Jump to content

Talk:White people/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hair and eye color polymorphism

[edit]

what is going on here? from my talkpage:

Please take it to the talk page, you are editing against consensus. There is a consensus against turning this article into a Nordic race article or into a "European race" article or into a typological race article. Indeed this hair and eye colour gibberish with it's concentration on blond hair and blue eyes seems to be directly from the SS handbook. If you don't like ist discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. Alun 09:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

what the hell?? I protest in the strongest possible terms. I find it unacceptable to be accused of Nazism when discussing the straightforward, objective and innocent topic of eye color polymorphism, which happens to be a phenomenon restricted to "white" populations. I realize this topic is trolled by both black and white ideologists. I am neither. I certainly do not accept the concept of "European race" or "Nordic race" as meaningful. Which is precisely why eye color polymorphism needs to be discussed as a phenotypical peculiarity in this article. Any more of this sort, Alun, and I will report you for trolling. dab (𒁳) 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is established that these hair and eye color polymorphisms are not restricted to white populations, we were discussing this last time though we were being accused of turning the talk page into a forum. Muntuwandi 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I find it unacceptable to be accused of Nazism"
Quite right, if this ever happens I suggest you report the person who does it. Alun 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which happens to be a phenomenon restricted to "white" populations."
This is a subjective statement, because it depends on your personal opinion. You need to do two things to clarify this assertion. 1) You need to show that it really is "restricted" to "white" populations 2) You need to state "what" you mean by "white" populations. It is clear that most so called "white" people do not display any of these so called "typical" white characteristics. If these characteristics are not typically "white", then what is the reason for them being here? Lots of things are associated with Europe, are these all "diagnostic" for "whiteness"? Why concentrate on these unimportant and irrelevant genotypes? What is particularly important about these two features that makes them especially important? Alun 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is clear that most so called "white" people do not display any of these so called "typical" white characteristics". Alun, did you even bother to read the section? It's about polymormphism and centres on the passage "diversity reaches a maximum in an area centered on the East Baltic". How can a discussion of maximum diversity be about insisting that white people must have 'typical' characteristics? Knee-jerk reverting is a big problem here. Paul B 11:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can a discussion about polymorphisms amongst populations be relevant to such a wishy washy undefined concept such as "white people". When you show me a proper discussion of these polymorphisms that also uses "white people" as a defined biological population for the study, then maybe you have a point. But this article is not about polymorphisms in Europe, and if it were the polymorphisms for eye colour or hair colour have little or no significance or import. I fail to see anything relevant about this information. This eye colour and hair colour map is clearly about European "physical types", so it's about typology, this article is not about typology. Alun 11:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that a scientific discussion is unlikely to use the term "white people", so you are creating an unrealistic demand. I note that you having even admitted that you mischaracterised the whole section - and that you continue to do so with false statements about "maps of Nordic typology". Of course this article is about typology - characterising people as white or not is part of a process of contsructing and policing a definition of a type. Paul B 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you having even admitted that you mischaracterised the whole section
Making accusations such as this without evidence is surely a prime example of not assuming good faith. Alun 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already given the evidence, so don't be disingenuous. Paul B 11:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this article is about typology - characterising people as white or not is part of a process of constructing and policing a definition of a type.
I don't think this is an objective statement. Typology is a discredited pseudoscientific attempt to define the physical characteristics of "biological races". Whereas "whitness" is fluid and is a political-social concept, who or what is "white" varies temporally and geographically. I may not have expressed my opinion very clearly. I am not per se against having a discussion about hair and eye colour polymorphism in the article, as long as it is put in it's correct context. Firstly it is by no means a "marker" for "whiteness", light hair or eye colour is not definitive for "whiteness". Secondly even the majority of "white people" do not have light hair or eye colour. Thirdly even in that subset of "white people" who are European, light hair and eye colour is not definitive, so these do not represent "markers" for Europeans either. Fourth, even in that subset of "white people" who are European light hair and eye colour are not characteristic of the majority of people. So we are talking about a subset of a subset of people. Fifth The maps are irrelevant, we do not need to include maps of these characteristics, indeed these characteristics are relatively unimportant in determining if someone is considered "white" or not, therefore I think including the maps gives these characteristics undue weight. Alun 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typology is not a "discredited psudoscientific attempt to define the physical characteristics of biological races". That's sheer assertion. Models of types can serve many purposes. As you know from this and other articles they function in social and law enforcement discourses. Their scientific uefulness is currently disputed in this context. The diversity in the characterisation of "whiteness" can be - and often is - greatly exaggerated, biut that's u;ltimately irrelrevant. This article discusses the historcal, and social usage, and then looks at how that maps onto current scientific evidence. That's what the section attempted to do, and it's no different from ehat the paragraph after paragraph on skin-pigmentration does. Again you mischaracterise by the section by repeatedly making the utterly irrelevant assertion that "light hair and eye colour is not definitive so these do not represent "markers" for Europeans either". The section never said it was. Dab never said it was. Straw man,straw man yet again. How many time to I have to repeat the same point before it actually gets through to you? The section was about the geographical loci of maximum range range and diversity of features. I quote again what the section actually said: "White people exhibit greater polymorphism in hair and eye color than other populations. Geographically, such polymorphism is most prevalent in Europe, more specifically the Baltic region." I says the exact opposite of what you repeatedly misrepresent it as saying. Paul B 11:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article about typology states that it is discredited. Of course it's an assertion. Saying that typology is not discredited is also an assertion. There is no dispute about the usefulness of typology as far I am aware, I think it has been disposed of quite some time ago by anthropologists. The article should discuss social and historical usage, but I don't see how it can "map onto current scientific evidence", because no reputable scientist would ever try to use such an ill defined, amorphous and plastic concept as "white". White has no scientific meaning for the simple meaning that it is undefinable in a scientific way. You seem to believe that "white" has a scientifically quantifiable meaning, but provide no evidence for this. You quote the article as saying "White people exhibit greater polymorphism in hair and eye color than other populations." But the source for this was Frosts paper, Frost does not make this claim, Frost states "Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe."[1] So this surely implies that only northern and eastern Europeans are "white" then? Alun 13:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles are hardly authoritative, but that's beside the point. It depends what value and function the the typology performs. If you don't see how it can "map onto scientific evidence", than why include any scientific evidence at all in the article? In fact the article repeatedly tries to map current scientific evidence onto the socio-historical concept of "white people". Why do you think all those footnotes on skin colour adaptation are there? Be consistent. Again, I have made this point before, but you clearly do not follow it, becase you keep making the irrelevant "come back" that white people is not a scientific concept. No it isn't. There is a socio-cultural concept and then there is scientific evidence concerning the elements of that socio-cultural concept - such as evidence about skin pigmentation and eye colour, among other things. The scientific evidence may either support or undermine claims about the socio-cultural concept. The point of the section was to address one aspect of that. Instead of altering the imprecise phrasing to improve it, you made false assertions about its content and accusations about SS handbooks. The extent of the "problem" is that the author used the phrase "white people" intead of a more precise expression like "populations which have typically been included in the category "white people"... That's an argument for careful rephrasing, not for total misrepresentation of what has been written. Paul B 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty concepts that can be quantified or examined in a scientific way. For example science can measure skin colour, it is a quantifiable trait, science can also make hypotheses about why skin colour may vary. But we do not make any claims in this section about the distribution of skin colour, nor do we provide any maps. We simply give an account of the selective pressures on skin colour and a brief discussion of theories that may explain why pale skin colour is selected for in regions with less intense sunlight, and why dark skin colour is selected for in regions with intense sunlight. We also give a brief discussion of some of the molecular biology associated with skin colour. We do not make any claims about the intensity of skin colour, nor do we provide maps of skin reflectance in different parts of the world, this would not be relevant because there are no criteria regarding how reflective someone's skin needs to be in order for them to be considered "white". It is clear that in an article about white people skin colour is a relevant topic, though it is disputable as to how important it is. On the other hand this article is not about eye colour or hair colour, so these concepts do not have a direct relevance for the article, light skin colour is strongly correlated with identification as "white", though this is not universally true. Hair and eye colour have no such correlations, they are therefore much less relevant, or even irrelevant to the article. Besides the concept of "white people" has failed to be quantified scientifically, and scientists have tried hard to do this, there is a whole section on the history of the term that discusses some of the scientists that have tried to do this, but in the modern world scientists have understood that science needs to identify its parameters properly. The scientists that did try to identify "white" had to resort to all sorts of cultural stereotypes in order to make their distinctions. The very good reasons that people like Darwin had for rejecting these sorts of classifications are just as relevant today as they were in the 19th century. So it's not any such thing as an argument about rephrasing, your argument presupposes that skin colour and hair/colour are equally relevant to the social concept of "white" people, but you have provided no evidence that eye/hair colour is at all relevant to "white" people. Furthermore the author does not use the term "white people" instead of a more precise expression, "northern and eastern Europeans" is not a more precise expression of "white people", it is a completely different set of people. Northern and eastern Europe is a region of the world that can be seen on a map, it's population can be quantified and presented on a map, this is not true of "white people". You write as if this is only a question of nuanced phrasing, as if there is no fundamental difference between these two groups. But this is illogical, "white people" is an ill defined group that can mean very different things to different people, and "white people" cannot be isolated to any particular geographic region. White people are not a population in the sense that eastern and northern Europeans can be thought of as a population, eastern and northern Europeans occupy a defined geographic region, a prerequisite for any population, white people do not do this. Alun 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't include maps of skin-colour distribution is not an argument. It would be useful if you did. There's no reason not to. If eye colour does not have direct relevance then what was it already present (and still is present) in the text? If discussion of features and variations of traits in populations that come under current and historical soico-cultural use of the term "white" is not on topic then I don't know what is. Again you keep coming back to the same misunderstanding (it's weird how often the same point has to be repeated). You are talking as though I am advocating listing characteristics that are required to be a "white person". The "evidence that eye/hair colour is at all relevant to 'white' people" follows from the usage of the term, it's not constituative of the definition. Saying "'white people' cannot be isolated to any particular geographic region" is meaningless if one of the most established usages of the term - as the article fully documents - is "European". In this usage, which is probably the dominant one given the range of evidence from censuses etc, it certainly can. You are looking at the whole issue through the wrong end of the telescope. The meaning - or range of meanings - is determined by the social usage(s). The science discusses the relation between these usage and current knowledge/theories about human diversity. Paul B 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't say that the fact that we don't include skin colour maps is an argument. I said the reasons we don't include skin colour maps is an argument. The reasons for the fact are arguments, not the fact itself. Indeed what good would skin colour maps do? There is no criterion for judging what scale of skin reflectance is "white", and of course skin reflectance is not always relevant, in places like Brazil white people can be have any skin shade, as long as they are middle class. Likewise we have absolutely no idea what criteria are used for determining the difference between light hair and dark hair, indeed hair colour varies in a continuum, so the distinction must be arbitrary. "If discussion of features and variations of traits in populations that come under current and historical soico-cultural use of the term "white" is not on topic then I don't know what is." First you need to define "current and historical soico-cultural use of the term "white"", second you need to describe what "populations" are "white", because your opinion of what populations are "white" is not going to be the same as other peoples opinion, third you need to explain why you think certain features are important than others. You have not made any sort of convincing