Talk:Caucasoid race/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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#Y-Haplogroup Evidence. Fourdee 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Misc

message: Much of the information in this and the Mongoloid article is from Carleton S. Coon's "Origin of Races". This article is badly in need of more recent information from mainstream physical anthropologists. We should also avoid obviously POV statements like calling Coon "the greatest craniofacial anthropometrist of the 20th century". Such attributions only serve to qualify much of the racist and outdated material of this article. --Pravit 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: deleted sentence - the concept of Caucasoid race came from anthropologists & academics, not out of thin air) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: 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)
thread_title: Population

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is full of concepts that are presented as facts and which are not taken seriously by anyone anymore. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attention to some users with clear agendas. 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  For the request of Mediterranean influence in the British Isles and more up-dated sources in general

message: 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)
thread_title:  Very odd.. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Y-Haplogroup Evidence 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Genetics section rewrite

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deconstruction of ''Race'' doesn't belong in this article at all

message: *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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Wobble's Insistance on Summarizing

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of Important Information