Jump to content

Talk:White people/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Anonymous girl who no one gives a damn is more important than Shakira?

Tell me, should we keep the picture of a possibly non white anonymous girl instead of keeping the picture of an actual white women, famous world wide. If Aishwaria Rai is in the gallery, Shakira has the same right to be in it too 201.68.50.209 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just tell me why Aishwarya can be in the list and Shakira can't? If it's not a popularity contest, Aishwarya shouldn't be in the gallery either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlyBraun (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll AGF and answer: the gallery is meant to give an idea of the broadest possible spectrum of people who are considered "white" by some definition. It is neither a collection of the most popular, most well-known or most "typical" "white" people, as some people in the gallery might not be considered "white" by some more restrictive definitions. It's just (taken together) an illustration of the breadth of the spectrum of those which can be considered "white". Hope this answers your question.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I however think that Shakira should still be included in the gallery, to show to some Americans that Shakira is white, since there are plenty of americans who say she is not white. She should serve as an example of a White hispanic woman. InuYoshi (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find much less resistance to including extra people in the gallery, especially if based on sound reasons, than if you want to exclude anyone. I wouldn't oppose it, personnally.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The gallery was not well-balanced in terms of gender, place and professions, so I've replaced some images. I've also alphabetized the images so that the presentation is essentially random. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice that you've added Shakira, but I think the picture that is in her article is better than the one shown in this article, she looks wierd. InuYoshi (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Although there is nothing wrong with including her in the gallery, including Shakira just to "show Americans that she is white" is not a good reason and could be considered POV pushing; however, I agree that more people from the Americas need to be included. Before these recent edits, I believe practically everyone in the gallery was from the "Old World". Not only are there the 2 countries of Canada and the U.S. with white people, but there are several Latin American countries with representation as well (such as Shakira). Kman543210 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the most recent edit removed many people of non-European descent, and I don't think that's a good idea if we want to represent the breadth of the spectrum of those who can be considered "white". I'd rather this be discussed and consensus reached before any replacements are done.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was seeing that pashtu girl and yasser arafat on the gallery and I thought we could add some "very white" people like Eddie Murphy, Michael Clark Dunkan, Beyonce, Williams sisters, Barack Obama and Will Smith. InuYoshi (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's either ironic or not very constructive as criticism. I'll assume the former, but if you seriously have objections to the inclusion of the Pashtu girl or of Yasser Arafat, I'd like to hear your objections. --Ramdrake (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not as if it's not just as easy to revert it X days from now as it is now. Let people have their say, express their opinions about the mix and the spread, and then changes can be made. The previous gallery was not well balanced, and I think this one is better. I could be wrong, but let's allow consensus to determine that -- after all, I see here no obvious consensus for the previous version.

On those grounds, please do not revert the gallery, allow a discussion to take place. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


i dont think you allowed for disscusion to take place before making such wholesale changes those photos were build on consensus and because you come along and dont like them, so you just up and change them before a new consenus is reached but than you want a consensus before any further changes can be made come on now, and remember this is not a democracy its not a majority rule to reach a consensus which i have found out--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s state your issue with each particular photo and take it from there not change photos first and you also added like a few more photos we dont want the gallery to increase much more no reason to this will be a article of all gallery and no substance--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Yasser Arafat

What is Yasser doing in this article? He doesn't look white. nndb says je is middle eastern. 201.68.196.70 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll find out that many Middle Easterners can be considered "White".--Ramdrake (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
And you chose puting specifically this murderer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.101.7 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
One could also describe Eamon de Valera in the same context, he was involved with the Easter Rising, but you don't seem to be vexed about his inclusion. I chose to describe de Valera as a freedom fighter because that's probably how he saw himself. On the other hand de'Valera was also a giant of Irish politics, acting as both Prime Minister and President and was instrumental in the transition from the Irish Free State to the Republic of Ireland. Arafat certainly does not have clean hands (and how many politicians really do?), but he renounced violence a long time before his death, and is arguably more responsible for moving the PLO towards a peaceful resolution of the problems of the Palestine than any other single person. He is also a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, which he received specifically for his change of attitude. Arafat was instrumental in negotiating the Oslo Accords, a significant event in it's own right. I'd be just as happy to include people like Martin McGuinness or Menachem Begin (see King David Hotel bombing), both of whom have been involved in political violence, they would almost certainly describe themselves as freedom fighters. I suspect that Arafat would have described himself as a freedom fighter, but I avoided use of this term for him as I think it would have been unnecessarily provocative, I think "Palestinian nationalist" is a less divisive way to describe him, and none would deny him this label I don't think. I am sorry his inclusion upsets you but I don't really see how his inclusion is particularly controversial. Alun (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_17#.22NNDB_is_never_a_source.22--S00porz2 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad we have some images at last, but the image gallery is over the top, and appears to be a random collection. It would make sense to present "phenotypes" of all macroregions included in the term, thus, Northern Europe (e.g. Sami), Southern Europe (e.g. Italian), Near East (e.g. Arab, Armenian), Central Asia (e.g. Pashtun, Kyrgyz) , North Africa (e.g. Berber). It seems pointless to just heap up images of celebrities. This would yield something like:

some of these may need cropping (especially the Bedouin and Fellah images). More suggestions are welcome -- the point is that we need to keep the gallery within reasonable limits, aiming at maximual diversity presented within a minimal number of images. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some strategy for representation and that the images need not all be celebrities, but the faces should be clear and visible (some of the above examples are not). I notice that people get way too caught up trying to include their favorite prime minister, president, actor, or singer. Kman543210 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


i still dont see a valid reason to remove the current one thats been up for sometime, besides people just want to put there own spin on the gallery,the current gallery which does have people from very diverse regions, i dont understand the issue it seems nobody wants to add the to the article itself but keep harping on the gallery which is one of the reasons i had sided in favor of the removal of the gallery lets have a valid reason for a removal of the gallery besides people just wanting to pick new pics--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted several new additions to the gallery, as I'm not convinced they add anything to showing the diversity of white people. Comments welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree with you and so have i and that pov problem editor has been blocked i am still in favor of the removal of the gallery all together though--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I was too in favor of removing the gallery initially, until several editors came by and argued to reinstate the gallery. I just don't want to see it removed again just to find another batch of editors demanding it be reincluded again. Hope you see the dilemma.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm ambivalent about the gallery. My personal feeling is that it doesn't really serve a purpose, though I don't feel strongly about it. On the other hand there are a great many editors who feel strongly that we should include a gallery. There doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or the other. Considering that we have a relatively stable gallery as it stands (notwithstanding that this is a contentious issue) with no real edit warring between "keeps" ad "deletes" for the gallery, it seems that the best solution is to keep it for the time being and see how it goes. Possibly some of the images could be scattered through the article at some point in the future rather than being all lumped together at the bottom, but that's a different story, as they say. Cheers, Alun (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Racial Identities on Wikipedia

I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but many articles consider middle easterners as "white", others do not. So, what does Wikipedia consider Indians and other arabs?--S00porz2 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nursaltan Nazarbayev vs Aishwarya Rai

OK so Ash Rai's image is deleted and rightly so, but I think her image would be more justified there than the Khazakh president's. Khazaks are central Asian and neither fit under the Caucasoid/Indo-European or Semitic branches of Human kind, hence they don't even make marginal inclusion into the gallery, regardless of what the U.S. Censusu definition would define them. I'm sure that anyone who is not visually impaired would not identify Naazarbayev as white in any context. I would think this Kashmiri girl http://www.kashmir-tours.net/Images/People.jpg would have her image more justified in the gallery. Secondly, The gallery should be put in order for European Caucasoids and non-European images for marginal inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.242.172 (talk • contribs) 04:26, September 13, 2008

The Caucasoid Race & White people, I propose that this article is getting confused with the definition of the 'caucasian race article' which includes "skull" and "facial/body feature similarities" in parts of South Asia, Middle east etc . The definition "white", seems to be only or atleast mainly used in the majority of the term "Western world" and atleast invented in the western world?...like the term "Blanco" (White Latin American) in Latin America, refers to people who descend from European settlers from mainly Spain, Portugual ,Italy, Germany etc.. since the term Blanco/Branco was invented by the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers to define peoples Race, since racial mixing occured frequently.

Problem is, separating out people by region and putting Europeans first gives the impression these are more "white" than the others, not an impression we wish to give.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
i agree no need to segregate the gallery its does give the impression of the more white non sence and there is just no real good reason to do so--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I suggested a European/nonEuropean divide in the Gallery is that mainstream Western society doen not generally consider non-European peoples as a whole as 'white'. West Asians may be classed as such in the U.S., South America and Apartheid South Africa, but only in Census definitions. Non-Europens would have to look European to be marginally considered 'white' by most Western standards.

Not at all. There are several definitions of "white". The gallery illustrates the widest possible definition. There is no need to try to depict some people as "marginally white" compared to others.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's understood that Middle Easterners fall under white by the u.s. census despite generally not being perceived as white. Indians however do not fall under white despite some being considered Caucasoid. Considering the census doesn't include Indians under white and they are not perceived as such there is no valid reason to include Aishwarya Rai. Yamagishi (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Some definitions of "white" do include Asians, and presumably some Indians as well. This tries to encompass the widest possible definition.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)\

The vague explanation of "some" definitions of white including Indians when they are officially and socially considered non-white not to mention that Indians do not self Identify as "white". Your argument goes against the census and the general social viewpoints on this issue and is simply invalid. Rai doesn't belong and should be removed. Yamagishi (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state your sources to the effect that Indians (...) are officially and socially considered non-white. Personal opinion doesn't count.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to propose an inclusion of sources to verify the claim made by Yamagishi. According to the US census, a person with origins from the Indian subcontinent falls under the category of Asian in terms of race.[1] CenterofGravity (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to mentioning this particular opinion in the article. I object to it being passed of as "The Truth".--Ramdrake (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake the facts have been provided for you and now it's up to you to accept it.

