Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiracial people (2003)

M. Night Shaymalan

Would it really be appropiate to list M. Night Shaymalan's heritage here? Malayali and Tamil are both subgroups of Indian races; compared to the rest of the list, he's still 100% Indian.

Or am I missing some sort of fine distinction here?

- Mydemand

Scroll down the page, and you'll see that we've been arguing since Adam was a cowboy over what constitutes a "race." Speaking for myself, I think a case could be made out for claiming that North and South Indians are distinct races (though the distinction is far from being as watertight as many make out). Malayali and Tamil, however, are both South Indian, are geographically adjacent, and the only distinctions that I can figure out are language (two related languages, in fact) and religion (some 25 percent of the Malayali are Christian; the Tamil percentage is much lower). Neither distinction is racial, IMO. But, in an article like this, "race" seems to mean anything and everything that the editor of the moment wants to make it mean. I don't know whether we'll ever be able to establish an exact definition. David Cannon 01:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page Edit

To whomever has edited this page recently:

As I was in the process of adding to this page, my additions plus your changes, have caused half the data to be lost because I could not save half of what was there. Thanks.SD6-Agent 06:58, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It may be frustrating, but it's not the other editor's (not me) fault. In the event of an edit collision, you will have been given the chance either to merge you changes with the other person's or copy them elsewhere. -- Daran 16:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Page name

Would anyone object if I moved this to List of mixed-race people? The word "multiracial" is not one that I am familiar with (is it American?), and it sounds, to my ears at least, inappropriate. Not exactly offensive, but certainly strange. I consider myself to be of mixed race - partly one thing and partly another. The term "multiracial" seems to suggest belonging to many races - being all of one thing and all of another, at the same time, which wouldn't really work... "Mixed race people" gets more Google matches than "multiracial people", anyway. -- Oliver P. 16:49, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes -- I would definitely object. Perhaps this is more of an Americansim, but to me "mixed-race" emphasized the biological nature of this issue and sounds either vaguely clinical or overly focused on the "mixing of [distinct] races. "Multiracial" tends to be used in a way to empasize the cultural aspect, and to me is both closer to the spirit of the list and less likely to make someone wince when seeing the title. If you do this search for both at Google, you'll can see how these are used differently even in the same article. Also check out the Wikipedia article Multiracial.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:59, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. The debate about what "race" means (assuming it means anything at all) and whether it is biological or cultural or whatever is irrelevant to the present discussion. Both terms - "multiracial" and "mixed-race" - are based on the word "race", so produce exactly the same connotations in that respect.

The only difference is in the parts of the terms unrelated to race. It's a choice between the prefix "multi-" (meaning "many") and the adjective "mixed". If the people in the list were being said to be "multiracial" - "of many races" - the list would say e.g. that Kristin Kreuk was both (fully) Chinese and (fully) Dutch. It doesn't. It says "1/2 Chinese, 1/2 Dutch", which is clearly saying that she is partly Chinese and partly Dutch. A mixture, if you will.

The present title does make me wince, because it looks just plain wrong. To me, it makes no sense to describe a person as "multiracial". According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, "multiracial" means "made up of or relating to people of many races". Note that that's "people" in the plural. So it makes no sense, at least in standard British English, to apply the term to an individual. Maybe it has acquired another meaning, but as I said above, I'm not familiar with it. I've just asked a couple of other people here, and they're not familiar with it, either. Shouldn't we stick to terms that all English-speakers will understand?

By the way, in the Google search you give a link to, many of the pages use the word "multiracial" in its standard sense. There are some that don't, but I don't see how they help your argument. Rather, they show that even those people that use your meaning of "multiracial" also use the term "mixed-race", which suggests that it is considered perfectly acceptable by those people. -- Oliver P. 23:07, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Oliver. I won't get into a long response here, and rather than debate the logic of your position or the points you've made, I'll just note that it seems clear that the terms are used differently (or not used) in the States and in the UK. I was just trying to provide more info with the Google search, rather than explicitly support my "position."

