Talk:White people/Archive 6

message: NPOV does not require that all sides be presented equally.  Minority POV (such as the idea that race is based on genetic categories) should not be cited while, at the same time, cutting out citations from majority POVs. 
As for mediation methods, I'm fine with that.-Psychohistorian 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia.  Which recent survey are you talking about?  Looking back, I need to clarify something.  I meant to write "We cannot exclude sources from majority POV if, at the same time, we are going to include sources from minority POV."  -Psychohistorian 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, which recent survey are you talking about?  Provide a link -Psychohistorian 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thulean, the survey in question in not important. Science doesn't work like this. Science is not democratic. Scientists do not say, OK most scientists believe this theory is true, therefore we are going to accept it. In science we use observation and experimentation. Experimentation can only ever disprove a theory, there are never any proven theories in science. When it comes to taxonomy there are various ways to classify organisms. The problem with race is that it is taxonomically impossible to classify. It is hard enough on the species level. Ideally a species is a discreet exclusively inbreeding population of organisms, there is no genetic transfer between this population and any other. This is the ideal definition of a species. Some people have tried to apply the same concepts to human races, even going so far as to claim that the human races have evolved seperately. But if this definition of race were accepted then it would mean we are seperate species, and this claim is clearly at best spurious, there  is plenty of evidence of gene transfer between populations of humans, there are no discreet exclusively inbreeding races, there are no clear boundaries. But even with our perfect definition of species there is a problem, for example it is not easy to categorise Ring species, they do not fit our model for what defines a species. So what criteria are used to define a race? Because what is important here is that you need to define what you mean by a biological race. You claim to have sources that support the concept of race, if so you must provide reliable genetic and biological sources that define exactly what a race is in biological terms. This is the problem, they asked biologists to agree with or disagree with an undefined concept. I can define a species, I have done it above, it is a well understood biological concept. None of your sources can do this for race, because there is no accepted, or indeed acceptable criterion for racial classification. This is why we say therte is no biological basis for race. Now if we say that there are geographically heterogeneous distributions of polymorphisms within the global human populations, and that this has lead to genetic variability between human populations, this would be a correct statement, this does not prove race because it is not a definition of race. It is also true that the human population has a very high proportion of fixed alleles, making us geneticall very homogeneous compared to other species. Alun 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I don't really see anything productive coming from attacking one another here or getting off on a debate in the discussion page on the subject.  We need to focus on writing an article. -Psychohistorian 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are other definitions.  For example, neither the Chinese definition of "white people" nor the Russian definition of "white people" applies to that statement. -Psychohistorian 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would it matter?  You have an unsourced statement and an unsourced definition of "white people" when we have examples of other definitions existing.  The end result is that we must clarify which definition we are using whenever we make a statement.-Psychohistorian 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I welcome..wait, no, I *encourage* you to mark any statement with  which you feel is unsourced and disputable.  However, once reliable sources are provided, the  tags will be removed.-Psychohistorian 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please focus on the article, not on each other and please restrict discussion on this page to the article and not to the subject

message: I suggest everybody to read/re-read the following:
*Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (official policy)
::All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. 
*Wikipedia:Consensus (guideline)
::Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus.
::Consensus works best when all editors make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.
*Wikipedia:Vandalism (official policy)
::Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
::Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
*Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (official policy)
--Sugaar 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policies that should be taken in account regarding the current dispute(s) 

message: :This article is to be mediated, per this case, on this subpage Talk:White people/Mediation. Anyone may participate. | AndonicO Talk 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Same issue as before.  I'll delete this in about 24 hours unless someone else wants to delete it now.-Psychohistorian 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Declining population?

