Talk:White people/Archive 17

message: There is a hell of a lot here to read since I took a break from this article due to a certain indefinately banned user. I've looked at a few bits but I really don't have the time to go through all of it. Why exactly did this suddenly turn back into a debate on article content when there seemed to be a pretty firm concensus to scrap the article and turn it into some form of disambig page? Much as I love to watch some of the very bizarre debates over whether certain sources should be kept in due to inferred bias by some very odd users why is it being debated at all? 
This seems to have gotten out of hand and has been hijacked by extremists. 
Let me just ask, quite bluntly:
a) Why is this debate going on at all when the concencus seemed to clearly point to getting rid of this nonencyclopedic article with it being replaced by a disambig?
b) Why do admins permit the posting of extremist views? I know Fourdee has been banned for it and I know that avoiding censorship is important but c'mon when folks start making fools of themselves (as one or two users did above with their rather odd rantings) surely commonsense should prevail?
So... what the hell is going on and what happened to the original debate? AlanD 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the source-related stuff came up again during discussion of the consensus-led movement to an "enhanced disambiguation", as there seems to be feeling that basic disambiguation is not entirely in appropriate. The debate is continuing because of a possibly excessive amount of good faith being assumed, leading to attempts to reason with a certain user, most recently towards the bottom of #Please. SamBC(talk) 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Makes sense in some ways but it has gotten out of hand. Do we need sources in a enhanced disambig? Surely it is still fundementally going to be just a collection of links to other articles? Good faith is one thing but when people wear their prejudices on their sleeves...AlanD 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold on

message: Can we now please draw a line under all the neo-Marxist tripe and move on. The vast majority support some form of enhanced disambig page. Can we please start below with a discussion on what form this should take and ignore all ancillary rubbish?AlanD 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm open to any suggestions. Obviously at the moment I am supporting some sort of disambig page, but I don't have any firm conviction. I don't have the necessary knowledge of how whiteness is characterised in an academic context. My only reason for currently supporting disambig is so we don't continue to have an article dominated by racialist/racist perspectives. I wonder if this article is more likely to be a magnet for supremacist pov-pushers and an article about the academic conception of whiteness is less likely to be? As I say my only strong conviction is against the sort of article that has lots of census definitions and maps of hair and eye colour etc. I am happy to defer to your expertise in anthropology. Cheers. Alun 10:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What are we going to do?

message: There is a consensus for a disambiguation page for this article. There remains some debate about the style. Too long a disambig may be indistinguishable from an article, too short and it may remain ambiguous. See proposed long format or short format. Please reject or accept the proposed long format, or comment on a proposed format. Alun 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment: Shape of the future

message: Assuming we do not want a disambig page (which is fair enough, perusing the previous discussions this suggestion was made as a compromise, the editors for to whom this compromise was addressed have subsequently been permanently blocked, so we do not need this compromise any more). There certainly does seem to be a big consensus that the article as it stands is totally unsatisfactory. Indeed in it's present form it is little more than a discussion of light skin colour, and some so called "definitions". Many of these definitions are very dubious indeed. If we are not going to have a disambig page and we do not want the article to remain as it is, we need someone who knows what they are talking about to write at least a rough and ready outline of how it "should" look. Personally I have absolutely no idea what it "should" look like, but I'd be happy for someone to enlighten me. Alun 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you commie anarchist hippie!Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot "scum"!!! Alun 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn!  I can't remember everything!  Pfft! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... or like this? Mathsci 16:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: YES! Slrubenstein   |  Talk
===How it might look===
*Intro
*History of the term
*White as a legal category
*White people in the "science of race"
*Physical appearance
*Whiteness as a social category / Social construction / Privilege
*Census and social definitions in different regions
However an outline might not be the best way to start this discussion. Maybe work on an introduction would let us flesh out the combination of historically constructed legal status, folk understanding of who is white on the basis of physical characteristics, social boundaries as they change over time, and more recent perceptions. All built of course on verifiable, reliable sources.--Carwil 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if an outline isn't the best way to begin this is damn constructive!  Thanks! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That actually sounds great to me, on first gut reaction; it even allows a place for the racist/racialist perspective, duly identified as such. I think the outline existing will help with writing an intro, which will then inform a more final outline. Anyone care to do the honours at the compromise sandbox already in place? SamBC(talk) 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two comments hare that may be helpful.  First, is: remember NOR.  The question is, does the literature on white people discuss skin color or other physcial traits.  If it does, we include it; if it does not, we do not - in other words, we need not make the decision; the sources make it for us.  Second point: some people have characterized braxil as a pigmentocracy rather than a racist society because there are many more opportunities for upward mobility of people of slave/African descent, and therefor (so some claim) many people of very dark skin who are not victims of racism.  Nevertheless, there is a discourse in which white=good and black=bad - people with African features who have graduate degrees and wealth do not change their physical appearance but may be described as having lighter skin.  Skin color therefore does not refer to a physcial trait but is metaphorical for social status.  The point is that "skin color" can be relevant in ways othe than the actual color of skin.  Now, this is probably so because slaves were from Africa and masters from europe, so I would not expect this to apply in Europe itself.  I raise the example only to illustrate how the ways people talk about physical traits may be culturally very very significant.  I think we should just keep our eyes open to this possiblity as we research the topic.  Either way, the point is not to provide a phenotypic profile of Eurpeans, but rather be open to the possible ways European ethnic groups may signify their identity via reference to physical type.  I know Jews often make jokes about their noses, even ones with relatively small noses.  This is I acknowledge different from what perhaps was originally proposed.  But if there are problems with that proposal, the alternative need not be to exclude any discussion of physical traits.  The point is to contextualize it in terms of how different European ethnic groups talk about their identity and the identity of others. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. My point was not "we must talk about physical appearance" (although I doubt there is a complete lack of reliable sources about that). My point was that we mustn't say, before we even start, "we mustn't talk about physical appearance". If that makes sense. Saying "we must not talk about it" is almost as sweeping and odd as saying "no article entitled 'White people' should exist". SamBC(talk) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So how will it look?

message: *Intro
*History of the term
*White as a legal category
*White people in the "science of race"
*Physical appearance
*Whiteness as a social category / Social construction / Privilege
*Census and social definitions in different regions
However an outline might not be the best way to start this discussion. Maybe work on an introduction would let us flesh out the combination of historically constructed legal status, folk understanding of who is white on the basis of physical characteristics, social boundaries as they change over time, and more recent perceptions. All built of course on verifiable, reliable sources.--Carwil 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if an outline isn't the best way to begin this is damn constructive!  Thanks! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That actually sounds great to me, on first gut reaction; it even allows a place for the racist/racialist perspective, duly identified as such. I think the outline existing will help with writing an intro, which will then inform a more final outline. Anyone care to do the honours at the compromise sandbox already in place? SamBC(talk) 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two comments hare that may be helpful.  First, is: remember NOR.  The question is, does the literature on white people discuss skin color or other physcial traits.  If it does, we include it; if it does not, we do not - in other words, we need not make the decision; the sources make it for us.  Second point: some people have characterized braxil as a pigmentocracy rather than a racist society because there are many more opportunities for upward mobility of people of slave/African descent, and therefor (so some claim) many people of very dark skin who are not victims of racism.  Nevertheless, there is a discourse in which white=good and black=bad - people with African features who have graduate degrees and wealth do not change their physical appearance but may be described as having lighter skin.  Skin color therefore does not refer to a physcial trait but is metaphorical for social status.  The point is that "skin color" can be relevant in ways othe than the actual color of skin.  Now, this is probably so because slaves were from Africa and masters from europe, so I would not expect this to apply in Europe itself.  I raise the example only to illustrate how the ways people talk about physical traits may be culturally very very significant.  I think we should just keep our eyes open to this possiblity as we research the topic.  Either way, the point is not to provide a phenotypic profile of Eurpeans, but rather be open to the possible ways European ethnic groups may signify their identity via reference to physical type.  I know Jews often make jokes about their noses, even ones with relatively small noses.  This is I acknowledge different from what perhaps was originally proposed.  But if there are problems with that proposal, the alternative need not be to exclude any discussion of physical traits.  The point is to contextualize it in terms of how different European ethnic groups talk about their identity and the identity of others. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. My point was not "we must talk about physical appearance" (although I doubt there is a complete lack of reliable sources about that). My point was that we mustn't say, before we even start, "we mustn't talk about physical appearance". If that makes sense. Saying "we must not talk about it" is almost as sweeping and odd as saying "no article entitled 'White people' should exist". SamBC(talk) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How it might look

message: This section was added by Dbachmann. It is certainly relevant and should be included to the article.MoritzB 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to give an argument other than "certainly relevant"? Blind assertions aren't generally convincing. SamBC(talk) 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the comment on your revert interesting - the general practice of WP:BRD suggests that someone make a change, it be reverted, and then it be discussed before being un-reverted. Not make a change, it be reverted, un-revert it, then discuss. SamBC(talk) 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to describe features which distinguish whites from East Asians and in some those Caucasoids who are in some definitions "non-white".MoritzB 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this so called "important description" presupposes that "whites" conform to your personal opinion of what "white" is. Just because you personally think that somehow light hair and eye colour are indicative of "whiteness" does not mean that these are particular characteristics that are universally held as applying to "white people" in all cultures at all times in history. Furthermore it is obvious from even the most cursory glance that the majority of people of European descent do not actually possess either light hair or eye colour. Indeed this sections seems little more than a thinly veiled attempt to introduce a nordicist point of view into the article. It is certainly not neutral to claim that these phenomena are indicative of "whiteness". If you want to include this in an article there is are perfectly good ones called Nordicism and Nordic race where this sort of gibberish can be consigned to the dustbin of historically stupid ideas where it belongs (just like phlogiston), along with typological race and craniometics. What next, will you introduce astrology? There used to be an article called Celtic toe, possibly you also believe that so called Celtic people predominantly have their second toe longer than their first, as some people insist? There is a strong consensus on this talk page that this article is not about any concept of an European "typological race". You have consistently failed to influence this consensus with your blind insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. I also note that Dbachmann did not discuss his changes on the talk page before making this major edit, so he has not even attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Alun 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair and eye color polymorphism

message: Although there is no single universal definition of whiteness, some traits that are associated with Europeans are associated with whites. The most notable trait describing people who identify as white is light skin. People who are white lack epicanthic foldsTHE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACE. Other physical features sometimes associated with white people include a variety of hair and eye colors.
===Light skin===
White people are archetypically distinguished by lighter skin, and in general, Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer) than other ethnic groups. Jablonski NG, Chaplin G. 2000. The evolution of skin coloration, p. 19. While all mean values of skin reflectance of non-European populations are lower than Europeans, some European and non-European populations overlap in lightness of skin,American Anthropological Association, "The Human Spectrum", Race: Are we so different? website. as noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, which stated in a 1923 lawsuit over whiteness that the "swarthy brunette[s] ... are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the  brown or yellow races".John Tehranian, "Performing Whiteness: Naturalization Litigation and the Construction of Racial Identity in America," The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 109, No. 4. (Jan., 2000), p. 827. 
Humans have pigment cells, which contain pigment granules called melanosomes. In people of European descent, the melanosomes are fewer, smaller, and lighter than those from people of African ancestry, while the melanosomes of East Asians show intermediate properties.Fish gene sheds light on human skin color variation The melanosomes are located in the top layer of skin known as the epidermis. In actuality the epidermis of light skinned people is not actually white. The underlying layers of collagen and adipose tissue are white in people of all races. In lightly pigmented people , the epidermis is an almost transparent layer of film. Consequently the epidermis allows the underlying white tissues to become visibleIntroduction to Skin Histology. Blood vessels interlaced between the adipose tissue produce the pale pink color associated with light skin. Pigments known as Carotenes found in the fat produce a more yellow effect. In darker skinned people the epidermis is filled with melanosomes that obscure the underlying layers.Skin Color AdaptationThe 3 skin layers: epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous fat 
Most mammals have a thick layer of body hair that protects the skin from the sun's rays and also keeps the body warm at night.  Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to humans. Since they  have light skin covered by hair, scientist believe that the common ancestor humans share with the chimpanzee would have been the sameWhy humans and their fur parted ways. Only a few mammals have lost their hair for a variety of reasons, these include aquatic mammals, hippopotami and Naked mole rats[http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Pagel-BL-270-S117.pdf A naked ape would have
fewer parasites].  As human evolution progressed, brain size increased. The increase in brain power would have required a finer thermoregulatory system since the brain consumes large amounts of energy and is very sensitive to heat. As a result humans evolved more sweat glands, especially on the face. For effective evaporation from these sweat glands the loss of body hair was necessary. Though naked skin is advantageous for thermoregulation, it exposes the epidermis to destructive levels of UV radiation that can cause sunburn, skin cancer and birth defects resulting from the destruction of the essential vitamin B folate. Consequently natural selection favored increased levels of melanin in the skin and humans lost their light skin. 
The skin of albinos is similar to Europeans and East Asians in that it is depigmented relative to other populations. However in whites and East Asians the enzymes that produce melanin are still active and produce relatively small amounts of melanin to provide some coloration to the skin. With albinos, the enzyme that produces melanin is defective, thus they produce virtually no melanin resulting in the palest skin of all humans Skin Care: How to Save Your Skin page 13 . Since melanin protects the skin from the UV radiation, albinos have no natural protection and their skin is vulnerable to sunlight that can be tolerated by other light skinned peoples. Furthermore in the presence of more intense levels of UV radiation from the sun, the skin cells of whites and East Asians are able to produce additional amounts of melanin to tan the skin to a darker complexion, providing extra protection, while albinos lack the ability to tan.The skin we're in  
Albinism is very rare. For example, one person in 17,000 in the U.S.A. has some type of albinism. http://www.albinism.org/publications/what_is_albinism.html
===Origins of light skin===
Skin color is a quantitative trait in that it is varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified, however two genes are known that do contribute to skin color. They are the MC1R  and the SLC24A5 genes. 
Since early humans would have been barely clothed or naked, any mutation that produced lighter skin color would have been a severe disadvantage to those living under the hot African sun. For example light skinned individuals exposed to strong sunlight have lower levels of vitamin B folate, which essential for a healthy pregnancy. Folate deficiencies are known to cause birth defects, hence lighter skinned humans would have had less reproductive success. Light skinned individuals living in the tropics in places such as Australia have some of the highest rates of skin cancer. Together with sunburn, the combined effects would have made light skin a liability.
When humans left Africa 50,000 years ago for less sun intensive regions of the world, the selective pressure on lighter skin would have been relaxed  and different versions of the genes such as MC1R would increase in frequency. Hence a greater variety of skin colors are found outside Africa. Lighter skin colors may have been advantageous at higher latitudes since they allow greater penetration of the sun's UV radiation, a requirement for vitamin D synthesis. This may have further increased the adaptive value of the gene.
According to a 2006 study, lighter pigmentation observed in Europeans and East Asians is due to independent genetic mutations in at least three loci. They concluded that light pigmentation in Europeans is at least partially due to the effects of positive directional and/or sexual selection. According to the study, the results also strongly suggest that Europeans and East Asians have evolved light skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanisms.Heather L. Norton, Rick A. Kittles, Esteban Parra, Paul McKeigue, Xianyun Mao, Keith Cheng, Victor A. Canfield, Daniel G. Bradley, Brian McEvoy and Mark D. Shriver (December 11, 2006) Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Oxford Journals  
Mixed race individuals of Afro-European descent with the European version of gene had skin color that was 25-38% lighter than mixed race individuals without the gene based on the melanin index SLC24A5, a Putative Cation Exchanger, Affects Pigmentation in Zebrafish and HumansHeather L. Norton, Rick A. Kittles, Esteban Parra, Paul McKeigue, Xianyun Mao, Keith Cheng, Victor A. Canfield, Daniel G. Bradley, Brian McEvoy and Mark D. Shriver (December 11, 2006) Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Oxford Journals  Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin, Washington Post. It should be noted that scientists have identified at least 100 other genes associated with pigment processing but whose function is not yet fully understood. It is most likely that many of these genes were already present in the ancestral population in Africa prior to their dispersal. Though African populations are relatively dark, according to a recent study they possess greater diversity in skin complexion than all other populations. This is evidence that many of the genes for lighter skin are already present in Africa. When humans migrated out of Africa, the lighter skin causing alleles may have accumulated in one population, either by genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection or a combination of these effects. Since their effects are additive it is possible light skin could arise over several generations without any new mutations taking placeHuman skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
A historian suggested that Europeans may have retained their dark skin until as early as 13,000 years ago. This is  based on Magdelanian cave art in which the painters depict hunters as darker than the animals hunted.Paleo etiology of skin tone. Other scientists speculated that white skin mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html
- Jeeny Talk 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical appearance

message: Skin color is a quantitative trait in that it is varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified, however two genes are known that do contribute to skin color. They are the MC1R  and the SLC24A5 genes. 
Since early humans would have been barely clothed or naked, any mutation that produced lighter skin color would have been a severe disadvantage to those living under the hot African sun. For example light skinned individuals exposed to strong sunlight have lower levels of vitamin B folate, which essential for a healthy pregnancy. Folate deficiencies are known to cause birth defects, hence lighter skinned humans would have had less reproductive success. Light skinned individuals living in the tropics in places such as Australia have some of the highest rates of skin cancer. Together with sunburn, the combined effects would have made light skin a liability.
When humans left Africa 50,000 years ago for less sun intensive regions of the world, the selective pressure on lighter skin would have been relaxed  and different versions of the genes such as MC1R would increase in frequency. Hence a greater variety of skin colors are found outside Africa. Lighter skin colors may have been advantageous at higher latitudes since they allow greater penetration of the sun's UV radiation, a requirement for vitamin D synthesis. This may have further increased the adaptive value of the gene.
According to a 2006 study, lighter pigmentation observed in Europeans and East Asians is due to independent genetic mutations in at least three loci. They concluded that light pigmentation in Europeans is at least partially due to the effects of positive directional and/or sexual selection. According to the study, the results also strongly suggest that Europeans and East Asians have evolved light skin independently and via distinct genetic mechanisms.Heather L. Norton, Rick A. Kittles, Esteban Parra, Paul McKeigue, Xianyun Mao, Keith Cheng, Victor A. Canfield, Daniel G. Bradley, Brian McEvoy and Mark D. Shriver (December 11, 2006) Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Oxford Journals  
Mixed race individuals of Afro-European descent with the European version of gene had skin color that was 25-38% lighter than mixed race individuals without the gene based on the melanin index SLC24A5, a Putative Cation Exchanger, Affects Pigmentation in Zebrafish and HumansHeather L. Norton, Rick A. Kittles, Esteban Parra, Paul McKeigue, Xianyun Mao, Keith Cheng, Victor A. Canfield, Daniel G. Bradley, Brian McEvoy and Mark D. Shriver (December 11, 2006) Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Oxford Journals  Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin, Washington Post. It should be noted that scientists have identified at least 100 other genes associated with pigment processing but whose function is not yet fully understood. It is most likely that many of these genes were already present in the ancestral population in Africa prior to their dispersal. Though African populations are relatively dark, according to a recent study they possess greater diversity in skin complexion than all other populations. This is evidence that many of the genes for lighter skin are already present in Africa. When humans migrated out of Africa, the lighter skin causing alleles may have accumulated in one population, either by genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection or a combination of these effects. Since their effects are additive it is possible light skin could arise over several generations without any new mutations taking placeHuman skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
A historian suggested that Europeans may have retained their dark skin until as early as 13,000 years ago. This is  based on Magdelanian cave art in which the painters depict hunters as darker than the animals hunted.Paleo etiology of skin tone. Other scientists speculated that white skin mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html
- Jeeny Talk 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of light skin

message: "Prior to revealing her ethnic background in 1992, many people assumed she was white."
This extraordinary claim is not sufficiently supported by the source. A vague statement about an anonymous critic is not enough to make a generalization about the whole population:
"MARIAH CAREY has a score to settle. Last summer, soon after her debut recording started racing up the record charts, she says a music critic referred to her as "another White girl trying to sing Black."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n5_v46/ai_10405332
Thus, the paragraph should be deleted as OR. 
MoritzB 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't be deleted because of OR, because it is not, there were many (most, if not all) people who assumed she was white before she reveled her heritage. I'll be gathering more "evidence" to support the paragraph, as it is very important to the subject as white is in the eye of the beholder, until proved otherwise. - Jeeny Talk 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's not OR, it's weasel words. Try to avoid terms like "many people believe" or "some consider". If there is a newspaper article that states this, which probably there is, then we can cite the article, saying that this article makes this claim. Alun 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was trying to be fair, using "most", and "many". Now I see that they are weasel words, but there are many weasel words throughout Wikipedia. I personally know that people thought she was white period, and I did too, but that is not a reliable source, of course. I'm still searching. Tomorrow will do more, I hope. - Jeeny Talk 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are lots of uses of weasel words on Wikipedia. It's very easy to use them, I have used them myself lots of times inadvertently. I don't have a problem with saying that Mariah Carey was perceived as white, it's just a difficult thing to get a source for. The media would not report on her perceived "race" unless she was considered something other than "white", then when they find out she has a mixed ancestry they might have a headline "Mariah Carey not white shocker" or some such drivel. As if we don't all have a mixed ancestry!! Cheers. c. scum 06:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People thought that Mariah Carey was white?