Talk:Caucasian race/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Russian link

Sources that are not in the English language cannot be used as citations on the English language Wikipedia. User:MoritzB provided a citation on this edit from this website which is not in English. It is in Russian. UserMoritzB claims that "A link is provided to verify translation" in his/her edit summary, but I cannot find the link.----^DarkTea© 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is: http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/68611

Using Babelfish you can verify that the translation is faithful to the Russian text. http://babelfish.altavista.com/

MoritzB 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Babelfish can translate from Russian to English notwithstanding, the source is still in Russian. The requirement to have English sources does not make exceptions for sources that can be translated to English with Babelfish.---^DarkTea© 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use only English language sources. There is only a recommendation that they should be used in preference to foreign language sources "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality".MoritzB 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The "University of College Cork chair of anatomy and physiology" and "2007 Encyclopedia Britannica" sources are of at least equal quality. If there does not exist any suitably good English-language sources, then foreign language sources are allowed. Since there are two good English language sources, the Russian language citation is not allowed.----^DarkTea© 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the information those sources give is of inferior quality. MacConaill says that Caucasians are "native to Europe" although they were actually always considered to be native to a number of areas outside Europe. The physical description should also be better. MoritzB 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your universal affirmative is incorrect and MacConail is a good source. MacConail says Caucasians are "native to Europe", but you say they are "always considered to be native to a number of areas outside of Europe". Universal affirmatives are disproved by a single contrary example. Your universal affirmative has been proven false by MacConaill's "native to Europe" assertion. MacConaill's credentials as the "University of College Cork chair of anatomy and physiology" are impeccable. His credentials are not of "inferior quality". The point of view that Caucasians are "native to Europe" is credible because it comes from a reliable source.----^DarkTea© 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. MacConaill says that Caucasians are native to Europe. I agree. But they are also native to areas outside Europe which is not a claim disputed by MacConaill. The point is that he doesn't describe a number of Caucasian physical characteristics which are relevant. MoritzB 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MacConaill has provided a complete definition of the Caucasoid race that is not lacking in descriptiveness. His definition is smaller than the Russian language one, because he doesn't include Middle Easterners and others. For example, all he would have to say is that they have light skin while the other definition would have to say that they have light skin and dark skin. Similarly, he would say that they have thin lips while the Russian language definition would say that they have thin and medium sized lips. The Russian language definition is longer because it is differs from his by including more people, necessitating more words to encompass the physical characteristics of non-Europeans. It is not longer because it is more complete. There is nothing lacking in his definition that would warrant the inclusion of a foreign language source like you propose.----^DarkTea© 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that MacConaill doesn't say that only Europeans are Caucasians. What would Middle Easterners be then? The Caucasian race is one of the four major races of mankind. MacConaill's views are simply misrepresented in the article as they would otherwise be WP:FRINGE. Besides, America is not the whole world and if scholars in other parts of the world disagree with MacConaill their definitions are relevant, too. MoritzB 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica says the Caucasoid race is also known as the "European... geographic race", so MacConaill's view that the Caucasoid race does not include Middle Easterners is not a fringe view point. The discussion is about a single disfavored foreign language source. I have no doubt that non-Americans have notable views on things, but if their writing is not in English, then they can't be used as sources if reliable English language sources are present.----^DarkTea© 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MacConall does not have that view. I honestly recommend that you acquaint yourself with Carleton Coon or John Randall Baker because you seem to know little of race. And a 1981 Reader's Digest article is a very poor source.MoritzB 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the text MacConnail writes is different from the beliefs MacConnaill actually holds is original research.----^DarkTea© 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the source is not available online. It is obscure and unverifiable.MoritzB 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if the MacConnail source is not credible, the 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica source is credible and online, preventing the inclusion of the Russian language source.----^DarkTea© 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica's Bangladesh article mentions Caucasoids as part of the racial melting pot of Bangladesh. Even if the Europe article did mean to limit "Caucasoids" to Europe only, which is not at all clear, Britannica cannot be said to have that viewpoint. --JWB 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Aryan" is ambiguous. The Encyclopedia Britannica may conceive Aryans as originally coming from Europe. Although the Britannica Encyclopedia article refers to the Aryans as Caucasoids, it does not refer to the Turks, Arabs or Persians as Caucasoids. I would like to see more evidence that they conceive Arabs, Persians, Moors, Berbers, etc. as Caucasians otherwise it would be better to assume that they are internally consistent with their "European... geographical race" definition of Caucasian.----^DarkTea© 04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Brittanica article on Aryan does not; apparently you didn't bother to look before posting that. The idea that the Indo-Aryans were from Europe is far more obsolete, racist and unscientific than Coon, and it is ironic that you would endorse it while barring Coon. The Brittanica article on Iran does mention Aryan descent. --JWB 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica's Aryan article says Aryan has different definitions. It is not clear what definition Encyclopedia Britannica used on its Bangladeshi Demographics article when they said Caucasoid Aryans. I would like clear evidence that the Encyclopedia Britannica is internally contradictory with its Caucasian definition as the "European geographical race".----^DarkTea© 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Aryan article lists two definitions, one of which it says is 19th century and obsolete, so Britannica is not using that definition in the Bangladesh article. The Europe article is not asserting European and Caucasoid are identical, it just gives them as alternate ways of describing Europeans. It does not separately mention Middle Easterners and North Africans (who are more numerous in Europe than sub-Saharan Africans or S/SE/E Asians) so if you exclude them from European/Caucasoid, they must be part of the Africans and Asians mentioned next. --JWB 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sources that are not in the English language cannot be used as citations on the English language Wikipedia" -- this is utter nonsense. The Russian "source" in question does not seem to pass WP:RS, however. it's just a random online "humanities" database. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is V. Bunak's definition. He was the leading anthropologist in the Soviet Union post-WWII. MoritzB 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

um, in this case you should say so, and reference it to a publication of Bunak's. If you do that, there is no way whatsoever DarkTea can challenge this on grounds of being un-English. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian page actually uses the term Европеоидная раса for which Babelfish gives Yevropeoidnaya race (apparently Europoid race) and only a secondary equivalence with Caucasoid. --JWB 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Caucasian race and Europid race are exact synonymes.MoritzB 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon

{{Carleton S. Coon Racial Definitions}} This should be conclusive: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/coonmed/ MoritzB 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon's Races of Europe is 60 years old about a scientific concept. It is no longer a reliable source.----^DarkTea© 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The work reflected the prevailing definition of the Caucasian race.MoritzB 06:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It may have reflected the prevailing definition at that time, but the Races of Europe book is 60 years old and is no longer a reliable source.----^DarkTea© 07:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1960 wasn't 60 years ago.

  

  This genetic distance map made in 2002 is an estimate of 18 world human groups by a neighbour-joining method based on 23 kinds of genetic information.

