Talk:White people/Archive 12

message: The images on the Caucasian Race page are implying that only Nordics or people with paistey colouring are `Caucasians/Caucasoid'.  I propose we supply images similar to the following:
Norwegian people:
http://www.bi.no/upload/Grafisk-marked/internasjonal/artikkelbilder/bunader.jpg
Italian girl:
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/culture/img/italian-girl.jpg
Berber father and child
http://www.worldpress.org/images/berbers.jpg
Rajput man 
http://pchanez.club.fr/Images/rajput.jpg
I wrote this here as it gets more attention that the Caucasian race discussion does.  Can anyone help out? thank you Ruts77
:Check out the commons ethnic groups category for some public domain and GFDL images you can use. I agree with you, if photographs are to be used at all they should be representative and not give undue weight to people from a particular region. Alun 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT HAPPY WITH IMAGES ON 'CAUCASIAN RACE' PAGE. 

message: Which version of See also section should be used? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=126321335&oldid=126310169
Whats the rationale in deleting numerous links in the See also section? KarenAE 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the links were spurious links to articles that are not associated with White people, but with tiny minority White supremacist groups that do not represent White people. It's like having a link to Nazism on the site for German people isn't it? Alun 14:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In See also section of Germany, Nazi Germany is included. And white supremacy was the dominant ideology for the most part of 19th century and early 20th century. Again, what are you trying to achieve with these censorist attitudes? KarenAE 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? It is fair enough to include a link to Nazism in the Germany article, Germany is a state, Nazism was the ideology of the state for some time. The state is a political entity, and Nazism is a quasi-political philosophy, so the state and the political ideology of that state in any period of history is relevant. What I said was that it would be analogous to having a link to Nazism in the German people article, but most German people, even at the time of the Third Reich were not members of the Nazi party, indeed one could argue that it was German people themselves who were among the main victims of the Nazi regime. This article is not about a state or a political ideology, it is about some people who happen to share the attribute of having light coloured skin. Your argument makes no sense. Alun 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But most people in late 19th century was white supremacist. And there are other links there, besides white supremacy such as white flight. KarenAE 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people? How can you say that? Were most Africans then, or most Chinese, or most Indians? Most people in the 19th century weren't White, just as most people today aren't White. Most people in the 19th century had probably never even heared of the idea of "White supremacy". Get a grip. I don't think so called White flight has got anything to do with White people either. It's really middle class flight isn't it? It's a class thing really. Alun 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, I was talking about white people. I thought you'd figure it out from the context, but you chose to rant instead. KarenAE 15:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... so you meant that a tiny sub set of people with a vested interest promoting a distorted social concept because it allowed them to maintain their economic and social dominance spread this lie? Fair enough, but it's hardly anything like a convincing argument is it? Alun 05:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the White supremacy link should be included; the other subsets and groups shouldn't. People can find these minor factions through the White supremacy article if they wish.--Daveswagon 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this point still disputed or can this article's listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex be removed?--Daveswagon 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment 2

message: Lead is too long, it should be as brief as possible and least controversial. Some stuff needs to be moved into the main body of the article.Muntuwandi 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree futurebird 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work shortening the lead Muntuwandi. Alun 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I made some big changes in this section and hope my edit summaries were enough to explain them. Just writing this to give a heads-up. I found the same mistakes in Black people but couldnt edit the article (it was semi protected). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OceanblueY (talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race and Genetics

message: I've been reading the discussion page for the past 2 days. It seems this text was agreed upon and never added. It's currently in Archive 11.
"In an analysis of molecular genetic data, biologist Alan R. Templeton found "all of the genetic evidence shows that there never was a split or separation of the 'races' or between Africans and Eurasians. Recent human evolution has been characterized by both population range expansions … and recurrent genetic interchange."[22]X1 Nevertheless it has been observed that when individual genomes are clustered solely by genetic similarity, individuals sort into broad clusters that correspond to large geographic regions. -Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas appearing in the same cluster.- [23] The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. X2
However, Some individuals, such as Indians, from boundary locations between these regions were inferred to have partial ancestry in the clusters that corresponded to both sides of the boundary. Therefore these clusters may overlap. Also, In many cases, subclusters that corresponded to individual populations or to subsets of populations were also identified.
Some scientists reject this clustering approach and claim that human genetic diversity consists of clines of variation in allele frequencies. While some others think that human genetic diversity consists not only of clines, but also of clusters, which STRUCTURE observes to be repeatable and robust.
In references section:
X1: By races, authorts mean subspecies. In biology, subspecies is the may mean race but there is no consensus on the definition of race(sources)
X2: By geographic regions, authors mean origin. (or something of this sort. We should explain, by geographic proximity, they dont mean one white and one black roommates)" KarenAE 09:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is any of this relevant to White people? I'm sorry but this would be better in the article Race where it would at leas make sense for it to go. Makes no sense for it to go in this article, not only does it seem to be irrelevant to the article it would constitute a POV-fork. Alun 17:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is any of this relevant to White people? Can you really not see the relevance? White people is a racial category therefore race is a relevant subject. As for POV-fork, I realise there is a race article but there is also a White American article. If mentioning relevant subjects is a POV fork, existance of United States and Brazil sections is also a POV fork since they also have their articles. KarenAE 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a "racial category"? Is it the same as a "race"? Is it different to a "race"? Who defines this category? Is it a consistent "category" across political, state, social, biological and anthropological disciplines and organisations? I don't think it is. I think the idea that White people are a "racial category" may be held by certain people or organisations at certain  times and in certain places, but I don't think it is a universally held concept. Indeed look at the UK census, here "White British" is an ethnic classification, it has nothing to do with "race", it is simply used to distinguish the "White British" ethnic group from the "Black British" ethnic group, showing that both White and Black British people are British, but that they can also be considered different ethnic groups. It has go nothing to do with "race" in this context. I think you are trying to confuse the issue by introducing a very specific use of the term as if it were a general usage. The term "White" is not always considered a "race" or a "racial category" as both of our dictionary definitions clearly indicate. Alun 05:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation again

