Talk:White people

Headline text

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Will Revert Recent Changes

1) Pic will be restored. The women is clearly white. I dont see any reason why she should be deleted.

2) Intro about Germanic people will be restored. Some Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans werent always accepted as white. See White_American. Intro says meaning of white changes from place to place and from time to time. This is true. However, Germanic people have always been called white. This is also true. Also, note that, even today some Southern Europeans may not be accepted as white. See usage of Wog in Australia.

3) Dark hair section will be deleted. Phsycal Traits talks about traits associated with white people. For ex, Blond is associated with white people because it's very rare among non-whites. However dark hair is found among everyone. So including that is redundant. It's extra reduntant because the hair colour map makes it clear that the majority of people in Europe has non-light coloured hair. Lukas19 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1) We need to know her individual ancestry, because some white Americans consider complete white-European ancestry to be the test for being white. 2)Some Germans do not consider themselves as whites link, although I am unaware of other people considering them as non-whites. 3) Dark hair does not need to be discussed in this article. Light hair is only discussed because it is commonly associated with whites.--^DarkTea 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1) She's Swedish. 2)They seem to be a very small minority. 3)Then we agree...Lukas19 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is called "White people" not "things that white people have and non-white people don't." In considering physical characteristics, it's obviously significant that a majority of white people share the same typical hair color as every other group of people on earth. Whites are frequently mistakenly stereotyped as a bunch of blondes--the article should not reinforce this mistake. Blonde hair is rare among all racial groups, it's just significantly less rare among whites. 67.101.102.125 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't the majority of "white people" have brown hair not black, which is certainly not the "same typical hair color as every other group". The hair color, and an eye color discussion as well, would seem relevant to what is unique about "white people" whether or not all of them have that trait. Blond and red hair and blue and green eyes aren't just rare among other groups, they are virtually nonexistent - certainly outside caucasoids one would be hard pressed to find examples in any number at all. Fourdee 21:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New sections

Added a history of the term section and broke out Europe and United Kingdom/Ireland into separate sections, made discussion of Black Irish, and British surnames that use White. Minor fix: "besides" as it was used is exclusive, think it should have been "as well as Norwegians..." but I changed the phrasing completely.

I think the hair and eye color section could bear to mention brown and black hair and eyes as well as the lighter ones, but it is not as significant since all kinds of people can have dark hair and eyes.

-- Fourdee 08:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaced image

I had to replace the image of the Swedish woman because I realized the license on the picture was cc-by-nd which apparently is not accepted by Wikipedia. I found another good image, of a pale redhead, showing the unique features found in the white population and its license is cc-by (wikipedia acceptable). I will continue searching for good professional quality images for this article but I think this one does the job very well. Fourdee 11:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have also added picture of a frenchman with dark hair and reasonably pale skin per suggestions of others. Is this a good balance? Still looking for quality images, but I think these are quite good, and representative. Fourdee 23:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to add a picture of a blonde person as well, I'll see what I can find. Fourdee 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Whole body shot also shows general shape seen in many whites. Sized pics down to fit page better. Fourdee 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

OK, Fourdee. I will try and understand that we come from different places and that maybe some leanings that are considered one thing in Europe are more acceptable in America.

So, I will try and be constructive:

1. Picture: the picture is fine. But is it representative of all whites? We know that most whites do not look like that. So, why don't we show a set of images, instead of one, with different individuals that represent more or less the different types among whites?

2. As some user said, this is about people, not about what white people have and non-whites do not. It is clear that most whites have dark hair, so I think we should reintroduce that part and I think most reasonable people will agree.

3. About races in America. They are much more mixed than the statement implies:

A) African Americans have an average of about 20% white admixture.

B) As we all know Hispanic is not a race, but a group of people who speak Spanish. Actually the article that is used in the statement says:

From the genetic perspective, Hispanics generally represent a differential mixture of European, Native American and African ancestry. Our sample was of a single location in Texas and was composed of Mexican Americans.

c) Whites have also some degree of Native American and African ancestry.

I think that most reasonable people will agree that these comments have to be introduced in order to clarify that part. I will do it.

Since the genetic issue has been brought up, I will also introduce the Macdonalds' hapmap.

And I apologize for my comments. I will try and understand other points of view, although they may look strange in my culture. Veritas et Severitas 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Usere Lukas deletes changes tht have been agreed here, for example dark hair. I hopte that he does not delte them again. I want be cooperative but if unreasoanble conduct is engaged I think we should just report it. 65.11.163.243 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It hasnt been agreed, 65.11.163.243/LSLM. Read above sections. Since we've got a female, you can add a brown haired white male pic to the article. Lukas19 16:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, LSLM, there is a difference from Europe in that in the US we are free to hold and promote any belief we like. At any rate, you are just guessing about my beliefs, I think, as I try very hard in my edits to be fair and impartial.

1) the redhead's picture: I felt that it showed what is most unique about the population; more pictures may be appropriate. The defining picture I think is one that differentiates the topic of the article from other topics, rather than necessarily the one that is the most representative. Any pictures we use should be professional quality. If you would like, I can look for a picture of a man with dark (or black) hair and pale skin (French or Irish would be a good idea since they have an incidence of dark hair with pale skin, or perhaps a Slav to show eastern whites).

2) dark hair: I agree the article should make some mention of the fact that brown hair is usual for whites and black hair is not uncommon in southern white populations, however it is not really what distinguishes the population, so it's not as significant as the features that are unique.

3) mixture: Any discussion of white genetics in America may be appropriate based on haplogroup testing. Opinion: While the "one drop" position is a little silly in light of haplogroup testing that shows some mongoloid types existing in Europe, I think that people with about 1/32nd or more recent non-white blood look visibly "ethnic" and many would observe this about people (at least to themselves, if not vocally out of politeness) - this is true in the US as well as in Europe (for example Spain, as the photographs I linked above [1] [2] [3] [4] illustrate), and that particularly any sub-Saharan African blood is markedly visible in features and would not be universally considered white. The question is not really so much whether whites are absolutely pure but whether someone who is visibly partly from a different population, with pale skin or not, is considered white - and I don't think they usually are. I also think that you will have difficulty showing that the haplogroup Q admixture in the US is as significant as in some European countries. Features are what count and it will be difficult to show that any people measured with recent non-white blood actually look white to the average observer. But any citations in this regard are welcome.

Thank you for trying to reach an understanding on the talk page about these topics. The only way to do this is working together. Fourdee 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User Lukas

User lukas is making changes again:

1. About Germanic people.

2. About dark hair being removed.

3. Deleting links like the macdonalds hpamap.

I will wait for comments. Then I will consider reporting his attitude. Veritas et Severitas 16:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will copy&paste my edit summaries:

1) Colloquial usage has been stated above, in OED definition. This refers to historical sense. See White_American#Historical_meanings for ex

2) Even in areas where the occurance of blonde or red hair is much higher than avarage, dark hair is NOT the most common trait. See Light Hair Distrubition Map. This section is also redundant per Talk.

