Talk:White people/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Australia in third paragraph of lede

In the stable version of this paragraph,the list of "racially diverse countries with large majority or minority populations of more or less mixed European ancestry" includes Australia. User:HiLo48 has removed Australia from this list without offering a source of a valid reason. Available data suggests that this description does apply to Australia much as it does to the other countries listed. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

To address HiLo48's comment above, the content in question has nothing to do with percents. The paragraph is about how the concept of whiteness in certain societies has had a major social impact. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tense is a major problem there. You say "how the concept of whiteness in certain societies has had a major social impact". The article actually says "has", rather than "has had". That means the present, not the past. There is no source used in the article discussing the present state of affairs in Australia. That's what I have been saying all along. Are you two arguing about the past? That's a very different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. I am not seeing a source that supports the concept of whiteness in Australia having a major social impact in the present day. Historical, yes; today, possibly, but I do not how there can be a source as the term "whiteness" is no longer used.--Bduke (Discussion) 03:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The text in question offers a list of "racially diverse countries with large majority or minority populations of more or less mixed European ancestry". If you would argue that Australia is not an example of this category, please offer evidence here, but otherwise it belongs on the list. Arguing that because Australia does not have a concept of White on its census, it does not belong on this list, is quite absurd. Few of these countries do. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's you who has to provide evidence that Australia has a significant concept of whiteness today. That's what the article is incorrectly claiming. That idea of "racially diverse countries with large majority or minority populations of more or less mixed European ancestry" really has nothing to do with a concept of whiteness today. That's a classic example of unacceptable synthesis. I don't know what part of the world you're from, but I wouldn't dare to tell you how people in your country think. What makes you think you know how Australians think? HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I am trying to AGF but I am not convinced that you are reading the paragraph in question closely enough. What the paragraph asserts is that the concept of whiteness has a particular relevance in countries with a certain characteristic, and then lists countries with that characteristic. If you believe that Australia is not a "racially diverse country with a large majority or minority population of more or less mixed European ancestry" then it should be removed from that list, but I think we both know that in fact the description is accurate. If you believe that for some of the countries on the list the concept of "whiteness" was once salient but is no longer, then by all means present that evidence here and perhaps the tense of the paragraph should change of the text should be nuanced further (though the evidence in RS that "whiteness" is a decisive category for each of these countries, historically, is completely unmistakable IMO). What you should not do is continue your edit war because YOUDONTLIKE Australia to be listed with these other similar countries. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Australia can be described as a "racially diverse country with a large majority or minority population of more or less mixed European ancestry". Nobody is arguing about that. That's straw man stuff again. What is missing is any evidence of a connection between that historical fact and a concept of whiteness today. The article is speaking in the present tense. Can you demonstrate that there IS a connection? No source that says there is a connection has been cited. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a more substantial discussion of the concept of "whiteness", based on secondary and tertiary sources, and its historical and contemporary relevance to the countries listed. This problem is in no way solved by dropping Australia from the list, which has been your only proposal to date, HiLo.

Also, I'm not convinced that you understand what a straw man argument is, since I have not employed one in this discussion. I am dealing with the actual text of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been arguing as if I have been arguing against Australia being described as a "racially diverse country with a large majority or minority population of more or less mixed European ancestry". I haven't. It's the leap of logic from that unarguable fact (Got that yet?) to a contemporary concept of whiteness that I see as the problem. There is no evidence for such a connection. Why does the article suggest there is? HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think HiLo48 has a point here. Editors are not asked to disprove what's written on WP (or asked to desist from editing pages for that matter). Rather, contentious claims and statements need to be supported by reliable evidence and if they can't be they are deleted. In fact, what reliable evidence is there that many of these listed countries have a noteworthy contemporary concept of whiteness? If this concept can't be supported the statement has no place in this project at all. By the way, much of this looks like OR to me, cobbled together in a rather unconvincing meandering narrative. (And another potential problem - does Chris Helmsworth identify as a White Australian? Or just an Australian? Or Australian-American? Or not much of anything at all). However, I take your point about some other solution to this page's many issues being more than just dropping Australia from a list.Nickm57 (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

By pure coincidence I have at least a partial, admittedly OR, answer to the Chris Hemsworth question. (He is a good example of what I'm talking about.) I was at one stage a teacher at a school he attended. Nobody at that school goes around describing themselves as white Australians. Or any other colour, for that matter. Almost all would self describe simply as Australians. I cannot be sure, but would be very surprised if he now calls himself Australian American. Aussies tend not to use those double barrelled descriptors. We do talk about our ancestry a bit, so he might mention that. But as you can see from his article, just as for many Australians, his is complicated. Maybe it's because many of have such diverse ancestry that we gave up on the labelling. (I suppose Hemsworth could describe himself as a Dutch, Irish, English, Scottish, German, Australian American, but it seems unlikely.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the actual problem is that the third paragraph makes an assertion that, while probably true, is not clearly sourced in the article. There really ought to be a section, based in secondary and tertiary sources. This situation would not in any way improved by dropping Australia from the list for no reason. Also, the White Australia immigration policy was only abandoned in 1973, so prima faciae it is hard to believe that "whiteness" has somehow been forgotten as a concept in the intervening time. Given the election of Pauline Hanson to the Australian Senate in 2016, I find the argument that "whiteness" is no longer a relevant concept in Australia to be even more specious (even if Ms. Hanson prefers the euphemism "mainstream"). Newimpartial (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

1973 was 45 years ago! A majority of current Australians weren't even born then. And Pauline Hanson got just over 10% of the vote, in our most redneck state. (Please don't ask me to explain how our Senate voting works.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your views Newimpartial, but we find ourselves back discussing personal opinion and not concentrating on the lack of reliable sources for the contention/s so far, don't we. So we need to find some, or delete the statements that cannot be supported by reliable sources. Nickm57 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Nick, the statement that "whiteness" is a salient concept in these countries needs to be sourced. There is nothing special about Australia in this regard. It is a weak paragraph in a weak article, but aside from some seeming jingoism Australia has essentially nothing to do with the problem except as one in a long list of examples. Newimpartial (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the question at hand is whether or not whiteness is a contemporary issue in Australia, right? That it's not just something in the past? Well, then, that means we need to see if contemporary sources discuss whiteness as a contemporary issue and not a historic one. So here's what I found:

