| Revision as of 01:26, 10 November 2006 editWinhunter (talk | contribs)14,068 editsm Reverted edits by Euskata (talk) to last version by Thulean← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:43, 21 August 2022 edit undoIznoRepeat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,076 editsm use std archives or talk header template, gen/misc fixesTag: AWB | ||
| (167 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| I think it is very strange that most information on this page states an obscure article written in 1954 as its source, presenting the information as if it was undisputed and factual. It is hardly a scientific fact that Nordic people have "mouths that stick out". I know nothing on this subject, but my common sense tells me a clean-up is quite desperately required. ] 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Should we rename the article?== | |||
| :My guess is anti-racialists (folks who oppose racial classification of ANY kind) are responsible for this. They seem to be using obscure sources and discredited 19th century anthropologists as their primary references in order to make racial classification look as arbirtary and ridiculous as possible. I wouldn't call that non-POV. -- ] 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm thinking we should rename the article to "Caucasoid" given as how every modern mainstream source in the article calls it an "ethnic group" rather than a "race". What's the consensus?-] 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been thinking the same for some time. Most of the references in the literature are to "Caucasoid" and not "Caucasoid race". Indeed hardly any sources use the term "Caucasoid race" except the Natinal Library of Medicine, and they don't use the term at all any more. ] 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, because this terminology remains in use by many researchers as cited in the article. ] 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The definition of Caucasoid for anthropologist and archaeologist is vastly different that what is written here. Caucasoid refers to persons of E. Asia and Australian decent. Its roots are in osteological science, characterized by particular configurations within bone structure. Native American ancestors reached the new world through Beringa (land bridge) and are considered to be of Caucasoid descent. Mitochondrial DNA evidence tells scientist that there is a link between Native Americans and Asians. | |||
| == sources == | |||
| :::The article does not cite any modern researchers who use the term "Caucasian race". It does mention modern research groups who identify "Caucasian" as an ethnic group.-] 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Much of the information in this and the ] article is from Carleton S. Coon's "Origin of Races". This article is badly in need of more recent information from mainstream physical anthropologists. We should also avoid obviously POV statements like calling Coon "the greatest craniofacial anthropometrist of the 20th century". Such attributions only serve to qualify much of the racist and outdated material of this article. --] 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, so there are three major editors working on this article (Wobble, Lukas, and myself). Two of these editors have said its a good idea to rename the article. One has said it isn't, but has given as reason, something that is demonstrably wrong (i.e. that the article cites many modern researchers who use the term "Caucasian race"). | |||
| *Yes, I question the legitmacy of many of the claims and sources. For example, some of the references are from a Geocities website. That's not usually a a sign of academic legitimacy. Scientific topics should be backed up by sources like academic journals or university departments.] 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As far as I can see, the consensus is to rename the article. I'll work on that in a bit. However, I am considering merging "Caucasian race" into the article at the same time (with the new article being called "Caucasian" and redirects from "Caucasian race", "Caucasoid race", and "Caucasoid"). Comments?-] 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Good plan. This article can easily be merged with a "Caucasian" article. Even if Lukie is right, this article is so small that the "Caucasoid is a bigger group than Caucasian" argument can be made in the "Caucasian" article anyway. They are clearly related/the same concept and do not necessarily warrant seperate articles, at least not on current evidence and content. ] 12:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Meditation== | |||
| *What is this? 55% of the world is caucasoid? Italians in the same category with Indians? I think this whole article should be deleted. ] 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == British Isles and Mediterranean (Latin) == | |||
| ==Delition== | |||
| I would remove British Isles from the Mediterranean (Latin) section. | |||
| Why is this sentence keeps being deleted: | |||
| Not only is it very unlikely (since only recent immigration has had minor impact on the population of greater London), but the claim it is also lacking citation. | |||
| "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people." ] 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| One could say that there has been a minor Mediterranean influence on the American population (since the 1500s), but of course that would be a humorous claim to make. | |||
| ==question== | |||
| http://medish.shorturl.com/ | |||
| The first paragraph states that there are 5 racial catagories. But lists only 4. | |||
| "The ''Caucasoid'' race is one of five racial categories as defined by the physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon in 1934. The other four races that Coon defined were the ''Mongoloid'' race, the ''Australoid'' race, the ''Negroid'' race, sometimes refered as Congoid and the Capoid race. These racial classifications were made on the basis of physical features" | |||