The short version is that with the history of race in the USA, something about the term "mixed-race" immediately brings to mind (at least for me) other terms like miscegenation, mulatto, octoroon, and half-breed. Admittedly it's subjective, and you may or may not feel this is applicable, but you asked if anyone objected. It's up to you. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you're right, that "multiracial" must be an Americanism (I'm in the US) while "mixed-race" a Britishism. I also agree with Bcorr that to my American mind mixed-race sound slightly insulting, while I am sure Oliver's British mind finds multiracial insulting. Perhaps whichever we finally choose should have an explanation of that. I would say since we started it at multiracial, leave it there, and put a redirect from mixed-race. -- zandperl 15:52, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, if we're resigned to the fact that whatever title we have will offend someone, can't we at least have a title that is grammatically correct to everyone? :) -- Oliver P. 04:51, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To my (UK) ear "Multi-racial" sounds odd. Agree that it must be an American v's Brit usage thing. Is there a standard way in which such usage disputes are solved?--JK the unwise 14:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

See also: List of Queer composers, wikipedia:list, list of people, list of people by nationality. Reworked (Martin 13:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)) - pre-reworked version

Feature suggestion: WikiList project -> wikipedia talk:list

Keep

Delete

All or nothing (comments)

Remove, but only if we also remove other lists based on race.

I say, all or none. NPOV: if we must list people by race or ethnicity, then every person alive or dead should be able to be listed. If not, then we are not NPOV because some unlisted people will be in a second class, so to speak. If this page is deleted, then Wikipedia must delete every such page. If it is not deleted, then Wikipedia must create such pages for every race and we will need to decide what the official list of races are going to be. I think you can see where I'm going. Deleting them all would be best and most neutral. Daniel Quinlan 16:20, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the current list, but if it goes, so do other race-based lists (NOT nationality lists, however, two different things!). Most lists should be kept, however: without them, we lose a lot of important nodes connecting the 'pedia. -- Jake 14:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Other comments

The list could get long --deletionist

There are dozens of lists that could get really long. What's the problem with having a potentially long entry if the content is information? We don't list every applicable person alive or dead, just those who justify encyclopedia entries, and sometimes only a selection of them. --inclusionist

One criterion for reasonableness (besides interestingness) of a list is whether the group is small relative to the relevant population. E.g., reasonable: List of Nebraskans, List of Asian-Americans (which is fine), List of people with the same first and last name. Less reasonable: List of New Englanders, List of East Europeans, List of people with same first and last initial, List of people with some disability. Unreasonable: List of unmarried people (though List of marriages might be okay), List of European-Americans, List of people with different first and last name, List of men, List of people with glasses, List of heterosexuals (that was a big to-do). (Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary.) Multiracial seems an entirely reasonable and interesting category. -- VV 23:59, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Long precedence of such lists (could only be deleted if some sort of new general precedence on lists was create, unlikely). Not liking the list is not a reason for deletion. Lists of majority groups is silly -- common sense. Maximus Rex 04:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If these people are prominent for having done something, they should be listed for their accomplishments, not just for what they are. -- Arwel 11:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agree with "not just for what they are, but note that there's nothing to say a person can't be on multiple lists (what they did, "what" they are, where they're from, etc.)Jgm 12:22, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Meaningless?

Does anybody claim to be just one nation? Especially people from the former colonies like USA? Muriel Gottrop 15:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC) (2/8 german, 1/8 chinese from Macao and 5/8 portuguese)

The only question is how do we determine that a person is clearly of two "different" races? For example, would a person who was partly of Germanic blood and part Arab count as biracial, or would they merely count as Caucasian? And I think we should make a note on our page that we're not counting mestizo people as "interracial". Wiwaxia 22:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think these questions of definition and boundary and meaning are important ones, but just because the task is difficult doesn't mean we should delete! Let's just do the best we can. :) Martin 22:46, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think it's extraordinary that anyone would post a page on so-called "mixed race" people. Does anyone really believe in the 21st century that there is such a thing as an unmixed race? The page has no place in Wikipedia, IMHO, and I'm utterly amazed to even find it here. Alpheus

Neutral? Offensive?

It is POV to only have such lists for a limited subset of all potential ethnicities/races. Remember, NPOV attempts to have no standpoint on every issue, and saying only certain categories are interesting is certainly a standpoint. I would be comfortable keeping the list of multiracial people iff lists of people for more "standard" races appeared. Would anyone reading this like to help work on a list of caucasian people or list of famous caucasians? -- zandperl 01:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, the decision about what is interesting or not may not be fully neutral, but it has to be made daily. For instance, this very page constantly hosts debates about whether individual people "deserve" to have a Wikipedia page, which is of course a judgement call. But note that my standard is of interesting and small. Thus, lists of people of any continent-sized race (white, blacks, Asians) would be just too big; lists of people of a certain race within a nation in which they are a minority (e.g., European-Zimbabweans or Chinese-Malays or German-Chileans) is more reasonable by this standard. Similarly, biracial people are a small minority resulting from recent migration patterns and thus fit. Furthermore I don't think there's much doubt that they are of interest to many (above comments witness). -- VV 03:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A list of biracial people is certainly valid, considering we have lists of Chinese-Americans, Italians, Japanese, Mexicans and even Lithuanians (though people wanted to delete that last one). Wiwaxia 22:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am multiracial and I find this list offensive. You do not see a list of disabled people or a list of women, and either of these groups would likely also be offended if a list of "them" were created. Listing whom is mutiracial identifies these people solely by that characteristic rather than by their important contributions to society, and continues to marginalize us. In addition, I find the very existance of this list to be evidence of its non-NPOV (US Christian middle-class): there are no lists of Caucasian or Asian people (both groups are successful and accepted in America), but there are lists of African-Americans and Jews. Keep only if lists of Caucasians, Asians, disabled persons, non-disabled persons, women, men, heterosexuals, homosexuals, and so on, are to be created. --zandperl 16:03, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC) (1/2 Chinese, 1/2 Jewish and I don't even know what countries the Jewish comes from)

To repeat I point I previously made, if we have a list of people who are astronauts are we then required to compose a list of people who are not astronauts? If we say that Isaac Newton is famous enough to justify an entry but my sixth grade math teacher John Smith is not, are we saying that Newton is better than Smith? In my opinion, the obvious answer to both questions is no. The existence or non-existence a list or entry doesn't imply any moral value about the people who are in it. The question of whether a list is useful or interesting is one best handled by the same consensus used to judge whether or not a person is famous. MK 00:05 (EST) 27 October 2003

I am of mixed race, and I find the idea of deleting this list offensive. There, that's balanced that out nicely. ;) By the way, the principle of NPOV applies to the content of pages in the Wikipedia, but cannot apply to the selection of what pages to have. Everyone has their own points of view about what should be included, and it's impossible to accommodate all of them. My point of view is that lists of people are only interesting if the entry criterion is membership of a fairly small minority. (Okay, so everyone has ancestors from different ethnic groups, if you go back far enough, but only a minority are explicitly referred to as doing so.) It's not necessary for each list of members of a minority to have a complementary list that lists everyone who isn't in that minority. -- Oliver P. 00:38, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Further discussion

This page is a potential cross-referencing nightmare - anyone adding information to it which is not in or added to the page of the individual in question should be hunted down and yelled at. Onebyone 17:17, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I concur. Martin 21:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Muriel's suggestion for a Wikilist project -> Wikipedia:Wikitrivia discussion (i just created this one...)

I think this list should be limited to people whose mixed background is a major element in their life story. Tiger Woods, Brandon Lee, or Sean Lennon are known for self identifying as "mixed" or being the children of noteworthy "mixed" marriages. I don't think Winston Churchill or Ted Williams were ever regarded as anything other than "white" by the general public, even if they had some non-European ancestors. If this list includes everyone known (or rumored) to have an ancestor of a different "Race", it would be gigantic.

I see your point, but I don't really agree with it. I must admit that I'm a list-lover, but from my point of view a list of multi-racial people does more than anything to debunk the stereotype (more widespread in some countries than in others) that multi-racial people are somehow "outside" of the mainstream. This list proves the opposite. The fact that Winston Churchill was "never regard as anything other than 'white'" is, to me, proof that society as a whole does not mentally segregate people who might have had an ancestor or two from another place. They do, however, regard it as in interesting curiosity. This has been my own experience also - I, too, am multiracial (commonly regarded as "white" by culture; I have Maori ancestry which, although not obvious to most people, does make me look slightly different from the average "Pakeha" (white) New Zealander, and people often ask me where I come from. But they ask me purely out of curiosity. That's all it is. Otherwise, I'm simply a New Zealander who is proud of his Maori, Scottish, English, Irish, Dutch, and French ancestors. Does it isolate me from "mainstream culture" (if there is such a thing) in any way? NO! But many people, especially from homogeneous nations like Korea (where my wife comes from) think it does. As I said, this list debunks that ridiculous notion better than anything else I know. David Cannon 09:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't this page (and all the others of a similar nature) be made into a category? That way maintainance would be simple, and ultimately a tool could be built to answer queries "What was the name of that woman conductor, I think she was Polynesian?" (OTOH I expect this has all been thrashed out elsewhere.) 213.48.182.7 09:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should this page have red links? I don't like the Category idea - category lists don't include additional information, so you would be forced to click on the link to figure out who the person was. On the other hand, if you have no requirement of notability, I could list myself, my niece, siblings, my brother-in-law (and all his family) most of my cousins...I could add 50 only moderately notable multi-racial people to this list in as long as it takes me to type their names. If you limit the page to people who are notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia (even a stub would do) that would allow the community to set a standard of inclusion. Or someone like me could make this into a vanity list of their friends and relatives. Guettarda 20:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush and Pocahontas

I'm sorry about inserting, deleting, and reinserting this information over the last few days. I removed my original insertion of the Bush-Pocahontas link after reading some articles online which disproved (conclusively) the lineage usually claimed. However, the most thorough genealogy I've come across shows that President Bush is, in fact, a Pocahontas descendant - through a different line. It goes thus:

GENERATION 13 4564. John ROLFE was born 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England and was christened 6 May 1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, , England. He died 22 Mar 1622 in Jamestown, James City, , Virginia,USA. John married Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) on 5 Apr 1614 in Jamestown, , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

4565. Pocahontas Motoaka - (Princess) was born about 1595 in Werowocomoco, , , Virginia,USA. She died Mar 1617 in Gravesend, Kent, , England and was buried 21 Mar 1617 in St. George's, Gravesend, Kent, England. [Parents]

GENERATION 12 2282. Thomas ROLFE (Lieutenant) was born 30 Jan 1615 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. He died 1656 in Virginia, USA. Thomas married Jane POYTHRESS in , , , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

2283. Jane POYTHRESS was born about 1620 in Jamestown, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 11 1140. Robert BOLLING (Colonel) was born 26 Dec 1646 in All Hallows, London, Middlesex, England. He died 7 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA and was buried 17 Jul 1709 in Kippax, Charles City, Virginia, USA. Robert married Jane ROLFE on 1675 in Petersburg, Ind. City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

1141. Jane ROLFE was born 10 Oct 1650 in Petersburg, Virginia, USA. She died 1676 in Kippax, Charles City, , Virginia,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 10 570. Robert BOLLING (Jr.) (Major) was born 25 Jan 1681 in Charles City, Virginia, USA. He died before 3 Jan 1748/1749 in , , Prince George, Virginia,USA. Robert married Anne May COCKE on 27 Jun 1706. [Parents]

571. Anne May COCKE was born 27 Jan 1705 in Prince George County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 9 284. James MUNFORD (Major) was born 1708 in Prince George County, Virginia. He died 25 Apr 1754 in Prince George County, Virginia. James married Elizabeth BOLLING on 1727 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

285. Elizabeth BOLLING was born 17 Dec 1709 in Prince George County, Virginia. She died 1754 in Amelia County, Virginia. [Parents]

GENERATION 8 142. Robert MUNFORD married Anne BROADNAX. [Parents]

143. Anne BROADNAX was born in Charles City County, Virginia. She died after 1780. [Parents]

GENERATION 7 70. John SHELLMAN (Jr.) was born 5 May 1756 in Frederickstown, , , Maryland,USA. He died 17 Apr 1838 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. John married Clarissa MUNFORD. [Parents]

71. Clarissa MUNFORD was born in Amelia County, Virginia. She died Feb 1845. [Parents]

GENERATION 6 34. Samuel Howard FAY was born 21 Jul 1804 in Cambridge, , Middlesex, Massachusetts,USA. He died 16 Aug 1847 in Brooklyn, , , New York,USA. Samuel married Susan SHELLMAN on 5 Jul 1825 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. [Parents]

35. Susan SHELLMAN was born 20 Feb 1808 in Savannah, , , Georgia,USA. She died 12 Jan 1887. [Parents]

GENERATION 5 16. James Smith BUSH (Reverend) was born 15 Jun 1825 in Rochester, , Monroe, New York,USA. He died 11 Nov 1889 in Ithaca, , Tompkins, New York,USA. James married Harriet Eleanor FAY on 24 Feb 1859 in New York City, , , New York,USA. [Parents]

17. Harriet Eleanor FAY was born 29 Oct 1829 in Savannah, , Chatham, Georgia,USA. She died 27 Feb 1924 in Boston, , Suffolk, Massachusetts,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 4 8. Samuel Prescott BUSH was born 4 Oct 1863 in Brick Church, , , New Jersey,USA. He died 8 Feb 1948 in Columbus, , Franklin, Ohio,USA. Samuel married Flora SHELDON on 20 Jun 1894 in Columbus, , , Ohio,USA. [Parents]

9. Flora SHELDON was born 17 Mar 1872 in , Franklin, , Ohio,USA. She died 4 Sep 1920 in Watch Hill, , , Rhode Island,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 3 4. Prescott Sheldon BUSH was born 15 May 1895 in Columbus, Franklin, , Ohio,USA. He died 8 Oct 1972 in New York City, , , New York,USA. Prescott married Dorothy WALKER on 6 Aug 1921 in Kennebunkport, York, , Maine,USA. [Parents]

5. Dorothy WALKER was born 1 Jul 1901 in Nr. Walker's, Point, York, Maine,USA. She died 19 Nov 1992 in Greenwich, , , Connecticut,USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 2 2. George Herbert Walker BUSH was born 12 Jun 1924 in Milton, Massachusetts, USA. He married Barbara PIERCE on 6 Jan 1945 in Rye, New York, USA. [Parents]

3. Barbara PIERCE was born 8 Jun 925 in Rye, Westchester, New York, USA. [Parents]

GENERATION 1 1. George Walker BUSH was born 6 Jul 1946 in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut. [Parents]

Accordingly, I have reinserted the information about Bush. I have left out the information about the FDR, Nixon, and Ford, which I have not (yet) found any proof. David Cannon 14:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What constitutes a race?

In the article it states "Leelee Sobieski Polish-French". Aren't the French considered to be the same "race" as the Poles along with the rest of Europe?

There is no universally agreed definition of what constitutes a "race". People bandy the word about as if everybody knows what it means, but in reality it means many things to many people. One Kenyan I know used the word "races" to refer to what most of us would call "tribes" in his country. I've heard admirers of the Polish people call them a "race." Others would define "race" by skin colour or other physical characteristics. Still others use the word synonymously with "culture." Perhaps the best definition that I've seen is "a family tree that inbreeds to some extent." Really, I don't like the word "race" because there's no definition of it that would be universally applicable. Perhaps a better title for the list might be "List of multiethnic people." What do you think? David Cannon 23:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prince Charles

What have I read here? Prince Charles is of Mongolian descent and is also a direct descendant of Muhammad? Is this a joke or something? Meursault2004 23:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can't say about the Genghis Khan thing (though a good proportion of the people in the world are), but it's pretty widely accepted that the Royal Family is descendent of the Prophet Muhammad. Guettarda 01:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prove it without original research and without POV. Just because YOU are multiracial, doesn't mean the whole world follows your footsteps or is exemplifying your desire to not be relatively alone. I resent your insult, so back it up!

Lol. Have your fun at Stormfront dude. My people actually died for those idiotic ideas, paid the price in blood for Nazi ideals - and consigned them to the rubbish heap of history.

Who do you think you're talking to? How do you profess to know-it-all about everything and everyone? Stop your POV rampage and the suppression of dissent from your arrogant opinions. This is not a debate over your worth as a person. This is about your predilection for not maintaining an open scholarship here at Wikipedia by promoting your interests and demeaning that of others. The issue was about Prince Charles' legitimate claim to the blood of Islam's greatest prophet, which to many it appears to be attention grabbing, more than anything serious(in order to promote good feelings throughout the Commonwealth). You did not provide proof of his descent, therefore you are guilty of endorsing your personal viewpoint without accepting the possibility of another perception of the issue. Don't be so quick to judge others, for you appear to be projecting your own image onto circumstances that have little to do with you. That is a compromise on Wikipedian policy of NPOV. You should use empirical science.

Pick one dude, empiricism, or references? Which one are you asking for? Or don't you even know the difference? I didn't insert the claim, I merely answered a question. Doublespeak doesn't help you much - calling propaganda NPOV doesn't make it so, no matter how much you wish for it. We all read your posts at http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 Guettarda 23:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're accusing me of something I did not know until you showed me it. How paranoid you appear. I don't need to prove myself to anybody as this is an Open Source project for anyone willing to be NPOV, anyways. My time on this website has nothing to do with anybody but me as I do not have online confidants or an e-family. Nor do I fit into any stereotype you'll label me as. I just am who I am and it's surely not a part of any pressure group. You seem to be engaged in some sort of witchhunt, that I neither wish to participate in, nor be disturbed by. Take your self-aggrandisation elsewhere, for you will not engender my friendship with your persecutive attitude. You'll probably be surprised that you are acting a bit like Joseph McCarthy, so I will dub thee Witchfinder General. This argument, however seems to be turning into a joke because you have your preconcieved notions of who I am and what I stand for. I will not argue with you further and if you cyberstalk me, I'll just ignore you. http://members.dodo.net.au/~grindercom/argument.jpg

Your characterizations of the British nobility were hardly NPOV. Rick K 04:10, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. I will not battle you across several pages. Borderer 04:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, RickK, I vehemently object to your automatic rv on the things I edit without some EXPLANATION AS PERTAINS TO RULES AND NOT TASTE! Borderer 04:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize we were battling. And I reverted your edits because of the explanation I gave above. Rick K 04:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, Prince Charles's descent from Muhammad is supported by Steve Jones (biologist), author of In the Blood. Now, I'm not saying that he is infallible or that he doesn't have a barrel to push (how would I know?), but he is a respected academic whose ideas are at least worthy of consideration. I believe Harold Brookes-Baker of Burke's Peerage has also supported the claim indirectly (he made such a claim about George W. Bush, who descends from the same claimed link as Prince Charles). Yes, I know that Brooke-Baker is no prophet (he mispredicted the American election), but he is a good historian. If you want me to provide links, give me a couple of days and I will do so. Note that I'm not calling this evidence "proof," but I am saying that it cannot be dismissed out of hand. David Cannon 05:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate listings

Donald Trump, with his alleged Scottish & Swedish-American ancestry, does not belong in this article. The article is called "List of multiracial people". I realize that at some point somebody added the tag "Here is a list of ... multinational people", but the spirit of that addition was NOT to turn this into a list of white people who have ancestry from multiple European countries. Nearly all of the USA and a good percentage of people in many other countries will join this list if that's how inclusion is determined.

Other "multi-ethnic" whites like Leelee Sobieski were deleted long ago. The inclusion of someone like Donald Trump goes completely against the purpose of this article. Nobody looks up multiracial people so they can find someone from Scotland and Sweden.

It isn't good form to delete an entry from a page without explaining it in your edit summary. But more importantly, the page should be factually accurate. As it stands, anyone could fit on this page. If you don't think the page should be dilute to the point of meaninglessness, then you should raise the issue of the scope of the page, and if the editors agree, then you can make the change. But we can't have a situation in which the scope of the page follows some unspoken rule. To say that "multi-national" applies only when the two nations are not "white" nations is factually inaccurate. The "rules" have to be transparent and interpretable by any and all users. Of course, where you draw the lines between ethnic or racial groups is another joke. If we leave out "white" multi-nationals, does that mean that we leave out:

Catherine Bell, actress, Iranian mother, British father (I believe that US census considers Iranians "white")
Queen Noor of Jordan, father Syrian/Lebanese, mother Swedish (again, Arabs are "white"
Alexander Siddig, actor, mother white, father Arab
Jehan Sadat, former First Lady of Egypt, widow of Anwar Sadat, Egyptian mother, English father

Either these things need to be clearly defined, or the page is a meaningless mess. I'm not saying that the definitions (as they exist on the page) are good, because they are not, but it must be meaningful and transparent. Guettarda 23:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[and please sign your postings]

So let's use this opportunity to give some clarity to this page. Anyone who is not multi-racial should be removed from this page, Multi-ethnicity and multi-nationalism encompasses far too many people to ever hope to include in any kind of complete listing. As far as defining races, this is not my field of expertise but my suggestion would be to divide things as follows: European/White, African/Black, Arabian, South Asian, Oriental, Pacific Islander, & indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, and anywhere else I've forgotten. Anyone whose ethnic background lies completely within any of these groups would be eliminated from this page. Also, if I were deciding things, an individual could have a maximum of 7/8 (or should it be 3/4 or 1/2?) of one particular ethnicity to fit on the list. [I forget how to sign and can't find the instructions]

I would also request that anyone added to this page meet some level of notability - either they have a Wikipedia entry, or they could have one. Guettarda 14:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is a race?

In the last revision, Davidcannon wants to know what a race is. I'm not an anthropologist or biologist. Of all the people who have submitted revisions to this article, are there any who hold those titles? If we have to "define" race before we can add or subtract any list entries, we might as well delete the article.

I have never heard of Korean and Japanese classified as unique races. If there is a definition that would support such a classification, it would likely also support classifiying every ethnicity as a separate race. The list could get very long.

--discospinster 12:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Originally the list was "multi-racial, multi-ethnic or multi-national" people - which was unworkably broad. The problem is that there is no good definition of race (see race). In the US someone who is half Mexican (regardless of race) and half Anglo would count as multi-racial, but someone with one (white) Mexican parent and one (black) Mexican parent would not (they would simply be Hispanic). Similarly, someone who is half Swedish-American and half Egyptian-American would be white. On the other hand, there was a time when the English "race" was considered distinct from the French "race". We can try and come up with a working definition, we can return to the original definition, or we can just go by what "feels" right.

If there is no good definition of race, should we include multi-ethnic people? But how do we define ethnic groups? Would people who are half Welsh and half Cornish qualify? Guettarda 14:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree. To me, a white who has French and English is considered as mixed. If you say that a white is "pure" just because he has the bloodlines of the two European race, I would say it as a pure European (White) at most. Mr Tan 11:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yi Ku amd Takeshi Kaneshiro

Yi Ku is Japanese and Korean mix: Koreans and Japanese are considered seperate races. Takeshi Kaneshiro is half Chinese and Japanese, and they are seperate races too.

Post objections here, and state why, please. Mr Tan 13:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As commonly used, "East Asians" comprise a single "race". Koreans and Japanese would be separate ethnic /national groups, not races. Of course, race is a social construct and there is no such thing as race biologically, so all arguments about who should or should not be included on this page are pretty much bunk. More importantly, although people make protests (one way or the other) from time to time, no-one has followed through with a firm proposal. The "original" format of this page (ie, the way I found it about a year ago) was that it included multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-national people. Some people found this usage overly broad and cut it down to multi-racial, but without defining "race" (it now includes obvious non-races, like "Hispanic" which is nothing more than a creation of the US Census bureau). I sometimes wonder if the page shouldn't be deleted as "hopelessly POV". Guettarda 14:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Singapore, A Chinese-Japanese mix is already considered a mix race. And what is race? The definition of race is the same as ethnic group, I believe. If you oppose, please give me sources of information that "race" and "ethinc group" is different. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While there is not good definition of race (see the race article) the traditional view was that there was ~5 races - european, african, east asian, australian and american. The US census belives that there are 5 "races" as well - white, black, asian and pacific, hispanic, and native american and hawaiian native. Of course these groupings are biologically meaningless. So common usage would suggest that Chinese and Japanese are not separate races. But I don't oppose their inclusion, because this page does not include a definition of "multiracial". Guettarda 13:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If a Korean-Japanese couple would be considered "mix race" then so might a Scot and a German. I can only assume that Europe today is populated with such mix race couples. Our list would become longer and more meaningless. -Acjelen 12:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, A French and a scot are seperate races. If they are considered one race, they might as well be called European, but the word "European" means one who lives on Europe. And you see, the Vietnamese (Kinh) and the Chinese (Hoa) are considered seperate races in Vietnam. And so the Malays and Chinese are considered separate in Singapore and Malaysia. Why don't we call them "Asians" in that sense, like "White", or "European" and call them a race then? Look at how the "race" is actually defined, and to hell what the US government what is the free definition of race. Mr Tan 18:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Race" has no good, generally accepted definition. Historically anthropologists and biologists agreed on five races, but there is little modern support in academia, although most people still use these races. Using "race" for national or ethnic groups has not been used widely in English for a long time - not since WWII, would be my guess. US census definitions of race are significant because so much scholarship is done in the US. Published literature on "race" often use biologically meaningless US census categories like "Hispanic" and "Asian". If we ignored that and only used the old-fashioned 19th-20th century idea of 5 races...we'd have to list almost all Latin Americans and African-Americans as multi-racial. So using US census categories, while dishonest, keep this list from growing even longer and more unwieldy. Guettarda 18:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Foxy Brown

"...mixed black and Trinidadian descent..." The interview says "Asian and Trinidadian" descent, which is too vague to be specific. Assuming that she is a Trinidad Marchand, then you're looking at (at the very least) 150-200 years of mulatto ancestry. The "Asian" could be either Indian or Chinese - likely both. "Multiracial" is the only meaningful term. Guettarda 17:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is about "multiracial" people. If she is only of Trinidadian descent she should be removed from this list. She is part African-American right? Please clarify her multiracial status on the list and describe what a Trinidad Marchand is for those who don't know.

I think I read somewhere that (like Jay-Z) Foxy Brown's Asian component of her heritage is Chinese. I could be wrong; but I also disagree with Guettarda above saying that "Asian and Trinidadian" is "too vague". Maybe the person who added Foxy Brown to this list didn't know specifically which part of Asia her ancestor comes from. I personally have no problem with the phrase. Jalabi99 14:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If she is only of Trinidadian descent she should be removed from this list. - not at all, 18% of Trinidadians are multi-racial. On the other hand, "Trinidadian" is not a race.
"African American" - if she is an American of Afro-Trinidadian descent, she is African American (see Mervyn Dymally, for example, who is "African American" despite the fact that he was born in Trinidad to an Indo-Trinidadian father and a mother who was (I think) of Venezuelan descent).
"Trinidadian" is not a race, so you cannot say that your race is mixed Trinidadian and Asian. >40% of Trinidadians are either Indo-Trinidadian or Chinese Trinidadian. You could say "mixed race Trinidadian and Chinese descent" if she has a parent from China, or you could say Mixed race Trinidadian (which is what most Marchands are, and probably have been for generations) or you could say mixed African, Asian (and European?) of Trinidadian descent.
I could describe myself as being of "Trinidadian and Asian descent", but that would be a meaningless statement - Trinidadian is not a race.

Unless you know how the "Asian" and "Trinidadian" fall out, it is a potentially misleading statement. Guettarda 17:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewishness as race?

Can some resolution be made on whether a person with two White/Caucasian parents, one of which is Jewish, should be considered mixed race? (e.g Reinhard Heydrich, SS Obergruppenführer, German with one Jewish grandparent (disputed by revisionists)) Yes I know it's often claimed as a race but this usage seems at variance with Wiki usage (e.g. see above, def. of "5 races") --Dpr 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Arab descent is being used as a 'race' (e.g. the king of Jordan), I think the same can be true of Jewish descent. The last thing this list needs to close attention. If a more strict definition of race is used, we will need to delete (and continually delete) many individuals. -Acjelen 17:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]