Anyhow, that's pretty much how Caucasoid was universally defined and supposed to live. I've seen similar genetic maps from today. Look right. And here's a map from a geography book which was used at in Europe up until the 90s at least: http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/425/weltrassenkarte3og2.jpg Funkynusayri 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The map you posted is excellent. It shows North American Indians are Caucasoid. I have another book that considers them to be Caucasoid too. The map is highly detailed and a great piece of work.----^DarkTea© 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't. It shows that there are Caucasoids in North America (as well as Australia) today. It's a map of the modern distribution of humans, not original. Funkynusayri 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Coon and other English sources

Instead of foreign sources, use English ones, it's online. http://carnby.altervista.org/

Biasutti source: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/biasutticaucasoid/

Funkynusayri 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing quotations

An anonymous editor has changed several quotations on these edits to make them say Aryans managed to maintain racial purity as opposed to mixing with Dravidians. Of course, this is only a formal procedure, because there is no reason to reword quotations to change their meaning. I do not expect a valid reason for rewritting quotations to change their meaning.----^DarkTea© 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

US-centrism

Caucasian race?! African race? Wtf? Thet term "Caucasian race" is only used in the USA, also there is no usch thing as an "African race", as anyone can tell the obvious differences between say a Tunisian and a Nigerian. This article should be moved to Caucasoid race, and all silly, politically-motivated terms removed/cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.183 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive removal of content

Dark Tea (talk · contribs) has taken the liberty of introducing massive changes since 10 September, including inexplicable removal of content. Can you restore the lost sections please, or else seek consensus for their removal? dab (𒁳) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It could only be described as a massive addition of content. What content did I remove? Remember, I did not remove the map or the gallery. Someone else did that.----^DarkTea© 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the picture of a Georgian girl because I found the actual skull Blumenbach based the Caucasian racial classification from. Although Blumenbach made references to the Georgians as an aggregate, his actual hypothesis was derived from a single Georgian skull. It is original research to assume the random Georgian person is the same person as the Georgian girl Blumenbach based his classification from.----^DarkTea© 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

^ I agree, the skull is a much more appropriate image. Funkynusayri 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the skull is appropriate. How does that translate to blanking the others? --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't. It simply means that I think the skull is appropriate, and more so than a picture of a random person. I'm not talking about the text itself. Funkynusayri 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thind Case

User:82.5.117.20 removed the Thind case on this edit with the edit summary "George Sutherland was not an anthropologist and had a vague 19th century understanding of the Caucasian race. He used the 'common man test' - incomprehensive.", however, the case is notable and verified from the US Supreme Court, a reliable source. It is, in fact, one of the most notable cases as it was key in determining the racial classification of Indian Americans. Its point of view on the Aryan Invasion Theory is standard. The Thind ruling posited an Aryan invader whose racial purity who devised the caste system to segregate the Dravidian. It considered the Dravidian not Caucasian while the Aryan invader was Caucasian. This is not a fringe point of view; it is the standard point of view on the matter. Although Sutherland was not an anthropologist himself, his ruling involved the expert testimony of anthropologists. Sutherland's own words show that he cited anthropologists in the formulation of his decision, "For instance, Blumenbach has five races; Keane following Linnaeus, four; Deniker, twenty-nine."----^DarkTea© 14:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Caucasoids and DuBois's and Bhasin's views

Since Du Bois was not an anthropologist, I naturally have reservations about including his view on the origin of the "Caucasian race" in this article. If we include his view (that Caucasoids are descended from a mixture of Mongoloid and black races), which is totally unqualified since he was not an anthropologist, then we should also include the opinions of every other person of history who had ever posited their view on races. Secondly, Bhasin's opinion that Caucasoids and Mongoloid had been differentiated from an ancestral race (Austroloid), if it is to be even included in this article (I have reservations about that too for reasons to follow), should be included in a section also titled "origins" that was there in the first place. There shouldn't be two sections in this article titled "origins". The reason I have reservations about including Bhasin's view is also due to the fact that he is a relatively unknown scientist from India. If we are to include in this article his view, then we are also obligated to include the views of every little known anthropologist who up to this day had posited their own view on the origin of races, and there are no doubt many.--Azzarzurna 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, why do you waste space on this page by such silly theories? Thanks to genetics, the origin of Caucasoids is just clear. Their ancestors separated from the ancestors of today's Somalis in East Africa ca. 50 000 years ago, and headed to the Middle East. They brought Y-haplogroup F and mtDNA haplogroup N. 45 000 years ago, during a warm interstadial, they massively expanded to Central Asia, Europe, North Africa and even to South-East and East Asia. In distant parts of Asia, they mixed with the descendants of the older "Australoid/Mongoloid" migration that left Africa maybe 60 000 years ago. From this mixture, several intermediate groups originated, e.g. Polynesians, Papuan highlanders or American Indians. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 04:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The attributed view is not even an accurate representation of Bhasin. If you look at the cited work of Bhasin on the Web, whoever inserted this completely misread the sentence discussing this. I corrected the Bhasin reference in another article, but forget which one now.

As for Centrum99, it is useless to keep saying these things without citation. If you have citable sources for those views, please add them to articles.

--JWB 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

The Huxley map is probably as good as any historical map for this, except that he doesn't call them Caucasians. He called them Xanthochroi, a name which, for fairly obvious reasons, did not catch on. So it's a little funny to say that the red on his map are the Caucasians (a little funnier that because of the poor scan and color indexing, subgroup B of the Mongoloid race in Central Asia are about the same color; in the original it is a cross-hatching but you can't see that here). --140.247.10.130 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting, People of South Asia and Physical Characteristics

First of all, the article has too many lengthy quotes in italics, making it difficult to read. Why didn't the editors use the original sources and simply use quotation marks or block text? Also, some material is inappropriately put within quotes AND italics, such as "anthropologist Arthur Gobineau" and "French ethnologist Jean Joseph-Virey". Is there a question about their identities? Quotations are supposed to be used for significant or controversial material that was considered integral to a person's views, not ordinary words or facts.

Secondly, for an article on an historical "idea", the endless quotations in the sections of "People of South Asia" and "Physical Characteristics" don't add much. Surely there is a more concise way to convey the information that different people had ideas that contributed to the concept. You don't have to read their quotes from secondary sources.

Third, much of the discussion on this page has been about differing concepts, but the article doesn't help much in showing how contemporary findings in genetics, anthropology, archeology, etc. have contributed to changing ideas about populations and what current thinking is. --Parkwells (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of Anachronistic Terms - Anthropologist and Ethnologist - Before their time

There are descriptions of Arthur de Gobineau, a diplomat and man of letters, as an anthropologist, and Jean Joseph-Virey, a medical doctor and pharmacist, as an ethnologist, when these formal disciplines had not developed yet. Both men wrote a lot in a period. and may have been described as naturallists, with many interests, but it is a mistake to label them back with contemporary usage. Anthropology really developed in the late 19th and early 20th c. I have changed the descriptors to use terms of their time and to be consistent with how they are described elsewhere in separate articles in Wikipedia (and online).----Parkwells (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Shouldn't the See Also section be before the References like every other Wikipedia page? Brandonrush (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivial

its its very trivial information in a scientific article but if any one can find a place for it be my guest. In almost ironic twist of human history "purely from American/western perspective" the word Caucasian it self in Russian language is some what derogatory term for people from caucuses somewhat equivalent to the American word "nigger" if used in a certain disrespectful manned or less then professional form of speaking. In fact after the fall of USSR Russian in particular so a rise of nationalist movement due to troubled economic time historically proven to provide such sentiments, the word black was use lot when referring to people from caucuses in a derogatory racial slur manner. Somewhat odd yet perfect example of human nature to find the odd one out and attack them and generalize the particular group. like i said very trivial info but perhaps it can be used somewhere on Wikipedia.

Disclaimer everything in the post is purely from a Russian speaking etymologically perspective I do not support or endorse in any way racially motivated hatred and or violence and solely speaking as someone who speaks a Russian language as the first language and can provide cultural perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JvlivsCaesar (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

i removed some nonsense from the south asia section

removed some nonsense relating to indians which have got zero scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Apropos nonsense, why is the Georgian girl up again? Funkynusayri (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on Caucasian culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.198.159 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

incorrect references

References 24 and 25 are incorrect. M. A. MacConaill did not write the book, he wrote a book review about it in 1974. The quote is attributed to him, but his book review does not mention the word "Caucasian". Reference 24 is the web site of the department where he was chair 1942-1973, and contains no information relevant to this page See http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496(197409)2%3A9%3A3%3C494%3ATLTMY(%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

The use of these references gives the impression of trying to justify a claim by incorrectly citing authorities, and undermines confidence in the content of the page Zbluestar (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Whites" a redirect?

Why was "Whites" redirected to this article? Gramaic 05:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---Caucasian race-- is a term coined by an alien pseudoscientist with an inhuman aim.The introduction of that term into science and politics has lead to almost incessant wars of the undesired immigrants against the indigenous population. One will not find that term in the chronicles of the indigenous population when it was governed by the local king-till 1864. The term Caucasian derives from the word "Cauc" that is simply 'snow', 'snow-clad'in Kartuli. title_nation@mail.ge

For some reason, Caucasian is to white, what African is to black. Apparently that only used that way in the US. on demographic surveys, the choices are often written. white(Caucasian) African-American, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian, Other, and prefer not to say. Rds865 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Richard McCullough's remarks about people of South Asia

I removed Richard McCullough's remarks about racial classification of South Asians, since his "theories" have no scientific merit (he is not a qualified anthropologist). His classification is more in tune with 19th-century drivel that started all this nonsense of Aryans being white and Dravidians, black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.94.3 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Predominat genetic component of Europeans, West Asians, Middle Easterners, and North Africans

The Caucasoids, were a group of post-LGM peoples who evolved in a northern part of the middle east, known as West Asia. West Asia includes the area of modern day turkey, iran, and parts of Iraq (and area at the southern foot of the Caucaus mountains). About 35,000 years ago, there was a dramatic shift in the global climate. This event is known as the Last Glacial Maximum. As the earth cooled, our primitive ancestors, naturally, began to move southwards into more habitable regions. One viable pocket of land, was the cold savannahs of the Iranian plateau. Through the millenia of the LGM, the ancient man that inhabited the plateau evolved continuously (not just conspicious traits). The end-product, in this particular region, was a white-skinned group of people.

Soon after the LGM, in the historical period (10,000ybp), the population densities of West Asia increased drastically due to the invention of agricultaral techniques. Near the border of modern day Iraq/Iran, populations began to expand east and west, into India and towards the middle east/north africa. Soon people pushed their way into the European continent. Two of the earliest components of modern day Europeans, can safely be assumed to be Scythian (or Kurgan, if you wish - mostly effected the eastern european gene pool) and Basque (mostly effects southern European gene pool) in origin. By the time Europe was home to these later caucasoid people, as evidence suggests, their genomes had already changed a bit (It's essentially misleading to say Europeans, Middle Easterns, West Asians, and North Africans are Caucasoids, because evolution will not permit the earliest genetic signature of Caucasoids to be eternally retained. We are always evolving. It is more accurate, rather, to say that these populations are descendents of Caucasoids, or carry a predominant Caucasoid componenent). Europeans tend to be the most pristine Caucasoids in the apparent sense, but it is false to claim that they are primary Caucasoids in terms of origins/genetics - although even in this sense they are highly Caucasoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.188.236 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice how I avoided using the vague concept of race.

Principal component map of world populations [1]

Improper link

I am sorry to waste space on this, but in the box beside the header titled "Physical Characteristics", there is a link to the Berber People that is shown on the text as Bedouins. I am afraid I do not know how to change it myself, but either it should say the Berbers or it should be linking to the Bedouins. Thank you for your time, and again, sorry to waste space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.5.195 (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Biblical "Legend"?

I suspect that the use of the word legend as in "Biblical legend" is unecessarily offensive to those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I suggest changing it to "According to the Bible", or "according to the the Biblical book of Genesis."

(I don't intend to get into a debate on anything here beyond the thought that some readers would be offended by the word legend.)

I suppose we should also change the article on Greek mythology since the word "myth" might offend the ancient greeks? Wikipedia doesn't need to suck up to Christians or any other group. If something in the bible hasn't been historically verified, then it's fine to call it biblical legend. ThePedanticPrick 21:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't find what you are talking about, but Biblical legend displays a point of view, where as according to the Bible just states facts. The world legend implies it is not true. Since you have offered no evidence to support that it is not true, that is the best route. Besides if you can achieve the goal in a non offensive way, that is best. Rds865 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Biblical lore"? (Although I think it's silly to get bent out of shape by this. Just because some -- not all by any means -- Christians, Jews and Muslims take the Bible as literally factual, does not mean that this is NPOV. From a NPOV standpoint, the Bible is historically diverse collection of ancient writings from different periods and peoples, and includes poems, histories, aphorisms, and epistolaries.) StrangeAttractor (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Original inhabitants of North Africa Caucasian?

No evidence has been brought of this. I would like some prrof before people make such claims. As it currently stands the berbers are believed to be the original inhabitanst of North Africa. I looked at the berber article and it says that berbers either originate from East Africa or possible the mid east. Either way none of these people are causcasian although many mid-eastern people have caucasoid chracteristics accoridng to Coon. Also Coons book which is used to define caucasoid article said that berbers were not caucasian. Wiki must be consistent in its defintions and can't have articles that contradict each other.

Coon is not the only authority and in fact is not in very good repute. If there are more than one widespread viewpoints and no consensus, Wikipedia is supposed to describe the major viewpoints, not assert just one.

It's not necessary to assert all North Africans are caucasian or not caucasian. There are not sharp boundaries between races. A lot of time is spent here debating boundary cases, but generally in actual usage, people just avoid using the caucasian / non-caucasian distinction when there are lots of people whose affiliation is unclear.--JWB 11:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The original inhabitants of North Africa (and the whole Sahara) ca. 50 000 years ago were E-people - or Neonegrids, as I call them. The dissicating desert divided them into sub-Saharan (E1, E2, E3a, E3b1) and North African/Near Eastern (E3b2, E3b3) groups. While the sub-Saharan lineages got upper hand over the majority of archaic paleonegroid groups and became a core of today's black Africans, the North African groups gradually mixed with Europids from Europe and the Near East and lost their phenotype. The invasion of Europids into North Africa started as early as 45-40 000 years ago (the Dabban culture) and from the mixture of North-West African men (E3b2) and Dabban women (U6), the core of today's Berbers came into being. The Neonegrid phenotype was gradually washed out by new Europid waves, so today's Berbers are ca. 80% Europid and 20% Sub-Saharan blacks. Centrum99 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

^I'm not sure about any barrier between the sub-sahara and supra-sahara, how do we know that these (E3b2, E3b3) groups aren't purely Near/Eastern, I mean, this is to imply that sub-saharans were blocked from migrating northward, but Near/Eastern people weren't blocked off from migrating inward? The Shara practically covers North Africa so I'm not understanding that really. Why is there suck a huge category for the Caucasoid group that can cover 3 continents, yet "Blacks" are only restricted to one part of Africa below the Sahara? And where's the evidence suggesting an Europid invasion into North Africa only a few thousand years after African dispersal from the continent?Taharqa 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The barrier is the Sahara Desert itself. Supposedly, when you get a geographic barrier such as a desert or mountain range, the difference between people on either side of the barrier may become more pronounced over time. This is because the barrier would be difficult to cross for prehistoric people, so little gene flow occurs between the two populations and genetic differences accumulate. If there's no such barrier between two regions, the difference will generally be less pronounced and more gradual as you move from one region to another, because people will have been continually mixing. So supposedly, the Sahara desert in Africa and the mountain ranges in Asia provided barriers which allowed people to develop relatively features which would be considered more Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid. I'm not saying racial classifications are/aren't valid, but that's the reason why people stretching from India, Europe and North Africa often have similar facial features - there was no barrier to prevent gene flow. Holymolytree2 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who actually believes that Caucasians are the original inhabitants of any part of Africa are just as ridiculous as the claim itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.194.146 (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it scientists believe homo sapiens originated some where in Kenya. So the ancestors of Caucasians are commonly thought to have lived in Africa. Rds865 (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Skin Color is not a primary signifier of race

Physical features are Digitalseal 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Causian does include Indians from India look at the features and hair not the colour

So, stop passing off as White and face up to the facts.

The only person promoting the "one-drop rule" (which never applied to genetics or anthropological taxonomy) is YOU. Stop with this nonsense and face up to the fact that YOU are the one-drop rule quantifier at this site, not a select group of white people who died decades if not a century or more ago. -- Gerkinstock 00:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact I do not promote the one-drop rule. I just want to question the views that some or maybe many people have on race, probably in a way that is a bit too belligerent. But it is OK if it makes people think.