• In a Proudly Diverse Australia, White People Still Run Almost Everything - NYTimes 2018
• Let’s be honest: if you’re a white Australian you know nothing about racism - The Daily Telegraph 2015
• White Australia has a black history - and Indigenous Australians like me had our country invaded not 'discovered' - Independent 2016
• Aboriginal Australians : black responses to white dominance, 1788-2001 by Richard Broome 2001
• Who identifies as a person of colour in Australia? - ABC News 2017
• ‘Breed out the colour’ or the importance of being white - Australian Historical Studies - academic journal - 2002
• Culture, not colour, is the heart of Aboriginal identity - The Conversation 2014
• Segregation of whites at theatre sparks Melbourne University backlash - The Australian 2018
• Australia is racist - but not in the way you think - NITV 2017
• In Black & White Australians All at the Crossroads - book 2013
• Race, Colour and Identity in Australia and New Zealand - book 2000

I haven't even tried looking into academic, university, NPO, NGO, international, or governmental sources yet. This was just a basic Google search. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. I hope you realise how doubtful the relevance of most of those sources is. A massive list is quite useless. We need to discuss individual points from individual sources. Using the word "white" in a headline proves nothing. If I was a sub-editor, I might do the same to get attention. Non-Australians talking about contemporary Australia is of doubtful credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, but I'm not trying to find a source for a specific claim. I'm trying to demonstrate that whiteness is a contemporary issue in Australia as demonstrated by an array of contemporary sources. Speculation about editors is, well, speculation. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As sources to support the specific claim, Docker & Fisher and Richard Broome might be useful, plus Henry Reynolds. It is wiser to consistently use academic texts in this matter. Nickm57 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few academic sources I found on Google scholar:

• The Cultivation of Whiteness: Science, Health, and Racial Destiny in Australia
• White diasporas: media representations of September 11 and the unbearable whiteness of being in Australia
• 'Whiteness' and `Aboriginality' in Canada and Australia Conversations and identities
• Migrancy, Multiculturalism and Whiteness: Re-charting Core Identities in Australia
• Whitening Race: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism

EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Don't just list them. Tell us what they say, so we can sensibly discuss what they add to the discussion about the concept of whiteness in Australia today. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Caucasian people are not white; this line should be changed.

"White people is a racial classification specifier, used for people of Caucasian ancestry,"

should be changed to

"White people is a racial classification specifier, used mostly for people of European ancestry,"

since most actual Caucasians are not considered white by actual white people.

the "mostly" is also key, since white people do exist outside of Europe, and one need not be European in origin to be white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.121.138 (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2018‎

Who are the white people that don't consider most Caucasians white? Caucasian refers to the race of European, Middle Eastern, and North African people. However, people in the Caucasus are generally white and Caucasian (racially). I'm originally from Eastern Europe and live in the west, and both in Eastern Europe and in the west - to say the average Chechen, Circassian, or even Georgian and Armenian isn't white is ridiculous. Mind you in Russia they may be called black, however a Russian, Ukrainian, Pole, Bulgarian, Serb, ect. who is equally as "black" would also be called the world, the term black has little to do with race - most Circassians are for example indistinguishable from Slavs in general. Clearly the difference isn't racial (phenotype) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.163.172 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2018‎

As Caucasian race explains, the term has a messy history and is not consistently applied in all times and places. This also applies to the term "white", so trying to finesse a deeper biological truth from the overlap of these two terms is a waste of time at best. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

White a Race?

I actually came here after googling is white a race because it was an option in a survey i was filling - i had never heard of white being a race before... then it made me wonder, after the description in wikipedia, what % caucasian is caucasian? what % of maori is maori? what % asian is asian? what do you call someone who is mixed of everything? but they 'look' white? (I shouldn't say they look white, if my car was my skin colour i would take it back to the seller). ZhuLien (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally in Europe and Latin America, if you look white - you are white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.163.172 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2018‎

Please avoid original research. We are interested in reliable sources, not offhand personal experience. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Evolution of the white population?

We hear that whites will still be 6% of the world population by 2050; any clue where to find a trend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.162.22.192 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

black people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.209.148.146 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Change X White people is a racial classification specifier, used mostly and often exclusively for people of European descent.

To Y White people / white man is a racist term originated by Native Americans to describe the immigrating Europeans. It has been adopted as a racial classification specifier, used mostly and often exclusively for people of European descent. 24.43.208.34 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

205.169.166.82 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

white people are sometimes rasist

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Referenced information and changes

@Beyond My Ken: what is it exactly that you find to be "better before"? I can't see how removing cited text is better? Musicfan122 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph was sourced, and that source was not a particularly good one, as it was about a specific subject (Racial Justice and the Catholic Church). Such information needs to be cited to a generally reliable source, not to a monograph on a related subject. The other paragraphs were completely uncited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, listing examples of nationalities is superfluous and adds nothing to the reader's knowledge, since it's clear what nationalities are. It only adds unnecessary bloat to the lede. Musicfan122 (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the reader is clear about what the nationalities are? A couple of extra words does not qualify as "bloat". Is there any other reason you want to delete them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: they're not certain or specific nationalities, it's just a list of random European nationalities. I'm sure any reader with basic knowledge of English knows the definition of the word nationality, and if not we can link it. Musicfan122 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I agree. I've reverted to your version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

Shouldn’t be have an image or images of what white people look like; it’s not obvious to everyone. IWI (chat) 14:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to the article, we could add a middle easterner or east asian's photo--Aréat (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: We often avoid those per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah okay. IWI (chat) 18:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Caucasian

Shouldn't there be a note on this page where it discusses that Caucasian is a synonym that this is a North American use of Caucasian, not a world-wide one? I say this due to never hearing this outsid eof American media. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Related RfD discussion

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#European race

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

South Asians

@Musicfan122: The section I am referencing is under White_people#Science_of_race and says "Alastair Bonnett has stated that a strong "current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian)," a group that, Bonnett notes, would include not only Europeans, but also South Asians, North Africans, and even Northeast Africans such as Ethiopians.[40][41]. I also see "South Asia" appear elsewhere in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Bonnett is referring to the term "Caucasian", a completely different term than "white people". The thing is, definitions of unscientific racial classifications such as whites, blacks etc. should mostly be backed by official censuses or sources geared toward social studies. Musicfan122 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous percentage?

