Talk:White people/Archive 5

message: The neutrality of this article is disputed.
But the black people page has no issues of neutrality?
:::Why should there be? Maybe there are in fact, no issues of neutrality on that page? Or maybe because you think that black people have to have everything and more than white people?86.139.53.50 11:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: I have archived the previous discussion (playfully entitled 'Archive 4'). Discussion may now be resumed. Keep it clean and have fun, folks! :D User:Smith Jones 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This article should not be about what is whiteness.  It should be about providing good sources to answer that question as well as what subheadings are appropriate.71.74.209.82 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I am the one who archived this discussion, on the suggestion of another Wikipedian. I would love to un-archive it for you but I don't know how. Either you do it or you give me a link to a page that shows me how to do it. Four tildes == Smith Jones 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am the Fool Who Archived This Discussion 

message: In the article it mentions that Northern Italians did not think southern Italains were white. As a southern Italian my skin is a light brown color. I also knw of someGreek-Americans with a similar skin shade. I know of an ethnic arab (fro the UAE) who has lighter skin and he event ans to a lighter color then my skin. The term "white" is obviusly inacurate to describe all Europians.
--------
Have you really ever seen someone that is reaaly white? I mean, white is the colour of a sheet of paper.
It doesn't matter really, you skin tone, your genetic is caucasian/europid.  You have white traits too, no black, native american, or asiatic.  That's because each of these groups have common genetic.  And a common culture.  Ypu have white genetics and your ancestors lived in Europe for thousands of years, and had an European culture.  Of course there are sub-groups in all races but in a broad sense you're white.
* It is a bit misleading to say that all Europeans are white. As a Southern Italian, I also have light brown skin and have been called non-white on numerous occasions. Maybe as far as "anthropology" goes the first poster and I are possibly "caucasoid," but we are not really "white," and skin color and facial features are really what matters in most societies. And there is no way to prove that Southern Italians have no African or Arabic ancestry (although according to anthropology, Arabs are "white" as well.) I am Southern Italian, and I feel it may be very possible I have some distant non-white ancestry, as does it seem with many other Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners. Do not be offended. I may be completely wrong. I am not one of those close-minded believers in outdated racial theories. However, many dark Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners are not "white," regardless of anthropology. But, hey, a person who is white to you is non-white to some one else. Race can be an ambiguous thing. I'm not trying to start an argument here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callmarcus (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 19:27, 19:32, 19:35 and 2006-08-21 01:41.
The reason for the dark skinned greeks and southern italians is that they are of mixed genetics. In southern Greece north African and Turkish genes are common, in Italy north African genes are also common (same goes for all south European nations).
There are also very light skinned greeks and Italians and belive it or not in the northern parts of both the nations blue eyes and blonde hair isn't too uncommon.--DerMeister 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Italian/Sicilian "whiteness" 

message: No hope for the article to be written seriously. Full or even hijacked by Nazi-like tendencies and ignorance. It should be scrapped all together. HCC
Actually there is only one: Yurikat.
--Ismael76 11:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, racism is all around the article, only some white-supermen don't want to see it. Sad article, nasty propaganda for the wikipedia. Uniemelk 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This place is full of White Nationalists  

message: Hello. I am helping with the fixing of links to disambiguation pages. I am working on pages which point to the term "Celtic." When this page is finally editable again, would somebody be so kind as to fix the link in the section "Whiteness and white nationalism" in the last paragraph. The link is now to "Celtic." It should point to "Celt." I will try to keep an eye on it, but would appreciate the help from someone who is "on the spot" when the page is made editable. It's bugging me. I have a list of pages to fix, and I am clearing them off one by one, but I can't clear off this one. Grrr......  Thanks.  --Sean Lotz 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help fix a link

message: :I have unprotected the article as it has been fully protected for over two weeks. Also due to the lack of constructive dispute resolution dialogue here, I recommend that the editors of this article restrict themselves to the one revert rule (1RR) especially Al-Andalus & Yukirat (who were involved in the previous edit war & had been blocked for 3RR). Any further edit-warring will lead to immediate blocking of the involved parties and re-protection of the article. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Are you sure that it's so soon to completely unprotect it? I mean, this article has FOUR pages of discussion and we've barely reached any sort of a coherent discussion, much less an actual consensus. Maybe we should at least make people register in order to edit it so that we don't get un-regged trolls.  Smith Jones 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Don't edit war in the article.  If you can't settle your differences, please create an RfC.  It looks like Dark T just barely missed violating the 3RR on this.Psychohistorian 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring already - send to RfC

message: It has been noted that this is a awful article in many places in the comments already, but I will second those ideas, this article should be scrapped and started anew. There is way too much pseudo science and opinion in here, a encyclopedia should not ever have opinion unless the article is talking about a specific persons opinion. Race as it is measured in todays terms is not a genetic stand point but a ideological standing, if you want science in the article refer the readers to a 'Human Genetics' page where science is involved, not ideology. - 209.248.175.82 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap this article, start over 

message: Just to comment on a comment that has been done obove and which is in the article: ¨Basques share genetic markers with the Welsh¨, and then they are presented as if they were a genetic minority in Europe!. Man, the genetic markers that you are speaking about is Hg R1b. This Haplogroup, genetic family or genetic race, is the most common in Western Europe:  About 90% of Basques, Irish and Welsh. About 75% of Scots. About 70% of non-Basque Spaniards and Portuguese. About 60% of the English. About 55-60% of the French. About 60% of Belgians. About 55% of Danes. Have a look at some basic information and avoid writing on an issue that you obviously do not know. See just here a few examples and sources: R1b and  1
2
3
HCC
--------------
:Nobody is saying other populations don't have the same haplotypes at lower levels; in fact the next sentence says exactly that. JWB 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't contradict either of those assertions. Most genetic markers differ by level; hardly any show 100% vs. 0% differences by population. Neither is there any reason to assume the Basques have anything in particular in common with the Saami. If you feel it needs clarification to avoid those unlikely assumptions, go ahead and add it to the passage, nobody has been stopping you. JWB 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the scenario being discussed still has the pre-Neolithic European population as the main contributor to current European genes, with Neolithic or Indo-European migrants as smaller contributors. So naturally genes of the oldest populations would still be frequent in most later populations. It's hard to see how you are reading the passage the opposite way. JWB 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ignorance here is too much! 

message: I have introduced this comment in the Hispanic Americans:
Spaniards (who are a white, European people)
And somebody deletes it.
Can I ask why?
I am putting it back again.
HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.157.222 (talk • contribs) .
: Because it makes no sense? --Bruce 16:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the paragraph refers to nationalities of origin. Even if it were specifying race, "White European Spaniards" is redundant. You don't write "White European Germans" every time you write German. Al-Andalus 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments about Spaniards 

message: The section "Historical use of the term in the United States" is already long enough to be a separate article, and it shouldn't dominate this one. Let's split it into, say, Whiteness in the United States, and replace it with a summary. Melchoir 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, without objecion, I'll do it now. Melchoir 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just found White American, so I'll move the material there. Melchoir 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split "Historical use of the term in the United States" into new article 

message: That section is not worthy of this article. I propose deleting it. All other attempts to try and relate Neo-Nazis to what should be a neutral article about white people should be deleted too. Veritas 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. This article should be about discussing White people as a race, not talking about a form of extremism. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Nationalism 

message: In case you people don't know the history of the lebanese christians, let me inform you. Lebanon was formery known as Phoenicia. The Phoenicians colonized Italy, Spain and what is today known as the UK. They were NOT Arabs!!! Arabs are from Arabia. The Arabs later invaded Phoenicia and brought Islam to the nation. Many christians fled to the mountains where they lived undisturbed for hundreds of years. Some of them did integrate with the Arabs but had to convert to Islam. According to Islamic law, any muslim (Arab) who converts to Christianity, or any other religion, was killed. Because of this, the Christian bloodlines remained "Arab free". So if you claim Lebanese Christians are "non-white" you will have to say the British, Germans and most other Europeans are "non-white" too for the simple reason that they are THE SAME PEOPLE!!!!''''''''''''
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.43 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phoenicians did not in any meaningful sense colonise Italy or Britain, though they did have some colonies in Spain and on Italian islands (Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia). Their genetic contribution to modern Italian and Spanish populations was probably tiny, especially since the Romans expelled them and heavily recolonised Spain themselves. There's no serious evidence for any colonies in Britain. That doesn't makes them either "white" or "non-white". There can never be a clear dividing line. Paul B 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not serious scholarly websites. There is no archaeological evidence of Phoenecian settlements or of any Semitic language elements in Celtic languages. If Britain was uninhabited why didn't Semitic dominate, not Brythonic? Paul B 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you are simply revealing your own silliness and ignorance. Go read a serious book on the Phoenicians. Sabatino's The Phoenicians is quite accessible. And look at some proper academic literature on the population history of Ancient Britain. Paul B 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralph Nader and all Lebanese Christians are White and NOT ARAB!! 

message: People from the Near East are white, anthropologically speaking, and the US census considers them as such, for example. We should put an end to these criteria that are so close to Nazi propaganda, ignorance and superstition. The genetic contribution of the Near East in Europe is fundamental. The cultural contribution is even more important, from the introduction of Agriculture in the Neolithic to the influences of the first advanced civilizations, that originated in the Middle East, before Greece and Rome, and are a milestone in the history of Western Civilization. Shall we remind here that Jesus, the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, Moses, Abrahan, etc, were all Near Easterners?In any case,  have a look at this impressive Oxford piece of research. It takes into account scores of studies and analyses 8 different genetic loci, including autosomal, mitocondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA.: 
If Near Easterners are not white for the simple reason of being from the Near East, then Europeans are not white either, because Europeans are a hybrid people of different origins, but mainly of Proto-Basque and Near Eastern origins. We cannot have it both ways or just in an absolutely arbitrary way. Veritas 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get the idea that the British decided what the border of Europe was? "White" is not a scientific term. It has been used in a variety of ways in different countries at different times, in legal, colloquial and anthrpological terms, though typically more scientific texts adopt technical terms not ordinary-language terms. Paul B 12:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The never ending question of the Near East. 

message: I said several days ago that I was going to delete that part. To restore it without discussion is vadalism. Veritas 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please always use an edit summary. Deleting content without explanation is vandalism. -Will Beback 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Nationalism section 

message: Just because no one bothered to put forth any effort in giving feedback on you doesn't mean that you aren't a uncircumsized philistine! Aroint thee, o manipulator of articles! Get thee back into Uncyclopedia!
Seriously though, you should put comments so that stuff like this doesn't happen. we're not telepaths here and even if we were why would we spend our time reading your mind to figure out where you explained what you did. Jeez, it's like a bleeding jungle in here. Where are the elephants!? Smith Jones 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just because 

message: Watch out for vandals mass deleting content. 70.156.140.143 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support --Hamish (Talk) 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Deleting the neolithic/paleolithic section as a violation of WP:MNFSPOV Ethan Mitchell 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it godawful? It's not just neolithic, and it's relevant as a short summary on the subject. I don't understand what WP:MNFSPOV is supposed to mean. I'm restoring it. Please discuss such major changes before making them. Note that I don't disagree that the section needs a lot of work to flow with the rest of the text, but I still think it shold be included in some way (the current version, e.g., is much abridged as it should be). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you've reverted it, I'm discussing it.  WP:MNFSPOV is, of course, the as-yet-unwritten wikipedia policy against the "Makes no fucking sense point of view."  The neolithic and the paleolithic are terms for eras of cultural development, not groups of people.  Talking about how they are interbreeding is like saying "The Greeks were descended 75% from the Stone Age and 25% from Post-Punk" or something to that effect.  Plus, it isn't cited, because there's nothing to cite.  The rest of the section is maybe, maybe, an atrocious attempt to talk about the geneography of Europe.  But nothing previously in the article has discussed why we are talking about the genography of Europe, and in any event, the section in question is not really helpful to the reader, it is simply a fistful of random, disarticulated claims that are presumably supposed to establish some kind of scientific basis for whiteness.  Ethan Mitchell 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neolithic

message: Needless to say how some/many Americans die to present themselves as a white country, while like so much to present others as non-white, for example all Hispanics and all Hispanic countries as a rule. Watch the game on the 2nd of September 2006. It is very funny to see white America play versus non-white Hispanics. By the way, they won the broze medal. Tomorrow is the final: Spain/Greece. Veritas et Severitas 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basketball world cup. US vs Argentina for bronze medal. 

message: I have posted this in the Hispanic article and in the White American article, but I think it is also of interest here:
Often I have to see how the term Hispanic is used in the US with non-white/non-European connotations or as if Hispanics were just newly arrived aliens in the country. In fact they were there much before and have been there much longer than the rest of Americans. 
Then we have the following: 
1. Hispanic refers obviousy to a huge group of people from different countries.
2. These peoples are bonded together by their language and culture.
3. These peoples come from countries with very diverse racial make-ups and which derive from the Spanish Empire, which by the way included almost the entire US, which was for centuries part of this Empire under the name of New Spain. Yes, very funny, is it not? Almost the entire US were part of New Spain!.
4. Just look at the extension of the Spanish Empire to have an idea of what he term Hispanic can encompass.
But the most funny thing is the following:
Hispanics are not considered white as a rule of thumb in the US, as if the US was a country
whiter than some Hispanic American Countries like Argentina or Uruguay, which is not.
Then we have the mother country for all Hispanics, Spain.
So, what is up with Spaniards, are they Hispanic or not?. Are they white or not?.
:I couldn't believe when they asked my "race" when I went to study to a US High School. The lady doing the interview first thought to class me as Hispanic (I have passport from Spain). I really couldn't care less - but sometime later, she seemed to realize that Spain wasn't in America but in Europe and decided to write down "white". 
:Personally, I think the whole topic should redirect to Caucasoid people. Else it's based in some US-American prejudices that are anything but universal. 
Well, they are Hispanic all right, in the same way that the English are Anglos.
So, we have a group of Hispanics, who are responsible for the name itself (Hispanic comes from Hispania and Hispania is Latin for Spain) who were the colonial power in the US for centuries and who happen to be white/European. White? Well, some people say that Southern Europeans are not that white. Let us see:  
In fact, according to new genetic research they happen to be the whitest/most genuine European nation in Europe. See the following:
1
If you are not familiar with genetic anthropology note that R1b is the oldest and most common genetic family in Europe, and where does it show the highest concentration? In Spain.
But if you do not have enough with Haplogroups, and want more genetic loci tested, let us see:
2
3
4
Well, this Oxford article takes into acount 8 genetic loci, quite complete indeed. Spain is refered to as IberiaS.
What is the result? Again, Spain has the highest concentration of Native European genes, called Basque genes in this study and Iberian genes in other studies, followed closely by the Britons, the Portuguese and the North Italians.
Conclusion:
The fathers of all Hispanics happen to be the whitest/most European people in Europe. As a result, there are a lot of Hispanics that are whiter than those who think themselves as the genuine white people/European-Americans in the US. And all this according to serious, rigorous genetic science, not to concepts and ideas that are sometimes close to mental retardation. Veritas et Severitas 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC
:Believe or not, but I often find English and Yanks in the Net who swear that Spaniards aren't white.--Menah the Great 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Hispanics in the US? 

message: Do not erase verifiable contributions from reputable sources. I am not erasing any. I am citing sources published in Oxford Journals and carried out by Universities and as recent as 2004.  
All verifiable and reputable sources have the right to me mentioned and cited in relation to any point. You know well Wiki rules. Veritas et Severitas 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Which means that Europeans have drifted virtually nothing in biological/genetic terms for the last 10.000/4000 years." Not true. See Brace et al. 2005, "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form." The title itself demonstrates the large variation. I don't understand why you put a slash after 10 000 and put 4 000 after it. Are you saying little changes took place between 10 000 BP and 4 000 BP or saying that there has been little change for 10k or 4k. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom, pay attention 

message: It seems necessary to make a  distinction between these two elements. The Neolithic element in the European gene pool is huge and even dominant in much of Eastern and South Eastern Europe.  North African admixture seems to be inexistant in most of Europe except for Iberia and Sicily.
This can be seen from an analysis of the various subclades of Y-chromosome Haplogroup E3b which distinguish between those of Balkan/Anatolian origin (such as E-M78) and those of recent North African origin (E-M81). See : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965
Of all E3b subclades in North africa (E3b is carried by an overwhelming majority of North African populations) E-M81 is by far the most common, E-M78 (the most common European subclade) being minor or absent in most population samples. 
Taking Italy as an example, an analysis of E3b in different regions of the country shows that this haplogroup is of continental origin (reaching the peninsula either from the North or from Greece) except for in Sicily where about 5.5% of male lineages can be ascertained to be of North African origin (see table 1).
Similar conclusions can be extrapolated from Mtdna analysis.
 
Any comments?
--Ismael76 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement here. As I said on the Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe talk page, we have to consider that the 5.5% comes from E3b with specific mutations that arose in North Africa, but that all of these migrations (Neolithic agriculturalists and North African admixture) are themselves simply vectors for an E3b that originated in East Africa. I don't mean to stress this, but sometimes I feel as if people put a lot of weight on later developments in an attempt to separate the gene from its actual sub-Saharan origin. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admixture from Neolithic expansion from Anatolia vs. North African admixture

message: People, please, use the discussion page for its purpose, not the Edit summary. Veritas et Severitas 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for my reversions. I had misread where your additions had gone; I thought that you were saying that the E3b studies had been contradicted by other studies, and not studies on mtDNA from North Africa (i.e. I thought you had added that note under the section on E3b, not specifically under the part about North African genetic influence). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is still neutralized. Hahahah! Racist nonsense all over it! --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People, please, use the discussion page.  

message: You just want to impose your view and only your point of view no matter how, deleting other's contribution's and imposing yours. You do not respect other contributors at all and make changes without using the discussion page. I am going to report your behaviour. Veritas et Severitas 17:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK Ismael. I am reporting you. 

message: ===Haplotypes are a Joke===   
-    
- You guys are so funny with your haplotypes and DNA. DNA did not play a role in deciding who or who was not white at anytime in history prior to the past 20 years (which totally is after the fact anyway). No court order, legal policy, or referendum was ever devised to describe whiteness based on DNA. You guys are hilarious. Some of you hope that DNA will somehow prove (or vindicate in your POV) that whiteness is a scientifically based "real" racial concept, that of course ultimately relates to the justification of racist ideologies about intelligence, entitlement and white priviledge. OH cross your fingers and hope the haplotypes win the day!    
- Let me reply for those of you who wish to refute me, because the replies are the same "Oh Zaph, although we admire your commitment to equality and what not, it is true that DNA haplotypes are found in a particular pattern consistent with the racial category of whiteness, so that means that race is real and whiteness is based on DNA". Let me explain why this kind of reply is nonsense. DNA variations relates to the results of population changes and migrations and what not over time. They do not instigate these changes. So there wasn't some "original" white kid or family born somewhere thousands of years ago that decided to unilaterally seperate into their "functional race". In addition, the Western European ancestors did not magically become white, they gradually interacted over time to develop their traits. These traits are not however unique to them, as they developed also in other NON white people (like blonde hair, a so called Caucasoid skull, colored eyes, straight hair, etc). Each group of people have traits that combine to form a unique "race" but all of these traits are found in "other races". To say "oh all of those traits came from some pure white ancestor and were divided up through admixture over the generations" is so crap. If the traits can be environmentally adapted to create white people in Europe, why cant some of these same traits be created from enviromental conditions elsewhere? Think before you conclude! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting MY comments in here will do nothing but piss me off 

message: -    
- You guys are so funny with your haplotypes and DNA. DNA did not play a role in deciding who or who was not white at anytime in history prior to the past 20 years (which totally is after the fact anyway). No court order, legal policy, or referendum was ever devised to describe whiteness based on DNA. You guys are hilarious. Some of you hope that DNA will somehow prove (or vindicate in your POV) that whiteness is a scientifically based "real" racial concept, that of course ultimately relates to the justification of racist ideologies about intelligence, entitlement and white priviledge. OH cross your fingers and hope the haplotypes win the day!    
- Let me reply for those of you who wish to refute me, because the replies are the same "Oh Zaph, although we admire your commitment to equality and what not, it is true that DNA haplotypes are found in a particular pattern consistent with the racial category of whiteness, so that means that race is real and whiteness is based on DNA". Let me explain why this kind of reply is nonsense. DNA variations relates to the results of population changes and migrations and what not over time. They do not instigate these changes. So there wasn't some "original" white kid or family born somewhere thousands of years ago that decided to unilaterally seperate into their "functional race". In addition, the Western European ancestors did not magically become white, they gradually interacted over time to develop their traits. These traits are not however unique to them, as they developed also in other NON white people (like blonde hair, a so called Caucasoid skull, colored eyes, straight hair, etc). Each group of people have traits that combine to form a unique "race" but all of these traits are found in "other races". To say "oh all of those traits came from some pure white ancestor and were divided up through admixture over the generations" is so crap. If the traits can be environmentally adapted to create white people in Europe, why cant some of these same traits be created from enviromental conditions elsewhere? Think before you conclude! --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haplotypes are a Joke

message: You guys broke your backs trying to rewrite those first two paragraphs and still don't have it quite right. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has gone through a lot of edits since the last time I did any work on it.  Instead of criticizing me for working on it, why don't you get off your high horse and do some work on it?  Its easy to criticize.  Its harder to do good edits.  Further, I am trying to edit it slowly so that people have time to comment and make their own edits in between (I want it to be a collaborative effort).  So, if your gripe with me is that I'm taking my time, well, tough.-Psychohistorian 11:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The current introduction is appalling. This is not an article about opinion in the "United States", nor should it be leaping to judgements in the opening sentences. The quotation from the AAA is also distorted to give a conclusion unwarranted by what it actually says ("However, the American Anthropological Association states that "there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them" meaning that there is no objectively demarcated "European phenotype"."). The quotation clearly refers to genetic variation. This does not support the claim that there is "no objectively demarcated European phenotype." (indeed, if there weren't we would never be able to even recognise that a person had European ancestry). This is argumentation to make a point, not description of usage, which is what is needed here. Paul B 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: its talking about genetic variation.  Phenotype refers to genetics.  Saying that there is more variation within the 'racial' group then between it and others means precisely that there are no objectively demarcated racial phenotypes.  We can't recognize that a person has a European ancestry.  We can only make a ton of assumptions about whether a person has a European ancestry.
If you take the time to read the AAA's statement on race in its entirety, you'll see that it says exactly what I was getting at when I made that edit to the article. -Psychohistorian 12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There isn't much work I can do since your whole perspective seeks to prove that there is some genetic basis for classifying the "White" race. Phenotype certainly refers to genetics, but our human capacity to distinguish a "lightskinned" black person from a "swarthy" Arab or Italian doesn't come from a genetic anything, it comes from a socialization and attitudes. The reason I sarcastically respond is because too often the idea is to somehow prove that phenotype is proven via "genotype" when obviously people who are so genetically different (Australian Aborigianls, Africans, Aeta, etc) look so similar. Furthermore "European" ancestry only relates to the region, not to the fictitious "race". Certainly non-Aryan (or whatever you want to call it) people have been inhabiting Europe throughout ancient history. No haplotype anything is going to help you figure out if they looked like a pink skinned german with a pointy nose, or an Ethiopian with kinky hair and a flat nose. Haplotyping is just another form of stereotyping. And even if it gives a good indication today, it does nothing to go through history. One Ethiopian who looked like a black man could have been the progenator of all the white E3-whatever hapoltypes that you all rely on to find the "real white race". how do I know this is realistic? Because this haplotyping does not make one white nor black. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or let me put it in a nutshell: haplotyping => historical relationships => racial justification => generalizations about different races => assumptions about those differences in abilities => assumptions about intellectual ability based on these prior historical relationships => classifying some as inferior and superior => justifying racism. (remember, IQ references are or were in this article and many seek to retain them)
I am here to make sure people realize that nothing genetic can reliably explain or justify any 'race' anything. The genetic similarities amoung Europeans are valid and obviously make sense, but those genetic expressions that are unrelated to skin color, facial features, and hair texture are therefore unrelated to the 'race' of white people. If these haplotypes (or whatever else) can propegate throughout black people in abundance, then they certainly could have in antiquity the other way around. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "There isn't much work I can do since your whole perspective seeks to prove that there is some genetic basis for classifying the "White" race."  You don't ever bother to actually ead other peoples' comments before replying to them, do you?  I mean, my entire point is that there is no genetic justification for race groups in Hss.  The fact that you miss my point when I feel like its been spelled out clearly is something which concerns me.-Psychohistorian 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychohistorian, you are right. I don't really bother, you know why? Because I am not here for personal vindettas. I am not arguing against you personally nor am I addressing you personally. The "you" is in fact the collective contributions. If there was a way i can convey "you" in the plural... maybe using "yall" instead, or the general atmosphere, then perhaps I can get a point across. The point is, this article is based on first demonstrating a genetic foundation for the white race. Since the contributors are hell bent on holding on to that myth (obviously to keep their subconscious sense of superiority intact), there is no point on me going to the other areas. Do I see pictures of white people on this article? No. How can an objective person get any idea what the heck a white person is, if they have to rely on some silly genetic variables that certainly would not do the job? Oh this kinky haired, dark skinned Ethiopian is white because they have haplotype "Bu11-CRAP" in their genetic code. I contributed to this article many times in the past, when it was still in the Caucasoid skull stage. give me credit, at least I helped neutralize that nonsense. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First two paragraphs 

