Jump to content

Talk:White people/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

Should this page be added to Category:White people?

I attempted to add this page to Category:White people, but that category has been deleted on several occasions, purportedly because of a deletion discussion (which is not even accessible from the category's deletion log). Should this category be re-created? Jarble (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If Category:White people were undeleted, then Category:White Americans and Category:White South African people could be included uncontroversially as subcategories, with White people as the main page for that category. Jarble (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3#Category:White_people, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:White_people, etc. It should not be re-created without going through WP:DRV or something like that. Nymf (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The deletion of the category was clearly due to an irrational sanitary imperative, seeing as it was classed an "abomination" by the submitting editor merely because a mixed-race individual ended up indirectly classified under "White people" via the category "Swedish-American". This boils down to the fact that reality doesn't readily offer itself to tree-like categorization, but this has never been an argument in favour of dumping our categorization system altogether, and it isn't clear why it should be an "abomination" in this particular case (a more rational approach would have been to ask if the category "Swedish-American" was really justified in the "offending" case, and I note the article has since been removed from that category. Not that the pedestrian fact that some articles are categorized incongruously if you look at the entire tree of parent categories would be an 'abomination' in any case)
But it is probably not worth the ideological uphill battle to convince the demographic that thinks in terms of "abominations" whenever race is under discussion (and often, it appears, even selective as to which racial terms are more 'abominable' than others, an attitude that used to be the definition of racialism). After all, it's just a category, and efforts at preserving NPOV and encyclopedicity are better expended on content than on categorization. After all, the white category is in fact used in various incompatible (although significantly overlapping) meanings depending on context, so it may make sense to have several categories such as "White American", "White Brazilian", and stick them all into the main "Race (human classification)" category directly. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

More significant white women?

I think we can find more significant white women to use for some of the images in the picture grid. It just seems weird and unfair to have Alexis Bledel in the same grid as, say, Queen Victoria. Instead of white American actress Alexis Bledel, how about more influential and acclaimed white American actress Meryl Streep?

Likewise, I'm thinking we don't need five white women best known as contemporary fashion models - Milagros Schmoll, Gisele Bündchen, Esti Ginzburg, Candice Swanepoel, and Fiorella Mattheis. I suggest we keep one (Milagros), but then replace Gisele with Bertha Lutz (also a Brazilian, but a zoologist, politician, and diplomat), replace Esti with Regina Jonas (also Jewish, but the first female rabbi in the world), replace Candice with Olive Schreiner (also a white South African, but a prominent writer), and replace Fiorella with better-known and acclaimed Brazilian actress Arlette Pinheiro Esteves Torres (the first Latin American to be nominated for Best Actress at the Academy Awards and first actress to be nominated for a Portuguese-speaking role.)

For a white Canadian female singer-songwriter of significance, I suggest Joni Mitchell rather than Avril Lavigne.

And yes, all these women I have suggested are white and have their pictures available on their Wikipedia pages.

What do you all think? DiscoTent (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no opposition to your suggestions, though I wonder if we should pic women rated as of high or top importance by WikiProject Women's history. Dimadick (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just popping in to say I had the same concerns when examining the article. Were these pictures chosen as examples of how different white people can look? That's the only reason I can imagine including Alexis Bledel, as her blue eyes and dark hair are unusual. Otherwise, yes, I'd say fewer models and more notable white women would be an improvement. I'll take a look through the high importance articles in WikiProject Women's History for photos in color. EmilyvstheGorn (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of any ugly photos, as this article isn't supposed to be defamatory to the ethnic group depicted. Of course, if there is consensus for the use of unsightliness, I can't prevent it. Oh well, the photo grid was good while it lasted. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It isn't right to say the most notable white women are the prettiest ones. Should we replace the brilliant, plain men shown with male models? 173.49.70.205 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not actually what I said. For instance, Hillary Clinton is certainly no model, but her photo isn't acutely ugly either. I have no objection to the inclusion of more photos of women who aren't models. The proposal at hand, however, appears to involve the use of ugly photos such as File:Berta Lutz 1925.jpg, with which I strongly disagree. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I have replaced the photo of Milagros Schmoll with Amelia Andersdotter. That's one fewer model, and one very notable supporter of the free content movement. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be consensus here as long as the pictures aren't too ugly. So I'm going to do my suggested replacements, and if you find any of them too ugly, please try to replace them with women just as significant. (I'll leave Bertha Lutz out of it and replace Gisele with young Elizabeth Garrett Anderson instead.) DiscoTent (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Why no pictures? Here is a good one: http://www.cuantarazon.com/busqueda/0/guiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:7957:7202:3BF:FFF7 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

you may be looking for the article Light skin. This article isn't supposed to be about tanning and melanin, but about the racial category as used in demographics, anthropology, sociology, etc. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I am presently remedying the lack of images in this article, and on black people. However, this process is subject to the following constraints which are necessitated by Wikipedia's content policies:
  • The images must be licensed under free as in freedom licenses.
  • The images must be of high technical and compositional quality.
  • It is generally preferred to use images of notable people rather than random non-notable individuals, though exceptions can be made for sufficient reasons.
  • The number of images is limited by formatting considerations.
  • Images of notorious criminals or otherwise highly infamous individuals are not used in Wikipedia articles about ethnic groups.
  • The people depicted must clearly belong to the ethnic group in question, according to reasonable person applying accepted sociological standards.
As an example of the sort of image we cannot use, I would like to add a photo Andrea Matthies to the Venezuela section. However, the current photograph in her article, File:Andrea Matthies.jpg is of abysmal quality according to generally accepted standards of portraiture and not suitable for inclusion on this page. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for those pictures. I hope we can not have a six month long edit war over who gets to be on the gallery. This is actually a fairly low traffic article, I suspect, because most people are more interested in subcategories such as individual ethnicities rather than the whole huge category "white people". So probably not much chance of controversy. That said, if there is controversy, Id recommend trimming it back. Most peopl e already know what white people are. c.f. Asian people which has only one image, and she's blonde! As if to show that not all Asians have dark straight hair. —Soap— 06:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to illustrate the article but I am not sure about the format of the page. The "Caucasian" skull, the Book of Gates image, and Huxley's map seem to be the more appropriate images on the matter and appear in a relevant section. But several of the other images seem to have little connection to the sections that they appear next to. Kennedy and von Braun appear next to a section on 18th-century classifications of race, Ginzburg next to a section about the development of the Caucasian race concept, Putin next to a section about 21st century perceptions of white, Princess Märtha Louise and Bündchen next to a section about white Argentinians, Pope John Paul II next to a section about white Australians, Blanchett next to a section about white Canadians, Lavigne next to a section about white Chileans, Clinton next to a section about the one drop rule, and Tramp next to a section on white Uruguayans.