Section on Brazil says "Recent censuses in Brazil are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the 2010 Census, they totaled 91,051,646 people, and made up 47.73% of the Brazilian population.[116] This significant percentage change is considered to be caused by people who used to identify themselves as white and now reappreciated their African, Amerindian or East Asian ancestry, and so they changed their self-identification to "Pardo" and "Asian". " It doesn't say what the PREVIOUS number was; how are we supposed to know what "this significant percentage change" IS, how significant it is, unless it tells us what the number USED to be as well? I gather from the context that the number used to be higher, but the editor who wrote it seems to assume the reader knows what the demographics in Brazil were a decade ago, or whenever the last census was. 64.222.204.246 (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

World population incorrect.

World population is 7.71 billion not 7.5. So white people who are a sustainable population are only 11.1%—and shrinking.

Also Arabs are not white they are Middle Eastern. 

You can’t define white as anything other than black anymore than you could define black as anything other than Scandinavian.

For this reason I recommend the correct term “northern peoples“

72.94.230.184 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

White people includes everyon in the Middle East and North Africa by definition. The so-called "Caucasian race" which the United States keeps using incudes "some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa." Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The estimate was made based on a 2017 consensus. World Population was approximately 7.5 based on said report. It might be 7.71 NOW, two years later, but it wasn't then. 2600:1700:6250:89A0:0:0:0:46 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

White People

"-ed in a quasi-scientific system" Might I suggest switching 'quasi-' with 'pseudo-' or 'faux?' The article 'quasi-scientific system' links to is 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism' which lists it as a pseudo-scientific belief in the very first sentence of said article. 'Quasi-' has a different meaning than 'pseudo-' and implies some legitimacy. It isn't 100% real science nor 100% pseudo, aka fake, science, but somewhere inbetween. 2600:1700:6250:89A0:0:0:0:46 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I would favour pseudo-scientific. --Yhdwww (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is the lede of this article linking to scientific racism anyway? That article defines its topic as "a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority." But the sentence we're linking from doesn't mention that; it just refers to a "system of race and skin color relations." – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

German population number

The number given for white people in Germany seems to actually be the number of ethnic Germans (without migrant ancestry) in Germany. But since most (~72) migrants in Germany are from Europe the number of white people should be higher. According to the Federal Statistical office of Germany the number of Europeans in Germany is (as of 2017) 73,357,000. This number is still discounting for white people from the Americas, Middle Eastern people and mixed race people, but should be a much closer estimate than the 62,000,000 figure given in the article.

Nomabelz (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Ppl" redirects

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wht ppl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Wht ppl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect White Ppl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#White Ppl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect White ppl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#White ppl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Skin group

I believe that white people is also a skin group classification. For example, watch this video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qUQNzziXd1Y Bernspeed (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted your change to the article, partly because it's unclear what "skin group" means (and the redirect Skin group that you linked to doesn't help much with this understanding). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't speak German. A skin group is people with a similar skin tone and/or related appearance. Click on the article. Bernspeed (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's discuss this so we can get consensus on the talk page Bernspeed (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Skin group redirects to "Some common kinship terms used in Aboriginal English". Exactly how is that relevant here? Does anyone besides Australian Aboriginals use the term? How is it defined, just by the color of the skin? How does is that a valid categorization to group people together, considering that people of very different ethnicities can have exactly tha same skin color? What's the value of including "Skin group" in the article? How does it improve it, and what does it tell our readers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The pictures

Before I say anything, let me say that I do think it is important to have useful images in every article. Nonetheless, I fail to see how having tons of portraits of random famous people who happen to be white improves the quality of the encyclopedia. This article contains portraits of people like Guillermo del Toro, Lucy Lawless, William Shakespeare, Charles Darwin, George Washington, Joseph Smith, and Michael Phelps. None of these people are famous specifically for being white. Shakespeare's writing abilities and Michael Phelps's swimming abilities have nothing to do with the color of their skin.

Most of the people shown in the portraits aren't even mentioned in the body of the article. Meanwhile, the captions under their portraits just say who they are without even trying to relate them to what the article is talking about. It seems to me like someone added these images simply because they wanted to show that white people have accomplished some impressive things. There are literally billions of white people on the planet, though, and most of them aren't Shakespeare or Michael Phelps. Having all these portraits seems almost sickeningly nationalistic. —Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Gypsies are considered white in the United Kingdom.

Gypsies and Irish Travellers are considered white in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.75.134.77 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source to support that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's unecessary to provide one. Evidence would need to be provided if one was stating otherwise. Irish Travellers have never been considered not-White. They are entirely Irish. The distinction between Irish and Irish-Traveller is a cultural one, not racial or ethnic. Similarly, Romanichal are ethnically British and are descended from British people that joined Romani gypsies and their nomadic lifestyle. They are related culturally and historically to Romani gypsies but are still distinct ethnically and culturally. Some possibly have Romani admixture ancestrally. Welsh Kale are similar to Romanichal in that they are distinct ethnically and culturally from Romani albeit share cultural and historical aspects and possibly some admixture.

Romani from the continent are distinct from these British and Irish demographics and cultures. All of the aforementioned British and Irish groups are considered native because they are, the distinction is entirely cultural whereas continental Roma are ethnically different. I can't speak on if they are White or not (the continental Roma) but they are often as pale as they are swarthy. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have citations to support your contention, so your contention will not be included in the article. Please read and understand WP:V and WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

white people immigrants 69.11.4.213 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This request does not make a clear proposal to make a change to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

In the first paragraph of the article it reads "'colored people' or 'people of color'". When clicking the link to the 'colored people' article the first paragraph states that the term has become recognised as perjorative. Therefore it should be removed from this article especially as 'people of color' is already included as a non-perjorative alternative. (Hope this is ok to submit here - couldn't work out how to submit as a discussion) 59.167.191.37 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Submitting here is fine. The quotes around "colored" is an indication that it's not used in Wikipedia's voice as an affirmation of that descriptor, but simply to report a word that some people used at some point in time. There are still remnants of that period in time, such as in the name of the NAACP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"Regions with significant populations" shows obviously wrong number for Russia

What this useless table does is listing only ethnic Russians as "white people" in Russia, while missing other obviously white groups such as Ukrainians or Belarussians.

