This is an archive of past discussions about White people. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Al-Andalus, what race do you think North Africans and Middle Easterns like Isabelle Adjani, Zinedine Zidane, Hafez al-Assad are? Blue? --Leonardo Alves 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an article about White people, not a platform for a Whiteness Studies style post-modernist deconstruction of 'whiteness'. Yet the latter is precisely what it is. This article describes 'White People' from the radical, controversial perspective of the burgeoning 'field' of 'Whiteness Studies', and does so without any suggestion to the reader that these views are in fact new and extremely controversial. As such, it is not an objective article - it is propganda.

I can see where a reference to Whiteness Studies would be entirely appropriate, complete with link to the Whiteness Studies article, but the thrust should be the conventional understanding of what is meant by White people (ie. the indigenous population of Europe and adjacent areas).

This page is also routinely vandalized by white supremacists, whose restricted, revisionist vision of 'the white race' is ironically quite similar to that of the Whiteness Studies crowd. Ironic only because one would think that white supremacists and left leaning Whiteness Studes enthusiasts should have very different views on race. In fact, their views are quite similar. Both favor a minimalist definition of 'white', where it refers either only to Europeans or only to Northern Europeans. Both favor exclusion of Jews from 'whiteness'.

However, their motives are quite different.

The white supremacists want to exclude Jews, Middle Easterners and North Africans from the definition of 'white' because they are either European or else Northern European supremacists, and anti-semites. The Whiteness Studies crowd are essentially the latest incarnation of 'The New Left' of the 1960s. They encourage a revisionist, minimalist definition of white with an eye towards maximizing the pool of people who might regard themselves as outside of and despised by the mainstream; such people are more likely to be open to leftwing ideology.

In any event, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of having to police this page every week, if not every day, to check for the inevitable returns of nonsensical claims such as:

• Germans, and Swedes were once classified as 'non-whites' in America
• Italians were only considered white after WW2
• Jews were only considered white after WW2
• The term white is historically ambiguous
• Obscure quotes cited out of context to support revisionist claims

As anyone familiar with the absurdities and idiosyncracies of law knows, amongst the countless thousands of pages of recorded legal opinions, you can find obscure legal documents supporting - or seemimg to support- almost any position you can imagine. You can doubtless find instances in which Jim Crow courts decide that a person with black African ancestry (a 'mulatto') is 'white'. Would this constitute evidence that mulatoes were considered white in the Jim Crow south? Of course not. Similarly, amongst the countless thousands of newspaper pages and books printed over the past 200 years, you can find quotes to create an illusion of 'evidence' for any revionist history you could imagine. Should such cherry picked oddities be considered as 'evidence' of extraordinary claims? Of course not. Yet these are precisely the sort of 'facts' that are routinely presented here as 'evidence' that a given white ethnic group was once regarded as something other than white.

This is not a platform for Whiteness Studies radicals, or self-styled 'Aryan' supremacists who want to limit the defintion of white to Nordics, or self-loathing blacks who want to claim Italians as 'brothas', or liberal Jews who want to be classified with non-whites, or whatever other perversion motivates the persistent vandals of this page. The bottom line is, claims without reputable, credible sources, or out of proper context, will be deleted - hourly if necessary.

Also, the US definition of 'white' is very relevant to this discussion, as most of it is about US racial politics. The fact that it defines Middle Easterners and North Africans as white may be "an inconvenient truth" for revisionists, but it is a fact nonetheless. STOP DELETING IT. Or don't - it will be replaced, every day - HOURLY if necessary. 68.197.153.198

My opinion is this article is vandalized most often by "Whiteness Studies" people who want to confuse the issue of "who is White?" to include just about everyone, and at the same time confuse people about European-descended people like the Irish, Germans and Italians. It boggles the mind that such contradictory ideas get pushed at the same time. According to some, Irish weren't White, but North Africans and Arabs are. This type of stuff is constantly making its way in the article! I am also sick of seeing the edits you listed above, we should start a list. FrankWSweet was insistent upon noting Irish aren't White, and that in Jim Crow South the Chinese were. People seem to want to say anything anti-white on this page. I almost wonder how many editors of this page are even White? This article could use some more input from White people, after all they know themselves, their people, and their history and culture best.Yukirat 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't commented on my compromises. I didn't say that these people were not white at all. Of course Irish people are white, and I do believe that many (though not all) North Africans and Arabs (esp. from the Levant, to a lesser degree in the Arabian Peninsula) are white. I've provided compromises which make evident the people's current status. Please comment on these so that I can incorporate them into the article. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yom - I think what you say above is quite reasonable and accurate- and I for one would probably be in favor of your going ahead and integrating it into the article(though I'd like to see exactly what you have in mind first), but it seems reasonable. Note that the only thing I object to here is the sort of radical revisionist nonsense cited above, not reasonable contributions to the article such as you suggest. Let's work it out - this is the way Wiki should work. 68.197.153.198

As Yakuriat hasn't commented or rejected on my additions for a week (but an anonymous IP who seems to be a reasonable contributor has), I'm going to add these now. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is far too open in its "white inclusion". We all know what white people look like. They look white. They're usually friendly, at least to your face. They like to talk about the weather. They don't look like some black guy from Morocco, and they can't dance. (Any white guy that can groove should not be included, because he's probably a lying Jew.)

Also, American whites are probably far more white than other whites largely because a preoccupation with the concept of "whiteness" is a prerequisite for inclusion in the classification.

Thank goodness this article is routinely vandalized. If I could, I'd defeinitely replace all the pictures with ones of Laura Bush.

IS there an ESOTERIC ALLEGORY concealed in the apparently innocent legend of Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs?

IS there?

In Europe of XIX century section is very uninformative, there was a lot of racial prejudice against Slavs in German parts of Europe at that time. --Molobo 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, the sentence you changed about Middle Easterners made it ambiguous because it was ungrammatical: "all Middle Easterners are North Africans are White". Did you mean to delete the words "are White", making them North Africans who are not white, or did you mean that they are both North African and white? If you meant the former, please include a citation, as that is a complete reversal of the original sentence. Also, please be more careful when editing - you can hit the preview button to catch any mistakes. In addition, the sentence you inserted, "However, the truth to the matter is that idea or concept of "Whiteness" is imaginary." is obviously your own point of view - please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Thanks. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say they are Caucasoid (which they are) than "white" (which is ambiguous). ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not insert "However, the truth to the matter is that idea or concept of 'Whiteness' is imaginary." It was I who took it out, and then you who put it back in.

Secondly, the current US Government definition of "White" includes ALL Middle Easterners and North Africans. It originally read "U.S. federal agencies agree that Middle Easterners are White". I changed it to "U.S. federal agencies agree that all Middle Easterners are North Africans are White". But I can see the problem even with this. It should more properly read "U.S. federal agencies group all Middle Easterners are North Africans as White", as this is how the current official US government parameters are set.

Whether or not this grouping made by the US government is correct or not (of all Middle Easterners and North Africans being classified as "White") is not the debate. All we are doing is stating the current official US government parameters for race based on national origin, including parameters for classifcation as "White".

Personally, I've already mentioned the flaw in this method of giving a national group a racial value, especially for most Middle Eastern and North African countries given the heterogeneity of their populations. For example, responding Israeli categorises you as White, disregarding whether or not you actually are an Ashkenazi (European descended) Israeli, a Falasha (Ethiopian descended) Israeli, a Teimani (Yemenite descended) Israeli, a Cochin (Indian descended) Israeli, etc.

Also, there are many North Africans but also Middle Easterners (ie, Southwest Asia: Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Palestine, etc) who physically cannot be classified as "White" in any of its definitionsdue to the extremely dark skin and "kinky" hair textures of some of them (the origin of these features are not the issue here). While most of even these North Africans and Middle Easterners do accept the government definition of White that is applied to them, there are some that reject it and even those who have sought to be reclasified (whether as simply "North African", "Middle Easterner", "Arab", or whatever other, including upt to "African American" as some have sought). This may be because the individual may resemble a "black American" more than a "white American", and simply don't personally identify with the white classifcation imposed by the US government. Al-Andalus 08:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the edit history, and I did indeed accidentally reinsert "However, the truth to the matter is that idea or concept of "Whiteness" is imaginary." Whoops. Since you named a correct citation in your comment, I inserted it into the article. The revised sentence you provided still was ungrammatical, so I corrected it to "U.S. federal agencies group all Middle Easterners who are North Africans as White" (emphasis mine). I certainly didn't mean to challenge who you consider white or the specific racial makeup of Israel - I was only concerned with the technical correctness of that section. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This information is unessential to a discussion of Whites. It's unencyclopedic and obscure as it pertains to this subject. If Chinese (Asians) attended White schools, because they were not to attend black-only schools, this has nothing to do with Asians or Chinese being White. It's totally irrelevant to the subject. This kind of information belongs on a page about Chinese-Americans. Please stick to the subject article. The whole idea of an encyclopedia article discussing isolated cases of Asians or "Chinese" in "Jim Crow Mississippi" during the early 20th century is POV and irrelevant.Yukirat 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It gives an important insight into the sociological nature of the term white. Even though they were not ever classified as white, they were allowed the legal priveleges of white status. Further, they were deemed "Honorary Whites", and this clearly exemplifies the nature of how "white" was and is a label of privilege and why people throughout history have sought and have slowly came to be included (so long as at least the caucasoid criterion was met). Had they been a caucasoid people, even the Chinese would have come to be included as "Whites" in America, and this says something about the expanding definition of white as used in America. Al-Andalus 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's trivial information that belongs on a Chinese-American history article.Yukirat 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? Expalin yourself in the same manner I've explained myselg of its value in this article. Al-Andalus 04:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is useful in noting that the definition of white was flexible and generally was meant in the past to simply mean non-black. Btw Yukirat, you have deleted insertions of mine that I discussed above and got some consensus for (you didn't respond for a week) without providing any good rationale. I'm going to reinsert these. Also, do not call reverting to a version you disagree with vandalism. It is not vandalism unless it is unequivocally aimed toward hurting the page and deleting information, and calling such edits vandalism discourages working together and promotes edit warring. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mass revert out information, with no discussion, and at the same time add back objectionable, trivial and unencyclopedic information. Your edits from 07:11 through 07:21 29 June 2006, were all reverts without discussion or any explanation. Please discuss and don't be lazy and hasty in reverting. Thanks. My edits all included rationale. Can you do the same henceforth? Yukirat 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the message must be sent to you that you cannot mass delete content without first explaining in talk why you find it objectionable, and then backing yourself up with sources. You've made it know that it is objectionable and irrelevant to your judgement, but you haven't actually accounted why. As it is, everything you delete from the article, which has been contrubuted by various users at different times throughout the articles development, all have their sources.

Also, it is unnecessary to be linking every single nationality in Europe in the "see also" section. This sends an invitation to an neverending list of links which will rival the actual article in its length. Already people have begun adding other nationalities, ethnic groups, some of which are not white in most definitions. Al-Andalus 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)'

That doesn't make the others non-White, and therefore kindly do not remove. Why didn't you personally remove Arab-American? Are you sure you don't have POV? You reverted edits from 5:35 through 7:01 29 June 2006 without discussion, and each of those edits had rationale listed. Please do not revert without stating your reasons.Yukirat 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I did remove Arab American. Al-Andalus 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not commented on your revert of the 5:35 through 7:01 29 June 2006 edits. Please discuss. It is you who started the mass reverts, with no discussion.Yukirat 04:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mass revert"? Please don't detract from explaining your mass deletions. Until you back your deletions the reverts are warranted. Al-Andalus 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Every edit 5:35 through 7:01 29 June 2006 was backed and explained. Your edits from 07:11 through 07:21 29 June 2006 were not. Please start practising what you preach, and put the time in. Do not revert these improvements a second time without discussion, otherwise it can be considered vandalism. Thanks.Yukirat 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do Patrick Stewart and Laura Bush have their pictures in the article? Surely there are available better and more readily identifiable examples of white people. I also dispute the captions which read ". . . is classified as white" on grounds that they give weight to specific conceptions of whiteness and thus are not reflective of the broader conception outlined (or ostensibly outlined) in the article. A.G. Pinkwater 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I find something quite consfusing. In the section where it says that in the past decades, European people of non-Anglo-, northern and eastern european are considered racial minorities is a bunch of foolishness. It is true that people who are of Italian, Greek, Portuguese, and Balkan Europeans (serbs, croats) are called Wogs but that does not mean anything. It's like calling a British person a "pom", or a French person a "frog." It does not make one non-white, so that part is really unnecessary. Besides that government of Australia concludes that all Europeans are white based on anthropological evidence, and not because one is a shade of tan while the other is milk white. I find it wierd how a "light-skinned" Black (socially imposed oxymoron) will be called Black, yet a swarthy skinned European can sometimes be denied white.

If I recall properly, during the Sydney race riots which occured a mere 6 months ago, the rioters were calling for ethnic cleansing of wogs, proudly wearing the statement and others of the same nature on t-shirts and placards, and stating Australia was a white country for whites only.

"A number of the demonstrators wore clothing bearing racially-divisive slogans such as "We Grew Here, You Flew Here", "Wog Free Zone", "Aussie Pride", "Fuck Allah - Save 'Nulla", and "Ethnic Cleansing Unit". Chants of "Lebs out", "Lebs go home" Yukirat 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling a Brit a "pom" is a cultural thing, with no racial connotations. Calling someone a wog, especially in the past but still today, has racial and non-white connotations in Australia which are irrespective of any cultural difference (as with many third generation wogs whose culture is nothing but Aussie, and are not culturally distinct from other Australians exept for their ethnic heritage). Al-Andalus 04:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should've written light-skinned "Black" rather than "light-skinned" Black. Al-Andalus 04:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sydney race riots involved Lebanese Muslims, not Mediteranean or Southern Europeans. "On Sunday, December 11, 2005, approximately 5000 people had gathered in an ad-hoc protest to "reclaim the beach" from recently-reported incidents of alleged assaults and intimidatory behaviour by groups of non-locals, most of whom were identified in the earlier media reports as Middle Eastern youths from the suburbs of Western Sydney. Yukirat 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not about who the word "wog" was used on, but how it was used. That is, in a context of "non-White".

Also, don't forget the differences escalated to a riot because of the anti-wog anti-Leb "White Australian" picnic (as the media here reported) where they assulted people, and that in turn brought about the retaliations. As for the Lebanese side, they involved not only Muslims but also Christians. Both the Lebanese Christian and Lebanese Muslim community leaders sent out pleads for their community to keep their teenage sons at home in lockdown to avoid them going on another retaliatory rampade.

Furthermore, those "Lebanese" included a few other Middle Easterners. "Lebanese" is almost synonymous with Middle Eastern in Australia. Having said that all the Lebanese were not Mulsims, it should be noted that not all the Muslims were Lebanese (or any other Middle Easterners or North Africans deemed "Lebanese" in Aussie vernacular), and they included South Asians, Bosians, Indonesians and black Africans; though this was when they went out to "defend" the Lakemba Mosque. Additionally, even in the latter example of people going to "defend" the mosque, Lebanese Christians were also present at that in solidarity with fellow Lebanese (in this case Muslim Lebanese). Al-Andalus 13:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Debate over what is white and what is not has a fairly simple answer in America, especially for those of us who live in the Midwest and the South. Look around you its obvious listen to what are parents thought of as white. It not by more so appearance as it is ancestry. First off the idea of being accepted as white by the majority of Americans and citizens of the UK is that a person is a decedant of a Germanic Tribe or Celctic Tribe. Its as simple as that. White supremacy groups narrow it down to that and socially speaking discrimnation is outrwardly pointed at people outside of these boundaries. Being heritage from any of these countries are undisputably white: UK, Ireland, Northern France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and luxembourg. Now the original Aryan branch of Hitlers supremacy order did not include that Italians or the Japanese at the top of his socially acceptable categories, instead they were viewed as necessary for communication. Infact Hitler would have preffered to have an alliance with the British rather that the Italians as expressed his view on the Americans and the British in Mein Kampf as confused Aryans. The KKK was much more discrimnate than the Nazi's and to this certain views still exist in Parts of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, North Texas, North Florida, and Western S. Carolina amongst the elderly citizens. Their rules of White acceptance contained guidelines of strictly Anglo-Saxon Descent and either being affiliated with only Protestants. Over year in the social aspect of Racism in the U.S. has shifted greatly, with the decline of Blacks as being prevalent in todays society and declining Black Populations with the exception in pop-culture and the Pacific Northwest. White Americans have somewhat accepted Blacks as their only true american counterparts sharing similarities in religion and food and basic roots in music. This can be explained with the generation after the civil rights struggle being forced to accept blacks and many relationships and bonds were formed all through out the nation in many communities, now this generation dominates the work force. However nationalism amongst blacks and whites have formed hate between immigrants and hispanics ass seen in acts after Sept. 11th, 2001. Say if you are to be of something resembling Middle Eastern descent you are likely to be riducled, persecuted, or excluded from social events. If you are to be of Hispanic descent especially in Texas and Metro Atlanta you are considered to have a permanent status in the working class category and considered to have little education. Immigrants from Slavic countries face discrimination especially as youths in the school systems often being called "The people of Ugly" or jokes made about the hygene methods of some and the facial differences between them and Americans. Racism is still alive today but its focus has shifted as I look back on American Society I see that Racism is ievitable. It takes people time to accepts people they look at as different. Now all this appreciation for Black culture was seen 50 years ago by whites as corrupting America.

Regarding pictures for this article, can you kindly stop inserting POV and controversy? Go post on whiteness studies. Vicente Fox has Irish lineage.

Let's kindly stick to pictures of people are uncontroverisally and universally known as White. Thanks, otherwise take it to Whiteness studies for controversy. Let's avoid it here.Yukirat 05:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To only put up pictures of people who qualify as White based on ONLY ONE definition of the term constitutes pushing a POV on the article. It's bad enough that you are employing a White nationalist definition of "White" (an extreme one at that) in determining which of those individuals in the pictures is "White", and then trying to exclude them from the article if they don't meet the requirements of the definition you are employing.

Instead, my proposition is that the article have more pictures (in addition to Laura Bush and Neil Armostrong) of other people who qualify as White under different definitions.

For example, we would put up Vicente Fox and Eva Longoria File:Evalongoria.jpg and state that both of them would be classified as white under US guideliness. Meanwhile, Fox would also qualify as white under common definitions but not Longoria. Further, because of his Mexican origin, a minority view (primarily White nationalists) would also classify Fox as non-White, and oviously Longoria too because her whiteness already failed in the common definition (which is looser than white nationalits).

Then we could put up the picture of Middle Easterners and North Africans, including these Yemenite men, , and state that under US guideliness all of them would be classified as White because of their Yemenite nationality. However, under common definitions and any other stricter definitions they would be excluded. Obviously these are not representative of all Middle Easterner and North Americans, but it is to show all who could be classified as white according to various definitions.

There you could also put up a picture of Muammar al-Gaddafi , Edward Said 100px, John Abizaid , and again state that under US guideliness all would be classified as White because of their national origins. However, under common definitions and any other stricter definitions some or all would be excluded. Again, the pictures are not representative of what every Libyan, Palestinian or Lebanese looks like, because there are lighter Libyans and darker Lebanese, with more or lesser caucasoid facial features.

Then we could put up this picture of a Jewish couple, one a European Jew and the other an Iranian Jew, and state that under US guideliness they are both classified as White because of their Jewish ethnicity, or if Israeli, because of their Israeli nationality. However, we would then state that under common definitions only the European Jew would be classified as White, while the Iranian Jew would be excluded more often than not. And then further state that both of them, even the European Jew, would not considered White by white nationalists because of their Jewish ethnicity (regardless of what they actually looked like).

Then there is Jessica Alba or Paula Abdul File:ForeverYourGirl.jpeg and other like them are White by government standards, but not by common standards. Especially in Paula Adbul's case (disregarding her Jewishness, which btw is alone a factor of her official classifiction as White) she is often mistaken for African American. Al-Andalus 08:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

POST ALL OF THIS CONTROVERSY ON WHITENESS STUDIES. This article should contain photos of people who are uncontroversially "White". It's really quite simple. Your actions are cause needless controversy. Vicente Fox is part Irish, but to place the photo of the former president of MEXICO, of all places, is needlessly provoctive and controverisal. Needlessly. Please stop it.Yukirat 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need pictures of people who are unquestionably white? One picture would suffice. Pictures of people who are debatably-white is more informative, as they are an opportunity to explain the boundary. -Will Beback 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like alot of people on this site want to incorporate their nationalities as white, I don't know wether this gives them a sense of hiearchy or feeling of belonging to but the the fact is some of them will never be white. Middle Easterners and those from Asia Minor your are not white. You do not Practice Judeo-Christianity or Nordic Pagaen religions. You do not resemble someone who is considered white. Your culture is totally Different than whites. As for eastern europeans most in the Western World would like to disclude you from the category of being white but your status is disputable.

Do not revert others contributions without discussion. If you continue to do this, it will be considered vandalism/ Thanks.Yukirat 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This comming from someone who has been warned many times before (not by me) to not delete content that has sources, however much you may dislike them. Al-Andalus 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, but dubious and unencyclopedic, hateful and anti, pure POV and biased "sources" do not make an encyclopedia article. If you want to justify your reversions, please do so. Otherwise, stop reverting others' work and contributions without discussion, that's vandalism. Yukirat 07:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All and any source could be labelled biased. All that is required is for the source to be staing something than goes against your POV, and that on its own would constitue its "bias". The prime thing is that it be factual. If it is factual, no matter how biased it may seem to any person's given POV, then it is legitimate. Al-Andalus 08:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There are many credible sources and appropriate quotes and many that are not. You insist on placing POV, bias, and (sometimes) hate into the article. Stop it, that's vandalism. Do not revert others' contributions without providing your rationale, which you have never done. Kindly justify your edits. Thanks. Yukirat 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I contribute "hate into the article"? These accusations are getting a bit wild, and I would ask that if you trully believe that is the case, that you substanciate your claims, and not just make them.

For someone who too often reverts and deletes legitimately sourced and referenced content (contributed by various wikipedians who adher to wikipedia's guideliness), accompanying it with edit summaries that state nothing more than "rv/delete anti-White ...." as their reason for deletion and who is trying to impose the definition of "White" as espoused only by White nationalists (extremist ones at that), it is somewhat a joke for you to be accusing me of contributing "hate".

You misuse the term "anti-White" too much, and this is a practise which I've known only White extremists to do when discourse (or in this case article content) is clearly not anti-anything, but merely putting sourced references which they don't want published.

I would kindly ask you to reconsider your position on only putting pictures of "White" people who fit your definition. Perhaps we'll get to the stage where this article got to before, where all pictures where ommitted because it is very subjective.

Let's get one thing straight, this article has never been about establishing what the "true" definition of White is (and thus nor is it about putting only pictures of those who would fit that supposed "true" definition) since there isn't one. The verity of any definition of White will only ever be as legitimate as the POV of the person who believes in that particular definition. Al-Andalus 03:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not put the picture of the Mexican President as an example of White, that is unencyclopedic and needlessly controversial. Vicente Fox is part Irish. To include him is misleading and totally POV, please stop it. 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are yet to explain why and to who it is "controversial". I think we would all like to hear that. Al-Andalus 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, to write: that Neil Armstrong is white by official U.S. standards, common defintions, and White nationalist interpretations shows an anti-white bias. Neil Armstrong is White, no ifs, ands or buts, only someome with POV would even dispute such a basic thing. Stop it.Yukirat 06:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fist of all, what is your definition of "anti-White". Then expalin how the content you have single out fits your definition of "anti-White". Nei Armostrong is White, "no ifs, ands or buts". Well that is basically what the caption reads. Al-Andalus 06:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that Neil Armstrong is White, and that the Mexican President is too controversial for this encycolpeida article. Seriously, please stop it.Yukirat 06:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Explain why. I don't want you blocked, ok. I'm trying to work with you here. Al-Andalus 06:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Explain your edits please.Yukirat 06:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke. I said I was trying to work with you, but you obviously don't want to. I have done nothing more than exhaust my fingers typing endlessly in talk, and you can not do anything but answer with one sentence replies that merely stat "that's anti-White", "that's controversial", "that's hate", etc. etc. etc. without explaining as to why a given thing is "anti-White", "controversial". To top it off, you haven't even pointed out what was "hate", though you allege something was.

You know you are taking this in circles as a method to kill time. You can't even define what anti-White is according to you, seeing that you use it so often. You won't explain why you consider something controversial, yet you continue to state that it is "controversial". Al-Andalus 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are in violation of the 3 RR rule. Your deletions need discussion. Do not delete or revert the contributions of others without discussion. When will you substantiate your edits? Your insistence on pushing "anti" comments on Irish, Italian, and Eastern Europeans speak for themsleves. I ask anyone to kindly review the non-encyclopedic (and hateful) info you want inserted into this article. Your deliberate deletions about Mexican Americans need discussion. Please stop the mass reverts, it's vandalism. Stop it.Yukirat 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also interested in understanding why Vicente Fox's picture is controversial...--Ismael76 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The following statement was reverted for being excessively POV:

"This suggests that 'non-whites', or at least Jews, were accepted at the highest levels of 19th century Anglo society, since the treasurer of the Confederate States, Judah Benjamin, was Jewish, as was the late 19th century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Benjamin D'Israeli. Unfortunately, there are no comparable examples of German, Irish, or Italians being accepted so broadly in this same period."

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Review the edits without ANY discussion. Stop it please.Yukirat 07:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of problems related to this section: I have to mention it here since my edits were reverted without explanation:

• Firstly and most importantly, there is no evidence that the inhabitants of the Pas valley are descendents of Berbers from Islamic Spain. Their genetic make up can be also the result of some paleolithic migration from North Africa. It seems more likely considering the remote part of Northern Spain in which the region is located. There are, to my knowledge, no historical documents which back up any theory on berber slaves.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
• Secondly, the expulsion of the moriscos (a maximum of 300,000 were expelled -probably less since Moriscos in Castille had the tendency to move to different regions of the country taking up new identities) had little or no effect on the racial make up of the country. A majority of Muslims in Spain had converted to catholicism throughout the reconquest and Christian Kingdoms grew stronger. A majority of Spaniards were, in fact, originally muslim at one point. Moriscos were simply the minority which had decided to mantain their former religion. This is a cultural phenomenon and has no provable implications regarding race.
• Thirdly, the sections states that this haplotype is found in regions where sarracens or moors lived. When did Sarracens live in Italy or France (apart from a brief period in Sicily)??? This is incorrect. This explains why U6 and other Amazight genetic markers are much less common in France and the italic peninsula than in the Iberian peninsula.
• Fourthly, since North Africans and Middle Easterners are classed as white according to this article, why is this influence mentioned as "foreign" to the supposed "white race"?

--Ismael76 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not because of what the contributers explained , but because of what they revealed. What an extraordinary sense of insecurity is being projected onto issues of ethnicity! ±Ian Spackman 19:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have several times introduced a contribution that states more a less that countries like the United States are more multiracial than white and it is being erased. I want to introduce this:

In some countries, like the United States, the nationś identity as white is often overstated, since it is more a multiracial country than a white nation, although the media and parts of the population often favor the idea of presenting the country as a white nation, which reflects the social value placed on that concept in some countries.

I have not discussed it before because I was not able to.

I know the US well, and to claim that it is a white nation is ridiculous.

It seems that the opinions of white nationalists from the non-white country, the United States of America, are very important here. What is this here, Stormfront or Wikipedia.

Aren't the pictures uncontroversial? Does anyone question whether Laura Bush and Neil Armstrong are White? Then why is there a problem with them? I don't get it. My feeling is that the pictures for an encyclopedia article should be uncontroversial, and the current ones are uncontoversial, are they not? Someone placed the President of Mexico on this page, which is needlessly POV and controversial, not to mention confusing since Vicente Fox is part Irish, not typically Mexican. Yukirat 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the comments in those pictures. About Vicente Fox you much be kidding. What do you mean, that Laura Bush is a typical American? Do you mean that Americans are the best example for white people? Do you mean that white people from ohter countries are not white? do you mean that only white Americans are white? America is a multiracial country, so stop filling this article with your crap about white people as if the Americans were the white people. Either you do not know the United States or you are one of those people full of fantasy in the United Sates that for some reason think that their country is a white country. People from the United States, especially famous white people, are not a good example. Those examples are just a continuation of the attempts by some people in the US to present their country as a white country, a country that is one of the most multiracial countries in the world.

American whites are definitely more white than the white people in Europe. A lot of white people in Europe are cool and they know how to drink wine and cook. Some of them can even dance, especially the Italians. American whites are way whiter than Euro-whites. Whiteness is not only a genetic makeup (if it is at all), it's a "purist" collectivist mindset. This is the mindset that probably drove the original whites to the North, and definitly drove the pilgrims to America (who were too white for England!).

Please add information that is relevant about Europe and place a photo of an indigenous European if you like, however, kindly do not put in anything that is obviously POV or controversial. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or debate forum. The comments in those photos placed by Al Andalus are anti-White POV and needlessly controversial. Laura Bush is White, and so is Neil Armstrong. Period. That's it. Leave it at that, the facts. Simple. It's getting quite absurd, the level of anti-White POV and hate that makes its way into this article. Regarding pics, would anyone object to a photo of Jesse Jackson or Condoleeza Rice as black? Would Al Andalus go further and push POV comments like: "Condoleeza Rice is classifed as Black, by black nationalist standards"? It's absurd and unecyclopedic. Al Andalus' unsubstantiated and undiscussed reverts are vandalism at this point. Can someone please research it? Thanks. Yukirat 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yukirat, there are now four wikipedians who have asked you to detail what exactly is controversial and POV about Vicente Fox. The reason the pictures now say white "by official U.S. standards, common defintions, and most White nationalist interpretations; some extreme ones would exclude him due to his Mexican national origin" was to make a concesion to you, because you keep on removing any pictures of people who are not white by one specific standard. We cannot have pictures of people who are white only according to the definition of extreme white nationalists. This page is not about presenting one definition of white, or insinuiating the "correct" definition. There is no correct definition. At the very most, all the different definitin of white merely share a common feature, and that is that it inmplies people descended from caucasoid Europeans. That is not to say that only those people are white, however, but it is the most common feature of all the different definitions. By the way, have we foorgotten that white is a fluid sociological term loosely based on the concept of race. Some people here are conducting themselves as if "white" were some solid scientific term used to describe a universally accepted fact.

The most NEUTRAL direction for this article is to place fotos of people who classify as white according to various definitions, who may or may not fall short of "white" according to stricter definitions. Either that, or all pictures have to to be removed.

I reckon it's about time a vote is conducted about this issue.

Also, you still haven't explained your definition of "anti-White".

Another thing. I don't understand why you keep inserting "and the near east" into the intro. The consideration of Near Easterners (ie. Middle Easterners) and North African as white is an exception. Not all definitions encompase them. It is mostly the US government definition that does. Most common understanding don't, and most even stricter ones don't either. Nevetheless, you keep on adding "and near east". Even so, you then go on to contradict yourself by continuing to replace "a large proportion of residents in the Arab world are dark-skinned enough to be classified as non-White by the standards of most Americans" with "the majority of residents in the Arab world are dark-skinned enough to be classified as non-White by the standards of most Americans". So which is it? The fact is some Middle Easterners and North Africans are "white" (i'm going by most common definitins, not the stricter white nationalist or looser US government), others clearly aren't, some are questionable. The thing is, it cannot be said that all are, or all aren't, since that region is extremely heterogenous. Al-Andalus 03:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "anti-White" is to push the POV that Arabs, North Africans and Hispanics are "White", meanwhile pushing text that says that Europeans, like Italians, Germans, and Irish aren't or somehow their status is in doubt. Stop it. Vicente Fox is the former Mexican President, and he's part Irish, so he is not an appropriate person to place in the article. What you are trying to do is fool people, and trying to make Mexicans "White" when it is clear that they are normally not considered so. I think this article needs more input from White people, as they know who their own people are. To call anyone who might think Vicente Fox is inappropriate, an extreme White nationalist is a personal attack and absurd. You must assume good faith, not vandalize others' edits, and not make personal attacks. Vicente Fox is needlessly controversial, POV, and you know it. I do appreciate your rare response on the Discussion page. I do't know what you mean about inserting the "near east" into the intro, that's not me, however it is clear you have an interest in Middle Easterners and Arabs on this page of "White people". Please try to understand that it's viewed as POV to the majority of White people. It might be helpful if some Europeans or White Austalians helped edit this page more. But Al Andalus might not like that, because they do not consider Arabs, Berbers, and North Africans to be the same, or White. Al Andalus, are you going to make personal attacks against Europeans if they edit this page too? This page is not just about the US census definition, you are correct. Thanks. Yukirat 05:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

What do you mean by Europeans. I am European and regard those people as white because they are. I have already said it, this is about white people in the world, not about the definition given by a group of pathetic white nationalists from the United States. White is the colloquial term for Caucasian. Neo-Nazi definitions do not have a place here. They are repugnant and so are the people who are behind them. Besides, if you want to speak about how a bunch of ignorant Americans who beleive that they are a white nation, define white, then go to the article , white american, or create it, so that you can express all you crap there. The attempts to try and monopolize this concept at a global level are not acceptable.

As to your comments about Vicente Fox, your ignorance knows no limits. Are you an exception or just a reflection of the majority of Americans who think that they are white?. Mexico is a multiracial country. Mestizos and Amerindians make up the majority of the population, still white people make up a minority of about 10 per cent of the population, and taking into account that Mexico has a population of more that 100 million people, there are about 10 million Mexicans that are white.

About your comments about Hispanics, they are not a race, man. You have countries in Latin America, like Argentina and Uruguay that are much whiter than the United States, because the percentage of whites is much higher than in the US. If you mean Hispanics in the US, most of them are multiracial, but many of them are pure Amerindian, others pure black, others Asian and others whiter than you.

You could include images of Hamid Karzai and Imran Khan. Both are ethnic Pashtuns belonging to the same race, but one is from Afghanistan and classed as `White' in the U.S. Census whilst the other is from Pakistan and classed as `Asian' in the U.S. census, even though they belong to the same race.

That is a good suggestion, presenting two people from the same ethnic group who are classified differently in one specific definition of "white" (the US government definition) becuase they are native to different countries (ie. the ethnic group is split by modern international borders). However, both of these are not considered "white" according to most definitions outside the official US definition. And as you see, even in the official US definition, one of those two guys already didn't make the "white" cut. Al-Andalus 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures are also representative of white people. They should be placed in the article. We must oppose those white nationalist morons that are trying to hijack this place. In fact, as many pictures as possible would be welcome to clarify the issue. I also urge people here to be carefull, especially with some American white nationalists, who are trying to impose their crap in this article. I would also like to remind people here that this article is not about white people in the US, but about white people in the world.This is an international Encyclopeadia, not an Encyclopeadia about the US. We do not have to put up with their crap and propaganda.

They are representaive of "white people" in so far as the US census is concerned. Remember, there is not true or standard definition of white. If we're talking about caucasoid, well then that is a different matter, and that word does have a specific definition. However, "white" and caucasoid have never been synonymous, even though they overlap. Al-Andalus 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The US Census may view South and Central Asians as White, however Europeans do not, neither do Australians and the majorty of White Americans. Sorry, please push your POV on Whiteness studies where it is more appropriate. Most especially, the Spaniards, who you would like everyone to believe are non-White, while maintaining that North Africans are, most certainly don't agree with your views. Yukirat 06:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

t do you mean by Europeans. I am European and regard those people as white because they are. I have already said it, this is about white people in the world, not about the definition given by a group of pathetic white nationalists from the United States. White is the colloquial term for Caucasian. Neo-Nazi definitions do not have a place here. They are repugnant and so are the people who are behind them. Besides, if you want to speak about how a bunch of ignorant Americans who beliive that they are a white nation, define white, then go to the article, white american, so that you can express all you crap there. The attempts to try and monopolize this concept at a global level are not acceptable.

---

What do you mean by Europeans. I am European and regard those people as white because they are. I have already said it, this is about white people in the world, not about the definition given by a group of pathetic white nationalists from the United States. White is the colloquial term for Caucasian. Neo-Nazi definitions do not have a place here. They are repugnant and so are the people who are behind them. Besides, if you want to speak about how a bunch of ignorant Americans who beliive that they are a white nation, define white, then go to the article, white american, so that you can express all you crap there. The attempts to try and monopolize this concept at a global level are not acceptable.

Your personal attacks must end. WP:NPA Yukirat 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

What do you mean by Europeans. I am European and regard those people as white because they are. I have already said it, this is about white people in the world, not about the definition given by a group of pathetic white nationalists from the United States. White is the colloquial term for Caucasian. Neo-Nazi definitions do not have a place here. They are repugnant and so are the people who are behind them. If the view of white people in the US is the same as the one of Neo-Nazis, the only thing that it means is that they are a bunch of repugnant Neo-Nazis. Besides, if you want to speak about how a bunch of ignorant Americans who believe that they are a white nation, define white, then go to the article , white American, or create it, so that you can express all you crap there. The attempts to try and monopolize this concept at a global level are not acceptable.

As to your comments about Vicente Fox, your ignorance knows no limits. Are you an exception or just a reflection of the majority of Americans who think that they are white?. Mexico is a multiracial country. Mestizos and Amerindians make up the majority of the population, still white people make up a minority of about 10 per cent of the population, and taking into account that Mexico has a population of more that 100 million people, there are about 10 million Mexicans that are white.

About your comments about Hispanics, they are not a race, man. You have countries in Latin America, like Argentina and Uruguay that are much whiter than the United States, because the percentage of whites is much higher than in the US. If you mean Hispanics in the US, most of them are multiracial, but many of them are pure Amerindian, others pure black, others Asian and others whiter than you.

And do not insult me when you say this is all anti-white stuff. I am white, probably whiter than you, and detest how some Nazis want to abuse my race for their own petty objectives.

• No more personal attacks please, that's against Wikipedia policy (NPA). Please stop it. I don't know whether you are White or not, and frankly it doesn't matter, only the facts and accurate history for the article do. I am well aware that there are White, Mulatto, Amerindian, Black, and Mestizo Hispanics. However, as many Spaniards will tell you, there is much confusion among non-Hispanic people who lump all Spanish speakers together. Therefore, the attempt to post a photo of a mestizo or White Hispanic, who just so happens to be the past President of an overwhelmingly mestizo country is needlessly confusing and POV. I will assume good faith that you are not trying to insert that photo just to "fool" people into believing that Mexico and Mexicans are not mostly mesitzo. It's needlessly confusing. Would you place a photo of Hugo Chavez on the Black article because Chavez is part-Black zambo? No, I don't see you doing that one.

• Also, as you also know, Europeans do not consider Arabs and North Africans to be White either, their definition is more limited than the U.S. Census defintion. You hang your hat on the U.S. Census defintion which does not mirror social realities or the opinion of the majority of Whites. It may be perhaps the most inclusive definition, but this is not an article about the U.S. Census definition, to be twisted in anti-White-racist fashion as you are commonly caught trying to do. No more vandalism or ranting personal attacks, and kindly start assuming good faith. Despite what the "U.S. Census" definition says, the MAJORITY of the Whites in the world DO NOT view the majoarity of Arabs and Middle Easterners or North Africans or South Asians as White. So please stop this POV pushing. Thanks. Lastly, I'm sorry but anyone who would remove the photos of Neil Armstrong and Laura Bush, who are clearly White, has some obvious POV motivation. Leave it be, they are White, OK? Thanks. Removing the photos of two clearly non-objectionable White people, on this White people article, is "anti-White" POV. Stop it.Yukirat 19:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

NO YuKIRAT, you are a stupid rat, so stupid as to continue with your stupid rants about who is white and who is not, full of shit and ignorance. I am not going to give you a break. Maybe it is you who is trying to confuse and fool people that only Americans are white, but people are not so stupid anymore to let you get away with it. Do not come with that Neo-Nazi stuff and tell me stories about good faith. And I tell you something, I am white, whiter than you, because I am from Europe, and if you are American, you can be one of those who pass for white but who are in fact multiracial, which is quite probable if you come from America.

---

Kindly stop deleting and reverting others' edits without discussion. Kindly explain your edits. This has gone on long enough. Do not continue to put in anti-White POV (for instance that "Italians were lynched based on race") when this kind of stuff is hateful and false. It was a mafia and criminal case. Please read fully before you try to touch that section again with your blatant POV and hateful anti-European bias. [1]

Enough.

Yukirat 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove entire paragraphs of accurate information. Regarding Mexicans, they have NOT been considered White for the majority of the existence of the United States of America. The USA waged wars against Mexico. As recently as 1930 they were considered separate from Whites, separate enough that anyone here who claims they were or are even today White (other than according to the "self-identifying" US Census data) is pushing POV and propaganda: [2].

OK, now then, it is more accurate to say that Mexicans have mostly not been considered White, however today according to the US Census they sometimes are (sometimes are Hispanic non-White), but furthermore that in social and non-governmental situations Mexicans are considered most often non-White. I cannot believe what some POV types will stoop to attempt to claim no distictions between Mexicans and Whites. It's totally absurd and nonsensical. Any other gringos or Whites want to contribute to this article? It could use some input from White people.Yukirat 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Mexican is a nationality not a race. Its like asking whether there is a distinction between blacks and Americans. --Ismael76 10:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who said Mexicans were a race? Most Mexicans are non-White mestizos and amerindians (see: Aztecs, Mayans, aztec calendar, and Casta.Yukirat 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

At least he provided a link to one of his sources (this one). We have to be happy about that. LOL. I'll add it to the article and remove the "‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}" tag. Al-Andalus 11:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Al Andalus has never sourced any of his edits.Yukirat 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, in Yurikat's opinion, "Mexican" equates to non-White (or mestizo to be more precise) and "American" equates to White. The truth is, as you said, "Mexican" is a nationality, not a race. So is a white Mexican not a Mexican? Is a black American not American? Are mestizos the only Mexicans and Whites the only Americans? If you belive this to be so, then I think we have found the POV.

To be fair, I think the problem lies with Yukirat having misunderstood the article. He believes (and corect me if I am wrong) that the article is somehow implying that the Mexican people (whether in Mexico or Meixcan Americans) as a whole, are White. Let me clarify this right now; the article says and implies no such thing. In fact, the edition as I have edited it makes sure that the reader understands that Mexicans are not a race, even in periods where they were legally classified as a race and all were alloted the white label or all were alloted the non-white label. Today, the US government separates Hispanicity (and as such, also Mexican national origin) from race. The two are independant of each other.

The problem with past official US race guidelines was that it considered "Mexicans" a race, when this is obviously not the case. This error of giving "Mexican" a racial value is why at different points in US history, when Mexicans were granted White status, it applied to all Mexicans, whether they were white or not, and when Mexicans were given non-White status, again it applied to all Mexicans, even if they happend to be white. Obviously all Mexicans are not white, although some are. And it should be just as obvious that all Mexicans are not mestizo, even though most are. And let us not forget that large Amerindian minority. By the way, the white minority of Mexico is not that small either.

Now Yukirat is commiting the same error as past official US race guidelines commited, by he too considering "Mexicans" to be a race. In his case, however, all Mexicans are alloted the non-White label. As already pointed out, while the majority of Mexicans are mestizo (technically making them half-white), there are also those who are amerindian and those who are white. Both of the latter are not Mestizo. Does that take away from their Mexican national origin? I think not. So, no, Mexicans are not a race.

The Mexican people are not white; although some are. The Mexican people are not mestizo, although most are. The Mexican people are not Amerindian, although some are. The Mexican people are not a race. One would think this was an easy concept to grasp. Al-Andalus 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is divesity in Mexico. There ia a minority of White Mexicans, however the vast majority of the country is mestizo. Nowhere did I say that Mexicans were a "race". What is true is that the majority of Mexicans are non-White mestizos and amerindians, as is the vast majority of the population of Mexico City, Oaxaca, Guadalajara, etc.

I noticed that the image of Patrick Stewart that was previously here was deleted. This must be based on the fact that he is NOT American, Gentile, nor blond, blue eyed, nor pro-Zionist, like the `White' people dispayed! Obviously George Clooney MUST NOT BE WHITE for the same or similar reasons!

Patrick Stewart is uncontroversially White. NO problems there.Yukirat 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, why, because they are not a race, but a nationality. Americans come in all colours, shades and races. Stupid Americans, like Yukirat, should stop their propaganda. Americans themselves are very close to becoming a majority non-white country, if they are not one already, and I am sure that white Americans will not like to be called Non-White because many of their countrymen are not. If Vicente Fox is not white, because he is Mexican, then Laura Bush is not white, because she is American. Americans can try and fool people all that they want, but people are not colourblind and America is not a white country. There are people in America who are white and people who are not, like in many other parts of the world. So, if the pictures of white people must go because they are not Americans, because they are Mexicans or of any other nationality, then the pictures of white Americans must go too.

I never said Americans were a race, and furthermore I did not say that Americans are White. Kindly stop making personal attacks. The propagandists are those who push anti-White POV on the sections on Europeans, and then turn around and try to state that most Mexicans, North Africans, Arabs, South Asians are White. It's absurd. It's amazing how bad some people want to be classified as White. Yukirat 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Read yourself myfriend. You contradict yourself all the time. What is amazing is how bad Americans want to sell the lie that they are white.

---

Why does AlAndalus erase the reference to Uruguay and Argentina from the list of predominantly white nations? Is this vandalism? I dont see what else it could be...--Ismael76 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Argentina (85%) and Uruguay (88%) can go in, but when they are added people quicky demand Brazil to be placed as well, and Brazil is very contentious, given that it is only the most inflated of estimates that state the just over 50% figure for whites in that country. Many within that inflated 50% figure are white only by Brazilian standards, which can and does include people of not only slight black and/or amerindian admixture, but discernable admixture as well.

Then when finding a compromise for not putting Brazil, people put "southern Brazil", but this is not that good an option, since "southern Brazil" is not a country, and coutries is what the paragraph is mentioning. Then if "southern Brazil" is written we'll also see people adding things like "western Bolivia", "central Colombia", etc. We already had problems with one user who constantly inserted Chile, which although "whiter" than say Peru, is nowhere as white as Argentina. Only up to 30% of Chileans could be classified as white, and this country could also only be written (if written at all) as "central Chile". Al-Andalus 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Parts of South America" is fine then...

What about Turkey? Turks are as white as any other Mediterranean country, be it Spain, Italy, Greece or Portugal. Same goes for Algerians, Lebanese and the rest of the mediterranean basin... they are all white, right? --Ismael76 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Turks are not White, other than in perhaps "the U.S. Census" defintion that many non-Whites hang their hat on. Given the historical and cultural wars between Ottomans and Europeans, and the fact that the religious differences are great, plus the differences in race, all of this combined make Turks clearly non-White. Europeans do not view Turks as the same as Europeans, and Turks themselves living in Europe often claim that they are victims of discrimination for being non-White. Yukirat 22:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Uruguay and Argentina have very large and notable populations of White people. Argentina also has a large mestizo population. Noting that European descended Whites live in Southern Brazil is a OK because it ,is factual (many Germans, Italians, etc.), as it would also be approriate to say that the Southwestern United States and Texas have large Mexican-American and mestizo populations.Yukirat 22:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Chile has a higher proportion of Whites than does Mexico. Of all Latin American countries, Mexico probably has the least Whites, or non-mestizo European descendants, as a proportion of it population. Peru, like Mexico, also has very few Whites as a % of its population. Chile, while having some Whites, is mostly mestizo. Peru is mostly amerindian.Yukirat 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yurikat I am in Europe right now and I know many Turks over here. Apart from the fact that physically they are as white as any other European mediterranean population, they are generally considered (and consider themselves) to be white and European, even though the concept of white is not really used all that much in continental Europe. I even saw a documentary on Neo-Nazi organisations in the UK which had Turkish members. Turks suffer discrimination on the basis of their religion (and -in Germany- social condition as an immigrant community) not because of their "race". In the Balkans everyone is considered white (Turks included) except maybe for the Roma communities.

Albanians, Goranis, Bosniaks and Chechens are also Muslim: Does this make them non-white? And Armenians? Are they white? They are christians and originate in Eastern Turkey (the supposedly less "white" part of Turkey). How about Cypriots? Are they white? They are generally darker skinned than most turks... And Lebanese? (there are many of them who look nordic with blue eyes and blonde or red hair, and nearly half of the country is christian...).

All this goes to show what a meaningless concept "white" is. And Yurikat's statements show that it is basically an anglo-saxon concept which cannot be extended to the rest of the world, where its meaning differs completely.

In any case, Yurikat, it is not you who is going to decide who is white and who is not....--Ismael76 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with you that Turks are as white as Mediterranean Europeans. Besides, skin color alone is not the sole determining factor. Turks are not White, and no indigenous Europeans believe that they are the same. The vast mamjority of Turks and Moors are considered alien to Europeans, it has been so throughout history, see Ottoman Empire. Currently, there is concern about admiting Turkey to the European Union, and this concern is based on religious and cultural differences as well. As you see, there is no one definition of White, most especially solely the "U.S. Census definition" that many seem to hang their hat on to be considered White. I doubt anybody in Turkey believes they are "White" and not "Turkish". Let's suffice it to say that the vast majority of White people do not view the vast majority of Turks as White, and vice-versa. Come on. 75.2.84.14 02:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? And how do you know this? Have you asked the majority of white people one by one? I assure you that in the Balkans (the only place where Europeans and Turks have coexisted for centuries) everyone views Turks as white. In Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot community is actually "darker" than the Turkish one. Since when being Turkish is in contradiction with being white?

And some Europeans have qualms about Turkey joining the EU because it is a predominantly MUSLIM country not because of their race. --Ismael76 09:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Turks do look very southern european, but that alone isnt enough to make someone white. Turkish culture (they are muslim) is very alien to mainstream european culture and the turkish language is related to japanese and korean out of all things ! Using the same reasoning, chechnyans, bosnians and other muslims are also non white. The only majority white countries in latin america are argentina and uruguay. Costa rica is mostly mestizo, not white as some sources say. Mexico is only 9% white. Mexican society favors european appearances over indian ones. That is why you see whites most of time when you switch on to a mexican tv channel.

---

i do not understand why latinos are not considered white...as well as spanish...yet most spanish are white except for a select who are descendants of moors.