Perhaps the images require re-arrangement? Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have resolved this problem by moving all of the images of notable people to an ethnic group infobox image array near the top of the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No Brown/brunettes?

I don't mean to be too picky but you would think by looking at this selection that there are hardly any women that are Brunettes.. with not only one Brazilian of German origin but TWO...in a country with millions more Brazilians of Portuguese, Spanish or Italian origin who form the majority of the European origin of Brazil...two German Brazilians doesn't make sense..and yes I don't mean millions of Italians arnt all Brunettes either. Same goes for many a few other nationalities but this one probably has the most obvious. Carmen Miranda may be a good one to choose although she wasn't actually born in Brazil but went as a baby there. Others that have populations are Cuba with people like Jose Marti being an example.Puertorico1 (talk)

I have replaced the image of Mark Shuttleworth with Maria Gaetana Agnesi. Hopefully, this addresses the issue that you are raising. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the infobox pictures pretty much deliberately seem to showcase a bunch of white people (especially women) with solely Nordic or Nordic-esque features. I decided to replaced Meryl Streep with Angelina Jolie and Cate Blanchett with Audrey Hepburn. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, thats a step in the right direction... The truth is that its not possible to put examples of all people of European origin or classified as white from all European countries plus those in the European diaspora, but there are hardly any from central or eastern eueope here, what about a Georgian (the country) for a random example... instead 3 Germans, As is said its not possible to put a person from every country but are we only putting examples of people from countries that have a "white" category in their census or are we going by our natural views and know their family origins. I like the fact that there are some more brown haired to "even" it out. Remember there are places in Latin america like Uruguay that are over 88% European for example, mostly of Mediterranean descent.Puertorico1 (talk)

Egyptian part of "Antiquity and Middle Ages: Physical description"

The second paragraph under "Antiquity and Middle Ages: Physical description" which details the supposed racial categories in the ancient Egyptian "Book of Gates" is based on a modern, edited artistic recreation of the actual depiction of the four "races," in which they all varied very little phenotypically. I can provide links if necessary, but for the time being, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya Volume 2 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever-expanding infobox

The infobox of pictures is already too large. We don't need further expansion. --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

in the infobox are examples of people who may have more influence on the world with their creations or their actions, showing influences in all the sciences, as shown in it, and in all areas, showing that they had contributions in that areas. This article is about of something that is so general, it is "a type of people" that spans mostly western world reaching latitudes of China.--Vvven (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Vvven, we can have a thousand examples like that. Doesn't mean we should. --NeilN talk to me 17:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

i think that we should show that is most relevants, course not all, but yes those that changed the world (for good)--Vvven (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: No, we shouldn't. This article isn't "Famous white people who changed the world". I would choose sixteen representatives (at most) and be done with it. --NeilN talk to me 18:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

and how about if we put the smaller images like the article Argentines?. that articles also represents a group of people and have more images--Vvven (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: The analogous articles Black people and Asian people have no such gallery. There's no need to show white people who changed the world here. Making smaller images renders them a mishmash of blobs. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In the black people article has 23 images of black persons--Vvven (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: There's no gallery --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

but there 23 images representing and as example of the black people, such as are the same functions of these images--Vvven (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven:@NeilN: We have twenty-six different national settings, many with substantially differing definitions of "White people." Those definitions, rather than the existence of famous white people, are the primary subject of this article and could be better illustrated by (1) dispersing some of these images below and (2) reducing the gallery to six or eight examples. Also, Argentines omits any of this notability fluff that takes up so much room in this gallery. Let people click through if they want to know why these people are notable.--Carwil (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There 14 images (faces) of black persons in the Black People, also dont should reduce the number of images about outstanding black people in that page? same as you propose here--Vvven (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

i will try to fix on twelve images or few more on gallery and others below--Vvven (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Typing Mistake

Just a minor typo under the image of Albert Einstein as the German Jew "physical" rather than physicist. Tabascokid (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Maradona and San Martin photograph

Maradona is mixed race, with a strong Amerindian look. San Martin also was mixed. Examples of famous Argentinian whites are Messi, Pope Francis, Eva Perón, Bernardo Houssay (Nobel award). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.14.4 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Maradona and San Martin photographs are inadequate for this article, and need to be replaced

Maradona is mixed race, with a strong Amerindian look. San Martin also was mixed.

Examples of famous Argentinian whites are Messi, Pope Francis, Eva Perón, Bernardo Houssay (Nobel award), Gustavo Cerati (rock star), Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Astor Piazzolla (tango composer).

  • Messi
    Messi
  • Pope Francis
    Pope Francis
  • Eva Perón
    Eva Perón
  • Bernardo Houssay
    Bernardo Houssay
  • Gustavo Cerati
    Gustavo Cerati
  • Queen Máxima of the Netherlands
    Queen Máxima of the Netherlands
  • Astor Piazzolla
    Astor Piazzolla

186.59.14.4 (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this include West Asians & North Africans

I'm just curious, does this article only include ethnic Europeans, or does It also include West Asians & North Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The660 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Severe gender imbalance, and photo quality issues

