Talk:White people/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Black People are more important???

Why the article "Black People" is blocked and "White People" not? Or both should be blocked or both shouldn't.

Probably black people would justifiably pissed off at the fact that a bunch of caucasian wikipedia editors decided to write an article called "Black People". Whereas the article called "White People" is largely written and edited by caucasians. Simul (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

In contrast to the Black page, this page has not one single photograph of a white person. Now, I know most of us see many white people and do not require any visual assistance, this page still strongly requires some imagery, preferably not of models, actors or anyone who has cosmetics or photoshop to improve their appearance. I'd add some myself, but I simply don't have the experience or ability to find suitable pictures. --Ash (or 203.219.135.1 (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Also, why are you guys taking down my pictures of white people being posted up? What is wrong with having a picture of a white person on the White People article? There are many pictures of Black people in the Black People article. This seems to a strange non-standard treatment. stevenshapiro 23:46, 4 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenshapiro (talk • contribs)

It's not about having pictures, per se - it's about the picture you're inserting. Moreover you're in danger of running afoul of the three revert rule here. Before inserting that picture again, try to achieve a consensus about it here on the talkpage. Crafty (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Let's figure it out now then. What would be an acceptable picture of a white person to include in this article? Stevenshapiro (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Well before we consider including your image, I think you've gotta go back and complete the licencing information. There's more info about that on your talkpage. Crafty (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a rather large selection of properly licensed images illustrating white people on Wikimedia Commons. I suggest one of those be used. @Kate (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why were all the original photos deleted from the article? The photos of White Iranians, mediterraneans, etc. They are all gone. There is no explanation for this deletion. The majority of ethnic Iranians in Northern and Central Iran are Aryan and Indo-European peoples. I wouldn't include most Arabs or non Ashkenazi (semitic mixed with European) Jews since they are semitic, and not really white, though they are considered Caucasoid. Some Arabs have African ancestry as well. I guess it depends on many factors. However, the variation in photos was nice, though please find a better example than an Iranian mulla (yikes - though he's not the worst to be found). I don't think Arafat should be included either, though he is Palestinian, there is some question about Arab ancestry. I don't know. The white Afghan girl (Iranian peoples) could be included, too. Basically, we need Nordics, Alpine, Mediterranean and Euro-Med mixes (Persians, Anatolians, Greeks). There should be some variation, rather than only people who are fair. Re-signing.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is with the South American sections. There seems to be no other information on mediterranean countries, Iran (more Central Asia, with Eurasian peoples than Middle East - most Iranians originate from Ukraine, NOT middle east and are ethnic Iranians), even other European countries. I don't really get the American leaning slant, and I'm Persian-American. What gives?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

THIS paragraph

"Raj Bhopal and Liam Donaldson state that white people are a heterogeneous group, and the term white should therefore be abandoned as a classification for the purposes of epidemiology and health research, and identifications based on geographic origin and migration history be used instead."

Is irrelevant information for an intro. The opinion of these two people does not merit inclusion in the introduction to this article, its inclusion is nothing more than heavy POV pushing. BUT it should be included elsewhere in the article, in the part questioning the use of the term "white".

It is the equivalent of including the opinion of another random researcher that the the term "Black is not a valid term for a heterogeneous group", in the introduction to Black people article. Which you will note, is a much more encyclopaedic article than this one which suffers from continous pov pushing.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but in this case, the intro section about Bonnett's views should also be relocated, as this is also the opinion of a random researcher.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Both should be moved to a relevant section. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the demographic predictions that white people will cease to exist a couple of centuries from now?

I'm sure you can find a reliable source for that, maybe even Noel Ignatiev will back you up on that.

This belongs in the lead. Not even just a mention later in the article - in the lead.--B for Bod (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And just what mechanism do you propose that would produce what if you were exemplar(s) would surely be a desirable result? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

I added an illustrative photo. It was reverted with the advice to "see the discussion about photographs". What discussion? I can't see one. Presumably it's buried in the archives. Anyone like to be a bit more friendly and provide a link? Cop 663 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure! The question is that images produce a permanent war between editors on who "truly" is white, and such galleries are also permanentely tergeted by racialits editors trying to "nordicize" the definition of white. So a consensus was reached NOT to have pictures. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this just to point you to some of the most recent debates. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yipes. Well, I understand the problem, although I was thinking more along the lines of photographs with detailed captions illustrating the article's concepts, rather than "galleries" (which I agree would be unworkable). Does this mean that any photograph will automatically be reverted on sight? Or are people open to the possibility of negotiating a way to include photos that would be acceptable to all? I have some ideas.Cop 663 (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, explain your ideas and let us see the reactions. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Caucasian and White

As the U.S. Supreme Court said, being Caucasian is different than being White. A great part of Indians are not white but they are Caucasian as their features are Caucasian. Millions of Indians are black caucasians.--88.18.148.166 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Can you share the ruling with us? Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably referring to United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. --JWB (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking of a diferent kind of Indian. In any event, the Court decision in this case held that the term "caucasian" was an especially problematic term that did not have scientific validity. The court did not hold that Indians are Caucasians. I don't know who does. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are Southern Italians and Portuguese Black Caucasians as well? They have African blood in them!

Are Northern Europeans Yellow Caucasians, because they have much more Asian blodd in them¡

Iranians in the UK

Iranians are allegedly classed as "white" in Britain according to the arguments on the British Mixed page. Readers, please help this confused fool who is writing this otherwise! - if south Asians mixed wth Europeans are "mixed-Race" then so are the mixed offsprings of Whites and Iranians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.187.83 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bizzare section

The features of a white person are very briefly listed under this heading before going on about why they have light skin and the science behind it. Shouldn't this be in a different section, and the distinguishing other features have a more prominent discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.58.66 (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

The article makes reference to countries with majority or a significant percentage of white population among its population (ie 40%, 50% or more), but Mexico has been added by User:C.Kent87, which is inappropriate, because the percentage Caucasians in Mexico varies from 9% to a maximum of 17% which is a minority ethnic group in that country, of mestizo and amerindian majority [1] [2] Ccrazymann (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

White Americans are in fact less white than they tend to believe.

See:

http://www.google.es/imgres?imgurl=http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/adrienbrody.jpg&imgrefurl=http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/2003_03.html&h=281&w=400&sz=21&tbnid=eC_nN8hMjSbbcM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmediterranean%2Brace&hl=es&usg=__HZk-q5I1Q80j9t9oTJqYk4oqnLI=&ei=cTNbS6anIZGq4Qbtuv2ABQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&ved=0CBYQ9QEwBg

From there I cut and pasted this:

I note that less than 70% of European Americans are 90% or more European in ancestry. The remaining 30%+ has significant African and/or Amerindian admixture. Also, about 25-30% of African Americans and less than 45% of African Caribbeans are 90% or more African. The remainder has significan European admixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.43.48 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If this bull is to be believed, then I declare that there are NO black americans at all. After all, it would make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.235.240 (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This is bull. Jersey John (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What are 'White' peole?

It is not the dopey old skin colour issue the BNP preach on about, it's in the European and Arab bloodlines, stupid!--86.29.132.193 (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

--86.29.132.193 (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Except these say nothing at all about race. They say very little about one's ancestry. If you are calculating your ancestry back 2,000 years, then your Haplogroup describes 1/10,000 of you ancestry/genetic material. What does one grain of sand tell us about the beach? Talk about trivial! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if you are calculating your ancestry back just a mere 1,000 years, accounting for 30 years in average for each generation, your Haplogroup describes 1/4,294,967,296 of your ancestry/genetic material... Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I am missing the exponential calculation gene! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we all, my friend, aren't we all...! The Ogre (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

it is very much possible that racist discourse is at the moment shifting its terminology in order to accommodate recent research in archaeogenetics. This would explain all the trolling we see at the haplogroups articles.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is very much at the frontline of such a paradigm shift, and it will be some time before it is picked up by quotable secondary sources which we can in turn use to highlight it.

But we need to remain clear that "white people" is not simple an all-out racist concept. It is also about pragmatic phenytope descriptions. Nobody would call the FBI racist for describing a suspect as "white", this simply and objetively narrows the number of individuals falling under the description.

By contrast, use of "white" is comparatvely rare in racist discourse (BNP etc.). These sources talk about European (British, etc.) heritage or bloodlines, and recently about haplotypes. "White" isn't a welcome concept for these circles because it includes too many groups they also like to polemicize against. --dab (𒁳) 18:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

dab, I am sure that what you say about BNP and other European groups is true. It is not for the US however; there (for reasons I think you would find just as understandable) "white" is very much part of the racist discourse that is used in oppositioon to blacks, Jews, and others. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize the racial composition of the US is mostly "white, black, others", but that's just racial demographics, not racism (see the FBI example). As for "white" being used in opposition to "Jew", that I find a little hard to believe. I thought the term was "WASP"? Most Jews will, of course, be white, but not WASP, a term that was coined specifically to exclude white, English-speaking Jews, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Some Jews say they are white, some say they are not white. Some non-Jews include Jews as white, some do not. Where I grew up - as a child and as an adult - Jews were not white (various parts of New York City, and New York State). When I was young, some people did use the term WASP but it is generally considered impolite now (I don't think it was when I was a kid) and in any case, its use is just not widespread. You raised a new point, concerning the FBI. I do not doubt it, although it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The fact that some agents of the state will use black and white without any racist denotation (or even connotation) has nothing to do with the fact that in the US "white" is very much part of the racist discourse that is used in opposition to blacks, Jews, and others. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

American and Eurocentric

This is too American-centric and Euro-centric. The Definition of "white" varies from region to region. Skin colour doesn't determine the relations between peoples. Arabs, Turks, Iranians and some North Indians/mestizos have white/light skin and a lot of Mediterranean peoples have olive or tan skin even though they are considered white/European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.5.1 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you need to attach such statements with notable and reliable sources. However, racialist research is the norm today, therefore it won't be easy to source the ideas you are presenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.0.29 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. In fact, a lot of people from Europe do not look literally white. Many of them actually look rosy or even red, especially in the North. Does anybody know if the expression "redneck" has to do with that?. Leen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.106.254 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Redneck has to do with being a white farmer out in the sun all day and getting their necks burned. White 'country folk'.

"Lost"

Text at end of ¶ 1 "Origin of Light Skin" § was "Consequently strong natural selection in Africa favored increased levels of melanin in the skin, and the hairless Hominina ancestors of modern humans lost their light skin.[23]". This is false. They didn't "lose" their light skin, or rather the genes that express same, it's simply that without the covering hair the expression of those genes on the open plains became fatal. Once their descendants migrated out of Africa to latitudes where it became an advantage, the gene, never lost, could be expressed again and subject to sexual selection become the common trait of new populations. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

White descended peoples

Why are mestizos not included? They are white descended and have enough white in the, (at least 50%) to merit their presence in this article. If you are to add these people, it should be for every country in Latin America and it should say what percentage is pure and what percentage is mixed. Any ideas?--Chris Iz Cali (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Shush, if you start talking facts to the minority racists that run this place, they'll run you out of here (banned!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.235.240 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Because notability criteria is a policy in Wikipedia, even if the referenced notable book authors are racist/racialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.0.29 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is the point of that list? Many of the groups listed would not identify as "white", rather by ethnicity, so much of it is original research. Countries where there is no particular info or census where you can label yourself "white" (most of Europe, Middle East, etc.) should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Argentina: wrong claim

The article states: "Argentine censuses are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the last census, 95% of Argentines identify as white." Even if most questions in the census form depend on self identification, there are no questions with regard to race or ethnicity with the exception for 2001 census, and quite probably also for 2010 census, of self-iientification with aboriginal peoples (Encuesta Complementaria sobre Pueblos Indígenas). The statement is wrong and should be changed. If there are no comments against it, including conclusive evidence of the claimed self-identification of race/ethnicity, I'll proceed with the change. Cinabrium (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

White people aren`t the only ones with pale skin color

(Responding to bare header) True(ish): I just saw a program on telly about black albinos; however, they all to a person think of themselves as black people. I'm am not quite sure what a pale pigmented mixed race person with one black and one white parent would classify themselves as, though. Best guess would be "Human" --89.195.199.150 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are whites less Homo Sapiens than Black people?

WP:FORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Look at this article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/neandertal-genetics-study-shows-theres-a-caveman-in-us-all/story-e6frg6n6-1225863446398

It seems that all humans, except sub-Saharan Africans, have between 1% to 4% neandertal genes. Sub-Saharan Africans are, on the other hand, 100% Homo Sapiens. Neandertals are more primitive human beings and are actually a bit closer to Chimps, for example, than Homo Sapiens. Interestingly this makes Sub-Saharan Africans, a people who are further away from Chimps than Europeans or Asians. I know I will be atacked for my politically incorrect language, but this is what this study shows. By the way, I am white, but after what black people have been through, insults from white supremacists included, I think this is the greatest stuff. After all, it seems that the ones closer to the Chimps it is us, white Europeans. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.201.247 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said Neanderthals were closer to chimps? FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well they are certainly considered more primitive than Homo Sapiens. Personally I have no problem with that, although it seems that some people with a lot of issues seem to have problems, as usual coming from the US. I have always wondered why I was so hairy. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.201.247 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

White people is a term that describes pure european heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.31.22 (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

white or White?

In this article sometimes white is capitalized and sometimes it is not. There are fine arguments for it either way but we should decide how we want to handle it and be consistent. Joja lozzo 23:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it an issue of British vs. American English? In the U.S., I have only seen white people and black people written in professional publications. —Stephen (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

From This Week in Race discussing capitalization of black and white: "The style guide for the American Psychological Association (APA) -- which communication journals follow and upon which political science formal style [APSA style] is based -- requires capitalization... Carnegie Mellon University's style guide is clear that these words should not be capitalized. This is consistent with the guidelines of the Associated Press (AP), which drives decisions for most journalistic (as opposed to scholarly) publications.... DiversityInc provides interesting rationale for why "Black" should be capitalized but "white" should not be." Joja lozzo 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, after reading this I concluded that reason Black/white difference is somewhat similar to God/satan alternation (satan is a bad creature so Catholics (i wrote small letter but Firefox corrected me to big) should write it in small caps to not accidentally do homage to him and go to Hell - yes I know that is insane, but many people think like that). White people used to treat blacks as working cattle some time ago, so now we must give respect to black people and title them with big letter so that they do not feel humiliated and excluded to the back of the bus. Well, we title everyone else with big letter except of us as we are bad bad race and should be ashamed of ourselves for centuries to come (right?). This is backward similar to the case when black people can call themselves Nigger (nigger?) but whites cannot call black that. On the end I want to say that I envy languages that do not have big/small letters like Arabic, Georgian, Hebrew and many more. pwjbbb (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This Article is Racist

