Jump to content

Talk:Caucasian race/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

DNA tribes

I'm querying if DNA tribes can be considered a reliable source.[1] I don't dispute that "caucasian race" is not supported by genomic analysis, but the article states that 'Human genome studies have shown that there is no single and simple genetic definition equivalent to "Caucasian"', we need to provide a published study from a reliable source to make this claim. Are the claims of DNA tribes published in a reliable source (an academic journal for example)? I'm not convinced that a commercial company, which obviously has a vested interest in promoting their products, can be considered a reliable source. Two recent academic studies would dispute the claim of DNA tribes that Europe is composed of several "races". Rather genomic variation in Europe is characterised by isolation by distance and not into genetic clusters.Genes mirror geography within Europe and Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe Do we have a reliably published source besides DNA tribes? Alun (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See the Talk thread just above this one. You're probably seeing a fragment of the NPOV intro I'm trying to get in against the efforts of some activists-cum-encyclopedists.
Regarding that link, I was just trying to use something showing genetic diversity to support the view against a genetic basis for major races, in my effort at presenting that side of the issue.
I think my phrasing is good though -- as it's concise and can comprise a range of views on the subject.
So to support the general premise in a thoroughly neutral way, without getting into unnecessary detail here (certainly not advocacy of one particular view I'm sure you will agree), I propose this very general reference:
The History and Geography of Human Genes By Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza
http://books.google.com/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&printsec
I am just now reverting to my full NPOV intro from the latest reversion -- I will add the Cavalli-Sforza link there. When that gets vandalized again, you can add it to the vandalism, then I'll revert to my version, etc., etc., and both will hopefully end up with Cavalli-Sforza  : )
Thanks
BindingArbitration (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Edit War 1 Dec 2008 - Ramdrake vs Binding Arbitration

Ramdrake has just reversed my latest reworking of the intro with an Edit Summary "Previous wording was better."

But the version he wants doesn't clarify the distinction between the technical use of Caucasian which can include very dark-skinned people in India, and "white".

And then it equates "white" to "European" -- which is very racist in the U.S. where most Middle Easterners are definitely "white" (and Caucasian).

And there's a logic problem in the final phrase 'usually with its more restricted sense of "white" ' -- vs the intro sentence which says Caucasian = white. And the only way to correct that without getting awkward would be to say 'usually with its more restricted sense of "European" ' (compounding the white=European racism).

So there has to be some reworking to clarify these issues.


RAMDRAKE WANTS:


BINDINGARBITRATION WANTS:



You can see that I'm making it clear that Caucasian may not be equal to white, and that white may include non-Europeans.

So I'm going to revert to this and in my Edit Summary direct Ramdrake to this Talk section.

BindingArbitration (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

"The concept of a Caucasian race was developed around 1800, and today, most scholars reject the concept because human genome studies have shown that there is no genetic definition of Caucasian." Who the hell can quote such a nonsense on Wikipedia? And to use obsolete bluffs of some leftist like Lewontin as a source? Are we still in the 21th century?! Or do we return to the Dark Ages of ignorance? There are already several autosomal studies showing clear genetic clustering of Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Papuomelanesians, Native Americans and Africans. Centrum99 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

KlastrBastosRodriguezBarvySmall.jpg

L. Bastos-Rodriguez ET AL.: The Genetic Structure of Human Populations Studied Through Short Insertion-Deletion Polymorphisms. Annals of Human Genetics, vol. 70 (Pt5), September 2006, pp. 658-665

"According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has been all but completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology...IN THE UNITED STATES AND POLITICALLY CORRECT CIRCLES IN WESTERN EUROPE! Centrum99 (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Two things that are not the same

I searched for "Caucasoid race" and was redirected to this article. The two concepts "Caucasoid race" and "caucasian race" are however wildly different. The "Caucasian" race is literally people from the Caucasus. This would include Armenians, Georgians etc. These people would likely be described as "Armenoid". In the USA the term "Caucasian" has come to signify "White" people, and is most commonly used to refer to people of Northern European Germano-Celtic descent. Ironically some "Anglo" types would not consider Armenians or Chechens to be part of "their" "Caucasian" race!

"Caucasoid" however is a broad term that includes all Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans, Western Asians, and some South Asians and Central Asians. Would an North Indian or an Arab be classified as "Caucasian"? But both are undoubtedly Caucasoid. Dr Rgne (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Anthropology

"In the United Kingdom and Europe, the term "Caucasian" is mostly used to describe people from the Caucasus, although it may still be used as a racial classification.[13]" Is it true that in the UK Stalin, for instance, would be described as a Caucasian and not as a Georgian? I ask because English Usage in the UK and USA. is not particularly accurate in many of its examples. Usually in the US we'd describe persons who lived in the Caucasus by country of origin or ethnic identity: Armenian or Kurd and seldom or never as Caucasian.Nitpyck (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgian would suggest Nationality, Caucasian ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is easy for some to confuse POLITICAL terms with SCIENTIFIC terms or just be confused in general. Hence, Nitpyck is far more correct in the encyclopedic sense, if not political vs scientific sense, as the term is the evidence based approach, science. Politics will catch up at varying times, nation and culture dependent.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What page in De generis humani varietate nativa liber?

The Latin book is here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=zzkC1Z1LqWkC&ots=aKED-miFK6&dq=De%20generis%20humani%20varietate%20nativa&pg=PP1&output=text

What page has the quotation where he talks about Caucasian people being attractive?--Sonjaaa (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What IS attractive? To WHOM? If one is Caucasian, one typically is attracted to one's peers, hence, typically, race. If one is from and always has lived in India, Indians are attractive. If one is of the Sikljskdfjhksh tribe, hidden deep in a classified region of the planet that has no outside influence, they'll be attracted to one of the Sikljskdfjhksh tribe. Hence, the author placed a SUBJECTIVE opinion into what SHOULD have been a SCIENTIFIC paper, which would have NO opinion, only facts, theories, conjecture and EVIDENCE. As I do not currently read Latin (it's on my to do list), from the dead language, hence the dated nature and noted cultural lack of true science, based upon contemporary views of what science is, the reference is obviously POV on the part of the author.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple problems with this article

"The term Caucasian (or Caucasoid) race has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.[1] Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone. In common use, the term is sometimes restricted to Europeans and other lighter-skinned populations within these areas"

This is confusing, within what areas? If this sentence is referring to Non-European Caucasians (Mid East, North Africa, Central Asia, Etc.) it should say so.

"Several journals (e.g. Nature Genetics, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, and the British Medical Journal) have issued guidelines stating that researchers should carefully define their populations and avoid broad-based social constructions, due to the fact that these categories are more likely to be measuring differences in socioeconomic class and access to medical treatment that disproportionately affect minority groups, rather than "racial" differences.[18] Nevertheless, there are journals (e.g. the Journal of Garstroentorology and Hepatology and Kidney International) that continue to use poorly defined "racial" categories such as Caucasian"

"Poorly defined "racial" categories such as Caucasian" is a biased statement. Whether or not it is "poorly defined" is a matter of debate. Most people know that Caucasian means the people of eur., Mid East, Central Asia, N. Africa, Etc. If it is referring to whether Caucasian is a valid construct, this is also a matter of debate.

The phrase "poorly defined" should be removed and the quotes should be removed from "racial", this implies sarcasm.