Main article: Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

Yamagishi (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamagishi, I'm not disputing that the US census doesn't currently include people of the Indian sub-continent as other than white; I'm just saying it's not the only definition of "white".--Ramdrake (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have not provided any definition other than your opinion to back this up. Some have considered south Indians to be "black" but it would be invalid to actually include Indians under black people based on that. Yamagishi (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Brazil and Argentina would be two countries where pale-skinned Indians would be considered white, for example. In the USA, Indians were at times considered white and at others not. Just dig through the references for this article and you'll see.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do some digging you'll see that at one time Italians and Irish were considered non-white so should we exclude them based on that? The facts still remain the same I'm afraid. Yamagishi (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is the broadest sence of white and the fact that at one time in the united states irish were not considered white has nothing to do with the situation, you keep on insisting that only the united states has the authority to deal out race cards, ramdrake has brought to light a definiton in which indians can be considered white ,i mean you may disagree thats fine, for example, i disagree with mariah carey being considered black when she has white skin but thats is my own personal opinion to bad for me.But please cease with your acting out and try to gain a conseneus to remove her from the gallery--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply saying that sometimes Indians are considered white is merely an opinion holds very little weight. Middle Easterners are included because the U.S. census lists them as such in spite of the fact that Canada and the U.K. among many other countries do not consider them white. Evidence confirming the fact that Indians are considered white by neither the U.S. census, the Canadian or U.K. racial classifications has been provided. Including Indians based on a vague claims isn't enough. Neither you nor Ramdrake have been able to back up you position with anything but your opinions. Yamagishi (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

who is to say which government is right or wrong thats why the article is all inclusive get it--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So government and the views of society don't matter only your opinion? Going around in circles and refusing to back up your opinions isn't an acceptable argument. Information has been provided that proves the inclusion of an Indian person in the gallery of "white" people is officially and socially invalid. Yamagishi (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

what society ,who's society are we talking about has there been a recent scientiffic poll on who would consider this indian women white or not do you have a source for this?--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And around we go. The information has already been provided that shows that Indians do not fall under white. You have provided nothing but dead end responses of little substance. Opinions do not stand against facts I'm afraid. Yamagishi (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Indians are not considered white according to the Canadian, UK and US censuses, although they did qualify as white in the US sometime in the 20th century. They currently qualify as white under at least Brazilian and Argentinian definitions. So, they do qualify as white under some definitions. Which additional facts do you need? Also, you may wish to dial down the attitude.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of Caucasian/white race and their sources:

The American Heritage [1]: Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India.
Merriam-Webster [2]: Of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation.
Random House Unabridged [3]: Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India.
MSN Encarta Dictionary [4]: 1. Relating to people who are light-skinned or of European origin 2. Belonging to the light-skinned peoples of Europe, northern Africa, and western and southern Asia.
MSN Encarta Encyclopedia [5]: A racial group consisting primarily of the light-skinned peoples of Europe, North Africa, western Asia, and India.
U.S. Census Bureau [6]: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

As a poster previously said, this is assuming that Caucasian and white are synonymous, which many people use them interchangeably, some maybe do not. As you can see, many of the sources do include India in the definition. Kman543210 (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Yamagishi, it's not correct to say that "Indians do not fall under white", claims like this are difficult to verify, it's very hard to "prove" a negative. Now it is true that there exist definitions of "white" and/or "caucasian" that do not include peoples from the Indian subcontinent, but it is equally true that there exist concepts of "white"/"caucasian" that do include the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Incidentally there also exist definitions of "white"/"caucasian" that include some of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent but not others. All of these points of view are easily verified. Wikipedia is not here to promote The Truth as any particular editor or groups of editors see it, it's here to give all verifiable points of view, and the claim that sometimes peoples from the Indian subcontinent are considered "white" is a verifiable and a notable point of view. There is no universally accepted "racial" classification system, and many of these classifications are contradictory. The location of the Indian subcontinent places it more or less equidistant from Europe and the Far East, this means that it's population displays characteristics of both, and of course it is a peninsula, which means that there is likely to be an additional axis of clinal variation that is unique to India. The peoples of India have therefore sometimes been classified in the same "race" as Europeans, sometimes they have been classified in the same "race" as the peoples of the Far East, and sometimes they have been classified into their own "race". Incidentally many physical anthropologists include Ethiopians and Somalis as "white"/"caucasian" as well, we should probably include images of people from these groups in the gallery for completeness. There's no hard and fast rule here and we should always be aware that reliable sources may often contradict what we personally hold to be self evident "truths". We cannot fairly exclude reliable sources that do not conform to our own personal world view just because we do not like what they say. In summary, what you are saying is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, we need to include all points of view. I think the article already covers this. Cheers, Alun (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the logic of the that argument it would also be valid to include an Indian in the gallery of "black people" considering certain populations in India are sometimes considered black such as Dravidians for example. Yamagishi (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite right! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed, in the UK it used to be quite common for anyone who was not of obvious European descent to describe themselves as black, even Pakistani and Indian people. Alun (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In support of my above post see Bhopal, R. (2004) "Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: for reflection and debate". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58:441-445 doi:10.1136/jech.2003.013466 where he states "Black: A person with African ancestral origins, who self identifies, or is identified, as Black, African or Afro-Caribbean (see, African and Afro-Caribbean). The word is capitalised to signify its specific use in this way. In some circumstances the word Black signifies all non-white minority populations, and in this use serves political purposes. While this term was widely supported in the late 20th century there are signs that such support is diminishing." The emphasis is mine. Cheers, Alun (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious that the photos of "white people" aren't actually compiled mostly with people of non-European origin but rather people usually not associated with the term. Apparently Indians are white now also I see. It's too bad that all it takes is enough people with a particular point of view to control what's presented on Wikipedia articles regardless if credible or not. Siddhartha21 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary POV when there are reliable sources to back it up. If you look above at the several definitions of "Caucasian/white" that I provided, you can see that 3 of them specifically include India in the list (another states western and southern Asia). I agree that in most social context, Indians would not be considered white. Kman543210 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that may very well depend on what society one lives in. For example in an Indian social context it might be that upper cast Indians are identified as "white" and lower cast Indians are not identified as "white" (I don't know if this is true or not, it's just supposed to be an example of how social context is highly subjective). Social context is highly dependent on the society one is from, so it may be true that in most social contexts in the USA or Europe, for example, Indian people would not be considered "white", but I'm not sure one could legitimately extrapolate this to the whole world and say that in all societies globally mostly Indians are not considered "white". We always need to be careful of systemic bias. I'm not sure I follow Siddhartha21's point. What is presented on Wikipedia is surely the product of reliable sources and not the point of view of the editors. If Siddhartha21 is trying to say that we should present his point of view because he believes it is "The Truth" then I'm afraid I cannot agree with him. Alun (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

So if I am to understand the entry on the United Kingdom, if a person is a fair complected/fair eyed/fair haired Manx, they are nonwhite British? Castravalva (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples

I have restored to examples that were removed. There is no reason why this article shouldn't have any examples other than a gallery at the bottom of the article. Usergreatpower (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

there is no reason there should be anymore pics in this artcile its an enyclopedia article not a picture book

there are maybe 30 pics in the gallery already to give a broad spectrum of examples--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you may want to go check some other articles then because I see plently of photos on other articles. Usergreatpower (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why 2 example photos should not be included in 2 relevent sections on this article. Usergreatpower (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why the Black people article has example photos in relevent sections through the article or why articles such as the United States have pictures through the article instead of just a gallery at the end if Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a 'picture book' as you put it? Usergreatpower (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was told to gain consensus before editing this article yet I am the only one using this talk page. Consensus is merely an excuse for blocking edits, as the people reverting edits state gain consensus first and won't attempt to build any consensus as they won't use the talk page while the article is their version, only if they are trying to put it back to their version. I also feel these reverst are racially motivated judging by the editors contributions histories. I will take this to the Admin notice board as I feel there is a racist few here restricting improvement of this article. Usergreatpower (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it would be nice if you actually gave people time to reply, say a day or two at a minimum, rather than minutes. The sunbject of the pictures has actually been raised more than once on the talk page and the associated archive. In every case, it was decided by consensus not to have images in the article. For the record, I still think it's a bad idea: we already have the image gallery whih does just that. And please spare us the epithets: I would think just the scope of the gallery should demonstrate that no one here is racist.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

However I think it's very poor that I need to take it to the Admins noticeboard to get any response. People seem to have the idea that this is their article and their say goes and any attempt by an outsider to change it from their preference will be responded to with reverts and these outsiders do not deserve any discussion. Usergreatpower (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record of consenus building i am against adding anymore pics whether it is to the gallery or to random parts of the article also just to let you know the black people article had no gallery for the longest time whilst this article had a gallery , this is not a compeition of dueling articles because one has the other should as well that is ridiclous--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So here's the main point, is a photo of Marylin Monroe in the Physical appearance section a good or bad idea? I feel it's a good idea because she's probably the most iconic example of an idealised appearance of a white person. Usergreatpower (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

