Talk:White people/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hair and eye color polymorphism

what is going on here? from my talkpage:

Please take it to the talk page, you are editing against consensus. There is a consensus against turning this article into a Nordic race article or into a "European race" article or into a typological race article. Indeed this hair and eye colour gibberish with it's concentration on blond hair and blue eyes seems to be directly from the SS handbook. If you don't like ist discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. Alun 09:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

what the hell?? I protest in the strongest possible terms. I find it unacceptable to be accused of Nazism when discussing the straightforward, objective and innocent topic of eye color polymorphism, which happens to be a phenomenon restricted to "white" populations. I realize this topic is trolled by both black and white ideologists. I am neither. I certainly do not accept the concept of "European race" or "Nordic race" as meaningful. Which is precisely why eye color polymorphism needs to be discussed as a phenotypical peculiarity in this article. Any more of this sort, Alun, and I will report you for trolling. dab (𒁳) 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is established that these hair and eye color polymorphisms are not restricted to white populations, we were discussing this last time though we were being accused of turning the talk page into a forum. Muntuwandi 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "I find it unacceptable to be accused of Nazism"
Quite right, if this ever happens I suggest you report the person who does it. Alun 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "which happens to be a phenomenon restricted to "white" populations."
This is a subjective statement, because it depends on your personal opinion. You need to do two things to clarify this assertion. 1) You need to show that it really is "restricted" to "white" populations 2) You need to state "what" you mean by "white" populations. It is clear that most so called "white" people do not display any of these so called "typical" white characteristics. If these characteristics are not typically "white", then what is the reason for them being here? Lots of things are associated with Europe, are these all "diagnostic" for "whiteness"? Why concentrate on these unimportant and irrelevant genotypes? What is particularly important about these two features that makes them especially important? Alun 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is clear that most so called "white" people do not display any of these so called "typical" white characteristics". Alun, did you even bother to read the section? It's about polymormphism and centres on the passage "diversity reaches a maximum in an area centered on the East Baltic". How can a discussion of maximum diversity be about insisting that white people must have 'typical' characteristics? Knee-jerk reverting is a big problem here. Paul B 11:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How can a discussion about polymorphisms amongst populations be relevant to such a wishy washy undefined concept such as "white people". When you show me a proper discussion of these polymorphisms that also uses "white people" as a defined biological population for the study, then maybe you have a point. But this article is not about polymorphisms in Europe, and if it were the polymorphisms for eye colour or hair colour have little or no significance or import. I fail to see anything relevant about this information. This eye colour and hair colour map is clearly about European "physical types", so it's about typology, this article is not about typology. Alun 11:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You know very well that a scientific discussion is unlikely to use the term "white people", so you are creating an unrealistic demand. I note that you having even admitted that you mischaracterised the whole section - and that you continue to do so with false statements about "maps of Nordic typology". Of course this article is about typology - characterising people as white or not is part of a process of contsructing and policing a definition of a type. Paul B 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I note that you having even admitted that you mischaracterised the whole section
Making accusations such as this without evidence is surely a prime example of not assuming good faith. Alun 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have already given the evidence, so don't be disingenuous. Paul B 11:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course this article is about typology - characterising people as white or not is part of a process of constructing and policing a definition of a type.
I don't think this is an objective statement. Typology is a discredited pseudoscientific attempt to define the physical characteristics of "biological races". Whereas "whitness" is fluid and is a political-social concept, who or what is "white" varies temporally and geographically. I may not have expressed my opinion very clearly. I am not per se against having a discussion about hair and eye colour polymorphism in the article, as long as it is put in it's correct context. Firstly it is by no means a "marker" for "whiteness", light hair or eye colour is not definitive for "whiteness". Secondly even the majority of "white people" do not have light hair or eye colour. Thirdly even in that subset of "white people" who are European, light hair and eye colour is not definitive, so these do not represent "markers" for Europeans either. Fourth, even in that subset of "white people" who are European light hair and eye colour are not characteristic of the majority of people. So we are talking about a subset of a subset of people. Fifth The maps are irrelevant, we do not need to include maps of these characteristics, indeed these characteristics are relatively unimportant in determining if someone is considered "white" or not, therefore I think including the maps gives these characteristics undue weight. Alun 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Typology is not a "discredited psudoscientific attempt to define the physical characteristics of biological races". That's sheer assertion. Models of types can serve many purposes. As you know from this and other articles they function in social and law enforcement discourses. Their scientific uefulness is currently disputed in this context. The diversity in the characterisation of "whiteness" can be - and often is - greatly exaggerated, biut that's u;ltimately irrelrevant. This article discusses the historcal, and social usage, and then looks at how that maps onto current scientific evidence. That's what the section attempted to do, and it's no different from ehat the paragraph after paragraph on skin-pigmentration does. Again you mischaracterise by the section by repeatedly making the utterly irrelevant assertion that "light hair and eye colour is not definitive so these do not represent "markers" for Europeans either". The section never said it was. Dab never said it was. Straw man,straw man yet again. How many time to I have to repeat the same point before it actually gets through to you? The section was about the geographical loci of maximum range range and diversity of features. I quote again what the section actually said: "White people exhibit greater polymorphism in hair and eye color than other populations. Geographically, such polymorphism is most prevalent in Europe, more specifically the Baltic region." I says the exact opposite of what you repeatedly misrepresent it as saying. Paul B 11:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the article about typology states that it is discredited. Of course it's an assertion. Saying that typology is not discredited is also an assertion. There is no dispute about the usefulness of typology as far I am aware, I think it has been disposed of quite some time ago by anthropologists. The article should discuss social and historical usage, but I don't see how it can "map onto current scientific evidence", because no reputable scientist would ever try to use such an ill defined, amorphous and plastic concept as "white". White has no scientific meaning for the simple meaning that it is undefinable in a scientific way. You seem to believe that "white" has a scientifically quantifiable meaning, but provide no evidence for this. You quote the article as saying "White people exhibit greater polymorphism in hair and eye color than other populations." But the source for this was Frosts paper, Frost does not make this claim, Frost states "Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe."[1] So this surely implies that only northern and eastern Europeans are "white" then? Alun 13:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
WP articles are hardly authoritative, but that's beside the point. It depends what value and function the the typology performs. If you don't see how it can "map onto scientific evidence", than why include any scientific evidence at all in the article? In fact the article repeatedly tries to map current scientific evidence onto the socio-historical concept of "white people". Why do you think all those footnotes on skin colour adaptation are there? Be consistent. Again, I have made this point before, but you clearly do not follow it, becase you keep making the irrelevant "come back" that white people is not a scientific concept. No it isn't. There is a socio-cultural concept and then there is scientific evidence concerning the elements of that socio-cultural concept - such as evidence about skin pigmentation and eye colour, among other things. The scientific evidence may either support or undermine claims about the socio-cultural concept. The point of the section was to address one aspect of that. Instead of altering the imprecise phrasing to improve it, you made false assertions about its content and accusations about SS handbooks. The extent of the "problem" is that the author used the phrase "white people" intead of a more precise expression like "populations which have typically been included in the category "white people"... That's an argument for careful rephrasing, not for total misrepresentation of what has been written. Paul B 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty concepts that can be quantified or examined in a scientific way. For example science can measure skin colour, it is a quantifiable trait, science can also make hypotheses about why skin colour may vary. But we do not make any claims in this section about the distribution of skin colour, nor do we provide any maps. We simply give an account of the selective pressures on skin colour and a brief discussion of theories that may explain why pale skin colour is selected for in regions with less intense sunlight, and why dark skin colour is selected for in regions with intense sunlight. We also give a brief discussion of some of the molecular biology associated with skin colour. We do not make any claims about the intensity of skin colour, nor do we provide maps of skin reflectance in different parts of the world, this would not be relevant because there are no criteria regarding how reflective someone's skin needs to be in order for them to be considered "white". It is clear that in an article about white people skin colour is a relevant topic, though it is disputable as to how important it is. On the other hand this article is not about eye colour or hair colour, so these concepts do not have a direct relevance for the article, light skin colour is strongly correlated with identification as "white", though this is not universally true. Hair and eye colour have no such correlations, they are therefore much less relevant, or even irrelevant to the article. Besides the concept of "white people" has failed to be quantified scientifically, and scientists have tried hard to do this, there is a whole section on the history of the term that discusses some of the scientists that have tried to do this, but in the modern world scientists have understood that science needs to identify its parameters properly. The scientists that did try to identify "white" had to resort to all sorts of cultural stereotypes in order to make their distinctions. The very good reasons that people like Darwin had for rejecting these sorts of classifications are just as relevant today as they were in the 19th century. So it's not any such thing as an argument about rephrasing, your argument presupposes that skin colour and hair/colour are equally relevant to the social concept of "white" people, but you have provided no evidence that eye/hair colour is at all relevant to "white" people. Furthermore the author does not use the term "white people" instead of a more precise expression, "northern and eastern Europeans" is not a more precise expression of "white people", it is a completely different set of people. Northern and eastern Europe is a region of the world that can be seen on a map, it's population can be quantified and presented on a map, this is not true of "white people". You write as if this is only a question of nuanced phrasing, as if there is no fundamental difference between these two groups. But this is illogical, "white people" is an ill defined group that can mean very different things to different people, and "white people" cannot be isolated to any particular geographic region. White people are not a population in the sense that eastern and northern Europeans can be thought of as a population, eastern and northern Europeans occupy a defined geographic region, a prerequisite for any population, white people do not do this. Alun 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you don't include maps of skin-colour distribution is not an argument. It would be useful if you did. There's no reason not to. If eye colour does not have direct relevance then what was it already present (and still is present) in the text? If discussion of features and variations of traits in populations that come under current and historical soico-cultural use of the term "white" is not on topic then I don't know what is. Again you keep coming back to the same misunderstanding (it's weird how often the same point has to be repeated). You are talking as though I am advocating listing characteristics that are required to be a "white person". The "evidence that eye/hair colour is at all relevant to 'white' people" follows from the usage of the term, it's not constituative of the definition. Saying "'white people' cannot be isolated to any particular geographic region" is meaningless if one of the most established usages of the term - as the article fully documents - is "European". In this usage, which is probably the dominant one given the range of evidence from censuses etc, it certainly can. You are looking at the whole issue through the wrong end of the telescope. The meaning - or range of meanings - is determined by the social usage(s). The science discusses the relation between these usage and current knowledge/theories about human diversity. Paul B 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I didn't say that the fact that we don't include skin colour maps is an argument. I said the reasons we don't include skin colour maps is an argument. The reasons for the fact are arguments, not the fact itself. Indeed what good would skin colour maps do? There is no criterion for judging what scale of skin reflectance is "white", and of course skin reflectance is not always relevant, in places like Brazil white people can be have any skin shade, as long as they are middle class. Likewise we have absolutely no idea what criteria are used for determining the difference between light hair and dark hair, indeed hair colour varies in a continuum, so the distinction must be arbitrary. "If discussion of features and variations of traits in populations that come under current and historical soico-cultural use of the term "white" is not on topic then I don't know what is." First you need to define "current and historical soico-cultural use of the term "white"", second you need to describe what "populations" are "white", because your opinion of what populations are "white" is not going to be the same as other peoples opinion, third you need to explain why you think certain features are important than others. You have not made any sort of convincing case that eye/hair colour has any significance for "white people" aside from the fact that a small set of people who may be considered "white" and that live in a small part of Europe display some degree of variation in these traits. But this does not explain either the relevance of this relatively small group to the whole concept of "white people", nor have you explained why you consider hair/eye colour of such importance. If you want to have an article that discusses all variation within all possible socio-historical concepts of "white" then you are going to have a book, not an encyclopaedia article. Why not height? Why not body mass index? Why not obesity? Why not diabetes? Why not the average number of pimples on the bottom? Besides what you write is still illogical, you say "The "evidence that eye/hair colour is at all relevant to 'white' people" follows from the usage of the term....as the article fully documents - is "European". Europeans can be considered white (though so can many non-European groups), so what? The hair/eye colour paper cited does not refer to Europeans as a whole, it refers to northern and eastern Europeans. So even here you are conflating two different groups of people to support your argument, just like you did before , European and northern and eastern European are not equivalent groups. You do not seem to have any sort of coherent argument here. You seem to be saying that 1) Northern and Eastern Europeans have diverse hair/eye colour according to a specific article, so 2) Northern and eastern Europeans are Europeans, therefore Europeans have diverse hair/eye colour, so 3) Europeans are a group of "white people" therefore "white people" have diverse hair/eye colour. But these three groups are not the same, they are not synonymous. I do not find your arguments convincing, they seem to be derived from your personal opinion. But it does not matter what I think, you need to get a consensus behind you, to do this you need to be prepared to compromise, just as I am. I suggest you take a look at my suggestion for a compromise below, which I made this morning, but you have ignored. I have tried to be constructive, which is a great deal more than you can claim. Alun 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There is not point in discussing this with someone who persistentyly and repeatedly ignores what is being said. It is not my personal opinion that "white" isd synonymoyus with European. Read the first sentence of the article. Read what the history and census infornmation says. A map of skin pigment distribution would not be about proving who is or is not white, as I have said again and again and again and again (since it would undoubtedly demonstate that skin-pigment distribution varies in ways that do not fit the dominant models for defining white personhood). It would provide information that could then be used to "map onto" (i.e see where fits and non-fits occur) the social usage. The science provides information that allows us to assess claims made for the social meaning. Since I've said this a squillion times and you still don't get it, see no point in saying it again. Paul B 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not ignored what you have said, I have actually written a great deal in response to you. I know what the first sentence of the article says, it does not say that white is synonymous with European, whichever way you read it: "being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin" is not the same as being European, neither is "to a human group having light-coloured skin, especially of European ancestry." Especially does not mean either exclusively nor explicitly. The map of skin pigment diversity would be irrelevant to this article, this article is not about skin pigment diversity, the map is of course relevant to Human skin colour where it correctly resides. I am saddened that you have ignored my request for compromise and chosen to continue in a confrontational manner. I don't understand why editors ignore the rules about consensus and AGF in favour of taking entrenched positions. Alun 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "I will report you for trolling."
