Talk:Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Capoid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Ok... As a coined word it shall be pretty easy for someone to explained why it was coiend to be "capoid" I mean "negroid", "australoid" and "sinoid" are very obvious... But No page in the net put it's simple to explain Capoid's etymology... Can someone add this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Named after Cape Province, South Africa. --JWB 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit articles about discredited ideas

As far as I've read, there's not much agreement amongst social scientists that racial categories are based on physical characteristics. In fact, afaik, most of the social science literature got over terms like "cacausoid, mongloid, negroid" and so forth by the time of the first world war.

I think that these articles are misleading and inaccurate. I will be VfDing in a couple days unless there are some good explanations for why I'm wrong.

--Defenestrate 15:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Many concepts of race are discredited, but it is valid to document them for historical purposes. See Race and Race (historical definitions) for example.

I doubt "19th century" or "pre-WWI" apply to the -oid terms, simply because the words were coined later. Most allegedly scientific work on race was pre-WWI, but used older terms like Caucasian race, Negro, Mongolian.

Most citations of Caucasoid etc. seem to be to Carleton Coon. I think this is because he popularized the -oid terms, or it may be because of his continuing popularity with those with certain views on race. (I will avoid calling them all racists) I haven't seen any indication of who actually coined the -oid terms.

I do agree the articles Caucasoid etc. suffer badly from discussion of racial issues outside these bounds and resulting edit wars, which should actually be happening in Caucasian race, Race (historical definitions), Scientific racism, Afrocentrism, and others, where they will benefit from more scrutiny.

I have considered these alternatives:

I don't think simply deleting Caucasoid etc. will work. They will just get recreated later and return to the present situation.

Note Mongoloid has been more stable, with a larger amount of mostly less controversial material about East Asians. --JWB 18:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Validity of human races

Describing "caucasoid" as a race assumes something of what you're trying to explain, as there is a serious question whether "race" is anything beyond a social construct.


Once again we are doing a wonderful job elaborating on the White people of the subject matter, but we are still stuck at stubbing around with the other groups. Let's not keep the Negroid and Australoid groups stubbed if we can help it. Obviously there many of us that do not consider Dravidians to be "caucasoids", and leaving the "Negroid" stub ambigious in it's reasoning will need to be clarified in order to stop this bias from continuing.

You are correct: Dravidians are not caucasoids; the caucasoids invaded India. -- 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Ioannus de Verani

Cites or clarification for vague statements

"19th century anthropologists": The article should have less vague information about this. Did the -oid names for races really have any popularity before Coon? Race has a good discussion of the 20th century history of racial concepts, which should be extended further back.Coon is a single source and one that has not been in very good repute for the last few decades. He should be listed as one historically occuring POV

[1] says that "Caucasoid" is not in current scientific use. I would agree with this impression. It might be better to use less present tense in the article.

"50% of anthropologists use sub-races": Race says that only about half of anthropologists even subscribe to any sort of concept of race, so there seems to be a discrepancy here. Again, cites are needed. I don't know of any use of the Coon subrace terms by current scientists. On the web, they seem to be found on websites of racist groups, and on discussion boards. Coon is a single source and one that has not been in very good repute for the last few decades. He should be listed as one historically occuring POV balanced with other POV.

"Dravidians and Ethiopians are more closely related to Negroid and Australoid peoples than Nordic people": It would be more accurate to say that South Indians and Ethiopians are thought to have ancestry from both Caucasoid immigrants and indigenous (or at least earlier resident) peoples, not necessarily limited to currently surviving Negroid and Australoid types. For example, Capoid features were earlier found much farther north in East Africa.

--JWB 21:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph: "Basically anyone that has round eyes, and has skin that is any hue except jet black. In essence this a way for Eurocentric scholars to lay claim to any civilization in Africa and the middle east. This is called a diffusionist theory of the Caucasoid race and ignores that many of these groups have less in common with the unquestioned groups than with those outside their groups. For example, Dravidians and Ethiopians are more closely related to Negroid and Australoid peoples than Nordic people."

1-Even Jet Black people could be considered "caucasoid", anthropologists use skulls not pigmentation to classify ethnics. 2-speaking about "eurocentric scholars" is POV. 3-Gentically: Ethiopians are closer to Caucasoids than to negroids, Physically Their skull is caucasoid (A phenotype that has been favoured through natural selection over the negroid skull). --Agurzil 22:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

-Dravidians are not a race. Dravidian is a language family. The Dravidian-speaking peoples, contrary to popular view, are not of one homogenous racial type. They are of varying racial types. Many of them are of distinctly Caucasoid physical type while many of them have Australoid type. Some are even Negritoid, not Negroid. The Brahuis and the Andhras, in particular, have Caucasoid features. The Tamils and the Malayalis have Australoid features. The Coorgs of Karnataka have West Asian/European features, uncommon for a Dravidian-speaking people. But none of the dravidian-speaking peoples were or are Negroid. Negroids only live in the continent of Africa. So dont call them Negroid.

Race (historical definitions) has some summary of 19th century anthropologists' views, so I am going to link it from this article. It doesn't look like there was a consensus on 4 as the number of races in that period, or the 20th century for that matter.--JWB 23:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Another note: Indo-European, Semitic, and Uralic are currently considered to be names of language families, not of biologically defined human populations. They were often conflated in the 19th and early 20th century, but since then scholars have been careful to make the distinction between the two concepts.--JWB 23:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Since these -oid classifications are determined by anthropologically based on skull sizes (and since you seem to follow strictly those skull sizes to categorize the subgroups in the article,) it has been clarified IN the article.

Ethiopians do share genetically more with Kenyans than they do with British and Frenchmen. Whatever DNA markers are being used, and I have discussed this before, are more likely politically chosen and not chosen from a neutral perspective.

The "Ethiopid" race theory is based on the assumption that the Ethiopians came about independantly of the other Black groups. However, everything else points against that. Firstly their language, and their history. They may be the oldest group in the world, and it's backwards to point to them as a "non-black" Caucasoid group.

I made sure to indicate the bias by pointing out that African Americans on average are more "caucasoid" in skull and DNA type than Ethiopians. The DNA of Black Americans is more mixed with Europeans, Nordics, and Alpines than the Ethiopian DNA.

I do believe there is a "selective" method of interpretation that's being used here to classify ethiopians and dravidians with Frenchmen and Germans. I officially dispute the neutrality of this article while Dravidians and Ethiopians are placed in classification with the Caucasoids. The fact is that the skill variations in Caucasoids is far too wide to be considered distinct.

Although I do respect the earlier references from which the skull information is based, I am of the viewpoint that the source material itself is not a sensible way to classify the groupings. For example, I know that ancient Jewish skulls are very different in shape and size from a European skull.

The Egyptian and Ethiopian also show more similarity with skull shape and size based on how you interpret the results.

You can either interpret wide varieties of skulls as Caucasoid, and narrow the Negroid group into the typical "prothagism" or "projected facial profile", or you can find a more sensible way to classify Caucasoids that is consistent with how the group is really established, not how it "should" be. The famous Omo skulls in Ethiopia show the same characteristics as the "Negroid" types and those are 200,000 years old.

I believe that there is a better way to handle this article, because classifying Ethiopians as Caucasoid is simply not realistic, and is only done to take the civilized history of Ethiopia outside of the Black African circle and set it within a Eurocentric sphere.

So for example, here is one of the more decepively detailed websites online that seem to show an unbiased comparison of all three groups: But if you look at the first pictures at the top, you can see HOW the skulls are situated (not to mention that they are copies, not originals). The negroid skull is situated so that the lower area is closer to the camera than the other two skulls, therefore it exaggerates the prothagism, or the lower profile, as to "prove" visually. Also notice that the Negroid skull is situated in the profile at an angle, and also notice that the mongoloid skull has the same slanted cranial profile.

SO what needs to be done is more balanced approach and less intent on maintaining a flawed 19th century status-quo.

  • I won't discuss the whole thing with you, I will just show you that ethiopians are closer to caucasoids than to negroids: this is an mtdna plot and this a Y-dna plot (Hammer et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2000), here are some other studies using different techniques:

"COL1A2 Study on Amhara and Oromo Ethiopians":"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." Ann Hum Biol. 2002 Jul-Aug;29(4):432-41.

"Apolipoprotein Study of Ethiopians": "Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin." uman Biology 75.2 (2003) 293-300

As you can see, classifying Ethiopians as negroids is not at all realistic, they are a mix of negroid and caucasoid where their pigmentation and hair texture is negroid but their skull is caucasoid. --Agurzil 12:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Racial classification is based on skulls, whether it is caucasoid or negroid or mongoloid, you are trying to mislead the reader by referring only to caucasoids, I replaced it with race.

I have never seen someone classifying African americans as caucasoids, and it would be wrong to classify them as solely negroid; they are predominantly negroid and few of them have a intermediate or caucasoid skulls (by recombination of the caucasoid genes). Therefore your comment about african-americans being cuacasoid is wrong, it is clear that you have never seen an ethipian to say that they are less caucasoid then AA.--Agurzil 12:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Racial classification is not based on skulls. Throughout the past 300 years, skulls have not been the scientific way to classify people. Skulls are now being used to reclassify race for political and social purposes. I actually live next door to an Ethiopian, and I have quite a few Ethiopian friends. We spoke about this, they laughed. "We have a culture that they want, that's why they want us to be white." One also mentioned someone named Mulugeta Seraw from Portland. Racial classification is based on many things, and it's subjective. The "caucasoid" word in this article does not refer exclusively to skulls and if you look up the word in all of the online dictionaries (as well as negroid, and mongoloid) none of the definitions will agree with your conclusion, although a few will incorporate your method as one component of it.

Another contradiction you prsent is this: You acknowledge that African Americans are mixed and you also acknowledge that Ethiopians are mixed, but HOW you acknowledge both mixtures is different. Recombination is used for the Af-Americans and "mix" is used for Ethiopians.

Here is where I think the problem lies. You have two groups of Black people (Ethiopians and Af-Americans). One group mixes with other intermediately "caucasoid" group. While the other mixes with an extreme caucasoid group. If the African American mixes with the extreme caucasoid group, and the Ethiopian mixes with the less extreme and more intermediate group, how then can you conclude that the Ethiopian (who obviously shows more Black features) is Caucasoid, and the African American is not?

1. You can exclude those African Americans that are very caucasoid in appearance thereby skewing the results. 2. You can exclude those Ethiopians that are very negroid in appearance thereby skewing the results.

These two methods of exclusion are the methods that are used to prop up the position you hold. It is not based on a neutral method, but a subjective "feeling". The Ethiopians are not caucasoids, and most of them do not have 'caucasoid' skulls unless you expand the definition of 'caucasoid' and expand the cranial measurements to include their group. That is what has been done.

  • Most ethiopians are Aethiopid (Caucasoid skull), I did not say All of them are Aethipid, I was speaking about The Aethipid sub-race.

And I am trying to explain to you that the "Aethiopid" term is a misrepresentation of saying that they are either "mixed" or it's another way to incorporate them into the Caucasoid group. The "Aethipid" subrace skulls are not of the older bronze age or neolithic periods. Most Ethiopians are NEgroid.

The problem here is that we have no Ethiopian skulls to compare so we can settle the matter. - there is no way you are going to convice that this is a Caucasoid.

Here is the Omo Skull from 200,000 years back this is not a Caucasoid skull.

Here is more evidence that the ethiopians were anatomically more like Negroids than like Caucasoids

Skull shape was emphasized in the 19th century. Current research on race relies primarily on DNA, with support from linguistics and dental patterns.

200,000 year old skulls are long before differentiation into the current races.

"Caucasoid" is a somewhat dated technical term and not synonymous with "white". Can we keep focused on describing the historical meanings of the term, instead of fruitless and anachronistic arguments about who is "white", which if they have to be had, belong elsewhere.

I have never heard the "Ethiopid" term before. If it really needs extensive discussion, which I doubt, that should happen in its own article.

The section now being disputed is incongrously followed by a list of the Coon European subracial types, which goes no farther south than Iran. This is followed by yet another unrelated section discussing "Eurasiatic Supercluster" etc. The article now is an incoherent hodgepodge.--JWB 00:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Take Ethiopia out

Since Ethiopia is not listed in Coon's directory, it needs to be taken out of here. DNA analysis does not conclude that Ethiopians are more closely related to British than they are to Kenyans. Take it out.

Huh? Who ever claimed such a thing? Bastie 13:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Not as an argument for or against, but Ethiopia actually is listed in Coon's directory (East African Hamitic type). Yom 04:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The underlying contradiction

The other writer tried to affirm that Ethiopians are considered "caucasoid" because even though they show negroid traits like kinky hair, black skin, cultural identity, and features considered Black (or negroid), their skulls are "caucasoid" in their shape.

This begs the obvious question: Where are those lightskinned, white looking people with negroid skulls at? Italians, Yemeni, East Indians, Egyptians, and all the other old world people who mixed with Black Africans somehow escaped having "negroid" skulls. Yet again we are reaffirming the old myth "Caucasoids went into Africa, but the Negroids didn't really come out."

I know what is going to be said next "There were negroid skulls and people outside of Africa in early written history, maybe 2%, slaves, and peon henchmen soldiers, but no more than 2%."

This kind of illogical bias has to end. Do not diffuse "caucasoid" to include measurements that encompass people who are obviously mixed. The range of skull shapes flows from a gamut, not from stratified sub-classes. The measuring lines were differentiated to ensure that whites would not be mistakenly classified as negroid, but the opposite has been done for their sake. Obviously Black Africans and East Indians have been classified as Caucasoid because the few or so Europeans whose features are also in the middle (or partly negroid) are offended.

To make it short or sweet, the slick-Eurocentric method is this: "Tis better to have black caucasoids in Africa, than to have white negroids in Europe"

  • You are writing with your emotions... try to be more objective,

1-who gives you the right to classify ethiopians as Black? Who? YOU ARE THE ONE deciding to classify them as BLACK, I don't mind if any one classifies himself whatever he wants but one has to be objective, their appearance, their genes shows that their FAR from being Black.

2-It's silly to compare italians to ethiopians, Ethiopians are a stabilized mixed race people, Italians have few negroid admixture and shows in a minority of the population, Coon himself noticed that.

3-As for egyptians, it's very easy to find negroid influence in them, no one denies that. I guess you are speaking to a wall.

4-Stop propagating lies about afro-americans, they have never been classified as caucasoid, maybe fiew of them have been (which is correct, recombination always gives "pure" types among the mongrels).

Coon includes Aethiopids (not all ethiopians) in the caucasoid Race, that's why I will revert it. --Agurzil 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Political and racial motivation

The Ethiopians themselves classify themselves as Black, not as Caucasoid. Their appearance shows them identical to other Black people. We can go through a whole bunch of online pictures, You can go all over the Washington D.C. area (where there are a high amount of Ethiopians) and I can rest assured, without hearing an accent, you will not be able to tell them apart from African Americans. You will be able to tell the difference between them and Italians, Germans, Syrians, and "other" caucasoids. It's silly to compare Italians to Ethiopians. Being a mixed-race people does not mean "Caucasoid, not negroid" being a mixed race people means you either include the group into BOTH groups, or into NEITHER group. You keep wanting them to be "caucasoid" instead of acknowledging they are negroid (and from your 'objective' position, just as likely negroid as caucasoid). I do not know what lies about african americans you accuse me of telling. I KNOW they have never been classified as caucasoid, that's my POINT. Emotional or not, I am pointing out the contradiction of placing a mixed-black Ethiopian group into the caucasoid supergroup just because they are "mixed", while NOT putting the Af-Americans into the same supergroup, even though they are ALSO mixed with even more highly concentrated Caucasoid ancestry. Coon's "Aethiopids" are notihing more than this: One stratified classification of the larger Ethiopian population has skulls that are similar to Europeans. This is in contrast to the same fact that some Europeans have skull shapes that are Negroid. So again we are having a circular discussion and you are not addressing what I brought up, but instead accusing me of lying. In effect you are filibustering the conversation instead of addressing the core of what I am saying.

Ethiopians are not caucasoids, you may find some skull shapes in the wide variety of Ethiopians that measure similarily to caucasoid skulls, but that alone is insufficient to make them of the "caucasoid" group. The measurements of the mythical "Aethiopoid" group are of that the dimentions are so far on the edge of what is considered caucasoid that the nature of the classification should at least be questioned. They are not "dinaric" or "nordic", they are not "small-mediterranean"... if they ARE caucasoid, then figure out which caucasoid sub-group they most likely resemble. Saying that they are their "own" caucasoid group is disingenious and misleading. You do not put a singlarity into "your" group just because you feel like it.

So here is what I think you do, whether or not I am emotional about this topic: You know that there are a wide variety of Ethiopians. But you, like Coon, and like many others, would say that the negroid shaped Ethiopan skulls "dont count" for matters of "objective" classification. So you will find a way to seperate them out and stratify them. Then find a wild 1% chance link to some people way up in Europe. That is not objective. They are in the middle of Africa, and surrounded by other Africans. There has been no explanation as to how they ended up being Caucasoid, and this silliness of making them Caucasoid didn't start until their rich culture was appreciated by the Italians in the beginning of the 20th century. That is politically motivated.

That is why, when Ethiopia is put into the article, I will remove it again.

Biased classification

We all can agree that the people of the world are psychologically biased to identify as far away from Black as possible and as close to white as possible, with exceptions mostly in Black Americans. The legacy of slavery and colonialism has caused people, Europeans and non-europeans alike to find ways to get some people who had no real link to Europe to have a allegorical link to some ancient European ancestors. And when I say allegorical I mean it. It's as if the present day experiences of the people, and their history have no meaning other than to somehow reshape a greater "caucasoid" presence. The whole caucasoid "supercluster" is nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize the Equatorial Africans. The thing has everybody in it except Black Africans. And it's to reinforce the darwin-racist ideology that natural selection allowed the Caucasoid to diverge all over the world, while the dumb african remained stagnant and slow. (yeah if that's an emotional response so what, it's accurate, its the underlying meaning and we all know it). The fact is, you cannot justify this redefinition of Caucasoid to include Ethiopians. They exist wholly within the sphere of Negroid groups and some mixed groups like the Yemeni and southern arabs. There may be some caucasoid admixture but thats not enough to draw this conclusion. This is called hyper-diffusionism. It is similar to using the one-drop rule, but only it's being used to create caucasoids all over the place instead of making anyone black. Keep in mind though, in our world we are driven to one-step-away-from idolizing light skin and european features, not idolizing black features. Racial and social classifications are designed all over Latin America, Middle East and India to safeguard or glorify the "white". One moves 'up' towards a white classifiaction in Brazil and India. Being poor is being "black" in Brazil.

And yes I know we are talking about "caucasoid" and "skulls", and my response is that this definition is not the widely held definition, and no where in this article is the narrow vision to rely on skulls justified.

For example, earlier someone mentioned that the hair type and skin color may be "negroid" but since the skulls are NOT negroid, then we should consider them to be caucasoid. Ok fine. Then explain this contradiction by Coon himself:

"The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. ... In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid. ... Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia—who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull—and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. ... On the basis of these racial comparisons, it seems reasonable to suggest that this Badarian physical type may have come from the south, near the headwaters of the Blue Nile. It may represent an early Hamitic racial strain, which persists despite some negroid admixture in Ethiopia and Somaliland to the present day." Coon - The races of Europe.

It's obvious at this point that Coon is not sure how to classify them and obviously cannot find a consistent or universal method that can stick with the Ethiopian. BUT he tries very hard. You can see the bias at the end "which persists, despite"... oh hopefully those caucasoids in Ethiopia will hold out before it's too late... oh dear!

So let's follow coon consistently "while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established since the hair is definitely not negroid." Ok then neither should a lack of prognathism and nose form suggest a caucasoid tendency, since the hair is definitely negroid. Consistency.

For anyone to come in here and try to put Ethiopians, the oldest Black people on Earth, as Caucasoids is as crafty as Afrocentricists trying to make every other European ethnic group "black".

Now if you don't see the double standard of that, then you really are confused.

Perhaps rather than complaining about a possible eurocentrism and misdefinition of negroid, we should find actual anti-black parts in the article. Also, as to the ethiopians, we have a few choices. We can decide that the term Negroid refers to skin and hair colour, or we can decide that it refers to the craniometry. A better approach, however, would be to explain both opinions.
By the way: the Ethiopians are Caucasoids. Only an ignorant person would think that the term Caucasoid means white; think about the Ayrans in India!!! They are not white, yet you would have to be insane to call them anything but caucasoid. As you can see, I lean toward the anthropometry definition of caucasoid, negroid, australoid, etc.-- 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Ioannus de Verani


-I guess that you have understood nothing to what Wikipedia is, we are not scientists who have to impose our own beliefs to Wiki, we are here JUST to report what scinetists say, What I have done was quoting the work of S.Coon, NOT MY OPININON; if you have another source, mention it along with that of COON, NO ONE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE, YOU ARE NOT AN ANTHROPOLOGIST.

-You still speaking with your emotions, you have yet not presented anything that proves what you say, I have proven to you that ethiopians are intermeidate just to shed light and remove the statemennt saying that ethipians are pure sub-saharans. I'm not here to prove that Ethipians are caucasoid, I'm here to report what Coon said about Aethiopids, if you think that Coon was mistaken, put a little comment of another anthropologist who says otherwise.

Exactly, despite the fact that the article is trying hard to be political correct it is not unscientific enough for the bigots, yet. All articles should reflect the different available views. I mean even the views of race deniers and fraudsters like Franz Boas could be presented here.

-Please Stop your Vandalism.

-have a look at this:

--Agurzil 19:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Races of Europe

I've pulled the lengthy list of European "subraces" from Coon's book of this name. Besides only covering Europeans and not other Caucasoids, as the Carleton S. Coon article notes, "The book relied on an extremely typological view of race which was, even in its time, becoming seen as very much out of date." If anyone wants the list, it should go in another article.--JWB 22:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


"The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are MORE prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. ... In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid. ... Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia—who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull—and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. ... On the basis of these racial comparisons, it seems reasonable to suggest that this Badarian physical type may have come from the south, near the headwaters of the Blue Nile. It may represent an early Hamitic racial strain, which persists despite some negroid admixture in Ethiopia and Somaliland to the present day." Coon - The races of Europe.

Coon in the same books does not even agree with your conclusion. Since negroid skull types does not justify to him to make the Badarians (egyptians) into Negroids, how on earth can you come to your own conclusions? The Ethiopians are not caucasoids, because the same rule applies. SOME OF The Ethiopian skulls are LESS prognathous than those of their successors, and have lower nasal indices, and would suggest an intermediate tendecy in the caucasoid direction, this cannot be established, because as coon states, the hair form is definitely not caucasoid.

The Vandalism and contradiction comes from your end. Removing it again.


Agurzil - why don't you show some pictures of these skulls? I have looked everywhere online. I do not know if you are an anthropologist yourself or not. If you are, that's one thing. But if you are not, then you are in no better position than I am. You are getting too personal and not being consistent with the issue.

Ethiopians are considered intermediate. The problem of placing an intermediate group into Caucasoid is that it erroneously misleads the reader that they are not intermediate. Why put them into Caucasoid instead of Negroid? You didn't even reply to the information I posted, but merely accused me of vandalism. That's your emotion.

Enough of that. Address the issue. How can the Badarians (egyptians) have negroid skulls and still be caucasoid by hair texture, yet the Ethiopians who are intermediate (not even Caucasoid) be Caucasoid despite THEIR hair texture? In any event Coon does not base his classifications on skull shapes alone as I proved by quoting HIM. (It is not "good enough" to make exceptions only when it edifies one's own background).

Secondly, the description of Caucasoid is NOT based on skull shapes alone according to the wide variety of definitions we have access to, and you have shown no evidence as to why we must prove that otherwise.

So I am going to take it out again. YOu complain to the Wikipedia moderators or whomever has the power to influence. I WANT to see if they will react as biasedly as you do. I really really like Wikipedia, but if this is going to be another 'official' way to glorify white people by distorting history and pre-emptively shutting out legitimate criticism then I really want to know now.

Ethoipians are not Caucasoids. That's the bottom line. It's rediculous to try to prove otherwise. SOME, SOME show intermediate and lean towards Caucasoids but they are a MINORITY, not an equal 'third' or 'half' of the Ethiopian population. We are not going to play politics here. Show some pictures (and no, finding the one picture of one Caucasoid ethiopian saying that alone is proof isn't going to cut it either). I will do the same, I will post legitimate, and accurate pictures (copyrights withstanding of course)

And already biased websites should not be used. For example websites that support Ethopians are Caucasoid by writers that also support that IQ's are determined by race should not be used here.

If you did not notice, you are debating with coon, whether you agree with him or not is not the subject of the article, you can do that in various discussion boards.

The question is: Did coon include the Aethiopid type into the caucasoid race? the answer is Yes. This is an important information which needs to be added.

I will not reply to any of your messages because it is irrelevent, whether I'm convinced or not, Coon's opinion has to be mentioned. Again, if you know another anthropologist who classifies the Aethiopid type as any thing else than Caucasoid, mention it. This is an encyclopedia; not an internet message board.--Agurzil 22:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Please, dear anonymous, register and get a username.(I can't see who writes what)
  • As for "your vandalism", I have just reminded you the rules of Wikipedia and that you must behave properly, BTW I did not alert any moderator.
  • I will just explain to you some things, If you think that a scientific is biased or outdated, bring another source and quote it (and state that it is newer if it pleases you). That's how it works on wikipedia, it allows each article to reach a close to perfect NPOV. And sir, you are not doing that, you are just deleting, putting your opinion (This is called non NPOV) and trying to debate the thing. I hope you understand me now.--Agurzil 23:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, this is just for debate sake, have a look at this:

Craniofacial morphology (Brace et al., 1993) It clearly shows that Nubians and Somalians are intermediate between caucasoids and Negroids, For example, Somalis' skull are closer to european ones than they are to sub-saharans, Just imagine ethiopians who have more Caucasoid blood Somalis...

For the last time, stop deleting the work of S.Coon. Privide another source but do not argue about coon's wrok. --Agurzil 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Somali are more Caucasoid than Ethiopians, firstly they have a closer link to the Arabian coasts of the red sea, and less contact with the Western frontiers of Ethiopia (which would be uganda and kenya). So why are you even putting up the notion that Somalis are "more" negroid than Ethiopians?

I also noticed something interesting. The extremeties of Craniofacial morphology tend to leave an impression that objectively makes no sense. The Somali and Nubian are incased in a tint that implies a "negroid" grouping. I know that cranial morphology is not a linear science and that the variations are such that there has to be a range for each group, not just a dot. In addition, the extreme amounts of detail (no surprise) of the Caucasoid groupings, where so many dots are gathered together indicate more care is done to meticulously plot each labeled group in relation to each other. The "negroid" groups are spaced far apart, they are not showing anything more to me than an already established viewpoint (status quo). For example, I do not know where a fulani is in relation to an Ashanti, or where a Wolof person is in relationship to a Hausa. But they are lumped into West Africans and plotted way over to the left. Nevertheless, the "grouping" of the Somali are indicated by a tint that puts them with the West Africans, not the Caucasoids.

Secondly, you still will not address Coon's own comments on the use of hair texture to outweigh the cranial measurements. You are not making any other stir in this discourse other than to flex potential status-quo muscle. If I don't acquiesce to your position and let you keep "ethiopia" in, then I'll probably be banned or cited for some rule breaking.

Can anyone else comment objectively on why and how coon used hair texture to reclassify negroid badarian skulls as caucasoids? Arguzil does not seem to be willing to deal with that.

Deleting Coon's work?

For the last time, stop deleting the work of S.Coon. Privide another source but do not argue about coon's wrok. --Agurzil 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about. I ADDED more from Coon's work, and you, not I, erased it.

Let's make it clear: You falsely accuse me then say "we will not chat about it" afterwards. How dishonest is that.

Coon's work deleted by Arguzil

This is what Arguzil is deleting from the page:

"The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. ... In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid." Coon - The races of Europe.

Why is Arguzil accusing me of deleting coon's work?

If every one were to post supposed contradictions of Scientists, Wikipedia will be transformed into a discussion board, quote another source that says the contrary or just leave the article as it is, you can speak about coon's Biases in his article, feel free to do so.--Agurzil 10:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not dealing with different scientists. We are dealing with a contradiction made by (or on behalf of) one scientist. Coon uses hair texture, and you say that hair texture is not used. We are not going to just "let this one slide by" just because the matter at hand is "Caucasoid". == Handling of the article == I have been willing to modify the article to soften my position, and I have also addedd quotes from Coon (which I have noted in here three times.) Arguzil you have failed to respond, and you even --~~~~keep instructing to find more citations from other anthropologists to back up my position. Well I found Coon's own words himself, and you have ignored that. As far as I am concerned, that is where this conversation and article leaves off. I have also put the disputed neutrality into the article to again show a conciliatory position instead of just removing your content. But you removing Coon's quote then accusing me of doing that very thing is too offensive. I will not modify my position until this is resolved by a third party and your edits against my position will be reverted until it is handled. Also, Arugzil, do not try to label a legitimate POV dispute "vandalism". That is a pre-emptive attempt to assert your POV into the article. The dispute is whether or not Ethiopians should be considered Caucasoids solely on skull shapes, and whether or not coon relies solely on skull shapes to conclude whether or not an East African is "caucasoid" or "negroid". Until this is resolved by a third party, the content should not be removed unilaterally by Arugzil nor should I remove any of Arugzil's original content. Both POV should remain. ------------- I have displayed no personal POV, I have just Quoted Coon, Do not delete it and do not put excessive text. Please act as a gentlemen and get a username.--[[User:Agurzil|Agurzil]] 10:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ----- I have also quoted coon and you deleted what I quoted. Explain why is your quote from Coon more worthy to remain in the article than the quote from Coon that I have? Let's try this again. Maybe there is a disconnect. I am quoting Coon in the article. If you delete it, explain why. And for respect (as a gentleman( there is something you should be very familar with in academic discourse. You should not discriminately silence an opposing viewpoint and ignore the evidence brought. That indicates bias and prejudice. This will be the sixth time I have quoted Coon in this article and you have removed the quote. This will be the fourth time that you have pretended this hasn't happened. Do not tell me to "not delete" anything from Coon, after you delete a quote that is very pertinent to this article. Coon USES hair texture to conclude that a negroid type intermediate skull should be caucasoid. You put into the article that hair texture is not taken into account to classify races, and you cite coon as the sole source of your position. You are contradicting yourself very plainly. Address this, as a gentleman, and stop avoiding this glaringly obvious contradiction.

Physical anthropology

The Physical anthropology article is linked from this article. Therefore it should not be necessary to define physical anthropology in this article. --JWB 20:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mikkalai just cut the physical anthropology category from this and similar articles. I think this is a bad idea since physical anthropology is the original and proper context of the term. Race is a broader category. --JWB 20:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I like what has been added JWB. Thanks. I simply wanted the bias to be addressed. It makes no sense to pretend to be objective when the classifications are so obviously skewed to favor whatever the status-quo of the time wants to politically gain. At least you made note of that in your updates.

Thanks, I'm glad I was able to summarize some of your POV. I'm trying to follow Wikipedia's Neutral point of view guidelines and have all viewpoints concisely represented. I added more about Coon and his classification at Race (historical_definitions) which you might want to look at. The debate here has been informative and I think some of it could contribute to other pages where the level of detail would be more appropriate than here. --JWB 20:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced Physical anthropology by craniometry, Also your quote of coon says you understood nothing to what he wrote, He clearly states that the Badarian is a caucasoid mediterranid (not negroid as you wrote) with slight prognatism , this slight/tendency to prognatism (that disappeared later) *could* be a result of admixture with negroids (even neolithic europeans had slight prognatism that disappeared with time), as to know if it was a result of admixture or not, he had a look at an external characteristic: the hair : 100% caucasoid, he concluded that the prognatism is not a result of admixture. But later (in the 70's) he studied them again and concluded that there was slight negroid admixture based solely on skulls.--Agurzil 00:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you need to put this elaborate information and cite it. You reverted the article to it's older archaic state. Reinforcing the silly racial hierarchy. I am also offended by the "mongoloid brethren"... the term "brethren" itself implies a 19th century racial hierarchy perspective. The White in the lead, the Asian sidekick, etc. I am not tolerating it. You didn't reach a consensus, you unilaterally took it upon yourself to dominate this process. We are back to square one. Your analysis of Coon ignores the obvious. The original Egyptians were not caucasoids, the coon conclusions are biased as well, but even within the bias he acknowledges a negroid TENDENCY, not a "slight" prognathism.


that's what he exactly says: "The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. ... In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid." Badarians are predynastic and had *higher* nasal indices and were *more* prognatic than the dynastic egyptians, he asked himsel : "is it a result a negroid admixture", in formal english it's "is it a negroid tendency?", he couldn't know than he used hair texture to decide. In the 70's he did not use hair texture but more skulls and concluded that there was a negroid admixture, He did not say they were Negroids.--Agurzil 19:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop with the antiquated racism

Please stop trying to reinforce racial passions with the use of "Mongoloid brethren". Did you realize that the "brethren" link didn't even link to anything related to this article???



Coon and others have arbritarily set the middle ground, not in the middle between the Caucasoid and Negroid, but in fact somewhere into an area further into the negroid type. Here is how I can prove this.

Bi-racial people of Negroid (AFRICAN, not mixed) and Caucasoid (European) descent tend to have skull shapes and facial characteristics that now (as of 21st century reclassification) are considered "Caucasoid".

ALthough the 1-drop black rule is being condemned for people who are primarily caucasoid in appearance. What should not be done is to classify people who are mixed as Caucasoids. Again, going back to the Ethiopian issue, you should not consider "intermediates" as "Caucasoids". If you won't let them be classified in the same manner as those non-intermediate negroids that live among them then its nonsense to classify them as Caucasoids to have them fit with people far far away and people who didn't even exist when the Ethiopians and Egyptians were around.

So what is happening is that the "Caucasoid type" is expanded beyond a reasonable objective area. Here is an example: Take any of the African-European mixed people (Sade, Samantha Mumba, etc) and you will without a doubt consider them "caucasoid" based on the same screwed up mentality that motivates Arguzil to classify Ethiopians as "caucasoid" and Ancient Egyptians as Caucasoids.

Also, Arguzil you have for the millionth time avoided answering the issue. Coon does not say 'admixture' nor does he imply it. Straight hair is not a "caucasoid" trait that was passed down to Africans. Just like knappy hair is not a Negroid trait that was passed down to Scottish. You think we can classify Scottish people as "Negroid"? Many of them have large noses and pronagthism also.

So again, I will be removing over and over and over and over the Ethiopian link until you properly and accurately clarify it. And when I remove it once, and it automatically "reenters" I will remove it again. I am ashamed of the wikipedia moderators who allowed him to revert the article back after we had agreed on the changes back in May.

Dental patterns

The wording that the Caucasoid dental pattern is more "complicated" needs to be more elaborate. In this article, the racial issues underlining the association of some people with more complexity implies more intelligence, and that, psychologically is how these racial issues start up.

Do not use "more complictated", just instead explain the difference with the Caucasoid dental pattern.

"Division of the caucasians"

Can you tell me where is that classification from? --SM 11:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Physical anthropology revisited

The first paragraph of this article seems to indicate that physical anthropologists, as a group, recognize racial classification (particularly the of the -oid variety). According to this statement by the AAPA (statement on race), no such recognition is evident (two extracts follow: "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past." "The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries.") Unless contradictory evidence can be cited for this claim that physical anthropologists recognize this racial classification, I will change the wording.--Ove 23:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please make sure the edit won't create new revert war, recently there were few on these topics. Pavel Vozenilek 01:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sprachbund - asking for copyedit

Could someone knowledgeable copyedit the new additions, especially the virtually unknown word "sprachbund" (3 references by Google) and going off-topic arguing over concept of races. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

consistency problems

I am new to WP, and part of the problem I find with the "race" articles is that they not only lack consistency in tone but also in language. First of all, it makes sense that all of the -oid articles on racial classification use similar language. Secondly, it is important, in my opinion, to convey the controversial nature of any racial classification as the feature article race does. Many of the -oid articles seem to assume race as a given (with no citations I notice) while the main race article clearly indicates the controversy. I think it is imprudent, as with the most recent edit, to change the articles more in the direction of the former than the latter. The controversy of racial classification, even and especially that used by some physical anthropologists, must be conveyed in these articles not only to present the NPOV but also to remain consistent across WP. --Ove 04:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would prefere to keep the -oid articles small and focused and leave political controversies to the main article. Pragmatically, the more controversies will be put here the more revert wars will follow and such wars typically do not increase quality or attract actual experts. I guess race article is doomed to wars anyway but -oid articles may be hopefully kept out. People seeking info on controversies may be simply directed to the hot article.
The sprachbund (language group in German, term not used widely) cleanup would help the quality more than bringing more controversies. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Traits vs. classification

Although I agree with most of the recent edit, I do not like the intro sentence: "Caucasoid describes some anthropological traits" etc. Caucasoid does not describe traits (nor are these traits anthropological - maybe morphological or physical). The term describes individuals with such supposed traits, and more precisely it is used in a system of racial classification (because saying it describes individuals is a reification of the classificatory system). Consequently, I will revert back to the previous intro sentence in a few days unless someone has additional comments. --Ove 19:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think "Racial classification" by itself can give the impression that individuals can be definitively classified into discrete races without overlap, which is an position you took issue with earlier. --JWB 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it is that "racial classification" at least gives some hint of the constructedness of the categories; I also think that all the -oid articles should be consistent in their language. In reality, I think that they should all be combined into one article with a disclaimer as to the scope and usage of the terms - but I am not sure there is consesus for this.--ove 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Physical anthropology does mean the study of physical human traits. This is different from the usual meaning of anthropology which usually connotes the study of culture. Omitting the word "anthropology" might be less confusing for some modern readers, but on the other hand "physical anthropology" is historic usage. Forensic osteology is also one of the few areas where categories like "Caucasoid" have a legitimate real-world use today.

It is important to note that an individual or population does not have to be assigned to a single category like Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc., but can have traits indicating a transitional type between two or more. Failure to do this has aggravated the debates about whether people of area X or Y are Caucasoid or not. "Racial classification" does give a strong impression of sorting people into one box or another.

I do not see how "racial classification" conveys that the categories are constructed, any more than "collection or pattern of traits" does. --JWB 02:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

skeletal and genetic traits

Could whoever wrote the section on skeletal and genetic traits please provide some references. In particular, I think it will be difficult to find a reputable source for this claim: "may be inherited from Neanderthaloid admixture." Also, could whoever wrote this sentence, please make some changes; it does not make much sense: "Caucasoids also possess a Western Eurasian dental pattern, where the frequency of dental traits that are observed in other major races is greatly reduced." --Ove 22:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

About South Asian Dravidians

Many anthropologists classify Dravidians as a Caucasoid group preceded by Australoids meaning that Dravidians are basicly a half Caucasoid half Australoid race. When the Aryans migrated to this region they most likelly mixed with the Dravidian people meaning Dravidians are most likelly mostly caucasoid.

Darvidians are Australoid in origin but now with heavy caucasoid influence --Digitalseal 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Caucasoid (re: North Africans)

North africa term to broad. If there are going to be claims that North African are white I want a reference to a book or something. I also want to know what countries. It would be as ridculous to claim southern Europeans are white and provide no evidence besides a simple assertion that is not even from a book. I know however there are people from say Egypt who have caucasian appearance but I don't see this in Libyans who are for the most part very black in skin color and display close to no causoid chracrteristic except the ones who are mixed with ottoman

Actually the definition of Caucasoid or Caucasian from the dictionary I have says that it's a race that originates from Europe, West Asia (Middle East), and North Africa. Actually there are fair skinned Caucasians in North Africa, besides Northern Egypt. For example, there are Berbers who are fair skinned from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. --Gramaic | Talk 09:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to ask you what do you mean by fair skinned. A fair skinned person could be a light skinned African(Compared to other dark Africans) from North Africa or a light skinned white person compared to white people. Caucasoid and Cauacsian are two different things so that is not acceptable. Caucasian is definetly white where as caucasoid simply displays chracteristics of being white. Of course this is all debatable. You might say well thin lips are a cauacsoid trait. Someone else could say well most Kenyans have thin lips so does this make them white. Or people from certain parts of North Europe who have thick lips. They display negroid or afrcoid trait but it doen't make them black. However we would both say with certainity that kenyans are black(Africoid) and north europeans are white(Caucasian). I also don't know if middle eastern people could be classified as caucasoid. I would like to see some evidence of that if you are going to claim such things. I mean they aren't treated like other white people from a social point of view and I don't know of when whites settled the middle east. I thought they were almost like their own race or possibly from India but if people who don't look white, not treated as white, no white ancestry(well no evidence has been presented to suggest such so I can't simply assume considering all the other factors),genetically different and don't believe they are white(caucasoid), I need a little refernce pal. If you mean causoid as in having white features I agree with you if you show me evidence that say they have the same ancestry then yes also causacsian. However as it stands now no one has presented evidence that middle eastern are causasian(white ancestry). I'm not really even sure if we should say caucasoid. I mean we are bascialling say that they look more like white people than black people. Well lots of them do but ones from other places like Yemen don't. This also ignores the fact that there are other races than white and black and that they are possibly there own race.

i SHOULD stay on topic here. Berbers are not caucasian or no proof has been provided of this. I looked around on other articles in wiki and they say they either orignate from east africa or possibly the mid east. There are lots of people who are descendants of the Ottoman in places Algeria I know first hand. These people however are not natives. As for Tunisia I know there are quite a bit of whites there but most of them came from the same time the ones who came to algeria did. Tunisia is a very diverse country and has people of different races their but as far as I know none of the original inhabitants from there are not white/caucasian. I'm not saying they are pure Africans either but I don't know of any white precence their before the Romans or Greeks maybe. As for Moroccans I don't see any evidence of large white/caucasian populations their past or today. Considering that Mauratenains, Saharans, North Maliese and Nigeriens don't look like the West Africans we see here in America I don't see how Moroccans are white. For one they display most afrocid triaits besides very dark skin and flat nose. Something that none of the surrounding groups of Mauratenains, Saharans, North Maliese and Nigeriens don't have either. Not to mention many east africans don't share these traits as well. This seems to be a Bantu trait but I'm getting of track again. I also could not find any period in history where white/caucasian invaded or moved to morocco in large number the past besides the colonial one.

By fair skinned, I do mean light skinned Caucasoids. Have a look at this site which is from Carleton S. Coon, and he defines Caucasoid as being European, Middle Eastern, and North African. As for you stating that you don't think that Middle Eastern people can be classified as Caucasoid, most Middle Easterners are Caucasoid. Especially in Middle Eastern countries such as Syria and Lebanon. Here are some white/caucasian/caucasoid people who have Syrian and Lebanese background; Nancy Ajram, Tiffany (singer), Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and there's more where that came from. I currently don't have any extra information regarding Berbers, but when I get it I will let you know. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 20:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"By fair skinned, I do mean light skinned Caucasoids." The term is so broad and ranging you should stay away from it in your arguments. Using Caucasoid simply opens you up to reverse equally bold claims. Claiming someone is caucasoid has absoultely no substance and gives no information on the actual race of that person. It is as equally broad as Negorid and Mongoloid. Anyone can be classified as almost any of these "races" for the following reasons. The terms -oid are all based on physical characteristics common of American (Western Europeans and West African people) peoples. It ignores that there are full black people with thin lips and straight hair from say Somalia or Kenya(coincidentally not in west africa) or that their are full white people from Europe(coinicidentally not in West Europe) with broad noses, dark skin, or thick lips.

"Have a look at this site which is from Carleton S. Coon, and he defines Caucasoid as being European, Middle Eastern, and North African" Firstly this is not a site it is a collection of webpages that anyone can go and create. I will have no problem accepting something from a web SITE but I'm sure you can understand why I would be hesitant to accept anything from a collection of webpages that anyone who knows how to use a computer can create. Not that I'm accusing you of anything but for all we know you could have made up that webpage today or yesterday. (scroll down to bottom of page of diagram). Even your own website says that berbers are negroid. For those who don't go I'll describe it for you. You have for boxes representing each race. For some reason New Guineas are asian but Berbers are clearly in the Negro box with Bantus,, e,africans, san nilo sahrans and Mbutis. There you have it even coon recognized that Berbers (The orignal inhabitants of North Africa) were Negro race more than any other race so Caucsoid can continued to be used for Near East people (I will put back in the article). I don't understand however how near east people are white but turks are not, even though they are in europe.

Well I guess we were both right and wrong in a way. Near Easterners are caucasoid where as berbers are negroid.

I noticed someone edited the article and put back in North Africans as Caucasoid. Well as proven by Coons own diagram which I gave a link to from a site provided by the guy who was arguing this, Berbers are negroid at least according to Coon. Coon currently is the only source here so who ever is changing it is either making it up or not citing their source which either way is aginst wiki rules. If someone wants to introduce a new and controversial idea I'm fine as long as they have some kind of links.

The first 10 Google hits on Caucasoid already have 3 non-Wikipedia references to North Africans as Caucasoid. [2][3][4]--JWB 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Natives to North Africa are Caucasoid. Just check up the word Caucasoid or Caucasian in the dictionary, and the definition would be "people who have origins in Europe, West Asia (Middle East), North Africa and India. --Gramaic | Talk 01:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue what google brings up as a hit. Google is just a search engine not a scientist nor an anthroplogist. If I put in the word black into google then picture of white blonde women come up. Does this mean black people are white blonde women. I look up in the dictionary and it is more rigid than the definition you gave. It says people from Europe and north west asia, (didn't include any where else). I also see contradictions on the defintion of caucasian and caucasoid in the ditctionary and contradictions among different dictionaries which I 'm sure is why me and you have two different definitions of caucasoid. The same would apply to the dictionary in the sense that people who write them are not anthropolgist but and have phds in language and English. It is best to make them writers of the dictionary define common words and the scientist like coon to do their jobs and define anthropolgcal terms and race. It was your link and the anthroplogist that you argued to so many others was correct so I may have to wonder about you since you seem to be backing away and trying to distance yourself from Coon works, which argued to so many other people were credible. However you seem reasonable so far so I'm still willing to hear you out and keep an open mind. jmac800

If you looked at the 3 links, one was a dictionary and two were biologists, all citing N. African Caucasoid, not some random association like black (a word with many other meanings) -> blonde woman.
Carleton Coon was a scientist but definitely not representative of today's mainstream viewpoint. But if anything he extended the Caucasoid label farther than others! See Talk:Negroid and others where Afrocentrists argue at length that Coon labels North and East Africans Caucasoid in order to deny that any ancient civilizations were populated by Negroids.
By the way, the suffix -oid creates a wider class than the original word. Not all spheroids have to be spheres, not all Caucasoids have to be Caucasian.
Also, you misinterpreted [5] - the 2D plot is not from Coon but by Cavalli-Sforza et al., and the Berber point on the plot is for Saharan Berbers with some black ancestry (Berber#Saharan Northwest Africans), not for North African Berbers (Berber#Coastal Northwest Africans).--JWB 04:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me how to take you seriously when you are discrediting you own sources?

I don't know what you are talking about. Coon is not my source.--JWB 06:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Same here. I have never used Coon as one of my sources, just as an example. BTW Jmac800, all the different dictionaries I have read, all inluded "North African" in the definition of Caucasoid. What kind of dictionary do you have? --Gramaic | Talk 06:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I see there are people who are claiming various groups to be white or caucasoid. Please provided at least sources that explain how because this does not agree with any one of the ones list.

This is a very minimal statement that some people have some caucasoid traits or ancestry. All sources agree on this.--JWB 22:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we don't see eye to eye on what a caucasoid trait. You may straight nose but someonelse might say well only west african Bantu ethnic group africans have flat noses so it is not really a caucasoid trait cause so much people of different races have it. I don't deny that some infact many of the people in Africa have non-black ancestry that the many Turks of descent I personally know who live in Algeria. I do have a problem with your claim of the original inhabitants being caucasoid or caucasian. If you want to say there are many people in North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, egypt) of causcasoid ancestry thats fine and its true but I have I major problem when you say the original inhabitants of these places are caucasian white or any of its variants because its not true.

The other thing you say that I see is really wrong is that you use one ethnic group of africans (West african Bantus) to generalize a whole race of people (black). If you are going to say any african who doesn't look bantu (curly hair, flat nose, big lips) is caucsoid or looks caucasoid then I will expect you to say that any european who doesn't look lapps (northern european) is negro or looks negro. You can't say for one race that all that race of people must look like one ethnic group but for another race they look all different especially when one of those races has more than 900 genetically diverse ethnic groups.

The point is here that wikipedia must maintain a certain order of consistency or people will disregard it altogether. If you are going to classify black people with thin lip or straight hair or whatever as caucasoid then I will expect to see you edit the negro article and include those ethnic groups from sout and east europe with thick lips and curly hair as negroid since it seems you are basing it solely on physical characteristics. So I will levave the article for 24 hours and wait for your update for your negroid update for 24 hours, or revert the causcoid one if for whatever reason you decide to make excuses to explain that thick lips and curly and dark skin aren't negroid. jmac800

The controversy about people with dark skin but less Negroid features is about Ethiopia, Somalia, some minority groups in East Africa like the Tutsi, maybe even some people in or south of the Sahara in West Africa. It is not about Berbers of the Atlas Mountains or Mediterranean coast, who look like other Mediterranean populations, or even European in some cases. --JWB 06:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that you make such ridiculous knowingly falacious claims I have to begin to question everything that comes out of you. If you want to say african people are caucasoid you better provide a link that explains how, other than some 16th century dictionary written by white supremist who believe anyone outside europe is not human. If you are going to say that black people who in your opinion look caucasoid or have causoid features are white then you must argue that white people who have negor features are negroid. I expect to see these arguments from you otherwise your full of crap and no more than a vandal. The ones source on this page refutes that any berbers or any other african group are anything but negro so add a credible source or stop vandalizing the pages. jmac800

Jmac800, regarding your last paragraph, please pay attention to the Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies, as well as Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Intent of the policy.
Here are some photos just from Google image search on "berber atlas":
That there are *some* caucasoid or mostly caucasoid people somewhere on the African continent is an extremely conservative claim. It is not claiming there are not also black people in North Africa. (there are even Asian-appearing traits among the Chleuh)
I searched on mountain areas specifically to show mountain people who are less likely to show recent admixture. Recent admixture is more likely to show black than white input anyway since Morocco conquered areas south of the Sahara several centuries ago and because of the trans-Saharan slave trade.
Again, if you have questions on the specifics of Berbers, please discuss it at Berber where Berber editors themselves will see and respond to it. Caucasoid is supposed to be a very brief summary avoiding individual controversies. Berber lists archeological evidence including estimates of European and sub-Saharan genetic input (fairly low for most groups).
Please note we successfully resolved an earlier dispute (see first half of this talk page) with an editor who was convinced some material that others considered innocuous was actually white-racist in motivation.

--JWB 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm willing to discuss this with you since you for whatever reason decided to start using partial evidence even though it is of poor quality. Well all you did was provide me with is pictures. Thes just look like typical lightskin North Africans to me who are black with some mixtures. Maybe you will expect me to believe that being black involves having huge lips and a flat nose but I'm black and from North Africa and know that those are Bantu and not black chractaeristics. Maybe most blacks in your country are Bantu and look that way but you seem to have trouble understanding that not only Bantu people have those chracarteristics, and black of virtually any other ethnic group do not look that way. Moroccan Family

Heck I'll even show you a guy who is the same ethnic group as me. . I don't know if you know who Khaled is but. . . .im

All you did was give me link to pictures of people you claim are moroccan. This proved nothing for you and was a waste of time on your behalf. You gave no explantion to that says these people are white. I have tonnes of problems with your statement that asserts people who come from the largest desert on earth could have white skin at the very least where there are people not from deserts signifcantly darker. These people are simply put to white in skin color to be natives of any desert especially the largest one in the world. They are clearly people with Ottoman ancestry.

I'm not aruing that white people or non black people in Africa exist. I'm saying the following. 1 These people are not natives. 2 What you seem to be defining of Caucasoid is not what Caucasoid is it is simply including anyone who is not a Bantu African. It would be equivalent to me saying only Aryans are white hence everyone else is africoid or mongoloid. It is near impposible for you to find any country in the mediterrain africa or europe where people are less likely to show mixture. It is more likely that you can find groups that fit what you want them to be. I could easily find an isolated group of non native morrocan blacks and say here in this isolated area of morocco is what real morrocans look like. After thousands of year of race mixing your not going to find one pure soul on the medterrain.

From what I read of the berber article it supports that berber orignate in east africa and not europe so they seem to be more black than white. That is not what I'm arguing here anways. jmac800

This is not about "what real morrocans look like". You're welcome to take that up at the appropriate articles. For this article, it is not relevant whether the minority of very African-looking people in Morocco are due to migration in recent centuries or whether they have somehow existed there for tens of thousands of years without merging with the lighter surrounding population; this article mentions only Caucasoid and part or transitional Caucasoid types.
The Atlas Mountains are not the Sahara Desert. They are north of the Sahara a few hundred miles from Spain and have a climate completely different from the Sahara.
Human skin color does not correlate exactly with latitude or even with total solar radiation. See the discussion and maps at Human skin color. Note the maps Map of skin hue equi.png and the newer [6] have extreme northern Africa the same color as Southern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean.
The Ottoman presence in North Africa involved only a small number of soldiers who resided in the coastal cities. They have left some partial descendants in the coastal cities but are unlikely to have left Berber-speaking peasant descendants deep in the mountains.
Again, this is not about people who are African and dark-skinned but do not have Central African facial features. Those people are in Ethiopia, Somalia, etc., as well as the Khoisan of Southern Africa, not Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.
Khaled is from the coastal city of Oran, Algeria, one of the places most likely to have genetic admixture from Europeans, Turks, Arabs, as well as sub-Saharan Africans. He is not a member of an identifiable Berber ethnic group or speaker of a Berber language. He appears to be member of the Algerian and North African general population. As for you, your IP address identifies you as being in Ohio, and your writing shows no trace of a French educational background.
The Berber article does suggest migration tens of thousands of years earlier from northeast Africa, but that does not mean not Caucasoid or not ancestral to Caucasoid. Caucasoid does not mean from Europe. All humans are originally from Africa (according to the currently dominant Out of Africa hypothesis, as little as 70000 years ago), and northern Europe was under ice until only about 11000 years ago.--JWB 05:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing what "real" moroccans look like but I am arguing what native morrocans look like. They don't look white but the turks who migrated their when they occupied north africa for thousand years look caucasoid because they are from europe(Turkey mostly). You show absoultuely no consideration that climates today where not the same as they were 10000 years ago. I seen some people from Italia and Turkey who are far darker than people from places like Eritrea or Mauretania or of similiar complextion of people from South Africa. Your map totally ignores history and invasions and displacement of peoples. Now if your saying that this is what people who lived in a certain place for the last 10,000 years look like, with no migrations, no change in climate, no mutations, no invasions, then yes I agree with you but there are too many variables here to consider this as hard core fact. Another thing is that your map shows only skin color which has very little to do with race. Skin color is simply one genetic indication and can change tremendously in a 2 or 3 generations so I reject it as your primary basis as claiming people to be caucasoid.

I'm not going to argue the ottoman thing with you cause anyone who has taken a grade 1 history class in any north african country would know. Get educated on the subject.

Ottomans ruled Algeria for only 300 years not 1000 according to History of Algeria and dispatched only relatively few soldiers.

Your defintion of African is Bantu and not all black or African people are Bantu get that through your head. I tell you that bantu people look such and such a way and you tell me that anyone who is not bantu is not black. Bantu is simply one ethnic group. Life started around Ethiopia and Kenya so Bantu where not the first and only black people. Bantue people orginate from East Africa and crossed through North Africa to get where they are today.

Bantu is a linguistic group not racial, it originated in West and Central Africa and migrated east and south, not the other way around.

As far as people from Oran having Arab mixture that is very far off. The only people in Africa that have Arab admixture is Egyptians. There are plenty people of the Arabic culture in Algeria but virtually no people who trace their ancestry back to Arabia exist that I know of anyways. There may be people who have european ancesrty from ions ago but that is likely as much Mediterrain Europeans have North African ancestry considering we ruled them longer.

Obviously I don't speak French because I don't live in Algeria. Not many Algerian speak french since we kicked them out and there is someone of a culutral stigma towards those who do because they are seen as supporters of colonialism and the Frencj cause. May I remind you that when Algeria got its independece most people who supported the french were forced out whether they were french or algerian. Most the people who speak french or super rich business men the last time I was in Algeria anyways.

Over 20% of Algerians can read and write French according to Languages of Algeria. Education used to be in French, now it is in Arabic or French. Can you write some Arabic?

I'm not from Ohio so maybe you have the wrong IP as mine. I never been their either.

Caucasoid people are from the Caucus which is primarily in Europe and could be considere a bit in Asia. No proof no evidence no nothing suggest caucasoid people were in North Africa until the turks. I don't really consider Egypt to be north african because they are different than Libyans, Algerians, Tunisians, and Moroccans. Egypt had probably some arabs and lots of people mixed with European living their before the Turks. jmac800

"Caucasian" people are not from the Caucasus, that was one theory 200 years ago and the name stuck. And Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian.
Maghreb says "most Maghrebis are either Arabic- or Berber-speaking Muslims of predominantly Middle Eastern ancestry, while a few are of predominantly African ancestry, and the corsairs brought in significant amounts of French, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish ancestry in the big coastal cities.", and "Originally, the Maghreb was inhabited by "white" Cro-Magnoids (Iberomaurusians) in the north and by "black" peoples in the Sahara. Later, about 8000 BC, there came from the east "white" speakers of northern Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber at least since the Capsian culture."

This site, which tests people's anecstrial dna classifies Middle Easterners as Caucasoids, and they are correct becuase the scientific definition of Caucasoid includes European, Middle Eastern, some North Africans and South Asians. --Gramaic | Talk 05:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me links that disprove you. Your link of anything only strengthen my arguments that North Africans are not wwhite,caucasoid or any of such.

This map from you credible link says different coloured arrows represent different genetic lineages and races. As everyone can clearly see the ENTIRE african continet is one homogenous color with one homogenous green coloured arrow. Europeans or Caucasians/cauasoids have a blue arrow that streches from Europe down to arabia and Iran. All different color than the one of Africa. Not only does this map tell us that Europeans and African(ALL african from A-lgeria to Z-imbabawe) are the same race and same gnetic lineage it also tells us that Europeans and people from South west Asia are a different race and a different genetic lineage than any and all Africans. This is all I have been arguing. That people from most the places you name except the ones in Africa are caucasoid and even when your own links says it your in denial. I have to wonder if it is even worth talking to you when your links refute your claims and support mine and you still say I am being unfair. There your links.

The fill colors on that map don't mean races - that would mean Canadians are a different race from Americans but the same as Mexicans, South Asians and Africans. The arrows represent migrations and not present races - the 75,000 year old migration predates formation of the present races. The arrows and the map text both say nothing at all about Northwest Africans.--JWB 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

More proof "These groups are named using modern-day terms but represent anthropological lineages that extend back in time tens of thousands of years. For example, the term “European” is meant to describe a common ancestry held by peoples from continental Europe, the Middle East, Eurasia, Central Asia and South Asia – sometimes referred to as “Caucasoids”. EuroDNA is a more advanced analysis tool that allows our clients of Indo-European heritage to more thoroughly understand their ancestry. This service will predict your Indo-European heritage among the following groups:

Northern European Southeastern European Middle Eastern South Asian "

Well I don't see North African there. The closet I do see is mid-eastern which would according to our current defintion of mid-east would include Egypt typically. Even though this site maps refute it, I will give him credit that there are some Egyptians with Caucasian ancestry because that is the current view also held here at wiki and for simple sake of ending this stupid argument. So if you say that some Egyptians have caucasuian ancestry your welome to go ahead but as far the rest of North Africa it is simply a lie and I will revert any more of your vandlist attempts to include black African be they from Algeria,Morrocco, Tunisia, Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanada, or Nigeria.

Again, that site doesn't mention anything one way or the other about Northwest Africans.--JWB 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

-- 05:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)== Skin color vs skull shape ==

Firstly, I did not read the entire book that is the previous section. But I will say this. These groups should not be considered Caucasoids

  1. Ethiopians
  2. Veddoid and Dravidian East Indians
  3. Australians
  4. Ancient Egyptians

Why? Because they are at the very least mixed with Black (Negroid/Veddoid), and that mixture is a MIXTURE, not a "admixture" into a predominantly Caucasoid structure.

In addition, the Italians and Greeks and others who are put in as "white' in the prtty map aren't white. Sicilians, and Greek Islanders for example are as dark as many Sahelic Africans, and the issue here with the map is social, not anthropological. That silly color scheme reinforces the comfort zone of White europeans and does nothing to address the true nature of the various skin colors in Europe. They should call this article, "What White Americans think white should be". Or even better they should call this article the "White One drop Rule" (Anybody that is MIXED with Caucasoid is therefore a Caucasoid). -- 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

The Bianetti map actually has different colors for Northern vs. Southern Europe, but the in this version the latter is a light yellow that is easy to confuse with white.
I think what you have noticed is that Caucasoid is not the same thing as White or even Caucasian. The -oid suffix on Caucasoid means it is a broader or looser concept, and the word is a recent (century or so) coinage that was defined to include many outside Europe or even the Middle East. As an encyclopedia, we have to give the definition that has actually been used, not just redefine it. After that, we can give one or more established POV on the usefulness or not of the concept.--JWB 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


JWB does it make sense to have anthropological classifications that arbitrarily assign a broad base for one of it's subgroups (Caucasoid) yet narrow for another (Negroid), especially when the subgroupings do not match the social, cultural, ancestral, and historical groups?

I mean, we are talking about skull shapes and DNA trends. Those still rely on some person to decide where the lines are drawn. If the skull has an angle of so many degrees, SOMEONE has to decide, "Ok here, this is where the negoid ends and the caucasoid begins". Same thing for DNA. It makes no sense however, to look at Caucasoid people (who are the most recent group) as a starting point with much more leverage than the Negroid people (who are of the oldest group). It would be like calling a big chunk of dinosaurs part of the Crocodile order in the animal kingdom since some lizards are crocodiles and they lived sometime WITH the dinosaurs, instead of recognizing that they are both part of the reptile class. (the similarity in the logic is that any animal that is a lizard would be considered to be a crocodile first unless it showed a very narrow definition of what a dinosaur is (like running on two feet, or something)... just like any human that existed in history would be considered to be a Caucasoid first unless they showed strict, and solely "pure" Negroid or Mongoloid traits.) The point I am getting at is that all of the grey area between is lumped into Caucasoid, and that includes those people who aren't even mixed with Indo European! So no this isn't objective until THAT bias ends. -- 05:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Circular argument - the foundation of the problem

"This site, which tests people's anecstrial dna classifies Middle Easterners as Caucasoids, and they are correct becuase the scientific definition of Caucasoid includes European, Middle Eastern, some North Africans and South Asians. --Gramaic | Talk 05:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC) "

Gramaic, a site classifies people a particular way, and they are right because the scientific definition of a physical characteristic is based on a person's regional origin? That is like saying "White people are always right because they are white and a white person said so." -- 02:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Yes, that sentence is phrased as a circular argument which makes no sense. What I think he's trying to say is that the DNA evidence of similarities between those peoples agrees with the definition of Caucasoid which was originally made by physical anthropologists.--JWB 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the question arises, why are Ethiopians, Aboriginal Australians, Ancient Egyptians, and Veddic Indians considered "Caucasoid"? Why are mixed people considered Caucasoid? -- 05:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

This article does not make those statements. It was rewritten to avoid as much controversy as possible. --JWB 07:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

JWB what needs to be ADDRESSED in the article is WHY someone of any authority would classify Egyptians, Ethiopians, Ugandans and people from RWANDA as "Caucasoids" or "part of a Caucasoid subgroup". IN adderssing this, you will run into the matrix red pill which will finally answer what "Caucaoid" truely means, vs the matrix blue pill that makes you want to continue on believing what caucasoid was "designed" to mean. Again, I read some of the thesis paper in the section above, but the debate ends up with jmac coming to the same logical conclusion that I came up with. The "label" is arbitrary. Just like the word "continent". It's supposed to describe distinct large bodies of land, but "Europe" gets special treatment, as the "special continent" that seperates the whites from the non'white Asian. This is where the Caucasoid issue becomes psychology and racism, not anthropology, not crainometry, not DNA, not objectivity. -- 10:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC) zaph

JWb so far I have only used the resources you have provided and they all refute your claims of caucasian/causoid/white North African(excluding egypt) inhabitants. You have given no genetic proof no nothing. Your own website acknowledged that African from Egypt to Senegal, to Algeria to South Africa are of one race. I really don't want to hear any more of your made up ideas of caucasoid or white or whatever you want to call it people from North Africa who are white. Your map clearly showed one lineage. The only argument you have been able to come up with is that based on skin color which is not scientific. Otherwise I could be claiming that Greeks are black because of their skin color. There are significant evidence thats suggest Sicilians are black or have part black ancestry but I don't feel like getting into that right now. The only reason I put that some parts of Egypt has caucasoid looking people is because I have seen some Egyptians who could almost pass for caucasoid.

I don't think the guy who posted before you was agreeing with in fact I think he was being sarcastic towards your faulty based ideas that skin color = race. Not even coon believed that.

Gramtic your full of crap because I looked at the site and gave the link where it showed africans as one race you did not give no links or references so stop propoagating lies right now. Honestly if you guys put

  1. Ethiopians
  2. Veddoid and Dravidian East Indians
  3. Australians
  4. Ancient Egyptians

these groups as white people will laugh and not take wikipedia seriously. Ethiopia probably has the purest gene people of all black people because they have never been invavded or colized except one time in ww2 for 5 years by Italy. Veddoid people and people from that area although I am not claiming they are look very much like black people but with straigh hair. Austrlians look very much like black people from west africa and there are even many black egyptians today so claiming these groups as looking white will just make you look like a liar instead of actually giving people info. Wheteer or not they are causcasian that a different matter that deals with gentics but that not wht were talking about here jmac800

Well that's just it too... the genetic classification is done, not by grouping the similar groups together which ARE Caucasoid, but by grouping very DIFFFERENT groups together AS Caucasoid, then putting an "official" stamp on it. Trust me, if they could, they would classify Aliens from outer space as "Caucasoids" because after all, they are made of atoms, and molecules, just like Caucasoids are! -- Zaph

The Popular definition of Caucasoid

From Coon's work we have: East African: In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a concentration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with negroes. To the west these partial whites border on Sudanese negroes; to the southwest the partially Hamitic tribes of Kenya and Uganda form art extension of the peripheral Mediterranean racial area. To the north, the Beja-Bisharin group of Hamitic-speaking nomads connect the East African Hamitic-speaking peoples with their wholly white Egyptian and Berber relatives of North Africa. -

Coon obviously is motivated by his own bias, not science. "partial whites border on Senegalese negroes???" KENYA and UGANDAN people are an extension of the peripheral Mediterranean racial area??? And of coruse the Khosian types are not Black either. So what do we have? A couple of villages in Central and West Africa as the only "Black" people remaining. It's rediculous! And if we can finally understand, its motivated by prejudice and self-aggrandizement (My race is the best race attitude) on coon's part.

Here is another example:

Caucasoid The Caucasoid group is the most 'varied' of the three racial groups. Modern Caucasoids are very varied, even though they are descended from the same group of ancestors. They range from the fair-skinned people of north-west Europe to the widely varying peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Their hair may be either wavy or straight, and the diameter varies widely too. The color ranges from black to a pale blond that is almost white, including just about every possible shade in between.

NOtice how that website does little to elaborate on the other two hair types. The psychology is not that complicated. If you want to feel good about yourself you are going to promote yourself in the most positive spin you can. "most varied" "very varied" "even though", etc. This isn't racism, but it is a misunderstanding. Obviously this definition forces ANYONE to be possibly caucasoid, and if you read further, you can see, as predicted, the "African" hair type is not described in it's range, nor really is the Asian type. So the white reader, and writers are predisposed to biasedly make their own race seem more flexible and interesting and complex. And on the same token, they simply or try to simplify the African and Asian. Thus, here is why today we have the Caucasoid group being "very diverse" and the Negroid being very "specialized". It's psychology, not science. Same mentality as coon.

Oh and there is another reason. Back in those days, whites were motivated by purity. There was the need to make sure the European was represented as purely Caucasoid (with no mixture). In order to do that, they had to expand the Caucasoid group to allow the mediterranean and other "intermediates" in order to make the European seem as unmixed as possible.

If anyone uses photoshop, you know that when you take a picture, you can slide the output levels of the image to make the overall image look darker or lighter than it originally is, this does not really distort the RELATIVE colors, but just how they overall come out. In the same manner, the coons and others which hold on to the old theory, they had to adjust the labeling scheme of the human anthropological range, in order to make sure the "middle ground" was as far from Europe as possible.

How are Caucasoids "varied" and Negroid's aren't? I always thout Negroid ment black and caucasoid ment being related to the Caucasus. Just in terminology Negroid is more varied.Both the terms though, are bull.

--Vehgah 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The nail in the coffin

After all in 1935, how would it look for an anthropologist like coon to say, "The Mediterranean type is an intermediate mixture of Negroid and Caucasoid, exhibiting the same traits in hair, and skin tone and skull shape as a mulatto, one whose parents is purely negro and purely nordic. The Italians, Egyptians and Greeks exhibit the same physical appearance of a person half black and half white. Their skull shapes are closer in resemblance to a negro/caucasian mulatto than to either of the puer parent groups." There would have been riots all over the states. I do believe this is the point that will put an end to all of this Caucasoid nonsense -- 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Zaph

So just to clarify, Coon, being one who established the groups, he had the choice as to where to put each ethinic party. If the Egyptian type was too different from the Nordic type, well, he just expanded the Caucasian group to include them both, otherwise the partially negroid egyptian type would bleed into the groups of people who had considered themselves white during his time, like Italians, Greeks, etc.... I theorize he had to choose between comfortably making the Souteern Europeans "purely white" and uncomfortably allowing many obvioulsy black people "partially white". He knew (as we are learning now) that RACE IS A HUMAN CONCEPT. The visual differences are real, but their significance is psychological. When someone argues that "race is real" what they are saying is that human differences are real... how we clarifiy those differences, and what importance we place on them, that is inarguably arbitrary and there is no physicality (realness) to it. -- 06:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph.

Evidence and Examples for burying the Caucasoid coffin

  1. Boris Kodjoe - Mother German (White), Father Ghanian (Black)
  2. Carmen Ejogo - Father Nigerian (Black), Mother Scottish (White)
  3. Jaye Davidson - Father Ghanian (Black), Mother English (White)
  4. Jerry Rawlings - Mother Ghanian (Black), Father Scottish (White)
  5. Lenny Kravitz - Black (Bahamian) Mother, White (Jewish American) Father
  6. Sophie Okonedo - Mother Jewish (Most truly white), Father Nigerian (Black)
  7. Sydney Poitier - her Father is Black (African-American), mother is white.

and the list goes on and on....

All of these people look at least as "Caucasoid" as the Ancient Egyptian, Italian and Greek. They also look at least as NEGROID as the Ancient Egyptian, Italian, and Greek. And bear in mind, that Hollywood, and plastic surgery has a tendacy to go more Caucasoid than Negroid. All of these people would be classified strictly as a "mediterranean Caucasoid type with little or no Negroid mixture" in their skull shapes. Their DNA is another story, as the timeline is far removed from Ancient Egypt, but I would imagine somehow the DNA threads would envelop them in a Caucasoid structure. Finally, their hair type... well I'm sure the "Caucasoid" hair type which goes from straight to Jewishly, and Scottishly curly would have no problem including them as well. SO now, I'm sure it's explained without ANY ambiguity as to how erroneous and slanted the "Caucaoid" type really is. -- 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Zaph

In my opinion Americans of mixed W African / NW European descent usually look somewhat different than Mediterranean people, even when skin color is similar. However this article now avoids saying anything more specific than that the area with Caucasoids is "centered on" Europe, Mediterranean and Middle East, and that there are some people with mixed or intermediate traits in parts of Africa and Asia. The main purpose of article discussion is to reach a consensus. Most controversial assertions have been removed (though listing various established but disagreeing POV would also work); the remaining disagreement is that Jmac800 objects to any mention of N. Africa (now maybe also Asia and Southern Europe) even as a place where an unstated quantity of people have an unstated but nonzero amount of Caucasoid traits, while others are opposed to complete deletion of N. Africa.--JWB 07:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes some mixed people look somewhat different than Mediterraneans, however, the fact remains is that some mixed people (and those examples I show above clarify this) look similar to mediterranean people. The other point is that these mixed people would be classified as just ANOTHER Caucasoid subtype, whether or not they look identical to mediterraneans. What needs to go into the article is this very fact. That "caucasoid" overreaches its objective extent and is hyper-inclusionary in order to satisfy the demographic and social concerns of many White political institutions and individuals. -- 09:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My edit of the article specifically avoids asserting an extremely extended range for "Caucasoid" because you and others expressed this before. However, denying there are even any part-Caucasoid people indigenous to even the northernmost tip of Africa is going too far in the other direction.--JWB 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't deny that there are highly likely "native" caucasoid groups from say egypt. Although are probably not actually native as in the sense they trace their origins farthest back to their they probably have mixed and look like the native population enough that the two are undistguishable and could be consdiered caucasoid or negroid. I do however oppose the suggestion that natives of places like Libya or Algeria are white caucasoid or any of its branches cause that has been proven false. Anyone who has seen natives in these countries would know different. There were probably alot of whites in ancient egypt but I highly doubt that they were native and they may have been genetically white but would not have looked white in the way we know it. Just because people don't look bantu doesn't mean they are white. I also would like proof that south asian from say sir lanka are white.

I would say it is the opposite. As you can see in the 3 pics in Berber#Phenotype and genotype by region, North Africa has distinct ethnic groups that are more or less white, brown, and black, whereas Egyptians seem more homogenously brown (or black in the far south).
Nobody is calling Sri Lankans white. They are a mixture with one or more parts being North Indians who are classified as dark-skinned Caucasoids, something that has been basically confirmed by Cavalli-Sforza and other recent genetic researchers, finding a separation time from Europeans of something like 30000 years.--JWB 05:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thirty Thousand YEARS? That is like me saying that everyone in Europe is black because they seperated from Africa 40,000 years ago. Come on. THAT is hypodescent. That is making anyone Caucasoid. A LEGITIMATE way is to go no further than 10,000 years, at the dawn of history and the end of the neolithic. And these Sri Lankans already being MIXED with people already considered "dark skinned Caucasoids"... I am wondering, what was the other part of the mixture with? dark skinned Negroids? Dark skin + dark skin negro is Black... not white. I'm finding your logic, JWB, to be a seperation from something like reality. Sri Lankans are definitely OUT. -- 08:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

JWB my objections is not that whites exist in africa it is that they are not native and you still haven't prooved that yet. I already know that there are Egyptians with non-black ancestry and I am sretching this definiton for you to even include caucasoid despite you have done nothing to prove it. As said by Zaph and other users it seems that you are using works of someone who is most controversial and work regarded as a farce in the scientific community but I am not even making that an issue right now. The point is this as far as I me a native Algerian knows is that Native algerians are negroid and not caucasoid. Our article on berbers says they have 75% negro admixture at least and orginate in East Africa. Your argument has been that everyone who is not bantu is caucasian which is a load of crap because Bantus orginate from East Africa and migrated from there through North Africa to West Africa.

The 75% in the Bosch Y chromosome study cited in Berbers is "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" which they interpret as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in eastern Africa." It does not say Negro. Negro means what you are calling Bantu. Bantu is actually a linguistic group that migrated in the opposite direction than what you just said.
I don't know what you are referring to as "controversial" and "farce". If you mean Coon I'm only discussing him because you and other people cited him as an authority. --JWB 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ooooh boy here we go with the old DNA bait and switch. You can take a DNA anything, it will not prove anything. Why? because Whites and Caucasoids eventually come from a black ancestor, and somewhere down the line they mixed again. You have to look at the DNA as ONE component. The Lemba Jews of Mozambique have the highest concentration of Hassidic Kohenim DNA, but obviously they are not White Caucasoid Semetic Jews!
BANTU is not exclusively NEGRO, they are not identical synonyms. "Negroes" are more than just "bantu". Everything outside of "bantu" is certainly not "Caucasoid". That's the same route with the DNA, any DNA that is outside of the "bantu" 2% fold is placed in the European Caucasoid fold. That's a form of genetic hypodescent. I am officially declaring here and now, that we forever understand that Bantus are not the ONLY legitimate type of Negroid/African/Africoid(whatever else word) people. Period. And the other branches are not "less" black or "less" negroid. A language group can be adopted by people who are of any "racial" category.

Well wiki basically says he full of crap so why do we use him? Even if we are his diagram never showed any africans as caucasoid anyways. Negro does not mean what I am calling Bantu, you personal interpret Bantu and Negro to be synonoms therefore you believe anyone who is not bantu is not black and must be white. This explains why you want to include Negro people from North and East Africa as being white. Simply because they are not Bantu. Why should West African people get to be more "africoid" than North Africans, central africans or East Africans simply because most of the black people in your country are bantu. What kind of nonsense is that. Bantu and North African both originate from East Africa so if anything should be defining afrcoid or chracteristics it should be east africans not west africans. How would you like it if I said only british people were white because most the white people I have meet were from Britain. The rest of Europeans were simply negroid prototypes. Seems kind of silly especially considering that is not where whites originate from. jmac800

I do not interpret Bantu and Negro to be synonyms. Bantu is a language group that does not include most of West Africa, and was not present in East Africa before the last couple thousand years. Just look at the article. The meaning of "Bantu" as just "black African people" was used in South Africa for a while and is now considered derogatory.
Negro does not mean all Africans, this is not me making a judgement of who is similar enough to who, this is simply the established usage of the word for several centuries. I don't know why you are insisting on shuffling the terminology. There is a perfectly good word "African" for referring to all of Africa. Ideosyncratic usage is against Wikipedia policy.
You are still referring to that 2d scattergram from Cavalli-Sforza as "Coon's diagram", even though Coon died before the genetic technology to do the work was even invented. If not, please point me to what diagram you are talking about.--JWB 05:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
NEgro doesn't mean all Africans, but, "negro"'s lighter limits should not be right on the borders of the southern Sahara desert and the Nile river while the half the frakking planet of people that can look like ANYTHING BUT a west African are "caucasoids". Come on! There has to be a seperate section for all of the debatable groups, from Italians to Tuaregs, Egyptians, East Indians, etc. So lets start listing them and we can decide how much the DNA interpreTATION, skull sizes, the environment, the ancient settlement patterns, the self identity, and European colonization plays in this. We cannot lump all of the mixed people into the Caucasoid category. How can Afro-Asiatic languages which are totally unrelated to Indo-European be a branch of the caucasoid? how can Ancient Egyptians who lived totally like black people, be listed as a Caucasoid people??? Caucasoids grew beards and had long hair. Egyptians shaved their head.... arrrugh. This belongs in the Afro-centricism section, but GEE WHIZ JWB -- 08:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph
Listing all debatable or transitional groups, at least in this article, is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Either we stick to a short general statement or try to list and classify all, and the latter leads to endless edit wars. My edit does not lump all mixed people into either the Caucasoid or other categories; it specifically avoids this, and also avoids making total statements about any region. Can you agree with this compromise?
People of any race can learn a language; the majority of speakers of both French and Arabic are now probably African. Race is not tied to language; this is a major point of 20th century liberal anthropology as opposed to earlier scientific racism. Obviously people of any race can shave or not shave too.--JWB 14:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How much of a race classifies one as caucasoid?

Maybe we should discuss how much of a race classifies one as caucasoid. Greeks and Suthern euopeans have significant non-caucasoid admixtures including mongoloid especially and negorid(mostly sicilians). I also do object to all south asian being classified as caucasoid becuase some of them have negroid and mongoloid charactersics and some do have caucsoid chractersitics and some have mixtures. I don't see how anyone who has a mixed appearance should automatically be considered caucasoid though.

In my edit of this article, it explicitly says mixed or transitional about Mediterranean, S. Asia, and Central Asia. --JWB 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that these mixtures should be acknowledgede at the very least. If you want to classify North african/eastafrican/westafrican/ any other imanginey causoids go ahead and do it in the coon part cause coon claims that but no modern scientist believe this. jmac800

I created a page called "Classical Negro" which addresses this issue of putting mixed people in the Caucasoid section. This Caucasoiding of various people is a form of hyperdescent, and should be identified as such in the article. There is a psychological component that is not being addressed either. WHY is a black looking Egyptian or any other group of people "WANTING" to feel white? -- 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Zaph

Looks like most of the material in Classical Negro goes with the material in Afrocentrism which is largely about the Ancient Egyptians question. There is also Congoid. I'm not sure "Classical Negro" is a current term, haven't seen it anywhere else. --JWB 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Alot of that stuff should be in caucasoid defintion.jmac800

I know we all want to end th edit war but that is highly unlikely to happen as long as you are classify black people or mixed people who look black or mongoloid as caucasoid. No discussion has been brought to suggest that East African are caucasoid thats a whole new topic. I don't know of one scientist or any person at all who claims this other than Coon who is discredited for scientific racsim in the scientific community. Your more than welcome to say that there are Egyptians who have caucasoid features but that not true for people on the tip of north Africa(Tunisia and Algeria) who are native. If your going to claim that there are indigenous caucasoid peoples in Africa I want to see a link that explains how and when. So far every link you have gave me including coon has said the opposite. I personally however know from my studies that there were many migrations of non-black people into egypt along enough time ago to say that many egyptians have caucasoid ancestry. The same can not be said for anywhere else in Africa.jmac800

Obviously you understand why it makes not much sense to say South Asians are caucasoid. They have dark skin, flat noses, etc. Not all of them of course but tamils and south indians certainly aren't caucasoid where as many other Indians or pakistanis are.jmac800

JMAC that's my point. That's WHY there is a "classical negro" (also known as true Negro) philosophy. I don't know why it should be merged with AFrocentricism or the Caucasoid definition. It should remain as it is to expose the contradiction of Eurocentric scholars that swear that everyone (but Bantu, Congoid West Africans) is Caucasoid. Why all of a sudden are white people wanting everyone to be white now? Why couldn't they have this attitude in 1492. It's like "Well, we can't enslave yall, you guys are eventually going to outnumber us in the states, and inevitably become really equal, ok how about you guys just let us call some of you white so we can hold out a few more generations before we relly get absorbed in?" Let the white thing goooo... you aren't going to lose your humanity and your descendants aren't going to go backwards. We will still colonize other worlds and invent warp drive, we just won't be looking like William Shatner. Maybe not YOU JWB, but this Caucasoid philosophy seems more like a desperate attempt to preserve white identity. Just try it for a second, imagine Ancient Egypt, or India, and just imagine what it may be like for them to culturally fit in as Black people... does that hurt you, scare you. Is it like some kind of rush? I'm sorry, it's just... SRI LANKA? 30,000 YEARS? Coon was saying that RWANDANS were Caucasoids... heck why don't we just go for the whole thing. Let's make "Negroid" one branch of the Caucasoid super-duper-terrestrial-planetwide group? -- 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Ex-Zaph-sperated

If you think the definition of Caucasoid is a racist plot, that's one POV, which according to Wikipedia:NPOV#What is the neutral point of view? should be listed if it's significant, but needs to be attributed (as Afrocentric in this case) and needs to be presented along with the opposing significant POVs. I myself added a sentence expressing your POV to Congoid (in fact, created the article) a few months ago in response to your concerns.
However, even if we assume the definition of Caucasoid is a racist plot, that doesn't change the definition. Wikipedia documents it as it was actually defined and used. We can't change it arbitrarily. You can say what you think is wrong with the concept, as one POV. I would love to see some actual hard information on Coon or anyone else and exactly how their biases affected these theories, and good writing describing this concisely. (What I've seen here so far is neither.) It should probably be in Congoid, Carleton Coon, Contemporary views on race, or Race (historical definitions), with the Caucasoid article having at most a sentence on it and a link.
As for your last comment about making everyone Caucasoid, now that I have Coon's "Living Races of Man" to consult, he actually suggests the "Proper Negro" or Congoid originated with mixing of an original Pygmy population with Caucasoid incomers!!! His reasoning is that Caucasoids and Negroes share a lot of similarities that need to be explained and that fossils from the African forest zone are Pygmy, with no Negro fossils until recent times. Now I'm curious to find more recent research disproving some of this. This viewpoint seems pretty outrageous to me at first blush, but if we are going to consider all viewpoints, maybe it should be listed and evaluated with the rest.
Anyway, if it does turn out West and Bantu Africans do have some unique characteristics, what's wrong with this? Shouldn't it be an object of pride for West African-descended people, instead of having to identify with Egyptians and Indians to feel good?
As for "white", it's a social category that has changed through history, and this article explictly states it is a different thing from "Caucasoid".--JWB 15:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I find the fourth paragraph underSemantic scope to be very problematic. Caucasoids are not by-and-large descendants of earlier Negroid groups, the original modern humans were definitely not "identical" to modern Negroids, most Mongoloids and a large % of Caucasoids are "indigenous people in Asia" and do not fit into the Negroid classification, and no well respected anthropologists or geneticists consider South Asians to be Negroid. Also, the Bert Thompson breakdown is ludicrous and should, in my opinon, be deleted. -- Gerkinstock 02:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the attempts at balance in that section, but the writing could be improved, and yes, the modern humans who first left Africa and settled the rest of the world are considered to not correspond exactly to any current race (there's some signs suggesting they were like the Khoisan but no proof), and calling dark-skinned people in the Asian and Australian tropics Negro or Negroid can be found in very old literature but is not current practice except among Afrocentrists. If it is going to be in the article, it should be in a section on political / racial controversy and identified as an Afrocentric POV.--JWB 04:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, even the wider definitions of Caucasoid do not imply an out of Europe theory. They still have Caucasoids developing in West Asia and the Mediterranean, then moving north to Europe.--JWB 04:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Very true, and Stephen Oppenheimer has even placed South Asia as the point of origin for "Caucasoids." Melanesians are another group that are similar to early moderns, who were more robust than the various modern Negroid groups. -- Gerkinstock 18:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Although Caucasoids are by and large descendants of earlier Negroid groups and emerged after most of the other Eurasian groups.

When was this confirmed? Some sort of proof is in order I think.

Proof is right here

The Term Caucasoid is Slowly Becoming Less Constrictive in Order to Segregate Certain Groups of Africans from the Rest of the World.

I believe that now people are realizing the unscientific backings of the term Caucasoid. Apparently we are forgetting the major connotations of the word Negroid. It implies that the people under this classification are dark skinned, and attempts to attribute a certain skull type to this name. But let’s look at why this is simply unscientific and down right nonexistent. There is an illusion that all “black” Africans look similar, which is laughable at best. Africa and all of its dark ethnic groups vary not just down from tribe to tribe, but from person to person. I find it humorous that they would attempt to call Ethiopians “Caucasoid” just because of their skull shape, and hair texture. If that was the case then half of the “black” people in America would be labeled Caucasoid. What we have here is an attempt to segregate certain black Africans from the rest of the world even further; to label them as “monkeys” and the rest of the world as “man”, which is clearly an agenda.

Let’s look at some pictures.









All of these people are of a certain group of Africans, but look very different, even between them. If you were to do the same to the people of Europe, you would see the same amount of diverseness. So that means that race is not set to a particular feature, hair texture or appearance. Ethnicity is a cultural, linguistic, and rather abstract term, and cannot be applied to skull shape, or nose shape; because no one knows their full biological heritage. What we have here is a corruption of understanding, and a corruption of science. Appearance is not a scientific means of classification for the simple fact that appearance is not set in stone. Babies skulls change and are shaped. Environment and conditions play a part in appearance as well. Genes are personal and not universal. Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids do not exist. Our physical differences are far too complicated to be put in such primitive umbrella terms. Science is not pick and choose.

It is my opinion that Ethiopian people may have given their traits to "Caucasoids", with some kind of migration.

--Vehgah 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is my point as well. I saw a native american country who tied their kids heads to a board for a year, to change the shape of the head. Now if all native americans did this at the time when white people came to ameirca they would say indians must have long oval shaped heads. So if one indian child who was stolen by a slav raider at birth didn't get his head tied to a board. You bet white people would have called him caucasoid. I have to ask the question zaph did why not just make every race a sub-branch of caucasoid because I don't see how any race is excluded from its broad definition.

Funny how you use science to justify your own personal views on race without having even the most basic understanding of those scientific principles. Instead of just looking at modern humans, look at the older species such as neanderthal, Homo habilis and homo-erectus. According to your logic the notion that they are any different than modern humans is simply a corruption of understanding! I guess homo erectus is nothing more than a social construct incorrectly interpreted by modern science. Get real, please. This is why there is such confusion about race, no one is educated on the subject, so people develop their own phony conclusions. This not only leads to racism but on the other extreme, total denial and confusion of the concept. This thread is to discuss the article, not your own silly pre-conceived ideas. --Nazrac 16:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Did "Caucasoids" get their traits from a certain group of Black people?


The first Homo Sapiens where Africans so yes.Robwi 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the 'out of Africa theory' deduces humans originated on that continent, does not mean those early human progenitors de facto resemble the current population of sub-saharan Africa. It is an all too common fallacy to distinguish races based on skin color. It leads to incorrect conclusions that "race is only skin deep" and as well as the disagreements we see on this forum over what constitutes which race. The problem is not that the idea of race is wrong, but rather how and what defines "race." Certainly if we clump everything into poorly classified racial groups, such as "caucasoid" spanning from Scandinavia to the middle east and India, one can easily claim there is more variation within racial groups than between them. This assertion is flawed for two reasons.

One: Since the caucasoid group have numerous people of mixed origin clumped into one group, it would be relatively easy to claim there is more genetic difference between a Dravidian Indian (classified by many as caucasoid) and a Swede than there is between a Dravidian Indian and a sub-saharan African, and thus "more differences within races than between them." Of course if we were to compare a Swede, on the other end of the caucasoid spectrum to a sub-saharan Africa, there would be a huge difference.

Two: Until recently in human history, different populations have been relatively isolated from one another. Today people in regions that have converging populations of different ethnic origins, such as the middle east, Indian and central asian, there is a much larger gradiant of ad-mixture between groups than there previously would have been. If you look at the Scandinavians and early Germanic tribes who were relatively isolated in early pre-history, they were very different from other European peoples. The Roman historian Tacitus commented on this in his work Germania, which was a compilation of experience and knowledge about the Germans and one of the earliest known intact written records of the early Germanic peoples. Tacitus even went so far as to describe them as a 'unique race, completely unmixed' and described in detail their physical and cultural features. On the other end of the world, there was another people who had been completely isolated until the European settlers arrived on the island of Tasmania. These people were literally pygnies, about 4 feet tall and some theorize they may be direct decendants of homo-erectus who remained unmixed until Europeans arrived. More information about them here:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

--Nazrac 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What is Caucasoid?

What makes one to be considered caucasoid?

The people native to Europe, West Asia, South Asia and North Africa(yes, north africans are not black) and parts of Central Asia. They are the Caucasoids, this is mostly based on skull features Robwi 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's get one thing straight. Black != Negroid, and Caucasoid != White. Yom 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Caucasoid is a Grossly Over Inclusive Term

It's laughable how in this day and age this sort of shameless white supremacy is still going strong in so many circles. Some concocted hogwash isn't going to convince of me of what my common sense is telling me otherwise. There is nothing new about this political agenda and this skull business is just a new example of distorting information along with rational thought to further this agenda that has been in effect for centuries. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddhartha21 (talk • contribs) 23 Mar 2006.

North Africans and genes


North Africans are predominantly Caucasoid according to gene research --Digitalseal 13:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

clean up and modernization

I have tried to maintain the apparent intent of the article while bringing up to date regarding the scientific consensus within physical anthropology. A comparison with the article Negroid might help understand the changes that have taken place in this field over the past half-century. -- Frank W Sweet 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no scientific consensus against the validity of race classifications. Many anthropologists, as well as geneticists, still make use of racial terminology. Search for Caucasoid, Negroid or Mongoloid at PubMed and you'll see how many results come up.
Also, calling old works of anthropology "obsolete" is unfounded and betrays a modern bias. Coon's observations of Caucasoid traits in certain dark-skinned Africans have actually been borne out by more contemporary research. [8] [9]
I think all of your P.O.V. edits should be reverted.

My changes are backed up by references to current peer-reviewed scholary works, specifically to physical anthtopology textbooks currently in use. I encourage you to post other points of view, especially any that reify or support the use of "Caucasoid," that are also backed up by physical anthropology textbooks currently in use or similarly peer-reviewed scholarly works. Please do so. Regarding "modern bias," you are probably correct that findings during the past half-century, and especially since the decoding of the human genome, "betray a modern bias." That is the way science works, after all. We learn and we change our conclusions based upon what we learn. Again, if you have any references to recent peer-reviewed scholarly works in physical anthropology that support the term "Caucasoid" please insert them. (Also, your opinions here on the discussion page would gain more respect if you signed them. Just a thought.) -- Frank W Sweet 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "bias". It has nothing to do with learning and drawing new conclusions. It means prejudice and partiality, in this case against all old studies of race and toward modern anti-race politics.
The way you rewrote the article implies that the scientific establishment unanimously rejects the concept of race as invalid. That's patently false. The article should be restored to its original, neutral state. Then if you want to a add a note at the bottom about the ongoing debate over racial classification, that's fine. Or better yet, just add a "See also" link to the article on Race, which discusses the whole issue at length.
But stop pushing your PC agenda. This isn't the place for that.

Once again, if you can cite any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the term "Caucasoid" please, please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be eagerly welcomed. I certainly do not want to give the impression that no current scientist supports the use of the term "Causacoid" if in fact any scientist does. If you know of one, please, please cite his or her work. -- Frank W Sweet 15:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Since when were Caucasoids indigenous to sub-saharan africa einstein? And why do we need to put Carleton S. Coon's outdated bullshit in the article? I thought anthropology has moved forward from the days of the Third Reich? Peace out. 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology has moved on from the days of the Third Reich. But it has moved on by abandoning the concept of "Caucasoid." This article is about a word. But the word is no longer used in peer-reviewed work. So in order to explain how the word was once used in science, we must reach into the past for examples. For an article with a similar dilemma, see Piltdown Man. On the other hand, if you can find any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the term "Caucasoid" please, please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be eagerly welcomed. -- Frank W Sweet 15:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

removed map. factual error.

I removed a map claiming to depict Coon's conclusions. The map does not match Coon's map. Coon's map shows the horn of Africa as "Caucasoid," not mixed. Also, Coon's map distinguishes "Capoids" as an entirely different "subspecies" of human, rather than lumping them in with "Congoids." Either remove the claim that the map reflects Coon, or fix the map to reflect Coon. -- Frank W Sweet 10:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The last effort was closer, but Coon's map shows all of Siberia east of the Urals as "Mongoloid." Also, you misspelled "Australoid." -- Frank W Sweet 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Yom's removal of Dark Tichondrias's latest map. I do not have a problem with this latest version. Its sections and titles reflect Coon's original map and thus re-rendering it from scratch with colorsavoids copyright issues that would arise from simply displaying Coon's original. I agree that the new map's resolution quality could be improved, but I would not remove it on mere aesthetic grounds. -- Frank W Sweet 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't your objection based partly on the depiction of the Horn as mixed as opposed to "Caucasoid"? The current version has the whole of the Horn as "Negroid," which clearly does not represent Coon's views. I wonder if there is some way we could claim fair use on the Coon image and just use the original.
Yom 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh Sh_t!, You're right! I did not even notice that. I was looking at Asia and the Pacific. You had better fix it, DarkTichondrias. Coon considered Somalis and Ethiopians to be among the original Caucasoids. I really do not know about "fair use." We could try it, I suppose. The worst they could do is make us take it out and that would put it back in DarkTichondrias's lap. Should I upload Coon's map, or should we just link to it? My picture is pretty ugly, since all I did was squash the book in my scanner. -- Frank W Sweet 17:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fair use has the example "A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use." Coon's treatment of East Africa is certainly highly controversial, and using the map in explanation of the controversy would be appropriate as well as fair use --JWB 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I uploaded it as NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. Feel free to use it.

Carleton Coon's Races

POV problem

Frank W. Sweet lies: "the word [Caucasoid] is no longer used in peer-reviewed work."

Utter nonsense. I told him to enter the word at the PubMed database. That produces 1446 pages of results, starting with the most recent studies from 2006.

I also linked him to a page about Ethiopians on which two similarly recent studies are quoted that specifically refer to that population's Caucasoid component.

All of this thoroughly disproves his statement that the term Caucasoid is obsolete, but he just ignores it. He's using this article to present his POV, and he needs to be stopped.

Once again, if you can cite any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the use of the term "Caucasoid" please, please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be eagerly welcomed. I certainly do not want to give the impression that no current scientist supports the use of the term "Causacoid" if in fact any scientist does. If you know of one, please, please cite his or her work. -- Frank W Sweet 12:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Google Scholar also gives lots of hits on Caucasoid and "physical anthropology". [10] There are many more if not limited to "physical anthropology", which like "Caucasoid" is a somewhat dated term but still used for reference. --JWB 01:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, if you can cite any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the use of the term "Caucasoid" please, please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be eagerly welcomed. I certainly do not want to give the impression that no current scientist supports the use of the term "Causacoid" if in fact any scientist does. If you know of one, please, please cite his or her work. -- Frank W Sweet 12:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's still used, but a mention of its datedness needs to be in the article. While I don't know if the articles are peer-reviewed, if you'd like, I could link to a number of articles on the study of the genetic makeup of a variety of populations, Frank.
Yom 01:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. We now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. Now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources, I agree that the terms are in current use. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Frank, I'm trying to understand your objection to the many results cited so far. For example, the first on the 2nd page of [11] is:
Are you saying that this and the others do not "support" use of the term, in spite of their own use of it? This might be true for some narrow definition of "support", but obviously it does not preclude use of the term.--JWB 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. We now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. Now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources, I agree that the terms are in current use. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources, not a mere website). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to be anything out of the ordinary. All we really need is a journal article or a book from a university press. A web page reference is no good because anybody can put anything on a web page with nobody overseeing and checking it. "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are still used routinely in forensics (to comply with U.S. government "races"), perhaps we could find a scholarly book or journal article on forensics (you know, like CSI stuff). Tell you what. I am out of town right now and won't be back home for a week. But when I get back, I will root around among my old anthro textbooks to see if I cannot find something on forensics that uses the two terms. I know there is stuff out there. In a college forensics class I once had to pass a test showing that I could distinguish a Caucasoid skull from a Mongoloid skull from a Negroid skull. The problem is that most people around here just want to repeat their unsubstantiated opinions over and over. But, dammit, that is not what Wiki is all about. In the meantime, before I get back, if you can find something on this (other than a web page), please post it. There are people here going nuts about it. Search on "forensics" and then try to get a book title, author, and publisher (or article name, journal name, and issue date. I am sure we can find some legitimate source if we try. I know there is stuff out there. -- Frank W Sweet 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank, it is not hard to find the term used in a current university forensics course - the skull image [12] used in this very article is credited to "From the Western Kentucky University forensic anthropology website.". Googling that site [13] gives 15 hits for Caucasoid; the first is [14] which has the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid skull drawings and characteristics. --JWB 22:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. We now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. Now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources, I agree that the terms are in current use. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Caucasoid Obsolete?

Since when did the term caucasiod become obsolete? The term is highly controversial but not obsolete. It is still used today by some but obviously not in its "subspecies" sense. So I will change it so. Zachorious 22:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is filled with bias. I am going to correct it because views toward the term "races" are not obsolete but are controversial. Zachorious 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, if you can cite any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the use of the term "Caucasoid" please, please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be eagerly welcomed. I certainly do not want to give the impression that no current scientist supports the use of the term "Causacoid" if in fact any scientist does. If you know of one, please, please cite his or her work. -- Frank W Sweet 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I showed you a website the terms caucasoid. Did you not read what I wrote? Like I said terms like caucasoid and negroid are contreversial but not obsolete. Zachorious 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. A website is not a peer-reviewed source. We now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. Now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources, I agree that the terms are in current use. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources, not a mere website). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the article a bit to a neutral stance. The term caucasoid is not an obsolete term. It is still used in forensic use. It may not be used in human subspecies anymore as there are no human subspecies. It still however is used to describe a cline which is based more on phenotype rather than genotype. Zachorious 08:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is still used by the university of california and numerous others in their physical anthropology courses. --Nazrac 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

reverted unsourced POV

Someone removed the observation that "Caucasoid" is no longer used in science. If anyone can cite any recent peer-reviewed scholarly work in physical anthropology that supports the use of the term "Caucasoid" please insert it. Any scholarly source on this would be welcomed. We do not want to give the impression that no current scientist supports the use of the term "Caucasoid," if in fact any scientist does. If anyone knows of one who does, please cite his or her work. Until then, please keep unsubstantiated unsourced POV opinions out of the article. If you are unclear as to just what is a scholarly peer-reviewed source, I would be glad to explain it. (Hint: it is not a web page.) -- Frank W Sweet 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Sweet, I have sited where terms like caucasoid are still used. Yes they are not used to describe subspecies but are used in forensic anthropology and now under a newer term cline. I have kept your info for both pages (caucasoid and negroid) but just made it more neutral. I have also cited where it is used. So please stop changing the article to push your agenda. Thank you. Zachorious 08:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. Now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources, I agree that the terms are in current use. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
A cline is a continuous transition between two or more different extremes. [15] The word would not be used to describe one of the traditional races, but to describe populations intermediate between two or more of them. --JWB 22:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed a quotation and cited reference to an acccepted college textbook and replaced it with a non-peer-revierwed, non-scholarly web page link. You have done this repeatedly despite the wiki standards for NOR and NPOV. Your behavior has begun to border on vandalism. -- Frank W Sweet 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a recent, peer-reviewed study in physical anthropology that uses the terms Caucasoid and Negroid to classify pre-historic skeletal remains from northern Africa:

The Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa
Homo 50(3):249-262. ISSN 0018-442X
ABSTRACT - We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.
Dr Groves is a Reader in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Faculty of Arts, ANU. Dr Thorne is a Visiting Fellow in that School and also in the Department of Archaeology and Natural History, RSPAS, ANU. [16]

Thank you (whoever you are). I how have several recent articles that use the terms "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" and I will cite them in the appropriate section (either admixture mapping, medicine, or forensics). -- Frank W Sweet 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, no one has yet found a scholarly, peer-reviewed source (NOT an unsubstantiated web page!) that actually advocates either of the terms. If anyone can find any such evidence of academic advocacy or support, please post it here. Please do not rant. Just post the goddam article citation if you can find one. Incidentally, I do not need the opposite. I already have oodles of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and, more importantly, highly reputable journal editors' current instructions that any use of the obsolete terms will cause an article to be rejected. -- Frank W Sweet 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, since people keep hammering on this now-dead horse: We now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. I agree that the terms are in current use, now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the University of California, those terms are still used in their physical anthropology courses. --Nazrac 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Negroid and Caucasoid and Mongoloid

These two articles are becoming damned near identical. I propose to merge the two articles into one titled "Negroid, Caucasoid" so that we only have to explain these obsolete terms only once: what they once meant and how they are used today in the last few remaining academic and professional venues where they are used. -- Frank W Sweet 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if the term Mongoloid is mergerd as well we shouldn't leave that out either. All of these terms are obsolete.--Gnosis 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Talk to Nectar at Talk:Negroid. Better yet, why don't we all come here to discuss it. -- Frank W Sweet 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The common information should be in Race (historical definitions) where other similar information is. The individual articles should point to this and the other the appropriate Race articles, and otherwise be short, neutral, and note that the terms are dated and of limited use. This was discussed before - see top of this talk page. After that I succeeded in stabilizing the article as such, excluding lengthy axe-grinding from any camp, and asked that any change away from this be discussed to consensus before taking action. --JWB 22:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. Frank W. Sweet has hijacked this and the Negroid article and made a mess of both, turning them into his own personal forum. They're not even about those two terms anymore, but one-sided tirades against the validity of race. Sloppily merging the two articles to help him focus his attack was the last straw. I think they should both be reverted to the way they were before he showed up, and locked from editing until a consensus is reached on how to proceed with the rewrite (if at all). Who the hell does this guy think he is?
The anonymous ad hominem attack above would be more credible if it addressed issues. Fundamentally, this all comes down to the Wiki defininition of NOR: based on reputable peer-reviewed sources. Mere accusation of "hijacking" does not give the right to rip out cited peer-reviewed sources and replace them with uncited opinion (or worse, links to ideological websites). -- Frank W Sweet 11:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Sweet has sort of hijacked this page (I haven't seen the other), but there's no need to be hostile. I will get to this tomorrow, and try to clean up the POV sections and narrow the scope to the most relevant areas. It might be less constructive to revert so far back.
Yom 09:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest. Please improve it any way you can. But if you rip out cited peer-reviewed sources and replace them with uncited opinion (or worse, links to ideological websites), I will put the cited peer-reviewed material back. I am sorry if the notion of sticking to serious academic sources enrages some people, but that is the precise explicitly stated intent of WP:NOR. -- Frank W Sweet 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest my last revert to a short neutral version on March 1 as a starting point for discussion. [17]
I think Frank's contributions are quite valuable, but most of them are about race in general, or race as a social construct. Rather than merging the articles about specific terms, the generic material should go in the generic articles like Validity of human races (has been merged into Race), Contemporary views on race, or the articles about social groups such as Whites.--JWB 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I now have plenty of examples of recent use of the terms. Now that people have cited recent peer-reviewed sources, I agree that the terms are in current use. I am still looking for an example of explicit advocacy of the terms (again, in peer-revewed sources). -- Frank W Sweet 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if there is much explicit advocacy for any sort of terminology about anything, especially in scientific papers which are supposed to report findings, not advocate.--JWB 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Explicit advocacy of terminology is one of the most frequent topics in professional scientific venues. Here is a short off-the-top-of-my-head list of peer-reviewed articles in professional scientific venues that take a strong stance against the concepts under discussion in this Wikipedia article (in addition to citations in the article itself):

  • The entire issue of the American Anthropologist 105, no. 1 (2003) was dedicated to this very subject, with a clear overall tone of advocacy against this terminology and no advocacy in favor.
  • Michael L. Blakey, "Scientific Racism and the Biological Concept of Race,” Literature and Psychology 1999, no. 1/2 (1999): 29.
  • C. Loring Brace, "Does Race Exist?: An Antagonist’s Perspective," [web page] (Nova, 2000), available from (Nova is not peer-reviewed, but I figured that the man's name should carry some weight around here.)
  • Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002).
  • Stephen Molnar, Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002).
  • The American Anthropological Association’s rejection of "race" as useful paradigm at and their dissociation of the "race" notion from "intelligence" at (This venue is the official web site of the offical professional association of American anthropologists, a local chapter of which I happen to be a member.)
  • The results of a survey of 365 physical anthropologists reported in Matt Cartmill, "The Status of the Race Concept in Physical Anthropology," American Anthropologist 100, no. 3 (1998): 651-60.
  • For peripheral issues, see Peter J. Aspinall, "Collective Terminology to Describe the Minority Ethnic Population: The Persistence of Confusion and Ambiguity in Usage," Sociology 36, no. 4 (2002): 803-16 and Phillip Gleason, "Minorities (Almost) All: The Minority Concept in American Social Thought," American Quarterly 43, no. 3 (1991): 392-424 for strong arguments that the term “minority” itself should be discarded because it has been ruined for scientific discourse by being politicized and so deliberately re-crafted to be ambiguous.

Give me a couple of hours in my library when I return home (next Saturday), and I can cite fifty more such examples. -- Frank W Sweet 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be about the nature and validity of the concept of race, not about the specific term "Caucasoid". They certainly deserve detailed discussion in Wikipedia, in the appropriate articles, where such debate has already been taking place. For example, the Race article already references the AAA Statement on Race that you link above, and links many other references with various viewpoints on the issue. --JWB 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that I understand. Do you want specific quotations directly critical of scholarly use of the term "Caucasoid"? If so, I can do this, although we may have to wait until I get back home, since my collection of journals is there. Or are you saying that any specific quotation critical of "Caucasoid" will not count if it happens to be inside an article disdainful of the U.S. "race" notion? If so, I cannot do this. I do not recall ever reading an article that supported the U.S. "race" notion but opposed its terminology or vice-versa. Opposition to the U.S. "race" notion tends to go hand-in-hand with opposition to its terminology and vice-versa. -- Frank W Sweet 00:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I make no such restriction in my plea for an article that explicitly advocates use of the term. Whether such an article supports or opposes the U.S. "race" notion is irrelevant to its applicability to this Wikipedia article, as far as I am concerned. All I need is someone advocating the term, no matter what they say about the U.S. "race" notion. (A reminder: links to ideological web sites don't count.) -- Frank W Sweet 00:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

'specific quotations directly critical of scholarly use of the term "Caucasoid"' would be interesting if you have them on hand. But I don't think there is much difference of opinion here on the proposition that the term is dated and less used today. --JWB 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Connecting to other articles: Race, White(people), etc.

"Caucasoid" is not the same thing as American racial categories. Half of the people who would be classified as "Caucasoid" are South Asians who are not considered "white" in the US, and, as you well document, racial identification in America can often flout biological definitions. I have great respect for your work on race in America and welcomed your appearance on Wikipedia, but it does not need to be repeated in detail in every article.
I am arguing for a short article that briefly describes the term and notes it was most used earlier in the 20th century, and points the reader to the longer articles on race for in-depth discussion of race, and the history and validity of the race concept. --JWB 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I am no happier typing the same stuff (rephrased slightly) over and over again in different articles than you are reading it. Was it Satchel Paige who said it was "deja vu all over again"? I really wish that we could get better at interconnecting articles on related topics. There are three obstacles to overcome:

First, the topics/concepts are not exactly congruent; their overlap in is not perfect. Here (Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid) we are dealing with legitimate terms from the field of craniofacial anthropometry, which had its heyday in phylogeography between about 1820 and 1980. Phylogeography has almost totally switched over to using DNA because the latter is more replicable. When it comes to tracking the migrations of human populations, craniofacial anthropometry is dead. But the techniques and methods of craniofacial anthropometry are still used in two fields: U.S. forensics is one (discussed in the article) and paleoanthropology is the other (nobody has successfully extracted DNA more than 200,000 years old). Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid are still sometimes used in craniofacial anthropometry, especially in U.S. forensics, but there is no Wikipedia article on the history and current practice of craniofacial anthropometry. And so the terms and concepts of craniofacial anthropometry spill out into other peripherally related articles. The Wiki articles we are discussing (Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Mestizoid, etc.) try to write encyclopedically about a few jargon terms from a cohesive field of study that lacks its own article. I think this can be fixed if we put our minds to it. But the overlap between the jargon of craniofacial anthropometry and the Race article is peripheral not central to either one. -- Frank W Sweet 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Second, when the U.S. civil rights movement made White Americans sensitive to derogatory concepts regarding Black Americans, publishers, editors, and authors sought euphemisms for the derogatory concepts in order to preserve the basic racialism but somehow make it more palatable. And so, "race" became an involuntary form of "ethnicity," "Negro" became "negroid," and so forth. The deleterious impact that euphemisation has had on the sciences of human variation by making findings non-testable (by making them unintelligible) is well-known and well-documented (L. Lieberman, P. Aspinall, R.S. Cooper, J.F. Wilson, S. Watt, and especially R. Bhopal). The U.S. "race" notion (meme? <grin>) has co-opted terms from many fields (craniofacial anthropometry, ethnology, biology, etc.) in order to preserve itself from erosion. The sugar coating of racialism by euphemisation is a huge central overlap with the Race article. I agree that we should replace all but a brief summary of this issue with a link to the main article. If you can do it cleanly, please go for it. Bear in mind, however, that as you know I am already on record that I think the Race article has bitten off more than anyone can chew, much less digest. I would not want to inflate it any more. -- Frank W Sweet 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Third, the ideologues are everywhere. They creep out the woodwork in the weeks after an article has reached consenus and, line by line, slowly destroy its integrity by twisting it to the strange-bedfellows combination of White supremacy and Afrocentrism that taints Wikipedia's articles on human variation. They fight tenaciously to stop consenus from every being reached. They incite anger and polarization to drive away the educated, because this leaves them in possession of the article. The reason that so many Wiki articles on human variation are a laughing stock to readers outside the U.S. is not because there are no knowledgable people to craft them. It is because the knowledgable people have been driven away in disgust at the agent provocateur behavior of the idealogues. They only way I know to neutralize the idealogues is to show, over and over again in every article, that their arguments are driven by passionately held belief, not by intellectual reasoning. I see no way of avoiding this sort of deja vu, even though I probably dislike it even more that you. After all, I'm the guy who has to write it. If you have a better way neutralizing the idealogues, please share it. -- Frank W Sweet 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This Is Silly

What happened? I thought the dispute would be solved but now these articles quality has gone down by so much because of Mr. Sweet's agenda. Why are we merging and deleting 3 different terms? And what happened to those skull pics? I will restore the negroid article at the very least. Merging these terms is like merging all articles discussing dog breeds because they belong to one subspecies. Does that make any sense? No! Zachorious 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to return the articles back to their original quality (which even then needed improvement).

And Mr. Sweet, If you want to start an article on the validity of these terms and whatever else you have against them, then by all means go ahead. However please don't mess up existing articles because you feel it your duty to make wikipedia politically correct from racism or whatever your motive is here. Go on and edit the articles as much as you like and add the info you have but please do not redo all the articles for your agenda. Thanks! 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


If we do merge negroid and caucasoid then please make this article of higher quality. Also restore the charactersitics forensic anthropologists use to define negroid and caucasoid. Zachorious 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The craniofacial anthropometry criteria for Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid dtermination are still there, and more besides. I have merely split them off to an article titled Craniofacial Anthropometry, which is summarized and linked to from our main article. This is because the terms originally came from craniofacial anthropometry, where they are still used in forensics, but their most common current usage are a euphemisms for terms that were found to be offensive. Hence, there is a distinct difference between the strict technical usage of craniofacial anthropometry skull types and the current usage as proxies for various "race" names. By splitting these two divergent meanings of Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Mestizoid, etc., we can describe craniofacial anthropometry in more detail without cluttering the original article, and we can then focus the main article on current usage of the terms. Please bear with me. If the consenus is otherwise, it will be very easy to merge craniofacial anthropometry back into themain article again. -- Frank W Sweet 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But I do not see why don't we just merge all race articles in this case. Zachorious 01:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Because, as JWB explained, we already have a very good (if a bit overgrown) article on the debate over the reality of "Race". There is no need to duplicate it. All we want to do here is explain the origin,meaning and current use of the obsolescent terms: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Mestizoid, etc. -- Frank W Sweet 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reason these terms are being used is because they were used previously by anthropologist. Forensic Anthropology is a field derived from Forensics and Anthropology. Look at this link : . Although I'm not a fan of using links to prove points when you follow this link and click on race it clearly shows that these terms are in regards to race. The problem I have with race and these terms, is that they are using these terms to describe a person's race, which in returns refers to their skin color. The reason why these terms are not used is not only because they are considered offensive but they do not determine the color of skin of an individual. There are Africans with dark skin with European features and Europeans with African facial features and even Asian features for that matter. It has been disproven as an exact science and you can't distinguish between these groups based on being African or European or Asian. All of these groups have individuals that share similar bone and cranial structures so this doesn't prove color of skin it only proves racism which in itself refers to a meme. This is why these terms are obsolete not for the mere fact that they are offensive as points out. They are also not accurate, which makes the science of Anthropology in itself somewhat false in regards to this aspect. I am interested in seeing what Frank does in regards to the merger but it is more important to state why these terms are obsolete.--Gnosis 02:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elohimgenius that it is important to convey to the reader why usage of the terms of craniofacial anthropometry are in decline--that the concepts for which they are semantic referents simply do not work. But I suggest that it is pedagogically wiser to show him/her, rather than merely tell him/her. Specifically, take a look at Craniofacial_Anthropometry#Challenges, for an example of the style that I am striving for. We do not hit the reader over the head with our conclusions, but let him reach the realization on his own that it simply does not work. -- Frank W Sweet 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnosis, Race does go further into facial features but yes they do overlap. Obviously there are Africans with some caucasoid features. This only shows the mixing that has gone on between different ethnic groups which is common throughout history. First of all how do we define "race". Race means many things. Some use it to describe a subspecies while others use it to describe a further division. And why do you think there being minute differences between the races will promote racism? This is what I am talking about. Just because there are differences between human physical features it doesn't mean it will lead to racism. Human phenotype varies from place to place and some phenotypes do get isolated in different places. This is common throughout the animal kingdom as well as in different domestic animal breeds. A great dane has a very different skull shape than a british bulldog despite belonging to the same subspecies. You canb call this "race", "breed", or "ethnicity". It really makes no difference.

I did state in the article that the 5 "races" can fit the description of a cline, which is difference in phenotype rather genotypes. Why was this deleted? Zachorious 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Which five? Coon's five? Morton's five? Kant's five? Blumenbach's five? the U.S. Supreme Court's five? WP:NOR opposes uncited material that contradicts peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Merely claiming something is not enough. You must also provide a reputable peer-reviewed source (not a URL). -- Frank W Sweet 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sweet, if you are just trying describe the historical usage of the term that is fine. Just remember though that these (caucasoid, negroid, ect.) can be used to describe a cline or major population. Zachorious 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Understand that when I use the term racism I do not mean racial discrimination. I am referring to the fact that race is a concept. A meme that was created to memetically engineer society or societies thinking. We must be careful in how we use memes or if we use them at all as they can be detrimental. On another note, the separation into as you say the 5 races or the various groups Caucasoid, Negroid etc.. Are all memes in themeslves that have mutated over time to take on various meanings. The term Negroid is derived from the term Negro which reflects black or dark skin. The term Caucasoid refers to the previous belief that Europeans originated from the Caucus Mountains which is untrue. oid is a suffix that indicates a "similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, -oid is derived from the Latin suffix -oides taken from Greek and meaning "having the likeness of". If there is a similarity in all races why is there a need to separate them into these various groups. I do agree with what you say about the terms being used in regards to cline. Which is: A gradual change in a character or feature across the distributional range of a species or population, usually correlated with an environmental or geographic transition. But these terms have historically been used to denote race. There are other terms like Europid and Africoid etc.. All of this should be taken into account. However if you are describing the historical usage of the term then that should be clearly stated as well along with the other issues we have espressed. They don't all have to go into the beginning of the article but they should be included to give a more concise definition.--Gnosis 03:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Craniofacial Anthropometry

1. Removed polemic from intro, making intro simply an overview of the sections. -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Moved all three skulls to new article: Craniofacial Anthropometry, which describes how skull measurements work and how they are/were used in science. -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Am in process of focusing the main article on how the terms are actually used today in the peer-reviewed venues the we found. Specifically, the terms are used as euphemisms, surrogates, or proxies for terms that came to be seen as offensive during the civil rights movement. This focus lets us cite the journal articles that actually use the terms and also quote from other articles critical of such usage. -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

4. The Craniofacial Anthropometry article, on the other hand, will hold everything that we had on skull measurements and more (including examples of how to determine the "race" of a skull). This article will focus on current (forensics) and past (phylogeogrphy) uses of the strict original meanings of the terms. -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Following JWB's suggestion, I am reducing all polemics about the validity of the "race" notion to summaries with links to the main Race article. -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Following Yom's suggestion I am trying to use only original primary source material from Coon in the discussion of Coon's work (in the Craniofacial Anthropometry article). -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

7. If it separation does not work out, we can easily merge the Craniofacial Anthropometry article back into the main article as a section. But, with your patient indulgence, I would like to try it separate for a day or so until we can all see how it flows. -- Frank W Sweet 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of good ideas. By the way, there is a Craniometry article, AKA Cranial anthropometry or Craniology.--JWB 07:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the link! I was not finding anything and I was starting to worry that I would have to write about Samuel Morton all by myself. -- Frank W Sweet 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

new terms

Frank, it needs to be noted that the terms were still being regularly used in 2004 and 2005 in medical/genetic contexts (See a search for "caucasoid" from 2004-2006 (560 hits)[18] or from 2006 (17 hits).[19] However, while the terms are obsolescent, this doesn't mean that caucasians etc. no longer have ancestry. When the US National Library of Medicine removed the oid terms and offensive terms like "Blacks" and "Whites" from their Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in 2004, they didn't remove the categories; they renamed them "African Continental Ancestry Group," "European Continental Ancestry Group" "American Native Continental Ancestry Group," "Asian Continental Ancestry Group," and "Oceanic Ancestry Group " ctrl f caucasoid. (African American is listed as a sub-group of African Continental Ancestry Group f american.)

Cavalli-Sforza's much praised work (by Gould, Lewontin, Diamond etc.) on human phylogenetic history was the definitive discussion on this subject both when the terms are caucasoid etc. (which he used in his 1994 book) and when the terms are the newer terminology. We had good data from Cavalli-Sforza in the Negroid article before your re-write. That's fine if this page only discusses the terms and their usage, but the intro should direct readers to the new terms. I propose we just use a single article for discussion of ancestry and population genetics: human population history (this seems preferable to human population structure, as used, for example, in Noah Rosenberg's preeminent work in this area.[20]--Nectar 11:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with all the above. In fact, I recently got shanghaied into helping write a "Genetic History of Europe" section into the White (people) article precisely because of the demand for such information, and the fact that we lacked articles on the current consensus on prehistoric phylogeography, especially as related to today's nationalities and self-perceived cultural groups. See the discussion page there for my position on this. If you would be willing start a page on human population history, I would be honored to lend a hand. What I do best is research, so feel free to leave text scattered with {{fact}} templates and I shall come through and resolve them. (On second thought, maybe we should first ask the guys here for a suggested title. "Human population history" sounds a bit vague, assuming that we want to focus more on DNA than on linguistics. -- Frank W Sweet 12:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are some other existing pages with existing discussion that new content could be integrated with: Human migration Human evolution Race science Racial grouping Archaeogenetics Medical genetics Genetic genealogy Single-origin hypothesis Multiregional hypothesis Hybrid-origin Mitochondrial Eve Y-chromosomal Adam Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups (and 27 articles on individual haplogroups) Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups (and 25 articles on individual haplogroups) Most recent common ancestor International HapMap Project Genealogical DNA test Paleogenetics Template:Popgen Lineage (evolution) Anthropology Anthropometry Osteology Forensic anthropology Race in biomedicine#Genetic differences among races Phylogeography not to mention many articles on individual scientists.
I am sure that there is enough interest in genetic history to support multiple articles on different eras and regions, or genetic history sections in existing articles on those eras and regions; for example, there already exist Berber#Genetic evidence Genetic origins of the Kurds Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia Jat#Genetics Sinhalese people#Genetic and anthropological assessments Y-chromosomal Aaron Ashkenazi Jews#DNA clues Beta Israel#DNA evidence Toba catastrophe theory Timeline of human evolution Atlantic Modal Haplotype Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics Kurgan hypothesis#Genetics Japanese people#Genetics and physical anthropology
On the question of the existence of race, Lewontin's Fallacy needs to be addressed. --JWB 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Four housekeeping issues 4/18/2006

1. The way that I see this working is to leave individual pages with the titles "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" but have them be nothing more than short tables of contents (what programmers call a "case construct" or "elseif chain") that direct the reader to one main article or another. All substantive content would go into the main articles. I do not think that we should simply redirect the old "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" articles to the new combined article that discusses the use of obsolescent "racial" terms in physical anthropology because I suspect that many readers click on "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" looking for something else entirely. As an example of what I have in mind, see the current incarnation of Negroid. -- Frank W Sweet 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The only thing that I am working on today is the section "Imprecise Usage as Labels for Human Classification," which I am rewriting to (a) make it more balanced between those who attach an "oid" prefix willy-nilly apparently to soften offensiveness (e.g.: "mestizoid" Cubans. Sheesh! Mestizo already means an indefinite mix of Spanish and Native American ancestry!) and those consider this PC trend to be an abomination that will destroy science, life, the universe and everything. Also, (b) I plan to add more tightly-targeted quotations on terminology itself from any peer-reviewed sources that I can hunt down without using my home library. And so, I ask you guys to please feel free to tweak, change, alter, whatever, the text in other sections. If you do anything drastic, please explain it here. Also, please remember that I am an obsessive fanatic when it comes to un-sourced opinions (or to citing of ideological web pages as sources). So, if you feel the urge to write something really strange, please footnote it. -- Frank W Sweet 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Also, as I mentioned to Nectar, above, what I do best is research, so feel free to leave text scattered with {{fact}} templates and I shall come through and resolve them. -- Frank W Sweet 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Finally, as you can see by the current Negroid page, the current Caucasoid page must also eventually be shrunk down to a table of contents. Its material will be moved into the new combined article that discusses the use of obsolescent "racial" terms in physical anthropology (the material that is now on the page currently titled "Caucasoid"). I want to delay this move until the last possible moment because we need a discussion place to reach consensus, and this place is as good as any. -- Frank W Sweet 13:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

25 April 2006 -- I have finished restructing this page, as described above (except for minor typos and tweaks). Please feel free to change or edit it as necessary, but please leave a footnote if you write something really strange. I would be particularly grateful if someone could go thorough and insert {{fact}} templates where need, so that I can follow up and add more sources. I plan to remove the {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} templates once it is clear that the article is stabilized. -- Frank W Sweet 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing "Disputed" and "Cleanup" tags

Since there has been neither discussion nor editing of this article for over a week, I am removing the two tags. -- Frank W Sweet 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is prognathism "negroid trait"

I've only seen "caucasoid people" with a Prognathism.

--Vehgah 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its racist to compare a negroid skull to caucasoid skull and say negroid is inferior but not compare a mongloid skull to caucasoid skull and not judge which is superior. I think mongloid skull looks superior to caucasoid skull but out of all three negroid skull looks superior than mongloid and caucasoid--User:Solid Blade 8:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on what? Your own negrophelia proclivities? If one looks at earlier human ancestors as well as living primate examples one sees a very pronounced prognathism, larger jaws and teeth and smaller cranial vaults. Bones are also thicker and differently proportioned than in modern humans. When we look at modern humans prognathism is completely abscent in Northern and western populations with the exception of some modern ad-mixture from non-european sources. It is only present to any noticable degree in sub-saharan Africans (negroids) and Australian aborigines (australoids) and I must mention most Australoids are of mixed ancestry today. If we were to go back and take a look at the last Tasmanians (a people native to the island of Tasmania, south of Australia) who were studied and photographed in by European settlers, they appear to be direct descendants of homo-erectus according to some scholars.

Here are some sources along with photographs:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

--Nazrac 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

POV language in this article

How is the following not POV:

"They are used in forensic anthropology, and they are used in several fields as euphemisms for racialist terms that came to be seen as offensive about thirty years ago."

Cavalli-Sforza uses these terms regularly to describe genetic populations and anthropological groups-- is he an offensive, euphemism-using racialist? This sounds like Frank Sweet has injected his POV, which may have a great deal of truth behind it, into this article while keeping tight reigns on other POV.

BTW, why are there still Negroid and Mongoloid pages but no Caucasoid page anymore? Is it because there is already a Caucasian race page? -- Gerkinstock 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does describe two different usages and does not say that C-S is using the latter. Nor does it say that simply using the terms makes you a racialist.
But looking at Racialist, it can mean as little as "emphasis on race" or "belief in existence of race". By that loose standard, anybody studying race could be described as racialist. Of course, nobody wants to be described as racialist, as that term is also a euphemism for or cover used by some with repugnant racist views.
I would guess the Negroid page was changed back from the redirect to the original article, but check the edit history. The Mongoloid article has never been turned into a redirect to this one. Merger between Caucasian race and Caucasoid has been brought up, but not formally proposed; in my opinion, they're different enough that they don't need to be merged. --JWB 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you're right, the Negroid page is now redirectd to this one. -- Gerkinstock 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should be changed to include information about Australoid

As this page treats of the terms used in vintage physical anthropology, it should be expanded to speak of the term australoid. The title should be changed to Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid.

By the way: what is racist about these terms? I hear people tell me not to say the word 'negroid' because it is racist and offensive, but it is not a slur; it is a term describing the common physical features of people whose ancestors originated in Africa or the islands nigh. People have no problem saying caucasian or caucasoid..... Blast the bloody principle of political correctness...

-- 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Ioannus de Verani

Accuracy dispute

On the whole, a high degree of forensic cranio and anthropometric accuracy is typically achieved, not only between ancestral groups, but also when admixture is evident via ancient blending or a cross.

· The Attribution of Ancestry for European and Indian (South Asian) Individuals within a Forensic Context. (1999) Tracy Lee Rogers

· Phenotypic Evolution of Human Craniofacial Morphology After Admixture: A Geometric Morphometrics Approach. (2006) Neus Martınez-Abadıas, Rolando Gonza lez-Jose´, Antonio Gonza lez-Martın, Silvina Van der Molen, Arturo Talavera, Patricia Herna´ndez, and Miquel Herna´ndez

· Anthropological study for the determination of the Europid and Negroid characteristics on facial bones of human fetuses. (2002) Ferenc Kósa.

The Black, Hispanic and White examples would have varying degrees of genetic mixture inherited from the grandparent and would have identifying cranial markers corresponding to each (living) type. This is a scenario that would not occur. Ledboots 14:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't believe this is an accepted English term. Googling for English pages with it [21] gives only 4 proper names and 3 pages that are not actually English.

Negroid subraces

Negroid has the most subraces because of their most diverse DNA. Most Caucasoid subraces are not pure caucasoid and the reason thier are most caucasoid subraces is because of the interbreeding wiht negroids. Pretty much the only thing it takes to be a caucasoid is the flat cranium and straight hair.

The Orgin of Homo Sapien Races

Homo Sapien must have evolved from teo types of Neatherthal because caucasoids have flat craniums. Negroid ,capoid,and mongloid have basically the same cranial facail features. Austaloids must have evoled from the same thing Caucasoid evoled from whitch I believe is Neatherthal man. I believe this because Australoid has a large jaw like Neanderthal and nealiy flat faced except in the forhead like a caucasoid. Also Australoid has striaght hair like caucasoids. Negriod ,capoid,and, mongloid must have evoled from a sub-human being such as cro-magnon because all three of those races have a point at the top of their skulls and all three have the same cranial types. None have flat forheads. It must have took thousands of years of ultravilot light exsposure to get the thick,curly,and rought hair adaptation. Cro-magnum must have been superior to neatherthal because Asians are smater than whites. Some Negroids must have adapted to a cold invironment and thats how asians skin protection from the sun. Asia is the cold environment where Negroids adapted to cold environment and that adaptation change negrod skin which is melinal(skin chemical that protects skin from sunlite and darkends skin) into an oriental skin pigmentation and like Negroids it is polished. Southeast asians are decendants of negroids and Negritos whitch are darkskin mongloids. Why are mongloids smarter than negroids? Its a controvirsial question but its probaly because Its harder to have mental sucess adapting to sunlite in a hot enviroment like Africa. In conclusion Thier are indeed sub-speacies in Homo Sapiens. There are two types of craniums Caucasoids have flat craniums.

What does this have to do with the article? I dont think you have ever even studied anthropology.

1. If caucasoids had flat craniums, they would have square brains and heads. 2. Negroids, capoids and Australoids do not have the same cranial features, as you can see from both looking at the features and book observing living populations. 3. Cro-Magnon was believed to be the earliest progenitor of the cacasoid race, and not at all related to negroids, capoids or australoids. 4. Neaderthal was an evolutionary dead end and is not a direct ancestory of modern humans. 5. The evolution is not so much adaption as it is survival of those who possess traits most

6. People dont simply "adapt" in an evolutionary sense, rather those who possess certain beneficial traits that contribute to their survival are more likely to pass those traits on until the majority of that population has it. Those who don't have it may simply die off under certain circumstances. This only happens over a great deal of time, in many cases thousands or tens of thousands of years. For example, if a disease infected humans around the world, on the same scale as AIDS, and it only killed people who were right handed, being left handed would be an advantage. Over thousands of years the majority of the population may have it. eventually that trait might become completely replace right handedness altogether.

--Nazrac 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)