and sadat, the coloured family and all Oceanic peoples. This is helpful in understanding how blackness is constructed in different places. Whereas this present gallery suggested for the white people article has no such variation, everyone is just well "white". 
If you look at the present version, all the women are young white women. This is biased,ageism there are several middle aged women on the black people article. Wangari, condi or the Vanuatu woman etc. If aliens looked at the current gallery they would exclude older white women from the race. Muntuwandi 07:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just back from my ciggy, each edit conflict is worth a pack ;) And Muntuwandi, some of the discussion above is about older people, at the moment I am looking for a notable older women, who still has brunette hair, (i.e, not grey) --Hayden5650 07:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I am concerned is that this may deteriorate into some tabloid type beauty contest.Muntuwandi 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please look again.  I and others have worked hard to diversify this.  --Kevin Murray 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think all the pictures should be of young people.  Since blondes, brunettes, and red-heads get white hair or dye their hair when they are old, older whites do not exhibit the associated white traits as well as younger whites.  Also, older people loose the even skin coloration of youth and have blotchy skin, illustrating the archetypical white skin less well if the article uses old people.  Lastly, older peoples' faces sag, hiding the facial structure of whites.----DarkTea 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's poppycock, white skin is white skin no matter the age. Also, many, many younger people dye their hair. I totally disagree and will protest to delete the whole gallery if only young people are represented. - Jeeny Talk 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whiteness and blackness are constructed a little differently. This may seem unfair but the reality is that we live in a world that is saturated with images of white people in the media. Consequently using the same images on this article may not add value in defining what whiteness is. Thus I don't believe that the current gallery will survive the scrutiny of other editors for long. I believe galleries have been proposed in the past and they were always taken down. In order to make it more acceptable I propose including multiracials, with a view to explaining why they are not considered white, but black or another race, despite having white ancestry. Also including non-white caucasian to illustrate why they are classified as caucasian but not considered white. Also a comparison of East Asian skin color with white skin color. This is of interest because both populations have light skin. If both a white person and an East asian were to visit some uncontacted tribe of dark skinned people, the tribe may not be able to distinguish the two as of a different race. However in our social constructions we do. Muntuwandi 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to include multiracials, Asians, Middle Easterners just to show how they are not white?----DarkTea 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Only in the US. In other parts of the world mixed race individuals may identify more with their white heritage. In latin american countries such as Brazil, there is no one drop rule. It is possible that some light skinned African Americans would be considered white in Brazil Racial ambiguities in Brazil.Muntuwandi 09:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its just a suggestion, since on the black  people article there are people like Obama, he is half white, though socially constructed black. For example in a matrilineal society people identify with the ethnicity of their mothers. In such a society Obama would be white.  Muntuwandi 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not about redefining the terms, or what should be.  --Kevin Murray 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not redefining terms, in brazil for example the term branca means white but is applied to people who would be considered hispanic in the US. the loura is applied to blonds. this means that whiteness is constructed differently.Muntuwandi 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is reaching to make an obscure point.  Latin America is a diverse environment including "Native" Americans (basically Asian), Sub Saharan-African, Arabic, and Europeans.  The migration from Spain in the 16th century was heavilly populated by Spaniards of Arabic blood seeking refuge from the Inquisition.  Most of us in America are of mixed lineage, and make poor examples for displaying traditional white diversity.  I think that the topic of further evolution away from White, Black etc. is important, but not specifically germane to this article.  --Kevin Murray 10:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect parallel construction of gallery

message: I've removed this from the article because of it's complexity (being simplified here), and not relevant to this article. The US Census is going through a lot of changes. In fact there has been talk of getting rid of it altogether. But, the implications and complexities are too great. Because of the racist agenda, the Bill of Rights, and to keep track of cases of racism, discrimination, and equal opportunity, etc.  - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Census section

message: I find it rather odd that people deleted the reference to Immanuel Kant. He's a famous and great man. He should be in the history section...KarenAER 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant believed the difference between whites and blacks in color mirrored their different mental capability.  He also believed blacks lacked the ability for rationality and morals.  Due the beastial nature Kant ascribed blacks, he saw fit that blacks should be slaves to whites.  He is not a WP:RS.----DarkTea 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant's statement was in the history section which is supposed to address the evolution of the term, I don't understand how is it inappropriate for that part of the article given the fact that Kant is one of the most influential thinkers in the world? JRWalko 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark Tea, there is no provision which justifies your actions. You should read WP:RS yourself and stop trolling...KarenAER 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source in this subject must have expertise relevant to this subject.  Kant is a philosopher and a even if he were deemed an anthropologist it wouldn't matter, because the label as applied then means little today.  Black people clearly have the capacity to reason, so Kant has shown his ignorance with regard to race.----DarkTea 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are saying a great thinker mentioned white in a book of his. That's entirely reasonable and and within WP:RS. And it is also in the history section and we arent saying Blacks are irrational and cite Kant. Please stop trolling and get reasonable...KarenAER 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immanuel Kant