I'm not even talking that some of the largest non-ethnically-Russian groups, such as Tatars or Chechens, do not fit well into American racial classification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.150.234 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference 101 does not say 76% of Australians are white

Rather, that 76% of CEOs are Anglo-Celtic. Completely misleading. The actual figure might be difficult to find for Australia, because the census permits multiple ancestries to be declared. --118.208.109.156 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I've tried to correct that content before in other places. And you're right. There is no way a figure for numbers of white people in Australia can be ascertained, although some editors seemed determined to invent a number. The final sentence of the text section on Australia is also unacceptable, being unsourced. Feel free to take appropriate action. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've generated a table with the two ancestry responses, and summed up the values for those who answered Australian, New Zealander, or any sort of European as defined by the Bureau of Statistics for both questions. I get 70.63%. Not sure how to cite this, as it is an Excel file generated from the raw 2016 census data. --118.208.109.156 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that Bureau of Statistics definitions are largely irrelevant. Census respondents are unlikely to look at definitions before they answer that question. They will simply choose an answer based on their own feelings and beliefs. Australia has self declaration of ancestry, and the ABS has no control over what people write. There is certainly no effort to identify people by skin colour. I would rather see something like "Not available" written for the Australian figure. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Note also the sentence later in the article, "As at the 2016 census, it was estimated that around 58% of the Australian population were Anglo-Celtic Australians with 18% being of other European origins, a total of 76% for European ancestries as a whole". This isn't cited but seems to come from the table in the executive summary here (those figures would support the figure in the table, so I don't think the CEOs point made above is valid). Whether this is an acceptable calculation though, I doubt. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That source is explicitly about "senior leadership positions in Australian business, politics, government and universities". It's not about the general population. It's really of no use for this article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The table I referred to has a column for the general population though, which is where these figures are from. That said, I agree on the unsuitability of the source in general. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"European descent"

Nonsensical definition and inaccurate. This term is mainly used for people of Northwestern European descent. Not even Finns and Slavs are considered white due to having Asiatic features and neither are Southern Europeans and Balkanites due to having a swarthy look.

According to whom? The Aryan Nation? Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to update the article to reflect the fact that South Asians were also classified as "White" by the US Census, until 1977, when Indian-Americans petitioned to have this changed to "Asian" in order to receive minority benefits stemming from low-interest SBA Loans.

South Asians were officially classified by the US Census Bureau as "White" people in a 1970 decision, until the Indian-American community in the United States sought to overturn this decision through their own petitioning, in order to avail minority benefits. The Bureau agreed to their demands, and starting in 1977, South Asians started to be classified as "Asian" -- otherwise they would have continued to be considered White. Please update the article to include the fact that South Asians were considered "White" in the introduction, alongside North Africans and Middle Easterners. The Sources and additional information about this fact are provided further below.

We also need to update the other paragraph that talks about court decisions with respect to citizenship concerning South Asians and their racial classification. Just like Arabs, South Asians were classified as "White" or "Not White" in different court decisions, and as such, they were in the same position legally/racially. A.K Mozumdar, for instance, was classified as a "White Person" and was granted citizenship after the district judge agreed that he was in fact Caucasian, in 1913:

"In 1913 Mozumdar became a U.S. citizen after having convinced the Spokane district judge that he was in fact Caucasian and thereby met the requirements of naturalization law then restricting citizenship to "free white persons." Source: https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19130524.2.124.46&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

"In contrast, a Parsi by the name of Rustom Dadabhoy Wadia, was ruled as "colored" and therefore not eligible to receive U.S. citizenship." Source: Postmodernism & a Sociology...(c). University of Arkansas Press. pp. 143–. ISBN 978-1-61075-322-7.

There are many other cases where South Asians were classified as "White" as well. There are also certain cases where they were classified as "Colored". Therefore, we need to add a sentence, in addition to the one that already exists for Arabs, that says something along the lines of "South Asians and Arabs were classified as either "White" or "Non-White" in different decisions."

Furthermore, we need to add additional background information on the Thind Case that has not been previously mentioned in the article: While giving out its initial decision on Thind's citizenship status, the court accepted/conceded that Thind (and Indians) were Caucasians, and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as "White" Americans. The court also accepted that Thind was a high caste Hindu born in the northern Punjab region and classified by scientific authorities as of the Aryan race. Furthermore, Thind was eventually granted American citizenship upon appealing the decision: In 1935, Thind relied on his status as a veteran of the United States military during World War I to petition for naturalization through the State of New York under the Nye-Lea Act, which made World War I veterans eligible for naturalization regardless of race. The government objected his latest petition, but Thind was finally granted American citizenship. Source: Coulson, Doug (2015). "British Imperialism, the Indian Independence Movement, and the Racial Eligibility Provisions of the Naturalization Act: United States v. Thind Revisited". Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives (7): 1–42. SSRN 2610266. Second Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

In addition, we need to add the FBI's classification of Indians to the section on FBI and race-based classifications; In 2005, an article in a journal by the FBI Laboratory defined the term "Caucasoid," as the term is used in forensic hair examinations. It defined the term as, "an anthropological term designating one of the major groups of human beings originating from Europe and originating from the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, we need to add that the FBI considers South Asians as Caucasians/Whites as well, based on its official classification. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190729184047/https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2005/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm

Finally, we need to add a vital piece of information that caps the immigration/citizenship/race saga with respect to South Asian Americans and their status in American society in that era: In 1946, Congress, beginning to recognize that India would soon be independent, passed a new law that allowed Indians to become citizens, while also establishing an immigration quota. Source: Not All Caucasians Are White: The Supreme Court Rejects Citizenship for Asian Indians". History Matters. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

