Talk:White people/Archive 11

message: I have introduced this skin pigmentation study from 2000:
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf
As it clearly states skin pigmentation has very little to do with "race". I think it is the most complete study I have come across yet. I think it is worth not only reading. Maybe someone here with the will and the energy necessary can include its conclusions, comments, etc in the body of the article. Veritas et Severitas 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean yesterday? I had added this long before. Look at light skin section. Lukas19 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  skin pigmentation study 

message: This article:  seems to be latest (2006). The Oxford journal article is from 2002. So:
1)I'm gonna delete the claim that R and "I" account for 80% of haplogroups in Europe. If Neolithic contribution is disputed (20% part), so is 80%. Instead I'm gonna change 80% with "most common"
2) Due to length issues I'm just gonna add this: "Genetic studies have failed to settle the controversy so far" instead of the long info about Neolithic contribution. Because there are lots of conflicting reports. For ex: 
"The predictions of the alternative models, cultural versus demic diffusion, can now be tested against ancient DNA data. To do that, Haak et al (2005) performed genetic drift simulations to ask whether they could explain by genetic drift alone the change in frequency of a currently rare (<0.02%) haplogroup (N1a) which was found in as many as six of the 24 (25%) DNA sequences. They concluded that Neolithic farmers originating from the Near East left virtually no descendants in Europe and hence favoured the cultural diffusion model."
"Other issues would need to be further explored. Firstly, haplogroup N1a was found to be common in the Neolithic sample, but is virtually absent from modern European populations." etc...Lukas19 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neolithic

message: My text: The population of people classified as white has a predominant European ancestry, along with substantial ancestry from other continents. Both maternal and paternal lines among white people trace to European as well as non-European lines. [amending redundancies]
Lukas deleted it saying "(That's for *some* whites, not all. And those whites are white according to US definition which is too stretched. Your addition ignores all these and therefore POV.)"
Now if "some" is not described by the relationship between "substantial" and "predominant", I don't know what is. Of course this is not only true for the USA and Brazil as cited in the article, but for people in Europe, the rest of the Americas and Australia. Lukas, if you want to claim POV, at least state what an alternate POV would be. Otherwise, I'm invoking protection per the WP:3RR.--Carwil 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say "The population of people classified as white has a predominant European ancestry, along with substantial ancestry from other continents.", you mean every white. You cant make a generalization like that on the whole population. And again, "The population of people classified as white", according to whom? You? You act if there is one single definition.Lukas19 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, not every white has a "substantial ancestry from other continents". I think you misunderstood pie charts in Y-Haplagroups and MtDNA. Anyone can have only one YHaplagroup and one MtDNA. This means that while some people have Y-Haplagroups and MtDNAs similar to non-Europeans (It is likely, per probabilty maths, only a slim minority will have both Haplagroups which are similar to non-Europeans), some people will have Haplogroups confined to Europe. Indeed, the sourced text says most of the European MtDNA's are essentially confined to Europe while some of the Y Haplagroups are found in West Asia and South Asia as well. Besides, haplogroup analysis are far from being perfect. It should be approached with caution because they analyze only a tiny fraction of DNA. Anyway...Lukas19 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So some whites will have full European ancestry while some will have predominant European ancestry while some (according to some definitions) may have predominantly non-European ancestry (remember the definitions in Latin America which does not correlate with neither Europe nor North America nor Australia&NZ). Since you do not know percentages for each group, this sentence is redundant to add. Once again, you are violating Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Your goal must be to add  to unsourced text and try to provide sources, not add unsourced material based on YOUR interpretations of the citations. I will keep deleting the text. Lukas19 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Lukas, while I suspect Veritas may also be right, the text stands on narrower grounds. I could say correctly, "The population of Ireland has a substantial presence of red hair" (though the phrasing is awkward), clearly meaning that a substantial number of Irish people have red hair while many (even most) do not. The same thing clearly goes for my text above. I am not, repeat am not, saying in that text that every European, or every white person has substantial non-European ancestry. Read it again, please and suggest modifications.  Or, third editors, step in and restore/revert/improve as you think appropriate.--Carwil 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and oranges. People (naturally) can have only one hair colour. So if you say "The population of Ireland has a substantial presence of red hair", it's clear eventhough you admit phrasing is awkward. However, people can have several ancestries so when you say "The population of people classified as white has a predominant European ancestry, along with substantial ancestry from other continents", it's not clear if you mean some whites have some non-European ancestry or all whites have "substantial ancestry from other continents". I have interpreted it as the second. Any alternative to your wording is irrelevant. There is information about this in the relevant sections. Readers can draw their own conclusions. You do not need to provide a biased vague summary since you are not writing a lead. I'm thinking about requesting peer review for this article so please refrain from adding unsourced material. Lukas19 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic History debate 

message: I propose that this statement, "The term white people does not refer to people who are literally white; their skin color can be near-white, pinkish, reddish, tan or golden brown," be restated as: "Throughout the world, the term white can be applied to any skin color within a range going from tan or golden brown at one extreme to near-white at the other." Or: "the concept of white race differs throughout the world." These statements can be worded better, I'm sure. Either way, they have the advantage of being very easily sourced and, well, self-evident, I would say. After all, who doesn't know that in Brazil there's a different conception of "white skin" and "white race" than there is in Norway, as Lukas and/or associates have reminded us? One of Lukas' allies even proposed we display a picture of Halle Berry since, s/he claimed, Berry's considered white in parts of Latin America. Also, to the statement it can be further added (if is so agreed), "so that some experts have stated/claimed that "white" is a color metaphor for race." After all, it is true that some experts have stated so, which can be sourced. Lukas, do not forget your statement: "To me it's relativistic. Europeans are lightest and hence called white and Africans are darkest and hence called blacks." SamEV 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can improve the statements, feel free to do so.  We'll make any necessary adjustments to your writing.  I think that the ideas are good.  The Behnam 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd rather someone else did the edit. You, for example. Pretty please? SamEV 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok... Anyway, it seems Lukas didn't get the memo that it was all settled. The edit history and the comments on this talk page lead me (then and now) to believe that the dispute was/is ongoing. I saw something about mediation. My proposal was meant to accomodate Lukas so he'll stop edit warring. Never mind, then. I myself don't really mind the current text. SamEV 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color metaphor 

message: Ive read your complaint. I'm taking a look at the talk record. My first thoughts on the issue of including the section - while perhaps a bit wordy - is that its fine. Thats just a first impression. -Ste|vertigo 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add that some of the wordyness, which I'm not attached to, is in response to criticism of using the words "white" and "color" in their normal senses. "Perceived color" is a work-around to the view that "literally white" only refers to white light (as per physics, Lukas would say). More background and attempts to discuss is in Talk:White_people/Archive_9#Unsourced poor WP:LEAD sentence and two of the three sections that follow.--Carwil 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I disagree with your first thoughts and am ready for the next step in meditation. Lukas19 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, opinions of some third editors can not supersede WP:NOR or WP:NPOV or WP:Verify Lukas19 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: It's unfortunate that you missed my question, which I posted above. (I know, it's crowded up there, so it's easy to miss it...) Anywho, I'll post it down here. You wrote: "Finnish genes are 90% European." Your position is that that makes them European=white. Would you be so kind as to answer my simple question about where you draw the line between white and non-white? Would Finns, for instance, not be Europeans if their genes were only 65% European? SamEV 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My lines are irrelevant as this is not a discussion board. So my answer is whatever you want it to be. Lukas19 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course they're irrelevant, Lukas. Problem is, you say it but you don't seem to accept it. Still, I was specifically asking for your own views, which you've chosen to make very relevant in this article, at least in my judgment, if not also Carwil's, LSLM's and others'. But you've chosen to dodge. Noted. SamEV 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course my opinions are relevant to me but they are none of your bussiness. Lukas19 06:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but don't confuse individuals with populations. SamEV 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple question, Lukas: How white is white? 

message: The Caucasian Race is a recent, specific term used in the 19th century theory to biologize the white race into a physical type. It doesn't cover the first few centuries of "white people" as a social category, is not universal in its scope of use as a substitute for white people (though popular in the United States), has a different categorization, and is linked to a particular form of racist pseudoscience (Blumenbach thought that people in the C Mtns. were the prettiest in the world, all other humans degenerating away from their ideal). Caucasian people, are, I would suspect, primarily those people from the Caucasus mountain region, if anyone cares to use the term. Let CR stay where it is (maybe with a disambig notice about its use for white people in some US/North American contexts), and avoid using CP at all, unless the Caucasus experts want to pick it up.--Carwil 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good summary of most of my feelings on the issue, Carwil Wood345 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So a bit like the "White people" article then? This article treats "White people" as if they ware a taxonomicaly recognised "race". A few citations about genetics in  Europe is not synonymous with these applying to "White people". Ths article has bee hijacked by POV pushers with a racialist agenda. White people are not a homogeneous group, they are not a rce, and whatever anyone says, there is absolutelly no consensus that "White people" have a predominantly European ancestry. What does "predominantly European" mean anyway? Sounds like OR to me. Alun 06:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a silly claim to make. We do have a European population sub structure section. The mere existance of that section suggests that even Europeans are not homogenous. And I dont see "White people have a predominantly European ancestry." anywhere in the article. Lukas19 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: --White people are Native Europeans. And I don't agree with merging the article into the Caucasian race because Middle-Easterners (such as Jews and Arabs) and Indian people (from the nation of India) can be considered as "Caucasian" too. They are distinctly separate and different from White people. Osmium14 09:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/move concerns 

message: # The section begins with a definition of what a haplogroup is. Why is this? Should it not begin with a description of whether "White people" actually form a coherent group that can be genetically defined?
# The section then continues The examination of population differences within Europe using mitochondrial or Y chromosome haplogroups has been particularly useful in tracing part of the routes of migration and populating of Europe, but these haplogroups do not provide strong inferences on population genetic structure. This would be fine, except that this article is about "White people", but the section only refers to the populating of Europe. There is no explanation for this, it seems to assume that all "White people" are Europeans. But the article clearly states that "White people" has different meanings and deffinitions in different places, and at different times. This sentence at the least seems to be favouring a specific usage.
# The next part is a single, very long quote from the University of Oulu. It mentions autosomal DNA and mtDNA, but  makes no mention of the distribution of mtDNA haplotypes, or what their relevance is. Again it only mentions Europe and not any other groups that may be considered "White".
# The section discussing Y chromosomes again mentions only Europe and not other "White people". There is no mention that haplogroup R is derived from India or that Haplogroup I seems to be derived from Turkey/Iraq. There is a convoluted and confusing discussion of haplogroup I subclades for no apparent reason. There is no mention of the existence of R1b in Cameroon.
# Haplogroup N3 is associated with Finland and north eastern Europe, it is thought to be derived from Central Asia, which some geneticists identify as a source for Finno Ugraic speakers (Finns and Hungarians in Europe).
# European Population Substructure. This section is the worst of all. Why are there three long quotes and no discussion at all? What do the data actually mean? This section needs to explain how this research compares to other research, why it was done and what the conclusions of the researchers who conducted it were. IT should also compare the study with other similar studies, for example Bauchet et al Measuring European Population Stratification using Microarray Genotype Data. The quotes from Oppenheimer and Sykes properly belong in the section dealing with Y chromosome data. There should also be a section dealing wqith mtDNA data.
# If this article is about "Whiter people" and specifically mentions that "White people" may be considered as coming from several different source populatons, then it is incorrect for the genetics section to only deal with European genetics. There should be sections devoted to:
## The genetics of Hispanic people in the USA, I believe Hispanic people are sometimes "White" and sometimes "Hispanic"..
## The genetics of other admixed populations in the USA. For example there was a paper cited in this article that states that many "White" Americans have a significant amount of non-European admixture. I wonder why it is not in the genetics setion, but appears in the USA section. This gives the article a bias in favour of "White" being equivalent to "European".
## The genetics of North African, Near Eastern and South Asian people, who are also considered "White people" in many circumstances.
## The genetics of "Caucasians", in the USA this group is considered the "White" group, it is also recognised as a distinct genetic "cluster" by ceretain geneticists. If it is both "White" by some criteria, and a distinct "cluster", then this should be mentioned. I think work by both Neil Risch and Noah Rosenberg identify this as a coherent group. Alun 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Wikipedia should be accessible to everyone. It needs to be understandable to the non-expert. This is an encyclopaedia, so it's for everyone. The graph in the "Genetics" section should not be in this article, it is irrelevant to the so called "genetics of White people". This graph shows that there is a slight difference between people from northern Europe and people from southern Europe (that they form two clusters), but there is no explanation as to how this is relevant to an article about "White people". An explanation for the graph and a proper discussion about the relevance of this data to "White people" is the least that should be in the article. But there is nothing like this. The graph is simply plonked into the article and anyone reading it is supposed to guess as to the reason for it's inclusion. This graph would be better siuted to a section or article that discusses the theory of demic diffusion in Neolithic Europe. Besides which "White people" are not a genetically homogeneous group, as the current slant of the article implies, the article acknowledges that the term "White people" applies to people with ancestry from many different regions, so the genetics section should reflect this. For example "White people" have ancestors from all other continents besides Europe, the genetics section does not address this at all, even though the article states it explicitly. Various sources agree that, on average, people with 12 percent or less African admixture appear White to the average American and those with up to 25 percent look ambiguous (with a Mediterranean skin tone).30 Given this finding, random chance will produce one such Philadelphian out of every five hundred born to parents who are members of the Black community.  see also Alun 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support moving the US Genetics section down to main genetics section. This would present genetic information about Hispanics. I'd also support adding genetic info about Mid Easterners, North Africans and South Asians. Some relevant issues are being discussed by me and Carwil in meditation, in an upwards section here. Lukas19 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic problems with genetics section that need ot be addressed

message: i ahve put this article on white people and also black,caucasian and asian people up for deletion. i think this is so wrong and veyr racistic to have on a wikipedia. it also causes to many arguments. so have your say, delete or keep? put it on the deletion tag page.--Matrix17 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't already, please leave your comment on the deletion discussion page. Thanks! --Lukobe 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: have put this article up for deletion