case that eye/hair colour has any significance for "white people" aside from the fact that a small set of people who may be considered "white" and that live in a small part of Europe display some degree of variation in these traits. But this does not explain either the relevance of this relatively small group to the whole concept of "white people", nor have you explained why you consider hair/eye colour of such importance. If you want to have an article that discusses all variation within all possible socio-historical concepts of "white" then you are going to have a book, not an encyclopaedia article. Why not height? Why not body mass index? Why not obesity? Why not diabetes? Why not the average number of pimples on the bottom? Besides what you write is still illogical, you say "The "evidence that eye/hair colour is at all relevant to 'white' people" follows from the usage of the term....as the article fully documents - is "European". Europeans can be considered white (though so can many non-European groups), so what? The hair/eye colour paper cited does not refer to Europeans as a whole, it refers to northern and eastern Europeans. So even here you are conflating two different groups of people to support your argument, just like you did before , European and northern and eastern European are not equivalent groups. You do not seem to have any sort of coherent argument here. You seem to be saying that 1) Northern and Eastern Europeans have diverse hair/eye colour according to a specific article, so 2) Northern and eastern Europeans are Europeans, therefore Europeans have diverse hair/eye colour, so 3) Europeans are a group of "white people" therefore "white people" have diverse hair/eye colour. But these three groups are not the same, they are not synonymous. I do not find your arguments convincing, they seem to be derived from your personal opinion. But it does not matter what I think, you need to get a consensus behind you, to do this you need to be prepared to compromise, just as I am. I suggest you take a look at my suggestion for a compromise below, which I made this morning, but you have ignored. I have tried to be constructive, which is a great deal more than you can claim. Alun 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not point in discussing this with someone who persistentyly and repeatedly ignores what is being said. It is not my personal opinion that "white" isd synonymoyus with European. Read the first sentence of the article. Read what the history and census infornmation says. A map of skin pigment distribution would not be about proving who is or is not white, as I have said again and again and again and again (since it would undoubtedly demonstate that skin-pigment distribution varies in ways that do not fit the dominant models for defining white personhood). It would provide information that could then be used to "map onto" (i.e see where fits and non-fits occur) the social usage. The science provides information that allows us to assess claims made for the social meaning. Since I've said this a squillion times and you still don't get it, see no point in saying it again. Paul B 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not ignored what you have said, I have actually written a great deal in response to you. I know what the first sentence of the article says, it does not say that white is synonymous with European, whichever way you read it: "being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin" is not the same as being European, neither is "to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry." Especially does not mean either exclusively nor explicitly. The map of skin pigment diversity would be irrelevant to this article, this article is not about skin pigment diversity, the map is of course relevant to Human skin colour where it correctly resides. I am saddened that you have ignored my request for compromise and chosen to continue in a confrontational manner. I don't understand why editors ignore the rules about consensus and AGF in favour of taking entrenched positions. Alun 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I will report you for trolling."
Don't threaten me, who do you think you are? I am not frightened of you. You have been ignoring the consensus on this talk page and reverting all edits you do not like. I drew your attention to this on your talk page out of courtesy. You obviously have a strong opinion about this, so I thought it would be better for you to discuss this on the talk page rather than you keeping reverting the page. Now you threaten me. Your adminship does not give you authority to decide what goes into articles you know, nor does it allow you to threaten me. Alun 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For unclear reasons, a section on hair and eye color polymorphism was deleted. I agree with dab that this article is a good place for this piece of information; I see no link to SS handbooks or other crackpot theories. There is a problem with the availability of the source though; I couldn't locate it at CogWeb. — mark ✎ 10:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I made the section heading here somewhat more descriptive — mark ✎ 10:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, whether it's restricted to white populations depends on the definition of "white populations" - eye colour is certainly variable in east asia. Secondly, there's a large body of dicussion about this recently, and re-adding as soon as the discussion has died down is not appropriate. The first re-add would be reasonable, but reverting the reversion (repeatedly) is tendentious at the very least. SamBC(talk) 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what "consensus"? There has just barely been a consensus to not nuke this page to disambiguation status. This is the main article on "white people". I find it hilarious that it is apparently alright to discuss at length funny historical USian "one-drop rules", and the skin shade of individual starlets (!), but not the major phenotypical divisions of the white populations in general. Whatever went wrong here? If anything, branch out the US-centric stuff, we have Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for that. Branch out the awkward and list-like "Census and social definitions in different regions", which all have their main articles, but do not blank the discussions of the very core topic of this page, there is simply no way this is acceptable. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you revert to the maps of Nordic typology, someone immediately changes them back, and you ask where the consensus against the maps is? Besides you are just edit waring now. The three revert rule is not an entitlement remember. Alun 11:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hilarious.
Well at least you are having a good laugh. Alun 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but not the major phenotypical divisions of the white populations in general
What major phenotypic division? Hair and eye colour hardly represents a "major" division, besides what is the "white population". What evidence is there that "white people" form a population? What do you actually mean by your use of the word "population". This seems like a non standard use either in biology or in politics. Alun 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this information not be more relevant in Human genetic variation? or in Cline (population genetics)? Why is this info not more relevant to Hair colour or Eye colour? All of these articles seem infinitely more acceptable for this information, where it can exist without anyone disputing it. Alun 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above, PaulB writes, "You know very well that a scientific discussion is unlikely to use the term "white people", so you are creating an unrealistic demand." This is like saying "if the scientific literature doesn't support my view, well, we will just have to ignore ... the scientific literature!" ????? That violates NPOV and NOR. We should focus on how bodies of reliable sources use the term "white people," not just what a couple of editors believe about white people. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no it isn't. White people is not a scientific concept, so you would not expect scientists to use the expression in papers, except perhaps as shorthand. However, it happens to be the topic of this article. By demanding that a specifically scientific text use the actual expression "white people" for any information to be included, Alun is, in effect, creating an unrealisable "rule". In fact many of the sources that are quoted do not use the actual phrase "white people", for example the Introduction to Skin Histology. That does not mean that they are not relevant to the article. I'm not strongly in favour or opposed to the inclusion of this material here, but it seems genuinely interesting and is clearly not related to some "Nordicist" POV. My initial intervention arose from Alun's false representation of the content of the passage. He was not reading what it said, but responding to what he thought it probably said or what he imagined was the POV behind it. He then created an unrealisable "rule" that is not applied to other sources in the article. That's part of the problem here and it just encourages revert wars. Dab's aggressive response does not help either, of course. Paul B 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phenotypic variation is however very much a concept in the natural sciences, and if life scientists do not use the term "white people" in discussing phenotypic variation, there is a reason that an encyclopedia ought to take seriously. If scientiss writing about phenotypic variation do not use the term white people, not only would it violate NOR to claim that they are actually talking about white people, it would misrepresent their research which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do and violates NPOV. Moreover, white people is very much a concept analyzed by social scientists and we should back up our claims about them with proper sources. The point, about NOR and NPOV, remains the same: we do not use our own views. People active on this page have been discussing this for weeks and have reached a consensus on this. Now you turn up, which is your right - but you oughtn't to disregard two weeks of discussion and insist that we repeat the whole debate now. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what you said were true, then probably no scientific information should or could be included in this article, since scientists do not use this term. Are you proposing to delete the whole sections on the origin of light skin, which inluded numerous citations (of highly variable quality) many of which never refer to "white people" or even include the word "white". Why is it perefectly OK to have paragraph after paragraph on this, but not a very short section on hair and eye variation? The logic utterly escapes me. I don't think that is the intent or content of the NOR policy, which was originally created to stop people presenting idiosycratic personal theories as fact. It was not designed to exlude material relevant to a particular topic because an exact phrase was not used. Would you exclude a scientific article on a plant because it used only botanical terminology, and not common names? If the topic is "white people" then we can say, reasonably, what relevant sources address as the referent(s) held in common for this term and use material that provides useful information about it. Paul B 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing as if you and scientists are referring to the same thing, just using different words. I am saying that when scientists use different words, it is because they are talking about something else, something that doesn't correspond to your concept of white people. As for plants - well, there are some words that people use for plants that are quite subjective in meaning - not just words like "weeds" but even the names of plants - laurel, for example, is popularly used to refer to very different plants. In my experience, when botanists are writing about a plant for which an english (or whatever language) word corresponds to the plant they are talking about, in addition to the linean name they will provide its common name. This is a comon practice for botanists when they are writing about a particular species of plant, because it is in fact common for a species to have names in different languages that all indeed do refer to the same species. And the analogy for this when refering to people is also at the species level; scientists acknowledge that H. sapeins = humanity or mankind. But "white people" is not a species, it is something else, and you should not be surprised that scientists generally eschew the term because they are not studyng what you use the term to refer to. Now, if this does not make sense to you, please reread the last two week's talk. I do not have the time to explain what has been explained many times already, beyond what I just wrote. All i am poroposing to do is what we should always do: bracket our own folk-beliefs,research the scholarly literature, and write an article that represents the state of the art in research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop talking about "my concept of white people". Since you seem to think that I am articulating some specific "concept of white people" perhaps you can say what it is. I think you will find that none of my comments include any such assertions. Remember that we are discussing the exclusion of a section (which was not written by me) because the content of that section was misrepresented and a spurious exclusion rule created specifically for it, one which was and is not applied elsewhwere. You completely miss the point of the comments by focussing on my analogy, which you then seem to think is intended to imply that "white people" are anagous to species. Please try to understand the purpose of analogies. I admit that I am feeling rather frustrated by the utter irrelevance of your response. I am perfectly well aware of the issues under debate, as you should know. You have not responded at all to the substantive points I made which concern irrational inconsistencies and misrepresentations of content. It is also not what "I use the term to refer to", but what is the content and coverage of this article. Paul B 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me expand on this issue to make a more specific point. At the moment this article is essentially divided into two sections, one of which is on the origins of pale skin and one of which is on census definitions, and history. These two sections are entirely inconsistent in their rationale. Since many East Asians have skin as light as many Europeans, the whole section logically includes discussion of East Asians. As far as discussing the science of skin pigmentation is concerned, this is perefectly reasonable. However, by your and Alun's argument it should not be here, but in an article on skin pigmentation. The reason, of course, is that the social-science and census definitions of "white" are not determined by specific skin colour, but rather more by ancestry, geography and cultural norms. The socio-cultural, historical and census definitions of "white" almost always exclude East Asians. This has nothing to do with my personal view or "folk beliefs". It is exactly what the literature - governemental, legal and scholarly - on the concept of "white" addresses. If we are to have scientific discussion of skin pigmentation, then there is no reason why there should not also be scientific discussion of other phenotypical features that corresond to the academic and governmental usages of the word "white". This is why my poisition, I think, is entirely consistent with NPOV and NOR, while your and Alun's now seems to be focussed on excluding material according to a set of inconsistent rules determined by what you imagine to be a hidden POV. I repeat the point: Alun's comments that section on diversity seemed to come "directly from the SS handbook" were both outrageous and totally wide of the mark. Paul B 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring these photos back, but if we are going to discuss whiteness along with hair and eye color polymorphisms, then how are we to account for these people.

