Talk:White people/Archive 10

message: Someone added the article White people to the categories Baltic peoples Romance peoples, Germanic peoples, Semitic peoples and Slavs Wouldn't it be the opposite? Baltic peoples, Romance peoples, etc, would be INSIDE a category called White people, but not the white people in their categories...
White people is something that groups all these peoples inside it. But not the opposite!!
I think that White people should be removed from these categories.
Onofre Bouvila 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's so very correct. It may have been my mistake. I thought I was putting those categories INSIDE white people when I added them at the bottom of page. Sorry. I'll undo it tomorrow. Lukas19 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavs, Germans, Romances, etc. categories in this article?

message: My sociological citations from credible sources were removed and they should be put back in.  I had reputable sources that said the Jews weren't considered as White Americans until recently, but Veritas et Severitas removed them.  Veritas' fallacious appeal to pity argument was that they were obviously white given the tribulations they have gone through(this happened along time ago on in the article).  By removing the cited statements, Veritas violated Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. These sources came from credible sociologists.  They claimed that historically Europeans defined themself as white and Christian often discriminating against Jews. Additionally, the KKK historically terrorized Jews.  Sociologist David Sidorsky attests to the fact that they were not considered white in the 1900s.  Even as late as the 1980s, Jewish Americans reported significant discrimination according to sociologist Joe R. Feagin.  The criteria for inclusion is verifiability and citations, so the citations Veritas removed should be added back.--DarkTea 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All reasonable points. futurebird 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true Veritas et Severitas.  The book doesn't say that all civilizations were Nordic.  Certainly there were pure American Indian civilizations although some had people with light colored hair.  The book says society models its art after its inhabitants.  With the numerous non-white-looking art that it presents as examples, I think you should take a greater perusal over its contents here. white people.--DarkTea 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the goal here is to make the point that racism has affected many people and the point that definitions of race are not rigid. That's why I support including this information about Jewish people. futurebird 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of citations

message: Some comments have been made in my personal page and they should be public. Here they are:
:::I feel it would create a better article if all the Stormfronters were to come here and work on it.  Remember, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks states that users' affiliations are irrelelant to their contributions and should never be used to dismiss their views.  It further notes to comment on article content and not the character of other Wikipedian users.---DarkTea 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author was dismissed based on his personal involvement in racialist politics, but the book found here: white people or here:[www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/ white people] itself was never refuted.--DarkTea 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   More about Stormfront  

message: Why is their big stars from hollywood and so in the "white people" article. and then " a kenyan man" in the "black people" article in the top???? this is soooooo racist and its also so wrong to devide people into Black and White its like in the 40s or something.This page realy frightens me. i think we need to discuss putting this page into deletion or a totall re write. /matrix17
::If you dont like it, go to black people page and put Denzel Washington instead of the Kenyan man...Lukas19 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... or Bryant Gumbel or Mariah Carrey or  Michael Jackson ... or ... then again, why use celebrities at all if the article is not about celebrities, *regardless* of which article. If this were an article on anatomy, would it be necessary to depict the chin of Jackie Chan? the uvula of Uma Thurman? the spleen of Selena? the colon of Colin Powell? the sternum of Stalin? the optic nerve of Optimus Prime? *smirk* Hhmmm ... hey wait, that sounds good! I've always wondered what a famous uvula looks like! dr.ef.tymac 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument doesn't make sense anonymous poster.  You consider the exemplarary pictures to be "racist" which would logically mean they should get changed, but you conclude this article should be deleted.  Not all things related to white people are racist, so detractors should stop making that tired argument against this article.  None of the other races get that argument flung against them.  It is sad that whites are stereotyped as being racist, so their racial article must periodically defend the allegation that its existance is racist.--DarkTea 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is racist

message: At the end of the history section, I think a sentence or two needs to address the way white is used currently.  It would complete the section if something were added such as, "Today, the term white is primarily conceived as a synonym for the indigenous European people and their diasporic populations in English-speaking countries although its application may be less used to describe darker-colored European people.  Other peoples who are not seen as indigenous Europeans such as ethnic Jews and Roma are frequently not included in stricter definitions used by white nationalists."--DarkTea 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could cite such a statement would that be okay in your book?--DarkTea 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no "primary conception" in a worldwide sense that would conform to concerns about WP:CSB. Each of the regional sections go extensively into who among the European diaspora is and is not categorized as white according to local norms.--Carwil 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition to the history section