71.244.245.163 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

this is true. The concept isn't "poorly defined", this is talking down to the efforts of 19th century scholarship. The proper way to phrase it is that it was defined very elaborately, but in ways that have since turned out not to be tenable scientifically and which are thus obsolete. This is like calling Alchemy a poorly defined science, while it is in fact a highly elaborate one, which just happens to be obsolete. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some journals seem to endorse the concept of race. There is actually debate about whether they are valid, so I don't think that the article should take a position on the usefulness or accuracy of the concept beyond quoting positions.Goramon (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

I believe that any problems with sources cited should be discussed here before removing material attributed to those sources. What specifically is wrong with the sources that the material they are cited for must be removed from the article? -- Donald Albury 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is in chronological order as they appear in the article.
1.A definition being "falsely" restricted to white skin Europeans. It's not "false", http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Caucasian "b. Of or relating to a racial group having white skin, especially one of European origin; white.". It's a different definition of a word, not a "false" definition of the word.
2. I read that article by Lewontin, and i couldn't find a quote supporting what "most scholars" think, so I deleted it for not supporting the statement. If you can find the quote in the article then tell me as I asked in the edit summary.
3. About "Caucasians" usually referring to people from the Caucus in the UK, I am skeptical since in Australia Caucasian refers to a racial group and usually words are used in the same way in Australia and the UK(if it is different to the American usage). The website wasn't a reliable source, as for the book listed I'd like a quote otherwise the null hypothesis is the word is used in the same way.
Update - I searched the cambridge dictionary online and the primary definition was "belonging to the races of people who have skin :that is of a pale colour:
The chief suspect for the robbery is a Caucasian male."
Also searched Oxford " • adjective 1 relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa. 2 white-skinned; of European origin. 3 relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe. "
So you can see that these definitions support that "white skinned European" isn't a false definition, and that usage of Caucasian is not different in the UK.
4. Using "racial" in inverted commas expresses a sarcastic or judgmental tone about the decisions made to use that taxonomy. I don't think it's in supporting a NPOV, but I did delete too many words and your edit did improve the sentence. I think it would be more neutral to say "Nevertheless, there are journals (e.g. the Journal of Garstroentorology and Hepatology and Kidney International) that continue to use categories such as Caucasian."Goramon (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the statement cited to Lewontin. It doesn't need citing, as an equivalent statement is cited later, but in any case you should either have found another citation, or added a 'fact' tag. I've replaced the inverted commas also. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Dougweller do you agree with me about my points 1 and 2 (that the UK definition statement was false in light of the Cambridge and Oxford evidence) and that a dictionary definition should not be considered false?
In any case, I deleted your edits because of WP:BURDEN and WP:NPOV. I disagree that such a statement is exactly referenced in the article and am also unsure if the cited source agrees with that statement exactly. You asked me to read the "inverted commas" article like it was a wikipedia policy, which it isn't. I would describe the usage of comas in that situation as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes , and since scare quotes imply irony and that the word is a misnomer then I believe using them is not in keeping with a NPOV.Goramon (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No, dictionary definitions should not be considered false, but they can be considered wrong or inappropriately used. You have raised no NPOV issues, just a general comment, which is not sufficient. You are also refusing to either add a 'verify' tag or a fact tag and instead have chosen to delete the statement "The concept of a Caucasian race was developed around 1800. Today most scholars reject the concept because human genome studies have not demonstrated a precise genetic definition of Caucasian". Exactly what problems do you have with the two sentences? You are at 3RR, I'll place the appropriate warning on your page. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV issue i bought up was using scare quotes around some journals use of racial catergories which as I mentioned imply the word is a misnomer which is obviously not a neutral point of view. It has been mentioned that other journals do not consider these labels accurate/appropriate which is fine, but if other journals use them then it should be reported neutrally i.e. without scare quotes.
As for the two sentences, my problem is quite simply that it is not appropriately sourced so I removed it as per WP:Burden "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." so as you can see if you want to reinsert that statement the burden of proof is on you to find that the source supports it and find the quote.
Also I don't think Lewinton is correct in his 1972 hypothesis (basically he argues that races do not exist because there aren't individual genes that uniquely identify races, while this is the case races can be classified genetically by groups of genes just as we can easily physically classify races into broad catergories with an error rate approaching zero). The fact that Lewinton is wrong doesn't matter though, verifiability and not truth is the issue and competing points of view can also be expressed in the article in a neutral way.Goramon (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You are selectively quoting. WP:Burden also says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.". I have pointed out twice now that you had other choices than to remove the text. What you seem to be saying is that you have no problem with what the two sentences actually say, just that you don't think the sources back them up. Have you read WP:Point? Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I did make a reasonable effort to find the supporting quote myself and failed to do so. I also offered that perhaps I missed it and invited other editors to find it. I also rate the quote as contentious (since medical journals continue it's usage) and factually incorrect (since Lewontin's hypothesis while using true premises draws a false conclusion and has been refuted in papers such as "Lewontin's fallacy"). WP:BURDEN is actually extremely simple, as I've pointed out earlier. I did make a good faith effort to support the source, you however did not when you re-inserted the quote contrary to letter and spirit of the WP:BURDEN policy.Goramon (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
A bit of piling on here, but I agree with Dougweller. I will delete unsourced material, but only if it was very recently added and strikes me as unlikely or out of place, or I know that it is contradicted by available sources. If a statement cites a source that you think does not support the statement, you can place a {{verify}} tag on it, or raise the question on the talk page. If you want to challenge an unsourced statement that has existed in an article for a while, you can place a {{fact}} tag on it and/or raise the issue on the talk page. Once a change you have made has been reverted by another editor, it is bad form (see Wikipedia:Edit war) to reinstate the change without discussing the change on the talk page. -- Donald Albury 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't agree with Dougweller, because you said I was deleting sourced material in your initial objections. Now what I would like to know is which properly sourced material I deleted? Since your initial objections have been shown to be false you have now shifted to an argument about "poor form". This leads me to the conclusion that you have a bias, whether you know it or not, when editing this page. In this case I am not merely deleting unsourced material but also balancing a highly biased POV pushing article. Further WP:BURDEN is quite clear that the burden of proof is on the editors reinserting it unsourced edits. Goramon (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now done what I should have done earlier, reinstated the sentences which in fact have not been challenged, with the fact tag suggested. Some sources - [2] which says "The term Caucasian categorizes populations on the ill-defined basis of a common origin in the distant past in the Caucasus region of Central Europe. Most populations originating in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, for example, are Caucasian. Except as an erroneous euphemism for referring to persons of European descent, the word has little value in race, ethnicity, and health research. Freedman's8 plea that this tenm be rejected by science should be accepted." (Freedman BJ. Caucasian. BMJ. 1994;288: 696-698.), and maybe this book [3]. I'm looking for some other stuff. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What you should have done is not re-insert unsourced content as per WP:BURDEN and not reinserted scare quotes as per WP:NPOV. So simple. I would also argue that you were wrong to reinsert the quote, if i may call it that, without the source since I may have missed it. But it's good to see that you are finding other sources and making an effort to properly cite positions. You are wrong that these sentences have not been challenged, or that this is even particularly relevant since "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", obviously a statement such as that could be challenged. Goramon (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You wrote "As for the two sentences, my problem is quite simply that it is not appropriately sourced". There are two of us saying that you handled this incorrectly. I didn't reinsert a quote as there was no quote. And you hit 4RR last night. You edit rarely but each time you edit you seem to be edit warring. The text you removed last night is clearly sourceable and you should know that if you know the subject. I'll give you a clue, Meiners and Blumenbach (writing separately). This is not controversial and removing it does not balance the article in any way. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason I removed it is that it wasn't properly sourced, that's the only valid reason to remove it. I went on to explain that the quote was in fact incorrect and the position that Lewontin has taken on this issue is 36 years old and subsequently refuted by a more nuanced approach. However, I think an admin should know that the standard for inclusion is verifiability and not truth so you should know that this is irrelevant. Instead you try and imply my position is logically incoherent due to my focus on verifiability and not refuting the statement. I focusing on the issue at hand because I have arrived at the impression that you don't understand basic wiki policy so stuck to the relevant point. Further I have made many other changes that were initially reinserted with poor or false arguments that have subsequently been conceded. I have improved this article markedly in contrast to POV pushers who are making the process of simple changes based on simple policies, such as verifiability and NPOV, difficult.
I made a good faith edit to find a supporting quote to the statement, (and saying "I didn't reinsert a quote as there was no quote." is conceding it should be removed as per "^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."). As I have said from the outset this is simple. Thanks for your hints about where to look for a supporting quote but "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." meaning that if you don't find "a reliable, published source using an inline citation." the statement will be removed as per policy.Goramon (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will make things simple. What quote are you referring to? Did I miss some quotation marks? And please stop the handwaving about pov pushers unless you are going to start being specific about who and what. I haven't seen many changes made by you, by the way. And your opinion of my knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines appears, shall we say to be polite, ironic considering your history of edit warring. Maybe you should consider the possibility that you don't have a broad enough understanding yet - after all, you haven't done much editing, have you? Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I made the 4 changes I justified above, the "quote" i'm referring to is the unsourced edit about most scholars and precise genetic definitions of race (the only change that I have made to the article that you have not yet conceded). My opinion of your knowledge is not "ironic", it is literal. You have literally demonstrated a poor understanding of basic wikipedia polices by inserting unsourced edits and ignoring the burden of proof, then attempting to say that my only argument is that the statement is unsourced, like any more would be necessary? You try to justify inserting unsourced statements with an appeal to a majority (that I have already prevailed over with 75% of my changes), and then with an appeal to antiquity of an editor. It doesn't matter if you have made 1,000,000 edits, what you are doing is contrary to policy. What I'm saying in a nutshell is all of your arguments so far are irrelevant.
An example of your POV pushing is putting scare quotes around the word race, e.g. "race", and re-inserting unsourced statements critical of the idea of race. You are pushing the POV that race doesn't exist, if you were using sources in a balanced way then it would be fine but you are not. What is relevant is that you have a statement that is able to be challenged, and you have reinserted it without a reference from a reliable source and the burden of proof is on you. Goramon (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Goramon, the point is not that "race does not exist" (it obviously does), but that scientific racism is obsolete as a scholarly frame of reference. Your attempt to present literature of scientific racism as sources to be taken at face value isn't admissible. The term "Caucasian" is indeed in current use in the meaning "white", as is duly pointed out at the disambiguation page at Caucasian. This article, however, is not about the term "Caucasian", it is about the notion of a Caucasian race in the obsolete scholarlly schools of thought discussed at scientific racism. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall conceding anything, I do agree (if that's the word, as he never said it was redundant) that one sentence, the last one he removed, was redundant. It's not worth my time arguing with him about quotation marks, collaborative editing, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

the point is that this article has the recurring problem of people trying to establish that "Caucasian" is in continued use, when the article is very plainly about the Caucasian race of pre-WWII scientific racism. Sure, an American can say "I'm Caucasian" and mean "I'm white". Does that mean that the speaker subscribes to Coonian racism? No. Which is why the current meaning "white people" is a matter for WP:DISAMBIG, to be addressed at Caucasian. Now current usage is of course derived from historical usage, and brief mention of current usage is admissible just as long as it isn't actively conflated with historical racist usage. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi dab, the argument above was simply about sources, NPOV and wikipedia burden. I had just taken out some unsourced or POV pushing material. The only reason we spoke about the existence of race is that Dougweller insisted that I challenge an unsourced sentence I was deleting, rather than simply delete it because it was unsourced. It is simple wikipedia policy and I'll continue to remove unsourced and POV pushing text.
dab, I agree that race obviously exists but I also agree that some academics are critical of race as a physical reality some call it a social construct with no physical/genetic basis. Most people would think that position is obviously incorrect, but I'm sure a citation saying something along those lines will be found (but the edit must agree exactly with the source). However, I'm also a bit skeptical about your example. It's not just an American who would describe themselves as Caucasian, any white in the English speaking world would (if you look at the top of this discussion that was one of my first points). I don't know why calling yourself Caucasian, even by a pre-ww2 definition would mean you are racist, it would actually mean you subscribe to racial classifications though. According to the Oxford dictionary the pre-ww2 definition is the primary one, and a definition of white European is the secondary definition.Goramon (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Goramon, since other editors have objected to your edits, you need to stop edit warring in the article, and participate in discussion here on the talk page until a consensus has been reached. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and any challenged edits must be resolved by the editors involved reaching a consensus. It is very poor manners to continue to institute your preferred changes over the objections of other editors. Now I know it takes more than one editor to edit-war, but you are the one pushing for changes, and, for now, I do not think you have a consensus for those changes. -- Donald Albury 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN.Goramon (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Consensus and WP:Wikilawyering apply here. I will rewrite the sentence with a cite shortly. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Wikilawyering to demand sources? I've come to the opinion that WP:Wikilawyering is what people say when they know they are wrong, so at least you know now. Go ahead and get your citation, that's all I was asking for.Goramon (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are ignoring the need for consensus -- you should have added a fact tag, at least after your edit was reversed. As for Leowontin, I've been puzzling about the sentence and the redundant one you removed as there did appear to be something strange there. Your last edits have made the penny drop. As I suspected, this was an artefact of an edit, in this case where there were two references and two statements, and an edit meant to clarify that particular section unfortunately led to some confusion. I'll restore that. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph is much better, I now think it's factually correct. I switched your sources around because I think they were in the wrong order, correct me if I'm wrong. The book isn't properly cited yet, have you read it? I might put a fact tag on it but leave the source, it will look strange. The last sentence of the paragraph may also need a source. Anyway, good work. Goramon (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dab's changes

Dab I'd like to discuss with you the changes you made to this article. The previous debate is a simple one about sources. Your change is different and I would like to discuss them separately. I disagree with what you have done since according to the Oxford dictionary Caucasian " • adjective 1 relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa.". Your edit infers that this primary definition is Scientific Racism and that term only survives in the US as Oxford "2 white-skinned; of European origin." . The Oxford dictionary definitions show that the term is used in the UK (and I would argue throughout the English speaking world) as a racial category similar to what you described as scientific racism. I also think it's really unfair (ie not NPOV) to describe such a term in current neutral use as scientific racism.Goramon (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is because you are here to push tenets of scientific racism? Sorry if this is blunt, but you are hardly the first editor to attempt that.

OED is a dictionary. It doesn't aim at an encyclopedic discussion of th word meanings it lists. If you check the references it gives for the meaning "relating to a broad division of humankind", you will note that they date to between 1804 to 1939, plus one attestation of 1967 which clearly refers to the 1960s US civil rights debate, and has 'Caucasians' in scare quotes: "1967 Economist 9 Sept. 892/3 The top business jobs in Hawaii tend to be reserved for ‘Caucasians’". This meaning A. is the racist meaning which this article is supposed to discuss, preferably the scientific racism predating 1945. Non-scientific racism is to be treated in different terms, for which please consider consulting the white supremacism article.