message: The  section physical appearance is written with a tone of exceptionalism. for example
*1)According to the study, the results also strongly suggests that Europeans and East Asians have evolved light skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanisms.
there are several genes that are involved in producing skin color. currently only two are known. MC1R and SLC24A5. Without information about the other the several other genes it is premature to make "strong" and "distinct" conclusions.
* 2)Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception:.
Big exception is POV. This is human exceptionalism because it is overemphasizing hair and eye color in humans. But when one considers the animal kingdom there is significant variety in hair and eye color. So I added some info on the evolution of MC1R for context.
Besides peter frost hypotheses is really strange. He says a shortage of men arose because of hunting in the tundra. this resulted in many women chasing after few men. So men became choosy and selected different hair and eye colors. Isn't this guy just projecting his fantasies into his research.Muntuwandi 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence 2 continues to be just plain false. Most Europeans have only one hair color and one eye color, as well. Removing... --Carwil 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: white exceptionalism

message: Hayden5650 obviously has a nordicist agenda, and Muntuwandi obviously has an afrocentrist agenda. Both aren't welcome. Their aggressive behaviour is disrupting constructive efforts at this article. I ask both editors to stand down and stop edit-warring. If they cannot do this, I ask other editors involved here to revert controversial edits from both sides and let the disruptive editors run into WP:3RR. The alternative is locking down the article again, which is in nobody's interest. Constructive progress is difficult enough among bona fide editors, there is no room for prancing around with fringe ideologists.  dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can leave too if you are going to dare accuse me of that crap. Look at all the talk above, I have been discussing and discussing and discussing to gain consensus, and have been as accommodating as possible to other editors' opinions, it seems to be you that has a problem with discussing changes --Hayden5650 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: that's commendable, of course. The upshot is still that the article is now protected again. You've been working on a gallery, that's fine, but neither this article nor the black people one should even have a gallery. Consider moving it to :commons:, where it will be most welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is not necessary at this stage. The same problems will arise when the page is unprotected. Better to discuss changes. My major problem is the tone of the section on physical appearance is one of exceptionalism. This I believe to be unscientific. It is written in a manner that tries to distance europeans from other races. Muntuwandi 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: disruption

message: A statistical analysis done in 1958 using historical census data and historical data on immigration and birth rates, concluded that 21 percent of the white population had black ancestors. The growth in the white population could not be attributed to births in the white population and immigration from Europe alone, but had received significant contribution from the American black population as well. 
AFRICAN ANCESTRY OF THE WHITE AMERICAN POPULATION
The author states in 1958:
:The data presented in this study indicate that the popular belief in the non-African background of white persons is invalid. Over twenty-eight million white persons are descendants of persons of African origin. Furthermore, the majority of the persons with African ancestry are classified as white.
Considering the last 10 generations, the majority of African Americans( at least one African ancestor) are white.
Muntuwandi 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admixture goes the other way too (I've seen a 26% cited from a study by Cavalli-Sforza), but what is the point of this? Is there something in particular about the article that is in question here? I feel like this isn't the first time you've started a vague/forum-ish post - can you clarify just what we are supposed to do about this information? Thanks.  The Behnam 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The white american subsection should make a mention that many white americans have recent sub-saharan ancestry as well. Especially those who have had ancestors in the US for more than 10 generations.Muntuwandi 06:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point Muntuwandi is trying to make only highlights the fuzziness of racial categories (much like the question whether "whites" includes non-Europeans). Either of two things can happen: either we accept that people with a majority of features that can be said "white" are actually white, or we apply arbitrary, even silly rules like the one-drop rule that eliminate a lot of people from the category, and possibly a majority of the population on this planet falls out out each race into some vague "admixture/multiracial" category. However, I guess my question is more of a social comment than one about what to do with the article, though, but it should be seen as a warning against this article trying to decide what the "truth" is (as opposed to reporting on the different existing definitions). Sorry, getting off my soapbox! :)--Ramdrake 11:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YAWN! "Second, the Black and White groups are not symmetrical. The mean African admixture among White Americans is low—roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture."  KarenAER 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You refer us to a blog...  The Behnam 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unlike many blogs, this one contains real references, which possibly are usable themselves; and of course there's nothing wrong with citing less-than-reliable sources on talk pages, as long as they lead us to reliable sources. However: we can't just pluck the references from the unreliable sources without verifying them (that's the point fo the sources being unreliable; unreliability includes being unreliable about references.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been looking up the author, Frank W. Sweet.  It seems that he self-publishes, rather than in peer-reviewed journals.  Even so, there may be a better place to find those ideas than his blog - I imagine that his blog isn't the only place he has published his papers.  The Behnam 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you are unable to follow bibliography, the source is: Mark D. Shriver and others, “Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping,” Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99, Table 2, which I didnt link directly because you have to pay to see that whole article. KarenAER 16:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KarenAER, as you seem unable to find a free link to the article you cite, here it is: . You will also find the evidence is misquoted (see table 2 at the bottom of page 391 of the article), as it is the result of tests conducted on a small group, in a single college in a single state in the United States. This cannot be construed as representative of a national average by any stretch of the imagination. Please properly research your references, next time.--Ramdrake 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm getting quite tired of your incivility, but anyway, I was looking at the reliability of the author, as it is fairly important to trusting material that he cites.  With my 26%, I take that out of the textbook 'Evolutionary Biology', 3rd ed., by Douglas Futuyma, and as such I feel that I can trust his cite of Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer's work.  The Behnam 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, can one make any reliable conclusions based on such a limited sample? AFAIK, the authors don't even claim that. My question remains.--Ramdrake 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is a limited sample, I am surprised that a more comprehensive study hasn't been done. Maybe they assume there isn't much admixture to be found. For african americans, studies have been more comprehensive. However Shrivers study is still consistent with the analysis from 1958 that indicated 21% of european americans had recent african ancestry.Muntuwandi 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admixture

