Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:32, 19 August 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-18. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

European and caucasian

I would like to add this section as a comparison of the terms European, white and caucasian.

The term white is normally associated with people of European origin with pale complexions. The terms "European" and white are sometimes used interchangeably. One of the problems with the using term European as a synonym for white is that Europe is not a distinct geographic landmass. Europe is often described as simply the western peninsular of the continent of Eurasia. Europe is a political and cultural entity whose borders have been artificially created. The country Russia is located both in Europe and Asia. From a biogeographical perspective, North Africa is also sometimes considered as part Eurasia since Africa is connected to Asia at the Suez. Since Europe is a part of Eurasia it follows that historic migrations and exchange of genes took place without regard to the borders of the present day. For example the Indo-European languages are spoken in India, Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan and all throughout Europe right up to Scandinavia. Consequently, with regard to physical appearance, Europeans share many affinities with other Asian peoples. Though other Asian peoples may have darker skin tones, the physical similarities they share with Europeans are significant.

The terms 'caucasoid' or "caucasian" are thus been used to describe the people from Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia, and South Asia". However people who are anthropologically described as caucasian may not be primarily identify themselves as white.

Muntuwandi 05:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No absolutely not, stop drawing conclusions which no Reliable Source has --देसीफ्राल 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes for an article like this please stick to only cited claims. This policy doesn't need to be strictly followed for topics which are not likely to be disputed, but editors here have said they disagree fundamentally with what you have been introducing to this article and some related ones. We should find experts to support any statements added, aside from the very most obvious. Two paragraphs like this just can't be added without some kind of reference. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"the physical similarities they share with Europeans are significant"? What does this mean? It may also be a valid POV that "the physical similarities shared" by humans and chimps are also "significant" because we are primates and 99% geneticall similar. But yet we are also "significantly" different. So are Asians. You can always distinguish a Far Eastern and an European in less than a second. The problem is these are all uncited weasel words...KarenAER 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"The similarities between many South Asians and Europeans are striking"

The Real Eve Stephen Oppenheimer Muntuwandi 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Frost's maps

The new pitch is now that Frost's maps (about Europeans, not whites) are "relevant" because Europeans are part of "white people." This reasoning is particularly absurd, as it would also justify including information about:

• European trends in car purchases,
• the percentage of Europeans who wear glasses,
• European alcohol consumption,
• the percentage of European families who give blond and blue-eyed dolls for their children to play with,
• and so on...

These may be about Europeans, but they aren't relevant to "white people" because they don't actually have any direct pertinence to the racial concept itself. The same direct pertinence is required of Frost's maps in order to establish relevance. Has Frost applied his work to the "white people" concept? Have any RS done this? - remember, RS doesn't include white supremacist sites like 'white-history.com'. If any RS have applied Frost's work to white people, then we can represent and attribute this with due weight, but so far it looks as if this is original work being done here on Misplaced Pages - original, that is, unless some Nordicist or otherwise non-RS have already used the maps to support/define their views.

Right now, these maps are being used (perhaps originally) to project and advance Nordicist viewpoints as non-controversial ideas about "white people" against WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, if not WP:OR. I'm open to considering mention of such views for what they are (attribute them to their white supremacist promoters), but the current usage and presentation is a grave abuse of Misplaced Pages to promote a hateful and extremist fringe agenda. The Behnam 00:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The working definition of white in the article (taken from a dictionary) is pale-featured europeans. There is nothing "nordicist" about it since everyone from the french to the russians are included in the concept being portrayed by the article as the mainstream view of what "white people" means. This definition is also not exclusive of all greeks, italians or spaniards, just dark-featured ones or those with obvious non-european features. I don't object to mentioning in this article that there are also other working definitions of white which include any caucasian person - however I think we all know this is not the commonplace meaning of the word and we would be hard pressed to find any experts who would say it is. I think in this case the dictionary is going to have to stand as authoritative. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? These are maps which give some idea of a distribution of eye color and hair color in the one area of the world where there is some significant divergence in these traits. I think that you are over reacting to this. The maps clearly cover an area broader than Europe. --Kevin Murray 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These maps DO NOT represent white people. I agree with User:The Behnam 100%. Yeah, I'm back, and I'm pissed, again. I cannot allow the white supremacists to control this and other articles. They are extremist, at best. The maps should be out of the article. Like I said before, dammit, this is one anthropologist's view, and it does not relate to WHITE PEOPLE. Using definitions from one source and then applying it to the maps are WP:SYN As for the "devils advocate" Foudeee, the definition in the dictionary does not apply to these maps. Don't play stupid. - Jeeny  00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

