Talk:White people

White population worldwide

Who added the claim that there are 1.1 billion white people worldwide? And how did they even come to that number for a category that is subjective and isnt included on most censuses outside of the US, Canada, Ireland and the UK? 2602:306:CD04:62F0:88AD:AF38:B8BA:16AC (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it pending verification. There's a census table further down the page that when totalled gives a figure of just under 500 million, although it's somewhat out of date. Tobus (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

New countries added to table

Tuxzos22, could you explain how this source supports the figure you added to the table, suggesting that 99% of the Greek population is white? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Georgia, Russia and Albania are not in the EU, but are European. Tuxzos22 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Where in the source does it establish what percentage of the population of Greece is white? There are no figures on race in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

TThe source is not explicit on that point, I will be looking for another one, thanks for the warning. Tuxzos22 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't be adding figures such as this unless you already have a source that supports them. Where are you getting the figures from if not from sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the additions for now. Some didn't have sources at all, and other sources that I checked out (e.g. Sweden's) didn't support the figures added or even mention race at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry What a waste of time. Some of them talk about ethnicity and not race. For example, if I see in a source: 33% Russians, 33% Africans and 33% Ukrainians, that country is 66% white even though the census does not mention the word white and has not made that sum... (the answer is obvious). Besides, in Scotland they do talk about race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxzos22 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The source you cited for Sweden doesn't mention ethnicity or race but citizenship. You can't derive race from citizenship. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do what you're doing in your example above. To assume that everyone from Africa is non-white or everyone from Russia or Ukraine is white is original research (and wrong). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, the error is minimal. But well, I took a screenshot and saved the figures, it's up to you, if they are released or if they continue to be those boring figures. Tuxzos22 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding data not supported by the sources being cited is not 'minimal'. It is a violation of the trust put in contributors, and liable to result in an indefinite block if continued. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of genetic ancestry sources

I've removed a figure of 62.5% for Colombia from the table, which was based on this source. The source finds that, amongst a sample of Colombians, European ancestry was 62.5%, native American ancestry 27.4%, West African ancestry 9.2% and East Asian ancestry 0.9%. Even if we assumed that race can be simply inferred from genetic ancestry, it's a mistake to read these results as suggesting that 62.5% of Colombians are white, 27.4% are indigenous, etc., because most Colombians are of mixed ancestry (the figures from the study being the average ancestry). For related reasons, I don't believe any of the genetic studies cited in the section White people#Census and social definitions in different regions belong there - what do they have to do with census and social definitions? I propose removing them, unless anyone can make the case that they should stay. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they need to be removed. Using genetic data in this way is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"N/D"?

The table features an abbreviation of "N/D". What does this stand for or mean? I'd suggest either defining it with the table or omitting it. CAVincent (talk) CAVincent (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should also remove the totals for the continents. Even if those have been calculated from a list of all countries on each continent (for the Africa one this isn't the case), each country's figure uses a different definition and relates to a different year. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Puertorico2 for dealing with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Colour blind

definitely for colour blind people to think someone is black or white 101.119.99.10 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It IS rather inaccurate in most cases. Here in Australia, those of us with European ancestry vary in shades from a pale pink through various degrees of brownness depending on how much sun exposure we've had. On the way to those shades of brown there can be some very bright pinks and reds. We do have the world's highest rate of skin cancer, so I mostly avoid he sun these days. Because so many of my fellow Australians also do this, we have a lot of people with Vitamin D deficiency. (Am I making my country sound attractive?) HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTHING BIOLOGICALLY EXISTS!! WE HAVE ALL THE PROOF!!!

Excuse me, you violent fascist racists, THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!! Why doesn't this start like the articles here on "cauacasian" and "negro"?? Don't you know that sex,gender,race,ethnicity, and species do not BIOLOGICALLY EXIST??!! This is violence!!! "Races" are violence!! I will be holding you all accountable. J103A (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)