message: 1. Look again at our friends Lukas and Dark T. What a good argument!: The order of the pictures according to "latitude", not alphabetical. My god! What kind of people we have here!. Watch out again, they will not rest. Their mission is clearly important.
2. Lukas is constantly deleting the version about skin color that was agreed upon here.  
Veritas et Severitas 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to align pics according to last names. As a 1/4 Finn, I'm not offended that Räikkönen's pic is below others'. Lukas19 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read previous sections. If you want to rant, go elsewhere. Lukas19 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a democracy. You can not violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV just by "voting". Lukas19 07:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I think both the "black people" article and this one is just sooo racist and quite unnecessary to have. to define blacks and whites as races is not good. I dont se my friend as my "black friend" i see her as my friend. i don see my other friend as my "white friend also as just a friend.. but well if wikipedia thinks people should be diveded into categories just because of their skinncolour then do that but i think its soooo wrong..
i also think its so werong to have celebrities on the page about whites and then have a "kenyan man" in the black people section, like a kenyan man represent all black people in the world.
you all cna debate this as mutch as you like but in the end it still racist...
/matrix17
:Well, you're just (Personal attack removed). Encyclopedia articles are about facts, not (Personal attack removed) people's opinions.
I either had a stroke, or my eyes rolled into the back of my head (could be both in all fairness). How is simply acknowledging a biological variation, racist? You seem to assume that by acknowledging a difference, prejudices must neccesarily come with the acknowledgment. Should we delete the article on females or Judaism, or maybe, in the interest of politcal correctness, the article on specification? God forbid we point out the biological difference there! Of course saying, "'em uppity niggers" or "dam' Crackers!" would be completely racist, but living in a gumdrop land inhabited by gingerbread men who sail chocolate streams in gingersnap boats while fishing for jelly beans with liquorice whips, is irrelevant to any real, scholarly article. 
-THobern-80.199.157.175 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This and the black people article is racist 

message: It is OR to use those pictures as examples of white people unless reliable sources explicitly indicate that the pictured people are indeed white.  The Behnam 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nordic man is the most exemplary specimen of the white race who passes all definitions of white.  As early as 1914, Madison Grant considered the Nordic to be the "white man par excellence".The Passing of the Great Race  Modern anthropologist Arthur Kemp also realizes that the Nordic has retained racial purity over the Southern European who has miscegenated with the Arabic stock.white people  Even dictionary definitions claim that a white person is a light colored person.dictionary definition of white  The Nordic people as a whole are the lightest people on the planet.skin color charts  Today, Hispanics in the US and Southern Europeans in Australia are not seen as white people, but Nordics are always seen as white people.  Every conception of white people agrees that the Nordic is white.  The Spaniard and the Italian cannot stand up to such test; they are the questionable ones.--DarkTea 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you still can't put things together like that.  Just because so-and-so says Nordic peoples are "exemplary" whites, and you believe these people to be Nordics, doesn't mean you can advance (on WP) that these people are whites.  The source itself must say that those people are whites.  The Behnam 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that I would have to verify that he was a real Nordic by citation?  If I understand your argument correctly, then there can't be any exemplary pictures classified by a Wikipedian; they would have to be classified by an outside source.  If it really comes down to a strict citation, I feel we would have to include Arthur Kemp's Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean grayscale pictures found here.white people--DarkTea 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Why her? Why not use a picture of someone who actually calls herself white? Berry doesn't. SamEV 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Lukas, 1) how do you explain the arrangement of the pics? You claim they're arranged by latitude, but I have to ask: do you know any geography? 2) Why do you keep reverting when we fix the pic order in light of what you wrote Veritas ("Feel free to align pics according to last names. As a 1/4 Finn, I'm not offended that Räikkönen's pic is below others'")? Were you lying? SamEV 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you LSLM's new version? Read my discussion with Carwil, that's why I'm reverting, not because of the pics...Lukas19 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Halle Berry