J, I'm glad your back, but don't understand the objection to a display which seems reasonable. Why is acknowledging diversity among whites a negative? I see any demonstration of variety a positive factor. --Kevin Murray 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the maps are ugly. I can do a better job. Second, they are not Frost's maps, but a recreation, third, Frost is but one anthropologist. I do not in the least think that diversity among whites is negative what-so-ever. In fact, whites have the most variation in these traits. What I object to is the OR, and SYN attributed to these maps. Please remove them. I'll think of something else if you need a visual. Not those ugly maps. I was a graphic designer, and am sensitive to aesthetics. Images can be very informative for an article, but if they are ugly, difficult to interpret, and out of place, they take away from the subject. - Jeeny  01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. (1) if you cna make them better please do. (2)let's make them more accurate according to Frost. (3) Why don't we leave them in place and I'll work with you on replacements either new source or better copies. Please! --Kevin Murray 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, I am not and do not play devil's advocate on wikipedia. Your reading comprehension is not very precise if you are refering to my user page. I fully believe what I am saying and in many more things related to this topic that I dare not say here. Anyway, "white people" clearly means what the dictionary says, pale skinned europeans. This is reflected by the lightest colored area on the map. Whites more or less correspond to celtic, germanic and slavic people and there is no expert source which refers to white in common usage in English meaning anything else. "White people" are stereotypical europeans. This definitely includes some italians and spaniards and greeks. It is appropriate to mention that for the purposes of the census, most or all caucasians are included as white. However that is not the common usage (find an expert who says otherwise) and "white people" in english never (to my knowledge) refers to negroes or mulattos. Anyway, we have an expert source already for the meaning of "white people" in English so the onus is on you to challenge that. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then take it off your user page if you do not want to be considered as such. I do not disagree with you of the dictionary's definition at all. What I do disagree with is your agenda. Do not pretend you do not have one. Your "goodbye" to me is proof. How dare you. I will not take you seriously again. You have proved to me what your character and agenda is, and I don't care what the hell you say otherwise on your userpage, or here. The maps, is this topic heading, NOT the definition of white people. (I didn't read your whole post, as I don't want to throw up) Get over it. Also, the onus is not on me, re the maps. It is whoever included them, to find sources that support the ONE anthropologist's theory. Kevin, I stand by my objection of the maps, not that it matters much. Until you or someone else has another reliable source, I'll work on an image. - Jeeny  01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kevin Murray 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Jeeny, you are having a reading comprehension problem. My user page does not say or imply that I play devil's advocate, which would actually in some cases be a sort of disruption or WP:POINT. My user page says "sometimes it may appear to be devil's advocacy." In English, the implication here is that if something "sometimes may appear to be", it is actually not. I'm not sure what you think my agenda is but you are probably not wrong. However the issue in this article is how the concept of "white people" is used in English, not any agendas or beliefs I (or you) may have. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the maps is that their inclusion tacitly indicates that some people are more white than others. Whereas many people who are white have the default hair and eye colors. Muntuwandi 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some whites are whiter than others, just as some blacks are blacker than others, what's your point? --देसीफ्राल 01:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, the hair and eye color maps just show some unique features that occur in white people. I don't see anything about this article that states or implies brown-eyed french people are not white. If we are to discuss white people we should address the most remarkable features unique to (or substantially associated with) the population. Clearly light hair and eyes are notable features. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Default hair and eye colours"??? What, exactly, are the defaults? SamBC(talk) 01:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis hijacked many things such as the Swastika, the Roman Salute, and even Nordic heritage. The editors here that are arguing against presenting the facts which are that white people are pale skinned Europeans, are not acting against Nazism or Nordicism, but are infact empowering it. --देसीफ्राल 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not just one definition of what is white. Its subjective an comparative. Arabs are whiter than Zulus, so comparatively white. By a KKK definition White are not only pale, but Protestant as well. --Kevin Murray 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In other cultures hair and eye color are not valued as much as they are among Europeans. Consequently people just tend to recognize the most important quality when it comes to race determination, which is color of skin. Of all the years of my existence, its only after dealing with this article that I have began to observe the eye colors of people I meet on the street. They must think I am crazy. But I never paid much attention to them before. I can't really name the eye color of any famous person. But that is just my personal experience, I know that European culture takes these things quite seriously. Maybe it should be included thus but it makes the article seem unscientific and tabloid like. Muntuwandi 01:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blue eyes, or especially Green eyes are seen as a sign of utmost beauty in Eastern cultures too, some might say even more so than European/White cultures. The reason, Muntuwandi, that it is not so important in your Black culture is the lack of variation, many blacks in africa probably never saw blue eyes before. --देसीफ्राल 02:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To what ever the heck your user name is, says who? You? Show me where it is considered the utmost beauty in Eastern cultures, I'm from Missouri now. Fourdee, this is the last time I'll respond to you civily... I can read perfectly well, and between lines. You think you're some intellectual and you think that others cannot see your sneaky double-speak. Bullshit! - Jeeny  02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

but we see blue eyes on TV. Also several animals also have blue eyes too goat. Muntuwandi 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"European trends in car purchases, the percentage of Europeans who wear glasses, European alcohol consumption." Car purchases, glasses, alcohol consumption....These arent specific to Europeans/Whites. However blondism, light colored eyes are virtually an European/White trait. Thats the difference...KarenAER 19:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallery again