okay thats fine lets give it a few days and see what some other editors think--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Previous consensus was against the inclusion of a sterotypical "white" person. I still think the gallery is enough.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know why Marylin Monroe is supposed to be "the most iconic example of an idealised appearance of a white person." Personally I think that no man wants to look like her, whether they are "white" or otherwise, so at the very least she could only represent an idealised version of a woman. Then there's the question of her obviously non-natural hair, and the fact that most so called "white" people are not blonde anyway. I don't think there is or can ever be such a thing as an "idealised white person", at best all we can achieve is some sort of idea of the vast diversity that exists within any given group of people, and even then we are going to omit much of the variation. Alun (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Alun, with all due respect, you are asking the wrong question. The question is not "why" is Marilyn Monroe the most iconic example etc. The question is "According to whom?" When it comes to the article, if there is research on why people have different iconic representations of white people, we can discuss that research. But when it comes to inclusion in the gallery I think the key issues are NPOV and V. I am sure we all agree that there is no iconic representaton of ideal Whiteness that is shared by all people. As with most things there are multiple points of view. It may be a good idea to include images to represent each notable view of what a "white person" is. I do not think Usergreatpower has to explain to us why anyone consideres MM the most iconic. But she should be able to explain to us who believes this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Point well taken :) Alun (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I support JzG's removal of the ridiculous and arbitrary gallery (I just hope he doesn't go and do something silly like protect the article to keep it that way). Now that the gallery is gone, I feel this article desperately needs some sort of lead illustration--perhaps we could use a historical political cartoon containing sort of caricature (perhaps one positive and one negative) of the "white man". Whatever illustration we choose, it should not merely be an image of any old white person; it should be an image about white people. Any ideas?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, and I'm not making a joke here, if we could find an image/collage of "White" or "Caucasoid" people from an actual third-grade "social studies" book, that would make an amazing lead image. Too bad it would be copyrighted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent but generally support removal. There is a gallery at the commons, personally I think that should suffice. On the other hand we do need to take heed of the views of all editors even if we disagree with them. If there are good reasons not to have a gallery, as I believe there are, make the case on the talk page and convince others by discussion, let's not start an edit war. Alun (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW I like your suggestion TFMWNCB. Do you have any suggestions to kick things off? Alun (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good image, as it illustrates a previous attempt to define what white features are. I would not recommend using this particular image in the article, because it comes from a Nazi book, and its use would seem to promote the POV that the very study of the white race itself cannot be separated from white supremacy (that's my POV, btw). However, if we could find an older, more innocuously sourced illustration like this, that would work for me. I don't want this article to come off as excessively preachy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, I'm surfing teh Google looking for some historical images about white people and, honestly, they're all extremely political/preachy (Thomas Nast cartoons) or laughably offensive (19th century ethnology books--you have to see some of this stuff!). This is not going to be easy....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removal and based on the same logic have done the same at Black people as being equally objectionable. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
squeakbox just because an admin says its ridiclous does not mean all bets are off an admin does not make the rules a concensus must be build before removal of content not vice versa and it must be build over some time to give other editors time to chime in, also you should not have removed the gallery from the black people article just because an admin said this is ridiclous he is not god you know--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It goes without saying that SqueakBox's input has not been helpful. However, I genuinely see no consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of a gallery in an article like this. I think looking at a few FAs or GAs is a useful way of approaching this; none of those high quality articles, to my knowledge, have "Galleries" like this in the body of the article itself (they have links to Commons galleries). They're just not considered good wiki-formatting. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


All im saying lets give time for editors to chime in(before removal not remove first)the gallery was build on a consenusus--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you've reverted my edit to delete the gallery. It may have been built on the shaky consensus of a few way back when, but in more recent discussions, I see nothing even approaching consensus for its inclusion. Removing the gallery by default it seems reasonable, given that high quality articles never use them. What, specifically, do you feel the gallery adds to the article?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Im for removal of the gallery if it's not replaced with another form of images especialy not cartoon type images or art, that could lead to steroptype. The gallery now shows people a broad spectrum of who can be considered white. Any kind of images in regards to race can be arbitrary real photos cartoons or art form(in other words you would be replaceing one demon for another)--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
A mass of pictures of "a broad spectrum of people who could be considered white" is not helpful here. A historical image that attempts to depict white people as a whole (even if as an ideal or as a villain) would be preferable. An image that purports to be archetypal of the white race is far more suitable than a selection of images of people who, arguably, happen to be white. Even if we can't find that, we're better off without the gallery.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Example photos

I tried putting an example photo in the article yet user:wobble again refuses to allow any example photos in the article. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth should this article not be allowed to have any example photos added to it? It just doesn't make any sense and only makes the article less informative and interesting. Almost every article of this size on Wikipedia have photos throughout. Plus many people disagree with the pointless gallery which serves only to allow people to add people who they think are white to it over time making it really just a big board for people to post photos of people they think are white. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to the comments in the Talk:White_people#Examples section above. Why start a new section and ignore the section above? Four editors have disagreed with your addition, do you think edit waring is going to provide a solution? Alun (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think having example images of the subject is not only a good idea, but an absolute requirement. However, this is a sensitive topic, and we need to make sure there is a very reliable reference to support the assertion that the person in the photo qualifies as a "white person". The Black people article takes a pretty good approach, showing different images of a diversity of black people. the skomorokh 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the problem is with the characterisation of Monroe rather than the inclusion of images per se. Alun (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bloated "see also" section

The See also section is far longer than is useful, yet most of the links seem relevant. Would anyone object if I converted it into a navbox? the skomorokh 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I whipped something up quickly based on {{Stirner}}. It only uses links from the See also section, categorised for navigational ease:

Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice, well done. Alun (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Ok, although something like this could be controversial, it only mimics the existing See also section, so I'm going to be bold and implement it. the skomorokh 13:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. There are tens of thousands of article subjects and probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of images depicting people who just happen to be white. Choosing some but not all is arbitrary, choosing all would be entirely arbitrary, and you're never going to find a consensus in reliable sources for the faces which best exemplify whiteness - nor would you want to try. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate the gallery, but this article can never be of high quality without a few inline images, and I'm attempting to start a discussion (see 3 sections above) about which sorts of images should be considered for such purposes. Guy, the declaration that a majority of reliable sources somehow need to agree on which images best exemplify the subject is absurd, though I've seen a few misguided souls attempt to apply this misreading of policy elsewhere. Editorial decisions (e.g., which images to include) are made my editors, not by "reliable sources".--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You can put the gallery on this talk page to discuss which ones to use, the use of a gallery of arbitrarily selected images in an article is pretty much indefensible, under the circumstances - the number chosen compared with the number available means that the selection has to refer to sources otherwise it's going to be a perennial source of either bloat or POV. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats why i am for having zero images in the article but lets give it time before removal lets discuss first before removal its not like we are needleing whether or not to remove vandalism here ,this concerns an hot button issue lets give a chance for more ediotrs to get involved what is a day or 2(discuss first before removal)and the picture are of people from areas of the world that are sourced by various governments in which they can be considered "white"--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, considering there was consensus for the gallery here, but that there never was consensus for deleting the gallery, and as per Wikipedia rules, no consensus on deletion should mean status quo until there is a demonstratedn change in consensus, I really don't see the urgency of repeatedly deleting the gallery, as the deletion is against previous consensus, and no consensus to remove has been established.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
That's at the article level. Within an article the onus is always on those who seek to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for inclusion (it's obvious why that has to be; otherwise I could insert "white people are superior" and insists that it stay until there is unanimous agreement to exclude it, a policy whihc enabled that kind of behaviour would be a nightmare). The thing to do here is go back to policy and guidelines and see what might govern the selection and inclusion of images. The criteria in this case appear to be undefined and distinctly contentious; if you want to start characterising Aishwarya Rai as an exemplary white person might be deemed grossly offensive by some in the Indian community and labelling the Pashtun as white is also contentious. About the only one that is uncontentious as an exemplar of an ideal of "whiteness" is the most contended, Marilyn Monroe. I think the only way to fix it is to go back to sources and see what they consider an appropriate exemplar, and then be very careful about selecting and justifying any images that go in. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflicted] This proposal has merit. Might I suggest finding a recent article on Whiteness in a reputable source, and use whoever they use as an examplar but with our own free image instead of a copyrighted one? the skomorokh 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
But then, we'd be promoting a single view of "whiteness" as The Truth, which is against NPOV. There are several major, conflicting views, and we need to ensure we are including all notable view.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a little much to claim that showing a picture of an uncontroversially white person with a reference saying that they are white, is promoting a single view of white people; the infobox of the elephant article contains only an image of an African image—is that promoting a single view of elephants? I think not. Tell me the reliable source for your assertion that there are several major, notable, conflicting views to be taken into account, and we will be well on the way to depicting them. This is not as difficult an issue to address as we are making out, I think. the skomorokh 21:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Just take a look at the different census definitions which are in the article. Also, just to give a fairly extreme example, I'm sure that Stormfront's definition of who's white would be at odds with what you'd find say in the Oxford Dictionary. The crux of the matter is that people generally don't disagree on what can be considered an elephant; they disagree on what can be considered "white".--Ramdrake (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Stormfront-level disagreement is not really an issue - we have a guideline for that. Are you claiming that there is such disagreement among mainstream observers that they would not agree that, say, Bill Clinton was white? (On a side note, your Stormfront example is unintentionally hilarious—you should take a look at their regional forums where some Spaniard or Persian comes on complaining about how he is persecuted as a white person to be greeted by outraged euro-americans calling him a half-black/mud/wog etc.) To reiterate, I think you are overstating the division. the skomorokh 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, then, just take the talk page disagreements we've had so far on the Pashtun girl, the Indian actress and the Kazhak president. All three have been hotly contested as not being "white" despite there being reliable sources warranting their inclusion. Also, please note that not so long ago (in the 1900s), several European ethnics groups were not considered white in the USA: Irish, Germans, Ashkenazi Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Hispanics, Slavs, and Greeks. So, defining "whiteness" is far more subjective and fluid than defining an elephant. I really don't think I'm overstating the case.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So what's the problem in putting a picture of an Ashkenazi Jew next to that paragraph, a white pale-skinned European next to the bit about the Newcastle researchers, some White Argentines in the White Argentine section etc.? the skomorokh 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem: Bill Clinton is clearly and unambiguously white. But if we have Clinton, I absolutely insist that we have Bush as well. Or instead. So we take both out and use Washington, and then someone says why Washington and not "German George", surely that's systemic bias, which of course it is, so then we take that out and insert Einstein, but he's Jewish and that';s contentious in a different way, so someone slaps in Billy Graham, and then we have to have the Pope and.... well, I think you get the idea. The point is, there is no way to get even close to all the images we have even of unambiguously white people, but we are not supposed to do our own research on who is and is not white or may or may not best represent what whiteness looks like. If we can't even agree on Marilyn Monroe then any gallery idea is doomed. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, no there is a major difference here: there was previous, recorded consensus for the prior inclusion of the gallery. Your example, if it came under discussion ("white people are superior") would fairly obviously not meet consensus. The gallery was previously discussed and explicit consensus existed for its inclusion. As far as sources are concerned, inclusion of all gallery images was based on at least one reliable source qualifying people from the area of where the person's image came from as being included in a definition of "whiteness". The gallery was explicitly devised to represent the broadest possible definition of the term, rather than the most stereotypical, which was the basis for the extant consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
To call that a previous recorded consensus is a load of bollocks, and saying it bold will not somehow make it true. That debate had very few participants, and several of them raised exactly the kinds of issues we see here; in as much as there was consensus, it was that there should probably be an image of some sort. Not an arbitrarily selected gallery. Who decides what is white? Who decides on the representation of ethnic groups within the definition of white? Who decides that X or Y image is especially representative of that group, rather than representing a potentially offensive racial stereotype? Seriously, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia drawn from reliable independent secondary sources, so let's use those sources to decide on what, if any, images should be included. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if you were less rude and cease with your bullying tatics(Like above and having your wikipedia cronies come to my talk page to make it seem like im a bad faith editor which is laughable) guy maybe people would be more willing to see your point of view you should have more respect for established editors on this article being you are new to this article.I myself is on a earlier record of being for the removal of the gallery because it is too arbitrary but my twist is leave out any images all together because the arbitrary nature of chosing who defines white and than what picture to use, but you keep making statments to the contrary of your own claim by saying lets "chose new images" this all sounds like you just want to chose new images based on what you think is "WHITE" when chosing any new images would be arbitrary unless the pics are pictures of caucasoid skulls and skeletons--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not start with the bold text. Sorry you find citing policy and guidelines to be bullying tactics, not much I can do about that I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also guy i wondered if you checked out the FA on the pashtun people you never got back to me on that


::Like other Iranian peoples, many Pashtuns have mixed with various invaders, neighboring groups, and migrants. In terms of phenotype, Pashtuns are predominantly a Mediterranean people,[39] so light hair, eye colors and pale skin are not uncommon, especially among remote mountain tribes.[40]:: --Wikiscribe (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


saying somebody is white is hardly slanderous and do not compare a statement such as "white people are superior" being put in the article via consensus with the inclusion of a gallery via consensus of people in which there are sources stating these people can be considered white also please dont make ignorant statements about pashtun people unti you read the featured article on them in which there is this sort of sourced statement


so maybe some pashtun can meet your standards of exemplar "WHITE" like that of ms.monroe--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I once thought that a gallery here could demonstrate the broad diversity among people who are considered to be white or cacasian, and by labeling the region we could illustrate the concepts of migration and localized adaptation. But, I don't think that it is practical, and perhaps just not productive. I see this really becoming more of a wp:coatrack than a learning tool. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The gallery should be removed and example photos placed throughout the article in relevant sections, just as is the case with most articles on Wikipedia. Much of the trouble with the gallery was that some photos were included which people disputed. The US government defines Arabs and people as far as India as being White whereas many define only those of European descent as White. Having example photos throughout the article in relevant sections, especially examples of people considered to be White by regional definition should reduce disputes. Usergreatpower (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you could achieve your goal, but it may be worth a try. Perhaps you should copy the article to a sandbox and then demonstrate your technique. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on Guy! Where did anyone ever claim "Aishwarya Rai as an exemplary white person"? Can you point out to me where in the article this claim was ever made? This sort of straw man "argument" is not what we should be aiming for. Just what is and "exemplary white person?". I must confess that I find the level of systemic bias extremely high in this article, everyone thinks they know what "whiteness" is, but in reality they are really promoting the concept of "whiteness" that is dominant in the society in which they developed. When we analyse these ideas more closely we find that there is no real agreement and there certainly is no "universal norm". You essentially seem to be claiming that what you consider to be an "obvious example" of a "white" person is the same as what is accepted as "obvious" globally and has been "obvious" historically. I don't accept this argument. Any claims for a "universally acceptable" definition of "whiteness" are bound for failure because we will always have reliable sources that contradict any "universal". Who is or in not "white" is clearly dependent on social context, and indeed any recent anthropological text would explicitly say this. There are plenty of examples where subcontinental Indian people are considered "white" by physical anthropologists. The inclusion of images of people from many different populations that have been described as "white" in various historical or social or "scientific" contexts was specifically to illustrate the fluid and socially constructed nature of "whiteness". The argument that inclusion of images of subcontinental Indian people as "white" might be offensive is spurious, images of nudity certaily are offensive to some people (but not to me), but we still include them here, we are an encyclopaedia, we don't censor reliable information just in case we might give offence. Now if you want to claim that in a specific society some of the images included in the gallery represent groups that are not considered "white", that is true, but without including the social context we are pushing the fallacy that "white" = European at all times and in all places, and clearly there are numerous reliable sources that contradict such a claim. Alun (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


For example what about the Bai people of China? They call themselves White people. Alun (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My Chinese colleague also called "Xin Jiang" people "white", when I asked her what she meant she said that they "look like you" (meaning me). I checked for this group but couldn't find this referenced as a people anywhere. Possibly she means the Uyghur people of Xinjiang autonomous region. For example this image. So that's at least two different uses of the term "white" to refer to people in China who are clearly not European. Alun (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a POV nightmare, and the wider you try to cast the next the worse it gets. How would you decide which of Ralph Fiennes or Sean Connery to include? I simply cannot think of an objective way of sourcing a gallery of "white" people, especially since there is no one agreed definition of white. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but that applies to all images surely? I'm not sure there's any value to including images, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back suggested some cartoon images but I suspect that is just as much a problem as any other images. BTW I think this problem applies equally to the Black people article, the term Black is not exclusively used to refer to people of presumed recent African ancestry in all places at all times, any more than the term White is exclusively applied to people of presumed European origin in all places at all times. Personally I can live without any images at all, we're an encyclopaedia, presumably people who come here come to read the article and not look at the "pretty pictures". Alun (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No it does not apply to all images. A picture of Buckingham Palace is unambiguously Buckingham palace. The problem here is that the picture subject may or may not meet one or more of the multiple competing definitions of whiteness. In some quarters the Nordic look is considered the exemplar for white people, in other quarters this is considered deeply contentious. (looks over shoulder to see if Mike is in the house). Guy (Help!) 11:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I think we might be misunderstanding each other. Maybe I was not being explicit enough. Obviously not all images all of the time are a pov-nightmare, and actually I didn't mean to imply that all images in this article are necessarily a pov-nightmare. The craniometric images in the article may be pointless (in my opinion they are because the article does not discuss craniometry in any detail and so they serve little purpose in making any sort of point), but they do illustrate racist classification systems and it does use the term "Caucasian" that is sometimes used synonymously with "White", especially in North America. I suppose what I really meant was that any image of an individual is probably going to be a pov-nightmare. FMWNCB's suggestion is more valid, an image drawn from an anthropology book would be easier to verify, but of course different anthropologists have produced different classification schemata, so we are again being arbitrary. The other problem is that this article is not called "Caucasian people", and we can't just assume that White=Caucasian. Some of the scientific racism of the 19th century clearly sees "White" as synonymous with "Xanthochroi" or "Nordic", for example John Beddoe and other Victorian era racists clearly distinguished between so called "Celtic" types who were supposedly more like Cro-Magnon and therefore more "Africanoid" and "Anglo-Saxons" who were "properly White", he even produced an "Index of Negrescence" to show that English "Anglo-Saxons" were more "White" than "Celts". So if we want to claim that only images that are unambiguously of "white" people should be included we are indeed left with a "Nordicist" point of view, and that implies that other images of people who are considered "white" by other classification systems, or indeed by other social conventions (and all of these systems are arbitrary and are fundamentally social constructs) are not "truly" white. So we are, as you say, left with a pov-nightmare. I am not an advocate of the gallery that I included. Some months ago there was a lot of complaint that there were no images of people in the article, I don't think this is really an issue, but dab, amongst others, clearly wanted to include images of actual people. The motivation seemed to be that there are images in the Black people article (which incidentally I think suffers from the same problem as we do here). There was a clear call for images of people, I insisted that if we are to include images of people then we need a set of images that includes as diverse a set of people as possible that could be considered "white". I think that's fair enough, I was trying to be inclusionist rather than exclusionist. Or to put it another way there are two options when we do this, we can say that we will only include images of unambiguously "white" people and exclude those who have at some point been considered "non-White", that would be the "Nordicist" way forward. Or we can include any and all people who may have been identified as "white" by any social or so called scientific convention. I didn't want a gallery, but I did want to have a say in what it contained if there was a consensus for one. I'm happy if we now have a push to remove the gallery, or indeed any images of people. Alun (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that, better than a gallery, would be to use different photos selectively and strategically to illustrate the diverse and divergent points of view in the article - in other words, spread them out (so one section can have a photo of Marilyn Monroe next to one of Aishwarya Rai with a caption that states: while virtually all sources identify people of European origins as white, some sources include Indians and others do not. Another section could have a photo of Johnny Ventura with the caption explaining that in his native country, the Dominican Republic, he would be identified as Whilte, in the United States he would not. Another section could include a photo of Julian Bond and have a caption, Although Julian Bond has considerable European ancestry, in the United States he is considered Black. Obviously I am supposing all of this can be pegged to sources, but I am sure we can find appropriate sources linked to appropriate illustrations. My main point is not these specific examples but the idea of breaking up the gallery and using individual or small sets of photos to illustrate specific points that come up in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, images of people that illustrate the contradictory and arbitrary labelling of people as "white" or otherwise would certainly be useful. I thought that's what the gallery was doing, but it works just as well, or possibly better, by splitting it up and providing contrasting images with well written captions. Let's see if we can get some sort of agreement here. Alun (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow the crowd?

Does anyone have access to respectable encyclopaediae such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, British Encyclopaedia? Perhaps we could take a lead from them, since I cannot recall any race riots or front page news reports following their publication—if their approach to depicting white people is uncontroversial, and we take our cue from them, we stand a good chance of not stirring controversy either. Thoughts? the skomorokh 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, gosh, why even bother writing an article for Wikipedia, people should just use EB or Encarta, they are doing just fine! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Very mature, thank you. Has anyone got anything constructive to add? the skomorokh 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a bad idea, we don't know the level of research these publications engage in, nor do we know the level of expertise of the people who have written them. Besides I'd be surprised if they include any images of actual people. Alun (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Folks, this is just plain embarrassing. I might expect to see this kind of edit-warring with newer users, but with experienced editors? C'mon, you all should know that edit wars do not work. They are a completely ineffective means of forcing a change to an article. I don't want to protect the article, but if people keep reverting each other, we're going to end up with blocks and/or protection. So please work it out some other way, okay? Please assume good faith, please stay civil, and please try to figure out a compromise which keeps the article in accordance with policies. Thanks, --Elonka 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right and i tried to explain that to others, one is even an admin himself/herself when they are removing a consenusus build gallery without a new consensus to remove it--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it difficult to see exactly why replacing the gallery with example photos in relevant sections has been causing such an edit war. One thing I do know though is that this article cannot continue pictureless. I believe that the gallery should be scrapped, as it was just a big poster board for anyone to add a photo to it of someone they thought was White. I believe that example photos should be placed throughout the article in relevant sections and these photos should be selected via a process of discussion on the talk page. Usergreatpower (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It certainly can continue pictureless until we have consensus on which pictures to include. There is no deadline. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Then the article will continue to remain pictureless for the foreseeable future. Usergreatpower (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, why not make some suggestions for images to include? Slrubenstein has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion regarding how to include images of people through the article. Why don't we start with that suggestion? I like the idea of counterposing images of different people together and having a caption regarding when and why they might be considered "white". Why not have a picture of say Monroe (I think you wanted a picture of her at one point) and next to her a picture of a different actress who would be "white" by certain conventions and not by others? We had Aishwarya Rai in the gallery, she'd be an ideal example, and we can have a caption discussing why both of these actresses can be seen as "white". We're here to make an encyclopaedia, that sort of imagery would emphasise the social construction of "whiteness". Others who were formerly in the gallery could also be nicely paired off. Alun (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, I have three suggestions:

  1. Many theorists of White studies argue that whiteness is (or has, during a specific historical period which minimally covers the US throughout its history ans arguably Western Europe post-Enlightenment to present) the category of "unmarkedness." In other wordsa, x is a black actress, y is a hispanic author, z is a native american athlete ... but when we write acress x, author y, athelete z we just assume they are all white ... this is a significant view in whiteness studies and needs to be explained in the article; we can try to construct a photogallery to illustrate this specific point
  2. another theoriests of whieness studies point out that the boundaries of whiteness, like other racial groups, change over time and space and are blurry. We can have sets of images to illustrate this: people who were white at one time or place but not at another, people who were not white at one time or place but are not at another, people who some believe to be white and others believe not to be.
  3. finally, and this just follows from points one and two - my intention in 1 and 2 was to highlight specific significant views in whiteness studies and suggest using images to illustrate them. there are probably other views in whiteness studies and my point is simply first to lay out significant views in whiteness studies, then seek images to illustrate those views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Still arbitrary image picking just like we had before with picking pictures based on various government and dictionary defintions of people from such and such parts of the world who are considered white. A study on whiteness can't make it where nobody picks pictures, adding pictures is too controversial and has been taking away from improveing the article it's self because all it seems like anybody cares about is images which should be a small insinificant roll in the article, i hope people who come to this encyclopedia come to read the articles not for pretty pictures to look at,i don't know why some just can't leave well enough alone--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you opposing my proposal? If you are, I frankly do not understand why. Can you slow down a bit and explain your objections a more fully? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes i oppose any pictures being added to this race article,also what your proposing has basicaly been done already but with government sources your citeing so-called whiteness studies but we will have the same end result of arbitrary pictures being picked out and randomly scattered through the article or gallery, that was already done and was taken down for that same reason it's just a recycled idea with the same end result--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
sorry, I still do not understand your point. When was this done before? What do you mean "so-called whiteness studies?" How would pictures selected to illustrate specific, verifiable views from reliable sources be "random?" Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Under your proposal do we as editors have to pick out pictures?--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, many verifiable sources provide their own illustrations. We would need to find out if they are fair use. As for picking out pictures, what is our policy on other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm not sure I understand Wikiscribe's objection. The initial objection to the gallery was because it was a gallery and not due to the images present in the gallery. As long as we can verify that an image of a person is of someone who comes from a population that corresponds to some construction of "white", then I don't see any problem. Obviously we will never get complete agreement, and images of actual famous people will always be prone to suggestions of some sort of bias (for example why one politician over another), but that's what the talk page is for, we build consensus, and whisper it compromise. While I'm not strongly in favour or against images of people, I don't really see why editors here, acting in good faith, can't come to some sort of understanding about how to proceed. Wikiscribe, can you explain what you would be prepared to compromise on, what would you accept? Alun (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Relations with black people section

Having a section about "Relations with black people" here doesn't really make sense. This is more of an issue in the United States. I think this section should be moved to White American article instead. This article should take a global perspective as per Wikipedia guidelines.

You bring up a good point i don't really understand the point of that section it would best be served in the white american article than this article which should just strickly about white people in a global perspective--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree. Nowhere is the arbitrariness of blackness or whiteness best exemplified than in the US one-drop rule. This article contains definitions of white from countries around the world; no one has objected that these don't belong because they aren't global (they are national statutes or rulings). The one-drop rule, by its arbitrary nature is a good example of how much whiteness is a social definition.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

One-Drop Rule

The article argues that the one-drop rule is distinctly American. Try telling that to anyone with any visibly non-European features trying to get a hotel room in the middle of Cape Town. Dg7891 (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

White Australia Policy

The White Australia Policy is a misnomer, as it didn't actually target white skin. Christian Indians (India then being part of the British Empire) were allowed to immigrate, as were other non-white ethnic groups. Religion and Dominion was the main determinent for countries whose emmigrants were acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.161.147 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the skull features that make Whites unique mentioned?

Beside the pale skin, there are also other features, including the skull shape, that make Whites diffrent from other races. In fact, some scientists classify races mostly based on the shape of the skull rather than skin pigmentation, as the latter is more superficial.--71.190.91.208 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scientists don't use "race" as a classifier at all, we use DNA Haplogroups. Race, as discussed in this article, is strictly a social construct with no scientific basis at all. With the completion of the Human Genome Project we now know that the amount of melanin in one's skin has nothing to do with anything apart from the amount of melanin in one's skin. Or to put it simply: people are people. L0b0t (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether race, haplogroups, or any other terminology is used, the fact is that ethnicity is definitely not merely about skin color. Skulls of different races are different in shape, to such an extent that if a skull is found, forensic experts, archeologists etc seek to identify it through determining, by its shape, the ethnicity of the person whom it was once part of. Such racial identification can usually be done, even if there is nothing else near to or with the skull which could assist identification. That race can be determined by skull shape alone, proves it a sufficiently important aspect of whites for it to be included in this article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the shape of the skull is often used in situations such as when police want to identify the severely burned or decomposed remains of people, but I think that may apply much more to being a Caucasian person rather than a White person. I'm really not certain though. BillyTFried (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples

I have been bold and and added examples of white people who are undisputably white in an attempt to resolve the dispute of which examples should be shown due to dispute over who is considered white. This should now mean the article does not need to go without examples. Usergreatpower (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but please refer to the talk page and archives. Just adding pictures of people one feels are "undeniably white" as examples is a solution which has previously been discussed and rejected, as it was felt to be too arbitrary and not representative enough of the concept of "whiteness".--Ramdrake (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree and concur with ramdrakes statement--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I did warn Usergreatpower. Anyway, I have some alternative suggestions here if anyone would like to comment? Alun (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, a lot! The point is to peg each cluster of illustrations with a specific section of the article - so the photos illustrate parts of the article rather than the title of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


i also am "very" supportive of this particular idea and concur with slrubenstein statement and it could put an end to the picture charade within this article--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent initiative! Although, Alun, we may need to do something about that wordiness of yours!! ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess if the images are placed in the correct sections of the article then we don't need to explain them so thoroughly. As stand alone images in my sandbox they needed a bit more explanation. Feel free to edit the wording etc. Alun (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I cut the text down from one of the pictures, and "hid" some of the text for another. Is this any better? Alun (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no examples of people who are considered universally to be White? Why just ones who are considered by some to be White? I don't think displaying just examples of people whose status as being White is controversial is going to solve the previous problem of people not agreeing on who is really White. If anything it only exacerbates it. That's why I was in favour of having examples of people where there is no controversy over their status as being White and are universally considered to be White. Usergreatpower (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the Dravidian people are not considered by any measure I know of to be White and references are needed for the such measures mentioned in the image's description. Plus the number of methods which consider Somali people to be White are very few at best and a definite minority position. Usergreatpower (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that there are more pictures of people who most people wouldn't call White such as Africans and Indians than there are of ones most people would call White. Usergreatpower (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? We have John Beddoe, Lord Milner, Warren Harding, Robert Knox the image of the "Celtic group", why do you think none of those are considered "universally white"? I'd have thought that at least Knox, Beddoe and Milner were considered white by all standards. So I don't think it's at all accurate say that there are "no examples of people who are considered universally to be White". I suggest you atek a look at some of the physical anthropological works of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In these there are certainly many instances of East Africans and Indians being considered "white". Actually not that long ago there were about four different images of maps of "racial" classifications that showed just that. When one dispences with skin colour as a determining factor, as craniometry did, then we get completely different so called "races". Alun (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between White and Caucasian

I've noticed there appears to be a lot confusion between White people and Caucasian people in this article. This article about White people not Caucasian people. White people are people with European ancestry. Caucasian people are people who belong to the Caucasian race, people who have ancestry from Europe, Middle East, North Africa, and most of India. Usergreatpower (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In your own opinion that is the definiton of white, now stop your pov pushing tatics there is no confusion between white and caucasian here, the readers are to read an article and take away from the article what they will but that section you wronfully removed before discusiion first explains clearly the historical context arguement of why those pictures are within the article nobody is saying whether they are white or not this is an infomation article not your personal race article--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Usergreatpower is displaying systemic bias. It may well be true that where he/she lives the term "white" as applied to human groups does not apply to non-Europeans. But I want to be explicit that this article is not called "White people according to Usergreatpower". The article is about White people generically. The term has had different meanings and different emphases historically, it continues to have different applied meanings depending on context (e.g. see Bai, a people from China who call themselves "white people"), and is often synonymous with both "Caucasian" and "Aryan". There is confusion between these terms, and that's simply because they do often mean the same thing. I'm flabbergasted that this User has been pushing for so long to get some images into the article, and when we get some they make such a huge fuss about it. Alun (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of new pictures

Not sure if the addition of all these new pictures makes much sense. It looks a bit too random to me. There was already a consensus not to have a gallery on the page. This looks like a gallery parsed over the different sections. Further input would be appreciated.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about what an Asian thinks about white people

Raj Bhopal says "blah blah blah". We all know how Arabs and south Asians like to call themselves white. White people are people from Europe and some people in the near east but not all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.182.64 (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism

This article stinks of racism. The whole article disputes even the very existance of the race of White people, especially apparent in the article's introduction and the fact there are more pictures of, by most people's account, non-White people than there are actual White people. The Black people article certainly doesn't make such statements not does it have more pictures of White people or Asian people than it does Black people, hence there is a double standards rascism going on here. A good comparison would be since when does an article on say dogs have more pictures of cats than it does dogs? I added a POV tag to the article yet it was swiftly removed, even though such tags explicitely state Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved, which it clearly hasn't judging by this Talk page.

The article needs a rewrite and if editors here are unwilling to remove the obvious elements of racism from the article then I will have to inform the Administrators' Noticeboard of the article's racist content and those editors forcing that racist content to remain in the article. Usergreatpower (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says? Who says that the term "white people" must and always has been applied to a so called "race"? Who says that this so called "white race" is, and always has had, universally recognised boundaries? If you have such sources then let's include them in the article, but they would only provide a different point of view, sources are rarely definitive on Wikipedia. You like to make wild and exaggerated claims, but mostly they seem to reflect your own personal point of view rather than the considered writings of any authority on the subject. I don't see any racism in this article, besides according to Wiktionary racism can mean The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes, isn't that what you want the article to say? Currently it doesn't say any such thing. We use criteria such as verifiability. no original research and neutrality here. There is no criterion that says that material in this encyclopaedia must be "non-offensive". If verified pints of view from reliable sources offend you, then no one else can be held accountable for that. Maybe you could take it as a learning experience that this subject is not as simple or straightforward as you thought it was? I find that one of the great pleasures of editing Wikipedia is having one's world view challenged, and learning new things. If you think that threatening to notify the admins noticve board is somehow going to make us all quiver in our boots, then think again. That place is not for content disputes. If you aren't satisfied then I suggest you go through the correct dispute resolution procedures rather than making what you clearly think are threats. Alun (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if we're counting, I count images of eight (and a half) Europeans, two Indians and two (and a half) Africans. How does that equate to "more pictures of, by most people's account, non-White people than there are actual White people"? Besides how do you claim to know what "most peoples account" is? That's just your opinion, no? I don't know what "most" people think is "white", but as I say this is an encyclopaedia, it's not here to say what "most" people think, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nine percent of people in the USA don't believe in evolution,[7] should we therefore say it's not true? I don't think that's a valid argument. Alun (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So "white people" refers to anyone who is Caucasoid? By that logic anyone who is Africoid, which includes some non-black East Indian peoples and some Pacific Asians, should be called "black people". People in the Horn of Africa are also Caucasoid, would you call them "white people"? Full Shunyata (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We have a source that says exactly that. See the first image in the article, and the source that supports it. The point is not what I personally call white people, and it's not what you call white people. It's not what is so called "caucasoid" or so called "caucasian", terms like "white", "aryan", "caucasian" and "caucasoid" have a variety of meanings depending upon context. To claim that any particular meaning is universal is to fly in the face of the evidence. It doesn't matter if you don't agree, it doesn't matter if you believe that terms like "caucasoid" are well defined and universally accepted. What matters is that we have reliable sources to support what we say. The quote from Alastair Bonnett's book White Identities gives a quotation from another book, and explicitly states itself, that the term white can apply to the peoples of the Horn of Africa. Here's the quote.

"Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" p. 18.

And yes, I have heard people refer to people from the Indian subcontinent as black. Indeed I have heard British people of Indian subcontinental origin refer to themselves as black. So in answer to your question, "white people" can mean "anyone who is caucasoid", but it doesn't always have to mean that. We're certainly not here to promote any specific "racial categories" as "correct". If you are claiming that we are then I think you are wrong. You may believe that the "racial categories" that are in use in your particular culture are somehow "correct", but Wikipedia is not here to support the ideologies of any particular culture or society. Alun (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Usergreatpower and others who feel that the article as racist and defies the common understanding of the term "white people". The semantics of any such term are rough around the edges, but the purpose of this article is not to cling to the most controversial boundaries of such a term. The purpose is to give a good explanation of "white people" as generally understood. The POV tag should be reinstated as this article exhibits clear anti-white racism. I will support the efforts of anyone who works to improve the article in this direction. Feichangdao (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose is to give a good explanation of "white people" as generally understood." Wrong. The purpose of this article is to provide an account of all significant views from notable, verifiable, and reliable sources. When you go to Wikipedia, the Main Page invites people to edit, but directs you to our principal policy pages. You really need to know our policies before telling us what we should be doing. Read our principal policies that explain what articles "should" be, and then tell us precisely which part of which policy which part of this article violates, and feel free to suggest any change or addition as long as it complies with our core policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the policies.Feichangdao (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I also would note that Alun and Slrubenstein seem to have fun engaging in WikiLawyering and gaming, while ignoring WP:BB, WP:CONS, WP:NOTLAW, WP:BURO, and WP:IAR. I would actually like to see a sane article about white people, not intent on representing every marginally caucasoid black person as white under some obscure definition. The nice thing about a wiki is that BS like theirs will eventually be overcome when enough eyes have passed over this page. :) Feichangdao (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Until you understand that policy the only BS here is your attempts to use this particle to push your personal point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course WP:NPOV should be observed, but apparently, our interpretations of how to best achieve that are quite different. As you obviously know, I have not been "pushing my personal point of view," but have avoided engaging in edit-warring and waited until others brought up the same issues I am concerned with before noting my position again. It is you and Alun who obviously are addicted to citing policy against people rather than working to achieve a high-quality article on WHITE PEOPLE. There are other articles for other categories of people, including Caucasians. In any case, I myself am still not taking the lead on making significant changes, but felt the need to restate my position _after_ others recently stated similar positions. I am now convinced that the positions you and Alun have taken are unreasonable and motivated by a racist animus against white people; citing WP:NPOV repeatedly will simply not convince me otherwise. Feichangdao (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Policy is a first step towards consensus since it expresses shared princples. Are you saying ou do not accept the principle, "The purpose of this article is to provide an account of all significant views from notable, verifiable, and reliable sources?" Isn't this observing NPOV? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? But you feel it's quite alright for you to cast aspersions on other users without providing evidence? That's called an ad hoiminem attack, and is usually done by people who have no real arguments so they attack the people they disagree with. What exactly do you call that little comment? I'd say you're commenting on users and not content. I for one have never engaged in Wikilawyering, I've never started an RfC against any user, I'm not at all interested in "wikilaw" and have a very limited experience with any aspect of wikipedia outside of article pages and talk pages, but I am interested in the quality of our content. It's not wikilawyering to insist that we follow our core content policies. If you think it is then you are quite wrong. If you actiually look at my contributins you will observe that about half of them are to talk pages, I think that indicates the opposite of what you claim, I'm very interested in discussion about any subject I edit, that shows that far from ignoring WP:CON I am actively engaged in it. To claim that there is some sort of "proper" way to claim what is "white", and that you personally know it is quite the wrong way to go about editing. As far as I can see your complaint amounts to "I know what white means, and those who provide evidence that does not support my point of view are wrong". That's just not the way we edit here. Alun (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


On a more salient note, the problem with Usergreatpower's complain about racism in the article is that he doesn't actually point out any racism. His concern seems to be that in his opinion "The whole article disputes even the very existance (sic) of the race of White people". But that's just a weird comment. What the article discusses is how the term "white people" has been used during different periods of history and in different places. It's just flawed to claim that just because the article shows that the term has different meanings at different times ad in different places, that it is "racist". His analogy to the black people article is also incorrect. That article has images of Africans and images of non-Africans and explicitly states that sometimes the term black refers only to Africans and people with a presumed recent African descent, and sometimes it refers to people with a dark skin colour who do not have a recent presumed African descent. In that sense this white people article and the black people article cover their respective subject matters more or less the same. As for his claims about cats and dogs, that seems to be some sort of satire on the one drop rule as far as I can tell, but the comment is obscure. There's been much complaint that the article sometimes talks about "Caucasian" and that this term is not associated with "white people". I beg to differ, many sources show that the term "Caucasian" is often used as a synonym for "white", and that indeed the term "Aryan" is also often used a synonym for "white". In my estimation there are three broad uses for the term "white" in the modernish westernish world, it can mean "Caucasian" or "European" or "Nordic". None of these three is well defined, which people are deemed "Caucasian" is open to debate amongst physical anthropologists and other "race" researchers. Likewise who is an European is open to debate, what about Turkish people for example? Are we to include some Turkish people based on their residence in the European region of Turkey, but exclude others? Likewise when "white" means "Nordic" we are left with a sub-set of Europeans claiming to be the "true white race", but this sub-set is not well defined, it seems to include English people but not Welsh people, based solely on the fact that English is a Germanic language and Welsh is not. I'm not sure the article does a good job of discussing all of these three different ideologies, but it should at least acknowledge that the term "white" when applied to people, does have various different meanings in various different times and to various different peoples. As far as I can see (and I don't claim to have perfect vision) what you, and Usergreatpower are saying is that if the article tries to be neutral, then it is being racist, or maybe what's closer to the mark, when the article challenges your social construction of whiteness, you find it hard to accept. That's normal, but it doesn't make the article racist, it just makes it difficult for you to accept. Alun (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are apparently finding it hard to accept that some people are excluded from the category 'white people'. But you set up lots of straw men in order to make the distinction seem impossible to make. It is not, except in borderline cases. The article should not be _about_ borderline cases, but could certainly mention them in a particular section.
No I'm not, just who is excluded very much depends upon which concept of "white" one is using though. There are not "borderline cases" and I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I don't think I have set up any "straw men". I wish editors would go and find out just what a straw man argument is before that use the term incorrectly. Alun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
'White' is different from caucasian, European, and Nordic, though it has intersections with all three, and may be a superset of Nordic. White is not defined by language, and certainly not by political affiliation with the EU (a completely ridiculous proposition). White is not defined by language, obviously. White denotes a set of characteristics of one's physical appearance. As I have said, there are already articles for these other groupings.
Well I suggest that you go out and find a reliable source that explicitly claims that this is how "white" is universally applied at all times and in all places for ever and ever. Then you can come back and put it in the article. Even when you do this, however, we will still have reliable sources that contradict point of view. It will remain one point of view amongst many. We absolutely have reliable sources that do state explicitly that "white" can mean "Nordic" or "European" or "Caucasian". We will not dismiss these sources just because a different one gives a contradictory point of view. I don't know where you get the "political affiliation to the EU" from. Alun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is my main point: You may think you are trying to be 'neutral', but in fact, you are attempting to include so many borderline examples, that the article becomes confusing and muddled. The gallery was crazy - it was as though an article on 'cake' contained a gallery of brownies, pita bread, and bread pudding. You could argue all day and maybe squeeze them under the umbrella of cake, but the article does not then convey to someone the core meaning of 'cake', which it should focus on in order to convey something useful about the topic.
I'm not "trying" to be anything. I have included notable points of view published in reliable sources. Where are your sources? Care to provide more than just personal opinion? We do have a verifiability policy here, we don't just accept something just because an editor makes a claim on the talk page. I still don't understand your point about "borderline cases". What does that actually mean? As for the gallery, Usergreatpower made obscure references to cats and dogs, and now you are making obscure comments about cakes and biscuits. I'm at a loss. I don't understand your analogy at all. Are you somehow suggesting that there is an equivalence between an historically and geographically universal understanding of what "cake" is globally, and an historically and geographically universal understanding of what "white" means globally? Does a reliable source claim anywhere that there is an equivalence here? That "cake" and "white" are both equally well defined? I'd love to see that piece of research. Alun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect to racism, an attempt to force a white person with ancient black ancestry into the article for "Black People" should rightly be considered an unacceptable affront to those who identify as black; likewise, an attempt to introduce "people of color" into the "White People" article may be considered an affront to white people.
Seriously? So you don't think that Barack Obama should be included in either the white people or black people articles because he's too "white" to be properly "black" and too "black" to be properly "white"? Your argument seems to be that because you are offended that images of people who you personally consider not to be white are included in the article, this amounts to "racism". What I don't understand is why you are so offended that other people haven't always shared your own personal belief in what "white" means. You can't change history, or the way this issue has bee debated and researched. If you don't like the way reliable sources have dealt with it, then no one can help that. Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether you are offended. Alun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just imagine what a young student or a person from the far East would take away from a jumbled article. If they take away the idea that lots of different colored people, even black people, may be considered 'white people', they would be sorely confused and misled.Feichangdao (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That's simply untrue though. They'd take away the fact that "white" has different meanings in different places and at different times. That's true, and we ahve reliable sources to support it. So they would become educated. That would be excellent. Alun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
White people are people with white skin, hence the name white people. People with white skin are those who are people of European descent. People from India or Africa don't have white skin, hence are not white people. There seems to be confusion with the term Caucasian. Some people consider some groups who don't have white skin to be Caucasian. Caucasian is a different term to white people and a different article to this one. This article is about white people, people with white skin. As I mentioned before it was ridiculous that there were more photos of none white people in the article than people who actually had white skin. This is thanks to Alun, who has tried to edit the article to make it seem as though there's no such thing as white people. Even the introduction has a paragraph basically stating white people don't exist. I have edited the history section to remove an irrelevant non-historical image for a relevant historical one, which actually shows some white people. Usergreatpower (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"White people are people with white skin"
  • Define "white skin" appropriately, using reliable sources. Then when you have a good definition find some good images that are supported by your definition. Then include these images in the article. Oh, by the way, did you find a source that claimed that the images that are already included don't represent "whitness?" No? So why did you remove it then? What's that? Can't hear your reason? We have a reliable source that state that these people are white. At least it's better than someone with a uselesspowerless .......flacidity......pft......how embarasing for you. Alun (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the source you gave states such groups of people as Somalis and Dravidians are Caucasian. You've proven me right that you are mistaking Caucasian people for white people. How embarrassing for you. And it would seem I'm not the only person on this Talk page who has noticed and pointed out your confusion between Caucasian people and white people. How embarrassing for you. By the way here's that reliable source on race you wanted, it's an actual reliable source, the race article from Encyclopaedia Britannica, not some unheard of obscure source you have to search ages for that supports your own opinions, like yours. How embarrassing for you. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488030/race Usergreatpower (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Usergreatpower, the source I'm using states that "Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supporters the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis" (Bonnet, 2000. White Identities p. 18). What it says is that the terms Aryan, white and Caucasian are interchangeable.
It does not use the word "interchangeable." Furthermore, it does not mean that either. Your citation only states that within the context of "the non-European population of Africa" one may divide the races into White and Black. I think the only reasonable reading of this is to limit it to the context of non-European Africans.Feichangdao (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That is the source I'm using. Indeed it explicitly states that the "whites of Africa include Somalis". Now I fail to see how that supports you at all. You don't even appear to have read either the caption to the image, nor the footnote. Without at least reading these how can you possibly make a coherent argument? You don't even appear to know what my source is, because you utterly misrepresent it. Now you seem to be hopelessly confused here, you appear to believe that this is somehow about truth. Well it's not. I suggest you go and look at our core content policies. You keep saying that white and Caucasian are different things, well that's a reasonable point of view and no one disputes that this is a point of view. But it's not the only point of view. Don't be seduced into thinking that there is only ever a "single" point of view. Don't be seduced into thinking that this is about the truth. We have reliable source that say that there is a point of view that the terms Aryan, white and Caucasian have been used interchangeably. Now I don't care if you believe this or not, the criterion for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Besides which you keep erroneously claiming that the article says that the white "race" doesn't exist, this claim seems to be based solely on the fact that we have some images of some non-European white people. At least I can find no statement in the article which claims that the so called white "race" doesn't exist. Furthermore you claim that the article itself mixes up the terms "Caucasian" and white, that's not true, what the article does is quote a reliable source that says that some anthropologists have considered Europeans just one expression of a broader white "race". I suggest you stop making such hyperbolic claims and actually read what the article says, because as far as I can see nearly all of the claims you keep making ad nauseum are utterly without foundation. Alun (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As a source Blumenbach (which is what EB cites) is only one opinion, and a rather outdated one at that (18th-19th century). It should be cited certainly (and already is), but should not be considered more authoritative than every other, and certainly less than some, considering the opinion is about 2 centuries old.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm.... If "People with white skin are those who are people of European descent," then an awful lot of "black people" are "white people!" Usergreatpower sounds confused. And of course, everyone in Europe is of African descent. So maybe there is just no more point to this rambling, confused and ultimately just disruptive argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And who of European descent has black skin??? Exactly. If your edits are motivated by a sense of rejection of the notion of race then fine. But why do you only edit the white people article and edit it to dispute the notion of race but not the black people article as well? This is what I meant about racism. Double standards. It not a rejection of the notion of race it's a rejection of the notion of white people. The article is racist because the people who edit it are racist. Oh and I know what I'm talking about because I checked all your edit histories. Plenty of edits were made to this article during the article's most recent 500 edits, of which almost all were a furthering of the notion there's no such thing as white people. No edits were made to the black people article during that article's most recent 500 edits, certainly not stating there's no such thing as black people. Usergreatpower (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a warning that accusations of racism are considered among the most grievous personal attacks and may be grounds for substantial and even indef-blocks.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Usergreatpower, millions of people worldwide who are of European descent are considered black. The average black American has about 20% European ancestry, that makes them of European descent. Claiming that their European ancestry is non-existent shows that you believe that the one drop rule is "true". Don't try to guess why editors are "motivated", that's irrelevant. Calling other users racists is extremely serious. It's also an odd sort of comment because you say "The article is racist because the people who edit it are racist", but you are one of the people who edit this article. Or are you trying to say that all of the other editors of this article besides you are racist? If you have real evidence of racism, i.e. that someone has been discriminated against because of their race, then provide evidence for that. That's a serious allegation and should not be made lightly. It at least calls for proper evidence. If it's true that there is racism by editors of this article, then I strongly urge you to start a Request for comment, racism needs to be dealt with robustly here on Wikipedia. I for one am certainly not afraid of participating in any form of dispute resolution. On the other hand all I can see is vague suggestions that because the article doesn't exclusively reflect your own personal world view, then you feel that somehow that is a personal slight to you. I take the attitude that that is your problem and not mine. We have reliable sources to support what we say. Alun (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how the photo of Somali and Indian peoples and the false assertion that they are also white people serves any purpose but to confuse. In general some of the ideas in this article just seem to present far too over inclusive and unfocused definitions of "white people" to get much substance from it. Especially when you compare it to the relatively narrow ideas and definitions seen in the "black people" article. Siddhartha21 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to cite reliable sources that:
  1. caucasian and white have meant different things throughout history
  2. the definition or perception of who is considered white hasn't changed through history (I know of a few sources that say it has indeed chnaged several times)

