Jump to content

Talk:White people/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Slavs, Germans, Romances, etc. categories in this article?

Someone added the article White people to the categories Baltic peoples Romance peoples, Germanic peoples, Semitic peoples and Slavs Wouldn't it be the opposite? Baltic peoples, Romance peoples, etc, would be INSIDE a category called White people, but not the white people in their categories...

White people is something that groups all these peoples inside it. But not the opposite!!

I think that White people should be removed from these categories.

Onofre Bouvila 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's so very correct. It may have been my mistake. I thought I was putting those categories INSIDE white people when I added them at the bottom of page. Sorry. I'll undo it tomorrow. Lukas19 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge genetic history to "Genetic history of Europe"

So, I'm proposing a merge of the genetic information off this page. Why?

  • It's lengthy, specialized and not central to most people's understanding of "white people" - Unlike even the appearance information, haplogroup membership is irrelevant in nearly all settings to the categorization of whether people are or are not white.
  • At least 174 million white people do not have their genetic history adequately covered, and cannot have it adequately covered without including the entire genetic history of Africans in the Americas and Native Americans. The number comes from adding 74 million White Americans of some African descent to 100 million White Brazilians, nearly all with some nonwhite ancestry. Considering other whites in the Americas would clearly mean more.
  • The haplogroup info perpetuates a category error - It imagines that "white people" forms a genetic category that is clearly inherited along with genes when it isn't (consider Colored people, African Americans etc. for noninheritance), and biological coherence attaches to the category (consider Mexican descendants of Spaniards whose status a white people changes when they enter the United States or Canada). In other words, haplogroup members aren't all white people.
  • Putting it a little stronger, one main purpose of the term white people, in say the United States or England, is to differentiate people from non-white people who may even be their own children (with a nonwhite partner).
  • Haplogroup info could theoretically be part of any social group page, but the reasons for including it are weak, especially if the category is much more recent or very different in scale than the relevant migrations (so Europe is a reasonable category, but Czechoslovakia or Naples almost certainly not). Since haplogroups are primarily used to study genetic and migratory history, it would be more relevant to reproduce the relevant historical information in the actual article and defer genetic details to an article about genetics.

I see two reasonable alternatives for the merger:

  • The genetic section could be eliminated. - This would most clearly reflect the category error concern above, but would eliminate interesting information, and is unlikely to produce consensus among editors.
  • The opening paragaphs could stay and change and a quick genetic/migratory history summary added with reference to Genetic history of Europe.

--Carwil 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Re-proposed and copied to Talk:Genetic history of Europe. Please continue discussion on Talk:White people#Merge genetic history to "Genetic history of Europe".--Carwil 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. The genetic section does not perpetuate anything. Haplogroups just show how Europeans and other "whites" share lineages with Asians, Africans, etc. Ancestry has always been important in the concept of race. Genetics show a very different story from the one that has been assumed for a very long time. Lineage has always been a fundamental concept to races and to being white or whatever. Lineages are scientifically proven by Haplogroups. In any case the Mitocondrial DNA should be extended. Right now it is misleading. Mitocondrial DNA shows even better how Europeans are related to other peoples. It is one of the most important parts of the article. This is not about creating a fallacy about the white race. It is about analysing whether a social concept has solid scientific value. Genetics shows that the "white" race or any other is very different in fact from what it was assumed and from what many people still want other people to believe. And please, just a reminder, this is not about White American people, or about White people according to the Americans. For that there is the article White American.

Again, American bias is one of the most serious problems of Wiki. One example again is the question of the white Mexican. A "white" Mexican is a "white" Mexican. Nationality or culture is not "race". Even the US census leaves it clear. Only very ignorant people or some equally ignorant extreme white supremacists in the US or people with similar approaches can say that a "white" Mexican, Peruvian or Argentinian is not white while a "white" American is white. Again, following that line of reasoning we could say that "white" Americans are not considered white, because some Nazi organizations say that they are half-Jews. It surprises me constantly how some people think that this article is supposed to be written according to spurious and extremist views. No one in the rest of the world is interested in the "white" fantasies of "some" Americans, who think that they are the only "whites". By the way, in Spain Americans in general have never been regarded as very "white" by some people, for the simple reason that Spain was the European colonial power and the American areas the colonies. In the case of the US most of the country, by the way, a fact that some Americans seem to ignore: Just see New Spain. Still you can hear people say in Spain that Americans just have feathers in their heads, when they make decisions like going to war against Irak. Besides, "white" Americans just make a tiny fraction of the population of the world that is defined globally as white, so enough is enough with these continuous attempts to try and impose sectarian radical views of "some" Americans, especially when these Americans are so educated that they think that a "white" Mexican is not "white" because he is Mexican but a "white" American is white because he is American or that Spain is somewhere between Mexico and Guatemala. An encyclopeadia is not the place to spread American or any other type of ignorance.

In short, we are speaking about "white people" as a racial classification. Today genetics has a lot of information about "white people" and it must be shown. Anyway I would agree with the following:

1. Just a few sentences stating something like:

Genetic research has demonstrated that Europeans and other peoples traditionally considered white share the same lineages (ancestry) with other populations from Asia or Africa and that no discrete boundary can be established between "white people" and other races. As the population geneticist Cavalli-Sforza has stated, from a genetic point of view we can speak of population groups, but not races, and these population groups cut across all the traditional races.


Well something like that or just the introduction as it is. Then we could merge it as said and just leave a link to the Genetic History of Europe article. But I am afraid that "some" users here would start reverting such statements. In that case, I vote for the section to stay as it is now. I prefer much more a scientific approach than a bunch of Nazi-Nordicist rants about the white race, which is what has been happening with this page very often.

Anyway, it surprises me that the genetic section is again the issue, and not the Physical section, where people seem only interested in speaking about blond and red heads, while the immense majority of people who are defined as white have dark hair. Very interesting again. Veritas et Severitas 03:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

your right in the issue of blondes and redheads, the vast majority of white people have dark hair and dark eyes. Even if blondism or red hear is exclusive to whites (which it isnt as the north african berbers can be frequently blonde or red haired aswell as austrlian aboriginies and indian ocean islanders).

Perhaps the photos should show a group of white people as opposed to just one person, just one photo only showing people with white skin from all over the globe. That seems less nationilistic to me anyway. --Globe01 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge. I agree that most of the genetics content should be moved to Genetic history of Europe, because that's what the whole section is about; the genetics of Europeans. The content could also go into other articles related to genetics. As has been pointed out many times, whiteness is largely a social designation based how people are percieved by others; not a scientific designation based on genetic tests. Spylab 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And as I have said several times, a lot of people try to infer from that sociological perception that "whites" are a race. Veritas et Severitas 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1)Genetics and white people are relevant concepts as proven by the Risch study. Whether or not that this is central is your subjective opinion. There is a relationship and hence it is relevant and hence it should be summarized here, with the main article being genetic history of europe.
2)Where did you reach 74 million for Americans? 30% that is cited in the article? That 30% is only for college students in a certain area of USA. Not reliable. And less than 90% is vague. What if 90% of that 30% have 89% European ancestry? Please do not waste time with insufficent data.
3)This is a Non sequitur. It forms a genetic category only for people with PREDOMINANTLY European ancestry. Lukas19 10:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Lukas, it doesn't. The haplogroups in question are based on inheritance of Y chromosones or egg-born mitochondria. They include all the male lines of, for example, African American slaves sired by European slaveowners of the relevant groups. These populations are in no way in alignment with the designation "white people."
Haplogroups is just part of the picture, not the whole thing. Lukas19 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Per 1, I can compromise on some reference, but the bulk of the detail here is excessive and fails to include the numerous haplogroups introduced into the population of "white people" by non-European ancestors. As it happens, most genetic studies focus on individuals who believe they have geographically homogenous origins, so there's not a lot of data, certainly not enough to conclude that "white" haplogroups are all the same as European ones. (Incidentally, Risch et al. specifically recruited by race, introducing a selection bias along these lines as well.) The 74 million figure is from the same cite, backintyme.com or something, you've used here. --Carwil 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Genetic studies are done on self identified race. So it's normal that they will "focus on individuals who believe they have geographically homogenous origins"
Again the bulk of detail here is not excessive as it is all a summary of MtDNA and YDNA. Genetic history of Europe still has lots of room for improvement.
I think we have established backintyme.com is not reliable, since I had to find a new source.

Lukas19 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citations

My sociological citations from credible sources were removed and they should be put back in. I had reputable sources that said the Jews weren't considered as White Americans until recently, but Veritas et Severitas removed them. Veritas' fallacious appeal to pity argument was that they were obviously white given the tribulations they have gone through(this happened along time ago on in the article). By removing the cited statements, Veritas violated Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. These sources came from credible sociologists. They claimed that historically Europeans defined themself as white and Christian often discriminating against Jews. Additionally, the KKK historically terrorized Jews. Sociologist David Sidorsky attests to the fact that they were not considered white in the 1900s. Even as late as the 1980s, Jewish Americans reported significant discrimination according to sociologist Joe R. Feagin. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability and citations, so the citations Veritas removed should be added back.--DarkTea 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All reasonable points. futurebird 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


In the first place, you mean in the US. Dark, I hope that you understand that that this is not a US article. For the 100th time, there is an article called white American for that purpose. Still, that Jews were once not considered white in the US is already in the article, look well.

In the second place, you and others, apart from saying that Hitler would be a good example for the pictures or that Stormfornters would be good contributors here, have been insiting on calling Jews and others marginal whites or simply non-Whites, right now, which is very different from what you say. Needless to mention your continuous insitence on introducing March fo the Titans, as a reliable link and source, a " Nazi propaganda book" that states that all civilizations were Nordic, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and a long etc. and that all civilizations went down due to racial miscigenation and that that is going to happen again with "white" countries. The book would be funny if it was not for the hedious agenda behind. Some people here think that freedon of expession allows for everything. Well, I do not. Rape is a crime, it is not an ideology. Your positions and those of others are a crime, not just an ideology. As usual, you continue manipulating information and fooling people who have just met you hiding behind the face that you are Japanese. Even if you were, so what? It would be just exotic to see a person of Japanese ancestry insisting on those views. Still, the trick is very old. Veritas et Severitas 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC

This is not true Veritas et Severitas. The book doesn't say that all civilizations were Nordic. Certainly there were pure American Indian civilizations although some had people with light colored hair. The book says society models its art after its inhabitants. With the numerous non-white-looking art that it presents as examples, I think you should take a greater perusal over its contents here. white people.--DarkTea 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the goal here is to make the point that racism has affected many people and the point that definitions of race are not rigid. That's why I support including this information about Jewish people. futurebird 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead then, but watch out because some people here seem to have some strange obsessions with Jews. Veritas et Severitas 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that from that link you posted! futurebird 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

More about Stormfront

Some comments have been made in my personal page and they should be public. Here they are:

I feel it would create a better article if all the Stormfronters were to come here and work on it. Remember, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks states that users' affiliations are irrelelant to their contributions and should never be used to dismiss their views. It further notes to comment on article content and not the character of other Wikipedian users.---DarkTea 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Check yourself what Stormfront is all about: www.stormfront.org/forum/


In other words, according to Dar T, the members of the most Nazi website in internet should come here to work on this article. The more the better.

These people are pulling our legs, the Administrators legs and Wikipedia's legs.

Veritas et Severitas 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are south Asian, not white. Jews don't consider themselves white and Nancy Pelosi is of Jewish origin raising her kids to be Jews.

For a complete history of the white race go to white history.com I suggest you put white history.com into the related links on the white people page too.-unsigned

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the white power movement, so should not publish your racist opinions as fact. Nor should it link to the racist propaganda site that you recommended. That link goes to March of the Titans, which has been discredited on this talk page. Spylab 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The author was dismissed based on his personal involvement in racialist politics, but the book found here: white people or here:[www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/ white people] itself was never refuted.--DarkTea 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The book itself has, in fact, been discredited. Please scroll up to read the discussion. Anyone who clicks on those links can see that it is racist propaganda, pure and simple. Spylab 11:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm not a Stormfronter or a member of the white power movement in any way. However, I'm curious now. Is Nancy Pelosi Jewish? Whether she is or isn't, is it important to distinguish between ethnic jews and religious jews in this context? Perhaps it would be better to avoid questions like these by selecting a different white politician to feature? Everwill 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The photos should show various types of people who are considered white by a significant number of people. I'm not sure if Nancy Pelosi is Jewish, and her Wikipedia article doesn't say. However, even if she is Jewish, that doesn't disqualify her from being considered white. Spylab 11:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Unsourced Text

Please remove, "The word white is not used in the sense of the color, but was first used in comparison to darker shades of skin tone."

And

"The term white is a misnomer. Most white people are a shade of brown, or pinkish or reddish in tone, but only albinos approach the actual color of white." in the Light Skin section. They are not written from NPOV and they do not conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Noone outside the already involved editors are commenting on RfC. Lukas19 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not carried out for now. Can you explain why they are not written from a neutral point of view? Additionally, I note from the above threads that this change is not one that would necessarily have a broad consensus behind it. Proto::► 15:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You need a consensus to delete unsourced statements? They are not written from NPOV because their criteria for description is not consistent. For ex, they exclude "colour" white because it is not a "literal" description but they include color brown despite the fact that it is not a "literal" description neither. And not only albinos actually approach "the actual color" of white. Many people, especially red heads are just as pale. And the actual color of white would be the hue of white light. "The term white is a misnomer" may be correct but white as a colour is a misnomer too, since white is not a colour. So why do people identify only certain misnomers? Lukas19 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentences seem reasonable to me. I'd like to see if other editors on this page support the request. Proto::► 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."
And what seems reasonable to you is incorrect anyways. Lukas19 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This little bit of trivia has been annoying me, so I finally had to respond to it. Lukas states that white is not a color. I'm assuming he's basing this on the claim that white light is composed of multiple wavelengths of light rather than just one. However, what we normally call 'blue', 'green', 'orange', etc. are also composed of multiple wavelengths. Blue light, for example, ranges from 450-495nm. So, if it is true that white is not a color because it is composed of multiple wavelengths, then it is true that every other color we see in everyday life isn't a color either. Of course, this isn't even getting into the issue of colors like brown which are composed of a lot more wavelengths.-Psychohistorian 12:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I've said. Read previous sections. Lukas19 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is racist

Why is their big stars from hollywood and so in the "white people" article. and then " a kenyan man" in the "black people" article in the top???? this is soooooo racist and its also so wrong to devide people into Black and White its like in the 40s or something.This page realy frightens me. i think we need to discuss putting this page into deletion or a totall re write. /matrix17

If you dont like it, go to black people page and put Denzel Washington instead of the Kenyan man...Lukas19 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
... or Bryant Gumbel or Mariah Carrey or Michael Jackson ... or ... then again, why use celebrities at all if the article is not about celebrities, *regardless* of which article. If this were an article on anatomy, would it be necessary to depict the chin of Jackie Chan? the uvula of Uma Thurman? the spleen of Selena? the colon of Colin Powell? the sternum of Stalin? the optic nerve of Optimus Prime? *smirk* Hhmmm ... hey wait, that sounds good! I've always wondered what a famous uvula looks like! dr.ef.tymac 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't make sense anonymous poster. You consider the exemplarary pictures to be "racist" which would logically mean they should get changed, but you conclude this article should be deleted. Not all things related to white people are racist, so detractors should stop making that tired argument against this article. None of the other races get that argument flung against them. It is sad that whites are stereotyped as being racist, so their racial article must periodically defend the allegation that its existance is racist.--DarkTea 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive erased dark teas racist crap, frankly I see him more as an advertiser to neo-nazi websites then a positive contributor to wiki. EvilPropagandaMan (still learning to write stuff but I think I did the right thing by erasing advertisments)--—Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilPropogandaMan (talk • contribs)

Proposed addition to the history section

At the end of the history section, I think a sentence or two needs to address the way white is used currently. It would complete the section if something were added such as, "Today, the term white is primarily conceived as a synonym for the indigenous European people and their diasporic populations in English-speaking countries although its application may be less used to describe darker-colored European people. Other peoples who are not seen as indigenous Europeans such as ethnic Jews and Roma are frequently not included in stricter definitions used by white nationalists."--DarkTea 08:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why you would think uncited racist opinions belong in the History section. That has nothing to do with history, and isn't encyclopedic at all. Spylab 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If I could cite such a statement would that be okay in your book?--DarkTea 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no "primary conception" in a worldwide sense that would conform to concerns about WP:CSB. Each of the regional sections go extensively into who among the European diaspora is and is not categorized as white according to local norms.--Carwil 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean the way the word is used currently by your beloved uncle, right? Give us a break and go elsewhere with your propaganda and with your Jewish obsessions or other types of obsessions. We all know who you are. The part about English-speaking countries is especially funny, by the way, but we are not here to waste our time with you anymore. Go to the Nazi website that you always like to introduce here so much, you will get a much better audience there. What do you think, that white nationalist (a bunch of laughable and border-line (sorry this may be an insult for border-line people) Neo-Nazis are the ones who define terms in an encyclopeadia? Anyway, you seem to be very selective about what Neo-Nazi groups think. Here you have again what some think about those white Americans of the English-speaking world. I introduce it again because your memory seems very weak:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/category/business-industry/


If you cannot open it, I have cut and posted this part:

U.S. is definitely Judeo-Saxon in every sense: culturally, socially, and morally. The old-money W.A.S.P.s and Ashkenazi Jews are also increasingly intermarrying one another, so within a few generations, distinctions may be further blurred than at present.

As the great German intellectual Werner Sombart said: “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism.”

See also here what these moronic racists that you like to mention so often think of Anglo-Saxons in general: Anglos = Jews: and of course they regard Jews as a different, evil race.

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/09/03/anglo-saxons-as-the-worlds-chief-plunderers/#more-1353

Again if you are lazy I cut and pasted this part:

"Dr. Joseph Goebbels used to like to describe the English as Europe’s Jews".

But read it yourself, there is plenty of interesting and academic information, according to your own criteria.

You can also check what "some" Europeans think about Americans in Anti-Americanism.

If you are too lazy to read I will help you cutting and pasting:

Racialism

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the racialist theories of Arthur de Gobineau and others spread through Europe. The presence of blacks and "lower quality" immigrant groups made racialist thinkers discount the potential of the United States. The infinite mixing of America would lead to the ultimate degeneracy. Gobineau said that America was creating "greatest mediocrity in all fields: mediocrity of physical strength, mediocrity of beauty, mediocrity of intellectual capacities - we could almost say nothingness."

More about Anti-Americanism and analogies with Jews:

Cut and pasted from here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7444

"Americans: The Jews of the World"

And more about the same here:

http://www.adl.org/Terror/terrorism_attacks.asp


There you have again your white nationalists and idiotic extremists and some other idiots belonging to the same ideological branch that you have been insisting on introducing here for months and other cheap hatemongers.(Oops, I forgot, these ones you do not like to mention!) So, stop introducing crap here because the crap belongs anywhere else but certainly not here. It is incredible how as a American you ignore how much prejudice and bias there is out there against Americans themselves while you insist on introducing Neo-Nazi positions and websites. Do you live in a bubble? Veritas et Severitas 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

1. Look again at our friends Lukas and Dark T. What a good argument!: The order of the pictures according to "latitude", not alphabetical. My god! What kind of people we have here!. Watch out again, they will not rest. Their mission is clearly important.

2. Lukas is constantly deleting the version about skin color that was agreed upon here.

Veritas et Severitas 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to align pics according to last names. As a 1/4 Finn, I'm not offended that Räikkönen's pic is below others'. Lukas19 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do it yourself. And put back yourself the definition of white people skin that was agreep upon. Veritas.

Read previous sections. If you want to rant, go elsewhere. Lukas19 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


There is a version that was agreed upon here. This article was locked until that agreement was achieved. You unilaterally keep deleting what was agreed upon by the majority of voters. There is nothing else to read. The rest is the usual sophistry of people of your ilk. Other people who have participated have seen it by themselves. Veritas et Severitas 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. You can not violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV just by "voting". Lukas19 07:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is just what you dictate. Veritas et Severitas 15:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Pictures

They are now by alphabetical order according to first family name: Fox, Kidman, Pelosi and Raik.Veritas et Severitas 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The most sensible arrangement is by latitude, because it adds another layer of information to the pictures. If this were an article about alphabetical categorization or categorization in general, then it may be most suitable to arrange the pictures by their surnames, but this is an article about white people. In an intuitive sense, the term "white people" is a description of the peoples whose coloration resembles white due to lack of pigment. This physical characteristic manifests itself most strongly as one travels farther north of the Equator, corresponding directly with ancestral geographic latitude. A cartegraphical and physical sense of white people is added by arranging the pictures by latitude whereas alphabetical categorization provides no additional information pertinent to this topic.--DarkTea 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop it and give us a break. Northern Europeans are lighter, but not whiter. Stop your propaganda and obsessions here. In fact they also tend to look much more reddish and pinkish, an observation any kid can make, whatever you say, in spite of your pathetic and infantile arguments about the literal usage of "white" when it suits you but then deny it when it does not suit you. Besides, Kidman is from Australia, in the extreme South of the planet. There are Sub-saharan Africans, in Africa, from different countries, that are darker than others, or less dark than others, it does do make them more of anything, the same applies to Asians. We have been already through that. What will you next attempt be, to say that some Asians are also more Asian because the are lighter or darker. Come on, your continuous insistence on taking us for idiots are too much. Let us not start again with genetics to see who is "whiter". In fact genetics does not make anyone whiter either, as does not make anyone whiter if they look like an albino, pinkish, reddish or whatever. The fact that we did not pay attention to you when you proposed Hitler for the pictures does not mean that you must be interfering with them all the time. Veritas et Severitas 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kidman's not from Australia, she's from Europe. If she were from Australia she'd be an Australian aboriginal Removeor

This and the black people article is racist

I think both the "black people" article and this one is just sooo racist and quite unnecessary to have. to define blacks and whites as races is not good. I dont se my friend as my "black friend" i see her as my friend. i don see my other friend as my "white friend also as just a friend.. but well if wikipedia thinks people should be diveded into categories just because of their skinncolour then do that but i think its soooo wrong.. i also think its so werong to have celebrities on the page about whites and then have a "kenyan man" in the black people section, like a kenyan man represent all black people in the world. you all cna debate this as mutch as you like but in the end it still racist... /matrix17

Well, you're just (Personal attack removed). Encyclopedia articles are about facts, not (Personal attack removed) people's opinions.

I either had a stroke, or my eyes rolled into the back of my head (could be both in all fairness). How is simply acknowledging a biological variation, racist? You seem to assume that by acknowledging a difference, prejudices must neccesarily come with the acknowledgment. Should we delete the article on females or Judaism, or maybe, in the interest of politcal correctness, the article on specification? God forbid we point out the biological difference there! Of course saying, "'em uppity niggers" or "dam' Crackers!" would be completely racist, but living in a gumdrop land inhabited by gingerbread men who sail chocolate streams in gingersnap boats while fishing for jelly beans with liquorice whips, is irrelevant to any real, scholarly article. -THobern-80.199.157.175 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

It is OR to use those pictures as examples of white people unless reliable sources explicitly indicate that the pictured people are indeed white. The Behnam 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nordic man is the most exemplary specimen of the white race who passes all definitions of white. As early as 1914, Madison Grant considered the Nordic to be the "white man par excellence".The Passing of the Great Race Modern anthropologist Arthur Kemp also realizes that the Nordic has retained racial purity over the Southern European who has miscegenated with the Arabic stock.white people Even dictionary definitions claim that a white person is a light colored person.dictionary definition of white The Nordic people as a whole are the lightest people on the planet.skin color charts Today, Hispanics in the US and Southern Europeans in Australia are not seen as white people, but Nordics are always seen as white people. Every conception of white people agrees that the Nordic is white. The Spaniard and the Italian cannot stand up to such test; they are the questionable ones.--DarkTea 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, you still can't put things together like that. Just because so-and-so says Nordic peoples are "exemplary" whites, and you believe these people to be Nordics, doesn't mean you can advance (on WP) that these people are whites. The source itself must say that those people are whites. The Behnam 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that I would have to verify that he was a real Nordic by citation? If I understand your argument correctly, then there can't be any exemplary pictures classified by a Wikipedian; they would have to be classified by an outside source. If it really comes down to a strict citation, I feel we would have to include Arthur Kemp's Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean grayscale pictures found here.white people--DarkTea 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I suppose it is obvious. I have now added pictures of other whites to span a greater latitude range. The Behnam 07:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Halle Berry

Why her? Why not use a picture of someone who actually calls herself white? Berry doesn't. SamEV 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Pics are not there to include people who wouldnt be considered white by most, maybe all whites. Only people who'd be accepted as white by everyone should be included in the pics since there are only four pics...Lukas19 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Lukas, 1) how do you explain the arrangement of the pics? You claim they're arranged by latitude, but I have to ask: do you know any geography? 2) Why do you keep reverting when we fix the pic order in light of what you wrote Veritas ("Feel free to align pics according to last names. As a 1/4 Finn, I'm not offended that Räikkönen's pic is below others'")? Were you lying? SamEV 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you LSLM's new version? Read my discussion with Carwil, that's why I'm reverting, not because of the pics...Lukas19 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

More Whites

I added two more pictures of white people do cover more latitude. I was thinking about adding an Iranian but I had trouble deciding which Iranian to add. The Behnam 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Pics are not there to include people who wouldnt be considered white by most, maybe all whites. Only people who'd be accepted as white by everyone should be included in the pics since there are only four pics...Lukas19 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) That's actually 6 now but same point. King Abdullah may even be called black in Norway, if people bothers to think about it...Lukas19 08:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Creepily enough, Netanyahu's picture was removed before Abdullah's, even though he has visible Lithuanian ancestry. I think they should both stay; Norway isn't the world. The Finnish guy looks Turkic, but he should stay along with Netanyahu & Abdullah, since he is white. Both are whiter than Fox (latitude again?) in any case; I don't think we should go with old-fashioned "Europeans-only" or even worse, the Nazi "Nordics are purest" ideologies in making decisions. The Behnam 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Kimi is the epitome of Turkic looks, in a parallel universe where pigs fly and there are no trolls on Wiki. You wouldnt have fooled me even if I hadnt been in Turkey. Norway isnt the world, but same opinions would probably hold for all of Northern Europe. We are going by the OED definition and numerous sources in the article which say whites usually mean europeans. There are other sources which object to this but all sources agree that Europeans are whites while not all sources agree if Mid Easterns are white or not. Lukas19 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get this dictator-like attitude in enforcing 'Nordic' definitions of white people? You don't set the definitions, and neither do those racist sources like white-history.com. Your current selection is very odd, ignoring that people considered some people considered 'white' outside of Norway. Apparently people in Norway consider Abdullah black, thanks for informing of this fact about the Norwegian view of the world. If this is about whiteness, either Netanyahu or Abdullah should have Fox's place; they appear to be whiter than him. I don't know what, if anything, you have against Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs, but they are clearly white. The Finnish guy's eyes look a little Turkic, and the language seems similar. They could be related! Perhaps they are of the same race, which while having white skin, doesn't manage to be called "white," sort of like your treatment of Netanyahu and Abdullah. I will replace the Finnish guy with Netanyahu. Don't feel too bad, Netanyahu is of part-Lithuanian ancestry, and it shows. That country is relatively near Finland, so you should be happy. I will look into who should be replaced to accommodate for the King of Saudi Arabia. Cheers The Behnam 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Adding Pelosi and Queseda is hardly 'Nordic' definitions of white people. I suggest you to look at dictionary for Nordic. And Oxford English dictionary is not under white-history.com, in our universe that we live in which you seem to be so stranger of...Lukas19 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to ask you: is Netanyahu brown or black? I think you have hinted that you'd classify Abdullah as black (or at least Norwegians would). That makes me wonder what world you live in. He ain't black, just look at him! But what was your stamp for Netanyahu?? He looks white, has a number of ancestors from Lithuania, which is very close to Norway; heck, that is where an archaic Indo-European tongue is spoken! So please, clear these things up, there is no reason to go by your unjustified inclusion scheme at this point and ignore other white groups. The Behnam 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I really dont care what Netanyahu is. But the pictures were there to portray diversity. One blond, one red, one brown and one dark brown haired people. 1 sportsperson, 1 actress, 2 politicians. 2 male and 2 female. Lukas19 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Kidman is German right? Fox is German. Too many Germans. For diversity, let's replace politician Fox with politician Abdullah. The Behnam 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently is Middle English, so Germanic. Too many Germanic. Abdullah for Germanic Fox. The Behnam 08:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want to include non-white people in this article? Lukas19 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
They are white, how aren't they? Do you think this is restricted only to Indo-European or something? I don't get it. I have to sleep now, but I apologize for the 'Nordic' stuff and white-history.com. I confused you with DarkTea for awhile. We can work on this later, thanks for discussing the changes. The Behnam 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The concept of white people is not inherently racist. If we cannot assign Abdulah to either a "black" or a "brown" category, he certainly does not default as a white person. People who have been identified as "brown" or "black" have been identified such colors for different reasons than "white" people. Everyone doesn't have to have a color ascribed to them. Also, speaking an Indo-European language does not make a person white although most whites speak an Indo-European language. For example, blacks also speak English which is from the Indo-European language family. Your fallacious argument from ignorance is that he is white because we cannot prove that he is not white. The burden of proof is on the asserter to prove that he is white. Additionally, do not frame this discussion as a division between racists and anti-racists. You said, " I don't know what, if anything, you have against Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs". Those groups are not commonly considered whites, but it doesn't mean the user who cites a source that claims this is "against" those peoples. I do not know if you sincerely believe the King of Saudi Arabia is a fitting example to use in the introduction to the white people article. If you are only attaching his image to this article to counter the racism you believe is inherent in white peoples' identity, then please do not disrupt this article to prove a point.--DarkTea 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It is refreshing that you admit that you cannot prove he is not white, but I say he is white because of his skin color (light-colored skin) and his classification as white in certain countries. While Turkic/Mongol type people can have very light skin, their other physical traits place them in a different racial category. There is no such similar division for Arabs and Ashkenazi Jews aside from the old-time racist 'Aryans vs. Semites' dichotomy which no longer has any credibility outside of white supremacist circles. Yes, the King of Saudi Arabia is white, though there are definitely some Arabs who are very dark and probably wouldn't classify as white. He isn't one of them. Also, Ashkenazi Jews are definitely white people, in addition to being Jews, so Netanyahu ought to stay as part of the 'diversity of whites' initiative. Now, how about adding Abdullah in place of Fox since there is already a Germanic white (Kidman)? The Behnam 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Your "country" source is only one. The 2000 US Census says he is white. He is of light skin, but so are Mongol Turks. The 2000 US Census would also classify them as white based on their "original origins...[from] the Middle East". The 2000 US Census gives "original origins" a racial value, but does not require certain physical characteristics. The other countries in their official definition would exclude him as well as their populace's common perception. I am not saying that the minority point of view should not get mentioned in its alloted US section, but this does not mandate Abdulla's picture in the introduction. That space is reserved for the exemplary photos of unanimously agreed upon whites, since there is only room for a couple pictures. To the second picture suggestion, I agree I have only heard the conspiracy theories from white supremacists and nationalists, but they still constitute a large enough population to make a picture of him in the introduction a poor choice.--DarkTea 23:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll look around about the Arab matter, but Netanyahu is fine. I don't know which nation's nationalists you are talking about, but I don't think that, taking a wider perspective, Netanyahu would be anything other than a white Jew. For now, I think it best to keep Netanyahu. As for Abdullah, I'm not sure what race he is instead of white. He is definitely not Mongol-type, he has light skin, is considered white in at least one major country. Someone said that a Norwegian would consider him black but that just absurd (again lacking characteristics). As far as I can tell, under modern, mainstream basic race classification he is white. I'll keep him out for now, though we still could use some more variety instead of two Germanics (maybe an Iranian?). Netanyahu would also be a problem were he not Ashkenazi. I think it is important to show a diverse selection of whites rather than simply those you consider "exemplary." Anyway, thanks for consideration & discussion. The Behnam 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want any pictures, that solves the problem too. I guess the entire process of selecting which pictures to use is much too arbitrary, so lets just not have pictures for now. The Behnam 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"White" is, to a large degree, a social construct. Whether or not Ashkenazi Jews (or Sephardi Jews for that matter) are "white" cannot be decided by any scientific means. You certainly shouldn't put any pictures in the article of people who are "white" unless reliable sources say they are white, and I'd avoid it all together with living people regardless of what the sources say. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Latitude

Apparently the picture ordering goes by latitude. I figure this is determined either by their residence, their birthplace, or their ancestral land.

  • I did not order by residence because that can change easily.
  • I did not choose ancestral land because it is hard to determine for most people (non-royalty) without relying upon stereotypes, speculation, last names alone, pseudoscience, etc. Also, who sets the time frame? Netanyahu for example, has ancestral land of Lithuania, but also much further back in the Middle East. And if you go back far enough, according to mainstream scholarship, everyone will end up in somewhere in Africa, so the 'ancestral land' approach does not cut it.
  • I chose birthplace because it is constant and knowable.

Just giving y'all a heads up. The Behnam 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Ordering photos by latitude is ridiculous and has no precedent on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. They should be ordered alphabetically, like pretty much everything on Wikipedia (when there isn't an obvious other method for ordering) Spylab 14:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The stated purpose of the latitude option was to provide an additional layer of information. This additional layer would not be provided by current latitude, since the reduction in Melanin does not occur in a single generation. It is the result of multi-generational adaptation. The depigmentation associated with whites scales as one travels farther north in Europe. The whole point of the latitude set up was to illustrate this correlation, providing the reader with additional information.--DarkTea 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • More like an additional layer of nonsense. The idea of ordering photos by latitude is ridiculous and has no precedent on Wikipedia. It offers nothing useful. Spylab 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Where in Wikipedia policy is there this precedence rule?--DarkTea 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Physical traits

Lukas has reverted the following three times, but I'm offering one more chance to explain the edits without invoking the WP:3RR and requesting protection. The offer is especially warranted since I mis-edited it in the last round, replacing it with text from below the subhead.

Old text:

Although there is no single universal definition of whiteness, some traits that are associated with Europeans are associated with whites. Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. According to anthropologist Peter Frost,

Most humans have only one hair color and one eye color. Europeans are a big exception: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green. This diversity reaches a maximum in an area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe.[1]

According to Frost, "Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection." Summarizing research in the field, in the Annual Review of Anthropology, Nina Jablonski notes

The MC1R locus is characterized by high levels of polymorphism in light-skinned individuals outside of Africa and lower levels of variation in dark-skinned individuals within Africa (John et al. 2003, Rana et al. 1999). This is opposite the pattern observed in most other loci, where Africans are most polymorphic (Shriver et al. 1997).[2]

Jablonski attributes the narrow range of traits among African populations to functional problems of lighter skin, such as reduced tanning ability, and high risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer.[2] In contrast, Frost attributes these differences to sexual selection for color traits and color polymorphisms under a male shortage among European hunter-gatherers which "would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation."[3]

My text:

Although there is no single universal definition of whiteness, some traits that are associated with Europeans are associated with whites. Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. According to anthropologist Peter Frost,

Europeans are a big exception [in population diversity of hair and eye color]: their hair is black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red; their eyes are brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green. This diversity reaches a maximum in an area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe.[4]

According to Frost, "The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection." Summarizing research in the field, in the Annual Review of Anthropology, Nina Jablonski notes

The MC1R locus is characterized by high levels of polymorphism in light-skinned individuals outside of Africa and lower levels of variation in dark-skinned individuals within Africa (John et al. 2003, Rana et al. 1999). This is opposite the pattern observed in most other loci, where Africans are most polymorphic (Shriver et al. 1997).[2]

Jablonski attributes the narrow range of traits among African populations to functional problems of lighter skin, such as reduced tanning ability, and high risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer.[2] Likewise, Tony Frudakis et al. note that, "genetic determinants for pigmentation in the various tissues [(skin, eyes, hair)] are distinct and that these determinants have been subject to a common set of systematic and evolutionary forces that have shaped their distribution in world populations."[5] In contrast, Frost attributes these differences to sexual selection for color traits and color polymorphisms under a male shortage among European hunter-gatherers which "would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation."[6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carwil (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Why did you delete this: "Europeans have lighter skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth and the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only in people who are native to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas. [7]" ? Lukas19 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That sentence is not factually accurate and http://www.backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm does not seem to be a reliable source. To be more specific, not all Europeans have lighter skin than other groups of people. for examples, some Europeans have darker skin than Asians. I'm actually surprised I'd have to point that out. As for the claim that the lightest people are from "600 miles of the Baltic and North seas," I'd be more likely to believe it if it came from a mainstream source such as an academic journal or a university instead of an essay on an amateurish website. Spylab 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's written by Frank W. Sweet, [1]. And I dont think any Europeans have darker skin than some Asians, naturally (i.e: without any tan, etc..) See: [2]. I guess Ainu is the native Japaneese with lightest skin among Asians and they are even darker than Turks in reflectance spectrophotometer. The exact hues are also different. See melanocytes: [3] I'll try to find a better source later tho...Lukas19 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I looked up his info and he is a historian, not necessarily a reliable expert on race. There are, in fact some European people with darker skin than some Asian people, tan or no tan. I have seen it with my own eyes, and I'm sure there are plenty of photos out there that could disprove the inaccurate generalization that all Europeans have the lightest skin on earth. I clicked on the Understanding Race link you provided and am not sure what you wanted me to look at. I clicked on the Skin Color PDF and didn't see any information about who created that document. Spylab 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In Understanding Race, "I guess Ainu is the native Japaneese with lightest skin among Asians and they are even darker than Turks in reflectance spectrophotometer"...Lukas19 05:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In [4], look at page 19. There is a table of skin reflectance (higher numbers indicate lighter skin):
  • Netherlands:67.37-lightest
  • Spain(Basques):65.70
  • Spain(Leon):64.66
  • (All values above 60 are European and Kurds. And all Europeans are lighter than Kurds.)
  • China(southern):59.17-lightest among Asians.
  • Turkey:59.15
  • Japan(Hidaka):59.10
  • Israel:58.20
So hopefully this will stop people writing their anectodal "evidences". Lukas19 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The American Anthropological Association's educational site on race, features The Human Spectrum, which if you page through shows that Ainu and Turks, despite having slightly darker mean values, overlap in reflectance levels with British populations (though not Dutch and Belgian populations). A further source would be nice, but AAA is both academic and reliable.--Carwil 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. All UK values are significantly higher. [5] As I said, page 19. Again, as I said "All values above 60 are European and Kurds. And all Europeans are lighter than Kurds." Lukas19 00:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if your link to the PDF file went directly to the relevant parts, and if the methodology was clear. Specifically, are those figures based on averages, or have they looked at every single person in those groups? If it's based on averages, then the claim that all European people have lighter skin than all other types of people people cannot be passed off as objective fact in this article. And it really isn't true. For example, there are some people from the Mediterranian area (the "[so-called] swarthy brunette[s]" mentioned by the US Supreme Court), who do in fact have darker skin than some Asians. Frank Sweet should be deleted as a reference for the claim about skin colour, because he is not a qualified scientist or anthropologist. On his website he describes himself as "Historian, retired computer scientist. Banjo, guitar." [6] His masters in History is from American Military University, which is an online university.[7] Perhaps he can be considered an expert on American History, but he is not a reliable expert on skin colour and ethnicity.Spylab 11:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think every single member of a group needs to be sampled for getting an accurate info about that group, that's quite silly. Polls, calculation of percentage of overweight people, drug habits, etc etc...are all calculated by looking into samples inside a population. That's also how psychological research works. And most of those works are reliable sources.
And if you actually look at map, you'll see that middle east and north africa have coasts to Mediterranian and people from there are also accepted as white legally in USA. Lukas19 13:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You just proved my point. They took random samples of a very large group, so the statistics are based on averages and generalities. There clearly exist some individual Europeans with darker skin that some individual Asians. And like you said, some non-Europeans, such as Middle Easteners and North Africans are considered white. Some of those individuals likely have lighter skin than some individual Europeans. You can't make blanket statements in an encyclopedia and ignore exceptions to the rule. Spylab 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Vicente Fox

Yeah, I get that the guy is technically white, so he's an acceptable example to have on the page. However, I think the CONTEXTUAL definition known by society should lead us away from using him as the FIRST "white person" listed on the page, "above the fold", if you will. Having him in the article is fine, but to use a person who is part hispanic, and in fact, the President of Mexico, is terribly confusing for people who don't know any better. The societal context definition would, for better or worse, be best represented by someone who is of the "white stereotype", while an image of Fox falls somewhere UNDER the scroll wheel.President David Palmer 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already brought up this issue with the reason you gave, but special interests have kept his picture as the exemplary white. I said that in the US it is common to not consider Hispanics to be white, especially if they come from Mexico. In fact, they may even denounce their white status and claim they are part of La Raza. This is partly due to their legal recognition as "Hispanic or Latino" apart from everyone else who is "Not Hispanic or Latino". User:Veritas et Severitas who claims to be part Spaniard in his ancestry has taken personal offence to the proposition that Fox may not be considered white. He then respondend by arguing that white US citizens should not be considered white due to possible American Indian ancestry. I tried to remove the Spaniard, but Veritas called me names.--DarkTea 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, between all the people we had pictured in the article Fox's last name happend to start with 'F'...(Alphabetical rule)...second if people want to think a certain group are one way and not another...it's their ignorance. Mexico has a White population of over 11 million...more than the amount of people who live in the country of Austria (around 8 million) or Hungary (around 10 million). To be "part Hispanic" means nothing! It doesn't say you are NOT WHITE.
Should we strip other people of their 'whiteness' because they may have non-white ancestry. Tell Queen Elizabeth II she is not 'White'...she has African ancestry from her ancestor Queen Charlotte.
Special Interests? excuse me, Dark Tea, you are the one with "special Interests"...if you don't mind me saying. I've seen your writing before. It might have been common to say the world was flat years ago...but were they correct? Hmmm? Mexicans may not all be "White"...but come on, even you have to admit there are millions. Bringing a stupid thing like La Raza into this is idiotic. La Raza is not an important part of anything to most Mexican-Americans. The "whiteness" of a person isn't for anyone to decide. It's not that important...to some that is! Many White Americans do have Amerindian ancestry...there is no denying. If they are "White", tons of other people are...it doesn't matter which country they're from. Best Wishes. --Cali567 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Read what was said in the previous comment by me. I said nothing of "stripping people of their whiteness", I didn't even suggest removing Fox from the list. In fact, I expressly commented that he should be KEPT on. However, to have the VERY FIRST person displayed on the "White People" Wikipedia page actually be part-Hispanic is confusing in a wide-variety of culturual and social contexts. The best example of someone to be used is someone that fits into most or all cultural perspectives, not just a few. The part-Hispanic president of Mexico is a poor choice for the FIRST PERSON to be displayed on a page called "White People". And alphabatizing a group of pictures on the right hand side of people by last name? What the heck kind of reason is that? This doesn't need to be "propery and orderly" in such an obsessive-compulsive manner. Put who best fits the description, not the person who happens to have letters in his name that appear earlier. Look at the first 3 sentences of the article anyway, or then look at all of the cultural interpretations and find the person who best fits into those guidelines....none of them conjur of 'Vicente Fox' as an example.President David Palmer 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that choosing who is the most "exemplary" white is very arbitrary and un-encyclopedic. It doesn't help that DarkTea tries to argue that Nords are the "white man par excellence" based upon white supremacist and neo-Nazi type sites. For some reason, Benjamin Netanyahu received a lot of opposition, despite that fact that he is white. There is no good way to judge this, so pictures probably shouldn't be included, and if they are, shouldn't be ordered based upon OR judgment of 'most white' to 'least white'. The Behnam 06:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's why I all but ignored what he said above, because his purpose is rather...obvious (Who the hell uses the word 'Spaniard' still?). But I disagree that there is only an arbitrary means of using pictures. That's why I suggest a rather strict reading of the article as it is now and using someone who best exemplifies a more universal cultural interpretation of what it means. There are some that do fit more than others into the universal idea of what it means, with Fox obviously (at least partially) conflicting with some interpretations. However, I do agree that the best alternative is to not use any pictures as all as it mainly just serves to distract or confuse people with different ideas of what "white" means. And don't be absurd, I would never condone a "most white" to "least white" ordering of pictures. Make the pictures fit the article (and sub-articles, i.e. Fox fits well into a section in which we discuss how Hispanics are considered a part of 'white people' in some cultures). But again, no pictures = better than random Wikipedian's personal belief of best pictures.President David Palmer 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(What else are you supposed to call someone from Spain?) --Lukobe 07:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Spaniard" is correct. I don't see myself or any other English speaker saying something else without sounding awkward. "Spanish man"? No, Spaniard is much better. The Behnam 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I mis-stated that. It was the fact that: 1) Vicente Fox is not a "Spainard", so calling him such is blind ignorance, and 2) "I tried to remove the Spaniard" sounds far more hateful than it does like he was trying to be P.C. As if the guy doesn't have a name, but is simply a type-cast ethnicty (an group he doesn't even belong to, mind you). Sorry for the poor phrasingPresident David Palmer 11:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No prob. Based on his article he is German anyway. The Behnam 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
He's not a German. Only his grandfather may be. That'd make him 3/4 Spanish so he is Spanish. Lukas19 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Dictionary.com is a Search Engine

User:Remoever believes that this citation [8] can be used to show that one of the common definitions for a white person is Caucasoid, but s/he does not understand that Dictionary.com is a search engine. Dictionary.com is a search engine that searches real dictionaries and other such media. Whenever a search is performed in Dictionary.com, the search results display the text and the real dictionary source. The citation User:Remoever believes verifies his/her claim comes from WordNet. WordNet is not a standard dictionary that gives definitions of words; it is a semantic lexicon that links words "each expressing a distinct concept."[9] The source User:Remoever has found can only be used to show that white people and Caucasoids are related concepts.--DarkTea 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the reference more carefully. It cites webster in addition to wordnet. Regardless, dictionary.com is considered a dictionary, regardless of whether or not you agree with their methodology for defining words. Oxford.com's methodology is obviously not very good since their definition implies North East Asians are white since they have light skin Removeor
Dictionary.com is a function of the greater Reference.com search engine. Reference.com has a special function that searches encyclopedias. Are we to conclude that its search result for "white people" can be used as a citation for this article when its search result is this artice? No, it is clearly a search engine; it is not an encyclopedia. A search engine with the word "dictionary" in its title is still a search engine.--DarkTea 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you not see Webster quoted in the dictionary.com link? Removeor
The Webster definition says a white person is a member of the "Caucasian race". Neil Painter says a Caucasian is understood to be someone who is resembles the physical appearence of an indigenous light-colored European and who is not Muslim.[10]. It is clear that Webster's "definition" by means of equating white people with another ambiguous term does not really define white people. Oxford dictionary's definition of a light-colored European does clearly define a white person. Both of its qualifiers are clearly understood.--DarkTea 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't combine statements from two sources to advance your own idea. That is OR. Thanks. The Behnam 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oxford.com's definition is clearly incorrect. Any light skinned group especially (but not limited to) Europeans. This implies that North East Asians are white. It makes far more sense to label all caucasoids white (yes even muslim ones!) then it does to label all light skinned people white, because A) some studies suggest that all caucasoid form a broad genetic cluster, and B) the census of the most influential country in the world calls all caucasoids white (with the exception of Asian Indians & that's only because Indians lobbied for minority status) and C) forensic experts call all caucasoids skulls white, they can't tell whether the person was European or Arab. I agree that generally the term white is reserved for Europeans and their descendants, but this point can be made by combining the 2 dictionaries as Spylab & I did. Simply quoting the British-centric oxford.com's nonsensical definition in full is a poor intro to this article Removeor
Your objections seem to be arguments based on your interpretation of race and your disagreement with the Oxford dictionary. Your opinions mean nothing to this argument unless they can be properly sourced. They do not seem to be based on WP:CITE or WP:VERIFY policies. They do not attempt to call into question the credibility of the Oxford dictionary which would be necessary if you wanted to remove its definition from being cited. Unless your argument is based on policy, it has no weight on Wikipedia.--DarkTea 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Understand that original research is synthesizing your own ideas. It does not mean citing a definition from a source.--DarkTea 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and OR is also taking a definition from one source and combining it with a definition from another source to advance a unique definition. You take one def, white people=caucasian, and another def, caucasian=non-muslim european, and combine them to advance white people=non-muslim european. This is OR. Please do not do OR on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OR would entail that I defined what a Caucasian or white person meant. It is not OR to say that one dictionary says a white person is a Caucasian and one expert says a Caucasian refers to light-colored European-looking people who are not Muslim.--DarkTea 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And btw, the intro only claims that white people and caucasoids are related concepts which is exactly what you just claimed WordNet can be used to demonstrate. I think it's essential to cite the caucasoid definition, otherwise people will be totally confused by the U.S. census Removeor
Your version of the intro implies that a common definition of white people is Caucasoid. This is different from saying they are related concepts which would go in the "See Also" section at the bottom.--DarkTea 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of dictionaries define caucasoid/caucasian as a white person. There's a VERY strong relationship between these 2 terms. Blumenbach coined the term Caucasian and called it the white race Removeor
Relationship does not equate to being a definition. The concept of "being a man" and "machismo" are very similar, yet not synonmous.--DarkTea 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose opening a RFC about Dark T. and maybe Lukas. Their continuous point of view pushing in this article needs no further comment, you can follow them above: From proposing Hitler for the pictures to introducing Nazi websites (Dark insisted on calling people from the Nazi white Supremacist site Stormfront to participate here and I highly suspect that Lukas and others come from there) and comments all the time like: the Nordic is the white man par excellence. Jews, Arabs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks etc are not white. Racial purity there and impurity here, and the sort. I leave it up for you to decide. You can read all very well. I have known these users for a long time and they are using this place in a shameful way. They like to try and get rid of users that oppose them directly, like me, because I am clear when I confront Nazis in wiki. They always try to hide behind the civility issue. Lukas has opened an RFC against me, before consulting his friend Dart T. See:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/LSLM


They will be probably attacking me and taking all my comments that were a response to them out of context and maing just false accusations (typical of their ideology). I will not even respond. They have already done the same with at least three previous users here that confronted them. As you can see above, they love manipulation, even if it is for idiots. These users have been manipulating this article, and others, for months, and they are tireless. I have seen many people like you argue with them. They all end up the same. They are so intent on their agenda that they will wait till you all get tired on the issue and then they will come back at it. Think about what I say. If there is not enough evidence just here, in their comments in this article and in their histories, I do not know if we are using the same language. Veritas et Severitas 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Some pushing on this page has definitely been disturbing and out of line with WP. It is interesting that they try to cite civility, considering that they haven't been very civil themselves. All of this should be noted, and it's all on the page. The Behnam 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though I've noticed from several articles that Dark T promotes ignorant rubbish and that her knowledge of traditional anthropology is abysmal, I think it's good to have a few politically incorrect editors to balance things out. A year ago this article was so politically correct that more than half the photos were of dark skinned non-Europeans who 99% of North Americans would consider non-whites. There are agendas on all sides. I don't think these 2 editors should be singled out just because their agendas are taboo Removeor

A year ago: [11]. The Behnam 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

People here dont like the defenition of blacks and whites, and kim jon il?

The deletion of pictures ad alot of the info on this article shows that people in general doesnt likethe defenition of blacks and white people this two articles make. ITS A STATEMENT!"--Matrix17 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

hhahaa its realy hilarious tha somone put in Kim jong il south coreas dictator as a "white man" , i mean of all people available.funny. --Matrix17 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, race is viewed as a social construction today. These articles may appear to reify the notion of race, but this encyclopedia would not be complete without this article. Maybe they were serious about Kim Jong Il. I think this all shows that the concept of a "white" people is malleable and unclear.--DarkTea 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Race is not viewed as a social construction today. The only people that think that are sociologists and that's only because they're too damn stupid to understand genetics, otherwise they'd be geneticists instead of sociologists. The only biologists that think race is a social construction are the dumb ones. The smart ones all know race is real but they're too cowardly to admit it to the public so instead of saying race they say "population" & the dumb stupid sociology majors all fall for this claptrap and repeat it on wikipedia. Christmasgirl
I can only verify objective claims. I can't verify that some people are "dumb" and I also don't think you can verify this. We know that most biologists and experts view race as a social construct, because it is a fact. Your assertion that many of these people are "dumb" or "afraid" will stay an unverifiable opinion.--DarkTea 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We know that many biologists PUBLICLY CLAIM to view race as a social construct, but we are not able to verify what they really think. And just because they no longer use the word race, and just because they no longer use traditional racial terminology, does not mean they no longer use the concept, and just call it by another name. The scientists have no integrity. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. And the media and social sciences are so naive and gullible. Christmasgirl

Mostafa Hefny

The section under US Census about Mostafa Hefny seems tacked on. It should perhaps be mentioned briefly under this section but the bulk of the information should be made into its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.119.90 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


European Population Substructure

LSLM's IP has claimed: "You cannot use samples from Americans to speak of Europeans." [12]

1) Read WP:Reliable source. Opinions of editors about scientific studies dont mean anything. If you have a credible source which objects to methodology, then add it.

2) Cavalli's chart has been deleted because it doesnt "zoom into" Europeans enough, it contains all world populations but we may also add it.

3)And of course, it was a blatant lie. There WERE Europeans in the study. As for European Americans, there was proof of their ancestry:

Materials and Methods
......
Populations studied: First sample set.

European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study.
....
The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain. Of these participants from Spain and Portugal, 61 were probands for a multiple sclerosis study
.....
For the European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom, northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded. [13]

Lukas19 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Why the hell is this autosomal study included, autosomal is now a virtually extinct method in population genetics due to its ability to recombinate,

I think we should stick to studies using y-chromosomes and Mtdna, which are more conventional ones and more reliable. Theres plenty of sources on the web showing population clustering based on y-chromosomes and mtDna, why not use them instead? I will source some and replace the one currently being used. The one being used isnt new either (in both data and analysis) its from 2002 and a a lot of people seem to be trying to make it seem newer than any of cavilli's data or sykes's data. --Globe01 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions are irrelevant. If reliable sources say autsomal studies are unreliable, add something which cites those sources. And PLOS journal study:

The examination of population differences within Europe using mitochondrial [12–15] or Y chromosome [16–18] haplogroups has been particularly useful in tracing part of the routes of migration and populating of Europe, but these haplogroups do not provide strong inferences on population genetic structure. Autosomal studies using small numbers of classical genetic markers (nuclear protein polymorphisms) have suggested broad genetic gradients across Europe, leading to the proposal of demic diffusion models [19–22]....In this report we expand on the autosomal DNA observations by examining a large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) genotypes, using statistical methods to directly examine population genetic structure.

Lukas19 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note the proximity of arguments and posting times of Globe01 and LSLM's IP. They even make the same minor mistakes (confuse the date of PLOS study). Lukas19 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Globe, this guy thinks we are all the same. OK for him. I agree with you Globe. I deleted it first because autosomal is not reliable. Then I made a clarification about autosomal. It was deleted by Lukas again. Then I introduced said books that are in apparent contradiction with those studies. Those books were published taking into account most of the research known up to now,(not just one) using thousands of samples and the most reliable genetic markers as everyONE into the subject knows. I also said that those genetic markers apply to most of Western Europe, not just Britain, as we all know, but Lukas deleted it. Well, in any case, I am not going to engage in edit wars with Lukas again.

In any case, here you have another autosomal study taking into accoutn 10000 markers and custering the English along with the Italians:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_Ish7688voT0/RcuktisjfVI/AAAAAAAAAAk/szDKFqYapMs/s1600-h/structure.jpg

You can also see the one I pasted in the page from Cavalli Sforza, the most prominet figure in this field.

So, which one of these studies shall we believe?

Or this one, taking into account both, Autosoaml, Mitocondrial and Y-C DNA. In which the British again come very close to the Iberians (IberiaS = Spain and IberiaP Portugal)

See: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Well, I trust the experts for it, who take into account not just a couple of them that we can find here and there in internet, some obviously contradictory, but hundreds of data and studies and publish thier conclusions in entire books. I have provided 2 in the section.

Veritas. 70.156.140.11 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have only deleted OR and unsourced material. The rest may stay but they need to be summarized. They are making the same point (ie:the relationship between people of British Isles and Basques) over and over again. So summarize that part, move some quotations to references section if necessarry. Lukas19 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The rest stays because it is in direct contraction with the ONE study that you have introduced about Americans who are supposed to represent Europeans (they use 3 Portuguese samples by the way, Wow! (although whether you believe it or not I do not find the conclusions so crazy, but the article in itself is ridiculous) using autosomal and because you always delete anything that is not a direct quote and because 2 books of about 800 pages combined are more important than the ONE article that you want to use and that you want to have prevailing in the space devoted to the section, dealing with people like the Irish that are clearly covered in said books. So, there you have, exact quotes. Veritas. 70.156.140.11 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Given their edits, [14] [15] I'm amazed that neither LSLM nor Globe01 could have read this: "Received: May 8, 2006; Accepted: July 25, 2006; Published: September 15, 2006

Copyright: © 2006 Seldin et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." [16] Lukas19 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny that neither this article, nor eye color, nor I think hair color, mention a common counter-example to the predominance of blonde hair & blue eyes among white peoples, which are the Berbers. This well-known fact (that many Berbers have fair hair and blue eyes) has striken visitors for centuries - see John Stirling, Journal of the Anthropological Society of London, Vol. 8, 1870 - 1871, 1922 review of Among the Hill-Folk of Algeria. Journeys among the Shawia of the Aures Mountains by M. W. Hilton-Simpson, BBC 2000 - last sentence, The Kabylies of the Djurjura, Istanbul Literary Review... This never ceases to surprise the tourist, from 19th century to 21st century, look at this account with an exclamation point and bold text... Times on line, etc., etc., etc. I'll stop here, you've seen that this is common surprise among visitors. I just thought it funny that a Wikipedia article on such subjects does not list this counter-example, I don't know what you think about it... Or the motives of this silence on an encyclopedia used to pointing out such things. Tazmaniacs

I read in Hair color#Genetics this more or less cautious statement: "The recessive genes for both brown/blonde and red hair are found nearly exclusively in populations of white people." Why not list the Berbers (who may also have red hair) as a counter-example? Beside, Berbers are a famous counter-example, but does any one knows about others like? What exactly does "nearly exclusively" means? Funny some scientists spend years making maps of populations according to hair but don't appears to pay no attention to that (or is the way we report their findings?)? Tazmaniacs
Why do Berbers have red or blond hair? Because they are North African exceptions or because they may have some Germanic admixture in them?

See the Vandals, which were one of the Germanic peoples. And see the location of Berbers

Vandal migrations and Berber locations overlap. So how much of a counter example are Berbers really? And in the article, it says "Blond hair is a relatively rare human phenotype, occurring in 1.7 to 2% of the world population, with the majority of natural blondes being white.", it doesnt rule out non-white blonds. And you havent provided a link saying how many % of Berbers have blond or red hair? Is it 2% (which would still surprise the tourists to see blond natives)? Is it 65%? Then they may be an example of "non-white" population with high rates of blondism. Lukas19 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)



==

Headline text

The reason is that some people here just want to present Europeans as a different race from North Africans and Middle Easterners, manipulating and selectively choosing the information that suits them and ignoring the overwhelming evindence that says otherwise. Some people here are very fond of Autosomal studies, but only choose those that they like (does it sound like some kind of racial ideology or propaganda? Sure not, it must be just my obsession. Well, here you have one taking into account 10.000 markers. I cannot and do not want to spend my time on downloading it, somebody could do it though. It clearly shows little difference between Europeans, North Africans an Middle Easterners.

See:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_Ish7688voT0/RcuktisjfVI/AAAAAAAAAAk/szDKFqYapMs/s1600-h/structure.jpg

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/02/european-population-stratification.html

But according to some people here "some" autosomal studies are good but others not.

Veritas et Severitas 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Lukas, since you are so swilling to push the autosmal dna study, please provide a link to the original website the graph and data came from so other wikipedians can analyise and extract facts from it. --Globe01 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already there. Can you not read the ref link at the end of the quote? Which is ref # 65? Also, if you click on the pic, the link is again in the source section. And then there is the article with lots of graphs and the graph in question is in here: [17]
In A, all Europeans cluster distinctly from Native Americans. And in B, they zoom into Europeans...Lukas19 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish Cluster within southern Europeans based on y chromosome

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/071036898v1.pdf

see this link, scroll down to the population clustering and notice where the Welsh and Irish cluster, i will add this source shortly as it contradicts the autosmal study, which is from 2002 btw as I read it on the website the autosmal study came from though i now don't know the url address. --Globe01 09:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In X chromosome Microsatellite allele frequency distribution, Wales cluster with Norway, while Basque and Turkey are distinct from each other and everyone else, and that seems consistent with PLOS journal study. Lukas19 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Another very recent y chronmosome study here shows that italians, spaniards, irish and germans all cluster inside of norwiegens and middle easterners, essentially clustering chaos. 

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/fig_tab/5201482f3.html#figure-title

--Globe01 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article which you linked says: "Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic ancestry common to European populations, nor we find evidence supporting Basques as the focus of major population expansions." and "The low observed diversity causes a certain affinity between the Basques and the populations of the British Isles, particularly Irish and Welsh. However, this may be simply the effect of convergent drift, as when we consider the STR haplotypes within the major haplogroup (R1b) the latter populations are no more closely connected to the Basques than other European populations." [18]
I dont know why the clusters arent very clear. It may be the distance between each point i

n x and y axis is too high (ie: graph not zoomed in enough) or that they used insufficent loci. Lukas19 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


I am not trying to emphasize a link between brits and basques which is what you think im all about!

I have cited 2 other sources which need to be added to the article, one study shows the irish and the welsh clustering with basques other and nroth european populations being distant, another study using more polymorphisms shows that the link between the irish and basques is paleolithic (i.e both groups are mainly cro magnon (r1b) descended but they share an ancient common ancestor who lived in paleolithic times and not more recently in mesolithic or neolithic times and there has been considerable genetic drift since paleolithic times).

So lets avoid concentrating on dna links between brits and basques and concentrate on adding both of these sources and more to the article.

Oh yes lukas, you still haven't provided the link to the clustering graph about northern and southern europeans that was done in 2002, please add it otherwise you cannot claim the study was done in 2006 because that would be based on no evidence!!!! --Globe01 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you not read the above section? Lukas19 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the subject has different points of view I propose the following:

Make two blocks, each offering one view or more blocks if more views are considered.

You could also separate each block into autosomal and lineage related markers (Y and Mitocontrial).

If it gets too long you can then leave a ling to genetics of Europe.

To avoid confict just accept all information that is verifiable and reputable. Each can add there information. I leave you now here, I will be busy with other things form some time. Good luck. Veritas. 65.3.246.206 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an excellent idea veritas, also we need to put back in the picture of Mustafa the egyptian who wants to claim black ethnicity in the US but is considered white by them as he is egyptian.

I dont know what your motives for deleting that section were lukas and it is highly relevant as it shows the hipocracy of catorgarizing nations as white and the inaccuracy. --Globe01 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


The pdf i posted based on y chromosomes needs to be posted because it contradicts the other sources and not including contradictory data is biased, the y chromosome stuy i posted shows that welsh and irish (both north european contries) cluster with basques (southern european) whilst turks who are also meditteranean and close to southern europe are distinct also from the basques.

So dont ignore it, add it! --Globe01 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Bold text

  1. ^ Why Do Europeans Have So Many Hair and Eye Colors? by Peter Frost Université Laval (Canada) and St. Andrews University (Scotland) [19]
  2. ^ a b c d Nina G. Jablonski, "The Evolution of Human Skin and Skin Color," Annual Review of Anthropology, 2004.
  3. ^ http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS1090513805000590/abstract
  4. ^ Why Do Europeans Have So Many Hair and Eye Colors? by Peter Frost, Université Laval (Canada) and St. Andrews University (Scotland) [20]
  5. ^ Frudakis T, Thomas M, Gaskin Z, Venkateswarlu K, Chandra KS, Ginjupalli S, Gunturi S, Natrajan S, Ponnuswamy VK, Ponnuswamy KN. Sequences associated with human iris pigmentation." Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):2071-83. PMID 14704187.
  6. ^ http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS1090513805000590/abstract
  7. ^ http://www.backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people/Archive_10&oldid=1190231680"