Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 23 August 2006

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.

older discussions may be found here Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3,

Mulattos

i know some mulatto who are whiter than some white folks. mulatto are half white so they white as they are black to.

Discussion

I have archived the previous discussion (playfully entitled 'Archive 4'). Discussion may now be resumed. Keep it clean and have fun, folks! :D User:Smith Jones 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]

Sources

This article should not be about what is whiteness. It should be about providing good sources to answer that question as well as what subheadings are appropriate.71.74.209.82 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian

I thought Caucasian and white are the same.I must be wrong.----Always Gotta Keep It Real, Cute 1 4 u 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Caucasian" includes European Whites as well as Jews, Arabs, Iranians, and Indians.

--Ryodox 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Turks are white, of course!

I am adding this part because it has been archived and I think the debate is interesting:

Turks are white, of course. I am reading this discussion about Turks.

1. Turks are white. In Europe, no one considers them as non-white. The problem is that we have here an ignorant American with extremenly stupid ideas.

2. People have been using here genetics to say who is white or not. Well here you have this Cavalli-Sforza map. According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view.

3. It is interesting, how acoording to his famous map, some Europeans, of whom there is no discussion here, fall outside the range that is considered European from a genetic point of view, like Finns and many Swedes and Norwegians.

4. If you can read a map, here you have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg

Note how important areas of the Middle East also fall within the European genetic boundaries, colored in green.

And anyone who uses those white supremacist sources to argue who is white or not should be ban from here and I urge administrators to do so.

We are speaking about an anthropological issue, therefore only traditional anthropology or new genetic anthropology should be used if this article is to be taken seriously.

There's debate about who's considered "White". To use pseudo-scientifical and arbitrary grouping to define who is White is ridiculous. You don't cite any sources that claim Turks are White, so it remains a matter of opinion. )--Ryodox 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC The anonymous IP User argues that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white when they do not. The anonymous IP User's argument that anthropology only means traditional anthropology or genetics fails to include linguistic and cultural anthropology. Even if we constrict "anthropology" to the two fields anonymous IP User feels like acknowledging, we have disagreement which does not argue for anonymous IP User's point. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has been noted for using a priori defined races, then grouping them genetically. Even though it is true that some populations are more genetically related than others, his races are nothing but his POV. Traditionally, many anthropologists have defined race differently. These two fields only illustrate that opinions on race vary, but do not prove that the Turks are White.--Dark Tichondrias 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Dark T, don't just make vague comments that I'm ignoring cultural anthropology, let's start bringing some intellectual content to the subject (god knows its past time to do that). Just how much have you studied the work of Cavalli-Sforza? You see, I actually studied Anthropology for four years at the University of Kentucky (and my focus among the four subdivisions was cultural anthropology - which makes your claim that I'm ignoring it curious) and have taken graduate level courses in the anthropology of race and medical anthropology. I'm eager to have someone with which to debate actual intellectual content on this subject. Maybe you are that person? If so, stop holding back. It will be good for the article, too, as actual intellectual content will require sources instead of unsupported claims as has been the overwhelming majority of what has appeared here in the talk page to date.71.74.209.82 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We have been talking about who is white an who is not when we should be talking about what is verifiable and not - what sources can we point to to say what 'white' is. By that requirement, we need to be focused on sources as judged by Misplaced Pages standards and what they have to say about 'whiteness'. "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view." I think you need to read the article you pointed to, not just look at the pretty pictures.71.74.209.82 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than refute my assertion that genetics has nothing to do with the definition of white people, User:71.74.209.82 pulls a red herring about the amount of anthropology classes they have taken. Are you willing to tackle my assertion that genetics has nothing to do with who is white or sidestep the issue only to return to the Cavalli-Sforza map of genetics? Yes, I admit the Turks are genetically closely related to other Europeans, but your quoted statement that "they also are European, from a genetic point of view" confuses the cause. They are not European because they are closely genetically related. They are either European or non-European and they may also be closely genetically related.--Dark Tichondrias 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say that genetics did have anything to do with the definition of white people. I dont believe it does. So what am I suppossed to refute? I didnt say that Turks are European from a genetic point of view, Will you be done making up straw men anytime soon?71.74.209.82 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did not claim that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white.71.74.209.82 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For User:71.74.209.82 to deny their argument was that genetics determines who is white is absurd. They have spent a paragraph above and a paragraph in the archive stating the objectivity of human genetics and stating the genetic relationship between Turks and other Europeans. Since they are unable to defend my claim that genetics does not determine who is white, they claim they never made such an argument.--Dark Tichondrias 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What have you been reading? I did not say that genetics determines who is white. Again, will you be finished posting straw men anytime soon? If you feel that I have, in fact, stated that genetics determines who is white, please quote and reference where I said that.71.74.209.82 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote User:71.74.209.82 added in her/his last post, "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view." After reading this post by User:71.74.209.82, I interpreted this user to be arguing that genetics determines who is European. I feel this is a fair interpretation of the statement originally posted by User:71.74.209.82 and not an intentional straw man argument on my part.--Dark Tichondrias 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that the above statement was said by User:Pinball who did not sign their post. I apologize to User:71.74.209.82. Since User:Pinball did not sign their post, it looked like User:71.74.209.82 said User:Pinball's statement. This was not an intentional straw man of User:71.74.209.82's argument.--Dark Tichondrias 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Enough of personal opinons: Self research and just opinions are against Wiki rules.