• • See: Casta Yukirat 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

So Turks are not white because of their culture and language??? And Bosniaks are not white because of their language... except that Bosniaks are EXACTLY the same (language included) as Serbs and Croats except for the religion...They happen to be the same people... What about Fins ???? Finish is Related to Altaic Siberian languages (of non white people- so that you understand), should we exclude these people because of their language?

--Ismael76 09:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • The Ottoman Empire was ruled by the Sultan. I encourage anyone and everyone to read this Sultan link. I can assure you that nobody in the history of Western Civilization viewed the Sultan as White. Turks are non-White and you know it. Yukirat 20:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • It is not for you or me to decide whether Turks or other Middle Easterners are White. Yukirat, you making the statement "Turks are non-White and you know it." just expresses your POV. Many view Turks and other Middle Easterners as White, while many view them as non-White. Please review WP:NPOV. --Gramaic | Talk 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • You're right, it's not "you" or "me" only making the determination. The vast majority of White people do not view Turks as White. Did you read the link to the Ottoman Empire or Sultan? Your comments are welcome, but to say Turks are White is POV. Please show any source that Turks were considered White by Westerners at any time in history, otherwise kindly stop pushing that POV. Show your source. I would agree with the below that if any of the Asian, Middle Eastern, or African peoples were considered White, it would be Iranians, however only in rare or specific narrow academic circumstances. The fact remains that the "vast majority" of White Americans most certainly to do view Iranians as White. The "vast majority" of White Americans, Europeans and Australians do not view Turks as White either. This is just reality, shouldn't reality be a factor here? Yukirat 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And where do you get this info on the "vast majority", Yurikat?? Or have you simply made it up yourself. The "vast majority of White Americans" couldnt find New York on a map, let alone Turkey. The problem with you Yurikat is that you are confusing what you believe with what your supposed majority of white people (i.e. those who you have decided are white) believe. In any case what ignorant Americans who have never come to Europe believe or ignore about the rest of the world is irrelevant to this article. --Ismael76 11:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You appear very interested in saying that Turks "are White". At least you admit that White people exist and that you want to include Turks under this name/term. Ismael76 wrote: "I assure you that in the Balkans (the only place where Europeans and Turks have coexisted for centuries) everyone views Turks as white." Thanks for being quite clear about your desire to classify Turks as "White".Yukirat 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The population of Uruguay is over 3 million inhabitants and 39 million in Argentina.The majority of the population is Caucasian European and the minority is Native American.It doesn't exist a large racial diversity like the U.S. and other countries.The population of Brazil is about 186 million inhabitants.Brazil has a large African-Brazilian group and the largest Japanese colony in the world.But Brazil also has the largest number of Italians outside Italy.Brazil has 25 million Italians, U.S. has 16 million and Argentina has 12 million. The population of strict European Caucasian descendants in Brazil is larger than Argentina and Uruguay.It's superior the number of Iberians, Italians, Germans, Hollanders and Belgians, Scandinavians, Greeks, Hungarians, Armenians, French descendants, Finnish descendants and Slav Nations descendants.There's a small group of Irish and British descendants.Brazil also has a large Syrian-Lebanese community and the Jewish population in Brazil is about 200,000 and 400,000 in Argentina.

The population in Southern Brazil is 27 million and 40 million in the state of São Paulo.

Brazil has 36 million Lusitanians; 25 million Italians; 15 million Germans and Austrians; 14 million Spaniards; 6 million Arabians, mostly from Syria and Lebanon; 200,000 Jews, 2 million Japaneses, 50,000 Koreans; 1 million Poles; 700,000 Ukrainians; 69 million African descendants and other ethnic groups.

Readers of this site, go to either Yahoo or Google IMAGES section and write in the word `Caucasoid'. About 3 times, a famous image of a Pashtun tribesman appears FIRST. NOT an image of a blond Nordic Swede! This was a black and white photo taken in the 60s and used by anthropologist Carlton s. Coon in his book, The Living Races Of Man. This was one of five photos he used to illustrate the 5 races he identified of humans, clustering them into categories Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid and Capoid. This was an image of a Pashtun from Pakistan and hence classed as `Asian' in the U.S. Census, Despite the fact that he is antropologically Caucasian and of Aryan origin. Why do you White racialists think this image was used and not a Northern European?

I am assuming you are using the term Aryan in it's proper and true ethno-linguistic definition which refers to the various Iranian peoples, and not as the hijacked term which was reinvented by White European supremacists and transformed into "Aryan race" which was made synonymous with Nordic, thus disassosiating Aryan from what it originally meant. "Aryan" never had a "Nordic" meaning. Al-Andalus 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

--Yes, I was using 'Aryan' in its original meaning which BTW does not only just include Iranian Peoples but Northern Indic peoples.

The lynching of eleven Italians in New Orleans was ethnically and racially related. The New Orlean lynch mob targeted all Italians within the jail, regardless of whether the Italians had been connected to the Mafia incident. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the lynching had no racial overtones. It was the early 1900's in the deep South, and the lynching victims were swarthy Catholic people coming to "take jobs" away from Southerners. Are you really going to convince me that the whole incident was just about the Mafia, and had nothing to do with Anti-Italianism and hatred for a darker people? If you want to throw away a whole history of discrimination and prejudice against Italian Americans, that's you're choice. But as some one who has to deal with the remnants of my people's past, as a person who has been called "dago," "guinea," and "greaseball," I will not forget that event simply because you dismiss it as purely Mafia-related. Malcolm X was actually quoted as saying he didn't think Italians were truly "mainstream white." Regardless of whether you or I agree, that's what he said. And it's not a made-up quote by some ass trying to make you sympathize with Italians. It's real, and I think it's worth noting. Hey, I'm not here to say Italians are some oppressed ethnic group. I'm not some nut on a soapbox selling propaganda. All I wrote in the article is fact based. If you live in an area where there is no prejudice against any ethnic group, good for you, I hope someday I can live in your neighborhood. If you have grown up in these recent politically correct decades, and have not yet encountered racism and descrimination, good for you. Seriously. But I just want you to know that not all neighborhoods, neither hundred years ago nor today, have accepted Italians and Puerto Ricans and Middle Easterners as "white," no matter what the government says in their censuses.

• Regarding the lynching, this was an isolated case, not based on race: [3]. Why is it that people come on to this site and cite isolated cases, quotes, and exceptions and then try to make that the rule? It is most often anti-White bias that one sees placed here in exactly this fashion. Italians were White upon arrival in the USA and they were not "lynched" except for this one isolated case as far as I know. Besides the people lynched were of the anarchist brigand classes of Southern Italian immigrants. In other words, they were trouble-makers and mafioso and the article clearly lays out the wholly unique circumstances and history of this event. Please read this article and let's discuss. Thanks.Yukirat 07:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure what to make about your comment by black nationalist Malcolm X if true, because Adolf Hitler, another racist nationalist, a White one, didn't think Italians were non-White. Personally, I don't think Malcolm X's comment is encyclopedic, nor should we be quoting Hitler or Mussolini either. Today, there are two Italians on the Supreme Court, I don't think anyone in the USA thinks of them as non-Whites. I am not aware that Italians have ever qualified as non-White minorities as have Hispanics, like Puerto Ricans. For the entire time Italians have been in the USA, they have been classified as White. IF there was prejudice, so what? The Irish were discriminated against but they are as White as can be. Chinese were discriminated against too, but are as non-White as can be. Catholics were discriminated against for cultural reasons that had nothing to do with race. Germans can be either Catholics or Protestant Lutherans, however they are still White in either case. I'm not sure you can equate discrimination as being tied to White or non-White. Yukirat 07:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • There are actually multiple cases of Italians being lynched in the South. This was not a one-time-only incident.

Can you provide a source for that? Considering the tens of millions of Italians that emigrated to the United States and were White at Ellis Island and beyond, a handful of vigilante cases does not make a strong case for much of anything, but of course people (like Al Andalus) want to highlight something barely notable like that on this Wikipedia article. Let's see some credible sources for this stuff. Thanks.Yukirat 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are people on this site blinded by their own ignorance and pride? does it matter who considers Italians to be white? does it make them a better nationality? No it doesn't, If we are speaking historically and strictly for history Adolf Hitler did not view Italians as Aryans. Hitler did not classify people into white, black, red, yellow, but of origination. Since the Italians are not of Tuetonic origin they were not Aryans. Infact in several cases He displayed his bias towards them as quoted to have said "Three Italian soldiers = One German soldier".

Good question. Perhaps you might help to keep the "Middle Easterners, North Africans, Arabs, South Asians, and Mexicans are White" POV from getting out of control here. As it stands in 2006, the most common theme for White is descent from indigenous European peoples. There are the excpetions to this, for instance the US Census definition, however the vast majority of White people view other European-descended peoples as White. That has to be the most appropriate theme today, is that not correct? Regarding Adolf Hitler do you have a source for that info? He was a big fan of Benito Moussolini. He also didn't seem to have a problem with Spaniards or General Franco either, so while he might not have thought of Latins as Teutonic Germans, and vice-versa, it seems incorrect to say Adolf Hitler viewed Latins as non-White or inferior.Yukirat 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove such a totally relevant link. The history of White people basically is Western Civlization. Why would anyone remove such a thing? To say that "today" Japan might be considered a "Western" nation may be true, but this only refers to Japan since 1946, or at best since Japan fought the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, but once again this exception should not become the rule to justify a POV deletion. Japan is probably the only Asian country that is called "Western" however this media-type term is not synonymous to the history of Western Civilization.

It is surprising how this article attracts people with racist or neo-nazi tendencies as well as people who seem to be extremely ignorant. This is not surprising since the former is the product of the latter.

Comments like "its suprising how bad people want to be classified as white" by Yurikat and his sweeping judgements on who is and is not to be considered white make me think he is to be classed in this group of editors.

Attempts to link the white race to "western civilisation" is another example of racism/ignorance. The western civilisation is based on a number of influences: Mainly Greek, Roman and Middle Eastern. The latter is doubly important: Both through Christianity - a middle eastern religion- and through the heavy influence of Muslim Spain on the Renaissance period which was a crucial period in the development of Western civilisation. Not all "whites" have been involved in the development of this civilisation and not all those who have contributed to it have been white.

Indeed, the concept of white as a race is rather recent (19th century). It meant nothing before this period except a description of an individual person's colour of skin. This should be clearly explained on the article.

It is argued that the white race as a concept appeared with modern 18th and 19th century colonialism as an attempt to reconcile the ideals of the enlightenment and French revolution (freedom, equality etc...) which had spread throughout Europe with the hard reality of domination and exploitation of many of the subtropical and tropical regions throughout the world (India, Africa and South East Asia) as well as the slave trade. These ideals would thus apply only to an imagined "superior" white-skinned "race" who would include those who were in position of colonial dominance and exclude those who suffered colonial subjugation. This interpretation of the "white race" was an imagined concept which has remained to this day as a baggage of the past. When looked at properly, as a concept, it falls apart since it does not exist except as an anachronistic conceptualisation which served Western European colonialism and American slavery. --Ismael76 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is surprising how this article attracts people with racist or anti-White (or maybe philo-White) tendencies as well as people who seem to be extremely ignorant. Anyone who would try to disassociate Whites and Western Civilization is absurd. Ismael: "it's suprising how bad people want to be classified as white" strikes a nerve with you? Why? The vast majority of North Africans, Arabs, Gitanos, Mexicans, Indians, Africans, South Asians and Chinese are not "White". Why would you even care to push such POV? Seriously. Explain yourself. Yukirat 07:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ismael76 wrote: "The latter is doubly important: Both through Christianity - a middle eastern religion- and through the heavy influence of Muslim Spain on the Renaissance period which was a crucial period in the development of Western civilisation."

Is that all you can hang your hat on to associate the Middle East with "White" and Western Civilization? That's it? Christianity didn't become a serious force in Western Civilization until Constantine accepted it and promoted it. The Greeks and Romans, who started Western Civilization, with all their contributions to Western history did not accept it and even preceded it. Muslim Spain influenced the Renaissance? What? Care to back that up? Sorry, but the reconquest and the expulsion of Muslims/Moors from Spain started well before that.

Where are all the White people on Wikipedia?!! Western Civilization and White people are synonymous. If a person attends any school in the Western world this is obvious. It is not an insult to say the Middle Easterners and Africans have their own separate and distinct civilisations, religions, and cultures. It is totally ABSURD to assume the history of the Middle East and/or Turkey is associated with Western Civ.Yukirat 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to further highlight your own ignorance Yurikat. I suggest you read a little bit and then we talk..I can only assume you are in high school or maybe younger.--Ismael76 09:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Turks and "the vast majority" of Mexicans are non-White. The entire world knows this. Spaniards expelled the Muslims and Moors from Europe and Western Civ. Greeks are part of Western Civ and Turks are not. Sorry you don't like the basic facts as they are taught in 100% of the schools in the West, there isn't much anyone can do for you, this is after all the English version of Wikipeida. Perhaps you could edit the Arabic version to push your propaganda. It won't work here, Isamel.

The Mexican flag references and displays their people's Aztec-indian and indigenous heritage. The Mexicans despised the European Spaniards. Today, they use the word gringo as an insult to Americans of European-descent. Kindly stop pushing falsehoods for POV purposes. This is an encyclopedia. It's not an insult to say that the majority of Mexicans are non-White and are proud of their Aztec ancestry. OK? Yukirat 06:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have explained to him the difference between basic concepts like nationality and race. Yet he continues to use statements like "Mexicans are not white" as if a white Mexican is not white because of his place of birth. He is stupid and hopeless, one of thes sad Americans who want to appropriate everything, even the concept of being white, althoug their country is itself one of the most multiracial countries in the world. We must stop this guy who is nothing but a poor idiot, but idiots can be very annoying.

The "vast majority" of Mexicans are non-White. That is a fact. I believe the article covers this, that there are White Mexicans, however they are a small minority. Mexico is perhaps the least White nation in all of Latin America with the exception of Peru. Mexico may be diverse and multi-racial, however the vast majority of the people are comprised of non-White races (see: Casta).

I read the article and it states "white people". It does not say white people according to stupid Americans etc, so I do not understand the kind of American crap in this article. Everyone who knows the Americans knows about their proverbial ignorance. In fact, they do not even know where they are. So, stop introducing ignorant American views in this subject, which is global by nature.

Have introduced this comment several times:

"White people in Argentina and Uruguay make up 97% and 88% of the population respectively, according to the CIA World Factbook, a percentage that is much higher than in the United States, for example."

What is wrong with that? Maybe some Americans here want to hide the fact that these countries are much whiter than the United States, although they like to call them Hispanics with the connotation of not being white? I am introducing this important fact again.

Yanksox seems very concerned when pictures depicting white Americans are deleted. It is interesting, though, that he did not show that concern when pictures depicting white people form other countries were deleted.

I urge everyone here to fight for this article, so that it is not highjacked by ignorant American white nationalists. Either post pictures of white people from different countries or regions of delete the American ones.

One of the problems with some users in this article is that they confuse white people with white trash. A lot of people who call themselves white in America are not white people properly speaking, they are white trash, so stop using the name of honest white people to describe yourselves.

Where did you get the information that Argentina and Uruguay have mostly-white population? Just visit Buenos Aires or Montevideo and realize.--201.214.116.32 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe according to you someone has to be blonde and blue eyed to classify as white... Does he have to have freckles as well? --Ismael76 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blond and blue eyed people and those with freckles are indeed White. User:201.214.116.32, the simple answer to your question is that Argentina and Uruguay have large populations of Spanish and Italian descended people, along with other European immigrants too. The populations of these countries are not as mixed with non-White amerindian and black races as has occurred in other Latin Americans countries and the Caribbean. Argentina and Uruguay's European immigrants are relatively new (coming in great waves especially around World War I and II), as compared to the majority of the partial European admixture in Mexicans mestizos which dates back hundreds of years to the Spanish colonial period. Mexico never had an influx of European immigrants on the scale of Argentina. It is believed (I have no data) and presumed that the majority of European descended people in Argentina and and Uruguay today have not mixed with amerindians, the result of which is termed mestizo. Please review Demographics of Argentina.Yukirat 04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So are blonde, freckled, blue-eyed Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians or Lebanese white? Or do you want to class them as a separate "race", Yurikat? --Ismael76 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What about fair skinned Hindus or sandy hair coloured blue eyed people from northern Pakistan?

• These are exceptions to the rule. The article already contains tons of "hedge" words to cover this stuff: i.e. "the majority of Mexicans are non-white" covers this, or "many Whites this", while "some North Africans that" etc. There are entire sections of the article devoted to discussing "North Africans and Berbers and Middle Easterners" and even Asians!! The issue is not to try to force POV that Middle Easterners and Mexicans are White, when it is only a small minority that are. Most Mexicans and Middle Eastern people and their leaders themselves don't think they are the same as Whites. This has already been covered countless times in Talk and it's getting tiresome. Hindus and Pakistanis are not considered White by perhaps 99.5% of the White people that exist, or practically all people that exist, but go ahead push your POV about and create a whole paragraph why don't you? Find some prejudicical White-hating source about caucasoids being the definition, or pull out the U.S. Census defintion, however this doesn't change the true fact that practically every White person on the planet doesn't view Pakistanis or Hindus from India as White. Wikipedia shouldn't stand for this absurdity.Yukirat 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia also doesn't stand for violations of the three revert rule and enforcing your point of view on articles, Yukirat. Do you have any sources for your claims? Until you show some good ones, you're going to have to stop adding a blatant, personal, POV to the article. Picaroon9288 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for contributing to discussion. The 3RR you refer to was due to User:Al-Andalus who was vandalizing the page (see his page item 75 and 77, before they are "archived"). Let's discuss specifically what you object to. Seriously, I think you have it backwards. Others are trying to push POV. What specifically do you object to? Every single one of my edits has been justified on Discussion or Edit Summary, whereas many others are not. Kindly review the Discussion history above, what exactly is missing, other than no justification from the mass reverters? Thanks.Yukirat 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that we dont understand you Yukirat. You come up with all these baseless percentages on what you think other people think. What is your definition of "white"? Is it based on someone's nationality, religion or colour of skin?

• I have never once inserted a percentage into the article. I suppose what we must find consensus on is the choice of "hedge" words. For instance "the majority of (Mexicans/Pakistanis/insert other controversial group) are non-White, or most (Mexicans/Pakistanis/insert other controversial group)are non-white, etc. followed by a "however some are" or "however a small minority are" etc. Let's be real here. The vast majority of Mexicans are non-White, still are today, have been since the founding of the USA in 1776, and even their own community leaders will tell you the same thing, including Aztec references on Mexico's flag. The definition isn't set in stone, however I believe we should be fair and accurate, and resist obvious POV pushers that want to turn the article into a polemic for the historically non-White races, non-Western cultures, religions, and people with darker skin color. Let's start looking at some of the article's specific text instead of making personal attacks. Thanks.Yukirat 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To the rest of editors: I think it should be made clear on the article that the "white race" is an imagined concept which has no basis in scientific or biological fact. This explains why definitions of who are and are not white are so heterogenous and depend on the historical and national context of where the term is used. --Ismael76 10:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but at the same time the concept/term exists in the world, and nobody disputes that. So you can't just eliminate the whole article.Yukirat 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok but you still havent given me your definition of what it means to be white....--Ismael76 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Me? You are the concern here. So which is it for you: that everyone is White including Pakistanis, Hindus, Turks, Mexicans, North Africans, South Asians, even Chinese people in "Jim Crow Mississippi", or is it suddenly "it should be made clear on the article that the "white race" is an imagined concept which has no basis in scientific or biological fact"? Which is it with you? You want to simultaneously include everyone to be White and then say Whites don't exist? I think your anti-White bias is very clear from all angles. Can we discuss specific article text at this point?Yukirat 23:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is quite clear: The caucasoid race exists biologically -including North Africans, South and West Asians and Europeans. (There are 3 races as far as I know: negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid). As for the "White race" it is purely a sociocultural construct and thus its definition is flexible. In Australia it means one thing, in Mauritania another and in Brazil another. You dont seem to be able to come up with an answer to my question.--Ismael76 10:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions:

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

Dear Mr Yukirat. It is ironic that you made the bold comment about Pakistanis and Hindus just today. I just had a cab driver, drive to work this morning from Pakistan. He had light skin and blue eyes and I thought he was European but his accent gave it away as being South Asian. I could not say that ALL South Asians were `white', the vast majority are not. But on an individual basis, there are many in NUMBER (not percentage) that could pass for European ( given the fact that their population exceeds 1 billion). The vast majority of people I know would not consider a swarthy Greek, Italian or Spaniard as `white' if he didn't look it either! If the U.S. Government classed South Asians as `white' between 1950-1970, then there must have been a reason and BTW, why did you NOT write the comment about Middle-Easterners as being strictly non- white in bold when many Arabs are mixed with Negro blood and quite obvious in their appearance??

Click below to view the images of Pakistani Senator Mateen Shah, Indian General Arjun Ray, and Kashmiri politician Omar Abdullah in that order!

http://www.senate.gov.pk/images/Members/Mateen%20Shah.jpg

http://www.indusschool.com/gnray.jpg

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/00feb05/omar.jpg

The above photos BTW are not "BOLLYWOOD BABES" who were photo super-imposed to look `white' either!! (lol!)

• They are the exception to the rule and you know it. Are they mixed race? How do you know their backgrounds? What's next, we find one "white" chinese person and all of a sudden Asians are White too? It's absurd. The "vast majority" of Indians and Pakistanis are non-White and Ghandi would agree with me. Here is a photo (the first one on google images, using a hopefully non-arguable subject (i.e. not choosing a slum or the impoverished as the example), and it's clear that the majority of Pakistanis are non-White, OK? [[4]] at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050329/sports.htm Geez....Yukirat 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of these cricket players are white.

Yukirat, your opinions are going to keep on being reverted until you've provide a source. This is an encyclopedia, and you seem to be unable to prove that this "rule" about who is white and who isn't is not just your opinion. See WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY. Picaroon9288 22:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally. What specifically are you objecting to? Let's discuss. The article as it stands makes no "rule" about anything, as far as I can tell. That's why there are entire paragraphs about North Africans, Mexicans, South Asians, etc. in it. But it shouldn't contain POV that is not true, or the stuff that borderlines on the absurd, such as Asians and (anything but a small minority) of Mexicans are White. This will continue to be reverted out. I'd like to see some citations too, I have been asking and asking, and there has been a paucity of Discussion from anyone about any of the actual text. Let's discuss.Yukirat 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

~Regarding the photos of the `white' looking South Asians, I also was the one who made the comment about the first Image of `Caucasoid' on Google/ Yahoo images the first being that of a Pashtun from Northern Pakistan. What do you Mr Yukirat mean by asking if they are mixed race? People from Northern India and Pakistan are a mix of Indo-Aryan, Persian, Afghan, Dravidian, Arab, Turkish even Ancient Greek ancestry. EVERYONE IS MIXED UP! Just like Southern Europeans. Are they also non-white in your opinion? I am not here to have a photo competition (which it seems that you are, as you were defensive by sending one as well) but why are you incredulous of accepting that there are European looking people native to places outside Europe? You seem to also have an anti-Indian attitude as well, why such anger? If they were `mixed race', (which I believe they are not `half' anything) then this proves that the diversity between South Asians and Europeans is not really that big anyway as anthropologists have classed many South Asians as Caucasian. I do not think if they were half Negro-white or half Chinese-white then it would produce an appearance like the photos I have sent - it would be exceptionally rare if it did.

• It seemed that maybe they might be part English as compared to, for instance Ghandi. Just a thought that I had, so can we kindly not dwell on it? I think we should dwell on the article's text. You wrote: "People from Northern India and Pakistan are a mix of Indo-Aryan, Persian, Afghan, Dravidian, Arab, Turkish even Ancient Greek ancestry." I know this is going to get me in trouble with non-Whites, but I'm sorry, this mix is not "commonly" thought of as White by "the vast majority" of the White people in Europe, America or Australia, despite what some may want to hear. I doubt Latin American Whites would consider that mix "White" either. Can you provide a source that would show any indication that that mix would be or ever has been considered White? This is getting ridiculous. Aren't there any White people that edit this article?? So now we have added Afghanis to the list of Whites too. So far it seems as if only sub-Saharan Africans are left out as non-White in the Wikipedia universe.Yukirat 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yukirat, my basic complaint is that, in this article, to label people as white or not based completely on whether their skin tone is as light as your opinion on the "darkest skin a white person can have" is not acceptable. It should be clear in the article that there are many different opinions, from the past and the present. They should all be touched on, instead of eliminating text about how North Africans and Mexicans are widely viewed as white. (For the moment, I'm steering clear of the whiteness of people of the Indian subcontinent.)

• Mexicans and North Africans are not widely viewed as White. Where is your source for that? you could find many more sources where these groups claim discrimination from and by Whites. I don't think they consider themselves White (i.e. North Africans in Europe, or Mexicans in the USA). Their community leaders continually stress their minority statuses and in the case of the USA, Mexicans have a legal minority status that Whites do not have.Yukirat 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article shouldn't state that North Africans are white, and I disagree with your previous edits that have made it sound as if to be white, you have to be exclusively caucasoid and affiliated with Western Civilization. I've tried to work that into the present version of the second paragraph, at least. Do you have any objections to it? Also, a note to the many anons who have been editing recently: be civil. Picaroon9288 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems with it, but we should try to agree on what is "commonly" thought of as White first, and then go into the exceptions to the rule. Western civilization and White people go hand in hand. I cannot believe this needs to be debated. If there is one common thread between White people, that is it. There are no absolutes and every single paragraph in the article contains those hedge words that make the text non-absolute. The key phrase in that text is "the most common feature...", it doesn't say "the exclusive feature..." and it never has, and I have never put that kind of stuff in.Yukirat 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a supposed "race" be defined by cultural affiliation? This is all very wierd.... In what way is a Chechen not white and a Maltese white? Is it because the latter are EU members and the former are muslim? Does your religion define your race? Will I go yellow if I convert to Buhdism?

And one last thing... What defines western civilisation? Is it Christianity? Democracy? Secularism? Does Lebanon qualify? Or Mexico?

Wikipedia is not an instrument to spread the ignorance of a "vast majority" of ignorant people in the US who think that what they believe is what the rest of the world believes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think you should understand this.

--Ismael76 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• For information, click on Western Civilization. I could go dig out my high school textbook from "History of Western Civilzation" class, but according to you, it and White people don't technically exist. Absurd. Yawn. Yukirat 00:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah right. Practice what you preach. For instance stop putting in false info like Spain was ruled by moors for "almost 8 centuries". That is totally misleading: "In the 11th century a considerable part of Aragón was captured from the Muslims by Sancho III, king of Navarre, who also conquered León and Castile, and in 1033 he made his son, Ferdinand I, king of Castile. This temporary unity came to an end at Sancho's death, when his domains were divided among his sons. The most prominent of Sancho's sons was Ferdinand, who acquired León in 1037, took the Moorish section of Galicia, and set up a vassal county in what is now northern Portugal. With northern Spain consolidated, Ferdinand, in 1056, proclaimed himself emperor of Spain (from the Latin Hispania), and he initiated the period of reconquest from the Muslims."Yukirat 00:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Moorish rule in Spain lasted from 711AD to 1492AD. It naturally did not include the whole peninsula throughout that time. By 1490 it only included Southeastern Spain: What today are the provinces of Granada, Malaga, Almería and parts of Jaen. In any case Moorish rule in Spain did last for nearly eight centuries. The statement is correct.--Ismael76 09:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What else can we say here. No one is with you Yukirat. The only right answer as to whom is white is the following:

White is the colloquial term for Caucasian.

That is it.

Some people could say that white is in fact not a race, but a cultural concept that refers to Europeans. Ok, then Europeans are white, but we should say that it is not a race but a cultural concept then.

As to who is mixed or not, I cannot stand so much ignorance.

See here, second page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

Since the origins of people has always been interesting to a lot of people, now some scientists have grabbed it by the horns, and are analysing human populations scientifically, biologically, with genetic research, and what is the result?:

Many surprises¡:

1. Who is not mixed?

Lets concentrate in Europe, can somebody tell me who is not mixed?

2. About the Southern European mixed crap.

What Southern Europeans?

Genetic research shows that there is rather a West-East divide, not a South-North divide.

3. If somebody has no idea of genetics, read this:Origins of Europeans

3. More surprises¡: It seems that the origins of most Europeans lies in Southern Europe. Oh no¡ another big surprise to those people who think it is rather in the North.

And then what happens. Europeans are a mixed of a lot of different human lineages, but which is the most frequent one? Oh¡, the one called R1b, especially in Western Europe, where the concept of being white happens to have been invented.

And then, where does it occurs most often:

Oh no, once again¡ in Spain¡¡ And where are what we might called the purest Europeans, Oh no¡¡ Let´s not talk about this¡.

In conclusiobn, what a bunch of crap one can read here. But this is not all. What happens if we see other human lineages, called Haplogroups in genetics, well you cal draw your own conclusions, but pay especial attention to the one called R1a. See it here more clearly: World Haplogroups Maps,

It seems that this human lineage is quite common in Eastern, Northern and Central Europe, and where else? Oh no¡ in Asia, in Pakistan, in India etc.

So Yuki, or shall I say, Rat, get an education before you come here with all your crap and ignorance. Present scientific information, we are tired of your ignorant opinions.

And I propose one thing here. The whole article should be rewritten. Right now it just reflects the ignorant views of a bunch of white Americans who want to impose their ignorance and superstions upon the world, in spite of the fact of living in a multiracial country. They should be ashamed of themselves and ashamed before their non-white fellow Americans for their lies and manipulation. And if you think I am just overreacting, just look at the US media: Just two little examples: See the last movie, Superman or the film CIS Miami. Then go and visit New York and Miami, and you will know what I mean.

• Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks, please review WP:NPA. Let's see, you say "human lineage is quite common", so we're all the same.....but then you also say that "the USA is a multiracial nation". So, which is it? Stop contradicting yourself and exposing your ignorance. White people know who their own people are, what their backgrounds are, what "commonly" comprises White culture and history (aka Western Civilization). It's not that difficult, however many want to twist the definition beyond what an encyclopedia article should. That's not right. Discussing whether or not Lebanon, or even modern Japan, is a part of Western Civ is a worthwhile topic to discuss, but that should not negate or preclude the commonly held reference of Whites and Western Civ. Exceptions should not become the rule here, or rule this Wikipedia article, to the extent that common information is not included. That's all I'm saying.Yukirat 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You neonazi ignorant moron, how can you equate western civilisation to "White history"? Please just go away. --Ismael76 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks, please review WP:NPA. Please stop vandalizing the page without contributing to Discussion or substantiating your edits. Kindly do not put incorrect facts into Wikipedia.Yukirat 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Yuki, you are yourself the victim of American ignorance in the issue of race. Just make the effort to read the links that I have provided (I hope you can locate countries in a map). They are science, not just baseless words. Haplogroups (human lineages) are the closest thing that there can be in relation to a race, and as you can see, they are scattered in a way that is very different to commonly held opinions. That is 21st century scientific, biological, genetic knowlegde, the rest just superstition and ignorance. You say it: This is an Encyclopeadia, a place to spread science not the beliefs of a bunch of stupid Americans, as it is now much of the article.

Why do all the captions of the pictures of white people state what the particular person is according to the US census and the colloquial use of "white" in the US. Have we forgotten about the rest of the world again? Too much emphasis throughout the article on the US worldview. --Ismael76 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

You are right. It seems as if the article is about what Americans think a white person is. Still the pictures are much better now than before. I am going to erase the reference to white nationalist opinions and colloquial definitions (What colloquial definitions, where and how?. That is too much and this is not Stormfront.

I have messed it up, so someone wh knows that better do it right. But I insist on leaving it with just the names, without absurd comments. The comments in the last too pictures can be interesting.

PHOTO IDEA I Propose the following image of Omar Abdullah be included among the others, with this quote: Although fair skinned, racially Caucasian and able to claim Aryan heritage, Omar Abdullah would not be considered as white either by the census bureau or most people in society due to his south Asian heritage.http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/00feb05/omar.jpg

Fair enough. Can the pic be uploaded to wikipedia with appropriate copyright tag? Before we do though, do realise that caucasian/caucasoid is an anthropological concept, "white" is a social concept, so anything that is stated will have to make mention of that. Al-Andalus 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

I propose Zinedine Zidane! --Ismael76 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do, however that's POV pushing and you know it. His photo would be more appropriate on a Algerian article or Kabyle people, than as an accurate representation for "Whites". Come on. Stop it already.Yukirat 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A few editors are trying to push anti-White POV here, hanging their hat primarily on solely on the "U.S. Census defintion" that allows for self-identification and the broadest possible categorization -- when the definition is very much more limited among United States citizens and in Europe and Australia and Russia, countries where hundreds of millions of White people live. Within the USA, the U.S. Census defintion is not even close to representing the realities of social or common conventions, for instance Mexicans which are white according to the US Census defintion, are clearly not considered White in the USA, and Mexicans view themselves differently and take pride in their non-White amerindian roots (see: [[5]], [[6]], [[7]].

It is not accurate to push here the POV that North Africans, Mexicans, South Asians are White, beyond strictly the US Census defintion and a minority opinion. The exceptions should not become the rule here. Also, people are trying to categorize Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Hindus of India as White too!! and they are hanging their hat on the term once widely used in used in physical anthropology in the 19th Century and the early 20th Century caucasoid, that has fallen greatly in use over the last century. That is POV pushing, and again it represents the minority opinion trying to become the rule for an encyclopedia article. It is absurd to call Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis "White", although under the definition some POV pushers want to use, this is exactly what could happen, and that's non-encyclopedic as well as just plain ridiciulous. Using the term caucasoid to push Whiteness for West Asians, South Asians, and Africans is not an acceptable strategy, it's trying to make the exceptions the rule. Thanks.Yukirat 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many perspectives on who is white. Some folks even assert that Jews are not white.[www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2749617&postcount=34][www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3220201&postcount=6][www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3113964&postcount=12], or that indigenous peoples are not "native Americans"[www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3113771&postcount=12]. While Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires that we include all significant viewpoints, fringe viewpoints, such as those found on websites like Stormfront.org, are not considered significant. -Will Beback 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Will, did you even read my comments above, or view the map? The fringe views are those that push POV that Mexicans and/or all caucasoids are White. Kindly address the article text in particular or the discussion of this section. Thanks.Yukirat 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that Stormfront is not a fringe website, or that sayin Jews aren't white is a mainstream concept? -Will Beback 22:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither. The Jewish-American section of this article is not being reverted or questioned. Why are you bringing that up? The status of North Africans, South Asians, West Asians, and Mexicans is the issue. Please read the Discussion. Regarding map: [[8]], it seems a stretch to say that people of the Levant or North Africa are the same as Europeans. What is your opinion? outside the U.S. Census defintion, only a minority views North Africans or West or South Asians as White. The article should reflect those two realities.Yukirat 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion does not matter, and neither does yours. Our job is to verifiably summarize relaible sources using the neutral point of view. I'm not sure what a map of genotypes in Europe tells us about genotypes in Mexico or North Africa. Is being white identical to having four genes? If so this article could be a whole lot shorter. But it's more complex than that. Let's stick to what reliable sources show, not maps on Geocities. -Will Beback 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, as it stands then, the only people in the world who "aren't White" and nobody is claiming they are, are sub-Saharan Africans. It's ridiculous, you have Al Andalus and Ismael writing the article using their opinion (neither of these guys ever references a source, whereas I have, including numerous links to Mexican/Amerindian history), you have people pushing broad POV that we all know is false (putting in pictures of terrorists) and info that says that all people in the Americas, the Levant, etc. are White and all Asians are White too, and you seem to support that. I don't get it. Why? The map referenced above has a source, it's not "geocities". Come on. Yukirat 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, I spoke too soon. Lo and behold, the Horn of Africa was just placed into the article. I guess the whole world is White in the Wikipedia universe.Yukirat 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"...you have people pushing broad POV that we all know is false (putting in pictures of terrorists)"

Of course, in Yurikat's world all terrorists must be classed as non-whites. How could white people do such a thing? Yurikat, you have proved to everyone visiting this article that you are a racist of the worst kind.--Ismael76 10:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are an anti-White propagandist of the worst kind. Yukirat 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I believe that it is commonly held that there are 3 race, Asian, black and white. Either part of one of these or otherwise a mix. Personally though, i don't really believe this whole 'races' thing. I mean, we don't talk about races when we talk about eye or hair colours, but with skin we do. Just seems a little silly.

But my solution to the problems of this article would be to define if people are either black, asian or white.

~~ATTENTION YUKIRAT: I am one of the people who supplied images of the fair skinned, blue eyed European looking South Asians. Every time I have posted them you have always been defensive in excluding them from white more than you have with the North Africans - why? I have never said that the majority of Indians are white as you and I know perfectly well that they are not, but you have never explained your reasons for being so defensive. When many Westerners I meet think of Indians, the first thing that pops in to their mind regarding their appearance is that of a skinny half-naked black-skinned coolie living in a disease riddled slum. They are often incredulice and astonished when they see South Asians like Imran Khan, Benazir Bhutto, Rajiv Gandhi or Omar Abdullah who look fair based on the fact that it does not go with their stereotype of what they are supposedly meant to 'look' like. People from Northern India, Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan are descended from Aryans(see map on Human skin colour to see that Most People from Pakistan and Northern India are Generally no darker than most West Asians). 20% of Pakistanis are not ethnicly from the South Asian Indo-Aryan gene pool but from the Iranian speaking Pashtun people and Iranian Baluchi peoples, same as most Afghans and people from Iran are (you have not been defensive from excluding them from white!). I have met several Egyptians and Moroccans whose mixed Negro blood in their appearance was enough to make me notice that they were not white. Why have you not written defensive remarks about the inclusion of Massaoui's image on the discusion page, which at first site confuses the reader when no-one in society would regard him as white, even less so than the `white' looking South Asians? Don't Forget the word `African' Is used in the words North African, Is the Image of a white person what comes to your mind when Africa is mentioned?~~

• I don't know anyone, except in the Wikipedia universe that thinks Ghandi or Mohammed VI of Morocco is White. It's absurd. Once again, I think an encyclopedia article should cover the basics first, what is commonly known as White, and THEN cover the exceptions such as the U.S. Census defintion or the caucasoid defintion which has fallen from common use in phsysical anthropology since the beginning of the 20th Century. The problem here is anti-White propagandists and hate mongers that want to distort the basic subject matter an steer the article to where everyone is White, rob White people of their uniquness, and make the exceptions (i.e. "20% of Pakistanis are not ethnicly South Asian", or "White haplogroups are from the Horn of Africa") the rule. PS I didn't object to the inclusion of Zacarias_Moussaoui as "White" because under solely the U.S Census defintion so many POV-types use to hang their hat on, he is totally 100% White. Perhaps this exposes the absurdity and POV of some of the anti-White contributors? Yukirat 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IMAGES- I noticed that now only 2 of the 8 Images are of Non-disputedly White Northern European Gentiles. I suggest we add an Image of Luciano Pavarotti and dispute his whiteness to make a balance. The person adding images seems to think that most `White' people come from Morrocco!!! (lol).

Okay, the current images are absurd. Surely we don't need eleven images, all with lengthy captions, to illustrate the article. Discuss any images to be added here. Once one or two images have been agreed upon, then put them up. Zetawoof^(ζ) 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, on Wikipedia anti-White racists object to photos of 100% uncontroversially White people such as Neil Armstrong and Laura Bush. Why? Perhaps they could explain why they continually delete photos of these White people, from an article about Whites, and replace them with Zacarias Moussaoui "who qualifies as White under the U.S. Census defintion" as if that were the only determining factor, which it most definitely is not. Stop the vandalism.Yukirat 16:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No-one objects to images of uncontroversially "white" people, but it is useful also to have images of people who would be described as white in some circumstances but not in others. Paul B 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could stick around. You'll see that there are plenty of people who remove images of uncontroversially White people and replace them with controversial ones.Yukirat 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of articles have eleven or more images. If they serve a purpose, then they should stay. They serve a very clear purpose. After all, this article is about racial typing on the basis of what people look like. Paul B 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see this, look below. Eleven pictures is much, and they're all in a specific section (which is unnecessary), and blocking off all the edit bars. The section they're in is about genetics, too, not even classification of specific groups! — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Yom - many articles have eleven images, but that's usually distributed throughout the article, not all in one place. More importantly, I really don't see what all these images add to the article. As Yom points out, as well, the images aren't even relevant to the section they appear in! Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the order of the section to reflect the reality that White people in the USA, Australia, Russia, and Europe don't view Middle Easterners, Arabs, and North Africans commonly as White. The legal U.S. Census defintion is the exception to the norms around the world, and therefore should not be the "lead" in the article. This info has NOT BEEN DELETED, it was moved to a more appropriate location so as to not be as misleading and POV. Thanks.Yukirat 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this included, under North African influences, when the sources are unreliable, it's inconclusive, and it self-contradicts itself?

"Genetic studies on Iberian populations also show that North African sequences (haplogroup U6) present values which are much higher than those generally observed in Europe, although very low levels of Haplotype U6 have also been detected in Sicily and it is extremely frequent among the Saami populations of Northern Scandinavia.3 It is difficult to establish that U6's presence is the consequence of Islam's expansion in Europe during the Middle Ages, particularly because it is more frequent in the north of the peninsula rather than in the south. It may also be the result of neolithic expansion from North Africa."

It may be that nobody can verify anything reliably with regards to this, and therefore it shouldn't be included WP:RS.Yukirat 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read source 3: "In fact, although for haplogroup L the north-south increasing frequency is corroborated by historical data, the opposite trend, observed for haplogroup U6, is more difficult to reconcile with the magnitude and time span of the Islamic political and cultural influence, which lasted longer and was more intense in the south. To clarify this conundrum, we need not only a substantial increase in the amount of mtDNA data (particularly for North Africa) but also new historical data and interpretations."

• I believe that also states that for haplogroup U6 there is no reliable reconciliation, does it not? It states a conundrum exists and that more data is needed. It doesn't meet the WP:RS test. Please reply, others' input also requested on the interpretation of this text regarding U6. Thanks. Yukirat 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

As for Muslim rule in Iberia lasting from 711AD to 1492AD, why do you say it is false? Tariq bin Ziyad started the conquest of Spain in 711 and the Nasrid kingdom of Granada fell to the Catholic Kings in 1492. --Ismael76 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue to mantain my position. You are a troll and a neo-nazi, Yurikat. Stop vandalising this article.

--Ismael76 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are a troll and an anti-White racist/propaganist who should be posting on caliph. Nice try. Your lies will be reverted out on sight, including the above:

• "In the 11th century a considerable part of Aragón was captured from the Muslims by Sancho III, king of Navarre, who also conquered León and Castile, and in 1033 he made his son, Ferdinand I, king of Castile. This temporary unity came to an end at Sancho's death, when his domains were divided among his sons. The most prominent of Sancho's sons was Ferdinand, who acquired León in 1037, took the Moorish section of Galicia, and set up a vassal county in what is now northern Portugal. With northern Spain consolidated, Ferdinand, in 1056, proclaimed himself emperor of Spain (from the Latin Hispania), and he initiated the period of reconquest from the Muslims."Yukirat 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• North Africans and Iberians appear quite different according to this map from the article:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf Why do you insist on pushing POV in total contradiction? Stop already, will you?

You clearly cannot read English properly. Regarding U6, the article says exactly what you claim it should say.

As for Muslim Spain. Please read a bit on its history which lasted from 711 AD to 1492. Check out the article on wikipedia. How old are you? 13?

• WP:NPA please. It is totally misleading to say that Al Andulus "ruled" for "close to eight centuries", and you know it, but that never stops you. The Al Andulus article states in first two paragraphs (date of 1236) for the LAST Islamic stronghold.

"Al-Āndalus (Arabic الأندلس) was the Arabic name given to those parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Muslims from 711 to 1492.

In 1236 the Spanish Reconquista led to the subjugation of the last Islamic stronghold of Granada under Mohammed ibn Alhamar to the Christian forces of Ferdinand III of Castile ."

Combined with:

"In the 11th century a considerable part of Aragón was captured from the Muslims by Sancho III, king of Navarre, who also conquered León and Castile, and in 1033 he made his son, Ferdinand I, king of Castile. This temporary unity came to an end at Sancho's death, when his domains were divided among his sons. The most prominent of Sancho's sons was Ferdinand, who acquired León in 1037, took the Moorish section of Galicia, and set up a vassal county in what is now northern Portugal. With northern Spain consolidated, Ferdinand, in 1056, proclaimed himself emperor of Spain (from the Latin Hispania), and he initiated the period of reconquest from the Muslims."

This hardly justifies stating "ruled for eight centuries". Far from it. Can we be truthful now?Yukirat 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding U6, I am reading it differently than you. Perhaps a third-party could review it? Thanks.Yukirat 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yurikat you clearly know nothing about the history of Spain. What today are the provinces of Granada, Malaga, Almería and half of Jaen were under Moorish control (the Nasrid kingdom of Granada) until 1492. They were nevertheless, a vassal state of the Christian kingdom of Castille for a couple of centuries before that. Albeit, Moorish rule in Iberia lasted for nearly 8 centuries. No one is saying that the entire peninsula was under moorish control for this period of time.

• Ismael76 wrote: "No one is saying that the entire peninsula was under moorish control for this period of time." Thank you for finally saying it. Now, can the text finally reflect that? Thanks.Yukirat 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Moors ruled for eight centuries it's blantantly misleading. Not only there were zones that never were under islamic rule, but others were rapidly recovered by the christians, and in the XI century half of the Iberian Peninsula was under christian rule. After the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa the islamic kingdom of Granada was just a small vassal state of the christian Castile. So you can't say they ruled for eight centuries, in most of the Iberian peninsula they didn't even rule for three centuries.

There's way too many pictures. It's impossible to edit, and now a whole section is smushed to the right because a picture pushes the template out of the way. We only need a couple, and should limit them to the relevant sections (e.g., we don't need pictures for the genetic sections). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They may be many, but they serve a specific purpose. That is, to illustrate the vriety of people, who according to one definition or another, qualify as white. If we have only a picture or two of people who qualify under one single definition, then that is not representing the article adequatly, and it is giving priority (and thus constitutes a POV) of one single definition.

Also, what is achieved with having Neil Armstrong's picture when he is so far in the background and his head is tiny and out of sight, not showing his features properlly. If there is another clearer close-up picture of him anywhere (like the others used) then there wouldn't be a problem with the use of Mr Armostrong. Till then, Viggo Mortensen's picture does a fine job. As for Laura Bush, apart from being physically unapealing (that's my opinion only), she has her head turned on profile, which limits the usefulness of the picture. Lindsay Lohan serves better, and she not insulting to the eye either, which is a bonus.

Also, I took out Diana Haddad (Lebanese), Ali Al Habsi (Omani) and Yasser Arafat (Palestinian, who also was on profile) and replaced them all with Moroccans. This was done because it is especially effective when trying to illustrate the vast array of phenotypes that can be found in the Middle East and North Africa, illustrating the heterogenity of the region, especially if the viewer can see that even in the one single country all the types may be found living there natively. It shoots down the conception that all Middle Easterners and all North Africans have one single look and are of one single phenotype. According to User:Yukirat everyone (or to him, at the very least a majority) in the Mideast and North Africa is "non-white looking", while according to User:Ismael76 everyone (or to him, at the very least a majority) in the Mideast and North Africa is "white looking", with each of them bringing their own conception of what constitutes "white" and imposing it on the article. Both of those fringe views are unsustainable, and with pictures illustrating that, both are forced into a compromised situation because they haven't worked it out between them (nor will they). Al-Andalus 22:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. You represent "fringe" ideas. Again, please do not remove uncontroversially White photos based on your own personal opinions. We don't need 3 Moroccans on this article. Sorry, but your POV is astounding. Thanks. Please review for a clearer picture of the differences between Moroccans and Iberians and other Europeans: [[9]]Yukirat 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't send people to Talk: unless you have added soemthing constructive to it. Your last sentence post contains no explanaition or support of your constant edit and reverts. All you have shared with us in that sentence is more opinion and want. Al-Andalus 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't spent 1/10th the time on Talk and you need to justify your edits from now on. Removing Neil Armstrong, who is uncontroverisally White, and putting in 3 Moroccans is just a little POV. Since European-descended people make up the majority of White people, perhaps we could show more diversity among them? No, in your fringe mind, 3 photos of Moroccans is the way to go. Absurd and over-the-top selfish POV.Yukirat 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, a source. However, this "Pictures again" section is regarding the pictures in the article for illustration of the array of people (and phenotypes) which would qualify as white by different definitions. I believe you want to go up a section or two in this Talk: to the relevant genetics discussion, which you were questioned on.

Also, before you do, realise that whtever the genetics in that source say, it doesn't change the fact that there are other definitions which are not based on genetics, and may be based on appearance, or government parameters, or politics, and and that they still must be represented. All you can do with sources such as the one you provided is add them (perhaps stregthening the definition of white that you prefer to adhere to), but it by no means makes all the other definitions dissapear, or somehow invalidtate them. They are independant of one another because the parameters of who and why whiteness is deemed are set differently. Al-Andalus 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Have you provided a source? Ever? Show us. The vast majority of Whites in United States, Australia, Europe and Russia do not view the vast majority of Moroccans as White, and you know it. Stop it.Yukirat 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, don't consider my conversion of the massive blob of pictures to a gallery as an endorsement of those pictures, or their captions. It's just a minimally controversial way to fix the page formatting. I maintain that twelve is way too many pictures, and the captions totally have to go as well - they're completely redundant with each other, and appear to be trying to make some sort of point. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit here is a mass revert without providing any discussion [10]. This has to end, and people have to discuss their edits first as per the Discussion header requirement. This cannot continue. Please do not remove the reference to Western Civilization and mass revert again, that's vandalism.Yukirat 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• User:Al-Andalus has a HUGE problem with Western Civilization or Western countries being linked to an article about WHITES? However, he also edits page Arab diaspora which links in its very first paragraph to Western countries:

"Arab diaspora refers to the numbers of Arab immigrants, and their descendants, who voluntarily or as refugees emigrated from their native countries and now reside in non-Arab nations, primarily in Western countries as well as parts of sub-Saharan Africa (West Africa, primarily Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Liberia)."

Pathetic. Enough of the anti-White racism and radicalism. OK? Enough of your POV. Wikipedia is NPOV. This article of "Whites" needs more input from White people. Yukirat 05:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't call the good faith edits by other users "vandalism", and don't refer to them in section headings. Focus on the edits, not the editor. -Will Beback 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, most of the Arab diaspora is located in "Western contries", specifically the coutnries of Latin America (all of which are part of the "Western sphere" by mere definition). Then there is the fact that only two of the countries in Latina America (Argentina and Uruguay) have white majorities. Russia is seldom though of being as being a western country, even though it is in Europe and white in its majority. Then Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong are all today considered Western, though none of them are located in Europe or the Americas, and all have negligable white populations. Al-Andalus 06:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: do you accept a link to Western Civilization in the first paragraph for Arab diaspora but not anywhere on this article Whites? Yukirat 06:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article Arab diaspora, the reference is "Western countries", not "Western civilization". Additionally, no where in that article is there a correlation of the "Western countries" (or "Western civilization") with whiteness or a country's posession of a white majority. Most of the countries of Latin America (except Argentina and Uruguay) do not have white majorities, and the countires of Latin America are Western by mere definition. That is why the article states most of the Arab diaspora is located in western countries. And as already stated, Russia is seldom thought of as a "Western" country, even though it is in Europe and has a white majority. Meanwhile, today, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong are all considered Western, though none of them are located in Europe or Latin America, and all have negligable white populations. Al-Andalus 06:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

the reference is "Western countries", not "Western civilization". It's the same link Western countries and Western Civilization, click on them.

Its first paragraph states:

"Most modern uses of the term refer to the societies of Europe and their close genealogical, linguistic, and philosophical colonial descendants, typically included are those countries whose dominant culture is derived from European culture, such as North and South America, Australia and New Zealand."

No mention of Morocco. Sorry.Yukirat 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. So the countries of Latin America are a part of the Western world and Western civilization, but only two of those countries have white majorities. Substanciate that the Western world and/or Western civilization is a domain of "Whites" (then it also depends on what definition of "White" you are using). Provide sources.

Also, no one has mentioned Morocco in the context of this dispute. This is about an alleged correlation between Western civilization and "Whites", assuming that the one and only correct definition of "White" is that it refers to caucasoid Europeans Christians. But we have already discussed in depth the fact that there is no one single precise correct definition of "White".

By the way, I noticed again that despite all your fuss, you yourself keep inserting "internationally the most common use for the term refers to caucasoid people descended from Europe, Middle East, and North Africa". [11] You're one big contradiction. Al-Andalus 06:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been enough arguing with you. Your discussions take users (who are polite enough to engage you in Talk: for problems you create) absolutely no where. They are largely personal attacks and accusations that you cannot and refuse to substanciate. Labelling as "vandalism" the revertions users must make to edit out your personal opinions and your reinterpretations of sources, and delete unverifiable sources hosted on personal sites such as geocities (which you include) is in its own merit tantamount to you being the vandal. Al-Andalus 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are one hateful POV pusher that deleted images of White people on this article regularly. You want "provide sources between the link with Whites"? while listing Western world in the very first sentence of Arab diaspora? Don't remove the photos if you want links between Whites and Western Civilization. This is absurd. The "geocities" site has a legit reference, it's up to you to spend the time to read it in full. Your anti-White racism is apparent.Yukirat 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I hate to think your slow, but the Arab dispora article says western countries, and it does not correlate this term with white majority countries. Most of the Arab diaspora is in the countries of Latin America, which are the western countries spoken of, and only two of them are "white". Al-Andalus 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You can either substanciate the alleged "hate" and "anti-white racism", or you will be reported for the personal attacks (including the various other users who have placed complaints against you in the past week). Al-Andalus 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

slow?? Please refrain from making personal attacks, see WP:NPA.

Follow the dots from Arab diaspora:

1) 1st paragraph: "and now reside in non-Arab nations, primarily in Western countries"

2) click on the link Western countries, and it says in 1st paragraph:

3) "The term Western world or "the West" can have multiple meanings depending on its context. Originally defined as Western Europe, most modern uses of the term refer to the societies of Europe and their close genealogical, linguistic, and philosophical colonial descendants"

4) That does indeed contradict your POV version. Stop trying to twist everything around. It doesn't compute.Yukirat 07:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We know it doesn't compute for you. Since you forgot 5) "typically included are those countries whose dominant culture is derived from European culture, such as North and South America, Australia and New Zealand". Which refers to Latin America, which only has two countries with White majorities. Al-Andalus 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are "Western" because of their European-descended colonialists and culture. You know this already. Stop it.Yukirat 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yukirat, you have missed the point altogether. The "western civilization" comment cannot go in, not because it may or may not be associated with "Whites" (assuming that the definition of "White" which is used is the one which implies ONLY caucasoid European Christians are white), but because it is not a common requirement to be "White" according to most definitions. It is only among White nationalist circles where it is a requirement for classification as white, and to suggest otherwise is a massive misrepresentation.

I think you are silly. The history of White people is Western Civilization. Who else is responsible for it? Yukirat 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You must realise, that if you suggest "western civilization" is a common feature, then that excludes many Europeans based solely on religion, among them Bosnians, Albanians, and many others. Most definitions of white include those people, even among most White nationlists it would be only those who held the strictest of minority views which would exclude them. Western civilization is not a common feature. If you insit with that POV that western civilization is a common feature, then you have unwillingly admitted that "whites" and "whiteness" is indeed a purely social construct (something which i have been saying all along) and has absolutely no basis on anthropology (caucasoid), Europeanness, or genetics (since a Bosnian Muslim is non-White because Muslims are not a part of "western civilization", but a Catholic Croat is white, despite both being genetically identical).

• Using "Bosnians" and "Albanian" Muslim populations? That's all you have to come up with to erase the history of Western Civlization? Come on. You're playing games at this point, and it's not working.

You have proven my point actually. Whiteness in all its forms is a social construct. The page should reflect that. Al-Andalus 08:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You sure used to be interested in making sure "Whites" was definable when you were tryng to include "North Africans, Mexicans, Moroccans, South and West Asians" every edit. Now you say Whites don't exist and it's a only construct? You are ridiculous. I guess if whites don't exist then a specific designation for your people doesn't either. There are no "North Africans" that's just a social construct. I disagree with that. PS Every single high school in the United States of America teaches a class on Western Civilization. Sorry but that exist too, and it doesn't focus on "Bosnian Muslims". Please review: [12] OK? Nothing to do with "north africa, pre-columbian mexico, or south asia. Stop it already.Yukirat 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, now you have come to the point of stating that "western civilization" does indeed exclude Bosnians and Albanians, and because according to your interpretation "whites" and "western civilization" go hand-in-hand, then neither Bosians nor Albanians are white either.

To all users and administrators, I think this was the last comment needed by Yukirat to expose himself. While I disagree with him/her, I'm not going to judge the person, but I will point out that today he acknowledged his views are that of the most extreme among even white supremacists. My view on these type of people will remain my own. But behold, that "whiteness" to the user is not determined on caucasoid anthrolology, nor on caucasoid anthropology plus light skinnedness, nor on caucasoid anthropology plus light skinnedness plus genetic affinity, nor on caucasoid anthropology plus light skinnedness plus genetic affinity plus Europeanness, but on caucasoid anthropology plus light skinnedness plus genetic affinity plus europeanness plus a set of determined social, cultural and religious practices (or as the user interpretid this as being, "western civilization", which he has made clear excludes Bosnians, Albanians and other such peoples).

I am not even saying that this opinion not be mentioned, because it should (since I have all along been a proponent of not limiting this article to one definition only), but I think we have finally realised the fringe of Yukirat's views. To anyone that believes they could even remotely verify with any shred of evidence that Yukirat's parameters for the definition of "whites" are features that are common among all the definitions of "white", then please present the sources. To the contrary, I believe it shouldn't be to difficult to have a ban imposed on the user from edditing this article again. He has now made clear his intentions of imposing his personal views on the article, making the article represent only his views irrespective of how fringe it is, and actively working against the core values of the wikipedia project. His previous history in editting (i.e. deleting sourced content provided by other users research, adding unsourced or unverifiable content, his personal attacks, accusations, and all other manner of conduct) should be reviewed in his assessment. Thanks you for your time.Al-Andalus 09:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, wrong. You excluded "Bosnian Muslims" and therefore since in your opinion "Bosnians are White" and "Muslims are not Western Civ" you want to toss out the entire reference to Western Civ because the two don't reconcile neatly. (However you want to keep it on arab diaspora. Nobody said Bosnians aren't Western Civ except you. Why are we even discussing this anomaly or exception, this particular item doesn't negate Western history anyway. However let's be clear that the Ottoman Empire is not "Western".

Most people who are "White" today are "mostly" a mix of European ethnicities or wholly European. That's history and reality. Ok? Can you provide any data that says that that conclusion is wrong? Secondly, what are you talking about: today he acknowledged his views are that of the most extreme among even white supremacists What are you talking about? Please follow WP:NPA. Nobody is trying to deny that the US Census "legal" definition exists, and I have never tried to delete that information, but you however, are insistent on pushing that as the end-all factor, when it's quite clear it isn't, especially if you also consider Australia, Europe, the USA, etc. where that particular "legal" definition isn't mainstream. This has already been covered ad infinitum in Talk. Look, I am sick of your attacks and mass reverts with no discussion. From now on let's discuss specific article text to review, OK? And lastly, there is diversity amongst Whites, let's stop deleting the images, OK? You want pics of Moroccans, but it hurts you to view diversity amongst European Whites? Why?Yukirat 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way we can ask the editors to remove it entirely? The article in and of itself seems rather pointless, and all of the controversy and bickering by both sides incredibly stupid.

Where is a friendly, logical admin when you need one?--ThatBajoranGuy 07:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that White people don't exist? What would you call a person who has combined ethnicity (as many do) of, for instance, Polish, Irish, German, English and French? What are they? "White" seems to be the most overwhelmingly commonly used phrase in the English language.Yukirat 08:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian people exist. "White" people do not.

This article should be deleted because nothing in this article is noteworthy, or anything you'd find in a respectable encyclopedia. So why lower Wikipedia to something subpar? Article should be deleted in its entirety. If you really think it's important to have an article stating "White people are what Caucasians are called!", then have it state that, but the rest is incredibly pointless. --ThatBajoranGuy 07:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Causasian" is a scientific category. White is a social category. The validity of the scientific category is in dispute. The social category is a fact, but one that has changed meaning and usage over the years and continues to do so. That's why the topic is legitimate. Paul B 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not all Caucasoids are White. Please read the article Caucasian in particular the section on "Supreme Court rulings". In this case, fair-skinned people are not automatically "White" (Japanese), and not all Caucasoids are "White" (Hindu/Indians). The most commonly accepted view in the English-speaking world today, is basically people of European-descent are White. There are exceptions, nobody is disputing or denying that or tyring to keep that out of the article (as many have claimed). But excpetions should not become the rule. It is innaccurate to say Mexicans (see: mestizo), North Africans (see: [[13]] Libya), South Asians, and Middle Easterners are commonly thought of as White. Only "the U.S. Census defintion" considers the vast majority of these people White. This issue, in a nutshell, is what the revert warriors and POV pushers want to censor from the article, presumably because they have a personal stake in making the "white" defintion as wide and as POV as possible. However, this encyclopedia article should reflect reality. Mexicans are proud of their amerindian roots, as evidenced in Mexico's flag: [[14]].

Lastly, this map [[15]] show a huge difference between Europeans and Iberians in particular from North Africans and people of the Middle East. Nobody is saying there aren't exceptions and that "some" people of the Levant maybe White, however it is misleading and POV to claim the latter groups are White or even "mostly" White when it's clear they don't share much genetic background with Europeans. They also don't share much overlap in religious, cultural, lingusitic histories either. Thanks. Let's try to keep things based in fact and keep anti-White POV out of the article.Yukirat 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the map, check the map in that document showing mitochondrial DNA - it indicates a close similarity between Iberians and Morrocans. Regarding Europeans being white, I see that many White Nationalists don't believe that Albanians are white.[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=311152] There's previously been debate here as to whether Southern Italians are white. To describe them as white may be debatable, but it is not an "anti-White" POV. -Will Beback 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same map? [16] The differences between "IB" and "MC" are huge, not to mention the cultural, lingusitic and religious differences and common perceptions in 2006. To call North Africans "White" is just not accurate any way you look at it (outside of the "U.S. Census" defintion). The debate about Southern Italians has been covered, and I'm happy to report that Al-Andalus' repeated attempts to keep the "lynching" POV quote in the article have been refuted by facts in this discussion page above, that was clear anti-White POV. I don't know too much about Albanians, but perhaps he is refering to people settled from the Ottoman Empire which was of non-White origins (see: Sultan), but Will, again, can we not let isolated exceptions like this become the hold-up to what should be an encyclopedia article covering the basic concepts first? I'll state again that anyone who tries to disassociate the history of Western Civilization with White people is biased and borderline anti-White.Yukirat 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at "MTDNA Haplogroups of the World" though I see he doesn't identify what Northern African group is included. I don't think we can rely on genetic markers to determine who is white, as it is a social construct. -Will Beback 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The mitochondrial DNA map shows that the Iberian pie is almost identical to that of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, whereas the North African pie most closely resembles "PA" Palestine+Egypt and "TU" Turkey. I agree with you that social factors such as linguistic, religious, and cultural aspects are clearly a part of what defines the term, as is lineage (obviously not going back to the dawn of time).Yukirat 19:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

July 26 2006 - Now 1/3 of the images provided are of Morroccans. the word Morrocco comes from the word Moor. Is the word `Blackamoor' a term you would use to refer to a white person?user:58.169.5.255

That's an exception, which should not become the rule, or rule the content of the article. Whites is a common phrase, this article should focus on what the common defintion is first and explore that, and then into other aspects which this article does. But when POV gets pushed about North Africans and Mexicans being "white" from the get-go, it's just not factual or representative of reality, despite "legal" definitions, which should be covered, however not as the main definition, because they don't represent the main concepts.Yukirat 09:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Morocco comes from the city of Marrakesh, not from Moor, Yurikat.

I see a lot of interest by some North African Users to claim Spain using genetic evidence. Spain, genetically speaking is one of the most European countries in Europe. More that 80% of its population can trace their ancestry to the Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. R1b, the most common set of male genetic markers in Europe originated in Spain, and still it is the dominant set of genetic markers in Spain. If we put together Haplogroups R1b and I, both of them present almost exclusively in Europe, the result is 80%. If we take MTdna, female genetic markers, Spain again shows the most European profile. See the 2005 Macdonalds hapmap or any other hapmap: See page 2 for male genetic markers and page 5 for female genetic markers. There are genetic relationships also between the Spanish and the Berbers. We cannot establish with precision how they happened, but the most obvious proof is Haplogroup Ex3, which is typical of Berbers, as you can see in the pie for North Africa in the obove mentioned Hapmap, but you will also see how it is present across all of Europe, and with the highest concentrations precisely not in Spain. There are of course genetic relationships among all peoples, but to try and use isolated studies while ignoring the global picture is manipulation. Spain happens to be one of the most European countries in Europe, from a genetic point of view. So, do not try to twist the data to try and show that it very North African, because that is manipulation. I respect Berbers and Arabs, but it is not the first time that I see some of them trying to claim Spain in a way that is far from being honest. P.S. You can see more about Haplogroup R1b and the Macdonald´s 2005 Hapmap in the main article for reference. I encourage anyone to provide other Global Hapmaps that state the contrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.81.119.10 (talk • contribs) .

---

Well the most obvious proof for this relationship is the combination of

• E3b quite common in Iberia and the rest of Mediterranean Europe and parts of Eastern Europe with the highest concentrations in Greece.
• Haplotype 5 which is most common in Morocco but is also very common in Iberia becoming less common as one goes further north.
• Haplogroup U6 North African origin and only found in Iberia among European populations (as well as the Saami).
• U6a which exists only among the Berber Guanche people of the Canary islands but which has been transmitted to Europe probably through slaves from those islands or by means of intermarriage with modern canarians.
• E-M81: of North African origin, only found in Iberia and Sicily.
• Haplogroup L: of subsaharan origin and more common among Iberians than among any other European population. It is much more common among North Africans who have been subject to trans saharan contacts for a long time.

What does this tell you? Not that Iberians are less European. No one is saying that, and as you say R1b which is of pre-indoeuropean origin is dominant among Spaniards and Portuguese - even more so among Basques.

It means, in my opinion, that Iberians have been subject to a much more recent contact with North African populations, which is indicated by the number of shared genetic markers rather than the extent of one single one. The problem with using one particular haplogroup -E3b for example- to come to a conclusions on ancestry is that there is no way of differentiating a common origin from a couple of hundred of years ago from a common origin from tens of thousands of years ago. After all, we all come from Africa originally.

The transmission of subsaharan Haplogroup L, however, (if we ignore the 15th century slave trade theory) would indicate that Iberians had contact with modern Berbers rather than proto-berbers. The rest of shared markers also point to this direction.

In fact what you say concurs with my point. Had these markers been of paleolithic or neolithic origin - as is almost certainly the case of E3b in much of the rest of Europe-, they would be much more noticeable on the Hapmap! It would have taken a genocide by Muslims on autochtonous Iberian populations to have influenced local genetic markers in a more significant way than it did.

--Ismael76 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the Hapmap only takes into account significant percentages. Looking at the Hapmap tells you the global composition of a people (Pages 1, 2 and 5 again): http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf. In the case of the Spanish you just need to take a look to have a good idea. If you are speaking about Mtdna, well there you have it on page 5: Pretty interesting, isn´t it!, the one of the Spanish and of the other Europeans!. That is a global view. The rest can be very close to manipulation. And I am not stating here that the Spanish are genetically European. I am stating a simple fact that seems surprising to many people: The Spanish are genetically one of the most European nations in Europe, very easy to understand and to see, but often one comes across all these statements just concentrating on a few points and then the way it is expressed and it seems to imply something else. And I am not saying that the Spanish are more European than others, for a European is anyone with a European passport. I believe in citizenship. What I mean is that the Spanish are 68% Haplogrup R1b (in some areas almost 90%) and 12% haplogroup I (Y-chromosome), and the rest of the haplogroups present in Spaina are also present all across Europe. Now what is so especial about R1b and I?: Well, that they are the most characteristic of Europe, because they occur almost exclusively in Europe, and then R1b, the most Characteristic genetic family of Western Europe, happens to be of Spanish origins, see: http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp and R1b again. That is a big fact when speaking of genetics. Haplogroup R1a is also very widespread in Europe, but much more in Asia, with about 600 million Indians (from India of course)with this Haplogroup, so it is not so exclusive of Europe. In fact, it is more present in Asia. In short, the Spanish are overwhelmingly of ancient European ancestry because 80% of them have Haplogroups that are characteristic of Europe and not characteristic of other parts of the world. Not many European nations can say the same. So if we are talking genetics let us be clear and I am not going to engage in fruitless discussions. For anyone interested just have a look at the Hapmap of the Spanish. And as I said, if you have access to more global Hapmaps present them. To engage in isolated cases is very close to manipulation. To insist on the one tree and not on the forest is manipulation, for you can do the same with any nation in the world and with almost any type of influence. PS.: I hope people here can place countries in a map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.38.18.162 (talk • contribs) .

---

It is very important to note that membership in a particular haplogroup does not (by itself) indicate the ethnic group from which the patrilineal line derives. There is a lot of misinformation posted on the Internet in this regard. You can see such statements as “R1b means Celtic,” or “I1a means Viking.” While those two haplogroups are common in those two populations, they also occur in every country in Europe. It may be possible in the future that sufficient subgroup structure will be discovered that more precise origins will be indicated, but that is not presently possible.

In anycase, more than one genetic marker are needed to hypothesize on these issues. Ismael76 does have a point that these indicators together do suggest a link across the mediterranean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mushobe10 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps you are referring to me? I'm not north African, by the way. I was only including the information because the section existed and would not be complete without a discussion of the spread of E3b. It was probably spread to Greece and Southeastern Europe in Neolithic times with the spread of Agriculture, but Iberian and Sicilian E3b was introduced later in historic times, probably by the Moors, according to the genetic data. See Semino et. al 2004. I don't think these people are any less white, and I don't see how simply stating the numbers is manipulation, when it's identified that it's speaking solely about paternal lineages. I think you're being too defensive. If a genetic section is going to be included, then for it to be complete, there has to be a short discussion of E3b. I wouldn't really care if the section wasn't included, however, as those who fall in the definition "white" are genetically diverse. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And I would add that a discussion is not repeating the same statements ad nauseam. I already said that we all agree that R1b is dominant in Iberian populations. Why hammer it in so much? I also concurr with the other previous comment. A Haplogroup by itself is no means of establishing ethnicity. One can have Y-chromosome R1b and Mtdna H and be black! It is definitely not a criterion for establishing some ancestral purity dating to the paleolithic as is being argued here.

--Ismael76 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Who is speaking here of ethnicity? We are speaking here of a race. The problem is that a lot of people are dealing with it like an ethnicity or like a social concept. This article is one of the worse that I have seen. People continue introducing the exception as the rule. People with R1b can be black! Of course they can!. But R1b is prevalent among West Europeans. One sees so much lack of rigour and ignorance in this article¡ Am I defensive? Why?. I call things by their name. Anyway, concentrate on the message. I stick to my point, there is a lot of manipulation in the information when the Spanish are concerned. Just look at my comments, I do not have to repeat myself. And I am not one of those who say that only Europeans are white. I know North Africa very well and in some areas people, especially those who call themselves Berbers, are white, of course.

The problem, and I emphasize, is that a lot of people here have no idea of anthropology or genetics. That is one of the problems with this Encyclopeadia.

If many Berbers are not white (Look at the pictures in the article Berbers) then what are they? Can somebody tell me? Of course they are white!. Some ignorants here will say that they are not because they are Muslims (Never call a Berber an Arab). What kind of place is this?

Another problem of course is the information provided by Genetics. In fact, we could argue that the closest thing, from a scientific point of view, to a race is a genetic family or Haplogroup, and it is, of course. But the landscape is not exactly the one many racists had in mind, so what is the result?: Nazis, White Supremacists, Nordicists, Afrocentrists, Mediterranean Supremacists, they all want to underplay, manipulate or just ignore genetics. Why? Because it does not suit them. If you want to use genetics it is fine, but do it as any piece of information should be dealt with, establishing a relationship between content and form. Speaking of the exception to ignore the rule or the minority to ignore the majority, that is all pure manipulation, and it should not be allowed either here or anywhere else.

And I repeat myself, of course. The Spanish, in this case, are one of the nations in Europe that are most characteristically European, from a genetic point of view. Not whitest, because White people does not equate European people, as some here try to make us believe, but certainly most European, and most of the information that I find in this place about them is to speak about their minority non-European genetic relationships, while other countries in Europe, in fact most other countries in Europe, are much more related to other non-European peoples than the Spanish.

And I agree with a statement here. Genetics does not explain why things are like that, but it explains what things are like. It does not say why about 50% of Indians (R1a)belong to the same genetic family as most Eastern Europeans and a lot of North Europeans, but it says that they do. And it does not say why most Western Europeans belong to the same genetic family (R1b) but it ceartanly says that they do.

So, if you want to speak about genetics, speak about it with a minimum of commom sense, sticking properly to the information available, discussing first the biggest and going then to the smallest, not the other way around. P.S.: To some ignorant folks. When I am speaking of the Spanish I mean the nation that lives in Spain, Iberian Peninsula, South-Western Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.81.119.10 (talk • contribs) .

• The article should reflect what the term means as commonly used in the English-speaking world in 2006. Therefore have we not concluded that 1) "White" is a subset of Caucasoid? 2) That "the majority of" Middle Easterners, Amerindians/Mexicans/mestizos, and North Africans do not overlap in genetics or that defintion leads nowhere? I guess the discussion of linguistic, cultural and religious histories have nothing to do with how the term is defined and thought of? I disagree. Most White people in 2006 view European-descended peoples as commonly White. Do not call these hundreds of millions of people ignorant. This is what is "common" (by no means absolute) in 2006, is it not? Genetics alone cannot be the only defining characteristic of the term, because outside of academia, where the term White is used heavily and daily in the English-speaking world and beyond, most people aren't even aware of what a haplogroup is. Do you think North American amerindians need to discuss haplogroups to know their history and what who they are, and where they came from? Cannot this article cover the basics, and then cover the exceptions? Isn't that the way an encyclopedia article should be organized? and PS White people do exist. Nobody has answered my question as to what someone (as many people are in 2006) who is mixed European (i.e. Polish, English, Italian, Irish, etc.) should be called. The vast, vast, vast majority of White people in the Australia, Canada, and the USA in particular show this kind of White diversity. So what would be the term for them? I'll tell you, in 2006 the term they use for themselves is "White" as they no longer find resonance in saying I'm Polish, English, Irish, etc. so many generations removed from the motherland. Southern Whites in the USA in particular, fall into this category, and therefore the term White exists. It's been used in the English-speaking world hundreds of millions of times.Yukirat 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A person who is mixed English, Italian and Polish should be called the same thing as a person who is mixed German, Tunisian and French or mixed Swedish, Lebanese and Romanian. In any case what they are called depends largely on what they choose to call themselves. In the UK, a majority of Egyptians class themselves as white on the national census. They shouldnt, according to you, right?

• A person could call themselves "Jewish" or "Japanese", but that doesn't make them necessarily so. There are limits. Come on. Once again, we get hung up on these "exceptional" and "hypothetical" issues and the article remained locked. We could discuss multi-racial people ad infinitum, as to how it all plays out, but this doesn't negate that the "common" definition of "most" (not all) White people is European-descent. That's just the way it is in 2006 for the "majority" of people in the world. In the USA, black people view Latinos/Mestizos and Whites differently. In Europe, North Africans are not commonly viewed as of indigienous European descent, and discriminaion exists because of it as many North Africans will tell you. There are approprite terms in this article already ("commonly", "some", "most", "sometimes", etc.), if people could focus on them, which make none of the article absolute in any terms. However, it cannot stand that North Africans, Middle Easterners and Amerindians and Mexicans are "White" because they are "mostly not" considered as such on "almost all--but not all" levels with major genetic, lingusitic, historical, cultural, and religious differences, and that also goes for overwhelmingly their own self-indentification too (as been provided e.g. Mexican flag etc.). There is no proof of it, and nobody has provided any outside "the U.S. Census definition" which is clearly covered in the article. Yukirat 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Why is the aritcle fully protected?--Keepin it real, Baby Phat 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a revert war. -Will Beback 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that it will stay protected until the warring parties can agree to edit collaboratively. -Will Beback 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As one of the "parties", I believe that I have editted this article in good faith, have substantiated my edits on the Edit Summary line, and also voluminously in Discussion. I repeatedly asked for no mass reverts without discussion, to no avail.Yukirat 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have though you were in the right, but you still engaged in revert warring. It takes two. -Will Beback 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's how one learns. I should have taken it to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? What other advice would you give to stop mass reverts without discussion?Yukirat 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Patience. More discussion. File an RfC to bring in more editors. Seek consensus so that you can agree on the material. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. -Will Beback 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that it was protected. Anyways, I'd like to propose a change that an admin could make: That two of the pictures of Moroccans in the photos table at the bottom of the African Americans section be eliminated. (See discussion in header below this one) After all, we now have four Arabs of Moroccan descent in the table, and I think the point about the general opinion of them being white or not can be made clear with two, or maybe only one, photo. Does anyone support this change? Does anyone oppose it? If not, Will, could you make the change? Picaroon9288|ta co 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to images that shows the fair and proportional diversity among the indigenous White/Western peoples of Europe? For instance some images of Spaniards, Scandanavians, Russians, Irish, Greeks, and their descendants worldwide, etc.? As it stands locked, the article has 4 images of people from North Africa, 2 from Mexico and 1 from Iran. That's needlessly controverisal and POV. This is supposed to be an basic encyclopedia article.Yukirat 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yuki, I do not want to be too tough on you. Probably you are not ill-intentioned, but I think that you have a strange view on the issue of race, probably shared by many of your countrymen, but that is not a reason to consider it right. I am going to ask you a simple question. Look at the pictures of these Berbers in this article: Berbers (click on the picture for the Berber Kabyles). If most of them are not white, what race are they supposed to be? Please answer this simple question and take into account that this article is about racial classification, as it stands at the beginning of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.137.109 (talk • contribs) .

Folks, please follow the standard talk page norms: Use two equals signs (at each end of the title) to create a header, use a colon to indent subsequent messages, and sign each comment with four tildes (~). See the top of the page for more info. -Will Beback 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What percentage are Berbers of the total population of indigenous Europeans and their descendants worldwide? Probably less than 1% of 1%. Why should there be 1/3 of the photos of North Africans? It's needlessly controversial, unfair, and borderline insulting and they were put there by Al-Andalus. What happens when a White person comes to this article and see photos in proportions described above? It's ridiculous. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Can't we get some uncontroverisal photos please? and be fair and proportional in showing the diversity among indigenous European/Western people and their descendants?Yukirat 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need several pictures of people who are unquestionably white? One picture would suffice. Pictures of people who are debatably-white is more informative, as they are an opportunity to explain the boundary. -Will Beback 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yukirat, you ask "Why should there be 1/3 of the photos of North Africans", and 2 Mexicans, and 2 Jews? Well the answer is simple. It is because this article is not about presenting one single view or opinion on which definition is the correct definition of White. The pictures of the four North Africans are there as a representative of the variety of phenotypes found in the population of the Middle East and North Africa, because whether you accept it or not, all those living in said region are deemed "white" according to different definitions of the term. And the reason why all four of the people representing the Middle East and North Africa are Moroccans was to illustrate that the diversity spoken of can exist even within a single one of those countries. Likewise, the 2 Mexicans are there as a representative of the Hispanic countries of Latin America; and the two Jewish persons as a representative of Jewish ethnic diversity.

I agree with Will Beback, "why do we need several pictures of people who are unquestionably white?" Pictures of people who who debatably white, that is, by some definitions but not others, is more informative "as they are an opportunity to explain the boundary."

Furthermore, you ask for the pictures to show "fair and proportional diversity among the indigenous White/Western peoples of Europe?". No one is attemting to remove such pictures, but what you want is for all the pictures to be representative of "White/Western peoples of Europe" in the perspective that they are the only true "Whites", which must we remind you again, is only true according to one definition of the term, but not by others. And the question in this cases is again, "why do we need several pictures of people who are unquestionably white?" Taking that stance is unfair and presents the article skewed to one single definition.

Yukirat, you have stated countless times that you wish for this article to be about "White people", not about the various definitions of "white" which you say should be redirected to "Whiteness studies." However, I pose to you this question. Can the two concepts ever be separated?

Assume we all were to agree that this article will from today onwards present "White people" as a solid entity, verifiable with unbending and universally agreed on parameters given the value of contituting a "race" (let's ignore for now the scientific issues that race does not biologically exist, or that anthropologically, there are only a few races, of which caucasoid encompases Europeans, but also many other including upto South Asians). Given the fact that throught history, there has never been one single agreed upon definition of White, since it is interprited differently in the USA, Latin America, Europe, Australia, etc, (and then within each of these countries you have the differences in definition based on government, colloquial understandings, or white nationalism), how do we we first get to the stage where we are all in agreement with one single definition of "White" to then take this article in the path of action of implementing this article to describe "White people", and no longer about the various definitions or about "whiteness". It simply won't happen. You will want your understaing of the definition to be used in the new path of the article, some one else will want his definition, and 100 other persons will want theirs.

The fact that all this is such a big issue simply further cements the fact that "white" is a social construct. Talking about genetics is also useless, unless we emphasize that the relevance of said genetic disucssions go only as far as a few definitions is concerened (ie. the definitions where the parameters for whiteness is based on genetics and haplogroups). Even in definitions of whiteness envoking genetics, you'll still have people that will adhere to additional requirements above haplogroups, Y chromosomes, and mtDNA. Some people will still not classify Europeans of the Muslim faith as white despite being indistinguishable from their European non-Muslim co-inhabitants (see for example Croatians, Bosnians, Serbians). Al-Andalus 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Re images and text -- Will, I respectfully disagree that the article should only contain one image of an uncontroversially White person, but then 4 (not 3) Moroccans, 2 Mexicans, etc. If there is an article about, for instance, Horses, shouldn't the article contain more text and show more photos of the diversity among the types of horses (as the Wikipedia article does), as opposed to more discussion and pictures of zebras or boundary definitions or other debatably-horse animals that have their own articles? What does the reader want to know who comes for information, info about horses, or info about what might/might not be a horse? I sincerely hope that analogy was OK, and let's not get into a discussion about subgenuses of horses vs. zebras etc. I think you know what I'm saying. It's "Whiteness Studies" to sit around debating who is white and who isn't and load up the article with that stuff. There may be a place for it, but this article isn't the place to put "all" of it. Isn't an encyclopedia article supposed to cover comprehensively the basics? not focus on the exceptions?Yukirat 18:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about White people, not "race" per se. So if social contructs are what define the term, then it shouldn't include North Africans as commonly White, because only in a few circumstances they are. Therefore, again this stuff should not become the main content of the an encyclopedia article. Al Andalus, I really don't know what your beef is, because the article does say that in certain circumstances some North Africans are considered White. It already says that, as did the paragraph you kept reverting simultaneously for Mexicans for presuamably the same reason. The article never said that White is never applied to these groups. However, it cannot stand that the article is written to presume or mislead the reader that they are White, or are considered White, in the majority of cases. If people are honest, this issue also covers Arabs, South Asians, West Asians [17]. They are not considered White in the majority of circumstances, however they "sometimes" are. Why is this so controverisal? The article should reflect reality and common sense, not the exceptions or POV that is counter to reality.Yukirat 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop talking about "caucasion" being an Anthropological concept. Its not. It was at one time, but science progresses. You might as well be blurring the line between astronomy and astrology. Read the American Anthropological Association's statement on race. Pay careful attention to the lines, "These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective" and "physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them". In short, you can continue talking about "caucasoid" vs. "negroid" all you want, just don't hide it behind claims of it being based on anthropology - unless you indicate that your particular grasp of the body of anthropological knowledge is grounded in something decidedly fringe. 198.97.67.59 11:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never hid behind anything, and I have consistently said that those who want to use and abuse the term "caucasoid" to include Indian/Hindus or Arabs or South Asians, etc. as "White" are being POV and hurting the truth of the article. Caucasoid does not equal "White", I agree with you. If we aren't going to use any genetics or physical variations (which I don't totally agree with because clearly the real world considers them), then we are left with cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious differences to consider, which is something I've said all along is appropriate also. The Ottoman Empire was non-White on almost all levels, Western Civilization is White on almost all levels. Some people will say: Mexicans are White because of the U.S. Census, or Hindus are White because they are cacausiods, and then turn around an revert out the link between Whites and the history of Western Civilization. Do you see what's happening? People are abusing terms and concepts to make the exceptions the rule, and turning around and pushing anti-White POV to revert what are today its most common definitions. It's really quite clear what's happening here.Yukirat 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the AAA's statement, those who want to use and abuse the term "caucasoid" to include any gruop and exclude others are being POV. "If we aren't going to use any genetics or physical variations (which I don't totally agree with because clearly the real world considers them)" source? "we are left with cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious differences to consider", yes but even those are regionally variable. "The Ottoman Empire was non-White on almost all levels, Western Civilization is White on almost all levels." source? "People are abusing terms and concepts to make the exceptions the rule", well, what is the rule? What is the checklist by which I can say "this is white, this is not"? If you can't tell me what the rule is, then we don't know what are exceptions. "pushing anti-White POV" please give a checklist to tell what an anti-White POV (as oppossed to, say, an anti-Black POV) is and isn't as well.198.97.67.59 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

An example of anti-Black POV would be if I went to the page on African-American and made a pest of myself by claiming that White South African immigrants to the USA are "African-Americans" and stuff like that. I could argue that one around ad infinitum, however I think that's wrong and pushing a POV based upon an exception to the norm. Come on. Seriously. What was White about the Ottoman Empire and what wasn't White about the history of Western Civ? You prove your point. This is getting ridiculous. Stop playing games. P.S. Funny how on the African American page there aren't images of 4 Moroccans and only 1 Black person, after all North Africans are "African" aren't they, and why would anyone need to see more than one photo of a black person? Yukirat 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

White South African Immigrants -are- African-American. "What was White about the Ottoman Empire..?" I don't know. What wasn't White about it? What does "White" mean? I mean, you haven't explained that yet. You think the point is obvious. If its so obvious, you ought to do better than reply "Come on. Seriously." You ought to be able to make your point and back it up.71.74.209.82 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You say: White South African Immigrants -are- African-American. Fine, you go then to the page African-American post 4 pictures of non-black South Africans that now live in the USA, remove all the other images, and say "We only need to see one black African-American, because we all know what a black person looks like, what the article really needs is to cover the boundary/controversial issues". Go ahead. Will, and everyone else here will back you up. Spend your time there if you think that's the right thing to do, seriously, but stop wasting ours. Yukirat 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You say: "What does "White" mean? ...you haven't explained that yet. Yes, it's been covered ad nauseum. It means "mostly" and "commonly" people of indigenous European descent. Not always, but the vast majority of times as it is used in 2006 in the English-speaking world. It does not equal Caucasoid, and it doesn't overlap with Mexicans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Arabs, South Asians, Turks, Hindus, East Asians, except for a minority of these inhabitants, mostly in particular "legal" circumstances (ie. US Census) which are "not generally" agreed to in social or colloquial circles. (see also discussion below under "Sources" header. Thanks.Yukirat 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I find posting pictures on Wiki to be too much work. If the best you can do in defining white is to say that it 'mostly' and 'commonly' refers to 'people of indigenous European descent', then you have to spend a great deal of time defining the barriers. I mean, by 'mostly' do you mean indigenous Europeans who are taller than 4'5" tall? Indigenous Europeans who are less than 330lbs in weight? Indigenuous Europeans who don't have red hair? Indigenous Europeans who aren't left handed? Europeans who aren't psychologists? I mean, what does 'mostly' and 'commonly' mean?71.74.209.82 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Many images already exist on Wikipedia, you don't have to upload them, you can just link to them. Regarding the meanings of the words 'commonly' and 'mostly', you should know what those words mean if you are educated in the English language. I don't mean to be a smart-aleck, but you could look them up in the dictionary too. They are used, as you know, in our language every day (they are commonly used!) so why would you have a problem with them or not understand what they mean??? Yukirat 23:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you find this confusing? "The designation Caucasian was first used in the 19th and early 20th centuries by scholars who believed that this subdivision originated in Caucasia, a region of southeastern Europe. Caucasians are now more commonly known as the white race, or as people of European extraction. The center of the white population is usually considered to be Europe and the Americas."Yukirat 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, scholars once believed "caucasion" refered to a race. Now they realize that 'race' as a biological concept has no meaning (see the AAA statement I referenced above). Yes, what scholars used to wrongly identify as the caucasion race is now wrongly identified as the white race. I think that's all clear. Do you find the statement by mainstream modern scholars, ""physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them" confusing?71.74.209.82 23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are all the same, then why is "celebrating diversity" so important? I know what you are saying, but you also have to help here. How would you define White people? Please do not say that White people "do not exist" because then we would also have to delete every single page on Wikipedia related to these subjects for others too. How do you define it, or think it should be defined here?Yukirat 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I post about how I define White people, I want to see your answer to the question I posed to you earlier. You wrote, "The Ottoman Empire was non-White on almost all levels, Western Civilization is White on almost all levels." What was your source and/or reasoning for that?71.74.209.82 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ottomans and Europeans were bitter enemies. Ottomans hated Europe and Western & Eastern Christendom and vice versa. They share zero cultural, linguistic, historical, or religious histories, and they share no common ancestral linkage, and they have markedly differnent hapolgroups and mDNA's.Yukirat 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of the arguement, we'll assume that's true (its not, but I'll ignore that for now). And we'll assume its somehow relevant. The Ottoman Empire was in the Caucasus region. You've kept talking about how the Caucasus region was where the whites originated. Why weren't the Ottomans white and the Europeans non-white?71.74.209.82 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that the "Caucusus region" defines the term White. It doesn't. That's old line anthropological thinking (as has been pointed out numerous times) in the Discussion. What is the title of this section? Isn't that exactly what you said to start it? I think you get confused often. Please reread from the top, before you quote people incorrectly. Kindly help us, how do you define the term?Yukirat 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC) --restore text that was removed here [18]Yukirat 22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

old line anthropological thinking is that race exists biologically. So, you don't believe in a biological basis for race? So, why do you define it as connected to Europe? I'm bored with this. You still haven't given a real definition of your own for "white". "mostly European" isn't a real definition as I explained before (what does "mostly" mean?). I will give you my definition right after I see yours.71.74.209.82 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The following is an image that first appeared on google of a Paki under the word `Caucasoid'. An image which upset Yuki-kike because it was `an exception to the rule' (cum on lets have another photo competition!!). What the hell are the fucking rules MORON!!? That 1/3 of `White' people are Moroccan? http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/calc/bow/race_caucasoid.jpg On the other hand, here are more white Moroccans, they're white just like Massaoui, they would be 100% safe if they turned up to a Klan rally! (lol) http://www.cp-pc.ca/english/morocco/images/mor12.jpg Whooopps!! Here's another White Paki to upset Yuki-Spak! http://www.senate.gov.pk/images/Members/SaleemSaifullah.JPG How many goddam `exceptions' to the rule are there??

Please stop the peronsal attacks and profanity, OK? The article should show the diversity among White people, "the vast majority" of whom on planet Earth are European descendants. I think there is wonderful diversity than can be shown from Ireland to Greece (not Turks), and from Spain to the Urals. It's not fair to have 1/3 of the photos being North African, besides the majority of North Africans are non-White when it comes to cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious factors, as well as genetics too [[19]]. The only basis for including North Africans as White, would be to say "some" are and also mention the U.S. Census defintion, which the article already does. But clearly the Whiteness of North Africans on all other levels is not there. Go visit Libya, Fes, Tangier, etc. It's not accurate to say North Africans are White. It just isn't, outside a small minority, and that minority shouldn't rule the article or become 1/3 of all the photos, and people should stop pushing POV that makes false statements. Thanks.Yukirat 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everything which is not sourced should be removed from this article. It would do a lot to reduce grounds for contention. Entire sections have no source listed in them (forex. the Whiteness and White Nationalism section). The article will be drastically shortened, but the overall quality will be improved dramatically.198.97.67.58 16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the sources of my previous entry are written on the website in blue in which they came from!!

All I see are definitions and explanations, but no actual sources. For example, where is the source for this statement, "The strictest definition held by most White nationalist groups around the world, whether White separatists or White supremacists, is that only those of total ancient ethnic indigenous European ancestry are 'White.'"?198.97.67.59 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How can every single line "be sourced"? Here is something from Encarta, so I hope this isn't some copyvio problem, but it isn't "sourced" other than the author itself.

Caucasian Race, term sometimes applied to a broad and increasingly vague subdivision of the human species with a predominance of light skin color, and higher percentages of light-colored eyes and hair than are found in other segments of the population. The designation Caucasian was first used in the 19th and early 20th centuries by scholars who believed that this subdivision originated in Caucasia, a region of southeastern Europe. Caucasians are now more commonly known as the white race, or as people of European extraction.

The center of the white population is usually considered to be Europe and the Americas, although the spread of Caucasians into North and South America began only a few centuries ago. Hundreds of millions of people in India and the Middle East, however, are most frequently classified as "Caucasoid" peoples, in areas where distinctions are not clear between white and nonwhite populations.

In North America, confusion over the designation white or Caucasian is considerable. Many people, including Puerto Ricans and Mexican-Americans, are now being identified as "Hispanic" rather than "white" in social counts of American populations, such as the United States Census. Increasingly, the term white is becoming a residual category, denoting that part of the population not covered by the following classifications: blacks, Hispanics, East Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and other "socioracial" subdivisions.

Contributed By:

Pertti J. Pelto (Prof. of Anthropology, U. of Connecticut)

This pretty much backs up what I think is fair when it comes to the differences of the term "Caucasian" and its subset term "White". The "Who is White" part of the article, cannot and should not become the totality of the article, especially when POV and falsehoods are put in there.Yukirat 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While that isn't connected to the white nationalist section, it is an example of a source. Though it isn't in the article, so I fail to see its relevance to my point.71.74.209.82 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read below? I think deleting the entire section is overkill since it comes up in society. Besides, the page is not locked for reasons relating to that text, and we're not trying to work through any issues related to that section, as far as I know. Your point also, that started this section, was that "everything not sourced" should be deleted, and that's sort of an extreme position imho. Was that your point or 198.97.67.59's point? Yukirat 22:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"it comes up in society" then there should be no trouble finding a source for it. BTW, I am 198,97,67.59. Just want to make sure there's no confusion.71.74.209.82 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are whole Wikipedia articles about White supremacism and White nationalism and this article provides links, as there are also supremacist and nationalist groups from other ethnicities and races on Wikipedia: Black supremacy, Kach and Kahane Chai, Shiv Sena, MEChA, Goldsea etc. I really don't know why this topic is coming up howver, it's not been a subject of controversy or the reason the article is locked. Thanks. P.S. This brings up the point that nobody seems to mind that a link exists here to White supremcacy (a small subset of White people, however there was a revert war about including a link to Western Civilization?!! It's not right. Yukirat 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For all of the editors who feel that an article on White people is worthwhile you might want to create a similar article on the Spanish language Wikipedia. The last time I checked, White people redirects to Caucasian on the Spanish Wiki. On their Wiki, Caucasian and Caucasoid are the same articles. The reason the Spanish-language Wikipedians gave was that the term White is automatically racist because it is associated with White Supremacy. Since the editors on this article know these terms are not synonymous, competant Spanish speakers may want to create an article on their Wikipedia.--Dark Tichondrias 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason the Spanish-language Wikipedians gave was that the term White is automatically racist because it is associated with White Supremacy. Wow, that's sure interesting. According to this English-verison article: "In the last U.S census, around half of all persons of Mexican or Mexican American origin in the U.S. checked "White" to register their race (in addition to stating their Mexican national origin), and of the over 40 million Hispanics for the United States Census, 2000, a plurality of 48.6% identified as "White-Hispanic". Yukirat 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't quote me on that statement, because I viewed their Wiki about three months ago. About three months ago my account on their Wiki was banned and I haven't visited their Wiki since then. I may have forgot their true reason.

The real reason why their Wiki redirects White to Caucasian is most likely because their Wiki only supports the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negorid, Australoid race system. Their Asian article redirects to Mongoloid. Their race article only has the "-oid" racial categories which they claim are biological.--Dark Tichondrias 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately it is. Why? Because it has been used too often with these connotations, and also because White Supremacists continue hammering the term all the time, and also because there is a long tradition of using it in racist contexts. This fact has already been realized in many countries. In Europe, the term is not very commonly used to refer to people anymore, never officially. People usually use nationality. In almost no European country will you now find an officcial or unofficial document in which people will classify themselves as white or not (Well, there is an interesting exception: in documents of Nazi-like political parties or organizations you will). Probably only in the United Kingdon. It is certainly used in the US. I think it is also used in Australia. What does it mean? The Anglo-Saxon world has not realized the obvious: that the native place of Europeans does not use the term, in any case never officially, to classify people. Maybe the Anglo-Saxon world is still a remnant of 19th and 20th centuries racist views, views that continue to be entrenched in their minds and do not realize that they are beginning to look disgustingly racist to the majority of the world. The term "white" is inevitably linked to racism, because terms come to mean in a cultural and linguistic context and unfortunately this context has been just racist in too many occassions. What is sad is that some governments and cultures continue to use it as if it did not have those connotations. What would people think if in Germany, people would have to check since their early childhood in school concepts like Aryan or Jew?. What is being perpetuated in those countries with the official support of the government is a crime against humanity, altough they try to conceal the infamy of such policy under arguments like using it for positive discrimination or to fight racism. They are perpetuating racism themselbves ingraining in the minds of chindren that they are fundamentaly different since they go to school, that some of them are Horses and some Zebras, like an American user here has expressed.

In my opinion the article should deal directly with this issue. That the term itself is a racist creation and that it should be dammed. If there are people who identify so much with it, they should begin to reconsider their position. Many of them are possibly not racist, by they have been certainly brainwashed by the culture in which they live, like many Germans identified with the term Aryan during the 3rd Reich.

"White" is automatically racist because it has been used too often with these connotations? What is "too often"? Where's that line? Is Christianity automatically hate-mongering because it is so often used to prop up those kinds of politics? Is feminism automatically sexist because it is so often associated with those politics?

This is nuts. But I appreciate you providing us with a good example of politically correct insanity.71.74.209.82 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To the anon that didn't sign his post, what would you call a person that is 1/8 English, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Polish, 1/8 Dutch, and 1/4 Norwegian? The vast majority of White people in the USA and Australia are of mixed European descent. They are White, however the term European American is starting to be used. But the vast majority of people use the term "White". It's used hundreds of millions of times in thousands of different circumstances. Lastly, as the previous section illustrates, if the term "White" is racist in a pejorative sense (which it is not), then why do almost 50% of Hispanics and Mexican-Americans willingly choose to self-identify with it??Yukirat 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In homogenous societies people focus on smaller differences much more, but in heterogenous societies like the USA these smaller differences are pushed under the rug in favor of much more apparant differences. In ethnically homogenous Italy, more emphasis would be placed on family clans and regional origin. In Europe, where everyone is European the term White would have less meaning. Much more meaning would be given to national origin, since everyone is white. Where heterogeneous backgrounds exist, less emphasis is placed on minutia. In the USA which contains all national origin groups, readily apparant differences such as skin color are considered relevant. The fact that Europe has phased out the term "White" does not show that it is meaningless. Their conception of Whiteness would have no social meaning when everyone around them would be considered white.--Dark Tichondrias 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is: What race claims Mariah Carey?

Also, how is "white" inherently racist? I though it was a color. (clear: a lack of color)

Also, why are "white" people white? Lack of Sunshine? Ya need to get out and get some sunshine people, it's good for ya!

Speaking of sunshine...I think it (as a factor in race) should be addressed. Our environment creates noticeable changes in one's appearance. I think black people's dark skin is directly correlated to having come from the hottest regions on planet Earth. Many ancient cultures worshiped the Sun (or placed it in a prominent role). These people tend to have dark or tan skin complexions. I think this is important! All life on planet Earth is influenced by the Sun. Differences between us (people) may have something to do with varying degrees of sun exposure.

2c me 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely true, Eskimos are non-White and they live in Artic conditions. There are differences between human beings, and that's why we celebrate diversity, including that of Whites too.Yukirat 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a link on the article which explains why white people are white. Apparently, all white, blonde, blue eyed people originate within 600km of the Baltic sea. As one moves away from this area people become progressively darker (on average). The explanation given is basically climatic. The baltic and Northern Europe is the only region in the world at such high latitudes (so close to the north pole) which has a benign climate due to the Gulf Stream (warm sea currents coming straight from the carribean). It thus allows agriculture whereas in other regions at similar latitudes agriculture is impossible (e.g. Siberia, Labrador etc...) Originally all European peoples, including northern europeans were brown skinned, same as everyone else. However, as they progressively changed their basic diet from fish and meat which is high in vitamins, to wheat and other agricultural products, they started becoming deficient in these vitamins which are synthesized with sunlight (which they lacked so far north). Therefore, as a mechanism for survival, their skin, hair and eyes became progressively lighter. Or to put it another way, those who were born dark died of vitamin defficiency. Other populations which lived at similar latitudes such as the eskimos, north american indians or nomadic Siberian tribes, were never capable of making this transition to agriculture and were thus never deficient in these vitamins. No drastic need for a change in their morphology was needed so they remained (relatively) brown skinned.

Blondism is a physical trait which occurs in all European, North African, West and South Asian populations (except southern India). It is a characteristic of all caucasian populations. This preexisting trait which can be found from India to Morocco became predominant in northern europe for this reason i have given. It is a trait which is not exclusive to the (non-existing) white race... Had Swedes not switched from fishing and hunting to farming they would still be predominantly brown!

Interesting eh?

Ismael76 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

All human beings may be descended from the same amoeba, however today we have wonderful diversity, Black, Brown, and White. From the looks of this: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf "ES" Eskimos and "NW" Norwegians are very different. When did this split above occur, how many thousands of years ago to show the markedly different characteristics and genetics, and the diversity we see today? It's not just skin color or genetic differences that can be seen clearly between Eskimos and Europeans. The cultural, linguistic, religious, and historical differences are very great also. Are you saying Eskimos are White? They are not. Kindly don't infer that Whites don't exist and that today all people are the same. That is untrue. Let's celebrate our diversity, including that of Whites. Yukirat 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please people, sign your posts. But anyway, that theory that blondism originated near the Baltic under whatever unique circumstances does not account for blondism occuring among all other caucasoid populations outside of Europe (although at increasingly lower rates), including Anatolia, North Africa, West Asia, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, South Asia (excluding the southern most parts of the region inhabited by predominantly Australoid peoples). And please, lets not envoke the Aryan invasion theory. That theory is dead now.

Also, even Aboriginal Australians have a high prevalence of blondism, and they, like southern South Asians (where blondism is now absent), are categorized as Australoid. Genetics have now confirmed that Australian Aboriginies originated in the region of southern India, as the only markers that were known to be unique among Aboriginies were finally identified in a few southern Indian samples. In any case, whether they are southern South Asians or Australian aboriginies, Australoids are most often considered an archaic type of caucasoids. Australian aboriginies being the oldest type of Australoids who have lived in isolation for up to 80 thousand years since arriving to the Australian continent (whereas southern Indians have come into contact and mixing with many other strains) still display blondism at high rates, showing that it is a trait that stretches far back into human history, and its physical origin needn't be associated with Northern Europe.

And NO Yukirat, I'm not suggesting Australian aboriginals or any other specific groups that I mentioned in the last paragraph (Europeans, Norther Africans, Southwest Asians, Central Asians, South Asians, etc) are white or not. I was merely talking about blondism and genetic markers, australoid and caucasoids. It was irrelevant to whiteness. You want to talk about genetic, let's do that, but you also have in mind that genetics itself does not affect whiteness (at least outside the definition where whitneness is based on modern genetics). Al-Andalus 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

AA, you violated 3RR and started a revert war, which resulted in a page lock, because of your focused insistence in calling North Africans and Mexicans: "White". Your inconsistency is obvious. Now look at what you say. Your POV is thus: You post "North Aficans are White" over and over and over into the article, however when someone says "Europeans are White" you respond that White is only a social construct. If it's a meaningless social contruct, then why in the world did you violate Wikipedia rules over and over to place your text (and POV) in about the Whiteness of North Africans? Explain yourself, which I am not expecting you will do. The reason this page is locked has nothing to do with "blondism" and that term isn't even represented in the article as it stands. There is no controversy over blondism and nobody has once said that White is defined by the term blonde. Let's keep on track. Thanks. PS AA started a revert war over a one link in this article to Western Civilization, however now we're discussing Eskimos and blondism with regards to South Asians. It's ridiculous. Some people are anti-White bigots. Yukirat 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, I like this comment. I have been insisting on the Black people article the same thing. Genetic markers which are not related to phenotype and skin color do not have anything to do with whiteness nor blackness. Showing me some obscure DNA similarity between a European and some alien will not make the alien more or less "white". --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On what basis then is Al-Andalus claiming that North Africans and Mexicans are White? I'd still like hear a response from him not a revert war and 3RR violation.Yukirat 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Andalus you have clearly misunderstood me. I am not saying that blondism originated in the baltic region. Im saying that blondism was (and is) a natural occurance among all caucasoid peoples. Only that this naturally occuring "mutation" should we say (like albinos or having six fingers) became more and more common in this region due to natural selection until it became predominant in this area. Had the genes of blondism not been already present among all caucasoids, this natural selection due to external conditions would not have occured in this particular area. It is not a question of race but of (relatively recent) adaptation to conditions and human behaviour. Blondism is inexistant among amerindians for example and this adaptation would maybe not have occured among them. It is characteristic of caucasoids who live in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Western Asia and Northern India. The change from brown to white was therefore much easier since "whiteness" or blondism was already present in their genotype (if not in the phenotype of a majority of them).

As for the australian aboriginees, it is true some are blonde but I always associated this with English admixture. Maybe Im wrong. In any case it is very interesting, although it does not pose any problem to this theory.

It's a common misconception (at least for non-Australians) to think that the blondism among Aboriginies is due to admixture with the British. This misconception is largely because of the strong social association of blondism with Northern Europeans. As a matter of fact, with gradual intermixing between Europeans and aboriginies since the continent was first setteled by the British (1788) and then all other immigrants, the occurance of blondism has actually dropped among aboriginies (obviosuly because not all Englishmen were blond, nor were most immigrants after them), and the communities where one may observe the highest insidence of blondism among aboriginals are the few remaining isolated tribal communities dwelling the central Asutralian deserts where their lifestyle and remoteness have kept them unmixed. But yeah, when I said aboriginal, I mean the unmixed ones, which are almost extinct today. Under 3% of Australians are officially Aboriginal (including the numerically inferior Torres Strait Islanders, who are native to a territorial possesion of Australia), and the vast majority of those are mixed. Less than 10% of them I would say are "pure", since that is the number of those who have never abandoned their tribal desert dwelling lifestyles. On the streets of Sydney and its inner and outer suburbs (as well as all other Aussie cities and their spread out metropolitan region), the only aboriginals you'll encounter are the mixed ones. I have met my share of even half-Chinese aboriginals. Al-Andalus 00:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you simply ignore Yurikat he doesnt seem to understand nor want to understand what we are talking about.

I would also like to say blondism is not absent in South Asia, as the pictures offered on the article have proven. It is however absent in South India. --Ismael76 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I did say: "blondism...[occurs] among all other caucasoid populations outside of Europe...including Anatolia, North Africa, West Asia, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, South Asia (excluding the southern most parts of the region...". Al-Andalus 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blondism doesn't define White, and discussion of that, while fine, is not the reason the article is locked. The instances of blondism within Indians and aborignal people is off-topic. Thanks.Yukirat 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You! This information really is intresting. 2c me 07:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eskimos are not White. Europeans are White. There is diversity today that must be covered. We cannot simply delete the articles on Eskimos, aboriginals, and Blacks and say they are all the same and only a social construct. The differences in linguistic, cultural, religious and historical backgrounds, plus genetic and visible physical differences, between Eskimos and Africans is vast. Sorry, but they are not the same.Yukirat 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We over in the Black People article are also locked out. And we in the Black People article are also discussing, debating, rather, how much of India is Black. I am sure we have a big following of "India is white" in this group. But there is an equally large following of "India is black" as well. Shall we accept the fact that India has a few hundred million black people and a few hundred white people and a few hundred mixed people? Or are we going to simply pretend that the light skinned indians are "as good as white" and the dark skinned indians are "just darkskinned, but not really black"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have with defining some people as white, is linked to the issue I have with rejecting some people as Black. We in the present day define casually, people of varying shades and hair textures as "non-white black people". Yet those same features found on ancient cultures in Africa, India, and elsewhere give them the label of "Caucasoids with negroid admixture", or "White people with black slave sidekicks". Egypt, Ethiopia, East India, Aboriginal Australia, and South Asia are all areas where the people are indistinguisably black from modern Black people, who at the very least objectively look like a middle ground between black/white (identical in many respects to a child born of a black afrian and a white european), and yet, those also are called "caucasoids" if they are ancient and black (or biracial) if they are modern. From Caucasoid, you link obviously to white, even if the link is not wholly credited in this article. IF I find a reference in ancient history that says 'these were white people', the reference is hailed as proof. But if I find a reference in ancient history that says 'these were black people', it is not taken as proof, and instead the whole reference itself is doubted and the term 'black' becomes broken down to endless relativistic nonsense. This is the kind of POV i see. The Ancient Egyptian race debate on here is absurd, and the nonsense about Australoids being a kind of "proto-Caucasoid" type (just a reworked way of saying Negroid) is absurd. YOu can't make "Caucasoid" be the "default" type to start off with, and link everyone else to it. Especially considering that the Negroid African type was the first original type of human. All must branch out from that, and the distance from that origin details their relationship. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct when I interprete you as saying, "...and the distance from that origin details their relationship..." meaning distance from the people, and from the environment they inhabit, ..."details their relationship." How is this view different from the view above? I think you both acknowledge environmental influences on human phenotype. 2c me 08:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not addressing environmental factors in that comment. I am addressing strictly geographic distance as it pertains to an ancient origin of the human race. You can't call one group a descendant of group B, just because both are ultimately descendants of group C. It's like this, you can't call the sibling of an ancestor the ancestor itself just because they both come from the same parent. In the same token you can't call Australoids the descendants of Caucasoids just because the Caucasoid and Australoid came from an earlier shared (non-caucasoid) ancestor. We all know this. This is 101. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

...I'm getting confused by notions of "time" and "ancestors"...We can't see any of our ancestors today (they are dead). We can't look at today's descendents and say "you are my ancestor" That makes no sense. But we do see people today who look much like our ansestors looked (as we ourselves look like our ancestors). In today's population, we see people who possess similar characteristics; ie. they look alike. We can group them together phenotypically (based on outter appearances) but we must be careful, relationship (how close someone is to someone else) is better determined genetically. For example, families with members who have several different traits, can have offspring that don't look "closely related" but in fact *are* closely related. I think we all agree...? 2c me 09:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but this is not how the 'white' race and 'black' race is defined. White is defined loosely as one whose origins come from Europe, N africa, and Middle East. I see no connection between a N. African nubian and a Swede. I do not think there will be some plethra of DNA linking them uniquely from any other race. They also don't look alike. Yet you can look at pictures of Nubians, sculptures of Egyptians and see 'oh, they look a lot like other black africans'! Take Queen Nefertiti, she looks caucasian to some people, but for many african people, they can see that she is although lightskinned in appearance, she has similiar features to other lightskinned people also considered 'black'. I think we can all agree on that. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of irrelevant, but has anyone noticed Indian religious art? There are buddhist paintings that show a rainbow collection of gods. There are black, brown, red, tan, pink and white gods. (I like this pantheistic vision). Also, there are religious paintings of the goddess as black, and the male god as brown or even white, coupled in union. Doesn't this seem to imply India's acknowledgement of her muti-racial history / background?

2c me 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, but the multiracial acknowledgement ends at the black line. All the black people magicaly become "mixed" or melted into the other distinct groups which retain their distinctiveness. Oh and also, Buddhism, an Indian religion, was founded by a man who was represented originally with knappy hair and african features. Look up Buddha, and anything pertaining to the EARLIEST sculptures. You'll see. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For reasons which escape me, my earlier post here was deleted. Please don't delete comments in the discussion page which you didn't write (whoever did this, I'm not pointing fingers). Its rude and, I'm guessing, against Wiki policy.

Anyway, here's what I wrote in reply to the post by Zaphnathpaaneah which precedes this, "::That's because race doesn't exist biologically AND because our concepts of medicine (and, by extension, biology) are metanarratives of the perceiver's own self (cf Donna Harraway's "Primate Visions").198.97.67.56 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)"198.97.67.56 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this answered my earlier post. Buddha had curly hair. Now this not existing biologically and metanarratives and the perceivers own self, etc... basically if one perceives himself in a manner we view as black or white today, its retarded to just blank that out. No one is going to say the Germanic tribes during roman times weren't white. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a picture of early Buddha. In a modern American context, he would not be considered of African-American descent. And I doubt that those Germanic tribes would have self-identified as "white".198.97.67.56 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an earlier 10th century sculpture of Buddha. [20] as you can see his hair is curly. Obviously he is not african-american, why would you even create controversy by stating such an obvious fact as something I am arguing against when I certainly make no absurd comment nor imply. And Germanic tribes self-identifying as white is not the issue. I said no one is going to say that they were NOT white. In other words I do not expect you or anyone to say these words the Visigoths were not white. The Celts were not white etc. Not without a qualifier before hand. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused by your POV. I thought "all people" had ancestors who likely originated / thrived along the Equator. Some people have ancestors who thrived around what is now known as the Middle East... but not all people do. Some people have ancestors who thrived around the region we loosly call Asia...but not all people do. Some people have ancestors who thrived around what we call "Europe" and "Russia"...but not all people do. Do we agree? 2c me 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My issue is where there is divergence and distinctions. There are people today that are called 'black'. Why? We do not question that. There are people called 'white'. We do not question that either. So therefore we have to figure out how they are related to each other and where the distinction from 'Equator people' or 'black' became 'white' for those people who are called white. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah, shouldn't the articles Black and White, cover primarily what the terms mean in 2006 first, and then cover some of the gray areas or controversy? If a reader wants to click on White or Black, and learn the basic definition, history, geography, culture shouldn't that be provided? The article's current problem is people who want to cover the exceptions, or focus on their particular controversy, then do not contribute to the main part of the article and hijack a very basic concept to push POV of all kinds. A perfect example of this is User:Al-Andalus who previously said that North Africans and Berbers in particular share White genetics. Now, when he's shown that North Africans share little with Iberians and Europeans, he flip-flops to "White is only a social construct". He goes from pushing Whiteness for North Africans, and when caught, changes his stance and starts pushing the opposite POV that there are no White people. In either case, he has a problem with Whiteness being associated with Europeans and has not explained why that simple most basic concept is objectionable on an encyclopedia article that should COVER THE BASICS FIRST. It's ridiculous to discuss blondism in aboriginal australians in a serious manner here, it's interesting to some, however far, far, far off-topic. Can we refocus on what the term means in an encyclopedia article in 2006? I'll repost the Encarta stuff as an example, so perhaps we can get back on track in writing an informative article for Wikipedia:

"A perfect example of this is User:Al-Andalus who previously said that North Africans and Berbers in particular share White genetics" I have never envoked genetics in my discussions regarding this article. Only in my last reply to user Yukirat did I make any reference to genetics, and even then I stated that the topic of genetics is only relevant to whiteness (or blackness, or yellowness, etc) as far as the few definitions that base whiteness on genetic markers. Further, it is I who have been a proponent of the heterogeneity of the Middle East and North Africa, so I don't know where the annonymous user gets the idea that I at any time stated anything about genetic similarity of any one population with any other population. BTW, need we point out that out of all the definitions of white, one which is based on genetics would by default also be the most recent and without a history. How long has whiteness as a concept been around? And how long has modern genetics? Now, why are some people conducting themselves in a manner as though a genetic definition of whiteness is most relevant to this article? It is nonetheless a new way of interpriting whiteness, and should be mentioned somewhere, but for the article to be dedicated to that sole point of vies is a POV. I'll be back later to adress the posts above. Al-Andalus 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin to answer, so i will start from the top. I certainly agree that they should come from the most commonly accepted terms currently. However, they should not be based strictly on U.S. notions that exclude the relevant perspectives outside, (since the terms are multinational). Secondarily, the two groups are not diametrically in opposition or parallel in origin. Humans didnt originate from black AND white looking ancestors. One of these two groups is derived from another. Therefore the perspective should be made that the original group changed in some branches, while the other group should show where it branched off the original group (or its derivatives). I also agree that the flip-flopping (which is also being done on the black people article by Paul and EditingOprah) is a form of dishonesty. Genetic priority and social relativism are always used as escape routes. It's like being in court and being told that the facts are established by some principles, but then later the same facts are refuted by those principles, another set of principles are used (in opposition) to refute the earlier principles. 1 plus 1 equals 2, because mathematic principles show it to be so... "but what is math but a social construct of human numbering schemes". With race, its the other way around. This person is of this race because the DNA says so. But what is DNA? Ah...ah...ah..... not a social construct. The RACIAL CLASSIFICATION IS. The DNA is merely a collection of molecules. I cannot look at a molecule, or a molecule group and call that a "black" molecule, or a "white" molecule. Only those molecules (genes) that have to DO with phenotype and skin color... only THOSE can I use as indicators of race. Now myself, I know that N. Africans are a hodgepodge of groups. I acknolwedge that Germanic tribes (Visigoths and the other group whose name I cannot recall) settled throughout N. Africa at different times. The Libyans of antiquity are represented unwaveringly in the same manner as Europeans we consider to be white. The Egyptians called them "Tem-hoo". So then we have something to consider. The Egyptians represented them differently than they represented themselves (middle to dark brown) when making a comparison of human origins. To say that the Egyptians were white would be misleading. To say the Libyans of antiquity were black would also be misleading. Caucasian is NOW considered to be one with a skull shaped in a particular way. However THIS definition has been reduced to social engineering. The skull shape criteria is so broad and so diffuse, it loses objective meaning. In order to make sure every EUropean is called "Caucasian" by this standard, many non-europeans must be drawn into the fold (from Aboriginals to Rwandans and Ethiopians)... people who have nothing in common with the well agreed Caucasian. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for at least making it clear that you base your position on something other than modern mainstream Anthropological thought. The question is, since you are so willing to throw it out, what do you base your opinion on?

Also, "Humans didn't originate from black AND white looking ancestors. One of these two groups is derived from another" is a statement of faith in that both could come from a common ancestor. The Out Of Africa hypothesis is what is most commonly believed, but the Multiregional hypothesis hasn't been entirely ruled out yet.198.97.67.56 11:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. You misrepresent me again. White is not an anthropological term. It is a social group. You cannot tell me, anthropologically speaking, that Egyptians in Aswan Egypt are more closely related to British people than they are to Ethiopians. You cannot tell me that Yemeni are more closely related to Swedes than they are to Kenyans. I'm sorry thats just absurd. I'm not throwing it out, I'm reminding you that it was never really there in the first place. Anthropology is a study of human groups, not just human perceptions. When we sit here and classify people based on a social ideology to preserve the sensibilities of Western Europeans, then we have to ask ourselves, what is the real goal. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

IN reards to The out of Africa position you have. It's funny, people accuse people like me of being overly politically correct. But people of your position when they take this route you take a statement of faith in that both could come from a common ancestor. The Out Of Africa hypothesis is what is most commonly believed, but the Multiregional hypothesis hasn't been entirely ruled out yet is so Politically Correct to me. Here is why. The Multiregional hypothesis simply pushes the Out of Africa hypothesis back further. That's all it is. I can prove it. You go back too far, and you go to a time-frame that would have created speciation. White people also are not found in sharp divisions from black people. The Middle East and Southern Europe have historical (not just prehistorical) links to black African populations. Therefore there is not enough time and seperation to call for a Multiregional hypothesis to be considered anything more than fringe or very minor. The difference between a white and black human is close, too close to be attributed to a multiregional theory for the creation of all other 'non-white/non-black' people in the middle. In fact, East Asians like Chinese are further apart from the other two than they are from each other. YOu'll never get a chinese child born from a black/white couple. Finally and most importantly. Melanin. Melanin producing cells that make the black skin color cannot be derived from white ancestors no matter how much sun they lived in. It would take too long (much longer than the human record could possibly indicate) to restore black skin to white descendants by purely environmental conditions. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone is denying that current Anthropological belief has Hss or its ancestors coming from Africa. I never denied that. However, there is a big difference between saying that white people descended from black people who lived in Africa and saying that white people descended from proto-humans who lived in Africa. As for your statement, "You go back too far, and you go to a time-frame that would have created speciation. White people also are not found in sharp divisions from black people. The Middle East and Southern Europe have historical (not just prehistorical) links to black African populations. Therefore there is not enough time and seperation to call for a Multiregional hypothesis to be considered anything more than fringe or very minor", I can't even begin to parse what you are saying here. And "Melanin producing cells that make the black skin color cannot be derived from white ancestors no matter how much sun they lived in" is completely wrong. Melanin is what causes whites to tan. It is created by melanin producing cells. Again, let's get some intellectual honesty in this discussion.198.97.67.57 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian Race, term sometimes applied to a broad and increasingly vague subdivision of the human species with a predominance of light skin color, and higher percentages of light-colored eyes and hair than are found in other segments of the population. The designation Caucasian was first used in the 19th and early 20th centuries by scholars who believed that this subdivision originated in Caucasia, a region of southeastern Europe. Caucasians are now more commonly known as the white race, or as people of European extraction.

The center of the white population is usually considered to be Europe and the Americas, although the spread of Caucasians into North and South America began only a few centuries ago. Hundreds of millions of people in India and the Middle East, however, are most frequently classified as "Caucasoid" peoples, in areas where distinctions are not clear between white and nonwhite populations.

Why Americas? Half of the Americas is geographically not "white", culturally "not white", and populationwise, you add em up, whites form a 60/40 split as blacks, non-white latinos, and caribbean and other indians make up... correction... are restoring their eventual majority. So you can't call something a "center" when it has never been a source or an overly strong majority. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In North America, confusion over the designation white or Caucasian is considerable. Many people, including Puerto Ricans and Mexican-Americans, are now being identified as "Hispanic" rather than "white" in social counts of American populations, such as the United States Census. Increasingly, the term white is becoming a residual category, denoting that part of the population not covered by the following classifications: blacks, Hispanics, East Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and other "socioracial" subdivisions.

White has ALWAYS been that way. When in history has mexican people been considered white? When did East Indians, and others were they white? No, white has always had to eventually let others in. Irish, Italians, East Indians, Arabs, Jews... all people who were once "not white" not in America, nor Europe. Mexicans?? Never white. Never have been. I have an old 90 year old friend from southern texas. She is mexican. When she moved north in the 30s, people thought she was black. --Zaphnathpaaneah 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

It has been clearly established in these discussions that Whites are not a biological race, they are not an ethnic group and they do not share any common linguistic, cultural, historical or religious background.

What are they then?

1. If we give a restrictive definition of white (i.e. "Europeans only" or "christians only" or "westerners only" or whatever people like Yurikat are arguing, it can only be defined as :A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.
2. If we define them on the grounds of being fair skinned, be they from Algeria, Sweden, Mexico, Turkey or Iran, it is a PHYSICAL TRAIT.

Its as easy as that.

Agreed. I said many times in earlier posts. Whites are a social group. A "regionally associated social group of common ancestry".

--Ismael76 15:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, its not as simple as that. I'm still waiting for Yukirat to make plain his definition of "whiteness", but I want to make clear that, while we're all socially marked bodies, those social markings often have biological roots (short vs. tall, fat vs. thin, man vs. boy, and, yes, white vs. non-white). This is not to say that "whiteness" is a biologically objective term (some of you need to read that last sentence over and over a couple of dozen times). It is to say that, given a hundred people lined up from most light-skinned to most dark-skinned (for example), there are clear differences between the two extremes and these distinctions enable identity for politically motivated groups (politics usually ignores the people in the middle). And as any selection and any arrangement (remember, there's more than one way to measure 'whiteness' - which is why Yukirat has been unable to define it in any but the most vague of terms) of a hundred people are going to have different people on the extremes (even such that one person at one extreme in one such group will be at the other extreme in another such group), the concept of "who is white?" will be continually contested if we don't contextualize it.198.97.67.56 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said it was absolute. What other similar Wikipedia articles that cover this stuff are absolute? None of them. I have consistently said the article should cover the basics and then cover the exceptions, gray area, and controversies. But it is wrong to let the controversy and POV issues rule the article, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a soap-box. I think some people don't read the entire discussion. I have consisitently said that the article should cover what the term means in 2006, which is "commonly" people of European descent. That's basically what a White person is in 2006 and that's not controversial. Why is this such a problem? Is there anybody who can provide a source that says this is untrue? Then we can cover the issues about Middle Easterners, North Africans, Mexican etc. and the U.S. Census defintions etc.? There are distinctions and extremes among Amerindians from the tip of the Northern Hemisphere to the tip of the Southern Hemisphere, however that doesn't keep an article COVERING THE BASICS from being written. There just are anti-White bigots that keep this article from existing in the very same fashion as that one. Some keep whining and complaining and obfuscating, but how many other people have made plain his/her definition of White people? Have you? Are you actually going to deny that European-descended people are White? Yukirat 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of confusion would be cleared up if you just gave your definition of "whiteness" in some sort of clear way. You said before that it was "mostly European". Now you say it is "people of European descent". How many of a person's great-grandparents need to have come from Europe for that person to be "white"? All of them? Two of them? At least half of them?198.97.67.56 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of confusion would be cleared up if we just kept it simple, as an encyclopedia article should. We really don't need the term "mostly", it is confusing, so let's drop that one. It was really an attempt to appease and collaborate with those that were demanding that North Africans be deemed White, however since they have recanted from that position, it's not necessary now. What is your definition?Yukirat 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Saying that "race including whiteness is just a means to organize politically" is simple. As for my definition, I already gave it only a few posts above this one (where it starts "no, it is not as simple as that"). I'm -still- waiting for you to provide a clear definition. It seems you won't be providing one.71.74.209.82 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76, That's your POV and you're wrong. White Peoples of Western Civilization share common linguistic, cultural, historical or religious backgrounds plus they share a huge overlap in genetics, as been proven over and over and credibly sourced already. It's not absolute, similar in the very same way to some differences among amerindians which has its own Wikipedia article, however that page is not under seige by anti-amerindian bigots claiming they are not a biological race, they aren't an ethnic group and they don't share anything. That's wrong. Why don't you go to that page and post your POV? Go ahead. Why are you so focused only on negativity towards Whites? Why do we have an amerindian article? Why don't you post it for AfD? If we could keep bigots from abusing this article, we could use amerindians as an example of the format for the White people article.Yukirat 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While I believe he's wrong as well, he's closer (a great deal closer) to the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race than you are. Which makes me wonder what standard you are using to determine who is right and who isn't.198.97.67.56 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms Black, African, Brown, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, Color_metaphors_for_race, Mestizo, Asian, Amerindian, White, European, etc. are not defined solely by academic anthropological definitions either, but they exist. What should we do? Delete the all of these articles because of the AAA statement? No, that wouldn't be acceptable. Why don't you link that AAA page to the article in the appropritate area? Thanks.Yukirat 17:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has NOT been proven that Iberians and Europeans share little with North Africans. On the contrary it has been proven that Europeans share alot with all of their Asian, Middle Eastern and North African neighbours. Yurikat how can you be such an ignorant, illiterate person? --83.33.228.127 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, that's propaganda. It was the basis for the POV that North Africans were to be included as White by both Al-Andalus and Ismael despite that they are commonly not considered so in the USA or Europe or Australia. However when these guys were shown this which shows huge differences between Morocco and Iberia: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf they changed from demanding that White be applied to North Africans see: [21] to now saying "White is only a social contruct". It's hilarious, the total 180 degree flip. How about a truce guys? We can go back to what you so deeply originally wanted: "North Africans are White"!!!! But we cannot, since only in the U.S. Census definition is that the case. Here is an example of the flip-flop [22] where Al Andalus insists that White people exist and that North Africans and Middle Easterners are White:

"First. I did not insert "However, the truth to the matter is that idea or concept of 'Whiteness' is imaginary." I was I who took it out, and then you put it back in. Secondly, current US Government definition includes ALL Middle Easterners and North Africans.--User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus 08:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)" [23]

Plus,

"Also, there are many North Africans but also Middle Easterners (ie, Southwest Asia: Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Palestine, etc) who physically cannot be classified as "White" in any of its definitionsdue to the extremely dark skin and "kinky" hair textures of some of them (the origin of these features are not the issue here). While most of even these North Africans and Middle Easterners do accept the government definition of White that is applied to them, there are some that reject it and even those who have sought to be reclasified (whether as simply "North African", "Middle Easterner", "Arab", or whatever other, including upt to "African American" as some have sought). This may be because the individual may resemble a "black American" more than a "white American", and simply don't personally identify with the white classifcation imposed by the US government.User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus 08:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)" [24]

So, back to the original topic of the revert war, even AA agrees that many North Africans are non-White. Can we go back to reviewing the specific text now that led to the revert war? Yukirat 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term white is directly racist. The only reason this fact is not understood is because these pages are full of brainwashed people coming from Anglo-Saxon countries who think it is normal to classify people that way. All that derives from the strong influences of Racist theories in these countries, especially the US, during the 19th adn 20th centuries. Historically the US has been extremely racist. Segregation was in place there until very recently. The process is very simple: abolition of slavery, abolition of segregation? Well, not fully. What are the consequences of such racist policy?: to try and maintain social segregation using terms like white, black, hispanic, etc., imposing it in the American mind, in the media, in all types of documents, in schools, in everyday life. I doubt very much that this is going to survive for long, but it is still very powerful in the US. There are very few places in the world where people are so obssessed with classifying people like that. The funny thing is that Americans have been so brainwashed that they see it as normal, even those who classify themselves in other groups. The term "white" to refer to people has obvioulsy some racial base, though scientifically very diffuse, but the way the term is used and has been used invalidates it as a neutral word to refer to people.

The way the term White has been used in the US and continues to be used is a banal attempt to try and isolate groups, to try and ingrain in their minds that they belong to different groups, an absurd and spurious attempt to try and maintain social segregetion that seems politically correct to the Americans, in a country where the multiracial population is growing stronger and stronger and where these classification attempts are becoming more and more stupid and embarrassing.

One simple example of how vicious and racist the term is in the US is the one-drop rule. Though some Americans say that this rule is something of the past, it is still ingrained in their minds and everyone knows it: Example: A person whith a "white" father and a "back" mother is automatically classified as "black" in the US by their fellow countrymen. Obviously that person is exactly as white as black, but the American mind will immediatly classify that person that way: Why? That person is not white anymore because he/she is not "pure", so the person is "rejected" from the group. At the same time, that person is accepted much more easily in the "black" community. Everyone knows that this example is truth and it reveals the extremly racist mind of the American man who continues to strife for some stupid racial purity keeping people apart, even those who are not deemed purely white, in some banal attempt to keep the "white" group untouched. Poor devils!. They must be suffering a lot in a country that is becoming increasingly multiracial.

---

---

So, your point is that race ('whiteness'/'blackness'/whatever) is a fundamentally racist concept? that I think that's true. But its also a reality that it is a concept that people use and, so, shouldn't be ignored71.74.209.82 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy, haven't you ever heard about "Celebrating Our Diversity"? I think you'd have a tough time telling the millions of non-AngloSaxon people that think our diversity is wonderful that their views are racist or should be eliminated.

Can this be moved up under similar Discussion heading 46.4 "White as automatically racist!"? Any admns? Thanks. Yukirat 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

One thing it to celebrate diversity, which is great, and another to try and perpetuate caste systems and keep people apart.-----------------

It is indeed strange, because many people who believe the USA should be a big melting pot, also believe in celebrating diversity. Interesting dichotomy. Who knows? Yukirat 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to using Amerindians as a format for this White people article?Yukirat 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the White people article should not be organized the same way the American Indian article is organized. The way the "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" article is labeled there is no argument over who is included. Because there is no argument over who is included, information about the culture and history of Indians is not debated. The White article is another story. Since there is a debate over who is white, information about the history and culture of whites would rest on a POV defintion of who is white.--Dark Tichondrias 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That is where we are at. We must define who is White, and then get on with writing the article. But this has been covered ad nauseum. The article as it currently stands provides this already: "Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that the term refers to caucasoid people descended from Europe." That isn't POV. Nobody has once shown a source to dispute this, so it is the basis of the article. What solution can you help us with DarkT to help us move forward? other than pointing out where POV has gotten us locked up on exceptions to the common definition? Thanks.Yukirat 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some White supremacists such as White Aryan Resistance consider Jewish Europeans to be non-White, so the above common definition cited by User:Yukirat for Whites is disputed by some sources. WAR considers European Jews to be a racial offshoot of the Middle Eastern racial type. WAR considers Whites/Aryans/Europeans to be racially separate from Middle Easterners and Jews.

I think a section in the article on the importance of Abrahamic religions, Western civilization and European culture to define Whiteness would improve the article even if the definition of White is in dispute.--Dark Tichondrias 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, and Al-Andalus' insistence on removing the Western Civilization link is what partly led to the revert war which locked this page down. Perhaps AA can explain why he removes something as basic as Western Civilization, but has no problem with more fringe and less commonly agreed to concepts like White supremacism and North Africans, Mexicans, and South Asians being in the article.Yukirat 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Put this in the article "White people are people of unusually light skin who mostly originate from Europe, although some may also come from regions adjacent to Europe including Western Asia, Northern Africa, and parts of the Middle East. Although with some there may be mixture with other groups, whites uniformly express a phenotype that is indistinguisable from members who are not known to be mixed with non-white (non-European) groups."--Zaphnathpaaneah 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to find THE definition of white people. It is, as we have seen, a subjective social construct so all valid (non-wacko) definitions must be offered ranging from white as a physical trait to white as defining European westerners. A history of how the anglo saxon concept of "whiteness" developed in the 19th century must also be offered. --Ismael76 10:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76, make up your mind. Earlier you insisted Turks were White from a genetic standpoint, when you were shown the differences between Europeans and Turks, then you changed 180 degrees to calling it a "social construct", presumably because if Turks can't be White then nobody can be, however using the "social construct" as you call it, Turks are not considered White except only under the U.S. Census defintion. Can you show us any sources from the "social construct" standpoint that would agree with your POV that Turks, North Africans, and Mexicans are commonly considered White, as are Europeans? Show your source or kindly stop obfuscating the basic definition and holding up the article. A social construct takes into account historical, linguistic, religious, and cultural factors and using that construct, Turks are totally different from their European neighbors.

The article should not focus on fringe defintions such as what White Aryan Resistance think, nor the blatant POV that states that Mexicans, North Africans, Arabs, Turks are White. Other than the U.S. Census defintion, there is no "social construct" defintion that can be shown that would include Mexicans, North Africans, Arabs, etc as commonly White. If so, come up with some. Please do not backtrack again, and now say that White is not a "social construct" either. One is 100% for sure, that in 2006, "European-descended people are commonly thought of as White". Anything else is POV and people have to start coming up with sources for their POV's and back them up. I doubt the White Aryan Resisitance could come up with info that states only Scandavians are commonly considered White, and likewise I doubt anyone can come up with reliable sources that would state Mexicans, Hindus, North Africans, and Arabs are commonly considered White. That view is not in the mainstream, as only the U.S. Census defintion supports it. That anomaly is already covered in the article, it's already in there. Put up some sources, or can we move on already?

Ismael76, I think you will do anything to insert the Turks and North Africans are "White" POV into this article, and if you don't succeed, then you try to say that "nobody" is White. That's your game. That's what you've done, and that's what you are doing. Yukirat 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

:Yurikat I am in Europe right now and I know many Turks over here. Apart from the fact that physically they are as white as any other European mediterranean population, they are generally considered (and consider themselves) to be white and European, even though the concept of white is not really used all that much in continental Europe. I even saw a documentary on Neo-Nazi organisations in the UK which had Turkish members. Turks suffer discrimination on the basis of their religion (and -in Germany- social condition as an immigrant community) not because of their "race". In the Balkans everyone is considered white (Turks included) except maybe for the Roma communities.

This is your highly personal POV, and it doesn't qualify under WP:RS. Please come up with something better or stop saying Turks are White. Thanks.Yukirat 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem Yurikat? You have some serious issues. What white supremacist organisation do you belong to? Why is it that Turks (or whoever) being white offends you so much?

In any case since their is no common definition of what being "white" is and, since it is a social construct, it doesnt really matter what you and I think. You denying people's "whiteness" is as POV as me confirming it so dont give me bullshit yurikat.

Please go back to your racist forums to discuss the wonders of the aryan race. People like you are not needed on wikipedia. Encyclopedias are built on knowledge not on stupidity.

--Ismael76 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WP:NPA. You have no reliable source, otherwise you would produce one. I see you have nothing left but ad hominem arguments. It is not an insult to say that Turks are not White, why do you take it as such and as so serious? Explain this please. Please stop it and move onto some blog. You are an anti-White racist. Yukirat 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is not an insult to say that Turks are not White". No, it is not an insult to say that any group is white or any group is not white. It IS, however, against mainstream science to claim that "white" (or "black" or "yellow" or any other color) has any objective reality. The question is whether this article should be based on science or pseudoscience. Should the chemistry article be grounded in alchemy? Should the psychology article be grounded in astrology? Should the sociology article be grounded in phrenology? Let's use real sources in this article, okay? On the other hand, I'm all for the article discussing your views of 'whiteness' assuming you can get some legitimate sources for them. I believe alternate views such as yours have a place in the article as long as they are identified as unscientific and relics of the past. Its the same as writing in the chemistry article that ancient scholars drew a lot of their theories from their research into phlogisten. The myth of race should be discussed as a historical issue.198.97.67.58 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yukirat, you dont seem to be able to understand simple logical arguments. I happen to be white myself -although I havent yet taken the Yukirat test to confirm my race. Yukirat, please offer a source which denies that Turks are white Wikipedia: WP:NPA. In any case I agree with the above post: "White" (I repeat again) is a social construct, so your opinion (as mine) is irrelevant. You are a racist. --Ismael76 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76, please stop it already, WP:NPAYukirat 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

198.97.67.58, who ever said this was a "scientific" article? It's about what the English language term "White people" means in 2006 in the English-speaking world. You wrote: I believe alternate views such as yours have a place in the article as long as they are identified as unscientific and relics of the past.

Two things: 1)My view is the mainstream. The "alternate view" (and POV)is the controversial position that Turks, Mexicans/mestizos, North Africans, South Asians, etc. are "White". That is the alternate view that we need to defend against, unless people can put up some sources other than the U.S. Census which is already covered in the article. 2) My view is not a relic of the past, it's the view in 2006. What is in the past, is the anthropological view that Causcasian equals White. Another view also in the past is that only Northern Europeans are considered White. My view reflects the reality in 2006, and I occupy the middle ground, not the extremes as does Ismael's from the one-side, and White supremacists from the other side. This article already states clearly: Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that the term refers to caucasoid people descended from Europe. What is wrong with this sentence? That is the mainstream view, not the alternate view, so I think you have alot wrong here. I am simply trying to protect this article and that sentence (which predates my involvement on this article) from POV pushers that want to insert controverisal ideas such that Turks, Mexicans, etc. are White. People who want to push controversy have to show their sources to have them included. Are you actually saying that I need a source to back up the aforementioned sentence that "European-descended people are White"? Come on. Let's build an article based on basic facts, not make it a platform for controversial unsourced POV.Yukirat 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Yukirat about the common definition of White. Middle Easterners, some South Asians, and North Africans are not considered Whites in its common understanding. These are fringe views which are held only by the United States Census. Definitions of white people smaller than European is also a fringe view held by White Supremacists. I commend User:Yukirat for trying to make the definition of White have the common view foremost with fringe views later down the article.--Dark Tichondrias 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia article is to educate people, not to tell them the wrong things they already think are true. Your views are not supported by mainstream science. Your views in this article are the same as alchemy in the chemistry article.71.74.209.82 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ismael backtracks when shown the vast differences from mDNA and haplogroup map [25], and then starts to say it's a "social construct". Well, under that definition the term White is even more limited than the scientific definition, that sometimes included Caucasoids about one century ago. If we are to focus solely on the "social construct", then you have to consider religious, linguistic, cultural and historical differences, and based on that TURKS are most definitely not White. Based on mDNA and haplogroups there are huge differences, and based on religious, linguistic, cultural and historical factors there are huge differences. It's time people who want to push POV "that Turks, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Mexicans, South Asians are White" show some similarities, because we have sourced the differences from a scientific and social standpoint.Yukirat 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Ill try not to get personal when reading stupid posts from now on...

• Yurikat has not yet understood that "social construct" does not mean shared social or cultural ties. It means an imagined concept which has no basis in tangible reality.

• He has not yet understood that haplogroups are not indicators of "race".

• He claims that based on Mtdna and Y-chromosomes (already he handles with ease terminology he had never heard of until the day before yesterday) there are huge differences between "the whites" and the Turks. Between which Whites Yurikat? Have a look at that map. A Russian, a scot and a Greek have as large a difference among them as with regards to a Turk.

• Yurikat claims there is a "white culture" and "white religion". Where was christianity born again? I am not even going to go into that. Just go to your school library and read on European civilisation and its origins.

--Ismael76 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

White culture is Western Civilization. (Please don't pull out, as Al-Andalus did, the post-1946 Japan exception as yet another obstacle/excuse to hold up the article.) You still have no sources and continue with ad hominem attacks. Listing Balkan Muslims as your only proof of Whiteness for Turks is extremely weak. Furthermore nobody ever said there was "white religion", however White people commonly share Christianity as a religion, as Indians commonly share Hinduism as a religion. But importantly, text about Christianity is not in the article as a prerequisite, nor is it part of the edit war that got this page locked up. Stop creating controversy and taking us away from the central issue. Stop wasting our time. Look, if you want to push POV that Turks, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Mexicans, and South Asians are "white" start producing some sources other than a "documentary about UK neo-nazis", or stop wasting our time. Your big problem is you insisted Turks are White and when your POV was exposed, you try to obfuscate and claim that "nobody is White" and then push a commonly used English term into the academic realm of social construction. Sorry, but creating controversy and confusion to get out of the hypocritical corner you have positioned yourself is dishonest. The term White is used hundreds of millions of times, and it has been used hundreds of millions of times in the past, and it will be used hundreds of millions of times in the future. This article should cover what it means. It's not so difficult. There is an Encarta article about Whites, sorry Ismael, White people exist, don't you remember? You agree with that, because you insist that "Turks are White".

Only White-related, and perhaps Jewish-related, articles and issues seem to attract these types of hate problems and controversial editors with regularity on Wikipedia. Funny how nobody has any problem with the amerindian article and spends days on end saying that they are only "a social construct" or "they don't exist" or "they cannot be defined" or that "they can't be indentifed by social factors" or even haplogroups. It's absurd and dishonest. Ismael76, why aren't you consistently pushing your ideas similarly into the non-White pages on Wikipedia? Why are you stuck here being negative?Yukirat 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article on "Brown people" or "Yellow people" or "Pinky-reddish people". What about "beige-who-go-brownish-in-summer people"? Please show me articles on these "peoples" and I promise I will be as "negative" on those articles as I am with this one.

Why should I present a source on the "whiteness" of Turks? Why don't you present a source on the browness, yellowness or greenness of them?

I dont want to repeat that Christianity is a world religion which exists in every continent in the world and originates in the Middle East. Many European populations including Bosniaks, Albanians, Goranis Chechens, Dagestanis etc... are Muslim. They are genetically identical and culturally similar to adjacent christian populations. --Ismael76 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll post again: Nobody ever said there was "white religion", however White people commonly share Christianity as a religion, as Indians commonly share Hinduism as a religion. But importantly, text about Christianity is not in the article as a prerequisite, nor is it part of the edit war that got this page locked up. Stop creating controversy and taking us away from the central issue.

If the term "beige-who-go-brownish-in-summer people" was used hundreds and hundreds of millions of times in the English-speaking world, there would deservedly be an article. But it isn't.

Please read Sultan. Turks are not White and they share(d) practically nothing with their European neighbors. I'd like to see sources where White Australians, Americans, and Europeans commonly believe Turks are White. If you cannot produce them then kindly stop. Stop it already. Go push your controversy and confusion somewhere else and stop wasting people's time.Yukirat 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Sultan???????? Why??? There is nothing on that article that I dont already know. Please don't assume the rest of the world is as ignorant as you. Turks share practically nothing with their European neighbours??? My friend you have clearly never been to Europe and more specifically to South East Europe. I suggest you abandon your attempts to edit wikipedia for a few decades, grow up, study and travel and then come back.

Here is some White European music from the Balkans for you to listen to while you contemplate your answer.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wset-96zUHg&search=tanc%20na
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWj8j6aOioo&search=Amet
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Q0C2GhN98&search=Turbo%20Folk

--Ismael76 19:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the best you can do? Come on. OK, I agree with you, let's forget about the Sultan, the wars between Western Civilization and the Ottomans, and put the Muslim Balkan music reference right in the first paragraph, we won't mention the Kosovo/Serb conflict either. Stop trying to make the exception the rule in support of your POV. Move on. Cultural exchanges between Mexicans and White Americans do not make White people Mexicans/mestizos or vice versa. I guess you've never noticed the differences between European-descended Americans and their Mexican neighbors? Probably not, since you cannot tell the differences between Europeans and Turks either. Celebrate diversity!! Turks are not the same as Europeans and you know it. Your views are POV and pathetically anti-White.

Anyone who wants more info about Turks/Ottomans vs. Europe (including SE Europe) can read these Sultan and Vlad III the Impaler, and then more modern sources too: Balkan_wars.Yukirat 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yukirat 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can generally tell the difference between a Swede and a Spaniard, by sight. I can tell the difference between a Greek and a Pole. I can tell the difference between a Russian and a Portuguese. Of course there are exceptions. Sometimes individuals from these countries look similar. I assure you I or anyone cannot, in 90% of the cases, tell the difference between a Bulgarian from Yambol and a Turk from Edirne (or vice versa) a Turk from Yambol and a Bulgarian from Edirne. Of course, people who know the language and culture of Turkey and/or Bulgaria can tell the languages apart. But thats it. There is no cultural, religious or racial divide which separates "whites" from "non-whites" in the East of the European continent.

I understand that for you americans, who classify your societies in neat racial categories following the one drop theory and other such nonsense, do not understand the rest of the world. That is your problem, not ours. The rest of the world does not think in terms of "race" so dont try to categorize them.

You do not even seem aware that 10 million mexicans are of Spanish and/or other European origin and have no amerindian ancestry whatsoever.

--Ismael76 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Isamel, you waste people's time. I have already stated that there are White Mexicans, however that country is OVERWHELMINGLY mestizo and amerindian and Mexico's flag pays respect to those roots [26]. Americans do not classify people into nationalities to the extent Europeans do. The reason also was stated earlier: The VAST MAJORITY of American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Argentinian, and Brazilian Whites are a MIXTURE of different EUROPEAN nationalities. There are hundreds of millions of people of mixed European descent that exist, OK? These people are "White", as are indigenous Europeans, obviously. It's really that simple. Stop trying to confuse a very simple concept as it exists in 2006 in the English-speaking world.

You just don't understand Whites, and that's quite obvious, plus you have some hatred mixed in too. Why don't you move along, and contribute to an article where you know something about what you are talking about. Or go join the folks at controversial whiteness studies and race traitor, they'll love you.Yukirat 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not a simple concept and it is not a universal concept. It cannot be understood outside local societies such as the US and Australia. And even within these societies it is problematic. You choose to ignore the fact that it is a self-contradictory concept which cannot be defined. Good for you. --Ismael76 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reading this discussion about Turks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's debate about who's considered "White". To use pseudo-scientifical and arbitrary grouping to define who is White is ridiculous. You don't cite any sources that claim Turks are White, so it remains a matter of opinion.

)--Ryodox 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC

The anonymous IP User argues that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white when they do not. The anonymous IP User's argument that anthropology only means traditional anthropology or genetics fails to include linguistic and cultural anthropology. Even if we constrict "anthropology" to the two fields anonymous IP User feels like acknowledging, we have disagreement which does not argue for anonymous IP User's point. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has been noted for using a priori defined races, then grouping them genetically. Even though it is true that some populations are more genetically related than others, his races are nothing but his POV. Traditionally, many anthropologists have defined race differently. These two fields only illustrate that opinions on race vary, but do not prove that the Turks are White.--Dark Tichondrias 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark T, don't just make vague comments that I'm ignoring cultural anthropology, let's start bringing some intellectual content to the subject (god knows its past time to do that). Just how much have you studied the work of Cavalli-Sforza?

You see, I actually studied Anthropology for four years at the University of Kentucky (and my focus among the four subdivisions was cultural anthropology - which makes your claim that I'm ignoring it curious) and have taken graduate level courses in the anthropology of race and medical anthropology. I'm eager to have someone with which to debate actual intellectual content on this subject. Maybe you are that person? If so, stop holding back. It will be good for the article, too, as actual intellectual content will require sources instead of unsupported claims as has been the overwhelming majority of what has appeared here in the talk page to date.71.74.209.82 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Could someone with an account archive this page? Its getting really long and the threads in it are getting tangled.71.74.209.82 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will try Archiving this article. Have patience; the process of archiving is a very delicate and intricate process, requiring a lot of focus and dedication in order for it to succeed. The mechanisms are in motion, and soon you will find that this talk page has hbeen archived.