Once again the gallery is filled with young women and old men. Only Royal is middle aged. this is the inherent problem with the article. Instead of discussing whiteness as a racial identity it has become a topic of white beauty. The demographics of all westernized countries are skewed to middle aged people. The boomers are the largest single demographic group. So this is a misrepresentation of whiteness. Muntuwandi 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any emaciated starving blacks in the Black People gallery, so again, what's your point? --देसीफ्राल 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the black people gallery. I don't know what your name is but since it looks like some kind of middle eastern script, I'll just refer to you as Saddam. Muntuwandi 02:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's Mr. Hussein to you --देसीफ्राल 02:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but most average, every-day white people are not beautiful. The same can be said of black people. That's what determines averages. Sheesh. Change your username. Use English - Jeeny  02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the maps and the gallery is that they generate so much controversy. In all this discussion nobody has added a single source, maybe its a good idea to remove them because their has not been any source apart from frost discussing this. Furthermore, contrary to what may be believed hair and eye color are polygenic and not Mendelian so in actual fact there are several shades of blue green and brown eyes and similar with hair color. Consequently these maps may not be accurate. Muntuwandi 02:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, it's some kind of Romani language, not Arabic. So maybe Hitler would be a better referral lol. - Jeeny  02:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that you'll both be blocked soon. Catch ya next time. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Indic script editor whose name we can't decipher has the same username as Desiphral's signature. I posted this finding on his/her talk page, but I haven't gotten the affirmative on this inquiery. I suggest we call him/her "Desiphral" instead of giving him/her a potentionally insulting nickname that might be construed as a personal attack.----Tea© 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me Phral, to avoid me looking like that other editor. I might end up having to change it now, as he/she has been editing under the name longer than me --देसीफ्राल 04:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No point in adding this to the article, since it's targeted for deletion, but there needs to be a place for Brooke Shields, who was once described by Eddie Murphy as "the whitest woman in America." Baseball Bugs 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi's Images Listed For Deletion

I have listed two of Muntuwandi's afrocentric-agenda pushing images for deletion here. They are Image:Light skin colors.jpg and Image:One drop rule.jpg. Your comments at the IfD are most welcome --देसीफ्राल 05:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I can't help but be disappointed that citing a lack of encyclopedic value is considered "bad faith." So long as we keep them orphaned the deletions go through. The Behnam 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So you all know, I've put in for a username change to the latin Phral --देसीफ्राल 06:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One serious problem with the one-drop image is that I believe Muntuwandi is identifying Angelina Jolie as someone who would pass the one drop rule when she is pretty obviously part injun (something which I think few people from white countries would miss, whether or not they cared). Even if that's fixed it speaks to the fundamental difficulty with creating this sort of collage to depict something. A photograph we can say is just a picture of its topic as taken by the camera, while the collage involves some assumptions that may not be correct. For a non-controversial article it may be a welcome addition but for something that is likely to be challenged at the least one should be extremely scrupulous about facts like is the individual actually identified as claimed. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias in article