1. If anyone has a reputable and verifiable source that Turks are not white bring it foward (I doubt very much you will find one).

2. Genetically speaking they fall withing the boundaries of the European genetic diversity range.

3. Genetically speaking other peoples, like Finns, peoples from the Baltic and many Scandinavians could be considered non-white, but, of course, Scandinavians are white, because whites are not restricted to Europeans, genetically speaking.

4. Anyway, it is interesting to see how peoples that have been traditionally seen as very pure whites, due to their very pale skins, like Scandinavians and peoples from the Baltic republics, are not only the least European, but also the least Caucasian, genetically speaking, and this is a fact that can be seen both in the Cavalli-Sforza map above and in the Macdonalds Hapmap:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

I think people here are intelligent enough to read a map and to interpret haplogroup (genetic families) pies. Pinball.

You need to provide sources for your points (1 through 4) as well71.74.209.82 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My friend, the funny thing is that the only one who is providing reputable and verifiable sources here it is me. For the rest I only see opinions. Pinball.

Looking over your list of points 1 through 4, I see no sources.71.74.209.82 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you need to go back to elementary school. If you can read a map and if you can interpret a pie, to say that there are no sources is surrealistic. We need to be more serious here. Pinball.

If you actually read his work instead of contenting yourself with looking at the pretty pictures, you would know that a great deal of his book discusses race as a flawed concept. If race is a flawed concept then race-based categories such as Caucasion are as well.71.74.209.82 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I agree with you 100% on that, if you share Cavalli´s view. In fact genetic research is a blow in the face to traditional racial theories, but if people here are bent on discussing who is white or not on a racial and genetic basis (I think the term white is just a social and a racist concept in itself), then let us use the scientific data available and let us stop using unverifiable and unreputable opinions. Pinball.

The users who are bent on discussing genetic connections between Europeans and Middle Easterners are trying to increase the scope of white people to a larger extent than the common definition. The common defintion in the United States is that European descendents are Whites. The US Census Bureau is the only defintion which provides a more expansive defintion. A number of users in the archive discussion have been pushing genetics to expand white people, but those who argued against them have considered genetics of low relevance or irrelavant. For the users who have pushed that genetics determines who is white, User:Pinball's genetic data has a supportive audience. For the other arguers who have not equated White people with genetics, the data is once again of low relevance or irrelevant.--Dark Tichondrias 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. So, where are your sources for saying that Turks -are- of the 'white' race (you did, after all, frame 'whiteness' in terms of genetics) given that the source you claimed goes to great lengths discussing how the white race doesn't exist?71.74.209.82 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to ask you the same question: Tell me of a single, reputable source that says that Turks are not white.

And if you claim that Turks are not white and cannot present a source to support it, then tell me please what race Turks are.

Somehow, for some reason, your teachers way back in junior high failed to teach you something pretty important. It is up to the person who makes a positive assertion to prove their point. As you havent proven or even sourced it, theres no need to provide counter evidence. However, as race doesnt exist genetically (as per the AAA) and is socially constructed (again as per the AAA), whether or not Turks are white depends on who you ask and in which context they exist.71.74.209.82 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just plain stupid; most Turks do not have white skin. Any one with eyes can account for that simple fact. And most Europeans do not consider Turks, European.

Provide a source for that which meets policy for an appropriate source.Psychohistorian 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this site is full of people who make just cheap contributions. If you want a source, you have the Cavalli´s map. If you want another source, you have the U.S. Census. Still I am waiting for you to tell me one source that says that Turks are not white, and still I insist that you tell me what race Turks are supposed to be. If you say that race does not exist, then no one is white, but if we want to speak about white people, then we must classify people in races, or are Turks of no race?.

Then I have to respond to the other stupid comment, however boring I find to go down to this intellectual level.

1. If you say that Turks have no white skin, it is because you have no idea about Turks.

2. Still, some people with the palest of skins, like many Scandinavians, Baltic peoples and Eastern Europeans, are less white, less European and less Caucasian than most other Europeans and Turks, genetically speaking. In other words, if you are very pale, are blond or ashen blond, and especially if on top of that you have slight Asian-like features in your eyes (quite common among many Northern and Eastearn Europeans)and your ancestors come from Northern or Eastern Europe, chances are that you are less European, less white, even less Caucasian than you may think you are. Pinball is my signature from now on.

As has already been pointed out, read Cavalli-Sforza. Don't just point at the pretty pictures. He makes it clear that race is a bogus concept. As for the US Census, I see no problem at all in describing the US Census and how it defines "whiteness" in the article (making it clear that that definition comes from the US Census and that it is one of many possible definitions for 'whiteness'). That, however, is already in the article.Psychohistorian 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Census considers Turks, Caucasian. This does not mean the same as white. Nor does it mean European which is basically the same as white.

And I really do doubt that most Turks consider them self white or European, and even if they do consider themselves white it would matter little as others will have to consider them white.