message: Seems to me like this article is a wrestling match between the article on "Caucasoids" and the one on "Europeans". If one says that the term is identical to either of these, then the contents should be merged into the correct article and this one be deleted. If this concept is different from either definition, it should attach itself to defining its differences with either definition (as they are not likely to be obvious to the casual reader!). This is something I don't (or maybe can't) see. Could we maybe regroup and try to describe the different social definitions of "White" (census categories ain't it) rather than battle over what the definition should be (i.e. Wikipedia isn't about truth, as we all know)? Please let me know.--Ramdrake 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason why this article seems to be a wrestling match is because you're the one wrestling to turn this article into the Caucasoid article.  This article is about the White race not the Caucasoid race.  The reason the censal definitions are given is because they are RS.  There are other non-RS POVs such as non-Jew European, but we are limited to the RSs on the subject.  Your call to have multiple POVs represented must require the POVs to be from RSs and not OR discussions.----DarkTea 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is about the census definitions of "white", then it shouldn't pretend to address "whites" as either a social construct or even less as any kind of biological grouping. A census definition is a statistical grouping; conflating a statistical grouping with a social construct and worse with some idea of a biological grouping makes no sense to me, at least (not talking about the other editors, just me). Problem is, this article (and the various editors behind it) try to twist information into what they think the "white" race should be, rather than describing what reliable sources (such as anthropologists, epidemiologists, etc.) have been saying.--Ramdrake 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how you could distinguish the censal definitions as being "statistical groupings", but I can't see how they are not also social constructs, defining a POV for whites within an established RS.----DarkTea 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll try to explain again: census definitions are "statistical groupings"; we'd need a reliable source for at least a few of them that states that the society indeed views itself accordingly; i.e., that these statistical groupings are indeed real, functional social groupings used by that society. Otherwise, these statistical grouping could be assumed to be somewhat arbitrary and (most importantly) not reflective of the way society views itself. Is this any clearer?--Ramdrake 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POVs given by censuses just can't be described as representative of society's view unless they explicitly say this like the US Census, but they are still RS POVs.----DarkTea 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, do you agree that we should tweak how they are presented in the article, and try not to use them to say that "a majority of people think non-Eurpoeans shouldn't be considered white?". That's my main beef.  If we present them as "these are the views of the respective national census bureaus, which may differ from societal views in those countries", and just leave it at that, I'll stop pestering the lot of you. :)--Ramdrake 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, present the POVs given by the censuses as their respective views, but the US Census says that its views represent society's views.----DarkTea 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem there: if the census explictly states it reflects society's view, then it does. I'm only against assuming that census represents society's views when it doesn't explicitly say so.  I hope that's logical enough. --Ramdrake 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll ask the question, again 

message: How come this article which is titled "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labelling in Research on Race, Ethnicity and Health" not relevant to white people. In these study, authors analyze the usage of whie in Research on Race, Ethnicity and Health and conclude that, in table 1, page 3, "In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions." How come ref do not match statements? 
:Very simply, because that's not the conclusion nor the point of the paper. The table is just there to collect the definitions that research group has encountered in its specific research.--Ramdrake 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I think the section on Norway is probably not to different than other country definitions. in which case it is better to include definitions that are more diverse.Muntuwandi 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh so you admit POV pushing in the sense that you only want to preserve the definitions you like (ie: more diverse)?? KarenAER 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if norway, the US, germany, italy for example all have the same definition, is it necessary to list them all. To be more informative would be to list a significant divergence from these "standard" definitions.Muntuwandi 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again, stating others as pushing a POV and accuse me of trolling, yet you find tiny statements in a reference article that goes on about how problematic it is to define race. You put in Norway, as a representative white race, when it states pale complextion, and in your POV represents Europeans. Which it does not. You are the biggest POV pusher and "troll" on this article, and you continually accuse others of which you are its worse offender. Now you make a heading with me as it's subject. Who is the troll here? - Jeeny Talk 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's necessary to list the Norwegian government's definiton of white even though it's the same as the British government's definition because they are not the same country.----DarkTea 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeeny's behavior

message: The problem with your suggestion is that Norway is the only census that explicitly defines white as a European.----DarkTea 07:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see what you are saying, but it's too small of a section, Dark Tea. But please do not refer to a "white race" as you did on this talk page. There is no such thing as a white race, just as there is no such thing as a "black race", it is a social concept. Also, the US is not a RS to define race, as it does not represent society as a whole. It is ever evolving though, because of social pressure. It still exists because discontinuing it would cause more problems then it would solve. IE. racial discrimination, equal opportunity, among other things. People are free to not comply with the US Census, it is not mandatory. It is not a law of the land, it is for protection of civilians. People can choose one or many more definitions on the census, or none at all. - Jeeny Talk 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Well well, that is unique.  I suppose I don't mind mentioning that in its own section since we should aim to cover the spectrum of significant views about the scope of the racial classification.  We just need to make sure that we don't advocate or favor a particular point of view - I'll continue observing development to make sure that this is not the case.  The Behnam 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: @Jeeny, it is somewhat unreasonable to ask people not to mention "white race" on the talk page about the "white people," a racial concept.  The Behnam 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, thank you, you're right. See your talk page. - Jeeny Talk 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The scientific race is the white race.  Science is the pursuit of knowledge using objective methods.  The term white is used in current investigations involving race such as the US Census.----DarkTea 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the most used term is the "Caucasoid Race" (more common in North America), or the "Caucasian race" (more common in Europe, AFAIK). There isn't currently a scientifically recognized "white" race (the term is obsolete scientifically, but not altogether socially). And the US census is primarily a governmental, demographic, statistical endeavor. Its data has been used in many scientific studies, but its primary purpose isn't to do science; it's to keep tabs on many people are in the country, and to categorize them.--Ramdrake 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Caucasoid race; there is only the white race.  The Caucasoid race was the imagination of Carleton S. Coon whose hatred of blacks drove him to redefine many black peoples into his race.  East Africans and South Asians suddenly had to not be black, because they had an advanced civilization.  The white race has existed ever since the people in Northern Europe first adapted to low sunlight.  The term white race is still used in social science.  Science involves the method for objectively looking for knowledge, so the social scieces are true sciences.  Social sciences recognizes the white race as real, so science backs the white race.----DarkTea 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The social sciences, such as Sociology and Anthropology, treat races as a social construct, not as a self-evident objective biological reality. Races are seen as social processes of categorization based upon highly variable manipulated interpretations of perceived physical appearence, social and cultural features and supposed psychological traists. Just the opposite of what you said, in fact! The Ogre 13:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like exactly what I said.----DarkTea 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway

message: Has anyone noted that 4 out of 6 examples of a definition of white come from countries that are partly or predominantly from an Anglo-Saxon tradition (US, UK, Canada and Australia). I'm concerned this assemblage may be skewed, am I the only one? Maybe we should have others, like France (or another European non-Anglo-Saxon country), a second Latin American country, etc.--Ramdrake 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Excellent! --Kevin Murray 11:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of examples of white by country 

message: I again bring up the gallery because the attempt to get a real discussion on it at Talk:White people#Arbitrary gallery was distracted by other issues.  The main thing I was looking for are policy/guideline-minded responses to the cases already made against the gallery and, in general, the use of some images at this article.  Kevin, I remember you wanted the gallery but the distractions occurred before you could make the case - shall we continue where we left off?  The Behnam 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery again 

