Talk:Caucasian race/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

rename to Caucasoid race

Hello I tried coppying the template but it won't work for me, so instead I will do it like this.

I am suggesting that this article be renamed to Caucasoid race or else simply Caucasoid on the grounds of consistancy with its equivalent articles Mongoloid and Negroid. Caucasoid is the historical term used for a historical racial classification. As for the argument some may make in favor of it remaining "Caucasian race" using the fact that Caucasian is a more modern term, this is invalid because the article is about the historical racial classification. Blumenbach, the guy who perpetuated this type of racial phenotype classification used Caucasoid. So why are Mongoloid and Negroid named with the -oid suffix, while Caucasian gets a different one on the grounds of the -ian suffix looking more modern? I think this should not be, it should be fixed. Let's also note that I am not endorsing Blumenbach's views on race, rather I am making an argument on the article title iteslf. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Consistency is less important than using the most common name, which I think is indisputably Caucasian. Both terms refer to the same concept: a historical racial classification which is sometimes still used as a sociological category (in the US). – Joe (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Caucasoid unambiguously refers to the ancestry group or race comprised of Europeans, Near and South Asians, and North Africans. Caucasian is pretty much a confused Americanism which variously means European, or European and Near Eastern. 103.99.75.204 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Contemporary use of the term "causcasian" as a racial category in the US and elsewhere is only historically related to Blumenbach's classification, and does not in fact imply or require a biological typological view of race which is implied to be valid by the -oid ending. We could conceivably have separate articles on "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" - in which case the later would refer to the historical, biologically invalid, concept and the former to the current use in society. What we can't do is merge the two into the -oid ending. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Have another article about Caucasian, which is different. 103.99.75.204 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — 103.99.75.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes I am an expert in this subject and intend to only edit about this topic. 103.99.75.204 (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, a subject expert... right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose No good reason given for changing except editor's person preference, and OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Evidence is now pretty clear that the OP is a troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - If we are going to go by U.S. terminology, then there has to be a geo tag on the article as I have said before, outside the United States, Caucasian mostly means of the Caucasus.

Caucasoid on the other hand is indisputably the historical outdated racial classification.

If we do separate the articles, then the Caucasian one aught to have a note that this is a mostly U.S. term for the white race.

I will not vote as I am the proposing party and I do not feel it would be fair to vote again.

Please do take into consideration non-American readers, including those who are from the Caucasus.

Please also take into consideration that this article appears to be mostly about the historical classification not the modern American usage, hence why "Caucasian" in this article makes 0 sense. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

All of this is already covered in the article. Caucasian wasn't exclusively an American term (as has already been pointed out to you above), but it mentions that it has mostly fallen out of contemporary usage everywhere except the US, where it has shifted meaning. There is a prominent notice at the top distinguishing this usage from the peoples of the Caucasus and if you search Wikipedia for "Caucasian" you'll be directed to that article and others about the Caucasus before this one. This proposal seems to be motivated mostly by the fact that you were personally unfamiliar with the term, not anything to do with this article or the sources. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't pay attention to the part about Blumenbach did you? You status quo pushers always ignore parts of what i said just to justify the status quo.

I said tha main reason is due to its counter-part articles being negroid and mongoloid.

If we are gion to talk about Blumenbach's thing in this article with that being the main focus as it is in this article presently, then it should b ename dCaucasoid. We already have an article for what Americans call "Caucasian". I believe it is this one. also noted in that article is use of Caucasian. Unfortunately the highschool musical approach of sticking to the status quo means that by Wikipedia sticking to the status quo for the sake of "well it's just one guy" (when in reality it's not just me) makes it seam that the Caucasian race is special, while the two oid races are in a different class. A major reason for "Caucasian" being phased out even in America ove r"white" was because using a geographic term for the white race over its coloured form looks like the whites are the favorite.

Finally, I am Eritrean-born, and am what Blumenbach would call a caucasoid. re you saying that in modern terms I am a Caucasian, even though I am neither European or of the Caucasus?

I'm looking at the content of the article and unfortunately, the argument that "Caucasian" is a more modern term and thus should be the article's title is bad because this is an article about a historical racial classification.

So dear Joe, I know you mean well, but I'm trying to tell you that using the fact that Caucasian is more modern-sounding is exactly my point. This is a historical racial classification and therefore the historical term of Caucasoid aught to be used over the more modern Caucasian.

Also let's not forget how the definitionsof "Caucasian" were in doubt for eons, such as in the court case where an Indian man claimed to be Caucasian, on the basis of Blumenbach's Caucasoid definition. The court argued that while he was a Caucasoid, that a Caucasian was somebody of European origin.

While also highlighting the problems with racial classifications in general, this also highlights a distinction made between Caucasoids and Cuacasians (meaning white people). 23.151.192.180 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, insult other editors, that'll get them to !vote in favor of your desired title change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There you go accusing me of stuff again BMK, where are you getting insulting from? what that I said the argument's bad? ooh, that's sooooooooooo insulting. i aught to be ashamed of myself.23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

also BMK, if you are going to accuse people of stuff in the future, such as how you just accused me of insulting Joe, and how you earlier this month accused me of being racist, you may want to do two things:

• Explain where exactly you get this idea from, this way in case you're wrong.
• word it in a way that lets the person know why you accuse them, and that you're assuming this accusation based on that individual case, not some generic type thing.

You have a habit of doing this to people quite a bit and I do not think people are going to take kindly to that much longer. I let you know because you mean well, so don't accuse me of being insulting or racist or anything like that without explaining where you come from and not assuming it's obvious. What's obvious to you is not obvious to me.

Just like what's obviously a reason for keeping this article as Caucasian race to you may not be obvious to me or to othe rpeople. And it's not because I and others are dumb or anything (not saying you are calling anybody dumb), it's that there are othe rpoints of view here, including the accused.

I was wrong about the witee race cetion above, but I was right to say that Joe's argument on why it should stay as Caucasian race is bad, assuming that that's what you found insulting in which case I think you need to rethink that. Insulting to who, Joe? I don't think so.

Anyway, enough of this, let's get back to discussing why this article's title is invalid due to it being about the historical classification and not the modern white race as viewed in the USA and Canada.23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to "accuse" you of anything, all I have to do is describe what you're doing, which is obvious to anyone who reads your comments. You're your own worst enemy, and I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Big talk BMK, nobody sees what you see save for you.

First it's racism now it's me insulting people. what is it that is supposed to be obvious because I'm not understanding here where I insulted anyone personally. I think Joe's argumen is bad, is that an attack on Joe him/herself? no. It just means that he/she needs a better argument than "Caucasian is the modern term so therefore it is a valid title." I say it's bad because he/she is making my point for me, in that Caucasian is the modern term, rather than the historical time. This is about the historical classification, not about the modern Caucasian classification, be it the geographically acurate definition, or else the "white" definition."23.151.192.180 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I will give Joe and the other opposers this part though: Caucasoid and Caucasian race should be possibly separate articles, I don't entirely disagree with you guys there. My case is that this article as it is written looks like it's talking about the Caucasoid race, as in its historical classification. That is what I've been trying to say al along.

Joe's argument that Caucasian is the modern term and thus should be the article's title based on it being used today is bad, because this article appears to be about the historical Blumenbach racial group, not white people or a modern view of it. That part of Joe's argument is bad. Not bad as inidiotic but bad as in it makes no sense at all. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I take this time to invite some non-Americans to weigh in on this, due to the arguments being made by opposers appearing to have a U.S> bias, just based on my first viewing and the stated locations of the users who have disclosed. Now normally I don't care where a user is from, but I think that it would be valuable to have non-Americans other than myself in this discussion, perhaps it would diversify the viewpoints here, because I appear to be the only non-American in this discussion. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• comment - pe rBMK's statement of me insulting an editor. I am not insulting Joe here I m saying that an argument that he/she made, the modern usage one is invalid. Yes I used "bad" but at no point did I insult anyone.

I request that BMK promptly either explain how saying that an argument is bad is insulting or else retract the accusation and let me focus on the discussion on the topic at hand, and that is whether or not Caucasian should be the title of this article. Also, parts of Joe's post are valid, but one part is not.

I'm calling for more non-American perspectives to widen the perspective on this discussion rathe rthan the minority of it being from a non-American point of view.

Since BMK apparently knows my intentions with this, tell me BMK, what is it that I am trying to say here about why it should be renamed to Caucasoid instead of Caucasian race? What did I mean when I said Joe's argument about "modern use" is bad? and if Joe think's it's bad enough he/she can do the official warning thingy, he/she's an admin after all I believe, I think I saw them when I was editin gfrom the UK a couple years ago, when it came to an article about a British voice actor.

Enough about that though. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you keep coming back to it, over and over again. No, you're clearly much too invested in getting this change made for it to be a casual thing to you. It's obviously very important to you that "Caucasian race" be renamed, and if you can't get "White race", you'll settle for "Caucasoid". Any observers looking at your strong opinions about this (which don't seem to convincing most people) would have to wonder why it's so darn important to you. The "Caucasian is a North American usage" argument isn't selling. So, who are people who want to promote "white race"? Who thinks that calling an article "Yellow race" would be an OK idea?

Eritrea, huh? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I was born in Nakfa, Eritrea and moved to the UK after several years.

Also I will wait for Joe to get back to me, sinse he/she at least doesn't throw accusations around like dodge balls.23.151.192.180 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I said Caucasian was the common name, not the modern name. Neither terms are modern: they're two words for the same poorly defined, archaic and unscientific concept. When deciding between multiple possible titles for a page, we go for the one that is most frequently used in reliable sources. Unless we split this into articles on historical/modern usage as some have suggested, that would appear to be Caucasian. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be for that move. Especially since this article appears to be more about the historical concept anyway.

Caucasian is more common today, but during Blumenbach's time Caucasoid was the term used. While I can't see what the photo is at the top, I do know it's entitled "Caucasoid scull".23.151.192.180 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Just stop it. Face it, there is not going to be any change made, so you can stop bouncing from one alternative to another in your desperate attempt to make some sort of change. It's simply not gong to happen, and your suggestions are starting to become disruptive. Go tilt at another windmill on another website, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Tilt at a windmill? what in the bloody hell are you talking about? 23.151.192.180 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anybody know what that means, go tilt at another windmill? Maybe it's an American term, I'm not sure. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You really don't know all that much do you? Despite that, you're secure in your feeling that Wikipedia should be shaped around what you think you know. Anyway, for $10,000 and the all-expenses paid trip to the French Riviera: HINT: Cervantes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I would call you out for being a wanker, what with the whole saying that I want wikipedia shaped to how I want it thing, but I got better things to do.

I don't know who the hell this guy is you linked me to, I'll look into him. And yes I'm saying you're smartass type comments make you look like a wanker. Not that you are a wanker but you look like one. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not attacking imaginary enemies BMK. I'm just passionate. Again, if that's blockable then let Joe know to block me. He/she obviously won't though. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe wouldn't block you, as he is WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, which is now, I believe, done, per WP:DNFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. but in the future, don't make smartass type comments at people unless you want rudeness back. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also I wouldn't go around labeling people trolls either BMK, only makes you look like the wanker when it turns out you're wrong, and I don't want that. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR/RS part?

The part in the section Origin: "whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong... “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today." seems to be WP:OR(or WP:RS) or is at least not suited for this article. There is no given reference to prove this claim. It also fails to explain what is a "white person". Is it a person of Europe? Or with white skin? Or does it mean Caucasoid? It could possibly be included in the articel "white skin" or "europeans". But not in the article about Caucasian race, that is not limited to white skin. Could someone change this please? Thanks. --212.241.98.39 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from a reliable source, so it cannot be OR. If there are counter-opinions from other reliable sources, they can be added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Physical Traits

Deleted some misleading and conflicting text in the Physical Traits section, for the reason that it seemed to conflate "European" with "Caucasian." While this has been thoroughly confused in popular culture in the United States, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make the same mistake on the article that is partially helping to fix the confusion.