And what you said about no one in Europe consider them non-white is utter bullshit. I am not really trying to hurt your feelings or anything, but why are you trying to force forward the image that Turks are white, when they are not? There are many Turks living in Europe so it’s not really that hard to look out the window and identify one.

Please don't unarchive the discussion. Some browsers can't read the content if it gets too long. Further, regular archives promote structured discussions. Without them, the talk page will become hopelessly chaotic. By the way, this is 71.74.209.82. This is my new user account.Psychohistorian 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, again, no source whatsoever that says that Turks are not white, and then, no user here has been able to tell me what race Turks are supposed to be. And the US Census refers to them as white!. Read it well.

I say it very clearly: they are white. If someone here says otherwise:

1. Produce a serious anthropological source that says otherwise.

2. Please, say in what race you classify Turks.

Pinball.

"Produce a serious anthropological source that says otherwise." That was done already - the AAA's statement on race. And I have no problem at all with the article stating what the US Census classifies as 'white' as long as it isn't claimed to be the definitive source on this issue.Psychohistorian 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then your position is very simple. White people do not exist. OK then, we have the following:

1. White people do not exist.

2. White people exist. Then Turks are white. Pinball.

The discussion has come full circle. So now Whites are again anthropological? Only a week ago, it was Whites don't exist and it's a social construct. We are all descended from the same amoeba, but today we celebrate our diversity. If we're all the same, why do we celebrate diversity? So what does "White" mean in 2006? in the English speaking world? on the English version of Misplaced Pages? White means commonly people of European-descent. This is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue. It is not commonly accepted that Turks, mestizos, North Africans, Arabs, South Asians, etc are White. To say so, there is rule WP:RS, and we have none except the U.S. Census defintion, and the article alreay covers that anomaly. PS This guy didn't think Turks were White!! Vlad III the Impaler and neither did this person Sultan.

Please sign and date your talk page comments according to the instrucitons at the top of the page. Please indent responses rather than using lines. -Will Beback 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Who archived the discussion?

Can someone unarchive the discussion? The discussion is long, but some of this stuff is being covered again, when it has already been discussed. Archiving is sometimes used by people who want to hide things. In this article's case (locked) the whole discussion needs to be open and clear, so people can read where we've been and what's been discussed.

I see we have another, "turks are white" poster similar to the previous "Mexicans are White types", and then when told/proven they are not, they retort, well "nobody is White then....ah I know! It's a social construct!!". It's totally hypocrtical, as the below illogic points out. It's hilarious:

1. "White people exist. Turks are White!!!!"

2 No they are not. History of the Turkish people, Seljuq dynasty,Ottoman Empire: "The ancestry of the Ottoman Dynasty is traced to the Turkic migrations from Asia, which began during the 10th century.";Sultan,Turkic_peoples#Geographical_distribution

3. "OK, b-b-but then no White people exist, it's just a social construct!! We're all the same."

4 But we must "Celebrate our Divesity", including that of European-descended people, aka White people.

Any questions?

If people are all the same (which we are not), then why do we "Celebrate Our Diversity"? White people exist and the term in 2006 means "people descended from indigenous Europeans" (see the example from Encarta in archived Discussion). Please do not say next "there are no indigenous Europeans", they exist too, as do Amerindians.

If no White people exist, then why is the "White race" always singled out as having committed crimes towards the amerindians or responsible for colonialism, or routinely criticized for discrimination of Turks in Europe? Stop the hypocrisy please. Turks, Mexicans/mestizos, North Africans, Arabs, and South Asians are not commonly considered White and no sources have been provided. Caucasian doesn't equal White either, that's an outdated concept that's been covered in Talk that's unfortunately been archived. Thanks.

There are too many anti-White people that want to confuse a simple issue because of either their POV or blatant hatred and bigotry against Whites.

Yukirat 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

-- We need some serious structure to this talk page. The following is my attempt to do so. It is not meant to be "debate space" but a description of the debate. Im asking that, if you feel I have not described the debate correctly, to make corrections to my description, but to not engage in actual debate in the description. Okay? Now, here goes..

Whiteness either exists or it doesnt, of course the answer to this question may depend on how one defines "whiteness". One can define it genetically, socio-culturally, using both of those, or using neither. "Anthropological" descriptions mean a combination of genetics and socio-culturally. To build this article, we need sources for definitions of whiteness, not claims to what those definitions are. There have been four such sources offered; the US Census (whose definition seems not to be in debate), the work of Cavalli-Sforza (which is in debate, one side is using the picture in the Cavalli-Sforza article, the other side is using the actual writings of Cavalli-Sforza), and the AAAs statement on race.

