Talk:The Races of Europe

message: * Online version here: http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troe.htm death metal maniac (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Im noting anti-Coon politically motivated bias in the addtions to this page. finalaval
Also there is no POV in what im posting, if you dont think so discuss it with the cerator (diocalionite) finalaval.
Before wasting my time discuss here. First of all, I wrote most of this article, second nowehre it says "incredibly brillant",. it goes "incredibly consistent and brillant compared to its predecessors". 
HAVE YOU EVEN READ THIS BOOK? I think not. Educate yourself before you post because you really sound like you have no idea what you are talking about - finalaval
:Please attempt to understand NPOV policy, and to write in an appropriate style. Coon's work is certainly subject to reasonable criticism, as one should expect of a book written so long ago. Paul B 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What political motivations? We cannot make statements like "incredibly consistent" and "brilliant" compared to predecessors unless that is a clear consensus view, and then we should provide evidence. Have you read the predecessors - such as Ripley, Grant, Gunther etc? Caeleton Coon's work has been much criticised over the years, and with the rise of DNA studies, its anthropometic basis is further problematised. The articles are not yours. Please sign your posts. Paul B 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I already answered your last question, feel free to read it again. In any case, please read our Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies. We do not report "truth" on Wikipedia, we report first on scholarly consensus and second on fringe views. Cavalli Sforza is a completely relevant figure for this, he is currently regarded as one of the top researchers in the world on the question of human origins, human genetic diversity, and the question of "race" (though he has his critics). SNPA does not list who their founders are on their site, and they have no institutional affiliation. That's a sure sign that they are not a scholarly organization. Being started by three grad students does not make you a scholarly organization in any case. It is pretty clear to me at this point that you have no knowledge of the current scholarly work on anthropology, as you cite only non-scholarly websites and blogs that ascribe to pre-World War II sources. You also seem to misinterpret the point of this encyclopedia entry, it is not "a way to show people 'his case'". Take a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. --Fastfission 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Strange, do you know, you spell "concensus" exactly the same way as Finalaval! Paul B 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Coon bias

message: Fastfisson seems to intend to push anti race bias andother pseudopolitical afiliations in this article. --201.231.161.9 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bias 

message: I see a war brewing in this discussion page. I simply cannot wait for the archives upon archives of argumentative rhetoric. However, I much prefer to see this article expanded and refined. The "neutrality sign" above the article's content does hang like an accursed Damocles Sword. Yet, I do have some suggestions for anyone willing enough to take the time and update the article information in an honest fashion.
Here is a basic list of suggestions:
1) An honest account of the content within Ripley's "Races of Europe".
2) A truthful account of the information contained within Coon's "Races of Europe".
3) A section comparing/contrasting both tomes.
4) A section comparing/contrasting Ripley's and Coon's anthropological methodologies.
5) A section comparing/contrasting Ripley's and Coon's anthropological methodologies to modern anthropological studies/methods.
6) A section discussing the value of both Ripley's and Coon's contributions to academia (be they "controversial" or not).
7) A section discussing the past and present favorable/unfavorable perceptions people had of Ripley's and Coon's respective works. 
I do not expect anyone to create all of these sections (or deem them "adequate" in lieu of Wikipedia standards). However, the only way for honesty to prevail in this article is to provide as much information as possible so that readers are more cognizant of both versions of "The Races of Europe". I think the contents of both books should speak for themselves. Afterwards, contributors to this article should provide information about how people today value both book versions.
On a sidenote, I think that the website "Racial Reality" should remain in the article. It is there only as an example of where and how Coon's work is being used. Moreover, the website does provide interesting anthropological/genetic data on various populations across the world. It would truly be a shame to remove something that tries to be as objective as possible (look at the disclaimer if you find my statements to be of "windbag" quality). Of course, I do not expect anyone to agree with me on this point.
I hope that these suggestions are helpful. If not, then ignore them and carry on with the war. I recommend the use of trebuchets, composite bows, and Greek Fire. Don't forget to wear your lorica segmentata. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 15, 2006 12:22 P.M.
*All of this sounds fine to me. The things which I think this article should definitely have are at least are: 1. brief discussions of the two works, why they were written, the basics of their big, take-away points, and 2. a brief note on their reception at the time and how they are regarded today. I don't have too much time to do this at the moment but should be able to find a little later in the week. --Fastfission 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I've temporarily special protected this page from editing by new and unregistered. Continual revert warring is not acceptable, nor is continually removing the NPOV template. --Fastfission 21:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: SHAMEFUL HATEMONGERING BY HIM ALREADY REFUTED IN COONS PAGE  CLICK HERE FOR REFUTATION. NO NEED FOR FURTHER AGITATION HERE. --201.231.161.9 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please learn to work with other editors and to realise that treating Coon as beyond criticism does not help. However, I do have serious problem with the Racial Theories section, which I am moving here. I do think this is a deeply prejudicial account of Coon. The assertion that he believed that "racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types" is not supported by the quotation, which simply asserts the standard Darwinian view that differences in populations lead to differential survival of descendents. It's true that he sees this happening at the level of what he calls "strains", rather than of individuals or specific adaptations. It could be argued that this is a rather equivocal term blurs the distinction between "adaptations" and "families". Other statements are equally biassed. Why should he "embrace" a "Caucasoid identity"? The term "white" is a reasonable one for a book on the Races of Europe intended for a general readership. Likewise, it's reasonable in a book on European races to say that more research should be done on this particular subject. This statement is distorted to make it seem as though he is saying that only white people are worth studying ("He did not consider studying non-White races to be of high importance") The last para simply asserts Coon's well known view that the different races evolved into modern humans following parallel but separate developments. Saying "Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans" is neither more or less true than saying "Carleton Coon believed Blacks followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans". In any case it's a truism, since he obvious belived that racial difference evolved. It's difficult to see how differentiations can occur without following a "separate evolutionary path".Paul B 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am pretty sure that Coon did believe that different racial groups fought for dominance (he says the same thing in his later works), but I do not think that this in and of itself necessarily deserves the attention it is given here (it is not an idea new with Coon -- Darwin had similar beliefs, that different races of humans would interact and dominant groups would win). I haven't had a chance to go over his version of ROE yet but I should be able to this week. IMO the most important thing to talk about with Coon is the "different evolutionary branches"/candalabra model of race, but I am fairly sure that doesn't come up until his later works? I'll take a look at Coon's book soon and will hopefully be able to hash out a more-or-less fair summary of the main points which is in between the two poles of Coon-worship and total dislike for Coon. --Fastfission 01:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and 201..., please don't revert to really old versions of the page. If the current page needs work, that's fine, one can do the work or otherwise mark it. But simply reverting to an old and at this point very out-of-date and very poor version of the page is not going to help anything, and will without a doubt will be just reverted itself. --Fastfission 01:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TICHONDRIAS GOES ON WITH ANTI COON MALICE 

