Talk:White people

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

In the 'Republic of Ireland' subsection, change the word 'ideontified' to 'identified' Eisenstein Integer (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for catching that. CAVincent (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Large population tables

This is regarding these edits, which I have reverted.

There are a lot of major problems here. Some of which are similar to what has already been discussed at #Questionable map above.

One problem is that this table would combine many wildly different sources with wildly different methodologies and definitions of 'white people' and present them all as being directly comparable.

Another major issue is that many of these sources are not reliable. Sources need to be WP:RS, and other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, per WP:CIRC.

Finally, combining these statistics at all is a form of original research. We use sources to form conclusions, not editors. Please do not restore this table until consensus has changed. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Domen von Wielkopolska: Hello. This is the place to discuss these edits. Nothing about Joshua Project's website indicates that it has a positive reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, or peer review. Further, the site doesn't consistently use the term 'white', so any interpretation of this source for this article would be original research. But again, it doesn't appear to be a reliable source in general. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the term 'white' is defined by this article itself ('White people') as 'those of mostly European ancestry'. So I just summed up the numbers of all native European ethnic groups listed in each Joshua Project country article. Anyway, how about I just restore the table for European countries as this table doesn't use Joshua Project among its sources (it is based on census counts and official estimates)? Of course I will use reliable sources directly instead of linking to other Wikipedia articles (per the WP:CIRC policy). Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

But I do think that the Joshua Project website is accurate and reliable for the purpose that it serves, namely: counting ethnic groups. I noticed only one obvious inaccuracy when researching their data, the number of White Australians in Papua New Guinea. But it looks just like an error in adding one extra zero (it should be 13,900 instead of 139,000). This source confirms that they are "over 10,000": https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/papua-new-guinea/australia-papua-new-guinea-engagement . Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, do not restore any part of this table until consensus is reached. As I said there are a lot of problems.

The Joshua project is not a reliable source in general, but it's also not reliable for whether or not any ethnic group is 'white' enough to be counted. Nothing is reliable for that, because it's impossible to do that in an impartial, objective way.

That's the deeper issue with these kinds of charts and maps. The article mentions "mostly European ancestry" but how much qualifies as "mostly" and who's doing the counting? As the article explains in the same paragraph, "the definition can vary depending on context, nationality, ethnicity and point of view." If there are any reliable sources which specifically collect global data on the 'white race', those sources would be using a specific definition of 'white race' that applies to all countries and all cultures and can also be tested in some way. Such a definition doesn't exist, and this fundamental problem is much, much more difficult than it might seem at first glance.

A paragraph in the lead says this: "Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable "White race" as a social construct with no scientific basis."

The article directly says "this has no scientific basis", so to cobble together many different sources which all draw from different contexts, points-of-view, nationalities, ethnicities, etc. is original research, and it's also a fringe issue.

To put it another way, attempting to apply hard data to something which lacks a scientific basis is pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. What I'm counting is actually the percentage of predominantly (80%+) native European-descended people, which is only colloquially known as "white people". But since there is no article about native Europeans worldwide, I wanted to add this data to this article. I define native European as descended from populations which inhabited Europe at least 1000 years ago. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, that is original research. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research.

Your definition of 'white people' is your own, but it's not easily falsifiable. But even it were usable, defining who is and is not European, what percentage of anyone's ancestry is what, how long a population has been in Europe, etc., and after all that, trying to count those people in consistent way... It's a very, very complicated task that involves a lot more than just poring over online government census records.

Regardless, again, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research no matter how its conducted. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"I define native European as descended from populations which inhabited Europe at least 1000 years ago" is very clearly original research. Wikipedia should only report what reliable sources tell us, and not rely on editors' own definitions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Throwing in another two cents, "attempting to apply hard data to something which lacks a scientific basis is pseudoscience" nicely and succinctly sums up one of several presumably irresolvable problems with attempting to add these tables. These tables are, at best, both WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. They don't belong in the article. CAVincent (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that it is probably WP:OR but I disagree that it is WP:FRINGE because my definition of "white people" is pretty much the mainstream definition. Anyway, as I said my purpose was to count people of predominantly native European descent, and there is no article on Wikipedia which is about this topic, which is the reason why I came here to the "White people" article. But I now agree that these tables don't belong here, you guys have convinced me. Instead, I've published my research about this topic (population size of people of native European descent worldwide) on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate. I guess we can now archive this discussion. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Your definition is not the mainstream definition, nor even a mainstream definition. The lead of the article already explains some of the problems with such definitions. As I said before, creating a falsifiable definition of white people is much, much more difficult than it might seem at first glance. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As for Joshua Project, it is already used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambo#cite_note-1 Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It turns out this has already been discussed many times on Wikipedia. See WP:JOSHUAPROJECT. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Correction needed - unable to edit=

The caption for the image of Queen with Maradona under the A social category formed by colonialism subsection is incorrect but I am unable to correct it as the article is semi-protected. It currently says, "The members of Queen were of British descent and Diego Maradona (in the center) was of Galician, Italian, Croatian and Guaraní descent." However, Freddie Mercury was not of British descent. Neither he nor any of his ancestors had been to Europe, let alone Britain, ever, so it would be impossible for him to be of British descent.

--159.2.215.119 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the image. The caption was WP:OR at best. I also removed the pseudoscientific 'ancestry' map, for the same reason I removed it last time, as mentioned at #Questionable map. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Census and social definitions in different regions"

Too much of this section is demographic data which uncritically accepts a definition of white people, rather than addressing the concept of "white people". It could likely do with some pretty significant pruning. CAVincent (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Every time I look closer at these numbers I see big problems. There is a long-term recurring issue with misguided editors or vandals subtly fudging numbers for demographic data across Wikipedia, but this appears to be something else. Some of the sources I just removed either do not support the specific numbers, or directly contradict them. This kind of thing should be removed. Leaving gaps is better than misinformation. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've cut a bit tonight, mostly images, and may do some more in the next few days. It appears that a number of references do not support the claims they are attached to, at least not without some combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and a (presumably good faith) assumption that fair skin and/or European heritage is uncomplicatedly the same as "white people". Unfortunately, a number of these sources are not in English, which is sadly the only language in which I feel comfortable evaluating the reliability of the source. CAVincent (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

Add Anti-white racism to see also section. 77.35.24.149 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)