Talk:Caucasoid race/Archive 1

Misc
I think it is very strange that most information on this page states an obscure article written in 1954 as its source, presenting the information as if it was undisputed and factual. It is hardly a scientific fact that Nordic people have "mouths that stick out". I know nothing on this subject, but my common sense tells me a clean-up is quite desperately required. Tangsiuje 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is anti-racialists (folks who oppose racial classification of ANY kind) are responsible for this. They seem to be using obscure sources and discredited 19th century anthropologists as their primary references in order to make racial classification look as arbirtary and ridiculous as possible.  I wouldn't call that non-POV. -- Gerkinstock 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Caucasoid for anthropologist and archaeologist is vastly different that what is written here. Caucasoid refers to persons of E. Asia and Australian decent. Its roots are in osteological science, characterized by particular configurations within bone structure. Native American ancestors reached the new world through Beringa (land bridge) and are considered to be of Caucasoid descent. Mitochondrial DNA evidence tells scientist that there is a link between Native Americans and Asians.


 * What is it for a laughable statement: "According to modern mainstream anthropology, the Caucasoid race is a concept that emerged as a result of history, not genetics[2]"? So why do all Caucasoid people come from the same genetic lineage, Y-macrohaplogroup F? What "genetics" does the author of this statement has in mind? Is there also some other genetics (e.g. Martian genetics) that I have never heard about and that the "mainstream anthropologists" use a source? Probably not. The problem lies in the fact that these PC clowns continue in spreading their demagogy despite advancement on the field of population genetics in the recent years. By the way, it is true that the majority of Native Americans and a large part of Asian mongoloids are also of Caucasoid descent. However, they have Caucosoid Y-lineages, but non-Caucasoid mtDNA lineages. In other words, they are stabilized mixtures of archaic Caucasoids, who penetrated into Central Asia 35 000 years ago, and indigenous "paleomongolid" populations of East Asia that are genetically close to australoids. Centrum99 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "So why do all Caucasoid people come from the same genetic lineage, Y-macrohaplogroup F?..However, they have Caucasoid Y-lineages, but non-Caucasoid mtDNA lineages..genetically close to australoids" All of this would be interesting and, perhaps, even significant, if you had a source.  A search for "Y-macrohaplogroup F" in Google and Google Scholar shows nothing.-Psychohistorian 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So here we have it: An anti-racial mythologist who has virtually zero idea about the topic. This explains a lot. Plain ignorance is the key for understanding all the absurd anti-racial propaganda. Centrum99 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Psychohistorian's clear agenda needs to be addressed with the concrete evidence that Caucasians are descended from individuals not shared as ancestors with other groups, and that, since their origin, they have intermixed very little with other groups. The primary individuals responsible for Europeans, I, R1b, R1a, etc., are simply not found in other groups to any measurably significant degree, nor are other genetic origins found to any significant degree among Europeans.  Please see my discussion of this below in Talk:Caucasoid race. Fourdee 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask for a source and you jump to talk about my *cough*"clear agenda"*cough* instead of providing such a source. That's rich.-Psychohistorian 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that you must be very well acquianted with the topic, when you post such self-confident statements about race. What a surprise that you are not! By the way, although R1a, R1b and I have different distribution in Europe, they are all bound together via maternal opposites of the Y-haplogroup I. Modern Europeans were thus actually created by intermixing of Gravettian women with Cro-Magnon men. They have 20 000 years of common history that was not interrupted by any significant migration outside Europe - until 6000 BC, when neolithic people from Asia Minor brought J, E3b1 and G to the Balkans. And until ca. 1960-1970 AD, when another migration to Western Europe brought millions of unassimilable backwards bearing E3a, J and E3b2. Centrum99 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

British Isles and Mediterranean (Latin)
I would remove British Isles from the Mediterranean (Latin) section.

Not only is it very unlikely (since only recent immigration has had minor impact on the population of greater London), but the claim it is also lacking citation.

One could say that there has been a minor Mediterranean influence on the American population (since the 1500s), but of course that would be a humorous claim to make.

http://medish.shorturl.com/

deleted sentence - the concept of Caucasoid race came from anthropologists & academics, not out of thin air)
Actually, both. Early anthropologists (and we are talking about early anthropologists as race has been disproven in modern anthropology) did a lot of their work by armchair just thinking stuff up. -Psychohistorian 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as I wrote in your talk section, it was still academics who invented the concept, not random people on the street. The fact that the concept of Caucasoid has been proven false doesn't change the fact that it was commonly used term in academia at one time. The goal of this article is to document the origins, usage and criticisms of the term, with cited references. There should not be unsourced point of view pushing. Spylab 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was used in academia at one time does not change the fact that it was created out of thin air. I'm all for using cited reliable sources - the more of them, the better. -Psychohistorian 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The concept of Caucasoid was proven false? By whom? Some neo-marxist anti-racial mythologists? The core of the Caucasoid race came into being about 45 000 years ago in the Near East - all people belonging to the "Caucasoid race" have the same genetic origin: they bear Y-haplogroup F. Centrum99 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I feel sick while reading all this nauseous PC propaganda on pages about race. But we in the former Eastern Block enjoyed a similar propaganda during a long 40 years, so enjoy the same Neo-marxist vomit now "in the West"! Centrum99 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The presented division of Europeans into three main sub-racial cathegories is insufficient. Eastern Europeans coming from the Ukrainian refugium (Y-haplogroup R1a1) are enough distinct to be taken separately as the "Baltid type". The article about the Dinaric type is written by someone, who obviously has no idea about the topic.Centrum99 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious
I would like to know what the average arm, leg, and torso length etc is for europeans.


 * The average trunk index (trunk length/height ratio) in Europeans is roughly between 51,5-53%, in Africans it is 48-51%, in Asians 53-54%. The average arm span of Europeans is ca. 103% body height (101-106%). The average arm length/body height ration is about 44,1% (in Africans it is ca. 45%). Centrum99 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Population
US National Library of Medicine defines caucasoid as "European Continental Ancestry Group". Therefore they can not make 55% of the world population. The source, apologeticspress, doesnt seem credible anyways. So I'll delete that line. Thulean 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is full of concepts that are presented as facts and which are not taken seriously by anyone anymore.
One thing is to speak about the Caucasoids and another to speak about racial divisions that are absolutely out of scientific favor and present them as real. Veritas et Severitas 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention to some users with clear agendas.
Because of some users with clear Nazi Nordicist agendas, some pages, like the white people's page, have been protected. Thulean is one of them. Watch out for his contributions.

Some people seem to be interested in continuing to use 18th, 19th and earl 20th century concepts that are now more than ridiculous. Hello! There is something called late 20th century and 21st century population genetics that is rendering all this information obsolete and ludicrous. Why are there no references to it?. How can somebody speak of races and peoples and ignore Cavalli-Sforza, Dr. Macdonalds, Dr. Bryan Sykes, Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer, etc. Is this really serious? Veritas et Severitas 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody can still speak of races, because there are still some people, who have preserved common sense and don't want to take part in this perverse ideological clownery. Modern genetic research confirms old roots of the classical racial distribution, so what? The PC pseudo-scientific clowns abuse the unacquitance of the public with this subject and choose only those things that fit into their "innovative" conclusions. Where is some study synthetizing classical anthropology and recent findings concerning Y- and mtDNA haplogroups? Centrum99 08:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For the request of Mediterranean influence in the British Isles and more up-dated sources in general
Here you have some up-dated information:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/10/10/ecbrits10.xml http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

Some people may object: That is just newspaper articles! OK, then read the real books: Blood of the Isles, by Bryan Sykes (In the US will be for sale in December as Saxons, Vikings and Celts) and Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer, also a very recent edition.

Here you have some more basic information about genetic anthropology or population genetics, for those who may come across it for the first time:

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass4.asp

Here you have some other links:

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:wS6DZf6b-RUJ:www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm+r1b+europe+map&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG6

Or this one:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

See the legend: CEE = Central Europe East. CEW = Central Europe West. EE = Eastern Europe. IberiaS = Spain. IberiaP = Portugal. ItalyN = North of Italy. ItalyS = South of Italy.See also this legend: Molecular (first row) = Different molecular DNA loci and frequency  (second row) = Haplogroups. Av. = Average.

This study is from 2004 and has used up to 8 different genetic loci.

Of special interest are the similarities between the British Isles and Spain (IberiaS) and Portugal (IberiaP). Thousands of samples were taken from all over Spain and the British Isles, and also from the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, especially the areas in Anatolia (Turkey) and Irak.

It is also very interesting to see the origins of the populations in Europe.

How can people here be speaking of race, their origins and distribution and ignore the most recent scientific findings in this area?

Veritas et Severitas 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really wonder, what most recent scientific findings you are talking about. To my knowledge, the most recent scientific findings support very old roots of the classical racial divisions. The only change they bring is the correction of the interracial genetic relationships that were incorrectly postulated by anthropology. Centrum99 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "To my knowledge, the most recent scientific findings support very old roots of the classical racial divisions" - you'd be a hell of a lot more convincing if you were quoting an expert instead of using weasel words.-Psychohistorian 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You need quotes of some "expert" for everything? The information is just available. Read something about haplogroups! Why should I quote some "expert", especially when he is forced to lie, being afraid of his job? Centrum99 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be way too easy to reply to the heart of your comment, but I doubt it would be worthwhile. The paranoid are rarely reasonable.  I'll just point out that whatever you believe is worth squat on Wikipedia as the article requires source and this discussion page should focus on writing the article - not listening to unfounded conspiracy theories. -Psychohistorian 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very odd..
I was instructed to, for a photo gallery, get photos of people in various groups to ensure variety; I was to make a section each for Caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid types, with a page each for 3 subtypes of each type. I easily used wikipedia to figure out what to search for in google images- for mongloid, Chinese, Japanese, and native American; for Caucasoid, Germanic, Latin, and Russian; then I got to negroid. There is not such article- it's a disambiguation, and none of the links I clicked will give me subtypes because none of them admit anything like it exists. I figure, ok, African, Jamaican.... and something. I'll have to search on google because I can't find the info on Wikipedia- why is negroid the only one I can't find? Someone with knowledge of the controversy that led to this state should take note. thanks. Kuronue 16:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Belgians don't look so "Nordic"
The article states that Belgians are one of the good examples of the Nordic race. I don't think so: blondism is something common amongst children, and blond adults are a minority. People appearing "genuinly" Nordic are rare here (I am a Belgian talking out of experience). To my experience i see people here with rather Alpine/Dinaric features(especially in profile). Nordicism manifests mostly in eye and hair color (mostly with younger people for some reason). If you compare a bunch of Belgians or southern Dutchmen with northern Dutch people and scandinavians (check politicians), you'll see a clear difference... Funny thing is that i can't recall a single Flemish nationalist (who considder themselves germanic and such...) being typically nordic. The fact why Belgians (or at least Flemish) people are seen as nordic, is becuz of their Germanic language they (often) speak. The nordic race, known for being genetically weak, probably vanishes slowly due to stronger DNA from the South and East. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N33 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I agree that Belgians are not Nordic and this article should not state such, but they are also not a single ethnicity as you are well aware. The Flemish are the same ethncity as southern Dutch.  I believe Northern Dutch tend to be Frisian, which is a more pale-featured group.  Also you will find that many "Nordic" people are not blonde as adults; that is a poor measure.  The best measures by appearance are, more or less as you indicate, childhood blondeness, eye color and cephalic index, for both of the subjective terms Germanic and Nordic.  Nordic is not a good terminology as it is often confused with Germanic, which is even more related to language than genetics, and that seems to be the mistake made in asserting Belgians are Nordic - which is doubly wrong since most are Walloons (Celtic I believe).  I am going to continue this in a new section below, Talk:Caucasoid race. Fourdee 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, speaking a germanic language doesn't make you nordic at all. I am not sure about most Belgians being "Walloon", but maybe you mean genetically speaking. The appearances of Walloons are shorter, and their DNA is said to not differ alot from the Flemish. Its funny to read National Flemish identity-whores claiming they are oh so Germanic on those typical forums... They filter anything non-germanic out of their environment, which catapults them out of reality.