Am i the only one who has noticed this article makes a group of people look like they are racist against another group? Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

I think they are all maybe seem a little racist. But either way they are certainly not necessary. "White people" article, "black people". There is even a "Brown people" article. These should all be removed. What kind of person types in "[insert colour] people" seriously? These articles are a complete joke. I notice the "Yellow people" does redirect. So why not the others? 76.175.186.16 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And how are you supposed to talk about races without being racist ? I do not see a point in here, Wikipedia is describing a world as it is, and not "describing a world in such a way to not offend anybody", because there will be always someone who feels offended, in example people that believe in some kind of god might be offended in Atheism or Biological evolution articles. And rationals and skeptics by Creationism. People call themselves by color because that is very useful shorthand to categorize people, and I mean not only skin color but color of hair and eye also but skin color is most readily visible feature in multi-racial societes. So in use are thing like red - native americans, white - europeans, black - africa, yellow - asians, brown - mixed black and white, etc. What the hell is wrong with labeling people by color? pwjbbb (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

White numbers table

What on earth is the point of this table here? Although it contains information, it seems to be randomly picked countries. Countries such as Australia, Canada, and other European countries are just some that probably have more then... Wales (which probably should be included in the UK with Scotland and England). It should be altered or just deleted, as it probably retracts from the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not randomly selected countires..if your examined it further, yourd've noticed that the only countries put up so far are the ones that have officially used to describe their populations using the term 'white'...but countries such as canada and australia...and many other european countires carnt clear cut in usage....other than that..i think its useful to show at quick glance some of the largest populations by country..as this isnt anywhere else in the article. People are able to add anything they wish to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.6.17 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Australia has defined it almost arguably more than any other country. It had a racist white Australia policy for most of its existence. But very well, will add if found. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Neanderthal DNA

Why has this article not been updated to reveal that Modern European descendants of the Cro-Magnons, or Whites as they are known, are related to the Neanderthals and that Modern Europeans possess a minimum of 4 % Neanderthal DNA when Africans have none.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

The most important DNA discovery in human history and this article does not even reference it - why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.238.42 (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of the case, but this looks like a fairly new discovery and WP is not news. The story needs to promise enduring notability (ie not turn out to be something the BBC was interested in for one day). It will probably trickle through and, if appropriate, be included in the article after a while. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this really puts to rest the notion that race is simply a "social construct". Or is Neanderthal DNA constructed socially as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.239.233 (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Germanic, Celtic and Slavic people

I added that Germanic, Celtic and Slavic people are the ones who are considered white.

and two people removed it, because it's an unsourced claim. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This addition is not supported. Taroaldo (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the introduction to this article is unsourced so the "Germanic, Celtic and Slavic people as white" stays in. If it does not then most of this article will be deleted since most of it is unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.67.10 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, you are intentionally edit-warring to make it worse. That's not gonna fly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are adding an unsourced assertion into a sentence that does have a source.
You don't decide what "stays in" and what doesn't. Please read WP:Consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How does wikipedia work? The administrators who run wikipedia can put in unsourced material that they think is correct at their own whim, while regular people have to source the material they put with only elitist sources that are approved by the administrators? So the few administrators are the "consensus" while the public has no say?

Actually, it's not generally "administrators" you're arguing with, it's "the public". The group tends to trump the individuals. For a better understanding, click this link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, things in the lede should reflect the information in the article. It does not need citations as long as it refers to information already in the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the IP was trying to attribute it to a source that doesn't say so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stupid article

What was the point of making this article???? "White" people can be catagorized from australia to spanish descent or as the main race, so this article was just as stupid as it is pointless!! Well it was certainly typed to wikipedia-standards, but thats all i can give on the positive side. MajorHawke (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a stupid article. The reason it exists is because there is an article on black people - a clearly defined racial or ethnic group in many societies (though not all, and that article needs a lot of work) so some people think "Oh therefore there must be an article on white people." The ultimate reason there is this stupid article is because most people use Wikipedia as an on-line receptical for what they think, no matter how smart or stupid their views. When pressed for evidence, these people do what anyone using Wikipedia could just as well do which is to google "white people" and find entries from other on-line sources, so this just becomes another one of those great on-line sites through which on-line material keeps reproducing itself at other on-line sites. At best people go to on-line encyclopedias and cherry-pick quotations that support their own point of view.

A smart article would ask the question: is this an object of scholarly research? What is the scholarly research on the topic? How would an article best educate readers about scholarly research? But this takes a few things most Wikipedian's don't give a damn about: first, doing real research in libraries. Second, thoughtful discussion with other people who have done real research in libraries, and finally time. But why do any of these things when you are simply free to use this place as a dumping ground for whatever your most cherished beliefs are?

Wikipedia has policies that are meant to prevent this but they ALL depend on people taking the time to do real research. Some articles (e.g. Evolution) attract educated editors who are willing to do good research and they produce good articles. Unfortunately, most people who are interested in good research are not interested in fighting it out with POV-pushers on this page, and so few people look at this page that it just stumbles along in its sorry state.

I do not have the time to write single-handedly a real article on "white people" but I have done some research and can tell you that there really is a body of scholarly research on white people. I bet anyone who is willing to read and rite about this work will produce a great article, although it will not be about what most people think it is. Instead it will educate those people.

There is a real body of literature that is explicitly about "white people" so there will be no doubt about appropriateness of sources or NOR, these works direcly address the subject of this artilce. Yet this article doesn't cite these sources! Let's write a great article by doing great research.

Perhaps the single most important reader

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 (Valerie Babb is a professor of English at the University of Georgia)
Bonnett, Alastair. White Identities: Historical and International Perspectives (Alistair Bonnet is a Reader of Geography in the University of Newcastle-upon-Thyne)
Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks: and What that says about Race in America (Karen Brodkin is a professor of Anthropology at UCLA)
Dyer, Richard. White (Richard Dyer used to be in Media Studies at the University of Warwick)
Hale, Grace Elizabeth. Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940 (Elizabeth Hale a professor of History at U. Virginia (and her book is very well-regarded, often assigned in college classes))
Haney-Lopez, Ian. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (Ian Haney Lopez is a professor of Law at UC Berkeley)
Hill, Mike, ed. Whiteness: A Critical Reader (Michale Hill is a professor of Social Policy at U. of Brighton)
Hollinger, David. Post-Ethnic America (David Hollinger is a professor of History at UC Berkeley)
Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White (Ignatiev is a professor of Critical Studies at the Massachussetts College of Art and a Fellow at Harvard university; this book is one of the foundational texts in Whiteness studies and is very widely cited)
Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Matthew Frye Jacobson is Chair of the American Studies Program at Yale)
Kincheloe, Joe, ed. White Reign: Deploying Whiteness in America (Joe Kincheloe is a professor of Education at McGill (and there is a Wikipedia article about him!))
Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics (George Lipsitz is a professor of Black Studies at UC Santa Barbara)
McCarthy, Cameron and Warren Crichlow, eds. Race, Identity, and Representation in Education (Warren Crichlow is a professor of education at York University)
Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination
Thomas, K. Nakayama, Judith N. Martin (editors): Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity (Thomas Nakayama and Judith Martin are professors of Communication at Arizona State U)
O'Donnell, James and Christine Clark, eds. Becoming and Unbecoming White: Owning and Disowning a Racial Identity (James O'Donnell is an associate professor of Education at New Mexico State U.)
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s (Michale Omi is an associate professor of ethnic studies at UC Berkeley; Howard Winant is a Professor of Sociology at UC Santa Barbara)
Rasmussen, Birgit Brander, et al., eds., The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness (Birgit Brander Rasmussen is a professor of Chicano Studies at U. Wisconsin-Madison)
Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (David R. Roediger is a professor of History at U. Illinois Champaigne-Urbana (his book is another classic, it is assigned in LOTS of college courses),
Rogin, Michael Paul. Black Face, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Melting Pot (Michale Paul Rogin passed away but was a professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley)
Saxton, Alexander. The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (Alexander Saxton is a professor of History at UCLA)

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."

