Talk:Caucasian race

Neutrality Dispute

This article is flawed in two areas, and biased admins continue to take away my scientifically accurate edits.

You are not going to convince me that a solid block of the anthropology community does not believe that there are 3-4 main races. Genetic studies suggest this too. http://www.biodiversityforum.com/showpost.php5?p=522568&postcount=1

In addition it can be proven that the statement about Indians is false. They were labeled Caucasian, but a distinction was made between Caucasian and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin2359 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Supreme Court conceded that anthropologists had classified Indians as Caucasians, and thus the same race as whites, as defined in Ozawa. However、it concluded that "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences," and denied citizenship."

http://www.ling.fju.edu.tw/typology/Caucasian.htm http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

So you were wrong, I was right. Now you can be quiet and stop removing my correct edits, to push your unscientific point of view.

"Caucasian" is a racial term but "white" is more restrictive and less scientific term. Quit removing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin2359 (talk • contribs)

The above was added by the same editor as the IP editor earlier blocked for 3RR violation. This was an attempt at block evasion, so there has been another block. As for the links, the first is to a forum, and we don't use forums as sources. The second is, bizarrely, to a copy of a version of the WIkipedia article, so useless as a source. The third link can be used as a source in the article based on the information here [1]. dougweller (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the concept of race being now rejrectd by most anthropologists: "A similar survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists" (Lieberman, 2001 [2]). This does not even begin to address the opinions of biologists. So yes, racial typology is now rather widely rejected.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The following item from today's news could be added to enhance the discussion. Here the term caucasian is used in a strictly medical/research sense:

The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CCFF) supports research into cystic fibrosis, which only affects people of the caucasian racial group. However, the term caucasian includes people from South Asia, North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Israel, according to Cathleen Morrison, CEO of the CCFF. "[Although] these are Caucasian populations," Morrison, CEO of the CCFF told CTV [ctv.ca]. "[they] do not have white skin". Bushcutter (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of NPOV, and of WIkipedia, is, that one position on an issue is not determined to be "correct" by editors and presented solely, but that all views are presented. Clearly the term Caucasian is still in widespread use. And clearly a lot of people don't like that. Both those points are to be presented in a style which does not allow us to guess which opinion the editor holds.

BindingArbitration (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)BA

Almost exclusively in the US?

I'm not sure this is true. The term is familiar as part of their language by speakers of British English. It is also used in professional communication by the British Police as in 'A six foot tall, brown haired caucasian male'.

The British police make a point of avoiding controversial and confusing words such as 'Caucasian' - they have a classification of race by 'Immigration Code' - IC1, IC2, IC3 etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.80.255 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(( Begin of text moved from Talk:Caucasian ))

Moved comment below from 129.100.152.211 from article to here:

Very interesting. As far as I know three groups, the Manchurian, the Yeniseyan and the Ainu, carried three blood groups Haplotype C, Haplotype A, Haplotype D to the Americas. That's how the American Indians got them. Another group, the Northern Chinese, went over later on with Haplotype E which is found commonly among the Pueblo and Navajo Indians. At the mean time, two central Asian groups carried Haplotypes D and C to Europe which is found commonly among modern day Caucasian populations. While Haplotype B which is totally absent among the Amerindians, spread among Caucasian groups and Mongoloids later on from Africa via the Middle East. And the Mongoloids, like their cousins the Caucasians developed male pattern baldness and resistence to epidemic deseases, which are almost absent among their cousins the American Indians. This is the basis on which our society is legally divided into Mongoloid(Asian), Caucasian-Mediterranean, Indo-Dravedian, African-Mulato and Amerind-Meztiso social groups. And these groups continue to celebrate Multiculturalism by cultivating their own images, feeling proud on TV networks and popular entertainment, helping people of different ethnicities to understand their own respective cultures, supporing members of their own respective groups in highschool cafeterias, in order to make this society more diverse.

-Frecklefoot

I am Scottish, Czech, and Albanian. Why do I note my ethnicity? Because I am 100%caucasin. My father is from Albania. The Albanians are;a.) Nomads who live in Eastern Europe. These nomads originally came from the Caucus Mountains. b.) They are the poorest country due to there resistance of frivilous self glorification. c.) Their language is recorded as being the oldest language in Europe. d.)Before thier pilgrimage to East Europe from the Caucus Mountains they fled from persecution from the Islamic Semites and Orientals. The point is caucasins both eastern European and English etc...are defined by common language,persuction for thier Christian beliefs and there long standing strength. I believe it good people love one another for their inner selves, which often comes around to who one is on the outside and through thier historical blood. Note:Oddly enough an Albanian commited a terrorist attack in July 1914 which still is not accpeted by the world. One other comment I would like to add, the Galatians in The Holy Bible are better known as the Gauls. These people live were? They live in Europe. The Celts? The Celts were founders of Galatia!The Celts domination runs from Bohemia to the U.k. To close,simply put,Christianity is richly rooted in white soil....pretty amazing huh!

Sorry to tell you Stolfi? but due to political reasons albanians are slavs. And you Sir are a degenerate human accoridng to the words of Hans K Gunther, half breed mongrel. You do know that christians carried out a haulacaust against native Nordic/Prussian Pagan people. So much for xtianity rooted in slav[ic] soil.

Wake up and spell the cofee.

Gracias Von Bosmark the 52nd User —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussianbismark (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(( End of text moved from Talk:Caucasian ))

I have moved the Latin name to the History section, assuming that it was Blumenthal who coined it. Could anyone confirm that? Thanks...Jorge Stolfi 17:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Usage in Australia

the word caucasian originated from Caucasia, A small island off the coast of Oklahoma.

In Australia the word Caucasian is used to refer to those people that have Anglo-Saxon background, this happens in the media as well as in official documents. There is an important number of Australians who have Greek, Italian and other European background which are not regarded as Caucasians. The Australian government refers to them as the ethnic communities along with other racial minorities.--tequendamia 11:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What non sense. You are an idiot . Causcasian refers to any white people. This makes it liable , though, to subjectivity, as some people that might be 'scientifically' referred to as Caucasion (eg Middle-eastern) would not be in 'lay' usage. Eg in the media when referring to crime- they usually describe the perpetrator as "a man of middle -eastern / medeiterranean origin".

-- The same happens to be true in Canada. The term Caucasian is one used in reference to white Anglo-Saxon people of European background, excluding Southern Europeans. I was surprised to read much of the information found in this article, especially given how it conflicts with most western social norms. Surely the content of this article is debatable, depending on whom you ask. However, in most of the modern west the term Caucasian refers specifically to white Anglo-Saxons, and possibly Slavs. I do understand that in Russia the term Caucasian is one used to refer to the people of the Caucus region.

Further, equating the term Caucasians with a scientific designation is a misnomer. It is a social construction and should not be confused with scientific jargon.

All this talk reinforces everything that is wrong with the use of this word - no-one really shares a common understanding of its meaning. Really it should only be used for people from the Caucasus. Everything else is a misnomer - this is the accepted academic view and the article should support that, perhaps with mention to the word's other misuses. This encyclopaedia needs to educate responsibly - not perpetuate ignorance, no matter how widespread the ignorance is 87.194.80.255 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of "caucasian" in Australia is variable. When used in the context of media presentations, its use roughly (and unintentionally) equates to Huxley's xanthocroi peoples. Obviously this is left to the subjective interpretation of the individual. But often it includes anyone of Anglo-Cetic, Scandinavian origins, as well as any 'Germanic' looking French, Italians and Slavs. Most definitely Southern Italians, Greeks, Turks, Middle Eastern peoples incl Egyptians, as well as the darker/ shorter stocked French and Spanish people are referred to as "of Mediterranean appearance". However, recently the media has actually avoided using any descriptions associated with presumed race, as it has been seen by some to ignite racial hatred toward certain communities, about which stereotypes have arisen as being "trouble-makers". Hxseek (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether some usage is "good" or "logical". If indeed Caucasian is equivalent to "Anglo" or "Northern European" in Australia and Canada, than that is simply -- neutrally -- reported as a local use of the term BindingArbitration (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)BA

New Cavalli Sforza research

Cavalli Sforza now claims that originally the first caucasoids were made 2 parts of 3 from a population originating from China and 1 part of 3 of a population originating from Africa, this is based on genetics and anthropology and paleoanthropology.

Anybody have anymore information on this?

This is a misreading. He just says that Caucasoids (or maybe Europeans specifically) are intermediate on some indexes. --JWB (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He does a comparison of Caucasians vs. Africans, East Asians, and an artificial interpolation 1/3 of the way between Africans and East Asians. Caucasians are found to be closer to the interpolation than to either Africans or East Asians as a whole, but still a substantial distance. Also, the comparison is of a bunch of genetic information, but not necessarily representative of any visible or significant racial differences, which are likely on a smaller set of genes.

The pattern of difference is not necessarily due to origins and may mostly represent gradual diffusion roughly in proportion to geographical distance. --JWB (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance tag

In glancing at the article, I was astounded at the weight/attention given the ridiculous notion that Senagalese have "Caucasoid" features because of some sort of admixture and that some physical characteristics of some East Africans have nothing to do with them being Black Africans. If this absurd, fringe info is going to be presented, then the prevailing view certainly must be as well -- and with at least as much emphasis. Just another reason the "disputed" tag should remain. deeceevoice (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you at least put something on the talk page regarding why you added the tag, so thank you for that. But don't you think it would be better to just simply add a fact tag to that particular section or just even remove it all together if it's a fringe theory? There was already a tag at the top, so I don't know how adding a similar one helps the article. Too many times I see people adding a tag to an entire article when either a few sentences could simply be removed, a "fact" tag could be placed requesting a citation for it, or a balanced statement could be added. Kman543210 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Huxley

Claiming that Huxley's "races" included Caucasians is OR. Huxley defined Melanochroi and Xanthochroi "races", which overlapped significantly. Alun (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources, types and authors

We should probably have a section on the different sub-types proposed by different authors, and probably have even more authors mentioned.

Here are some old online text about physical anthropology where these types are described:

http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/

http://carnby.altervista.org/

For some reason this URL is blaclkisted, so I've split it up so it can be shown here:

http://www.amorsite. shorturl.com/ FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Racist Predictions?

"They are also known as to have complete dominance over the black (negroid) race. In America the blacks have always been and will always be subordinate to white people." in Origins of the term

Is it just me or is this not that appropriate for an unbiased article?

--212.251.109.36 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism that was just put there. It has since been removed. Kman543210 (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the same sentence was placed in the article in three different sections, I have further reverted the vandalism. Cheers. Alun (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

I'm going in with an axe here. I see above that Deeceevoice thinks this article is shit. For once, I absolutely agree. Utterly incoherent nonsense. Talk:Caucasian race/Dumping ground is where cut material is going. Moreschi (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

to be fair, some of the material could be considered as raw material for an encyclopedia article. I guess we need more articles with "dumping ground" areas where people with much time for googling around but no editing skills or command of the context can contribute. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that one function of this page? Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

not really, this is for actual discussions. The problem is that useful material posted here gets swampt and eventually archived. Come to think of it, a "dumping ground" page for raw references and quotes yet to be worked into the article (or, that is, cut out of the article), could be a useful addition as a standard asset of all "C+" (i.e. better than "Start") articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Dumping-ground page to present this idea. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has this article been trimmed down to nothing, and why are sourced images replaced by a random image of a girl? The stuff which has been removed is sourced, that physical anthropology is pretty damn shaky is a fact, and that many different, and sometimes useless, theories have emerged shouldn't be hidden. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

While it is true that the instances of Greek myth quoted are set in the Caucasus, the article suggests that there is some connection with the "fascination for European" exerted by the Caucasus and Blumenbach's hypothesis. Unless we have some reference making this suggestion, this is pure WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Caucasoid Physical Traits

User:Moreschi removed the citations I provided regarding the physical characteristics of Caucsoids as having thin lips, straight facial profile, receeding zygomas, large brow ridges, high-bridged, narrow noses which greatly project, large amounts of body hair, tendency toward balding, a narrow face and large jaws. All of these traits are obivously true and uncontroversial. I suspect User:Moreschi blindly removed these cited facts when they resurrected the ancient, low-quality version of the article, making their removal an accident on their part.----^DarkTea© 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• And you were blocked for re-adding the cited bits. Ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent rewrite of the article

I just reverted 3 edits because they introduced drastic changes in the article. Please discuss. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CURRENT MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC USE OF "CAUCASOID" IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

Please don't apply political ideologies or agendas to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia needs to describe everything in the world whether you agree with it or not.

Some scholars today completely reject the notion that humanity can be described in distinct groups of physical types — but many others continue to find this entirely appropriate.

Here is a current article in the New York Times — hardly a bastion of racist extremism — on the Tocharian mummies showing that "Caucasoid" is in fact in use today:

"The Dead Tell a Tale China Doesn’t Care to Listen To"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/asia/19mummy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dead%20tell%20a%20tale&st=cse&oref=slogin

"It's very clear that these are of Europoid or Caucasoid origins," Han, now retired, said in an interview in his apartment in Beijing.

Wikipedia readers need to know that there are differing views today in academia on the subject of race, and the term "Caucasoid".

Preventing them from doing can only be regarded as vandalism.

I don't have an account that can edit a semi-protected page at the moment, but will be back to present an accurate NPOV discussion of the subject soon if the current political essay has not been corrected.

Thank you. 76.204.26.55 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)NPOV editor

Ironically, the NY Times article is all about political attempts to suppress accurate scientific reporting on ethnic identity.

76.204.26.55 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)NPOV editor

Of course, that is not the reporter using the word but a retired Chinese anthropologist, so if you want to argue that some old Chinese anthropologists use the word, I'll have to agree. dougweller (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where that dougweller comment comes from — "Caucasian" is more in use today in biomedicine than ever as so many studies are finding different ethnic groups respond differently to medications, etc. I'm going to rework the intro with some quotes to this effect. The point above that we can't let our opinions bias the information presented is really important.

BindingArbitration (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)BA

Please read the section heading again and my comments -- which don't mention 'Caucasian' at all. dougweller (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

it is a simple fact that people can easily distinguish "Asian people" (in historical terminology, "Mongoloid") from "white people" (in historical terminology, "Caucasoid"). This is a fact regardless of any racial theories, as is evident already from merely practical puropses such as the description of a suspect in police reports. When the FBI is looking for a "Caucasian" suspect, they aren't subscribing to scientific racism, they are simply using a term understood by people, so they will know to look for a "white" person and exclude all "Asian" or "black" ones from suspicion. This is the article on the concept of a Caucasian race (my emphasis), and as such on scientific racism, not just on the major groups of human physical aspects. For the purposes of the Tarim mummies, the simple message is that they would be classified as "white", not "Asian" on grounds of their physical aspect, which is worth noting in the context of Bronze Age Central Asia. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My NPOV Reworking of Intro Reverted to Inaccurate Political Tract - Reversed and Being Referred to Administrators

The intro of the article as I found it on Nov 29, 2008 describes "Caucasian" as an obsolete term, no longer in use. This is simply contradictory to reality -- it's in vigorous use today. Tons of citations.

I know some people don't like that -- but it's what's actually out there in the world. I apologize for reality. I will go out tomorrow and start speaking to every biomedical researcher on earth, explain to them that "race" doesn't exist, and demand they stop using the word Caucasian in their study protocols. And when they do stop using it, I will then gladly re-re-write the intro to state that the word is obsolete.

But for the period prior to that time, I rewrote a very neutral intro, clearly pointing out the current academic opposition to the term, but giving quotes of "Caucasian" in current, utterly reputable, mainstream sources.

This was hacked apart and reversed by Gandalf61 and Moreschi the same day of my reworking.

This is nothing other than vandalism -- you simply cannot use Wikipedia as your personal political opinion blog. A neutral and comprehensive survey of the subject must be presented to readers. And that includes the fact that, among other contexts, "Caucasian" is being used as an ethnic category in every biomedical study being conducted today.

I'm of course reversing this.

And I'm starting the process of discussing with the Administrators getting a full lock on the article (after it's further cleaned up), and the vandal-bloggers banned from Wikipedia (on their current accounts at least, and IPs if fixed).

BindingArbitration (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

And now Wobble has undone my intro again, with no comment here in Talk, and the Edit Summary "(is this reliable? what academc journals have they published in?)".

The academic journals you will find at the end of the reference links accompanying each quote.

So I'm reverting.

BindingArbitration (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Binding Arbitration, the reason I reverted you was because you included long quotations in the introduction. You should not have done this as per the Manual of Style. Furthermore the quotes that you had included previously had not been removed from the article but had only been moved to the relevant sections of the article. The introduction should be a summary of the article, and as such we should not include many long quotes. My comment about reliable sources related to my tagging of the DNA tribes citation as a dubious source. I appologise that this gave the wrong impression to you. Clearly you are right that the term is is use by reliable sources,and it's fair that you include this claim in the introduction. You could of course achieve this without including long inappropriate quotes in the intro. There no need to get so steamed up, we're all trying to achieve the same thing here, that is a reliable encyclopaedia. How do you feel about simply rewording the intro so that it doesn't claim that the term is entirely obsolete, and then including your quotes later in the article rather than in the intro? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. BTW please feel free to contact any admins you like, you seem to think this is some sort of threat, but I don't think that anyone is going to be impressed with your edit warring. Alun (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I can find no place in the intro that "describes "Caucasian" as an obsolete term, no longer in use." What it states is that the concept is rejected as obsolete, not that the term is no longer in use. That's not the same thing at all. Alun (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) BindingArbitration, please calm down. If you read the whole article you will find that your examples of contemporary usage of the term "Caucasian" in popular science and medical literature are still there - I just moved them out of the lead and into more appropriate sections of the article. And the lead paragraph does not say that the term itself is obsolete - it says that the method of racial classification that originally gave rise to the term is obsolete. Very different thing.

Collaborative editing can take some getting used to, but most editors here are simply trying to work with you to improve this article. Giving vent to your frustrations is understandable, but it is really not productive. You might find our guideline on Wikipedia etiquette helpful. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing neutrality here -- in motivation or result.

The latest intro is back to "It was thus in use as denoting populations of Europe..." -- past tense.

The content on biomedical research now in the main section has been watered-down to sound less significant. Why would that happen?

"In the medical sciences, where response to pharmaceuticals and other treatment can vary dramatically based on ethnicity[3][4][5], there is great debate as to whether racial categorizations as broad as Caucasian are medically valid[6][7], but nonetheless such definitions have recently become a standard variable in clinical research protocols..."

Becomes:

"In the medical sciences, where response to pharmaceuticals and other treatment can vary dramatically based on ethnicity,[16][17] there is debate as to whether racial categorizations as broad as Caucasian are medically valid.[18][19] Nonetheless, such definitions have recently been used as a variable in clinical research protocols..."

And if some of you have such a great understanding of this subject to be trying to completely control the article, why didn't you already have a section on this vital issue of biomedical research before I arrived?

The acid test is that I should have no idea what any editor's opinions are on a subject from his/her writing. You have no idea that I'm a leftist utterly opposed to racial discrimination in society. It really obvious that you are.

I'm going to continue working on trying to get this article to present a truly neutral description of this word "Caucasian" both here and at the Administrative level.

BindingArbitration (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Okay, as an exercise, let's unpack the changes that I made when I moved that paragraph on biomedical research:

• I changed your in-line external links to in-line references. This is standard Wikipedia practice - the references are automatically collated at the end of the article.
• I removed the www.bidil.com link because it linked to an advert page and I couldn't see how it supported the sentence that it was attached to. You had two other good refernces on that sentence anyway.
• I changed "great debate" to "debate". "Great" here is an example of what we call a peacock term - it adds no factual information to the sentence. The key point is that there is a debate - we have no yardstick for determining whether it was "great" or not.
• I split the run-on sentence at "but nonetheless", to start a new sentence for greater clarity.
• I changed "have recently become a standard variable" to "have recently been used as a variable" - but I can't remember exactly why. Not especially attached to my wording here, so you could change it back if you feel strongly.

I don't think that paragraph has been "watered down", and the only thing it reveals about me is that I can be a bit pedantic about run-on sentences and such like. In short - it's a collaborative editing thing - if you can't handle that, then you will find your time at Wikipedia to be very frustrating. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BindingArbitration already has the attention of this Administrator. Please don't call other editors vandals just because they disagree with you or you don't like what you think is their political point of view (and please don't think you don't have one). Calm down and listen to what other people have to say. This article is not going to get a 'full lock', although I wouldn't be surprised if another Administrator did lock it for a while if you are going to edit war like this instead of working together with other editors to improve it. And please read WP:CITE - as you've been told above, no in-line external links in articles, if you are basing something on a reference in a book please reference the full book informatin and the page number - I'm not happy with Gushi culture's references at all and you've had the same problems here. dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bidil of course is the first race-based pharmaceutical. Some people are very, very unhappy about this. The link is to the Web site of the pharmaceutical company which authoritatively describes the nature of the product.

"A great debate" is significant and significantly distinct from "some debate" -- and that this is a "great debate" is supported by the references which describe, "A major discussion has arisen recently...", "controversy", "biomedical scientists are divided in their opinions about race".

"Standard variable" is factual and alters the entire substance from being just one approach, to the nearly universal, mainstream approach.

But your attention to detail here is significant given the horrific condition in which I found the article -- objectivity-wise, organization-wise, prose-wise -- under your assumed dictatorship.

Some poetry about Europeans being mythologically-fascinated with the magical land of the Caucuses since ancient times sat there happy as you please. Anything suggesting a view other than the utter non-existence of any biological connection to human physical appearance is simply leapt upon. That's not good editorship. And not NPOV.

I'm going to stop trying to revert to my full rewrite, and make some more-modest edits to get the intro to describe what this word means today in the real world, to someone from Mars. I'm putting "great' and "standard" back in the medical section. Let's see how it gets skewed, a little more skewed, a little more skewed back...

BindingArbitration (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Well done. Adopting a gradualist approach is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I am afraid I am not going to be able to give you any more help here, as my stock of patience has been just about used up by your incessant rudeness and incivility. Sorry, but you are now on your own. Good luck. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to Gandalf61 for my dogged pursuit of this issue, if I have mistaken him for one of the people trying to bring a political agenda to the article.

DNA tribes

I'm querying if DNA tribes can be considered a reliable source.[8] 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:

“ The Caucasian race, sometimes the Caucasoid race, is a term of racial classification, coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for the "white" race of mankind, which he derived from the region of the Caucasus.[1]

It is used to denote the general physical type of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, Southwest Asia and sometimes South Asia, or more narrowly only Europe.[2]

The concept of a Caucasian race is highly controversial today. It is rejected by many academics and political activists who view any system of categorizing humanity based on physical type as an obsolete 19th Century racism,[3] and human genome studies have shown that there is no single and simple genetic definition equivalent to "Caucasian".[4] However the term continues to be widely used in many scientific and general contexts, usually with its more restricted sense of "white".

”

BINDINGARBITRATION WANTS:

“ The term Caucasian (or Caucasoid) race is used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, Southwest Asia and South Asia. In more technical use, especially historically, it may encompass the whole population of this region without regard necessarily to skin tone. In common use it is usually restricted to Europeans and other lighter-skinned populations within this area and thus equivalent to the varying definitions of "white" race.[1]

The term was coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, and is named for the peoples of the Caucasus Mountains, whom he regarded as the archetype for the grouping.[2]

The concept of a Caucasian race is highly controversial today. It is rejected by many academics and political activists who view any system of categorizing humanity based on physical type as an obsolete 19th Century racism,[3] and human genome studies have shown that there is no single and simple genetic definition equivalent to "Caucasian".[4] However the term continues to be widely used in many scientific and general contexts, usually with its more restricted sense of "white".

”

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