blond hair from Vanuatu

Muntuwandi 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to "account for them". You miss the point. The section is not about saying "only white people have X, Y, Z" characteristics. It's saying that a maximum diversity of some specific characteristics are found among populations which academic, governmental and social usage identifies as "white people". No one is saying that blue eyes are not found elsewhere. Even the earliest theorists of physiognomy like Lavater recognised that, which is why they invariably got into a mess when having to admit that real hisrorcal persons often did not fit their preconceptions of what someone with their traits should look like. Paul B 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barlow writes, "Please stop talking about "my concept of white people". Since you seem to think that I am articulating some specific "concept of white people" perhaps you can say what it is." But NPOV requires that we identify what points of view are being represented. So please identify the view you are addressing, and your source. I repeat my own approach to the article: "All i am poroposing to do is what we should always do: bracket our own folk-beliefs,research the scholarly literature, and write an article that represents the state of the art in research." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated again and again what my substantive points are and you are simply not responding to them. Why am I expected to produce my personal definition? If I had one, it would be irrelevant. Your arguments are becoming stranger and stranger. "NPOV requires that we identify what points of view are being represented". Yes, that means the article has to be NPOV and should be sourced. It does not mean that I or you have to have to express any personal point of view about what group should or should not be included in the category of white people. Why can't you follow this? You responded to what you claimed was "my concept of white people", so you implied that you knew what that was. As far as current governmental and social usage goes, it is broadly synonymous with "European", but there are and always have been problems with that, and with any attempt at a precise definition, as we all know. There are already numerous references in the history section of the article which discuss these issues, as do the census sections. It has nothing whatever to do with my opinion. The issue I whether it is logical to have sections purely on skin colour, but not on other phenotypical features that are part of the current and historical discursive models of "white people" that are addressed in those sections. Paul B 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank heavens for that. But I cannot, therfore, make sense of wghat you are saying. There is not one, consistent definition as you know. That does not mean that a discussion of hair and eye colour variation is off topic, because it clearly bears on some of the most important definitions. The section need rewriting, of course. Paul B 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there does not have to be one definition. There may be several. Butour nmain tasks as ediors is to insert accounts of different views into articles, as long as they are properly sourced and identified. Isn't this what you want to do? You believe that a discussion of hair and eye coloration is relevant. You claim that this is not your personal iew. Do it must be someone's view. Since you are advocating the includion of this discussion, you ought to be able to identify the view that you are drawing n and its sources. You say you are not using your own view when you advoate adding this discussion. So you must be adoptind aomeone else's view. Whose? Source Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please! Of course you do. You are articulating a position - that's called an "argument". Paul B 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now state my position a third time: "All i am poroposing to do is what we should always do: bracket our own folk-beliefs,research the scholarly literature, and write an article that represents the state of the art in research." You want to call this an arguent? Okay Paul for the sake of wikilove, I will call in an argument too. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as current governmental and social usage goes, it is broadly synonymous with "European" - is this the view you wish to represnt in the article? If so, provide your sources. If you wish to ensure another view be represented, I repeat my 18:06 question: tell us which view you believe should be represented in the article - identify whose view it is and provide a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are confusing two separate issues. One is what I think should be included here (only WP editors can decide that, a source can't say what should be in a WP article). So I can say "I think X should be discussed for Y reasons", as can you. The other issue is sourcing - what RS's we can use to discuss what we have decided to include for the reasons we give. You are asking for a source for an editorial decision ("professor X says an article on white people should discuss hair colour as well as skin colour"). Paul B 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I do not wish to represent a particular view, since I have said it repeatedly. I want the article to discuss material relevant to the definitions that are already included in the article. How many times do I have to say this? Paul B 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But which material relevant do you want to include? Surely your wanting to include any material must be ttaced to an idnetifiable POV. I am just asking you toi identify the view and its sources. look: if you kinow of know reliable sources that have presented views on this topic, then you have not done the research required to contribute and I do not udnerstand why of you use of this talk page. If you do have research you think belings in the article, tell us the source and identify itse POV. This is so simple! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mixing up matters again. Discussing what material is relevant is not the same as an "identifiable POV". There are many editorial questions not definable in terms of POV (unless we mean the POV of whether or not they should be discussed, which is virtually tautology). Should an article on the Victorian era have a section on steam engines? That steam engines existed in the Victorian era is not disputed, whether they do or do not deserve a separate section on their own is an editorial decision largely unrelated to an "identifiable POV" on the Victorians. No one disputes they are relevant in some respect, but no authority can identify the degree of relevance. So no, this is not so simple!!! Questions of relevance are complex and vary from topic to topic within articles as well as between them. The section in fact did already include reliable sources, as you well know. Paul B 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. That steam engines are important to understand the Victorian era, and the extent to which they are important, is indeed a topic of scholarly concern; there are identifiable points of view on its relevance, and sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point of the analogy again. As I already said "no one disputes they are relevant in some respect", but the question of whether they are important to an article on the Victorian era is a matter of judgement. A steam engine enthusiast might want a whole section. A social historian might think they are not even worth mentioning. The fact that there are thousands of sources available on steam engines does nothing to resolve the debate about whether - say - the technical details should be discussed in a general article and how much. That was the point of the analogy. If you think that some uber authority should be identified who says "steam engines are 20% important to the Victorian era", or some such, then I think you are expecting too much of sources and massively oversimplifying the concept of POV, as though there are clearly defined POV positions of authorities on every aspect of a topic. That eye and hair colour has been repeatedly discussed in the history of debate about race, and about white people in particular, is not in dispute is it? To pretend it is would be disingenuous. My listing of books and articles that have discussed the issue during the history of "race theory" would not resolve the issue of whether of not we should have a section on the topic. Paul B 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A steam engine enthusiast might want a whole section. A social historian might think they are not even worth mentioning." So you finally agree that there are different points of view as to whether a topic should be included and if so how prominently. Finally. Now, please tell us whose point of view it is that the genetics of skin and eye color is important to the topic of white people, and provide the source! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the most important trait in defining whiteness is skin color. One need not have a variety of eye or hair colors to be considered white but in general one would need light skin to be considered white. The hair and eye colors are thus secondary traits associated with whiteness but are not intrinsic to it. Muntuwandi 18:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a person with very dark skin would almost always not be considered white even if they otherwise fitted the traditional "Caucasian" model, but having light skin as such is not the defining feature (there is no single defining feature) according to most usages as articulated here, since there are many Asians with lighter skin than many Europeans. Paul B 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in the Dominican Republic people with black skin and other physical traits shared largely by Africans are white. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's another example of the current confusion and inconsistency. The first passage in the physical appearence section states the following:

Although there is no single universal definition of whiteness, some traits that are associated with Europeans are associated with whites. The most notable trait describing people who identify as white is light skin. People who are white lack epicanthic folds[6]. Other physical features sometimes associated with white people include a variety of hair and eye colors.

"Whites" in the first sentence is being used in a mysterious way. The clumsy repeated "associated with" makes it difficult to decipher just what is being argued, so we have the astonishingly vague some traits of Europeans are "associated with" "whites". Then we get "People who are white lack epicanthic folds[6].". The sentence is clearly designed to exclude East Asians. It is footnoted to a text which saying nothing at all about not being white if you have an epicantic fold. It actually says: "In America we generally recognize three large racial groups. These groups are: (1) Caucasians, originating in Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, are distinguished by a lighter (whitish, pinkish, or reddish) skin complexion, blond or brunette, wavy or straight hair (having a marked tendency toward balding), blue or green eyes, a straight, hooked, or pug nose, conspicuous jaws, and relatively long torsos; (2) Mongoloids, tracing their origins to northern and eastern Asia, are distinguished by a yellow to brown skin complexion, straight black hair, wide cheekbones, low or lacking a pronounced nose bridges, and almond-shaped or slanted eyes (caused by epicanthic folds of the eyelids); and (3) Negroids, originating in Africa, are distinguished by light tan to dark brown skin complexion". So this actually says that "Mongoloids" have epicantic folds, not that being white requires their absence. The passage which uses this quotation thus expliitly equates "white" with "Caucasian". Then we have a comment about a "variety of hair and eye colours" with no further elaboration, indeed it is an attempt at further elaboration of this very comment that has been excluded. The whole passage is weirdly evasive and inconsistent. The last statement about "a variety of hair and eye colors" is so vague that it might as well be saying "some things are associated with this notion of 'white people' but we aren't going to say what they are, so we'll say 'a variety of things are associated with being white'." Paul B 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the whole section should be removed. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the section. There are many other physical traits associated with people identified as "white" but they are not mentioned. To select just those traits that are associated with Nordicism is sort of cherry picking. Muntuwandi 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the distribution of variations "associated with Nordicism"? Paul B 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were the traits advocated for by Nordic theory. Muntuwandi 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nordic theory did not "advocate" maximising variations of traits. It advocated identifying traits that supposedly demonstrated superiority. In that respect it's the last but most toxic gasp of the tradition of physiognomic theory dating back to pseudo-Aristotle . Paul B 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The section is very relevant and should not be removed until a consensus is reached. MoritzB 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with the hair color maps is that it seems to only hinge on one study by Frost. I think this is giving Frost undue weight. Maybe if there were several other scholars who have published similar studies, that would give Frost some credibility, but at the moment I know of none. Muntuwandi 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the removal of this section, and El C is right that we need consensus to add not to remove, SqueakBox 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to reitterating my general opposition to the section, I want to point out that the key problem is the word "associated," which is in the passive voice and raises the question, "associated by whom." If as we develop the article we have sources that document that for some particular gorup fair skin (or any other physical trait) is an important marker or symbol of their white identity, then we should put that in, identifying the POV and adding a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we include in a section about characteristics?

[edit]

Si I'm going to attempt to be constructive here. Let's try to find common ground. Above Talk:White_people#How_it_might_look SamBC makes a compelling case for "it's probably worthwhile mentioning what "looks european" might mean, at least vaguely, or mentioning the commonalities in typical appearance between those different views." So what do we want to say about the characteristics of "white people"? I'll have a go at outlining some possibilities, for the sake of discussion.

  • We already have a section about light skin colour, it seems to me that this is usually, but not always, the defining characteristic (for examples where white people don't have to have light skin colour we can use Brazil as an example).
  • Frosts paper European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? is not about "white people", it is about his theory that during the European upper paleolithic sexual selection led to an increase in certain genotypes associated with hair and eye colour. It's a perfectly good theory, although I am sceptical. But from Frost's maps certain obvious conclusions can be drawn:
    • Light hair and eye colour is not definitive for any concept of "white".
    • Light hair and eye colour is not a majority phenotype for "white people".
    • Light hair and eye colour is not definitive for Europeans.
    • Light hair and eye colour is not a majority phenotype for Eurpeans.
    • Light hair colour represents at least a significant minority (>20%) of the population of north central Europe only.
    • Light eye colour represents at least a significant minority (>20%) of the population of approximately the same region, but with a slightly larger range.
  • If we want to mention hair and eye colour we need to put it into the correct perspective. That a subset of Europeans, who represent a subset of white people have a greater degree of hair and eye colour polymorphism.
  • Given that these phenotypes are relatively restricted and are absolutely unimportant for identifying "whiteness" it seems to me that including the maps represents undue weight.
  • If we have a discussion about eye and hair colour then we need also to discuss the political history of light hair and eye colour, how it has been used by racists to promote discredited ideas of purity and superiority.
  • I suggest we expand the section that currently discusses skin colour. Have a section called "characteristics", include skin colour in this section, then include a section on hair and eye colour, we need only a single section for this as far as I can see. We can link to the hair and eye colour articles in this section, where it would be more appropriate to include Frosts maps. I appreciate any comments.

NB. I am on record as not supporting the inclusion of hair and eye colour at all, but I am trying to be constructive here, let's see what we can compromise on. Alun 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding also is that hair and eye color are polygenic. In actuality this entails that there are several shades of hair and eye color as opposed to discrete hair and eye colors. Muntuwandi 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Frost discusses variation and "light" hair and eye colour. So this needs to put into the context of a greater degree of variation. I'm not sure about eye colour, I have some vague recollection that people with blue eyes have a problem producing proper pigmentation, but clearly there is more than a single process going on because there is no uniformity of blue or brown eye colour, variation exists within blue and brown eyes. Maybe there is more info on the eye colour article? Alun 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye colour this article states that eye color genetics are much more complicated than previously thought, and that there are several shades of eye color. So with regard to the frost maps we may not know what his cut-off point for light eye colors is. Muntuwandi 06:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frost cites: Beals, R. L., & Hoijer, H. (1965). An introduction to anthropology (3rd ed.). New York Macmillan. for his maps, so he has not generated them himself. Probably this source states what the criteria actually were for determining "light" eye and hair colour. It is a weird way to present the data though, "light" hair and eye colour. It would be good to know the criteria used to make this estimation. I wonder what sort of system they used in the 1960's (or possibly earlier) to determine these characteristics? I wonder how much it depends on human judgment, like measuring cranial capacity, the experimenter might see more "light colour" where they expect (or want) to see it, if this is just someone with a colour card making comparisons manually Alun 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion - leave the page alone and work on the replacement version

[edit]

I mean, there's a strong consensus for a major change/reworking, and the nature of the new version is pretty well agreed-upon by those willing to work on it, so how about we focus on that and leave the page alone, except for trying to keep the changes that run counter to consensus out. Just an idea. SamBC(talk) 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh

[edit]

This article does not make any sense from an academic point of view. I'm in favor of removing it completely. 71.68.15.63 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate it for deletion if you like, but I guarantee that it won't get deleted, it's been tried before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White people. The article may not be very good, but the subject of the article meets all the criteria for inclusion. Why don't you make some suggestions as to how to improve it? Alun 06:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images

[edit]

so, as the upshot of various trolling campaigns, there is now not a single image on this page? This is silly. Compare Black people, which has a good selection of pertinent and completely uncontroversial images. How difficult can it be to agree on half a dozen Caucasoid mugshots? dab (𒁳) 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images of so called "Caucasoid" people should be in the Caucasian race article shouldn't they? Sometimes white is used as a synonym for "Caucasoid", but not always. Why is there any need to include images of individual people? If there is a consensus not to include images of individual people why do you call that "trolling"? There is a whole group of people who disagree with you, do you suppose that all of these people disagree with you simply because they are mass "trolling"? If there is a consensus to include images of individual people on the Black people article, then that is a different thing, obviously there people have agreed what images are appropriate. Personally I think that images of individual people are misleading, most variation, both genetic and physical is at the local level. The whole nonsense about white people having blond hair and blue eyes is symptomatic of this sort of nonsense. White people are a social group and not a "physical type", for "physical types" you should concern yourself with articles that are about the discredited idea of typology such as Caucasoid race or The Races of Europe. Alun 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is silly is the idea that we ought to have images just for the sake of images, and we use those images that are convenient because they are fair use or on the commons. That is silly. Yes we should have images. But the images, if we can find them, should illustrate the content and make sense in the context in which we put them. There is still a vast literature on white people that this article does not even draw on. Let's develop the content, and then find appropriate images to illustrate it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: let's write an article about White People!

[edit]

There is a real body of literature that is explicitly about "white people" so there will be no doubt about appropriateness of sources or NOR, these works direcly address the subject of this artilce. Yet this article doesn't cite these sources! Let's write a great article by doing great research.

Perhaps the single most important reader

  • Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic;

Both are law professors and it is published by Temple University Press, so it is quite reputable. As an edited volume it contains essays by a plethora of authors and thus represents a wide range if views - helpful for complying with NPOV, and all in one easy source. I think this is generally considered the best collection of diverse essays. But to help you guys out some more, here are some other books directly relevant to this article:

  • Allen, Theodore The Invention of the White Race
  • Babb, Valerie. Whiteness Visible: The Meaning of Whiteness in American Literature and Culture (Valerie Babb is a professor of English at the University of Georgia)
  • Bonnett, Alastair. White Identities: Historical and International Perspectives (Alistair onnet is a Reader of Geography in the University of Newcastle-upon-Thyne)
  • Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks: and What that says about Race in America (Karen Brodkin is a professor of Anthropology at UCLA)
  • Dyer, Richard. White (Richard Dyer used to be in Media Studies at the University of Warwick)
  • Hale, Grace Elizabeth. Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940 (Elizabeth Hale a professor of History at U. Virginia (and her book is very well-regarded, often assigned in college classes))
  • Haney-Lopez, Ian. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (Ian Haney Lopez is a professor of Law at UC Berkeley)
  • Hill, Mike, ed. Whiteness: A Critical Reader (Michale Hill is a professor of Social Policy at U. of Brighton)
  • Hollinger, David. Post-Ethnic America (David Hollinger is a professor of History at UC Berkeley)
  • Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White (Ignatiev is a professor of Critical Studies at the Massachussetts College of Art and a Fellow at Harvard university; this book is one of the foundational texts in Whiteness studies and is very widely cited)
  • Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Matthew Frye Jacobson is Chair of the American Studies Program at Yale)
  • Kincheloe, Joe, ed. White Reign: Deploying Whiteness in America (Joe Kincheloe is a professor of Education at McGill (and there is a Wikipedia article about him!))
  • Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (George Lipsitz is a professor of Black Studies at UC Santa Barbara)
  • McCarthy, Cameron and Warren Crichlow, eds. Race, Identity, and Representation in Education (Warren Crichlow is a professor of education at York University)
  • Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination
  • Thomas, K. Nakayama, Judith N. Martin (editors): Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity (Thomas Nakayama and Judith Martin are professors of Communication at Arizona State U)
  • O'Donnell, James and Christine Clark, eds. Becoming and Unbecoming White: Owning and Disowning a Racial Identity (James O'Donnell is an associate professor of Education at New Mexico State U.)
  • Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s (Michale Omi is an associate professor of ethnic studies at UC Berkeley; Howard Winant is a Professor of Sociology at UC Santa Barbara)
  • Rasmussen, Birgit Brander, et al., eds., The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness (Birgit Brander Rasmussen is a professor of Chicano Studies at U. Wisconsin-Madison)
  • Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (David R. Roediger is a professor of History at U. Illinois Champaigne-Urbana (his book is another classic, it is assigned in LOTS of college courses),
  • Rogin, Michael Paul. Black Face, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Melting Pot (Michale Paul Rogin passed away but was a professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley)
  • Saxton, Alexander. The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (Alexander Saxton is a professor of History at UCLA)

This is only a partial sampling of the amount written by scholars on the concept of "White people" - there is much more than the very length of the list reveals just how inadequate this article is, how much it is leaving out. Now, some of the above books are absolue classics. But for more cutting-edge research, your best bet is journals (it takes less time to write and publish a journal article than to write and publish a book, so rejecnt journal articles are more likely to be "state of the art." Of course, journal articles are also shorter which is a mixed blessing: obviously, they take less time to read, but they are much more focused. Still, good articles review the literature and thus provide handy summaries of the range of views. They can also provide great little case-studies that illustrate specific aspects of the concept "White people."

  • American Anthropologist (Hartigan's article in 1997 is a god starting point)
  • American Ethnologist
  • Cultural Anthropology
  • Current Anthropology
  • American Journal of Sociology
  • American Sociological Review
  • British Journal of Sociology
  • Journal of Historical Sociology
  • Comparative Studies in Society and History
  • Critical Inquiry
  • Representations
  • Public Culture

Any major library will have subscriptions to at least a few of these journals. In hard-copies, one could look at the index at the back of any given volume; if one has J-Stor or another electronic version of the journal once can do a boolean search. It woul dnot take long to search for "Whiteness," "White+Race" and "White+Ethnicity." You will not come up with an overhwlming number of articles, but what you do come up with will represent the best scholarship (these are all top-ranked peer-reviewed journals; the authors of the articles did all the complex hard work, we just need to benefit from their labor). You will also come up with book reviews and if the review is positive, it is probably worth reading the book. In the end, you will know a lot more about White people (which presumably is what you want, if this article interests you) and you will be able to improve this article by ensuring it complies with NPOV and by ensuring that you are not violating NOR. Like I said (I think!) above - good luck! No article in Wikipedia is ever perfect - after all, by its very Wiki nature, all articles are perpetual works in progress. But obviously this article can be much, much better. That's pretty exciting! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money Whitens In Brazil Is Not 100% Accurate

[edit]

I will use Pele for example, I do not know a single Brazilian who considers him to be White just because he is part of the upperclass. He is still seen as a Black man here in Brazil.

Maybe, but let's avoid OR, one good source on the complexities of race is Donna Goldstein's new book on race and gender in Brazil. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture??

[edit]

I haven't looked back in the archives of the talk page, or the history of the article, but I'm shocked that there's not a picture of a white person in the article. --Piroteknix 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it is arbitrary, and subject to POV? :) Jeeny 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't arbitrary; just because there are gray areas at the margins of a category doesn't mean the entire definition or classification is arbitrary or that it is in dispute. Everyone recognizes Winston Churchill or Angela Merkel as examples of white people (in opposition to characterizations of them as black, for instance). You can problematize any category you like if you try hard enough, but that doesn't make every such characterization useless. W.M. O'Quinlan 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Black people" has four pictures of people from four different African countries. White people is an extremely broad category with quite a few people (famous or otherwise) in the demographic. We could make this article's picture mirror the picture on "Black people," using pictures of people who descend from European countries, or ever just ripping pictures from "French people," "Welsh people," etc. That does sound a bit arbitrary, but we could use some kind of system to pick. --Piroteknix 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but what system? However it's done, it will either exclude an ethnicity or group that some consider white, and will likely complain about, or include people that others consider not white, and will even more likely complain about. The only way to win is to deny the battle. SamBC(talk) 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was just such a battle at Black People and after some time a pretty good compromise has been reached. Look at the bottom of the page. Why not do something like that here? futurebird 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a major controversy over a picture gallery here several months ago. It was finally moved to European people and then ultimately deleted. Several of us fought to keep it, but there was not enough support and too many people trying to populate the gallery with celebrity favorites etc. --Kevin Murray 04:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be no gallery of representative whites.----DarkTea© 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Among the goals was to demonstrate the diversity within the definition "White People," and to show examples of the various ethnic groups.

These are photos of Europeans with links to articles on the ethnic group which they represent.


I fail to see why this is controversial. It should be in the article. Maybe with fewer images. It could also use some americans. (wow, never thought I'd type that, most of the time there are too many americans.) futurebird 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was an effort to demonstrate ethnic characteristics from regions where white people had migrated long ago, without reinforcing stereotypes. Populations in America, Australia, and South Africa represent more recent migrations. The number of people included grew to try to cover all the bases. --Kevin Murray 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people at WP oppose any galleries in articles and prefer to see them at Commons linked from the article. --Kevin Murray 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classifications such as "white" are social constructs, they vary depending on the society in which the label is used. 150 years ago Jewish people in the USA would not have been considered "white", neither would Irish people. So who or what a "white person" is depends on context, both current cultural context and historical context. There has been some attempt in the past to equate "white people" with European people, or people of European descent, but of course many people who are of European descent are not considered "white" in some parts of the world. I remember a smilar dispute on the black people article where some editors contended that only people of African descent were black people. Another problem is the near synonymous usage of Caucasian and "white" in North America, something that does not exist in Europe. One of the problems is the contention that "white people" are a "race", but there is precious little evidence that the term "white" has the sort of "racial" classification that say Caucasian has. I remain unconvinced about the usefulness or validity of a gallery. There's no such thing as a "typical" person, whatever description is used, most variation is at the local level and not the "racial" level. What is a "typical" white person? I don't think anyone can answer this question. Alun 16:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wobble, I respect you opinion, but maybe a gallery could be a way to show diversity? Just a thought... futurebird 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this suggestion is my problem with the gallery - white people are white in a given context and the gallery takes photos out of context. Now, perhaps in some countries the context is so stable that there is wide agreement as to who is white, and everyone who people think is white actually self-idnetify as white. I know this was not the case in the US at certain times in history, nor is it the case in many other countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, part of the problem with this issue is that people keep trying to stipulate what should or shouldn't be included in the article on the basis of conclusions that the article itself doesn't reflect or hasn't reached. Unless we were going to include pictures of people who are considered white and who it is that considers them so, then there probably is no place for a picture gallery. I should add though, that I am a bit confused as to the extent to which the English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect obscure disagreements among Brazilians or 16th century colonists over how to apply the term whiteness. Personally, I don't see how such ideas are any more relevant to this article than prehistoric man's ideas about "dogness" are to the dog article (astute observers will note that the "dog" article editors haven't hesitated to put up a picture of just one animal that at least most people agree is a dog). W.M. O'Quinlan 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, English-language wikipedia doesn't actually just cover things from an English-speaking point of view - that would be systemic bias. It obviously happens unintentionally and naturally, but we're supposed to work against it, not for it. As to comparing 16th century ideas to prehistoric ideas, the factor discriminating between them is that one is historic, and the other is prehistoric; that is, we have no way whatsoever of knowing about one, whereas we have historical documents and historical analyses for the other. SamBC(talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the distinction between history and prehistory, but that is not really what I was getting at (I just happened to pick a poor analog for that example; any historical period would do, and I think you'd find that there isn't this obsession with trying to reconcile definitions across time). In the case of avoiding systemic bias, I understand that to a point, but I think the examples used to counteract perceived bias are often very selective and are given disproportionate weight and significance in their respective articles. So I'm not suggesting that there is no place for them whatsoever, but they shouldn't be given more authority than they're due. W.M. O'Quinlan 22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i like the collage so far good ,but it lacks more white diversity,i would like to see some north africans such as zindene zadane who is not really french but a north african berber,and also the current miss egypt ehsan hatem would be some good famous people to add the pictures also more middle easterners i see you only have one there from turkey.how about some iranians or north indians--Mikmik2953 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

When me and my friends first saw her we said she looked like a mixed race Euroasian. None of us thought she looked White and I am sure most people in general will confuse her for being part Asian because of her Asian shaped eyes and jet black oriental like hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrazilianGuido (talk ‱ contribs)

I think this just supports my previous comment. Everyone thinks they know what a "white" person looks like, but in actual fact the overwhelming majority of variation is within group and not between group. Coupled with the differences of perception of who or what a "white" person is that are learned from cultural experience, and therefore vary dramatically from culture to culture, we get a very different perception of what a "white" person looks like from people from different parts of the world. So Björk shouldn't be included because she doesn't "look white" to some editors, but presumably she obviously is "white" to other editors, after all she comes from Iceland, which was colonised very recently from Norway and Ireland? In the past some editors here have tried to only include people with light hair and skin and blue eyes, and some have objected to the inclusion of Mediterranean people because they are "too dark", yet others have claimed that people from the Near East are not European and so not "white", while others contend that they are "white" because they are Caucasian. I think this goes to the heart of the problem, everyone thinks that their cultural perception of "white" is the correct one and think that the perceptions of other editors who come from different parts of the world, and therefore have different ideas about what "white" means are just plain wrong. Alun 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew this was going to happen. Next will be Tom Jones...because he has a tan. Deja vu? Pfft!. Jeeny 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen??? ;)--Ramdrake 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen? People like Björk are, not surprisingly, the exception rather than the rule to something like "whiteness" (or more broadly, race). Take any category you think you know and there will be some sample member of that category that looks a little like another category's member; it isn't exclusive to human beings. On a separate note, it only makes it look even more like you're grasping at straws when you try to convince others on such a shady, tenuous basis as this. (Oh yeah, and sock-puppetry doesn't fool anyone.) W.M. O'Quinlan 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but would you mind being more specific with your accusations, and substantiating them? SamBC(talk) 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WM, could you please clarify a couple of things. Who's argument is "clutching at straws" in your opinion? You do not direct your comment at any particular editor. I see no evidence that Björk is somehow an "exception", she is just a normal Icelandic person. Björk may have a relatively uncommon hair colour for an Icelandic person, but that is not the same as being exceptional, for example about 80% of Icelandic people have light coloured hair, which means that 1 in 5 have dark hair, hardly exceptional. And who are you accusing of sockpuppetry? It's very difficult to know who you are addressing when you make obscure remarks on one of these talk pages. Please try to be more explicit. Cheers. Alun 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion, but I was saying "Amen" to Alun's comment, mostly, and also in part to Jeeny's. While Björk may not look white, she is indeniably of a particular ethnic group (Icelandic)usually regarded as "white", thus one shouldn't discount her for looking the way she looks.--Ramdrake 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about biological groups, the notion of "an exception to the rule" has been unscientific since Darwin, for whom groups have no reality other than statistical and the "exceptions" are at least if not more important than the norm or ideal type. If we are talking about social groups - which I think we must be, in this article - we need two empirical data: how does Bjork self-identify, and what do "white people" consider "typical?" Knowing Bjork as well as I do I have no idea how she would answer the first question or if she would even care to. As for the second questions, while I think that while there may in fact be a number of different answers to the question (Himmler, Garrison Keiler, and DW Griffith may all have had ideas - and their ideas may well be different, and also are we sure that their ideas were shared by most people? I take this question seriously, seriously enough to suppose that there are answers and seriously enough to state right now that I will not guess what they are or make them up. Let's see what reliable, appropriate, verifiable sources say.) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the vagaries. I was referring BrazilianGuido's comment as sock-puppetry because it sounds to me like nothing more than Wobble or Jeeny's attempt at including a comment that neither one wanted to seem directly responsible for (because it srikes me as being that absurd). If I am wrong, then I apologize, but the wording and timing of that comment seems very odd to me, especially in light of the fact that BrazilianGuido is a very new username with few contributions and thus looks to me like someone's sock-puppet.
I consider that line of argument (that is, the mentioning of how Bjork doesn't look white) as "grasping at straws" because it attempts to induce very strong conclusions (namely, that "whiteness" is nothing more than a form of social consensus) from a very limited and personal experience (e.g. a glance at a thumbnail on an internet webpage). When I say that she is an "exception to the rule" I mean that for a firm majority of people, it is not difficult to identify their ancestry. It's true, Bjork does look like she could have some Asian ancestry, but one is in no position to conclude on that basis that the category "race" has no real biological foundation. Pick any category of nature that you like, and you'll find that not every instance seems to agree with the given set of conditions (for instance, there are two species of chimpanzee which humans cannot even differentiate by appearance, but it doesn't follow from this that the differences must therefore be culturally or socially defined). W.M. O'Quinlan 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What hapenned to AGF.Muntuwandi 00:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i would like to act in good faith but frankly it is hard to think that WMO knows what he is talking about here. "For a firm majority of people" - well, definitely not life scientists or social scientists. Let me take you at good faith and accept you are referring to someone - who? Please provide a reliable and verifiable source. That race is a biologically meaningless category is the consensus among evolutionary scientists. Your (WMO) last sentence is simply a non-sequitor, it does not bear on the topic of this article, it does not bear on discussions of race or ethnicity, and it does not bear on this thread. Let's just drop this silly thread and get back to the business of working on the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong about evolutionary scientists having reached a consensus on the issue; cultural anthropologists perhaps have, but there are plenty of evolutionary scientists and other academics who think there are meaningful distinctions between the races (and you needn't look far to find them publishing to this effect; take, for instance, Mainstream Science on Intelligence). I don't know why this should be so controversial, but what I said before about the "firm majority" was simply that anyone can fairly easily and accurately tell where another person's ancestors came from geographically just by looking at them; thus, unlike Bjork, most people (that is, the "firm majority") aren't ambiguous in this respect. I don't need to cite anything for this, it is practically a tautology; we couldn't have "socially constructed" these ideas about race if it weren't true that most people could classify others in this way.
My analogy to the chimpanzees is hardly a non-sequitur, and it does bear heavily on the issue at hand. Try to follow: Wobble and others are arguing that because Bjork cannot be placed into one taxonomic category (namely, whiteness) on the basis of her appearance, there is therefore no reason to think that said category is meaningful in a biological, taxonomic way. So if we assume this to be true, then we should apply the same criteria to other taxonomic considerations (for instance, chimpanzees). Thus, if we take some given chimpanzee and try to categorize him taxonomically (e.g. correctly identify his species (there are two species of chimps)) on the basis of his physical appearance, we will find that we cannot, because there aren't any visible distinctions to be made. Therefore, using Wobble's logic, we are to deduce that there is no meaningful taxonomic distinction to be offered among chimpanzees, just as we deduced about human beings with regard to race. However, as it turns out, we know that this is not true, because in fact there are at least two distinct species of chimpanzees and they cannot even interbreed. Naturally, I am not arguing that human races are by any means the same as species, but if we couldn't get at the right conclusion about chimpanzee taxonomy using Wobble's logic, then why should we think the same logic tells us something true about human beings and their taxonomy? I hope I haven't confused things further, but I too would like to move off of this topic because I don't think helps the article much. Cheers. W.M. O'Quinlan 04:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"simply that anyone can fairly easily and accurately tell where another person's ancestors came from geographically just by looking at them" - of course I agree with you: all humans have opposable thumbs and shoulders that allow us to swing our arms, and we do not have tails, so it is obvious all our ancestors come from Africa. There are other observable differences that allow me to make very good guesses (uh, lets call them probablistic statements, since we are trying to be scientific here) about what continent some of a person's ancestors come from. I want to emphasize the "continent" and "some." This is not the smae thing as race, nor is it the same as ethnic group. About the chimpanzees, you miss the point. ALL human beings are biologically distinct. It is even likely that there are phenotypic differences between identifical twins, and if you ignore identical twins which are rare there are genetic differences among all human beings. That sometimes and in some places people have selected some biological features as racial markers does not make "race" a biological reality or scientifically meaningful concept, and it certainly does not contradict the assertion, widely held, that races are social constructs. By the way, the "mainstream science" advertisement proves my point. Although the authors claim to repreent some mainstream view, in fact they are a minority, and most of the signatories of the statement are not evolutionary scientists, and indeed, they get basic concepts in evolutionary science, like heritability, flat-out wrong. An advertisement by people, most of whom are untrained dilettants when it comes to the scientific study of human evolution, is hardly a mainstream view no matter what the paid advertisement itself claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember what we are talking about though; the argument being made was that because Bjork doesn't quite look like most "whites" the category is therefore an invalid one. You and I both agree then that the biological existence of race doesn't in fact hinge on this set of conditions (we probably disagree on other parts of the discussion though). Also, I think we agree that just because there are phenotypic markers which allow most of us to infer one another's ancestries (and of course I mean more specifically than Africa--we didn't come up with the "out of Africa" hypothesis based on phenotypes, we did it based on genetics and fossils) this likewise doesn't mean that race has some biological reality to it. The true test of whether or not there is biological reality to race is of course a biological one. To human geneticists this is not a case closed; the "mainstream science" article doesn't actually prove your point. All it shows is that there are plenty of respected professionals (some of whom are evolutionary psychologists) who disagree with what you and the social scientists are saying. I am not arguing that it is the majority opinion of scholars that race does exist in a biologically meaningful way, but to suggest that there is some consensus and therefore the issue is decided is just wrong; that is not how science works. W.M. O'Quinlan 14:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "because" Bjork doesn't quite look like most "whites"
What do "most whites" look like? Who says Björk doesn't look like "most whites"? No individual person looks like "most whites". This is a really absurd comment and seems to be based on ignorance of the fact that the vast majority of diversity is found within group in the human species. Alun 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the creator of this thread topic said, not what I said. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • the category is therefore an invalid one
What "category"? I don't think any anthropologist has ever used Björk's appearance as the defining reason for the non existence of biological race. Alun 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have not read the thread up to that point because no one is saying anything of the sort. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • the biological existence of race doesn't in fact hinge on this set of conditions
What set of conditions? What biological existence of "race"? This article is about "white people" and not the existence of "race". White people are not a "race", or if you are claiming they are, then you need to decide which model of "race" they are equivalent to, because all "biological race" models are based on socially constructed criteria. Alun 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we're arguing here so you can't take that on assumption. Reread the posts up to that point and try to follow along before you offer that kind of rebuttal. These are all things that either you or other people have said which I was just summarizing for clarifying an argument I made earlier. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think we agree on the bigger issues. I still stand by what I wrote: first, how does Bjork identify herself, and second, what verifiable sources de we have on Whiteness? Illustrations should illustrate content (and content that complies with the core content policies) and not just be thrown in because we have a fair-use photo. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bjork's phenotype is easily within Eurasian range which is why she does not strike me as the poster girl for Whiteness. Even the racial anthropology forums that I have posted in have many members who have classified her as not looking fully White/Caucasoid and see traces of Mongoloid in her features like the shape of her eyes which are too slanted this indicating some Mongoloid admixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrazilianGuido (talk ‱ contribs) 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which just goes to show what a lot of absolute gibberish "racial anthropology" (whatever that is) discussions are, as far as I can see. Some moronic people running neo-nazi sites devoted to "racial typing" have decided that Björk can't be "European" because they do not think she looks right. Sounds like it's right up Joseph Mengele's street. Alun 14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a nice blog post by a biologist about using an anthropometric "cranial calculator" to estimate his "race", it's very good and highlights what nonsense this all really is.
Nevertheless, she is from Iceland, whose people are usually considered "white" and unless and until one comes up with a statement from a reliable source which says she identifies otherwise, nobody can count here as anything but "White" on looks alone. There is enough human genetic variety that someone can looklike her and still be "White". Please remember that facts, not personal opinions is what WP is based upon.--Ramdrake 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But other than the (apparently huge) issue that Bjork looks Asian, there's nothing wrong with the gallery? If we took out Bjork and added another Icelandic person (one which doesn't look Asian), we could put the gallery in without complaints? The only complaint about the gallery I've seen is that Bjork looks Asian. Is everyone else content with the sample gallery? --Piroteknix 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Björk looks Asian? Who says that she can't be included just because some odd people think that their personal opinion about what "looks white" (or "looks European" or looks like something that they think is the subject of this page, but can't actually define it) does not encompase the way Björk looks. The reason we don't have a gallery is because a gallery is a stupid idea, there is no accepted universal concept of what "white" is, and you'll never get any consensus about who to include. There's been argument at the English people article for an eternity about who should be included in the infobox picture. As soon as some notables are decided upon, someone raises an objection. Not only is the validity of the concept of "white" at issue, but the acceptance or rejection of any given individual is extremely difficult to get consensus on. We start to get arguments about there being no Germans, or no Armenians or no Israelis etc, untill you'll end up with a gallery of thousands of people, because every group of people with any claim to being "white" will demand representation. This is in addition to the fundamental dafftness of galleries as a concept in the first place. If you want as gallery, then go and play around with commons:White people. You can always put a link to it on the article page. Alun 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sigh
 I believe that the inclusion of Björk was deliberate, because she doesn't look stereotypically white, but my almost every formal definition that's ever been put forward seriously, she is. Beyond that, there has been so much hoo-hah over that gallery before, that it really isn't worth keeping. What does it add? Do we really believe it helps anyone understand the content of the article? By the way, take this as an objection. SamBC(talk) 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a picture or gallery helps. I don't see how it can't hurt. If anything, the inclusion of a picture that might not be considered white by the majority of people helps us understand what "white" can mean. If Bjork's ancestory is pure Icelandic (or at least not a mix of Asian and European), if she is genetically white, then she's the perfect example of what "white" can mean to people. If she's genetically white, she should definitely be included in the gallery to show how many phenotypes are included in "white." Other than Bjork looking a bit Asian, what other problems with a gallery are there? --Piroteknix 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources discussed here in recent weeks indicate problems with any idea of anyone being "genetically" white. In any case, including people that some people will look at and say "they aren't white!" is a recipe for edit wars. Can people really not understand what's being said without pictures? If they can, then it's better to avoid the edit wars and the bigot-bait. SamBC(talk) 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course a picture or gallery helps. I don't see how it can't hurt.
So Piroteknix, you are saying that it must hurt? How can anyone be "genetically white", surely it should be "biochemically white", i.e. lacking the biochemical ability to synthesize reasonable quantities of the pigment melanin? This is the whole problem isn't it, a gallery is always going to be a bad idea, there will never be a consensus about who should or should not be included. Alun 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Way to bring an irrelevant typo into the discussion. I meant it can not hurt the article, but if people argue “omg this guy is .03% Asian, he’s not white,” it’ll be a problem. If we want only pictures of people who are 100%, pure white by heritage and phenotypes, there wouldn’t a person we could use as an example, which also makes this article moot, or hypothetical at best. If there’s not a person in this world that would be, visually and by heritage, considered a “white person” by us on the talk page, there isn’t a person that falls into the category of “white person” in the article. --Piroteknix 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only person here who seems to think that the concept of "100% white" has any relevance or validity is you. No one can ever be 100% genetically "white", or to put it another way, we are all at least 30% banana. Alun 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any advantage of keeping the Bjork picture, with the hand on the face obscuring the features. The style of the photo seems to be deliberately ambiguous and androgynous through either a manipulation of makeup or effects of the camera etc. Perhaps we should seek another photo of the person or of another Icelander. --Kevin Murray 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd side with Alun on this, and I'd rather say we lose the entire gallery. It's just a giant edit-war here! sign, for all instances and purposes. And if one must keep the gallery, I'd say we should keep Björk's picture, as an example of how far the diversity of "white" people can go.--Ramdrake 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RD, I don't say take Bjork out, but that could be virtually anyone under that makeup and image manipulation. --Kevin Murray 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::: RD, I was a big proponent of the gallery a few months back. I still believe that it has potential value as expressed by Alun above, but the fight to keep it from becoming a popularity contest or POV tool is overwhelming. I'd like to see this included as a great demonstration of diversity, but am skeptical of the practicality. --Kevin Murray 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it's hard to prove that anyone is genetically white, right? Then the page about "white people" and "black people" are hypothetical: no one (or almost no one) falls into the category of "white" or "black." Someone is 98.5% European and 1.5% Asian and he or she isn’t considered a good candidate for a picture of a white person. You say Bjork (and other people of questionable or arguable white phenotypes) shouldn’t be in the gallery because it causes “hoo-hah.” This means anyone who isn’t 100% pure genetically white could be arguable, making the entire concept of a (pure) “white” person or “black” person moot. --Piroteknix 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is quite confused, but I'll try to answer what I think you mean. There is no such thing as "genetically white", there's no such thing as "98% white", there's no such thing as "50% white". White is a social construct, one is "white" if one is accepted as "white" by a community, one is not "white" if one is not accepted as "white" by a community or society, irrespective of that person's ancestry. It's not about biology, it's about culture and society. The only people here who claim that Björk is of "questionable" anything are those who cling to a "biological conception of whiteness", but there is no such thing. No person is ever "100% pure genetically" anything except perhaps 100% genetically themselves, we are all genetically unique after all. I have never said that Björk shouldn't be in the gallery, I think that a gallery is a stupid idea full stop, because it is irrelevant and can never be of any use, what will it illustrate? The only thing genetics has to do with "whiteness" is that people who have pale skin are incapable of producing melanin, if genetics is your definition of "white" then we should include all people who fail to produce a certain level of melanin as "white"? Is that what you are saying? I suppose this would therefore include quite a lot of Asians as "white" anyway though. It's the only genetic basis for "white" that I can think of. Alun 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of a gallery because no one is genetically, by heritage, pure, 100% white. The idea that Bjork shouldn't be in the gallery goes against the article. You're saying the gallery shouldn't be included because it doesn't contribute anything? It illustrates the diversity of people considered white by society. I mentioned pure whiteness because it's the only against Bjork. She’s from Iceland, so she would be considered white because of her heritage, and she is socially considered white because she’s Icelandic, so there only reason she shouldn’t be in is because someone thinks she looks Asian. --Piroteknix 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alun, I think Piroteknix here is trying very hard agree with you. :) To all, while I think a gallery might be good for illustrative purposes of the diversity of white people, I think we'll always run into situations like this. Now, the question is: do we want to put up with explaining why such objections as "they aren't white because" are pointless again and again, or jsut remove the gallery and spare ourselves the nonsensical debates? I put the question to you.--Ramdrake 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misspoke above. The gallery example here was deemed irrelevant to White people months ago, and if practical it is potentially relevant to European people. Alun is absolutely correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk ‱ contribs)