3)Link goes to haplogroups maps. The source makes no such claims. Interpretation of the data is from the editor, not from the source Lukas19 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Wiki cannot be used as a reference. Your Germanic insistence is strange point of view pushing. Besides, Germanic is a linguistic group not a race. Besides, since the term white has social connotation is the US, Germans, Irish and others were not considered white at the beginning either. In any case, I do not think that engaging in this type of conversation is necessary. Most people will agree with something like this: European people are considered white. You can leave that, but not POV pushing controversial statements.

2. Dark hair is the most common. It should be there and other users have said it here. If you want another version go ahead and write it yourself, but you cannot try and eliminate dark hair completely.

3. The Hapmap is a reputable source. My interpretation is correct and even a blind person can see it.

I will now leave a very simple and short sentence about dark hair that can be expanded. As to the other issues and this I will wait for comments from other users. I will try and be constructive and I hope that we can all try and be objective, without letting subjective ideology in. I will not report anything yet. Veritas et Severitas 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1) It is sourced: Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color, 14.

2) Yeah but dark hair isnt specific to whites. So it's redundant to include it among traits which are specific to whites. Besides, what is dark? Black? Dark Brown? Most whites have medium-light brown hair...

3) Whether your interpretation is correct or not is irrelevant. You cant add your personal opinions to Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability...

4) In the mean time, do not edit with IP address which is yours. Others may confuse it with "comments from other users"...Lukas19 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As said, I will not comment on you because you will always say the same things. I will wait for other users, then probably I will report your extreme POV pushing that must be visible even to a blind person. Veritas et Severitas 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Macdonald Hapmap interpretation.

User Lukas is deleting the Hapmap and my interpretation.

I say that the Hapmap shows that the same Y-Cromosome and Mtdna (the genetic markers passed down from father to son and from mother to children) genetic population groups occur among people who have been classified in different races: black, white, Asian, etc.

Is my interpretation right or wrong?

Here is the Hapmap: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Veritas et Severitas 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do think your interpretation is incorrect, and further the haplogroups used on that map are not the full haplogroups that have been classified - for example the I in Northern Europe is not precisely the same I as in Greece, although they do have the same origin. It is original research to interpret and draw conclusions from a map at any rate, except for making precise statements of what the map shows. Also, I don't think it's true on the whole that for example R1B, the Western Europen, shows up in other populations, or that any of the other major markers do. And it's not necessarily true that something like N that may show up in Eurasians is actually the same N that is in northeast europe - it's probably a subcategory of N there which is different from other populations. Please be more specific about what you are seeing on the map and I can try to address it. Also please see my comments today above in Talk:White_people#Some_changes about people who may have some small part noncaucasoid blood - if it's recent (in the US and to an extent in Spain), especially if it's negroid, they will look generally nonwhite, if it's not recent or perhaps is not from a far-removed haplogroup (Germany, Scandinavia), they do not appear nonwhite. These questions are a matter of genetic history and I don't think the article is making any claims about the "one drop" theories of nonwhiteness. Fourdee 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. The Hapmap is a good one, very recent and from 2004. Let us see other opinions though. Veritas et Severitas 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the map is accurate to the extent of its detail, but again, two places showing the same haplogroup do not indicate that they don't in fact have distinct sub-haplogroups, like in the case of I across Europe. Also, please show where for example, I, R1A and R1b, the primary European types, show up in any other groups. The best I think you can say is that in the east, there is some ambiguity between European and Eurasian. What does that really have to do with "white people"? Eurasians are not called "white" or "Europeans" that I am aware of. Also I'm not clear what in particular you disagree with about my statements, as I made a number different ones above and I doubt you disagree with every single thing I said. Thanks again for trying to work through this in the talk page though. Fourdee 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it: if N per se (origin of all caucasoid types) and Q (descendant of N) moved into or originally inhabited Northern Europe, bred with the other population there, and were selected for pale features, those types are thence European. The strongest and most significant distinction is not to be made between northern europeans and northern asians, but between those groups as a whole (approximately: N descendants) versus sub-saharan africans and other groups with dark skin. Further, there are two simple ways which, to generalize, pale north asians are distinguished from Europeans, as everyone uses the terms: the epicanthic fold and cephalic index. The question is not whether there is an absolute brick wall between asian and european, which is obviously not the case, but whether the populations in general have distinct features which are readily distinguished by the average person in applying the labels asian, eurasian, and european. There are a tremendous number of people who are not on the fringes of the racial categories. This article is about "white people", a term in very wide use by the average person as well as governments. It is pointless (and has little or no place on wikipedia) to try to deconstruct a term which is de facto meaningful. Fourdee 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not about deconstructing anything. I think the map is as clear as written in black and white. Let us just see other opinions though. Veritas et Severitas 01:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Issue.

I have often said that a lot of Middle Easterners and North Africans are white and people continue erasing those comments.

1. Those countries are to some degree also multiracial, but there are many people who are of course white. Istambul, for example, is in fact whiter than any US city and that many European cities. And the same could be said of areas in Northern Africa.

2. The US census clearly classifies them as white.

3. A lot of people in the US are not white, but those who are are recognized as such. Would it be accurate to say that Americans are not white because many are not, or that all Californians are not white because many are not. This is a worrying tendency that some people have here: They apply a double standard. They discriminate white people in some places and not in others. Veritas et Severitas 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, provide a clear citation for that... I don't have a problem with it, although I completely disagree that that is the common use in the US - we would term such people caucasians but not "white" in everyday language. Exceptions include some pale Jews and Persians who would be called white by most or all people. In the US by white we usually mean people who have pale skin and lack any unusual (non-stereotypical-european) facial features. But if you want to provide a clear citation for calling north africans and middle easterners "white", by all means, feel free. I won't remove it; can't speak for anyone else. Also you accidentally deleted a section of mine above when making an edit, please be careful of that (I've done it myself before). Fourdee 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You blanked a lot of this page again, please be more careful about that. Fourdee 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not blanck anything. There were some technical problems. some of my contributions did not come up either. ~~

Are Albinos White people?

Are Albinos White people too? Surely, they have light blond hair and very fair complexion like those of Northern Europeans.

• http://www.afrikaansealbinos.nl/Images/thumbBIG_Joyce-albinos.JPG
• http://hem.passagen.se/sagabo/kabinett/albino/albinopar.jpg

No, albinos from other races don't have the craniofacial structures (or body shape etc.) of whites, and further, unlike albinos, blondes do not lack pigmentation. As the first line of the article says, "white" desribes Europeans. Few people, aside from the most oblivious, would mistake an albino negro or asian for a white person. White does not describe skin tone alone, it's used by most people as an ethnic or racial classification. Fourdee 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the picture I assume this was just a joke. :) -- Fourdee 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think someone was pulling a practical joke on this to make us crack. :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fantastic4boy (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Why merge hair color and eye color to the article?