The aforementioned law passed by Congress, in addition to the immigration quota and citizenship laws that were established, are important segues into the Official classification of Indians as "White" by the U.S Government/Census Bureau, on which more information is provided below. Please add the aforementioned piece of information regarding the 1946 law/immigration quota/citizenship amendment to the section on South Asians as well. Then add a short blurb on how South Asians were classified as "White" racially until they changed this official classification through their own petitioning to avail minority benefits, including low-interest SBA loans being provided under the Reagan administration Sources: Smelser, N.J, Wilson, W.J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Page 255. https://web.archive.org/web/20190720105922/http://people.umass.edu/cnle/soc361/docs/ab1-8.pdf and Harpalani, Vinay, DesiCrit: Theorizing the Racial Ambiguity of South Asian Americans (August 12, 2013). 69 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 77 (2013); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper No. 2013-30. pp. 123, 124 & 136. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2308892

Here is some background information on the 1970 decision to classify South Asians as "White" officially, along with sources following it:

---

The U.S. Census Bureau has changed over the years its own classification of Indians. In 1975, the Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic Definitions of the Federal Interagency Committee on Education made a report. The report describes how, as it was deliberating on how to classify groups for the 1970 US Census, South Asians presented a problem for the Ad Hoc Committee. The report presented the classification problem as being whether to classify South Asians as White Americans, because they are Caucasians, though sometimes with darker skin than other Caucasians, or to classify South Asians as Asian, a minority category, because they came from Asia, and could be subject to some discrimination in the United States. The report said that the Ad Hoc Committee decided to classify South Asians as White people, and South Asians were classified as White Americans for the 1970 US Census.

Upon learning of the Ad Hoc Committee's decision, the Association of Indians in America (AIA) mobilized. During the 1970s, Indian Americans debated if they should give up trying to be "considered 'Caucasian/White'" to try to "seek or accept minority status". Indian American groups, through their own petitioning, successfully changed their racial classification to Asian in the 1970s to have themselves included in state and federal Asian racial categories to benefit from affirmative action. Specifically, starting in the mid-1970s, the AIA made the argument that since Indian Americans were minorities and thus entitled to the benefits of affirmative action, Indian Americans should have "minority" group status. Without their request to be designated as minorities, Indian Americans would have continued to be designated as White Americans by the U.S government.

In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget accepted the AIA's petition to change the race of Indian Americans from "White/Caucasian" to "Asian Indian." Specifically, Indian Americans had their official race changed to Asian in 1977 "through Statistical Directive 15 of the Office of Management and Budget", causing Indian Americans to be listed as Asian in the 1980 US Census. Due to the efforts of the AIA leaders, a new census category, "Asian Indian," was introduced for the 1980 US Census. In 1977, there were so few Indian Americans that the racial change of Indian Americans from White Americans to Asian American attracted little attention.

---

Sources: Kurien, P. (2018). Shifting U.S. Racial and Ethnic Identities of Sikh American Activism. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(5). Page 88.

Morning, Ann. "The racial self-identification of South Asians in the United States" (PDF). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (Vol. 27): 1–19. Retrieved 9 January 2019.

Smelser, N.J, Wilson, W.J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Page 255. Wayback Machine link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:101:20C0:2963:EE71:22EC:FE7 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

Proudvalue (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

i wanna change numbers in population because not every single one fit in milllions population

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Argentina and Ukraine

Cherteau please discuss your edits here. I do not see any clear sources saying Argentinians are White overall or specific percentages. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Numbers for Spain and Germany

Those numbers are the part of the population with the respective nationality. But you can have German or Spanish nationality and not being considered white... Rickyjose (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The numbers for Germany are completely bogus. The number of c. 61 million are Germans with no migrational background whatsoever, i.e. whose ancestors have lived in Germany for many generations. The rest to 81 million population total are, however not "people of color", they are citizens and residents with at least some migrational background. This means, that if someone's father is a Polish man and his mother a German woman, he/she would be included in this group just as well as a refugee from Congo. Most of the people with migratory background in Germany are European, with the numbers of Turks and Arabs/Middle Eastern/North African nationalities coming second/third. Cheers,--37.209.98.151 (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Information box to the right of the introduction?

I think it is very American-centric to list countries with "significant white populations" and then list populations of countries that do not even use that identifier in their census equivalents/where people by and large do not define themselves as "white".

By simply listing countries with large natively European/European-descended populations, it is not being consistent with the rest of the article, which describes what white people are in a less essentialist way.

White is not universally synonymous with "of European descent"! These are two distinct concepts, that the article very clearly describes. But again, this is not reflected in the infobox.

I will bring your attention to how category 3, "Census and social definitions in different regions", predominantly lists New World countries + some Asian and African countries. So again, it would maybe make sense to list "white" populations for those countries, but not for places like Russia or Poland.

Finally, for comparison sake, the article for "Black people" makes no such implicit claims. It does not list a hodgepodge of African countries, the USA, Brasil, as "countries with significant black population".

The introduction acknowledges the "fuzzy concept" of whiteness, its social construction, its origins in colonialism and colonial projects, and its particular relevance to Anglos and Anglo colonies. Why is this not reflected in the infobox on the right? 173.177.201.128 (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The data given for Germany is certainly a gross misrepresentation of the source which has data related to "migrant status", but no data related to skin colour or "race". BTW: Please sign your comments. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah apologies! This is my first time arguing for a more substantial change to an article. Still learning the etiquette. 173.177.201.128 (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope it was not your last time. I personally would like to see more of your contributions. Why not create an account ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, just made one :) Kananaskisarian (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Name

Is it correct to refer to whites as "white people"? Whites don't generally agree on what the best practices of being a white, are. So as a result they are not a unified people. They are whites. If possible, I'd like to nominate the article name be changed to "Whites" to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.238.93 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is unscientific and full of blame, allegation and bias

I came here looking for the history of the development of lower allele frequences of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5, which caused depigmentation in some homo sapiens. I.e. the history, origins and development of white skin. This article just lists who is considered subjectively white, who isn’t, and why not. Social constructs, colonialism, science of racism, 300 year old racist theories, etc. Where is the actual moderm scientific data/history? Haplogroups, proteins, alleles, polymorphic mutations, genes, DNA?