Ok, Piroteknix, I think we agree on this, I was misunderstanding your point of view. Conceptually the idea of having a broad range of people may be valid, though I'm unconvinced of the validity of a gallery personally. But I think there is a real problem with getting any sort of consensus about what "white" means vis a vis a gallery, and who is "representative". I still think the commons is the way to go. I also think that Kevin's idea that this is more appropriate to European people has a great deal of validity. Alun 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we use a broad enough range of people, we wouldn't need "representatives," we only need enough people to cover the characteristics mentioned in the article. We wouldn't need a picture of a person from every one country in which people are considered white, just enough to cover the basics. --Piroteknix 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Absolutely hilarious. You want to illustrate a concept on which barely two people can agree and then, surprise surprise, you disagree over whom you should use to illustrate it. "White" is an invention, not a real thing. It's oppositional to "black", which we had to invent because we homogenised people from many different cultures and ethnicities (by enslaving them). This, by the way, is nonsense: "I support the idea of a gallery because no one is genetically, by heritage, pure, 100% white." "White" is entirely descriptive, nothing to do with genetics, and the idea of being "pure" white is so disgusting that you'd think people would be ashamed to bandy it about. (Even allowing it as a concept is a bad thing.) Obviously not though. As I point out below, Osama bin Laden considers himself "white". So do Berbers. Let's have a picture of Zidane next to Björk's. B-b-but... yeah, I know. He doesn't look half pastyfaced enough for the "purist". The gallery is clearly intended as a metric for readers to be able to have a definitive source for the descriptive "white": you measure up your person against our gallery, and if they fit the stereotype we provide, they're "white". Nice one. Grace Note 05:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we absolutely disagree. Especially Alun saying "Ok, Piroteknix, I think we agree on this." I'm mulatto (50% black, 50% French-Canadian more or less, let’s not get into it), I’m not a “purist” who only wants pure, 100% Aryans on the page, disallowing anyone who is darker than this shade or that shade to be “white.” That’s the opposite of the point that would be made by the gallery. I mean "pure" in the sense that the person's father isn't from Kenya and his or her mother isn't from Thailand: the person obviously has descendants from Europe that would also be considered “white”. I’m half black and you're calling me a purist?! That’s ludicrous. I said we should have pictures to illustrate the variety of people that could be considered white because “white” has such a broad spectrum. A gallery would only be a fraction of the people considered white, but broad enough to show that you don’t have to have THIS skin tone to be white. It wouldn’t be the “White Chart” where, if a person fall between this color and that color, he or she can be white, but to hell with the rest of you. There is an article on “white people,” so there should, hypothetically, be at least one person who would fall under that category. If white is “invented,” and “not a real thing,” and the same for “black people,” why would we even have articles for them. That makes the articles, especially any physical definition of a person (“pale skin”), or any physical location of heritage (“of European ancestry”), an opinion by the writer(s), and these articles can never be considered NPOV. --Piroteknix 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a correction, I don't think that you have contributed to the homogenisation of any people. You were not in existence during those times. Muntuwandi 05:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another correction: computers and steam locomotives and atom bombs were all invented but they have Wikipedia articles. Just because something is invented does not mean we should not have an article on it. I would have thought this was obvious but Piroteknix seems to think that the opposite is the case and we need to be clear on this. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"White" isn't something you can hold in your hand like the other things. It was invented in the sense that it's a category to put people into, but everyone here seems to think there's no way to tell if someone is in this category or not. I agree, a general consensus about someone's skin tone shouldn't be the way to tell if someone is white, but if that's not the way, what is? If there isn't a surefire way to tell, and not everyone will agree that a person is white, can we not be sure that anyone actually falls into the category of white or black? --Piroteknix 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain: what most editors here argue about is that there isn't a single definition of "white" that everyone will agree with. While there are some people most will agree are "white", where each people draws the line between "white" and "non-white" (or "other than white") is actually quite subective, a definite matter of interpretation, and possibly the subject of hundreds of different definitions: are non-Europeans "white"? are non-Christians "white"? You may think the answer is obvious, but in the past, some editors here have answered both questions with a resounding "no". So, please forgive if some editors here react rather sensitively each time the question is potentially brought up. Personnally, I think there are some people you can definitely put in the category, but there are also a lot of people that others would disagree about if you tried to put them in a category, and unfortunately, we have all become rather sensitive to the issue here. Hope my explanation makes sense. I'm personnally an ethnic mix myself (although I do identify as French-Canadian culturally), so I guess the issue has resonance with me, has it does for many, many of us.--Ramdrake 00:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piroteknix writes, "everyone here seems to think there's no way to tell if someone is in this category or not." This is a red-herring. Editors never express their own views, only verifiable views expressing a notable point of view. I have said several times that once we have laid out the notable, verifiable views of who is white, we can add photos to illustrate. But our content policies apply to photos as much as they do to words. When we add photos they should illustrate all notable views, even conflicting ones. But our additions should illustrate the article and be guided by V, RS, and NPOV. As far as I am concerned all other issues are red-herrings. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about Wikipedia editors' opinions on whiteness, and until we can all resist the impulse to inject our own thoughts about whiteness into the article, talk of a picture gallery should be suspended. We have no business making up a gallery depicting white people if we don't have a reasonable source or sources that say what or whom such a gallery should depict. W.M. O'Quinlan 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even then, it would be white people according to such a source. Agreed.--Ramdrake 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people/Archive_18&oldid=1053492763"