The structure of the article is supossed to mean, to me, that if I´m not light-eyed and blond I´m not white. Light eye color is not exclusive of whites. How about people who are 100% European and have dark brown eyes and black hair?? How about people who are mixed race and have green or blue eyes?? Most of white people have brown eyes and dark hair. If only the blond and light eyed are white, about 2% of the world´s population is white :S Why many people say that Southern Europeans aren´t white??? cause most of them aren´t blond and blue-eyed??? It´s stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lithop (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Are you one of the puppets of LSLM? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#LSLM_-_Evading_Block Lukas19 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no puppets. I do not need to hide. I hope that administrators can finally see what kind of contributor you are and how you are constantly causing problems. Veritas et Severitas 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to add some balance to the sections on hair and eye color, however what I have added is uncited and may not be entirely based on the statements found in other articles, so if there is going to be a dispute over it, someone else will have to find the citations, as I don't particularly care. Fourdee 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns and Kalashas - Whites?

I took a look at the pictures given at the exclusive club section and I personally find it contradicting that the writers. It seems that the photos have shown a number of them with fair complexion like Europeans. However, strangely enough, the true origin of this people cannot be traced back - I wonder where their ancestors are really from: Turkey? Macedonia? Russia? - if not for Greece. Who would vote Pashtuns and Kalashas for Whites and who? Should we stick to the fact that "seeing is believe" or do you still need to cite sources as reference? --211.24.155.43 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I say they are not white. But this is irrelevant. Find a source that says they are considered white or consider themselves white. Lukas19 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't look white to me; they look clearly caucasian though. They don't really have fair skin and none of them had blue eyes, despite the claims of the person who posted the pictures. Presumably their ancestors came from the central asian caucasoid populations which clearly exist. There are even some nordic looking mummies which made it as far as China. However being partly or even mostly descended from whites and/or aryans and/or nordics does not make one white. White is used most often to describe people who have pale skin and lack unusual facial features. My personal impression is that in the US, someone like a southern-Italian, -Spaniard or -Greek would not usually be called white, but would be given the label of mediterranean, olive-skinned, or their specific ethnicity, and that white is used to describe only celts, germanics and slavs. At any rate, like Lukas says, if you want them included in the white people article, find a citation for them being called whites in their region (versus by some biased outside commentator ascribing the label to them) or considering themselves whites. Fourdee 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bai of China

I personally find it strange that the Bai of China be part of the White race. Unlike the Pashtuns and Kalasha of Chitral, these people don't even look White after taking a look at the photos. Besides, there is no description of the skin and hair colour as well as the physical features that would them otherwise to be Whites. --219.94.124.102 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not part of whites as we know it. They just like colour white (ex: wear white clothes, use white decorations) and call themselves white people. But you are right, it's confusing so I added them to White(disambiguation) page...Lukas19 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are no comments on this, I'm going to remove China section again...Lukas19 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand and I agree with Lukas's explanation about the Bai, removing the China section regarding the Bai on the "White people" page and placing it onto he White (disambiguation) page. I mean, you wouldn't consider calling a tribe of White people in Europe "Black people" just because they like black colour (wear black clothes and use them as decorations), would you? It's like calling a person of European descent African by its racial category. --Fantastic4boy 08:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bai do not consider themselves white people, but their name translates as White People (capitalised). I agree with the move to the White (disambiguation) page. Selkärankaiset 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

Do we need one? We've got enough pics I think. Lukas19 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this gallery helps to illustrate how definitions of white are socially derived rather than grounded in biology.-Psychohistorian 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about a gallery. I found a few more good quality pics that might make sense for a gallery. I like the ones currently at the top for their representativeness and they fit pretty well in the space. Or do you think we should move some of the ones at the top to the gallery as well and just leave one pic up top? It's hard to reach consensus on which single pic that should be at the top was my reasoning behind including three - to avoid the vandalism problem from before. Fourdee 20:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An obvious point is that if no pictures are at the top of the page (that is, outside of the gallery), then noone can complain about which picture is at the top of the page. So, my recommendation is to get rid of the pictures at the top and use just the gallery.-Psychohistorian 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there should not be photographs at the top of the page. The current ones fairly show the types of people who are not disputed to be considered white. Fourdee 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed this gallery of people who are not white. I don't see the harm in showing people who would probably not be considered white, but might be labeled white by some - although the captions on the pictures are much too long. I don't see how it does anything to dispute the biological/physical basis for "white" though. Fourdee 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this gallery to the bottom of the page, it doesn't belong in the middle, for a number of reasons. Most of all the descriptions are insanely long. But it is clearly about people who are not universally considered white, it's a footnote and I have placed it at the bottom. I don't object to it's inclusion though. In fact, I think it's definitely useful and relevant to the article. Fourdee 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That being the case, if you can provide a reliable source as to who is and who is not generally considered white, I'll support your edit.-Psychohistorian 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which edit are you disputing? Fourdee 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are treating the pictures at the top of the page differently from the pictures in the gallery. You are justifying doing so by claiming that the pictures at the top of the page are of people generally considered white whereas the pictures in the gallery are not of people generally considered white. I am asking you to provide a reliable source for your claim that the people in the pictures at the top are generally considered white. Remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and, so, "generally considered white" can not be restricted to the United States. Your source must state that the people in the pictures at the top are generally considered white globally.-Psychohistorian 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think just among English speakers is appropriate since this is an article about "white people" an English expression, and the dictionary is already cited with the definition that says it means pale skin and european ancestry. So only Lieberman among the ones at the bottom comes close the dictionary definition, and his is a photograph unlike the ones at the top and unlike what one would use in an article of this bredth as it is of a famous person rather than a simple member of the population, and the caption itself admits some do not consider him white. As the photographs at the top meet the dictionary definition already used in the article and are not apparently disputed to be white by any cited source, I think the onus is on you to provide some counter-citation to the dictionary meaning of white. Fourdee 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Even IF we assume that the dictionary definition is the right one to be using (a contentious issue, but one I'm willing to accept for the sake of the argument), half the pictures in the gallery (Emeril and Lieberman) fit that definition and should, by your own logic, be no differently from the pictures at the top of the page.-Psychohistorian 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman, as the image caption says, would not always be considered white. Emeril does not have pale skin and as the caption says, in some circumstances he would not be considered white. There do not appear however to be any common defintions or usages by which the people pictured at the top would not be considered white. Again, to repeat (several times) - the people at top are not disputed to be white by anything I am aware of and do match the cited working definition for white in the article, whereas the people in the gallery are, by the captions placed there with the pictures, not universally held to be white. I don't see how you can say Lieberman and Emeril are the same by my logic when my logic clearly states the pictures at the top are not disputed to be of white people when those two are disputed. Fourdee 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"are not disputed to be white by anyting I am aware of". You are making the assertion that these people are undisputedly white, but the others are not. That requires a source as per Wiki policy. I stated it earlier, I'll state it again. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. You need to verify that the people at the top are undisputedly white.-Psychohistorian 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They match the definition for white - i.e. the citation for them being considered white is already in the article (probably several times in different terms) - and unlike the people in the gallery, there is no counter-citation for them not being considered white. Seems pretty cut and dry. Fourdee 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias, Edit war