message: I have erased it because it assumes white=European ancestry, which is blatantly POV, against consensus and inconsistent with the rest of the article. 
If such section can be adressed at all, it should consider all Caucasoid people (in my POV, of course) and should deal with the demographics of all the Americas, Europe, North africa, West and South Asia, Australia and New Zealand. 
Personally I believe such task is impossible to do and would anyhow cause further discussions. So it's better this way. --Sugaar 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population section 

message: go away thulean, from reading your contributions in discussion you are obviously intent on humiliating people of African ancestry by claiming they are of a more seperatr species to non african people (your statement about evidence for non homo species in the x chromosomes of europeans and not in africans). you are clearly a nordicistm aryan worshipper aswell.
the definition of white people is purely a POV, people say that europeans are white and north africans, middle easteners and central asians are not yet these four populations all share vast amounts of genetic markers ( or haplogroups ). These four populations all share anthropological similarities. they all share cultural and linguistic similarities, therefore defining white people as living in a certain continents, let alone one specific continent is impossible. Saying that white people have white skin and that people with white skin live in europe, north africa, the middle east, all of asia, indigenous americans etc in different ratios is fine. But who cares if people have white skin or not?
-------------
I am glad that other people can see Thulean´s nazi approach. I hope that some administrators can block this guy.Veritas et Severitas 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  go away thulean 

message: I ask the other honest editors to do the same systematically until the situation has been settled. He's abusing the participative nature of Wikipedia up to outrageous limits. He's POV-pushing, harassing, spamming user pages, making mischievous RFIs and angering a whole lot of good willed editors. --Sugaar 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will revert any Thulean edits 

message: See: Wikipedia:Requests for investigation
I had no choice. I ask all good willed users to pass by and give their versions of the problem and present any evidence you consider relevant. --Sugaar 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFI: Thulean for complex vandalism 

message: Since this article is a special article, one that has to do with race and attracts a lot of extremists, I request the permanent protection of this article. The edit history of this article should be enough argument in favour of this protection. Veritas et Severitas 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for permanent protection 

message: This very abridged article seems to be still pushing the assertion that Middle Easterners and North Africans are generally considered as `white'. As soon as I have written comments about the `whiteness' of South Asians, many users were at the forefront to argue. Many West Asians and North Africans can be indistinguishable from South Asians and vice-versa. How is it so that they are differentiated so much??
:(Please, sign your comments). 
:Not really. Many West Asians are indistinguishable from southern Europeans. Each time I see a documentary on Syria or Lebanon I see faces that could well be Spaniard. Genetically the closest thing to a Western Asian is European. North Africans seem to have some East African ("Ethiopid") admixture (from memory, have to document it) that makes many of them look somewhat different but they are still mostly West Eurasians genetically. India is more complex but they are still genetically much closer to Western Eurasians than to any other group. 
:One problem may be with the perception of race as skin tone. But skin tone is a poor approximator, as almost every "white" (except maybe some extreme cases of blondism) gets heavily tanned when usually exposed to the sun. This may have an accumulative selective effect through generations. You do see blod turks with blue eyes... but you see less often light skinned Turks. This is just a climatic adaptation and has little to do with major genetic differences. 
:A good reference is here. In general this site: Racial Reality, while keeping in usage the conventonal term "race" and even defending it, has a "realistic" (critic) approach to it and has loads of good demythifying info. --Sugaar 11:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS 

message: Well, I can say it louder, but not clearer. I hope that good-will administrators can read the dispute section and see the kind of people who are continuously participating in this and other race-related articles. Maybe this is going to finally convince them that race-related articles need a special protection, probably permanent. Veritas et Severitas 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the dispute section needs no further comment. 

message: I did go to the online Oxford dictionary and it is not the quote you mention:
*You wrote: relating to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry
*Online oxford dictionary  does not define White people (nor White race), only white. And the only entry that may refer to people reads:  5 a member of a light-skinned people. Nothing about European ancestry: Inuits or Japanese could perfectly enter in this definition. 
So I started checking some of your other sources, and they fall under these categories:
*"Racial" data for specific countries, not sufficiently global.
*General data for countries that are already not 100% "white", like th UK. 
In my understanding this is misuse of sources, trying to pass arbitrary data that is nothing but self-research for documented information. Too bad I was to enraged earlier to notice. 
I am seriously questioning your sources as I don't see they document anything (or almost) of all you claims. You and DT have been very insistent (up to authoritarism) on sources. But most of your sources are just meaningless for the POV they are suppossed to support, they are just pretexts: something that has some vague relation with the POV you are trying to promote. 
I'm not suggesting you are Anglo-American. You claim to be Norwegian and I have can't prove otherwise (though I see lack of references about Scandinavia in your edits for that to be very credible). I am suggesting that you focus too much in UK and USA, when this article would have at least to treat all Europe, all Americas, North Africa, West and South Asia to have a global wiew. I mean: you can't ignore all those Polish or Afghan blondes, can you? 
Population (you mean demographics surely) may be relevant but it is beyond your reach (or mine) to do that section without falling in the wikisin of original research. Hence it's better not to write a section we cannot write with minimal expectations of quality, NPOV and global perspective. It is much better that it is under each country's entry. --Sugaar 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal-2. (Separation only for navigational ease).

message: The population of these 3 South American countries are:
*39 million people in Argentina, where 97% of the population is composed of Caucasian European descendants, including 400 thousand Jews;
*188 million people in Brazil, where over 95 million people are Caucasian European descendants, including 200 thousand Jews, besides 13 million Arabs from the Levante region, mostly Christians;
*and 3 million people in Uruguay, where 97% of the population is composed of Caucasian European descendants.
::Excellent. But who are you and (if possible) which are your sources? --Sugaar 00:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  DITTO Questions from Sugaar re your facts, and relevancy to issue regarding "Race" Issue. Regards, EDDITOR 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina/ Brazil and Uruguay 

message: []
Based on results of studies by the Human Geonome Project headed by Francis Collins M.D., Ph.D , research by Dr. Joseph L Graves, Jr., PhD, Dean of University Studies and proessior of biological sciences, North Carolina Argricultural & Technical State University and Michael Liebman, PhD., Executive Director Windber Research Institute,  experts have concluded there is no such thing as race among modern humans.
Genetic variation may be used to make a resonably accurate prediction of the geographic origins of an indivdual's ancestors, but the idea of race persists in cultures and is not a genetic definition.  
So may we discuss the fact that we are homo sapiens with different DNA and gene makeup, which  determines our physical characteristics? EDDITOR 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain how that would be related to the topic of white people?-Psychohistorian 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's keep focused. It's already very messy. Maybe it's better to discuss that in the Human race article. --Sugaar 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you make a good point.  By pointing out that "white people" means different things in different parts of the world and how, in one part of the world or among one group of people, a person is considered "white" and among another group of people that same person isn't, it establishes that 'white people' is culturally constructed, not objectively constructed.  At that point, there's no need to get into the race debate.-Psychohistorian 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly,  may we discuss this from Cultural, rather than a "race" standpoint,which would also allow us to expand the discussion to include cross-over cultural traditions and changes within groups.  EDDITOR 23:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GENOMICS, RACE AND MEDICINE 

message: I am category sorting in :Category:Ethnic groups.  Could someone replace on this article the category "Ethnic groups" with the more appropriate "Words referring to ethnic groups" when the article is unlocked?  Thx.  --Stuffy2 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do...Thulean 06:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat sorting 

message: I and other serious editors have been miserably witch-hunted. After getting my first (unjust) block in 2 years (and before it my first warning ever), I realize that being constructive, pedagogical, providing sources, explaining policies, trying to keep the moral high, trying to dialogate with the enemy, trying to productive and trying to defend Wikipedia's NPOV policy go nowhere when the other party only wants to get rid of you by any means at reach, wikilawyering instead of dialogating. 
It is more that I'm willing to give to Wikipedia. After all this article is not really my problem: it is Wikipedia's problem. So guess it will be Wikipedia (its administrators???) who will solve it. If anyone at all. 
Personally, I'm done: I break all connections with this article. What obviouly is of little help but is what it seems that some want. 
--Sugaar 04:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red line: I can't try to build up this article anymore 

