Talk:White people/Mediation/Archive2

New Issue

AndonicO, can you check this out? Psychohistorian refuses to remove what I think is incorrect.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:White_people#China Thulean 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I read it, and think that perhaps a section specifically on China be made. Then you can argue about it. | AndonicO Talk 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, How about we change that part from this:

"In China, a specific group of Asians - people who would not be considered white in the United States (known as the Bai) - are considered white[1]."

to this:

A specific ethnic group in China is called Bai. The Bai People hold the white color in high esteem and call themselves "Baizi", "Baini" or "Baihuo", which means white people. In 1956, of their own will they were named the Bai Nationality.

Just facts and the reader gets to decide. Thulean 22:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Thulean first complained about a source for a statement being in the intro, then upon following your suggestion to remove that source, he turned right around and slapped the statement it supported with a {{Fact}} tag?

Having said that, now he's talking about, "..the reader gets to decide". What exactly is the reader to decide here? -Psychohistorian 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• They get to decide about the debate we were having.

• "inconsistently-applied" is too subjective really and not definitive. Where is the inconsistency? In Religion? In Skin Colour? Both? All? Which is the most inconsistant? Who is disagreeing? How much inconsistent is it? Is it a very subjective opinion or does large groups of people agree? What is the opinion of majority? Does a majority exist?I think we should add something more solid and verifiable at the beginning. Like the definition of Oxford Dictionary:

3 relating to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry. [1]

And then add something like "however this definition may not be the norm everywhere" to acknowledge disputes.

• Have you read the NPOV? Thulean 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that there is much to decide about. The article explains different points of veiws in different places. This gives it a little bit more neutrality. For now though, please just read WP:NPOV and forget about the article; then sign your name above, and we shall begin. | AndonicO Talk 10:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done both. Thulean 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 3-6 more people, and we can begin. | AndonicO Talk 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors were dealing with similar problems at Black people. It was solved with a section about the historical background which explains the origin of the concept and the gallery [2] which explains who, when, where was considered black by whom based on what kind of criteria. Could that work for the white people article as well? SecurID 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)