Don't threaten me, who do you think you are? I am not frightened of you. You have been ignoring the consensus on this talk page and reverting all edits you do not like. I drew your attention to this on your talk page out of courtesy. You obviously have a strong opinion about this, so I thought it would be better for you to discuss this on the talk page rather than you keeping reverting the page. Now you threaten me. Your adminship does not give you authority to decide what goes into articles you know, nor does it allow you to threaten me. Alun 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For unclear reasons, a section on hair and eye color polymorphism was deleted. I agree with dab that this article is a good place for this piece of information; I see no link to SS handbooks or other crackpot theories. There is a problem with the availability of the source though; I couldn't locate it at CogWeb. — mark ✎ 10:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW I made the section heading here somewhat more descriptive — mark ✎ 10:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, whether it's restricted to white populations depends on the definition of "white populations" - eye colour is certainly variable in east asia. Secondly, there's a large body of dicussion about this recently, and re-adding as soon as the discussion has died down is not appropriate. The first re-add would be reasonable, but reverting the reversion (repeatedly) is tendentious at the very least. SamBC(talk) 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

what "consensus"? There has just barely been a consensus to not nuke this page to disambiguation status. This is the main article on "white people". I find it hilarious that it is apparently alright to discuss at length funny historical USian "one-drop rules", and the skin shade of individual starlets (!), but not the major phenotypical divisions of the white populations in general. Whatever went wrong here? If anything, branch out the US-centric stuff, we have Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for that. Branch out the awkward and list-like "Census and social definitions in different regions", which all have their main articles, but do not blank the discussions of the very core topic of this page, there is simply no way this is acceptable. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Every time you revert to the maps of Nordic typology, someone immediately changes them back, and you ask where the consensus against the maps is? Besides you are just edit waring now. The three revert rule is not an entitlement remember. Alun 11:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it hilarious.
Well at least you are having a good laugh. Alun 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • but not the major phenotypical divisions of the white populations in general
What major phenotypic division? Hair and eye colour hardly represents a "major" division, besides what is the "white population". What evidence is there that "white people" form a population? What do you actually mean by your use of the word "population". This seems like a non standard use either in biology or in politics. Alun 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Why should this information not be more relevant in Human genetic variation? or in Cline (population genetics)? Why is this info not more relevant to Hair colour or Eye colour? All of these articles seem infinitely more acceptable for this information, where it can exist without anyone disputing it. Alun 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Above, PaulB writes, "You know very well that a scientific discussion is unlikely to use the term "white people", so you are creating an unrealistic demand." This is like saying "if the scientific literature doesn't support my view, well, we will just have to ignore ... the scientific literature!" ????? That violates NPOV and NOR. We should focus on how bodies of reliable sources use the term "white people," not just what a couple of editors believe about white people. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, no it isn't. White people is not a scientific concept, so you would not expect scientists to use the expression in papers, except perhaps as shorthand. However, it happens to be the topic of this article. By demanding that a specifically scientific text use the actual expression "white people" for any information to be included, Alun is, in effect, creating an unrealisable "rule". In fact many of the sources that are quoted do not use the actual phrase "white people", for example the Introduction to Skin Histology. That does not mean that they are not relevant to the article. I'm not strongly in favour or opposed to the inclusion of this material here, but it seems genuinely interesting and is clearly not related to some "Nordicist" POV. My initial intervention arose from Alun's false representation of the content of the passage. He was not reading what it said, but responding to what he thought it probably said or what he imagined was the POV behind it. He then created an unrealisable "rule" that is not applied to other sources in the article. That's part of the problem here and it just encourages revert wars. Dab's aggressive response does not help either, of course. Paul B 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Phenotypic variation is however very much a concept in the natural sciences, and if life scientists do not use the term "white people" in discussing phenotypic variation, there is a reason that an encyclopedia ought to take seriously. If scientiss writing about phenotypic variation do not use the term white people, not only would it violate NOR to claim that they are actually talking about white people, it would misrepresent their research which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do and violates NPOV. Moreover, white people is very much a concept analyzed by social scientists and we should back up our claims about them with proper sources. The point, about NOR and NPOV, remains the same: we do not use our own views. People active on this page have been discussing this for weeks and have reached a consensus on this. Now you turn up, which is your right - but you oughtn't to disregard two weeks of discussion and insist that we repeat the whole debate now. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If what you said were true, then probably no scientific information should or could be included in this article, since scientists do not use this term. Are you proposing to delete the whole sections on the origin of light skin, which inluded numerous citations (of highly variable quality) many of which never refer to "white people" or even include the word "white". Why is it perefectly OK to have paragraph after paragraph on this, but not a very short section on hair and eye variation? The logic utterly escapes me. I don't think that is the intent or content of the NOR policy, which was originally created to stop people presenting idiosycratic personal theories as fact. It was not designed to exlude material relevant to a particular topic because an exact phrase was not used. Would you exclude a scientific article on a plant because it used only botanical terminology, and not common names? If the topic is "white people" then we can say, reasonably, what relevant sources address as the referent(s) held in common for this term and use material that provides useful information about it. Paul B 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You are writing as if you and scientists are referring to the same thing, just using different words. I am saying that when scientists use different words, it is because they are talking about something else, something that doesn't correspond to your concept of white people. As for plants - well, there are some words that people use for plants that are quite subjective in meaning - not just words like "weeds" but even the names of plants - laurel, for example, is popularly used to refer to very different plants. In my experience, when botanists are writing about a plant for which an english (or whatever language) word corresponds to the plant they are talking about, in addition to the linean name they will provide its common name. This is a comon practice for botanists when they are writing about a particular species of plant, because it is in fact common for a species to have names in different languages that all indeed do refer to the same species. And the analogy for this when refering to people is also at the species level; scientists acknowledge that H. sapeins = humanity or mankind. But "white people" is not a species, it is something else, and you should not be surprised that scientists generally eschew the term because they are not studyng what you use the term to refer to. Now, if this does not make sense to you, please reread the last two week's talk. I do not have the time to explain what has been explained many times already, beyond what I just wrote. All i am poroposing to do is what we should always do: bracket our own folk-beliefs,research the scholarly literature, and write an article that represents the state of the art in research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop talking about "my concept of white people". Since you seem to think that I am articulating some specific "concept of white people" perhaps you can say what it is. I think you will find that none of my comments include any such assertions. Remember that we are discussing the exclusion of a section (which was not written by me) because the content of that section was misrepresented and a spurious exclusion rule created specifically for it, one which was and is not applied elsewhwere. You completely miss the point of the comments by focussing on my analogy, which you then seem to think is intended to imply that "white people" are anagous to species. Please try to understand the purpose of analogies. I admit that I am feeling rather frustrated by the utter irrelevance of your response. I am perfectly well aware of the issues under debate, as you should know. You have not responded at all to the substantive points I made which concern irrational inconsistencies and misrepresentations of content. It is also not what "I use the term to refer to", but what is the content and coverage of this article. Paul B 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me expand on this issue to make a more specific point. At the moment this article is essentially divided into two sections, one of which is on the origins of pale skin and one of which is on census definitions, and history. These two sections are entirely inconsistent in their rationale. Since many East Asians have skin as light as many Europeans, the whole section logically includes discussion of East Asians. As far as discussing the science of skin pigmentation is concerned, this is perefectly reasonable. However, by your and Alun's argument it should not be here, but in an article on skin pigmentation. The reason, of course, is that the social-science and census definitions of "white" are not determined by specific skin colour, but rather more by ancestry, geography and cultural norms. The socio-cultural, historical and census definitions of "white" almost always exclude East Asians. This has nothing to do with my personal view or "folk beliefs". It is exactly what the literature - governemental, legal and scholarly - on the concept of "white" addresses. If we are to have scientific discussion of skin pigmentation, then there is no reason why there should not also be scientific discussion of other phenotypical features that corresond to the academic and governmental usages of the word "white". This is why my poisition, I think, is entirely consistent with NPOV and NOR, while your and Alun's now seems to be focussed on excluding material according to a set of inconsistent rules determined by what you imagine to be a hidden POV. I repeat the point: Alun's comments that section on diversity seemed to come "directly from the SS handbook" were both outrageous and totally wide of the mark. Paul B 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring these photos back, but if we are going to discuss whiteness along with hair and eye color polymorphisms, then how are we to account for these people.

blond hair from Vanuatu
blond hair from Vanuatu

Muntuwandi 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to "account for them". You miss the point. The section is not about saying "only white people have X, Y, Z" characteristics. It's saying that a maximum diversity of some specific characteristics are found among populations which academic, governmental and social usage identifies as "white people". No one is saying that blue eyes are not found elsewhere. Even the earliest theorists of physiognomy like Lavater recognised that, which is why they invariably got into a mess when having to admit that real hisrorcal persons often did not fit their preconceptions of what someone with their traits should look like. Paul B 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Barlow writes, "Please stop talking about "my concept of white people". Since you seem to think that I am articulating some specific "concept of white people" perhaps you can say what it is." But NPOV requires that we identify what points of view are being represented. So please identify the view you are addressing, and your source. I repeat my own approach to the article: "All i am poroposing to do is what we should always do: bracket our own folk-beliefs,research the scholarly literature, and write an article that represents the state of the art in research." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have stated again and again what my substantive points are and you are simply not responding to them. Why am I expected to produce my personal definition? If I had one, it would be irrelevant. Your arguments are becoming stranger and stranger. "NPOV requires that we identify what points of view are being represented". Yes, that means the article has to be NPOV and should be sourced. It does not mean that I or you have to have to express any personal point of view about what group should or should not be included in the category of white people. Why can't you follow this? You responded to what you claimed was "my concept of white people", so you implied that you knew what that was. As far as current governmental and social usage goes, it is broadly synonymous with "European", but there are and always have been problems with that, and with any attempt at a precise definition, as we all know. There are already numerous references in the history section of the article which discuss these issues, as do the census sections. It has nothing whatever to do with my opinion. The issue I whether it is logical to have sections purely on skin colour, but not on other phenotypical features that are part of the current and historical discursive models of "white people" that are addressed in those sections. Paul B 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why am I expected to produce my personal definition? - in my 18:06 edit, I do not ask you to produce your personal definition Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank heavens for that. But I cannot, therfore, make sense of wghat you are saying. There is not one, consistent definition as you know. That does not mean that a discussion of hair and eye colour variation is off topic, because it clearly bears on some of the most important definitions. The section need rewriting, of course. Paul B 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
there does not have to be one definition. There may be several. Butour nmain tasks as ediors is to insert accounts of different views into articles, as long as they are properly sourced and identified. Isn't this what you want to do? You believe that a discussion of hair and eye coloration is relevant. You claim that this is not your personal iew. Do it must be someone's view. Since you are advocating the includion of this discussion, you ought to be able to identify the view that you are drawing n and its sources. You say you are not using your own view when you advoate adding this discussion. So you must be adoptind aomeone else's view. Whose? Source Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your arguments are becoming stranger and stranger - in my 18:06 edit, I make no arguments. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh please! Of course you do. You are articulating a position - that's called an "argument". Paul B 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I now state my position a third time: "All i am poroposing to do is what we should always do: bracket our own folk-beliefs,research the scholarly literature, and write an article that represents the state of the art in research." You want to call this an arguent? Okay Paul for the sake of wikilove, I will call in an argument too. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as current governmental and social usage goes, it is broadly synonymous with "European" - is this the view you wish to represnt in the article? If so, provide your sources. If you wish to ensure another view be represented, I repeat my 18:06 question: tell us which view you believe should be represented in the article - identify whose view it is and provide a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you are confusing two separate issues. One is what I think should be included here (only WP editors can decide that, a source can't say what should be in a WP article). So I can say "I think X should be discussed for Y reasons", as can you. The other issue is sourcing - what RS's we can use to discuss what we have decided to include for the reasons we give. You are asking for a source for an editorial decision ("professor X says an article on white people should discuss hair colour as well as skin colour"). Paul B 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You know very well that I do not wish to represent a particular view, since I have said it repeatedly. I want the article to discuss material relevant to the definitions that are already included in the article. How many times do I have to say this? Paul B 19:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
But which material relevant do you want to include? Surely your wanting to include any material must be ttaced to an idnetifiable POV. I am just asking you toi identify the view and its sources. look: if you kinow of know reliable sources that have presented views on this topic, then you have not done the research required to contribute and I do not udnerstand why of you use of this talk page. If you do have research you think belings in the article, tell us the source and identify itse POV. This is so simple! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you are mixing up matters again. Discussing what material is relevant is not the same as an "identifiable POV". There are many editorial questions not definable in terms of POV (unless we mean the POV of whether or not they should be discussed, which is virtually tautology). Should an article on the Victorian era have a section on steam engines? That steam engines existed in the Victorian era is not disputed, whether they do or do not deserve a separate section on their own is an editorial decision largely unrelated to an "identifiable POV" on the Victorians. No one disputes they are relevant in some respect, but no authority can identify the degree of relevance. So no, this is not so simple!!! Questions of relevance are complex and vary from topic to topic within articles as well as between them. The section in fact did already include reliable sources, as you well know. Paul B 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. That steam engines are important to understand the Victorian era, and the extent to which they are important, is indeed a topic of scholarly concern; there are identifiable points of view on its relevance, and sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point of the analogy again. As I already said "no one disputes they are relevant in some respect", but the question of whether they are important to an article on the Victorian era is a matter of judgement. A steam engine enthusiast might want a whole section. A social historian might think they are not even worth mentioning. The fact that there are thousands of sources available on steam engines does nothing to resolve the debate about whether - say - the technical details should be discussed in a general article and how much. That was the point of the analogy. If you think that some uber authority should be identified who says "steam engines are 20% important to the Victorian era", or some such, then I think you are expecting too much of sources and massively oversimplifying the concept of POV, as though there are clearly defined POV positions of authorities on every aspect of a topic. That eye and hair colour has been repeatedly discussed in the history of debate about race, and about white people in particular, is not in dispute is it? To pretend it is would be disingenuous. My listing of books and articles that have discussed the issue during the history of "race theory" would not resolve the issue of whether of not we should have a section on the topic. Paul B 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"A steam engine enthusiast might want a whole section. A social historian might think they are not even worth mentioning." So you finally agree that there are different points of view as to whether a topic should be included and if so how prominently. Finally. Now, please tell us whose point of view it is that the genetics of skin and eye color is important to the topic of white people, and provide the source! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the most important trait in defining whiteness is skin color. One need not have a variety of eye or hair colors to be considered white but in general one would need light skin to be considered white. The hair and eye colors are thus secondary traits associated with whiteness but are not intrinsic to it. Muntuwandi 18:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that a person with very dark skin would almost always not be considered white even if they otherwise fitted the traditional "Caucasian" model, but having light skin as such is not the defining feature (there is no single defining feature) according to most usages as articulated here, since there are many Asians with lighter skin than many Europeans. Paul B 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, in the Dominican Republic people with black skin and other physical traits shared largely by Africans are white. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's another example of the current confusion and inconsistency. The first passage in the physical appearence section states the following:

Although there is no single universal definition of whiteness, some traits that are associated with Europeans are associated with whites. The most notable trait describing people who identify as white is light skin. People who are white lack epicanthic folds[6]. Other physical features sometimes associated with white people include a variety of hair and eye colors.

"Whites" in the first sentence is being used in a mysterious way. The clumsy repeated "associated with" makes it difficult to decipher just what is being argued, so we have the astonishingly vague some traits of Europeans are "associated with" "whites". Then we get "People who are white lack epicanthic folds[6].". The sentence is clearly designed to exclude East Asians. It is footnoted to a text which saying nothing at all about not being white if you have an epicantic fold. It actually says: "In America we generally recognize three large racial groups. These groups are: (1) Caucasians, originating in Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, are distinguished by a lighter (whitish, pinkish, or reddish) skin complexion, blond or brunette, wavy or straight hair (having a marked tendency toward balding), blue or green eyes, a straight, hooked, or pug nose, conspicuous jaws, and relatively long torsos; (2) Mongoloids, tracing their origins to northern and eastern Asia, are distinguished by a yellow to brown skin complexion, straight black hair, wide cheekbones, low or lacking a pronounced nose bridges, and almond-shaped or slanted eyes (caused by epicanthic folds of the eyelids); and (3) Negroids, originating in Africa, are distinguished by light tan to dark brown skin complexion". So this actually says that "Mongoloids" have epicantic folds, not that being white requires their absence. The passage which uses this quotation thus expliitly equates "white" with "Caucasian". Then we have a comment about a "variety of hair and eye colours" with no further elaboration, indeed it is an attempt at further elaboration of this very comment that has been excluded. The whole passage is weirdly evasive and inconsistent. The last statement about "a variety of hair and eye colors" is so vague that it might as well be saying "some things are associated with this notion of 'white people' but we aren't going to say what they are, so we'll say 'a variety of things are associated with being white'." Paul B 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the whole section should be removed. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section. There are many other physical traits associated with people identified as "white" but they are not mentioned. To select just those traits that are associated with Nordicism is sort of cherry picking. Muntuwandi 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the distribution of variations "associated with Nordicism"? Paul B 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
These were the traits advocated for by Nordic theory. Muntuwandi 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Nordic theory did not "advocate" maximising variations of traits. It advocated identifying traits that supposedly demonstrated superiority. In that respect it's the last but most toxic gasp of the tradition of physiognomic theory dating back to pseudo-Aristotle . Paul B 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The section is very relevant and should not be removed until a consensus is reached. MoritzB 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Another problem with the hair color maps is that it seems to only hinge on one study by Frost. I think this is giving Frost undue weight. Maybe if there were several other scholars who have published similar studies, that would give Frost some credibility, but at the moment I know of none. Muntuwandi 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of this section, and El C is right that we need consensus to add not to remove, SqueakBox 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition to reitterating my general opposition to the section, I want to point out that the key problem is the word "associated," which is in the passive voice and raises the question, "associated by whom." If as we develop the article we have sources that document that for some particular gorup fair skin (or any other physical trait) is an important marker or symbol of their white identity, then we should put that in, identifying the POV and adding a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So what should we include in a section about characteristics?

Si I'm going to attempt to be constructive here. Let's try to find common ground. Above Talk:White_people#How_it_might_look SamBC makes a compelling case for "it's probably worthwhile mentioning what "looks european" might mean, at least vaguely, or mentioning the commonalities in typical appearance between those different views." So what do we want to say about the characteristics of "white people"? I'll have a go at outlining some possibilities, for the sake of discussion.

  • We already have a section about light skin colour, it seems to me that this is usually, but not always, the defining characteristic (for examples where white people don't have to have light skin colour we can use Brazil as an example).
  • Frosts paper European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? is not about "white people", it is about his theory that during the European upper paleolithic sexual selection led to an increase in certain genotypes associated with hair and eye colour. It's a perfectly good theory, although I am sceptical. But from Frost's maps certain obvious conclusions can be drawn:
    • Light hair and eye colour is not definitive for any concept of "white".
