Talk:White people/Archive 14

message: Why did the Nazis use the term "Aryan" to describe white people and embrace the Aryan history as if it was part of their heritage? Aryans certainly weren't white; in fact, they were more closely related to Indians and those countries surrounding Iran (even the word "Aryan" is Sanskrit/Avestan). Present Iranians are not even considered as Aryans by white people even when they are directly related to Aryans. I thought that white people are more genetically related to Romans and particular Greeks. Were the Nazis confused? --Media Research 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White People and the concept of the "Aryan" race?

message: The new pitch is now that Frost's maps (about Europeans, not whites) are "relevant" because Europeans are part of "white people."  This reasoning is particularly absurd, as it would also justify including information about:
*European trends in car purchases,
*the percentage of Europeans who wear glasses,
*European alcohol consumption,
*the percentage of European families who give blond and blue-eyed dolls for their children to play with,
*and so on...
These may be about Europeans, but they aren't relevant to "white people" because they don't actually have any direct pertinence to the racial concept itself.  The same direct pertinence is required of Frost's maps in order to establish relevance.  Has Frost applied his work to the "white people" concept? Have any RS done this? - remember, RS doesn't include white supremacist sites like 'white-history.com'.  If any RS have applied Frost's work to white people, then we can represent and attribute this with due weight, but so far it looks as if this is original work being done here on Wikipedia - original, that is, unless some Nordicist or otherwise non-RS have already used the maps to support/define their views.
Right now, these maps are being used (perhaps originally) to project and advance Nordicist viewpoints as non-controversial ideas about "white people" against WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, if not WP:OR.  I'm open to considering mention of such views for what they are (attribute them to their white supremacist promoters), but the current usage and presentation is a grave abuse of Wikipedia to promote a hateful and extremist fringe agenda.  The Behnam 00:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The working definition of white in the article (taken from a dictionary) is pale-featured europeans.  There is nothing "nordicist" about it since everyone from the french to the russians are included in the concept being portrayed by the article as the mainstream view of what "white people" means.  This definition is also not exclusive of all greeks, italians or spaniards, just dark-featured ones or those with obvious non-european features.  I don't object to mentioning in this article that there are also other working definitions of white which include any caucasian person - however I think we all know this is not the commonplace meaning of the word and we would be hard pressed to find any experts who would say it is.  I think in this case the dictionary is going to have to stand as authoritative.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What in the world are you talking about?  These are maps which give some idea of a distribution of eye color and hair color in the one area of the world where there is some significant divergence in these traits.  I think that you are over reacting to this.  The maps clearly cover an area broader than Europe.  --Kevin Murray 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These maps DO NOT represent white people. I agree with User:The Behnam 100%. Yeah, I'm back, and I'm pissed, again. I cannot allow the white supremacists to control this and other articles. They are extremist, at best. The maps should be out of the article. Like I said before, dammit, this is one anthropologist's view, and it does not relate to WHITE PEOPLE. Using definitions from one source and then applying it to the maps are WP:SYN As for the "devils advocate" Foudeee, the definition in the dictionary does not apply to these maps. Don't play stupid. - Jeeny Talk 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  J, I'm glad your back, but don't understand the objection to a display which seems reasonable.  Why is acknowledging diversity among whites a negative?  I see any demonstration of variety a positive factor.  --Kevin Murray 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the maps are ugly. I can do a better job. Second, they are not Frost's maps, but a recreation, third, Frost is but one anthropologist. I do not in the least think that diversity among whites is negative what-so-ever. In fact, whites have the most variation in these traits. What I object to is the OR, and SYN attributed to these maps. Please remove them. I'll think of something else if you need a visual. Not those ugly maps. I was a graphic designer, and am sensitive to aesthetics. Images can be very informative for an article, but if they are ugly, difficult to interpret, and out of place, they take away from the subject. - Jeeny Talk 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  (1) if you cna make them better please do.  (2)let's make them more accurate according to Frost. (3) Why don't we leave them in place and I'll work with you on replacements either new source or better copies. Please! --Kevin Murray 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Jeeny, I am not and do not play devil's advocate on wikipedia.  