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 Wikipedia 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 15:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The article of course would change from an attempt to synthesize (violating NOR) different sources into a fake assertion of what "hite people" "really" are; and it won't be the current illugical and disorderly mishmash of very different views. It would be an article on debates among scholars and different aproaches among social scientists and historians to the study of "white people." That would be an article that makes sense and informs. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference 64

Something's wrong with reference #64. It redirects to a Procter & Gamble skincare article.Katharine908 (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian depictions of various peoples

While an 1820 drawing of a Book of Gates fresco in the tomb of Seti I is reported in this article to have depicted the four groups of people, there is dispute over how Egyptians viewed various peoples. A drawing of a fresco located in the tomb of Ramses III and published in 1913 depicts the Egyptian and the Nubian as appearing nearly identical.

Professor Manu Ampim of Contra Costa College in San Pablo, CA writes at his website, found at: http://www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

“Richard Lepsius conducted research in Egypt from 1842-1845 and his work was originally published in 12 volumes from 1849-1856. However, the KV 11 "Table of Nations" scene and other materials were not published until the later 1913 supplemental edition, which was compiled by Edward Naville and Ludwig Borchardt, and edited by Kurt Sethe.

The so-called 1913 Sethe/Lepsius version is a condensed reproduction of the original tomb scene. Sethe/Lepsius simply condensed the 4 images for each of the four groups to 1 representative for each of the four groups (i.e. the 16 images were reduced to 4 images). Apparently, this was done because all 4 of the images for each group are identical, and thus they simply omitted the redundant images. The texts were also condensed from their original horizontal position in front of each of the 4 images per group to a single vertical column in front of 1 group representative.

Nevertheless, this condensed Sethe/Lepsius reproduction version of the "Table of Nations" is ACCURATE in both the representation of the images and the positioning of the texts…”

The drawing is shown below: [[File:Example.jpg]] <gallery> File: #REDIRECT [[http://www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm]] |Drawing of wall painting in tomb of Ramsese III </gallery>

70.160.247.229 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Oscar H. Blayton

"White Americans will make up 47% of the population"

Information from the Census Bureau indicates that Whites will still be the racial majority in 2050 at about 72%. Projected Population of the United States, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050 75.222.1.112 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly the 47% figure is for "non-Hispanic whites."--Carwil (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.251.143.66, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The first paragraph in the section on Puerto Rico contains that sentence "For the first time in fifty years, the 2000 United States Census which is conducted on the basis of self-identification." Not only does this not make sense, it have nothing to do with the paragraph.

208.251.143.66 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done It looks there's some missing words there. So, I went back a few months in the edit history, but I couldn't figure out what that sentence was supposed to mean, so I removed it. If someone can puzzle out and fix the grammar/sense, feel free to re-add. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

well, the relevant point was apparently that the US race statistics are based on self-identification and not on any sort of objective criteria. That's probably worth pointing out. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Most Iranians, especially 51% ethnic Iranians/Persians and Nomadic Aryan tribes are White

A user, Mttll (talk) keeps deleting sourced material that I have provided showing Iranian people as white (including scientific papers comparing white Iranians to non-whites of the Orient). Please see the discussion on the above user's page. Iranians are a European descended people, especially the 51% ethnic Persians/Iranians living in Northern and Central Iran, along with Azeri-Iranians, Armenians, and (Aryan) Iranian nomadic tribes. Even the U.S. Census considers Iranians to be white - not just anthropologists, sociologists, or historians. My family ranges from very white skin to medium olive (like many Greeks and Italians), and have straight hair, thick wavy hair, and curly (not kinky) - light blonde/red hair to near black hair. We have high bridged noses (like Greeks and Romans) and blue, green, hazel, or light/medium brown eyes. Anthropologists show Iranians to be a mix of Nordic (some), Mediterranean, and Alpine. Former President Khatami and even the awful Khomeini are considered white - I'd say that the current president really isn't because he isn't really even an ethnic Iranian to begin with (family history). Most Northern and Central Iranians are European an can't even be distinguished from Greeks, Italians, and in some cases Germanic, Slavic, or Celtic peoples. The U.S. Census has even indicated that (like German-Americans, Greek-Americans, and Italian-Americans who mark White Other or Other and write in their ethnicity) Iranian-Americans, will still be counted as White (I myself, like many I know, marked White - as "Iranian" is not a race but an ethnicity; I think ethnicity should be marked separately from race.)

The UK Census is a bit more complex, because they have changed the ethnic choices over the years. Iranians used to only choose "Other White", but some chose "Other Asian". However, it depends on how a person identifies their ethnicity (not race). I provided a source titled (Uncertainty in the Analysis of Ethnicity) from 2009 (on the UK Census) indicating how it was difficult categorizing ethnic groups like Kurds, Turks, and Iranians who do not always fall neatly in one category. Just because one source says some Iranians identify as "Other Asian" doesn't mean all do. Despite some obvious non-whites living in Iran (including descendants of slaves in the deep southern region of the country), the majority of Iranians are considered to be white. This other user has not discussed this on here, nor has he given a good reason for removing the sourced material. To quote the user: "Iranians may or may not be white, depending on the definition, but they are certainly not a European diaspora in the same sense as the British/Dutch in South Africa or Spaniards in Latin America." Really? That is a matter of opinion and not fact. Iranians are a people that migrated from the Caucasian Steppes/Ukraine region. Their ancestors are also somewhat mixed with Proto-Europeans, though obviously not to the same extent as Northern European peoples. Besides, this section is for contemporary populations of European-descended peoples. Iranians are considered to be European-descended and an Indo-Aryan people.

This is an article on White People, and the list is for contemporary populations with European-descended peoples - which Iranians are. Moreover, the Azeris (who are really ethnic Iranians and only culturally Turkish) are white, as are the Russian groups living in Azerbaijan. Many groups of people who have moved to a region are still the same ethnically and culturally. I think many Russians on Wikipedia would agree with me. They know that groups of their people live in Iran. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in White people

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

Reference named "ReferenceA":

From Satan: Coogan, Michael D.; ‘’A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its context’’
From Central Asia: Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth: "In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, "Turan"). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a diareeah term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians."
From Brown people: P. 27, Racial Theories in Fascist Italy, By Aaron Gillette
From White nationalism: White Nationalists Seek Respectability in Meeting of 'Uptown Bad Guys' Newhouse News Service April 4, 2000
From Genetic history of Europe: Cavalli-Sforza (1993, pp. 90–93)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Thewafer, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} would you be able to put up the original table "regions with significant populations" again, the original table had around 20 nations on there many with large populations now in its place is a smaller one with only 9 nations with 5 of them of very small popluation size ? surely the original table was more to the point of the title regions with significant populations.may do it myself if possible.cheers

Thewafer (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: You can edit the article yourself. You have, and it's been reverted. Now please discuss on the talk page before re-inserting. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ok so how do you edit tables ? thats all i meant to change,the article if fine just wanted to restore the original table not sure how you do it ?

ok i managed to edit the table only, i just reverted it to the original table, sorry about earlier cock ups . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewafer (talk • contribs) 10:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The hidden elements of the table are WP:OR or the info could not be found in sources. Please, discuss before WP:Edit war. Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone put up a picture of a white person? I would but its locked. There are some really interesting and beautiful white people out there and I want the world to be educated on what they look like as the most beautiful race of people out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.116 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the comment is clearly with a sentiment that Wikipedia will not accept, I agree that a photo should be added. There will never be consensus on the actual representative white person but there can be consensus on a person who is undeniably white. TheWilliamson (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Australia and the Irish

Some ambiguous terms were being used in the original posting. Ambiguous and odd to people who live in the island of Ireland. The phrase 'British and Irish settlers' makes no sense in a pre-20th Century context. Irish people were 'British' then by virtue of nationality and because they shared the same monarch, so the terms were not exclusive. If you use the term 'Irish' to indicate one of the 'ethnicities' (which is itself a modern term) within the group of countries comprising the British Isles, then you can't use the term 'British' alongside it, since if 'British' was an ethnic term at that time, which is doubtful, it would have to cover Ireland too; being the term for the pre-Roman peoples of the whole of the British Isles. Moreover, 'Irish' and mainland 'British' are not ethnic nor cultural divisions. This is the whole reason that people get around the problem by using the 19th century term 'Celtic fringe', to indicate that Scottish people (living in Britain) have many linguistic, cultural and historical links to Ireland which in some ways outweigh their links to England. In the opposite vein, a substantial part of Ireland was historically settled by Scottish and English immigrants meaning that to use 'Irish' as a racial term is exceedingly doubtful. Irish people then were also 'British' by virtue of their nationality and ethnicity, if you use British to indicate the peoples of the British Isles. If you mean Irish as from the constituent country of Ireland, then, again, the term 'Britain' cannot be used since Britian is obviously not a constituent country of Britain! The constituent countries of Britain as in the United Kingdom are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or, as then: the whole of Ireland. 'Great Britain' is used as a term denoting the main island and only informally is that island sometimes referred to as 'Britian'. Confusingly the term 'Britian' is also used to denote the nation of Britain, which then included Ireland so it is not an exclusive term. But to use the terms to denote peoples and to make a separation between the peoples of the two main islands of the British Isles is simply too much of a stretch, since the term refers to land, not people. Even now it makes no sense, because the people of Ulster, in the island of Ireland, are living under the British crown. I am afraid that if someone has a particular need to refer to the 'Irish', in a separate pre-20th century context where all of the British Isles were under British nationality, then one is left with the following choices. They can refer to 'people from the island of Ireland and from mainland Britian' which seems to be a rather tortuous way to make an unnecessary point. Or give Ireland the political status it really did have at the time, as a country. But then you have to include all the countires of Britian to make any sense. viz: 'Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England'. Or 'Welsh, Irish, Scottish and English settlers'. But 'Irish and British'? Sorry, makes no sense.

Cacadores (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts

It is ridiculous and unnecessary to include countries where whites are a minority that does not exceed 15% of its population, if you want to add to these countries (Peru and Mexico) to do the complete job and add to all countries of the world .. Second in the wrong reading of the sources for the following reasons:

1) The source Sociogenética The Chilean Gradient and social ethical implications is very useful for sociological analysis Sociogenética gradient, but the figures quoted in it (those that give the average course of mixing of various social strata) are views of the author, and not based on genetic works such as those made by other sources, such as the source of the Human Genetics Program at the University of Chile

2) Another point: The study used as blood donors at 150 persons San Jose Hospital in Santiago de Chile. That is, is very biased, and although that serves to demonstrate segregation between social groups and that no significant differences with the "Hispanics" in America, does not state that these data are indicators of genetic contributions relating to indigenous and European ancestors of the Chilean population.

3) "The use of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome testing refer only to a line of ancestors each, becoming the ancestors of other invisible lines. Most Chileans are 30% mixture by their ancestors native aboriginal (Amerindian women who were married with the Spanish conquerors). According to this study, the degree of Amerindian mixture in the middle class is at 23.7% and 37.1% in the lower class [3], which confirms that the degree of mixing depends on the social level.

4) The Chilean population is mainly of European origin, but low genetic studies "the use of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome test results show the following: the European component is predominant in the Chilean upper class, the middle classes, 72.3% European component and 27.7% of mixed aboriginal and lower classes at 62.9% European component and 37.1% mix of Aboriginal.

Ccrazymann (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Europe

I know this is a can of worms but aren't people from right next to europe like the Levant (Syria, Lebenon, Isreal, Palistine, Jordan) and northern Iran also physicly white. It should at least be mentioned as an idea in the article.--J intela (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That is true. The "home range" (to borrow a phrase from zoology) of white people reaches eastward from Europe all the way to northern India. Roger (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the article? It states that "the definition of a "white person" differs according to geographical and historical context, and various social constructions of whiteness have had implications in terms of national identity, consanguinity, public policy, religion, population statistics,..." etc, etc. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) imply that any definition is 'better' than any other. 'Whiteness' is a social construct, not a biological fact, and as such is always in dispute. (Though come to think of it 'Europe' it is a social construct too, and we can't agree on the limits of that either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well...

I have a problem with the following passage; it is about whites in Brazil:

The census shows a trend of fewer Brazilians of a different descent (most likely mixed) identifying as white people as their social status increases

I'm Brazilian - and I have never witnessed such a phenomenon. If I heard of a person who said he's white now though he was Black or Brown in the past, when he was poorer, I'd believe the fellow is insane. The only times I have seen this mentioned, it was on the international (American or European) press. I know that my personal experience is limited, that I can't speak for the entire nation: but IMO this assertion - that people will identify as white as they climb the social ladder - is a lie, a distortion of the oft-repeated opinion that societal prejudice in Brazil is more determined by social status than race. That is, however, a far cry from saying that people will identify as whiter as their social status improves. This has in fact been refuted by data from the previous decade. During the 2000s the number and proportion of people belonging to the lower social strata - the so-called E and D classes - shrank, and the proportion of people classified as belonging to class C (the middle-class) became significantly larger. Nonetheless, according to Census information, the proportion of white people declined significantly from 2000 to 2010. If people are indeed willing to identify as white as they become richer, the proportion of white people should have become larger - but the inverse has happened. And I'm not even going to say anything on the number of wealthy Brazilians who identify as Black. (Pelé is just an example of a publicly known Brazilian in this condition, as are some Brazilians in the music or entertainment industry.) The only sources the article cites for this curious (and IMHO false) phenomenon, are two articles on daily American papers. Can't we have more academic, more serious references? I'm inclined to delete that information if it is left as it is, though I'm not sure I can do that without violating Wikipedia's rules. Guinsberg (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Palestinianman2011, 15 August 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change (Lebanese people) phrase which is marked by the reference number (196) to (some christian lebanese who are mainly Armanians and from Greek origin)) and this is because the source given itself tells this fact that some lebanese christian men have European genes and it didnot say that all Lebanese people have European genes.

palestinianman2011 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done Basically all Lebanese are white, not only those of Greek or Armenian decent. Religion is irrelevant: Arabs, Syrians, Palestinians, Turkish, etc are also white and most of them are Muslim. Roger (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Under Afghanistan, it says teh only white people are the pashtuns and the nuristanis. Although both of those people are white, there are others, such as the tajiks( afghan persians), and the pashai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

White in the U.S. vs White in South America

Can someone explain why so many people that is light skinned multiracial and even brown skinned multiracial is classified as White in the U.S., when those same people would not be classified as White in South America.

The short answer to this, is that if you have ANY sub-saharan african ancestry in the US, then you are considered "african-american", or "black". The converse of this, is that if you DON'T have any sub-saharan african ancestry, then by default, you are "white".

The U.S. census automatically classifies as White the people from North Africa (Magreb World). Also, millions of multiracial people (for example) such as Keanu Reeves (Half English/Asian), Megan Fox (Finland/Amerindian) and Johnny Deep (European/Amerindian) are classified as White in the U.S. when those very same people would be classified as multiracials (Mestizos) in South America.

Source: North Africans are dark skinned. There is U.S. nationals who are obviously mixed and are classified as White in the U.S. census. --Bono983 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a 'source': it is an opinion. Then again, any description of anyone as being 'white' is an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So should I post a link that leads to photos of North Africans? How can the U.S. census label North African people as White?

What type of source is needed to show that the vast majority of North Africans are not light skinned?

Second, Are not the Wikipedia Pages of Megan Fox, Johnny Depp, and Keanu Reeves enough source? their wikipedia pages talk about their native American ancestry, and the Keanu Reeves pages talks about his Asian ancestry too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. see WP:OR. And then read social construct. 'White' isn't an objective description of anything (at least when it comes to describing people). There is no universal agreement as to who is or isn't 'white' because it actually describes social relationships, not biological facts. It is entirely consistent with the way 'whiteness' is used as a concept for a person to be 'white' in one context, and not in another. And how do you know what the US census data says about Megan Fox in any case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "Any opinion as anyone being White is just an opinion", the Why this page allowed an opinion saying that 15 percent of White Brazilians are not White by U.S. standars?

Why Wikipedia allowed that statement?

Where is the RELIABLE source that proves that statement?

Contentious material about living persons (in this case, Brazilians) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Bono983 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)201.243.102.117 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The administrator in charge of editing this article is NOT following the Wikipedia rules because it allowed a comment that says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are not White by U.S. standards, a powerful statement made and added to the article WITHOUT a reliable source.--Bono983 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)201.243.102.117 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

United States census labeling the vast majority of Mexican immigrants as White

If 91 percent of the Mexican population is Amerindian and Mixed White/Amerindian according to the Mexican census, why the vast majority of Mexicans living in the U.S. are classified as White Hispanic by the U.S. census. As a consequence, the White population of the U.S. is inflated. Why the U.S. census labels people as white when those same people are not classified as white in other American countries. Mexicans are one of the largest white ethnicities reported by the U.S. census. The U.S. census is very unnacurate.

It looks like almost any multiracial could be classified as White in the U.S.

Source: compare the Mexican population census to the amount of white people of mexican ancestry reported by the U.S. census.--Bono983 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think recent Mexican census data included categories like 'white': they have more sense than to apply nonsense like this. And BTW, US census data doesn't classify Hispanics as 'white' - it doesn't classify their 'race' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. census data has 47.3 percent of Mexicans classified as "Full White" (Hispanic) in the U.S. just read the section of Race in the Wikipedia Page of "Mexican Americans". The U.S. census does classify the race of Hispanics and adds a Hispanic label to the race reported, such as as White Hispanics or Black Hispanics or _______ Hispanics. Mexicans are 66 percent of the Hispanics that live in the U.S.A.[[4]]--201.243.102.117 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Compare the race reported of Mexicans in the U.S. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American#Race_and_ethnicity versus the race reported of Mexicans in the Mexican census here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications

So if the Mexican census reported the Mexican population is 9 percent of European ancestry (White) and 91 percent is of Mixed ancestry and Full Amerindian ancestry. Why the U.S. census classified 47.3 percent of them as full White Hispanic in the U.S. census? The U.S. standard of what is considered to be White is not accurate. Many multiracials, not just Mexicans (I used them as an example) that are classified as Full White in the U.S. census are in reality Multiracials, a majority of light skinned Multiracials. Why Wikipedia does not show that important fact on the page of this article. On the other hand, when this article/page talks about White people in Brazil, the page says that 15 perent of White Brazilians would not be considered White by U.S. census "Standards", that is illogical, what standards? when the U.S. census takes place there are no DNA census officials determining your DNA, it is the people that selects their ancestry and self-identify themselves, meaning that many multiracials (millions) pass as White, therefore, the U.S. census has an inflated White population. How can this page suggest that 15 percent of white Brazilians would not be considered white in the u.s. census if the U.S. Census has such a unnacurate standards about who can be classified as White. This wikipedia page must delete the paragraph where it says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are not White by the U.S. census. There is no Logic, it looks like if the page wants to say that some south americans Whites are not real Whites even though the U.S. has so many millions of Multiracials classified as White, inflating their White population. --201.243.102.117 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)201.243.102.117 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)--201.243.102.117 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 2000 US census data does report the 'race' of Mexican-Americans (I'd not noticed that), but so what? This is (a) self-reported, and (b) subjective - what constitutes 'whiteness' depends on the context. There is no 'white race' except in the minds of those who think it exists. In any case, none of this has anything to do with the contents of the article (it would need to be discussed in reliable sources to be worth considering), and this isn't a forum for general debate about 'race'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the Article/Page says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are NOT White by U.S. standards then? Why is the administrator in charge of editing this article allowing such a powerful statement without a reliable source? and also, read the answers you gave me. You are saying that "there is no White race except in the minds of those who think it exits", and YET, the article says that 15 percent of White Brazilians are NOT White by U.S. standards, without a reliable source. The administrator of this article is violating the Wikipedia rules and therefore, the administrator allowed unreliable comments to the article.--Bono983 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)--201.243.102.117 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.102.117 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem, though I don't think there is a solution - what constitutes 'white' is anything but consistant. Personally, I think the article is a bit of a mess, but it at least attempts to explain this. Neither the Brazilian definition of 'whiteness' nor the US census one is 'correct', because there isn't a correct answer. It is at least open to question as to why the section on Brazil refers to US classifications though - I'll look into this. And finally, though Wikipedia operates from Florida-based servers, it is an international project. It does suffer to some extent from a US-centric bias, simply because US contributors constitute the largest single group, but there is no policy to give any special weight to US opinion - I'm British myself, and several article contributors I recognise as being from South America - no doubt there are contributors from elsewhere too. Any article involving 'race' is likely to be contentious, and the article as it stands is something of a compromise, and the best way to improve it is probably to find external sources that discuss the issue, rather than arguing over census statistics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One other point - Wikipedia articles don't have 'administrators', and even if they did, the statement you cite is sourced - to Ebony Magazine, which isn't perhaps an ideal source, as things like this are best sourced to peer-reviewed scientific journals, but it is neverthless a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebony Magazine is NOT a reliable source, that Magazine is an African U.S.American Magazine that talks about African U.S. American Politics, African U.S. American Arts, African U.S. American Health, and other African U.S. American topics. That source is NOT reliable because those journalists did not make a scientific study of the White Brazilian population. Reliable sources would be Scientific studies, a source that leads to a University/Scientific study of the White Brazilian population. A reliable source is also the Brazilian official census, and that census clearly stated the population of the White Brazilians. The person in charge of editing this article must use RELIABLE sources because such unrealiable statements involve millions of Brazilians (15 percent of white Brazilians are Millions of people).

The fact that the editor of this article is using Ebony Magazine as a source completely destroys the credibility of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Rules state that opinions made without Reliable Sources (Scientific/university studies, Census official data reliable sources) MUST BE immediately deleted without discussion.

Ebony Magazine http://www.ebonyjet.com/ is NOT a reliable source. --Bono983 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just imagine if the same Ebony Magazine said that 15 percent of White English people would not be considered White in the U.S.?

Ebony Magazine is NOT a reliable source.

--Bono983 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, read the EBONY article at least, it is VERY QUESTIONABLE, even in the article they did not list a reliable source/study, the author said that 15 percent White Brazilians would not be considered White in the U.S. census because Sonia Braga does not look fully White (She is mixed), and the Ebony journalist does not even know what race she selected when the Brazilian census took place.

The credibility of Wikipedia articles suffer when NON-TRUSTWORTHY AND QUESTIONABLE sources are used.--Bono983 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The credibility of Wikipedia articles would suffer more if we took the comments of random contributors as 'reliable'. I've already shown that there cannot be an objective reliable source on the issue, because 'whiteness' is opinion, not fact. Unless you have anything based on external sources to add to the article, I consider the topic closed. I've already stated that I'll look into the Brazil/US census issue, and I will, but beyond that, I see no point in debating further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Divisions among "whites"

One could build a section about divisions among white people. Good example is shown on that medieval picture showing Italians, French, Germans, and Poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.165.235 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

India

Can we add various Ethnic groups of India as part of the population? Historically these populations were often included in the White population (as part of the Mediterranean race) and generally are considered today. Also, what about the Arabs? They have also been historically "white". GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see no reason why you can't add whoever you feel like, as long as you can find some source or other asserting that they are vaguely 'white' - the whole idea that there is anything remotely 'real' about the concept of a 'white' race is nonsense anyway. Race is a social construct, and in this article contributors can each construct one for themselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely socially constructed, I would say even cultural, to say who is white and who is not. In Brazil, Arab Brazilians are part of our White population, as well mildly Caucasian-featured light mestizos and mulattoes. Most of the Japanese Brazilian noticeably multiracials are not deemed as amarelo (yellow) and as such they are considered to be branco (white). This is because our society always had vey few white people in the Colonial and early Imperial times and most of the free lower and middle classes (and a few elites) were multiracial, so our social construct made it, the Portuguese Brazilian elite would feel not very amusing about finding itself in an "endless mass which was NOT westerner, NOT civilizated," NOT everything that in other Western nations people later associated with white persons and societies, so they considered that people as of the same value (not admitting that persons of color were normal human beings of the same level but "denying" the "non-whiteness" of the multiracials) which otherwise among other colonial times around the world would face discrimination. The big racism from the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries made approval of race mixing actually larger since it was judged as the only way to turn Brazil in a country in which Caucasians could be majority (since isolating white people from the pardos - i.e. [grayish-brown or the color of the manila paper]-skinned, accultured Amerindians and perceptively multiracials - and negros - i.e. black-skinned, persons with Black African phenotype, but ancestry nowadays generally lower than 45% according to genetic research - certainly were not to "help", everyone understood that they could grow up again and turning itself in a majority as happened in the twenty-first century), even if discrimination against non-whites was more evident, the born of our so-called social """apartheid""". I do think that if people start to think about Indians' race here, knowing that their genes are related to those found in Europe, Middle East and Central Asia, people will say that they are brancos, since negros, amarelos and pardos they are not, even if their skin colour is comparable to the children of an Amerindian with a mulatto or a person of mostly Black African origin with a mestizo. It was helpful? Lguipontes (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As another note, the Indigenous Aryans article states that the population of India originate from the rest of the Indo-European population. (i.e. Persian, Southern European, etc) I'm not sure about the Arabs though, as they are an Afro-Asiatic speaking group, though they are related to various Jewish populations. --75.61.80.200 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only a limited correlation between where people 'originate', and the roots of their language. The 'Semitic' languages (including Hebrew and Arabic) seem to have originated in Africa, but this tells us next-to-nothing about the 'origins' of those who speak the languages - and our 'Indigenous Aryans' article is about a controversial theory, rather than anything more certain. Of course, if you go back sufficiently far, everyone originates in Africa anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please edit afghanistan

All iranic people are white. In afghanistan, there are the pashtuns, tajiks, aimaqs, and baloches. They are all iranic. The tajiks are the same as persians of iran, who are listed as white, so please list tajiks under afghanistan. Pashtuns are an eastern iranic people, who many believe to be descended from the lost ten tribes of israel. The baloches are also iranic, and are related to the kurds. If you look at any wiki article on these people, it will say they are caucasion. 50% of pashtuns have colored eyes and hair too. Here are photos as proof. Please consider editing. The majority of the afghan people are white.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pashtun+people&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1383&bih=1068&sei=bfvGTveKMaLb0QGn7I31Dw#um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=afgahn+tajiks&oq=afgahn+tajiks&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=15051l15943l2l16053l6l6l0l0l0l0l136l550l4.2l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=58647dde3f15bbd&biw=1383&bih=1068

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pashtun+people&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1383&bih=1068&sei=bfvGTveKMaLb0QGn7I31Dw#um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=pashtuns&oq=pashtuns&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2254l3675l5l3744l8l7l0l0l0l1l466l1334l0.6.4-1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=58647dde3f15bbd&biw=1383&bih=1068 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't base articles on photos - that would be original research. I don't think that statements about lost tribes of Israel are likely to get far either. However, since 'whiteness' is entirely a social construct, it shouldn't be difficult to find a reliable source that states Afghans are white (along, no doubt, with others that say they aren't). The whole article is absurd, so feel free to find the source required, and add it yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump, I'll look for sources. The thing is, I'm kinda new to wikipedia, so if i just find reliable sources and post them here, would anybody be able to edit it in a correct way for me? I don't want to cite incorrectly or something. Metalman59 01:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

Here are some sources

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/CFC_Afg_Monthly_Ethnic_Groups_Aug2011%20v1.pdf Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/asia/afghanistan/map_flash.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/middle-east/afghanistan-geography3.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Metalman59 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those are any use. A source needs (a) to meet our criteria for reliable sources and (b) actually explicitly state what you are citing it for - that Afghans are considered 'white'. The sources you provide don't even use the word 'white'. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for further information on the sort of thing we need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, i know, they mention the word caucasion, which is more widely used. however, i will be on the lookout Metalman59 02:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PBS says nothing about 'caucasians'. How Stuff Works is unlikely to meet WP:RS (they use Wikipedia as a source, so we'd end up sourcing ourselves, which is clearly unacceptable). Neither of the other sources looks to be reliable (who are they?) - and the first says nothing about 'caucasians' anyway. Again, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources before posting anything else here - it is pointless posting sources which aren't any use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kind of new, lol. Don't worry, I'll find reliable sources. Thanks for your incite. 71.190.172.85 (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here, I found the US census codes, and afghans are listed under white.