--Ramdrake (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Siddhartha21, what you "really can" or "really can't" see is irrelevant. What you believe is irrelevant. The article doesn't make a "false assertion that they are white". By making this claim you simply show that you haven't actually read the article or understood what it says. To paraphrase what the caption of this image actually says, sometimes the term white has been applied to these people. What you want to say is that the idea of who is white is a monolithic entity that never varies. What you want to say is not supported by the reliable sources that we have. Alun (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is definately a major difference between caucasian and white. Users slrubenstein and alun are definately taking a racist stance toward this article, and both sides can throw up rules and regs set by wikipedia to hide behind and attempt to justify your points of view (cited sources or not, it's obvious your point of view determines which sources you cite, and or choose not to), but this article as it exists is just wrong. I believe wikipedia would be better served by deleting this article, and adding a new sub-section in the races and caucasian articles if it this is not changed to reflect what 99.9% of the people on this earth consider a 'white person' to be, this 99.9% obviously not including alun & slrubenstein. When it comes down to it, the term 'white person' can't really be defined, it's technically not a race, and any references sited are going to be garbage, as you can find hundreds of them from what could be considered reliable sources that directly defy one another. All that could be done for this article would be to direct it towards a view that most people agree with, or delete it entirely, but as it currently exists, I say again it's a joke. You can cite all the references you want, and state all the wikipedia rules you want, you just can't understand that what you believe just isn't what an overwhelming majority of the rest of the human race does, and as I said before, there's no way of either side proving the case for either side here, as 'white people' don't scientifically exist. So, since you guys are obviously the type that will fight to the bitter end for some worthless cause, even though you have to know that most everyone disagrees with your understanding of what a 'white person' is, just do us all a favor and either delete this article (since there is no factual ground for either side to stand on), or just accept that the overwhelming majority of people see this differently from you, get over it, and let the majority rule on this article about a group of people that doesn't scientifically exist. /end commafest 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.71.199 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable point of view that there is a "major difference between caucasian and white", but that's not the point. There is also the point of view that there is not a major difference. On Wikipedia we provide all points of view. We have a reliable source that says

Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supporters the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" Bonnet, Alastair (2000) White Identities p. 18

Now I really don't care if you personally disagree with this point of view, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. I wish some of the editors that come here would take the time to go and find out about our core content policies, understand about things like neutrality, no original research and verifiability. It would save a great deal of time if people actually understood that Wikipedia does not exist to promote their own personal opinion or world view, before they came to talk pages and gummed them up with reasons why their own personal opinions are the truth. As for accusing other editors of "taking a racist stance", I should be careful, there are many things that are unacceptable here on Wikipedia, calling other editors racist is not productive isn't any sort of argument. Alun (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


  1. At least in the popular media, such as Slate the terms white and Caucasian are acknowledged as sometimes interchangeable, see Do White People Really Come From the Caucasus?, where it states 'both points of view: "So why do we call white people Caucasians?...Americans still use the word Caucasian to mean "white" despite the fact that they haven't always been synonyms in the eyes of the law. In U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), the Supreme Court argued that although Asian Indians were technically Caucasian, they couldn't be U.S. citizens because they weren't 'white.'"
"Sometimes interchangeable" because white may be considered to be a subset of Caucasian -- indicated by the question posed above about whether whites are from the Caucasus. This fails to suggest that the terms could be used interchangeably when the Caucasians in question are not white. Americans use the word that way simply because white people are also Caucasian, not because they think all other Caucasians are white.Feichangdao (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. The Wikipedia article White American states "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American" and within the United States simply "white") is an umbrella term officially employed by the United States Census Bureau, Office of Management and Budget and other U.S. government for the classification of United States citizens or resident aliens "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa". The US Census considers the write-in response of "Caucasian" or "Aryan" to be a synonym for white in their ancestry code listing."
They consider Caucasian a synonym for white because in most cases, people writing 'Caucasian' are white in the U.S., NOT because non-white Caucasians can be considered white as a general matter.Feichangdao (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Then there's the paper "Why White People Are Called 'Caucasian?'" by Nell Irvin Painter.[8]
Again, this only asks a question about whether white people are also Caucasian. Not about whether Caucasian people may all be called white.Feichangdao (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. And there's this: "the 'Caucasian' race has darker (West Asiatic) and lighter (European) branches. This was a conscious effort to expand the "white race" even further - to include Turks, Central Asians, Middle Eastern and North African peoples under the "Caucasian" umbrella."[9]
You cite a piece that cites a piece that "was a conscious effert to expand the 'white race' ... to include [others]." This is hardly evidence about how the term is considered today. It only shows a single case in which the Cranbrook Institute of Science tried to broaden the term to include middle-easterners.Feichangdao (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that say that the terms "white" and "Caucasian" are often used interchangeably, and that's all this article says. When they are used interchangeably it is acceptable to claim that Caucasians other than Europeans could be thought of as "white". Alun (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've only cited reliable sources suggesting that white people may also be called Caucasian. Not that all Caucasians may be considered white.Feichangdao (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
My edit here [10] per WP:IMAGE, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR (Alun's opinion that "When they are used interchangeably it is acceptable to claim that Caucasians other than Europeans could be thought of as "white" " is unsourced OR and a minority view see WP:Undue weight...Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.). My point of view that white people are white (i.e., light skinned people of European descent, at the most the light skinned people of Middle Eastern descent, such as Armenians, Turks and Lebanese), not brown nor black (Somalis, Bengalis etc.), is supported by the overwhelming majority of humankind. Maijinsan (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We have sources to demonstrate that Caucasian and White have often been used interchangeably throughout the common history o these terms. Furthermore, we have also supplied several references to show that the term White can and does apply to some non-European populations. And you come in and say -without references- that your POV is supported by the "overwhelming majority of humankind". Please provide references from reliable sources. Otherwise, this looks just like POV-pushing.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Those sources suggest only what, I believe, everyone here would agree to -- that for the most part, all white people are Caucasian, but not all Caucasian people are white. In areas like the U.S., where there are not many non-white Caucasians, the terms have sometimes been used interchangeably. This is not because non-white Caucasians were considered white, but simply because either term can be used to describe people who are both white and Caucasian. In sum, your source does not say that the terms have ever been equivalent in scope, and they are not.
Clearly, this is why the U.S. Census considers the terms synonymous for its purposes: the vast majority of people putting 'Caucasian' on their response are actually white. This does not imply in the slightest the converse, that everyone who may be considered Caucasian may also be considered white. See my further responses to the cited sources above.Feichangdao (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources that clearly make a hard difference between "Caucasian" and "White". Until you do, you're just pushing your own interpretation of the sources. Either that or you're playing a game of semantics.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Maijinsan you don't appear to have actually rread any of the posts on this talk page. if you had it would be obvious to you that what I have said is not actually "my opinion". It certainly is sourced, and I have quoted the source ad nauseum here on the talk page. Pretending that this source doesn't exist doesn't make sense, and is certainly not any sort of "argument". The point is that this is not about being "right", if you think it is then you clearly don't know anything about wikipedia neutrality policy. It's not true that the terms "white" and "Caucasian" have universally understood and well defined, accepted and distinct meanings. That's what the article says, and we have sources to support this. Now there are sources that support what you say when you say that the terms can mean distinct things. but it's not true to claim that these terms have universally recognised and understood distinct meanings. Feichangdao, you are simply wrong, those sources do not "suggest ... all white people are Caucasian, but not all Caucasian people are white". The source I am using states clearly and unambiguously that the terms "white", "Caucasian" and "Aryan" are used interchangeably, it sates "Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white)". Furthermore the source goes on to quote from a 1914 publication which clearly labels Somalis, Masai and Abysinians (Ethiopians) as "white". "The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'". That clearly contradicts what you say above. There is no evidence that the confusion betweenn these terms is "fringe". Indeed I'd say the opposite. the constant claim that "white" means something clearly distinct to "Caucasian" is something that is only understood in certain academic disciplines (e.g. physical anthropology) and amongst a certain group of racialist groups. For most people the terms are generally amorphous, having different meanings to different people.

Raj Bohpal's paper defines "white" and Caucasian thus:

  • White: "Applied to those races (chiefly European or of European extraction) characterised by light complexion."
  • Caucasian: "Indo-European; Blumenbach's (1800) term for the white race of mankind, which he derived from the Caucasus."

In his comments on these terms he states:

  • White: "Misnomer. In practice refers to people of European origin with pale complexions. Abandon in scientific writing.
  • Caucasian: "Means originating in the Caucausu region and refers to Indo-Europeans. Widely misunderstood. Widely used as a synonym for white. Abandon." (emphasis added).

So we see that many sources state explicitly that the terms "Caucasian" and "white" are often used interchangeably. Pretending these sources don't say what they clearly do say is not a very good argument. I repeat, this is not about being "right" or "wrong". One can be "technically" correct, when one is using a term as it is used by a specific set of experts or academics. But that does not mean that the term is used universally in this way. In this case it is almost certainly the opposite, the technical way this term is sometimes used is a minority usage, and the majority usage and understanding is probably that "white" and "Caucasian" have poorly understood and ill-defined amorphous meanings that are almost always used interchangeably. Alun (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people/Archive_21&oldid=1048763746"