Aside from census data, this article is mostly about the relationship between certain genotypic and phenotypic features associated with "white people." I have two problems with this. First, it utterly ignores a vast literature in anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies on the social construction of whiteness, how the notion of "white" people has changed historically, and its cultural dimensions. I realize that to write about this someone would have to go through peer-reviewed journals (including interdisciplinary ones like Critical Inquiry, Representations and Public Culture) to find the important articles and look through book reviews to identify the important books - but hey, that is what you have to do if you want to write an encyclopedia article, right? Until someone does this, the article fails to live up to our NPOV standards by ignoring many important points of view. Second, the sections on genoytpe strike me as original research insofar as they are synthetic i.e. making claims about "White people" in general. All the scientific studies are on specific populations, and different populations will have diferent features and it is not scientific to take results from different populations and average them unless you have a good reason. Here is a good reason based on the article itself: country by country. When the US does a census to identify White people, and the Ecuadorian census identifies White people, they are NOT referring to members of the same race or ethnic group. Censuses reflect states' views of their citizenry, although the degree to which they reflect the interests of bureaucrats, social scientists, or political negotiations with representatives of ethnic groups varies. But often time within many countries (certainly the US and Brazil) the boundaries between ethnic groups and how people self identify may vary from what is recorded by the census ... which is why you really need to look at work by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists - otherwisewhat you have is at best a distortion, or at worst amounts to OR (in the form of synthesis). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially on the genotype OR (as should be evident from this talk talk page). What do you propose be done about this? The Behnam 18:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for starts, i would just check the sources (sorry, I am overcommitted myself and cannot do it) and disaggregage anything that was clearly aggregaed by a Misplaced Pages editor. I would check the sources and would use only those sources concerning genotype/phenotype that make it clear what the sample is, and organize the section according to countries or self-identified ethnic groups at specific times and places. I know there is lots of easily accessible research on clines that show changes in skin-color and eye-color correlated with latitude - I would reject ALL such sources as appropriate for this article because such research on clinal variation is explicitly not about discrete populations, races, or ethnic groups or nationalities, that research is all about a continuum of change that only blurs the boundaries between so-called races or ethnic groups. Once you guys have rectified the sources - making sure they are appropriate (specifically about a bounded race or ethnic group, and not about latitudinal variation) and appropriately used (as sources of information about geographically and temporally specifically located populations that are clearly identified) to make sure there is no OR, see ifyou can come up with a better way to organize what is left. In the meantime: if there is a core group of people really dedicated to this article, start looking for books on Whiteness, books and articles by anthropologists, sociologists, and historians who specialize on ethnicity and start addind that research. Good luck. Look in the three journals I mentioned for articles on "whiteness," as well as recent articles in the major anthropology and sociology journals (American Anthropologist, American ethnologist, Cultural Anthropology, Current Anthropology, American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Journal of Historical Sociology, Comparative Studies in Society and History - anything in the past 20 years on "whiteness" or "white"+"ethnicity" or "white race" and see what you come up with - despite the long list of journals you will not end up with a huge number of article and inforporating their findings into this article will start moving it from commonly-held popular beliefs mixed in with some stats, to a real encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the inapplicability of the Frost maps, which I believe is an example of what you called inappropriate information about clines. The problem is that there is no way to stop this OR or otherwise enforce content if enough other editors want it, regardless of whether or not it is not about directly pertinent to "white people." The most recent attempt to discuss this is at Talk:White people#Relevance of Frost's maps. The Behnam 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree that the Frost maps are anything other than a simple graphic demonstration of distribution of two simple charactersitics, over the geography where these ethnic groups were indigenous. This only serves to demonstrate diversity among those commonly catagorized as "white". How is any of this OR? It is a simple demonstration of fact. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I echo SL's concerns about the quality of some of our references and a synthesis among the information. However, WP is not a peer-reviewed publication, nor do our standards require sources of that level. Idealism aside, WP is a volunteer project and never likely to get beyond a cursory presentation of topics. I think that this article should stick to presenting simple facts and point readers to more in depth sources. Less is more. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your clinal map is inappropriate because it is not showing variation among White people, it is saying that there are no white people (i.e. bioogically distinct ethnic groups). And you do not need to inlcude the chart here to make the point - just say many scientists have rejected biological races or the claim that ethnic groups are biologically distinct and have a link to the Race article which explains it all in greater detail. But the only justification to include the clinal chart in this article is if it had a caption that reead, "According to many scientists, there are no white people." That is the only fact it demonstrates. If yu don't add that caption take out the chart. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(A) it's not my map, I have just tried to make it more accurate and clear. (B) how does showing variance among "white people" imply that there are no white people. The term "white people" is a vague term with many definitions. My preference would be to have this topic merged under a better name, but if it is to exist, I think it should demonstrate diversity within the established definitions. --Kevin Murray 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(A) I was using "your" rhetorically and apologize for the misunderstanding. (B) I am afraid you did not read what I wrote carefully. Clinal maps simply are not about variation among white people. I did not say that showing variance among white people means there are no white people, I said the map does not show variance among white people. What it does is it shows variance within the human race, and it reveals a particular kind of variance that is incompatable with ay notion of biological ethnic groups or races - and such maps are used by the scientists who develop them explicitly to make the point that there are no biological races and that you cannot talk about ethnic identity as something based in anything biological (this actually does leave room to say that there is such a thing as "White people" but only in a sociological or cultural sense and not in a biological sense - which brings us back to my point that this article ignores the vast published and available research by historians, sociologists and anthropologists on "whiteness" and it is only by drawing on that research - not the clinal map - that one can talk about the existence of "white people.") To make any other claim about the clinal map would be to violate our NOR policy.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As for "less is more" - whell, garbage in, garbage out. Misplaced Pages was intended to be an excellent encyclopedia first and formost. The decision to make it a wiki, i.e. any one can edit, was not made with the expectation that the people who would wdit would actually not care about building an encyclopedia and definitely not to create an encyclopedia that reflects the lowest common denominator (of knowledge). It was premissed on the idea that of the thousands plus who would work on wikipedia, some will have already read many of the books and articles on Whiteness, or others would have the desire to do real research. Seriously, I doubt youwould hold physics articles to the same low standard. You would really want an article on a physics or biology topiuc not to be based on current research? That is a laughable attitude towards an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This attitude is delusional at best. In its current format WP has limitations. I see the strength of many as winnowing out the extremes, but to expect WP to be anything more than cursory is the laughable attitude. Regardless of the topic, we shouldn't get carried away with our own self-importance. However, this topic is surely not a shining example of WP's capacity. I see this as a dangerous ground for propaganda. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you seriously underestimate the extent to which high-school and university students rely on Misplaced Pages for research. Anyway, I try to take pride in anything I work on. If a job is not worth doing well, don't do it. Conversely, if you are going to do something, do it right. These are things my parents taught me as a kid - I think they are still wise words. Honestly, if you really do not take Misplaced Pages seriously (I only mean, seriously enough to take pride in it and do as good a job with it as if you were doing anything else you cared about) why try to influence the quality of its articles? I would rather take you on good faith and assume you do take Misplaced Pages seriously and would like to be proud of it. I am just trying to explain my motives for making the suggestions I made. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In high school, college, and university my research frequently started at Britanica or even World Book for an overview, but after Sophmore year I'd have been embarrased to stop there. Yes we should be proud of what we do but the world needs Toyotas and Ferraris; and the designers and builders of each take pride in their accomplishments. --Kevin Murray 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We are alike: in high school I used the World Book, and in college Brittanica. But I have been teaching college and university courses for fourteen years, and I assure you that in just the past four years I have seen an exponential increase in undergraduate and graduate student (of different majors/disciplines) use of Misplaced Pages in their research papers and dissertations. Your point about toyotas and ferraris is well-taken, but I am trying to be practical: more and more people are using Misplaced Pages, including students. It is just a fact. And I take your point about the potential for propaganda (expressed earlier) which is precisely why I urge the use of peer-reviewed journal articles, and books published by academic presses, as sources for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While I think Slrubenstein is a meticulous and scrupulous[REDACTED] editor, I don't think introducing material which questions the existence of a concept that is obviously in wide use would be useful. I don't believe the article makes claims that whites exist as an absolutely discrete group or that racial categories are or aren't absolute or do or don't reflect monophyletic clades. We're just trying to report the concept as it is used and understood by the average person. Material that undermines this should merely be listed lower in the article in a "criticisms" section as is the usual practice on wikipedia. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

About questioning the concept - in part you misunderstand what I am saying, and in part you misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages demands NPOV and NPOV includes representing multiple points of view. The view that "white people" does not designate a biological entity is widely held by scientists and must be included in this article. Misplaced Pages also prohibits original research and that includes novel syntheses: to use the research of population geneticists to make a claim that those scientists themselves reject is not only plain disingenuous, it just violates our policy. As for "just trying to report on how the average person uses the concept," please tell me where in Misplaced Pages it states that this is our policy. I really think you have to be kidding - what you say is among other things the task of dictionaries and it is very explicit that Misplaced Pages is NOT a dictionary. And really, do you think the article on evolution should limit itself to what average people think evolution is? Do you think that the article on the theory of general relativity should be about what average people think relativity is? Do you think that the article on global warming should be about just what the average person thinks it is? Honestly, I think you have to be joking. The issue is not whether material undermines the popular view and should thus be listed under "criticisms." The issue is that evolutionary scientists have done considerable research on genetic variation that has led them to reject claims that races and ethnic groups are biological entities - this is not merely a "criticism" of popular ideas, it is positive scientific research that adds to our nowledge of the world and leads us to insights that when people talk about "White people" the are talking about something other than a biological entity, which, and I am not reapeating this for at least the fourth time, is why it is so important to include research by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists on "Whiteness" and "White people." If you do not draw on such research, you are violating NPOV and NOR and just pushing your own POV - or worst, just being a bullshit artist. I appreciate your calling me a meticulous and scrupulous editor, and I really hope that what we have here is a sincere misunderstanding. It sounds to me like you want to exclude scholarly research from an encyclopedia and I really hope that is not what you mean. Anyone who is not willing to read articles and books to research writing an encyclopedia article - and I am asking nothing more than what an undergraduate college student would do to study for an exam or write a term paper - or worse, someone who actively discourages others from doing this and using it to develop an article, has no place at Misplaced Pages. If you do not want to write an encyclopedia, well, it's a free country (if not where you live, certainly wikipediaworld) - you are free to do whatever it is you really want to do ... except come here and violae our policies like, (1)[REDACTED] is not a dictionary, (2) NPOV and (3) NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every[REDACTED] article is about a scientific concept. A great many are not. This is one that is only partly about historical anthropology or biology, and partly about the social concept of whiteness. A[REDACTED] article should 1) identify a concept 2) report on the concept 3) list any criticisms of the concept - in that order. And if that is not in any policy or guideline, it is the unwritten practice. The article on God doesn't start with "No scientists have found any evidence that there is any God." The original research or POV-pushing here would be to take some biology that questions race and try to prevent there from being an article that describes the concept as it is used. And there is no biology that says the people we are calling white are not genetically different from those we are calling black - the cline argument is feeble at best and works only against the concepts that the races are absolutely distinct clades, not the concept that there are identifiable clusters of genetic material. The voluminous material debating both sides of that dispute is well outside the scope of this article. In this my friend I think it is perhaps you who are bullshitting as I can't believe you honestly think the existence of some science can possibly be used nullify the reporting of a concept in wide use. I have no objection to mentioning this issue and referencing the relevant articles. However the topic of this article is in quite firm ground as a widely-used "social construct". -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think SlR is trying to advance the argument that emphasis be placed on it being a social construct, with a focus on its variability. El_C 06:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

@Fourdee - You believe race is a genetic concept? Also, I'm not seeing how the cline argument is "feeble." Slrubenstein rightly points out that such cline maps are not intended to describe "race," which is probably why we don't see any RS using these maps to describe the "white race." To characterize the "white race" based upon hair and eye colors, such that 'lighter' hair or eyes indicate "whiter" people, is quite distinctly the definition used by Nordicist/white supremacist racist viewpoints, and the current use of the cline maps pushes the Nordicist definitions into this article. The maps are about certain traits that aren't necessarily those used to define the "white race" by RS - if you disagree please show that RS do indeed apply these maps to the "white race." Otherwise take it out and keep it out, as we aren't supposed to prop up POV-pushing OR. The Behnam 06:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We may basically agree with how this article should be presented but I think there is some difference over the tone that should be used and what the bulk of the material should be. I was at one time extremely opposed to phrasing this as a "social construct" but I think with the proper wording that is actually the way to phrase it. What I have been concerned with in the past is phrasings that imply it is a "social construct without any basis in genetic features" rather than pointing out that the traditional races are definitely not clades (although a few ethnic groups may be close to clades) but are more loosely organized groups of genetically similar people. I guess basically what I am concerned with is leaving the wording of the introduction paragraph as neutral as possible and just reporting the fact of the concept without introducing a lot of challenges to it - except to mention that there are some challenges which will be referenced below. I think the treatment in the God article is similar to what should happen here. The volume of material questioning the concept of race itself should be mentioned but should not overwhelm the article and perhaps it belongs in a "Criticisms of the concept of a white race" article since it could easily fill such an article - much like how the criticisms of God and Jesus etc. tend to be broken out into separate articles since they are as large as a discussion of the concept itself. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, we do agree on almost everything. First I am going to express my personal view, just for the sake of transparency, then I will express my view as to how to proceed with the article itself. Personally, I would agree with you that there is a connection between race and skin-color, but I would not agree with the claim that "The social construct (of race, ethnicity, whiteness, whatever) is based on genetics. Fom all the research I have read, the social construct is based on historically changing political and economic conditions and relationships, and for various reasons (one of which has to do with (1) the fact that at certain key moments in history political and economic inequalities developed between groups from different geographic regions - and I emphasize that the social dynamics is explained by changing political and economic geographies, not genetics and (2) geographic differences correlate with genetic differences - but really, the point of the clinal map is that geography "causes" genetic difference, not the other way around)) under very specific conditions phenotypic (not genetic as such) differences became markers of race (in the late Roman Empire, by contrast, people had a concept of race but it was not based on physical appearance or beliefs about descent/ancestry ... my point is that what people mjean by race varies depending on time and place). This really is very different from saying that racial or ethnic identity is "based" on genetics - I think that statement is flat out false. i realize that what I wrote above is complex but I think the view can be explained in an accessible way if expanded only into two or three paragraphs. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Second, I think a problem with the idea of "criticism of the white race position" is that it implies that there is only one position concerning the white race and all other positions are criticisms of it. I just do not agree with this. I think that there are several different views of "the white race" and while it is true that they are all in conflict, no one view should be elevated as "the view." There just happen to be different views. The view that race is a social construct should not be reduced to being a criticism of the view that races are biologically real, any more than the view that races are biologically rel should not be presented solely as a criticism of the view that race is a social construct. These are just two different views among others. It is a fact that there is a concept of "White people" We can say that in one sentence, but it doesn't mean much - it begs the question, how do people conceive of Whiteness? Fourdee writes as if there is only one way that people conceive of Whiteness. And that is not a fact. There are different conceptions of Whiteness. One could say tha there are several "concepts of whiteness." Now, here is what I think we should do to improve the article. I agree entirely with Fourdee's desire to comply with NPOV, not just in the first paragraph but in the entire article. But I do not think that we will achieve neutrality by arguing over which of us editors is right. We will achieve neutrality by complying with our NPOF and NOR policies. This means representing multiple views if they exist, and "if they exist" means, if they can be found in reliable verifiable sources. My knowledge of the sources makes it clear to me that there is no one view of "White people" meaning the concept of "white people;" there are several. To elevate one of these views as the proper view of the concept, and present any other view as a criticism of the "proper" view, is not neutrality - it is far from neutrality, it is one editor's bias. The introduction should introduce the article as a whole by saying what the different views are. This is a general principle. But it leads me right back to the comment I wrote at the top of this section, that there are two major flaws with this article: (1) this article presents the views of researchers in the life sciences but misrepresents them: this is a violation of NPOV and NOR, and if we are going to provide the views of population-geneticists we must represent them accurately (see my comment to Kevin Murray in the following section, "Genetic and other Populations"). (2) this article excludes other views that have been documented or proposed by researchers in the social sciences and humanities. This is another violation of NPOV and reflects an absence of research based on verifiable and reliable sources (i.e. the flip side of NOR - if NOR is what we shouldn't do, researching verifiable and reliable sources is what we should do). The remedy is simple: editors committed to working on this article need to research what sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have written about the concept of Whiteness (some of what they have written is descriptions of how regular - meaning, non-academic - people living in different times and places have conceived of race, and some of what they have written express their own conception of whiteness based on their analysis of their data). Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the simplist way to redress the problems with this article: read this book (the US has an extensive interlibrary loan system so anyone in the US - I am not living in the US - can get this book:

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

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

• Allen, Theodore The Invention of the White Race
• Babb, Valerie. Whiteness Visible: The Meaning of Whiteness in American Literature and Culture
• Bonnett, Alastair. White Identities: Historical and International Perspectives
• Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks: and What that says about Race in America
• Dyer, Richard. White
• Hale, Grace Elizabeth. Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940
• Haney-Lopez, Ian. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race
• Hill, Mike, ed. Whiteness: A Critical Reader
• Hollinger, David. Post-ethnic America
• Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White
• Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race
• Kincheloe, Joe, ed. White Reign: Deploying Whiteness in America
• Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics
• McCarthy, Cameron and Warren Crichlow, eds. Race, Identity, and Representation in Education
• Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination
• Thomas, K. Nakayama, Judith N. Martin (editors): Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity.
• O'Donnell, James and Christine Clark, eds. Becoming and Unbecoming White: Owning and Disowning a Racial Identity
• Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s.
• Rasmussen, Birgit Brander, et al., eds., The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness
• Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class
• Rogin, Michael Paul. Black Face, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Melting Pot
• Saxton, Alexander. The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America

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

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

Any major library will have subscriptions to at least a few of these journals. In hard-copies, one could look at the index at the back of any given volume; if one has J-Stor or another electronic version of the journal once can do a boolean search. It woul dnot take long to search for "Whiteness," "White+Race" and "White+Ethnicity." You will not come up with an overhwlming number of articles, but what you do come up with will represent the best scholarship (these are all top-ranked peer-reviewed journals; the authors of the articles did all the complex hard work, we just need to benefit from their labor). You will also come up with book reviews and if the review is positive, it is probably worth reading the book. In the end, you will know a lot more about White people (which presumably is what you want, if this article interests you) and you will be able to improve this article by ensuring it complies with NPOV and by ensuring that you are not violating NOR. Like I said (I think!) above - good luck! No article in Misplaced Pages is ever perfect - after all, by its very Wiki nature, all articles are perpetual works in progress. But obviously this article can be much, much better. That's pretty exciting! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the list. Just quickly... First, I think WP:FRINGE may come into play as far as balancing the article. If the overwhelming majority of people believe they can reliably visually identify a white person, and a handful of scholars say they cannot for X tangentally related reason, the scholars may actually constitute a fringe or tiny minority opinion for purposes of wikipedia. For example if most newspapers, television broadcasters, police agencies, etc. regularly use a term, that is the mainstream meaning of that term and we should stick to analyzing that usage rather than descontructing its premises on the say-so of essentially a tiny minority.

First, you seem (in your third sentence, "A handful of scholars") to think you know what these scholars think. Unless you have read all the books and articles, I do not see how you can make this claim. I believe they are saying something very different from what you claim they are saying. This is precisely why one cannot write an encyclopedia article without doing research: we just cannot make things up, this isn't a bullshit-session. Second, what makes a view prominant or notable is generally not determined by how many people share that view. I think almost everyone has beliefs about what is "real" and I believe that these beliefs have nothing to do with or actually contradict string theory or quantum mechanics. The percentage of Americans (let alone, people of the planet) who are proponents of the views of string-theory or quantum mechanics is very small. Yet, this encyclopedia has articles expressing those views. Ditto research on population genetics. You seem insistant that there is only one real view, and any other view is not a view but is either a criticism of your view, or fringe. What makes an individual book or author prominent enough to cite in an article - in other words, a relevant and appropriate source, even an authority, does not depend on a popularity contest but rather the judgement of his or her peers. By peers I do not mean people who hold the same view, I mean people of the same profession. Most of these books and articles are written by people whose work is considered authoritative by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists. This article should represent all major views: this means the dominant view held by the masses of uneducated people, and also the dominant view of scholars. If the dominant view of historians is different from the dominant view of sociologists, we should distinguish between and include both views. A "fringe" academic view is a view held by a small fraction of the scholars researching a particular subject - not a small fraction of society at large. In fact, in Academia, these views are not "fringe." For you to call them fringe is tantamount to saying "Academia" is fringe. Are you saying that we should not read books and articles by historians and sociologists when writing an article about something that has a historical or social dimension? Are you really saying that an excellent encyclopedia should ignore the views of scientists? If so, it becomes impossible for me to take you in good faith. If this is really your position - if you view the work of professional researchers to be "fringe;" then you have no business researching articles for an encyclopedia. A relatively small number of people understand either the math behind E=MC squared, or what this equation means for our understanding of time and space - by your standards that makes Einstein fringe, and we should just delete the articles on Einstein and the theory of relativity. Your attitude is fundamentally opposed to the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I personally think the phrasing and balance of this article comes down to motivations as far as interpreting what is really fringe, balance, or neutral-point-of-view: On the one hand are people who believe that the concept of a white identity is good for the world (or America) and that people should be encouraged to believe in it and select their mates from that pool, and on the other is the agenda to diminish the value of that categorization and encourage people to select mates from outside that pool - especially by insinuating nothing would be lost since there is nothing genetically distinct about who we are calling whites (I think it relies on deceptive phrasing to mislead people who don't understand genetics). One's position in that matter I think influences one's judgment on the other matters to the extent that it becomes almost impossible to interpret policies like WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV etc. completely fairly. This seems to be a particular problem in this article. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinions of editors should never enter this article. It does not matter to me whether you are or are not a racist. You can edit Misplaced Pages as long as you comply with our policies. There are racists who hold strong views about "White people" and however much a minority they are in the United States, I would agree that their view should be inclouded in this article. But there view should not be the only view in this article, nor should any editor decide which view is most important - that is a clear violation of NPOV. Similarly, the fact that racists do not understand genetics or evolutionary theory does not mean that their views about gnetics should be excluded - it is a notable view and shoulod be inclouded. But the views of actual scientists (population geneticists and evolutionary biologists for example) should also be represented accurately - even if a relatively small minority of Americans are population geneticists. You can't say that scientists' views about their own field of expertise are fringe just because relaively few people join that profession. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So the conclusion I draw from that is that we have a situation as I mentioned to Muntuwandi: It's not a clear cut case of science but instead introduces a huge array of different philosophical, sociological, moral, cultural and religious points of view and if the propaganda from one camp is introduced I don't see how we can avoid balancing it with another. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "propaganda" is meaningless in Misplaced Pages: all you are saying is it is a view you disagree with. What matters is not whether you agree or disagree with it, but that it is a view. NPOV demands we include all notable views. Whether we like or agree with them or not is utterly irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it is about verifiable views. And it is most definitely not about editors views. In this entire discussion I have only been arguing that this article should accurately represent verifiabloe views. You on the other hand seem to think that this article should represent only your view. If this is really what you think, then you do not belong at Misplaced Pages. If you do not think this, then I do not understand your comment Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are incorrect about what is considered fringe. "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications." It doesn't offer a way to decide between newspapers and academic publications but I dare say if 100 newspapers use a term and 2 acadaemic journals say that term doesn't mean anything, they are fringe. My intent here is to prevent the article from having misleading material inserted which implies there is not a genetic cause for physical appearance, that these traits are not heritable, that these traits are not associated with certain ethnic groups, or that there are not differences in genetics between populations - because those are lies. Sometimes lies (and other deceptions) are promoted in academia through various means as part of sometimes shadowy and nefarious and sometimes overt campaigns, and I fully intent to accurately portray any such lies or deceptions as the fringe theories they are when the overwhelming majority of people know full well what a white person is and that they are white because of their ancestry and genetics. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetic and other populations (section)