Psychohistorian 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to User:Psychohistorian, the word "anthropological" does not have to mean both genetics and socio-cultural. Anthropology encompasses physical, linguistic, socio-cultural, genetic etc. The use of the word "anthropological" is vague without the specific field of anthropology describing it as an adverb.--Dark Tichondrias 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the lesson, but as I explained otherwhere, I have a four year education in Anthropology already including several graduate level courses. I do know what "anthropological" means. I was addressing Sultan's comment, "So now Whites are again anthropological? Only a week ago, it was Whites don't exist and it's a social construct" which, to my reading, suggests that he is not aware of that. I was attempting to explain the four divisions of Anthro (actually, "applied" is sometimes considered a fifth and "computational" is working towards becoming a sixth - the four divisions are a bit old school Anthro 101 kind of stuff and there's also a question of what extent they are even legitimate in that regard when looked at as a matter of praxis - look at, for example, ethnobotany for a good example of how those branches aren't so distinct in praxis, but, to my knowledge, those four are still the only official branches).Psychohistorian 11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "White" exists, we all know it. The sky is also blue. The term "White" is used hundreds of million of times, and has been used probably billions of times, and henceforth will be used billions of times. The goal here is how to write an article in the 2006 Misplaced Pages, English version, for the English-speaking world. Today, in the English-speaking world, the term means commonly: "people of European descent". Why is this so difficult? It's tiresome that this is controversial. Nobody has a problem with the article amerindians or says that they don't actually exist, they're only a "social construct". How can anyone not define them similarly via genetics, anthropology, or socio-culture? Why are only Whites controversial? Answer: because there are people that hate Whites, but don't also choose to pursue hatreds at Amerindians similarly. Does anyone need a source for the article Amerindians or the "sky is blue"? Geez. What we must do is defend against POV pushers that want to say the sky is "sometimes red, orange and yellow", etc. and make that the central subject. Yes, but let's focus on the the article's main point and be honest. Come on, be honest and fair to Whites. We must focus on the basics, not the exceptions. This an encyclopedia, not a soap-box or a blog, or a place for bigotry like whiteness studies or race traitor. They have their own articles. Celebrate diversity, and that includes White people. Thanks. PS I have asked before: "what would someone call a person (of which there are hundreds of millions) who is of mixed European descent, say 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Polish, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 German?? This represents the "vast majority" of White people in the world, especially those from the USA, Canada and Australia. There are hundreds of millions of White people that cannot be called anything else but. A European-descended person its White, a Turk is a Turk, an Arab an Arab, a Mexican/mestizo a mestizo. However what we have here, is so many that have their own personal POV issues to deal with, that they impede the progress of the article about the basic uncontroversial people it represents. Kindly reread the last archive discussion. Yukirat 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian, Black, Asian and Hispanic identities are also individual and social constructs that have changed significantly over time, including recent history. To take one of the most recent examples, the number of Americans reporting Native American race has expanded greatly in recent censuses, much more than birthrate can account for. Acknowledging the evolution of racial identities is not hatred of any of these groups, it's just history.

Cavalli-Sforza's book does not use the term White to identify populations.

I don't know of any criticism of "Whites" for discriminating against Turks in Europe. Nationalities like Germans have been criticized. Turkey, just like the Southern European countries, has people of physical appearance ranging from Mediterranean to Central European. The Ottoman Empire was a primarily European state centered in the Balkans for much of its history, before later conquering most of the Middle East. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Turkey received large numbers of Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Russia, who were of European appearance. Europeans acknowledge Turkey to be at least partly European. --JWB 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the Fool Who Archived This Discussion

I am the one who archived this discussion, on the suggestion of another Wikipedian. I would love to un-archive it for you but I don't know how. Either you do it or you give me a link to a page that shows me how to do it. Four tildes == Smith Jones 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Southern Italian/Sicilian "whiteness"

In the article it mentions that Northern Italians did not think southern Italains were white. As a southern Italian my skin is a light brown color. I also knw of someGreek-Americans with a similar skin shade. I know of an ethnic arab (fro the UAE) who has lighter skin and he event ans to a lighter color then my skin. The term "white" is obviusly inacurate to describe all Europians.

Have you really ever seen someone that is reaaly white? I mean, white is the colour of a sheet of paper.

It doesn't matter really, you skin tone, your genetic is caucasian/europid. You have white traits too, no black, native american, or asiatic. That's because each of these groups have common genetic. And a common culture. Ypu have white genetics and your ancestors lived in Europe for thousands of years, and had an European culture. Of course there are sub-groups in all races but in a broad sense you're white.

• I mostly agree with the first person who posted. As a Southern Italian, I also have light brown skin and have been called non-white on numerous occasions. Maybe as far as "anthropology" goes the first poster and I are "caucasoid," but we are not really "white," and skin color and facial features are really what matters in most societies. And there is no way to prove that Southern Italians have no African or Arabic ancestry (although according to anthropology, Arabs are "white" as well.) I am Southern Italian, and I feel it may be very possible I have some distant non-white ancestry, as does it seem with many other Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners. Do not be offended. I may be completely wrong. I am not one of those close-minded believers in outdated racial theories. However, many dark Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners are not "white," regardless of anthropology. But, hey, a person who is white to you is non-white to some one else. Race can be an ambiguous thing. I'm not trying to start an argument here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callmarcus (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 19:27, 19:32, 19:35 and 2006-08-21 01:41.

This resource should answer all of your questions:

http://racialreality.shorturl.com/

---- Small Victory

This place is full of White Nationalists

No hope for the article to be written seriously. Full or even hijacked by Nazi-like tendencies and ignorance. It should be scrapped all together. HCC

Actually there is only one: Yurikat. --Ismael76 11:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure that the "pc-police" constantly slandering this article are doing the right thing? This article has been leaning to the left. Misplaced Pages should be non-partisen. --68.192.188.142 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Its funny how its only the "left-leaning" wikipedians who know how to spell.--Ismael76 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how "left-leaning" wikipedians seem to think that they are better then everyone else and that they should comprmise Misplaced Pages's non-partisenship.