    • Light hair and eye colour is not a majority phenotype for "white people".
    • Light hair and eye colour is not definitive for Europeans.
    • Light hair and eye colour is not a majority phenotype for Eurpeans.
    • Light hair colour represents at least a significant minority (>20%) of the population of north central Europe only.
    • Light eye colour represents at least a significant minority (>20%) of the population of approximately the same region, but with a slightly larger range.
  • If we want to mention hair and eye colour we need to put it into the correct perspective. That a subset of Europeans, who represent a subset of white people have a greater degree of hair and eye colour polymorphism.
  • Given that these phenotypes are relatively restricted and are absolutely unimportant for identifying "whiteness" it seems to me that including the maps represents undue weight.
  • If we have a discussion about eye and hair colour then we need also to discuss the political history of light hair and eye colour, how it has been used by racists to promote discredited ideas of purity and superiority.
  • I suggest we expand the section that currently discusses skin colour. Have a section called "characteristics", include skin colour in this section, then include a section on hair and eye colour, we need only a single section for this as far as I can see. We can link to the hair and eye colour articles in this section, where it would be more appropriate to include Frosts maps. I appreciate any comments.

NB. I am on record as not supporting the inclusion of hair and eye colour at all, but I am trying to be constructive here, let's see what we can compromise on. Alun 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding also is that hair and eye color are polygenic. In actuality this entails that there are several shades of hair and eye color as opposed to discrete hair and eye colors. Muntuwandi 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Frost discusses variation and "light" hair and eye colour. So this needs to put into the context of a greater degree of variation. I'm not sure about eye colour, I have some vague recollection that people with blue eyes have a problem producing proper pigmentation, but clearly there is more than a single process going on because there is no uniformity of blue or brown eye colour, variation exists within blue and brown eyes. Maybe there is more info on the eye colour article? Alun 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Eye colour this article states that eye color genetics are much more complicated than previously thought, and that there are several shades of eye color. So with regard to the frost maps we may not know what his cut-off point for light eye colors is. Muntuwandi 06:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Frost cites: Beals, R. L., & Hoijer, H. (1965). An introduction to anthropology (3rd ed.). New York Macmillan. for his maps, so he has not generated them himself. Probably this source states what the criteria actually were for determining "light" eye and hair colour. It is a weird way to present the data though, "light" hair and eye colour. It would be good to know the criteria used to make this estimation. I wonder what sort of system they used in the 1960's (or possibly earlier) to determine these characteristics? I wonder how much it depends on human judgment, like measuring cranial capacity, the experimenter might see more "light colour" where they expect (or want) to see it, if this is just someone with a colour card making comparisons manually Alun 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a suggestion - leave the page alone and work on the replacement version

I mean, there's a strong consensus for a major change/reworking, and the nature of the new version is pretty well agreed-upon by those willing to work on it, so how about we focus on that and leave the page alone, except for trying to keep the changes that run counter to consensus out. Just an idea. SamBC(talk) 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh

This article does not make any sense from an academic point of view. I'm in favor of removing it completely. 71.68.15.63 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You can nominate it for deletion if you like, but I guarantee that it won't get deleted, it's been tried before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White people. The article may not be very good, but the subject of the article meets all the criteria for inclusion. Why don't you make some suggestions as to how to improve it? Alun 06:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images

so, as the upshot of various trolling campaigns, there is now not a single image on this page? This is silly. Compare Black people, which has a good selection of pertinent and completely uncontroversial images. How difficult can it be to agree on half a dozen Caucasoid mugshots? dab (𒁳) 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Images of so called "Caucasoid" people should be in the Caucasian race article shouldn't they? Sometimes white is used as a synonym for "Caucasoid", but not always. Why is there any need to include images of individual people? If there is a consensus not to include images of individual people why do you call that "trolling"? There is a whole group of people who disagree with you, do you suppose that all of these people disagree with you simply because they are mass "trolling"? If there is a consensus to include images of individual people on the Black people article, then that is a different thing, obviously there people have agreed what images are appropriate. Personally I think that images of individual people are misleading, most variation, both genetic and physical is at the local level. The whole nonsense about white people having blond hair and blue eyes is symptomatic of this sort of nonsense. White people are a social group and not a "physical type", for "physical types" you should concern yourself with articles that are about the discredited idea of typology such as Caucasoid race or The Races of Europe. Alun 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What is silly is the idea that we ought to have images just for the sake of images, and we use those images that are convenient because they are fair use or on the commons. That is silly. Yes we should have images. But the images, if we can find them, should illustrate the content and make sense in the context in which we put them. There is still a vast literature on white people that this article does not even draw on. Let's develop the content, and then find appropriate images to illustrate it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)