Anyway. I agree with the delition of White_people#Genetics_and_other_population KarenAER 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• While I don't support the removal of this section, I offer a compromise. I've put MW's text at White people/genetics where perhaps we can refine it. I see the information as very interesting in explaining the evolution of Whites and the important similarities among us all. --Kevin Murray 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect: the question is not whether you see this as information that explains the evolution of Whites, but whether the scientists who did the research see it as an explanation for the evolution of Whites. If they do, then the article should clearly state that "scientists x, y, or z use this data to provide the follwing explanation for the evolution of Whites: ..." However, if they do not, then you cannot use them to provide or support an explanation f the evolution of Whites - to do so would violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kerry et al pic

It is biased. Because for every 4 people whose skin color is similar like that, there may be 4000 with clear skin tone differences. Europeans are the lightest ethnic group (Spectrophotometry confirms that). That's why they are called white...KarenAER 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with wanting better and more verifiable picture, but I'm OK with the concept. --Kevin Murray 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You ok with the pic? But if we only include that pic without showing instances where skin color differences are clear, that doesnt give the whole picture...KarenAER 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The pic seems to be saying "all of these people have pale skin, but they're not all (considered) white". Sounds okay to me. SamBC(talk) 20:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But those people are not pale, except the albino. They are "pale" compared to sun tanned Kerry. They arent pale compared to Kim Basinger. Look at the difference between Kim Basinger and Kerry. That's why this picture is POV pushing. There seems to be no objective comparison, ie: suntanned Kerry vs other people in bright lightening. Also look at here: . Thandie Newton's skin color is clearly non-white compared to Matt Dillon...KarenAER 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest cooperating with MW in a sandbox to develop a collage which meets all of our needs, and in the interim leave this in place. Specifically, I don't like the picture of the euro-asian woman being described as asian, but we have no verifiable infomation on her heritage. Perhaps it is consistent though with the afro-asian woman, but her heritage seems verifiable. I don't like using celebrities, but they do have some potential for a higher level of verification. --Kevin Murray 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Karen, I'm quite a Bassinger fan, but we are being critisized for making our article into a beauty pageant. I agree that we should be using realistic photos and the Kerry at his darkest is misleading compared to a very pale Newton. On the other hand, it demonstrates the sillier nature of this whole concept of evaluation based on skin tones. There are many more important criteria upon which to evaluate people. --Kevin Murray 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So ya'll know, I'm no longer देसीफ्राल --Phral 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Phral -- short names are the best. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what particular population you look at, the average not-obese white woman is in fact beautiful. Kim Basinger is not particularly unusual looking for her ethnic group. She's also not young. I don't see what would be wrong with using young people though. At any rate, the first photograph in this article must be of a pale-skinned white person. Doesn't matter what color hair or eyes but the person should be *white* and have stereotypical features which if it is a female are going to be "beautiful". Tough. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also this material Muntuwandi is introducing is overwhelming the article and is at best only tangentally related to this one. Discussions of people who are not white, or who white people don't consider part of their ethnic or racial group, belong elsewhere. At this point I'm ready to treat Muntuwandi as a vandal. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had previously introduced these photos of average-looking (or merely somewhat photogenic) non-famous white people to this article. Something like these should appear before any other image (probably without the caption of nationality since what is being shown is that they are white, not what ethnic group):

• French French
• Austrian Austrian
• Dutch-American Dutch-American

I think they would go well on the page, and would make a pleasant change to the somewhat overwhelming (at times) number of old politicians, late Kings and albinos --Phral 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Those three pictures should be added, I agree. --Vonones 05:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Content fork

The European people article seems to be a POV fork of this article.Muntuwandi 03:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You have lost all credibility with me, Muntuwandi. Comparing a deeply tanned white man, with a halfcast black man, an albino and a man of unspecified Oriental origin? this is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog of fringe theories --Phral 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, please stop. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Muntuwandi's point is that skin color is mutable and that the use of the word "White" to identify people (and I would thin equally "Blacl" is metaphorical. Am I right, Muntuwandi? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So I guess if I mated with a black person we might have a baby who looks just like a blonde Swede? Interesting. Calling it "mutable" or "clinal" or "phenotypical" is misleading to the average person. Take this concept that "race doesn't exist" and package it up for mass consumption as a scientific fact and you might have people believing it doesn't matter what their mate looks like because we're all just the same. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This slippery slope has been argued before. We all know that light-skinned people can tan their skin and become darker, but I perceive their ability to darken is only within a range of their natural skin color. For those who wish to disregard skin color as a determiner of race, I would like you to present a reliable source that says someone with naturally pink skin can turn black through tanning and the blackest black can turn pink through staying out of the sun.----Tea© 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you miss the point - I am guessing because you have not actually researched the topic. I don't want this to turn into a bull-session where we are just expressing our own views, we should be talking about improving the article. The way to do that is to ignore our own views and provide accurate accounts of releant verifiable views from reliable sources. The article curretnly fails to do so in two ways: it refers to research by population geneticists but misrepresents it. And it ignores all the research by historians, sociologists, and anthropologists. Perhaps if you studied any of that research you would avoid making silly statements that have no bearing on the actual debates among scholars (including those who argue that race, including "the White race," is a social construction). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics