This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soupforone (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 28 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:14, 28 April 2015 by Soupforone (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caucasian race article. 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-18. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Entry
The US census does not include any "Caucasoid" entry. Soupforone (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- "used to describe a group commonly called White People, as defined by the government and Census Bureau."
The citation backs up what consists of "white people" in the United States by the census, although no mention of 'Caucasian' by the US Census citation, you're right. Perhaps we include both sources there as citations? Seems fitting so we can have one for the Caucasian part and what fits into the contours of 'whiteness' in America. ShawntheGod (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, but to avoid synthesis I split it up into two separate sentences. The first phrase from the Painter link "Why White People Are Called 'Caucasian?'", and the second phrase from the other link. Soupforone (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, that part of the article seems fine with me now. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
What is "Europoid"?
Europoid redirects to this article, but there is no mention of that name/word in this article. Europoid = Europid? Just another synonym for the "Caucasoid"? --Zyma (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Pretty much just another "sciencey" sounding word for "white." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- If these were valid taxa, you could call it a junior synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. Are these names old concepts OR still popular among scientists? For example, Do they use concepts like "Caucasoid" and "Europid" in recent researches, journals, and papers? --Zyma (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. is still used in forensics I believe. Human skulls can often be recognised according to this scheme, FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I saw usage of Caucasian/Caucasoid in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's works. I'm not sure about this: I remember he used terms like "European Caucasians" and "non-Europeans Caucasians". So Europid/Europoid = European Caucasoid or Europid = All Caucasoids types?--Zyma (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Caucasoid/Europid are not geographic terms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Right, and Cavalli-Sforza's classification/categories? They are based on what? --Zyma (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean? If he says "European Caucasoid" he means a Caucasoid from Europe. So he is applying terms that were based on morphology in the context of population genetics. The two do correlate pretty well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Right, and Cavalli-Sforza's classification/categories? They are based on what? --Zyma (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Caucasoid/Europid are not geographic terms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I saw usage of Caucasian/Caucasoid in the Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's works. I'm not sure about this: I remember he used terms like "European Caucasians" and "non-Europeans Caucasians". So Europid/Europoid = European Caucasoid or Europid = All Caucasoids types?--Zyma (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. is still used in forensics I believe. Human skulls can often be recognised according to this scheme, FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Depends on the specific population, might be tribal, linguistic, geographic, historical, etc. The names chosen really only apply to the author's construction of a group or population in the context of a given work. There is no Caucasian/Caucasoid or Europid or Negroid race, but for lack any better terms, the terms are still in use. Like most geneticists on the planet, Cavalli-Sforza finds no scientific support for the concept of race, but also finds terms of convenience to be, well, convenient. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Assigning rank and names to different human populations based on either genetics or morphology is rather arbitrary (as is any classical taxonomy), but there is no denying that there are distinct clades/lineages within the human group. Whatever we call them doesn't really make much difference. These differences are clinal, but so is population variation within all other "species". FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Depends on the specific population, might be tribal, linguistic, geographic, historical, etc. The names chosen really only apply to the author's construction of a group or population in the context of a given work. There is no Caucasian/Caucasoid or Europid or Negroid race, but for lack any better terms, the terms are still in use. Like most geneticists on the planet, Cavalli-Sforza finds no scientific support for the concept of race, but also finds terms of convenience to be, well, convenient. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cavalli-Sforza puts it best,
— Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.; Menozzi, P.; Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press. p. 19. ISBN 9780691087504.
- Europoid or White is a clear genetic cluster.
- http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TR8ox_MI6qI/AAAAAAAADIE/zEcyBpR0U8s/s1600/MDS1600.png
- All levels are reasonable, from Caucasoid down to Europoid. That's how taxonomy works, it's hierarchical. 211.119.41.175 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- They're the same level, they're synonyms, so there is no hierarchy involved. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you think that the name was invented on Misplaced Pages you can always nominate it for deletion.
- Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- They're the same level, they're synonyms, so there is no hierarchy involved. FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Europaeid types
File:Europaeid types.png is the same as the deleted File:Europaeid types.jpg. Soupforone (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Caucasian is insulting
I am of European descent. I find the term "Caucasian" inaccurate and insulting. Please change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.209.50 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fully agreed. This term as used in the United States only is scientifically proven false. Just the majority of their citizens do not know this. Caucasians are exclusively people from Russia, Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaidjan and Georgia, the latter (of course) not being the American state but an independent country.
- Siberian tigers are also found outside the Siberian region. They're just named after that specific region. Same here. I can think of dozens of similar cases. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fully agreed. This term as used in the United States only is scientifically proven false. Just the majority of their citizens do not know this. Caucasians are exclusively people from Russia, Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaidjan and Georgia, the latter (of course) not being the American state but an independent country.
I'm not sure what the source of the offense might be. You may be of European descent in the sense of being caucasian (i.e. having a skull that has features reliably identified as caucasian 95 percent of the time). Or you may be of European descent in the other meaning -- that is you were born in Europe. If the latter, you may still be caucasian, or you may be non-caucasian. To use a simple example -- some caucasian settlers in Africa get upset when they call themselves (their family lines) "African" and it isn't immediately accepted. Yes, their family line has lived in Africa for generations. No -- they did not magically go from caucasian to negroid (again in the forensic identification sense). This is not a political term. Even if the initial ideas about mass migrations and movements of peoples is wrong -- it still carries useful information (again -- see forensic anthropology). Saying someone is European -- in today's modern Europe -- doesn't give much of a clue about their skull type. Saying they are caucasian does give information. That's my understanding of the term -- and why it is not limited to just residents of Russia or the the nations around the Caucasus mountains -- but instead includes all of the native European peoples, North Africa, Anatolia, the Levant, and the Indian sub-continent. That is why it excludes China, the native American populations, and the sub-Saharan Africa populations -- even if persons from those areas currently live in Europe. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- As the lead notes, Caucasoid generally denotes the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia. Along with particular osteological charateristics, it encompasses a suite of traits that are commonly present in populations of this type. Ashley Montague has a good summation . Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Atlas and Rif mountains
Stoddard alludes to Berber areas in the vicinity of the Atlas and Rif mountains. He assumes that most of the surrounding populations are Arab . Soupforone (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
There are between 30 and 40 million Berbers today inhabiting areas stretching from the western Sahel to the eastern Egyptian oases. Stoddard alludes to only a few of those Berber groups living in confined, remote areas in the Atlas mountains (here the Tell Atlas and Aures) and Rif mountains opposite southern Europe . This is the small red area in his map, not northern Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, which constitutes a much greater territory . It's not the area inhabited by the Chleuh, Soussi, Tuareg, Siwans, and many other Berber groups. Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs. This is why he asserts that "the seat of brown power in Africa is of course the great belt of territory north of the Sahara," and that "in Algeria intermarriage between Europeans and Berbers has actually begun... of course the process is merely in its first stages... still, the blood is there, the leaven is working, and in time Northwest Africa may return to the white world." Soupforone (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs". OK, I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification. James343e (talk) 2:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's alright. Soupforone (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Why such obsolete sources for many parts of this article?
Why is this article so light on sources from current scholars of anthropology and human genetics? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is centered on the main anthropologists from the typology's heyday, though some retrospective literature is also linked to. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Top-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- Top-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- B-Class Africa articles
- Mid-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- B-Class Asia articles
- Mid-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Mid-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- B-Class Central Asia articles
- Mid-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- B-Class South Asia articles
- Mid-importance South Asia articles
- South Asia articles