Y-Haplogroup Evidence
We have available today genetic testing which clearly indicates the descent of people, and this profiling of mutations shows there is no clear genetic distinction between Nordic, Germanic and Celtic (and no distinct underlying "prehistoric" group aside from the Celts, as had been supposed in the past). It is remarkable to see that a very few male individuals are responsible for each stage in the emergence of the European type - the vast majority of western Celts, from Northern Spain to Ireland and Wales, are descended from the single male individual responsible for the mutation labeled R1b, and they represent one of the most distinct and homogeneous groups in humanity, aside from Native Americans who have an even stronger homogeneity. However the descendants of R1b are also very common in the Germanic countries, along with I, the Nordic type which is the other major contributor to the Celts, and, unlike in the Celtic countries, R1a (eastern european) and several smaller male line contributors, including significant non-caucasoid contributors in Iceland and Norway (Haplogroup Q).

It is conventient to look at the Haplogroups prevalent in people to compare them to groups with which they are supposed to have a common origin. For example, English people have virtually identical Haplogroup distribution to Frisians, while the Welsh have very different distribution, validating the historical and linguistic evidence for the origin of the Angles.

Any statements made today about ethnic origin or identity should be based on haplogroup evidence, which is increasingly well documented and mapped. All references to pre-genetic anthropology are suspect and should be provided for historical perspective only, as they made some incorrect assumptions and used subjective terms. This is not to completely discount the study of cranial features or the older labels for groups of people, however we should be careful to be certain that those findings are validated by the facts we know today.

Looking at distribution maps of Haplogroups and a hierarchy indicating the descent of the mutations, several things are immediately clear. For one, the genetic makeup of Sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, and Asians are markedly different from each other. Europeans share essentially no common ancestry with Africans after the mutated individuals. A very few male individuals were responsible for many ethnic groups (such as R1b, western european - all from a single male), although some ethnic groups reflect considerable diversity. However, some problems do arise, particularly with the distinction between Cacuasoid and Mongoloid, as they have an intermixed origin. While Europeans, aside from the incidence of the Q type in Iceland and Norway, have essentially unique Haplogroups not shared with Asians or Africans, the origins of those haplogroups are not so distinct. For example, I, which gives rise to the nordic type, is much farther distant in origin from R1a and R1b (the primary european types) than the Q, Siberian and Native American type.

It is useful to classify Europeans and Caucasoids as distinct from other groups because they are much more closely related to each other than to other groups in terms of stemming from a few distant fathers not shared by other racial categories. Most significantly, the ancestors responsible for I, R1b and R1a (and a few others) are the male line origins of almost all of Europe and very few outside genetic contributors are found in that population, and those genetic fathers are not found to any significant degree in outside populations. This makes Europeans a distinct family of people who are much more closely related to each other than other groups. We should utilize the clear, incontrovertible evidence of genetic research in validating all statements about races, and not allow any particular agenda to load the discussion with unscientific assertions.

-- Fourdee 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentics section POV
The genetics section for this article only gives a single POV. It relates only to a single paper, this paper is also quoted extensively in the section, without it being apparent that these are actual quotes from the paper. This may be considered plagiarism. Pleas include other studies, especially genetic studies that give a different interpretation. There are plenty of papers from geneticists that do not agree that "race" is a biological concept. It is a clear breach of the NPOV policy to have a one sided argument. While I have no problem with including genetic data that support the concept of "races" it should be clearly noted that those populations of people that do not conform to any "race" (people from "boundry locations" in the article, by the way this is not "some individuals" but the populations of these regions) are considered by many geneticists to indicate the clinal as opposed to discrete distribution of genetic variation in the human population. This section is poorly written and there is far too much direct "copy and paste" from t he cited article. Quotes should be clearly marked as such. This paper cites the paper used in the article, and the abstract of the paper states ''We show that statistically significant boundaries can be described between groups of populations, but different clusters are identified, depending on the assumptions of the model. In addition, these clusters do not correspond to the clusters inferred from previous analyses of the same or of other polymorphisms. We conclude that it is indeed possible to cluster genotypes according to geography, but no study so far identified unambiguously anything that can be regarded as a major genetic subdivision of humankind, and hence discontinuous models of human diversity are unsupported by data.'' So it is highly POV to imply that there is some sort of consensus in the field of genetics as to whether "races" have any basis in biology or genetics. This implies that what "races" come out of any given model depends on what model and what data are used. Only citing papers that support the "racial" model is really not good enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not here to give a single point of view, nor is it here to give the opinions of editors. I have a wealth of papers about the genetics of humans, some that favour the "racial" concept, some that think it is incorrect. We need to use papers that give both points of view. I am particularly worried by this comment from User:Fourdee: Isn't the intent here to have the article accurately reflect the fact that Europeans are a distinct family genetically and in other ways and that there is a factual basis for defining a caucasian race, especially as far as Europeans. It seems to me that this is a call to introduce a single point of view into the article, and to deliberately ignore wikipedia policies about neutrality. Wikipedia and the Internet are not here for either of the things this user is claiming. Wikipedia is here as an encyclopaedia, it does not give a single point of view. Indeed stating that it is a "fact" Europeans are a "family" and that there is a "factual basis" for defining Caucasians as "Europeans" implies a very biased perspective. What is a fact is that there is no consensus in the field, the article should reflect this. Give all arguments and all points of view and let the reader decide. Do we even need this article? As it stands it's an extremely poor article. Alun 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not a great article, but it is an important one, at the very least for its historical usage and significance. I didn't say I wanted the article to reflect only one point of view, merely that it should include any available evidence which seems to provide a factual basis for the distinction of Europeans from other groups.  I will admit up front that I am biased on this topic and certainly have a point of view I would like to see represented, but not to the exclusion of other reasonable views.  I think, based on my limited understanding of haplogroup distribution and descent, that there is a better argument for Europeans being a fairly distinct group than all "Caucasoids" and that is what I would like the article to reflect, but I am not familiar with all the Caucasoid haplogroups and their distributions, there may be evidence for them as a whole being fairly distinct.  Are they 100% distinct and isolated?  Of course not; the question is whether there is a meaningful, factual and significant distinction to be made between the ancestry of one group or race versus another.  The following numbers are hyperbole and just off the cuff but they aren't far from the truth either: if, say, 99/100 of western europeans are descended from the same 2 male invididuals, and essentially 0/100 of sub-saharan africans are descended from those individuals, that sure sounds like a factual basis for calling the western europeans a distinct family to me.  But I am no expert, I am just giving my opinion based on the limited citations I offered above and my general (vague) understanding of this topic.  I agree we should cite experts, as with any potentially controversial article.  Fourdee 09:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok that's great. Personally I think that genetic data should not be included in articles like this, I tend to the opinion that the genetic basis of "race" is so controversial that the articles specifically about genetics and race should deal with this issue, we should then just link to these articles. For example the article cited here is a general one about whether "race" is a proper biological phenomenon or not, it's not really about Caucasoids or Caucasians, so I would argue that it's correct context is in an article that debates the relative merits of "race" as a genetic or biological construct. This is not to say that I am implacably opposed to such material being included here, as always I'm happy to go along with consensus. Your analogy about Europeans being descended from a more recently related group of individuals is a fair one, though it is also fair to say that there were several founding events in Europe, over several millenia, and they were from distinct founding populations. The number of discrete ancestors is larger and more genetically and geographically varied. For example there are Middle Eastern neolithic markers in the population of the British Isles that are more recent than the older paleolithic markers (though still dating from 6000 years ago) for both mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA (I believe haplogroup J for mt DNA and E3b for T chromosome DNA). I'm sure we can work to inprove the article. I think it's good to use Y chromosome and mtDNA data as much as possibly when we can, as these are non recombining molecules that are inherited in patrilineal and matrilineal fashion. Most of the science has been done using these anyway.Alun 11:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The section currently has got 3 sources. One of them is a major study and cites multiple studies. However, if you think it is not neutral, feel free to edit...Lukas19 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the one hand we have a term which has been effectively used for more than a century in common language and in fields such as forensic anthropology (which is to this day able to accurately predict the usual usage of "caucasian" when applied to a living person from a skull alone). So we have a meaningful, useful, long-standing, fairly specific term, despite some vagueness at the very fringes.  On the other hand we have some people who have been harping for a few decades that the term is meaningless based on "science" - mostly pre-DNA notions of human descent and conjecture from what I can tell.  It is very relevant to point out the factual basis for the term, such as genetic distinctness, because that is the core of the argument against it - that the groups are not genetically distinct.  If there is a "cline" at the fringes of the races, that says nothing, because the people at the fringes are not members of any particular race.  Fourdee 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it a "fairly specific term"? I get the impression that you want to use it here to mean "European race". Is this what you mean? This is not how the OED defines the word. We need to be clear what the word "Caucasoid" actually means, and not what you want it to mean. Likewise we need to reflect general usage, and not specific technical usage alone. This is an encyclopaedia so it needs to reflect everything. As far as I can see it smply means "like Caucasian people" or "relating to Caucasian people". I don't understand what you mean by "genetic distinctiveness". There is no "genetic distinctivness" in human populations, human genetic diversity is clinal. For example if one looks at the R1b haplogroup, it is clear that it has a cline 'within the European population that runs west-east. It occurs at 90% in Ireland and the Basque country, at about 80% in Wales, Scotland and western England, is at about 60% in eastern England, decreases to about 40% in Germany, is at about 30% in Norway etc. It is clinal within the continent. Other clines can easily be detected. By this analysis Europe is divided east-west "racially", whereas the article claims north-south. I have no problem including genetic analyses, but I think we cannot rely only upon those that reflect only our POV. Having said that I can find no real evidence for the existence of a "Caucasoid race". So I think this article needs to be merged with Caucasian race, or simply AfD'd. Please try to finf a definition of Caucasoid race. I do not think the European Continental Ancestry Group represents a reliable source in that it is a single usege, used in house for a particular organisation, it is not a universally recognised nomenclature. Indeed they no longer use the term Caucasoid. Alun 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise the European Continental Ancestry Group also includes Indian people, see here, if you click on the link to Caucasoid Race, it directs you to the European Continental Ancestry Group. Clearly Indian people are a part of this group. Lukas's contention that Indian people are not part of the European Continental Ancestry Group is not supported by this link. Alun 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You told me yourself that European Continental Ancestry Group was a new heading, rather than being used interchangeably with Caucasoid. Are you making a 180 turn?
 * Indians are listed under Asia and hence they are part of Asian Continental Ancestry Group, which is defined as "Individuals whose ancestral origins are in the continent of Asia." And:
 * "The MeSH term Racial Stocks and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004. A new heading, Continental Population Groups, has been created with new indentions that emphasize geography. Ethnic Groups is a sibling to the new Continental Population Groups.
 * Indexers will now be indexing to the geographic origins. To accommodate this change in policy, the following edits were made in MeSH headings on MEDLINE citations: " Lukas19 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am using the criteria that they use in the National Library of Medicine. I have directed you to the appropriate link, it is plain and clear that Indian people are categorised a Caucasoids, and that this falls under the European Continental Ancestry Group. Have you actually clicked on the link? If you click on the link to Indian people, it clearly states "Caucasoid Race", if you click on "Caucasoid Race" it directs to European Continental Ancestry Group. This is very easy to do, and it is quite plain. The article should also not start with with According to, this is completelly against the WP:MOS. The European Continental Ancestry Group is not an internationally recognised arbitrator on all things "racial" and they carry no real authority to be considered the "canonical" experts of racial classification. As far as I can see this is just a vague heading used during classification in house by the National Library of Medicine in the USA. Please do not change the introduction again. Your citation does not support your edit, and neither does your "introduction" represent an encyclopaedic standard. The European Continental Ancestry Group is a new heading, it is interchangable with Caucasoid according to the National Library of Medicine, so it is a new heading, it is a new heading for the group that used to be called "Caucasoid". Alun 14:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it quite plain? How do you know that it is interchangeable? Maybe they directed old terms to new terms, but actually it isnt interchangeable. You are just assuming. AS the person who is claiming, you have to prove it that they use it interchangeably...Lukas19 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not "assuming" anything. I am looking at their website and reading what they say. Here they state that the previous heading "Caucasoid race" has been replaced by the heading "European Continental Ancestry Group". If you check the changes, it is apparent that they are moving away from using "race" as the main criterion for classification towards using geography as the main criterion for classification. In one respect I fail to see the importance you place on this, this is not a definition of "Caucasian race", it is not a dictionary, it is not a scientific classification, it is not a anthropological classification, it is a "Technical Bulletin" about how the National Library of Medicine uses vocabluary. It seems to be a relatively minor in house change to their record keeping system. Do you know what a heading is? A heading is simply a title, it does not necessarily have any particular significance. So they say that the former heading "Caucasoid race" has been replaced by the heading "European Continental Ancestry Group". This is what they say, I can find no evidence of any other changes. I fail to understand why you think the change has any deeper significance. Can you provide evidence for this? This is what I say in my footnote. I then go on to say that the European Continental Ancestry Group applies to people with an European ancestry, which is what they say here. Finally I state that this group includes people from India, this is stated here, where it claims that Indians are of Caucasoid race unless otherwise stated, the "Caucasoid race" text has a hyperlink that directs to the "European Continental Ancestry Group", this seems straightforward enough to me. What is the problem with this? I have merely included what they say on their website. Besides which, this is merely a "heading" used in classification for their library records, as far as I can tell it has little importance, indeed I also fail to see how this could be considered a reliable source for a definition of "Caucasoid race", it makes no attempt at biological, anthropological or lexical classification or definition. It simply says who should be included in this group according to their library's criteria. When it does mention "Caucasoid race" it clearly indicates that Indian people are a part of it. This is not an article about the "European Cotinental Ancestry Group", it is an article about the "Caucasoid race". Alun 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said in the example below, which you have seemed to ignore, replacement does not neccessarily equal to interchangeable. You havent proven this. Lukas19 12:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that calling Indian people "Caucasoid race" and then linking "Caucasoid race" to the "European Continental Ancestry Group" does mean that these groups are one and the same, but with a different heading. They do not claim that this is not the case, they simply claim that one heading is replaced by another, why should I make any further assumptions about what they have done when they say nothing more on the subject? They do not state anywhere that they have changed anything except the title of the group. If you can provide evidence that they have then please do. It seems odd to me to request proof that it has stayed the same, it would make more sense for you to provide evidence that it has changed, for this simple reason, had they made significant changes then they would have provided information about their significant changes. The only information they provide is to state that one group heading has changed to another. It is clear that Indian people are considered Caucasoids, they state this specifically. This article is about Caucasoids. This article is not about the European Continental Ancestry Group. When we click on Caucasoid Race on the Indian page, it directs to European Continental Ancestry Group. So what evidence do we have? We know that they consider Indians Caucasoids because they tell us that. We know that the Caucasoid links to European Continental Ancestry Group because clicking on the link takes us there. Whether the terms European Continental Ancestry Group and Caucasoid Race are interchangable is somewhat irrelevant, they are used for the same purpose in the case of Indian people, because they state this categorically. I suggest if you find their terminology unsatisfactory then you take it up with the library, because I did not write either their ethnic label categories, or their website. I am merely pointing to the information they provide, and to the relevant links on their website where you can find this information. Alun 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) So you think Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone is interchangeable with Anti-Infective Agents?


