Talk:White people

Misquoted "Physiognomica"

There is no reference to "Europeans" in the Aristotle's book, only to "women", so the quoted text is shamefully distorted in the article!

Contemporary populations

This section seems a little confused and mixed up. There's no delineations between entries that are talking about unambiguously "white" populations (generally the result of colonialism), versus arguments that some peoples are descended from European populations in antiquity (though they have been in whatever non-European area they are now in for centuries, or even millennia), or occasionally ones that just seem to be arguing that the people should be considered white, particularly some recent edits from a topic-banned user. Now, I'm not suggesting that any of these shouldn't be in the article, though we do have to be wary of OR (is a statement that they are descended from speakers of proto-indo-european really evidence of anything? Language-wise, Indian languages are descended from proto-indo-european; the clue is in the 'indo' part). It would just improve the clarity to readers if these ideas weren't conflated. So, thoughts on this matter, before I get bold in machete-style? SamBC(talk) 23:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree about cutting out original research. But I do not think the article should simply distinguish between ambiguous an unambiguous views. It should distinguish between the views of governments, which use racial and ethnic classifications for one purpose, and acaemics, who have other purposes. And it might have to distinguish between the views of historians versus anthropologists.

We definitely cannot conflate language with race or ethnicity. Blacks, whites, and yellows can all speak German, just as there are whites who speak Semitic languages. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The real difficulty if we use the views of governments, is that they vary. You then also need to distinguish views of scientists and social scientists from one another, confront the issue that some research conflates the two, and so on. Is it wikipedia's place to tease that all apart if no-one has done so in a reliable source? SamBC(talk) 12:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. And neither is it a Wikipedia contributor's place to use a 'machete' on the article to cut out material because it looks unclear: the subject is unclear. Race is a social construct, nothing more, nothing less. If we are going to have an article about 'white people', we can only discuss it in those terms - as an arbitrary concept which has no agreed meaning whatsoever. We can find reliable sources that state that 'group X' is considered to be white, but there is no such thing as a reliable source for an assertion that 'group Y' is white - because it is a matter of opinion, even if the opinion is widely shared. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent (and I accept I was probably unclear and the statement very prone to misunderstanding). I didn't mean I'd be excising large chunks, I meant I'd be chopping it about and rearranging to remove the lack of clarity in context. SamBC(talk) 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is transparent bias. Some sources hold that race is a social construct, an entirely arbitrary shared delusion that in no way corresponds to anything in the real world. Other sources would at least tentatively suggest that perhaps there is a real genetic divide between Turks and the Indo-European speaking historically Christian people of Europe, such that "white people" exist as an identifiable group, within which gene flow has occurred to a greater extent than without. Of course all of this is a matter of opinion. And it is the opinion of reliable sources which counts. 195.191.66.227 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

While it would be appropriate to cover the idea that there's a defined (or at least defineable) genetic group, though the idea that it is nearly coterminous with largely christian and indo-european speaking groups would probably be considered a fringe theory. SamBC(talk) 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's cutting edge mainstream genetics that variation is highly correlated with ethnic and linguistic groups. In the absence of any data and an informed analyis for these specific populations (the situation in which "social construct" theory is formed), the default hypothesis is that there will be a distinct "white race" composed of Indo European speaking historically Christian (a significant gene flow barrier) Europeans. I don't know of any papers which treat this explicitly. This blog runs an analyis on some data and finds a major discontinuity between Greece and Turkey, with native Cypriots closest to the boundary but still clustering with Europeans. 92.27.75.109 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

SamBC asks, "Is it wikipedia's place to tease that all apart if no-one has done so in a reliable source?" Sam, you misunderstand my point. My point is that reliable sources themselves express views, and we must definitely provide views in context. It is not original research for an article to correctly attribute a particular view e.g. to say that source x represents the view of a particular government, and source y represents the view of scientists, and source z represents the views of a social movement. In some areas, there will be great agreement among sources and we can say so. In other areas, there will be great disagreement among sources and again, we can say so. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So would you agree that the section in question is unclear and lists countries and groups without being clear which of these concepts is being invoked? Especially with the fact the title refers to 'European' without clarity as to how this compares to the article topic, instead inviting conflation of the two (sets of) ideas? SamBC(talk) 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What I wish we had in that section was data on the percentage of "white people" in other countries, plus an explanation of how "white people" is being defined by the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever took out Middle East, and some of the asian text, put it back