message: Would said user please take his/her issues to the talk page and work totward consensus first before pushing his/her POV without a single comment (besides the edit summaries, when there is one). Thanks!--Ramdrake 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of Thomas Paine's edits.  I think the exhaustive discussion on the origins of light skin should not cover the evolution of dark skin in Africa per WP:TOPIC.  Also, I thought it was clear that most editors do not want the gallery in the article.  Dbachmann, Dark Tea and The Behnam want the gallery gone.----DarkTea 21:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't seen Thomas attempting to discuss any of his edits. Muntuwandi 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, and while User:Dark Tea may agree with most of the edits, I happen to disagree with most of them. Since they haven't been discussed either, I think it would be most appropriate for all parties involved if there was a proper discussion of those edits prior to their insertion. To name just one, one of the edits actually went something like: The U.S. Census currently defines "white people" as actual white people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. (emphasis on the change). Such edits, IMHO are needlessly inflammatory. And same user didn't remove the gallery from the article (this gallery I admit I could also do without), but only the two non-European Whites in the gallery. If there is going to be such controversy on this point, I'd say it's one more reason not to have the gallery at all.--Ramdrake 22:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the "actual white" addition, because it takes one POV makes it seem more true than the other POVs.  This is against WP:NPOV.----DarkTea 22:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article has been a mess folks. It was nominated for deletion, so don't even try to defend it. Don't load it up with questionable speculation, off topic ramblings, inaccurate generalizations, and so on. Stop trying to make it a soap box for some politcal agenda. Thomas Paine1776 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also realize that unilaterally editing the article to fix the problems you perceive is not the way to go, either. This article has its problems, granted. Let's discuss what you feel they are and how to fix them. Also, please note that this article did survive deletion, so the community must have thought it was worth defending.--Ramdrake 23:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs drastic edits and deletions. The deleted material cannot be fixed, its rambling. Don't even try to defend it, just look at the history of the article. You all can't even get a simple definintion right. It seems the user who initiated the speedy keep of the article from deletion was later banned. The title of the article was spared,but don't take that as any sort of acceptance of the content. The history of the article has no consensus and no consistency.  The article doesn't just have problems, its junk.  It has so many inaccurate generalizations, it would be like talking in circles. Start from scratch and completely rewrite it. (BTW, Albino doesn't belong in the classification). Ramblings about chimpanzees and so on is simply off topic. The deletions made restored a semblence of neutrality to the article, and a new starting point for you all to make the article better. As it is now it is unacceptable. Don't waste time defending junk. Rewrite it. Thomas Paine1776 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed the article needs work, its not to hard and not impossible to rewrite it, but what is needed is specifics rather than generalizaions. There is always debate about how much science to include in articles involving race. Some editors prefer to focus only on the social construction of race. But that is up to the other editors.Muntuwandi 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, either of two things can happen: if this article is so bad, it can be renominated for deletion, or it can be changed through consensus on the talk page. Unilateral, arbitrary actions won't help. Inserting in a definition that the US census defines as whites those that are "actually white", or deleting images of non-European white persons looks to me like it's trying to push a POV, not to attain neutrality. Also, as has been discussed here, "white" doesn't have a "simple" definition: its definition has widely varied according to epoch and locale.--Ramdrake 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My suggestion is that you take my selected deletions and use it as a starting point to improve the article.  Don't defend off topic ramblings, peripheral issues, and inaccurate and questionable generalizations. Some are just manipulating the topic.  Keep it on topic, and move on to another article.  Stop wasting your time on the distortions selected for deletion in this article, make it neutral, and move on, not a political agenda. From the history others attempted to add some meaningful charts and science, only to find their work deleted by some of the political disrupters.  The selected deletions have so much junk that its not even worth trying to salvage, take it as a favor. It probably has too much focus on science in general, and questionable science at that.  What wasn't deleted has some merit. So it was left for you all to improve.Thomas Paine1776 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darktea is making some progress removing East Asians, this was just one of the inaccuracies. Removing original research claims is also good. Making questionable/controversial or highly speculative claims sound like facts, even if they are cited, is another problem with this article. Overemphasizing science is another probable issue.  Many more to go. Less peripheral science, (eg. moles, chimpanzees, overemphasis of pigment) Focus on making it more clear and concise. Thomas Paine1776 00:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, all that is included is relevant to the origins of skin color. My only concern with it is that it may be too detailed, but the information presented is part of modern science. For example some of the genes and the mechanisms that are involved in skin pigmentation were only identified after studying albinos, like the OCA1a gene. Many people find discussing albinos uncomfortable, I can understand that. But they have played in an important role in learning how both blacks and whites produce pigments. And those meaningful charts and science that you mention are more part of an agenda and original research. I have heard people say stuff like "Haplogroup K is resonsible for virtually all of science, philosophy, technology and art". Those were the charts that were in the article, trying silently to promote an agenda using manipulative charts. Muntuwandi 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about pigmentation mechanisms, human skin color genetics, the East Asian, the albino and European migrations out of Africa.  This article should only have a summary of skin color as it relates to white people.  Something like, "White people are archetypically distinguished by light skin.  Europeans adapted a lighter skin color due to their latitudenal distance away from the Equator.  This is especially true of Northern Europeans whose skin color is the lightest due to being farthest away from the Equator.  Light skin color was functional as it helped absorb vitamin D from the sunlight, promoting normal growth."----DarkTea 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is one of taxonomy, who are "white people". We have assumed that white people are only Europeans, that is the traditional classification. Hypothetically if an alien were to come from outer space and was informed that white people have light skin as measured by skin reflectance. How would they distinguish an Albino, an east asian, or a light skinned multiracial from a white person. In the black people article, there is a difference, but this is also cultural and historical. Aboriginals and melanesians are considered black because they have dark skin, yet they are more related to Asians than to Africans. Yet a similar standard is not applied to Asians and Europeans who have similar skin colors. This is an arbitrary construction of racial or ethnic boundaries which is unscientific. If we were to use an objective scientific method, using a spectrophotometer to measure skin reflectance to classify whiteness, then albinos, east asians, europeans and some light skinned multiracials would be white. I think that is demonstrated in the picture. Muntuwandi 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntuwandi's disagreement highlights why the article should not overdwell on  science (speculative at that) and idiosyncratic theories. Pigmentation is only one factor among many, thus it should not be overemphasized or represented as defining. A brief mention is not a problem. Darktea's point is well taken, there are separate articles for pigmentation mechanisms. Overdwelling on theories and speculative explanations for why this or that, invites distortions.  No need to pile speculation on top of theory.  Also, there are separate articles that deal with pigmentation mechanisms.  There are other aspects for these sorts of articles such as historical and social.Thomas Paine1776 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly entitled to your POV, but please don't try to force it on other editors by false arguments to authority. We all are different individuals, with different worldviews, and nobody carries the sacrosanct Truth in his or her opinion. White as a racial/social concept is a matter that is open to some interpretation, maybe even to open debate. Denying that is misconstruing reality. Please remember that Wikipedia is about verifiabilty (i.e. significant opinion should be voiced), not "Truth" (i.e. telling the reader which opinion is correct).--Ramdrake 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing bias in article