I agree with you P.Historian. The systematic bias in this article is outrageous (And it is not only US, it is much more than that). See the edits that I am doing and that Fourdeen is deleting. I do not delete things now because they continue posting the same things over and over again, so I am just clarifying them. It seems 6that some people here have never heard of systematic bias: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias.Veritas et Severitas 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop pesting my persoanl page, Fourdeen. Veritas et Severitas 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you Fourdenn. Veritas et Severitas 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that, sir. Fourdee 23:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that I've done my best to add the perspectives you and others wanted to the article, about hair color, eye color, etc, but you still want to categorize me as your opponent. I've also tried very politely to ask you not to make edits you know are not appropriate. Please be constructive and work with us to make this a good article. This article seems pretty fair and balanced to me - perhaps we can make it even more so, but not by vandalizing it with absurdities. Fourdee 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

I thought it was good to include the images, especially of those of Lierbeman and Emeril especially in Emeril's case in Australia. Down here in Australia where I am, many people still have that 1920s Nordicist view and do not consider Mediterraneans as `white'. Here, I seem to notice that since we don't have a large cross section of the world commulnity in our 20+ million population, anyone who is a shade darker than pasty will have the potential to have their ethnicity questioned. Not only are Mediterraneans not considered `white' in this country, they are also not considered Australian. `Australian' is used to identify a person of Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, Celtic or Germanic ancestry. People not of these origins are also told not to think that they are Australian either.

In the Gallery, we could include images of Kate Beckinsale (1/8 Burmese) and Peter Ustinov (Part Ethiopian ancestry) and state that they would normally be classed as white by popular international definitions, but some white nationalists would exclude them due to knowledge of them having some mixed race ancestry.

Why don't you (collectively, everyone who wants to include this) select the 4 images you think best represent this issue and use them? I don't see any reason to spam the article with infinitely many pictures of people who are not even clearly included in the topic of the article. I agree with depicting this idea, but not 20 times over. People with get the idea with just 4 images that those who are part-caucasian or not light-skinned are not considered white by everyone. Fourdee 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Try and use reliable sources, Emcee Lynx is not one. I've attributed his assertions for now, but they should be replaced with something more academic. - Francis Tyers · 08:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice that. Those need to be deleted. Fourdee 08:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't delete it in my edit comment so I won't and I wonder if it will just invite vandalism if we do remove it (although I guess it must be done). He's quite an amusing character, EmCee Lynx, and obviously very concerned with ethnic (racial by his definition) pride.[5] Songs such as "I'm a Celt", mentions of "Celtic Pride", demonization of Indo-Europeans, etc. Far from an anti-racialist, he makes people who include Celts in the definition of white look like liberals. Fourdee 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this is fine as long as it is properly attributed as a non expert source. We can include it as the opinion of said rap artist, though given his lack of reliability it should be made very obvious that he is not an expert. It would fit better into a section about the opinions of people interested in the subject, though I think it's probably best just to remove it, it is after all the opinion of a non expert. Alun 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that sort of statement is not really permissible on Wikipedia. It's just his biased opinion.

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)."

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

Desirable as it might be to someone who sympathized with the view presented, it's not a citation of verifiable fact. Unless the article is about something like examples of "Celtic Pride" or about "EmCee Lynx" himself his quotes have no value. It's no more legitimate than offering our own opinions in articles. Fourdee 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head. Alun 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Marginal Whites" should go

This Marginal Whites gallery seems like little more than POV. It should go. Not a dog 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it is very point of view and doesn't add anything substantial to the article. Spylab 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Lukas19 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it. Not a dog 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Glad to see some more people interested in the article; I try to be more understanding than is probably appropriate of things like citations of "emcee lynx" and a gallery-of-people-who-are-not-white because it gets tedious to always be on the verge of an edit war with the deconstructionists, anti-racialists, anti-Nordics, anti-"indo-Europeans", etc. The more sensible people who watch this article the better. Fourdee 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Marginal Whites section should be excluded, but your "gallery-of-people-who-are-not-white" comment is offensive. If you do not consider Italians, Jews or half-white people to be white; you are entitled to your opinion. However, official and personal definitions of what constitues a "white person" do vary, especially in countries such as Brazil. While I did not write it, the intent of the Marginal Whites section was to point out this ambiguity. I doubt it was written with an anti-Nordic or an anti Indo-European sentiment. Your comments are completely out of line. Selkärankaiset 04:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the gallery was, and no my comments weren't. :) Fourdee 15:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming a gallery of people, some or all of whom are white depending on the definition, as "gallery-of-people-who-are-not-white" is out of line. A Marginal Whites section is not deconstructionist, anti-racialist or anti-Nordic. It sounds like there's a lot of paranoia from the white people here, and this is coming from a Scandinavian.Selkärankaiset 21:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you lack context for what goes on in this article. And I didn't label the gallery any of those things. Fourdee 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Two disagreements on hair and eye color

Just noticed the following in your edit comments Lukas, minor issues but worth sorting out.

• Dutch people don't have black hair - I agree - people who are really Dutch do not. However there are people at some points along the Rhine who do have black hair, from my personal observations and from photographs of famous people. I'm not sure how recent of immigrants they are and I agree it is probably wrong to call them Dutch or German. I had heard or read that was probably Spanish blood but I don't have the time right now to research it. Is there a better explanation for that, like very recent immigrants? The same can be said of Austria, Hitler for example (who had totally black hair as a baby) - how common is that hair color among the population? I'm not sure, as my experiences don't amount to statistics.

• Celts have light eyes - I don't agree with that, based on the eye color map or experience. In Ireland, yes, light eyes are fairly common, and Ireland and Wales are shown as "20-49%" light color eyes on the map, but most of the area with prevalent R1b descendancy like France are shown as "1-19%" light eye color. If we use the definition of Celt as being the R1b people, it looks like R1b has dark eyes - certainly half the time, and more likely over 80% of the time. I do notice the pockets of light eye color in Brittany and Northwest Spain, so perhaps it's fair to say that the R1b who we most strongly associate with Celts have lighter eyes than the R1b remaining in France, but the French certainly didn't get dark eyes from the Franks etc. - it must be from Gauls.

As to the light eyes I'd be very curious to see a map of the white population of the US by eye color. My own impression is that in my state (Oregon) it is somewhere around 75% of whites with blue or green eyes, but in the predominantly Irish places it's much much lower - like the 20% range I'm guessing. I don't think anyone collects statistics like that on the US, even though it would be very easy from driver's license records, because it is considered politically incorrect, but it would be a fascinating map - especially if it included only the white population.