Also, I noticed in the writing that it was very unclear whether what was being described was the erroneous messaging of the time, or things that the author believed to be true. Skin thickness is a pervading myth associated with race, but with no basis on biology. Stating it in a matter of fact way only contributes to the problems in the medical industry.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861435

--Seth (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Northcaucasian race into Caucasian race

too short for its own article and needs more watchers, which it would get if merged with a bigger article Doug Weller talk 13:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do this now. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Map from the Horniman museum is correct

Dear user: Rsk6400 ! The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.--Liltender (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct Rsk6400 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

US-centric

There is no reason there should be this US-centric paragraph in the intro-----------

• In the United States, the root term Caucasian is often used, both colloquially and by the US Census Bureau, as a synonym for white. This usage is considered erroneous by anthropologists and other scientists, who note that it conflates an anthropologically valid category (Caucasoid) with the social construct of the "white race". The conflation of Caucasian with white is also demographically misleading since the category Caucasoid has sometimes been considered to include various populations, such as South Asians and North Africans, that are not considered white in a social sense.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.44 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, there is, as the term "Caucasian" is used colloquially to mean "White" in the US more often then it is elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Outdated

@Grayfell: This source is used to say that the term is outdated but the gist of it is that despite being outdated, it is still a widely used term. A tertiary source on genetics and/or anthropology would be stronger.

@James343e: The sources you cherry-picked only demonstrate that it's widely used in fields other than genetics or anthropology, and are not about whether or not it's considered outdated by geneticists or anthropologists. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Scholars speaking outside of their fields is the cause of a lot of pseudoscience. Otherwise legitimate scholars using a pseudoscientific term borrowed from outside their specialty doesn't mean the term is legitimate within the field(s) it originated from.

Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the status quo ante of June 2 to allow this dispute to be discussed and a consensus reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@James343e: I suggest you take a look at the difference between primary and secondary sources, WP:PSTS. The sources you gave are primary sources. To establish your hypothesis from these sources would be WP:OR. Original research must not be included in articles, and those sources can serve as a good example for the reasons: Two or three of the sources were about Chinese people - here we would have to establish that the authors really meant "members of the Caucasian race". Maybe they are not native speakers of English and just wanted to say "non-Chinese". Another source is about "Hispanics" versus "Caucasians". "Hispanics" in the US are people with Latin American roots. If their ancestry is mostly European (Spanish or Portuguese), they would be included in the "Caucasian race" according to all definitions from Blumenberg to Coon. Then, six or seven sources among thousands of articles being published each year in scientific journals don't prove that it is "widely used". These are some of the endless problems of original research which cause it to be excluded from WP articles.

BTW: From your use of the article "Increasing self‐efficacy and knowledge in carer training: Hispanic versus Caucasian" I get the impression that you either didn't understand what the article is about or didn't read the source: It is clearly dealing with cultural problems. Next time, please make sure you understand the problem before starting an edit war. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ian.thomson, thanks for your comment. I would like to reply to your objections.

Objection number 1: my references are "cherry-picked". What is the meaning of the word "cherry-picking" and why do you use that term for my references but not for the current reference of the article? According to the Oxford Dictionary, "cherry-picking" means "The action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.". So, by definition, the current reference can also be said to be "cherry-picked", as it only represents one of the current views on modern science on the status of the Caucasian classificaiton, and ignores the other view (that the Caucasian term is not outdated). References are just references, and it is better to avoid using the despective term "cherry-ìcked" against the editions of other Wikipedia users to be polite.

Objection number 2: only anthroplogists and genetists can speak about races and their references be accepted in Wikipedia. That is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argumentum ad hominem: to criticize the person that makes an argument, not the argument the person makes. You are criticizing physicians not for what they say (the Caucasian term keeps being dated), but for their profession (being physicians). I am sorry but there is no logical reason why physicians cannot study races within their field. It is a clear discrimination against a professional body of scientists and a clear argumentum ad hominem. Physicians study human beings. In medicine human beings are studied and they do classify human beings in their studies, so clearly medicine is a field that also deals with the concept of human classification/race, it is not like medicine is a discipline outside the study of human races/classifications.

Crucially, contrary to what you suggested, the Caucasian classification keeps being widely used in genetics.

Dear Rsk6400, thanks for your comment. I would like to reply to your objections.

Objection number 1 "You used two or three references by Chinese scientists, and they can be confused with English. That objection is ilogical. It is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argumentum ad hominem (to criticize the person that makes an argument, not the argument the person makes) to suggest that an article written in English by Chinese scientists is automatically invalid only because they are Chinese. You are assuming that because they are Chinese they must automatically have language problems and mean something different to what they write, which is discriminatory. There is no logical reason to exclude a reference written by Chinese scientists. There is no rule in Wikipedia saying that "only articles written by native English speakers should be accepted". And second of all, I only included ONE reference by Chinese scientists, not "two or three" as you suggested.

Objection number 2: Then, six or seven sources among thousands of articles being published each year in scientific journals don't prove that it is 'widely used'". First, I included eight articles, not "six or seven". Secondly... only one article of the thousands of scientific articles being published in thousands journals that are published proves that the term Caucasian is outdated and there is consensus on it? You are dispolaying a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as double standard, which consists in judging similar situations by different stadandards, when in reality you should apply the same uniform criterion in all cases.

If you include only one article stating that the term Caucasian is outdated, then the term Caucasian is outdated by wide consensus.

If you include eight articles stating that the term Caucasian is used, then the term is not widely used.

Double standard at its finest. I only included eight, but can include hundreds from the last decade if you want. Obviously, that would make no sense, as in Wikipedia it is never necessary to include more than 10 references to prove an assertion. Your suggestion that I need more than 8 references makes no sense in the context of Wikipedia, as no claim needs more than 10 references in Wikipedia.James343e (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@James343e: You quoted me wrongly using quotation marks. That it is not considered fair, and less so if you write it in bold. You might (and should) want to strike it out, using the del tag. Also, you might (and should) want to read the relevant WP policies that User:Ian.thomson and I referenced. I just added the section Caucasian_race#Criticism_based_on_modern_genetics to the article which contains one reference to a secondary source and one to a tertiary. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I did delete the quotation marks and the bold emphasis. Your new section looks fine to me.James343e (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Antropologists and other scientists consider the Caucasian human grouping to be outdated, even though the Caucasian classification is still widely/sometimes used in fields like genetics, medicine and psychology