 * 2)"The MeSH term Racial Stocks and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004. A new heading, Continental Population Groups, has been created with new indentions that emphasize geography. Ethnic Groups is a sibling to the new Continental Population Groups."


 * 3) I'm not saying Indians arent Caucasoid. I'm just saying they are not of European descent. And currently, that's what is implied in your edit.


 * For ex, look to . Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone is not interchangeable with Anti-Infective Agents. It's just that 	Anti-Infective Agents replaced both Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone and Anti-Infective Agents, Quinolone headings...Lukas19 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize there was a Caucasian race article as well, they need to be merged. The term Caucasoid has some historical significance but doesn't merit a separate article.

As to your arguments about race, I look at it this way, if you will entertain an analogy: there are a great many colors in the visible light spectrum between blue and red, but nobody would deny blue and red are different colors. A black african is not the same genotypically, phenotypically or ancestrally as a white european. These terms are useful and factually accurate, despite the spectrum in between. Not everyone falls under a clear label, but that doesn't invalidate the label, and the overwhelming majority of people do fall in a clear category. I would personally like to see a solid definition for race based on science, with whatever assumptions are necessary to make that happen, rather than the deconstruction of race by people with a sociopolitical agenda against ethnocentrism and endogamy. After all, the average person has no confusion about how to apply the labels black, white and asian. Fourdee 10:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally I agree with your position. It is true that the electromagnetic spectrum is just that, a spectrum, it is continuous. The question is the arbitrary nature of division. Clearly there is no discrete difference between "colours" on the spectrum, we see them as distinct because of the limited nature of our vision, we only absorb light in three colours, each of which represents a part of the spectrum (Green between 520–570 nm, Red 625–760 nm and Blue 440–490 nm) but this is a contnuous spectrum and the frequencies between these colours do exist. Colours are arbitrary in the sense that some organisms can see far into the infra red and the ultra violet, which we are blind to. The differentiation of the electromagnetic spectrum is a product of our biology, not of science. From the point of view of physics there is only a differentiation between wavelengths. It also beggs the question, where do we draw the line? It is an arbitrary descision, it is not an easy one to make. Is it reddish brown or brownish red? So even with colours the differentiation is a question of perception and arbitraryness. How much more is the arbitrary nature in genetics? In genetics the continuum of variability is not distributed uniformly, genetic clines may be east west for some variations and north south for others within the same "population". Ultimately the problem with producing a well defined and universally accepted subspecific taxonomy of our species lies not with "political correctness", but with the difficulty in agreeing on the relative importance of different variation. There is also the very difficult question of where we draw our arbitrary "racial" boundaries. This is not to say that it cannot be done, but it is to say that it probably has no real biological importance or significance. If it was easy and/or had any sort of biological merrit then it would have already been done. The very fact that biologists see no merit in it reflects the relative unimportance of this from a strictly biological point of view. Indeed the human population does not, and has probably never represented discreet sub-populations. There has always been a great overlap between "races", because to think in terms of "discrete" entities is to misunderstand the correct pattern. Furthermore if we want to have a detailed understanding of how human groups are related from the perspective of our origins (collectively as a species and also as different "continental populations") then we cannot use phenotypes or genotypes that are under strong selective pressure. So it would be erroneous to infer that skin colour is an indicator relatedness, because strong UV light strongly selects for dark skin. So using coding genes is not a good idea, we need to use DNA that is not under any selective pressure, such as neutral mutations, these have been used to form Y chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup maps. Another advantage of using Y chromosomes and mtDNA is that they are non-recombining (at least there is a large part of the Y chromosome that is non-recombining, the NRY), which means that they form lineages from which we can infer dates for the divergence of certain sub-haplogroups (such as the date R1b diverged from haplogroup R1). The inference of lineages and dating of autosomal genes is impossibly, due to recombinations during gametogenesis. If we want to present a proper taxonomic point of view, then we cannot express it in terms of there being any sort of scientific consesnus. We have no classification on the subspecific level. The categorization of people into "races" is a social phenomenon and always has been. Indeed I would turn your argument on it's head and say categorically that it is people who want to try and say that science has some sort of proof of "races" being a biological construct that have a political agenda, not the scientists themselves, who are fully aware of the biology involved, and of the difficulty with subspecific classification. I write as someone who is a professional biologist with a degree in genetics and a masters in biotechnology. Alun 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, like us, is biased. He says human genetic diversity is clinal. But a comprehensive study concluded it is also composed of clusters which correspond to traditional anthropologic races. On top of that, add culture. And you get races. Lukas19 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I agree, race is a social construct. I have never disputed this. We all have a bias Lukas, when editing wikipedia the skill is to recognise our own bias and to understand that the bias of others does not necessarily make them wrong, just as much as our own bias doesn't necessarily make us right. We include all points of view (with the usual provisos of verifiability, no original research and using reliable sources), whether we agree with them or not. Simple. But it is not correct to claim that there is any accepted biological subspecific categorisation of the human species. You can neither claim that there is an accepted biological classification for the concept of biological "races", nor can you claim that there is a consensus in the population genetics community that the human species can be divided up into races. All you can do is claim that some geneticists/biologists think that the concept of "race" has biomedical applications, while others disagree. It should also be noted that most of the studies that use self defined region of origin also stress that it influences treatment programmes as much because of environmental reasons (due to cultural practices like the types of food eaten etc.) as much as any biological reasons. Furthermore the "races" that are produced when genetic data are used strongly depend upon the type of model used. One should always bear in mind that science is based on model building. Scientists observe the world arround them, and then construct models (or theories if you like) to try to explain their observations. Models are often far less sophisticated than the natural phenomenon observed (obviously, or our understanding f the universe would be complete). Some population genetic models correlate with the concept of "race", while others do not. If we want to include population model adta, we are bound, by the neutrality policy to give a ballanced account of the work in the field. At present the article only gives a single POV of this work. Alun 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think, Alun, your argument is like saying there is no scientific difference between wolves, coyotes, jackals and dingos because they can (and sometimes in nature do) successfully interbreed and because they all have 78 chromosomes. Nobody has any real confusion about the difference between a wolf and coyote, and an animal which is a mixture of the two is not either.  If there is no agenda, why attempt deconstruction of a term which is widely used and understood both in forensic anthropology and among the general population?  There are useful distinctions between humans to be made at a higher level than haplogroup and ethnicity. Again, I would like to scientifically define the reasons behind the racial categories rather than try to reduce them to absurdity - it seems that in the lack of a sociopolitical agenda, longstanding terms would prevail.  Fourdee 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with defining "races" from a traditional perspective. We need to include all relevant points of view. It is incorrect to claim that biology has produced a consensus about the existence of human "races". It is incorrect to claim that there is any accepted subspecific taxonomy of our species. It is incorrect to claim that the reason for this is purely due to "political correctness". If this id your opinion then you are entitled to hold it, what you are not entitled to do is express your opinion as fact on article pages (I hasted to add that I do not accuse you of doing this, I merely point this out). Whether other disciplines accept this existence is another matter. I am a biologist, I am interested in biology and genetics. I will not accept any distortion of the genetic data, or misrepresentation of such that gives only a one sided argument. You analogy to Wolves etc does not apply to the human species, these species have a different natural history to the human species, what is applicable to one set of species is not necessarily applicable to another. I am no expert in the biology of wolves and dogs. I do know that sometimes even defining what are and what are not different species is an arbitrary descision. If you are looking for consistency in the world of taxonomy you will be disapointed, it may well be that these animals do form a single species with little difference, I don't know, you'd have to ask an expert in taxonomy or an expert in the biology and behavioural characteristics of this group. Be that as it may, the classification of this group of organisms has little application to the subspecific classification of the human species. Alun 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you seem to be saying that taxonomy is an inconsistent and subjective field? So it's something that is very prone to bias if there is any possible reason for it?  So the rules that may be used for defining one subspecies or type may be different than the rules for defining another?  Who's to say?  Who's the expert in subjectivity?  Who sets the rules for what is the right sort of standard to use in classifying humans versus classifying canids and why don't the same rules apply?  Personally I can't help but laugh when someone asserts there is no such thing as a Caucasian based on absurd (and usually transparently biased) deconstructionist logic which could be applied to any arbitrary label under the sun, as they are all arbitrary when you get down to it.  I find it hard to believe that many, if any, of the people who are intent on denying race don't have a belief or even personal interest in promoting miscegenation and "exogamy", as there seems little other reason to take issue with long-standing and very well-understood (by the average person) labels.  I seriously doubt there are very many people on this planet who have any trouble perceiving and applying the traditional racial categories to the vast majority of people they see.  Fourdee 13:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary redirects "Caucasian Race" to "Aryan"?
(rolls eyes)

Caucasian

/korkayzin, -ay&ulzh;’n/


 * adjective 1 relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa. 2 white-skinned; of European origin. 3 relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe.


 * noun a Caucasian person. Lukas19 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am certain I said it direct "Caucasian race" to "Aryan", NOT that it directs "Caucasian" to "Aryan".-Psychohistorian 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It directs you to Aryan because the definition contains "Caucasian race". Not because definitions are interchangeable. Caucasian is a better definition of Caucasian race than Aryan...Lukas19 12:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely this article is about the "Caucasoid race". So how are the "Caucasoid race" and "Caucasian race" different exactly? From my checking they are synonyms. This beggs the question, why do two different articles exist? My answer is that this is a POV fork. I thereofe suggest that we either


 * 1) Merge these two articles.
 * 2) AfD this article.
 * These are essentially the same thing of course. This article should be a redirect to "Caucasian race" I think. I think this article could do with a peer review or some such. As far as I can see this article shouldn't exist at all. The article also suffers from the problem of not knowing what it wants to be. It contradicts itself in the sense that it is clear from the article that "Caucasoid" essentially means of or similar to Caucasian, but the article is written in such a way as to present "Caucasoid" as some sort of "European" sub-grouping of "Caucasian". I can find no evidence to support this POV. I'm going to either redirect this article to Caucasian race, or AfD it. What's the consensus? Alun 11:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see it:

<---White---> <---Caucasian---> <--Caucasoid>

All three are different and they should stay...Lukas19 12:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have a good point Lukas. Caucasoid does etymologically mean Caucasian-like.  Perhaps this article should stay, making that distinction.  Fourdee 13:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, it makes sense what you say. I think what we need is a citation from a reliable source that explains this idea unambiguously. Most of the online definitions I can find use Caucasoid and Caucasian as synonyms, so I suppose if we want to keep this article we need to include both points of view. I don't have a problem per se with how you see it, but is this how anthropologists, scientists or the general public see it? I don't know (and don't pretend to know), which is why I think we need a citation. What you describe sort of fits the definition of "Caucasoid" as "resembling the Caucasian race" as per the OED definition, though it would equally apply to anything that resembles something Caucasian. What I mean by this is, for example, if an anthropologist found an ancient bone in South America that he thought looked similar to a Caucasian bone, he might call it Caucasoid, as in "not Caucasian" but "like something Caucasian". Let's see what others think. Cheers. Alun 13:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the merge tags, let's work on making the articles consistent in the distinction between caucasian and caucasoid. Fourdee 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the merge tag. While Lukas has given a fair account of how he sees the difference between "Caucasoid race" and "Caucasian race", thus far this would constitute original research, or simply personal opinion. Lukas's analysis might be spot on, but we need a proper verified source that unambiguously states the same thing, and the source needs to be reliable. My position is quite simple. The evidence I have found regarding the terms "caucasoid" and "Caucasoid race" are as follows, caucasoid means variously "similar to Caucasian" and "pertaining to Caucasian", while "Caucasoid race" seems to be considered a synonym of "Caucasian race". WordNet at Princeton University uses the terms "White race", "White people", "Caucasoid race" and "Caucasian race" interchangably. and is the only web definition I get when I search for a definition of "Caucasoid race".  So there is no point in claiming this distinction unless we can categorically show that this is an accepted academic and/or generic use of the term. So far I'm very unconvinced. It increasingly seems to me that this is just a POV-fork of Caucasian race. Please provide good sources to support the contention that this article is actually about a different subject to the Caucasian race article, because I can find no such support. I do no have a strong opinion one way or another about this article, and am not strongly against having a "Caucasoid race" article, if it can be shown that it really is something different to the "Caucasian race" article, so far neither the article nor it's talk page has provided such evidence. So I think the merge template  needs to stay in place. If no such evidence can be fond then I suggest that we just redirect this article to "Caucasian race" and have done with it. I also not that Indian people are generally considered part of the Caucasian race, so it seems odd to try to exclude them from the "Caucasoid race", which would in fact be a larger grouping according to Lukas. This beggs the question, if Caucasians cover the geographical areas of Europe, the Near East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent, then what areas are covered by the "Caucasoid race"? I ask simply because areas outside this are usually attributed to different "races". Alun 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides of this. I do believe the traditional racial classifications were "caucasoid", "negroid", "mongoloid" and the three correspond to each other, and mean simply the races - caucasian-like, negro-like and mongol-like.  So probably the "caucasian race" article is the one with an incorrect title as it is not a race of people from the caucasus mountains, it's a race of people like the people from there.  Fourdee 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a question of sides. I understand what Lukas is saying, I do not claim he is wrong. What I am saying is that the sources I have found (and I am not suggesting that my search is comprehensive) do not really differentiate between a "Caucasoid race" and a "Caucasain race". So if we want to keep this article what we need is a solid reliable source so we can build the article based on neutral and verified information. We cannot accept Lukas's post, for the simple reason that he says clearly that this is how he sees it, not that this is how it is presented by any published material, so to include this POV as it stands would constitute original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I don't have a problem with how Lukas sees it, what he says is perfectly logical, but we can't use it as a basis for how the article defines a "Caucasoid race". So we need to do two things, we need to include the point of view that "Caucasoid race" is often (or sometimes) used interchangably with "Caucasian race" (we can verify this) and we need to find a source that specifically states that the "Caucasoid race" is actually a different thing to the "Caucasian race". It is the second part I can find no evidence for. I do not claim that it is wrong, but the main criterion for inclusion is verifiability not truth, if we can't verify this, then I cannot see how this article has any reason for existing, any information here could just as easily be included in the "Caucasian race" article in that case. I think this is quite clear, and it is fundamental to Wikipedia that we verify our edits and provide all POVs. I think we can wait a week or so to try and find some sort of reliable source that specifically states that "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" are actually different "races". If we can't do this then I suggest we just redirect this article to "Caucasian race" as per WP:Content forking. Alun 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may have read too much into my use of "sides"... Also agree with no original research - this is just a talk page, good place for presenting opinions and hypotheses.  At any rate, I agree with merging the articles - however isn't "Caucasoid" the anthropological classification, and therefore the more proper name to the article? Fourdee 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking a bit deeper into this it seems that this page was created as a redirect to Races of Craniofacial Anthropology. I was unaware that there are only three races in the study of Craniofacial Anthropology, not the traditional five. Then in the September User:Dark Tichondrias wrote a full article and did the same for Mongoloid race, for some reason she didn't do an article for Negroid race. DT's article looks fine to me, it's specifically about craniofacial antropology, of which Caucasoid is one of the three races. So from that perspective Caucasoid is indeed a different thing to Caucasian. But it only seems to apply to craniofacial anthropology, and the "races" do not correspond to other racial groups, they are merely applied based on skull measurments, for example the Mongoloid race article states that African Khoisan are strictly classified as Mongoloid because of their cranial anatomy, even though there is little evidence of their being related to people form east Asia. So alternatively we can revert to DT's article, it's consistent with the Mongoloid race article, and it's scope is compatible with the article about craniofacial anthropology, which is how these "races" are defined. I think this might be a better solution, what do you think? Alun 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me, however the top of the article should make it very clear that the main article on this topic is at Caucasian race - with a tag, or even better disambig tag or whatever is appropriate and some explication of the distinction in italics - and that this is only about the historic definitions of craniofacial anthropology, to avoid both confusion on the part of readers and the inclination of people to edit this article thinking it is the main one about caucasians.  Also might be worth noting at the top of the talk page, and archiving all the arguments here, to avoid future problems.  Also I'm not sure a total revert is the best solution; I haven't looked closely but is there anything that was added that may be relevant to craniofacial anthropology?  Fourdee 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Races of traditional anthropology: (e.g.s. Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid). Therefore this article should link to races of traditional anthropology. And Caucasian is not one of the Races of traditional anthropology. Lukas19 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the article you link to they use "Caucasoid" to mean "Caucasian" as far as I can see. Indeed I don't know what they mean by "traditional anthropology", the term is vague to say the least. There is plenty of evidence that "Caucasoid" and "Caucasian" are often used interchangably. This article was originally about the specific "Caucasoid" craniofacial race, now it's about the Caucasian race. There is little point in having two articles about the same thng, in this case it may well be a POV-fork. You have made no case for the article to continue to exist in it's current form. I think that the current form is misleading, and that it should be redirected to Caucasian race. If we want to keep the article then we need to make it specifically about craniofacial anthropometry. There seems no evidence that this article is about any sort of properly defined race that is different to the Caucasian race. Indeed the paper you cite also states that: "Modern extant humans do not fracture into races (subspecies) based on the modern phylogenetic criteria of molecular systematics. Thus, a.	The social and demographic units of human societies are not races, and b.	The racial taxa (groups) of classical anthropology are not races." Should we quote this in the article as well? Alun 14:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Races of craniofacial anthropometry: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid

Races of traditional anthropology(this is missing in Wikipedia): Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Negroid and Capoid

In 1962, the physical anthropologist Carlton Coon further refined this classification of five races on the basis of phenotypic physical features; he called the races Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Negroid and Capoid10. Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay persons.

And:

Conclusions The emerging picture is that populations do, generally, cluster by broad geographic regions that correspond with common racial classification (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Americas). This is not surprising as the distribution of variation seen today is primarily the result of the history of human expansion out of Africa, the pathways of expansion through Eurasia, subsequent demographic expansions of populations into Oceania and the Americas and local and long-range migrations. A general pattern of isolation by distance has allowed drift to accumulate in spite of some damping due to local migrations. The pattern laid down by the initial expansion of modern humans out of Africa is detectable using Y-chromosome, mtDNA and autosomal markers. Selection in response to region-specific factors has enhanced the differences at some loci, and recent migrations and demic expansions have added complexity to the pattern. But 'races' are neither homogeneous nor distinct for most genetic variation. Lukas19 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are still two questions that your post fails to address. Firstly you have not demonstrated that the "Caucasoid" race that Coon refers to is actually different to the Caucasian race, this is most important because if you cannot show this then this article is redundant. We already know that Caucasoid and Caucasian are used interchangably, where is the evidence that this article is actually about a different concept? Please provide a source. The second point that the quote above from the nature paper does not mention a Caucasoid race at all, so how is it relevant? It may be relavant to the Race article, but it is not relevant here. This article is about the Caucasoid race, it should not include information about whether the concept of race is a biological reality, that information belongs on the Race article. Please address these concerns. As far as I can see the Caucasoid race that Coons refers to is identical to the Caucasian race in the article of the same name. You can quote research papers about human geographic diversity as much as you like, but the fundamental problem is not this, it is finding a reliable source that confirms your contention that Caucasoid and Caucasian races are different. You also need to find a scientific genetics paper that states categorically that it is talking about a Caucasoid race that is different to a Caucasian race. You have done neither. The paper used in the Genetics section equally does not provide evidence for such a distinction. If this concept is well known and well accepted in the accademic fields of genetics and anthropology then it should be easy to find such a source. Alun 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have stub articles for all the anthropological races and a generally consistent set of links and categories etc.

I do still think a disambiguation tag at the top of this article notifying people of the caucasian race article, and one from there back to here, would be helpful in avoiding confusion and disputes. I'm not clear on the basis for the caucasian race article, but it seems like there will be persisent confusion over the two articles. I'll add one and you guys can see what you think of it. Fourdee 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Leroi source
The Leroi source is a dead link.-Psychohistorian 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetics section rewrite
Wobble, I think you did great work on the much needed rewrite in this section. I just wanted to thank you for that.-Psychohistorian 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wobble's Reverts

 * The genetics section (as I wrote it) had got three sources:

1) Genetic clusters

2) A scientist thinks that these clusters correspond to more or less traditional races of anthropology.

3) Traditional races of anthropology includes Caucasoid (not Caucasian).

It's all there. It's quite simple to understand. Please dont claim it's not related to Caucasoids.


 * Coon, whose classifications are accepted by many researchers, despite some criticism, as quoted above, classified caucasians as a sub-race of caucasoids. So they are not always interchangeable. We already got Caucasian American (where this term is mostly used), Caucasian peoples. So maybe we can add some of Caucasian Race here instead of deleting this article.


 * You changed the inro again, which misleads readers. And you did that without answering my latest response at Talk:Caucasoid_race


 * Please do not delete cited material in genetics section and dump it into Notes section. It's ,biased. If you think that my edits are biased, make your own counter arguments, rather than deleting mines. Lukas19 15:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Lukas, if you had read my edit you would have percieved that I used exactly the same sources as you did. I also used many of the same quotes, though I moved these to the footnotes section as they simply confirm the text, and it interferes with the article when too many quotes are used. I used the genetic clusters source to show that geographic clustering is not the same as "race", as they specifically state in their paper. I used the cite from Leroy, who thinks that this work supports the concept of race, to show that even he thinks that race is an arbitrary concept (study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map.) . And I used the Position paper from the National Human Genome Center to show that they do not accept the existence of biological races. These are exactly the same sources you used. Furthermore I included some other sources that have some relevance. The cite from Leroy certainly did include his reference to "traditional races of anthropology". But there is a fundamental problem here, the term "traditional races of anthropology" is at best ambiguous. You have used two different papers that happen to use the same ambiguous term, and have assumed that they are talking about the same thing. I would also state categorically that your version of the Genetics section was POV and in direct contravention of the neutrality policy. You had used selective quotes to try to support an argument that none of the sources supported, to the extent that you deliberately omited the statement in Rosenberg et al. that their data do not support the existence of biological race, Leroy stated that he thinks that the subdivision of the human population is arbitrary (you failed to mention this), but that dividing according to continent of origin is as good a way as any of dividing the human species, and that if five groups are used "the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology." that is more or less, not exactly. You took this ambiguous term and found the same term in a completelly different paper and used the two papers to artificially concoct an argument that a) human races are suported by Rosenberg et al. b) the races are traditional and c) traditional means that one is "Caucasoid". But you have singularly failed to show that the "Caucasoid race" is fundamentally different to the "Caucasian race", this is of paramount importance to this article. Indeed as far as I can see the "Caucasian race" and the "Caucasoid race" are used interchangably by nearly everyone. Please provide supporting evidence that they are indeed distinct entities. I have asked you to do this several times, but you have failed to do so. I am still under the impression that this article is little more than a POV-fork of the Caucasian race article. The article you link to above is about Caucasian peoples and not about the Caucasian race. Caucasian peoples have a different article to the Caucasian race article, which is about the exact same subject as this article, that is people from Europe, North Africa, the Near East and the Indian subcontinent. Alun 06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The change to the intro was necessary because your intro is in breach of wikipedia guidelines, you have chosen to start the intro by mentoning a specific organisation, rather than giving a general introduction. This article is about a subject that has several different meanings depending on context. The OED does not even mention the existence of a "Caucasoid race", (if I search the full Oxford English Dictionary for "Caucasoid race" I get zero hits) but simply states for a search of Caucasoid "Of, pertaining to, or resembling the Caucasian race. Also as n." This clearly indicates that the term Caucasoid is associated with the "Caucasian race" and is not usually a different entity. You appear to be confusing the people of the Caucases, Caucasian peoples in Wikipedia, with a Caucasian race, ie those people with are described by the adjective Caucasoid. Do you actually know the difference between an adjective and a noun? The term caucasoid is the adjective of the noun caucasian (although caucasoid can be a noun as well). It's really not very difficult. So a Caucasian person can be identified as Caucasoid (indeed because it is an adjective (ie discriptive) even someone who is like a Caucasian can be described as Caucasoid), just like something that is human or resembles a human can be described as humanoid. Here's the OED definition of Caucasian (not Caucasian race)"A. adj. Of or belonging to the region of the Caucasus: a name given by Blumenbach (a1800) to the ‘white’ race of mankind, which he derived from the region of the Caucasus. B. n.  a. A native or inhabitant of the Caucasus. b. A member of the ‘Caucasian’ family, an Indo-European; spec. a member of the ‘white race’, opp. one of other ethnic descent." It's also instructive to look at the wiktionary definitions of these two words caucasian and caucasoid. Please give specific sources about the difference between Caucasian race and Caucasoid race, it is not generally accepted that Caucasian race only applies to people of the Caucasus, and this is made abundantly clear in the Caucasian race article. Alun 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You complained that sources were removed from the article. However, by reverting, you, in turn, removed several sources that he added.  I went through the two versions (yours and Wobble's) and compiled them to make sure that no sources from either version were removed.  I found two sources that his version did not carry over.  I added one of them.  The other one is below.  I couldn't figure out how or where to best put it back in, but I didn't want to remove it without mentioning it.

"'Some individuals from boundary locations between these regions were inferred to have partial ancestry in the clusters that corresponded to both sides of the boundary. Also, in many cases, subclusters that corresponded to individual populations or to subsets of populations were also identified.'" Its from the Rosenberg source already cited in the article.-Psychohistorian 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1) You havent proven that Caucasoid refers to European Ancestry group only.
 * I don't need to. They say it on their website. You have read the section where they state that the headings have changed. For some reason you are choosing to assume that they have had some sort of wholescale reorganisation, which they oddly don't mention anywhere. Funny that. So now you are asking me to provide evidence that nothing has changed. This is pythonesque in it's sillyness. Go and find evidence that your mythical massive reorganisation has actually occured will you please? If there is none than I think it's safe to assume that you are imagining it. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I already have given the evidence. But you didnt understand it as well. I gave you the example of Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone and Anti-Infective Agents. And I gave you the link to heading changes. Some headings link to eachother despite not being used interchangeably. This is something you still cant understand. Wow. Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2) You havent proven that India is considered part of the European ancestry group. Because:


 * 1) So you think Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone is interchangeable with Anti-Infective Agents?


 * 2)"The MeSH term Racial Stocks and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004. A new heading, Continental Population Groups, has been created with new indentions that emphasize geography. Ethnic Groups is a sibling to the new Continental Population Groups."


 * 3) I'm not saying Indians arent Caucasoid. I'm just saying they are not of European descent. And currently, that's what is implied in your edit.
 * No it's not. It just states that the NLM describes them as such. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For ex, look to . Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone is not interchangeable with Anti-Infective Agents. It's just that 	Anti-Infective Agents replaced both Anti-Infective Agents, Fluoroquinolone and Anti-Infective Agents, Quinolone headings...Lukas19 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What's this all about? This is totally irrelevant. This article is not about Infective agents. If you want to discuss Anti-Infective Agents or Fluoroquinolone find a relevant article because this is not one. Alun 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was quoting myself from Talk:Caucasoid_race to point out that your assumption about Indians being from European Continental Ancestry group is stupid. Please read that section, I have repeated myself enough...Lukas19 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For once we agree. You have repeated yourself ad nauseum. If you are incapable of navigating arround the National Library of Medicine website then I cannot be held responsible for that. There's only so many times I can repeat myself in words of one syllable. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised that you are incapable of understanding how internet works and why some articles are linked together. Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about Caucasoid people, not about people of European descent. The intro clearly states that Indians are considered Caucasoid by the group in question (National Librery of Medicine). It is irrelevant if they are considered part of the European Ancestry Group, they are still considered Caucasoid by the National Library of Medicine, they state this clearly, and this article is about Caucasoid, not about European descent. What has European descent got to do with it? The article is about Caucasoid people, Indians are Caucasoid according to the National Library of Medicine, and we have a source (the Library itself) to support it. Where's the problem here? Alun 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about Caucasoid people? No shit! Are you reading what I say? I'm just saying that this sentence is incorrect: "The European Continental Ancestry Group comprises Individuals whose ancestral origins are in the continent of Europe.[2] but also includes people from India.[3]". This sentence says Indians are from "The European Continental Ancestry Group". Get it now? Also I bolded my previous response. You seem to be having a huge reading incomprehension issue. Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you claiming this? It's what they claim on their website. If you do not like their classification go and bore them about it and not me. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you stop reverting things you do not understand, I'll stop boring myself by answering you...Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, your assumptions were incorrect. Therefore the intro is misleading.
 * What assumptions? I do not make assumptions, I only state what sources state. As far as I can see it is you who are making assumptions, the use of a vague and nontechical phrase by two unrelated papers does not show that they are talking about the same thing, it is you who are assuming that use of the term "traditional races of anthropology" is consistent. I am questioning your assumption. Please provide evidence that they mean the same thing. Alun 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (rolls eyes) Your assumption that Indians are part of the "The European Continental Ancestry Group" which is discussed at length in Talk:Caucasoid_race. Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. How is this about Caucasoids? If you have a problem with their classification take it up with them, not me. I have told you this before. I am not responsible for what they put on their website. It's clearly there, all you have to do is follow the links. (tries and fails not to give withering look). Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3) I have provided 2 sources about traditional races of anthropology. You have provided none. You havent proven the ambiguity.
 * No you haven't because they do not define what they mean by "traditional races of anthropology", you are just assuming that this rather vague nontechnical and undefined term is being applied consistently. Please provide evidence that this term is being used consistently, it does not appear to be a technical term, and may well have different meanings in different contexts. You are bound to do this if someone queries your citation. Alun 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the above quote: ""The MeSH term Racial Stocks and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004." Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

4) Caucasian proper is a sub race of Caucasoid, according to Coon, as explained above. Caucasian proper is not Caucasian people, since caucasian peoples may include other subraces, like turanid, mediterrenean, etc...So it's not always used interchangeably. And caucasian itself has got many meanings. One refers to White Europeans, the other one similar to Caucasoid.
 * If it is according to Coon, then cite it as according to Coon, cite Coon himself, and do not cite it as a term accepted by everyone. Alun 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What? When did I "cite it as a term accepted by everyone"? I'm just saying Caucasoid and Caucasian are not always interchangeable and therefore this article shouldnt be deleted. Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you had cited it as a term accepted by everyone, I said that you should cite it as a term that Coon uses if you cite Coon, this is because Coon's "Caucasoid race" is different to other "Caucasoid races". Indeed I am sceptical about this whole thing. The OED doesn't think any such thing exists, and if it's between you and the OED, then I'll go with the OED every time. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The MeSH term Racial Stocks and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race)..." So caucasoid, not caucasian was used by MeSH as Racial Stocks. But they are deleted now. Hence, "traditional"...Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But this is exactly the point, you have provided no evidence that Caucasoid and Caucasian are not always interchangeable. I have asked you to provide evidence that these two terms are discrete, and you have ignored me, except to give me your opinion. Now provide a cite from a reliable source please. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave you the link to Coon and I also gave you the quote which says Coon's classifications ,despite disagreement among anthropologists, remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay persons. I cant believe you cant connect these dots and instead, say I "provided no evidence that Caucasoid and Caucasian are not always interchangeable" WOW. That was supposed to be really simple Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

5)I dont object you adding new material to the genetics section. I object you dumping material to notes section. Lukas19 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Only quotes were placed there. They serve no purpose in the article, they can be used for verifiability equally there. Alun 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, footnotes is longer than whole article so it is dumb. And I dont agree with your summary. It's not written from NPOV. Instead of relying on your poor biased summaries, readers should be able to read arguments and decide for themselves. Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What summary? I do not understand what you mean by "summary". The lead section was not written by me. The lead section should conform to certain criteria. You have started the lead by mentioning a totally unrelated group from the National Library of Medicine. I do not understand how this group is relevant to the Caucasoid race, and why that should be mentioned in the very forst sentence. The lead should be general. And it is neutral because it clearly gives several POVs about how Caucasoid is used. Your lead was badly writtn and did not conform to correct wikipedia style guidelines. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did you switch to intro again? Look above. Number 5 talks about genetics section. See: "I dont object you adding new material to the genetics section" Get it what I mean by summary now? Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

6) I deliberately omited the statement in Rosenberg et al. that their data do not support the existence of biological race? As I said, I dont (didnt) object anyone to add new material. When Pshcyohistorian added it, I didnt delete. And:

Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.

Rosenberg et al. doesnt say that their data do not support the existence of biological race. They say it "should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race." To me, it's more like they dont want to enter a political debate about their research since they say "existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility" Lukas19 14:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to interpret it any way you like, to me it seems more like a way of rationalising something you don't like to yourself. They clearly state that their data should not be taken as evidence for the existence of "race" and go on to state that the arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility. This should clearly be put into the article as it is directly relevant, and somewhat dilutes your POV edit, which I assume is the real reason why you left it out. This indicates to me that the authors of the paper are aware of the fact that "race" as a concept is far more than "biology" and that, as most biologists understand, it is impossible to remove the social and cultural meanings from the word (and all that goes along with them, like mass murder, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, slavery, segregation, gas chambers etc. etc.) for example these two quotes:


 * Why are you saying "This should clearly be put into the article" when I never objected it? Why are you making arguments when there is no need? Like even though I NEVER said Indians arent Caucasoid, you kept repeating it over and over that they are. You may have time to say irrelevant things over and over but I dont. Please try to make your responses concise. And please dont include your stupid interpretations/assumptions of my actions like: "to me it seems more like a way of rationalising something you don't like to yourself." or "which I assume is the real reason why you left it out". I'm not interested at your opinions.
 * Who's making an argument? It was an observation. You omited this originally, I say it should clearly have been included beacuse it is significant and relevant. I do not understand why you left it out. Or rather I do understand. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No I keep repeating that the National Library of Medicine states this, even though you seem to think they do not. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No I keep saying you dont understand the concept of why they link some articles together. I've given countless examples but you still dont understand. Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just said "To me, it's more like they dont want to enter a political debate about their research since they say..." because I thought it'd be wrong if you added article something like "Rosenberg et al. data do not support the existence of biological race". That's why we need quotes in the article. Interpretations are subjective... Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I don't interpret papers, I just cite them. I leave the "interpretation" to you, it's what you seem to do best. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * it is essential to point out that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are terms without generally agreed upon definitions. Both carry complex conotations that refelct culture, history, economics and political status, as well as a variably important connection to ancestral geographic origins.: What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era. by Francis S Collins. Nature Genetics Supplement 2004, 36:11, s13-s15.
 * Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Genetic variation, classification and 'race by Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, Nature Genetics' 36, S28 - S33 (2004).
 * It is clear to any biologist that genetic variability is geographically distributed. But to show that this is true does not mean that "race" exists in a biological sense. Many of the papers cited to support the existence of "race" do not mention "race" at all, many simply state that it is possible to show that people that live in geographically proximate regions are more closely related. This is not something anyone is supprised about. What is worrying is that some people with some sort of agenda are distorting these findings and choosing to selectively quote them to support their POV. But the important thing is that there is no biologically defined or recognised concept of race, and these people pushing their POV never actually get arround to stating this. So I'm saying it now. There is no consensus in the field of biology regarding the concept of biological races. The main reason for this is that the concept is unsupported by the evidence we have. Whether races exist or not is rather arbitrary anyway, what does it mean? If all race means is that people who live close together are genetically similar, then British people are a race, Welsh people are a Race, the people of my home town are a race, European people are a race and all humans are a race. If it is supposed to hold some fundamental truth about distinct and deep differences between the populations of differeent continents, well biology certainly doesn't support this at all (because genetic distribution is clinal, and the clines of genetic distribution obviously overlap the "racial" boundaries, so human populations have never been entirely separated into "discrete entities", they has always been significant gene transfer between these continents). So even if we were to arbitrarily define "races" what would it tell us about the various populations? Only what we already know, that people that live close to each other are more like each other than people who live far away. Hardly a mirraculous revelation. Alun 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what is the point of you adding all these here? Clearly, these are cited material and if you believe that they should be in the article, then add it. If you are directing all these towards me, dont bother. As I said, I'm not interested at your interpretations...Lukas19 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How can these be my interpretations. I didn't write them. What a strange thing to say. Alun 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh? You didnt write this part: "It is clear to any biologist that....Only what we already know, that people that live close to each other are more like each other than people who live far away. Hardly a mirraculous revelation." Lukas19 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deconstruction of Race doesn't belong in this article at all
None of this dispute about whether races exist belongs in this article, it is covered in its own articles like Race, Genetic_views_on_race, etc. This article should mention the characteristics which people ascribe to the term caucasoid and its use as an anthropological category, and if appropriate any cited genetic evidence for the genetic attributes of caucasoids. If there a counter-citation to such genetic evidence, it should relate directly to caucasoids as well and directly refute that evidence rather than the premises behind the concept of race. Attacking of the concept of race is like flooding an article on a religion with POV from atheists. At most it deserves a footnote, not overwhelming the article with views with presume the topic doesn't even exist - the article is here to describe the topic, and this other stuff is way off topic. The best way to handle this is a note that at the bottom of a page with a link to a page that discusses the more general objections to race, as those are not objections to the caucasoid race, but to races in general. Fourdee 04:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed Wobble's off-topic section which he overwrote Lukas's section with, and I think we are left with not much of an article. Either this should be filled out with information specific to what the term Caucasoid means (physically, genetically, whatever), or left alone as a brief article.  The rest of this stuff belongs elsewhere - like Genetic_views_on_race - as it doesn't relate directly to caucasoids at all. Fourdee 04:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but there was a long section that cited a paper that did not even mention "Caucasoid race" at all. If editors want to cite genetic research to back up the concept of a Caucasoid race, then use research papers that explicitly state that their work supports the concept of a Caucasoid race. If an editor uses a research paper that has nothing to do with the Caucasoid race to try to support the concept, then they will imidiately engage in a debate about the very existence of "race" as a concept. Your logic is impeccable, but you seem not to have applied it equally, and certainly not to the previous edit about genetics, which was equally devoid of relevance to this article. For example this version uses a scientific paper that does not even mention a "Caucasoid race" at all. The use of scientific papres needs to be directly applicable to the subject at hand. Lukas's version of the genetics section was not applicable, and was very far from a ballanced and neutral edit. I applaud you for removing this section. Genetics has no place in this article because there are no papers, to my knowledge, that explicitly state that genetics supports the concept of a Caucasian race. Alun 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wobble's Insistance on Summarizing

 * I'm not going to add this above since it's too long. The problem with his edits is that he puts his interpretations rather than direct quotes. Ex, Wobble:

"Although genetic variability is very small within the human population, what varation that does exist can be used to deduce the geographical origins of an individual's recent ancestors"


 * What the source says:

" Homo sapiens is a relatively young species and has not had as much time to accumulate genetic variation as have the vast majority of species on earth, most of which predate humans by enormous expanses of time. Nonetheless, there is considerable genetic variation in our species. The human genome comprises about 3 x 109  base pairs of DNA, and the extent of human genetic variation is such that no two humans, save identical twins, ever have been or will be genetically identical. Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation—biochemical individuality—is about 0.1 percent. This means that about one base pair out of every 1,000 will be different between any two individuals. Any two (diploid) people have about 6 x 106  base pairs that are different, an important reason for the development of automated procedures to analyze genetic variation."


 * And I'm not even talking about this:

"Humans show big DNA differences Scientists have shown that the genetic make-up of humans can vary hugely - far more than was previously thought.......It would seem the assumption that the DNA of any two humans is 99.9% similar in content and identity no longer holds.......This is a huge, hitherto unrecognised, level of variation between one individual and the next.

"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," said Matthew Hurles, of the UK's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.

"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome. "


 * Wobble, I find your notion of thinking that you are neutral silly. You are not. Neither is what you write. I'm biased as well. What makes articles written from NPOV is NOT editors pretending to be neutral. It's the addition of different POVs by multiple editors. In future do not delete cited material, if the source is reliable. Add your counter arguments instead. Do not dump material into footnotes. I've told this dozen times. But I seem to need to repeat some stuff several times for some people to comprehend. Lukas19 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it hypocritical in the extreme for you to claim that I put interpretations into my edits. You have used a citation in the genetics section that doesn't even mention the "Caucasiud race". You have also failed pointedly to show that the "Caucasoid race" is different to the"Caucasian race", even though I have asked you to on numerous occasions. As for human genetic duversity, there is much diversity on the indvidual level, little on the "racial" level, if you did not know this, then you shouls not be editing using citations you clearly know nothing about. Just what are your credentials for claiming to understanf the genetics here? You claim to be a teenager, so I am assuming you do not have a higher education in either biology or genetics. So I am sceptical in the extreme that you have the foggiest what these rather technical papers actually mean. You are maing claims for these papers that they do not make themselves. You tried to do it on the English people article, and you are doing it hewre. The paper you quote doesn't mention a "Caucasoid race" at all. So how does this constitute a source for the "Caucasian race"? This may be a perfectly good paper regarding a general article about race, but it supports nothing in thes article. Take a look at your "neitral" edits. You are biased and terribly POV, we all have a POV, and none of us is as neutral as we might like to think, but at least I try, you don't know the meaning of the word, you just want to make claims that science supports your racist ideas, when it clearly doesn't, If you had any scientific credentials or understanding you would know this. So find a reliable source that states categorically that genetic research supports the concept od Coon's "Caucasian race". If you do this I will be happy to allow you to include it in the article. At the moment it's all smoke and mirrors and is a convoluted series of tenuous assumptions. Alun 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (rolls eyes) Whatever. You are repeating points which were answered above and I'll not dignify your ranting with answers except this. The claim that genetic variation at racial level is low is disputed. See Edwards' arguments in Genetic views on race and Lewontin's Fallacy. Full text is here: The stupidity of locus by locus analysis has also been demonstrated by latest research which is quote above (BBC article). Scientists looked at copy number and found that genetic variation is hugely greater than what was thought before. In future different variables can be discovered and eventually the correlations between these variables. Lukas19 20:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Important Information
Wobble/Alun deleted this: "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."

Why? There is a huge difference between a term defined by someone AND a term defined by someone but remains in use by many researchers, despite disagreement among anthropologists. Lukas19 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetics Section Added Again
Feel free to add counter arguments. Just in case, due to reading incomprehension among some editors:

"Wobble, I find your notion of thinking that you are neutral silly. You are not. Neither is what you write. I'm biased as well. What makes articles written from NPOV is NOT editors pretending to be neutral. It's the addition of different POVs by multiple editors. In future do not delete cited material, if the source is reliable. Add your counter arguments instead. Do not dump material into footnotes. I've told this dozen times. But I seem to need to repeat some stuff several times for some people to comprehend." Lukas19 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My only concern is that this information isn't very specific to Caucasoids and it invites Wobble to add more geocities and blog counter-citations about race in general, which kind of takes the page off on a tangent. However I am not going to dispute someone's edits when I agree with what they are saying. :)  That quote you found for genetics in white people is solid, is there anything like that for Caucasians?  Fourdee 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah well my little nordicist friend, many of my notions may be "silly" by your standards, I cannot say, I will say that I am supremely indifferent to what you think. Indeed I might go so far as to say that being considered silly by someone with your opinions makes me rather a decent chap. But I'd like to know when I've ever cited "blogs" or indeed "geocities". Indeed I took several cites from spurious sources away when I first came to this page, which neither of you had seen fit to remove. There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me). How do they constitute a reliable or academic source? I Wonder why you didn't remove this oh so reliable source? Another was a link to a hair care company, I'll say it again a hair care company, so not only unreliable, but also linkspam. Oh, and for a long time there was this, which is a geocities cite, though if you know anything about me then you must know that I didn't use it as a cite. I didn't know if I should remove it because it looks like a scan of a proper paper, though very old and unreliable, but I certainly didn't add it, if you think I did then you should get your facts straight before making unfounded accusations. The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more. So again I find myself agreeing with Fourdee, you need a more solid source, one about Caucasoids, not one that doesn't even mention "race" at all. Alun 20:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that you added the hair company source, along with geocities.com and blogspots. Since the state of your memory is clear, here, this is the diff: . And this is the diff of me deleting content citing unreliable sources: . I will not dignify rest of your ranting with answers...Lukas19 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse me of things I haven't done. Why would I say I didn't add them if I had? Anyone can check the history of the page. Your diffs do not show that I added these sources, these sources occur on both the diffs (before and after), indeed they are both edits of mine, so the fact that the sources both occur on the first version is hardly proof that I added them. Indeed my first edit on this article ever was on the 13th of December 2006. Here is the version of the article immediately prior to my first ever edit,  this was a version that you had edited, and clearly contains the links you say I added. This is the article as written by Dark Tichondrias when it became a proper article as opposed to a redirect, it contains a geocities site, a racial reality site and several other unreliable sources. The geocities site is a different one I note. Here is the version where the geocities site you have accused me of adding was actually added, again by DT.  This was on 15 of September 2006, a full three months before I even made my first edit here. I think you owe me an apology young man. Your diffs do not show that I added these pages. Ah my ranting. One rule for you and another for everyone else is it? Alun 21:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this diff appears to show you adding back some of the questionable material.
 * I have never "added back" any material to this section. We had a discussion on the talk page about reverting to a previous version of the article when it was about "races of craniofacial anthropology", Lukas did not participate in this discussion, but you and I did and this is what we agreed. Later Lukas took exception and reverted again, this was his prerogative, I had thought some consensus had been reached, but I had jumped the gun. I had simply reverted to a previous version of the article. I had not checked all of the citations in this previous version, a revert is a revert, if you look at the two versions you will see that the "geocities" cite occurs on both. I had not looked to see if all of the poor cites occured in the older version, and maybe I should have, but this was just an oversite. This is not the same as me having introduced the cites into the article, which is what you had claimed. Alun 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Racism is stupid?
As to intelligent racists, how do you define racism? Some would say that lack of interest in marrying outside one's own race is racism, and by that measure a vast majority of intelligent people are racist. Also consider that college-educated people have been put through an extensive system of indoctrination in sociology and such nonsense which make it seem that the only intelligent/educated thing to do is be opposed to racialism. It's not a matter of individual thought but more a case of sheepish following of what seems to be the prevalent notion of reasonable and right. Fourdee 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't really care what "some would say", this is you speculating, it doesn't sound like any definition of racism I have ever heared. Indeed I don't think any defintion of racism includes reference to marriage at all, why should it, these are unrelated concepts? I said "racists" are stupid (in my opinion), I didn't say "racialists" are stupid, you have conflated the two. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another, this is what I think is stupid. Racialism is the belief in the existence of biological races, nearly everyone believes in the existence of races, the question is whether those races are a biological construct or a social construct, or possibly represent a little of both (in that our society encourages us to think that small biological differences are more important than they really are). Personally I see no evidence in biology for the existence of "race" in the biological sense of "sub-species". This is my opinion, it is also the opinion of the majority of geneticists and molecular biologists. These opinions are held for good biological reasons, something that is deliberately overlooked by people trying to politicise the subject. If people are going to include genetic data in articles because they think that these data support racialism, then in order for the article to remain neutral we need to include the alternative POV, which is that most biologists do not equate geographically distributed genetic variation with "race". Personally I think we should leave all the genetic material for specific articles about race and genetics unless the paper has something specific to say about the subject of the article in question. I would also point out that this article is supposed to be about Coon's "Caucasoid race" (according to Lukas), but Coon's race was based on physical anthropology and not genetics, so we should not have a genetics section, by definition Coon's "Caucasoids" are based on physical measurements and not genetics. Where I come from education teaches people to think for themselves, so they can't be indoctrinated, it's easy to indoctrinate the stupid or illiterate, it's hard to indoctrinate people who can pick holes in an argument. Seems to me that most indoctrination has been done historically by dictatorial regimes like Nazism and Communism (equaly repugnant IMHO) and not by liberal democracies. Alun 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well let me ask, what is a preference for marrying within one's own ethnicity or race but a belief that one's own race is better (for some value of better)?
 * The preference for marrying inside one's own ethnic group is surely derived from a variety of reasons, I fail to see why any perceived "superiority" would be considered a determining factor. Considerations include things like language, cultural familiarity, social norms and geographical location, these are certainly more important than any sense of "superiority". To think that the majority of people think in terms of "superiority" or indeed ever think in terms of "race" is to display a systemic bias. Why do you assume your reasoning represents a anything other than a personal opinion? Alun 14:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it has nothing to do with physical appearance? A desire for any children to share those same characteristics?  Interesting theory.  Interracial marriage is not common in the US, where we ostensibly all share a similar culture and language.  No doubt there are "sociological" reasons still, but isn't the most obvious reason that it's a matter of physical aesthetics?  Fourdee 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And as to other kinds of superiority, isn't it true that asians have the highest average IQ, whites close behind, and blacks have a markedly lower IQ - see race and intelligence. Is it "racist" or "stupid" to believe these statistics are accurate?  Is it "racist" or "stupid" to observe that blacks on average have a measured cranial capacity which closely correlates to the lesser measured intelligence?  It's hard to attribute these to "cultural" differences when there is something concrete (cranium/brain size) which corresponds to the measured intelligence of a 67-85 IQ (and also to the slightly higher IQ of northeast asians than whites (as a whole), a similar difference in average brain size).  It's also interesting to note that other "disadvantaged" and "marginalized" groups do not have nearly as low of a measured IQ as sub-saharan africans - more in the 90-95 range.
 * Yes it is racist and stupid to do all of these things. Alun 14:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you say so? Because a sociology professor says so?  I'll stick with the measured and readily observed facts.  Hard to imagine how one group alone manages to score 67 on language-neutral IQ tests, and why that same group would have much smaller brains on average, and why brain size has already been successfully correlated to intelligence.  I guess the scientists interested in such studies are stupid too...  Stupid for daring to wonder if something obvious might be true.  Fourdee 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to give any meaning to "superiority" without being more specific - superior in what regard? Physical aesthetics?  Culture?  Genetic predilections?  Intelligence?  Accomplishments?  There are lots of ways to look at whether one group might be superior culturally and/or genetically to another.  I don't think it's "stupid" to suppose there might be valid generalizations to be made about cultures or ethnic groups - it's a simple matter of belief - some people believe, for socio-political reasons, that those generalizations might be useful, others do not.  We're way off on a tangent though, I'm just trying to respond to the issue you raised.  Fourdee 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it matter how these people regard themselves as "superior"? I don't think so, the fact that they are deluded enough to believe it is dangerous enough. Alun 14:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it a "delusion" or "stupid" to hold an opinion on the value of something? This is the typical tactic along the lines of calling it "ignorant" to believe things about the values of ethnic groups or races.  I don't buy it.  It's perception of relative value, often based on articulable reasons.  Not the least of which might be an an aesthetic prefence - I guess such things are stupid as well?  Or how about culture - it's "stupid" to say one culture might be superior to another?
 * Is culture really divorced from genetics? Isn't there feedback between the two?  Doesn't a culture select for the traits it finds desirable (and there is indisputable evidence for genetic predilections to behaviors), and doesn't a group of people create a society which matches their predilections, and doesn't this selection magnify over time due to the feedback?
 * Why would it be "stupid" to find the genetically determined physical appearance of one group preferable to that of another? I'm not clear on your thinking here.  I think you mean "morally objectionable" (within a moral system that is incomprehensible to me) rather than "stupid".  Fourdee 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Content fork
Stop concentrating on race and start focusing on the genetic characteristics of Caucasians devoid of a discussion of whether they constitute a race and it won't be a content fork. Bringing up whether or not those genetic characteristics are enough to form a race requires that all the experts in the field who say that they don't has to be brought up in order to give balance. That, in turn, brings a description of the race debate to this article and that creates a content fork. So, just descrbe the genetic characteristics and the sources for them and ONLY that and there won't be a problem.-Psychohistorian 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. But it also seems to me that if this article is about the Caucasoid race as defined by Coon (something Lukas has stressed in the past) then it cannot, by definition, have any genetic material added, Coon did not use genetics to define his "races", he used physical anthropology. It therefore follows that this article should really concentrate on the physical characteristics Coon identified as pertaining to his Caucasoid race. The existence of "races" from a biological point of view is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists and geneticists, there are very good biological reasons for this, to overtly claim that this is not the case is dishonest in the extreme. The academic biological community fully understands that geographically distributed genetic variation is not sufficient for defining subspecific taxa, indeed subspecific taxa are not recognised at all by a number of biologists and geneticists, even among other species that are far more diverse than the human species. It follows that many biologists think that all concepts such as subspecies and race are impossible to clearly define. This is not a new concept, Darwin himself had something to say on the matter, and rejected the notion of "race" and "subspecies" as unworkable, on the basis that these were arbitrary boundaries imposed on continuously varying characteristics. So the debate regarding the nondiscrete variation seen in biological populations is very old indeed (older than Darwin even, it goes back at least three centuries), and is not the product of "political correctness" that some people are incorrectly claiming, but the product of clear unmuddled thinking, as opposed to the wooly thinking of the "fundamentalist" racialists. Indeed the almost "religious" faith that racialists have in their clearly unsupported opinions reminds me greatly of the sort of arguments I hear from creationists and fundamentalist christians all the time. "It's true because we have faith in it". Psychohis is quite right, this sort of discussion belongs in the appropriate article. This article is either about the "Caucasoid race" of physical anthropology (ie the "traditional races" according to Lukas) or it is merely a content fork of two other articles, the Caucasian race article and the genetics and race article. Alun 12:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right and retract what I said earlier about a discussion of genetics being okay in this article at all. Lukas did argue that this article was about Coon's classification scheme.  So, it must focus on the outward description, not on the genetics (you're confusion of "physical anthropology" with "outward description" implies that modern physical anthropologists don't look at genetics which is wrong, but I think that's a side issue).-Psychohistorian 13:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Older research cant be supported by newer research? How silly is that...So we cant include genetics data on medical articles since medicine goes back to Hypocrites and he assessed physical status to diagnoze and to try to cure? Pfft...
 * And it is not a content fork. Genetic views on race doesnt include data that one division corresponds more or less with caucasoid race. Lukas19 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just restored mention of the categorization scheme which includes caucasoids as one division to the introduction after you removed it. Everything else in that section is a content fork.-Psychohistorian 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The link between the area defined for Caucasoid race and genetic clusters is not mentioned on Genetic views on race. And:


 * "Related articles


 * Clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." Read Content_forking. Lukas19 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Josephine de Beauharnais is not an inherently highly controversial subject on this Wikipedia. Your mentioning that does not give you a license to create a content fork (which would be the result if you brought the race argument into this article). Leroi's quote in the other article states, "..the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of anthropology as practiced 100 years ago..".  This does, in fact, mention "the link between the area defined for Caucasoid race and genetic clusters".  -Psychohistorian 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It does to you, since you know what he refers to by " more or less the major races of anthropology as practiced 100 years ago". However it is silly to assume everyone will understand the link. And caucasoid isnt mentioned in Genetic views on race. What is your problem? Lukas19 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel that that is potentially confusing, I will provide a source in the Genetic views on race article to clarify that her quote refers to Caucasoids/Negroids/Mongoloids. I see no problem doing that.  Please focus discussion in the discussion page to writing the article, not discussing users.  I look forward to continuing to work towards a compromise with you.-Psychohistorian 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your intro addition: "the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology" has lots of counter arguments as well. The whole issue is debated at Race. Hence it's a content fork as well then. Why do you insist that everything should be included at Genetic views on race? The reader knows that interpretation of clustering is disputed in genetics section...Lukas19 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology" has lots of counter arguments as well.
 * No it doesn't, it is a statement of fact. It is not a content fork because it addresses an important point of the article. I think all articles regarding "race" on wikipedia should state categorically in their introductions that the concept of "race" as a biological construct is not accepted by either mainstrean biology nor mainstream anthropology, so the reader is left under no illusions that these concepts represent any sort of recognised taxonomic subspecific classification of the human species. Why do you think that racialists must rely on work done over 60 years ago to support their outdated reactionary views? Why do you think that only a tiny minority of "scientists" (and I use the term in it's loosest possible sense) are still trying to "bang the racist drum" when the rest of biology and anthropology has moved on? Look at the cites, they are either ancient, or are all from a tiny number of racist scientists with links to far right political groups (who certainly don't represent mainstream anthropology) or they are from reputable scientific papers that actually don't mention race at all, but their findings are distorted by bad faith editors (and I use this term advisedly, good faith editors always apply WP:NPOV, bad faith editors with an agenda or POV to push only argue from a single POV and give one sided arguments) to imply that they do support race. What would your putative counter arguments be exactly? Certainly not that mainstream anthropology accepts the existence of biological race because it clearly doesn't. Your argument above is incorrect, in the past certain anthropologists defined their ideas of "race" by physical characteristics, even then there was never any consensus, the number of races varied from 2 to 63 depending on which physical anthropologist's classification was used. The inherent arbitraryness of physical anthropological races is exactly the same problem that has plagued the idea of biological "race" since it's fabrication, that is that physical variation is as gradually and clinally distributed as genetic distribution. Darwin himself noted this when he rejected the concept of race."The impact of social construction theory in anthropology or sociology did not begin or end with Richard Lewontin in 1972. Charles Darwin raised similar issues in The Descent of Man (1871). He pointed out the difficulty inherent in human racial classification, showing that naturalists had failed to agree upon the most important taxonomic characters. Thus, the racial schemes of his time varied from 2-63 named races......Montagu pointed out that the physical features found in populations were not consistently correlated with each other (the principle of discordance.) For example, sub-Saharan Africans, East Indians, and Australian aborigines have dark skin, but differ in other anatomical traits, such as body proportions, skull proportions, hair type, or ear wax consistency. Indeed if one attempts to take multiple physical characters to define racial groups, you arrive at categorizations that are not indicative of their evolutionary history. Montagu wrote a series of articles for both scientific and popular journals between 1939 and 1942 outlining this concept. In fact, Edwards himself published a paper showing that using 63 physical traits you would classify Eskimos closer to Swedes and French populations than Eskimos are to North American Indians, with North American Indians closer to Swedes, French, and Eskimos than they are to South American Indians." To claim that genetics support the existence of a "Caucasoid race" is incorrect. Genetics does not, and has not tried to define "races", there are no papers that I know of that try to define human "races" based on genetics. Coon and his ilk did try to define "race" based on physical measurements. Scientists have shown that goegraphically distributed human genetic variation is easier to resolve at the continental level, this is obvious because variation is greater the greater the distance between population groups, it is not support for, nor evidence for, nor a definition of "race", it is simply an observation. Even Leroy acknowledges that the concept of "race" is arbitrary, and that it is likely to be superceded very soon, and that the distribution in variation we see genetically only "more or less" corresponds to Coons "races"."This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.""On the other end of the spectrum are the “de facto believers,” an otherwise respectable group of scientists that encompasses Leroi. What separates this group from the true believers is that they understand races as statistical approximations rather than natural types, asserting race as a de facto stand-in for the messy patterns of human biological variation. Sally Satel (2002), for example, the author of a prior New York Times piece titled “I am a Racially Profiling Doctor,” concurs that humans do not vary much genetically and race is a crude approximation of this human variation. She goes on to say that race might not be necessary in a near future of individualized genetic analysis. According to the “de facto believers” of race, we are merely passing through an awkward adolescent phase in which we still need to racialize human variation. While they grasp some of the limits of race, they neither grasp the potential harm nor the lack of necessity to racialize human variation." So your concept of new science "supporting" these dated fallacies is not claimed by anyone in any of the literature at all. Alun 08:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

objective scientific perspective. This is understandable, given both historic and current inequities based on per- ceived racial or ethnic identities, both in the US and around the world, and the resulting sensitivities in such debates. Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objec- tive and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view........Two arguments against racial categorization as defined above are firstly that race has no biological basis [1,3], and secondly that there are racial differences but they are merely cosmetic, reflecting superficial characteristics such as skin color and facial features that involve a very small number of genetic loci that were selected historically; these superficial differences do not reflect any additional genetic distinctive- ness [2]. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of ‘biological’. If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of popula- tion genetics research has documented genetic, and there- fore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numer- ous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of ‘biological’ that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation. A forceful presentation of the second point - that racial dif- ferences are merely cosmetic - was given recently in an edi- torial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]: “Such research mistakenly assumes an inherent biological differ- ence between black-skinned and white-skinned people. It falls into error by attributing a complex physiological or clin- ical phenomenon to arbitrary aspects of external appear- ance. It is implausible that the few genes that account for such outward characteristics could be meaningfully linked to multigenic diseases such as diabetes mellitus or to the intri- cacies of the therapeutic effect of a drug.” The logical flaw in this argument is the assumption that the blacks and whites in the referenced study differ only in skin pigment. Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin. .or example, none of the population genetic studies cited above, including the study of Wilson et al. [2], used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive vari- ables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguish- able on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, R.LPs, microsatellites or SNPs). Genetic differentiation among the races has also led to some variation in pigmentation across races, but considerable variation within races remains, and there is substantial overlap for this feature. .or example, it would be difficult to distinguish most Caucasians and Asians on the basis of skin pigment alone, yet they are easily distinguished by genetic markers. The author of the above statement [1] is in error to assume that the only genetic differences between races, which may differ on average in pigmentation, are for the genes that determine pigmentation.
 * ....In our view, much of this discussion does not derive from an


 * Please spare me from what you think "is a statement of fact". My stomach tolerance for such rubbish is low. Lukas19 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't eat rubbish if your stomach can't handle it. Try food, it's much tastier. Alun 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view
 * What does this prove? This is self-categorised racial/ethnic identity. It has no bearing on how science and/or anthropology sees the concept. In this paper they are not discussing the scientific concept of "race", they are discussing how "race/ethnicity" can be used as a proxy for ancestral continent of origin. It has nothing to say about the validity of "race" as a biological construct (such as species or genus). To point out that human genetic variation is geographically distributed is not the same as supporting the concept of "race" from a taxonomic or scientific point of view. To point out that these self-categorisations may have some validity from research and public policy points of view is not synonymous with stating that we should use "race" as a subspecific categorisation of the human species. You have several times tried to imply that these papers are somehow supporting the scientific concept of "race". All they are doing is pointing out a certain structure in the geographical distribution of human genetics, and that "self-described" ethnicity/race correlate with this structure. They are not in fact talking about biological "racial" categories. These are very different things. Please try to understand the basics of this subject before you start editing this sort of article. There is not, and never has been any accepted deffintion of "race" as a biological construct, for very good biological reasons. You need to differentiate between a scientific model (or theory if you prefer) and the use of undefined social constructs like "race" or "ethnicity". You may feel confident that you know what a "race" is, but most profesional geneticists and anthropologists would not feel confident in trying to define such entities, which is why it has never been done, no one has ever agreed. If one uses the definition of subspecies and applies it to the human species, we cannot be classified as such, we are all to similar, so we are not subspecies by any biologically accepted definition. This paper does not support your claim, it simply states that people who self-identify as belonging to the same group are more similar to each other than people who self-identify as belonging to another group. Is this what you consider an "acceptance by mainstream anthropology"? Do you propose that biological and anthropological "racial" categories should be assigned based on "self-identity"? How would that serve as a "scientific concept"? Indeed this paper is specifically using the "social construct" of race/ethnicity, ie self-defined. Alun 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lukas said, "'the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology' has lots of counter arguments as well".

Wobble said, "No it doesn't, it is a statement of fact." Lukas presented a source which talks about one research paper which discusses race and added, "Please spare me from what you think 'is a statement of fact'." I'll point out that one, or even a small handful, of papers which use race doesn't say anything about whether the concept has all but been rejected by modern mainstream anthropology. To do that, you need to survey the entire body of literature on the subject - which was done by the source which supports the statement, "the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology". -Psychohistorian 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Calm down. It is typical that all these self-confident "Psychohistorians", "Aluns" et al. have no idea about genetics and anthropology, and only parrot silly statements of anti-racial mythologists, who don't want to be fired from their university. 82.100.61.114 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When people don't have a legitimate point to make, they often fall back on talking about fellow editors rather than the article itself. Please refocus discussion on writing a better article.-Psychohistorian 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it would be a personal dishonour for me to start a discussion with you. We would probably have to start from the alphabet. You and your friends here obviously have no clue what you are talking about, which is very amusing. Centrum99 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)