Your reading comprehension is not very precise if you are refering to my user page.  I fully believe what I am saying and in many more things related to this topic that I dare not say here.  Anyway, "white people" clearly means what the dictionary says, pale skinned europeans.  This is reflected by the lightest colored area on the map.  Whites more or less correspond to celtic, germanic and slavic people and there is no expert source which refers to white in common usage in English meaning anything else.  "White people" are stereotypical europeans.  This definitely includes some italians and spaniards and greeks.  It is appropriate to mention that for the purposes of the census, most or all caucasians are included as white.  However that is not the common usage (find an expert who says otherwise) and "white people" in english never (to my knowledge) refers to negroes or mulattos.  Anyway, we have an expert source already for the meaning of "white people" in English so the onus is on you to challenge that.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then take it off your user page if you do not want to be considered as such. I do not disagree with you of the dictionary's definition at all. What I do disagree with is your agenda. Do not pretend you do not have one. Your "goodbye" to me is proof. How dare you. I will not take you seriously again. You have proved to me what your character and agenda is, and I don't care what the hell you say otherwise on your userpage, or here. The maps, is this topic heading, NOT the definition of white people. (I didn't read your whole post, as I don't want to throw up) Get over it. Also, the onus is not on me, re the maps. It is whoever included them, to find sources that support the ONE anthropologist's theory. Kevin, I stand by my objection of the maps, not that it matters much. Until you or someone else has another reliable source, I'll work on an image. - Jeeny Talk 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  --Kevin Murray 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, Jeeny, you are having a reading comprehension problem.  My user page does not say or imply that I play devil's advocate, which would actually in some cases be a sort of disruption or WP:POINT.  My user page says "sometimes it may appear to be devil's advocacy."  In English, the implication here is that if something "sometimes may appear to be", it is actually not.  I'm not sure what you think my agenda is but you are probably not wrong.  However the issue in this article is how the concept of "white people" is used in English, not any agendas or beliefs I (or you) may have.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the maps is that their inclusion tacitly indicates that some people are more white than others. Whereas many people who are white have the default hair and eye colors. Muntuwandi 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some whites are whiter than others, just as some blacks are blacker than others, what's your point? --देसीफ्राल 01:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Muntuwandi, the hair and eye color maps just show some unique features that occur in white people.  I don't see anything about this article that states or implies brown-eyed french people are not white.  If we are to discuss white people we should address the most remarkable features unique to (or substantially associated with) the population.  Clearly light hair and eyes are notable features. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Default hair and eye colours"??? What, exactly, are the defaults? SamBC(talk) 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The problem is that there is not just one definition of what is white.  Its subjective an comparative.  Arabs are whiter than Zulus, so comparatively white.  By a KKK definition White are not only pale, but Protestant as well.  --Kevin Murray 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other cultures hair and eye color are not valued as much as they are among Europeans. Consequently people just tend to recognize the most important quality when it comes to race determination, which is color of skin. Of all the years of my existence, its only after dealing with this article that I have began to observe the eye colors of people I meet on the street. They must think I am crazy. But I never paid much attention to them before. I can't really name the eye color of any famous person. But that is just my personal experience, I know that European culture takes these things quite seriously. Maybe it should be included thus but it makes the article seem unscientific and tabloid like. Muntuwandi 01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To what ever the heck your user name is, says who? You? Show me where it is considered the utmost beauty in Eastern cultures, I'm from Missouri now. Fourdee, this is the last time I'll respond to you civily... I can read perfectly well, and between lines. You think you're some intellectual and you think that others cannot see your sneaky double-speak. Bullshit! - Jeeny Talk 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but we see blue eyes on TV. Also several animals also have blue eyes too goat.  Muntuwandi 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "European trends in car purchases, the percentage of Europeans who wear glasses, European alcohol consumption." Car purchases, glasses, alcohol consumption....These arent specific to Europeans/Whites. However blondism, light colored eyes are virtually an European/White trait. Thats the difference...KarenAER 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Frost's maps 

message: Once again the gallery is filled with young women and old men. Only Royal is middle aged. this is the inherent problem with the article. Instead of discussing whiteness as a racial identity it has become a topic of white beauty. The demographics of all westernized countries are skewed to middle aged people. The boomers are the largest single demographic group. So this is a misrepresentation of whiteness. Muntuwandi 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not discussing the black people gallery. I don't know what your name is but since it looks like some kind of middle eastern script, I'll just refer to you as Saddam. Muntuwandi 02:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Mr. Hussein to you --देसीफ्राल 02:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The problem with the maps and the gallery is that they generate so much controversy. In all this discussion nobody has added a single source, maybe its a good idea to remove them because their has not been any source apart from frost discussing this. Furthermore, contrary to what may be believed hair and eye color are polygenic and not Mendelian so in actual fact there are several shades of blue green and brown eyes and similar with hair color. Consequently these maps may not be accurate. Muntuwandi 02:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntuwandi, it's some kind of Romani language, not Arabic. So maybe Hitler would be a better referral lol. - Jeeny Talk 02:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Indic script editor whose name we can't decipher has the same username as Desiphral's signature.  I posted this finding on his/her talk page, but I haven't gotten the affirmative on this inquiery.  I suggest we call him/her "Desiphral" instead of giving him/her a potentionally insulting nickname that might be construed as a personal attack.----DarkTea© 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:BrookeShields.jpg
No point in adding this to the article, since it's targeted for deletion, but there needs to be a place for Brooke Shields, who was once described by Eddie Murphy as "the whitest woman in America." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't have been added to the talk page either. Non-free images (which means any images not confirmed as free) are not allowed on talk pages. A simple colon after the second square bracket (as I've just added) would have sufficed, if you had some reason for wanting to discuss the image here. For more information, please take a look at WP:NFCC#9, which is policy. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery again

message: I have listed two of Muntuwandi's afrocentric-agenda pushing images for deletion here. They are :Image:Light skin colors.jpg and :Image:One drop rule.jpg. Your comments at the IfD are most welcome --देसीफ्राल 05:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, though I can't help but be disappointed that citing a lack of encyclopedic value is considered "bad faith."  So long as we keep them orphaned the deletions go through.  The Behnam 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muntuwandi's Images Listed For Deletion

message: Anyway. I agree with the delition of White_people#Genetics_and_other_population KarenAER 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect: the question is not whether you see this as information that explains the evolution of Whites, but whether the scientists who did the research see it as an explanation for the evolution of Whites.  If they do, then the article should clearly state that "scientists x, y, or z use this data to provide the follwing explanation for the evolution of Whites: ..."  However, if they do not, then you cannot use them to provide or support an explanation f the evolution of Whites - to do so would violate NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic and other populations (section)

message: It is biased. Because for every 4 people whose skin color is similar like that, there may be 4000 with clear skin tone differences. Europeans are the lightest ethnic group (Spectrophotometry confirms that). That's why they are called white...KarenAER 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with wanting better and more verifiable picture, but I'm OK with the concept. --Kevin Murray 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You ok with the pic? But if we only include that pic without showing instances where skin color differences are clear, that doesnt give the whole picture...KarenAER 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pic seems to be saying "all of these people have pale skin, but they're not all (considered) white". Sounds okay to me. SamBC(talk) 20:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But those people are not pale, except the albino. They are "pale" compared to sun tanned Kerry. They arent pale compared to Kim Basinger. Look at the difference between Kim Basinger and Kerry. That's why this picture is POV pushing. There seems to be no objective comparison, ie: suntanned Kerry vs other people in bright lightening. Also look at here: . Thandie Newton's skin color is clearly non-white compared to Matt Dillon...KarenAER 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way... if you google Kim Basinger, you will rapidly discover that she is of German, Swedish and Cherokee Indian ancestry (her grandmother was part Cherokee Indian)...! The Ogre 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'd suggest cooperating with MW in a sandbox to develop a collage which meets all of our needs, and in the interim leave this in place.  Specifically, I don't like the picture of the euro-asian woman being described as asian, but we have no verifiable infomation on her heritage.  Perhaps it is consistent though with the afro-asian woman, but her heritage seems verifiable.  I don't like using celebrities, but they do have some potential for a higher level of verification. --Kevin Murray 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Welcome Phral -- short names are the best.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they would go well on the page, and would make a pleasant change to the somewhat overwhelming (at times) number of old politicians, late Kings and albinos --Phral 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those three pictures should be added, I agree. --Vonones 05:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel comfortable saying that as a rule more photos is better than fewer.  That said, though, I think we should start with the principle that photos should illustrate specificx points of the article.  This means that we shouldn't just add photos arbitrarily.  But i also have doubts about trying to come up with a gallery that is in some way "representative" of White people, especially when there is some debate as to what a truly representative gallery would require (to be clear: i am not opposed to the idea in theory, I just think it is impractical, at least right now).  Below, SamBC suggests we (re)open the discussion on how to organize the article.  I suggest we wait to see if we can reach consensus on this - I suspect that it will take a while in part because some editors have strongly conflicting points of view.  As a matter of fact, I think there is going to be a recursive process for a while, where we discuss organization (which necessarily involves ideas about what should be included), then reading sources or potential sources, and then perhaps revising the organization based on what we have learned, which may reveal the need to consult more sources, which may again lead us to revise the organization.  Be that as it may, once we have consensus on organization, we can discuss what collection of photos would best illustrate each section of the article.  Let the contents of the article lead the way in deciding on photos.  But that means as long as there is conflict about the content, many photo-choices will be controversial. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry et al pic 

message: The European people article seems to be a POV fork of this article.Muntuwandi 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have lost all credibility with me, Muntuwandi. Comparing a deeply tanned white man, with a halfcast black man, an albino and a man of unspecified Oriental origin? this is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog of fringe theories --Phral 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Muntuwandi, please stop.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Muntuwandi's point is that skin color is mutable and that the use of the word "White" to identify people (and I would thin equally "Blacl" is metaphorical.  Am I right, Muntuwandi? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess if I mated with a black person we might have a baby who looks just like a blonde Swede?  Interesting.  Calling it "mutable" or "clinal" or "phenotypical" is misleading to the average person.  Take this concept that "race doesn't exist" and package it up for mass consumption as a scientific fact and you might have people believing it doesn't matter what their mate looks like because we're all just the same.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This slippery slope has been argued before.  We all know that light-skinned people can tan their skin and become darker, but I perceive their ability to darken is only within a range of their natural skin color.  For those who wish to disregard skin color as a determiner of race, I would like you to present a reliable source that says someone with naturally pink skin can turn black through tanning and the blackest black can turn pink through staying out of the sun.----DarkTea© 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are several examples of "white" people living at sub-Saharan latitudes who after many years (and sometimes one or two generations) become much darker than their forebears, even though there was no miscegenation, and who remain darker even when moving back to higher latitudes. Evidence shows that skin color adaptation is a remarkably rapid adaptation by evolutionary standards.--Ramdrake 12:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Both of you miss the point - I am guessing because you have not actually researched the topic.  I don't want this to turn into a bull-session where we are just expressing our own views, we should be talking about improving the article.  The way to do that is to ignore our own views and provide accurate accounts of releant verifiable views from reliable sources.  The article curretnly fails to do so in two ways: it refers to research by population geneticists but misrepresents it.  And it ignores all the research by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists.  Perhaps if you studied any of that research you would avoid making silly statements that have no bearing on the actual debates among scholars (including those who argue that race, including "the White race," is a social construction). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you haven't read the material either since you cannot cite the specifics and your words to me indicate someone who has little understanding of the concrete genetics involved and is operating from more of an off-the-cuff recitation of tired carefully crafted "sociological" deceptions often repeated in certain circles to support a political agenda which unfortunately has yet to be exterminated.   At any rate you've indicated you don't have the time to deal with this article so the sooner you can start doing that the better.  Thanks.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it's a lot of nonsense.  If you give an inch to these sorts they will sneak their propaganda in, which has been very very carefully designed to be plausibly supportable from a rational standpoint, but has a builtin lie that will spread with the concept.  For example that "race doesn't exist" - I can't count the number of times I've heard average people say that in the last few years.  So I look at that one one hand and say yes, race in the sense of absolutely distinct populations isn't true, especially between asians and europeans.  But by accepting that theme that "race doesn't exist" you help perpetuate the hidden lie - that whites are not genetically different from blacks, or asians, or etc., and it can further degrade among the most innocent people into a belief that there really isn't a close connection between the genetics of a parent and their children, or between genetics and appearance (or behavior).  I think the idea here is to get that worst form of the lie into the heads of the most vulnerable people so they are caught by it (for life) before they even have a chance to analyze it.  I think WP:FRINGE is on our side in this though and that at the least the article heading can be kept relatively free of the worst propaganda phrases (hidden deceptions).  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would genuinely enjoy continuing this conversation on a user talk page or someplace appropriate but I think we have all gotten a bit off track here and should try to focus on what this article should look like.  Of course you are welcome to add or recommend additional material from peer-reviewed journals, I think the question we have is what balance it should be given, and WP:FRINGE and related guidelines don't give concrete enough examples to decide.  I think again we should look to the God article for the right sort of balance between a belief and challenges to it, and limit the challenges to the very concept of race to a criticisms section, since this article is not even about race it's about "white people".  The different interpretations of what is white, as far as how the term is used by governments and in different cultures, are of course more directly relevant to the article and there's no real way to keep them out.  It comes down to a debate over formatting, phrasing and balance which is something we have to work out with each other.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content fork

message: Please note that I have requested the intervention of the Mediation cabal.--Ramdrake 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Slrubenstein. I have seen many a "narrow view" editor preferring to editwar and POV push rather than conduct a bit of research. It is much harder to do useful work that to simply express an opinion. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy is a nice way to approach it, as the good faith that we assume can actually be practically demonstrated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes and no we need balance.  But this isn't "fair & balanced" Fox news (ho ho) where we debate.  I think that an encyclopedia needs to present divergent opinion close to the center.  --Kevin Murray 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to policy, "close to the center" isn't the criterion, "significant, verifiable and reliably sourced" is, but I see your point; WP:FRINGE should take care of keeping opinions closer to the center.--Ramdrake 20:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medcab requested 

message: NB: I am not part of MedCab, or any other grouping, not an administrator, I'm just me.#
So, I've been looking over all of this, participating in the discussion a little, and I've had a few thoughts I'd like to present.
I propose that the article be radically restructured, with a top-level section being given to each "domain" in which "white people" are considered (eg, ethnogenetics, sociology, anthropology, etc). The intro blurb would summarise that the term is covered in all these domains, and give a brief précis of each relevant definition.
I don't know exactly what these sections or definitions should be, but this should help to pick apart the speghetti-like interweaving of these ideas in the article, which inherently give rise to an increased likelihood of inappropriate POV and OR. I suggest that we discuss what these sections should be, and what (roughly) should be in them, here. Then people can try and pick apart the current content to fit it into these sections. If we are sure that there should be a section for a given domain but we've no content for it, create it as a stub section.
What do people think? SamBC(talk) 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i like the idea, although I would phrase it differently and say that after a general introduction the first main section should provide an account of the main points of view.  This would involve providing a framework for understanding the similarities and differences between the main points of view.  Perhaps this could be followed by sections that provide exemplary case-studies, or that address any legal/political/policy implications of the different views.  I think we ned to discuss thisk but right now I think we need to be open-minded about it.  To go back to the opening account of the major different points of view .... unfortunately, we will only know those after we have read more sources.  SamBC, you seem to think that academic discipline could be a framework (biologist versus sociologist etc).  That may be the case, but I am not so sure.  I think we can safely say there are at least two major points of view: one that is biological and one that is social-constructionist.  But based on my research I am not so sure that the strongest proponents of the "biological" view are actually biologists.  And I know that anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, and historians share the social-construction view.  Now, I think a major question is, do all people who think it is a social construction actually have the same view?  I suspect that people who generally agree it is a social construction may actually have different and even opposing views when they get to the specifics.  Now, these different points of view could be linked to academic discipline i.e. political scientists and historians and anthropologists may have distinct points of view.  But maybe that isn't the best way to slice up the pie/characterize the differences.  Above, Carwil suggests three groups though I am not sure whether s/he is identifying three different views or three different sources.  Different views and sources may well be closely linked - but maybe they aren't?  My point: we will only know after we have looked at a wider range of sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that a discipline-based division at the top level leads to the cleanest divisions. Discussing different views and the arguments for them with the disciplines mixed up makes for an apples-and-oranges comparison. In order to avoid synthesis, a clean division tends to work best - top-level sectioning for the disciplines/sources, then subsectioning for views/sources. However, a section after the lead and before these sections does make sense. SamBC(talk) 19:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your evidence?  I am not saying you are wrong.  I am saying only that you have not yet provided any evidence to suggest you are right.  It seems very likely that brodkn (an anthropologist) and Ignatiev (in Critical Studies) take the same approach, or that Brodking (anthropology) and Rogin (political science) take the same approach or that O'Donnel (Education) and Rasmussen (Chicano Studies) take the same approach.  But if we organize it by discipline, we would be separating these works.  What is your evidence that these sources are best organized by discipline than something else?  What is your evidence that an anthropologist and a political scientist are not each capable of growing apples, or that someone n education and someone in chicano studies are not each capable of growing oranges?  We cannot make a decision without having concrete evidence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say then that "approach" might be a better term than "discipline", or draw the lines of discipline very broadly. The reason I used "discipline" is that it's probably possible to describe the different approaches in terms of disciplines, even if they aren't the primary discipline of the researcher. SamBC(talk) 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, yes, I agree with you completely about different approaches.  Whether they correspond strongly to different academic disciplines remains to be seen (for example, a Marxist anthropologist has more in common with a marxist sociologist than with a structuralist anthropologist).  But I agree with you on the principle. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. See the way similar issues have been handled in the Race article. Open with the contested and multiple definitions/uses and work from that to structure the article.Eyedubya 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean you agree with me?  because your example supports my point.  The race article shows how both anthropologists and evolutionary biologists took at variation clinally - two different disciplines share the same view and the section draws on scientists from both groups as sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I second the motion.--Ramdrake 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Plan 

message: Since there is a claim that there is "significant gene exchange between Africa and Europe", we should let the readers know about the genetic structure of Europe to be NPOV...KarenAER 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure that you backreference the source article for attribution purposes. SamBC(talk) 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think this is needed. This article is not about European people about which we already have an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is a need, summarize the main points of that section and wikilink to it with . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not about European people, why did you let the portion, which claims there was a significant gene transfer between Europe and Africa, remain?? And not all the information there was about European people. Please do not vandalize... KarenAER 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not dismiss my edits as "vandalism" and stop trolling my talk page. Please summarize the gene info if you wish and then wikilink to that article as explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusations of vandalism in the edit summaries (or elsewhere) are completely inappropriate, Karen. See WP:VANDALISM, where it says: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.". ElinorD (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it as simple vandalism because a large proportion of my edit WAS NOT COPY PASTED from European people article. So a large proportion was deleted without any given reason, ie: blanking vandalism. KarenAER 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? What gene?  KarenAER 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: KarenAER, your "intellectually challenged" remark is not only uncivil but risky as it is bound to backfire on you.  Now, given what you have written here, it is clear that you do not understand our NPOV policy.  NPOV does not require that for every view we provide, we come up with an opposite view.  NPOV reqires that we report all notable verifiable views relaed to a topic.  If there is only one, we report one.  If there are twnety, we report twenty.  You say we need to present counter arguments ... well, what are your verifiable sources?  The way you phrased it, one could read what you wrote and think that we editors whould come up with our own counter-arguments to comply with NPOV.  But that would actually violate NPOV as we never put our own views in.  The only question in this particular context is the following: Is there any debae among molecular and population geneticits concerning gene flow between Africa and Europe?  If there is a debate, we should provide an accyrate account of it (but in science, this is likely to take the form not of "counter arguments" but rather alternate models).  If there is no debate - if there is a relative consensus among molecular and biological geneticisms, NPOV demands that we do ... nothing.  We represent the view that is currently widely shared, and be clear about who holds this view. In short, the application of NPOV is dictated by the available releant verifiable reliable and notable sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrubenstein, please dont write irrelevant long posts, the talk page is already hardly managable. My edits had reliable sources. Thank you...KarenAER 01:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Alun explains below, you are misrepresenting those sources in order to fabricate the "counter argument" you feel is needed.  That is a violation of NOR (you cite sources ut to make claims which are your own) and it actually violates NPOV (as they are your claims) - that's my point, and it is certainly relevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: KarenAER, might I politely suggest that you refrain from making WP:NPA personal attacks, such as suggesting that anyone who fails to understand or agree with you is "intellectually challenged". Can we all just calm down and try to keep things WP:CIVIL? SamBC(talk) 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So-called "racial" mixture has occurred extensively in Latin America, and to a lesser extent in North America, so that most people are descendants of ancestors from Europe, Africa, and the Americas, and in many
places like the Caribbean, from Asia also (Graham 1990; Morner 1967). Throughout the colonial world, complex
genetic mixtures among various peoples have taken place; and increasingly Europeans at home are participants in, and products of, new genetic combinations with individuals absorbed into their societies from distant lands. (AUDREY SMEDLEY, "'Race' and the Construction of Human Identity," American Anthropologist 100(3):690-702. 1999.)--Carwil 01:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will copy & paste Genetics section from [[European people]] 

message: We should just have a few images side by side no need for a gallery since this is very common. --Vonones 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't have any non-free images in galleries, and there were quite a few in the one I removed. Whether or not there should be a gallery is a content dispute, and I'm not interested in it. But anyone who wants to have one must carefully check that every single image in it is either public domain or licensed under a free licence, before attempting to reinsert it. ElinorD (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of those pictures, :Image:HowardStringer.jpg and :Image:Vaclav havel.jpg are tagged as unfree and should be removed; :Image:Anna K.jpg is tagged as free (as a U.S. government work) but is also tagged as lacking source information, so it's questionable.  The rest of the images all have a free tag and no tags indicating questions as to their status. *Dan T.* 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: I'd like to ask User:Phral to refrain from doing wholesale reverts like he/she just did and wipe out a day's worth of edits by nearly a dozen different editors. That strikes me as extremely disruptive, and smacks of article ownership.--Ramdrake 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, let me self revert --Phral 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late --Phral 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phral's reversal of today's edits 

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 his (user:jossi's) 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 to 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.
The mediator who offered to handle the case is a new editor without the experience necessary to be any help at all.  In fact, I don't see why we need mediation or the article to be protected.  There's no reason we can't work through this on the talk page, perhaps with the help of someone very experienced with wikipedia rules and precedents for controversial articles.  The rest of this stuff - calling for mediation, page locks, running to administrator friends to silence opposing views, one-sided civility warnings, voluminous diatribes against race which is largely off-topic or tangetal - seems to be gameing the system just to disrupt the compromise and work that was already being attempted. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get hysterical.  For one thing, i didn't do much running.  I left messages at several people's talk pages, including several people I do not know.  Whether I know them or not, I went to them because their record at Wikipedia either demonstrated a throough familiarity with our content policies (NPOV and NOR which as I have stated I believe are at issue here), or who have expertise in the life sciences.  I do not care what little tags or boxs Alun has on his user-page.  He has advanced degrees in biological sciences and a thorough unerstanding of many of the sources (e.g. Tang et. al, and the research on MtDNA and Y chromasome haplotypes) that are being used here.  I contacted other people with degrees in the life sciences as well - that is the common denomenator, not who they support in th US presidential elections - and I also left messages with people who seem knowledgable on the social science literature.  When people have conflicts over the interpretation of policy, or life or social science research, it seems reasonable to ask othe editors with experience in these matters to comment.  Your investigation of me and Alun was pretty superficial - if you dug further you would have learned that he and I were involved in a lengthy and vitriolic edit war many months ago, and I had no reason to believe he would agree with me now.  But he knows his stuff and has commented in a reasonable, well-informed, and appropriate manne. That should be the only issue that concerns us.  But perhaps since you cannot respond to the substance of what he wrote, you turn instead to character assassination.  How brave of you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that you are persistently intentionally and directly rude to other editors (for example "bullshit artist", "hysterical") and tend to accuse others of your own behavior (use the label "racist" like it disqualifies an editor but find that Alun/Wobble having ultra-left-extremist agenda against everything from race and nation to private property and editing to back that up is not a problem). I wish that there were some way to avoid seeing further comments from you on talk pages.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also my problem is not with Alun with whom I also have some experience and find to be a reasonable and fair-minded person despite that his politics appear to be the literal polar opposite of mine.  It's your behavior that I find disruptive, or at any rate improper and hypocritical.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if my concern for the integrity of the article makes it difficult for you to work here, I guess you have three choices: (1) learn to live (in the virtual world of Wikipedia) with people who do not agree with you, (2) file a complaint against me at ArbCom, or (3) go away.  I am gussing youwill opt for (1) which si fine by me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics and Politicking

message: This comment is from the mediation cabal case, I was asked to post it here by Phral, so I have.
I don't think this is about racists and non-racists as Ramdrake states, I don't think it's a left-right political issue as Phral states  and I don't think it's about afrocentricism (I can see no Afrocentric point of view in the article at all). The issue, as far as I can see it is about whether the term White people is universally identified as a specific race. I think that on the one hand certain good faith editors such as fourdee, Phral and Karen truly believe that it is self evident that the term White people applies exclusively to White Europeans. With this in mind they think that this article should concentrate primarily on this group of people. On the other hand there is another group of people, myself included, who view the term White people as much more amorphous and plastic. We tend to think that this term used to mean different things in different contexts. Both of these points of view are already expressed in the introductionary paragraph where two definitions are given (a) "being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin" (b) "a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry". Neither of these definitions actually exclude people with ancestry that is not European. A person can have light coloured skin and have European ancestry and can also have ancestry from a different part of the world. My personal solution would be to include several sections in the article, one of these sections could deal with White people as a term used for people who perceive their descent as exclusively White European (this is a perfectly valid usage and point of view after all), other sections of the article can discuss use of the term when it is not applied to people of presumed exclusively White European descent. For example use of the term White people to mean Caucasian, or use of the term White people as it is used in the census for the USA, which I believe includes people from as far as the far east of Russia. There may well be other uses of the term White people that I am not aware of. Phral makes the point that this article should not include general material about the concept of race, and I tend to agree with him. If someone is interested in general about race as a social or biological construct then they can read about it on the race article. The same applies to Race and genetics. I tend to think this article should concentrate on the various ways that the term White people is applied and perceived, rather than worrying about whether White people are a race or not. Alun 10:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General comment