Talk:White people/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about White people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Before 1950, Indians from India were classified as racially Hindu, even though some were not Hindu. Between 1950 to 1970, Indians were classified as racially white until some Indian-American organization protested to the Office of Management and Budget to have Indians be removed from the white category, thus Indians today classify themselves as Asian, or Asian Indian. If anybody looks up the word Caucasian in the dictionary, its definition is people who originate from Europe, southwest Asia, North Africa and the Indian sub-continent. It has been 35 years since Indians were taken of the white classification, and they are defined as caucasian in the dictionary. If Indians are defined as caucasian in the dictionary, why do they view themselves as non-white?--Gramaic 09:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, many many europeans seriously think that India is populated by gypsys, which is a coloured wandering race.

No, I think most ethnologists believe that the "gypsys" originated in India, which is something entirely different. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

>Whites living in the United States and Canada will typically have one or several Native American ancestors.

This is simply not true. By 1890 there were next to none indians lefts in North America, except for a few thousands in totally closed reservations. Now consider the huge amount of european immigrants who reached USA between 1890-1927 and tell me where do you see redskin ancestors for them? It is matter of fact that yankees and the whites exterminated the red indian race in North America and so they don't have many descendants. In contrast, the Caribbean, Central and South America are full of people, who were born out of (more or less) peaceful coexistence of native people and Iberian conquerors.

You're making the flawed assumption that there has been little intermarriage between people of different European ethnic groups in North America. In fact, the large majority of white people in the U.S. and Canada are "mutts" of multiple ethnic stripes. I, for instance, have one ancestor that came over around 1900, another that came around 1850, and one that came in the 1600s. (And yes, I have a bit of Native American blood.) Not to rain on your parade, but I wouldn't exactly describe the situation in colonial Latin America as "peaceful coexistence." The Spanish, who encountered far larger numbers of Native Americans in their colonies than the British did to the north, enslaved them en masse. Oh, and the Caribbean? Not exactly full of Native Americans these days. Funnyhat 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I'd define Caucasian as any native race in europe which is east of the caucus mountains. Define whites as those originally from northern european countries. If you leave it at that and then people can make up their own mind which countries belong in that bracket.

Defining whites as the original people from Northern European countries by itself is not fair. What about the other whites such as the Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavians, Syrians and Lebanese? White people are not just in Northern Europe, whites also originate from Southern and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.--Gramaic 04:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An anon user deleted everything from the article earlier, but another anon user restored it. Who the hell would delete an entire article and then replace it with very stupid and childish writings?--Gramaic 05:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, many or most Whites in the US are native Americans.

But the overwhelming majority have no Indian ancestors.

Love the anti-White racism, guys! Remember: there is only one appropriate avenue for your PC hatred, and you've found it!

Though I highly doubt this claim, for many of the same reasons given above, I've left it in the article until it can be refuted. I have removed the sentence that claims that the majority of Americans are mulattos and mestizos. Even if this is technically true (i.e. if the majority of us one black or native ancestor), it wouldn't make us mulattos or mestizos in the cultural sense of someone who clearly is mixed. Depsite what my screenname would suggest, I think usage defines meaning in this case.

If someone wants to cite some legitimate research showing that the majority of Americans have black or native ancestry, I would welcome that. I hope I've been clear in explaining this. If not, please ask questions. ThePedanticPrick 20:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No objection here, but I'm not the writer. Even so, it is remarkable how many people casually volunteer the information that they are fractionally Native American. It also turns out the something like 40% of the English population, and significant number of Americans too, are descended from Henry II of England. And that something like 30 million Americans are probably Mayflower descendants, most with no knowledge of that fact. Rather than deleting the sentence outright, perhaps the more Wikipedia approach would be to mention all these major, overlapping, ancestral streams. Some "whites" are pround of having "2/32 Cree blood", and others are proud of William the Conqueror, and some are proud of both. We are typically the descendants of kings and slaves, savages, indentured servants, or serfs. So the proper phrains might be, "Whites whose families have lived in the United States and Canada for several generations will typically have ancestors from a variety of nationalities and even races." -Willmcw 08:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I like that. I'll put it in the article to replace the sentence of dubious validity ThePedanticPrick 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually the only edits I did was to avoid redirects and link to the relative articles. From "Amerindian" to "Native American" for example. User:Dimadick

I'm sorry, it's just that this edit [1] re-arranged or split some passages in ways that confuse the "difference engine" and make it appear as if everything changed. That makes it hard on other editors to follow. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:39, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Race is the same as "subspecies," a term used by taxonomists. "Homo sapiens afer" is the scientific name of the negro (See "Race" by John R. Baker, 1974). "Homo" is the genus, "sapiens" is the species and "afer" is the subspecies or race. The concept of race is not invalidated by intergradation (mixing) and even with races of animals it is quite normal and expected that where the range of two subspecies meet there is mixing. The physical differences that identify races represent adaptations to different environments, for example, dark skin is an adaptation to the tropical sun. Race is not just a paintjob. Races can be identified from skeletal remains and from DNA as everybody has seen on television. There are many other physical differences, too. It is important to avoid intergradation and preserve these natural human differences because as the environment changes some races will inevitably be better adapted than others and survive while the others die out. Race-mixing is putting all of humanity's eggs in one basket, so to speak.

It is important to know the motive for some people to make the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as race.

Marxists think that all group conflicts are just proxies for the one conflict that they see as real and legitimate, class conflict. They say that race is an artificial social construct because they think that people who value their own racial identity are suffering from false consciousness. In effect they think that white people are the "bourgeoisie." Marxists hypocritically promote race-consciousness among non-whites as a tactic to create revolutionary consciousness among them.

Jews are hostile to race consciousness and ethnic nationalism among whites while promoting it for themselves. Jews are obviously zoologically white, but they have a strong sense of national (some would say racial) identity and are in competition with European whites among whom they live. Nationalism and race consciousness are major threats to the existence of Jews as a double-identity group occupying a high socioeconomic niche in an alien society. For this reason Jews have promoted multiculturalism, cultural relativism, globalism, and massive immigration. Most of the intellectuals who have attacked the concept of race are either Jews or Marxists or both. For example, Stephen Jay Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man" is a Jew who admits he is a red diaper baby. Noel Ignatiev, author of "How the Irish became White" is a Marxist. In "For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism" Martha Nussbaum, Jew, self-servingly proposes that people should focus on universal moral principles and promoting their ethnic interests and disregard the interests of the "host nation."

A long list of interesting books about ethnic conflict is here: [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1749282&postcount=4 Reading List]

Here is an interesting web board promoting European American interests with currently 50,000 members: [www.stormfront.org/forum/index.php?referrerid=58588 Stormfront]

But don't you admit that "Race" is a very fuzzy notion, with no way to say if an individual belongs to one race or another? I think "Race" is at best a descriptive term, like we might say, there are reddish flowers or hardish rocks or fairly rainy days.

This statement caught my eye: "It is important to know the motive for some people to make the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as race."

It is also important to know the motive for some people to make the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

User:Backlash (sig added by Sam Spade 08:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC))

Why was this article redirected to Caucasian race?--Gramaic 05:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The latin word for white is Albion. Which is what the Romans called Britain when they first conquered it in 46 AD!!! Years after Jesus died. The other word used was Barbarian. Europe proper was not in the history books until then. These naming of races is to include Whites in History before their time!

I think this page needs complete revision as do the people in society who deem this sort of classification and behavior as acceptable. I looked at the Wikipedia for "African-Americans" and do not see the same clear and concise way of explaining the meaning of the terms used to catagorize the people that would fit that "description". I think there is something seriously wrong in this world when one group of people state and stand firm on the notion that they are the superior race, or should I say "ethnicity" to be politically correct. I feel that each group has something to teach the next.I think that it is time to stop living inside our own heads and homes, own up to our individual mistakes and short comings, apologize, forgive, and move on. THERE IS NO SUPERIOR RACE. THERE IS ONLY A SUPERIOR BEING. THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE EITHER OF US AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS A WHOLE IS YET TO BE SEEN BY ANY OF US AT THIS TIME. IT IS TIME TO END THE CENTURY OLD HATRED AMONGST OURSELVES. IT IS TIME TO SHOW TOLERANCE, RESPECT, AND SELF LOVE.--user:tired of the hate/tired of the hate

This page is a perfect example of the leftist, politically-correct bias on this site. Attacking other peoples' sense of racial/cultural identity, even going so far as to deny that race's existance, is hardly NPOV. whitemale

If you look at the Israel article you will find that the Jewish People's racial/cultural identity and existence is respected. You just have to be persistant in deleting anything that disagrees with your POV. That's how Wikipedia works.24.64.166.191 07:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slavs "not considered White" what absolute rubbish!, what poor scholarship! It's the first time I've ever seen it mentioned.

I don't believe this article is necessary, especially with this title, and it's hardly NPOV. -- Zoe

The categorization of white people has certainly had political, social, and historical impact. Too bad this article doesn't cover it. Ortolan88

This topic appears to be similar to Blacks arguing the difference between Egyptians and TutusVera Cruz

No Blacks is even shorter and messier than this article. The categorization of black people has certainly had political, social, and historical impact. Too bad that article doesn't cover it. Ortolan88

---

Why is this article claiming white Americans are ethnically Europeans? I have difficulty seeing "white" as being a term in reference to "ethnic descent" rather than racial descent. People of European racial descent are still refered to as being "white" when they are not ethnically European, whereas nobody of African racial descent would be called "white" when ethnically European. The term "white" originated as a racist reference to other Europeans, and in the Americas as in leu of not being black. I still find the term vulgar. (Wikipedia is messing up and seems to have attributed someone else's edit to me earlier).

I think you're confusing ethnicity with nationality. The former refers to family background; the latter refers to country of residence. A white American may be an ethnic German (i.e., his/her ancestors are from Germany), for example, but, as an American, does not have German nationality. As for your example of the person of African heritage living in Europe, that person has European nationality but not European ethnicity. Funnyhat 23:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Clearly it is a highly arbitrary social label. Hispanics, Jews, Arabs, Turkics, Persians, Roma, and even some peoples may or may not be considered "white" based entirely on social perceptions.

In the USA, white Hispanics are often not considered white, whereas elsewhere in the world this is not the case. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, light skinned South Asians are not considered white, whereas in the USA they are.

In the USA "Hispanics" refers to people from Mexico and Central America. Most of these are natives {Mayans, etc.), not of Spanish origin.24.64.166.191 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is based entirely on country. Alot of people don't think of spanish and italians as white, regardless of where they live (see wog). I recently spoke to a N African who insisted he was white, even tho he clearly was not by american standards. So while there are some differences by nation, I think it is also largely subjective. Apparently in the USA hispanics, arabs, jews, and indians (from India) are all white, officially. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 09:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau allows people to identify themselves as whatever race they wish (though, for affirmative action purposes, people claiming black, Hispanic or Native American ancestry may be required to show proof of such). Of the groups you cite, Arabs and Jews generally claim white ancestry, Indians claim Asian ancestry, and Hispanics are a mix -- light-skinned individuals tend to check "white", while dark-skinned ones tend to check "other race." Funnyhat 23:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"for affirmative action purposes, people claiming black, Hispanic or Native American ancestry may be required to show proof of such". I have been trying to find out how this works in the USA. What sort of proof/documentation do they have to show?24.64.166.191 08:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a part of it is that there's too much of a habit of disregarding that there's an ethnically Australian, which is neither British, nor European, nor Aboriginal, nor 2nd gen Asian migrant, nor many other things. Because, you see, to say that I'm ethnically Australian (and so a 2nd gen Asian migrant is not) is politically incorrect, because it means that second generation Asians are discriminated against. So we fall back on other bizarre circumlocutions like 'White Australian', and hope it works; even tho it's totally bizarre especially when you consider e.g. Wogs or recent ex-Communist immigrants whose culture differs from mine, or that Chinese immigrants who came into the country during the Gold Rush era share more aspects of my culture than Wogs. I'm sure there are similar stupidities everywhere round the globe. (Please note that my use of 'Wog' isn't intended discriminatorily, but rather is being used to refer neutrally to a particular subculture in the manner that is customary amongst members of my (sub)culture and theirs. If you've been offended by this, or anything else I've written, you've misunderstood me. Seek clarification if you did not decide misunderstand.) Felix the Cassowary 11:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Please note that my use of 'Wog' isn't intended discriminatorily, but rather is being used to refer neutrally to a particular subculture in the manner that is customary amongst members of my (sub)culture and theirs. If you've been offended by this, or anything else I've written, you've misunderstood me. Seek clarification if you did not decide misunderstand."