message: I added two more pictures of white people do cover more latitude.  I was thinking about adding an Iranian but I had trouble deciding which Iranian to add.  The Behnam 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pics are not there to include people who wouldnt be considered white by most, maybe all whites. Only people who'd be accepted as white by everyone should be included in the pics since there are only four pics...Lukas19 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creepily enough, Netanyahu's picture was removed before Abdullah's, even though he has visible Lithuanian ancestry.  I think they should both stay; Norway isn't the world.  The Finnish guy looks Turkic, but he should stay along with Netanyahu & Abdullah, since he is white.  Both are whiter than Fox (latitude again?) in any case; I don't think we should go with old-fashioned "Europeans-only" or even worse, the Nazi "Nordics are purest" ideologies in making decisions.  The Behnam 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Kimi is the epitome of Turkic looks, in a parallel universe where pigs fly and there are no trolls on Wiki. You wouldnt have fooled me even if I hadnt been in Turkey. Norway isnt the world, but same opinions would probably hold for all of Northern Europe. We are going by the OED definition and numerous sources in the article which say whites usually mean europeans. There are other sources which object to this but all sources agree that Europeans are whites while not all sources agree if Mid Easterns are white or not. Lukas19 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get this dictator-like attitude in enforcing 'Nordic' definitions of white people? You don't set the definitions, and neither do those racist sources like white-history.com.  Your current selection is very odd, ignoring that people considered some people considered 'white' outside of Norway.  Apparently people in Norway consider Abdullah black, thanks for informing of this fact about the Norwegian view of the world.  If this is about whiteness, either Netanyahu or Abdullah should have Fox's place; they appear to be whiter than him.  I don't know what, if anything, you have against Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs, but they are clearly white.  The Finnish guy's eyes look a little Turkic, and the language seems similar.  They could be related! Perhaps they are of the same race, which while having white skin, doesn't manage to be called "white," sort of like your treatment of Netanyahu and Abdullah.  I will replace the Finnish guy with Netanyahu.  Don't feel too bad, Netanyahu is of part-Lithuanian ancestry, and it shows.  That country is relatively near Finland, so you should be happy.  I will look into who should be replaced to accommodate for the King of Saudi Arabia.  Cheers  The Behnam 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding Pelosi and Queseda is hardly 'Nordic' definitions of white people. I suggest you to look at dictionary for Nordic. And Oxford English dictionary is not under white-history.com, in our universe that we live in which you seem to be so stranger of...Lukas19 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just about to ask you: is Netanyahu brown or black? I think you have hinted that you'd classify Abdullah as black (or at least Norwegians would).  That makes me wonder what world you live in.  He ain't black, just look at him! But what was your stamp for Netanyahu??  He looks white, has a number of ancestors from Lithuania, which is very close to Norway; heck, that is where an archaic Indo-European tongue is spoken! So please, clear these things up, there is no reason to go by your unjustified inclusion scheme at this point and ignore other white groups.  The Behnam 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really dont care what Netanyahu is. But the pictures were there to portray diversity. One blond, one red, one brown and one dark brown haired people. 1 sportsperson, 1 actress, 2 politicians. 2 male and 2 female. Lukas19 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Kidman is German right? Fox is German.  Too many Germans.  For diversity, let's replace politician Fox with politician Abdullah.  The Behnam 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently is Middle English, so Germanic.  Too many Germanic.  Abdullah for Germanic Fox.  The Behnam 08:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to include non-white people in this article? Lukas19 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are white, how aren't they? Do you think this is restricted only to Indo-European or something? I don't get it. I have to sleep now, but I apologize for the 'Nordic' stuff and white-history.com.  I confused you with DarkTea for awhile.  We can work on this later, thanks for discussing the changes.  The Behnam 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of white people is not inherently racist.  If we cannot assign Abdulah to either a "black" or a "brown" category, he certainly does not default as a white person.  People who have been identified as "brown" or "black" have been identified such colors for different reasons than "white" people.  Everyone doesn't have to have a color ascribed to them.  Also, speaking an Indo-European language does not make a person white although most whites speak an Indo-European language. For example, blacks also speak English which is from the Indo-European language family.  Your fallacious argument from ignorance is that he is white because we cannot prove that he is not white.  The burden of proof is on the asserter to prove that he is white.  Additionally, do not frame this discussion as a division between racists and anti-racists.  You said, " I don't know what, if anything, you have against Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs". Those groups are not commonly considered whites, but it doesn't mean the user who cites a source that claims this is "against" those peoples.  I do not know if you sincerely believe the King of Saudi Arabia is a fitting example to use in the introduction to the white people article.  If you are only attaching his image to this article to counter the racism you believe is inherent in white peoples' identity, then please  do not disrupt this article to prove a point.--DarkTea 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is refreshing that you admit that you cannot prove he is not white, but I say he is white because of his skin color (light-colored skin) and his classification as white in certain countries.  While Turkic/Mongol type people can have very light skin, their other physical traits place them in a different racial category.  There is no such similar division for Arabs and Ashkenazi Jews aside from the old-time racist 'Aryans vs. Semites' dichotomy which no longer has any credibility outside of white supremacist circles.  Yes, the King of Saudi Arabia is white, though there are definitely some Arabs who are very dark and probably wouldn't classify as white.  He isn't one of them.  Also, Ashkenazi Jews are definitely white people, in addition to being Jews, so Netanyahu ought to stay as part of the 'diversity of whites' initiative.  Now, how about adding Abdullah in place of Fox since there is already a Germanic white (Kidman)?  The Behnam 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "country" source is only one.  The 2000 US Census says he is white.  He is of light skin, but so are Mongol Turks.  The 2000 US Census would also classify them as white based on their "original origins...[from] the Middle East".  The 2000 US Census gives "original origins" a racial value, but does not require certain physical characteristics. The other countries in their official definition would exclude him as well as their populace's common perception.  I am not saying that the minority point of view should not get mentioned in its alloted US section, but this does not mandate Abdulla's picture in the introduction.  That space is reserved for the exemplary photos of unanimously agreed upon whites, since there is only room for a couple pictures.  To the second picture suggestion, I agree I have only heard the conspiracy theories from white supremacists and nationalists, but they still constitute a large enough population to make a picture of him in the introduction a poor choice.--DarkTea 23:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll look around about the Arab matter, but Netanyahu is fine.  I don't know which nation's nationalists you are talking about, but I don't think that, taking a wider perspective, Netanyahu would be anything other than a white Jew.  For now, I think it best to keep Netanyahu.  As for Abdullah, I'm not sure what race he is instead of white.  He is definitely not Mongol-type, he has light skin, is considered white in at least one major country.  Someone said that a Norwegian would consider him black but that just absurd (again lacking characteristics).  As far as I can tell, under modern, mainstream basic race classification he is white.  I'll keep him out for now, though we still could use some more variety instead of two Germanics (maybe an Iranian?).  Netanyahu would also be a problem were he not Ashkenazi.  I think it is important to show a diverse selection of whites rather than simply those you consider "exemplary."  Anyway, thanks for consideration & discussion.  The Behnam 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "White" is, to a large degree, a social construct. Whether or not Ashkenazi Jews (or Sephardi Jews for that matter) are "white" cannot be decided by any scientific means. You certainly shouldn't put any pictures in the article of people who are "white" unless reliable sources say they are white, and I'd avoid it all together with living people regardless of what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Whites

message: Apparently the picture ordering goes by latitude.  I figure this is determined either by their residence, their birthplace, or their ancestral land.
*I did not order by residence because that can change easily.
*I did not choose ancestral land because it is hard to determine for most people (non-royalty) without relying upon stereotypes, speculation, last names alone, pseudoscience, etc.  Also, who sets the time frame? Netanyahu for example, has ancestral land of Lithuania, but also much further back in the Middle East.  And if you go back far enough, according to mainstream scholarship, everyone will end up in somewhere in Africa, so the 'ancestral land' approach does not cut it.
*I chose birthplace because it is constant and knowable.
Just giving y'all a heads up.  The Behnam 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The stated purpose of the latitude option was to provide an additional layer of information.  This additional layer would not be provided by current latitude, since the reduction in Melanin does not occur in a single generation.  It is the result of multi-generational adaptation.  The depigmentation associated with whites scales as one travels farther north in Europe.  The whole point of the latitude set up was to illustrate this correlation, providing the reader with additional information.--DarkTea 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in Wikipedia policy is there this precedence rule?--DarkTea 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latitude 

message: The section under US Census about Mostafa Hefny seems tacked on. It should perhaps be mentioned briefly under this section but the bulk of the information should be made into its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostafa Hefny 

message: LSLM's IP has claimed: "You cannot use samples from Americans to speak of Europeans." 
1) Read WP:Reliable source. Opinions of editors about scientific studies dont mean anything. If you have a credible source which objects to methodology, then add it.
2) Cavalli's chart has been deleted because it doesnt "zoom into" Europeans enough, it contains all world populations but we may also add it.
3)And of course, it was a blatant lie. There WERE Europeans in the study. As for European Americans, there was proof of their ancestry:
Materials and Methods
......
Populations studied: First sample set.
European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study.
....
The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain. Of these participants from Spain and Portugal, 61 were probands for a multiple sclerosis study
.....
For the European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom, northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded. 
 Lukas19 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinions are irrelevant. If reliable sources say autsomal studies are unreliable, add something which cites those sources. And PLOS journal study:
The examination of population differences within Europe using mitochondrial [12–15] or Y chromosome [16–18] haplogroups has been particularly useful in tracing part of the routes of migration and populating of Europe, but these haplogroups do not provide strong inferences on population genetic structure. Autosomal studies using small numbers of classical genetic markers (nuclear protein polymorphisms) have suggested broad genetic gradients across Europe, leading to the proposal of demic diffusion models [19–22]....In this report we expand on the autosomal DNA observations by examining a large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) genotypes, using statistical methods to directly examine population genetic structure.
 Lukas19 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note the proximity of arguments and posting times of Globe01 and LSLM's IP. They even make the same minor mistakes (confuse the date of PLOS study). Lukas19 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have only deleted OR and unsourced material. The rest may stay but they need to be summarized. They are making the same point (ie:the relationship between people of British Isles and Basques) over and over again. So summarize that part, move some quotations to references section if necessarry. Lukas19 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Given their edits,   I'm amazed that neither LSLM nor Globe01 could have read this: "Received: May 8, 2006; Accepted: July 25, 2006; Published: September 15, 2006
Copyright: © 2006 Seldin et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."  Lukas19 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: European Population Substructure

message: Funny that neither this article, nor eye color, nor I think hair color, mention a common counter-example to the predominance of blonde hair & blue eyes among white peoples, which are the Berbers. This well-known fact (that many Berbers have fair hair and blue eyes) has striken visitors for centuries - see John Stirling, Journal of the Anthropological Society of London, Vol. 8, 1870 - 1871, 1922 review of Among the Hill-Folk of Algeria. Journeys among the Shawia of the Aures Mountains by M. W. Hilton-Simpson, BBC 2000 - last sentence, The Kabylies of the Djurjura, Istanbul Literary Review... This never ceases to surprise the tourist, from 19th century to 21st century, look at this account with an exclamation point and bold text... Times on line, etc., etc., etc. I'll stop here, you've seen that this is common surprise among visitors. I just thought it funny that a Wikipedia article on such subjects does not list this counter-example, I don't know what you think about it... Or the motives of this silence on an encyclopedia used to pointing out such things. Tazmaniacs
:I read in Hair color#Genetics this more or less cautious statement: "The recessive genes for both brown/blonde and red hair are found nearly exclusively in populations of white people." Why not list the Berbers (who may also have red hair) as a counter-example? Beside, Berbers are a famous counter-example, but does any one knows about others like? What exactly does "nearly exclusively" means? Funny some scientists spend years making maps of populations according to hair but don't appears to pay no attention to that (or is the way we report their findings?)? Tazmaniacs
::Why do Berbers have red or blond hair? Because they are North African exceptions or because they may have some Germanic admixture in them?
::See the Vandals, which were one of the Germanic peoples. And see the location of Berbers
 
Vandal migrations and Berber locations overlap. So how much of a counter example are Berbers really? And in the article, it says "Blond hair is a relatively rare human phenotype, occurring in 1.7 to 2% of the world population, with the majority of natural blondes being white.", it doesnt rule out non-white blonds. And you havent provided a link saying how many % of Berbers have blond or red hair? Is it 2% (which would still surprise the tourists to see blond natives)? Is it 65%? Then they may be an example of "non-white" population with high rates of blondism. Lukas19 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Berbers]]: a popular counter-example which is not listed