Talk:White people

White in the U.S. vs White in South America

Can someone explain why so many people that is light skinned multiracial and even brown skinned multiracial is classified as White in the U.S., when those same people would not be classified as White in South America.

The short answer to this, is that if you have ANY sub-saharan african ancestry in the US, then you are considered "african-american", or "black". The converse of this, is that if you DON'T have any sub-saharan african ancestry, then by default, you are "white".

The U.S. census automatically classifies as White the people from North Africa (Magreb World). Also, millions of multiracial people (for example) such as Keanu Reeves (Half English/Asian), Megan Fox (Finland/Amerindian) and Johnny Deep (European/Amerindian) are classified as White in the U.S. when those very same people would be classified as multiracials (Mestizos) in South America.

Source: North Africans are dark skinned. There is U.S. nationals who are obviously mixed and are classified as White in the U.S. census. --Bono983 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a 'source': it is an opinion. Then again, any description of anyone as being 'white' is an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So should I post a link that leads to photos of North Africans? How can the U.S. census label North African people as White?

What type of source is needed to show that the vast majority of North Africans are not light skinned?

Second, Are not the Wikipedia Pages of Megan Fox, Johnny Depp, and Keanu Reeves enough source? their wikipedia pages talk about their native American ancestry, and the Keanu Reeves pages talks about his Asian ancestry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. see WP:OR. And then read social construct. 'White' isn't an objective description of anything (at least when it comes to describing people). There is no universal agreement as to who is or isn't 'white' because it actually describes social relationships, not biological facts. It is entirely consistent with the way 'whiteness' is used as a concept for a person to be 'white' in one context, and not in another. And how do you know what the US census data says about Megan Fox in any case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "Any opinion as anyone being White is just an opinion", the Why this page allowed an opinion saying that 15 percent of White Brazilians are not White by U.S. standars?

Why Wikipedia allowed that statement?

Where is the RELIABLE source that proves that statement?

Contentious material about living persons (in this case, Brazilians) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Bono983 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)201.243.102.117 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The administrator in charge of editing this article is NOT following the Wikipedia rules because it allowed a comment that says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are not White by U.S. standards, a powerful statement made and added to the article WITHOUT a reliable source.--Bono983 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)201.243.102.117 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

United States census labeling the vast majority of Mexican immigrants as White

If 91 percent of the Mexican population is Amerindian and Mixed White/Amerindian according to the Mexican census, why the vast majority of Mexicans living in the U.S. are classified as White Hispanic by the U.S. census. As a consequence, the White population of the U.S. is inflated. Why the U.S. census labels people as white when those same people are not classified as white in other American countries. Mexicans are one of the largest white ethnicities reported by the U.S. census. The U.S. census is very unnacurate.

It looks like almost any multiracial could be classified as White in the U.S.

Source: compare the Mexican population census to the amount of white people of mexican ancestry reported by the U.S. census.--Bono983 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think recent Mexican census data included categories like 'white': they have more sense than to apply nonsense like this. And BTW, US census data doesn't classify Hispanics as 'white' - it doesn't classify their 'race' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. census data has 47.3 percent of Mexicans classified as "Full White" (Hispanic) in the U.S. just read the section of Race in the Wikipedia Page of "Mexican Americans". The U.S. census does classify the race of Hispanics and adds a Hispanic label to the race reported, such as as White Hispanics or Black Hispanics or _______ Hispanics. Mexicans are 66 percent of the Hispanics that live in the U.S.A.[[1]]--201.243.102.117 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Compare the race reported of Mexicans in the U.S. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American#Race_and_ethnicity versus the race reported of Mexicans in the Mexican census here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications

So if the Mexican census reported the Mexican population is 9 percent of European ancestry (White) and 91 percent is of Mixed ancestry and Full Amerindian ancestry. Why the U.S. census classified 47.3 percent of them as full White Hispanic in the U.S. census? The U.S. standard of what is considered to be White is not accurate. Many multiracials, not just Mexicans (I used them as an example) that are classified as Full White in the U.S. census are in reality Multiracials, a majority of light skinned Multiracials. Why Wikipedia does not show that important fact on the page of this article. On the other hand, when this article/page talks about White people in Brazil, the page says that 15 perent of White Brazilians would not be considered White by U.S. census "Standards", that is illogical, what standards? when the U.S. census takes place there are no DNA census officials determining your DNA, it is the people that selects their ancestry and self-identify themselves, meaning that many multiracials (millions) pass as White, therefore, the U.S. census has an inflated White population. How can this page suggest that 15 percent of white Brazilians would not be considered white in the u.s. census if the U.S. Census has such a unnacurate standards about who can be classified as White. This wikipedia page must delete the paragraph where it says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are not White by the U.S. census. There is no Logic, it looks like if the page wants to say that some south americans Whites are not real Whites even though the U.S. has so many millions of Multiracials classified as White, inflating their White population. --201.243.102.117 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)201.243.102.117 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)--201.243.102.117 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 2000 US census data does report the 'race' of Mexican-Americans (I'd not noticed that), but so what? This is (a) self-reported, and (b) subjective - what constitutes 'whiteness' depends on the context. There is no 'white race' except in the minds of those who think it exists. In any case, none of this has anything to do with the contents of the article (it would need to be discussed in reliable sources to be worth considering), and this isn't a forum for general debate about 'race'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the Article/Page says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are NOT White by U.S. standards then? Why is the administrator in charge of editing this article allowing such a powerful statement without a reliable source? and also, read the answers you gave me. You are saying that "there is no White race except in the minds of those who think it exits", and YET, the article says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are NOT White by U.S. standards, without a reliable source. The administrator of this article is violating the Wikipedia rules and therefore, the administrator allowed unreliable comments to the article.--Bono983 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)--201.243.102.117 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.102.117 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem, though I don't think there is a solution - what constitutes 'white' is anything but consistant. Personally, I think the article is a bit of a mess, but it at least attempts to explain this. Neither the Brazilian definition of 'whiteness' nor the US census one is 'correct', because there isn't a correct answer. It is at least open to question as to why the section on Brazil refers to US classifications though - I'll look into this. And finally, though Wikipedia operates from Florida-based servers, it is an international project. It does suffer to some extent from a US-centric bias, simply because US contributors constitute the largest single group, but there is no policy to give any special weight to US opinion - I'm British myself, and several article contributors I recognise as being from South America - no doubt there are contributors from elsewhere too. Any article involving 'race' is likely to be contentious, and the article as it stands is something of a compromise, and the best way to improve it is probably to find external sources that discuss the issue, rather than arguing over census statistics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One other point - Wikipedia articles don't have 'administrators', and even if they did, the statement you cite is sourced - to Ebony Magazine, which isn't perhaps an ideal source, as things like this are best sourced to peer-reviewed scientific journals, but it is neverthless a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebony Magazine is NOT a reliable source, that Magazine is an African U.S.American Magazine that talks about African U.S. American Politics, African U.S. American Arts, African U.S. American Health, and other African U.S. American topics. That source is NOT reliable because those journalists did not make a scientific study of the White Brazilian population. Reliable sources would be Scientific studies, a source that leads to a University/Scientific study of the White Brazilian population. A reliable source is also the Brazilian official census, and that census clearly stated the population of the White Brazilians. The person in charge of editing this article must use RELIABLE sources because such unrealiable statements involve millions of Brazilians (15 percent of white Brazilians are Millions of people).

The fact that the editor of this article is using Ebony Magazine as a source completely destroys the credibility of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Rules state that opinions made without Reliable Sources (Scientific/university studies, Census official data reliable sources) MUST BE immediately deleted without discussion.

Ebony Magazine http://www.ebonyjet.com/ is NOT a reliable source. --Bono983 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just imagine if the same Ebony Magazine said that 15 percent of White English people would not be considered White in the U.S.?

Ebony Magazine is NOT a reliable source.

--Bono983 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, read the EBONY article at least, it is VERY QUESTIONABLE, even in the article they did not list a reliable source/study, the author said that 15 percent White Brazilians would not be considered White in the U.S. census because Sonia Braga does not look fully White (She is mixed), and the Ebony journalist does not even know what race she selected when the Brazilian census took place.

The credibility of Wikipedia articles suffer when NON-TRUSTWORTHY AND QUESTIONABLE sources are used.--Bono983 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The credibility of Wikipedia articles would suffer more if we took the comments of random contributors as 'reliable'. I've already shown that there cannot be an objective reliable source on the issue, because 'whiteness' is opinion, not fact. Unless you have anything based on external sources to add to the article, I consider the topic closed. I've already stated that I'll look into the Brazil/US census issue, and I will, but beyond that, I see no point in debating further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

Divisions among "whites"

One could build a section about divisions among white people. Good example is shown on that medieval picture showing Italians, French, Germans, and Poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.165.235 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

India

Can we add various Ethnic groups of India as part of the population? Historically these populations were often included in the White population (as part of the Mediterranean race) and generally are considered today. Also, what about the Arabs? They have also been historically "white". GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see no reason why you can't add whoever you feel like, as long as you can find some source or other asserting that they are vaguely 'white' - the whole idea that there is anything remotely 'real' about the concept of a 'white' race is nonsense anyway. Race is a social construct, and in this article contributors can each construct one for themselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely socially constructed, I would say even cultural, to say who is white and who is not. In Brazil, Arab Brazilians are part of our White population, as well mildly Caucasian-featured light mestizos and mulattoes. Most of the Japanese Brazilian noticeably multiracials are not deemed as amarelo (yellow) and as such they are considered to be branco (white). This is because our society always had vey few white people in the Colonial and early Imperial times and most of the free lower and middle classes (and a few elites) were multiracial, so our social construct made it, the Portuguese Brazilian elite would feel not very amusing about finding itself in an "endless mass which was NOT westerner, NOT civilizated," NOT everything that in other Western nations people later associated with white persons and societies, so they considered that people as of the same value (not admitting that persons of color were normal human beings of the same level but "denying" the "non-whiteness" of the multiracials) which otherwise among other colonial times around the world would face discrimination. The big racism from the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries made approval of race mixing actually larger since it was judged as the only way to turn Brazil in a country in which Caucasians could be majority (since isolating white people from the pardos - i.e. [grayish-brown or the color of the manila paper]-skinned, accultured Amerindians and perceptively multiracials - and negros - i.e. black-skinned, persons with Black African phenotype, but ancestry nowadays generally lower than 45% according to genetic research - certainly were not to "help", everyone understood that they could grow up again and turning itself in a majority as happened in the twenty-first century), even if discrimination against non-whites was more evident, the born of our so-called social """apartheid""". I do think that if people start to think about Indians' race here, knowing that their genes are related to those found in Europe, Middle East and Central Asia, people will say that they are brancos, since negros, amarelos and pardos they are not, even if their skin colour is comparable to the children of an Amerindian with a mulatto or a person of mostly Black African origin with a mestizo. It was helpful? Lguipontes (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As another note, the Indigenous Aryans article states that the population of India originate from the rest of the Indo-European population. (i.e. Persian, Southern European, etc) I'm not sure about the Arabs though, as they are an Afro-Asiatic speaking group, though they are related to various Jewish populations. --75.61.80.200 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only a limited correlation between where people 'originate', and the roots of their language. The 'Semitic' languages (including Hebrew and Arabic) seem to have originated in Africa, but this tells us next-to-nothing about the 'origins' of those who speak the languages - and our 'Indigenous Aryans' article is about a controversial theory, rather than anything more certain. Of course, if you go back sufficiently far, everyone originates in Africa anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please edit afghanistan

All iranic people are white. In afghanistan, there are the pashtuns, tajiks, aimaqs, and baloches. They are all iranic. The tajiks are the same as persians of iran, who are listed as white, so please list tajiks under afghanistan. Pashtuns are an eastern iranic people, who many believe to be descended from the lost ten tribes of israel. The baloches are also iranic, and are related to the kurds. If you look at any wiki article on these people, it will say they are caucasion. 50% of pashtuns have colored eyes and hair too. Here are photos as proof. Please consider editing. The majority of the afghan people are white.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pashtun+people&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1383&bih=1068&sei=bfvGTveKMaLb0QGn7I31Dw#um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=afgahn+tajiks&oq=afgahn+tajiks&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=15051l15943l2l16053l6l6l0l0l0l0l136l550l4.2l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=58647dde3f15bbd&biw=1383&bih=1068

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pashtun+people&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1383&bih=1068&sei=bfvGTveKMaLb0QGn7I31Dw#um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=pashtuns&oq=pashtuns&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2254l3675l5l3744l8l7l0l0l0l1l466l1334l0.6.4-1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=58647dde3f15bbd&biw=1383&bih=1068 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't base articles on photos - that would be original research. I don't think that statements about lost tribes of Israel are likely to get far either. However, since 'whiteness' is entirely a social construct, it shouldn't be difficult to find a reliable source that states Afghans are white (along, no doubt, with others that say they aren't). The whole article is absurd, so feel free to find the source required, and add it yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump, I'll look for sources. The thing is, I'm kinda new to wikipedia, so if i just find reliable sources and post them here, would anybody be able to edit it in a correct way for me? I don't want to cite incorrectly or something. Metalman59 01:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

Here are some sources

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/CFC_Afg_Monthly_Ethnic_Groups_Aug2011%20v1.pdf Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/map_flash.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/middle-east/afghanistan-geography3.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those are any use. A source needs (a) to meet our criteria for reliable sources and (b) actually explicitly state what you are citing it for - that Afghans are considered 'white'. The sources you provide don't even use the word 'white'. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for further information on the sort of thing we need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, i know, they mention the word caucasion, which is more widely used. however, i will be on the lookout Metalman59 02:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PBS says nothing about 'caucasians'. How Stuff Works is unlikely to meet WP:RS (they use Wikipedia as a source, so we'd end up sourcing ourselves, which is clearly unacceptable). Neither of the other sources looks to be reliable (who are they?) - and the first says nothing about 'caucasians' anyway. Again, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources before posting anything else here - it is pointless posting sources which aren't any use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kind of new, lol. Don't worry, I'll find reliable sources. Thanks for your incite. 71.190.172.85 (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here, I found the US census codes, and afghans are listed under white.

http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Race_Hispanic_Latino_Summary_File/RaceHisLat.PDF Metalman59 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but not actually much use. US census codes merely tell us how a government in another country (with its own peculiar notions of 'race' as is evident from their difficulties with classifying Hispanics) assigns 'race' according to nationality, for the purpose of their census. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that is really an appropriate source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, lol. It is just kind of frustrating, because the wikipedia articles on afghans, and their ethnic groups all label them as caucasion lol. I will keep on looking, until I find some. Is it ok if I find them with the word "caucasion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.172.85 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other websites I found. They seem to be reliable to me.

http://www.atsc.army.mil/crc/ISO6A10L/TribalisminAfghanistanC.pdf

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/38.htm

--Metalman59 20:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Metalman59 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

Our article starts off "White people (also called 'Caucasian') is a term which usually refers to...", so I'd think that 'Caucasian' would do (note the spelling!) I can't see anything in the first source that states that all Afghans are 'white'. The second looks more useful, but again seems less than specific: for instance it says that "The neighboring Wakhi, along with several thousand other Mountain Tajik who are physically of the Mediterranean substock with Mongoloid admixture...". Of course 'Caucasian' and 'Mongoloid' are rather arbitrary, but this rather rules out that source. I think the fact is that Afghans are, as their history shows, ethnically diverse (not that ethnicity and 'race' have the same meanings), and not particularly easy to classify according to outside conventions - the area has seen multiple migrations from surrounding areas, and of course, being on the old Silk Road, will also have had input from traders etc. Though it may matter to some Afghans to describe themselves as 'white', and though they are as entitled to this opinion as anyone else, it really isn't a question to which a definitive answer can be given, because the whole concept of 'race' is so steeped in culture, rather than being anything objective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, but I am not trying to prove that Afghans as a whole are white, just certain ethnic groups. For example, the pashtuns, the tajiks, and the nuristanis. hazaras are mixed mongoloids, and some Uzbeks and turkmens are too. The wakhi make up a tiny percentage and only number about 200,000. In the source, it states that pashtuns, and tajiks are white, which makes up about 60% of the population. However, tajiks are the same thing as persians, just that the turks named them tajiks meaning persian in uzbeki. I think it would be alright if you put in parenthesis next to Afghanistan and wrote (pashtuns, tajiks, nuristanis, possibly others.) The documents explain that they are caucasian, lol. And Afghanistan could belong in either the asia or middle east section, but I believe in this case it belongs in the middle east section because most of it's ethnic groups are "iranic/iranian", etc. This was very challenging, but i hope you will be OK with my idea. Thanks for your support, you have been one of the most helpful administrators ever. --Metalman59 16:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Even a month ago, it said pashtun and nuristani next to afghanistan. Someone vandalized it and took off pashtun lol. Even in the chart showing caucasions in the article, one of the people are "afghan", and it speaks of an irano afghan race. Thanks for the support, please try to accept my idea for afghanistan above. --Metalman59 16:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)