Seriously race views in the inner city American ghetto are where they were in 1920s Virginia just from the opposite side of the race fence. I always hear people say "is she mixed, or mulatto" etc. around here, and I always read about this one-drop rule which I'm sure for a very long time most white people believed in, but they died or are in a nursing home or are holed up with their arsenal in a cabin in Montana, but the average white person wouldn't know what you were talking about because the average white person knows they are "mixed" somewhere in there. In no way am I saying there is no racism I'm just saying its based far more on economics and culture than the old school pseudo-science. I'm sure it even sounds racist what I just said, but I don't know any other way to explain it without generalizing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Novaterata (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

This is a clear contradiction to "political correctness" in society. If you use the term "negro" or "black", you are considered racist against the African race. If you use "yellow" to describe the Asian race, once again, you are a racist. Though these are stereotypical examples, applying the terms "white people" and the "Caucasian race" would be a contradiction to the arguments made by other races. Hopefully my point was expressed without anyone being offended. (I always try to make this point whenever I can when a form always says, "Check what applies to you.") -Zarti 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_%28people%29"

What is "the African race" and what is "the Asian race"? These are both incorrect terms and if you're going to discuss the topic then you should use the terms Mongoloid and Negroid. Actually it annoys me when people use the word Asian to mean Mongoloid, because I'm half Iranian and therefore half Asian. Holymolytree2 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

race has no scientific definition. words such as African, and Asia, refer to where people live. of course these places got their name from the name for the people that lived there, not that those peoples that gave the name to the place stay there. This article is about a term disproven theory that defined race, as well as a term used in some places to mean white, or a person of European descent. So what should be asked is has anyone consider Indians Caucasian? Rds865 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• To reply to the title of this discussion, skin colour is a primary signifier of social race, there's a difference between social construct and the anthropometric definitions. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No scientific foundation

Some of those "race"-articels was deleted in the german WP long ago, cause there is no scientific base for this classifications. [2] Historical and social meaning of this item in USA and other countries is different, thus u should keep the artictle here, but the unscientific charakter must be clear - clearer than now. -- 84.178.135.205 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) sorry for my bad germish :-)

Please, don't meddle into things that you know nothing about! And don't cite "authorities" that are as open-minded as medieval jezuits. The main reason, why the existence of race is denied, is because marked racial differences ruined leftist social engineering of the "multicultural society". Thus, the only hope, how these social utopians can save their chimerical societies, is to deny the very existence of race. Yet, as we know, the existence of race is not denied, when unsuccessful minorities in Western countries can benefit from it! Yahoo Man, 28. September 2006

Wow, you should maybe actually read the arguments for why race isn't accepted as a "scientific" concept, before you try and blame it on leftist "social-engineering". The arguments are purely genetic/evolutionary. Adress the arguments (which havn't really exposited here), don't just dismiss them because of your assumptions about the arguer's intentions. It makes you look like a ignorant Yahoo. Brentt 01:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My big advantage is that I read much more than only "arguments for why race isn't accepted as a "scientific" concept". Hence I can make my own opinion about it and I don't need to be indoctrinated by any PC multi-culti left-wing goop from the United States or from anywhere where the beautiful multiracial states flourish. Yahooman/Centrum99 01:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the one race theory supported by the Bible. Hardly a PC source, but more to the point there is no current scientific definition of race, and it is not our job to produce one here. Some scientists, as well as others made definitions for the Caucasian race, that are no longer accepted. this article is about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pointless Debate of who is White

I have never heard of more pointless talk from above. The issue of southern Europeans as Caucasians is obvious. They are. For one thing, the Moors occupied Sicily, not the Italian peninsula for 200 years. They occupied the Iberian peninsula 3 times that period, but that is besides the point, considering that Arab/Berber peoples are a Caucasoid people despite what people think, and even still, did not impact Italy (and other parts of southern Europe for that matter) in a great way. Studies show that Italians have a primarily Italic/Greco-Roman/Romano-Celtic background. But that is besides the point; much of the southern European diaspora in the Western hemisphere have other European origins which show social exceptance.

Southern Europeans are considered white by governments of North America and Australia, and are for the most part socially excepted as white as well (I highly doubt Americans would object to Rudy Giuliani or Tom Tancredo as describing themselves as white), which in reality, no one even cares. Discrimination against southern Europeans (Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians, Albanians, Slovenes, Greeks, Macedonians, Maltese, south Slavs) is old news, and should definitely not be included in this article. There will always be people who except them white or not and really should not be discussed in this article. This is about the Caucasian race, not white people. People's point of view on who is Caucasian should not overrulling the accurate scientific definition. 24.150.154.247 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

• Caucasoid means something which resembles people from the Caucasus, and it's pretty evident that Southern Euros, Mid Easterners and the likes resemble actual Caucasians far more than any blonde and blue eyed North Europeans. If any population should get questioned for it's "Caucasoidness", it would be those. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you implying that Mediterranean Caucasoids are more Caucasoids than north Europeans? I never really thought of it like that. By the way, I also think this is a pointless debate. It's mostly associated with Nazis who masturbate to white purity so much that they only consider the Nordic race as white (they even exclude Russians in some cases). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, if we go by the actual "scientific" definition of the word "Caucasoid", people who actually look like people from the Caucasus are closer to the "true" Caucasoid form. This would exclude far more North Europeans than South Europeans. But well, today the word "Caucasian" has been twisted in the US to pretty much mean North European, so it's kind of taken for granted now. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In North America and Australia though, few use the word Caucasian in describing themselves. They simply call themselves white. It is very obvious that Italian and other southern Europeans are Caucasian; there is no dispute, but the reason why I mentioned this is because morons up above were stating that they were not, even saying that Irish catholics were not Caucaisan which utterly ridiculous. Whether someone wants to consider them white is their concern (just look at southern European hollywood, for your answer/or the Italian presedntial nominees), but no one should deny that they are Caucasians. 24.150.154.247 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

Let me put it this way: do you consider Middle Eastern people 'white'? If no, why not? Is whiteness exclusive to speakers of Indo-European languages? Can Semitic peoples be considered white? I sure look white (although, I do have some minor Armenian ancestry). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle Easterners are Caucasian and some have very fair complexions and could be considered as white as the Middle East has been a melting pot of Arabs/Levantines/Europeans etc; but when someone in North America and Europe hears Middle Easterner, they automatically assume light brown. I have a lot of Arab friends who's older parents consider themselves white, but their children dont see themselves as white.

What does it matter though anyway, the United States government sees you as white. I thought we were past this discussion though; discussing who is white totally POV; after all, I just gave you mine. Discussing who and what is white is a North American and British obcession. I lived in Italy, France, and Spain, and everyone calls themself Europeans first (even though they do consider themselves white). 24.150.154.247 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Galati

Well, I live in Sweden ("land of the blondes") and no one here considers middle eastern people as white. It's funny though, I've even been confused sometimes by Swedes to be an ethnic Swede. I don't think it's an obsession exclusive to north America and Britain though. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree that it is Southern Europeans, rather than North Europeans, who are more "qualified" to be called Caucasian since they look more similar to actual Caucasians than North Europeans. But that is baseless, as there are a lot of people from Caucasus who have blue or green eyes and blonde or red hair and whose facial proportions are more "Nordic" (note: not Slavic) than those of Germans themselves. It's just that the majority of Caucasians tend to be darker in hair, eyes and skin, but that does not say anything about the physical appearance of Caucasians hundreds or thousands of years ago. Also, a lot of people are very fond of saying that the modern scientific opinion on the races "rebuts" the theory that races even exist, and posits that all people originated in Africa. They overlook or willingly omit one fact though, and it is that once the ancestors of whites in East Africa started moving North, they experienced significant physical, and possibly cognitive, changes that are pretty much apparent to the eye of an average person today and ever more clear to forensic anthropologists who are often called upon to determine the race of a person whose skin was burned, for instance, based upon the skeletal features of that person. Of course, there are no fixed parameters upon which we can exactly determine one's race by physical characteristics, as they tend to overlap amongst different groups. But, based on separate collective pools of (for argument's sake) blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, whites from the European heartland, and east Asians, we can isolate enough specific characteristics that are more common in one collective pool than each of the other. Add to that the fact that nowadays there are scientists coming out with complaints that mainstream science and politics are married today, and you have the basis for the denial of race by mainstream scientific community. --24.188.136.219 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the above statement, but I dont believe that southern Europeans are more qualified than northern Europeans to be Caucasian based on look. As above mentioned, that is baseless; their are dark hair, eyed, and tan complexioned northern Europeans, just like there are pale, blonde, blue eyed Italians and Spaniards as well. The fact is that there have been Germanic, Roman, Slavic, Celtic migrations in every corner of Europe, that proving ethnic purity is futile. 24.150.154.247 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

It's about the percentage of people with said traits, not the mere existence of them. 88.191.63.110 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about Middle Easterners, South Asians are classed as `Asian' by virtually all census definitions. The fairest and most European looking people on the Indian Subcontinent are often found ammong some of the Pathans, Kashmiris, Kalash and sporadically in the Punjab. They would be able to claim Aryan heritage as well. I doubt many `white' Britons in the UK would be ready to accept them as `white' based on the prejudice South Asians have. Speaking of Arabs, many are mixed with Negro blood and look non-Caucasian and sub-saharan African. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.58.18 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Only people in the world who can really claim "Aryan" ancestry are Iranians and North Indians, Europeans being Aryans is just a myth based on 19th century linguistic studies.

"Asian" hardly refers to a race in the context you mention, A Pakistani doesn't really have anything in common with a Japanese for example, it's just a geographic designation. Furthermore "fairest and most European looking" are not criteria for being Caucasoid, white maybe, but this is not the white people article.

As for Arabs, 10% of Arabs have Negroid ancestry, and those are mostly found in Southern Arabia. North Africa too, if you count them as Arabs.

"Caucasoid" simply refers to populations cranially similar to people from the Caucasus. 83.72.194.208 (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the Kashmiri are not an ethnic people distinct from most Indians, its just a region. They are as different as the Portuguese are to Spaniards. The term Asian is not racial, just an envelope word for the continent; same with Africa. Berbers were indigenous in the north and Blacks to the south; different race though. It is over-emphasized to call the Kalash pale with blonde hair blonde eyesn as some like to do (not pointing fingers at anyone). They are in the minority, and the Kalash people are estimated to have a 20 - 40 percent European admixture (particularly Greek)[3], so the basis of that argument is not founded.

North Africans are partially Arab; they are mixed with Berber as well. If you study Islamic Spain you come to realise that the North African penetration in some parts of Europe were not Arabs but rather Berbers, and as mentioned above, they also have black, Levantine, and European admixture as well. The Middle Eastern and North African areas are so mixed, that one cant define them. As for most though, they are Caucasian in race. - Galati —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Middle East is pretty big, so it doesn't really make sense to try to define the populations there as a homogenic mass from the start. Main division is South/North, with a Negroid presence being analogous to the Negroid presence in America. 83.72.194.208 (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Race has to do here with Darwinism, and the people who came up with this stuff were very wrong, who knows why they named white people Caucasians, or thought Australians were the missing link? There is no race test that can determine which race you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is only one race the human race

Al this is just "racist". Trying to fit people into old ideas based on self percieved supremacy of particular groups to justify their oppression of other groups. Race is not a scientific concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.47.68 (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about a historical concept and how it was used and described throughout history. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but that isn't at all clear from the introduction. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, it is still used by scientists. The genetic cluster which includes Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners is still frequently called "Caucasian" by geneticists. 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

the fact that the artical has nothing to do with science should be made more clear. fyi people from different parts of africa are more genetically different than someone from iceland and aboriginal australians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.166.224 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

More Examples

Maybe providing more examples of where the term Caucasian is and is not used and why would provide better context for the word. Seems like the rampant discussion is over it's proper use as language in various places being generalized into one solidified term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.222.195 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus

There is more focus on non-Caucasian stuff than actual Caucasian information in this article. I suggest a sharper focus on the Caucasian race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.225.142 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This article is flawed in two areas, and biased admins continue to take away my scientifically accurate edits.

You are not going to convince me that a solid block of the anthropology community does not believe that there are 3-4 main races. Genetic studies suggest this too. http://www.biodiversityforum.com/showpost.php5?p=522568&postcount=1

In addition it can be proven that the statement about Indians is false. They were labeled Caucasian, but a distinction was made between Caucasian and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin2359 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Supreme Court conceded that anthropologists had classified Indians as Caucasians, and thus the same race as whites, as defined in Ozawa. However、it concluded that "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences," and denied citizenship."

http://www.ling.fju.edu.tw/typology/Caucasian.htm http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

So you were wrong, I was right. Now you can be quiet and stop removing my correct edits, to push your unscientific point of view.

"Caucasian" is a racial term but "white" is more restrictive and less scientific term. Quit removing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin2359 (talk • contribs)

The above was added by the same editor as the IP editor earlier blocked for 3RR violation. This was an attempt at block evasion, so there has been another block. As for the links, the first is to a forum, and we don't use forums as sources. The second is, bizarrely, to a copy of a version of the WIkipedia article, so useless as a source. The third link can be used as a source in the article based on the information here [4]. dougweller (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the concept of race being now rejrectd by most anthropologists: "A similar survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists" (Lieberman, 2001 [5]). This does not even begin to address the opinions of biologists. So yes, racial typology is now rather widely rejected.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The following item from today's news could be added to enhance the discussion. Here the term caucasian is used in a strictly medical/research sense:

The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CCFF) supports research into cystic fibrosis, which only affects people of the caucasian racial group. However, the term caucasian includes people from South Asia, North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Israel, according to Cathleen Morrison, CEO of the CCFF. "[Although] these are Caucasian populations," Morrison, CEO of the CCFF told CTV [ctv.ca]. "[they] do not have white skin". Bushcutter (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of NPOV, and of WIkipedia, is, that one position on an issue is not determined to be "correct" by editors and presented solely, but that all views are presented. Clearly the term Caucasian is still in widespread use. And clearly a lot of people don't like that. Both those points are to be presented in a style which does not allow us to guess which opinion the editor holds.

BindingArbitration (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)BA

Are you ("BindingArbitration") able to discuss this without pretending to be someone important? The quote from the CCFF is quite properly explained from CCFF's particular medical point of view and doesn't need to be altered to conform to your opinion of what it should say. Nobody is disagreeing with your statement that "the term Caucasian is still in widespread use", and nobody appears to be unhappy with the message. Or is it possible that you're saying something different? Please enlighten us. Bushcutter (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost exclusively in the US?

I'm not sure this is true. The term is familiar as part of their language by speakers of British English. It is also used in professional communication by the British Police as in 'A six foot tall, brown haired caucasian male'.

The British police make a point of avoiding controversial and confusing words such as 'Caucasian' - they have a classification of race by 'Immigration Code' - IC1, IC2, IC3 etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.80.255 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of police usage, I'd agree with the first statement - I'm from the UK, with family in Australia, and in both places common usage of the term 'Caucasian' means 'ethnically white', i.e. either anglo-saxon, scandanavian, or european background. It's not seen as controversial at all, and if anything is regarded as a more 'polite' way of saying 'white'. I'm aware that there are several subtle ethnic/racial/anthropological issues involved here, but in practical common use, none of them crop up.

I agree. in my part of Europe, which is closer to actual Caucasia, we are aware of the differences between european whites and Caucasians, that are actually more asian looking. I don't understand, why would Americans call white people Caucasian, even though white people don't look like Caucasians, don't have common heritage or don't come from Caucasia. can somebody please explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.49.80 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blame Blumenbach. He had a fancy for the (true) Caucasian looks and wanted to position himself as part of the super-race. --Bstard12 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_beauties#Racial_theories :) --Bstard12 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(( Begin of text moved from Talk:Caucasian ))

Moved comment below from 129.100.152.211 from article to here:

Very interesting. As far as I know three groups, the Manchurian, the Yeniseyan and the Ainu, carried three blood groups Haplotype C, Haplotype A, Haplotype D to the Americas. That's how the American Indians got them. Another group, the Northern Chinese, went over later on with Haplotype E which is found commonly among the Pueblo and Navajo Indians. At the mean time, two central Asian groups carried Haplotypes D and C to Europe which is found commonly among modern day Caucasian populations. While Haplotype B which is totally absent among the Amerindians, spread among Caucasian groups and Mongoloids later on from Africa via the Middle East. And the Mongoloids, like their cousins the Caucasians developed male pattern baldness and resistence to epidemic deseases, which are almost absent among their cousins the American Indians. This is the basis on which our society is legally divided into Mongoloid(Asian), Caucasian-Mediterranean, Indo-Dravedian, African-Mulato and Amerind-Meztiso social groups. And these groups continue to celebrate Multiculturalism by cultivating their own images, feeling proud on TV networks and popular entertainment, helping people of different ethnicities to understand their own respective cultures, supporing members of their own respective groups in highschool cafeterias, in order to make this society more diverse.

-Frecklefoot

I am Scottish, Czech, and Albanian. Why do I note my ethnicity? Because I am 100%caucasin. My father is from Albania. The Albanians are;a.) Nomads who live in Eastern Europe. These nomads originally came from the Caucus Mountains. b.) They are the poorest country due to there resistance of frivilous self glorification. c.) Their language is recorded as being the oldest language in Europe. d.)Before thier pilgrimage to East Europe from the Caucus Mountains they fled from persecution from the Islamic Semites and Orientals. The point is caucasins both eastern European and English etc...are defined by common language,persuction for thier Christian beliefs and there long standing strength. I believe it good people love one another for their inner selves, which often comes around to who one is on the outside and through thier historical blood. Note:Oddly enough an Albanian commited a terrorist attack in July 1914 which still is not accpeted by the world. One other comment I would like to add, the Galatians in The Holy Bible are better known as the Gauls. These people live were? They live in Europe. The Celts? The Celts were founders of Galatia!The Celts domination runs from Bohemia to the U.k. To close,simply put,Christianity is richly rooted in white soil....pretty amazing huh! - signed by an anon IP

Sorry to tell you Stolfi? but due to political reasons albanians are slavs. And you Sir are a degenerate human accoridng to the words of Hans K Gunther, half breed mongrel. You do know that christians carried out a haulacaust against native Nordic/Prussian Pagan people. So much for xtianity rooted in slav[ic] soil.

Wake up and spell the cofee.

Gracias Von Bosmark the 52nd User —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussianbismark (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stolfi, the Galatians are a Celtic people alright, but their homeland was in Anatolia, a region of Asia Minor or present-day Central Turkey. If there is a chance the Celtic peoples migrated farther south to Galilee along the Eastern Mediteranean, how come any certified anthropologist says the Galatians were a subgroup of West Semites like the Israelites of biblical times? I find it very ironic one of the cofounding Germanic peoples of England, the Jutes of Jylland in Denmark (came along with the Angles and Saxons), the word sounds much alike the term "Judes" or Jews in the German language. Are the Jutes related to the Jewish peoples of Palestine? Not really, the peoples of Galilee may not been Celtic or Indo-European, unless the Anatolians are cousins of Celts as they are to the Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and Persians of the region. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(( End of text moved from Talk:Caucasian ))

I have moved the Latin name to the History section, assuming that it was Blumenthal who coined it. Could anyone confirm that? Thanks...Jorge Stolfi 17:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Usage in Australia

the word caucasian originated from Caucasia, A small island off the coast of Oklahoma.

In Australia the word Caucasian is used to refer to those people that have Anglo-Saxon background, this happens in the media as well as in official documents. There is an important number of Australians who have Greek, Italian and other European background which are not regarded as Caucasians. The Australian government refers to them as the ethnic communities along with other racial minorities.--tequendamia 11:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What non sense. You are an idiot . Causcasian refers to any white people. This makes it liable , though, to subjectivity, as some people that might be 'scientifically' referred to as Caucasion (eg Middle-eastern) would not be in 'lay' usage. Eg in the media when referring to crime- they usually describe the perpetrator as "a man of middle -eastern / medeiterranean origin".

-- The same happens to be true in Canada. The term Caucasian is one used in reference to white Anglo-Saxon people of European background, excluding Southern Europeans. I was surprised to read much of the information found in this article, especially given how it conflicts with most western social norms. Surely the content of this article is debatable, depending on whom you ask. However, in most of the modern west the term Caucasian refers specifically to white Anglo-Saxons, and possibly Slavs. I do understand that in Russia the term Caucasian is one used to refer to the people of the Caucus region.

Further, equating the term Caucasians with a scientific designation is a misnomer. It is a social construction and should not be confused with scientific jargon.

All this talk reinforces everything that is wrong with the use of this word - no-one really shares a common understanding of its meaning. Really it should only be used for people from the Caucasus. Everything else is a misnomer - this is the accepted academic view and the article should support that, perhaps with mention to the word's other misuses. This encyclopaedia needs to educate responsibly - not perpetuate ignorance, no matter how widespread the ignorance is 87.194.80.255 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of "caucasian" in Australia is variable. When used in the context of media presentations, its use roughly (and unintentionally) equates to Huxley's xanthocroi peoples. Obviously this is left to the subjective interpretation of the individual. But often it includes anyone of Anglo-Cetic, Scandinavian origins, as well as any 'Germanic' looking French, Italians and Slavs. Most definitely Southern Italians, Greeks, Turks, Middle Eastern peoples incl Egyptians, as well as the darker/ shorter stocked French and Spanish people are referred to as "of Mediterranean appearance". However, recently the media has actually avoided using any descriptions associated with presumed race, as it has been seen by some to ignite racial hatred toward certain communities, about which stereotypes have arisen as being "trouble-makers". Hxseek (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether some usage is "good" or "logical". If indeed Caucasian is equivalent to "Anglo" or "Northern European" in Australia and Canada, than that is simply -- neutrally -- reported as a local use of the term BindingArbitration (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)BA

That's true Binding Arbitration, but we probably need a reference. For clarification this business about of "mediterranean appearance" is usually said as "of middle eastern or mediterranean appearance", basically it refers to muslim Lebanese and people who might look like them. An islamic council persuaded the police to use this terminology as a description for people believed to be arabs. Atleast it's true, Lebanese are both middle eastern and Mediterranean.

Basically these Lebanese have been involved in high profile crimes, including gang rapes targeting Australian girls (people who look Anglo-saxon). Sometimes the media described these Australians as Caucasians rather than Australians or Anglo-Celtic, so from here there might be a concept that Northern Europeans are perceived to be a different race to Mediterranean people. It's basically that the media took the definition of Caucasian to mean "European" and the police adopted a description that classifies mediterranean Europeans with Arabs, which may have blurred the definition in common usage. Goramon (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a follow up I found this article about Islamic Councils (Lebanese) complaining about police using the term "of middle eastern appearance" http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/which-faces-fit-middle-east-tag/2006/07/14/1152637872158.html The point of the article is silly, it's just about Islamic councils wanting less public scrutiny of Muslim crime. If you describe a person who looks middle eastern as "of middle eastern appearance" and they actually turn out to be a dark Hungarian in Adidas track pants who looks "middle easern" the description is obviously apt. I would describe a light skinned Lebanese with red hair as a "caucasian with red hair and light complexion". Another simple issue complicated by thought police.

The picture shows two pale skinned men with arabic names (but actually implies they are of both Irish and Lebanese descent) that said one is red headed and obviously that is a recessive trait. The article also describes them as Caucasians meaning the author is of the opinion that Lebanese are part of the Caucasian race.Goramon (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New Cavalli Sforza research

Cavalli Sforza now claims that originally the first caucasoids were made 2 parts of 3 from a population originating from China and 1 part of 3 of a population originating from Africa, this is based on genetics and anthropology and paleoanthropology.

Anybody have anymore information on this?

This is a misreading. He just says that Caucasoids (or maybe Europeans specifically) are intermediate on some indexes. --JWB (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He does a comparison of Caucasians vs. Africans, East Asians, and an artificial interpolation 1/3 of the way between Africans and East Asians. Caucasians are found to be closer to the interpolation than to either Africans or East Asians as a whole, but still a substantial distance. Also, the comparison is of a bunch of genetic information, but not necessarily representative of any visible or significant racial differences, which are likely on a smaller set of genes.

The pattern of difference is not necessarily due to origins and may mostly represent gradual diffusion roughly in proportion to geographical distance. --JWB (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Altogether, the evidence suggests that Caucasoids evolved through the northern part of the Near East, in places like Turkey, the Lower Caucaus (ie. Armenia, Azerbaijan) states, and the Iranian Plateau. That includes 1) autosomal, 2) Y/mtDNA based 3) craniometric, 4) archeological, Linguistic, geological, and antropological, and historical evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.114.97 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance tag

In glancing at the article, I was astounded at the weight/attention given the ridiculous notion that Senagalese have "Caucasoid" features because of some sort of admixture and that some physical characteristics of some East Africans have nothing to do with them being Black Africans. If this absurd, fringe info is going to be presented, then the prevailing view certainly must be as well -- and with at least as much emphasis. Just another reason the "disputed" tag should remain. deeceevoice (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you at least put something on the talk page regarding why you added the tag, so thank you for that. But don't you think it would be better to just simply add a fact tag to that particular section or just even remove it all together if it's a fringe theory? There was already a tag at the top, so I don't know how adding a similar one helps the article. Too many times I see people adding a tag to an entire article when either a few sentences could simply be removed, a "fact" tag could be placed requesting a citation for it, or a balanced statement could be added. Kman543210 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Huxley

Claiming that Huxley's "races" included Caucasians is OR. Huxley defined Melanochroi and Xanthochroi "races", which overlapped significantly. Alun (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources, types and authors

We should probably have a section on the different sub-types proposed by different authors, and probably have even more authors mentioned.

Here are some old online text about physical anthropology where these types are described:

http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/

http://carnby.altervista.org/

For some reason this URL is blaclkisted, so I've split it up so it can be shown here:

http://www.amorsite. shorturl.com/ FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Racist Predictions?

"They are also known as to have complete dominance over the black (negroid) race. In America the blacks have always been and will always be subordinate to white people." in Origins of the term

Is it just me or is this not that appropriate for an unbiased article?

--212.251.109.36 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism that was just put there. It has since been removed. Kman543210 (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the same sentence was placed in the article in three different sections, I have further reverted the vandalism. Cheers. Alun (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

I'm going in with an axe here. I see above that Deeceevoice thinks this article is shit. For once, I absolutely agree. Utterly incoherent nonsense. Talk:Caucasian race/Dumping ground is where cut material is going. Moreschi (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

to be fair, some of the material could be considered as raw material for an encyclopedia article. I guess we need more articles with "dumping ground" areas where people with much time for googling around but no editing skills or command of the context can contribute. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that one function of this page? Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

not really, this is for actual discussions. The problem is that useful material posted here gets swampt and eventually archived. Come to think of it, a "dumping ground" page for raw references and quotes yet to be worked into the article (or, that is, cut out of the article), could be a useful addition as a standard asset of all "C+" (i.e. better than "Start") articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Dumping-ground page to present this idea. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has this article been trimmed down to nothing, and why are sourced images replaced by a random image of a girl? The stuff which has been removed is sourced, that physical anthropology is pretty damn shaky is a fact, and that many different, and sometimes useless, theories have emerged shouldn't be hidden. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

While it is true that the instances of Greek myth quoted are set in the Caucasus, the article suggests that there is some connection with the "fascination for European" exerted by the Caucasus and Blumenbach's hypothesis. Unless we have some reference making this suggestion, this is pure WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Caucasoid Physical Traits

User:Moreschi removed the citations I provided regarding the physical characteristics of Caucsoids as having thin lips, straight facial profile, receeding zygomas, large brow ridges, high-bridged, narrow noses which greatly project, large amounts of body hair, tendency toward balding, a narrow face and large jaws. All of these traits are obivously true and uncontroversial. I suspect User:Moreschi blindly removed these cited facts when they resurrected the ancient, low-quality version of the article, making their removal an accident on their part.----^DarkTea© 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• And you were blocked for re-adding the cited bits. Ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• large amounts of body hair = mediterranean race
• tendency toward balding = alpine race
• large jaws = negroids
• thin lips = north mongoloid blood/alps/alpinizateds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous poster missed the Horn of Africa, as proved by GENETIC analysis, being considered Caucasian. So, the anonymous one forgot SCIENCE that made Ethiopians, Djiboutians and Eritreans being Caucasian, not to mention much of the Somalian people. Hence, the large jaws point is beyond incorrect, as the "large jaws" are QUITE present in Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia, from direct, personal experience and well documented sources all over the planet.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent rewrite of the article

I just reverted 3 edits because they introduced drastic changes in the article. Please discuss. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CURRENT MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC USE OF "CAUCASOID" IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

Please don't apply political ideologies or agendas to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia needs to describe everything in the world whether you agree with it or not.

Some scholars today completely reject the notion that humanity can be described in distinct groups of physical types — but many others continue to find this entirely appropriate.

Here is a current article in the New York Times — hardly a bastion of racist extremism — on the Tocharian mummies showing that "Caucasoid" is in fact in use today:

"The Dead Tell a Tale China Doesn’t Care to Listen To"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/asia/19mummy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dead%20tell%20a%20tale&st=cse&oref=slogin

"It's very clear that these are of Europoid or Caucasoid origins," Han, now retired, said in an interview in his apartment in Beijing.

Wikipedia readers need to know that there are differing views today in academia on the subject of race, and the term "Caucasoid".

Preventing them from doing can only be regarded as vandalism.

I don't have an account that can edit a semi-protected page at the moment, but will be back to present an accurate NPOV discussion of the subject soon if the current political essay has not been corrected.

Thank you. 76.204.26.55 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)NPOV editor

Ironically, the NY Times article is all about political attempts to suppress accurate scientific reporting on ethnic identity.

76.204.26.55 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)NPOV editor

Of course, that is not the reporter using the word but a retired Chinese anthropologist, so if you want to argue that some old Chinese anthropologists use the word, I'll have to agree. dougweller (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where that dougweller comment comes from — "Caucasian" is more in use today in biomedicine than ever as so many studies are finding different ethnic groups respond differently to medications, etc. I'm going to rework the intro with some quotes to this effect. The point above that we can't let our opinions bias the information presented is really important.

BindingArbitration (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)BA

Please read the section heading again and my comments -- which don't mention 'Caucasian' at all. dougweller (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

it is a simple fact that people can easily distinguish "Asian people" (in historical terminology, "Mongoloid") from "white people" (in historical terminology, "Caucasoid"). This is a fact regardless of any racial theories, as is evident already from merely practical puropses such as the description of a suspect in police reports. When the FBI is looking for a "Caucasian" suspect, they aren't subscribing to scientific racism, they are simply using a term understood by people, so they will know to look for a "white" person and exclude all "Asian" or "black" ones from suspicion. This is the article on the concept of a Caucasian race (my emphasis), and as such on scientific racism, not just on the major groups of human physical aspects. For the purposes of the Tarim mummies, the simple message is that they would be classified as "white", not "Asian" on grounds of their physical aspect, which is worth noting in the context of Bronze Age Central Asia. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• oid = similar than..caucasoid = caucasian + oid..a caucasian apaerence antropometric/etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My NPOV Reworking of Intro Reverted to Inaccurate Political Tract - Reversed and Being Referred to Administrators

The intro of the article as I found it on Nov 29, 2008 describes "Caucasian" as an obsolete term, no longer in use. This is simply contradictory to reality -- it's in vigorous use today. Tons of citations.

I know some people don't like that -- but it's what's actually out there in the world. I apologize for reality. I will go out tomorrow and start speaking to every biomedical researcher on earth, explain to them that "race" doesn't exist, and demand they stop using the word Caucasian in their study protocols. And when they do stop using it, I will then gladly re-re-write the intro to state that the word is obsolete.

But for the period prior to that time, I rewrote a very neutral intro, clearly pointing out the current academic opposition to the term, but giving quotes of "Caucasian" in current, utterly reputable, mainstream sources.

This was hacked apart and reversed by Gandalf61 and Moreschi the same day of my reworking.

This is nothing other than vandalism -- you simply cannot use Wikipedia as your personal political opinion blog. A neutral and comprehensive survey of the subject must be presented to readers. And that includes the fact that, among other contexts, "Caucasian" is being used as an ethnic category in every biomedical study being conducted today.

I'm of course reversing this.

And I'm starting the process of discussing with the Administrators getting a full lock on the article (after it's further cleaned up), and the vandal-bloggers banned from Wikipedia (on their current accounts at least, and IPs if fixed).

BindingArbitration (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

And now Wobble has undone my intro again, with no comment here in Talk, and the Edit Summary "(is this reliable? what academc journals have they published in?)".

The academic journals you will find at the end of the reference links accompanying each quote.

So I'm reverting.

BindingArbitration (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Binding Arbitration, the reason I reverted you was because you included long quotations in the introduction. You should not have done this as per the Manual of Style. Furthermore the quotes that you had included previously had not been removed from the article but had only been moved to the relevant sections of the article. The introduction should be a summary of the article, and as such we should not include many long quotes. My comment about reliable sources related to my tagging of the DNA tribes citation as a dubious source. I appologise that this gave the wrong impression to you. Clearly you are right that the term is is use by reliable sources,and it's fair that you include this claim in the introduction. You could of course achieve this without including long inappropriate quotes in the intro. There no need to get so steamed up, we're all trying to achieve the same thing here, that is a reliable encyclopaedia. How do you feel about simply rewording the intro so that it doesn't claim that the term is entirely obsolete, and then including your quotes later in the article rather than in the intro? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. BTW please feel free to contact any admins you like, you seem to think this is some sort of threat, but I don't think that anyone is going to be impressed with your edit warring. Alun (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I can find no place in the intro that "describes "Caucasian" as an obsolete term, no longer in use." What it states is that the concept is rejected as obsolete, not that the term is no longer in use. That's not the same thing at all. Alun (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) BindingArbitration, please calm down. If you read the whole article you will find that your examples of contemporary usage of the term "Caucasian" in popular science and medical literature are still there - I just moved them out of the lead and into more appropriate sections of the article. And the lead paragraph does not say that the term itself is obsolete - it says that the method of racial classification that originally gave rise to the term is obsolete. Very different thing.

Collaborative editing can take some getting used to, but most editors here are simply trying to work with you to improve this article. Giving vent to your frustrations is understandable, but it is really not productive. You might find our guideline on Wikipedia etiquette helpful. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing neutrality here -- in motivation or result.

The latest intro is back to "It was thus in use as denoting populations of Europe..." -- past tense.

The content on biomedical research now in the main section has been watered-down to sound less significant. Why would that happen?

"In the medical sciences, where response to pharmaceuticals and other treatment can vary dramatically based on ethnicity[6][7][8], there is great debate as to whether racial categorizations as broad as Caucasian are medically valid[9][10], but nonetheless such definitions have recently become a standard variable in clinical research protocols..."

Becomes:

"In the medical sciences, where response to pharmaceuticals and other treatment can vary dramatically based on ethnicity,[16][17] there is debate as to whether racial categorizations as broad as Caucasian are medically valid.[18][19] Nonetheless, such definitions have recently been used as a variable in clinical research protocols..."

And if some of you have such a great understanding of this subject to be trying to completely control the article, why didn't you already have a section on this vital issue of biomedical research before I arrived?

The acid test is that I should have no idea what any editor's opinions are on a subject from his/her writing. You have no idea that I'm a leftist utterly opposed to racial discrimination in society. It really obvious that you are.

I'm going to continue working on trying to get this article to present a truly neutral description of this word "Caucasian" both here and at the Administrative level.

BindingArbitration (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Okay, as an exercise, let's unpack the changes that I made when I moved that paragraph on biomedical research:

• I changed your in-line external links to in-line references. This is standard Wikipedia practice - the references are automatically collated at the end of the article.
• I removed the www.bidil.com link because it linked to an advert page and I couldn't see how it supported the sentence that it was attached to. You had two other good refernces on that sentence anyway.
• I changed "great debate" to "debate". "Great" here is an example of what we call a peacock term - it adds no factual information to the sentence. The key point is that there is a debate - we have no yardstick for determining whether it was "great" or not.
• I split the run-on sentence at "but nonetheless", to start a new sentence for greater clarity.
• I changed "have recently become a standard variable" to "have recently been used as a variable" - but I can't remember exactly why. Not especially attached to my wording here, so you could change it back if you feel strongly.

I don't think that paragraph has been "watered down", and the only thing it reveals about me is that I can be a bit pedantic about run-on sentences and such like. In short - it's a collaborative editing thing - if you can't handle that, then you will find your time at Wikipedia to be very frustrating. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BindingArbitration already has the attention of this Administrator. Please don't call other editors vandals just because they disagree with you or you don't like what you think is their political point of view (and please don't think you don't have one). Calm down and listen to what other people have to say. This article is not going to get a 'full lock', although I wouldn't be surprised if another Administrator did lock it for a while if you are going to edit war like this instead of working together with other editors to improve it. And please read WP:CITE - as you've been told above, no in-line external links in articles, if you are basing something on a reference in a book please reference the full book informatin and the page number - I'm not happy with Gushi culture's references at all and you've had the same problems here. dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bidil of course is the first race-based pharmaceutical. Some people are very, very unhappy about this. The link is to the Web site of the pharmaceutical company which authoritatively describes the nature of the product.

"A great debate" is significant and significantly distinct from "some debate" -- and that this is a "great debate" is supported by the references which describe, "A major discussion has arisen recently...", "controversy", "biomedical scientists are divided in their opinions about race".

"Standard variable" is factual and alters the entire substance from being just one approach, to the nearly universal, mainstream approach.

But your attention to detail here is significant given the horrific condition in which I found the article -- objectivity-wise, organization-wise, prose-wise -- under your assumed dictatorship.

Some poetry about Europeans being mythologically-fascinated with the magical land of the Caucuses since ancient times sat there happy as you please. Anything suggesting a view other than the utter non-existence of any biological connection to human physical appearance is simply leapt upon. That's not good editorship. And not NPOV.

I'm going to stop trying to revert to my full rewrite, and make some more-modest edits to get the intro to describe what this word means today in the real world, to someone from Mars. I'm putting "great' and "standard" back in the medical section. Let's see how it gets skewed, a little more skewed, a little more skewed back...

BindingArbitration (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)BA

Well done. Adopting a gradualist approach is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I am afraid I am not going to be able to give you any more help here, as my stock of patience has been just about used up by your incessant rudeness and incivility. Sorry, but you are now on your own. Good luck. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to Gandalf61 for my dogged pursuit of this issue, if I have mistaken him for one of the people trying to bring a political agenda to the article.

BindingArbitration (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) BA