message: added this message to the main page so i moved it here, as he does have a right to state his opinion, but on the right page: 
I've been warned by Wikipedia to be polite, but this is what upsets me on the TOP of the page:
'The term white people functions as a color terminology for race;[3] one that emerged from a racialized, European historical context.[4][5]'
'Racialized, European historical context.' ??
Is this NEUTRAL??? This whole article is tripe and contrived by some fresh faced kid out of college, brainwashed by some hypocritical professors (probably white themselves, living a comfortable lifestyle off the 'Man').
READ THIS ARTICLE. It's BIASED against THOSE of EUROPEAN ANCESTRY.
Again, User:Bruce1314 added this message, not me. -JacќяМ  ¿Qué? 07:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The European man has had his say for too long now. 'White' represents a wide range of colors and ancestries, saying otherwise is the product of bigoted eurocentrist propaganda. --Godongwana 07:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The European should be able to self-define their own people, using the terminology they see fit.  Wikipedia articles must abide by the terminology the group prefers for its own people per WP:NCI.  If Europeans like to call themselves the term "white", then by Wikipedia policy that is the name their article should be called.----DarkTea 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Message moved to here from main page

message: I want to directly address the irrelevant albinism and East Asian issues, and the pointy comparative OR picture.  Let's begin with a information about the classification of race (in the human context):
What is important to note when working with the race sometimes designated as "white" (but also "Caucasian") is that it does not simply include anyone with light skin.  The definition of the "white" race varies depending upon what combination of phenotypic characteristics are considered and what degree of distinction is applied to each as it varies across geography.  The classifications are decided from population patterns across geography, not from individual exceptions.  As it classifies populations, ancestry is generally asserted such that white people have white children, black people have black chidren, etc.
To get to the points:
#Albinism is not relevant because it is a mutation that affects only one of the characteristics pertinent to the "white" classification.  Also, since "race" works from populations, exceptions (such as a hypothetical white child who, by mutation, looks completely black) don't negate the definitions any more than a person born with 12 fingers negates the generalization that humans have 10 fingers.
#East Asians are (in every RS treatment I have seen) are not classified as "white" because the combination of their physical characteristics are sufficiently different from those that are used to define "white people" - again, skin color is never used alone to define "white."
I encourage others to comment, and please, until this issue is resolved, stop adding info and images using albinos and East Asian to the article.  Especially that unencyclopedic comparative picture.  I envision this article as simply covering RS definitions of "white people" as they vary across country, and where available, the criteria looked at in deciding these definitions.  It shouldn't "explore" the legitimacy or basis of the racial classification except where RS have challenged it.  The Behnam 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntuwandi has been synthesizing new arguments about the extent of the white race without attributing the point of view to an outside source.  All of Muntuwandi's sources that cite the East Asian and albino skin color do not claim that these two groups are the same race as the European.    His/her addition of these sources is merely his/her attempt to imply the East Asian and the albino should be included as whites.  This is a special case of original research which is prohibited.----DarkTea 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing I think would help clear up any misunderstanding would be to note that "white" and Caucasoids are near-synonyms, and that a short definition of "white" would be "light-skinned Caucasoid" (on which I hope pretty much everybody should agree). Then, we wouldn't burden ourselves with a definition based solely on skin color, and the confusion to which it gives rise.--Ramdrake 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we base our definition on light skin, Europeans have lighter skin than any other group, on avarage. So Mutawandi's examples are exceptions, such as albino people or multiracial people with European admixture. So I hope we can bring a closure to this issue and move on...KarenAER 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Caucasoid race does not exist; only the white race exists.  The Caucasoid race is the legacy of two creative minds.  Johann Blumenbach's fascination with the Georgians made him fantasize that Europeans arose there and branched out to the Middle East.  This is false, since Europeans probably migrated out of Persia and did not backtrack into the Middle East in a large scale.  The Caucasian race later gave way to the Caucasoid race.  The Caucasoid race is part of the imagination of Carleton S. Coon whose fascination with Indian culture made him need to include all of India as part of his race.  Ironically, India is a shinning example of Negroid civilization, but Coon's hatred of black Americans would not let him conclude they had an advanced civilization.  This article is about the white race; not non-existent races.  Your short definition seems to falsely imply that the Jews, Iberians/Hispanics and the Middle Easterners are also part of the white race.----DarkTea 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Caucasoid race "does not exist", why would there be 6510 references in Google scholar alone for this term? (And 282,000 references for Caucasoid in Google proper, and 271,000 references for "Caucasian in Google scholar). You are free to think that "Caucasoid/Caucasian" is a misnomer, but the facts say that this racial term indeed exists and is used in the science literature and elsewhere.--Ramdrake 23:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.----DarkTea 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you know that the East Asian and the albino aren't part of the white race and you are not trying to argue that they should be included in it, then there is no relevance for including them in this article.  Including them in this article would be off-topic.  Your second point is well taken. It is ridiculous to place pictures of Middle Easterners next to pictures of whites when Middle Easterners may be darker than people who identify as black.----DarkTea 01:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is to illustrate that white skin is not unique to European populations and that the phenotype is observed elsewhere. For example the term "People of color" is used to refer to all Non-whites. This term includes "white skinned" east asians and black skinned Africans, when in fact east asians have as much "color" as whites.Muntuwandi 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "people of color" is just a phrase.  It's not meant to be taken literally.  Since the term "non-whites" connotes exclusion, the term "people of color" is used to connote unity although they are not synonymous.  The more exact term is "non-whites" because it refers to the white race.  The term "white race" is the self-identified term that Europeans use to label their own people.  At the time of European colonialism, referencing skin color was sufficient to distinguish their people from United States American Indians, black Australians, black Asian Indians and black West Africans.  If European colonialism was primarily with North Chinese, then they would have come up with a different term than "white".----DarkTea 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget what I said about Muntuwandi violating WP:SYN in regards to albinos being in this article.  I have found the argument that albino Africans are the same as white Europeans here.----DarkTea 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a more of a racist afrocentric argument presented in the article. Albinism and light skin are similar phenotypes but the arose by different mechanisms. Albinism is a Mendelian trait, Two black parents carrying the recessive gene can have a completely white albino child. The child of an albino with a black person will be black. Whereas light skin is quantitative, the child of a light skinned person and a black person will be intermediate. So while it takes one generation to produce an albino, it would probably take several generations of selection of quantitative traits to arrive at the white skin phenotype from the original black skin. This is why white skin still possesses the ability to produce melanin and to tan, a reminder of its black origins. So contrary to what was being mentioned that SLC24A5 gene swept through Europe and everyone instantly became white is probably not accurate. Muntuwandi 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the term "People of color" or Non-whites embodies the problem with the article. Some of the  people lumped into the non-white category are white skinned but not socially constructed as so. The notion that aboriginals and africans are black because of their skin, but asians are not white though having the same skin color as Europeans is an arbitrary construction of boundaries. Muntuwandi 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "White" is an arbitrary (empirical) construct to start with, I think this much is clear.--Ramdrake 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albinism, East Asian, and other 

message: I think this content dispute is starting to degenerate, with POV-pushing and incivility becoming more and more comme every day. Anybody up for referring this to the Mediation Cabal?--Ramdrake 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind.  If we can't make any progress soon, we should mediate.  The Behnam 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that we seem not to be able to agree on a direction for the article is what prompted me to suggest mediation. We can wait some more, see if we arrive at some form of consensus, but I think it may eventually be a good idea to try this route. Just my tuppence'.--Ramdrake 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation cabal, anyone? 

message: The article at Human skin color seems to cover many of the topics discussed here and with some good sources.  --Kevin Murray 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely original research.  You're taking some material that says one thing and drawing conclusions from it.  Unless you can find an expert who equates the two, conclusions drawn from the map are synthesis.  This is not hard to understand.  Please take the time to understand the citation process on wikipedia and the full meaning and implications of the policy against original research.  Also, you'll note that "white people" as it's most often used includes the populations from the area indicated as 1-12 on that map so I don't even begin to understand what you are trying to say.  At any rate "map says X, and Y is true, so Z" is prohibited synthesis.  Please do not (re)introduce any material at all whatsoever to this type of controversial article that is not cited from an expert source.  It will be deleted.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Synthesis would involve using more than one source and combining their statements to draw a new conclusion that is not reached in either source.  The map clearly says East Asians have the same color as Iberians and Italians, but this does not mean East Asians are also white.  The White Race does not actually include Iberians, since the Iberians Arabized by with the Semitic race and Negroids from India.  Also, Turkish Mongoloized by the Mongoloid Race. Italy miscegenated with the Negroid Race of Africa and the Semites Race of the Middle East when the Romans allowed racial mixing.  In terms of a convenient social construction, the "white race" has been simplified by some to mean European, but in truth, Italians, Iberians, and Turkish are mulatto, Eurasian, Semite/white hybrids.----DarkTea© 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your coments on Iberians are completely delirious! And you cite a site called white-history.com?!? You know nothing about Iberia and its populations genetics or history. And it's apparent you've never been there. Your comments are racist and offensive to most southern Europeans! The Ogre 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is making interpretations from the map original research. Surely we can see according to the map which regions overlap. East asia overlaps with Europe, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Muntuwandi 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that drawing any conclusions at all from a map is original research, which only comes into play in controversial articles or where it has been challenged.  Maps are pictures, they don't say anything.  To interpret them with authority would require being an expert on the matter.  At any rate, all that map shows to me is that whites are in fact not what you are trying to say, but conversely the area colored for 1-12 in skin color.  Hence the need for expert interpretation.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the big problem with this is that Von Luschan's technique has been outmoded by reflectance spectrophotometry for over 50 years. Despite it being "obvious" (if it were really obvious, that technique probably would have been more consistent) that Europeans and East Asians share a similar skin tone, is there a source that says that? If it covers the topic in any depth, it will probably mention that the social construct defies the science, which is something that should be included in any discussion of similar skin tones.--Chaser - T 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human skin color