No problem. Replace "wog" with "Ozzie" and "my (sub)culture" with "Kiwi". Sorry, couldn't resist. 24.64.166.191 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Below it says "...In Australia, Greeks and Italians are wogs, not Whites."

First of all, a racist Australian's saying that Greeks and Italians aren't white hardly makes it so - their whiteness is a fact. I do find it fasciniating however that the left seems to encourage such redefinitions of white suggested by Anglo racists. They are clearly just as racist as the Anglo racists in question they are allegedly criticising- both encourage a revisionist anthropology for the purposes of forwarding a political agenda.

Nevertheless, I hasten to point out that this idea that so called 'Wogs' are not white is a relatively recent idea. Do some googling for "Wogs are white" and you'll find no shortage of references indicating that they have generally been regarded as such. Wog has historically refers to darker skinned white immigrants of Mediterranean origin, not 'nonwhites'. Significantly, the period in which immigration of Italians and Greeks were especially encouraged is criticized today as the "White Australian policy" specifically because encouraging imigration of Italians and Greeks was equated with encouragung white immigrants. Now that it's hip and PC to identify as 'nonwhite', this fact is often conveniently swept under the rug.

<quote> Arab Americans have the biggest dilema. For the purposes of statistics Arab Americans are categorised as White by US government agencies and the US census, even though this racial classification may not always be the case for most Arab-Americans who are often excluded from the general structural concepts of white-American society. On the other hand, in Europe and Australia, Arabs are almost never regarded as White, neither by society's general understadning of the term nor by government institutions, instead they are regarded as racial minorites.</quote>

---

Doesn't this paragraph sound kind of inaccurate. Why do we have to keep reminding the readers that the Arabs are white because the government puts them in that category? Many Middle Eastern-Americans are not excluded from the "general concepts of the white-American society," for example Middle Easterners who are Syrians and Lebanese (who happen to be the whitest people in the Middle East and Arab World) blend in very easily within European and white-American societies. As for the last part of the paragraph that says Arabs are not regarded as white but as racial minorities in Europe and Australia, not quite true, because Syrians and Lebanese are classified as white in Australia. Middle Easterners and North Africans are classified as caucasian in the UK.--Gramaic 07:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not Americapedia. It must be understood that social concepts that most people would consider concrete (from the fact that many people around the world are quite insulated to their own countries's codes and standards, and it's not difficult to see why they would think such a thing), are in fact held in a different light in different countries and societies. Just as you are surprised to hear that Arabs are not "Whites" in Australia and other countries, it is also just as "surprisinng" to Australians and others to hear that in America Arabs are considered White.

You must also understand that the term "White" isn't only used in the USA. In Australia, New Zealand and various other "White" countries, the term specifically excludes Arabs and related people. However, you must not confuse this definition as a racist notion. It's just that these people have never been included in the term, it's not that they have been excluded, unlike the motives of white supremacists excluding various caucasoid groups.

"As for the last part of the paragraph that says Arabs are not regarded as white but as racial minorities in Europe and Australia, not quite true, because Syrians and Lebanese are classified as white in Australia."

I'm sorry, but I will have to shed some light on you. As a person that has seen the experience of Arab Australians, I can guarantee you that Arabs (especially the Lebanese and Syrians that you specifically pointed out as being the whitest Middle Easterners, since most Arab Australians are comprised of either Lebanese and Syrians) are not regarded "White" people by Australian society nor government. One prime, and unfurtunate, example is the widely publicised Lebanese gang rapists targetting "White Australian girls" (as quotted by Australian media, australian people, and both left and right winged politicians). It's not that all of a sudden Arabs were excluded from "White" status, it's that in Australia they have never been "White". One of those rapist was actually of mixed parantage (Lebanese and Anglo Australian), but "white Australians" didn't even considered that one to be white, as he was "racially mixed" (can you figure that out? I can't because I myself know that caucasoid is the "race" [if such a thing biologically exists], not "white", and both lebanese and anglo-australians are of that "race").

Having said all that, I must clarify that I'm not proposing that this definition is the correct one, nor does this clarification mean that I believe the American definition is right either. All definitions of "White" (who they do and don't include depending on country and understanding) are neither right nor wrong for the very fact that "White" is indeed a fluid social concept, as it has always been. Caucasoid/Caucasian is a scientific (although discreditted by many) concept, and these attributes of the terms must not be cobnfused. To decry Arabs from being excluded as Caucasoids is obviously another topic, but that is not what this article has implied.

Also, I wanted to add that among the countries of Latin America, Arabs are considered Blancos (white), but in Argentina they aren't. This example is once again because of the fact that "White" is a social concept. Unless we come to the understanding that white is a social concept, there will always be arguments.

"Middle Easterners and North Africans are classified as caucasian in the UK."

Notice that you yourself have said "they are classified as caucasian in the UK". Caucasoid indeed they are. The topic here is whether they are regarded as being "White", or not- and if so, where?. It all goes back to the differentiation of the two concepts ("White" vs. Caucasian/Caucasoid) and the fact that though they may overlap, they are still quite different terms.

While I'm at it, I should further point out that in addition to Arabs not being "White" in Australia, many "White Australians" don't generally considered them Caucasian either (though this, as earlier stated, is a different topic).

Also, since your last post I've re-eddited that paragraph you quoted. Al-Andalus 14:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC).

This info you showed is very interesting. Australia and some European and Latin American countries may classify Syrians and Lebanese as non-White, but that doesn't mean that they're non-White. For example in the United States, a white Hispanic, who is not mixed with the Amerindians, is classified as non-White when we all know that Spainiards and Portuguese are racially white. A Syrian or a Lebanese (in most cases) can very easily pass for a Greek or an Italian. I'm not disputing your facts, but I'm just wondering why would a dark skinned European such as a Greek or an Italian be classified and considered white, when a non-European white such as a Syrian or a Lebanese (who are very Greek and Italian looking) be classified as non-White. Maybe if Syria and Lebanon were European countries (just assuming), then the racial makeup of Syrians and Lebanese would not be questioned as much.--Gramaic 02:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Just because some people and countries classify Syrians and Lebanese as non-White doesn't mean that they're non-White". Quoted from Edit Summary.

I'm sorry, but that is exactly what it means. If Syrians and Lebanese (or any other nationality for that matter) are by the very definition of country X, Y and Z classified as non-White, then indeed that means they are not White in those countries. However, this doesn't factor into whether the excluded are or aren't Caucasian/Caucasoid, which is a different topic altogether. On the same token, if Syrians and Lebanese (or any other nationality for that matter) are by the definition of country A, B and C classified as White (whether by government agencies or some or most people), then indeed that means they are White in these countries. And again, this doesn't factor into whether the included are or aren't Caucasian/Caucasoid.

A prime example is light euro-mestizos. In the USA they are regarded as Whites (outside White Supremacist circles, of course, a cricle which also excludes Arabs, despite Arabs being included in the American understanding of "White"). Therefore, this very fact means that those light euro-mestizos are indeed White in that country. And like the examples above, this doesn't factor into whether they were or were't actually Caucasian/Caucasoid, which in this case is also a different topic. Those same light euro-mestizos in other countries might be considered non-White, and so indeed that means that they are not White in those country. Again, this doesn't factor into whether they were or weren't Caucasian/Caucasoid.

You're fixed on the idea that "White" is a concrete racial term. It is not! White is an extremely fluid racialised sociological concept. In itself, "White" is not really a valid racial term, since those who are encompassed in "Caucasian/Caucasoids" may not always be espoused by "White". In fact, depending on country, society and it's understanding, sometimes "White" may include people which Caucasian/Caucasoid actually excludes (by virtue of admixture, how ever big or small). This is blatantly obvious (especially in the countries of the Americas, including the USA).

One thing that is true is that of those two term, the only one with a fixed definition of the people who comprise it is Caucasian/Caucasoid. So the problem here is the concept of "White", and the fact that it is social term with racial implications.

You are clearly imprinted with the notion that "White" is an exact synonym of "Caucasian/Caucasoid". The fact that people (not only you) even argue about who IS White and who ISN'T White, attests to this.

I can even exemplify my belief of your confusion by quoting your own words. When you say;

• "why would a dark skinned European such as a Greek or an Italian be classified and considered white, when a non-European white such as a Syrian or a Lebanese (who are very Greek and Italian looking) be classified as non-White".

In this example you are employing "White" with the value of Caucasian/Caucasoid, when, as demonstrated by history itself, they have never meant the same thing, although they do overlap, in some places more than others. This is your main confusion, I believe.

Additionally, the fact that you lament why Greeks and Italian should be classified as "White" when Syrians and Lebanese (whom in your opinion are very Greek and Italian looking-- a statement which I care not argue) are not classified as White, demonstrates the social implications of the term, AND MORE IMPORANTLY demonstrates that the nature of your very lamentation is based and restricted to the understanding of "White" in the modern American context (which as you have pointed out does includes Greeks and Italians), which you have mistaken as being the "standardised" definition of White everywhere.

In the heat of your lament, you fail to realise that in the definition of White of some countries, Greeks and Italians ARE indeed EXCLUDED. In Australia, Greeks and Italians are wogs, not Whites. A wog is basically a European or Caucasian that is non-White. Once a derogatory word to insult Mediterraneans, wog has now been de-pejorativised but retains it's meaning of non-White European or non-White Caucasian/Caucasoid.

In general discourse (in Australia) Italian, Greeks, Spaniards, etc. are not "White Australians", they are wogs. Although of course no one (not even White Australians) denies they are Europeans and Caucasian/Caucasoid. They are just not White, but it is also understood that "Whites" (as the definition is understood in various places) are not the only Europeans or Caucasians either. The fact is that White in other countries outside America means very different things. And the only reason America today includes some many people not traditionally "White" in many other countries (and in their usages of the words) is because in America the term has been altered and re-altered countless times, and continues to morph, to the point that off all the definitions that "White" indeed has, the American one is the most implausible to go by as a standard.

If you were to have said "Just because some people and countries classify Syrians and Lebanese as non-White doesn't mean that they're non-Caucasoid" this would obviously be true.

Just realise this one point. No matter where you go, in whatever country, Caucasian/Caucasoid always has the one same definition, unlike "White". This is because Caucasian/Caucasoid is a "scientific" term with a fixed definition, the term "White" is not. "White" is a fluid social concept - but how many times has this been said - with no fixed definition that varies from country to country, society to society, and within America itself can vary from region to region (may I reiterate that I do mean among people outside White Supremacist circles).

I believe your problem lies in the fact that "White" (which may or mightn't include Arabs and others depending on country) is more commonly used as a term for categorisation than the terms Caucasian/Caucasoid (which always includes Arabs and other no matter which country), and as such, you wish for the terms to be consolidated, for whatever reason (and I do have my own opinions on why you might want this). But this is becoming evermore improbable (at least outside the USA), because "White" has always been a sociological term with no fixed definition, and furthermore, since it's advent as a "category" it has changed (whether to include or exclude people) more often than it has to be standarised.

If you truly want a standardised concept (to include those YOU understand to be "Whites" along with Arabs and whoever else you deem acceptable), don't try changing the hundred variations and understandings of "White", it won't work. Try propagating the usage of only Caucasian/Caucasoid as a term of categorisation. However, I've proposed this to others with your same intentions, but have come to the realisation that as all-embracing as they believe themselves to be, they choose not to go with the idea, as most of these also seem only to want to include themselves, then shut the door to any other potential "lower scale" caucasian/caucasoid from the "White brotherhood". Many people not currently "White" in the definition of any given country actively seek to widen the concept of "White" and include themselves then shut the door, rather than to just embrace Caucasian/Caucasoid, since by doing this latter, further undesirable Causcasoids (such as South Asian Indians, etc.) would by deafault also be categorised as the single collective "us" that is aspired. It's just never ending.

To otherwise pretend that the two concepts ("White" and Caucasian/Cacuasoid) have ever meant the same thing would be a serious mistake that ignores the diverse historical and contemporary understandings of the term "White" around the world.