I am filing that as vandalism, as everything was cited, etc. Put it back within 24 hours, and I won't. Whoever has done it, put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Filing something as vandalism" doesn't mean anything here unless you can expalain the rationale, if it isn't apparent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I'll be more specific. I mean, whoever vandalized Afghanistan and pakistan, and all of the middle east except for israel. This is vandalism as all of the works were cited, and everything was reliable. Someone just deleted all of the work. Please undo what you have done, whoever has done it! --Metalman59 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

the speakers of Proto-Indo-European languages (originating from somewhere in Eastern Europe, Anatolia or Central Asia) heavily mixed with the local populations. It is important to remember that Europe, the Middle East and South Asia were populated before the Proto-Indo-Europeans began to migrate. While some Persians or Afghans may look "European" or "White", your assertion is certainly false for millions of Middle Easterners. Tobby72 (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few reasons... the section is headed "European"; speakers of proto-indo-european are not, by definition, necessarily either white or European - note the 'indo' part of the name; the sources did not clearly support the statements made, requiring either simple assumptions or outright WP:OR to be considered substantiation. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sambc. Everything was cited properly, and nothing was put to doubt. The article is not headed european, but Caucasion. Your views aren't keeping this article neutral, and I will have to file you for vandalism if you don't revert the article. My rationale being that you seem to only want to put your pov of white as european in the article. The US census states middle easterns as white, and everything, and the website was cited properly. Please revert.--Metalman59 22:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

It's already mentioned in the US section see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#United_States btw, Middle Easterners do not identify themselves as "Whites". [1]. Tobby72 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a sweeping generalisation to base on a single US-based source. Where is your evidence for Middle Easterners who actually live in the Middle East? And BTW, your opinion on who looks 'white' is utterly irrelevant, and correlations between language and 'race' are highly questionable. We don't base articles on the opinions of random contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, the correlations between language (Indo-European) and 'race' are highly questionable, and that's the reason why we have reverted user who is banned from the topic. I don't know if Middle Easterners who live in the Middle East identify themselves as "whites" (can't find any news stories, statistics, census data, or polls done there). But the fact is that many Americans of Arab, Persian or Afghan ancestry don't identify with the white race classification in the U.S. Census [2], [3], [4], and many Americans and Europeans probably don't consider them white either, see Airport racial profiling in the United States [5], [6]. Slrubenstein: " I do see a problem with other editors who clearly come here to push their own POV (white = European, white = non-European) and wish every section of the article to express their own POV" ... Please assume good faith on the part of other editors unless there is specific evidence of bad faith. Tobby72 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly" means there is evidence, so I am glad you agree with me. As to your beliefs about race, well as you now they do not belong in an article. I haven't met any Americans who think Arabs are not white, but if you have I take your word for it. I know Jews who do not consider themselves white although they are classified as white by the US government too. But now we are just going back to Andy's point which I have already concurred with. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to rewrite the article, so there is no need to be uncivil. The Arab population has heterogeneous ethnic origins (Haratin, Druze, Copts, Bedouin, Baggara etc) [7], much like Brazilians. But if the US Census Bureau classifies Arab Americans as white, if they are generally viewed and treated like white, then they are white. Period. Tobby72 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't dug up more evidence, but is there really evidence that Arabic people are generally considered white? I mean, it surely goes beyond what's normal in the US? Unless the conversation shifted contexts without me noticing... SamBC(talk) 17:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Arabic" is a kind of language, not a kind of person. Let us know when you have dug up more evidence. Regardless, we have to comply with NPOV which means including all significant views, even if we didn't know about them until we learned it from an encyclopedia article. 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The section heading determines the context of what's in that section - and that says European. If it should be something else, we can talk about that, but I note that you've returned to tendentious editing in a topic area you have a voluntary ban from, so... for the benefit of everyone else, the things cited were about genetic evidence showing common ancestry with European populations; if those things were to be mentioned at all, they really ought to be clearly distinguished from the main thrust of the section, which seems to be colonial populations of one sort or another. SamBC(talk) 10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy and Sam are right. Sam is right that one section of the article discusses recent European imigration to other countries and the section should do just what the section says it does. But the article in general is just about "white people" and this is a vague term that has varying definitions. Many people certainly consider people of Middle Eastern descent white. We have verifiable sources for this. The earlier sections of this article correctly make this point.

I do not see a problem with Andy or Sam, but I do see a problem with other editors who clearly come here to push their own POV (white = European, white = non-European) and wish every section of the article to express their own POV. This is not an argument over who is really white, this is an article over our NPOV policy and how it applies to this article. Let's just stick to the NPOV issues. We do not have to get into arguments with POV-pushers about the definition of white, we just have to insist that they comply with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change lower section to European-origin post-colonial populations

I don’t really want to get that involved with this page, but may I propose that the whole “European-descended peoples” section be either greatly reduced to those areas of colonial settlement by Europeans in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Siberia, or just completely taken out? I feel like the whole section just causes POV wars (over whether white=European, as we see above, and other issues). Yes, I was the one who removed the Middle East section. I did so because the Middle East in particular is a very contentious area, and I think its best that we not take any side on it at all… I’ll go further to use race in the Middle East and Mediterranean as an example of the bizarre conundrum. Most scholarly literature places most Middle Easterners, North Africans and certain Mediterranean groups (Italians or Greeks, for example) together. All have generally “Caucasoid” facial features with skin that was on average considerably darker than that of more northerly Europeans. For the most part this Mediterranean/Middle Eastern appearance was considered one type of Caucasoid, a group also including Europeans. For the most part this classification continued until the modern day (I mentioned Jared Diamond, there are many other examples as well, including the US Census). However, when identity politics come in, funny things happen, and different groups frantically try to affirm that Middle Easterners are either definitely white or definitely not white generally for other (perhaps subconscious) reasons. For example, here are some claims I have heard (and some I have heard of), based on who makes them, and what lies behind those claims (sometimes explicit, sometimes not):
An Arab American who is very proud of their Arab heritage: Arabs are non-white, and are victims of internalized self-repression and have deceived themselves into thinking they are white in order to fit into American society. In fact they are victims of racial profiling, but because they are viewed as whites, they are denied this consideration. [this is obviously a well-intentioned attempt to draw more attention to discrimination of Middle Eastern Americans by making parallels to African Americans, but if this is taken seriously, that Arabs are a different race, doesn’t that mean Italians and Greeks aren’t white either? My friend’s dark-skinned Italian father who has a large beard was once given problems at an airport]
An Armenian: The Middle East, the cradle of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, should not be separated from Europe, especially for often “European-looking” Lebanese and Armenians [I note how special attention was drawn to Middle Eastern Christians here, but not to the Turks or Kurds, who aren’t noticeably darker, if not lighter, than Armenians and Lebanese]
“Euro-nationalist” who believes in Europe’s Christian heritage: Middle Easterners, especially Muslim Middle-Easterners cannot possibly be white, and neither are Albanians or Bosniaks, despite being European peoples [but Muslim].
Russian race slang: identifies not only Middle Easterners and North Africans, but also Mediterranean Europeans, Caucasians (I mean inhabitants of the Caucasus) and certain Central Asians (those that aren’t Mongoloid) as for “black”. As for those who are called “black” in English (sub-Saharan Africans), they get much more insulting names that don’t need posting here. [I find it quite ironic that Caucasians, who gave the Caucasian race its name, somehow aren’t white now…]
A secular Israeli Jew, an Ashkenazi but a rather dark one: Middle Easterners are white, and any attempt to say they aren’t is anti-Semitism. (I infer, if used by Europeans, to demean Jews by saying they are inferior; if used by Arabs combined with these Arabs also saying that Israeli Jews are white, racist against Jews by denying them their Middle Eastern heritage and labeling them as European colonizers)
An African American who deeply abhors the actions by Sudan in Darfur: All Arabs, Middle Eastern or not are by definition are white. Sudan is therefore committing racist, white supremacist genocide [and by the way I agreed with their view on the conflict, but I didn’t think it was necessary to incessantly point out the whiteness of Arabs, especially since many Sudanese Arabs infact intermingled with black Africans in the past…].
Sorry this post is super long, but some ending thoughts: yes its true many Middle Easterners are dark-skinned (if we compare them to Swedes, not really if we compare them to Greeks, and certainly not if we compare them to Somalis). Like all peoples, they are heterogenous- there are blond Kurds and Palestinians (Bashar al-Assad is one well-known Syrian with blue eyes) swarthy Germans, and its far from impossible from finding an Arab of lighter than an Englishman. On the other hand, you could also probably find a Arab (a Yemeni, perhaps) who is darker than the Somalis on the other side of the Red Sea. That being said, whether white is limited to European-origin groups is controversial, and it really depends on its usage and context. Wikipedia shouldn’t take any stance on this issue. This doesn’t only apply to the Middle East, but also potentially to Central Asia (where the ‘native’ population is mixed and hard to place) as well as North Africa (which has similar issues to the Middle East). The section at the bottom should only be for European post-colonial groups- as there isn’t any controversy over these… it’ll be better for all of us.
(wow, how’d I get a post this long…well I hope you guys read it all…)--Yalens (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said, that was a very nice explanation. The only thing is, could you somehow put it into the article? I mean, that would be a very nice contribution, and would not be out of place. I am on a topic ban, so I cannot write it, but your explanation would help tremendously. --Metalman59 18:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of adding anything I stated above to the article itself. What I'm arguing for is that Wikipedia be neutral on the question of whether white=European, and therefore, (for example) in the bottom section where it talks about whites outside their "home region", thepage should only talk about post-colonial European-origin populations, and completely leave out of the section the "fuzzy areas", which have either historically been mixed or whose inhabitants' identification is debated. --Yalens (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding all that to the article would be OR. It's based on Yalens's own experience. It might be possible to get something similar, properly sourced, but it will be a fair amount of research and would be hard to establish the NPOV of. That said, some of the points would help to enhance the NPOV of the article, IF they could be sorted out properly. That aside, though, it's far more the point that those points should guide us in the editing and structuring of the article. I'm on the fence between a few thoughts, and haven't got time to sort them out, however. SamBC(talk) 14:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons category: How come missing?

Please add the {{Commons category|White people}}

to the article. 31.210.177.165 (talk)