http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Race_Hispanic_Latino_Summary_File/RaceHisLat.PDF Metalman59 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but not actually much use. US census codes merely tell us how a government in another country (with its own peculiar notions of 'race' as is evident from their difficulties with classifying Hispanics) assigns 'race' according to nationality, for the purpose of their census. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that is really an appropriate source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, lol. It is just kind of frustrating, because the wikipedia articles on afghans, and their ethnic groups all label them as caucasion lol. I will keep on looking, until I find some. Is it ok if I find them with the word "caucasion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.172.85 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other websites I found. They seem to be reliable to me.

http://www.atsc.army.mil/crc/ISO6A10L/TribalisminAfghanistanC.pdf

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/38.htm

--Metalman59 20:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Metalman59 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

Our article starts off "White people (also called 'Caucasian') is a term which usually refers to...", so I'd think that 'Caucasian' would do (note the spelling!) I can't see anything in the first source that states that all Afghans are 'white'. The second looks more useful, but again seems less than specific: for instance it says that "The neighboring Wakhi, along with several thousand other Mountain Tajik who are physically of the Mediterranean substock with Mongoloid admixture...". Of course 'Caucasian' and 'Mongoloid' are rather arbitrary, but this rather rules out that source. I think the fact is that Afghans are, as their history shows, ethnically diverse (not that ethnicity and 'race' have the same meanings), and not particularly easy to classify according to outside conventions - the area has seen multiple migrations from surrounding areas, and of course, being on the old Silk Road, will also have had input from traders etc. Though it may matter to some Afghans to describe themselves as 'white', and though they are as entitled to this opinion as anyone else, it really isn't a question to which a definitive answer can be given, because the whole concept of 'race' is so steeped in culture, rather than being anything objective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, but I am not trying to prove that Afghans as a whole are white, just certain ethnic groups. For example, the pashtuns, the tajiks, and the nuristanis. hazaras are mixed mongoloids, and some Uzbeks and turkmens are too. The wakhi make up a tiny percentage and only number about 200,000. In the source, it states that pashtuns, and tajiks are white, which makes up about 60% of the population. However, tajiks are the same thing as persians, just that the turks named them tajiks meaning persian in uzbeki. I think it would be alright if you put in parenthesis next to Afghanistan and wrote (pashtuns, tajiks, nuristanis, possibly others.) The documents explain that they are caucasian, lol. And Afghanistan could belong in either the asia or middle east section, but I believe in this case it belongs in the middle east section because most of it's ethnic groups are "iranic/iranian", etc. This was very challenging, but i hope you will be OK with my idea. Thanks for your support, you have been one of the most helpful administrators ever. --Metalman59 16:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Even a month ago, it said pashtun and nuristani next to afghanistan. Someone vandalized it and took off pashtun lol. Even in the chart showing caucasions in the article, one of the people are "afghan", and it speaks of an irano afghan race. Thanks for the support, please try to accept my idea for afghanistan above. --Metalman59 16:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the tail should not wag the dog. We should not be looking for reliable sources that say Afghanistainis are white, and we should not be looking for reliable sources that say they are not. We should be looking for reliable sources on "White people" and report whatever they say. There are many different ways of identifying people, and one group of people can have serveal different identities, in different contexts. Also, how people are classified varies depending on the purpose, by whom, and when. There is no racial classification of human beings that is universally accepted and we should not be surprised if one government classifies a group of people as "white" and another government classifies them differently and one group of scientists classify them one way and another group of scientists another way - and the people in question may not even think of thesmevles as belonging to any race at all. The question is: "what race do Pashtuns" belong to, but rather, "What are the major views of white people?" and find the reliable sources for this question. Some of them may refer to Afghanistanis, some may not. If we provide enough context, our readers may come to understand why one reliable source will include Afghanistanis and another will not. These are the questions we need to be pursuing in our efforts to improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both andythegrumpy, and Slrubenstein. Both of you have been very helpful. I understand the point of this article, it's just that I think afghans are getting misinformed, and people assume them to be arabs, or asians, etc . I am trying to take away the ignorance many people have, and if It is ok with you, I am going to edit the Afghanistan one slightly. I am going to use the sources that AndyTheGrumpy said were reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Afghanis are Asians, an Asian is anyone who is from Asia (Asia is a continent and not a race or ethnicity; when the word is used to refer to a race or ethnicity, you can bet that the state that uses the word this way provides a clear legal definition and the point is that different governmentd classify races differently. In the United States, Arabs are considered to be white, racially/ethnically. In other countries this is not so. Different countries have different laws and laws regulate how people are identified). Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I see, however I will revert the afghanistan thing and put it under asian, as I cited 2 reliable sources, and read the guidelines over and over. I'm just trying to help lol. Thanks for you guys' support. --Metalman59 21:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalman59 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I may not have been clear. My point is that there is no fixed meaning to these words; the meaning depends on how they are used; they are used differently by different people; therefore when using them in an encyclopedia article we must be clear that we explain whose use of the term we are invoking. For example, in the United States the government classes Arabs and other people of Middle-Eastern descent (I assume this means Jews) as "white." In the UK, "Asian" refers to Pakistanis and Indians - and Chinese and Arabs are classed as "other ethnic groups!" So "Pashtuns" or "Afghanistanis" may be classed as belonging to several different races or ethnic groups, depending on which government is assigning the label. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, other middle-eastern descent would include, for example, people of Persian descent (Iranian). Mixing up Persian and Arab tends to annoy Persians. Secondly, my experience of the use of 'Asian' in the UK is that it's utterly inconsistent and no-one is ever sure what anyone else means by it, though you may be right in terms of census groups; you'd get a very inconsistent response if you pointed an Arab out to a range of different people and asked if they were "white" in the UK. Thirdly, FYI, Metalman59 is voluntarily (as a term of agreement to get unblocked) topic banned from articles (and thus, per topic ban policy, parts of articles etc) related to the middle east and the subcontinent. I imagine that they won't be pushing points about people from that region here any more (I raised it on their talk page and they apologised and said they'd back off, so...). Ooh, that was three points. I'm sure I only had two when I started... in any case, the substance of your points in this discussion are entirely valid and sensible. SamBC(talk) 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter what you think. Sorry about this, but it does not matter what I think either. It doesn't matter what any WP editor thinks. I am responding first to your first point. We only include views from reliable sources. The UK government is a reliable source, so is the US, government, so is the Iranian government, so is the Afghanistan government, so is the Indian and the Saudi governments. Also, reliable sources include articles by credible scholars (in this case, historians, sociologists, or anthropologists mostly) who have published in peer-reviewed acaemic journals. If we end up with multiple views, even conflicting views, we need to represent all major views. It doesn't matter that they conflict. What matters is that diferent kinds of people (one government versus another, politicians or bureaucrats versus scholars) hold different views and we explain this to our readers when necessary. This is all in our NOR and NPOV and V policies, I hope you have read them. I am glad you think the substance of my points are valid. It does not matter if we get inconsistent results from our research: we just have to explain to readers why we have inconsistent views in our article. Even if one user is blocked from editing some articles, if that person knows of reliable sources for significant views she can alert (in a public i.e. transparent ) way other editors to know about these sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)