To be honest, I don't personally like the term White at all, because of it's very sociological nature. I also think it very un-wiki-like to try imposing one single view of a term that obviously has a history, usage and past and modern meaning greater than just the American one.

"Maybe if Syria and Lebanon were European countries (just assuming), then the racial makeup of Syrians and Lebanese would not be questioned as much"

As to this last quote, I think my entire last post counters this idea, especially the hypothetical suggestion that if Syria and Lebanon were European countries then their racial makeup wouldn't be questioned. Sorry, but what a load of $%^#. The example of Australian wogs clearly indicates that whether or not countries are physically in Europe has no bearnings on whether or not the Caucasian/Caucasoid people of those countries are classified as "White" (a social concept) in the understanding of indivdual countries. My only suggestion to you is that you just try to look outside of the modern American definition of "White". Things may make more sense this way. Also realise that even in America, Italians and Greeks were at one time not classified as "White" either, but as has been stated before, in America the term has been dramatically reconstructed throughout time, for needs and histirical reasons not present in other countries; such as large minorities of non-Caucasoid populations "threatening" the majority status quo of certain nations, to the point where non-White Europeans and non-White Caucasoids have been included as White (Arabs, Turks, etc.) as well as non-Caucasoid people who would otherwise appear "White" (and may often appear Whiter than non-White Europeans and non-White Caucasoids) but are infact light euro-Mestizos or other euro-predominant mixed-raced people.

Also, no one has "questioned" the racial makeup of Syrians and Lebanese. At least I haven't, as I have countless times stated the fact that they are Caucasian/Caucasoid, or at the very least overwhealmingly Caucasian/Caucasoid. You must get over this sense of being denied "Whiteness", for that is the very nature of the concept known as "White", it is a highly fluid social concept with racial implications and is not a synonym of Caucasian/Caucasoid, which is fixed and is a "biological" concept which no one has "questioned".

By the way, you were the one who mentioned Syrians and Lebanese specifically. Anything that was written here was on Arabs in general. You've taken this discussion all out of proportion and skewed its context; much in the way your understainding of "White" is also out of it's only context, which is a social one. Al-Andalus 09:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC).

The reason I mentioned Syrians and Lebanese specifically is because I was giving a comparison to Southern Europeans. Syrians and Lebanese happen to be the most European looking people in the Middle East and Arab World. I was not taking this proportion out of context and skewing it up. My understanding of "White" refers to a European, Middle Easterner, and North African because of my residence in the United States, and I was unaware that the Australian government lumps Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans into the non-White category.--Gramaic 08:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think many of you confuse arab with muslim. 65.42.87.249 19:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose moving this article to Race in society or a similarly named article, where Blacks could also be discussed? As it stands, this article is dangerously close to unencyclopedic by mere virtue of its name alone. Tomer ^TALK 05:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but I'm not sure that "race in society" is the right answer. If your going to discuss races collectively then it should include all races, however many there are. I believe there are already several race articles of one kind or another. Proceed carefully. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely my point, actually. This article is about 73% (rough estimate) a cesspool of thinly-veiled racism masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Blacks is hardly different, although perhaps only about 56% racism. Neither article can be, almost by definition, encyclopedic by itself. That said, for those whose ignorant discussion of human "race"s includes the terms "black" and "white", it's interesting that there is no article Yellows, and that none of the 0% disambig article Reds has anything to do with a discussion of race, despite the fact that these two supposèd groups combined comprise at least 40% of humanity. If both these articles are combined into Race in society, the obvious racism will become much more readily identifiable and will be more easily dealt with, than here where it can hide out pretending to be legitimate. Tomer ^TALK 06:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should just be put up for VfD; it's hopelessly POV, hardly a direct cite to be found. Furthermore, it seems doomed to this fate, since it has existed this way for 2 1/2 years, growing ever longer, but no better. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep this article seperate, rather than merge it into another article.--Gramaic 08:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After re-reading this article I don't see any major problems with it. Naturally articles on races are going to skirt racism. But racism implies superiority and this article doesn't assert white racial superiority (maybe I missed it). What I would like to see is more congruity between the racial articles. Blacks is organized entirely differently. The whole Category:Race needs tending - Whites and Blacks weren't included. There are potentially overlapping articles on Caucasian race and Caucasoid. The field needs tending. Maybe a navigation template would help. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of Academia, your position is not only completely without merit, it's completely intellectually bankrupt. Race has long-since been discarded as a relevant factor in any of the humanities except for sociology, which is, if I'm compelled to spell it out for you, the study of society...hence my proposal to move this article to Race in society. If you think there's any balance to it, especially in light of the most recent whacko edit, then I truly feel sorry for you that you can't see idiocy when it stands up and smacks you in the face. From the perspective of an encyclopedia, however, there is NO JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS for maintaining this article as such. The protestation that the Blacks article is organized completely differently is correct, and is, in fact, reflected in my earlier comments. This article is a collection of 93% blatherskyte. Jayjg has indicated his/her view that this is perhaps worth nothing more than a VfD. If people are that interested in defending the aforementioned thinly-veiled racism of this article instead of working to turn it into something encyclopedic, perhaps s/he is right to do so. Tomer ^TALK 09:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, I think your rhetoric is a bit too heated there. My issues with the article is that is seems to be made up entirely of personal POVs, whether or not those POVs are "racist". If the information here could be cited from responsible sources, then I wouldn't have a problem with it; however, as I said above, it hasn't been before, and I don't see any indication that it will be in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blacks should be moved to Negroid, as also should Whites be moved to Caucasoid. This would keep the concept of race on a phenotypical level, which includes colour and so many other genetic and social facets. This work needs to be saved, not thrown away by those POV pushing "race-abolitionists" who worship the anti-White Noel Ignatiev of Harvard Please, keep the nature of Wikipedia NPOV. ScapegoatVandal 04:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could even merge Whites/Caucasoid with Europe into an article called European. I assume the same would be for Blacks/Negroid with Africa into an article called African. Mongoloids with Asian and Australoids with Australian would work as well...etc. There are no indigenous races to the Americas or Antarctica, just colonists. ScapegoatVandal 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whites/Caucasoid should not merge with Europe or European, because White/Caucasoid also refers to people who are not from Europe, i.e., Middle East, Asian part of the Caucasus, and North Africa.--Gramaic 07:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is not what Europeans think, although the fuzzy reasoning of Americans is another thing entirely. Those areas are hypothetically relative to Europeans, through either colonisation or mercantile/societal connections in ancient history. Gypsies maybe more White than Indians, but it does not retro-apply Whiteness to Indians simply because of this. The same goes for Alexander of Macedonia and Persia. It is circumstantial, that Christianity also flourished along the old empire and this formed the basis for Orthodoxy. Whites probably evolved in North Africa and it is documented that we lived there in classical times, but many of those people left back for Europe or were killed off by the time of Islam. It is a desert, you know? Personally, I would wish for Whites to live on the whole Mediterranean basin as in old times but the non-Whites will never give up what they reaped by conquest. I know Whites also anciently inhabited the Levant but as in all places, they were driven out by non-Whites. In this case, I find it hardly incomprehensible that Whites colonised the world with non-European empires and are grudgingly giving back profits to the oppressed in their homelands. Case in point...The whole Med was anciently White/European, until the subsequent shift of power out of the hands of the Mediterranean people and into the Germanic(ie Holy Roman Empire). Several attempts have been made to recover it, first of all by the Vandals. So far, no venture has reclaimed our birthright inasmuch as Australoids being given back their entire continent has also been lacking. I fear that Europeans will not hold onto Europe for much longer, if all they ever do is leech off of other peoples in their homelands. Whites were insular in Mediterranean/Middle Earth times and they will continue to be so, although when non-Whites think of us the first thing that comes to mind is Europeans and their colonial descendents who are primarily Americans today. ScapegoatVandal 08:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Our birthright? No race has a birthright, though maybe I just haven't seen the documents. As for User:TShilo12's concerns, I agree that race is mostly (though not all) a social consruct. This article, for instance, mostly deals with "whiteness" from that point of view. Since you say that between 73%-93% of this article is blatherskyte or thinly-veiled racism, can you copy a paragraph in here as an example? Maybe we can fix this article more easily than we can do a grand re-structuring. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:47, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The birthright was about reclaiming the ancient lands of White people all along the Mediterranean basin. Obviously, it was originally White until personal greed and squabbles over the pieces of a fallen Rome distanced people from caring. Then, the Muslims invaded Europe as had Attila and Khan. You appear to harbour hatred for the Australian aborigines, for it seems transient money is the only thing dear to you. Home and family, kith and kin mean shite in your heart. I was commenting on a campaign to get rid of the article as if it were worthless. Do not make a straw man out of me, for it surely rips apart your arguments and illegitimises the dialogue. Then again, it's no skin off my back. Haha, you attack me for showing compassion to the downtrodden of this Earth and while also downplaying those who have been harmed by pretending race had nothing to do with it. People are people and different races, as a canine poodle is to a canine wolf. There are differences you pretend to not see, making the guilt of sin against another kind disappear from your eyes. I'm not driving with blinders on. ScapegoatVandal 12:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the RfC for this, but I'm unclear as to exactly what the issues are. So if each side could briefly, and I mean briefly, outline their positions so everything is clear, that would be great. Please don't reply to each other - just let your arguments stand on their own merits. Dan100 18:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the debate that initiated the RfC is below (I moved it from the top of the page). I'm not sure if the positions are well-outlined. -Willmcw 04:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I have no idea how I ended up posting here instead of at the bottom. I blame wine Dan100 (Talk) 20:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The article was calling the Uralic speakers as non-european whites. This is total bias. Uralic language family is older in Europe than indo-european. Also language families are not racial groups Amongst the uralic speakers there is Finnic branch, which speakers are the most blonde and most blue eyed populations of earth.

Finns and other Finnics are not genetic relatives of uralic speakers, but closely related to germanic speakers. Also finns are the most blye-eyed and blonde-haired population of earth. Images of Finns being "mongols" or "small eyed" are straight from germanic racist mythologies about "aryan race" and "inferior races" from the beginning of the 1900. Those images were based on lack of information and ideology that indo-european language means "white" race.

After i removed this bias, the bias was soon returned and i was told to look at the mirror to see my "mongol eyes", which i definetly do not have. Is the reason of wikipedia to be a platform of such childish prejudiced racism or to give people correct information?

Tuohirulla 13:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Finns are European non-White or at the most a blend, which is a difference. Don't twist what was said to create a fake dispute. The age of the language in Europe is also in dispute and your POV about the supposed superiority based upon hair and eye colour has to be one of the most Nazi-type propaganda I have seen at Wikipedia in a while. Yes, I am sure that you harbour absolute hatred for your own Sami brethren in the backwoods. It's no secret that you discriminated against them so you'd appear like your own Swedish masters, to have a sense of domination and control. Even now, you put the blame upon others for the harm the Sami people suffered under your watch and perhaps resent the fact you are doing it hypocritically. Pull up a variety of photos from Google and you will see Asiatic faces sprawled all throughout Lappland and less prominently, Finland. Your kind has been mixed through conquest and assimilation by both German and Slav, yet I think perhaps the relationship with Balts was never with such violence. You are basically Southern Lapps, conjoined with the larger European community. Ever wonder why even Swedes in Sweden have trouble asserting Finland-Swedish from Finns? It is your ethnic phenotype that casts aside a mask and this is largely in the eyes regardless of hair colour. Trust me, I know the difference between ABBA and Ace of Base or Dolph Lundgren with Finns and Lapps. This is the God-honest truth that people in the outer world see. This is no revisionism! You come and tell me without biased hatred towards Lapps, why Norway have called Lapps=Finns for centuries? Finnmark is a real place where the reindeer travel in herds, with your ethnic label plastered on the maps. Oh, is that still not good enough proof? Sami and Suomi sound familiar? It ain't Sven, I'll tell ya that! I suggest you calm down and relax. Maybe put it into proper context and be assured of your ethnic pride and heritage? Perhaps you are Finland-Swedish. No big deal! You are wallowing in your own childish bunk, for I never called you Mongolian, just the blood brothers of your more pure Lappish brothers that you have a love/hate relationship with. It's none of my grief you splatter everywhere. ScapegoatVandal 13:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is incredible that even now in 21th century you think like that. It looks like you have a bad paranoia when you say Finns or I "harbour absolute hatred" on the Lapps. I am proud to have such great, ancient and indigenous culture in my country, as the Lapps are. I am sure most of the Finns thinks that way too. About my personal opinion you can see the talk page of Finnish wikipedia, where i suggest greater advertisement of Sami wikipedia in Finnish wikipedia main page.

Actually norwegians called Finns as Kvenns, until at present time the term was mixed with international name "Finns". The "founding of norway" saga told about king of Kvenland, who occupied norway and beaten the Lapps on the journey. Kvenland was a Finnish region and it still is, as you well know. Still Finnish minority in norway is called Kvens.

About the racial and genetic features my facts are based on the newest studies of cavalli sforza and many others. Flamish people was founded to be the closest relatives of the Finns. Of the nine closest related populations eight were germanic speakers and one estonian speakers. Your opinions are based to claims that have been already proven false by scientists. It is no superiority to be the most blonde and most blue eyed. It is a studied fact. For you it seems to be a sign of superiority, and now you feel insulted because Finns threatens your "superiority".

See

The roots of peoples and languages of northern eurasia. Collection of articles edited by K.Julku, K, Wiik, 1997.

Milton Nunez: Old and new ideas about the origins of the Finns and Saami

Milton Nunes: A model of early settlement of Finland 1987

Pavel M. Dolukhanov: The most Ancient North europeans, consensus in sight?

Markku Niskanen: Genetic relationships of northern and central europeans in the light of craniometric measurements and gene frequencies

Tuohirulla 14:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OOH, the 21st century is somehow superior to any one previous! Thank you for such wise words, Jedi Master! The article called Ethnic Finn will answer your question. YOU edited it, so feel accountable for how you disagree with yourself and attempt to argue against your own ideology in my face! I have little to do with this internal conflict and self-hatred of yours regarding how White or non-White you are by admixture. I advise you to be happy, find out and accept who you are, instead of going on the defencive about it needlessly. The Kvens are Tornedalians, which should be obvious enough by simple geography. I will never accept your POV resources as absolute truth, because I rely on none of my own POV to pretend its better. You are also using their POV to reinforce a way of false interpretation of the facts to suit your agenda. I look at things for the way they are, not how I'd attempt to make them fit a cubicle world view. You say that Flemings are closest related to Finns? How aloof your understanding of society is, with ignorance to facts when you are challenged but full of facts when you are left to your own devices. Flemings have nary a smidgeon of a connection with Lapps, but you are practically siamese twins with one side mutated differently. Hey dude, check your history books and note how many viking and later invasions were wrought upon Finland. This is all before the modern day, yet describes the true core of Finns at heart. Finns are Finns and Finland-Swedes are Finnish-Swedish. You try to transpose them upon eachother and muddle the facts, for the sake of a far fetched arguement. You bastardise the Finnish peoples with every statement to the contrary of what I am saying and I am not even Uralic. I have no genetic cause to uphold the rights of those peoples and would be guessed at potentially promoting POV for the Swedish/Germanic side, but I digress and deviate from expectations. I have no agenda but to fulfill the intended nature of Wikipedia. You are inventing arguements from thin air, when it was you who indicated that the Finns were the most blonde and blue eyed people of Europe. You seem to think that will get you something. Not here. Maybe in Scandinavia, that is a mark of social status. Not at Wikipedia. Okay? Do you understand? ScapegoatVandal 15:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You show incredible ignorance. References i gave proof that you are wrong, read them, study them. You mock me as a person and my ethnicity because you lack any proof. You have no right to vandalise this article with your unscientific claims. 193.65.112.51 18:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who are you? If you are him above, then you sound like Nazi fanatics of Friedrich Karl von Hessen and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim or even with colonial mentality in a wish for earlier times of Sweden-Finland. Please be neutral here. You may just be a Finland-Swedish person. In any case you're an extremist without calm. Spaniards miscegenated by policy in a Habsburg Spanish Empire. Don't get your panties in a bunch, alright? ScapegoatVandal 03:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What comes to the Nazi propaganda related to Finns, I've heard Hitler thought Finns present somehow a superior race (interesting fact to know, but doesn't prove anything, I do admit). And if thinking of Swedes being more white people than Finns, the fact is that large part of Swedish families have mixed with Finns in some phase of history - that much Finns have moved in Sweden at least during last 500 years, all over the country. I hate participate in discussing a subject like Whites, but these points I thought may interest somebody in the matter of Finns (if not knowing about them already). --81.197.3.212 17:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, if my comment (a Finnish kind of one) seems to look silly in this connection: I didn't fully understand what you two were talking about. Not the only comment seeming weird and silly if that's the case. ;-) --81.197.3.212 23:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this correspondence. I'm just wanting balance to the article. ScapegoatVandal 03:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic Can you explain the revert? The article needs some positive improvement, and that was a start, don't you agree?Provost 20:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The reason I reverted the article is because Middle Eastern and North African was being omitted from the definition of white. But after reading the new information you put in right now, I realized it's good information, so I just added Middle Eastern and North African to what you added. Whether someone thinks of a person from the Middle East or North Africa as non-White, doesn't mean we have to just keep the definition of White just for Europeans. We must keep this article in a NPOV.--Gramaic 02:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are Middle Eastern and North Africans currently being omitted from the definiton of white? The PedanticPrick stated in his notes that most Americans do not consider people from the Middle East to be white. This is not true. I read a definite anti-Arab and anti-Middle Eastern bias in his view and his point of view should not be allowed to change the article in this erroenous way. Do Americans consider Christa McAuliffe to be "non-white?" She was an Arab-American. What about the singer Tiffany or the actress Shannon Elizabeth? They are both Arab-Americans. What about former White House Chief of Staff (under George Bush, Sr.) John Sununu?

Do people consider Corporal Klinger to be "non-white?" Jamie Farr is an Arab-American, as is Frank Zappa. So is Doug Flutie, Vic Tayback (Alice) and Kristy McNichol (Empty Nest) and Michael Nouri. Of course, Danny Thomas and Marlo Thomas, as well as Paul Anka. All these people are of Middle-Eastern descent and considered "white" in American culture. What is especially salient is that among the actors and actresses...they portray characters who are white. These people mentioned are just a few Arab-Americans (in the case of Paul Anka...he was an Arab-Canadian). Wikipedia should not present a misinformed and biased point of view that is erroneous.

We should not reinforce subliminal racial prejucide by using Massaoui (a terrorist) as an example of a Black Arab. Instead, if we are going to use an example of an Arab that is also of African descent, there are many positive examples, for example, the former president of Egypt, Anwar Saddat. There is also Mostafa Hefny. (I am sure you can find others). Please do not continue to reinforce the older stereotypes. Here in wikipedia, there is an opportunity to overturn the racial hierarchy and subliminal subconscious racial dysfunction in our society and correct the unfounded misconceptions that perpetuate racism and racial discrimination.

I find it insulting to associate a terrorist to a Black Arab in this article, and it was unnecessary to do so when there were other more positive choices. These articles that discuss defining characteristics of the people of the world are the foundation of what direction young people think when they learn about people. We associate Native Americans with Casinos now thanks to the racial stereotyping, the last thing that Wikipedia should be doing is associating Black Arabs with terrorism.

The person that wrote the above statement is an anti-white bigot.

Let me make sure I understand. If someone asks for a positive example of a black person to be used in this article, then they are an anti-white bigot? That's an idiotic conclusion. --208.254.174.148 13:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The former president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat's mother was Sudanese. I researched Mostafa Hefny and found out that he is a Nubian. Nubia and Egypt are not one and the same. In fact the opera AIDA was based on this fact. It is wrong for Mostafa Hefny to be presented here in the context that he is because this is similiar to saying that because a black American and white American had a child who identified and had the dominant physical characteristics of his black parent that he now represents all white Americans.

I initiated a discussion on Caucasian race suggested a merger between this page and that one. - Nat Krause 13:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I could agree with the suggested merg. You see, Caucasian, as a racial category, is basically only used in the States. In Europe when you say someone is Caucasian you means that that person is from the Caucasus... The Ogre 12:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I'm proposing to merge. "Caucasian race" is an article without much meaning outside the U.S. I suggest merging to white people or white race. - Nat Krause 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to add a "merge" tag to the pages. -Willmcw 23:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Like The Ogre said, Caucasian only refers to a white person in the U.S., but refers to somebody from the Caucasus in other parts of the world. I'm opposed to having this article merged with another article. --Gramaic | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow the point here. The Caucasian race article is about white people, and it is not specifically about people from the Caucasus. Why should we leave that article there, when it is contrary to common usage outside the U.S.? - Nat Krause 14:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Caucasian isn't only a term used in the USA, it is a well known term in the UK (though not used too much in recent years) & most people would think you referred to whites rather than inhabitants of the Caucasus. I don't know about non-english speaking Europe though, that may be what The Ogre meant. Personally I would say that Caucasian is the proper anthropological term for whites & that the articles should be merged AllanHainey 15:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Allan, I would say that "Caucasian" is the proper term for 'people from the Caucasus'. Maybe by proper, you mean more commonly used. In any case, the distinction between popular defintion and technical definition necessitates the disambiguation page found when one looks up Caucasian. Since "white (people)" is less ambiguous and more common, the current title seems like the best one available. ThePedanticPrick 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The word white is not a proper noun. As a description of "white" people, therefore, it is not capitalized. And in Wikipedia, it’s not even a noun at all: "If possible, terms used to describe people should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; and so forth." Apart from that, this article is a load of semiliterate horseshit. Carry on. (Sixten8 22:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

I had a go at editing it but it's like polishing a turd. You're white if you're lighter than the next person is about the top and bottom of it. I'm not sure we should have any more discussion of it than that, unless we give a carefully sourced discussion of what "white" means to various groups. Okay, back to your fun, fellahs. Clair de Lune 09:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The term brown is used by Hispanics, it should be noted that other groups do not refer to Hispanics as brown. 65.42.87.249 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

We don't? ThePedanticPrick 15:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In English-speaking countries, Hispanics are called brown, African-descendents are black, Asians are referred to as yellow, European-descended as white, Indians as reds, and so on. It's been the norm for many years, as in the "Rainbow Coalition". Provost 16:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I'd clarify is that it is not in all English-speaking countries, but in the USA (althoug some countries' colour definitions may coincide). The only two colours that would have a definate people they represent (in all English-speaking countries) would be Yellow for Asians and Red for Amerindians. Apart from these, Black may mean African in America, but Aborigine in Australia, or Melanesians or Aetas in other countries such as the English-speaking Philippines. Brown "can refer to people of Latino(specifically non-White Hispanic), South Asian, or Middle Eastern descent" in one country, but mean just South Asians and Middle Easterners in another, or the Maori in New Zealand, etc. White is the most non-standarised colour term of the lot, including or excluding members of the other colours (most often those found in Brown) in some countries and not in others. Al-Andalus 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC).

In the UK, 'brown' and 'yellow' (like 'coloured') are mildly offensive terms, in that they are used by people (generally old people) who aren't used to talking about other races. Such people would use 'brown' instead of 'black' (not to refer to Hispanics). Ben Finn 12:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well in the U.S. it is considered impolite to refer to anyone by their skin tone, unless they're white...

Irish Catholics are still not seen as white to some people in the American South. Also, as an Irish Catholic, I see myself just as unwhite as the other groups listed as the ones excluded from whites. The fact that some people still see Irish Catholics as non-white, the history of Irish Catholics being widely seen as non-white, and the fact that some Irish Catholics identify as non-white is why Irish Catholics should be apart of that list. 65.42.87.249 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That is the most retarded post I have ever read. Irish Catholics do not identify as non-Whites, that statement is false. Irish are Celtic and therefore are White. Period. Provost 16:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish Catholics certainly do have a history of not being considered part of the dominant caste, but what is even more interesting is how this changed completely. If you are interested in this issue, suggest you read Noel Ignatiev's "How The Irish Became White" (already linked from this article) and do an article on it. --JWB 16:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So far Provost agrees that Irish Catholics are no longer considered non-White, neither by the US government nor by the popular US definition (and this definition including Irish Catholics is now also the standard everywhere outside the US by both governments and public opinions). User JWB also agrees that "Irish Catholics certainly do have a history [i.e. in the past] of not being considered part of the dominant [White] caste", but further states "how this changed completely", and that they are now White, by consensus in every standard and definition.

01/22/2004 09:42:31 (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

As a blackman who has lived in the Republic of Ireland for the best part of four years, it was indeed quite a revealing experience.The brand of racism you`ll find in Ireland, you`ll find in no other country on this planet.It is not only the interface of racial bullying and victimhood but it`s the ignorance,cretinism and stupidity and irrelevance in some of the questions posed to me while I was there.The racism is Ireland is visceral and pathological.Irish children are taught to hate.Look at the history curriculum,and you`ll understand why the situation in Ireland is so serious. There is no political correctness there. You can say almost anything you want to say about blacks,gypsies,romanians and Travellers, and get away with it.The Irish it must be remembered became a part of America`s white power structure by turning on blacks.I first visited Ireland during the 1980s when I was the only blackman in an the size of manchester,UK. It took me six months before I saw another black face.The Irish look at the black skin with quzzical puzzlement and bewilderment, wondering why the black phenotypical modality is as it is. There will be racist riots in Ireland. It`s the black skin that is problematic for the Irish. Many Irish Fathers chide their daughters on a daily to keep away from blackmen.Some Irish famillies are in conflict over a member getting pregnant for a black man. The Irish do not like race mixing, I this is one of the most significant reason why the black presence in Ireland is opened to much protestation and contestation.I am looking keenly at developments in Ireland. The Irish are far more racist than the white south africans and whites from the southern states, a fact which is generally understated because of victimhood.The Irish can bully,abuse and murder members the so-called "inferior groups, then use victimhood as a cloak of convenience. The irish are the most intolerant whites on this planet and they can create major security problems for the growing black,mostly nigerians, population there. josephcollins1@ NOSPAMhotmail.com

User 65.42.87.249, it must be pointed out to you that the context of the paragraph, that you keep on including Irish Catholics, is to exemplify the contemporary problems of the term in the USA (the USA just being an example of one place where white has a differing meaning, and problems in application as to "who is white?") as an example of how the term is indeed a social construct (ie. pointing out the people who are not as yet White in popular US definition, even though they are by US government rulings and parameters). As you can see, this context does not apply to Irish catholics anymore. Irish Catholics are White both by government standard and public opinion. Al-Andalus 21:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC).

User 65.42.87.249 me thinks you should contributing to "whiteness studies", not Whites. Celtic people are White. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This is ridiculous.Provost 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The user was not saying that Celtic people are not white, rather, that they are still considered non-white by some people. As this article is primarily about sociological definitions of race, this point would be relevant, if it were true. If a significant group of people other than a few crazy, backwoods protestants in the south don't think the Irish are white, I would be most interested in seeing some evidence of that. ThePedanticPrick 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I would challenge anyone to find a contemporary, encyclopedic source that says "Celts are not White". Ignatiev is not Protestant, although he may be crazy!! He's for sure anti-White.Provost 23:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I am from the backwoods Protestant South and am half Irish. I have never heard of Irish not being considered white before. There was a time when they were considered different, but during that period people thought of each and every nationality as a different race. This was the first time I've ever heard anyone say that they weren't white though.

The term "white" has to do with color, not ethnicity. I don't understand the confusion that surrounds this issue. Black is a description of color, African-American is a description of ethnicity. Therefore, one could be Caucasion but not white, just as one can be African-American but not black. That is why Asians and Hispanics are not considered "white" even if they are Caucasion. -an american white guy

White and Black BECAME associated with ethnicity over time. Just like "slav" (latin for slave) BECAME associated with the ethnicity of eastern europeans, and Native American BECAME associated with the indigenous people of the western hemisphere (who have about 5000 different ethnic groups). Black and white are also not mirror or opposing forces. The criteria or detail taht describes a white person may not fit well to describe a black person. For example, a white person is one who almost exclusively has very very light skin much less that 50% of the way from the lightest to darkest skin tone. A Black person at least in America is NOT one who almost exclusively has very very dark skin, and many people in the middle skin tone are considered to be Black. --68.60.55.162 06:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are people who are called black that aren't the essence of darkness. But those self-same people aren't white. So what color would you prefer them called? I have seen very few people who are considered white who were actually white. It is necessary then also to use what is called common sense if you are going to classify by skin tone to take into account factors like tanning, or lack therof, and also to remember that you are solely judging on appearance and not taking a census. So if you're going to be that picky then we are almost all a shade of brown. But if you would like to actually discuss the skin tone categoration of people as it happens to be in the real world, then it is as I said before...South Asians and Hispanics may be Caucasion but they are not white, and you can be African-American without being black. See Provost in "Brown" up above -the same american white guy

I would prefer them to be called the ethnic group they most likely are a part of. If they are part of the Black group, then they should be black. Black and White, in history was based on skin tone. But you keep magically forgetting, that now, here and now, Black has more to do with a common heritage and ancestry than it does with skin tone. Whatever white is, yall gotta figure that out. I am not white. THE census (US) recorded over 40 million Black people, many of which do not fit what you seem to believe is the "right" criterion of blackness. In the real world, being Black is about more than just skin tone. Read the Black people article to get a better idea. --68.60.55.162 05:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me make it more clear. Being black has an aspect that is absent in white culture. It is "inclusive" and relates more to a common shared (not exlcusive) ancestry to Africa. It becomes irrelevant usually if, for example, two siblings of the same household are of different skin tones (which is very often), and in fact more often than not, the lighter skinned child of the black parent(s) will be more driven through adulthood to reaffirm the connection. Like Malcolm X, the moral intensity to remain connected to his darker skinned relatives, friends, and what not over-rides the desire to renounce the name "black" simply because the literal skin color is not jet black. Perhaps you are not familir with the fact that one word can have more than one meaning. For example, when we refer to the "black" market, we are not literally saying that the market of goods and sevices involved is a literally black covered "market". We are using "black" in another context outside of the color, which is the association of black with "illegality". With humans, black is used in another context outside of the color, which is "common heritage from Africa" (or worldwide, common heritage from Equatorial people). I really don't know how else to explain it to you. If you don't get it at this point, it's done.--68.60.55.162 05:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok how about we agree to disagree. Seeing as we are both talking at each other instead of communicating. I don't know what it is to be black, but in turn you dont know what it is to be white. Also, I am quite offended that you would imply that I didn't know words could have multiple meanings simply because I wasn't discussing perceived ethnical culture while I was talking about skin tones. I was simply trying to shed light from an american white person's point of view on american white peoples' view on what constitutes being white as opposed to being Caucasion. I never had the intention of talking about black people in the first place, and besides being a part of "black culture" and being black are two different things (at least in my opinion). That was all. I'm sorry if you were offended. But you clearly are much more passionate about it than me (and personally I think you're trying to do high dives in shallow water in this conversation), but I digress...Have you ever seen two people argue two different points to each other while thinking it was a singular conversation? Anyways farewell. -an easily excitable but largely apathetic proud white male

Certainly having a relatively light-coloured skin is surely a necessary condition for being 'white', even if it may or may not be a sufficient condition. I.e. I've never heard of someone with a dark skin seriously calling themselves 'white'. (Note, if relevant, that under Black (people) having a dark skin is at least part of the definition.) Hence I've added this to the initial definition. Ben Finn 19:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mostafa Hefny, an dark skinned, knappy haired Egyptian (whose ancestry is Egyptian as far back as he can trace it) is legally considered to be White by the US governement. He was threatened to lose his government job as a teacher if he did not legally present himself as a white person. He has sued the U.S. government to change that.--68.60.55.162 06:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • This is a rather bold faced lie - more Wikipedia BS and lack of safeguards. It would be quite illegal in the U.S. for someone to be forced to identify as white at the risk of losing their job. Rather, he demanded to be officially considered black so that he would benefit from Affirmaive Action. Like most of this stuff, when you know the facts, you see it's actually evidence of pandering to minorities rather than oppresssing them.

• • • ref:
    • http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n5_v92/ai_19543513
    • Quote from cited reference:
    • "... Hefny said although he's from Egypt, his ancestry is from the ancient Black kingdom of Nubia, now a part of modem Egypt and Sudan."

I've done more work tightening up the initial definition, which on close reading was pretty unclear and contained much repetition (e.g. two separate definitions of 'caucasian'!). I also cut the bit about whites being those who identify with white culture and ethnicity, as this is a circular definition, and the intended point is made already by saying they identify with European culture, Christianity and Western Civilization. I added that Hispanics are sometimes categorized as non-white (e.g. in censuses). Ben Finn 10:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Considering the large amount of attention brought by critics in the black people article, I do believe we will be spending a lot of time here cleaning up. --68.60.55.162 06:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"...and are largely considered the population pinnacle of Western Civilization" - what does this mean? What is a "population pinnacle"? I think this was edited from something describing whites as the "pinnacle of Western Civilization", which to the extent that it means anything has vaguely supremacist overtones. The previous wording simply said whites are associated with (or something like that) Western Civilization, which at least means something and is unarguable. So I'll edit it back into something neutral and meaningful. Ben Finn 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Also may I point out that the first paragraph is now so full of sociological terms that it's pretty hard for any non-specialist (e.g. me) to understand. I don't think this level of jargon is necessary or desirable in the initial definition. Ben Finn 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO the latest changes to the definition don't improve or make it clearer. Specifically:

The term "white" generally refers to a person of European descent with a connection to European culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes.

This is confusing. What is 'European ethnicity' (other then either European descent or a circular definition)? Also a 'connection to European culture' is optional, not necessary, as implied by that last bit.

Most Whites regard themselves as a people, descended from the ancient Europeans and those who joined the European continent at various times and places.

Not clear what is meant by 'regarding oneself as a people' - other than as an ethnic group or a race (since we're not talking about a nation here), but that goes without saying as we've already said 'white' is an ethno-racial classifaction.

'descended from the ancient Europeans' - we've already said that ('a person of European descent'). 'and those who joined the European continent at various times and places' - not clear what that amounts to since blacks have joined the European continent too, and ultimately all Europeans came from Africa anyway.

So I've edited the definition again accordingly. I think this article is not stable enough for it to be worth my making further edits (it currently seems to change for the worse about as often as it changes for the better) so this will be my last edit I think. Ben Finn 16:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The W in white should be lowercase as writing uppercase-W "White" is (which is almost never done outside the context of white supremacist literature), especially as almost all instances of "white" as a racial construct are written with lowercase-w. That is indisputably lopsided, racist, and belies the editorial slant that informs much of this article.

The single solitary link to the web leads to a very prejudiced website that for one, falsely describes the Egyptian society as a nordic one. Two, it equates any Caucasoid admixture as pure-whiteness (like nefertiti), and three equates any racial mixture in a society as the catalyst for it's downfall. I want to thank Kwertii and ThePandricPrick for inadvertently bringing these quality issues to my attention.--68.60.55.162 06:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What's a Pandric Prick? The penis of a panda that has been studying tantric sex? ThePedanticPrick 14:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The article has only two references. In addition, the article has a biased slant that lulls the reader into believing that racial minorities (like East Indians, and Arabs) should be included as being white, thereby making "whiteness" a goal to achieve. There is too much empathsis in general on who should and can be included as being white, and not enough information regarding why that kind of thinking occurs. In other words "WHY are people driven to be included as being white instead of simply being content not being white and being whoever they are, as there is no drive to make white people replace their own ethnicity or social construct with another."--68.60.55.162 06:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The presence of Black poeple in North Africa, especially Egypt is not due to slavery. Black people have been present in North Africa, especially Egypt as far back as history and archaeology go, and slavery, especially in Egypt was not the cause of the Black presence. It was not due to arab traders trading slaves north of the Sahara. Nubians for example, living in Egypt have unquestionably been living in what is now Lake Nassar since the time of the pyramids. The southern egyptians refer to themselves as Saeedi, and are and always have been dark enough to be interchangeable with the common garden variety black person.

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm - not a slave (no indication) http://www.egyptmyway.com/images/photo/egmuseum/djoserhorus_b530.jpg - old kingdom king, notice his profile, his head is not caucasoid in shape. His cheeks show roundness present in Blacks and mixed black people, not in caucasoids. http://www.vmfa.state.va.us/gmuvava/art/oldking/Heti2407.jpg - a scribe not a slave And those are examples of Black Egyptians in the OLD Kingdom that show strong obvious black traits. I dont even present examples of Ancient Egyptians that truely show a mixture somewhere in the middle between caucasoid and negroid. If I did, you would simply throw them in as a "sub grouping" of caucasoids. Of course you would not do that today with the 30% of the Black people in America.--68.60.55.162 06:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for providing those. ThePedanticPrick 14:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

--68.60.55.162 05:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) I sense sarcasm, and your lack of acknowledgement of the points I raise above only dilutes your credibility. It's a token-surface step in the right direction that you (or whomever else) made the corrections, and even then it's offset by the lack of detailed explanation you used in the Black people article. There are many more issues with this article, and I will be raising them as I see fit, based on how honestly you and others deal with the black people article.

I propose this article is renamed to "White (people)", for two reasons: 1. For consistency with the article Black (people) 2. Because in the UK at least, the plural noun "whites" (and "blacks") is impolite; the normal term is "white people". Ben Finn 12:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, why not white people, then? We don't have an article at, say, English (language). - Nat Krause 11:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment about Black presence in North Africa is not about "reminding" the reader of why the Black presence is in North Africa. Through ancient history, long before Arabs had conquered Egypt, Black people were present in high percentages in Egypt. To say "due to Arab slave trading" misleads the reader, and once again lulls the reader into receiving a false explanation as to why Black people have existed in Egypt. Arab slave trading began after the Quran (8th Century A.D.), Black Egyptians have been present since before the time of Abraham (4000 BC). --208.254.174.148 13:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your objection is based on your misunderstanding of the sentence. Of course Black Africans have been in North Africa prior to the Arab conquest, thus the Black people (as an independent population, or as a genetic legacy found in the present Arab population) in this North African area of the Middle East are there as remnants (pre-Arab invasion) of indigenous Black populations, but also as a result of natural migration patters post-Arab invasion. However, the slave trade does explain the Black genetic legacy that is to be found in the population in the Asian areas (Levant and Arabian Peninsual) of the Middle East. These areas (North Africa, the Levant, and Arabia) together make up the region that is called the Middle East. A Black presence in the non-African areas of the Middle East (whether as independent Black populations, or as a genetic legacy in the Arab population) is due to differing factors

Are you going to tell us now that Blacks evolved contemporaneously both in Africa (North) AND the Asian areas of the Middle East, and that the Black genetic legacy in the Asian Middle East are not the result of a relatively recent (in the last one thousand years) natural migration or slave trading?

A high proportion of the Yeminite population is define as Afro-Arab, and that country is not in Africa, it is in South West Asia, the black legacy of that country is not due to Blacks indigenous to that area. Al-Andalus 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC).

Soheir, I ask that you please stop trying to unilaterally remove anything associating Egypt with Black. It was you that kept removing statements in the Black people article that related Egypt and Black people, and I am not sure if it's you who removed the comment about the previous president of Egypt being Sudanese. I'm just going to put them back, if you have a problem, talk about it in the talk pages first. --208.254.174.148 13:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am from Canada, and I have never heard of a Middle Easterner, North African or Indian ever being classified as white, anywhere. Apon reading this article I decided to look over an American Census report, just to get a better idea about things. Evidentally, on an American census report an individual can check which ever race/box he chooses, or more than one if he so chooses. ( In other words, in America anybody can claim to be white on a census paper, so long as they check the necessary box.)

The term Caucasian - or white - usually refers to white people, not brown people. If this were the case, individuals including Halle Berry, Ben Harper, Mariah Carrey, Thurgood Marshall and even Bob Marley would all fit neatly into a Caucasian catagory. Further more, Italians and most Spanish people are rarely seen as white on this side of the world.

I beleave the middle Easterners on this page are attempting to claim another man's ethnicity. Example: You do not see very many American Indians claiming to be Chinese, dispite both groups being part of a "supposed" Mongoloid common ground?? I find this all absolutely rediculous, and I am puzzled as well as startled to find that there are Middle Easterners actually insisting they are white. Absolutely rediculous.

I am startled to read such an ignorant posting. This type of attitude is what breeds prejudice and fallacy. There are many Middle Easteners who are blonde with light eyes and skin. How would you "classify" them? For example, the previous Queen of Jordan, Queen Noor is Lisa Halaby, an Arab-American who is blonde and blue-eyed. For the point of argument, I assume that you are white. Why do you self-identify as white? Because your ancestry originated from a country designated as "white"? There are black people in every country so simply being from England for example does not dictate one's ethnicity. I believe there was an official "white paper" (no pun intented) that was published by the British government in 1952 or 1953 upon Queen Elizabeth II being crowned that asserted her position as head of the Commonwealth by stating that she had some black ancestry. The statement, "I believe the Middle Easterners on this page are attempting to claim another man's ethnicity," is especially offensive, given the anthropological evidence that the "Caucasian" people originated from the Middle East. "White" is not one ethnic group. Your analogy regarding American Indians and the Chinese would make sense if you were saying that someone from the Middle East were saying they were French or German or Dutch. The "White" race contains many ethnic groups who are not exactly the same, but share common physical characteristics as compared to the other races. Personally I believe there really is one race---the human race. However, as long as people insist on classifying themselves it should be done fairly and accurately. I still cant get over the American Indian-Chinese comment as though "white" was one homogenous group. I find it interesting your being from Canada as Canada has French Canadians who maintain a distinct identity, language, culture. A "white" Canadian can be of many individual ethnic groups. So please recognize that the "white" race has a diversity of ethnic groups. It would help if the article made the point that the white race is made up of different types, i.e. Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, etc. Most "Caucasian" countries are made up of an intermix of these various types...some countries are more predominantly one type over another. For example, the people in Southern Germany tend to be darker and more similiar to the Mediterranean type, while people in the Northern part generally are the "Nordic" type. When you said Italians are not considered white, are you aware that in Northern Italy, people are generally blonde and light-eyed. This is the problem with stereotypes and the problem with taking a label such as "white" and trying to apply it exclusively to one type such as Anglo-Saxon to the exclusion of the other types that make up the group.

Please don't make any accusations. Middle Easterner's and North African's are considered White in some countries. Many people from that part of the world are indistinguishable from Southern Europeans. Please review WP:NPOV. --Gramaic | Talk 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this cute. What about those Middle Easterners that have black skin, curly hair. Are they Black, part of the "black" race? Or is that not "the same thing". Long ago, Black people were the most diverse identity group. Now somehow, presto-changeo, now white people can be anyone from Black skinned "Caucasoids" in Africa to East Indians that would visaully fit in an African American family with "good" hair. Everyone is white, except those isolated villages in West Africa. If there is a civilization in the culture's history, they will be put in the Caucasoid or White box. Just curious, that Egyptian living on the border between Egypt and Sudan... are they Black or White?

For all those who seem bent on excluding people of Middle Eastern descent from being considered "white", I would like to ask how you would classify Lisa Najeeb Halaby, the former Queen of Jordan:

http://www.harrywalker.com/speakers_pitch.cfm?Spea_ID=586

I would say she is more "European" looking than most European people. So why would she be classified as "non-white" because she was born an American of Arab descent? A person is "white" because they have Caucasian characteristics. People from the Middle East have Caucasian characteristics. It is erroneous to exclude an entire group of people because some may be considered black or "non-white". This is like saying that all British people are black because you have some black Britons. Even Queen Elizabeth has asserted that she has some black ancestry...so are all English people now to be considered "non-white"? I would classify Turkish as being both white and Arab,because it is in Europe and Asia,and because of its mixture of European and Middle Eastern cultural influence.Dudtz 10/7/05 5:59 Pm ESt

Middle Easterners are not considered white in most parts of the world. Even within the American main stream, a middle eastern person would never be veiwed as white. Amercian census reports include middle easterners in the white catagory specifically for convenience reasons. Being white in modern America only means that you do not receive any special treatment.

In respect to "Lisa Najeeb Halaby," there have also been many black men/woman who have pass for white in the United States, however, this has never change their ethnicity.

Non-White simply means that you are not white, you should except this. There are many mulitracial people in the world who also have(quote),"caucasion features," but would never be so bold as to classify themselves a white.

Also, the white classifaction of middle easterners on American census reports is something of seriously debate amoung census researchers, and is being considered for removal.(Keep in mind, census reports are only taken around, once every 2 decades)

You don't have enough experience with Middle Eastern people. All you did was just expose your point of view. Saying that some black men and women could pass for white, is quite irrelevant for this discussion. Middle Easterners are Caucasians/Caucasoids, and African-Americans are not. Also, in the United States, all the Middle Easterners I know have considered themselves nothing but White, and were considered by there surrounding nothing but White. As for census, only a minority of Middle Easterners are trying to remove themselves from the white category. So whether you consider Middle Easterners White/Caucasian or not is just your thought. --Gramaic | Talk 04:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In the USA, Middle Easterners do not consider themselves White, and vice-versa. Who are you trying to kid? Seriously. Be honest.Icemountain 07:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I happen to know many Iranians, none of which who consider themselves to be white, but Brown;I even know a few who have blue eyes. As for your uneducated assumption that there are no caucasoid african Americans, you need to really brush up on your anthropology;I also know of many african Americans who have blues eyes.

The term "white" is generally resevered for white people, not "brown" middle easterners. I find it very difficult to believe that you know of any "brown people"(i.e. middle easterners)living in the united states who catagorize themselves as white, and are genuinly precieved as such by main stream white America.(You are obvioulsy not from the United States, because this would never hold true?)

There is a genuine reason Middle easterners are lobbying to have themselves removed from "white census catogorization." This is because many middle Easterners are well aware that in America they are not considered white, and representation as such on census reports only allows for discrimination against this group to go unrecognized. As well, "Middle Easterners" were only added to this census category very resently, and not because they are white, but because they have no prior history in this country; therefore, it would not make any sense for the government to hand "funds" over to this minority group. In fact, there have also been many instances of Ethiopians and Somalis being classified as white on census reports. (Census report classifactions are not base on science or anthropology, but rather on socio-political matters)

The truth is, I am very surprised this conversation is even taking place. I have lived my entire life in America and Canada, and never would I have believed that a middle easterner(Sand nigger/Camel humper)would ever consider himself to be white???

("This is the most bizzare thing I have ever heard! I am sorry.")

In Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand(even south Africa, and most parts of United States) this conversation would not make hold any weight, nor make much sense.

I think all our so-called "races" are pretty fuzzy distinctions, and the lines are very blurry, so this discussion, while not irrelevant, has the potential to get pointless and hair-splitting. My general impression seems to be that the darker skinned arabs and middle-easterners are considered non-white in the US, while the lighter-skinned ones could probably pass for white. I'm not going to start vehemently defending this position, unlike some people (please watch your language, anonymous person), nor am I going to try to include it in the article, since wikipedia has a No original research policy. What we need to do here is a) find some good citations in support of the claim that arabs and middle-easterners belong to the "Caucasoid race" (whatever that is), and b) discuss briefly the acceptance or non-acceptance of Arabs and middle-easterners into "white" american society. What we don't need is a lot of heated debate and personal opinions thrown around. Also, if everyone could try to keep these discussion readable by signing their posts with four tildes (~) and making very plain which comments belong to whom, that would be very helpful. My preferred style is to use the colon to indent my response when replying to someone else's comments. The more colons you use, the further the response is indented. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 22:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user. I was born and raised in the United States, and most of the Middle Easterners living in this country are not brown, they are just as white as Europeans. After seeing that you used offensive words (such as "sand n*****" and "camel humper"), you sir are just a person of extreme hate! I don't care whether you consider Middle Easterners White or not, I'm not going to have a discussion with you on this topic, unless you stop ranting and stop using racial slurs. --Gramaic | Talk 06:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, that is totally false and you know it. Middle Easterners are not White and nobody in the USA considers them White or European-Americans, including the Middle Easterners themselves. Please stop. Icemountain 07:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Icemountain. What I said is not false! Middle Easterners are racially White/Caucasian. Most people in the United States considers them White, and most of the Middle Easterners in the U.S. considers themselves White. Besides, most of the Middle Easterners in this country could pass for Southern Europeans, especially the Lebanese and Syrians, who are most of the times mistaken for Italians and Greeks. BTW, you may respectfully disagree with other users if you wish, but please do not ask anybody to stop. --Gramaic | Talk 10:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That is patently false. Most White people do not consider most Middle Easterners to be White. That is just totally unjustifiable. This is an encyclpedia, not a place for original research, so please stop the original research. Middle Easterners such as Persians and Arabs are not considered White by most people of European descent. Thanks.Icemountain 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to have any thought you want. Middle Easterners in the U.S. are considered White by most people, and most of them consider themselves White. American actors of Middle Eastern descent are always portrayed as White/Caucasian in the characters they play in the movies they're involved in. I will not go forward in this discussion. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 03:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Middle Easterners are not considered white by the majority of all people (white or non-white) in the United States. I respectfully disagree that examples of a few "actors", chosen by Hollywood casting agents, is a representative sample of Middle Easterners for this subject. Icemountain 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If middle eastern is white, then how come myself (a Palestinian) was accused of wanting to "kill white people" in school, made fun of for my dark skin, called a "sand nigger", a "camel-jockey", a "bomb thrower", and other names people probably have never even heard of. I'm not an especially dark-skinned Arab, but believe me those white kids knew the difference in school, and it never even occured to me that Middle Easterners are considered white until I had to sign up for college and middle-eastern was not on there a choice for race

Icemountain, you can't claim that "Middle Easterners are not White and nobody in the USA considers them White or European-Americans, including the Middle Easterners themselves", because Middle Easterners are considered white by some among them and by some non-Middle Easterners (viz. Gramaic and myself); so this is not a "totally unjustifiable" claim. Also, of course Middle Easterners aren't "European-Americans", because their ancestry isn't from Europe, but the Middle East. As an anecdote, I went to school with a white kid whom I didn't even know was Iraqi until I found out otherwise because I also was under the impression that all Middle Easterners are "brown". To the unsigned poster above, if you are darker than those "white" (European descended, I assume) kids and if you don't look European, then that's enough to prompt children to discriminate. They're children, and they were going by cruel misrepresentations of a huge group of people conveyed by the media because that's what sells. Some Middle Easterners do indeed look European and/or have white or light skin, especially women; and except in the southern Arabian peninsula, where they have mixed with negroids, they are caucasoid:

• Queen Rania of Jordan: [2]

• Farah Pahlavi of Iran: [3]

• Dina Habib-Powell (her married name) of Egypt: [4]

• Shireen Saif Nasr of Egypt: [5]

• Nazanin Afshin-Jam of Iran: [6]

• Andre Agassi (Assyrian and Armenian): [7]

• Mohammad Khatami of Iran: [8]

• Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran: [9]

• Mahammed A. Aldouri, Iraqi Representative to the UN: [10]

• Mohammed Al-Amili, Iraqi ambassador to the US: [11]

• Feisal Istrabadi, Iraqi UN ambassador: [12]

• Jalal Talabani of Iraq: [13]

• "Arab-American" Carol Chehade, who considers herself white and wrote a book on white identity and racism entitled Big Little White Lies: [14]

• Kathy Najimy, born to Lebanese immigrants to the US: [15]

• Danny Thomas, also born to Lebanese immigrants to the US: [16]

• Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of Jordan: [17]

• Jacques Chirac beside Saddam Hussein: [18]

• George W. Bush beside "a Saudi prince" (his name wasn't mentioned): [19]

• Hillary Clinton beside Iraqi women (the veiled ones): [20]

• Safia Taleb al-Suhail of Iraq beside Laura Bush: [21]

• Iraqi women (google it): [22], [23], [24], [25]

• busts of Assyrian kings: [26]

Most Middle Easterners probably have brown skin, but many have "olive" or brunette skin, which is also found in people usually considered white (viz. people found throughout Europe), and some could accurately be called "white", even if they don't look European. --Jugbo

(-_-'|||| well, depends on what kind of definition for "white" people... but in terms scientifical they are a branch of caucasian, just like slavic, germanic, East Indian... so yea/// >.<)

This DNA based website should be a wake up call for the white people all over the world.

http://www.backintyme.com/Essay040608.htm

why? we're talking about skin tone?

No we aren't. Pale complexioned black people are not considered "white" nor are pale compelxioned Japanese, Chinese, East Indians with Dravidian features... - Zaph

What is this "wake-up call" you claim "white people" need. Is it that even though they "look white" they might have a significant or predominant amount of "black" genes; or that they may be more "black" than "white"; or that they may actually, more properly, belong to the group that they inherently despise so much? You claim "whites" in general, all over the world, all whites need a good, hard kick in the ass to knock the racism out of them? To believe that all white people are racist is tragic, saddening and pitifully myopic, not to mention racist itself. Before assuming the worst in others or pointing out their flaws, take a look inside your own heart and define your own feelings toward other groups, and see if you're the one who needs a "reality check". --Jugbo

This is not the place to discuss "White Supremacy" and "Neo-nazis" ad infinitum. There are other pages for that. Thank You. Please contribute something positive about White people and Western Civilization.Provost 18:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A simple discussion of the views of white-separatist and white-nationalist groups is not anti-white. Not once does it say anything close to "These groups are racist and bad." Given that most scientists do not believe that race exists at the biological level, this page would do better to discuss sociological definitions of "white" and their impact on society. There are plenty of pages that promote the acheivements of "white" individuals and societies. The link you insist on including in the article is not only racist, but unscientific and unprofessional. ThePedanticPrick 20:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"White nationalists in the United States often have a definition of "whiteness" that is more limited than the official government definition. "Whiteness" in this case implies an ancestry that is solely or overwhelmingly European, but also requires a psychological identification with the European ethnicity" I would say most White people acknowledge this, they don't have to be "White Nationalist". How about changing that to White people in the U.S.?Provost 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point. I think what that paragraph means to, and should, say is that white-nationalist groups are more likely to exclude southern Europeans like Spanish and Italians. Does that sound right? ThePedanticPrick 22:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's right. You might want to research it. BUT THE POINT I'm trying to make, is that Wikipedia already has articles about White Nationalism, whiteness studies, etc. This page should focus on White people, not these fringes. This is not the anti-White page. Let's get real. Why is there a paragraph in this article that contains references to Colin Powell, Cuba, Brazil, Oprah, Tiger Woods, uses the terms mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon? All of this is great, but it most surely doesn' belong here. Some people on Wikipedia love to make anti-White edits, and seem to have the desire to put a "neo-nazi" and "fascism" link into every page, it's just pathetic. White people won World War II and took out the Nazis. Go check the Wonder Bread page, and see if there's a long paragraph about "neo-nazis" or "anti-semitism". If it isn't there, someone will get to it soon, I'm sure. sarcasm off. Provost 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

>White people won World War II and took out the Nazis

And the Nazis themselvs were... what color, exactly? Moncrief 23:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is NOT about the definition of White as seen by one group or country (whether it be as interpretid by white nationalists, white supremacists, race abolitionists, "anti-Whites", Americans, Cubans, North Africans, Britons or Germans) It is about what "White" is for all these groups, since White has no standard definition. That's the point! As the article already states;

• A common element to the various definitions of "white" today, is that the term refers to a person of European descent. Also generally associated to white people is European culture, Christianity (whether as a religion or part of their cultural heritage) and Western Civilization. 'Outside this scope, the inclusion and/or exclusion of other groups of people may vary from country to country due to differing popularly espoused understandings of the term, definitions based on government guidelines, or factors of socio-racial implication.

It states perfectly well that anything else is an exception to what every definition of white has in common. This is where we get into the problem of the constant re-inserting of Middle Easterners and North Africans in the intro. They are just as much an exception as any other person included as white in any given definition. Let's be real here, every definition excludes Middle Easterners and North African from the White label except the American government's definition (even the popular American definition exludes them, or accepts some of them but rejects others of the same region, even here it varies).

That sentence cannot by good faith go in the intro because it misleads the reader. The article is not a podium to propagate the validity of one definition over another (in this case the American definition, and of the American government at that), but to present them all, and to present White as what it is, a social construct loosely based on race.

Who is to say that the American definition of White is any more valid than the French definition (or any other European definition, or the Australian or the Latin American definitions) for the exception found in the American one to be mentioned above any other that may exist in the other definitions. Keep ALL EXCEPTION where they are currently positioned in the article, not in the oppening paragraph. To prioritise any eception and position it in the intro, without mentioning other exceptions in the "For exmnple", is upholding priotiy to the that particular definition and is POV as a result.

As for white nationalists, supremasits and separatists, whether one agrees with them or not, they too have varying definition of whiteness. As such, their unpopularity as racist enteties should not get in the way of a complete assessment of the term White in ALL it's contexts, as opposed to what some have insinuated is an assessment of White nationalists themselves. Nothing in the article has assessed what or who white nationalists are, what they stand for, or whether they are in the best interest of anything or anyone. It deals solely with just more definitions of White as held by people who happen to espous certain ideologies. 02:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, you should be posting in whiteness studies. The accepted definition of Whites involves Europe, Western Civilization, modern European ethnic people, and European descendants. All the rest of the arguments, etc. are PERIPHERAL belong on whiteness studies. Provost 02:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Provost, this is a part of the difficulty you're having in understanding the reason for this article. "The accepted definition of Whites involves Europe, Western Civilization, modern European ethnic people, and European descendants." No, those are the elements that the various definitions have in common. From those elements that you cited are other groups of people then added or subrtacted to become the various definitions that there are. Like every other group, community or country with his/her/its own definition of white, YOUR problem is that YOU are under the impression that YOUR definition is the accepted one. THAT, my friend, is the purpose of this page. In any case, if by what you yourself have stated that "The accepted definition of Whites involves Europe, Western Civilization, modern European ethnic people, and European descendants" I find it curious that you, much like Gramaic, continue to insist on inserting into the opening paragraph Middle Easterners and North Africans, which although they are a caucasoid people, their region is not a part of Europe, their culture is not that of the West, the religion of the region's majority population is not Christian, and they are not a modern European ethnic people nor are they European descendants; all of which you said constitutes Whites by the accepted definition with "all the rest of the arguments" being "PERIPHERAL" . Al-Andalus 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, I'm sorry but all that did was just expose your POV. There is no such thing as an accepted or simple definition of White. If you really want a very simple definition of White, why don't we just define it as blond haired and blue eyed people that originate from Northern Europe. Yes, Middle Easterners and North Africans are discussed later in the article, but as I said before it wouldn't hurt anyone if we had a small statement about it in the intro. So what if the ME or NA is not in the West, the Asian part of Russia is in the East, does that make people from the Asian part of Russia not White. You also mentioned that the majority of Middle Easterner's and North African's are not Christian, yes that's true. Well many Albanians, who are of course European, are in fact Muslim, does that make Albanians non-White? As an American born man, I can't accept the definition of White just being European. Please let's remain NPOV, and be open for God's sake! Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 09:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, I think you misunderstood Al-Andalus, who was arguing against Provost's assertion that there is an "accepted definition of white". The fact remains that Middle Easterners are usually not considered white. Because they are an exception to most common, popular definitions of white, they don't belong in the intro. The intro needs to stay short and to the point; it is not a place for "For example,"s. If we allow this under the guise of "Let's please be NPOV", then next week a Hispanic or South-Asian person will come in demanding that we include a similar sentence about their "race" in the intro. The current paragraph on middle-easterners is quite good, and it is in the correct place—the "Who is white?" section, which deals with the varying definitions. I think we need to realize that this is a debate about style and presentation, not POV. As an aside, I wonder if you've noticed that the username Al-Andalus suggests arabic ethnicity or at least an affinity for arabic culture and language. ThePedanticPrick 13:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well, ThePedanticPrick. I'll leave the article the way it is, and will go no further in this debate. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, you wrote: Provost, this is a part of the difficulty you're having in understanding the reason for this article. I see the issue, but I believe the information you are covering belongs in whiteness studies or Census info or White studies, etc. Is this article not titled "White people"? So were does all this quadroon, octoroon, census stuff belong? I really think it's been covered already in other articles, perhaps we could link to it instead. What I hope is that this article doesn't become another page detailing "white supremacism" etc. There are a ton of those pages already on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, there is no central article linking together articles and history of White/European-descended people, and is this not the correctly titled place to put that together? I realize that it's a gargantuan task to accomplish given the tremondous ground it covers.Provost 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As proud as I may be of the various contributions of "white" people to civilization today, I think you might end up biting off more than you can chew by attempting to catalogue all the achievements of the white race. You'd end up arguing with a bunch of non-white and anti-white people about which accomplishments could not have occurred without input from black Egypt, India and East Asia, the cheap labor provided by slavery, never mind being constantly attacked for "Euro-centrism"(a rather ambiguous term, in my opinion). You'd also have a bunch of people demanding that you enumerate all the atrocities caused by white people over the centuries, which, I'm sad to say, have been numerous. And which of the many definitions of "white" would you use to decide whether an event involves white people? Why don't we stick to discussing the various definitions of "white"? If you want to add some links to Category:Europe or Western Civilization, that's fine.

I'm not sure what your objection is to the short mention that mulattos are considered white in one or two countries. Given that the section heading is "Who is white?", I think it bears mentioning that other countries have differing definitions. There's nothing wrong with summarizing in one sentence a topic that has its own article. ThePedanticPrick 16:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Pendantic, you wrote I think you might end up biting off more than you can chew by attempting to catalogue all the achievements of the white race. You'd end up arguing with a bunch of non-white and anti-white people. So, do you suggest that a catalogue of the history and achievements of White people (good and bad) be dropped altogether because some anti-White editors want to be bigots? We'll handle the anti-White editors the same way anti-semites are treated, to keep negative propaganda to a minimum.Provost 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You replied to only a small fraction of my argument. Try again. ThePedanticPrick 18:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we need this section? This article is suppose to focus on how the meaning of White was defined over the generations, not talk about a type of extremism. Most of the general public are unaware of the term "White nationalism," which is of course just another term for "White supremacy." BTW, I don't think it's appropriate to have A history of the white race (which is a bunch of texts written by a white supremacist named Arthur Kemp) as an external link or reference. Thanks. --Gramaic | Talk 08:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the article is about varying definitions of "white", I think it's appropriate to mention that some people have a more restrictive definition than others. I am opposed to letting that section get much longer than one paragraph, however. About the link, it is clearly the most biased, racist interpretation of history I've ever seen. It proudly portrays Hitler next to other great white men of history, and the underlying theme is that racial diversity leads to the downfall of great civilizations. I don't think it belongs in this article at all, at least not without a disclaimer. ThePedanticPrick 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

ThePedanticPrick maybe you could read the link, before mischaracterizing it? It doesn't proudly portray Hilter, OK? He was a historical figure, a "reckless blunderer" that started a White civil war (WWII) that killed 50 million White Christians. It says clearly: This is their incredible story - of vast visions, empires, achievements, triumphs against staggering odds, reckless blunders, crushing defeats and stupendous struggles. It's a relevant link. Thanks.Provost 17:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Provost, I don't need to drink an entire gallon of milk to know whether or not it's rotten. I doubt a site that has the goal of discouraging racial mixing and condemning non-white races as inferior would have that many bad things to say about Hitler. Even your attempt to play down the portrayal of Hitler on the front page just exposes you as one of his many apologists. Your only complaint about Hitler is that he recklessly started a war with his white, christian bretheren. As a white atheist, I'd hate to live in a country where you or your kind were in charge. ThePedanticPrick 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You better watch those personal attacks, they are in violation of WP policy. There are many different opinions about this subject, that's why the link ought to be represented. Links on WP often represent a cross-section of thought on a given subject. If you have something from the "white atheist" camp (that is not mainstream in the world), and it's in any way relevant, then link it too, by all means. And how is calling Hitler a reckless blunderer being an apologist? What you said makes no sense. An apologist would try to downplay the history, not discuss it openly as the tragedy it was.Provost 19:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

About the section, that it should not be more than a paragraph long, yes I agree with you on that. You're absolutely right about that website, I've read the most biased trash from that site. For example, it refers to Italy as a bi-racial nation, saying that most of the Whites in Italy are mostly concentrated in the North. --Gramaic | Talk 18:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I think both of you guys are being reactionary. First of all, there are already tons of 'neo-nazi", anti-White, and "supremacist" sites on Wikipedia. This reallly isn't the place for it again. Secondly, the web link is relevant. Wikipedia articles, especially in the weblink section, are always a balance of contrasting sources. That link has tons of information in it that is relevant and accurate. Balance it, please don't delete it. Your summary of the author's characterization of Italy is wrong.Provost 16:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why, to illustrate an article about people, would you have a sculpture carved in rock?? That makes no sense. It looks like an Unencyclopedia parody. Yes, I know those presidents, as human beings, were all white. Here, however, they're all made of rock. The photo is very unhelpful. Moncrief 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They are also dead, how better could they be reflected? Let's ban wooden crucifixes as poor representations of Christ next? Why shouldn't White people of accomplishment be represented on the White people page?Provost 16:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea. If you want to use those people to illustrate the white people article, why not use, at the very least, a painting of them, so we can see what white people look like in human, not stone, form? Moreover, I'm not sure that this is the best place for "white people of accomplishment." That's not the subject of the article. The subject of the article is white people in general. So a photograph of some generic white people would seem to be the most apt illustration of the topic. Moncrief 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

These colour terms were in more common usage in the beginning of the 20th century as ethno-historians attempted to trace humanity's history through linguistics (on the basis of language family) and cultural and physical traits. A commonly-held 19th century view was that white people were the descendants of Indo-Europeans, and divided into two categories; Semitic and Aryan. This view is now held by academia to be flawed, since Semitic people, although Caucasoid, are not a sub-group of Indo-Europeans; "Aryan" was erroneously applied by European anthropologist to themselves; and South Asians were altogether excluded, despite being a caucasoid people, and unlike Semitic peoples, are actually a sub-group of Indo-Europeans. Most popular and government definitions still do not categorize South Asians as white. Paradoxically, the term "Aryan", highly associated with white supremacy, most correctly applies to Vedic South Asians.

• Color terms have no relation to linguistics and have never been particularly used by linguists
• "ethno-historian" is at least an anachronism and probably a neologism
• Semitic was never considered a subgroup of Indo-European
• South Asians do not all speak Indo-European languages (neither do all Europeans for that matter, either past or present)
• Race and language are not synonymous and this point needs to be made.
• Conflation of race and language was typical of 19th century and earlier.
• Bad and overly verbose writing

--JWB 13:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My vote's with the slimmed-down version of the paragraph, but that's just my personal preference. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that scientists have made mistakes, like linking linguistics with race. ThePedanticPrick 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been some debate about this issue but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has responsibility to present facts as it may be cited as a source for research papers, etc. The PedanticPrick stated that most Americans do not consider people of Middle Eastern origin to be "white". This is his opinion and simply not accurate. Examples have been presented of well-known and prominent Arab-Americans who are seen as "white" in American society.

I looked up the term "white" in Webster's Dictionary. As the term related to people, it said, "a person whose racial heritage is Caucasian." (Webster's Dictionary, Copyright 2000) The same dictionary then defined Caucasian as "of designating, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to curly hair, and light to very dark eyes and orig. inhabiting Europe, North Africa and parts of W. Asia."

As some other comments have stated in this discussion history, what is presented needs to be NPOV. Otherwise, the value of Wikipedia is diminished as a credible source if everyone just changes the article based on opinion.

Anonymous person, please don't assign me certain prejudices unless you know I hold them. I never said arabs are not white, and when I say "most americans think such-and such", I am rarely including myself. I know there are many fair-skinned arabs, but I don't think most americans are aware of this. In addition, there is strong anti-arab and anti-muslim sentiment in the US right now, which leads to them being seen as outsiders, non-white, just as many light-skinned hispanics are considered non-white. However, since I haven't conducted any formal poll of american opinion on the matter, I really don't know for certain. ThePedanticPrick 14:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found some evidence to support my opinion: "Although the U.S. census classifies Arabs as white along with the European majority, a sizable number believe they are not treated as whites, but more like such other minorities as Asians Americans and Hispanic Americans A definition of Arab-Americans(The Arab-American Institute)" ThePedanticPrick 14:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote that you included underscores my point. You are excluding this group of people from the article even though the US census says to the contrary and without any formal poll of american opinion on the matter. So of course some would feel they are not being treated as whites. As you stated you dont know for certain, yet you continuously do the removal even when this information was there in the article originally. Also, you neglected to include what the linked article from the Arab-American Association said about Christian Arab-Americans "not being greatly distinguished from Euro-centric American culture." The photo of the park rangers that is included in the article caught my eye. Any one of these people could be of Arab descent, especially the woman at the end with dark hair and eyes. It would be too ironic if one of these people happened to be Arab-American and are included in a photograph of "white americans", yet there is the omission of people of Middle Eastern descent being included as it was originally included in the previous versions of the article.

The Arab is not considered White in the USA. Examples have been presented of well-known and prominent Arab-Americans who are seen as "white" in American society. is the exception rather than the rule. A group like CAIR does not consider themselves White or descendents of Europeans (the most common definition), and they represent millions of Arab-Americans. Provost 19:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

ThePedanticPrick, you say that because of the strong anti-Arab sentiment is one of the factors that most people don't consider Arabs white. During World Wars I and II, there was a strong anti-German sentiment, does that mean that the Geramans in those eras were not white? Provost, about you mentioning the organization CAIR. CAIR is a Muslim organization not Arab, CAIR has membership that ranges from Arabs, non-Arabs, so there's no official race for this organization. Most of the Middle Eastern population I have known have always considered themselves nothing but racially White, and everybody around them; ranging from Middle Easterners, Europeans, Asians etc. have considered them nothing but White. --Gramaic | Talk 20:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. What we have here are two separate facts: a) Arabs are, for the most part, white. b) Most Americans see arabs as a non-white minority. Fact a doesn't disprove b anymore than b disproves a, so both of them belong in the article. ThePedanticPrick 15:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, a major point of WWI Allied propaganda actually was calling the Germans Huns, an Asian group.--JWB 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The article included people from the Middle East and North Africa as white before. If as you say most Americans arent aware of this, how are you promoting education by removing this information from the article? You are only promoting an erroneous stereotype. I noticed the addition of the picture of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Did you know that at least one Arab-American served in the Revolutionary War? Nathan Badeen, originally from present-day Syria enlisted and fought in the Continental Army's 18th Regiment in 1776. Arab-Americans have been a part of this country and society since before there was an official United States of America. Excluding people from the Middle East when they were included before is exactly why they are now being seen as "other." The purpose of the article is to essentially define who is "white" not the vagaries of American public opinion...and you have not proven that most Americans see Arabs as a "non-white" minority. Most Americans are not even aware of who Arab-Americans are because they don't know that their neighbor or parishoner (your points ignore that Arab and Muslim are not one and the same. Most Arab-Americans are CHRISTIAN) are even Arab-American...they may vaguely assume they are of some European descent. The points Gramaic made are correct and the earlier references in the article where people of Middle Eastern and North African descent were removed should not have been. Wikipedia should be promoting factual information that does not further lead to people being considered "outsiders." Why is your "Fact A" not included in the article which would be relevant to the topic of the article?

I'm removing this because the conclusion makes this trivial, and not particularly relevant.

• Shriver pointed out: "There is a very small degree of overlap in the population distributions." In America, most of the whites are extremely European and most of the blacks are quite African.
• Among those whites found in Shriver's study to have black ancestry, they average an admixture of 2.3% black (of 128 grandparents, 3 are black and 125 are white).

What is trivial about this? I think it makes an important point about the US, that the reason the White/Black distinction made sense was because the population consisted of relatively separate communities of generally very light and very dark people. This is less true in much of the US now and accordingly the term "White" has become less useful. Most other countries do not have a strict color line either, and either have a continuum or are homogeneous. My vote is for putting it back. --JWB 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

By my understanding of the study, it concluded that the white and black populations of the US have actually mixed very little. It's interesting that the person who initially cited the study tried to use it to support the exact opposite conclusion. Did they neglect to read the article, or were they deliberately misleading readers? In any case, the study's results are certainly germane to a discussion on race in society. I'd like to see it described in more detail on this page. ThePedanticPrick 15:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Shriver study concludes that there is little mixture, does it not? Whoever put the study in there, in the first place, was trying to state and imply otherwise, in contradiction to the study's conclusions.Icemountain 04:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be that some people consider it is news that there is any mixture at all. --JWB 06:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)