How about say if a person is native Swedish or Irish but he or she has black hair and brown eyes? Would that person be considered White? Take a look at one of the Celtic female leaders in ancient times and you'll realise one of them had black hair. --Fantastic4boy 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

explanation of minor difference in wording for intro (to person who reverted)

1) clarity; 2) internal consistency (reverted version is not consistent with itself). Care to discuss this so we can work together to address these issues? Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ok for starters, I originally moved OED to the beginning because it is a respected authority on basic English usage. As far as I can see, no one has yet contested that, and it appears to be one of the few points of enduring consensus. dr.ef.tymac 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1) "In basic English usage, White people (also white race or whites) are "... a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry." In encyclopedic articles, the opening sentence should say what a term is, not what it denotes.

Denotation vs Exact Exhaustive and complete Definition: Ok, your point here seems pretty clear, I will explain why I think it is problematic.

• Firstly, I agree with you that the credibility of the article is improved if you start with a some kind of definition. Thats the very reason why I originally moved the OED citation to the beginning of the article. Having started there, however, the OED citation (3) does not invoke any form of the verb "to be" in the relevant definition it simply says "relating to" ... this is not a minor nitpick, but it is a *very crucial distinction* ... no doubt the editors of the OED are astutely aware that "white person" has a wide and varying range of operational definitions and connotations beyond just the basic English. The definition does not say "is" (analytic definition) it says what the term "relates to" (English denotation). Moreover, it does not say what the term connotes.
• Secondly, this article covers more than just basic English usage. Statutory definitions, common law definitions, constitutional definitions, colloquial definitions (which all vary based on historic and national context), and other uses are all mentioned in this article, and all such uses can differ dramatically for denotative, connotative and analytic meaning.
• Thirdly, to glibly apply "is" oversimplifies the scope of this article and is not directly supported by the text of the OED citation itself. The breadth of meanings (denotative, connotative and analytic) is apparently an issue you agree with me on recognize, since you allude to this issue in your second point, (which I will address separately). Concluding here, however, the original phrasing of the first part was a product of a great deal of thought and deliberation, and I would appreciate it if we could resolve this by resorting to something a bit more authoritiative and logically consistent than just glibly saying "is". Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: You can resolve by resorting to "is", but then the article needs a cite to support such usage, since the current OED citation does not (because of the "relating to ..." and "especially" qualifiers that preclude an exhaustive and complete definition). dr.ef.tymac 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2)"The term has been applied with varying degrees of formality, consistency, and analytic rigor based on sociological, cultural, political, medical, linguistic and legal analysis." The sentence should say "has been applied" instead of "is applied" because the article is about all uses of the term throughout history, not just today. As for the words between "rigor" and "sociological", perhaps it should say "in terms of" or "in relation to" instead of "based on", depending on what the sentence is actually supposed to convey. However, the phrase "to many different contexts, including" is too wordy and confusing. Spylab 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point on "has been applied" makes sense, I agree with that part. So then the problem is, if you remove the part about "different contexts" (wordyness aside), the text seems to imply that those six contexts are the *only* contexts where the term is applied, and that they form the basis for the all denotative, connotative and analytic meanings of "white people". So it seems the issue is how to reduce wordyness while still acknowleding the breadth of meanings and scope of the article. Thoughts? dr.ef.tymac 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ok, for issue (2) -> changed to improve areas we both seemed to agree were deficient. Less wordy now, "based on" was removed, hopefully not confusing now. Thanks for your feedback! dr.ef.tymac 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Physical Traits

This section is for some traits which are associated with Whites because, they are either quite rare or non-existant among non-white populations. We dont need black or brown hair sections since it is obvious that many whites have these colour of hairs. And maps also make this clear...Lukas19 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ok with me. And since LSLM is banned for a week he won't be a problem for a little while. :) I wonder if we aren't going to run into the same objections from other people though... I definitely agree with portraying what is unique about whites in this article, rather than what is not. I've just been trying to make peace and compromise with these other folks to avoid edit wars, but if you are willing to do the reverts etc. necessary, by all means, remove the irrelevant material. Fourdee 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible issue with OED cites, other minor issues: The two internal citations to OED [1] present some problems because: 1) the provided cite points to an abridged OED, but the article refers to the unabridged, possibly misleading because the two are substantially different in coverage; 2) the article makes specific claims that are not directly presented in the cited OED abridged definition (e.g., these are traits which are either *quite rare or non-existant*, and we can say that *most white people* are associated with western culture); proposal i)point to definitions that support the statistical claims or ii)just remove the OED cross-ref, or iii)modify the text to be consistent with the abridged definition. The minor issues: 1) the use of "we" might be improved for style and; 2) someone might want to check if "existant" is an acceptable English variant spelling for "existent". Just preliminary thoughts. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1)OED: Whites are light skinned people, especially of European descent.

OED clarification: As user Dreftymac mentioned in another discussion topic, the abridged OED definition provided does not actually say "whites are light-skinned people". The abridged definition simply says relating to.... The rationale for why this difference matters is provided in this discussion. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

2)Phsyical traits: "Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green. This diversity reaches a maximum in an area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe. If we move outward, to the south and east, we see a rapid return to the human norm: hair becomes uniformly black and eyes uniformly brown." [6]. This was a the source of the article but someone changed it to [7]

Hair and eye color: This is not mentioned in the relevant OED cite. I won't address the other aspects you mention here, so as to focus solely on the link to OED, which does not appear to even address these matters, let alone support a particular interpretation thereof. I believe this seriously harms the credibility of the article. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3)Western culture is the culture of European people or their descandants.

Western culture: This is not mentioned in the relevant OED cite. I don't dispute the statement itself, except to say it seems misleading to imply the current OED cite addresses it. I believe this harms the credibility of the article. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So the OED definition is there to point to Europeans (and their descandants). I put it there because the definition of white is disputed. Lukas19 12:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistently interpreting OED cite: Although your statement makes basic sense, there appears to be a fundamental inconsistency to be resolved. Explanation follows (emphasis not in original text):

• ... light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry (OED cite says this)
• ... light-coloured skin, exclusively of European ancestry (OED cite *doesn't* say this)
• ... light-colored skin of European ancestry (OED cite *doesn't* say this)

If you apply this definition *analytically* (i.e., a "checklist" to define what it means to be a "white person") then it is logically inconsistent to exclude people like albinos of Nigerian descent from the the "list". Logically, the word "especially" indicates "including but not limited to". If used analytically, the abridged OED citation (by itself) does not give any logical basis for excluding anyone of any ancestry from the definition of "white person". The "true" definition is a separate matter, the only issue addressed here is the (apparent mis-use) of the specific citation.

Part of the inconsistency, therefore, is that the article appears to misuse a dictionary definition as an analytic definition, and then contradicts the analytic definition, and then also contradicts itself by recognizing there are many *other* possible definitions, based on context, historical usage, particular academic discipline, among other things. I believe all of this seriously harms both the credibility and logical consistency of the article. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I think the proposal ii is good. I think we've got enough evindence discussed in the article why Europeans are relevant to this article, from the OED definition (despite european reference is not exclusively made), British, Norwegian, Australian definitions and Canadian (to a degree, since it doesnt exclude non-Arab Mid Easterns). Maybe we can add something like "Despite meaning of white is disputed, it generally implies people of European descent. Hence...." Lukas19 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the "despite meaning is disputed" approach is that there are cases where the European-based definition is not under dispute, but the term "white" is still used to refer to someone of different ancestry (see e.g., passing for white, Category:Cultural_assimilation). This is one reason for dictionary phrases like "relating to..." and "especially". Resources like OED use very meticulous language to avoid mistakes and contradictions, which is one reason why (as we both agree) they are so respected. Probably another point in support of proposal ii). dr.ef.tymac 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes. Feel free to give more encyclopaediac language...Lukas19 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas why have you deleted the section on black hair and brown hair and changed the origin date of r1b from 35000 years ago (see the national genogeaphic) to 10000bc? Lukas blonde hair and red hair are not exclusive to people of white caucasian ancestry, some australian aborigines have blonde hair and some other indian ocean and pacific ocean islanders have that. Some North African berbers have blonde hair, as do some lebanese people, some middle easteners have red hair. We should bring back black and brown hair as most white people have that hair colour in Ireland, Wales, Scotland , Austria, Switzerland etc and again blonde hair is not exclusive to euopean whites or red hair. On your logic we should delete brown eyes from white people as it is not exclusive to white people. Stop making changes without consultation lukas. --Globe01 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some some some....Sources? Those people are very rare. I think this from the article makes it clear:

"Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green. This diversity reaches a maximum in an area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe. If we move outward, to the south and east, we see a rapid return to the human norm: hair becomes uniformly black and eyes uniformly brown."

And Australian aborigines havent got blond hair. They got, what is called "yellow-brown" hair, which is not the same with blond. As for R1b, National Geographic has info on R only. I clicked on it but nothing came up...Lukas19 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

try this r1b link for more info on it and sources on r1b. The vast majority of white people in the British ISles fro example have black or brown hair so excluding black hair from the article makes it seem as though the vast majority of people from the British Isles are not white.--Globe01 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get the impression that the article implies black and brown haired people arent white. We've got a million sources saying how whites and europeans are used interchangeably and then we've got statemets like "Europeans are a big exception: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green." and two big maps which show majority of european populations got non-light coloured hair. But feel free to add brown and black hairs, it really doesnt matter to me. I just objected it because I thought it was redundant. I thought it'd be like saying "most white people got 2 legs and arms"...Lukas19 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Carwil's Addition

Regarding this [8] edit, I can add counter arguments to this:

Critiquing this line of thinking, molecular anthropologist Jonathan Marks notes that the races themselves are "an assertion of qualitative geographical distinctions ... [which] is not natural, not objective, not value-neutral, not scientific, and not being inferred from the data." Further, the use of genetic markers is "subtly redefining race yet again" by "a very careful look at the very small amount of genetic variation that has a major geographical component." This requires a number of arbitrary decisions causing "an epistemological problem" of circular reasoning because this selection is not genetic, but cultural.

However,

It has recently been demonstrated in several studies that to a large extent, without prior knowledge of individual origins, the geographic ancestries of individuals can be inferred from genetic markers.....In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas.[9]

Also Jonathan Marks's claim that there is small amount of genetic variation that has a major geographical component dates back to Richard Lewontin, who argued in a 1972 paper that human races have no taxonomic value because there exists more variation within racial groups than between them. Indeed, some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic F_ST) accounts for as little as 5-7% of human genetic variation.

However, most geneticists now recognize that low F_ST values does not indicate whether or not races exist among humans because of technical limitations of F_ST (Edwards, 2003), see Lewontin's Fallacy.

A. W. F. Edwards claimed in 2003 that Lewontin's conclusion is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. While it makes Lewontin's argument unwarranted, it does not address whether or not there are, in fact, races among humans, see Lewontin's Fallacy.

And I can add more. But there are also counter arguments to them. So it'll get too long. This discussions already take place in Race, Genetic views on race and Race and multilocus allele clusters. So I will delete the latest addition. But the study on USA will remain because: i) it answers to Census claims: The 2000 United States Census, speaking of race categories, states, "They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria." and numerous other social construction arguments throughout the article. ii)Whites are mentioned directly. So if you got anything which specifically mentions whites add it, but I'll delete this one....Lukas19 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Two notes. and an edit is coming...

1. "Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas" (that's one cluster, read the article) ain't white people.
2. If you want to separate the US data, fine, just refer to the genes section.

And as Marks is in direct response to LeRoi's article (which you've added now), I'm replacing it.--Carwil 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Skin color change explained

Old Text...

"Research indicates that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe where there is less sunlight available, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races. [25] Relatively light-skinned people are found among many ethnic groups, like Asians who owe their relatively light skin to different mutations.[25] Reduced melanin in white skinned people also reduces scarring.

Problems...

Let's use the source, or at least the scientists' summary[10] They note: "this variation contributes between 25 percent and 38 percent of the range of skin color in this [an African-American and an African-Caribbean population with recent mixture] population" (press release) and "SLC24A5 explains between 25 and 38% of the European-African difference in skin melanin index." (article) So, it's not the skin-whitening mutation, but one of a larger set.

Second, per SLC24A5, this is a one base-pair mutation ("differ in only one nucleotide"). Such a mutation is likely to appear multiple times, unlikely to spread from one individual to all of the European population in the time available, and appears elsewhere (and thus may have preceded the "exodus".

In short, the Washington Post is weaving a narrative irrelevant to, and unlikely to explain the data: a 'single individual, after the first human exodus from Africa are apocryphal and unsupported by the research paper itself. First isn't accurate as multiple human and hominid migrations spread through Eurasia, And exodus itself (implying bondage in Africa), thrived, and give rise to are all POV. None of "the world's races" can be said to have "arisen" until millennia later, when they were named and their history created after the fact.

New Text...

White people are archetypically, though not always in practice, distinguished by lighter skin. Research indicates that one skin-whitening mutation, a single base-pair change in SLC24A5, marks a sharp distinction between Europeans (at least those with light skin) and Africans (with dark skin). People with the mutation apparently proliferated as humans moved northward into what is now Europe where there is less sunlight available, explaining between 25 and 38% of the European-African difference in skin melanin index.

--Carwil 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maps

These maps are very interesting. However, is it possible that these maps can have national borders included just to get a clearer understanding of hair and eye colouring frequencies in certain countries. For example, Northeastern Italy has an eye colouring frequency of 50% of the population but it is hard to tell where these frequencies stop with no national borders. - 24/12/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galati (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Genetic Clusters

People please read what is written before making absurd claim:

"It has recently been demonstrated in several studies that to a large extent, without prior knowledge of individual origins, the geographic ancestries of individuals can be inferred from genetic markers [1–5]. In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas [3]. Some individuals from boundary locations between these regions were inferred to have partial ancestry in the clusters that corresponded to both sides of the boundary. In many cases, subclusters that corresponded to individual populations or to subsets of populations were also identified." [11]

So while whites cluster with other non-white caucasoids, there are also subclusters within caucasoid population. Try to think whites as a subset of Caucasoids and Caucasoids as a subset of Humans. If we get samples from mammals, I'm sure we can also make 1 cluster of humans. That doesnt mean there can be no subclusters...Lukas19 18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, have fun "trying to think" of whites as a subset, but you're thinking of it is pure speculation. I haven't checked through the Y Haplogroups yet, but not that mtDNA (matrilineal) "haplogroups have some intense race crossing features, grouping, for example, Sardinians and Canary Islanders with Berbers and certain Ethiopians. Don't expect correspondence because the people who made up the concept(s) of white people were creating a political concept that doesn't really have to do with genes. This is why Irish people, for example doesn't need to have a long discourse about DNA to be relevant.

As for LeRoi's journalist summary of much more complex science, which is the current point of the edits, his quote, "The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent" depends on evidence about genetic clusters.

Short version: Leroi's claim either refers to so-called genetic clusters and "largely European descent" is an oversimplification that needs to be clarified, or he refers to a set of "a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else" that needs to be substantiated by a source at least as strong as PLoS (scientific journals please).

Long version: The method he refers to is the one used by the PLoS article I've cited (and if you want to dispute that source, you undercut the need for DNA at all, which would be fine with me). As he describes the method.

Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map.

PLoS (Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure) has done that, with 5 or 6 groups producing a set of overlapping genetic clusters, and this is the only method that substantiates Leroi's claim. Now these "traits" aren't expressed traits like the melanin discussed above, but sets of correlated genetic loci, so people outside the cluster no doubt have each and every physical trait in the cluster, so it's a very narrow concept of in common and rare in everyone else (i.e. collectively doesn't mean any individual part, only the whole), but if it floats your boat, we need to at least qualify that Leroi's reference to "people of largely European descent" means this cluster that includes numerous non-"white people."

On the side, if you have doubts about whether substantial numbers of the people listed in the uncited paragraph are "of European descent", or whether their genes were inherited from upon birth, bring it to talk (and good luck).

Either way, the text I've added substantially clarifies the issue, isn't false or refuted, and belongs in this article as much as LeRoi does. Of course, feel free to remove them (the Leroi paragraph) as a block. I'm restoring for now.--Carwil 01:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I've added the PLoS source to the article for the first time.

2) "∼30% were estimated to have >90% European ancestry." This is INCORRECT!! The correct form is ∼30% were estimated to have < (less than)90% European ancestry. Or, ~70% of white Americans were estimated to have >90% European ancestry. Of course < and > usages may confuse people. You can use "more than" or "less than" or "90+%" or "-90%". [12]

The difference is huge. You've made two mistakes now. In future, be more careful.

The < vs. > was totally my mis-keying as the rest of the article copied cleanly from PDF. Don't panic.--Carwil 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3)"Don't expect correspondence because the people who made up the concept(s) of white people were creating a political concept that doesn't really have to do with genes." Ok, whatever, you are entitled to have your personal opinions.

4)Genetic Structure of Human Populations

"Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA). Eurasia, which encompasses Europe, the Middle East,and Central/South Asia, is treated as one region in the five-region AMOVA but is subdivided in the seven-region design. The World-B97 sample mimics a previous study (6)." [13]. Genetic Structure of Human Populations was the study Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure was citing.

5)Hence it is you who was speculating that sub clusters were not possible even when the source said it was. And it is you speculating that Leroi refers to Eurasians when he says Europeans. Lukas19 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check the statistics, Lukas. I'm still skeptical that 30% of "whites" in the US have less than 90% European ancestry, the misquoted statistic is probably fabricated/cooked itself. Just a spot check on the interracial marriage article found more of the same not-actually-cited figures. I don't really have the energy to go through all the numbers but it's safe to say they are full of "mistakes" - both by the editors here and by the original researchers. Fourdee 04:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

On (5): I don't discount subclustering, but instead suggest that we could have 10, 100, or 1000 of them. Subclustering does, however, help get rid of the problem of Euro-African "mixing", by looking for clusters within the predominantly Eurasian regions without reference to the other regions.

On (4):In Rosenberg et al. the 7-region AMOVA is not the result of a consistent statistical search (if it were, they would have subclustered the other four clusters as well), but part of their confirmation that there is "within-[continental] population component of genetic variation, estimated here as 93 to 95% (Table 1), accounts for most of human genetic diversity." This is exactly the point of Lewontin's much disputed (on this page) research. If Europe were part of a "natural" 7-region set (a statistical effect not decided beforehand), it would come by making K=7 in their main analysis. Rather, they chose to use the subclusters to reinforce the point made by previous researchers (starting in their citations with Lewontin) that each group contains more diversity within it than it differs from others in.

Note also that the three part division of Eurasia is inconsistent between random runs and does not achieve the statistical coherence they seek (read R. et al. descriptions of "similarity coefficients" in the subclustering), and must be added to a fourth "part", the Kalash.

More importantly, Rosenberg provides a better clarification of what types of variation we are talking about between clusters. Since we agree on it as a valid source, I'm adding their clarity to the page.--Carwil 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

white race?

There is no "white race" thus the term should be removed from the article.

--Margrave1206 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

3 c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

-- Fourdee 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What if a person is of pure Scandinavian or Celtic descent (e.g. Irish) but they have natural black hair and brown eyes? Would they be considered as White or something else? --Fantastic4boy 08:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Article needs more work. Proof????

In the "The Races of Europe" of 1939, the Nordic race is considered a mixture of the Mediterranean race. So Nordic people are mixed. Also Europe is make of different racial groups, ergo one cannot have a race inside of a race. This would mean there is no white race, perhaps there is a white race in the USA where people are so mixed they are unsure of their ancestry. However for those who have knowledge of science and history know better. There is no black race, or any other race via color category. The only place where this term white race seemed to be used would be neo-nazi sites or white nationalist sites. Where is the proof a white race exist? Don't lump Europeans into your personal preference. This article needs is far to bias.

Also according the Ripley Europeans are placed into three main races. Teutonic, Mediterranean, and Alpine.

If you use William Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe: A Sociological Study (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), as a referance.

--Margrave1206 18:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat. Race has a number of meanings, and there can definitely be races within races.

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

3 c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

Race just means something like "breed of people". And you've already been corrected on your assertion that "white" is an exclusively American term. Since the term "white race" is very common (yes, especially in north America), it appropriate for use in the article, whether or not you agree with it.

I might disagree with the term "sociology"; does that mean I can go vandalize the term out of the sociology article? No. The term is used whether I agree with its construction and application, or not. -- Fourdee 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Races of Europe is a fossil, completely outdated. Especially Ripley's version, which dates back to the 19th century! FilipeS 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

South Africa

Something should be written on the perception of `white' in South Africa. As well as Europeans; Lebanese, Turks and Iranians were also classed as `white' during the apartheid period.

When a set of genetic variants is not an allele...

I added this text because the average reader will think that Leroi is talking about alleles when he's not.

Leroi refers here to clusters of multilocus variation identified by statistical analysis. By contrast, genes that correspond to specific traits are overwhelmingly distributed across various continental regions. An 2003 analysis of the HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel reports that alleles unique to one continent had "a median relative frequency of 1.0% in their region of occurrence."

--Carwil 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor and no proof

This section needs to be ousted it has no reliable citations. Again we have another bias American article. "The origin of the term white in terms of race and ethnicity is somewhat unclear. One early use of the term appears in the Amherst Papyri, which were scrolls written in ancient Ptolemaic Greek. It contained the use of Black and White in reference to human skin color." --Margrave1206 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, it's showing an American bias because the ancient Greek writings happen to be in the US? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will add a citation for this. Jpgordon, margrave does not seem to be responding to or even reading what people say to him, so it's probably not worth the energy. Fourdee 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it wrong ot want to live near other white people????

Our government/society– makes me feel guilty because I do not want to subject my children to feel they are a minority or of less importance. I feel the need to raise them around a majority of kids and people that favor their charteristics. Is this wrong??? I would like my children to seek others that look like they do for a husband or a wife. If I raise them in an area that has a majority of blacks or hispanics their choice would be limited. Once again is this wrong. Because it feel right.70.240.241.13 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do American (USA white men) marry or make children with other peoples women from Europe to Asia Minor and or any other continent? By any means how could their choice of a partner be limited? Also dear person, I could only hope Native Americans feel the same as you do, after a life time of being made to feel guilty by society/government.--Margrave1206 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Is it wrong?" What are you asking for here? Permission to live a certain way? You don't need it. Ethical permission? Who is qualified to grant it? "Is it wrong?" is just noise. The real question I think you should be asking is "what are the advantages of doing so vs. the disadvantages of doing so?" Yes, there -are- advantages to doing so and yes there -are- disadvantages to doing so. But its too big a subject for a fortune cookie answer and the article discussion page is not the right environment to get into it.-Psychohistorian 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA

I am not a registered user and i would appreciate if someone who is could add the following about Australia. `White' is not a metaphor used in the census to identify people by ethnicity. Country of birth and ethnic origin is. Europe is divided into categories of `Northern Europe', `Southern Europe' and 'Eastern Europe'. In regards to the opinion of Southern Europeans, The `White Australia policy' did accept larger numbers of them after the second world war. Some people in Australia may not consider them as white if they look dark, but this is a social thing, not a government institution classification. This, however I notice is the same in British society as in Britain, people tend not to consider dark Mediterraneans as white either. There have been instances where Southern Europeans have experienced racism because they have been mistaken for Middle-Easterners or even South Asians (Mediterranean elements can exist among Indo-Aryans). Why Are Pashtuns and Kalasha listed in the Links section? They would be classed as Asians in the UK!

---

For the above commentary: The problem with the opinions of "some people" is that they derived it mainly from 19th and 20th century Nordicism. Nordicism is in evident decline. The theories that it was based on are all a disaster and the result of much wishful thinking. It started to arise in 17th century Europe closely linked to Protestantism and as a reaction of some Northern Europeans to counter the inferiority complex that they had in relation to Southern Europeans for obvious historical reasons: The real basis for European (what could be called "white" civilization) are in fact in the Mediterranean: In Greece, in Rome and in Judea (Christianity): the Greek and Roman civilizations being a fundamental pillar, Rome being a fundamental tool in the propagation of Christianity in Western Europe and Greece in Eastern Europe. On top of that, at the dawn of the Modern Age (XV and XVI) centuries, it was Southern Europeans again (now the Spanish and the Portuguese) who dominated Europe itself and the European Expansion in the world: Discovery of America, Circumnavigation of the Earth, first truly global Empires, etc. England embraced Nordicism as a political tool when Henry VIII separated the Church of England from Rome and has had an important influence in Anglo-Saxon countries since then. Today Nordicism is not only in evident decline, but increasingly restricted to very suspicious circles, still some people here seem to have a keen interest in expressing their opinions in this article as if radical positions are worthy of an Encyclopeadia. The climax of Nordicism lies in the equations: 1. White = Western civilization. 2. Nordics are whiter, therefore Nordics are more responsible for Western civilization. End result: Appropriation of Western and European civilization and of the heritage of Mediterranean Europe. The game is old and although no intelligent people take them seriously anymore they are especially active in Internet.

In fact they find themselves in constant contradictions: They would obviously say that Jesus and the Apostles are white, but then they would say that Jews are not white. They would obviously count Aristotle, Socrates, Caesar and an extremely long list of Southern Europeans as white, but then some would say that Greeks and Mediterraneans are not white etc. In short, it all has to do with the appropriation game that I mentioned above.

If you you want to know more about the subject you can try the following books: Tree of Hate: by Philip Wayne Powell. Bryan Sykes also deals with this problem in Blood of the Isles (in the US for sale as Saxons, Vikings and Celts). Veritas et Severitas 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about say if a person is native Swedish or Irish but he or she has black hair and brown eyes? Would that person be considered White? Take a look at one of the Celtic female leaders in ancient times and you'll realise one of them had black hair. --Fantastic4boy 08:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if only people with blond hair and blue eyes are to be considered white, then whites are a minority among Europeans and Western and European civilization should not be linked with the term white (apart from the fact of considering different members of a family in different races: my father and my sister are white then, me and my mother not).

Anyway, sometimes in this article I wonder what idea people have of Europeans. Here you have the pictures of all the members of the European parliament by country. Serve yourselves and count the blond types. You can start directly by Sweden, where they are all supposed to be blond in some people's mind.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public.do?language=en

Even taking into account some probable artificial blondes, the picture is desolate for what we can call here blondists. We have two possibilities:

1. Blonds are a small minority among Europeans.

2. Blonds are not very good at politics.

I would go for the first one.

Veritas et Severitas 14:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception...

Um, how many Europeans have two hair colors and/or eye colors? Can someone rephrase; inserting "[races]" after humans seems like putting words in Frost's mouth. "[Groups]", "[communities]", "[ethnic groups]" are probably all wrong. Can someone rephrase.--Carwil 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. See if you can do something about it. Veritas et Severitas 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah the same old problem. Does it mean populations? How big are the "populations"? How about something like: "The indigenous (White?) population of Europe and their descendants are unusual in having a greater variety in both hair and eye colour than indigenous populations in other geographical regions." What do you think? Alun 12:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is good. Veritas et Severitas 14:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian usage

Some user has already made reference to the Australian section. It is interesteing to see commnents like that and how most people here are happy with a definition based on ¨some people¨, using racial slurs like wog and so on. I am not surprised.

I do not agree with this kind of approach, which is not worthy of this place, but since this type of contribution seems ok for people here I will make equivalent contributions.

The first one is in the US section:

Some white people are regarded as second class whites in US society. See usage of Redneck, White Trash or Hillbilly. Veritas et Severitas 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made another contribution in the Australian section. I will continue another time. The English language seems to be incredibly rich in this type of slurs.Veritas et Severitas 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Nordicists?

add images of Luciano Pavarotti to keep everyone's mouth shut on the main page!!!