| ==deleted sentence - the concept of Caucasoid race came from anthropologists & academics, not out of thin air) == | |||
| Actually, both. Early anthropologists (and we are talking about early anthropologists as race has been disproven in modern anthropology) did a lot of their work by armchair just thinking stuff up. -] 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can anyone name the fifth, or do I misunderstand? | |||
| *Yes, but as I wrote in your talk section, it was still academics who invented the concept, not random people on the street. The fact that the concept of Caucasoid has been proven false doesn't change the fact that it was commonly used term in academia at one time. The goal of this article is to document the origins, usage and criticisms of the term, with cited references. There should not be unsourced point of view pushing. ] 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **The fact that it was used in academia at one time does not change the fact that it was created out of thin air. I'm all for using cited reliable sources - the more of them, the better. -] 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] race is the fifth. Carleton Coon referred to Negroids as "Congoids" and the Khoi and San people as "Capoids." | |||
| ***The concept of Caucasoid was proven false? By whom? Some neo-marxist anti-racial mythologists? The core of the Caucasoid race came into being about 45 000 years ago in the Near East - all people belonging to the "Caucasoid race" have the same genetic origin: they bear Y-haplogroup F. ] 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***By the way, I feel sick while reading all this nauseous PC propaganda on pages about race. But we in the former Eastern Block enjoyed a similar propaganda during a long 40 years, so enjoy the same Neo-marxist vomit now "in the West"! ] 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Curious == | |||
| I would like to know what the average arm, leg, and torso length etc is for europeans. | |||
| *The average trunk index (trunk length/height ratio) in Europeans is roughly between 51,5-53%, in Africans it is 48-51%, in Asians 53-54%. The average arm span of Europeans is ca. 103% body height (101-106%). The average arm length/body height ration is about 44,1% (in Africans it is ca. 45%). ] 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Population== | |||
| US National Library of Medicine defines caucasoid as "European Continental Ancestry Group" . Therefore they can not make 55% of the world population. The source, apologeticspress, doesnt seem credible anyways. So I'll delete that line. ] 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:43, 21 August 2022
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caucasoid race redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
Should we rename the article?
I'm thinking we should rename the article to "Caucasoid" given as how every modern mainstream source in the article calls it an "ethnic group" rather than a "race". What's the consensus?-Psychohistorian 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've been thinking the same for some time. Most of the references in the literature are to "Caucasoid" and not "Caucasoid race". Indeed hardly any sources use the term "Caucasoid race" except the Natinal Library of Medicine, and they don't use the term at all any more. Alun 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, because this terminology remains in use by many researchers as cited in the article. Lukas19 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not cite any modern researchers who use the term "Caucasian race". It does mention modern research groups who identify "Caucasian" as an ethnic group.-Psychohistorian 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so there are three major editors working on this article (Wobble, Lukas, and myself). Two of these editors have said its a good idea to rename the article. One has said it isn't, but has given as reason, something that is demonstrably wrong (i.e. that the article cites many modern researchers who use the term "Caucasian race").
- As far as I can see, the consensus is to rename the article. I'll work on that in a bit. However, I am considering merging "Caucasian race" into the article at the same time (with the new article being called "Caucasian" and redirects from "Caucasian race", "Caucasoid race", and "Caucasoid"). Comments?-Psychohistorian 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good plan. This article can easily be merged with a "Caucasian" article. Even if Lukie is right, this article is so small that the "Caucasoid is a bigger group than Caucasian" argument can be made in the "Caucasian" article anyway. They are clearly related/the same concept and do not necessarily warrant seperate articles, at least not on current evidence and content. Alun 12:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Meditation
Lukas19 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delition
Why is this sentence keeps being deleted:
"Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people." Lukas19 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
question
The first paragraph states that there are 5 racial catagories. But lists only 4.
"The Caucasoid race is one of five racial categories as defined by the physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon in 1934. The other four races that Coon defined were the Mongoloid race, the Australoid race, the Negroid race, sometimes refered as Congoid and the Capoid race. These racial classifications were made on the basis of physical features"
Can anyone name the fifth, or do I misunderstand?
69.139.8.126 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Capoid race is the fifth. Carleton Coon referred to Negroids as "Congoids" and the Khoi and San people as "Capoids."