The article is very subjective, and non scientific for anyone who is interested in what made some humans “actually” white (i.e. depigmented) and why. Not conceptually but actually. Why are these articles on human skin pigmentation so unscientific in an encyclopedia?

Keep the problems on racism and human segregation by all means, they are important. But heaping it all into the “White people” article makes it look like all “White people” are to blame. 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Check out the page on Human skin color, which is referenced in the first sentence of this article on White people.

n-gio (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

--2605:6000:1B0C:A9:345A:C014:6AFD:4755 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)I agree with this

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

There is a hyperlink to "Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG)" that links to the "Eurasian Steppe" article instead of the "Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG)" article that already exists.

It is located under Modern Racial Hierarchies, 21st Century. Yeji stan for life (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks a lot. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "White" Genetic?

I came here with a basic question and came away from the Article feeling like I'd been indoctrinated by someone with a political bias. VERY simple question. Is being "white" a matter of genetics, or not. Europe is a region, the caucasian mountains are a region. If they dug up a dead body from 2,000, 5,000 years ago, could they determine if it was "white" or not. Is there a white gene? Can people be said to have a percentage of white genetics? I get the feeling the Editors of the Article want to distract and redirect attention away from genetics and toward things like skin pigment, color and geography68.206.249.124 (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The answer to your question, of course, is "no". Where in the article do you think this question should be addressed? Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Europeans Map

The map leaves areas like the UAE and Qatar, both of which have European percentages over 3%, as grey. This should be changed. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

White Hondurans

@Luis Alfredo Romero: I reverted your additions to the section on Honduras a second time. They are still not clear: Does the "Spanish community" consist of descendants of Spanish immigrants of the 16th century ? Or are they Spanish citizens ? In the first case, they should be called Honduran (and not "Spanish"), in the second case they should not be called Honduran. Are Palestinians considered "white" in Honduras ? Please note that there is no scientific method to determine if somebody is "white" or not. The only way to talk about somebody being "white" is self-identification or identification by the society. Also, a source is missing for the claim that Moncada is white. BTW: "Hi i updated the article" is a very strange edit summary. Please don't mark an edit as "minor" if it might be controversial. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Contributions of "white people" to human progress ?

@675930s: The lede has to summarize the article, Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts says Don't include information that is not covered later on. So you would have to add a new section to the article and that would have to be well sourced, demonstrating that the sources really say that a certain contributor to human progress belongs to the "white race". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"White Europeans" in France

@PierreBourdieu007: Your statistics aims at showing that in 2060 the "White European population" in France will be in a minority position. There are at least two major problems: The definition at the beginning of the section says White people in France are a broad racial-based, or skin colour-based, social category in French society, "social category" obviously meaning that the society decides whom to regard as "white". "White European", on the other hand, means a definition by ancestry, so it doesn't fit in the scope of the section. Second problem: A video by Laurent Obertone is no WP:RS. BTW: We don't use direct links to the French WP. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"White(people)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect White(people). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30#White(people) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nordic race and white people, synonymous/overlapping topic?

From the most common definition of "white" not just in the United States, but in most countries today, isn't the Nordic race synonymous in terms of phenotype with White people? Hgh1985 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, since "Nordic race" is an obsolete term. Please read WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Western Eurasian

The genetic term maps to Western Eurasian, not "European". Europe is a continent (with ill-defined borders) not a genetic space. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Our article is not about genetics, I think that has been clearly expressed in the lede. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It is about Ethnicity, no?PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

White = European?

I do not agree with the current definition. As a Greek person who visited the USA, I have not been considered white by the local people. People thought that I was Hispanic or Arab. Therefore, I propose to the admins to change the definition to (people of exclusively Northern European descent). I also have a Greek relative who lives in Australia, he said that local Australians didn't consider him to be white either. There's white looking (North European looking) people in Southern Europe, I know. They're whites but the other ones who look Mediterranean are not white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapartem (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are well and I understand your problem, however in wikipedia we do not have some "superiors" who are in charge of handling the encyclopedia to correct definitions. This page is only to improve the article, not to solve social problems as if you went to America and they did not see you as European. That is irrelevant and I don't want to be rude about this, but Wikipedians are here to present data, not to present facts. For example, if socialism is better than capitalism, if Darwinism is the best theory of evolution or in this case the whites are equal to the Europeans. I will explain to you why whites are called Europeans, it is because whites with such superficial characteristics come from Europe and when colonizing certain nations, people of this race are called "Europeans", because their ancestors were Europeans who they emigrated to America or other lands for the purpose of colonizing. Now, if your race is not white it does not necessarily mean that you are not European because it is like saying that being Hispanic means that you come or come from Mexico. In conclusion, Wikipedia is not a place for facts, so I would recommend another academic encyclopedia with more objective and complete information, and if you investigate this term outside of this page you will realize why the designation of "European white". I'm sorry for your experience but this preposition is irrelevant although I am nobody to declare that so let's wait for more people to see what they say in that case. --OfficeBlue (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So if you want to solve that problem by changing the definition without providing proof (references or some solid argument from personal experiences), then it is absurd to expect changes. I recommend that you provide considerable trustworthy links, that is academic, although I reiterate that this conversation is irrelevant because I do not see Wikipedia as the reason why certain people do not consider you as a European. This is not the place to solve such a discrepancy because we are not the book of facts but rather data providers, whose conclusion on the subject will be the one that the reader will obtain after reading. So provide links, papers, studies, books and all your arsenal because a simple preposition based on a simple personal experience. It is like saying that we should add to the article of capitalism that is considered by some, erroneously as the best economic system even though I live in Haiti and I do not enjoy the benefits that said system ensures. --OfficeBlue (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet, by presenting an American cultural understanding of what "White people" are you are doing just that, deciding how people who read wikipedia will think about the subject. The data, as you will it, is that, excluding what is commonly understood as Anglo-saxon English centric countries, what you are calling white people isn't even a category that exists. 78.2.24.112 (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Change "Hollanders" to "Dutchmen" or "the Dutch". Hollander is not the same as Dutch, it only depicts those coming from the region of Holland. Hyndycz (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I changed it to Dutch people to use a non gendered term. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"White" should be capitalized when referring to an identifiable group. The context here is about how she could pass as someone of European descent when she is someone of African descent. Thus it is inappropriate to use a lower case 'w' for White while also using an upper case 'B' for "Black".

Unsigned, misplaced comment

in Indonesia the term for white people they are white like "Albino" so there is a nickname for White People is " Bule "  : https://voi.id/memori/7275/asal-usul-sebutan-bule-untuk-warga-asing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.225.71 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). I can't read Indonesian, but from Google Translate they looke like they are an RS. This statetemt would belong at Indo people, not this overview. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of South Asians? and possible move to US section

The first source attached to South Asians quotes part of the article that reads, "Until recently, persons from India were considered White in the US census". The source is from 1998 and considering that we are in 2021 I think it might not be so accurate to be using a very dated source. Additionally, both sources speak about Indians only, using "Indian" and "South Asian" interchangeably with no references to other parts of the region so I think the term "South Asian" in this case is misleading. Also, I feel the inclusion of all of this information along with the information about West Asians and North Africans is US-centric. The first source attached to South Asians says, "In Britain, Middle Eastern and North African people would not be considered White, and Asian Indians have never been considered so". So I think there's undue weight by focusing on old US practices in the lede as opposed to moving all of this information to the United States section of the article where it should be. Gonghca (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

People will forever debate what white means because it's a meaningless pseudoscientific term

It is completely socially constructed and has absolutely no meaning. Just offering my two cents :)173.35.240.92 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely if I have access to white privilege I must actually be white, right? There are definitely defined parameters for what makes someone white. Gasolineman3 (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic galleries

I just removed the portraits of individual white people according to WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. The selection of such pictures is always arbitrary and tends to be influenced by the desire to present national (Washington, O'Higgins) or personal heroes (e.g. actors). Furthermore, the pictures might be influenced by the desire to present a unified "white race" in a biological sense, a concept which has been debunked by science (see e.g. Caucasian race). --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Rsk6400. The Manual of Style is clear on this, as is the consensus on which it is based: [1], [2], [3]. Generalrelative (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Impartiality in the France paragraph ?

Is Wikipedia still considered neutral ? The part about France is mainly an accusation of racism against white french people. Especially when one of your sources is Rokhaya Diallo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.16.67.50 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Resonance in the anglosphere ?

@Menacinghat: I reverted your change again, because your first edit summary showed it was based on original research (see WP:OR). Changes have to be based on reliable sources (see WP:RS). --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Rsk6400, is the paragraph currently based on RS? Because of the organization of the article, it's hard to tell what parts of the article support that lead content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. I don't like the current article very much, but the recent changes were not an improvement. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

On second thought: I deleted the whole paragraph. The last part has had a "citation needed" tag for some months, and I couldn't find any support for the first part, although I may have looked for it a bit too superficially. Feel free to revert or change. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand

I grew up in New Zealand and studied our history. I cannot recall ever learning or reading about James Cook "CLAIMING" New Zealand for Britain. Is this some new insight, or is it an attempt at rewriting history? 58.104.120.106 (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Just removed the claim. Seems unsourced. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

A Google Books search shows the statement of Cook claiming New Zealand is pretty well established, but the explanation in this book indicates that the "claim" didn't really have any effect: "This intertwined question of sovereignty and land may be traced back to the first claims made by Captain James Cook as he sailed around the archipelago in 1769-1770. Cook's claims initially went unheeded and New Zealand remained outside British dominion. So it's really of no relevance in this article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"black", "red", "brown", "yellow", and other "colored" people or "persons of color" DON'T EXIST

Forum-style discussion without a single source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could we specifcy somewhere that people don't have these colors, and they have skin tones and that the term is erronous On the black people page it is specfificed that the term si derogatory, oudated and reductive as well. TudorTulok (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) That's a note to yourself Andy. You are the one that thinks that race is scientific, and that there is scientifc proof for the existance of white and black skin, where there isn't such thing. It will take 50 years when everybody realises that we it's offensive to call people terms that are scientifically incorrect, but you say on my talk page that it's offesnive to tell them that the name they have chosen is not scientifcially correct and that offesnvie. I am not a white person, and never will be. I have a light skin, I am a person of light skin, not a white person. I find it offesnive to be called white. It's easy to hide your opinion under the 'not a forum' tag. As I said, it might take you 50 years to realise that you are wrong (that's how slow a culture is, and that's what you follow in this opinion, pleasing the culture, not the scientfic truth, that Wikipedia should go along with). If you are still around here in 2072, please do check my comment. TudorTulok (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC) No, I do not think that 'race is scientific'. I do however think you are an imbecile, who shouldn't be permitted to edit Wikipedia if you are going to use it as a platform for your nonsensical gibberish, regardless of how well-intentioned your objectives may possibly be. 'Race' is a social construct, and has never been an assertion that people comply with some sort of arbitrary binary monochromatic divide. That isn't what this article is about, and vacuous assertions that people "don't exist" are grossly offensive, in multiple ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Useful content

Hello, this two references may be relevant and should be added into the article:

According to geneticist David Reich, based on ancient human genomes that his laboratory sequenced in 2016, Europeans descend from a mixture of four distinct ancestral components. As one editorial opinion expressed it:

"[W]hites" are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead "whites" represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

Thank you.2001:4BC9:925:A76F:4CDA:C616:3A51:EDF0 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add it. 2A02:560:573B:FA00:C96E:9710:F75F:9D7F (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

There are various official genetic studies conducted in Latin American countries that do not coincide with the data posted on this page. In order to provide the most accurate information possible, these sources should be added.

For example Colombia’s white population is not 37%. It should be changed to 40-60% according to the following studies:

Norris, E.T., Wang, L., Conley, A.B. et al. Genetic ancestry, admixture and health determinants in Latin America. BMC Genomics 19, 861 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-5195-7

Admixture in Latin America: Geographic Structure, Phenotypic Diversity and Self-Perception of Ancestry Based on 7,342 Individuals 

Ruiz-Linares A, Adhikari K, Acuña-Alonzo V, Quinto-Sanchez M, Jaramillo C, et al. (2014) Admixture in Latin America: Geographic Structure, Phenotypic Diversity and Self-Perception of Ancestry Based on 7,342 Individuals. PLOS Genetics 10(9): e1004572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004572

Admixture-enabled selection for rapid adaptive evolution in the Americas - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Genetic-ancestry-and-admixture-in-Latin-America-a-The-global-locations-of-the-four-LA_fig1_339101069 [accessed 18 Mar, 2022] Jacob Barus678 (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It does not appear there is a consensus to use these sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

White Studies

In several articles having to do with race and "whiteness" in America, historically uninformed editors keep inserting the following statement:

"At various times each of the following has been excluded from being considered white: Germans, Greeks, white Hispanics, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs, and Spaniards."

At what times were these groups "not white"? It's likely that certain groups such as Jews, Hispanic and Mediterranean immigrants were (and to some extent, still are) subjects of debate on account of racial ambiguity, but Irish people? Like most "white" scholars Tehranian offers no evidence and almost immediately contradicts himself. He makes the point that,

"A true return to the intent of the 1790 authors of the naturalization statute would have required a cessation of citizenship rights to immigrants of Slavic, Mediterranean, and even Irish descent."

And then goes on to write,

"As an earlier court had argued in another racial-prerequisite case, United States v. Balsara,53 any attempt to apply the naturalization law through the intent of the 1790 framers of the statute was farcical:

The government contends that the words must be construed to mean what the Congress which passed the first naturalization act in 1790 understood them to mean, and, no immigration being then known except from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Sweden, France, and Holland, Congress must be taken to have intended aliens coming from those countries only. The consequence of this argument, viz., that Russians, Poles, Italians, Greeks, and others, who had not theretofore immigrated, are to be excluded, is ... absurd. 4"

That Irishmen were involved in establishing the laws of the United States at its creation, including the 1790 Act that excluded non-white persons from citizenship, doesn't deter Tehranian from making this ridiculous argument.

I shouldn't have to remind editors that the encyclopedia prohibits us from stating controversial claims as if they were fact, and from representing controversial information in a one-sided manner. About a decade after Tehranian published "Performing Whiteness", historian Kevin Kenny reviewed two decades of Irish-American immigration scholarship and found no significant support for this particular hypothesis in the literature[4].

"Whiteness" historiography has been criticized more generally by historians Peter Kolchin[5], Eric Foner and Barbara J. Fields, among others[6].Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's lovely, but we cannot conduct WP:SYNTH. The claim that the Irish were not White is certainly not FRINGE (e.g., How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Citing Ignatiev's book as a defense of this inane theory about the Irish is usually a reliable indicator that you don't have the background to be editing this topic. "How the Irish Became White" is a popular history book (using the term loosely) from the 90s that never passed the historical test. You can read a review of Ignatiev's flawed thesis here [7], and Eric Arnesen also covered this in the International Labor and Working-Class History Journal, if you can get your hands on it (JSTOR used to have a copy, and still might)[8].

And what are you babbling about "synthesis"? That wasn't synthesis; it was a twenty year review of scholarship by a subject-matter expert who speaks directly about the topic under discussion. That's the gold standard of sources on here.

Look, I've had this same argument with another zealot on the "white Americans" page about a year ago and I'm not about to do it again. I'm taking this over to the npov board and maybe someone else will get involved.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1: You're correct that this is not my area of expertise but I'd recommend you focus on the content and not insult fellow editors if you want to get anywhere on this. (Though reviewing your edit history, this appears to be your modus operandi). Quote from Kenny or Arnesen to illustrate your claims. You are familiar with academic standards, so please demonstrate your claims with sources instead of just saying things are criticized or wrong. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It would've been nice if you had responded this way initially instead of accusing me of suggesting we "synthesize" information (which I did not). Yes, let's discuss this civilly.

Kenny's review can be read in full here[9]. His commentary on the whiteness debate begins on the bottom of p. 70, and at the top of the next page he writes,

"In 2001 and 2002 Eric Arnesen, Peter Kolchin, and Barbara J. Fields took stock of the debate and called for a moratorium. Since then, historians have been more skeptical, though [whiteness] studies continues to proliferate in disciplines where it arrived later."

He also writes:

"Irish workers were certainly exploited, but they did not suffer from racism."

Historian Tim Meagher also devoted an entire chapter to "Irish Americans and race" in his textbook The Columbia Guide to Irish-American History, which you can read in full on page 214[10]. I don't really know which particular line to quote, as he essentially dissects Ignatiev's argument point by point. He does quote Kevin Kenny as saying,

"to have asked [the Irish] themselves how they became white would surely have been to ask a nonsensical question … that they were white was self-evident." (p.223)

And labour historian Barbara J. Fields as saying,

“Whatever the various racializers of European immigrants do, there is one thing that they do not do, and that is to assign European immigrants to a biological category on the basis of the one drop of blood by any known ancestry rule that applies to African Americans.”(p.221)Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• Hi, I'm here from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I would concur with the argument that the whiteness studies perspective should be balanced with historical perspectives from outside that discipline.

My two cents is that whiteness studies, when pushed, does not really suggest that contemporaries did not consider immigrant groups to be "white". It actually uses an anachronous definition of whiteness to mean "a full member of the dominant ethnosocial group of the US", and by that definition they are correct that the Irish or Poles were not "white". For example, you will find the text "how the Irish became white" to be full of quotations by contemporaries which describe the Irish as "white", so whiteness studies theorists are obviously not talking in a literal sense.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Dropping in from RSN... It seems to me like the "this is a fuzzy concept" language mostly covers this and suggests the way forward for any potential improvements. Discipline A uses definition X, discipline B uses definition Y, theorizing from the US or South Africa doesn't necessarily transfer to the UK [11]; and the best we can do is report and summarize. We don't omit noteworthy or influential viewpoints simply because they are controversial or contested; we attribute and (try to) contextualize them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

nortern = northern

2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, that's now  Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I would edit myself these simple situations but if that is what the WP powers that be dictate, then ....2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)