Talk:Caucasian race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Caucasia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Caucasia, Caucasian people and Caucasian languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Western Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Caucasian race is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject South Asia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Why such obsolete sources for many parts of this article?[edit]

Why is this article so light on sources from current scholars of anthropology and human genetics? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is centered on the main anthropologists from the typology's heyday, though some retrospective literature is also linked to. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Who are you calling a Marxist? Anyone I know personally who edits this page (that would be myself, only) is definitely not a Marxist. But what sources do you recommend for improving this article? Discussing ways to improve the article (rather than name-calling) is the purpose of an article talk page. What constructive suggestions do you have for the discussion here? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, name calling aside, I've synopsized the main ancestral components and their geographical hubs, associated populations and times of divergence. Soupforone (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've removed that since the genetic data is not relevant for the topic of this article since it does not purport to be about "the caucasian race" or suggest that the concept has any validity. I also removed the section on medicine on the same grounds. Any material included here has to be directly and specifically about "Caucasian" as a racial category. Not about more general ideas about European ancestry or phenotypical traits. I also removed a patently false claim about what physical anthropologists generally think about the putative Cro-Magnon origins of the "caucasian race".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The ancestral components are purported to have West Eurasian origins, which have been associated with Caucasoid ancestry. Cro-Magnons were also often posited as the earliest or prototypical representatives of the Caucasoid race. Soupforone (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources that talk about European genetic ancestry do not talk about the Caucasian race. You cannot simply transfer studies of European populations to the notion of the caucasian race, which has been abandoned as a meaningful biological category by contemporary population geneticists and physical anthropologists. If you have a source for Cro-Magnon being considered ancestral to the caucasian race then that should be added. But it should be described in the proper historical context. It is not the case that current physical anthropologists think this, since they generally do not recognize the existence of a caucasian race.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Roger Pearson is not a reliable source for physical anthropology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright; it was just some random anthropology treatise positing a Cro-Magnon prototype. Anyway, a number of these genetic studies do associate the West Eurasian origins for various ancestral components and lineages with Caucasoid ancestry [1][2]. But point taken. Soupforone (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that random, his introduction to anthropological concepts is probably the only one from that period that considers race to be a valid biological category. Your two other sources are about Tuvinian and Iranian ancestry, not about Caucasian race. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine, but they specifically associate West Eurasian origins with Caucasoid ancestry. One of them actually does so using parentheses. Soupforone (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not sure whether such a passing mention is sufficient to establish the point. The problem is of course that "caucasian race" is an obsolete concept, which has been superseded by other concepts in most fields (such a European ancestry), but which still is sometimes used somewhat ambiguously in some fields. You really have to be careful to not use wikipedia's voice to lend legitimacy to a concept that is no longer scientifically current.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the OP. It seems to me that user Maunus is controlling this Wikipedia page to the comfort of his or her bias, blacklisting sources subjectively, and I would suggest reporting any undue reversions not to "get him in trouble", but rather to push away from socio-political bias in favor of objective facts. Wikipedia is not, and should not, be opinion-based. Education should not be opinion-based. Any opinion based not upon objective fact may aswell not exist at all, as one should be left to create opinions based upon such information, rather than be told what to think or be afraid of what prejudicial action might arise from such truth. An example, with regard to this article, where it could be expanded: the south-western Asian Indian sub-continent has indeed been found to genetically be related to the Australian aborigines via C Y-DNA haploid lineage, which is not ambiguous nor "outdated"—as new scientific knowledge—and only the understanding of biological race is outdated, but not the concept. There is a great socio-political reactionary anti-colonial anti-Indo-Aryan-European anti-Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) movement in India, et al, a nationalist & nativist movement, to recognize that the peoples there are, in the South especially, descended from indigenous Indians (not to be confused with indigenous Americans, at C3 Y-DNA, Inuit being a child-race, child-population group, of Caucasians, being Q1a3a divergent at P cluster circa 35thousand years ago, where Inuit language has been hypothesized to be Nostratic, of the greater Caucasian linguistic macrofamily), where Indians are H, L, C, & Indo-Aryan M, subdivision of Caucasian, Caucasoid, Indo-Aryan-European, one of three proven divisions of the Caucasian biological race as mentioned within the article. To that point, east Asians, "Mongoloids", are descended from Caucasians as a child-race, from central Asians, distinct from east Asians as a closely related population group, from Siberian Caucasians & Polynesians, where