White Nationalists? What's wrong with that eh? am i supposed to be shamed of being white? Am i supposed to be a hippy?

Please help fix a link

Hello. I am helping with the fixing of links to disambiguation pages. I am working on pages which point to the term "Celtic." When this page is finally editable again, would somebody be so kind as to fix the link in the section "Whiteness and white nationalism" in the last paragraph. The link is now to "Celtic." It should point to "Celt." I will try to keep an eye on it, but would appreciate the help from someone who is "on the spot" when the page is made editable. It's bugging me. I have a list of pages to fix, and I am clearing them off one by one, but I can't clear off this one. Grrr...... Thanks. --Sean Lotz 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the article as it has been fully protected for over two weeks. Also due to the lack of constructive dispute resolution dialogue here, I recommend that the editors of this article restrict themselves to the one revert rule (1RR) especially Al-Andalus & Yukirat (who were involved in the previous edit war & had been blocked for 3RR). Any further edit-warring will lead to immediate blocking of the involved parties and re-protection of the article. --Srikeit 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Are you sure that it's so soon to completely unprotect it? I mean, this article has FOUR pages of discussion and we've barely reached any sort of a coherent discussion, much less an actual consensus. Maybe we should at least make people register in order to edit it so that we don't get un-regged trolls. Smith Jones 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring already - send to RfC

Don't edit war in the article. If you can't settle your differences, please create an RfC. It looks like Dark T just barely missed violating the 3RR on this.Psychohistorian 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Scrap this article, start over

It has been noted that this is a awful article in many places in the comments already, but I will second those ideas, this article should be scrapped and started anew. There is way too much pseudo science and opinion in here, a encyclopedia should not ever have opinion unless the article is talking about a specific persons opinion. Race as it is measured in todays terms is not a genetic stand point but a ideological standing, if you want science in the article refer the readers to a 'Human Genetics' page where science is involved, not ideology. - 209.248.175.82 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the article has painful amounts of detail on a few topics, and missing or unbalanced coverage of other topics. Also, the current article title invites argument about the basic disagreement between essentialist vs. historical/social views of race. The existing content that is still worth saving might be better split up among more specific existing or new articles, something like:

• Genetic History of Europe
• Ethnic groups of the United States or European Americans or Immigration to the United States, Demographics of the United States, Category:History of the United States by ethnic group
• History of the idea of a white race
• White supremacy, White nationalism
• Controversies on racial classification of people and groups, Racial classification, Social interpretations of race

JWB 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced material

As per Wiki policy, all identified unsourced material will be removed from this article seven days after it has been identified as unsourced unless a proper source is provided by then ("proper" defined by Wiki policy). Anything currently in the article identified with will be removed from the article on August 24, 2006. To provide time, I will wait until then to mark anything else in the article as unsourced.Psychohistorian 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

--- I am removing some of the "unsourced material" tags when the wikilinks within the marked sentence in fact provide extended descriptions of the sources. For example, one of these concerns the sentence "The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA." the tag is at the end, so it presumeably is calling for some source that describes using ancient DNA to understand the prehistory of the European peoples. However, one can easily see that "ancient DNA" refers to a wikipedia article that does exactly that, with many primary sources. A footnote is therefore not called for in this case, and in fact would be superfluous. That is what wikilinks are for. DonSiano 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

You cannot use Misplaced Pages as a source in this articles (see Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources - it states, "Misplaced Pages cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference.") As many of the tags you removed were done so on the basis that they are referencing Misplaced Pages, they were improperly removed. Misplaced Pages cannot self-referene and, so, these statements do not have a source. I really wish you had posted in the discussion page before removing tags as now I have to go back in and replace them manually. If you have an issue with any of the tags which I have put in the article, please discuss your issue here before removing them. Also, the sources need to be clear, for example, please replace the Klein reference with a quote from Klein's book on the subject stating something to the effect of "Richard G. Klein stated in xyz, "<his quote here>". Please do the same for Torroni and Wade.Psychohistorian 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the citation tags seem to be on obvious, tautological, or noncontroversial sentences. I can't see how this is helping the article. JWB 05:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the reliable sources policy is to avoid circular reference, Misplaced Pages making statements that are backed by Misplaced Pages and no outside source. If this article quotes information about, say, DNA, and that information is adequately sourced and explained in the DNA article, this is not circular reference and does have an outside source. JWB 05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Of course, you should always do your best to find a decent relevant outside source, right? Because in-linking leads to a lack of encyclopedic diversity, leading to an increased susceptibility to disease and a decreased resistance/immune system. Smith Jones 05:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss the specific tags which you think are obvious, tautological, or noncontroversial. Point them out and we can discuss whether a source is needed or not.Psychohistorian 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's one. "About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable." The fact tag is at the end, which merely points out the obvious that people don't live on glaciers very well. The tag implies that this is controversial or not obvious! But on the other hand, one cannot help but notice that there are pedants abroad who would question that the sun will come up tomorrow....DonSiano 12:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual Ice Age didn't start until about six million years ago according to this link. The climate started cooling about 22 million years ago, but a cool climate does not automatically mean glaciers. I suspect that the glaciers in Europe didn't start until the Ice Age.Psychohistorian 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You really need to look up the history of the ice age in Europe, and try to learn the difference between millenia and millions. We don't need to cite undisputed and accepted facts otherwise we'd get statements like "Michelangelo was an Italian artist", with demands to footnote evidence of his name, his nationality and his profession.Paul B 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that "millenia" is not the same as "million years". I should have caught that. I didn't. Thanks for pointing out my slip. However, I still believe that a cite should be included as I had to go looking for the actual date of the Late Glacial Cold Stage. I'm no longer convinced, however, that a cite is required for that statement.Psychohistorian 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here are the tagged passages with discussion: --JWB 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that the term refers to people with origins in the original peoples of Europe : You would need to find a statistical study to prove or disprove this, but I think most would agree it is true. Do you have another plausible candidate for most common feature?

Across the globe, and especially throughout the Western Hemisphere, a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings including definitions based for such purposes as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, affirmative action, and racial quotas . : So vague, it's not even falsifiable.

By this definition, the areas of the world that are considered to have a predominantly population "White" include all of the countries of Europe, as well as Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, and Uruguay : Not sure what doubt you have about this. Documented in many articles, no controversy.

The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA : Not sure what doubt you are expressing here either. If it were a claim that prehistory can be completely traced, it would be wrong, but it's not.

The human species (homo sapiens) began to colonize Europe from Africa about 35 millennia ago, arriving along two major channels on either side of the Black Sea : A source on this period would be good (and easy to find in the right Misplaced Pages articles), but saying that at least some migration happened on these routes is hardly a strong or controversial statement. Period is covered in Cro-Magnon, Aurignacian, Middle Paleolithic and others.

About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable : any article on the Ice Ages, such as Last Glacial Maximum. Also a basic fact not under controversy.

When the glaciers receded about 16 millennia ago, the populations that had taken refuge were joined by many other waves of peoples from Asia and Africa to re-colonize the newly inhabitable region , . Their descendants became the hunter-gatherers who occupied Europe until the advent of agriculture : This is saying there was migration from various places (obvious), and that pre-agricultural people had a pre-agricultural economy (tautological). Or is it the timeline you have doubts about?

The Basques of the Pyrenees and the Saami of Finland both have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques : Not controversial, but relatively recent work that I agree could use references if not already covered in Misplaced Pages; maybe someone who is up on genetics has it handy. Well publicized in news stories on BBC and other sites in recent years. . Googling "saami genetics" immediately gives a source:

and speak non-Indo-European languages : This is the best known fact about the Basques; you only had to look at Basque language and Saami language or Indo-European language or European languages.

The one-drop rule is historically recent.: One-drop rule covers it at length.

In short, if you're going to dispute points, you should either know something about the field in question, or be willing to do a little basic research. Otherwise you're just taking effort away from clarifying the points that really are controversial. JWB 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not contesting whether the content is factual. I'm contesting how it is verified/verifiable. Veracity takes a back seat to verifiability according to Wiki policy. Further, as I already pointed out, you cannot use Misplaced Pages as a source. As soon as you quote any statement in any Wiki policy article which states that this is meant to apply only to circular references, I'll drop that issue. But until you do, we must go by Wiki policy as stated.

You are missing the difference between citing Misplaced Pages as a source (Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references is about mentioning Misplaced Pages) and wikilinking a mentioned term to the primary Misplaced Pages article on that topic, which has the detailed discussion and references. (see Misplaced Pages:Quotations should not contain_wikilinks#What generally should be linked) Nothing says that every passing, secondary mention of the same fact in every other article has to duplicate the entire referencing process.

"Documented in many articles, no controversy." "Also a basic fact not under controversy." "this is the best known fact about the Basques" all mean that it will be easy for you to add cites for them.

The point was exactly that it is easy for you to add cites for facts you claim are not Misplaced Pages:Common knowledge and not already referenced in Misplaced Pages.

"I think most would agree it is true" is not a source. If most do, indeed, agree it is true, it will be easy for you to add a cite for the statement.

You are omitting the comment that it would be hard to find statistics on that point, which is obvious enough (near-definitional) that it is unlikely to be explicitly mentioned in research.

"This is saying there was migration from various places (obvious)" No, its not. Its saying more than that.

OK, then which part are you disputing?

"Not sure what doubt you are expressing here either." Its not about doubt, its about verifiability.

It's about playing a constructive part in the verification effort. Suggest you concentrate on the kind of cases listed in Misplaced Pages:Common knowledge#When to seek professional help rather than on tagging facts that are common knowledge, or already referenced in Misplaced Pages, or sentences that are explanation or simple logic rather than assertion of new facts.

"So vague, it's not even falsifiable." if its truly that vague, then the statement offers no content and should be removed from the article.Psychohistorian 23:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should rewrite the sentence to be more useful or remove it, not citation-tag it when it's unclear there are even any assertions to be referenced. JWB 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"You are missing the difference between citing Misplaced Pages as a source (Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references is about mentioning Misplaced Pages) and wikilinking a mentioned term to the primary Misplaced Pages article on that topic, which has the detailed discussion and references. (see Misplaced Pages:Quotations should not contain_wikilinks#What generally should be linked) Nothing says that every passing, secondary mention of the same fact in every other article has to duplicate the entire referencing process." The policy is quite clear here. It makes no exceptions for any kind of self-reference.Psychohistorian 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So all wikilinks are self-references that need to be removed??? JWB 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks are used to indicate related articles, not to be identified as a source in an article.Psychohistorian 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, glad you agree on that. JWB 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you do agree, though. Wikilinks are not to be identified as a source in an article. That means that you can't cite another Wiki article as a source in this article. All sources for this article must be referenced in this article.Psychohistorian 04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to make other articles References for the article (as opposed to pointing out to you relevant information in articles during a Talk discussion, or Wikilinking when mentioned in the article). The point is that if a fact is adequately referenced to external sources in the proper article on that topic, it is not necessary (and in fact a waste of space and effort) to repeat all the same external references every time the fact is mentioned in another article. JWB 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the instant you can point to a policy which actually says that, I'll drop the issue. Until you do, I'm going to stick to policy and policy states that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and cannot be used as a reference in an article.Psychohistorian 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The ignorance here is too much!

Just to comment on a comment that has been done obove and which is in the article: ¨Basques share genetic markers with the Welsh¨, and then they are presented as if they were a genetic minority in Europe!. Man, the genetic markers that you are speaking about is HgR1b. This Haplogroup, genetic family or genetic race, is the most common in Western Europe: About 90% of Basques, Irish and Welsh. About 75% of Scots. About 70% of non-Basque Spaniards and Portuguese. About 60% of the English. About 55-60% of the French. About 60% of Belgians. About 55% of Danes. Have a look at some basic information and avoid writing on an issue that you obviously do not know. See just here a few examples and sources: R1b and 1 2 3 HCC

Nobody is saying other populations don't have the same haplotypes at lower levels; in fact the next sentence says exactly that. JWB 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is actually what the section reads:

The Basques of the Pyrenees and the Saami of Finland both have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers and speak non-Indo-European languages , though it is possible their languages may derive from post-Paleolithic but pre-Indo-European migration. (Dene-Caucasian and Uralic hypotheses) Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques .

It says: Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques .

You think that is precise? All of Western Europe share high levels of those markers with the Basques (more than 50%)! and the Basques are very different from the Saami, who share a lot of their genes with Asian populations. In short, a mess. HCC.

It doesn't contradict either of those assertions. Most genetic markers differ by level; hardly any show 100% vs. 0% differences by population. Neither is there any reason to assume the Basques have anything in particular in common with the Saami. If you feel it needs clarification to avoid those unlikely assumptions, go ahead and add it to the passage, nobody has been stopping you. JWB 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the scenario being discussed still has the pre-Neolithic European population as the main contributor to current European genes, with Neolithic or Indo-European migrants as smaller contributors. So naturally genes of the oldest populations would still be frequent in most later populations. It's hard to see how you are reading the passage the opposite way. JWB 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

comments about Spaniards

I have introduced this comment in the Hispanic Americans:

Spaniards (who are a white, European people)

And somebody deletes it.

Can I ask why?

I am putting it back again. HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.157.222 (talk • contribs) .

Because it makes no sense? --Bruce 16:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind to explain why it makes no sense? HCC.

Also, the paragraph refers to nationalities of origin. Even if it were specifying race, "White European Spaniards" is redundant. You don't write "White European Germans" every time you write German. Al-Andalus 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Al-Andalus. Taking into accout the cultural level of the people reading and participating in this article it needs to be mentioned. I do not know if you know the Americans, but a high percentage of them think that Spain is somewhere in South America. It also emphasizes the ridiculous way in which the term is used. The comment is more than relevant, so please leave it. HCC.

Split "Historical use of the term in the United States" into new article

The section "Historical use of the term in the United States" is already long enough to be a separate article, and it shouldn't dominate this one. Let's split it into, say, Whiteness in the United States, and replace it with a summary. Melchoir 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is about white people in general. HCC

Okay, without objecion, I'll do it now. Melchoir 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just found White American, so I'll move the material there. Melchoir 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor Change

I have tried to introduce a comment about Spaniards that some people delete. OK, I am deleting the reference to Spaniards. In fact, to mention Spaniards under Hispanic Americans is absolutely ridiculous. HCC.

White Nationalism

That section is not worthy of this article. I propose deleting it. All other attempts to try and relate Neo-Nazis to what should be a neutral article about white people should be deleted too. Veritas 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This article should be about discussing White people as a race, not talking about a form of extremism. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, after a few days, now I have deleted the section on White Nationalism.Veritas 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Nader and all Lebanese Christians are White and NOT ARAB!!

In case you people don't know the history of the lebanese christians, let me inform you. Lebanon was formery known as Phoenicia. The Phoenicians colonized Italy, Spain and what is today known as the UK. They were NOT Arabs!!! Arabs are from Arabia. The Arabs later invaded Phoenicia and brought Islam to the nation. Many christians fled to the mountains where they lived undisturbed for hundreds of years. Some of them did integrate with the Arabs but had to convert to Islam. According to Islamic law, any muslim (Arab) who converts to Christianity, or any other religion, was killed. Because of this, the Christian bloodlines remained "Arab free". So if you claim Lebanese Christians are "non-white" you will have to say the British, Italians and most other Europeans are "non-white" too for the simple reason that they are THE SAME PEOPLE!!!!''''''' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.43 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

• This is very true. Even Stormfront, the white nationalist site has accepted that Lebanese christians are white and need to be saved from the Muslim Arabs that are ruining their country.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.11.241.43 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Phoenicians did not in any meaningful sense colonise Italy or Britain, though they did have some colonies in Spain and on Italian islands (Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia). Their genetic contribution to modern Italian and Spanish populations was probably tiny, especially since the Romans expelled them and heavily recolonised Spain themselves. There's no serious evidence for any colonies in Britain. That doesn't makes them either "white" or "non-white". There can never be a clear dividing line. Paul B 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, the Phoenicians did colonize Britian. It was an uninhabited group of islands before they came. Even if you listen to celtic music, you can easily hear the middel eastern connection.

Some proof: http://phoenicia.org/hittitephoenicians.html
http://www.laa.org/tours/phoenicians.htm
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/phoenicians.html
http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/history/phoenicia.htm

These are not serious scholarly websites. There is no archaeological evidence of Phoenecian settlements or of any Semitic language elements in Celtic languages. If Britain was uninhabited why didn't Semitic dominate, not Brythonic? Paul B 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that Christians in the Middel East, excluding Arabia are white. But we need to make it clear to people that the Christians have no Arab blood.

• Paul B, you cannot simply deny the facts. This is an Encyclopedia, not a place to vent your own ideas based on nothing but your own ignorance.

Go to this site in a few days: http://www.newnation.org/NNN-prehistory.html Their is a link to the connection between the British and Phoenicians. It's not working yet but try it in a couple of days. The heading is there already.

Now you are simply revealing your own silliness and ignorance. Go read a serious book on the Phoenicians. Sabatino's The Phoenicians is quite accessible. And look at some proper academic literature on the population history of Ancient Britain. Paul B 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Paul B, your outlook on this subject is far too closed minded. You can go study the subject if you want. It is of no importance to me because it is true that the Celts are decended from the Phoenicians. Even if you try to argue that, it still doesn't change the fact that the Lebanese Christians are not Arabs and should be accepted as white.

The never ending question of the Near East.

People from the Near East are white, anthropologically speaking, and the US census considers them as such, for example. We should put an end to these criteria that are so close to Nazi propaganda, ignorance and superstition. The genetic contribution of the Near East in Europe is fundamental. The cultural contribution is even more important, from the introduction of Agriculture in the Neolithic to the influences of the first advanced civilizations, that originated in the Middle East, before Greece and Rome, and are a milestone in the history of Western Civilization. Shall we remind here that Jesus, the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, Moses, Abrahan, etc, were all Near Easterners?In any case, have a look at this impressive Oxford piece of research. It takes into account scores of studies and analyses 8 different genetic loci, including autosomal, mitocondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA.:

If Near Easterners are not white for the simple reason of being from the Near East, then Europeans are not white either, because Europeans are a hybrid people of different origins, but mainly of Proto-Basque and Near Eastern origins. We cannot have it both ways or just in an absolutely arbitrary way. Veritas 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• People have to realise that the estern border of europe is basically non existent. The british drew a map of what is Europe today a long time ago. There is no natural border so it is logical that their would be "white" or European equivilent people in the Near East.

Where do you get the idea that the British decided what the border of Europe was? "White" is not a scientific term. It has been used in a variety of ways in different countries at different times, in legal, colloquial and anthrpological terms, though typically more scientific texts adopt technical terms not ordinary-language terms. Paul B 12:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• the congress of Vienna drew the map of Europe

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/The-Congress-of-Vienna-5113.html

I will introduce this comment: White people are also common acroos Northern Africa and the Middle east.

deletion of unsourced material

I want to remind you all that the content currently marked with will be removed from the article tomorrow unless a proper source in accordance with Wiki policy is found by then. (as I mentioned six days ago) If there are any outstanding issues, I recommend that you either bring it up now or create an RfC. After removing it, I'll work on identifying more unsourced content in the article for removal. I'm hoping to have all the unsourced content sourced or removed by the time I'm done. Psychohistorian 12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Expecting anyone to "source" statements like "a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings" is utterly silly. Removal of such statements would be totally destructive to the authorship of reasonable summaries. The legal, colloquial and other aspects are addressed in the article. This kind of "policy" pedantry is more reminiscent of newspeak than anything else. Paul B 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I encourage you to make an RfC on the issue. I am making this article confirm tightly to policy considering its ongoing habit to engage in edit wars, its history of being locked down due to edit wars, recurring vandalism, huge amount of unsourced commentary and editorials, and politically charged content. I will not get into the slippery slope of deciding which parts are okay to ignore policy on and which parts are not. I believe that it is better to risk being draconic than to risk that slippery slope. As for the specific comment you mentioned, I believe that the American Anthropological Association's statement on race can be used as a source on that, but its been a couple of weeks since I've read it.Psychohistorian 13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

White Nationalism section

I said several days ago that I was going to delte that part. To restore it without discussion is vadalism. Veritas 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics