Talk:White people/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Not everything, not a biological taxon

@Costco nostra: Your recent additions were certainly well sourced, but I removed them because WP is no collection of as much information as possible (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). We have to present the most important information at hand. When selecting that information we are guided by academic literature on our subject. So the question should always be, "Would an academic publication on White people present a certain detail (e.g. about white Saracenes) ?" On the other hand, the idea that "White people" have any reality outside social perceptions of Whiteness, is completely outdated (see e.g. Caucasian race), so we really have to reflect on the relationship between an old mention of somebody being "white" and the modern concept of "White people". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:

"because WP is no collection of as much information as possible (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING)"

This rule pertains to no dictionaries, not encyclyopedia entries, and since this article is only few paragraphs this is an illegitimate objection. I will quote directly from the rule "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." That's exactly what this article is, it's not a dictionary entry, it's a summary. It's a very short summary when compared to all the books on this topic.

We have to present the most important information at hand.

The presented info is all related to the section heading "physical descriptions" the words "most important" do not appear in the guideline you cited. The info presented is all related to the subject matter and therefore there is no legitimate reason for removal.

"Would an academic publication on White people present a certain detail (e.g. about white Saracenes) ?"

These sources are from academic works and academics so yes they obviously would be, and in fact are. You can check them all yourself. These include the works of Bernard Lewis, Mervyn C. Alleyne, Jack D. Forbes and others, all renowned scholars. Any objection to the information presented here is an objection to the academic works of these scholars as well as others.

"the idea that "White people" have any reality outside social perceptions of Whiteness,"

This has nothing to do with physical descriptions in antiquity which is what this section is about. The only real objection I can see is that it's strayed into the medieval era, which can be fixed, I will add a new section "Descriptions in the Middle Ages" to address this.

"reflect on the relationship between an old mention of somebody being "white" and the modern concept of "White people"

The historical mentions are descriptions, which are directly related to the subject of the sections in question.Costco nostra (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I share Rsk6400's concerns, and have voiced them previously in edit summaries. It seems to me that the extensive mentions of whiteness in antiquity and the middle ages which Costco nostra has been adding all point toward a synthetic conclusion regarding the existence "white people", and together give undue weight to the idea that such a conception existed in premodern times. I do assume that creating synth / undue content isn't Costco nostra's intent, but it does appear to me that the content needs to be carefully vetted and contextualized (not to mention condensed). Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, these are physical descriptions only, I am only adding to a section (which I had to fix btw because earlier versions were referring to the wrong sources) that already existed, and am only quoting scholarly sources that deal with the subject of physical descriptions in antiquity (apparently the middle ages section I tried to create was deleted). A synthetic conclusion requires a claim or implication based original research, literally everything quoted or referenced is from previously published work.

The policy states "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research".

At no point is there a claim or implication of original research. This section does not deal with the modern concept of race, only ancient (and the hopefully restored medieval section) physical descriptions which are sourced and meet the qualifications of relevance. Everything dealing with the modern concept of race is in the next section "Modern racial hierarchies" because that's when it begins historically as a concept. That's why modern concepts of race aren't included in this section.

So why are physical descriptions being removed? How are for example are ibn Fadlan's (one of the most famous Islamic Golden Age travelers') first hand descriptions from his travels in Europe not relevant? How are ibn Khaldun's (possibly the founder of sociology) descriptions not relevant? I notice a bulk of the entirely sourced content that has been removed come from non-western historical accounts which is unfortunate as I think their accounts have just as much a right to be described as those of Ancient Greece, Rome, etc.

As for condensation, I think a few paragraphs for ~1000-1500 years is fairly efficient. I've had to leave out a ton of material I'd have liked to include all in the name of brevity. There are books and books on this subject, so cramming this further into 2-3 sentences is impossible. Costco nostra (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not "Physical descriptions of white-skinned people", but "White people". And the only possible definition of "White people" is the definition as a social construct. As I see it, the SYNTH problem (thank you, Generalrelative) is that you assume that the white skin of Saracens or Goths means that they were White people. A is "Authors observed differences in skin colours", B is "White people have white skin", C is "Observations from antiquity are relevant to this article". Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not "Physical descriptions of white-skinned people", but "White people".

The modern concept "white people" didn't exist pre-modernity, so any physical descriptions are not going to be about "white people" automatically. That's why someone bothered creating the "physical descriptions in antiquity" section to begin with. Using your strict parameters, the entire "physical descriptions in antiquity" section has to be deleted since it's about historical descriptions, not modern concepts, and by definition no modern concepts are going to appear in antiquity. But since I doubt you created this page or the section I doubt that you have the editorial authority to delete the "antiquities" section. It also doesn't sound like you're familiar with any of the works cited in the section, since they all treat on these topics at length, so I don't think you have the academic authority to make a ruling.

, C is "Observations from antiquity are relevant to this article".

Synthesis has nothing to do with judgements about WP:Relevance to an article, synthesis is about drawing a conclusion from WP:No original research of which there is none in this section. You are trying to conflate relevance with original research when they aren't connected at all. All the material is consistent with the rest of the relevant material in the section (physical descriptions in antiquity). There is no original research so no violation there. The content is obviously relevant and mirrors earlier entries about descriptions. So far you have not made a single legitimate criticism of any content for this section and haven't even been consistent in your criticisms.

What is wrong exactly? The presence of pre-modern physical descriptions? Then the whole section must be deleted because that is the entire section topic and has been for the many years it has been up. Costco nostra (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be possible to cite historical sources here, but we would need to summarize how these historical views relate to the modern social construct of "white people". We need to summarize how sources make this connection, and we cannot use WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to imply a connection which is not directly supported. It shouldn't be up to readers to form their own conclusions based on an arbitrary sample of primary sources scattered over thousands of years.

So what, exactly, are these secondary sources saying about these primary documents that mention skin color? How does this relate to the modern encyclopedia topic of 'white people'? To put it another way, there are connections between these historical views and later ideas of race, but it isn't up to us to figure out those connections, it's up to sources. Our job as editors is to summarize the conclusions made by sources, not to form our own conclusions. Context is necessary, and context comes from sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

we would need to summarize how these historical views relate to the modern social construct of "white people".

It's already summarized in the article in the lead-in sentence to the physical description section. The work is cited as well and even has a quote with the citation.

It states:

Scholarship on race distinguishes the modern concept from pre-modern descriptions, which focused on physical complexion rather than race."

It's hard to state it more succinctly than that. The source is the current 11th reference on the page, it's David Nirenberg's 2009 entry "Was there race before modernity? The example of 'Jewish' blood in late medieval Spain" for the book "The Origins of Racism in the West."

exactly, are these secondary sources saying about these primary documents that mention skin color?

see above, the sources state what is already said in this article i.e. pre-modern references were focused on physical descriptions not on modern concepts.

How does this relate to the modern encyclopedia topic of 'white people'?

Again as stated above it relates in that it predates modern concepts of race as they only used physical descriptions in the past. That's why this pre-modern section only includes references to physical skin color or "physical complexion"

to summarize the conclusions made by sources, not to form our own conclusions

Which is why the conclusions are already listed in this article, multiple times. Costco nostra (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to the various concerns listed above I propose adding the following intro to the "Physical descriptions" section based on and referencing Bernard Lewis's 'Race and Slavery in the Middle East Chapter 2. page numbers 16-20. I can give the exact quotations if requested.

Proposed intro:

Generally, in antiquity writings show prejudice based on culture, language, religion, and otherness, but not physical attributes. Physical descriptions of different populations however could be noted and recorded."

This emphasizes the physically descriptive aspect of ancient sources, separating them from modern racial categories. Please give your thoughts Costco nostra (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that really gets us around the synthesis problem, if you're still proposing to include the material from the primary sources, unless those sources are given as examples by Lewis. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the removed material is from Lewis. I should add that the information given is from secondary sources mostly and primary sources are only used as verification. Primary sources are not banned on wikipedia. Costco nostra (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• I do not support this either. Among other problems, "however" is editorializing language that presumes a connections between arbitrarily chosen historical accounts of physical appearance and the modern concept of race, but which is not actually supportable as a simple factual statement.

The changes that you previously made, which were appropriately reverted, did not include the necessary context. As you've noted, the article already has a problem with these examples, but that isn't a justification for adding more arbitrary examples.

As one example (among many) from the reverted edits, the cited source for the bit about Lucien goes into some detail explaining how Lucien's comments should not be seen as as a precursor to the modern social construct of race, because a contemporary audience would've understood it in a different context. Citing that source without this context is misrepresenting the source, which is not appropriate.

As another example from that revert, if reliable sources explain how the Yuezhi are relevant to a modern understanding of 'white people' as a topic, summarize what those sources are saying. Don't just mention it and expect it to speak for itself, because this is WP:SYNTH. Listing yet another example of some group of people who were identified by their skin color is not helpful to readers, so we need context from sources for every single "example". Nobody is disputing that people noticed skin color variation before the creation of scientific racism. What is needed is context.

These arbitrary examples do, as already explained, give an undue impression of this concept's historical scope and legitimacy, so they do not belong in the article. I would support trimming existing example or rephrasing them to provide this necessary context. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"however" is editorializing language '

I don't see how at all, it's comparing modern concepts to ancient descriptions.

which were appropriately reverted, did not include the necessary context.

It wasn't appropriately reverted in the least, and the context is already in this article. I am proposing it be restated again because for whatever reason there have been complaints, but I certainly don't think it needs to be restated. Anyone who reads the article can see these are physical descriptions, not modern racial categories.

some detail explaining how Lucien's comments should not be seen as as a precursor to the modern social construct of race

Which is why it is already explained in this article that modern concepts of race and physical descriptions in antiquity are not equivalent

Nobody is disputing that people noticed skin color variation before the creation of scientific racism.

Exactly which is why we have a "physical description" section and not an "ancient scientific racism" section.

As you've noted, the article already has a problem

I don't agree at all I haven't noticed any problem with the article and still don't. I am trying to make compromises in order to save important information from being deleted (information that took a while to research btw).

These arbitrary examples do,

These are not arbitrary examples, they are specifically selected examples used to illustrate physical descriptions in antiquity, which is the exact subject of this section. The Yuezhi description is a perfect example of an ancient description that exists, but is not directly related to modern concepts of race. The context was already mentioned in the original sentences, the Chinese were recording and physically describing the strange "others" in Western China. Again that is the exact point of this section, physical descriptions in antiquity.

n undue impression of this concept's historical scope and legitimacy,

How is it undue exactly? It's all directly related to physical descriptions "only"

so they do not belong in the article

After all this, I've still not seen a single legitimate reason to keep physical descriptions out of the physical description section, not even one. This is the exact section for physical descriptions. Costco nostra (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

'However' is editorializing because it is not up to you as an editor to draw these comparisons. That's why multiple people have brought up WP:SYNTH. If you want to keep discussing this, and you want the examples you previously added to remain in the article, you will need to do more work to understand what we are saying. Right now you do not have consensus, and the best way to change that is to understand and address this issue.

If the examples were not arbitrary, than they were specifically selected by you, as editor. If this wasn't arbitrary, than why those examples? Was it to demonstrate something? If that 'something' is not directly supported by any of the attached sources, this is SYNTH. There are countless historical references to people's appearance an editor could try and cite, but this isn't the place to catalog all of that. All we can do is summarize secondary sources that explain the relevance to this specific topic.

To put it another way, any content of the subsection on 'physical appearances' in an article about 'white people' must be directly supported by a source that discusses the physical appearances of "white people" as this article defines the term. It is not enough to cite sources which include this context, we must also summarize that context in the section.

To put it yet another way, since you agree that modern concepts of race and physical descriptions in antiquity are not equivalent, then it is up to you to summarize sources which explain why they are even being brought up here in the first place. The title of the subsection isn't a sufficient reason to add this content without specific context. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

'However' is editorializing because it is not up to you as an editor to draw these comparisons.

I'm not the one drawing "comparisons" this is based on cited material that compares ancient ethnic prejudice and attitudes to physical descriptions. The word could easily be left out or not, it doesn't change the meaning.

It could be changed to:

In antiquity writings show prejudice based on culture, language, religion, and otherness, but not physical attributes. Physical descriptions of different populations could be noted and recorded."

The flow is worse, but it still reflects the sourced work

. Right now you do not have consensus, and the best way to change that is to understand and address this issue.