The current photo array has twelve men and only one woman. It's almost as if someone is trying to make a WP:POINT about the lack of female editors on Wikipedia by creating a deliberately biased article. My preferred revision of the article was more gender balanced, and used higher quality images. The current selection of photos seems to reflect a low-quality, design by committee approach, and uses photos of ugly people in a way that is defamatory towards the ethnic group depicted. I suggest that reverting the images would greatly improve the quality of the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A centralised discussion about the appropriateness of such infobox montages is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#The necessity of galleries of personalities in the infoboxes. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hearing no objection, apart from raising the possibility that this article should have no photos at all, a position for which there is no current consensus, I am going to WP:BOLDly improve the article by reverting the images as described. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And... the entire image array is gone in a little over fifteen minutes. I tried... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Best not to add so many unless images linking to noting about the topic at hand. Does any of the linked people help in understanding this topic...do they define being "white" in anyway? Put it simply as per the essay Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts - Don't overload articles with images. Don't add images that are not relevant. -- Moxy (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The images aid the reader's understanding of what a white person looks like. On articles such as cat, we use a similarly relevant and informative array of images without serious objection. This article seems to be different, because we have to deal with the "white people don't exist" and "ethnic groups don't exist" memes. Of course, it would seriously call Wikipedia's quality into question if we had a long standing, high profile article about a non-existent entity. Please note that an attempt to delete this article was closed as "speedy keep". DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There are many images with captions in the article to "aid the reader's understanding of what a white person looks like". No need to have a list of people that are undefined by the term in the lead WP:LEADIMAGE. -- Moxy (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it seems there are a few images scattered through the article, some of which are used inaccurately since the people depicted aren't completely white. You are citing WP:LEADIMAGE, but your somewhat ambiguous claim that lead images must be of people defined by the term is extraneous to the guideline. This is certainly not a requirement for any article not pertaining to a human ethnic group. For instance, we may reasonably assume that the animals depicted in File:Cat poster 1.jpg have names and personalities, and mean more than generic cats defined by the term to their owners. If anyone knows of a way to fix this article's image use problems without starting an edit war, I'm all ears. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hearing no further objections for two days, I am going to improve the article by remedying the deficiencies I have identified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Pls join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#The necessity of galleries of personalities in the infoboxes ...many many objections -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
DavidLeighEllis, regarding this edit and your edit summary, can I ask how you are deciding whether people are "completely white" or not, and what makes you think attractiveness is a valid criteria for selecting the images? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am determining whether people are completely white visually, in a manner identical to the photo selection procedure for any other article. For instance, the only qualification of the photo in Rosa kordesii is its visual resemblance to the species in question. This photograph certainly does not appear to have been published in a reliable source as an example of the species. Per Wikipedia:Original images, this is perfectly permissible. Likewise, the images in List of Rosa species have obviously been selected for visual attractiveness. No one is arguing that we need photos of old and dying roses for an NPOV treatment of the Rosa genus. Let's see how well the shoe fits on the other foot: Moxy, in the process of reverting my edit to the article, you restored certain images that I had removed. You therefore need to take responsibility for adding these photos. How did you determine that these images were appropriate? Please note that depiction of Homo sapiens is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion in this article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that plants are the subject of well-established taxonomies. The boundaries between socially constructed races are not so clearly agreed upon, and have changed over time. I therefore find your approach very suspect. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, white people are indeed members of the same species as all other Homo sapiens. Let's consider a directly analogous situation then: the Maine Coon is a breed of Felis catus, a member of the same species as all other domestic cats. Therefore, what does or does not constitute a Maine Coon is likewise socially constructed, not so clearly agreed upon, and has probably changed over time. This fuzziness inherent in the definition of a Maine Coon does not, however, prevent illustration of the article with photos visually representative of the breed which have not been published in reliable sources. I am merely suggesting that the same common sense approach used for illustration of articles about breeds of plants and non-human animals be extended to articles about races of humans. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Races are not analogous to breeds, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How so? In both cases, we are dealing with visually distinctive but somewhat imprecisely defined groups that are members of the same species. Is Homo sapiens such an extraordinary species that it alone is totally immune to any coherent sub-divisions? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, breeds involve characteristics that have been artificially selected and maintained or emphasised, for one thing. Here's an evolutionary biologist explaining it much better than I can. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, breeds of domestic animals exist because of deliberate eugenics, whereas races of humans are naturally occurring phenomena. However, subspecies of wild animals do exist, and are directly comparable to human races. Articles about subspecies such as Bengal tiger are illustrated with original images. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, but unless I'm mistaken, there is consensus amongst biologists about what is and isn't a Bengal tiger. I don't think the same consensus exists for, say, white people. Someone that I regard as white might not be considered white by you or other people. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The inherent fuzziness of the subspecies concept and ability of animals of different subspecies but the same species to interbreed virtually guarantees that there will be edge cases, animals about whom biologists cannot agree about subspecies designation. This closely mirrors the situation for races of humans. I am suggesting that edge case photos of people who may or may not be white not be included in this article, and that all photos be of people who are clearly white according to the predominate sociological meaning of the term. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not just individuals who are marginal in the classification, though - the classification itself is subject to debate. Is there a predominant sociological meaning of the term white and, if so, what is it? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have identified a reliable source which may shed some light on this issue, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America ISBN 978-0813525907. Before I purchase this book, I would like to know whether other editors consider this a reliable source for the purpose of resolving the question at hand. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We now have 19 male and 2 female photographs illustrating white people for this article. If this is indicative of the sex ratio among white people, one has to wonder how they are able to breed at all. ABF99 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
White horse crossing the Alps

* This picture illustrates how a white horse looks like. How relevant ? Pldx1 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

x

Colombian

change ((Colombian)) to ((Colombia))n

 Done, but not as requested, as that would link to the article on the country, not the people.
What I have done is link to Colombians and pipe back to Colombian as here:- Colombian - Arjayay (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Census category for "white" in Russia

There is no census for "white" in the Russian Federation. If you click the attached link (provided you know Russian) you'll see that. That infrormation is misleading. 113,545,521 whites? Where did these figures come from? Out of thin air? Please edit.

Yours, Russian wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslan saidgaliev (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I accede to Ruslan saidgaliev's note. Form used in the 2010 census does not provide information on race, it asks a person on 'national origin' which is relevant to ancestry, affiliation, cultural heritage but does not necessarily indicates a person's race. A person may consider her/himself a Russian (Tatar, Bashkir, etc.) but she/he may belong to White or Asian race or be of mixed origin.