message: More interesting stuff about the term Hispanic and White. As I have already expressed, the term Hispanic comes from Spain, and is related to Spanish people. In the US the term white has often been used with “Anglo” connnotations, that is, coming from England, and then, from the British Isles.
OK, let us see further:
As I have already pointed out, in addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes inot account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See: 
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03
Now we have another Oxford book whose reference has been just published two days ago and is appearing all over the British Isles in different newspapers, in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought.
It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece
I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:
A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.
The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.
People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."
Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.
Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.
The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.
These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles.
"Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.
You can also see these other newspapers:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
In short, it seems that the Spanish had acquired a taste for boat building and ocean going much before they arrived in America. 
It also seems that the term Hispanic, with the sense of relating to Spain or the Spanish or for people with such ancestry, is in fact much broader than it was previously thought, and it actually should include the English and other Britons. Life is full of surprises, is it not? Veritas et Severitas 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White as "Anglo" versus Hispanic, with non-white connotations. 

message: "White is a term sometimes applied to a broad and increasingly vague subset of the human species with a predominance of light skin color, and higher percentages of light-colored eyes and hair than are found in other segments of the population."
That's true only among certain people in certain parts of the world - not a universal as the statement implies.  In other words, the statement violates WP:POV.
"The designation Caucasian was first used in the 19th and early 20th centuries by scholars who believed that Whites originated in the Caucasus region of southeastern Europe. In the United States and a few other countries, the term Caucasian has been commonly used to refer to all white people. In Europe, Caucasian usually refers exclusively to people who are from the Caucasus region, or speak the Caucasian languages."
This article is about white people, not Caucasions.
"The center of the white population is usually considered to be Europe and the Americas, although the spread of Whites into North and South America began only a few centuries ago. "
Equivocates 'white' with Caucasion which is very Eurocentric and, even then, not so undisputed.  Again, its POV issues.
-Psychohistorian 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology problems

message: I thought anon edits were disabled.  How did someone manage to create an anon account which has no contribution history and edit this article with it? -Psychohistorian 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edits by 193.167.41.45

message: indeed light skin colour is simply due to fewer and smaller numbers of melanosomes. This may now be associated with a loss of function mutation in the SLC24A5 gene that seems to be a nearly fixed mutation in European populations, but is normally expressed in other human populations.SLC24A5, a putative cation exchanger, affects pigmentation in zebrafish and humans. by Lamason RL, Mohideen MA, Mest JR, Wong AC, Norton HL, Aros MC, Jurynec MJ, Mao X, Humphreville VR, Humbert JE, Sinha S, Moore JL, Jagadeeswaran P, Zhao W, Ning G, Makalowska I, McKeigue PM, O'donnell D, Kittles R, Parra EJ, Mangini NJ, Grunwald DJ, Shriver MD, Canfield VA, Cheng KC. (2005) Science, 310(5755):1782-6. Abstract retrieved 15 October 2006Fish Gene Sheds Light On Human Skin Color Variation from Medical News Today, 20 December 2005. Retrieved 15 October 2006."
:Anonymous user, some people would indeed say that white skin colour makes someone a white person. This research is relevant as it explains why European people have a light skin colour. Usually White people are considered European or of European descent. Alun 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I logged on as the prevous anon by accident.  Sorry about that.  In the section which states -who- (and when and where) 'white people' is defined as people with white skin (and which provides a source for that claim), you might be able to find a place for that statement.  It would still be tenuous, in my opinion, but if the consensus is to leave it in, I'd support it. -Psychohistorian 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need some good historical research of the concept of "white". I'm under the strong impression that it arose as contrast to Black people ("yellow" and other color-racialization being a secondary developement). The first syonims of "black" we find in the Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, Hebrews, Greeks) when refering to Kushites, Nehesi and Ethiops later among Arabs (Bilal as-Sudan: the land of the Blacks). This obviously means that many West Asian and Mediterranean people didn't feel "black" themselves but implicitly "white" by contrast. The widespread use of "white" probably didn't appear until colonial expansion after the 15th century, when an informal color-racialization took place. Yet, I cannot document this impression (except for the parallel article on Black people), that nevertheless seems quite correct. --Sugaar 12:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'white skin' does not make someone a 'white person', so what's the relevance of this content?

message: "France is undergoing a changing demographic with immigration from the Middle East and North Africa who they do not regard as White, according to Vivienne Walt a resident of France. In France, Holland and Spain according to Walt, "the mental image of the European in the world at large and on the continent is of somebody who is white and has very old roots on the continent. " as opposed to Muslim residents with ancestry from the Middle East or North Africa.Walt, Vivienne. On the Line: On Assimilation in Europe. October 16, 2006. <http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2005-11/2005-11-17-voa2.cfm>. "  This says what they consider Europeans to be, not what they consider whites to be.  To put it another way, it says that people believe Europeans to be white, but not that whites are necessarily European.  Consequently, it may belong in a "European peoples" article, but not in a "white people" article.-Psychohistorian 12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vivienne Walt quote

message: In the "Latin America" section, "In some Latin American countries" should be replaced to "South American countries" as "Latin America" deems it to be a form of political correctness only recognized in the US. Crud3w4re 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Latin America" (in quotation marks) is a term. A term lacks a brain and therefore can't deem anything. It's hard to understand what you're saying, but perhaps it's that "Latin America" is a term that's only used in the US. If so, no, it's used elsewhere: see the hits in The Guardian (a British newspaper), for example. -- Hoary 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "latin america" 

message: This user Thulean has added a lot of material on Lewontin's Fallacy criticism of the AAA's statement on race. It's not just because I naturally tend to distrust heavily some new user with a typical Nazi nickname (maybe he chose it because he's from Iceland, aka Thule - who knows?) that has only edited this article in all his/her history as Wikipedian... it's just: wouldn't it be better with making a link to the Human race article. All that junk adds nothing but confussion: it's saying: "race is very irrelevant (AAA) but it actually means a lot (Thulean/Lewontin)". 
What do you think? --Sugaar 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology: Thulean's edits 

message: Personally I love using quotes; they're a great tool to get something across and built a reader's trust in the article. But this article's terminology section has too many of them. Even for someone like me who loves quoting in my own articles, there are too many. WP articles are not quote collections, the vast majority of the text needs to be written by the contributors themselves and be based on references fact. I have added  templates to make looking at the section easier, nonetheless there needs to be more text, fewer quotes or both. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article looks better now wihtout all the quotes and the section was indeed better suited for the Race article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  I wanted to delete all the quotes which should have been in a more general discussion of race.  I also thought they were not specifically about whites, but I thought other editors came to a consensus about their inclusion.--Dark Tichondrias 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes