Talk:Caucasian race/Archive 4

Turkic & Stoddard
A user has been going around spamming various pages with a copy & paste on Turkic peoples. The material is completely offtopic here, undue, and none of the links even discuss the Caucasoid typology. The map by Lothrop Stoddard also pertains to his "brown race", concept not to Caucasoid typology like Coon's post-pleistocene map. Soupforone (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Turkics are part of Caucasian race. Do not delete entire sections just because you dont like it. The rules are clear when it comes to content worked on by others, respect the work of other people. Indonesia Tanah Airku (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Work or not, it is WP:OFFTOPIC. The only part of the rant that even had anything to do with Caucasoid typology was linked to some personal website on "Karakalpak Genetics". This is neither relevant, accurate or encyclopedic. Tellingly, when I tried to link to that website here, Wikipedia wouldn't even let me because it is flagged as spam by the system. Soupforone (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If your problem is only with "Karakalpak Genetics" and "flagged as spam" personal website which is I took from semi-protected Turkic peoples article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples#cite_note-162), you should just delete that paragraph, not the entire section. After all, Turkic peoples do have Caucasian genes, they should be put here. Indonesia Tanah Airku (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The only part of the passage that wasn't off-topic was the flagged "Karakalpak Genetics" bit. Anyway, I actually agree that at least a note on the main Caucasoid/West Eurasian ancestral components makes sense. However, an editor objected to this, so we agreed that the ancestral component stuff should instead go on Human evolutionary genetics. Soupforone (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Turkic people are indeed a part of the Caucasoid/Caucasian biological race/population group, and I do not see any conflict as per Wikipedia editing guidelines with this section being kept. This article is lacking the Tocharians or Tocharyan eastern Iranian Scythian people of Tarim Basin in what is now northwestern China, speakers of Saka language, in addition to some more central Asian Turkic peoples.  There are many genetic & archaeological studies of this, even more exciting ones which show conclusively that Siberian Europeans have been in the Americas for tens of thousands of years.  "Brown" people is a subdivision of Caucasoid/Caucasian that is only skin-deep and was only briefly accepted as per racism instead of racial academia.  Such has become more vogue nowadays due to anti-colonialism in reaction to overbearing Eurocentrism in an attempt to disassociate or disown European peoples by west & south Asians, especially where influenced by Marxist sociology in the West of western Eurasia (USA, UK, EU).  I would move for integration of this Turkic addition into the article in a less disjointed manner than that appended section provided, but of course keeping Dr Coon's map instead of Stoddard's attempt to divide "pale skin" from "melanated skin" due to his own prejudicial racism. W124l29 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be consistent, Laplander Saami Finnsch Nords, indigenous Siberian Europeans ancestral to indigenous or native Americans and likewise related to central Asian Caucasoid/Caucasians (eastern Iranian) aswell as "Mongoloid"/Asiatics (Turkish) might be also added if there are sources provided evidence to such an assertion is at all made even "sometimes". Though Europeans are not native to Europe persay, it is generally accepted that Europe & Australia are the only two continents inhabited by single macro-population groups. W124l29 (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

True, Turkish people are part of the Caucasoid spectrum. They are defined by a West Eurasian ancestral component, the same "Levantine" element as are other Near Easterners. However, Turkic peoples in Central Asia are not for the most part. They have marked East Asian skeletal and genetic affinities due to intermarriages during the various Mongol invasions. The Turkic passage is not wrong about that. It is, though, indeed quite clumsily presented. Perhaps you can suggest more encyclopedic wording here on the talk page? A brief mention of the Tocharians, Scythians and other early Indo-European groups in the steppes and Tarim Basin would make sense. Soupforone (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Though the Tocharians as Tocharians are not the same ethnic group today due to admixture with Turkic Mongoloid/Mongolians (east Asians, many central Asians), they survive today as part of the Uyghur peoples, a people markedly similar in appearance to Europeans & north-western Asians due to their depigmented form of the white skin gene (really, white & brown skin gene, but lest I digress). We'll need to scrounge for sufficient credible sources to survive future scrutiny, however, even though there is no proposal nor debate to any other biological origin for these peoples. W124l29 (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The premise of this discussion is wrong. Turkic people as a whole are a linguistic/ethnic assemblage of very different peoples. They can be of completely different genetic ancestry (and physical type, from "Mongoloid" to "Caucasoid", and everything in between), as long as they share language and culture. In the old physical anthropology sense, the "Turanid race" was a label given to some mainly Turkic-speaking populations that were of mixed Mongoloid and Caucasoid ancestry. That group could be mentioned here, but not an extremely wide ethno-linguistic group (and we sure shouldn't have a giant list of every single Turkic speaking ethnic group or a random man, as we do now). FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Soupforone (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
There is currently a slow edit war regarding a quote and the word "Georgian" in the description of an image. The content was removed by back on May 16. It was later restored by an IP editor, removed again by Oatitonimly, and then back and forth between and Oatitonimly. This needs to stop. Oatitonimly hasn't fully explained why they are removing the content (though they did mention the descriptor "Georgian" is not sourced). Nuclearcanadian is hounding Oatitonimly and assuming bad faith due to Oatitonimly's supposed nationality/ethnicity. Attempting dispute resolution here before moving to other venues.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Weasel
W124l29, please explain why you believe that the phrase "although its validity and utility are disputed by many social scientists" is an example of "damning with faint praise POV WP:WEASEL". It's not enough to just claim that it is. The link indicates as much too, so I don't follow your reasoning ("many social scientists have questioned the assumption that race is a scientific or objective reality, contending that it is forged from the discourses of politics, society, and history" ). You could perhaps argue that it is inaccurate. But a weasel phrase? Really? Also, without explanation it looks like WP:DRIVEBY tagging. Soupforone (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Forensics
There is no "Caucasoid race" in forensic science in the sense of all Europeans, West Asians, North Africans etc. While the term "Caucasoid" is used, it is more narrowly restricted to smaller populations. For example George Gill in his literature has distinguished European to "middle eastern" crania; "Caucasoid" in most forensic texts seems to be restricted to European ("White")populations (but not even all of them). Iliadic (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no combination of skeletal/phenotypic traits that cluster Europeans, West Asians and North Africans together. The main page mentions orthognathism, retreating cheekbones and narrow nose, yet none of these traits are found in the "Alpines" of old racial typology literature. Look at the main photo on that page - the "Alpine" man has a mesorrhine (medium size) nose, not leptorrhine (narrow) nose, and prognathism, not orthognathism etc. This means large numbers of central and eastern Europeans are not "Caucasoid" skeletally.Iliadic (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, a Caucasoid physical type is traditionally recognized within forensic anthropology. Moreover, in relation to other physical types, Caucasoids are indeed usually orthognathous and leptorrhine. Such crania also does generally cluster together. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at actual nasal index data here for skulls. Many population samples from Europe are not (mean) leptorrine (<47). You can also look at other scoring/measurements to see the "Caucasoid" label does not accurately capture European cranial variation. There is also no "Caucasoid" in the databases of FORDISC; the Norse (Norwegian) for example have different craniometric measurements than Zalavar (Hungarian), and Berg (Austrian). The problem with that dendogram of "major regional clusters" is it excludes many populations; when included, no large geographical clusters appear; this is the same with genetic data.Iliadic (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The latter nasal index is on fossil specimens whereas the one above is on the living, so an adequate parallel cannot be drawn. But the general principle holds true even when the nasal width alone is examined, as Caucasoids generally have the lowest values . That being said, the Fordisc program doesn't use Caucasoid nomenclature because it was originally designed for American ethnic groups . As with genetic data, confusion may also arise when populations of multiple ancestral origins are included, or when the skulls of subadults are analyzed (as they are not osteologically mature). However, while there certainly is much intra-group variation, Caucasoid skulls as a whole are craniometrically distinguishable from other physical types . Soupforone (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but even if you measure living, not all populations from Europe/West Asia/South Asia have (mean) nasal index <70; there are many exceptions. That's why "Caucasoid" in the sense I described is invalid and has no utility because it ignores the variation. Check also the indices on your last link, virtually none apply. For example that link says "Caucasoid" is mesocephalic, yet there are many (mean) brachycephalic European and West Asian populations. Take a look at the map on the cephalic index page. So how can a brachycephalic mesorrhine central European population be "Caucasoid", when "Caucasoid" is meant to be mesocephalic and leptorrhine? Iliadic (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a quote from physical anthropologist Alan Goodman should be added to the page for clarification; "As Alan H. Goodman [1997] notes, the 85 percent to 90 percent results are based on the accuracy of the method when standards are developed on a subset of a sample and then tested on the sample from which the subset is derived. That's basically my same point for "Caucasoid". When a forensic scientist claims to identify a "Caucasoid" up to 90% accuracy, he/she is using only a subset of a sample (probably Western Europeans). Similarly this has been observed for "Mongoloid" where: "physical anthropologists have noted that traits considered to be characteristic of the classical Mongoloid group were not derived from studies encompassing all of the populations that would be classified as Mongoloid." (Heard, A. N. (2008). "Non-Metric Assessment of Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry in the Forensic Context". M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State University) Iliadic (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, not every last Caucasoid group is perfectly leptorrhine. This, however, is beside the point since Caucasoids generally are in relation to other physical types. Likewise, with regard to the cephalic/cranial index, it is referring to the average range, not the absolute range. The Goodman caveat is okay, though. Soupforone (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Formatting-Layout
Something is wrong with the image gallery at the top right of the page. There's a grid of yellow-tinted portraits floating in the top right that overlap some other content on the page. There's also no caption with the grid of images to explain what they are. Clicking an image in the grid links here, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#/media/File:MPP-Iraaf.jpg

I don't know enough about wiki markup to be able to determine what's wrong. I'm hoping it will be a simple fix for someone with more experience. caseyh (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The layout looks fine on my screen. The captions are also in both the alt text and link-thrus. Please post a screenshot of what you are seeing on your screen through tinypic.com, and link to it here. Soupforone (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2016 (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)


 * Who are you calling a Marxist? Anyone I know personally who edits this page (that would be myself, only) is definitely not a Marxist. But what sources do you recommend for improving this article? Discussing ways to improve the article (rather than name-calling) is the purpose of an article talk page. What constructive suggestions do you have for the discussion here? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, name calling aside, I've synopsized the main ancestral components and their geographical hubs, associated populations and times of divergence. Soupforone (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've removed that since the genetic data is not relevant for the topic of this article since it does not purport to be about "the caucasian race" or suggest that the concept has any validity. I also removed the section on medicine on the same grounds. Any material included here has to be directly and specifically about "Caucasian" as a racial category. Not about more general ideas about European ancestry or phenotypical traits. I also removed a patently false claim about what physical anthropologists generally think about the putative Cro-Magnon origins of the "caucasian race".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The ancestral components are purported to have West Eurasian origins, which have been associated with Caucasoid ancestry. Cro-Magnons were also often posited as the earliest or prototypical representatives of the Caucasoid race. Soupforone (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources that talk about European genetic ancestry do not talk about the Caucasian race. You cannot simply transfer studies of European populations to the notion of the caucasian race, which has been abandoned as a meaningful biological category by contemporary population geneticists and physical anthropologists. If you have a source for Cro-Magnon being considered ancestral to the caucasian race then that should be added. But it should be described in the proper historical context. It is not the case that current physical anthropologists think this, since they generally do not recognize the existence of a caucasian race.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger Pearson is not a reliable source for physical anthropology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright; it was just some random anthropology treatise positing a Cro-Magnon prototype. Anyway, a number of these genetic studies do associate the West Eurasian origins for various ancestral components and lineages with Caucasoid ancestry . But point taken. Soupforone (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that random, his introduction to anthropological concepts is probably the only one from that period that considers race to be a valid biological category. Your two other sources are about Tuvinian and Iranian ancestry, not about Caucasian race. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, but they specifically associate West Eurasian origins with Caucasoid ancestry. One of them actually does so using parentheses. Soupforone (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I am not sure whether such a passing mention is sufficient to establish the point. The problem is of course that "caucasian race" is an obsolete concept, which has been superseded by other concepts in most fields (such a European ancestry), but which still is sometimes used somewhat ambiguously in some fields. You really have to be careful to not use wikipedia's voice to lend legitimacy to a concept that is no longer scientifically current.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the OP. It seems to me that user Maunus is controlling this Wikipedia page to the comfort of his or her bias, blacklisting sources subjectively, and I would suggest reporting any undue reversions not to "get him in trouble", but rather to push away from socio-political bias in favor of objective facts. Wikipedia is not, and should not, be opinion-based. Education should not be opinion-based. Any opinion based not upon objective fact may aswell not exist at all, as one should be left to create opinions based upon such information, rather than be told what to think or be afraid of what prejudicial action might arise from such truth. An example, with regard to this article, where it could be expanded: the south-western Asian Indian sub-continent has indeed been found to genetically be related to the Australian aborigines via C Y-DNA haploid lineage, which is not ambiguous nor "outdated"—as new scientific knowledge—and only the understanding of biological race is outdated, but not the concept. There is a great socio-political reactionary anti-colonial anti-Indo-Aryan-European anti-Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) movement in India, et al, a nationalist & nativist movement, to recognize that the peoples there are, in the South especially, descended from indigenous Indians (not to be confused with indigenous Americans, at C3 Y-DNA, Inuit being a child-race, child-population group, of Caucasians, being Q1a3a divergent at P cluster circa 35thousand years ago, where Inuit language has been hypothesized to be Nostratic, of the greater Caucasian linguistic macrofamily), where Indians are H, L, C, & Indo-Aryan M, subdivision of Caucasian, Caucasoid, Indo-Aryan-European, one of three proven divisions of the Caucasian biological race as mentioned within the article. To that point, east Asians, "Mongoloids", are descended from Caucasians as a child-race, from central Asians, distinct from east Asians as a closely related population group, from Siberian Caucasians & Polynesians, where Siberian Caucasians are closely related to northern Africans, from Libyans to Egyptians to Ethiopians (black Caucasians), where skin-color has been found to only vary by latitude & altitude, though there is strong support for a combination of Out of Africa theory, Into Africa, & multi-origin hypothesis in contemporary academia, which does fall in-line with so-called "outdated" academia. I would refer to the Race (human categorization) aswell as Race (humans) as a biological concept articles within Wikipedia. Further to that point, sub-Saharan African populations have been found to be separate biological races, with separate archaic origin, separate linguistic families, et al, where there is no "sub-Saharan Negroid race", though there is a Caucasian race with single origin. The greatest genetic variety exists within sub-Saharan Africa, population group-to-population group, where individual genetic variance only exists from family to family—not literally by an individual basis. This article needs to be brought out of the 19th century and into evolving science & academia instead of Marxist-influenced sociological & socio-political sensitivities, per Wikipedia NPOV. W124l29 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would further challenge anyone to provide a counter-arguement which even so much as suggests how two non-related population groups share languages or dialects proven to be from the same origin.W124l29 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps provide the sources on which you base your own opinion? Particularly I would like to see the sources for the "fact" that there are "three proven divisions of the caucasian biological race", that "mongoloids are a "child race of Caucasians", and that the Inuit languages have been hypothesized to be part of a greater "Caucasian language family". Given your strong faith in the scientific and objective nature of these conclusions I assume they have been recently published in highly reliable scientific journals and met with general approval among population geneticists and linguists.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Nostratic_languages Nostratic_languages Nostratic_languages Nostratic_languages [] Race_and_genetics History_of_human_migration Early human migrations  When biological race is removed from controversy about differences in performance, cognitively or physically, between two individuals of two distinct macro-population groups, races, as opposed to sub-population groups, ethnicities, or even more divided, nationality or political boundary, subculture, &c, region, et al, then those population groups have been found to share the same cultural connections: linguistics, religions, clothing, cuisines, traditions, symbolism, history, but not necessarily skin-color—where such is dependent upon geographical latitude & altitude, admixture between archaic Humanoids theorized at the base level as aforementioned within another comment, but more climatic regardless.  There are “black” (pigmented), “brown”, & “white” (depigmented) Caucasians as there are “black” (pigmented), “brown”, & “white” (depigmented) east Asians & central Asians ("Mongoloids").  It is agreed generally that those divisions by skin-color are socially constructed fallacies, created when our academia & natural science was not so informed as it has become, and perpetuated by lay ignorance & preconceived bias.  Those biological races have been proven to exist under such a definition, fact, by history, anthropology, &c, aswell as newer genetic studies regarding Human migration, evolution, & genetic genealogy, where biological race, again to emphasize, is not sub-species, but population group, though, again, admixture between archaic Humanoids theorized at the base level as aforementioned within another comment in combination with Out of Africa & Into Africa theories, specifically regarding E Y-DNA haplotype—less-so J Y-DNA haplotype—which in combination with northern E represents the majority of northern Africa aswell as a portion of southern Europe & non-Indo-Aryan Middle East, near East, western Asia, what have you, as Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic ethnic groups.  Such archaic admixture suggests that Humans are able to mate successfully with other sub-species; furthermore, as to which skin-color, tone, pigmentation, ancient Humans were prior to Out of Africa, archaic Humanoids were, though Neanderthals are thought to have had “brown” or “white” skin & blue eye-mutation, red-hair-mutation, and whether there were differences between their skin-colors is both an unknown to consensus to my knowledge & irrelevant.  That aside, there is only division within the USA, where such is a socio-political controversy due to implications historically of such academia being studied, with focus on biological race as sub-species instead of macro-population group, and such censorship is a cultural Marxist initiative in sociology—a term which I use very specifically, and not as a lay pejorative.  Sociology is not a science, but a subjective interpretation of sciences when combined, no?  Without being derailed entirely, I would have you & anyone else please consider again where within paragraph Caucasian_race, the latter views of Dr Carleton S Coon have been found correct via genetics Haplogroup_CF_(Y-DNA):
 * 19th century classifications of the peoples of India considered the Dravidians of non-Caucasoid stock as Australoid or a separate Dravida race, and assumed a gradient of miscegenation of high-caste Caucasoid Aryans and indigenous Dravidians. In his 1939 The Races of Europe, Carleton S. Coon thus described the Veddoid race as "possess[ing] an obvious relationship with the aborigines of Australia, and possibly a less patent one with the Negritos" and as "the most important element in the Dravidian-speaking population of southern India".[26] In his later The Living Races of Man (1965), Coon considerably amended his views, acknowledging that "India is the easternmost outpost of the Caucasoid racial region". However, he still recognized an Australoid substrate throughout the subcontinent, writing that "the earliest peoples who have left recognizable survivors were both Caucasoid and Australoid food gatherers. Some of the survivors are largely Caucasoid; others are largely Australoid."[27]
 * To the point of Dr Carleton S Coon simply being called "Carleton Coon" or "Carleton S. Coon" within the article aswell as his Wikipedia article, is there a reason other than Google statistics as to why he is never addressed as being a doctor? http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/06/obituaries/carleton-s-coon-is-dead-at-76-pioneer-in-social-anthropology.html W124l29 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't use titles for any academics per the style guide (Manual_of_Style/Biographies). You are simply linking to the wikipedia articles on Nostratic. However, it so happens that the nostratic theory is not widely accepted by historical linguists at all - it is entirely speculative and papers on the Nostratic hypothesis are not published in most reputable journals. As for the potential vindication of Coon's racial classification, the burden rests on you to show that modern population genetics uses his classification - as far as I know they do not use it at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that you have not addressed a single comment of mine in above responses, and instead have focused upon Nostratic not being widely accepted within textbook-academia. I never stated that it was.  In fact, I see that I wrote specifically '[...]hypothesized to be Nostratic, of the greater Caucasian linguistic macrofamily[...]', where Inuit is 'hypothesized to be Nostratic'.  Nostratic is by no means "speculative", and is indeed published in reputable journals.  There is only lack of consensus being as that there are competing theories, and not that Nostratic is in anyway considered fringe.  The field is linguistics, and if nothing were ever studied for want of "general consensus" in every field, then the field would not exist.  There would be nothing to study.  Nothing would ever be published.  Again, Nostratic is very much an existing linguistic family, and I linked you directly to sources on each respective page.  This is not a public edit, but a talk page, and I don't need to source here at the least my statements any further than I decide to.  Sincerely, the burden rests upon you to provide sources for your statements against mine all the same.W124l29 (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See, Race_and_genetics https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/The_history_and_geography_of_human_genes_Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza_map_genetic.png. Note, furthermore, that Dr Coon is not generally considered to be disreputable as a source even in contemporary academia, something which I've seen you claim on this article & elsewhere.W124l29 (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Carleton Coon's racial typology is considered pseudoscientific in mainstream academia, and you simply could not get a paper published in a mainstream journal that tried use his work as an authoritative source of information about human biological variation. None of your claims about Nostratic or racial typology are actually supported by sources, so untill you provide some I will just ignore you. Your opinions unsupporred by reliable sources are utterly irrelevant and I will not waste more time on argueing with them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now, you're simply typing with an authoritative tone yourself without any evidence for any of your claims. Where Dr Coon was an academic, he is an academic source until you can prove otherwise, where you are not an academic authority.  The burden does not rest upon anyone else but you, User:Maunus.  I'll openly type that it is nice, furthermore, that your denialist death-grip on this article's content WP:POV is at last loosening as more people edit it WP:NPOV.  Everything that I've written is objective fact.  Toodles. W124l29 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The process through which racial typology was outphased and a population view of human variation was introduced, and through which Coon's work was made obsolete is one of the better documented chapters of the history of physical anthropology. You can try to read these:
 * Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 65-76.
 * Marks, J. (2010). The two 20th-century crises of racial anthropology. Histories of American physical anthropology in the twentieth century, 187-206.
 * Keita, Shomarka OY, and Rick A. Kittles. "The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence." American Anthropologist 99, no. 3 (1997): 534-544.
 * Relethford, J. H. (2010). Race and the Conflicts within the Profession of Physical Anthropology during the 1950s and 1960s. Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century, 207-219.
 * Jackson Jr, J.P., 2001. “In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's The Origin of Races. Journal of the History of Biology, 34(2), pp.247-285.
 * Goodman, A., & Hammonds, E. (2000). Reconciling race and human adaptability: Carleton Coon and the persistence of race in scientific discourse. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, 28-44.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Race as a macro-population group of shared ancestry, genetics, origin, & cultural heritage is exactly what I believe in, and there is no consensus to the contrary. There are two commonly defined viewpoints of race accepted, one of which has changed over time as I've conceded, and the other a sociological definition as one might understand on the sidewalk (that race does not exist except as a fallacious social construct and/or illusion, that everyone shares the same history as everyone else, or that such is irrelevant and should not be pursued further due to the possibility of racist action or thought, a moralistic fallacy), put forth by Karl Marx à la cultural Marxism as founder of contemporary sociology and so more popular in the Americas alone where racism has made study of genetics, history, linguistics, & anthropology, all as related, controversial.  Dr Coon was not made "obsolete" in that his work is viewed as "pseudo-" or "fringe", but that his work has been expanded upon & improved upon as has any field of academia or natural science.  To argue that such studies are now "obsolete" in that way is the same logical twist as if hypothetically a fundamentalist Creationist were to tell a Darwinist that evolution does not exist due to the field not being consistent in knowledge and so understanding from Day One. W124l29 (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Why create more irrelevant outdated mythology around the Basques on this Caucasoid wikipedia page, like this:

«In 1920, H. G. Wells referred to the Mediterranean race as the Iberian race. He regarded it as a fourth sub-race of the Caucasoid race, along with the Aryan, Semitic, and Hamitic sub-races. He stated that the main ethnic group that most purely represented the racial stock of the Iberian race was the Basques, and that the Basques were the descendants of the Cro-Magnons.»

Actually this was not supported by other authors and not by further studies AFAIK. And each author may have their own conception about the closest living relatives of cromagnon. Further studies state that Basques are strongly Baskid (at least, for the majority) Dinarid and Keltid influenced. Nothing about early Mediterraneans or cromagnon. In Youtube there are several videos like Basque the only true europeans, the earliest europeans, that use one or 2 very old authors and that reshus negative theory, which is sadly a mutation that would be unwanted in the past.

At least here, please spare us, from more Basque patriotic and unscientific claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Reorganizing
The article was confusing the many different historical classifications and physical definitions, so I am going to reorganize the article to maintain a better distinction between the historical development of the concept, and the current use and understanding. The history section is currently empty between Blumenbach and Coon, so that needs to be filled out. Then I think we need a separate section on the use of the concept in contemporary forensic anthropology, which should include the anatomical traits that forensic anthropologists consider "Caucasoid". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymological derivation of the appellation Caucasoid comes from the Greek eidos (meaning "form", "shape", "resemblance"). Soupforone (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have readded your helpful etymology section, after removing your other detrimental changes which misrepresent the topic and makes the article non-neutral. If you reinsert it, I will have to start a neutrality discussion in a wider forum.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead illustration
I have removed the rather bad photo of a map in a museum. Apart from being ugly and badly taken, the photo is not very informative or relevant for the topic - there is nothing to indicate that the map is particularly noteworthy in relation to the concept at hand or that the museum is particularly well regarded for its information regarding race. Blumenbach's drawing is both more historically relevant, and much more pleasant to look at.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Blumenbach archetypal skull is already illustrated further down. There is no need to duplicate it, so I've moved it down and placed at the top a Caucasoid skull from the National Museum of Health and Medicine. Soupforone (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is a beautiful drawing that deserves a close-up as well as being represented in contrast to Blumenbach's other types. But I am open to considering other images if they are nicer. I can't see the one you are alluding to? It would also be great with an image that can be used to describe the distinctive features of "Caucasian" crania from the forensics viewpoint, as contrasted with the Asian and African cranial features (eye shapes, nose shapes, prognathism etc.).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cranial
I've reworded the awkward lead phrase "in biological anthropology the term was earlier used as a cover term for different phenotypical groups in these different regions, but focusing on skeletal, and particularly cranial, anatomy rather than traits such as skin tone" to the more succinct "in biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, over skin tone." I linked the phrase to Pickering since Bhopal does not mention cranial morphology, nor is there a page number for Baum. Further, Bhopal alludes to Caucasian usage in U.S. medicine and epidemiological publications rather than in the entire Anglosphere, so I've substituted "in English" with "United States". I've also noted that complexion varied as per Blumenbach. Soupforone (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, that is a better phrasing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian isn't a race, it's an ethnicity
Name of article should be altered. ScienceApe (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It has become an ethnic term of sorts in the US only, referring to "white people" in general, but that is not how the term is used in the rest of the world. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be the opposite then? "White people" being a race, it's a racial term in US, but an ethnic term everywhere else. ScienceApe (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Caucasian also isnt an ethnicity in the US, there is no Caucasian language, culture, or political identity or idea of shared ethnic heritage. The source of confusion is the fact that in the US "ethnicity" is used as a euphemism for "race".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"there is no Caucasian language"

Not exactly true. "Caucasian languages" is a generic term for what Wikipedia calls Languages of the Caucasus. A geographic grouping of three unrelated language families: Kartvelian languages (also known as South Caucasian), Northeast Caucasian languages, and Northwest Caucasian languages. They have nothing to do with racial classifications, but more accurately reflect the cultural and linguistic situation in the Caucasus. Dimadick (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

South Asia Reference?
Why do South Asians need to be referenced as 'Caucasian' in the first paragraph? They are more Caucasian than most Central Asians who are Mongoloid and people from the Arabian Peninsular who are mixed with Sub-Saharan African ("Negroid") ancestry which is quite visible in their appearance. Plus people from the Horn of Africa are not Caucasian at all. A Pakistani and a Somali look quite different both genetically and phenotypically. !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.202.119 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caucasian race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20050225133107/http://www.snpa.nordish.net/racesofeurope.htm to http://www.snpa.nordish.net/racesofeurope.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Meyer's Konversationsleksikon illustration
The prominent inclusion of this illustration and its color-coding of "races" lends undue prominence to a specific outdated historical construction of the "caucasian race" - and it is misleading to the reader. If the map is appropriate for the article (if it is a particularly notable example of the use of the concept) then it should be further down and it should be the object of critical analytic commentary in the text and caption. Specifically the color coding and legend makes the map appear as if it is interesting for the information that it contains rather than to serve as an illustration of an antiquated ideas.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really follow that reasoning, but fine. I've moved the map lower down. Soupforone (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you are doing is not sufficiently showing the difference between the outdated racial typologization and the modern perspectives on racial typologies, your edits seem very apt to mislead readers into believing that these typologies are scientifically valid.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please no ad hominem. Many scientists believe in the reality of racial differentiation and many don't. It is not our place as Wikipedians to take sides on this matter. Soupforone (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not making any ad hominems so don't make that accusation, I am noting that your edits do not sufficiently distinguish between historical analysis and current knowledge. No current scientists believe in 19th century racial typologies, and the article should not pretend that they do. What modern forensic anthropologists mean when they identify "caucasians" and "mongoloids" is not at all the same as what Meyer's Konversationsleksikon meant by those terms. It is our place as wikipedians to make it clear to our readers what is current knowledge and understandings of a topic and what is not, you are not doing a sufficiently good job of this here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your perspective now. However, I still did not claim any of the above. Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you made a claim, I am saying you did not adequately make a distinction which is very different - but still important. I think the article could do well with being restructured in a way that makes it clear which uses of the concept are historical and which are current - and why the historical uses are no longer considered valid. For example this requires a discussion of the difference between the typological view of biological race and the modern genomic/population-based view of biological race - as well as a more adequate description of the mainstream view that the idea of a distinct "caucasian" race is invalidated by current understandings of biological variation. For example most physical anthropologists would argue that forensic anthropologists are identifying the physical signs of geographic ancestry which also tend to co-vary with social racial classifications, but which do not produce those classifications.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Forensic anthropology evolved from early craniometry, so its methods/measurements are often still the same or similar (albeit more sophisticated) and cannot be divorced from those roots. Anyway, discussion of the difference between the forensic anthropology and socially progressive positions on biological race is more relevant to the race categorization page. We also have to be careful not to confuse either of these positions with the default Wikipedia position. Soupforone (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No it is also relevant here that these positions be adequately summarized. Every wikipedia article needs to give priority to the mainstream view of a topic - and here the mainstream view is that "caucasian" is a socially constructed label applied to people with visible European ancestry in some historical contexts and in some countries - the article currently does not do a good job at conveying this, because it looses itself in details about how the concept was understood in olden days. The more images of "subtypes" and colorcoded maps and summaries of classifications from Blumenbach to Coon we put in, the bigger this imbalance gets. Additionally, I think it is quite false to say that forensic anthropology cannot be divorced from early craniometry, that may be true in terms of methods, but certainly not in terms of theoretical understandings, forensice anthropologists are educated in physical anthropology programs for the most part where they certainly will not be studying the "differences" between "alpine" and "arabid" subtypes of "caucasoids".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the Caucasian=European meme, a primarily U.S. social trope. It's briefly touched on, and explained in greater detail on the relevant white people page. In the Caucasoid race of traditional physical anthropology, the subject at hand, skin color was usually subordinate to osteological morphology since many such individuals were naturally, deeply pigmented . That being said, I can understand how two files of the alpine subtype would seem excessive, so I've removed one and the attached arabid file. What I meant by forensic anthropology cannot be divorced from its roots is indeed primarily via its methods/measurements, but also certain theoretical aspects . Soupforone (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a meme it is a (social) reality, that "arabids" or brown skinned "mediterraneans" will not typically be described as "caucasians" in either the US or Europe - except perhaps in a purely osteological sense in forensic anthropology, but this is not by far the primary sense of the term "caucasian race". The article needs to cover also the social everyday sense of the word "caucasian" as a racial descriptor, such as in "the suspect is a 40-year old caucasian male", which is not typically based on osteological measurements or any particular typological scheme but is simply a shorthand for "looks European". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the modern U.S.-specific (not global) social construct of white people, which is discussed in greater detail on that more relevant page. This page is on the traditional caucasian race of physical anthropology, as its categorization indicates. Soupforone (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we dont do content forks like that at Wikipedia. You cannot separate the historical understandings out and treat them separately from the contemporary understandings of the concept. Incidentally, I just looked for Forensic Anthro textbooks and the first two I found did not use the term Caucasian, and clearly stated that racial groupings have both socio-cultural and biological components. Showing again why the segregation of the sociocultural race concept and the biological one is not possible in this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from Caucasian specifically rather than Caucasoid. In the U.S., Caucasian denotes both the Caucasoid race of traditional physical anthropology and, in a different social context, persons of European ancestry. However, Caucasoid denotes almost exclusively the traditional race of physical anthropology. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the page should therefore probably be renamed to Caucasoid, as with Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid. Soupforone (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, those "-oid" terms are even more dated than "caucasian", also in forensic anthropology. We shouldn't have articles on outdated racial concepts separate from the modern views, that is per dfinition a violation of the rule against POVforks. One of the forensics textbooks by the way just used "white" the other used a mix of European and once "caucasian race", but not caucasoid.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You wholesale reverted my changes to the lead, I have reinserted them because they are necessary, in light of the above discussion. The edits accomplish several things: 1. they make it clear that the populations "included" under the label depend entirely on which of the many different past classifications one follows. 2. they make it clear that the term is generally used as a synonym for "white" - indeed one forensics book uses the term "white" where one might have excpedted "caucasian". 3. They make it clear that it is a wide consensus view that a. humans do not have "types" they have populations in which traits vary and covary, b. that racial categories are social categories that divide biological traits into classes - i.e. they are both biological and cultural (this is not an AAA view, but is also the view found in most genetics textbooks, and even in the first two forensic anthropology textbooks I found online). 4. It gets rid of odd references like Berthier-Foglar et al which is not really about this topic, and Pickering (whose quote is simply his own opinion but clearly not representative of wider forensic anthropology) and replaces them with Caspari (which is a masterful overview of the history of the field of physical anthropology and human variation in the 20th century, and a forensics textbook and an article that critiques the forensic use of racial categories). They make it clear that not all forensice anthropologists use the term "caucasian" and that the primary use of the concept in forensics is to identify the ancestry of human remains.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A few quick points: (1) The phrasing "usually including some or all of the ancient and modern populations of..." works better since it implies that, although the classifications have varied, they generally constituted these groups. The historical race concepts page was also already linked a phrase or so below; no need to link to it twice. (2) Rachel Caspari is a member of the American Anthropological Association, her work was published by the AAA, and she now serves as the president of the AAA's Biological Anthropology Section. She is therefore not neutral on the AAA/forensic anthropology issue. (3) The Caucasian=European trope is used in a social context in the U.S. primarily. Elsewhere, Caucasian first and foremost translates as natives of the Caucasus region (its original meaning). The note on the alternate U.S.-specific usage is thus undue in the lead. (4) Pickering's assertion that Caucasoid is still used in forensic anthropology is accurate, but C. A. Roberts explains the situation more succinctly ). In the anthropological traditions of many areas outside the U.S., Caucasoid as a biological entity is also still widely acknowledged (ex. ). Ergo, the AAA does not equal the U.S., and the U.S. does not equal the world. Soupforone (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. then unlink it in its second usage, it is important that it be established in the definition that this is primarily a historical concept and that the question of which populaitons it has included depends on which historical source you follow. 2. Being a member or president of AAA does not mean that she is not "neutral"m that is nonsense it is a review article reviewing a historical development, not stating her own opinions. The source provides history of the usage of race concept describing how the typological race classification was abandoned (which it also is in forensics I reiterate) Caspari is the best possible source for the development of the views in bio anth and in general. It is therefore a misrepresentation to say "social scientists" and it is a gross misrepresentation to say "some" - there is no current field of science that operates with a classic typological view of race. (note that a "typological view" means the tendency to see them as discrete types that can be labeled, todays biological race concept is of "genomic population clusters" which is extremely different in its implications) 3. It is fine to mention the etymology and that it tends to refer to people of Caucasus outside of the US. It is not undue in the lead since it is by far the most common usage AND ecause the article is about the "caucasian race" which I am sure any one anywhere who speaks English (language of this encyclopedia) is able to understand as referring either to "white people" or to "caucasoids" depending on their training. The lead by the way should summarize the article and there is a section specifically on US usage. Again I reiterate, it is not just the AAA that has moved away from typological race concepts to a population based genomic one - it is everyone, also forensic anthropologists, biologists and geneticists, and even the minority of American physical anthopologists who believe race is primarily biological. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) The historicity of the concept was already established via the linked phrase "first introduced in early racial concepts and anthropometry". Alright, though; that is a minor point anyway. (2) The fact that Caspari is not only an AAA member but a president of the AAA does mean that she is not a neutral observer on the AAA/forensic anthropology issue, as she has a vested interest/promotional stake in the matter. With regard to the AAA and Unesco statements on race, Walsh and Yun (2011) also point out that "the science involved in the development of these two statements was predominantly social science". (3) That is inaccurate. There is no uniformity worldwide among professional anthropologists as to the existence of biological race. Lieberman et al. (2004) examined various global surveys attempting to calibrate this, and found that opposition to biological race was highest among anthropologists in the United States and Canada, moderate in Europe (higher in the West, lower in the East), moderately low in Latin America (lowest in Cuba), low in Russia, and virtually non-existent in China. Walsh and Yun (2011) summarized these anthropological surveys as follows-- "The distaste for race appears to be confined to Western anthropologists, however. A study of Polish physical anthropologists found that 75 percent of them agreed that human races are a reality (Kaszycka and Strzalko, 2003). The concept also appears alive and well among Chinese anthropologists. Examining a large number of Chinese anthropological articles about human variation, Wang, Strkali, and Sun (2003:403) found that "all of the articles used the race concept and none of them questioned its value." Therefore, the AAA's position should not be presented as though it is the default global position among professional anthropologists when it certainly is not. Soupforone (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The biological concept of race and the typological concept of race are two different things - no one defends the latter today, only the former (in a genomic-population based construction). What chinese anthropologists may believe about race in their hearts is irrelevant for all our intents and purposes unless they publish it in the major journals of the profession - and their views are of no consequence for the development of the wider field untill they do. Secondly, It is absurd to attempt to disqualify the opinion of a renowned anthropologist on the basis of her holding a distinguished office in the main professional organization of her discipline. The AAA is not an advocacy group but a professional organization, and probably the, majority of forensic anthropologists in the US are members of the organization that Caspari is president of. The idea that there are fundamental differences between forensic and physical anthropology is wildly exaggerated - as the fact that the first two forensics textbbooks i found clearly agreed with her position. Your attempt to marginalize the view that typological race is antiquated and no longer used by making it appear as if it is exclusive to the AAA is wildly inaccurate and tendentious - the same view is held by a biologists and geneticists who are not members of the AAA and are the standard view in genetics textbooks as well as forensic anthrpology textbooks. Typological race concepts are dead. Genomic race concepts are being debated. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote above that there is no uniformity worldwide among professional anthropologists as to the existence of biological race. That also wasn't my opinion, but rather data points by Lieberman et al. and Walsh & Yun. Anyway, carry on believing what you want - the global anthropological surveys are what they are. Soupforone (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-reiterate: I am not talking about "biological race" which is indeed a topic of current debate, but about the typological view of biological race which is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope to participate more in the coming weeks, but very briefly I have read a number of links provided here to presumably indicate Caspari's view of race does not accurately represent US professional anthropological opinion, nor that of anthropologists globally. However, the papers linked indicate that globally, anthropologists view race as an effectively obsolete term for describing human beings, and prefer instead terms like "population." Those terms are borrowed from population ecology, and this reflects the fact that modern conceptions of human diversity are formed by genetic data collected over the last two decades. Some variation on the term "caucasian" and its continued use do not imply in any way that anthropologists still regard the term "race" as a valid descriptor for human biological diversity. -Darouet (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This may seem politically incorrect but I have to say it: The West's stance on physical anthropology will generally have have more weight since its tradition is much greater than other cultures. And today the West produces not only the most cited and peer reviewed works but they are the ones who advanced the field more. So the opinion of anthropologists in China or Poland is irrelevant. What matters, like the expert in this discussion has pointed, is what is in the journals not in the scientists mind in some other countries. As per Wikipedia's Scientific standards, not all claims have equal weight. I quote: "The weight given to each view should be proportional to the published articles in high-impact journals on a subject supporting each view according to the number of citations such articles receive" This is a non discussion regarding Wikipedia's policy. Western anthropologist claims matter more as a whole since their work are more cited in this domain. Again this may not sound politically correct but not all claims, not all countries have equal weight. CaliphoShah (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry based classification is social?
Surely ancestry based classification is standard Darwinian biology? Are we using the best sources? Robert the Noose (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, but the concept "caucasian" not ancestry based, but an anatomical typology which may at times have a reasonable correlation with ancestry, and at other times not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caucasian race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020105628/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020105628/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020105628/http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Painter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

wow. scared much?
i never saw an article written so gingerly. Fegut (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What practical suggestions do you have to improve the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Judging by his illustrious contributions so far (overt racism) I expect he'd prefer to see historical race classifications presented here as accepted, modern, scientific fact. It's good that he's foolish enough willing to show up on a talk page and raise a red flag himself though. nagualdesign 03:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? This editor has done us all a great service by pointing out that the poet Allan Ginsberg was a "purveyor of filth and a Jew", and making it quite clear for the uninformed that the Roma people are "vermin".Neo-Nazi much, Fergut? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The part I found amusing was his transparent attempts on his user page to pretend he's a stereotypical Jewish American-Israeli with 7 businesses and 15 children, and an advisor to numerous Democrat political campaigns. If only he'd opened with mazel tov and added that he was a lawyer and his favourite foods were brisket and gefilte fish I definitely would have believed it. Oy vey! nagualdesign 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Imagine, he does all that stuff, and still has time to be a racist dick on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology vs History of the Concept
Hi, in this edit and the original drafting a year ago you added a sentence which is now also at Caucasian_race. Do you prefer it in the note or in the body?

My view is that the "History of the Concept" section covers the same ground as "Etymology" (our wikipedia article says "Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time"); the only bit which is not covered in the main body is the difference between the -ian and -oid endings, which feels to me a grammatical footnote rather than the first sentence of the article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * History of the concept and the etymology of the word are two separate things that overlap only at the point wherre Meiners defined the concept. The problem here is that the etymology section is mostly about current usage. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maunus. Why do you think they only overlap at that moment? I had considered that since "etymology" covers "how their form and meaning have changed over time", there is a lot of (full?) overlap with "history of the concept". Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because etymology is the history of the elements that a word is coined from - the meaning of the elements that the word consists of. The history of the concept however is not the word, but the way it is actually used in historically documented contexts. The etymology of the word is that it originally meant the region of Kaúkasos in ancient greek, which probably came from a meaning of "snowy" about the landscape. Once the word was tied to the racial category that concept has its own history which is not etymology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not correct - etymology means both the "study of the roots" and the "history of the concept". See for example the (meta!) etymology of etymology: "As a modern branch of linguistic science treating of the origin and evolution of words, from 1640s. As "account of the particular history of a word" from mid-15c."
 * See also Yakov Malkiel's Etymology monograph - chapter 1 explains how the meaning of the word etymology has itself evolved to cover both concepts.


 * Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The history of a word and the histpory of the concept are two different things. A word is a lingiustic unit, a concept is a unit of meaning that is part of an historical context. IN anycase in wikipedia our etymology sections only cover the history of the word as lexical unit, not as a concept within a cultural history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be more precise: the "etymology" section should include the kind of information you would expect to find in an etymological dictionary. The "history of the concept" section should include the kind of informaiton you would expect to find in a book about the cultural history of a thing or concept.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve worked on many of wikipedia’s etymology sections and have never taken this view. I think this contravenes WP:NAD. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I am enjoying this discussion but I don’t understand the distinction you are drawing. Here is what Richard Goodman (writer) has to say on the topic:

This explanation conflates “concept / meaning” with “word” in the deepest possible sense.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

""Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" as a biological classification remains in use in forensic anthropology"
Hi, in this edit from last year you added a couple of references to support the above sentence. Please could you provide supporting quotes from the two references? The two references are online below:
 * http://www.academia.edu/1557585/Understanding_race_and_human_variation_Why_forensic_anthropologists_are_good_at_identifying_race
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=6-YcDQAAQBAJ

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is literally in the first paragraph of the Ousley/Jantz/Fried paper. The edition of Byers you link to is the 2017 fifth edition which is not the one I cited and in which it seems that the description of racial categories has been revised so that it now uses the terms "white" and "black" for people of mainly european or mainly african descent. This is an example of the ongoing move away from using this terminology also in the field of forensic anthropology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maunus. The text says "Although a shift in terminology has been underway in forensic an-thropology, with ‘‘ancestry’’ used more often in place of ‘‘race,’’ in many case reports the classic physical anthro-pology terms such as ‘‘Caucasoid,’’ ‘‘Mongoloid,’’ or ‘‘Negroid’’ are still seen". I will amend the article sentence to reflect this sentence more closely.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be silly, because if you google other introductions to forensic antropology you will see that the terms are in fact still in use by many forensic anthropologists, some even make a point of using them instead of the newer usages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Semantically speaking, the term race appears to pertain to the individual and has largely been succeeded in physical anthropology by the more impersonal term ancestry. The distinction between these terms is considered to be important. Race may be regarded as a “socially constructed mechanism for self identification and group membership” and so biologically meaningless, whereas ancestry is a “scientifically derived descriptor of the biological component of population variation” (Konigsberg et al. 2009: 77–78). So, why do the rather politically sensitive terms Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid still appear in published literature (Ousley et al. 2009)? There are considered to be four basic ancestry groups into which an individual can be placed by physical appearance, not accounting for admixture: the sub-Saharan African group (“Negroid”), the European group (“Caucasoid”), the Central Asian group (“Mongoloid”), and the Australasian group (“Australoid”). The rather outdated names of all but one of these groups were originally derived from geography: The Caucasoid group traversed the Caucasus Mountains as they spread into Europe and eastern Asia. Since the majority of native peoples from the Indian subcontinent, northern and northeastern Africa and the Near East fall into this group, to say that the group is of “European” ancestry does not really suffice. Plus, the terms Caucasoid or Caucasian do not have the same oppressive, persecutory connotations as the other terms and so are less likely to cause offense." (Sue Black, Eilidh Ferguson. 2011. Forensic Anthropology: 2000 to 2010. CRC Press, p. 127-27 )


 * "Race is both a cultural and a biological term. For more than a century, scientists and philosophers have tried to define race and describe races. Some scientists define only three races: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid, while other scientists have defined more than 10. In our current climate of multicultural sensitivity, some scholars, not forensic anthropologists, suggest that race does not exist, or at least it should not be talked about....From the forensic perspective, using the “three-race” model still has some value in describing broad genetic and morphological characteristics. This model is used by many people to describe themselves and others. Therefore, it falls to the forensic investigator to use the term defined by the model in trying to identify the dead. The model is not perfect, but it does help us understand some of the variation in shape and form on some parts of the skeleton, particularly the skull." (Robert B. Pickering, David Bachman. 2009. The Use of Forensic Anthropology. CRC Press, pp. 82-83)

Here are other recent books that continue to use the terminology in the forensic context:, [ https://books.google.dk/books?id=aWbdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&dq=forensic+anthropology+caucasian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP-Ovj0PDZAhXOIlAKHdeSAZM4FBDoAQg1MAI#v=onepage&q=forensic%20anthropology%20caucasian&f=false There is no consensus as to whether forensic anthropologists or osteologists should include assesments of 'race' or ancestry in skeletal reports as according to Iscan and Steyn it seems to remain tentative at best.111 As of the osteological range present little difficulty, as Brothwell usual, those at the extreme ends remarks ... usual warnings about dogmatic opinions are even more important in this field....here are three main racial groups: Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid.] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * These are excellent sources, thanks for finding these. I would like to add these sources in, with short quotes in the reference, as well as in the Negroid and Mongoloid articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The uptake I think is that the consensus that the terms are to be avoided is slowly spreading to forensic anthropology, but that there are still forensic scientists who use them fpor the part of their job to associate remains with a cultural group.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think your recent edits are good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There was some WP:CITEKILL as well as a few partisan & non-forensic phrases, but otherwise most of it looks okay. Soupforone (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood WP:ADVOCACY which does not prohibit us from citing or quoting sources that advocate a viewpoint, but only from presenting their viewpoint as wikipedias. Just like the two forensic anthropologists quote argue that the use of the term caucasian may be justified, the opposing view, that the classifier should be abandoned, are also relevant for the articles. An author expressing an opinion about an issue does not make a source partisan, and also does not mean that we cannot use the source. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that the authors' opinions that "it is high time we got rid of the word Caucasian", "there is no legal reason to use it", etc. actually pertain to the wikiphrase on criticism in American English rather than to the phrase in Wikipedia's voice on forensic anthropology. My error; it's hard to make out the phrasing with the unusual citation format. Soupforone (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Case for either rename or note
Hello Per unpleasant and accusatory reverts by user Beyond My Ken, I will make this as short as possible: The term "Caucasian" to refer to the race dates back to Blumenbach. Perhaps this article should be either renamed at European race or else something that does not limit it to the Caucasus. This is due to the term "Caucasian" to refer to Europeans being almost exclusively American English. Since this is a protected article, I am required to discuss the proposed changes as I am not a registered user. apart from sticking to the status quo as this dude would like us to do, are there any possibilities in either renaming this article to European race or else having something like a note at the top that the term Caucasian to refer to white people is an American term? Remember though, this is not a forum 23.151.192.180 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet again, No. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Now why should it remain as Caucasian race? I'm explaining this, and you say "yet again", yet again what? Why is a North American termanology the title of an article on a world-wide encyclopedia? I thik the global tag was a good resolution but BMK did not like it. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC) If we ant to use the rather racist Blumenbach's terminology then it should be called Caucasoid race. However I'm against all of those terms, Caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, australoid, etc. They are all outdated. Caucasians are from the Caucasus, not form France, Scandinavia, India and certainly not fro mmy birth place of Eritrea. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Because it is not just a NA terminology - it was common usage in Southern Africa for at least the 60's and 70's. I was told it was used in Scotland too. I always took it to be a term of white people origination in the sense that all existing "Europeans" came from somewhere else. I think the article is fine as is; it does point out that the tribal/racial nomenclature, what ever it is changes with time and at any point it is always imprecise. Personally I favour terms based on physical attributes - so white when talking about tribes is acceptable but the arabic Kafir (unbeliever) is not since it relates to something the minds of people, and who can objectively see into the minds of others. The white Brits took to using this Arabic term and look what trouble it led to - the word is now banned in South Africa; and one can go to jail for using it (talk about freedom of speech). Nomenclature is per the users at the time and should not be taken overly seriously: but renaming terms just because of personal lack of experience does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulu53 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

comparison with Mongoloids
When I get time I would like to add most of the information I earlier removed from the Mongoloid article. It was good research, but I removed it because it was primarily about white people and not about Asians. As an example, The skin of Asian people and black people also has more sun protection than the skin of white people due to Asian people and black people having larger and more numerous melanosomes in their skin than white people. really belongs better here than on Mongoloid since it is white people who are the outgroup on this particular measure. — Soap — 18:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see that after 17 years we now have bluelinks to section headers in edit summaries .... of course, the arrows were there all along, but some people might've missed it. Good change. — Soap — 18:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, here is what I added. Would like to be able to add more info about cold tolerance, but I cant find more than speculation right now. There was a test of Japanese vs other Japanese showing that the so-called mitochondrial furnace is real, and can adapt in just a few minutes to a change in ambient temperature. Also I heard that the palatal torus is not just about eating tough foods, but also protects against cold by insulating the brain from the cold air outside. If so, one would expect it to be more common in people living in cold climates, irrespective of race. But I was not able to find any confirmation of that .... even in Saudi Arabia, for example, prevalence is just slightly less than in the uSA. — Soap — 20:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

First sentence should be present tense in 2018
The first sentence of this article on 18 December 2018 was in the past tense, describing this usage as simply historical. This is both inconsistent with the remainder of the article and inaccurate; the first sentence should be in the present tense. I can see from the edit history that recent attempts to change this have been reverted, so I felt some discussion was warranted. Putting the first sentence in the past tense is inconsistent because not only does the very next paragraph currently claim that "the terms remain in use by some anthropologists," but indeed the entirety of the article after the historical section implies throughout that the term is in current use. So the article uses the word/concept like it's current, but the first sentence says it isn't, which makes for a confusing article. To determine which tense was actually accurate, I checked a couple of quick sources to see if the word is in current use. Over at PLOS, the word Caucasian is used this way in the titles of 21 research articles published over the past four years, 11 of which were published in the past two. And at Reuters, the most recent use of the word Caucasian in this way is in an article published 13 December 2018. This word is in current use. Note that the overwhelming majority of hits I got at both PLOS and Reuters showed the current use of this word in medicine, and I notice that this Wikipedia article has a bit of an anthropological bias. Perhaps in anthropology, the word/concept is indeed only historical. But in medicine — just as legitimate a field as anthropology — the word/concept is in current use. This article should reflect what is (regardless of what should be), so I will update the tense of the first sentence. Lereman (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem you point out is valid, but your suggested solution is not. The concept is indeed in current use used - but scientific consensus is that it does not in fact reflect a scientifically valid category (but a demohgraphically useful one at times). Changing the definition to present tense does not in fact demonstrate this, but ends up giving an fallacious definition. Reverting, and then ready to discuss how to change it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not going to revert that as long as you only change was to is. It "is" indeed a grouping historically considered to be a valid taxon, which continues to be used even though we now know that it is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed "was" to "is" and changed "usually included" to "has usually included". Simply doing "was" to "is" would have made a mid-sentence tense shift, which is no good. And I think you're exactly right — it "is" indeed a grouping historically considered to be a valid taxon, but which continues to be used (at least in 2018). Lereman (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

rename to white race
Why is this called Caucasian race? Caucasians are a group of people from the Caucasus. Unfortunately the term "Caucasian" to refer to whites is exclusively North American. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And I don't want to hear one word about Blumenbach this, Blumenbach that. I'm 38 years old and lived in England most of my life before coming here to Canada in 2017. I've never heard "Caucasian" as a synonym of "White" or even Indian or else my race, (Eritreans) until I came to North America. So either this should be renamed to something or else there should be a note at the top of the page that this use is a North American usage of the term. Caucasian people is more appropriate for Peoples of the Caucasus as Caucasian is the demonym of the Caucasus, not of Europe. They have their own demonym of European. The whites that Americans refer to when referring to Caucasians are the Europeans of Western and Northern European descent. I just think it's a valid concern to bring up that this article should not be called Caucasian race then talk about Europeans that are not of the Caucasus. Caucasoid is the physiological group, Caucasian is not. I'm not Caucasian as Blumenbach defined, I awas born in Nakfa, Eritrea, and raised in London, UK. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The point made here is valid, even if it is made rather crudely. The article lacks any reference to usage or rather lack of usage outside of the USA, or of the Anglosphere. There are many racial classifications that are not used outside of the USA (e.g. Hispanics). I am adding a template. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 08:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's acutally a great idea. It is important to note that not all people mean White people when they say Caucasian. Now I say that the American use is naive because it is. Most people who use Caucasian to refer to white people do not know that they are actually using a demonym for a specific geographical region the plethora of distinct indigenous people groups that call this region home. I'm sorry if I do sound rude at all though. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am also in favor of this article being renamed to European Race as it does not limit Europeans to being Caucasians. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As for addressing the concerns of racism brought up in Beyond My Ken's racism revert tag of this entire discussion, there is no racism here on my part. Rather, it's disrespectful to lum pall Europeans in with Caucasians with this article title. I'm sorry if this looks like a bit of a forum but I think it's good to discuss before I go around making changes and then deal with 3R blocks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Perhaps it's better to have a note on the page that the term Caucasian to refer to White people is mostly a U.S. or else North American term, as it sin't really used outsid eof NA. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

need help requesting a move
Hello Can somebody please help me put forward a move request for this article to be renamed European race or something of that effect that does not limit the name to refer to the Caucasus? I'd do it myself but being blind and my JAWS screen-reader and all somewhat limits me, and the various sources I'd like to use on the subject are unusable because they are off-wiki and there is no audio captcha. Thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to have a note tha tit's U.S. English instead. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Related RfD discussion
Please see: --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3


 * Well ther's no such thing as the Caucasian race either. There's the Caucasoid, which is of a physiological race with similar features, but not Caucasian. Caucasian is of the caucasus. Caucasoid could refer to the race, though I'm against that term as I am against mongoloid and negroid. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

re-evaluated proposed edit
Even if a rename is not in order, could somebody put a note on the page that the terminology used to refer to this group si a North American English term, this way those of us who do not get why this is called Caucasian can understand that in America, a "Caucasian" is a person of European descent. Ilike what Cush did with the template at the top, I think that was a good move. This way it clears things u pa little bit that ok, the term used is more commonly used in a specific region. not everybody who reads Wikipedia is in the United States or Canada, and we should not assume that people around the world, especially in the Caucasus will get this. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide citations from reliable sources which support the supposition that "Caucasian race" is solely a North American usage, otherise your "evidence" is entirely WP:OR and WP:IDLI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've explained before why I cannot link things, because I cannot read the captchas. You go to post a link to cite it, and it brings up a captcha with no audio option. thanks. Also, I thought you didn't wish to engage with me. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC) one of the first sources I found is called "Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”? - SAPIENS" that's the best I can do to cite due to my screen-reader not being able to view captchas. I use JAWS 16.0, and even on my other machine which runs JAWS 18.0 it doesn't view visual captchas. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You can provide citations by doing what you did above, by writing out the name of the source and the name of the article/essay, so it can be searched on Google.The source you mention above is this. I do not believe it is a reliable source. Since Sapiens does not -- as far as I am aware -- have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (that's a quote from WP:Reliable sources), then it's not considered to be reliable. Further, Sapiens is not a peer-reviewed journal of anthropology, but a "a digital magazine about the human world. ...  Our objective is to deepen your understanding of the human experience by exploring exciting, novel, thought-provoking, and unconventional ideas. Through news coverage, features, commentaries, reviews, photo essays, and much more, we work closely with anthropologists and journalists to craft intriguing and innovative ways of sharing the discipline with a worldwide audience." On Wikipedia, we are not particularly interested in "novel" and "unconventional" ideas, what we are interested in is what the consensus of subject experts say.Now, the writer, Yolanda T. Moses does appear to be fully qualified, but it's also clear from reading the article that the argument she is making represents her personal opinion that "caucasian" should not be used, and she does not represent that as being the general consensus of anthropologists - indeed her argument is in some respect aimed at them, in an effort to have them change their ways.  That's a matter of politics and culture, not a matter of science or the history of science.  There is no doubt -- and she goes into details in the article -- that the term "caucasian race" has been, and is still, in general usage.  She making a case for changing that, not the case -- which you are making -- that it isn't the generally accepted phrase.  Are an encyclopedia, we do not "break ground" with novel theories and ideas.  If Moses' is successful in her campaign, then the consensus of anthropologists and other subject experts will change, and we will change with them.  Until then, however, your proposal is a non-starter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So then what about the idea of confusing being had by people like me. I stumbled upon this article by trying to find out about Caucasian people, like in form the actual region, not the White people groups from Europe as a whole. I got the idea from a discussion I had with somebody on a plane ride I was on recently, and wanted to learn more about it. My issue is that non-American audiences will not always get that Caucasian means "white" in America, as I've never seen it elsewhere.

Also thanks for the sollution of posting article titles. I really wish I could cite it properly, but this is the best I can do for now. I'll keep looking around. What types of solutions do you suggest for non-American readers who, like I did, don't know that Caucasian means white because either they ar efrom the Caucasus or else they are in an English speaking country other than America or Canada? I'll find more sources, but I think that could be addressed in the future.

Sorry if I am amking this like a forum, I'm just trying to make my case, even if I am doing a bit of a poor job a tit. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As I was going to post at the Teahouse before I found out that this was the real discussion:
 * "Caucasian" goes to a disambiguation page where one can figure out if they mean the outdated idea of a Caucasian race or the many different Peoples of the Caucasus.
 * The article Caucasian race addresses an outdated concept that during its hey-day was not restricted to North America, even if the idea is unfortunately taking longer to die out in North America. The idea started in Germany and was spread by the Royal Society -- as already explained in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As for renaming this "white race," see White people. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What about the outdated name tag, that lets people know that this term is outdated? 23.151.192.180 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I also want to approach this without looking like a racist, because I'm not a racist. The aboe rename to white race thing may have been a bit of a bad move on my part yes, but if we want to use blumenbach terms, shouldn't this be called "Caucasoid race" instead of "Caucasian race?" Caucasoid is still used to refer to physiologic traits, even though those traits are spread further than the Caucasus. Again mostly American usage. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that the equivalent articles are Negroid, and Mongoloid, I would agree that Caucasoid would be preferable to Caucasian race, since the three terms refer to the same historical system of racial classificiation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Further all three should probably have "(race)" or "(racial classification)" as a disambiguator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A disambiguator from what? There are no other articles called Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasoid. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the one term that is actually in widespread use is "caucasian" in the meaning "white phenotype". Negroid and mongoloid are not in comparably widespread use and neither is caucasoid - these terms are almost entirely obsolete (black and asian are used instead in most contexts about the phenotype), while Caucasian is still in use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the point. These are historical temrs, not modern ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Why is it that the white phenotype gets the ian ending based on the fact that some people use "Caucasian" to refer to white people? The other articles use the oid endings for Mongoloid and Negroid. If these articles are indeed meant to describe the historical racial classifications as coined by Blumenback, the guy people point to when defending the modern American use of "Caucasian, " then why not use "Caucasoid", which is the term he used? Again, the Caucasian race sounds more like referring to the people of the Caucasus, while Caucasoid sounds like part of Blumenback's system. Also, I don't want to sound like I'm endorsing Blumenbach, as he was a rather racist person. My case is rather for consistency with the other terms. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)