message: It is embarrassing how Nordicists and White Supremacists are controlling this article with the consent of some Wiki administrators. Something smells rotten in the state of wikipedia. Veritas et Severitas 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not signing your posts doesn't mean we don't know who you are. Please refrain from being offensive. If you view the  creation of an encyclopaedia as a win/lose situation then this is not the place for you. Please try to remain civil and mature. I see you've been blocked indefinately. The community will always beat the minority disruptive elements. Alun 06:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here we have yet another example of someone who, based on his written content, it is obvious never studied anthropology beyond looking at the half naked women in National Geographic, using the word "anthropology" like some sort of authority.  This has gone past ludicrous and has become actually pretty humourous.-Psychohistorian 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What sort of person thinks they have the right to dictate to others their duty? My duty is to myself, my family and the various communities in which I am involved, (not necessarily in that order) whatever the colour of the people who happen to live in the communities. I have a great deal more in common with Black and Asian British people (who I share a culture with) than I ever will have with any North American (they don't even understand Cricket and their culture is alien to me) or Australian or South African "white" person, and I always will. TheWhiteMantis can waste his time (and it is a waste, when s/he could be doing something actually constructive instead of spreading his/her ravings about the internet) whittering about race as much as s/he likes, but s/he is, and always will be, wrong and in a tiny minority that has no chance of being taken seriously. Do these "white supremacists" not understand what a joke they are to the vast majority of us normal people who couldn't give a toss for their bizarre belief system? Do they think that they represent some sort of "majority opinion"? Maybe they just spend far too much time with "their own kind" (who I generally imagine as rather sad pathetic little people, with little intellect or capacity for independent thought, who can't get jobs or girlfriends and so have resorted to using "race" as some sort of "dick measuring contest") rather than in the real world. Whatever, the neutral point of view policy has been abused enough on this page. The policy does not state that all points of view should be included, only that significant minority points of view need to be included. Nazi and fascist points of view are so marginalised that they can not be considered anything but a tiny unrepresentative point of view, that have zero academic credentials. Let's face it the only articles where nazi, fascist, white supremacist and racist sources can ever be considered reliable are on the articles for nazism, fascism, white supremacy and racism. Oh yes, and let's remember what happened to the "white supremacists" when they did get power, they had the crap beaten out of them by other states that included people who were not "white" (so much for "superiority"). Alun 06:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something smells rotten in the state of Wikipedia. 

message: There is no white race and no one with an education who would say so. Colors cannot be a race. The USA is a country built out of the minds of commoners and the peasantry, so it is quite understandable that such foolishness would or could be created from such childish ideologies of those who were always looked down upon by the betters. Of course what can one expect of a country with no true history, they have to focus on skin color or race because they have no noble blood or aristocratic upbringing. 
--Margrave1206 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, your inferiority complex is really showing there, Margrove.  Remember that the US is a melting pot and, as such, has all kinds of people - the incredibly brilliant as well as the really, really stupid.-Psychohistorian 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil; accusing people of having an inferiority complex may violate WP:CIVIL. Though, I actually agree with the latter part of your comment ;-) Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Psychohi, I never said the USA is not a melting pot, it has always been. However what does that have anything to do with my statements? Please don't use subterfuge.The article has enough partiality as it stands, and Americans have enough unfounded preconceptions to deal with due to a history of social and psychological manipulation. Please don't infect the rest of the world with such poor ideas.Perhaps due to the humble beginnings of the USA, the only way some can uplift themselves is via skin color. Maybe this is their only accomplishment in life, what they fashion themselves to be. If you cannot use your ancestral accomplishments as a means to uplift yourself, or an ancient linage then you must rely on whatever you can throw together.---Margrave1206 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You state, "The USA is a country built out of the minds of commoners and the peasantry, so it is quite understandable that such foolishness would or could be created from such childish ideologies of those who were always looked down upon by the betters" and then you cry for civility??  Here's a link for you, Hypocrisy.-Psychohistorian 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Race 

message: Psychohistorian has refused to allow for an ethnicity template to exsist on this article. He claims that the information in this template would be false. Here you can find a dif featuring the infobox. On the left is the infobox as proposed by Psychohistorian, on the right hand side is the template as proposed by myself, featuring a reputable textbook as source. I beleive that even though this article covers a vague concept, some generalizations need to be made. The template manages to make the generalizations needed to provide our readers with info as well as acknowledge the uncertain definition of Whiteness and does not exclude any people who may be considered White. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template as Brendel has offered is ethnocentric and implicitly based on an American definition of "white people".  It does not explore the fact that "white people" is a term whose definition varies widely - a WASP and a Bai would not consider each other to be a "white person" because they use different definitions of the term.  What Brendel is attempting to do is work towards some objective, global definition of "white people" even though no such objective, global definition exists.  Misleading incorrect information drawn from less reliable sources does not help any user of Wikipedia.-Psychohistorian 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, please read my template porposal carefully. It does not exclude anyone and thus cannot form the basis of any arbitrary definition. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about if we only include stuff which everyone would accept? For ex, I dont accept Mid Easterns as white and that's my opinion. Someone else may regard them as white. However everyone would regard Germanics as white. Everyone would consider most Europeans as white as Europeans were regarded as "white men" both by themselves and by the various people they encountered ranging from Amerindans to Chineese since exploration age... Thulean 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is an interesting idea, the fact is that many definitions of "white people" are mutually exclusive.  As such, there is no set group which everyone can accept as "white".-Psychohistorian 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Thulean we should, "include stuff which everyone would accept." So long as we mention that the definition varies, we should provide our users with some guidelines for what is commonly seen as White. Pretty much anyone will agree that a Poppy Montgomery or President Reagan are White. This puny article needs to gain some weight. No offense, but following Psychohistorian logic, we might just as well put up a big sign at the top of the page stating "Whatever". Some guidelines, even if vague, are needed to provide users with information. I am not attempting to re-define White. I am simply re-stating the manner in which the term White is commonly used, acknowledging the subjective nature of the term. What precisely is wrong with the pharse: "Europe, North America, Latin America, Australia, Middle east and smaller populations throughout most regions of the globe." The regions with the "Highest concenrtation" of Whites are those mentioned. But I also ackknowledged that in some other parts of the world some people may also consider themselves White. There is nothing wrong with that sentence. This is useful information that provides our readers with a general guideline as to where White poeple are most commonly (not always) found. Perhaps I should start a section called Western Definition that would have the US and UK sections as sub-section. At least there is some common ground among Westerners what White is. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And how do you intend to resolve the fact that there are definitions of 'white people' which are mutually exclusive?-Psychohistorian 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactely they are "extremely broad" and don't exclude any people who may consider themselves White. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's what I was aming for. I absolutely agree with your porposed phrases. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: * This is not an ethnic group; there's no need for an info-box. If we were talking about White Americans or White Australians, then the use of info-box could be justifiable. But not in this case. Taxico 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC comments

message: Salutations from MAGNAGERMANIA: The WHITEMANTIS is proud to announce that we will be deploying three wikidecimation divisions this following weekend the purpose of which will be to sow quantitative chaos and qualitative destruction in the textual environs of field White people, field Caucasoid, field Black people, field Guernica, and field Rothschild. Come for the show, stay for the recriminations and blockings.ProximusPrime
:What?! No, seriously what are you talking about? SignaturebrendelNow under review! 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SALUTATIONS FROM MAGNAGERMANIA

message: First of all the way in which white is used as a category of race is incorrect, it seems quite American. However these articles based upon American logic do have some very serious problems. Though it seems these articles are written in such a way to make some groups feel better about themselves, however what can one expect. If America could use terms in there correct context then we might have a proper start. Who ever threw this article together needs to know that persons who come from the area of the Caucasus Mountain range,about or around the Black Sea and Caspian Sea are true Caucasians. Some of these articles about race sound like propaganda more than unbias misguided opinions. Nevertheless they have no place in an educated encyclopedia. I imagine some people are trying to find themselves, however they cannot deiced if they should be called white, Anglo-Saxon, or Caucasian, (Do a study of American census terms, or American work forms where race was asked) perhaps another term shall rise up. However this page needs work.
--Margrave1206 05:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the article