It seems like this is due to other editors not having any familiarity with the material and assuming without any research this is "arbitrary". An encyclopedia is supposed to contain records and information, which is all this is, and in this case for this section, records and information related to physical descriptions in antiquity. I should point out that the material was removed contrary to wiki guidlines which state Wikipedia:Content_removal that content: should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal. And yet the information was arbitrarily removed before there was any actual discussion. So it's the removal that's in violation of the typical guidelines.

If this wasn't arbitrary, than why those examples?

These are examples using physical descriptions from ancient civilizations, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc, that's what this section is explicitly for "physical descriptions in antiquity". That's what this section has already been used for. There is no reason that civilizations beside Egypt, Greece and Rome can't be added especially when secondary source scholarship states these other civilizations, such as Islamic civilization, which is featured in the bulk of the deleted material, used such descriptions.

any content of the subsection on 'physical appearances' in an article about 'white people' must be directly supported

Which they all have been, again it seems like every other editor just doesn't feel like doing any research whatsoever even when every source is cited. None of the material that has been removed has been uncited and they have all been supported using secondary sources. Every piece of deleted content was cited and the opening post for this "removal section" on the talk page even says the deleted content is well sourced. If it's well sourced how do you justify removing it (again removing it BEFORE there was any talk page discussion, against wiki policy). If no one else wants to read the sources provided there's nothing I can do about this. Either you want to do research and help out with the page or you don't.

then it is up to you to summarize sources which explain why they are even being brought up here in the first place.

They are being brought up because that is the exact subject of this section. It has no other purpose besides physical descriptions in antiquity.

The title of the subsection isn't a sufficient reason

Then why have that title? What's the purpose of having a title and then having the body not reflect it? All the content is the same as the content previously posted in the body, namely physical descriptions in antiquity. Again there hasn't been a single meaningful objection to this material, all sourced to secondary sources and all of which has been an attempted summary for content that spans centuries. It's not exactly easy to condense, especially now with demands that we constantly restate the same idea over and over (how often do we need to? every paragraph? every new sentence? it's absurd when the aim is condensing content not drawing it out), i.e. that physical descriptions in antiquity are not related to modern racial concepts.

It seems like you simply don't like the physical descriptions in antiquity section in general and if that's the case you should be opening a talk section for its deletion, not going after sourced content within it. Costco nostra (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:EDITORIAL applies Doug Weller talk 07:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And the second you find an example it can be corrected. But these statements are all based on to quote the OP, "well sourced" secondary sources. Costco nostra (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Grayfell is removing even more sourced content. He just removed a sourced statement that directly cites Benjamin Isaac's work, another academic who deals with skin color in antiquity. I can give the page number, quote, link, etc it's all there. And there still hasn't been a single legitimate reason given for removing cited academic work. If you don't want this page to reflect modern academic work, then add that stipulation to the top of the talk page. Costco nostra (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Multiple experienced editors see a specific problem, and have spent time trying to explain this problem. Perhaps we haven't done a good job explaining the problem, but the problem exists even if we fail to explain it. Your response has not worked, so you're going to have to try another approach. If you just want to assume that we're wrong and don't know the topic, and act on that assumption, don't be surprised if people stop trying to discuss this with you. If that happens, you cannot get your way by filibuster, so in that case you'll have to accept that you don't have consensus and move on.

Looking over the recent edits in which you added this content, I see a specific problem that might help demonstrate the issue: it appears this source was being misused. I have removed the passage for that reason. As the passage in the article mentioned, Polemon was talking about the "Greeks of Hellenic or Ionian descent". But that's a problem here. "Greeks of Hellenic or Ionian descent" are not the same as "white people". Including this as an example is a form of editorializing. If a reliable source directly explains the connection between "...their skin is white they are fair..." and "White people", so can we, but not before then.

To put it more simply, this is not the article historical race concepts, it's not light skin, and it's not physiognomy#Ancient physiognomy. This is about "White people" and so sources need to be about 'white people'. Not just sources about people sometimes described by someone as having white skin, but sources about the entire racial group. Any examples need to be presented by sources as examples of this as it relates to white people or racial whiteness or something along those lines. Grayfell (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors see a specific problem,

I've seen multiple editors give very vague complaints, not any single specific criticisms. Some say too much has been added, others say I need to add even more for "context".

Your response has not worked,

There's little that can be done when multiple people reject academic sources.

surprised if people stop trying to discuss this with you.

I'd love actual explanations, but have yet to see even one.

so in that case you'll have to accept that you don't have consensus and move on.

I've already accepted that the editors on this page reject academic sources, something I've not seen on any other page. My typical experience is being thanked for working hard and contributing by adding academic sources.

As the passage in the article mentioned, Polemon was talking about the "Greeks of Hellenic or Ionian descent". But that's a problem here. "Greeks of Hellenic or Ionian descent" are not the same as "white people".

No they are not, there are no "white people" in ancient or pre-modern history because "white people" is a modern racial classification, something already said on this page multiple times. Instead all there are in pre-modern history are descriptions, which is what this section is for. So certain groups as described as "white" or "light skinned" and they make the cut for historical descriptions. These are the physical descriptions that belong in the physical description section. This is the state of the article as I found it and then decided to add to, hoping my work expanding this section would be appreciated.

. If a reliable source directly explains the connection between "...their skin is white they are fair..." and "White people", so can we, but not before then.

The description is all that is possible, as with the other descriptions in the "physical description section". There is no connection between "White people" and physical descriptions in antiquity because "white people" is a modern concept. Literally ever single reference in the physical description section, some of which I added and some of which were already present is not directly connected to "white people" as a concept. You are not arguing against my additions as already stated. You are arguing for the deletion of the entire section which relies entirely on descriptions with no direct connection to modern racial concepts like "white people". You are specifically targeting my hard work for deletion when it intentionally mirrors all the previous content in the section. There was nothing I added that was contrary to previous content in this section.

This is about "White people" and so sources need to be about 'white people'.

No historical antiquity section can be about "white people" because that is a modern concept. How many times does this have to be restated? When I found this page I saw references to Thracians, Iranians, etc all for having white skin or other features, but not for being "white people" as it is impossible to directly connect ancient descriptions with modern concepts. It was clear when I found it that historical descriptions were entirely allowed, despite there being no direct connections to the concept of "white people", and there was obvious and blatant precedence. If you do not want historical descriptions then you should ask for the removal of the section. Why are you not removing the reference to Thracians, Iranians, Germans, etc? Why are you not removing Aristotle and Plato's references to light skin? Why are you not removing the references to Egyptians depicting Libyans as having lighter skin? Their descriptions are not directly connected to "white people" which was not a concept at the time. There is no direct connection established there at all. I was only adding to a section using the exact same conditions as material that was already present.

I have accepted my hard work is going to be deleted for nothing despite all criticism of it being vague and contradictory, but don't pretend you have a legitimate reason for deleting it. Costco nostra (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Costco nostra: I'll just chime in once again to point out a major hole in your understanding of how Wikipedia operates. You wrote above: But since I doubt you created this page or the section I doubt that you have the editorial authority to delete the "antiquities" section. No one on Wikipedia has any special "editorial authority" (per e.g. WP:OWN). We decide content disputes by seeking WP:CONSENSUS, and as of right now you appear to be one against many. Maybe time to take a step back and WP:LISTEN instead of accusing others of "pretending" to have legitimate reasons for objecting to your preferred content? Generalrelative (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"No one on Wikipedia has any special "editorial authority" "

I had figured that out after reading the page deletion page, which doesn't mention sections. That's why I suggested deleting the section completely since the content is apparently so objectionable.

one against many.

I've already said I've given up. I doubt any of you have read any of the books whose citations you are deleting so what's the point? No one even wants to read the sources so real collaboration isn't possible when there isn't even any interest in participation, only deletion.

accusing others of "pretending" to have legitimate reasons for objecting

I haven't seen a single legitimate reason given, but you can't defeat an angry mob so it's over. I'm not going to try and contribute to a page where people openly deny and delete accepted academic scholarship without even trying to help edit and collaborate, but instead resort to deletion BEFORE (again against wiki guidelines) even having a discussion. That's ultimately your decision not mine. Costco nostra (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's right delete all the content that took hours and hours to compile. But why not delete the entire section? It's obviously all "wrong" in some manner that you can't even cogently describe. Costco nostra (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've created Draft:Pre-modern conceptions of whiteness to contain all the detail you've put together. Perhaps we can add it as a hat-note to the "Physical descriptions in antiquity" section. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made an edit to that new article which demonstrates the point I was trying to make about the Polemon quotes. The source was fine, but how it was used was not. The point shouldn't be to catalog every mention of "white skin" in every historical source. That's not possible, nor would it be helpful to most readers. If we cannot indicate to readers why a quote is noteworthy, than it isn't noteworthy and it should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Don’t exist

Sorry, ignore that last one please. Anyways, there is an inconsistency here: What good is referencing European demographics in Chile if there is no such thing? I’m honestly just trying to understand. Wouldn’t those people be of “null” race, rather than some, fake, “European” race? 50.196.7.86 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot understand what question you're trying to ask in this nonsensical rant. Are you arguing that the demographic classification in Chile is arbitrary, that the census does not recognize a White racial group, or that there is no well-defined White racial group? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

North Africa and Middle East

Why are you artificially inflating the percentage by including people from these regions? The vast majority of North Africans and ME are BROWN. They have brown/tan skin, not white skin. Which makes since because of the hot environment they live in. Instant disqualifier. You can't tell me with a straight face that North African and ME migrants coming into Europe are "white."

Secondly, they are not of European descent. Their genetic origins are not from Europe. Which is what a White person is; a person of European ancestry. The real percentage of White people in the world is 8-10 percent. David5632 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the article. Many people from those areas identify as White. In part a hold over from colonization by the British and French. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you guys going to include Sub-Saharan Africans as White next? give me a break David5632 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to give your personal thoughts or grievances about the topic of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - What reliable sources state that most people from North Africa and West Asia/the Middle East identify as being "white" worldwide? The only sources I see cited in the infobox provided are from the United States census (USCB).[1] Where they consider people of European, Middle Eastern and North African ancestry to be "white". And other sources listing population estimates for Europe, Middle East and North Africa. But the United States does not represent the entire world. And even the U.S. census definitions are not widely agreed upon.The U.S. census sees Middle Eastern and North African people as white. Many don't I also don't know why there is an infobox for the "white" population worldwide if the idea of "whiteness" is such a debated construct that has no meaning outside of sociological contexts. There will never be any "exact" numbers because each country has different views of "race" and "ethnicity". There is no infobox for the Black people page. And the editor who added it to the "White people" page seems to have seems to have done so through American Census standards.[2]

In contrast, Middle Eastern/West Asians and North Africans aren't considered "white" in Canada, where pg. 10, question 19 of the census source provided in the Canada section of this article shows that "White" is a separate option from things like "Chinese", "Arab" and "West Asian".[3] And West Asians/Arabs are classified as being "visible minorities".[4] In the U.K., people of West Asian ancestry, such as Yemeni descent boxer Naseem Hamed have been considered part of the British Asian community, which are considered separate from the "White" category in the U.K. census[5] In pg. 18 of the 2011 Scottish census, "Arabs" are a separate category from "White/Other White".[6]

And no sources provided for countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Iran and so on explicitly mentions "race" in a context like the U.K. or the U.K (i.e - censuses listing the "white" population, the "black" population, etc). Many mentions of these demographics are just on ethnicity, and may rely largely on The CIA Factbook. Which might not be the most reliable because it doesn't provide the exact sources on where they got their actual information aside from a vague mention of a year's estimate.

Quite frankly, if we're going to put the debated Middle Easterners/West Asians and North Africans as part of the "white" population, why not East Asians as well? Before being considered racially "Yellow" (or Amarilla/Amarela; and "Yellow people" does not have its own page on Wikipedia) in the census of countries like Cuba or Brazil, they were historically classified as "White"(Pg. 81; Quote: the Chinese [...] have been grouped with the whites.), or in some contexts, considered part of the "White" population. As in Brazil, pg. 273 According to research by sociologist Edward Telles. (Quote: The Japanese were sometimes considered white.)

An article by American writer James Fallows, who has worked in China notes that the Chinese consider themselves to be "White" and talks about having "White skin" in the country. Which differs from other definitions of "whiteness".[7] Quote: White skin (the Chinese like to consider themselves white) and or being a Han (the dominant ethnic group) means a person is good. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

All of this simply highlights what an impossible concept race is. The definitions will always be provided by those with the power to define someone else as being in a "race" with lesser merit than their own. No discussion like this one can EVER reach a universally agreed conclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Spot on, mate! --Bduke (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hear hear EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

vitality level

shouldnt all the major races be a level 3? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Add White Dominican (Dominica) to Census and social definitions in different regions section. 175.115.74.173 (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Add White Surinamese to Census and social definitions in different regions section. 175.115.74.173 (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Add White Barbadian to Census and social definitions in different regions section. 175.115.74.173 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Add White Bahamian and Conch (people) to Census and social definitions in different regions section. 175.115.74.173 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have merged your 4 edit requests into one. Please try keep all your requested edits within a single request, as it makes it easier for editors to help. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No Asia? Are russians white?

No Asia? Are russians white? 82.213.253.77 (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The majority of the Russian population live in that part of the country considered to be in Europe, though like 'whiteness', the border between Europe and Asia is a social construct, rather than anything physical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. There appears to be heavy consensus against moving this page. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

---

White people → Whites – Per this Ngram here. "Whites" has a significantly higher usage compared with "White people". This move seems reasonable to me. Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Even ignoring the dubious Ngram argument, it is offensive. This article is about people, who deserve to be described as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Go into a paint store and ask about "whites" and see if the term is concise enough. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Agree with users above. --Bduke (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, could also refer to Shades of white and possibly other topics. The user also opened a parallel discussion at Talk:Black people#Requested move 13 December 2022. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And at Talk:Asian people. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - first thing that makes me think of Dress Hhites which are worn by at least the US Navy. Not useful or necessary. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• oppose ngram shoes nothing as 'whites' could refer other things boots and eggs come to mind. Also change the redirect to the dab page—blindlynx 14:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Opppose per WP:COMMONNAME, among other things, "whites" is definitely not more common when referring this set of people. Skynxnex (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Completely irrelevant information compared to the page title

This page for "white people" is solely based on colonialism which is the history of a few "white" countries out of many and just one part of the history. Today as white are considered many ethnoses. Where is the information of those white ethnoses? Where is their history? Where is the information about the "white" slaves in the Ottoman slave trade? The women and the young boys that were send to the Arab peninsula and North Africa? The 500 years of slavery that Eastern Europe was under? This is page on white people, very few of which had part in the Western colonial history. I see no reason for the whole page to be about how racist "white aka europeans are", the whole page is full of generalizations based on race. Never in Eastern Europe has "white" been used as identification. There is small mention but so vague that nobody would understand "by who, where, when and why is race not use as identification?". The history and social issues in whole Eastern Europe are ignored. And let's mention that as white are considered not only Europeans but also western Asians(caucasians). Where is this explained? When clicking on "white race" I would expect information about genetics and mutations(for example the first human with the blue eyed mutation), first tribes to populate Europe that will later be classified as "white", the complicated history of classification ("which Europeans are considered white and since when?"), here is perfectly appropriate to mention colonial Europe and how the "white" classification was used by certain groups, strong point should be made out of how slavs were not considered white 30 years ago(there is some small mention but is far from enough). While now they get generalized and blamed for what western whites had done. Exactly what this page is doing, generalizing white people under small part of western European history and completely ignoring any other white ethnoses history. List all the ethnic groups considered white and write about their history and culture. This is what the wiki page "White people" should have. This page should be renamed to "Colonial history of western Europeans", let someone non-based write about "White people". 78.83.93.154 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It is otherwise unclear as to what changes you wish to be made specifically. Generally speaking, what you are stating is almost certainly covered in Europe or Ethnic groups in Europe; as for the less established statements made, Otherwise, this article is written in a neutral manner. From the article this "Entered the major European languages in the later seventeenth century." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

I think this article should have a lead image. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES only prohibits photomontages and galleries. There doesn't seem to be any consensus against having lead images in our articles on broad groups of people, even when the choice of image will be necessarily arbitrary: Man and Woman, for example. What do others think? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What do I think? Picking out easily-identifiable living individuals as representative of a 'race' without their consent is offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There is also MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE which - in my opinion - is against adding images which don't help the reader understand the subject. And also: Who told you that the family in the image identifies as "White" ? There are many people who look white (see Passing (racial identity)), but identify as something else. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There are many people who look like one gender but identify as something else. Should the lead images of the aforementioned "Man" and "Woman" articles be removed? 173.9.122.185 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

SO arbitrary

The fact that this doesn't include the majority of Europeans who are called 'white' derogatorily all the time just shows how ridiculous and non-existent 'white people' is as a concept. No one is 'black' or 'white'. It is so utterly meaningless and arbitrary to group people based on arbitrary levels of melanin in their skin. 74.12.3.165 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Much of the lead of the article agrees with you. But we cannot deny that the term exists, and is heavily used in some (but obviously not all) of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

Add White Barbadian to Census and social definitions in different regions section. 45.8.146.82 (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Add White Trinidadians and Tobagonians to Census and social definitions in different regions section. 45.8.146.82 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Add White Angolans to Census and social definitions in different regions section.

https://academic.oup.com/liverpool-scholarship-online/book/43431/chapter/363272308 45.8.146.82 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Callmemirela 🍁 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

Add White demographic decline to see also section. 5.182.37.93 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Callmemirela 🍁 00:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

White population worldwide

Who added the claim that there are 1.1 billion white people worldwide? And how did they even come to that number for a category that is subjective and isnt included on most censuses outside of the US, Canada, Ireland and the UK? 2602:306:CD04:62F0:88AD:AF38:B8BA:16AC (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it pending verification. There's a census table further down the page that when totalled gives a figure of just under 500 million, although it's somewhat out of date. Tobus (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

New countries added to table

Tuxzos22, could you explain how this source supports the figure you added to the table, suggesting that 99% of the Greek population is white? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Georgia, Russia and Albania are not in the EU, but are European. Tuxzos22 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Where in the source does it establish what percentage of the population of Greece is white? There are no figures on race in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

TThe source is not explicit on that point, I will be looking for another one, thanks for the warning. Tuxzos22 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't be adding figures such as this unless you already have a source that supports them. Where are you getting the figures from if not from sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the additions for now. Some didn't have sources at all, and other sources that I checked out (e.g. Sweden's) didn't support the figures added or even mention race at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry What a waste of time. Some of them talk about ethnicity and not race. For example, if I see in a source: 33% Russians, 33% Africans and 33% Ukrainians, that country is 66% white even though the census does not mention the word white and has not made that sum... (the answer is obvious). Besides, in Scotland they do talk about race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxzos22 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The source you cited for Sweden doesn't mention ethnicity or race but citizenship. You can't derive race from citizenship. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do what you're doing in your example above. To assume that everyone from Africa is non-white or everyone from Russia or Ukraine is white is original research (and wrong). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, the error is minimal. But well, I took a screenshot and saved the figures, it's up to you, if they are released or if they continue to be those boring figures. Tuxzos22 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding data not supported by the sources being cited is not 'minimal'. It is a violation of the trust put in contributors, and liable to result in an indefinite block if continued. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of genetic ancestry sources

I've removed a figure of 62.5% for Colombia from the table, which was based on this source. The source finds that, amongst a sample of Colombians, European ancestry was 62.5%, native American ancestry 27.4%, West African ancestry 9.2% and East Asian ancestry 0.9%. Even if we assumed that race can be simply inferred from genetic ancestry, it's a mistake to read these results as suggesting that 62.5% of Colombians are white, 27.4% are indigenous, etc., because most Colombians are of mixed ancestry (the figures from the study being the average ancestry). For related reasons, I don't believe any of the genetic studies cited in the section White people#Census and social definitions in different regions belong there - what do they have to do with census and social definitions? I propose removing them, unless anyone can make the case that they should stay. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they need to be removed. Using genetic data in this way is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"N/D"?

The table features an abbreviation of "N/D". What does this stand for or mean? I'd suggest either defining it with the table or omitting it. CAVincent (talk) CAVincent (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should also remove the totals for the continents. Even if those have been calculated from a list of all countries on each continent (for the Africa one this isn't the case), each country's figure uses a different definition and relates to a different year. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Puertorico2 for dealing with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Colour blind

definitely for colour blind people to think someone is black or white 101.119.99.10 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It IS rather inaccurate in most cases. Here in Australia, those of us with European ancestry vary in shades from a pale pink through various degrees of brownness depending on how much sun exposure we've had. On the way to those shades of brown there can be some very bright pinks and reds. We do have the world's highest rate of skin cancer, so I mostly avoid he sun these days. Because so many of my fellow Australians also do this, we have a lot of people with Vitamin D deficiency. (Am I making my country sound attractive?) HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)