"Antropologists and other scientists consider the Caucasian human grouping to be outdated, even though the Caucasian classification is still widely/sometimes used in fields like genetics, medicine and psychology". I think including a claim similar to that one in the lede would be more neutral and would reflect the current situation of the Caucasian category in modern scientific research, not only the view that it is outdated. If we avoid the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem against genetists, physicians and psychologists, I see no reason why it should be ignored the research performed in medicine (when they do explicitly study human beings and classify them in their studies, so it's not like they don't deal with human classifications in their reasearch field). The same applies to psychology, they study humans, and so they can also classify them, nor eason to exlude the research performed in psychology. If you feel the term "widely" is polemic, feel free to change it to "sometimes". I think it is important to include in the lede that the term is still used in the fields of genetics, medicine and psychology, because all fields should be acknowledged. It would also be misleading to suggest that "it is outdated" (as if there is a general consensus) when there are some fields that keep using the term. We should not hide readers the information that the term Caucasian keeps being in use in the fields of genetics, medicine and psychology. There is no consensus that Caucasian is a "pseudoscientific" term (as the user Ian.thomson said), because the term is still widely used (and so considered scientific) in genetics, medicine and psychology. Caucasian being a "pseudoscientific" term is Ian.thomson's opinion, not the consensus of the scientific community. Also, if anthropologists consider that there are no races, I do not understand why in the wikipedia page for white people it is not said to be an outdated racial classifcation, but on the page for Caucasian it is said ot be outdated. That is a double standard for the WIkipedia pages for white and Caucasian. I think the term "outdated" from the lede should be deleted, as it is non-neutral and does not reflect any scientific consensus because the term Caucasian is still widely used in genetics, medicine and psychology. To avoid writing a wall of text, I included in a new section below 30 examples of genetics articles from the 2010s explicitly using the Caucasian human classification, 30 examples of medicine articles from the 2010s explicitly using the Caucasian race concept, and 30 examples of psychology articles from the 2010s explicitly using the Caucasian race categorization.James343e (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

With all the respect, I include here your message Rsk6400, so we can all discuss the topic on the talk page of the article. This was your message replying to my comments: "The word "race" has two meanings: A biological one and a social one. According to biology, there are different races in animals like dogs or chimpanzees, but all mankind is one single race. The "Caucasian race" as a biological concept is indeed outdated since the second half of the 20th century. Still, if an American policeman looks at you and thinks that you look white, your chance to be killed is 50 % of your chance to get killed if he thinks that you look black. That's one example for the social reality of race. The articles "White people" and "Black people" refer to that reality. And because it's a social reality, it has psychological and cultural consequences. Another use is the word "Caucasian" without "race". That's just another word for "white" in daily usage, esp. in the U.S. Regarding neutrality: WP is not neutral between mainstream science and fringe theories. And - please, plz, plz - take a look at WP:PSTS". --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: That is a point where I happen to concur, that "human races" are all a social construct. Despite the fact that there are obvious physical differences between human groups, the specific classifications and ratial borders are social conventions. I agree with you. However, it does not reply to my great concern. Why is the lead of the article white people "white pople is a racial category...?" Why doesn't the Caucasian page have a similar lead? Why does the Caucasian page have the term "outdated" in the very first sentence, but not the white page? The term Caucasian remains popular both in science and common usage. Tertiary source: https://jech.bmj.com/content/58/6/441James343e (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• My assessment of sources about the term is that it is obsolete in broad usage. Using lengthy lists of examples is a form of WP:OR, and also potentially misleading, since it necessarily ignores all context. The issue is not whether or not the term is popular, nor even whether or not it's convenient. The issue is whether or not the term denotes an outdated concept. The concept of a "Caucasian race" was never well-defined, and is obsolete, but like many such terms, it is still used in some contexts. We need sources about this term, not examples.

Many of these proposed sources are in a medical context. Most of these medical sources would not be usable for specific medical claims per WP:MEDRS, since they are primary sources. Using them for broad claims about this term is also inappropriate. As some of these sources pointout, the issue of race and health is incredibly complicated, and actively controversial. In some situations, such as some branches of medicine and science, the use of obsolete racial categories has been fossilized. Even by people who use these terms out of necessity, this is increasingly seen as a problem to solve, not a status quo to uphold. Citing examples misses this important bit of context. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The other problem of long lists of examples is the unknown: how much longer would the list of examples which don't use "Caucasian" be? Would that then put us in the predicament of deciding which list was Aleph-naught in size and which was Aleph-one? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ken, the fact that most articles employ the term "white" doesn't mean that the term Caucasian is not relatively common. I never denied the term white is more common. Only that the term Caucasian is not, and has never been, "outdated" both in science and common usage. This tertirary source states that "Caucasian remains popular both in science and common language". Tertiary source: https://jech.bmj.com/content/58/6/441 James343e (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

But the debate here is not whether it is "common" or not, it's about whether the concept behind the word is outdated or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is the reason why the lede sentence is misleading, because it makes it look like it is not used anymore with the word "outdated". i think it should be specified in the body of the text that it is outdated specifically as a biological race classification. Similarly to how the page white people does not have in the lede "White people is outdated" just because it is also not recognized as a biological race.James343e (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You're misreading the sentence. It does not say (or imply) that the word "caucasian" is "outdated" or that it isn't used in some contexts, it specifically says that "Caucasian" as a "grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon" is outdated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References that prove my claim from the previous section that the term Caucasian is widely used in modern genetics, medicine and psychology

Tertiary source: 1. https://jech.bmj.com/content/58/6/441 "Caucasian remains popular in both science and everyday language."

Thirty examples of genetics articles from the 2010s explicitly using the Caucasian human classification (I can find more if you want):

Thirty examples of medicine articles from the 2010s explicitly using the term "Caucasian race" (I can find more if you want):

Thirty examples of psychology articles from the 2010s explicitly using the term "Caucasian race" (I can find more if you want):

James343e (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we also also have access to the Internet. The introduction of these sources is a distraction which misrepresents the underlying issues, and the three categories of sources are arbitrary, as well. The raw quantity of sources was never in doubt. Having three massive walls-of-text to discuss a single phrase is overkill, and makes discussion much more tedious and difficult. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Well, first I only included 8 references and you told me that it was not enough to illustrate any general usage compared with the thousands of scientific publications that exist. So, what could I do? I was forced to put a lot of referneces to show that the term is relatively common in scientific publications. If I include a few references you say I need more references, if I inlude a lot of references, you complain about the size. Whatever I do with the references is never enough for you. By the way, I would appreciate if you could reply in the above section please?James343e (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

James343, at no point did I ever say you need more references. The goal, as always, is to summarize sources in context according to due weight. From your comments above, I think you may be confused about who you responding to. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "everyday language": For many years, "Caucasian" was the standard terminology in the US in police and news reports to describe a white person, usually in the context of a suspect who's being sought for a crime. It was also used for other bureaucratic purposes, such as hospital charts etc. I have no doubt that this originated as an attempt to be more terminologically "scientific". If this was the case in Europe at any time to the same extent as in the US I'm not sure, but in any case it appears to have fairly much lapsed there at the moment. Also, in the US, one hears it less and less, with "white" being used, or "fair skin" or some other terminology. My completely inadmissable personal impression is that "Caucasian" is in fact dying out, as it was never really used much colloquially among the hoi polloi, but mostly by cops and bureaucrats. I'm not certain that a large portion of young native English speakers in the US would recognize it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"If this was the case in Europe at any time to the same extent as in the US I'm not sure, but in any case it appears to have fairly much lapsed there at the moment" I doubt it, I am from Spain, and the term "Caucásico" (Caucasian in Spanish) is widely used in Spain. I have also used the term Caucasian when I talk with people from other countries such as Australia or China, and everyone knows the meaning of the term when I use it. I think the term is used in many countries worldwide, not only in the USA. Of course, it is not so used as "white", but it is far from being "dying", nor will it ever fully die just because the Wikipedia page puts "outdated" when describing it. It has been stablished in common usage as an "exotic" synonym of white. James343e (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you should perhaps consider whether your apparent attachment to it derives from its common usage in your country. I'm not at all sure persons from other countries (who could easily recognize a word that is not regularly used in their homelands) would necessarily agree with you as to your commitment to maintain its usefulness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like you are advocating for its continued usage. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. As BMK says, our personal impressions are inadmissible.

Police report English is notoriously clumsy and fake-formal ([https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/perspective/perspective-writing-clear-effective-police-reports-no-english-degree-required the FBI has basically begged police to knock it off). Terms used by police have filtered-down into general usage in the USA and elsewhere, but this is certainly not an endorsement of the term, nor even a valid indication of its staying power.

To get this away from WP:NOTFORUM territory, here is a question: How many of the above sources discuss the term, and also provide a concrete pass/fail definition of the term? If any of these sources are explaining what the term means, they might be useful for the article, but only in context. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Apologies to all. "Edit" and "Archive" were right next to each other and I hit the wrong one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Please, I have to ask you to not make ad hominem attacks toward my person just like I did not make ad hominem attacks toward your person. "This sounds like you are advocating for its continued usage." I have never said it should be used, I only indicated that it is also used outside the USA. Please, do not make comments toward my person and motivations, just like I never said about you "it seems you are advocating for eliminating the term Caucasian". Please assume good faith on my part, as I did with you. Let us discuss the topic at hand, not the editors.

I am only interested in putting a more clear lede sentence, as right now the lede makes it look like the term is not used anymore with the term "outdated", and in no part of the lede is mentioned that the term is common in scientific usage. Replying to your question, this is a tertiary source (here: https://jech.bmj.com/content/58/6/441) that discusses the Caucasian concept specifically. It discusses several races, it has an specific entry for Caucasian and it says that "Caucasian remains popular in both science and everyday language." I think it is important to include in the lede that the term Caucasian remains popular in science, because in no part of the article is that mentioned, and we should not hide that fact from the general reader. James343e (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read my comment in the section above. You are misreading the lede sentence and arguing against something that the article does not claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

James343e: If you're not willing to acknoledge that you have obviously misread the intent of the lede sentence, then I see absolutely no reason to continue to engage with you here. Please take Grayfell's advice and make a specific request of a change to be made, in the form of "Please change A to B" so that it can be evaluated. And please do so without reams of "evidence", just the request. I'm willing to consider that, but I'm not willing to spend the time on your argumentation any more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, read the other part of my message which has not been discussed yet: "this is a tertiary source (here: https://jech.bmj.com/content/58/6/441) that discusses the Caucasian concept specifically. It discusses several races, it has an specific entry for Caucasian and it says that 'Caucasian remains popular in both science and everyday language.' I think it is important to include in the lede that the term Caucasian remains popular in science, because in no part of the article is that mentioned, and we should not hide that fact from the general reader." James343e (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that this is an ad hominem. "Nor will it ever fully die" is pure speculation on your part, with obvious and inappropriate implications.

Instead of multiple sections with thousands of bytes repeating the same argument, the goal should be to improve the article. I strongly suggest that you propose a specific change, based on a direct summary of a reliable, independent source. You cannot use this one, relatively weak source, to cancel out the other sources which explain the problems with the concept. Avoid WP:SYNTH and look at the whole source to avoid cherry-picking. Your personal opinions, and my personal opinions, about this term, or why it is still used, or why it will continue to be used, are irrelevant. The glossary could be used in context, but cherry-picking one sentence and ignoring the rest is not helpful. The source mentions that it's an 18th c. term for "white". Is that in dispute? As has already been discussed, "popular" and "outdated" are not necessarily opposites, especially not in science and medicine. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My comment had no implications. I said "nor will it ever fully die just because the Wikipedia page puts 'outdated' when describing it." I was refering to the fact that the destiny of the Caucasian word useage is not linked to what Wikipedia puts in the lede.

In the fourth paragraph, I would like to include a sentence like "In the United States, the root term Caucasian is often used, both colloquially by the general population and more formally by the US Census Bureau and certain scientific publications". Now do you agree with the inclusion of that tertiorary source and little rewording? Or, on the contrary, do you have objections against such a proposed addition? Your opinion is always welcomed. James343e (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Sorry if I got precipitated adding it. What is your opinion about my tertiary soruce? Do you agree with its inclusion or not? I want to read your opinion on the issue.James343e (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Break

• There is clearly no consensus here to include the changes desired by Janes343e, so I have reverted them. James343e, please do not make similar changes again until there is a consensus from the editors on this page that they are warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes @Beyond My Ken: I agree. Thanks for quickly fixing my mistake of including it without yet consensus. I would like to read you opinion on the issue. Do you agree with the inclusion of that tertiory source or not? You opinion would be very worthy for the development of the debate. James343e (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, until you acknowldge that you have completely misread the intent of the lede sentence, and have adjusted your arguments accordingly, I will not be engaging with you. Also, please read WP:BLUDGEON. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the lede sentence is, if you read it carefully, only stating that Caucasian is an outdated biological taxon/race/grouping. Therefore, it does not say the term in itself is not used, it says it is outdated as a biological classification. I hope I have convinced you of that.

My only idea now is to include that tertiorary source to indicate that the term is also often used in science. I would like to include in the fourth paragraph of the article a sentence like "In the United States, the root term Caucasian is often used, both colloquially by the general population and more formally by the US Census Bureau and certain scientific publications". Now do you agree with the inclusion of that tertiorary source and little rewording? Or, on the contrary, do you have objections against such a proposed addition? Your opinion, of course, would be very much appreciated. Grayfell, your opinion is also very much welcomed. James343e (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I retract what I said. The article is fine without addying the reference I proposed, and my proposed changes in the lede paragraphs would only add confusion to the spirit of the article. Sorry for the long debate guys. Have a nice day.James343e (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

North Africans

Would someone please check ALL the references to "North Africans" in the article? I keep checking the sources cited and fail to find any mention of North Africa. If a specific country is mentioned, then only that country should be listed, it is OR/SYNTH to assume, for instance, that an inclusion of "Morocco" or "Moors" means that ALL North Africans are included as well. I remove them and Janes343e puts them back. I need another editor to take over this task=, and we need James343e not to dig his feet into the ground if the sources do not support the statements made. It seems to me that James343e is indulging in a signicant amount of OR/SYNTH editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede of the article reads "Caucasian has usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa". And it cites a source that talks of Morocco. Morocco is part of North Africa, therefore I see no contradiction in including North Africa. North Africa has always been considered to be homeland of Caucasoid populations. Carleton S. Coon also acknowldges that "Late Capsians from North Africa are clearly Caucasoid" in "The Living Races of Man". Source: https://www.google.es/search?hl=es&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk01tT4gjoLVFztTUNR0vlhsvkI5N8g%3A1592107898494&ei=eqPlXpXaHbCGjLsP87ij4A4&q=Later+late+Capsians+from+North+Africa+are+clearly+Caucasoid&oq=Later+late+Capsians+from+North+Africa+are+clearly+Caucasoid&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3813.4772.0.4966.6.6.0.0.0.0.173.690.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.N3zyneZOYNI

The Oxford English Dictionary states that "In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India)."

https://www.lexico.com/definition/caucasian

And there are many more sources outside the listed here that include people from North Africa, or parts of North Africa, as Caucasoid.James343e (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

James343e, you have made 65 edits to this page today. I thought I was pushing it with 26. You need to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion and allow other editors to get a word in. Logic" and "acknowledgement" have nothing to do with it, support from reliable sources is what we're concerned about. If the source provided does not support the list it's attacghed to, then that cource cannot be used for that information. And you cannot use a list from another source and assume that a different source agrees with that list, that's SYTH You must, immediately, read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, because your editing appears to violate it a nuber of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, Grayfell, and Ian.thomson: I just reported User:James343e at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:James343e_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_) --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• There is a lot going on here. To start with, let's look at a single issue. Coon's opinion should not be given undue weight. This is for many, many reasons. Even by the 1930s, Coon was increasingly seen as being on the fringes of anthropology. This is now especially true. Coon is now a WP:FRINGE figure, and non-historical sources which cite Coon are very rare and subject to heightened scrutiny. Further, he was never reliable for medical content. Therefore, his ideas are mainly of historical significance. If Coon included all North African ethnicities in the "Caucasian race", a source for him including all North Africans in that race should be used, but it would still have to be attributed to Coon. Readers should not be mislead into thinking that Coon is a modern authority.

If Coon, who published in living memory, is on the fringes, there's even less to say about Blumenbach. This is historical information which needs context from reliable sources. Wikipedia's guidelines on sources skew towards modern sources, even for historical information.

So with that in mind: sometimes North Africa was Caucasian, and sometimes it wasn't. These categories were not consistent, and did not have agreed-upon criteria for inclusion. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's worth taking a step back and asking a question: why is this going to be important to readers?

Also, anyone who looks at historical pseudoscience will notice that there is a recurring problem of the sunk cost fallacy. Many ostensibly smart people spent their entire careers on these ideas, but that doesn't make them correct or useful. Ultimately, whether or not North Africans are Caucasian or not tells us absolutely nothing about North Africans, it only tells us about obsolete categories in scientific racism. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert of old edit to lead

Regarding this edit: I have reverted to an older version of the paragraph, which I slightly simplified. This paragraph was expanded and modified based on what appears to me to be totally unsupported WP:OR. As an example, the cited sources specifically includes a quote discussing the US Census Bureau's usage which was at odds with the paragraph: It rarely appears in federal statutes, and the Census Bureau has never put a checkbox by the word Caucasian. (White is an option.)...[1] Another example is that these sources do not agree that "Caucasoid" is valid, as they are directly arguing against its continued usage. The simplest fix was to revert to the previous version. As always, any changes need to be based on actual sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Genetic findings deleted

I just deleted more than 8,000 bytes on modern (1990s to present) findings on genetics. The reason is that this article is about a historical concept which is no longer used in science ("outdated"). So a statement that Dravidians or Cro-Magnons are "Caucasoid" is a conflation of modern science and 19th century science (or pseudo-science). --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

For reference, this is regarding these edits.

I support this removal. Looking at some of these sources, I find primary studies, flimsy press releases, or more substantial sources which do not mention "Caucasian race" or any derivative term at all, making this WP:OR. Conflating "Caucasian race" with prehistoric Europe is sloppy, and attaching primary studies to this is misleading, at best. Any discussion of these studies or their findings needs to be done in context, and categories need to be clearly defined before they are studied, not as an afterthought, and especially not by random Wikipedia editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

Caucasian race is the race of the Punics ( Puno ) or Carthaginians, a group of peoples in the Western Mediterranean, who traced their origins to the Phoenicians. Inhabitants of Ancient Carthage ( modern Tunis ), and those of acknowledged Carthaginian leadership in North Africa, western Sicily, southern Sardinia, Malta, Ebusus, and southern Spain. Punic dialect of Phoenician is from the Christian catacombs of Sirte, Libya( gravestones carved in Ancient Punic ). Geographer al-Bakri describes people speaking Punic in Sirte. Punic was spoken on the island of Malta from the Cippi of Melqart, per decipherment of Punic after its extinction, and other inscriptions found on the islands. Punic itself is Canaanite, and more similar to Modern Hebrew than to Arabic. 2605:6000:1521:4241:91D0:C0B3:2385:ADD2 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The "Outdated" statement in the opening paragraph means this is primarily a leftist political article, fine, but at least a decent citation?

The current citation does not call Caucasoid itself outdated but rather refers to specific ethnic categories placed into the Caucasoid umbrella as being oudated. The citation does not match the opening political statement of the article. Indeed the classical racial model (Caucasoid, Capoing, Congoid, Mongoloid, Australoid) has become more valid and accepted over time in serious circles as DNA research has verified that these were the major migratory speciation events. I understand that we are on Wikipedia and that anything related to whiteness/Caucasians/etc must be "decolonized" via wordgames, but the current citation doesn't even match the opening line of the article. It makes the subsequent article seem rather disposable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:c801:9fa0:741c:ec67:f8ca:7633 (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Reviewing the talk archives of this page, and having been working to remove long term vandalism in relation to scientific racism, the Arbcom discretionary sanctions of "race and intelligence" apply to this closely related topic. Both in historical sources, and as part of "racial politics" in the modern age, race terms like Caucasian race are commonly used as part of race based assertions of some "races" being superior to others, both in terms of intelligence and other aspects like physical ability. Consequently the notice at the head of this page is a highly relevant reminder to editors carefully to comply with editorial policies and civil discussion, with the benefit that editors may be presumed to be aware of the warnings that apply. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG removed

This modern map has been removed. It was significantly manipulated by a series of sockpuppet accounts. It never matched the map shown in "The Origin of Races", and considering the nature of this historical scientific racism, only accurate representations of the historic record, in preference the original publications, should be used as illustration. For these reasons the map fails to meet the requirements of WP:OR. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Are such accurate representations of the historic record available? If so, should it be added in place of the image you removed? Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg is from Coon's book, but we already have a map, so I don't think we need another one. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"Carcassian beauties"

Of course a white male, traveler would name the white women he sees around in old European places he traveled "beauties" but I really want to know...how does his STEREOTYPE & OPINION make it to be published in the freaking WIKIPEDIA??? AN INTERNATIONAL SOURCE OF EDUCATION &SOURCE OF INFORMATION???... Oh, I know how...because Wikipedia's text is published by white men and women. "Beauties"...ha!!...before or after surgery?? JamilahJ (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And...what does some old dead man's opinion have to do with where white people come from?? JamilahJ (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

exclusion of forensic anthropology from these articles is harmful to disadvantaged communities

Before I begin, it is necessarily that I recognise the fact that this article and its counterpart articles on Mongoloid and Negroid type 'races' (but are tyoe descriptions of cranial feature sets), are currently written for the purpose of pushing a social justice POV narrative that's own sources do not say what the articles say. This is not something I will fight against. HOWEVER....

I would like to point out to the editors of these articles (whom, though I know they mean well, I think likely reside in racially homogenous, probably white, countries), that - at least, in multi racial countries like the United States - these categories STILL HAVE LIMITED RELEVANCE TO THIS DAY. Forensic anthropology is probably the only field that still uses this racial identification method, but it is of significant importance.

When a human skeleton is found, the anthropologists task is to identify the approximate age of the individual, any pathologies that are apparent, the sex, and their race; all to the best of their abilities. For skeletons, the race categories are caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid; this is because when the only data is bones, bonal features are all that they have to go on; therefore the more typical white, black, asian etc descriptors cannot be correctly applied. This is a matter of necessity and it is NOT TO PROMOTE NINETEENTH CENTURY RACISM, as the current narrative of these articles would have readers believe.

thoughts? Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem is a waste of time. You could employ your time better by providing WP:RS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Forensic anthropologists I've talked to don't use those outdated fubar-oid categories anymore. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Further information" on Coon‎

@Beyond My Ken: You reinstated the "Further information" link to White people, Brown people, and Black people to the section on Coon's theories. Our readers will expect to get further information on Coon's theories there, but they will be deceived: "White people" just tells that Coon included North Africans and West Asians, "Brown people" that "Coon's claims for homo-sapienation" have been debunked, and "Black people" doesn't even mention Coon's name. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rsk6400 Totally my mistake. I misread the diffs and thought that the "further information" was a hatnote to the entire article. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Problematic notes with OVERCITE and OR

There are three explanatory notes in the article that are problematic, and need attention. They contain three to nine ref tags, each of which isn't problematic per se, but collectively are examples of WP:OVERCITE, and contain original research. The three notes involved (as of rev 1017082107 of 18:10, April 10), are these:

• Note b: "Cited by contributing editor to a group of five works by Baum, Woodward, Rupke, Simon, and the Canadian Art Review."
• Note c: "Cited by contributing editor to a group of three works by Herbst, Mukhopadhyay, and Dewanjuly."
• Note d: "Cited by contributing editor to a group of nine works by Mario, Isaac, Schiebinger, Rupp-Eisenreich, Dougherty, Hochman, Mikkelsen, Painter, and Binden."

These notes make the unverified claim that "a contributing editor" was somehow involved in all of them. What contributing editor? That sounds like WP:WINARS and WP:SELFREF to me. Or, that "a group of N works" exists, whereas there is no such grouping, other than in the mind of the Wikipedia editor who said that. Both of these claims are prohibited original research. My guess is, that these were an attempt to avoid the appearance of Citation overkill in the running text. For example, without Note d, which appears in section #Göttingen School of History, the running text would look like this:

Meiners' term was given wider circulation in the 1790s by many people.

besides looking bad, a clear example of WP:OVERCITE. Prior to October 24, bulleted citation bundling was used, as in this note from October 24. This was better than what we have now, as there's no OR and only the OVERCITE is (maybe) an issue.

If it were up to me, I'd deal with this in two steps:

• Fix the OR first; this is policy, and the more urgent. This could be done in several ways, either by simply removing the OR from the note and listing the refs without comment, or by going back to pre-Oct 24 style, using bullets as shown in the examples at WP:CITEBUNDLE, or in other ways.
• Fix the WP:OVERCITE. I'd move any citations not reused elsewhere in the body to "Further reading", so they are still available. OVERCITE is merely an essay, so any action here could either be discussed first, or attempted via WP:BOLD and then just see what happens, talking out any resulting disagreements afterward.

If no one attends to the OR issue in the notes, I'll probably come back and do that at some point, maybe by just going back to pre-Oct 24 style. As for the OVERCITE issue, that's better handled by regular editors here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

74.96.92.203 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the information is false

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated?

is an outdated[3] grouping

Sankar, Pamela (June 2003). "MEDLINE definitions of race and ethnicity and their application to genetic research". Nature Genetics. 34 (2): 119. doi:10.1038/ng0603-119. ISSN 1546-1718. PMID 12776106. S2CID 8927634.

This article is an opinion and does not say that Caucasian is outdated. It says that "Hottentots, Hamites and Half-Hamites" are outdated terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:9D42:300:DDB:ABC6:6343:8C37 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the original material myself, but since this is the principle claim of the entire article, this is something that probably needs at least THREE citations, not one. Anyone have better access to JSTOR or similar access can work on this, and verify the claim by the IP? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Sankar (2003) is open-access. @Rsk6400: I have to agree that this source is inapt to support the statement. The author calls for "a general review and standardization of racial and ethnic group terms", but not for the deprecation of racial terms per se. I suggest to shift the adjective "outdated" to the general term "race" for two reasons: 1. We could then source the overall rejection of races as a biological category to Templeton, Wagner et al. (2017) and lots of other good sources. 2. Posting the label "outdated" to Caucasian might suggest that one could replace it with a "valid (i.e. non-outdated)" term in a "current race classification" (against other "historical race classifications"). What about rephrasing it to: The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid or Europid) is a grouping of human beings within the outdated concept of race classifications.... Keep in mind that in spite of a clear shift of paradigm in anthropology and the growing public mainstream awareness about the devastating effects of racisim and racialism, most people including our readers do have races in their heads (even if they are staunchly "anti-racist" or subject to racialist discrimination themselves). –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm out of my field of expertise here, but I would suggest searching around and seeing if there are some citations that do support the claim that it is outdated, as that is a plausible claim, just not verified. For the sake of WP:WEIGHT, it may be a disputed claim, in which case we would want to state that (and cite it) in the lede as well. But yes, something needs to change, but it would seem a bit of research is needed, and again, this is a bit out of my field. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• I haven't combed through the sources yet, but I see that Rsk6400 has made an edit that satisfies my original concerns, and hopefully provide a strong foundation for the claim of "outdated". There may very well be dissenting opinions, but adding them can be done later if they are at least a significant minority of scientists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, @Austronesier: When I saw this new thread, I checked the MEDLINE source, but I didn't see that it was already in use as a reference to the lede. I should have assumed good faith. I used your suggestion and added three sources from the section "Criticism based on modern genetics". Feel free to discuss or improve. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you are right that we have to be exact here. As far as I know there is no significant minority of scientists still advocating for a biologically understood concept of race. The AAPA (ref no. 5) is an international body of scientists, and they have issued more than one declaration rejecting that concept, as have other anthropological associations. Many editors (often IPs) tried to produce pro-race sources, but all that I have seen are either from the last millenium or not reliable. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe that stating that "race classifications" are outdated is a violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule. The concept being true or false is considered an opinion as of now. 98.10.48.24 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have already been answered above. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough 98.10.48.24 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that "outdated" is more wishful thinking here than it is proven scientific consensus. The sources also do not justify this statement sufficiently. 82.171.35.154 (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It might be more adequate to call the concept "conservative", "controversial" or "challenged", and to highlight arguments that outline the difficulties around it, such as often having supported racism and ethnicity-based discrimination. 82.171.35.154 (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read the sources, especially the AAPA statement (reference no. 5). WP doesn't call the Flat earth theory "conservative", either. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Outdated is already a bit of a euphemism. Obsolete, discredited, or debunked would also work. This is already the scientific consensus. The category is still sometimes used anyway, despite being very poorly defined. This is a distraction. These concepts are tools, and obsolete tools can take time to replace, even ones as junky as this one. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

74.213.80.9 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Caucasian originated from Europe north Africa and parts Asia minor there no evidence that they were from hon africa

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to wrap my head around what has been done here. I noticed on wiki the Negroid and Caucasian race have now been designated " Obsolete " yet if I look at the Jewish race on wiki, they are defined and not made obsolete. Caucasian is used on many government, medical and school forms outside of America. To say it's obsolete is not factual. This is purely agenda driven. I ask politely to reconsider wiki's stance on this matter. It is a legal designation for my race, like it is for many other races when filling out forms and describing ones self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.119.79 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Read some of the sources cited in the article, then get back to us. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Changing Caucasian to and “obsolete” term is completely incorrect. Letting people with obvious race issues edit a term used by the entire world in an attempt to change culture and negate western culture is unacceptable. That change should be reversed. TRINITYNTB (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

I just found this on reddit, apparently caucasian race doesnt exist? How do you expect ppl to donate money to you if you let anyone randomly manipulate and write a lie? Look at any source on Google that scientists can determine if person is caucasian or not with atleast 90-95% probability with their skeletons. 122.161.77.3 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Your edit request needs to propose a specific edit, including relevant reliable sources. I gather you're actually proposing a rewrite of the lead of the article, in which case please feel free to join the conversation on this talk page, which is where the current version was discussed.

In passing, articles aren't written in order to get donations: they're written based on what reliable soruces say about the topic. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)