Siberian Caucasians are closely related to northern Africans, from Libyans to Egyptians to Ethiopians (black Caucasians), where skin-color has been found to only vary by latitude & altitude, though there is strong support for a combination of Out of Africa theory, Into Africa, & multi-origin hypothesis in contemporary academia, which does fall in-line with so-called "outdated" academia. I would refer to the Race (human categorization) aswell as Race (humans) as a biological concept articles within Wikipedia. Further to that point, sub-Saharan African populations have been found to be separate biological races, with separate archaic origin, separate linguistic families, et al, where there is no "sub-Saharan Negroid race", though there is a Caucasian race with single origin. The greatest genetic variety exists within sub-Saharan Africa, population group-to-population group, where individual genetic variance only exists from family to family—not literally by an individual basis. This article needs to be brought out of the 19th century and into evolving science & academia instead of Marxist-influenced sociological & socio-political sensitivities, per Wikipedia NPOV. W124l29 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I would further challenge anyone to provide a counter-arguement which even so much as suggests how two non-related population groups share languages or dialects proven to be from the same origin.W124l29 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you perhaps provide the sources on which you base your own opinion? Particularly I would like to see the sources for the "fact" that there are "three proven divisions of the caucasian biological race", that "mongoloids are a "child race of Caucasians", and that the Inuit languages have been hypothesized to be part of a greater "Caucasian language family". Given your strong faith in the scientific and objective nature of these conclusions I assume they have been recently published in highly reliable scientific journals and met with general approval among population geneticists and linguists.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Gladly. Nostratic_languages#cite_ref-51 Nostratic_languages#Other_words Nostratic_languages#cite_ref-PIEpronoun_52-0 Nostratic_languages#cite_ref-PIEpronoun_52-1 [[3]] Race_and_genetics#cite_note-Cavalli-Sforza1994-2 History_of_human_migration#cite_note-Literature_2000-2 Early human migrations When biological race is removed from controversy about differences in performance, cognitively or physically, between two individuals of two distinct macro-population groups, races, as opposed to sub-population groups, ethnicities, or even more divided, nationality or political boundary, subculture, &c, region, et al, then those population groups have been found to share the same cultural connections: linguistics, religions, clothing, cuisines, traditions, symbolism, history, but not necessarily skin-color—where such is dependent upon geographical latitude & altitude, admixture between archaic Humanoids theorized at the base level as aforementioned within another comment, but more climatic regardless. There are “black” (pigmented), “brown”, & “white” (depigmented) Caucasians as there are “black” (pigmented), “brown”, & “white” (depigmented) east Asians & central Asians ("Mongoloids"). It is agreed generally that those divisions by skin-color are socially constructed fallacies, created when our academia & natural science was not so informed as it has become, and perpetuated by lay ignorance & preconceived bias. Those biological races have been proven to exist under such a definition, fact, by history, anthropology, &c, aswell as newer genetic studies regarding Human migration, evolution, & genetic genealogy, where biological race, again to emphasize, is not sub-species, but population group, though, again, admixture between archaic Humanoids theorized at the base level as aforementioned within another comment in combination with Out of Africa & Into Africa theories, specifically regarding E Y-DNA haplotype—less-so J Y-DNA haplotype—which in combination with northern E represents the majority of northern Africa aswell as a portion of southern Europe & non-Indo-Aryan Middle East, near East, western Asia, what have you, as Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic ethnic groups. Such archaic admixture suggests that Humans are able to mate successfully with other sub-species; furthermore, as to which skin-color, tone, pigmentation, ancient Humans were prior to Out of Africa, archaic Humanoids were, though Neanderthals are thought to have had “brown” or “white” skin & blue eye-mutation, red-hair-mutation, and whether there were differences between their skin-colors is both an unknown to consensus to my knowledge & irrelevant. That aside, there is only division within the USA, where such is a socio-political controversy due to implications historically of such academia being studied, with focus on biological race as sub-species instead of macro-population group, and such censorship is a cultural Marxist initiative in sociology—a term which I use very specifically, and not as a lay pejorative. Sociology is not a science, but a subjective interpretation of sciences when combined, no? Without being derailed entirely, I would have you & anyone else please consider again where within paragraph Caucasian_race#Classification, the latter views of Dr Carleton S Coon have been found correct via genetics Haplogroup_CF_(Y-DNA)#/media/File:C=M130-Migration.jpg:
19th century classifications of the peoples of India considered the Dravidians of non-Caucasoid stock as Australoid or a separate Dravida race, and assumed a gradient of miscegenation of high-caste Caucasoid Aryans and indigenous Dravidians. In his 1939 The Races of Europe, Carleton S. Coon thus described the Veddoid race as "possess[ing] an obvious relationship with the aborigines of Australia, and possibly a less patent one with the Negritos" and as "the most important element in the Dravidian-speaking population of southern India".[26] In his later The Living Races of Man (1965), Coon considerably amended his views, acknowledging that "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasoid racial region". However, he still recognized an Australoid substrate throughout the subcontinent, writing that "the earliest peoples who have left recognizable survivors were both Caucasoid and Australoid food gatherers. Some of the survivors are largely Caucasoid; others are largely Australoid."[27]
To the point of Dr Carleton S Coon simply being called "Carleton Coon" or "Carleton S. Coon" within the article aswell as his Wikipedia article, is there a reason other than Google statistics as to why he is never addressed as being a doctor? W124l29 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't use titles for any academics per the style guide (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Academic_titles). You are simply linking to the wikipedia articles on Nostratic. However, it so happens that the nostratic theory is not widely accepted by historical linguists at all - it is entirely speculative and papers on the Nostratic hypothesis are not published in most reputable journals. As for the potential vindication of Coon's racial classification, the burden rests on you to show that modern population genetics uses his classification - as far as I know they do not use it at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I find it curious that you have not addressed a single comment of mine in above responses, and instead have focused upon Nostratic not being widely accepted within textbook-academia. I never stated that it was. In fact, I see that I wrote specifically '[...]hypothesized to be Nostratic, of the greater Caucasian linguistic macrofamily[...]', where Inuit is 'hypothesized to be Nostratic'. Nostratic is by no means "speculative", and is indeed published in reputable journals. There is only lack of consensus being as that there are competing theories, and not that Nostratic is in anyway considered fringe. The field is linguistics, and if nothing were ever studied for want of "general consensus" in every field, then the field would not exist. There would be nothing to study. Nothing would ever be published. Again, Nostratic is very much an existing linguistic family, and I linked you directly to sources on each respective page. This is not a public edit, but a talk page, and I don't need to source here at the least my statements any further than I decide to. Sincerely, the burden rests upon you to provide sources for your statements against mine all the same.W124l29 (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
See, Race_and_genetics#/media/File:The_history_and_geography_of_human_genes_Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza_map_genetic.png Note, furthermore, that Dr Coon is not generally considered to be disreputable as a source even in contemporary academia, something which I've seen you claim on this article & elsewhere.W124l29 (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Carleton Coon's racial typology is considered pseudoscientific in mainstream academia, and you simply could not get a paper published in a mainstream journal that tried use his work as an authoritative source of information about human biological variation. None of your claims about Nostratic or racial typology are actually supported by sources, so untill you provide some I will just ignore you. Your opinions unsupporred by reliable sources are utterly irrelevant and I will not waste more time on argueing with them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, you're simply typing with an authoritative tone yourself without any evidence for any of your claims. Where Dr Coon was an academic, he is an academic source until you can prove otherwise, where you are not an academic authority. The burden does not rest upon anyone else but you, User:Maunus. I'll openly type that it is nice, furthermore, that your denialist death-grip on this article's content WP:POV is at last loosening as more people edit it WP:NPOV. Everything that I've written is objective fact. Toodles. W124l29 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The process through which racial typology was outphased and a population view of human variation was introduced, and through which Coon's work was made obsolete is one of the better documented chapters of the history of physical anthropology. You can try to read these:
  • Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 65-76.
  • Marks, J. (2010). The two 20th-century crises of racial anthropology. Histories of American physical anthropology in the twentieth century, 187-206.
  • Keita, Shomarka OY, and Rick A. Kittles. "The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence." American Anthropologist 99, no. 3 (1997): 534-544.
  • Relethford, J. H. (2010). Race and the Conflicts within the Profession of Physical Anthropology during the 1950s and 1960s. Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century, 207-219.
  • Jackson Jr, J.P., 2001. “In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's The Origin of Races. Journal of the History of Biology, 34(2), pp.247-285.
  • Goodman, A., & Hammonds, E. (2000). Reconciling race and human adaptability: Carleton Coon and the persistence of race in scientific discourse. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, 28-44.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Race as a macro-population group of shared ancestry, genetics, origin, & cultural heritage is exactly what I believe in, and there is no consensus to the contrary. There are two commonly defined viewpoints of race accepted, one of which has changed over time as I've conceded, and the other a sociological definition as one might understand on the sidewalk (that race does not exist except as a fallacious social construct and/or illusion, that everyone shares the same history as everyone else, or that such is irrelevant and should not be pursued further due to the possibility of racist action or thought, a moralistic fallacy), put forth by Karl Marx à la cultural Marxism as founder of contemporary sociology and so more popular in the Americas alone where racism has made study of genetics, history, linguistics, & anthropology, all as related, controversial. Dr Coon was not made "obsolete" in that his work is viewed as "pseudo-" or "fringe", but that his work has been expanded upon & improved upon as has any field of academia or natural science. To argue that such studies are now "obsolete" in that way is the same logical twist as if hypothetically a fundamentalist Creationist were to tell a Darwinist that evolution does not exist due to the field not being consistent in knowledge and so understanding from Day One. W124l29 (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Caucasian Race Real or Pseudoscience?[edit]

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"[4] 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. Lay summary (20 July 2015).  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)


Has Caucasoid race features that can be considered neotenic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)


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 [5]. 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 [6]. 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)

Turkic & Stoddard[edit]

A user has been going around spamming various pages with a copy & paste on Turkic peoples. The material is completely offtopic here, undue, and none of the links even discuss the Caucasoid typology. The map by Lothrop Stoddard also pertains to his "brown race", concept not to Caucasoid typology like Coon's post-pleistocene map. Soupforone (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Turkics are part of Caucasian race. Do not delete entire sections just because you dont like it. The rules are clear when it comes to content worked on by others, respect the work of other people. Indonesia Tanah Airku (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Work or not, it is WP:OFFTOPIC. The only part of the rant that even had anything to do with Caucasoid typology was linked to some personal website on "Karakalpak Genetics". This is neither relevant, accurate or encyclopedic. Tellingly, when I tried to link to that website here, Wikipedia wouldn't even let me because it is flagged as spam by the system [7]. Soupforone (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If your problem is only with "Karakalpak Genetics" and "flagged as spam" personal website which is I took from semi-protected Turkic peoples article (, you should just delete that paragraph, not the entire section. After all, Turkic peoples do have Caucasian genes, they should be put here. Indonesia Tanah Airku (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


The only part of the passage that wasn't off-topic was the flagged "Karakalpak Genetics" bit. Anyway, I actually agree that at least a note on the main Caucasoid/West Eurasian ancestral components makes sense. However, an editor objected to this, so we agreed that the ancestral component stuff should instead go on Human evolutionary genetics. Soupforone (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Turkic people are indeed a part of the Caucasoid/Caucasian biological race/population group, and I do not see any conflict as per Wikipedia editing guidelines with this section being kept. This article is lacking the Tocharians or Tocharyan eastern Iranian Scythian people of Tarim Basin in what is now northwestern China, speakers of Saka language, in addition to some more central Asian Turkic peoples. There are many genetic & archaeological studies of this, even more exciting ones which show conclusively that Siberian Europeans have been in the Americas for tens of thousands of years. "Brown" people is a subdivision of Caucasoid/Caucasian that is only skin-deep and was only briefly accepted as per racism instead of racial academia. Such has become more vogue nowadays due to anti-colonialism in reaction to overbearing Eurocentrism in an attempt to disassociate or disown European peoples by west & south Asians, especially where influenced by Marxist sociology in the West of western Eurasia (USA, UK, EU). I would move for integration of this Turkic addition into the article in a less disjointed manner than that appended section provided, but of course keeping Dr Coon's map instead of Stoddard's attempt to divide "pale skin" from "melanated skin" due to his own prejudicial racism. W124l29 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
To be consistent, Laplander Saami Finnsch Nords, indigenous Siberian Europeans ancestral to indigenous or native Americans and likewise related to central Asian Caucasoid/Caucasians (eastern Iranian) aswell as "Mongoloid"/Asiatics (Turkish) might be also added if there are sources provided evidence to such an assertion is at all made even "sometimes". Though Europeans are not native to Europe persay, it is generally accepted that Europe & Australia are the only two continents inhabited by single macro-population groups. W124l29 (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── True, Turkish people are part of the Caucasoid spectrum. They are defined by a West Eurasian ancestral component, the same "Levantine" element as are other Near Easterners. However, Turkic peoples in Central Asia are not for the most part. They have marked East Asian skeletal and genetic affinities due to intermarriages during the various Mongol invasions. The Turkic passage is not wrong about that. It is, though, indeed quite clumsily presented. Perhaps you can suggest more encyclopedic wording here on the talk page? A brief mention of the Tocharians, Scythians and other early Indo-European groups in the steppes and Tarim Basin would make sense. Soupforone (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Though the Tocharians as Tocharians are not the same ethnic group today due to admixture with Turkic Mongoloid/Mongolians (east Asians, many central Asians), they survive today as part of the Uyghur peoples, a people markedly similar in appearance to Europeans & north-western Asians due to their depigmented form of the white skin gene (really, white & brown skin gene, but lest I digress). We'll need to scrounge for sufficient credible sources to survive future scrutiny, however, even though there is no proposal nor debate to any other biological origin for these peoples. W124l29 (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The premise of this discussion is wrong. Turkic people as a whole are a linguistic/ethnic assemblage of very different peoples. They can be of completely different genetic ancestry (and physical type, from "Mongoloid" to "Caucasoid", and everything in between), as long as they share language and culture. In the old physical anthropology sense, the "Turanid race" was a label given to some mainly Turkic-speaking populations that were of mixed Mongoloid and Caucasoid ancestry. That group could be mentioned here, but not an extremely wide ethno-linguistic group (and we sure shouldn't have a giant list of every single Turkic speaking ethnic group or a random man, as we do now). FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Soupforone (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

There is currently a slow edit war regarding a quote and the word "Georgian" in the description of an image. The content was removed by Oatitonimly back on May 16 ([8]). It was later restored by an IP editor, removed again by Oatitonimly, and then back and forth between Nuclearcanadian and Oatitonimly. This needs to stop. Oatitonimly hasn't fully explained why they are removing the content (though they did mention the descriptor "Georgian" is not sourced). Nuclearcanadian is hounding Oatitonimly and assuming bad faith due to Oatitonimly's supposed nationality/ethnicity ([9]). Attempting dispute resolution here before moving to other venues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


W124l29, please explain why you believe that the phrase "although its validity and utility are disputed by many social scientists" is an example of "damning with faint praise POV WP:WEASEL". It's not enough to just claim that it is. The link indicates as much too, so I don't follow your reasoning ("many social scientists have questioned the assumption that race is a scientific or objective reality, contending that it is forged from the discourses of politics, society, and history" [10]). You could perhaps argue that it is inaccurate. But a weasel phrase? Really? Also, without explanation it looks like WP:DRIVEBY tagging. Soupforone (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


There is no "Caucasoid race" in forensic science in the sense of all Europeans, West Asians, North Africans etc. While the term "Caucasoid" is used, it is more narrowly restricted to smaller populations. For example George Gill in his literature has distinguished European to "middle eastern" crania; "Caucasoid" in most forensic texts seems to be restricted to European ("White")populations (but not even all of them). Iliadic (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no combination of skeletal/phenotypic traits that cluster Europeans, West Asians and North Africans together. The main page mentions orthognathism, retreating cheekbones and narrow nose, yet none of these traits are found in the "Alpines" of old racial typology literature. Look at the main photo on that page - the "Alpine" man has a mesorrhine (medium size) nose, not leptorrhine (narrow) nose, and prognathism, not orthognathism etc. This means large numbers of central and eastern Europeans are not "Caucasoid" skeletally.Iliadic (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, a Caucasoid physical type is traditionally recognized within forensic anthropology [11]. Moreover, in relation to other physical types, Caucasoids are indeed usually orthognathous [12] and leptorrhine [13]. Such crania also does generally cluster together [14]. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at actual nasal index data here for skulls. Many population samples from Europe are not (mean) leptorrine (<47). You can also look at other scoring/measurements to see the "Caucasoid" label does not accurately capture European cranial variation. There is also no "Caucasoid" in the databases of FORDISC; the Norse (Norwegian) for example have different craniometric measurements than Zalavar (Hungarian), and Berg (Austrian). The problem with that dendogram of "major regional clusters" is it excludes many populations; when included, no large geographical clusters appear; this is the same with genetic data.Iliadic (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The latter nasal index is on fossil specimens whereas the one above is on the living, so an adequate parallel cannot be drawn. But the general principle holds true even when the nasal width alone is examined, as Caucasoids generally have the lowest values [15]. That being said, the Fordisc program doesn't use Caucasoid nomenclature because it was originally designed for American ethnic groups [16]. As with genetic data, confusion may also arise when populations of multiple ancestral origins are included, or when the skulls of subadults are analyzed (as they are not osteologically mature). However, while there certainly is much intra-group variation, Caucasoid skulls as a whole are craniometrically distinguishable from other physical types [17]. Soupforone (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but even if you measure living, not all populations from Europe/West Asia/South Asia have (mean) nasal index <70; there are many exceptions. That's why "Caucasoid" in the sense I described is invalid and has no utility because it ignores the variation. Check also the indices on your last link, virtually none apply. For example that link says "Caucasoid" is mesocephalic, yet there are many (mean) brachycephalic European and West Asian populations. Take a look at the map on the cephalic index page. So how can a brachycephalic mesorrhine central European population be "Caucasoid", when "Caucasoid" is meant to be mesocephalic and leptorrhine? Iliadic (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a quote from physical anthropologist Alan Goodman should be added to the page for clarification; "As Alan H. Goodman [1997] notes, the 85 percent to 90 percent results are based on the accuracy of the method when standards are developed on a subset of a sample and then tested on the sample from which the subset is derived. [18] That's basically my same point for "Caucasoid". When a forensic scientist claims to identify a "Caucasoid" up to 90% accuracy, he/she is using only a subset of a sample (probably Western Europeans). Similarly this has been observed for "Mongoloid" where: "physical anthropologists have noted that traits considered to be characteristic of the classical Mongoloid group were not derived from studies encompassing all of the populations that would be classified as Mongoloid." (Heard, A. N. (2008). "Non-Metric Assessment of Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry in the Forensic Context". M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State University) Iliadic (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, not every last Caucasoid group is perfectly leptorrhine. This, however, is beside the point since Caucasoids generally are in relation to other physical types. Likewise, with regard to the cephalic/cranial index, it is referring to the average range, not the absolute range. The Goodman caveat is okay, though. Soupforone (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Caucasian isn't a race, it's an ethnicity[edit]

Name of article should be altered. ScienceApe (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It has become an ethnic term of sorts in the US only, referring to "white people" in general, but that is not how the term is used in the rest of the world. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be the opposite then? "White people" being a race, it's a racial term in US, but an ethnic term everywhere else. ScienceApe (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Something is wrong with the image gallery at the top right of the page. There's a grid of yellow-tinted portraits floating in the top right that overlap some other content on the page. There's also no caption with the grid of images to explain what they are. Clicking an image in the grid links here, for example.

I don't know enough about wiki markup to be able to determine what's wrong. I'm hoping it will be a simple fix for someone with more experience. caseyh (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The layout looks fine on my screen. The captions are also in both the alt text and link-thrus. Please post a screenshot of what you are seeing on your screen through, and link to it here. Soupforone (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)