message: "The authors concluded that white people, in practice, refers to "people of European origin with pale complexions."" 
How come this is incorrect? KarenAER 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, that is not their conclusion, that is but one of the various definitions they considered in the paper.--Ramdrake 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In table 1 they summarize the definitions used in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK. Under comments and recommendations it says: "in practice, refers to "people of European origin with pale complexions." The "race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK." was actually included in the previous version. So how's this: The authors commented that white people, "in practice, refers to "people of European origin with pale complexions" in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK. KarenAER 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the article and table interesting, but it is only another example of an opinion.  What value is it for us to have this opinion, and encourage MW to post another obscure source in rebuttal?  I think that we are better served using definitions with broader recognition. --Kevin Murray 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it clearly shows there are different attitudes WITHIN the US which is discordant with US Census. KarenAER 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree, but I think we open Pandora's box.  I'd like to establish some standard for sources so that we don't open the door for a jumble of special interest sources.  --Kevin Murray 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, again. I don't think anyone wants to start quoting the KKK on who's white and who isn't, even though they're a verifiable source and they represent the views of some (tiny) segment of the population (hoping you'll pardon me this exaggeration to make the point).--Ramdrake 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont pardon your exaggeration because it is irrelevant. My source is a RS which analyses all the usages in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK. It does not represent a tiny minority. KarenAER 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the article do they state that they review the entire medical literature? Besides, here is some of what the authors says about the use of the term "White": The term White includes persons of Scottish, New Zealander, Greek, Spanish, English, Canadian, Welsh, Irish, and-in the United States-Iranian and Moroccan descent and has little value in gauging ethnicity or race. It encourages the division of society by skin color, reinforcing racial stereotyping, and hides a remarkable heterogeneity of cultures.--Ramdrake 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RD, it seems that some editors including MW are painting people into corners with their attempts to soapbox here.  DT makes a good point below.  I'd rather that we get this article up on a higher plain where it doesn't have to read like a debate.  --Kevin Murray 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In page 3, it says "Table 1 summarizes the qualities of most of the terms for nominority populations in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK". And that quote of yours is the official US definition, which is included in the article, not the definition used in race, ethnicity and health research in US and UK and certainly not "in practice". KarenAER 14:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What quote of mine?  Or are you repsonding to RD?  If so don't indent from my comment.  --Kevin Murray 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.--Ramdrake 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source Karen AER found should be in the article.  This is not the kind of defintion Muntuwandi can disprove by counter example.  Muntuwandi can only counter a definition of whites that is based on skin color alone.  The source that Karen AER found says a white is both European and has a "pale complexion".  Muntuwandi's East Asian and albino African can't disprove this claim because they are not European.  Contrary to Kevin Murray's synopsis, this source impedes Muntuwandi's argument.----DarkTea© 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is, the article relates that this is only one of several definitions they came across; quoting this one to make a point and not quoting the others seems lopsided to me, especially when their recommendation is that this use of the definition be abandoned.--Ramdrake 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The conclusion from their table is valid regardless as to what they recommend for future action, the latter not being specifically germane to the section.  Yes they discuss several definitions but criticize these as being too broad.  --Kevin Murray 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main conclusion they come up with is that "White" is a misnomer and shouldn't be used in epidemiological research because its definition is too vague. --Ramdrake 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Section

message: I'd like to hear RD's point about the Frost maps being original research. --Kevin Murray 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a section up in the talk page already. KarenAER 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry!  My continued comments will be added to the section above.  However, after reading that discussion, I more likely support inclusion of the maps.  --Kevin Murray 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments in the other section above. I've outlined four points which make me want to exclude these maps. This could be used as a basis for discussion.--Ramdrake 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frost maps

message: Is is original research to say these guys are white and not European. Muntuwandi 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that's true, why does it matter? (After all, you're the one who inserted the recent section with their pictures.)--Chaser - T 04:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: But most Arabs are considered as "caucasoid" even if they are darker. In fact I just copied the definition from the caucasian race article into this article. So it is not original research.Muntuwandi 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ramdrake and Kevin had suggested a comparison between the terms European, white and Caucasian. There is no harm in that and it may even be necessary since these terms are used interchangeably. Muntuwandi 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research