message: Some interesting information about white people's IQs.
First, these studies are very controversial, and to understand them one has to read first the Flynn effect.
Still, some scientists are making tables about races, nations and IQS.
The results are interesting for a number of reasons:
1. The highest scores are to be found among East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), not about white people as some would think, maybe. 
2. The highest scores in Europe or any other white countries have been established for Italy in 2006
(Well if Italians are white, then it seems that some people here say they are not, in that case, whites would go further down and if Jews are not white either, then another step down. They would be in 4th position then, after Askenazi Jews, East Asians and Italians). 
3. Moreover, Ashkenazic Jews demonstrate the  highest IQ scores in the world.
See: 
Do not know if this may be helpful for the article. I am sure it is very controversial. Here it is in any case. 72.144.17.17 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ testing and white people 

message: Why is North Africa, Asia Minor, and all the Middle Eastern countries considered white people? If the article uses out dated and racist 19th century propaganda then wouldn't people in those locations be considered not white? What about people who have black ancestors who now are considered white, due to appearance, and not blood line. Via blood line how many people would be condsidered white? --Margrave1206 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map reflects the 2000 US Census definitions of race.  It is located in the section about the US definition of race to illustrate the text.----DarkTea 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race Map is poor 

message: All whites are white, but some are more white than others. </font></sup>But Nordic race realy isn't white, they are pale pink...
---------
You certainly have a point there. In fact if you are from Europe we know that in Southern Europe they are often spoken of as pinkish or reddish or even orange, and there are many jokes about them because of this.
A will give you an example of a Spanish joke:
(This is not to offend anyone, and I hope it does not. It is just to explain this point).
To undertsad pay attention:
When you want to say that something is very good, in the case of a woman very beautiful, in popular Spanish, in Spain, you say:
La madre que te pario = meaning something like (your mother gave birth to a beautiful thing) Parir means to give birth.
Well the joke goes:(obviously the humour is lost in the traslation and the puns but it will be understood for this purpose).
A Swede who did not know Spanish very well saw a beautiful girl and said: "Niña, a ti te pario una madre" and the girl responded "y a ti una gamba". Meaning: a) A mother gave birth to you: Response: And a shrimp gave birth to you.
Shrimps are eaten cooked in Spain and look very red.
Well I could explain dozens of jokes like this. In short, they are not very much perceived as "white" but rather as red, pink or orange in popular culture in Spain, Italy, etc.
This has always been like that but this perception is lately exaggerated because of important immigration from Northen Eruope into countries like Spain. See these articles that deal with the British: 
See:
http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/british-immigrants-swamping-spanish-villages/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1588156,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6210358.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5237236.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm
We all know that massive immigration always has different types of influences in how people are perceived, often exaggerating certain features and leading to stereotypes.
In any case, the article already states that "white" is a color metaphor for race. It has nothing to do with the literal meaning of the word.65.11.70.20 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a soapbox post so I may remove it soon.  The Behnam 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe, but on the other hand I found it quite interesting and amusing. To go one step further down the daisy-picking trail, what is the logic behind calling southern europeans "olive-skinned"? They're not green, and they're not black, and they're not the color of olive oil. I just don't get it. ThePedanticPrick 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordic race realy isn't white 

message: I just added the picture of Stephen Colbert (who is obviously White), because it is relevant to race, as he often jokes on his show that he doesn't know if he is White or not, and that he does not see color in race when referring to issues on African Americans.--PericlesofAthens 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added pic

message: Honestly, is this piece of anecdotal evidence (of what?) at all relevant to the article? "Ooooh, look at me! I transcend the census bureau's arbitrary categorizations! I rock!" Come on, people! This article has gotten really good; let's not let the filler start creeping back in. ThePedanticPrick 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who gives a hoot about Hefny?

message: added a picture of a nameless person from I do not where. I hope that this might have less controversy.Muntuwandi 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: :"In the UK white usually refers only to people of native British and European origin"
Is this really true? I'd like to see a more general source than immigration manuals; immigration departments often don;'t reflect national usage "in the culture" or "in the public".
Do we really mean that two british people on the streets of London, discussing someone as White, have an implicit understanding they are talking about a native British or European originating person?? Surely not. or if they are, then the word "ancestry" needs to be in there, with a more specific cite on cultural usage in the UK. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact check - UK 

message: Although she might be anthropologically Caucasian the word "White" generally refers to people of European descent. A picture of another Pakistani Kalash woman who might be her close relative:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/52130/kalash.jpg
Not exactly White. 
At least in the UK Pakistanis are not included to the definition of "White" in common usage. 
The example is controversial and should be replaced. 
MoritzB 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the picture of the Pakistani girl doing in the article

message: "Although differences in skin color between southern Europeans and Moors were nearly nonexistent and on occasion, religious conversion was described figuratively as a change in skin color." 
--Carlon 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a big difference between southern Europeans and Moors Manic Hispanic 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN???