Talk:White people/Archive 15

message: I understand that page protection was requested by the cabal mediator.  The mediation cabal is not an official process and the mediator has no special rights to call for protection.  This mediator is new to WP with about two months of significant editing -- not the experience level to take this case.  This page got a bit out of control yesterday and protection was probably warranted; however, unprotecting should be affected as soon as things calm down, and not at the behest of unacceptable mediator.  We already have several experienced admins on watch here.  --Kevin Murray 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either we just request a new mediator now, or we all agree to give him a fixed period of time (3? 5? 7? 10? days) and if we do not see significant improvement, we then ask him to step aside for another mediator.  But I suggest the page stay p0rotected until all agree there has been some progress with mediatio.  I once mediated a conflict where we broke the dispute into four or five isseues and as we reached a consensus I made the changes to the article until we had wroked through all major points of contention, at which point I unprotected the page.  That seemed to work. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to give her a week before making up our minds about whether she's proficient enough to be a good mediator in this case. I also agree with SLR that this page needs to remain protected for now. This in no way stops us from discussing the layout of the article, and the game plan to improve it. It only prevents us from being... too bold at editing, which is fine with me.--Ramdrake 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This mediator has already been rejected.  Time to move on.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I could accept longer-term protection if it was roled back to the satus as of Friday, without the recent chnges by new transient participants.  --Kevin Murray 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people have worked on it since Friday, and I think many positive changes have happened in that time. Why would you want to roll back the version? Also, please bear in mind that some "transient editors" might be here for awhile, if the article piqued their interest.--Ramdrake 13:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with working on a compromise including new improvements, but to have an influx of major changes on a Sunday afternoon, and then long term protection is unacceptable. --Kevin Murray 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Seeing as there's no deadline for wikipedia, I see no problem with a few days or a week, it really doesn't make it long term. This is especially true if it leads to more constructive editing a more balanced article. I'm not going to make comments of my own on the balance of the article before the weekend, but there are certainly strong feelings that the article wasn't balanced then, and isn't balanced now. As I've said above, it makes sense to try disregarding the current state of the article and instead try to work out from scratch broadly what it should be like. I'm disappointed by the lack of editors willing to participate in building a path forward when compared to editors willing to complain about the conduct of others and dispute the details of mediation. If we can be sensible of our own accord, there's no need for mediation. If there are users who won't be sensible with gentle persuasion and suggestion from a third party, then mediation won't be a help. If people think that there're users who can't or won't behave reasonably, then they should consider arbitration. SamBC(talk) 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  No I can't accept a trial period of someone who appears to be a novice looking for resume material.  Once established there will be no removing the mediator, or if so, we'll have to start from scratch.  --Kevin Murray 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I would see these as goals rather than absolutes, and agree to be flexible.  I would certainly be willing to accept real world experience in trade for time at WP. --Kevin Murray 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On this, I agree with you and I already made that clear to the current mediator, FWIW.--Ramdrake 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the notes on mediation, it seems that the role of a mediator is not to interpret policy, but to encourage others to do so together and reasonably. Mediators don't hand down decisions. And no-one authoritatively makes decisions on content, only on conduct (that being arbcom). SamBC(talk) 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That said, I agree with the goal, but it ultimately comes down to the fact that editors have to make this decision collectively, whether it's here, at WP:RFC, or wherever. So why don't we try? SamBC(talk) 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Up until this weekend we have been making some progress.  I think that we have the balance here to make progress without mediation, but some critical editors have been absent and I think that emotions got overly charged.  I think that we need to have some real discussion about the overall scope of the article and why it should or should not be merged with other related topics such as Europeans or Caucasians.   There seems to be some underlying justification that this article needs to exist as a counterpoint or balance to the article “Black people” and I see that as unhealthy. --Kevin Murray 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem to adding any and all merge discussions you feel appropriate to the agenda.--Ramdrake 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we brainstorm a bit on likely candidates for merger?  Is there a purpose for a simple article, disambiguation, or other signpost at "White people"?  --Kevin Murray 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, IMHO, I think this article looks (the way it is) like a cross  between "European Peoples" and "Caucasian Race", while being neither. The first avenue I would suggest if we are to consider mergers, is that some content be ported to each of these two articles, and "White People" could become a simple disambig page. I know I'm repeating myself, though... old age beckons. :)--Ramdrake 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  That's two of us in agreement.  Is this a practical goal?  If so how do we move forward?  --Kevin Murray 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Operationnally speaking, I'd make a sandbox copy of the article somewhere, then I would separate out the sections into "what goes into Caucasian race", "what goes into European peoples", "what goes somewhere else", and the stuff we can lose. Once we have four sections, we go into them sentence by sentence to re-sort everything into the first three categories, and to see if there's anything worth salvaging in the fourth. Once that's done, we move the relevant sections into appropriate parts of the concerned articles, and we leave this page as a disambig. Sounds simple enough at first sight. However, getting consensus around this may be tougher than expected. Also, we need to be careful not to bring this controversy with us to these much-less controversial articles.--Ramdrake 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just reviewed a couple of articles: Caucasian, White Americans, and Europeans; I see these as logical destinations for the distribution of the better information here.  Is there any broad based support for that distribution and establishing a disambiguation page here?  --Kevin Murray 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer Kevin Murray's initial comment at the top of this page - I initiated page protection on this page after independently verifying that people (including at least one admin who is an active participants in the discussion) were calling for it, and that I believed it was necessary: not just because the cabal mediator requested it.  It sounds as though Kevin really has no issue with it being on, but prefers that the mediator had not been the person to request it (apologies if I misinterpret, please).  In any case, I believe the protection to be justified, and would, in fact, take the same action had I been asked by any other party to this dispute.  The protection can be lifted at any time by any admin, though I believe the admins who are participants in this discussion have made the honorable decision to not initiate or lift page protection themselves.  I wish you the best with mediation.  - Philippe | Talk 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but mediation is optional predicated on acceptance by a significant number of the parties.  No one is trying to choose a mediator. In this case mediation by a rookie is being rejected.   --Kevin Murray 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problems. Then the DR will escalate to the next level. In any case, it is way too early for mediation. Editors can explore WP:RFC first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that we can take advantage of the protection period to have some discussion on direction including that which may develop consensus below.  I'm not opposed to MedCab with an experienced editor; however, I thought that request was premature as I think that under the premise that it is darkest before the dawn, we are making progress in understanding each other and weaving in new dedicated contributors.  --Kevin Murray 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with Kevin here. We have an opportunity which is looking promising for sorting this out here. If this stumbles too much, then I would not hesitate to open an RFC. SamBC(talk) 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection (again)

message: Hi, my username is Singularity, and I have volunteered to be one of two mediators here.
Before we intervene, we will see if this dispute can be solved internally between the parties. If nothing really comes up in a couple of days, then we will try to help find a middle ground. Singularity 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Singularity, welcome. :) Some parties are blocked: User:Muntuwandi, User:Fourdee, and perhaps inconsequently User:Phral (the latter is just a guess, as Fourdee and Phral may be using the same IP range). - Jeeny Talk 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there was a claim that you and Fourdee are the same person, just that you were blocked as well, perhaps as a result of being in the same dynamic IP block. Something else might have been implied, but I don't think it's necessary to accuse someone else of sockpuppetry in response. Try to keep this section on-topic regarding mediation. SamBC(talk) 11:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that Phral. In fact, I think you're someone else. :) But, that is just my opinion and I will not do any type of detective work, as I do not believe in "telling" on people. UNLESS, they are obviously and continually pushing a POV, rude and disrupting Wikipedia. :) - Jeeny Talk 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: This is clearly a POV fork of this article. It used to redirect to demographics of Europe but now it is a separate article. Nothing wrong with that but the problem is that much of the material that was rejected in this article has been moved to the European people article. Furthermore it has been racialized. My understanding of the term "European people" basically means citizens of European countries and not necessarily their race. Muntuwandi 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe some of these issues have already been raised at the article's talk page.--Ramdrake 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntuwandi, I do not think that the issue is race versus state.  I think the issue is ahistorical versus historical.  i can envision an NOR, V, NPOV compliant article that discusses the emergence and transformation of ideologies of nation, ethnicity, and race, along with the reorganization of European society from one being based on local fiefdoms and a soi-dissant Catholic Church to one being based on "nation-states" that would have room for census information on states, but that also recognizes that at different times Europeans have relied on alternate or supplemental identities including race.  I think the question is whether this material reflects the best social science and humanities scholarship, which cares about historical and cultural context, or ignores scholarship (claiming it is "fringe") and along with it any context.  i agree with you that this cannot be a POV fork.  But content forks are allowed, and we should try to think along that framework. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  SLR, an article on European people is perfectly acceptable. But flicking through the article there is little or nothing on social science and humanities scholarship. The focal point in the article is on skin, hair and eye colors. The concept of a European ethnicity is not apparent in the article. Muntuwandi 16:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with you - I am just trying to lay out what I think the solution would be.  It is my attempt to be constructive Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying the article is very superficial, skin deep, if I may dare say it? :)--Ramdrake 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it is. I put a merge template on the article so it doesn't become or stay as a superficial skin deep POV fork. - Jeeny Talk 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that European people article is not European article. X People articles in Wiki refers to ethnic X, ie: indigenous X...KarenAER 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This cannot possibly be correct. White people are certainly not an ethnic group, and neither are European people. The word indigenous is also highly misleading, how long does a group of people have to be living in a region to count as "indigenous"? Some Y chromosome papers about the origins of English people state that the Ancient Britons are "indigenous" and that "Anglo-Saxons" are not indigenous, by this criterion English people would not be considered indigenous to Great Britain. This is clearly absurd. Besides it is incorrect to claim "ethnic x ie: indigenous x". Many Asian and African Caribbean British people are ethnically English or Scottish or Welsh, ethnicity is about identity. Ethnic groups are cultural groups and are not necessarily associated with any particular geographical region. On the other hand indigenous is more usually used to indicate being native to a specific geographical region. The two are far from synonyms. I'm no expert on this sort of thing and there may be some flaws in what I said, but I do know that European people certainly are not an ethnic group, and I do know that indigenous people is not synonymous with ethnic group. SLR is an expert on this sort of thing, I'm sure he can set us both straight. Alun 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ethnic groups in Europe and ethnic Europeans are two different things. European people may not be an ethnic group but they are certainly ethnic groups. I'll take Slrubenstein expertise with a grain of salt, given past discussions. And I'm sure many British would disagree with Alun's claim that Asian and African Caribbean British people are ethnically English. If some of those people came to US and became citizens, they wouldnt be called English American or European American but Asian American and African American...KarenAER 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Karen, I don't understand this statement, "European people may not be an ethnic group but they are certainly ethnic groups." European people are not ethnic groups, European people belong to ethnic groups based on identity. There are thousands of different Ethnic groups and nations in Europe. Most Europeans do not identify as European, they identify with their ethnic group or nation. I am Welsh and British, these are my identities, I do not have an European identity except for the fact that I happen to be from the European continent, the closest thing I have to a European identity is my EU citizenship. I am Welsh and I live in Finland, I do not share any ethnic identity with Finns. There may well be such a thing as an European identity in the USA, there are not the linguistic and geographic boundaries between people with different European descent in the USA. But here in Europe we are much more culturally and linguistically heterogeneous. As for this "And I'm sure many British would disagree with Alun's claim that Asian and African Caribbean British people are ethnically English." I'm sure that some would, so what? There is such a thing as Black British and Asian British and Scots Pakistani, if some people refuse to accept it then that is their prerogative, but it does not mean that it does not exist. And of course there's the Conservative Member of Parliament Patrick Mercer's recent comment "I had five company sergeant majors who were all black. They were without exception UK-born, Nottingham-born men who were English - as English as you and me". Besides a Black British person who migrated to the USA would never be African American, this is an ethnic group and Black British people do not belong to this ethnic group. Believe it or not they have a perfectly good culture of their own, why would they be identified as belonging to a cultural group they have no relationship to? Besides Asian British people are mainly of Indian subcontinental origin, Indians and Pakistanis. We use the designation Asian in a very different way here that they do in the USA. Alun 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: European people

message: I want to qualify the initial description of the conflict, which was as one between racists and anti-racists.  It may well be a conflict between racist and anti-racist editors, but I do not believe it is a conflict between racist and anti-racist edits.  I would suggest rather that it is a conflict between racist and non-racist edits. In other words, it is a conflict between POV edits and NPOV edits.  Fourdee has admited he is a racist ("I also wanted to say that while I am not morally opposed to "racism" and would even be proud to promote some varieties of it for some purposes") and that he is intent on pushing his own POV ("My intent here is to prevent the article from having misleading material inserted which implies there is not a genetic cause for physical appearance, that these traits are not heritable, that these traits are not associated with certain ethnic groups, or that there are not differences in genetics between populations - because those are lies.") - and he admitted this even after I reminded him that our NPOV and V policies make it clear that the standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability and not truth.  He even admits that the people he is opposed to are not the other editors as such, but academics: in the same edit as the one just cited, he also wrote, "Sometimes lies (and other deceptions) are promoted in academia through various means as part of sometimes shadowy and nefarious and sometimes overt campaigns, and I fully intent to accurately portray any such lies or deceptions as the fringe theories."  Note: his confederate Phral has used this argument to justify removing relevant content that expresses this point of view, clearly identifies the point of view, and provides a verifiable and reliable source .  The other editors involved in this dispute, e.g. Ramdrake, are not to my knowledge deleting, or demanding the deletion of, any content added by Phral, Fourdee, or others solely because they oppose that view.  As far as i can tell they object only to material that violates our NPOV or NOR policies.  So it is clear to me that the real issue here is POV-pushing versus NPOV.  It so happens that the POV being pushed is racist, but as the above examples make clear, the actual edit conflicts have more to do with Phral and Fourdee deleting any mention of views other than their own from the introduction, and in some cases deleting discussion of views other than their own from the entire article.  The other editors only want to ensure that the article is compliant with NPOV by including multiple points of view, and compliant with NOR by ensuring that any verifiable source is accurately represented in the article.  They are not pushing a specifically anti-racist point of view, they are pushing for compliance with a neutral point of view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rejoin Slrubesntein's assessment.--Ramdrake 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am impressed at how well Slrubenstein is able to sum up the situation at the article.  There has long been a clear attempt to push racist POV here that needs to be dealt with.  The Behnam 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not participate in any meditation as long as the discussion starts with such a Witch-hunt, like above, in case anyone cares. If meditation is about comprimise, people shouldnt start it with medieval missionary zeal. KarenAER 23:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anybody here is trying to assign blame. What happened happened, and I tried to make it clear from the beginning that the goal of this mediation is to ensure the article properly meets Wikipedia's NPOV and NOR standards. I agree that trying to assign blame on anyone is futile in the utmost and counterproductive. However, I *do* believe that there are many NPOV and NOR concerns which need to be resolved for good.--Ramdrake 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO..."This article is caught in a tug-of-war between racist and non-racist positions" KarenAER 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am moving the discussion to the talk page. Neranei (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fourdee writes, "I have repeatedly said that the material that slrubenstein and others are promoting can be included in the article however it should not overwhelm a topic with criticisms rather than a discussion of the actual topic and that I will be watching for anything that is willfully misleading, improprerly paraphrased, and arrangements of material that give undue weight to tiny minority views."  It is true that Fourdee has said this, and I believe that his formulation here may provide one possible starting point for mediation.  I am sure that all agree in principal that we want to avoid "anything that is willfully misleading, improprerly paraphrased, and arrangements of material that give undue weight to tiny minority views" and another way to frame the dispute is that people disagree over what material fits this description.  My first statement on the talk page of the article was to assert that much of the meterial in the article, although sourced, was misleading.  Perhaps when first it was not "willfully" misleading, but a number of editors besides myself have since explained how and why it is misleading.  Nevertheless, this remains a point of contention that may require/benefit from mediation.  Another point for mediation involves Fourdee's sugestion that the views I wish included are "criticisms" of the topic; my position is that they express alternate views.  At stake is where the material would go in the article: in a special "criticism" section at the end, or in the beginning as one of several major views.  A linked issue is Fourdee's characterizing these views as fringe or minority.  I contend that they represent major views within the academy.  It is true that many people are ignorant of or reject scholarly research, but I do not believe that this renders scholarly research "fringe" or "minority."  I believe that "fringe" or "minorty" can have meaning in an encyclopedia only in relation to a particular community or constituency (mass media, the scientific community, and so on) and are not meaningful in absolute terms.  I believe fourdee and others disagree - so this too would be an important area requiing mediation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Given that the page has now been protected, much as I suggested on the article talk page earlier, does anyone object to the strategy I previously suggested, which I will now summarise. Any difference between what I say now and what I said before represents reconsideration, and what I say now is what I'm precisely suggesting and asking to be considered.
The page is protected, so let's all sit back and try to work out what the article should be like, ignoring its current structure and, to a certain extent, content. As this leads to more and more refined ideas as to new structure and outline content, we'll reach a position where the page can be unprotected and the new plan implemented. This will only work if everyone involved is willing to participate to ensure that the new plan is acceptable (if not ideal) to everyone. SamBC(talk) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random break for edit button, and to draw a line starting a new stream of discussion

message: Could everyone please try to keep this discussion civil, avoid personal attacks, and to use one of my favourite quotes, "consider that you may be mistaken". That goes for everyone. SamBC(talk) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility

message: It's funny that Slrubenstein tries to make such an issue of someone's politics when this guy he brought in is well known for ultra-extreme-far-left politics (anti-race, anti-capitalism, anti-nation etc.) which strangely seem to correlate with the material he is trying to insert.  Nobody is neutral on this and the belief that this article should read as an attack on the very concept of race and a platform to introduce deceptive genetic arguments designed to mislead people into believing genetics are not the reason for differences in appearance - that is the real POV-pushing here.  I'm just being honest that my beliefs are the polar opposite of Alun's whereas he has taken to hiding them.  
SLRubenstein has also gone running to an administrator friend of his (who posts his essays on her user page) to try to stop me from editing the article for being a racist despite his significant violations of WP:CIVIL etc.  You are right I am racist and unlike some of the other people who work on this I don't try to pretend I don't care about the issue.  But the fact is Alun is not neutral, SLRubenstein is not neutral, they are promoting specific agendas and want to overload this article with tangentally-related material and the same old often-repeated attacks on race which are designed to mislead laypeople about genetics.  This is as I have said all along an issue of how the article should be balanced to correspond to mainstream beliefs and what is on-topic for the article at all.  I don't object to any of their material being mentioned, only it being phrased in a way that is misleading or being used to overwhelm the article.  
There no way I can try to work on this if slrubenstein is going to keep trying to get me in trouble with administrators for failing to adhere to acceptable politics like the sort Alun and User:El_C are happy to promote on their user pages and through their edits, and if that behavior continues I will have little choice but to ignore him and his associates on talk pages.  Aside from that I am willing to contribute to this mediation process but cannot accept any outcomes as binding.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after looking at the proposed mediator's sparse edit history I will not be contributing to this page any further.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: This comic fairly well illustrates what is going on here. Expected racism from anyone who dare be white --Phral 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Picture is Worth 1000 Words

message: :Inserting this ongoing discussion below those moved by mediator from mediation talk page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed and the picture of John Kerry, the Asian etc. --Vonones 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the black people images should be removed, especially when there are more than those of white people. - Jeeny Talk 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: But the God article does not atart with a picture of God, either.  That is because God is an idea.  So is "White people."  Now, it is true that many people have graphic representations of their idea of God.  An NPOV article would have to do three things: first, provide multiple representations of God (Jesus, Shiva, Exu, Zeus, etc.)  Second, when there has been contention over whether or not the picture really represents God, we need an account of that contention (e.g. the debates among Jewsi in the first and second century over whether Jesus was God, and then additional debates entirely among Christians in the fourth century as to whether Jesus is God).  Third, there are reasons why different people have contrtasting images of God, and historians and sociologists of religion have related these to the social, political and sometimes economic context - an account of these contexts, that make a particular image of God meaningful to a particular group of people, must also be provided.  i am glad you brought up the example of God, Fourdee, because i think this provides us with a good model for how to proceed.  Following your suggestions I would say that this article woul dneed to include (1) an account of different ideas of whiteness, (2) an account of debates within or between communities over a particular idea of whiteness, and (3) an account of the social and historical (etc.) contexts that make particular ideas of whiteness meaningful for particular communities. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine except the alternate concepts of white are by and large tiny fringe views.  Let's consider the photograph used for the Judaism article.  Certainly that does not represent all forms of "Judaism".  To a reform jew some of those items may not be familiar or necessary parts of his beliefs at all.  These are merely stereotypical items representing the most common connotations of "judaism".  It would be absurd to replace this article with a collage of antisemitic material depicting jewish bankers, pictures of all varieties of non-jewish semites, and things that may be meaningful to some minority followers of Judaism.  Or if we look at the article Jew there are pictures of who would widely be regarded as jews - rather than nonsense examples of black jews or people who are merely a tiny part jewish and not part of the culture.  However "jew" is an abiguous term is it not, even moreso than "white person"?  The primary image for this article - and there must be some primary (first) image if there are going to be secondary images, galleries and collages - must depict the most stereotypical meaning of this term rather than what amounts to ethnically or racially biased propaganda attacking the very existence of this commonly understood and recognized group.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't always so  Muntuwandi 13:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fourdee, your comment starts with an affirmation: the alternate concepts of white are by and large tiny fringe views which I hold is demonstrably incorrect. I believe this discussion has plainly demonstrated that there isn't "one" main concept of whiteness and "several fringe or minor views". As for the appropriateness of the pictures, especially the collages, one shows several examples of light skin, but only one person who would be considered "white" among them (although his level of tan may distract from what the collage is trying to say), and the other is an illustration of the "one-drop rule". Both serve to show that "whiteness", contrary to all other so-called "racial" identities, is a surprisingly restrictive identity, and in most cases, does not just take into consideration lightness of skin, but also features, and to a significant  measure ancestry too. Now whether any of those collages elong as the lead might be debatable, but to me it is obvious that both collages belong in the article, as they each make an important point as to the restrictive nature of "whiteness".--Ramdrake 10:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is too voluminous, too distracting, and too far off topic.  This article is not "people who are not considered white".  The only material along those lines that would be appropriate for this article is pictures of people who are sometimes considered white.  And these should be far fewer in number than photographs of people who are always (or generally) considered white, and should be placed toward the bottom as a footnote.  Photographs of things definitely not included in the topic of the article just do not belong there, or should be used in a very subdued matter that isn't distracting or confusing.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several editors have expressed their opinion that the pictures add value by clarifying certain views of what is considered white. While you're entitled to your views, if views are irreconcilable and your in a very small minority, it's likely that the most appropriate course is to go with the majority view (large majority as a substitute for true consensus, if you will). SamBC(talk) 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are committing an unintentional mathematical error. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The pictures

message: I'm sorry I've read this article a couple of times and I just can't see a reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia beyond being a disambiguation page. What could possibly justify its existance?AlanD 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. You can try bringing it up for WP:AfD again. - Jeeny Talk 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried, I listed it and it just took me to the closed discussion on the previous AfD. AlanD 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest not even bothering, the last outcome was not  a snowballs chance in hell. As racialist as these articles may be, they do reflect real social constructs.Muntuwandi 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  There are specific instructions for listing an article that has been listed before. In any case, there is current disucssion as to turning this page into a disambiguation or partial disambiguation above. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. SamBC(talk) 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this an article?