If we take a concept of 'race' as a social construct then concept 'national origin' as it is used in Russia still does not correspond to race as it is impossible to clearly define which 'nationality' corresponds to which 'race'. Are Tatars who mostly live in Europe belong to Asian or to White race? What about Mordvins? Chuvash? Russians?

Furthermore, it is incomprehensible how a number of 113,545,521 was calculated: which race is deemed White and which is not?

I propose to exclude link to http://www.perepis-2010.ru/results_of_the_census/result-december-2011.ppt from the table on Regions with significant populations and either to delete Russia from that table or to replace it with link which clearly indicates numver of white people in Russia. 91.212.179.8 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

Since images at this article have been a source of contention, I'm stopping by to alert editors to this matter; see WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I don't care if the images remain; I'm only giving you all a heads up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, isn't that a lovely way to write violation of WP:NOTCENSORED into a guideline. Wikipedia routinely uses photo galleries such as File:Cat poster 1.jpg to illustrate similar biological/genetic/sociological concepts. This RFC result will have the effect of biasing articles by visually privileging the "ethnic groups do not exist" POV. Is outright deletion of articles about ethnic groups going to occur when the other shoe drops? I still maintain that the version of this article with the images I selected was highly informative as to the appearance of ethnic group depicted. Nonetheless, I'm not going to try to replace the photo gallery until consensus changes. Which hopefully is soon. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This also raises another question, namely, why this article includes any photographs of people at all. The few (badly selected) photos seem to be opposition to the principle advanced by supporters of photo gallery removal that white people are not clearly defined by reliable sources. Please note that in the above discussion, I suggested one specific source, ISBN 978-0813525907, that would apparently be reliable for this purpose. To... silence. C'est la vie. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
When you say it would be reliable for this purpose, do you mean that it defines each of the people who featured in the gallery as white? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No, as a definition of white people in general. That's quite enough for a photo gallery, if similar practice is any guide. I can assure you that we have no reliable sources whatsoever which define each of the animals in File:Cat poster 1.jpg as domestic cats. This is not an aberration: it is a direct consequence of the fact that original images are not considered to be original research. Of course, the linked RFC, which bans all ethnic group photo galleries, policy be darned, remains to be overturned. I will start a new RFC in a few months. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
People aren't animals and categorizations of people are more contentious and in some cases stigmatized. Regardless, this is not the place to complain about it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that, but I'd be interested to hear what the definition is. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Biologically, humans are a species of animal. That point aside, EvergreenFir, you seem to be arguing that, regardless of whether we have reliable sources for the purpose, many people find classifications of people to be offensive. NOTCENSORED precludes this. Cordless Larry, the reason I mentioned that book on the talk page is that I have no desire to purchase it, then be told that it can't be used as source anyway (not reliable, need more sources, doesn't define the specific people in the photo gallery, RFC precludes photo galleries for this sort of article...) That being said, this article already includes many reliable sources which define the concept of white people (see the modern racial hierarchies section). The book I mentioned is merely one more possible source for the contemporary definition. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem comes when we try to categorise individuals based on these definitions. I doubt that the book would offer a way to do that. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We manage to illustrate articles such as Maine Coon quite well with original images, despite the fact that the breed is, like all breeds, imprecisely defined. The key difference seems to be that sub-species classifications of cats don't offend people in quite the same way as sub-species classifications of humans. So let's consider another direct analogy: ejaculation is illustrated with original images/video, despite the fact that, according to the perennial talk page complaints, the illustrations have proved highly offensive to many people. Oh, but for topics such as ejaculation, Wikipedia really isn't censored. Yet for ethnic groups, censorship has at least temporarily prevailed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that your mistake here is confusing an argument about the difficulty of dealing with the fact that definitions of ethnicity and race with an argument that these classifications are offensive. Offense doesn't feature amongst my reasons for supporting WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Anyway, I look forward to participating in any future RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Human races aren't breeds of animals. Cats and dogs aren't protected by BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, if your sole concern is the ambiguity and contradictions in definitions of human ethnic groups, all those problems still exist in articles about animal breeds, but don't produce similar results. EvergreenFir, BLP does protect living people against original research. But original images, and statements describing the image content, aren't original research. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. Ethnicity is a cultural category and is not the same as animal breeds. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Definitions of animal breeds are very much the product of human culture, are they not? Of course, human ethnicities and animal breeds aren't identical; the question is whether they are the same in relevant respects, allowing original images of both. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The conclusion from the discussions was that ascribing racial categories based on appearance of people in images was considered original research. I'm not sure how much I agree with that conclusion, but it is certainly sometimes true. Persian, Egyptian, Turkish, Lebanese, Mexican, and Armenian people often consider themselves White but I doubt many Westerners would categorize them as such. The images reflect individual and cultural understandings of racial boundaries and do not necessarily reflect the identity or self-categorization of the people in the images. Unlike with people, animals don't have self-identifications. But there are also national and international bodies that set (arbitrary) standards for what qualifies an animal as a particular breed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claims are at variance with the actual content of the article concerning Hispanic countries, supported by reliable sources. "Persian, Egyptian, Turkish, Lebanese, Mexican, and Armenian people often consider themselves White" appears to be original research. The existence of a specific type of standards for animal breeds, but not human ethnic groups, is irrelevant to the question at hand, since we have reliable sources for both. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes those claims are based on my own knowledge of survey research and past classifications of people (Mexicans were classified by the US census as White from 1850 to 1920, non-White in 1930, then White again from 1940-1950. Definitions of whiteness in the United States and Mexican_Americans#Race_and_ethnicity). I'll provide more sources if you want, but I'm not proposing we add that info into articles or anything. Just pointing out the ambiguity of the racial/ethnic classifications themselves and the fact the Wikipedia editors often use individual judgement calls when making those collages. Even if we did cite sources for every image in a collage, I could assert that Romualdo Pacheco is White and should be included in that collage because during his time he was classified as such. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments on talk pages aren't subject to the original research restrictions, of course. Remember also that there are reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that the definition of "white" has shifted significantly over time (e.g. Nell Irvin Painter's The History of White People and also the source that you suggested, judging by its title). That poses significant challenges for the selection of images for an infobox montage that is supposed to illustrate the article. Should it include people considered white by today's definitions (and, if so, whose definitions?), or should it reflect the definitions that were common during the people's lifetimes? These challenges are greater than those for articles on animal breeds, where distinctions may well be socially constructed, but they are much more institutionalised, as EvergreenFir notes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitions of human ethnic groups have changed somewhat with time, increasing the number of edge cases. The solution for this problem is simple: when depicting an ethnic group, we aim for the center, and not the edge. The fact that photographs of people who may or may not be white depending on which definition is applied can be produced is no obstacle to illustration of this article when we have photos as to which no such ambiguity exists. Furthermore, the argument that social conceptions of human ethnic groups have no biological, genetic, or other scientific basis is flat out wrong, according to "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies" PMID 15625622. This particular paper qualifies as a secondary WP:RS since the authors aren't analyzing data they collected themselves. Note also the approval of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine by the FDA, which would have hardly occurred if human ethnicity were not a scientifically definable concept. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion here seems to have stalled. I am interpreting the silence as a concession that the case for not including a photo gallery in this article has been completely refuted in my comments above. Therefore, if there are no further substantive objections within the next 30 days, I intend to restore the photo gallery in this version of this article. While I realize that this proposed action contravenes the (newly modified) image manual of style, it should be noted the MOS is a guideline and not a policy for two very good reasons. The labyrinthine complexity of the MOS could easily cause editing to grind to a halt if scrupulously and forcibly applied to every article. Secondly, despite its complexity, the specificity of the MOS necessarily implies a failure to anticipate and handle every case correctly. I am taking the language of template:guideline at its word. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. You do not have local consensus. You'll need to overturn WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES if you want to proceed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my comments above. Most of the problems with these galleries that led to the adoption of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES are present here, so I disagree with the reintroduction of the montage. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Make a page or article of the white population in countries of Hispanic America

Drawing from theWhite Latin American page make a page only for the Spanish-speaking countries in America. Derekitou Talk 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Accept that add of Hispanic America

Accept that you add to the white population of Hispanic Americans countries together, since there are none hispanic american informative and interesting it is to represent the entity invicible Hispanoamerica , thanks!!--Derekitou (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The population of Hispanic countries is very diverse, primarily including white people, native Americans, blacks, and every combination thereof. While your request is somewhat unclear, if you are asking for the inclusion of some sort of bogus census data which counts every resident of a Hispanic country as white, no. We should represent the facts as they are, as established by reliable sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You because I answered grossly? The anger that you have to what I request has no sense, these figures are drawn from Wikipedia, or you this saying that Wikipedia has false data? User:Derekitou —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Grammar in lede

This is in the lede: "The "most white" people in Europe are the Finns, who have nothing to with colonization and the slave trade to do." Irrespective of this claim, the grammar hurts my brain. Please someone with appropriate powers change it to "The "most white" people in Europe are the Finns, who have had nothing to do with colonization or the slave trade." or similar, or teach me proper English. The article is locked, sans explanation, otherwise I would do it myself. 50.242.94.205 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That part was added a few days ago by Caspiax and (1) is WP:OR and (2) violates WP:LEAD as it does not summarize the contents of the article. I've removed it entirely. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that was fast. 50.242.94.205 (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

additions

Wow what a mess of a page lacking definitions, and poorly sourced. There is no mention of the Christian religion being associated with the "white" skin colour. I would suggest adding pictures of the following historically significant people that belong to the white skin colour people group- Scientists- Isaac Newton, Gailileo, Kepler, Thomas Edison, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Writers- Shakespeare is already there but also needed- Milton, Dante, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Emily Dickens, the list would be long but stop there. Musicians- Mozart, Beethoven. Artists - Michelangelo, Da Vinci. These people are considered geniuses, they were white skin colour, which I am assuming that is the definition of "white" is because it is not possible to get a proper definition from this page, and they should be mentioned. And to clarify what white means exactly- what do the editors of this page consider Scarlett Johansen because she has very white skin, very blonde hair, and very blue eyes however she is Jewish, not Christian faith? So is she still "white" or is white a un spoken synonym for Christian? JohnathanSilverstein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Map of "European ancestry" out of place on an article about "White" People.

Not all white people live in Europe and the map shows simply Ethnic Europeans. Shouldn't the map show white people (who come from Europe, North Africa, and the MIddle East.) or move the "European" map to an article about europeans? The current map misleads over where people live and who is white. The article mentions that white people are from Europe, North Africa, and the MIddle East but the map fails to reflect that. I think a change is in order to better the cohesiveness of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffmaster1000 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No mention of white accomplishments or contributions?

What's up with that? The Jews article mentions in the lead, "Despite their small percentage of the world's population, Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields, including philosophy, ethics, literature, business, fine arts and architecture, religion, music, theatre and cinema, medicine, as well as science and technology, both historically and in modern times." The same could be said about whites, especially considering that Jews are often considered white. St. claires fire (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, Muslims doesn't have that language, and Jews aren't a race. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it is true that Wikipedia also forgot to make mention of the significant accomplishments and contributions of Muslims, without which our civilization would not exist. Although Albert was asking, "Why were Muslims even brought up? Far moreso than Jews, Muslims belong to a religion, not a race." St. claires fire (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Country/Region clarifiers

Hello. There seems to be a bit of confusion in the "Regions With Significant Populations" section. I propose it be changed to 'Countries & Regions with significant populations.' to accommodate both classifiers.

Additionally it says "The following countries" but lists Hispanic America, which is a region not a country. This could cause some confusion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

I certainly think this would be relevant. Loonball5 (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in White people

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of White people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "one.cu":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Perhaps a mention of their Neanderthal gene would be useful to the general reader. 2.27.120.93 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? It isn't specific to any 'race', evidently almost everyone outside Africa (and probably many in Africa) have a trace (1 to 2%) of Neanderthal genetic heritage.[1]. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Costa Rica

From the main wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Costa_Ricans) it states that Costa ricans are according to DNA studies, around 67%[4] of the population have some level of European ancestry.

However this wiki page says: "2009, Costa Rica had an estimated population of 4,509,290. White people (includes mestizo) make up 94%". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevePeroMortal (talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2017

Researcher123456 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

According to a 2014 research published in the journal Genetics and Molecular Biology, European ancestry predominates in 69% of Nicaraguans, followed by African ancestry in 20%, and lastly Native American ancestry in 11%, making Nicaragua the country with the highest proportion of European ancestry in Central America.[1]

Not done for now: Please specify where you would like this to be added. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Francisco Mauro Salzano; Mónica Sans (2014). "Interethnic admixture and the evolution of Latin American populations" (PDF). Genetics and Molecular Biology. 37 (1 (suppl)). Brazil: Sociedade Brasileira de Genética: 151–170. ISSN 1415-4757.

Bizarre, unexplained removals

I made this page considerably more sophisticated. For example, the page previously implied-with no sources--that all Europeans, since the 17th century, have believed that all of Europe was one race. To dispel this nonsense, which no one of any learning could countenance, I added the historical fact that National Socialist Germany and fascist Italy regarded slavs as racially inferior. (The German plan to subjugate, exterminate, or deport slavs--General Plan Ost--was rooted in racism.) I provided good sources for these claims, which within living memory resulted in the invasion of two countries and millions of deaths.

And I also removed the completely spurious claim that North Africans of non-sub-Saharan African descent regard themselves as white. (There is prejudice against sub-Saharan people in these countries, but the majority does not 'identify as white,' nor would they be considered white in Western countries.) Edaham deleted my hard work with no explanation given. Steeletrap (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The explanation I gave for the reversion of your segmented edits can be found on your talk page here. I read the sources and the text you had written and found disparity indicating that some of what you had written was not based on the existing sources, nor did you introduce any new sources to support the new text. As I mentioned on your talk page, I'd like you to discuss the sources on which you based your additional text so that it is clear that the additions have not been synthesized or inferred by combining sources, which is a practice Wikipedia discourages.
Your version of the page has not been deleted and can be easily restored pending a discussion of the requested source material. Edaham (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you disputing that the Nazis were racist against the Slavs. Preposterous. Which specific sources are you talking about? Steeletrap (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC) I think you're trying to make the concept of the white race more coherent and historically grounded than it actually is. To actually contest Nazi and Italian racism against the Slavs--which they planned to colonize on racial grounds (Generalplan Ost) and starve to death in the tens of millions (Hunger Plan)--is lunacy. Did you even read my sources? Steeletrap (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not disputing anything. I don't know how long you've been an editor, so forgive me if I am being imprudent when I link you to WP:BRD, which asks that editors discuss edits which have been reverted pending their being restored to the article. I am not implying that your edits don't belong in the article, I would just like to discuss them first before restoring them. They are still there and your work hasn't been lost. I hope that's OK with you. Can you list the sources here? - edit, I see you've simply reverted my revert, so perhaps another editor could take a look at the material. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible slander of Carl Linnaeus, apparently not supported by given source.

First of, sorry for the lack of hotlinks and possible mistakes. I'm new to to this part of Wikipedia. In the section "18th century beginnings", "Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, his descriptions of these groups included cultural patterns and derogatory stereotypes.[38]" The source, however, does not use the last two words, instead stating "Although Linnaeus intended an objective classification, he used both biological and cultural data in his subdivision descriptions." The wiki article on "Scientific Racism" does not use the wording of "derogatory stereotypes" in its section about Carl Linnaeus, instead referring to quite a few sources giving a wider picture of how to view Linnaeus work in this field. It should be obvious to any reader that a 18th century biologist has view on other ethnic groups that differs wildly from really any modern person, but to provide such an angled wording seems to me unwise, especially considering the significance of Linnaeus' work in general. Linnaeus' classification of races does not appear to even imply any sort of hierarchy and the various cultural patterns included within the classifications are, as far as I can tell, possibly eurocentric and do not deserve to be referred to as "derogatory stereotypes". I suggest someone provide a credible citation for the wording or change it to something more in line with the present citation. Ofodrums (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, per Race (human categorization): The 1735 classification of Carl Linnaeus, inventor of zoological taxonomy, divided the human species Homo sapiens into continental varieties of europaeus, asiaticus, americanus, and afer, each associated with a different humour: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively.[50][51] Homo sapiens europaeus was described as active, acute, and adventurous, whereas Homo sapiens afer was said to be crafty, lazy, and careless.[52] I don't have access to all of those sources to confirm this, but trying to fit humans into the four humours is certainly derogatory stereotyping. A reliable source cites Stephen Jay Gould as saying that these categories were as much about cartography as biology, and extends that to to say that "the Linnaean categories are also hierarchical and essentialist, even if not overtly ranked". This supports the idea that these categories where derogatory stereotyping, but not the exact wording. I don't see this as a major problem, since we are expected to use our own phrasing, anyway, to avoid plagiarism. Can you suggest a change which conveys the substance of these sources? Do you have additional sources to propose that support an alternative view?
The objective here is not to defend or attack Linnaeus' reputation, but to reflect the modern academic consensus on his work, specifically as it regards white people. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Central Asia

The majority of people from Central Asia are white. the pamiris for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamiris#/media/File:Tajik_Pamiri_children.jpg) sculptures with white for skin found in Uzbekistan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks#/media/File:Kaunakes_Bactria_Louvre_AO31917.jpg). Several other examples as well.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:7CC6:EF05:9A7F:FCB2 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

How come we moved from 6.5 to 11.5?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&oldid=810660352 (850,000,000 + 11.5% of the total world population

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&oldid=810527676#Census_and_social_definitions_in_different_regions (480,000,000 + 6.5% of the total world population

You think Zimbabwe looks like a white country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreKarlsson (talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Colored meaning non-white

Colored is a French term found in their territories such as the American South meaning mixed black-white. It by no means is "non-white", and it shows as much because no other ethnic group is called colored. Putting for that colored means non-white, is a racist propaganda put forth racist groups. Take for instance white and black are both all the colors combined, so that either represents all colors. If you can put forth that white-is no other color, then so can it be for black. So then you can call people of color non-black. When the think tank put forth the term colored to be used to define non-white people, it was a ploy at a racial separation of all other ethnic groups from white people in a us-vs-you tactic. This tactic to use color to mean non-white people is very recent and very racist. Return colored to being mixed white/black on this page, and remove the "non-white" part because it is completely false. If the part "colored or non-white" is not suppose to mean that colored is the same as non-white, then I retract my statement. It reads like it was saying colored and non-white are the same terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.29.26 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ramblings aside, you're saying that "colored" doesn't mean "non-white"? That's incorrect. Please see colored. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

Remove the citation needed tags. The citation needed tags make the article look ugly and messy. Do something about the dead links and messy references too. This article for White people needs a clean up. Make the article look perfect. 217.146.2.27 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have a specific request? The {{Cn}} tags won't be removed until references are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotTheFakeJTP (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did remove white Muslims?

All racist scientists have always used the term "white" as a synonym for Caucasoid, from the creator of the definition by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach[[2]] to the present day (between those who understand race and the history of racism), so why did removed white Muslims from the Mediterranean? Like North Africans, Levantines, Iranians etc.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral place, it's not because you hate them that they stop being part of your race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach#Beliefs_on_races . https://census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html


Also, remember that they belongs to the Mediterranean race, so if they are not "White", then you should also remove Iberians, Italians, Greeks etc because they are all Mediterranid. Exactly like the [[3]] of the 19th and 20th century did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant#Nordic_theory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorb2 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What was removed exactly? I can't find anything like this in recent edits. Also, this is about all white people, regardless of whether they are religious. Gap9551 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Carleton Coon pseudoscience

This is regarding this edit

@NightShadow23: Carleton S. Coon's position is not representative of modern science, and using scientific racism from the 1930s in a modern context is inappropriate. If your contention is that not all white people are from Europe, you will need a much better way to present it than this chart, which is only of encyclopedic use as a historical relic. At no point should this article advance pseudoscience or obsolete science as factual. If you want to discuss the geography of the Caucasian race, please discuss this using reliable modern sources. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I for one agree with the above, but what possible reason is there for including the (racist and equally pseudo-scientific) map of "percentage of European ancestry"?Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Removing the chart completely would be better than the 1930s one. I think it was originally added in good faith, but as its description points out "The very concept of "European peoples" is contested.". Using the chart here conflates European with white. That's a relatively common as a starting point for defining whiteness, but I don't think that's good enough. Jumping from "European ancestry" to "white" is supporting the misconception that white has a common definition. The reality is that it has many definitions depending on region, history, convention, and prejudice. The article explains this, but the chart is not entirely clear. At a minimum, moving it from the lede seems like a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of removing the current chart. It help visualize the repartition of white people. Using the term "Europeans" here is akin to using "Africans" for black people. We're talking about the indigenous ethnic population, it doesn't mean all Europeans are currently white.--Aréat (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No, but the map implies that all white people are descended from Europeans, which controversial re: the article content. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that I would call using "white people" to mean "people with European ancestry" controversial, exactly. The problem I see is that it's giving more weight to one definition than to others, and subtly implying that this is a primary definition. It's a valid definition in many contexts, but it's not universal, nor is "European ancestry" universal or easy to define, either. Providing context in the image caption would help solve this, also. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that some nation-states and some contemporary experts define Armenians, Uzbeks, Berbers, Arabs, Israelis, and/or Sephardic Jews as 'white' while others classify some or all of these groups as 'non-white', I think it is safe to call the question controversial. The map quite arbitrarily appears to treat Israelis, Turks and Armenians differently from Uzbeks and Tajiks, who are in turn treated differently from Berbers and Arabs. Newimpartial (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
"define Armenians, Arabs, Israelis as 'non-white'" — Such a statement requires proof. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
My statement doesn't actually require proof, it's on a talk page! :p. However, any nation that uses a Middle East and North Africa grouping for race and/or ethnic origin (as Canada does and as the U.S. is set to do in 2020) excludes Israelis and Arabs from whiteness. For Armenians, see the pre-WWI U.S. court cases on this issue.Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
We must take a scientific position, not a political one. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The article is about "white people", a topic that can only be defined politically and socially, not scientifically. It is not an article about skin pigmentation or genetics (neither of which allows for a definition of "white people" anyway, apart from albinos). Newimpartial (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The Caucasian race is not a scientific term? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Not uncontroversially, no. There is certainly no consensus scientific definition. Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It misleads the user into thinking that only Europeans are white. The map is intended for European emigration. The correct solution would be to remove the map from the article. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries: "The term white has been used to refer to the skin colour of Europeans or people of European extraction since the early 17th century. Unlike other labels for skin colour such as red or yellow, white has not been generally used in a derogatory way. In modern contexts there is a growing tendency to prefer to use terms which relate to geographical origin rather than skin colour: hence the current preference in the US for African American rather than black and European rather than white".

"In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific (see Mongoloid), the term Caucasian has acquired a more restricted meaning. It is now used, especially in the US, as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin’, as in the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties".

I think the problem is solved. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which problem? Newimpartial (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Lead section. The article said that the white people is the Caucasian race. The Caucasian race is not only Europeans, but in North America it is used as a synonym for "white people". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
We are not a dictionary and don't repeat just dictionary definitions. I can't tell what you're trying to assert, but the wording of this edit makes it sound like you're saying all Europeans are White (they're not). EvergreenFir (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I also believe that white people are not only Europeans, but Oxford do not agree with me. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The map

I'm looking at the edit history on the page. The map appears to be contested. I'm confused, tbh, because the map seems to suggest white people are Europeans. But that's not correct. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I wanted to remove the map, but I failed. The map contradicts the content of the article. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully we can get more discussion. Wikipedia is very slow on this regard, unfortunately. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The author wrote in the description: "This is NOT a map of the White race, just an "European ancestry" map. Thats the reason North African, Middle Eastern and Indo-Iranian peoples majority territories are not shaded. Anyway, some countries don't specify the origin of "White people" in their censuses so I'm taking "Caucasian" and "White" self identified people in censuses mostly in countries in the Americas as having "European ancestry", so Lebanese ancestry people in Colombia or Morocco ancestry people in the USA are counted as "European ancestry" peoples in this map because of lack of data. Despite of that, numbers and percentages wouldn't be so different considering those details and I encourage everyone who is reading this to do the math and realize these facts.". Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Then simply move it in the right section of the page, with the addendum that it is representing whites according to that one" european" definition, which is clearly the most accepted right now anyways - When whites are being talked about, they usually mean this. Are we going to change the maps of the arab world because most are called asians in the UK? Keep the map somewhere on the page. Don't delete content.--Aréat (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Except that I don't think the map actualy employs the "europeans" concept consistently. Why are Uzbeks apparently European while Turks are not (or only with an asterisk)? Not to mention the bizarre treatment of Latin America... Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This seem pretty consistent with the composition of Latin America. Look up the individual countries ethnic groups on the "demography" section of their pages. As for uzbek and Turk, you answer your own question, it's controversed as pointed out. I don't see these as reasons to delete the map entirely.--Aréat (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There isn't any objective demographic justification for Uzbeks (but maybe not Turks) being "white" or "european", nor is there a justification for the "european" contribution to Ecuador appearing so different from its neighbours in Peru and Colombia. It isn't just controversial; it is incoherent and arbitrary. Turks are part of that high European presence in the United States, but are a different colour in Turkey (according to the map). Algerians are not white on the map, but are part of that "european" U.S. majority. Incoherent and arbitrary.Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
These points are already addressed in the map's presentation. If you think it should be modified, why don't you post it on the talkpage and ask the author to modify it. He did change it multiple timed in the past, after all. Improve, don't delete.--Aréat (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this is addressed in the map's presentation here in this specific article. The caption only says Distribution of European ancestry in the world. That's not explaining very much, is it? The chart has multiple related problems that I can see: It implies that white people are of European ancestry, which isn't going to work. In doing this it treats Europe as a discrete entity, which is messy, to say the least. It also combines data compiled using different definitions and goals into a single statistic. This is reasonable for some purposes, but is it reasonable here? None of these are simple issues, and they would need so much qualification that I'm not sure that it's worth it. What does the boundary between Asia and Europe have to do with 'white people'? Does this belong in the lede? This isn't personal. This is an impressive bit of chartsmithing, but that doesn't make it appropriate for the lede of this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No white people in Europe?

Except form the UK (which is often consider to be outside Europe) there is no section about white European people. Someone Not Awful (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that that whole section is based on census data, and not all countries' censuses ask questions about race. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Mexico

Hello, Wikipedia editors. There is at least one missing word in a sentence of the Mexico section:

Europeans began arriving in Mexico with the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, with the descendants of the conquistadors, along with new arrivals from Spain formed an elite but never a majority of the population. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I added the word 'who' in the sentence in the article. Now it's readable as it is, however I still don't like the sentence because it has the word 'with' three times. Would appreciate if someone could edit that sentence. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It is wrong anyway. Not the descendants of the conquistadors, but the conquistadors themselves are the ones who initiate the arrivals. Dimadick (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Australia (white Australian)

I agree that "Australia (white Australian)" should be removed from the lead as Australians no longer, in general, describe themselves as "white" and so fit in more with what is described in the lead as "the rest of Europe". Note also that the link above is a redirect to European Australians. User:HiLo48 was correct and gave a good reason. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion on the talk page. If you mean the reason given in this edit, the reason given in the summary for removing the text was Not the case in Australia these days. I reverted that because in the summary, the "these days" part gives the impression that the removal is due to article text being based on an outdated source. However
There is a piece of text in the article saying that Australia enumerated its population by race between 1911 and 1966, by racial-origin in 1971 and 1976, and by ancestry since 1981. and it is supported by [abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0Feature+Article2July+2011 this source]
The proposed removal of the text should be based on one of the three 1)The text is completely unsupported 2)Its based on a source but is misinterpreted or 3)There's a more up to date source which contains more accurate info. Thanks for doing the whole WP:BRD thing, and thanks for your time. Edaham (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. There simply was/is no source supporting any suggestion that "white Australia" is a common expression or perspective in Australia today. And the text is written in the present tense! Chances are it's wrong for other countries too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you are quite right. That whole paragraph seems dubious. Certainly the source provided at the end of the lead doesn't do enough to justify its being there. I'm trawling the rest of the article trying to find adequate evidence that it might be summarizing some part of the body. Edaham (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It must be very confusion for Australian readers to understand many of these articles then. /s To suggest that race is no longer a social concept in Australia is a bit shocking. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The Australian census stopped asking about race at least as far back as the 1980s. "Ancestry" is what it now asks about. "Race" is used by bigots, and those encouraging them. Your list of newspaper article is original research. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Government language choice is important, but it cannot be used to say there is no concept of whiteness in Australia. I am using newspapers to demonstrate that the term "white" vis-a-vis race is used today in Australia. To say White is no longer a "common expression or perspective in Australia today" must be demonstrated by you. I see no evidence for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no. The sources for the claimed 90% figure of whiteness in Australia in the article are crap. One is dead. The other doesn't say what the source claims. At the most recent Australian census 33% of people declared that their ancestry was Australian. I was one of them. There's no way that points to whiteness. So there is no cite for that claim of 90%. The link in the article now being edit-warred over points to a disambiguation page, so that's useless. I don't have to prove a thing. The article and you do. Do YOU have sources about whiteness in Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hilo48, please see the final section of the Talk page, before Edit Warring further, and explain how the case of Australia is any different from the other countries listed in the third paragraph of the lede. Your comments here about the Australian census are not relevant to that issue. Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

At no point have I compared Australia with any other country. Unlike some talking about Australia, I won't pretend I know enough about those countries I haven't lived in. There's a lot of straw man arguing going on here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48, the text of the paragraph you were edit-warring places Australia in the context of other countries. If you don't feel qualified to weigh in on this comparison, then don't edit that paragraph. Problem solved. Newimpartial (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people/Archive_26&oldid=1137318904"