Template talk:White people

Complaints from 2008-2010

this is deeply offensive. instead of mentioning good things that came from whites, such as inventions or scientific break-throughs, the template focuses on "angry white male," and other ridiclious things. please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.68.167 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All it is is the former "See also" section from the White people article. Its intended to collect all our articles specifically related to white people. If we had articles on Inventions by white people or White scientific discoveries, they would be more than welcome. So no, the template does not focus, it merely collects. Sincerely, the skomorokh 13:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is too American-centric(European American, Non-Hispanic Whites, White Hispanic and Latino Americans) and Eurocentric. The Definition of "white" varies from region to region. Skin colour doesn't determine the relations between peoples. Arabs, Turks, Iranians and some North Indians have white/light skin and a lot of Mediterranean peoples have olive or tan skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.146.223 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are only europeans white?

Many people in Kazakhistan, Syria, Siberia etc. are also white. Why is this template limiting it to those of European ancestry? 84.13.50.235 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

'White' is a social construct, not a biological fact. Who is and who isn't 'white' is entirely dependent on (a) the opinion of the person using the term, and (b) the context. Another good reason to delete this bit of nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Another good reason to delete this bit of nonsense" 84.13.50.235 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing looks to me to be little more than a collection of stereotypes, often negative. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a section of ethnicities pertaining to Europe, along with associated generic theories on ethno-lunguistic history. This was however reverted by Rua? So now I'm left rather puzzled. PPEMES (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove white history section

I would like to delete the White History section. I see it as a magnet for trouble and given the vague definition of white skin it is hard to see purpose or agreement on what should go in it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Asterisk usage and expansion of the list

The US government is clear on who is considered "white" in its political calculations. For which the most of North Africa, the Middle East and much of the "stan" countries are included. The "White" list should include those countries as well. Additionally, most Italians were considered black and treated as such up until the mid 1980's. Even today, many Italian Americans are dark skinned and can pass for whichever they choose in a similar fashion as the all encompassing and very inaccurate term "Hispanic". To be accurate and fair, an asterisk should be placed by Italian American culture with a detailed explanation that they weren't considered nor did they have the skin pigment to be White for many generations. You may add other ethnicities such as the Lebanese, Iranians, Turkish and more as needed. 2603:9000:C200:3042:DE7:42DC:B3B0:47D8 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)