Meaning Bb. "a member of the ‘white race’, opp. one of other ethnic descent" is the meaning of "Caucasian" (not "Caucasian race") current today. I said this is mostly American English, but I do not dispute the term may also pop up in British English. Our article on this is at white people, not here.

After we have clarified that this article addresses OED meaning A, can you please stop harping on the dictionary definition and begin presenting actual encyclopedic or scholarly literature? We cannot base this article on a dictionary entry, if giving a dictionary definition is what you are aiming at, you should perhaps try editing wikt:Caucasian.

There is a reason simple Caucasian does not redirect here, ok? Precisely because "Caucasian" as used in the context of the misplaced "in the medical sciences" section does not refer to OED meaning A, but to meaning Bb, pertaining to our white people (or White American in US-centric contexts) article. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You want to know if I'm here to push scientific racism? I'm not here to push anything, I just want edits sourced and NPOV. Also I'd say that asking my opinions on the topic isn't really relevant (though I'm happy to answer) because all edits must be sourced and NPOV, it's also an appeal to bias in argument to address someones biases rather than the strength of their argument. If you ask if I consider myself a racist or scientific racist I would say no, but I think you might consider me that.
THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND
I believe that race is a physical, and not social, reality. I believe that races differ on average in many abilities, though there is overlap between races. I don't think the races are of different moral value, or that all members comply to stereotypes. I find it very interesting. Why do West Africans dominate sprinting? The usual answer is more fast twitch fibres, but I find that very unsatisfactory. If black dominance was due to a single cause then a genetic mutation could occur in a Chinese athlete who would have near 100% fast twitch muscles and be competitive. (Just like the worlds tallest person comes from a mix of races (tallest american is black, tallest man in the world is Ukranian, second tallest is Mongolian)). The best answer I've heard is that West Africans on average have several advantages including more fast twitch muscles, have a better structure for running (long legs and achilies tendon, narrow pelvis, large glutes and quads), better coordination (walk earlier as children, dance better, better running style) and a lower level of bodyfat in males. When you consider that the West African dominance comes from several areas, you can see why the dominance is so complete. Where as if it came from a single area there would be exceptions and champions from other races (like Yao Ming is an exception for Asians being too short for basketball). There are fast whites and asians, but not really competitive in world level sprinting, as I'm sure you know.
BACK TO THE POINT
Now anything I add will be sourced and stated neutrally, so my beliefs aren't particularly important as yours won't be if you do the same. IMHO this is how wikipedia should work through controversial issues.
To answer your objection to the OED being used, I agree that the dictionary definition isn't a satisfactory source or format to solely base this article on. However, the fact that the primary definition in the UK dictionary refers to the older anthropological definition means that the position that the term barely survives only in America to mean "white people" isn't accurate. The OED is a source, amongst many others that is part of a balanced article, you are right that it's not a dictionary definition we are trying to provide but I think it's relevant none the less. Also I think the secondary definition of " Bb. "a member of the ‘white race’, opp. one of other ethnic descent" is very clearly a racial label. Goramon (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to the OED being used. If I am not mistaken, I have originally introduced citation of it. I sympathize with your open account of what you believe, and I do not necessarily object to anything you state, except for what I consider terminological confusions. Thus, "race" is the interpretation of selected physical traits within the social sphere. Of course the differences between "races" are physical reality, but their selection, and the delineation of a discrete number of races is, of course, ultimately arbitrary in "physical" terms and only a "reality" because of its social applications. Your account betrays this confusion. Thus you say that "race" is real, and then immediately jump to discussing "black" as an example of race, ignoring the highly non-trivial intermediate step of enumerating "races". You yourself go on to muse on certain West African traits. So which is the "race"? "Blacks" or "West Africans"? The answer is, of course, that most African Americans have West African ancestry, which means that the idea of "black" in the USA is strongly influenced by West African phenotypes, but it is just as obvious that this is a US-centric historical peculiarity that has no relevance to the wider notion of a "black race", it is just "black" from the perspective of US pop culture (and, might add, US "Afrocentrism").

Races are still enumerated today, of course, outside of scientific racism and for purely practical reasons, as in the US census, viz. five, plus the categories "none of the above" and "more than one of the above".

This article, however, discusses the delineation of a specific racial category in historical scientific racism. It is irrelevant that the "white race" of the US census can synonymously be called "Caucasian" in common parlance. If the terms were really equivalent, we would need to merge this article into white people because it would violate WP:CFORK.

The only justification for this article as separate from the white people one is its discussion a category of a "Caucasian race" separate from the notion of a "white race". This separate category is historical. You will nowhere find a census where people can pick between the two categories of "white" vs. "Caucasian" as separate options.

I hope this makes sufficiently clear that I am objecting to your edits not because they are in some way not "factual" or "neutral" but for the much more basic reason that they are based on a misunderstanding of this article's scope. How you manage to maintain this misunderstanding in spite of all explicit disambiguation notes and the clean separation of the meanings even in the source you yourself insist on using, and how you can continue to imply this article is about "the term" Caucasian when it is quite plainly about the historical notion of a Caucasian race remains your secret. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I was using "black" as a synonym for "West African". The apparent confusion was due to political correctness (but I don't think you were actually confused). Calling a West African a "negroid" or "congoid" is often considered racist and I didn't want to generate controversy. But I was discussing congoids as opposed to Capoids or East Africans. Also, I'm not here trying to classify races, it would be interesting but I couldn't make up my own arbitrary (as you said) system for classifications and put them in wiki.
You bring up some good points, caucasian is used as a synonym for white people (but not just in the USA). It's used under a folk system of anthropology that classifies Europeans as a separate race. Sure you could argue that is arbitrary, though it does have some justification, but you just can't insert that in the encyclopedia without a reference. You also can't decide that this won't be included because you think it's untrue, our standard is verifiability and not truth.
I would argue that both definitions of caucasian, the primary and the secondary are relevant to this article. The "White People" article necessary discusses physical race but then is more of an article about European demographics and history. This article is more narrowly focused on the physical definitions of Caucasian race, and use of the term (in any racial sense). So I'm saying I think you are trying to define this articles scope based on truth rather than verifiability, and not accepting the degree of overlap that is to be expected.
Finally, I think that defining the term as exclusively part of "scientific racism" is not accurate, and not NPOV.Goramon (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

but how can it be "not NPOV" to pick an article topic? Is it, in your opinion, "not NPOV" to keep an article at Energy which is purely dedicated to a concept in physics, in spite of the existence of many other meanings of the term listed at Energy (disambiguation)?

You say Calling a West African a "negroid" or "congoid" is often considered racist -- well, perhaps it is beginning to dawn on you that the topic we are discussing here is racism? After having been told only aboug five times over? In scientific racism, West Africans are "Negroid". In the current US census, they are "black". Two concepts, two articles. On exactly the same grounds, an Englisnman in scientific racism is Caucasoid, while in the current US census, he is "white". Two concepts, two articles. Calling an Englishman "Caucasoid" is exactly as racist as calling a Fula man "Negroid", indeed the two terms stem from the same historical school of thought, discussed at scientific racism. --dab (𒁳) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here that this article is about Caucasian Race and there are two different, but related, definitions in wide usage. A person with a particular skull type (and the largest racial group) or a light skinned European. They are both racial definitions and it's not up for you to pick which is right. Just follow WP:ASF. If a medical journal wants to define Caucasian as a member of the majority population of Europe, that's fine, we'll just cite what they have done.
Further on to the racism topic, I don't think calling somebody a "negroid" is racist, but many people find the term offensive. So in dealing with that issue, a citation would be find saying the word is considered offensive and that would be that (I wouldn't argue that I disagree with the position so it should be taken out). "Caucasian" is not considered offensive by most people, for whatever reason. The fact that they are from the same system of racial classifications doesn't matter, just find citations about how they are considered and include them neutrally. You don't have a citation to say all use of "caucasian" is scientific racism and it's not NPOV. I don't need you to argue facts with me, or prove your point logically. Just present verifiable material in a balanced way.Goramon (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

once again, "Caucasian" in current usage may be a racial category, but there is the signficant point that it will not be referred to as "the Caucasian race". Your medical journals speak of "Caucasian probands", not "members of the Caucasian race". This is just an application of OED meaning Bb. "Caucasian" not "Caucasian race" and as such outside the scope of a discussion of OED meaning A.

You are beginning to repeat yourself rather heavily. "Negroid" is a technical term taken from scientific racism. It is a racist term beginning to end. You cannot use the term "Negroid" in any way other than racist because it is part of racist terminology. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, mind you. "Racism" doesn't necessarily mean "racial discrimination", it just means "classification of people based on notions of race".

You don't have a citation to say all use of "caucasian" is scientific racism -- seriously, are you editing drunk or something? I do not have a "citation" for this ludicrous claim because I wouldn't dream of making it. Once again, "Caucasian" (Bb) is simply a synonym of "white" and doesn't imply any acceptance of scientific racism. "Caucasian" (A) is a technical term in scientific racism. This article is supposed to discuss the technical term. Can you please take a minute to re-read and take in this very simple statement so I won't have to repeat it yet again? --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are saying that "Caucasian Race" is the primary definition in OED " • adjective 1 relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa.". And you consider this to be scientific racism as your definition of racism is "classification of people based on notions of race". You don't consider the second definition of Caucasian as racist because it is a "synonym" of "white people".
Your argument rests on the premise that "white people" do not constitute a race in any verifiable system of classification. However, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people article is "A series of articles on Race" and is part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race and the Cambridge dictionary defines Caucasian as "belonging to the races of people who have skin :that is of a pale colour". Clearly, the classification of white people is a racial classification, and your premise is false.Goramon (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My allegedly 'strange' edit

There was nothing strange about my edit, I was reverting to an earlier version while at the same time keeping the paragraph with the word 'controversial'. I asked that this be taken here for discussion, as it is clear that at least two editors disagree with what you are doing. It appears from what you have written above that you are confused as to what this article is about, or object to what it is about and wish to change that. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the "caucasian race", and there's two definitions of that. dab's changes are WP:OR because he/she is trying to decide which one is "correct". The controversial paragraph is buried in the current version and an Original research paragraph is in it's place. You use ad hom rather than addressing my points, I've explained how dab's changes are WP:OR, and not WP:NPOV. The scope of this article will be decided by the sources that refer to a "Caucasian Race", your comment about scope never being verifiable is false.Goramon (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

South Asia?

I cannot edit this page, but the very first line states that South Asians are considered Caucasian. Can someone explain? Also, according to this article , West Asians (I assume you mean Middle Easterners) are Caucasian. This needs to be fixed. (Or at least, the first part.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuufC (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In this context, South Asian means some Indians, Pakistani and people from mearby Asian countries. But otherwise, that is exact. What seems to be the problem? The Caucasian type doesn't limit itself to Europe.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Very True 24.239.153.58 (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

You think maybe you could put a picture of what a caucasion person looks like. Maybe have like a bunch of different pictures if there is a big difference in people. 69.226.111.151 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Genetics Proves Caucasian race

At http://www.andaman.org/Background/Background.htm#genetic there is a genetic chart of people that clearly shows a caucasian race. I have seen similar or the same charts in numerous other places. They all seem to be based on something from The history and geography of human genes, so could someone verify if its in the book so we can put the title of this post in the article? 110.32.137.11 (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

you cannot "prove race". All you can do is document the genetic relationship between various populations. It is then a matter of definition which groupings you take to be "races". It is not the fashion to define any such groupings today, but if you are going to do so regardless, you need to be aware that the grouping choose will include arbitrary choices no matter what. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't see its relivence. Tall and short are also arbitary. 110.32.147.162 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Check out http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Populations.png. Looks like there's a caucasian race there. I will add the genetic evidence to the article if no one objects. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please Explain

Under the Subraces section I was looking at what I read to what I saw in the book of these Genealogists and something only Wiki can come up with was Iranids? What is this, its not a Race or a major tribe and it can never be classified as a single group. Politically yes as a nation state but when look at their history and their skulls and roots and even looks Iranians, cannot be classified as "One Race or Iranids. If So then imagine a new Racial Classification "Americanids". Comeon guys in Reality even if we just take skin color into consideration in USA we won't reach 80%, because Blacks, and Latins can consume 40%. I have look at many Books and there is no such word as Iranids.

""Conceived as one of the "great races", alongside Mongoloid and Negroid, the Caucasoid race was taken to consist of a number of "subraces". The Caucasoid peoples were usually divided in three subraces on linguistic grounds, termed the Aryan race (native speakers of the Indo-European languages), the Semitic race (native speakers of the Semitic languages) and the Hamitic race (native speakers of the Berber-Cushitic-Egyptian languages).

The postulated subraces vary depending on the author. Another way of classifying the subraces was by the shape of the skull: The Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric, East Baltic, Arabid, Turanid, Iranid and Armenoid subraces."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.68.159 (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You "have look at many Books and there is no such word as Iranids"? Have you looked at the books referenced in the Iranids article? --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Poblem is probably that you should search for "Iranid", not "Iranids". Mainly used in German texts I believe. That's the problem wit most of these "subraces", many times no English literature doesn't includes them. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Deexannihilate, 17 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The classification has been used in scientific racism, a concept that asserts the superiority of one race over another.[citation needed]

Racism has not been used to classify any of the other Great Races originally named by Meyers Konversationslexikan of 1885-90. The sentence is counterproductive to the information put forth in the article. Instead of allowing the reader to learn about Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids, etc. it introduces racism of the White Supremacy and inhibits further learning of old concepts.

Deexannihilate (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep - we believe in verifiability, and this statement fails. Removed. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  08:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

This may just have been vandalism, or perhaps a misunderstanding of the term[4]. It seems that this is a spillover of a trolling attack on the scientific racism article. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Renfrew (1989)

removed from article:

In a 1989 article in Scientific American by Colin Renfrew, he classifies the Dravidian race along with the Semitic race and the Aryan race as the three major subdivisions that emerged from the Proto-Caucasian race, which he states separated into the aforementioned three groups about 9,000 BCE after migrating from North Africa—-the Semitics (i.e., Proto-Semitics) establishing themselves in and radiating from Jericho, the Aryans (i.e., Proto-Aryans) establishing themselves in and radiating from Catal Huyuk, and the Dravidians (i.e., Proto-Dravidians) establishing themselves in and radiating from what is now southern Iran.[Renfrew, Colin. (1989). The Origins of Indo-European Languages. /Scientific American/, 261(4), 82-90.]

Renfrew's 1989 Sci Am article today appears cited in rather interesting contexts[5][6] and I have no doubt he is severely misquoted. My suspicion is that this paragraph reaches us via such an intermediary rather than from the source directly.

Renfrew uses "Aryan" for "Indo-European", but I do not think he uses "Aryan race" as claimed here. Feel free to prove me wrong by quoting the actual passage. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific racism?

Currently, the lead section says "In scientific racism, the term Caucasian race (or Caucasoid, sometimes also Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous human populations of...". This seems to me to be a not particularly NPOV take on the term. While the term has been used by scientific racists, it is not its only use by any means, unless one uses an extremely loose definition of "scientific racism". While the uses of the term in scientific racism (however defined) should be discussed, the right place for that is not the very first sentence of the article. Unless someone can give very good reasons for keeping the current version of the lead, I will change it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Caucasian" vs "Caucasoid"

I have stated this before, but I enetered "Caucasoid race" into the "Search" function and was redirected to this article. The two concepts(while having similar sounding names) are two entirely different concepts! Dr Rgne (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, but the modern American usage of "Caucasian" has diverged quite a bit from the original meaning of Caucasian race/Caucasoid. I believe this is addressed in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

Look at the picture. Note "in blue". Look at the picture again. Try to find blue. Notice the size of the picture. Can you get ANYTHING out of this? Please upload a better illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.211.98 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I DO have to admit that I don't see Horn of Africa shown on the graphic at all. Or is the provider of the image trying to say that Eritreans, Ethiopians, Djiboutians and Somalians look like one in the image. I'll say right now, from direct, personal experience and TONS of media evidence to support it, it's missing one group. Can someone provide a CURRENT image?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Caucasian race etymology

In the section of origin of the concept there is Blumenbach's quote: "Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, (I mean the Georgian) and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind."

The quote lacks "I mean the Georgian" part which I put in the brackets above. I don't know for what reason but it seems to be deliberetely removed from the page, because I remember it used to be there before. I tried to edit it but it got undone twice and my user account - blocked.

As for the sources, there is not online english version of Blumenbach's De generis humani varietate nativa (3rd ed. 1795) to check the original source but it has always and everywhere been quoted with the "I mean the Georgian" part except until recently here on wikipedia, some other examples: http://www.blumenbach.info/_/de_generis_analysis.html http://www.ling.fju.edu.tw/typology/Caucasian.htm


So please someone edit the quote unless you have other arguments. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.99.94 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

origin unclear

I think it needs to be made more clear that the origin of the concept is as part of a now widely discounted views on race. Also, most people use it to mean white and European, and don't ascribe to the racist ideology from which the term is derived. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Europaeid types.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Europaeid types.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

skin tone

wtf does this sentence "Historically, the term has been used to describe many peoples from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone" mean?? can somebody rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.123.12 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

who is "isaac benjamin, and what is his expertise?

Soon to be deleted without a good answer. Some random idiots opinion doesn't mean jack.68.115.53.79 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

first part

Could you put the other features of what makes a Caucasian at the top(nose,cheeks,etc.)I just needed to look through it and ended up finding out that whether or not a Caucasian is white is an issue. I mean when you describe a Caucasian, shouldn't you mention the features of this race?(I think this is a race...the title is the only mention.Everything else seems to suggest it's not.) Also, what does that picture at the very top mean exactly? I understood why it was black and white but it mentions races. What about them? What should I be looking at?117.221.183.87 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Ehhhhhh???

caucasian race

are poles caucasian or are we still just stupid pollocks ? 68.0.57.2 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Caucasid or Caucasian.88.232.139.85 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

06 June 2013

Ok, here is the deal. Caucasian race belongs to the people of the Caucasus. The word Caucasian originate from the Vainakh ancestor Kaukasos the grandchild of Targamos per Georgian historian of 11th century. If for some reason you want to delete it please make sure to separate the Caucasian race into Caucasian to which all people of the Caucasus belong and European (make a new topic). If you are unhappy with Caucasian and European connection which is indicated by professor Johanna Nichols UC Berkeley you either provide the reference which proves otherwise or stop deleting. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavkas (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a misunderstanding. This article is about a racial/anthropological classification known as the Caucasian race or more recently 'Caucasoid' - often called "white people". The use of the word 'Caucasion' originates from observation of the inhabitants of the Caucasus, but in the modern literature denotes a much larger groujp of people, not just inhabitants of the Caucasus. It can be confusing, eg Nichols studies Caucasian languages which are indeed the languages of the people of the Caucasus, not of the 'Caucasian race'. But to repeat, this article is not about the people of the Caucasus but about the concept of the Caucasian race. Same spelling and pronunciation, different meaning. I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"anthropological classification"? Why are you deleting the anthropologist views and anthropologic studies? Kavkas (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Your edits are about ethnicity (cultural anthropology), the article is about physical anthropology, a very different topic. You are also trying to edit war your misunderstanding into the article which is why you were blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon

Cro-Magnon man certainly today makes up "Caucasian" ancestry. However, their skin color was not known and their is no evidence to suggest that the changing of Cro-Magnon skull went hand in hand with the change of skin tone. On the Cro-Magnon page the cited source, of a later date, suggests that Cro-Magnon's skin would have been brown to tan. The entire "Origins" section needs rewritten with the facts of modern science: 1. The first white humans were Neanderthal 2. Skin lightened independently in Asia and Europe and 3. Human skin lightened due to the addition of non-Homo sapiens genes and climatization.

108.16.41.145 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"origin" needs massive overhaul

This section is full of inaccuracies. The whole section is a demonstration of garbage in, garbage out, resting on the false premise that Meiners was somehow the person who came up with the term caucasian. Additonally, even if it were true, it is in fact a complete falsity, the scheme he had written about bears little to no relevance to the history of the word caucasian in the 1800s or today. it seems more like someone is intentionally trying to inject some kind "history of scientific racism" in this article, where it doesn't belongWhatzinaname (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Plates

An ip/new account has been adding a user-made map that is ostensibly based on the US census. This is the wrong page though since the US census does not include any "Caucasoid" entry. In the process, the user also removed a plate-stack of the various Caucasoid physical types, which I've restored. Soupforone (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
S/he now appears to be ip hopping. Soupforone (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Entry

The US census does not include any "Caucasoid" entry. Soupforone (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"used to describe a group commonly called White People, as defined by the government and Census Bureau."

The citation backs up what consists of "white people" in the United States by the census, although no mention of 'Caucasian' by the US Census citation, you're right. Perhaps we include both sources there as citations? Seems fitting so we can have one for the Caucasian part and what fits into the contours of 'whiteness' in America. ShawntheGod (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but to avoid synthesis I split it up into two separate sentences. The first phrase from the Painter link "Why White People Are Called 'Caucasian?'", and the second phrase from the other link. Soupforone (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, that part of the article seems fine with me now. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Europaeid types

File:Europaeid types.png is the same as the deleted File:Europaeid types.jpg. Soupforone (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Caucasian is insulting

I am of European descent. I find the term "Caucasian" inaccurate and insulting. Please change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.209.50 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully agreed. This term as used in the United States only is scientifically proven false. Just the majority of their citizens do not know this. Caucasians are exclusively people from Russia, Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaidjan and Georgia, the latter (of course) not being the American state but an independent country.
Siberian tigers are also found outside the Siberian region. They're just named after that specific region. Same here. I can think of dozens of similar cases. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the source of the offense might be. You may be of European descent in the sense of being caucasian (i.e. having a skull that has features reliably identified as caucasian 95 percent of the time). Or you may be of European descent in the other meaning -- that is you were born in Europe. If the latter, you may still be caucasian, or you may be non-caucasian. To use a simple example -- some caucasian settlers in Africa get upset when they call themselves (their family lines) "African" and it isn't immediately accepted. Yes, their family line has lived in Africa for generations. No -- they did not magically go from caucasian to negroid (again in the forensic identification sense). This is not a political term. Even if the initial ideas about mass migrations and movements of peoples is wrong -- it still carries useful information (again -- see forensic anthropology). Saying someone is European -- in today's modern Europe -- doesn't give much of a clue about their skull type. Saying they are caucasian does give information. That's my understanding of the term -- and why it is not limited to just residents of Russia or the the nations around the Caucasus mountains -- but instead includes all of the native European peoples, North Africa, Anatolia, the Levant, and the Indian sub-continent. That is why it excludes China, the native American populations, and the sub-Saharan Africa populations -- even if persons from those areas currently live in Europe. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As the lead notes, Caucasoid generally denotes the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia. Along with particular osteological charateristics, it encompasses a suite of traits that are commonly present in populations of this type. Ashley Montague has a good summation [7]. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Atlas and Rif mountains

Stoddard alludes to Berber areas in the vicinity of the Atlas and Rif mountains. He assumes that most of the surrounding populations are Arab [8]. Soupforone (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are between 30 and 40 million Berbers today inhabiting areas stretching from the western Sahel to the eastern Egyptian oases. Stoddard alludes to only a few of those Berber groups living in confined, remote areas in the Atlas mountains (here the Tell Atlas and Aures) and Rif mountains opposite southern Europe [9]. This is the small red area in his map, not northern Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, which constitutes a much greater territory [10]. It's not the area inhabited by the Chleuh, Soussi, Tuareg, Siwans, and many other Berber groups. Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs. This is why he asserts that "the seat of brown power in Africa is of course the great belt of territory north of the Sahara," and that "in Algeria intermarriage between Europeans and Berbers has actually begun... of course the process is merely in its first stages... still, the blood is there, the leaven is working, and in time Northwest Africa may return to the white world." Soupforone (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs". OK, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification. James343e (talk) 2:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
That's alright. Soupforone (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "Europoid"?

Europoid redirects to this article, but there is no mention of that name/word in this article. Europoid = Europid? Just another synonym for the "Caucasoid"? --Zyma (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Pretty much just another "sciencey" sounding word for "white." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If these were valid taxa, you could call it a junior synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Are these names old concepts OR still popular among scientists? For example, Do they use concepts like "Caucasoid" and "Europid" in recent researches, journals, and papers? --Zyma (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. is still used in forensics I believe. Human skulls can often be recognised according to this scheme, FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw usage of Caucasian/Caucasoid in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's works. I'm not sure about this: I remember he used terms like "European Caucasians" and "non-Europeans Caucasians". So Europid/Europoid = European Caucasoid or Europid = All Caucasoids types?--Zyma (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, Caucasoid/Europid are not geographic terms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, and Cavalli-Sforza's classification/categories? They are based on what? --Zyma (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? If he says "European Caucasoid" he means a Caucasoid from Europe. So he is applying terms that were based on morphology in the context of population genetics. The two do correlate pretty well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Depends on the specific population, might be tribal, linguistic, geographic, historical, etc. The names chosen really only apply to the author's construction of a group or population in the context of a given work. There is no Caucasian/Caucasoid or Europid or Negroid race, but for lack any better terms, the terms are still in use. Like most geneticists on the planet, Cavalli-Sforza finds no scientific support for the concept of race, but also finds terms of convenience to be, well, convenient. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Assigning rank and names to different human populations based on either genetics or morphology is rather arbitrary (as is any classical taxonomy), but there is no denying that there are distinct clades/lineages within the human group. Whatever we call them doesn't really make much difference. These differences are clinal, but so is population variation within all other "species". FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Cavalli-Sforza puts it best,
By means of painstaking multivariate analysis, we can identify "clusters" of populations and order them in a hierarchy that we believe represents the history of fissions in the expansion to the whole world of anatomically modern humans. At no level can clusters be identified with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one. The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race distinction.
— Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Menozzi, P.; Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press. p. 19. ISBN 9780691087504.
— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Europoid or White is a clear genetic cluster.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TR8ox_MI6qI/AAAAAAAADIE/zEcyBpR0U8s/s1600/MDS1600.png
All levels are reasonable, from Caucasoid down to Europoid. That's how taxonomy works, it's hierarchical. 211.119.41.175 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
They're the same level, they're synonyms, so there is no hierarchy involved. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
If you think that the name was invented on Wikipedia you can always nominate it for deletion.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon not Caucasoid

G.V. Van Vark, D. Kuizenga, and F. L’Engle Williams. 2003. “Kennewick and Luzia: Lessons from the European Upper Paleolithic,” [Am. J. Of Physical Anthropology 121: 181-184.

quote: p. 181-182.. We metrically compared a series of European Upper Paleolithic skulls (EUP) to a selection of Howell’s famous cranial series, which represent both males and females in seven main geographical regions (Howells 1973, 1989) [Norse, Zulu, Mokapu (Hawaii), Southern Australia, Peru, Southern Japan, Bushman] (Table 1). Estimating the typicality probability of a specimen with respect to a given population by applying a modification of Hotelling’s two-ample test (Amberbeergen and Schaafsma, 1984), we found that 30 out of 35 available EUP cranial specimens are statistically different from all seven cranial series of Howell’s (1973, 1989) at the 5% level of significance. Moreover, we found that a majority of the 35 EUP skulls exhibit a closer affinity to non-European ones, rather than to recent European skulls (table 2). ShetlandScot (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, only way to make any safe conclusions would be DNA analysis. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Neoteny

Has Caucasoid race features that can be considered neotenic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.65.15.40 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, European populations do not have more neotenic traits than do Homo sapiens in general. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it has been argued that light hair is a neotenic trait, but this feature isn't even common in all included populations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxon

Caucasoid/Europid was indeed historically used as a taxon. Please see the biologist John Baker's treatise on the subject - particularly the taxonomic table on page 625 [11]. Soupforone (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your definition claims it "is" a taxon, in wikipedias voice. That someone uses some grouping as a taxon, or claims that it is does not make it so. The caucasian race is a historical racial grouping. Not a taxon. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I can see how you perhaps got confused with the voicing. However, it cannot be denied that Caucasoid/Europid was historically used as a biological taxon, not merely as a grouping of human beings. The latter is vague, and could mean anything from the girl scouts to a political organization. The phrasing "a grouping of human beings historically used as a taxon to describe the physical or biological type of" is not in Wikipedia's voice and is a more accurate alternative. Soupforone (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It is and always has been a vague grouping - somewhat moreso than the girls scouts who have rather strict membership criteria, and at least one shared biological trait. But regarding taxon status the key word is "was". "physical and biological" is redundant repetition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it is somewhat repetitive, but the phrase was meant to differentiate between biological taxonomy and other taxonomies like linguistic taxonomy. I suppose "biological taxon" would be simpler. Soupforone (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
What was missing in the earlier wording is that Baker's view (I have read Baker's book) is now regarded as obsolete. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 13:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Strange this supposed "taxon" (or any other sub-groups of humans) never received a proper trinomial name then? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

While the subject of Homo sapiens having subspecies is somewhat controversial to begin with, our article on Human taxonomy does list various taxonomic Synonyms deriving from attempts to define a number of human types as separate species or subspecies. Examples include "Homo monstrosus" (1758), "Homo troglodytes" (1758), "Homo aethiopicus" (1825), "Homo americanus" (1825), "Homo arabicus" (1825), "Homo australasicus" (1825), "Homo cafer" (1825), "Homo columbicus" (1825), "Homo hottentotus" (1825), "Homo hyperboreus" (1825), "Homo indicus" (1825), "Homo japeticus" (1825), "Homo melaninus" (1825), "Homo neptunianus" (1825), "Homo patagonus" (1825), "Homo scuthicus" (1825), "Hono sinicus" (1825), "Homo priscus" (1899), "Homo spelaeus" (1899), "Homo grimaldii" (1906), "Homo aurignacensis" (1910), "Homo eurafricanus" (1911), "Homo proto-aethiopicus" (1915), "Homo capensis" (1917), "Homo cro-magnonensis" (1921), "Homo grimaldiensis" (1921), "Homo wadjakensis" (1921), "Homo drennani" (1931), and "Homo palestinus" (1932).

All the 1825 versions are the attempts of Jean Baptiste Bory de Saint-Vincent to define modern humanity into distinct species or subspecies. Scientific racism has quite a history and its article could use expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There's also Homo caucasicus [12]. Soupforone (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So those are as full species, not races/subspecies. Pretty radical. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Caucasian Race Real or Pseudoscience?

Is the "Caucasian" race actually a valid concept or outdated pseudoscience? I mean, do people from Europe (Caucasians) actually have different skulls than people from East Asia (Mongoloids)? Just curious. DaEvilUno (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an outdated and pseudoscientific concept. You cannot reliably ascertain someone's place of origin from their skull or from any other single anatomical measure (although you can from their DNA with much greater precision than that provided by racial categories). Forensic anthropologists are generally willing to make claims about a persons ancestry and race based on their skull shape though. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The term is not used any more, so is therefore outdated. As for anthropometry in forensics, it is reliable enough to still be utilised. You can fairly accurately reconstruction a face by looking at various markers on a skull (forensic facial reconstruction). FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Forensic anthropologists still use the term, although physical anthropologists consider it both outdated and pseudoscientific. Also they donøt generally "reconstruct facial markers" but simply look at some diagnostic features of the skull such as eye-socket shape, browridges, shape of nasal cavity. It only works in a society where there are fairly sharply socially delineated racial groups - and outside of courts it is not generally considered a reliable way to assess racial group since many other factors than ancestry play into racial categorizations. And even when forensic anthropologists do make an actual reconstruction of the face, it is not particularly reliable as a clue to genetic ancestry as the recent Kennewick results show.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are various problems with physical anthropology in general. Same situation in zoology, DNA studies have radically changed (and are still changing) the idea of how we think various animal groups are interrelated, which were based on morphological data, so it isn't unique to humans. Morphological classification is slowly being phased out in neoteny, in favour of DNA classification, but this will be impossible with most fossils, though. As for "Caucasian race", I wouldn't call it "pseudoscience", just somewhat outdated/unreliable science, as it was based on scientific principles, unlike pseudo-science, which is pretty much just baseless and fraudulent claims. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Caucasoid race is based on the simple fact that ancestry and traits are shared from Bangladesh to Europe vis a vis Burma to Japan. One can more easily place an individual in one or the other hauptrassen, which is informative and satisfies scientific validity. In typical victim blaming chutzpah Marxists call this simple fact "pseudoscience". SamOrange (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a lot more fuzzy than that though, just like in zoology. You could call it a Cline (biology) or a hybrid zone. It is almost impossible to set the borders, which is why it is hard and somewhat pointless/arbitrary to try to do so. So there are human "clusters", yes, but not really isolated biological populations, with no close relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I could call what "a Cline (biology) or a hybrid zone"? It's very easy to set the borders. An individual plots closer to one cluster or another. Always. SamOrange (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If it was that easy, we wouldn't have the "subspecies problem"[13] and similar. The point is, if there are no clear definitions in zoology, we should be even less sure about them in humans. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why? Humans are animals n'est-ce pas? SamOrange (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, for one, due to various forms of prehistoric technology, human distribution has not been hindered and shaped in the same way as other animals (leading to multiple prehistoric colonisations, backmigrations, etc. of the same areas), so it would be inaccurate to assume the exact same concepts and rules apply completely. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What concepts and rules? SamOrange (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Various principles of biogeography, natural selection, etc. can and have been be circumvented through the prehistoric use of various technology. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Without making any definitions at all your comparative statements are vacuous assertions. SamOrange (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, this really isn't the place for a lengthy argument in any case. But let's just say animals don't have boats, fire, and advanced tools. To get back to the point, this section is based on a false premise, which is that if something isn't currently valid science, it's pseudoscience. No, it is just outdated science. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On the skull measurement issue that you brought up, the recent report on the Kennewick Man fossil pointed out that there is less data about variation in each imputed population than forensic anthropologists (who made some blunders classifying that fossil) sometimes acknowledge. I know all kinds of white guys who have differently shaped skulls from other white guys, and every barber or brain surgeon knows that there is a lot of individual variation in skull shape among broadly defined human population groups. If you'd like to learn more about human populations and their socially defined categories and how those categories relate (inexactly) to ancestry, I highly recommend the book Fairbanks, Daniel J. (7 April 2015). Everyone Is African: How Science Explodes the Myth of Race. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-63388-019-1. Retrieved 20 July 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) which is a book that will help inform editing of several Wikipedia articles about race. It's an easy book to find in a library, and readable and current, with citations to the current scientific literature on many interesting topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The most recent common direct paternal, patrilineal, ancestor to most people alive today, not all was born in Africa. He was far from the only male alive. Nor was his the only paternal hominid lineage at the time. By chance, most men alive today trade their ancestry to him though. This divergence point was circa sixty-thousand (60thousand) years ago or more. Human lineage, genetic ancestry, goes as such for Out of Africa biological population groups/races: DE 50thousand years ago, constituting Japanese east Asians & Hamitic E Y-DNA (controversy exists as to whether this Hamitic is an Out of Africa origin and back Into Africa, like J Y-DNA, Semitic, where E Y-DNA is within northern Africa as minority lineage, Ramses II of Egypt an example, but also Nigeria shared with A Y-DNA in western sub-Saharan Africa), & CF 50thousand years ago, where C & O (from Siberian Europe) constitute indigenous American ancestry, and C constitutes Melanesian, Malay, Polynesian, & aboriginal Australian ancestry along with T Y-DNA circa ten-thousand years ago, where T Y-DNA is likewise a contributer to Turkic Caucasoid/Caucasian peoples as a central Asian line. From CF Y-DNA, we have F Y-DNA, which is the macro Y-DNA haplogroup for Caucasoid/Caucasian peoples as the largest Out of Africa line, circa 45thousand years ago. F Y-DNA is proposed to originate at the Sinai Peninsula parallel to Lower Egypt. I can provide sources if requested. W124l29 (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caucasian_race/Archive_3&oldid=780278132"