message: Upper paleo survivors are modern/neanderthal hybrids? Is there any proof of that from genetic studies of modern descendants?
:None whatever, and rather more to the contrary. That's was just Coon's view at the time he wrote the book. Paul B 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By survivors, Coon meant "recombinations". I don't think any anthropologists in the twentieth century thought pure lineal descents existed. Ledboots (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  confused about article. 

message: Cyrus, why are you repeatedly adding the following?:
"Some of Coons racial description or theories regarding language are today obsolete, in which it has no basis on modern genetic or language studies". 
What "racial description or theories regarding language" are these? I know of none. If you cannot say what they are, then the passage, which is gnomic at best, has no place here. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh what a surprise. It turns out to be about Iranians. I never would have guessed. I assume you are referring to the statement that "Although the Persians derive their language from Nordics who entered the Iranian plateau from the plains to the north, there is little evidence of Nordic blood in the population except as it appears rarely among individuals." In other words he is replicating the model that IE expanded into Persia from Central Asia, which was a common view at the time and now, but with the difference that the expanding group is defined as "Nordics", and adding that the Persians are predominently of the so-called "Mediterranean race", which was also normative in the period. This is a single sentence, which simply fits with models of the period. I doubt that it is significant enough to mention (there are many many passages with similar statements based on normative views at the time that are now questionable or downright obsolete). It does not justify a gnomic, unexplained utterence in the lede which actually tells us nothing of substance, since we aren't even told what these "theories regarding language" are. If you think that it is worth adding, do so in the body of the text. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "He is confusing Nordic Iranian with Nordics"? What does that mean? He is saying that that speakers of IE were "Nordic", a racial category of the period. The concept of "kurgans" did not really exist when he was writing. His model is somewhat similar to Grant's - as illustrated by this map which depicts the supposed extent of Nordic (pink) populations at the time of IE expansion. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm waiting for a response. If no meaningful engagement with these points is forthcoming I will edit accordingly. Paul B (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: language

message: Where on earth does Coon attempt relate Illyrians to Dorians and further more, where does he make the slightest reference to "language, national costume, belligerent tendencies, tribal orders and vendettas." 
Enough already with this ridiculous spreading of Albanian propaganda and celebrations of inferiority complexes !!! (Phallanx (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: =========

message: As Ernest Hooton put it, The Races of Europe is an "excellent survey" ... but nothing more. Statistical analysis performed on skeletal evidence and on the living provide great detail, but various asserted conclusions and thesis are incorrect. The biologic principles used to support some claims upon closer inspection were omitted in other similar claims. In Ch 7, Sec 2 Coon states: "In admitting the partially Neanderthaloid character of Upper Palaeolithic man (which is no new theory), we must accept at the same time some genetic principles which apply to modern primary crosses between distant races, as well as to these ancient interspecific mixtures. Although blending is the rule in most characters, simple dominance appears in a few; while major changes in size appear through this mixing." with a reference given to Shapiro's “The Heritage of the Bounty”. What Coon does not consider with anything beyond this passage regarding Neanderthal-sapiens intermixture, a "reasonably stable hybrid race" (Ch 2, Sec 12), is that preceding elements - two (in this case, Neanderthal and sapiens) end types - blend to form Upper Palaeolithic man (i.e. Cro-Magnon, Brünn, etc).
In Shapiro's reference, in various chapters of TRoE, and in the Photographic Supplement, one fundamental element of the principle in question is that even in a highly stable blended population, end types will reëmerge. Coon cites examples of end and/or intermediate types in Plates 3 & 30 (Chuvash), plate 5 (fig 1), he discusses it in Ch 11, Sec 8 with Nilotic/Hamitics. Shapiro's work on 6th generation Pitcairn Islanders also maintains the basic principle that even within populations of "hybrids of considerable stability" (Ch 11 / Sec 6 and plate 35, regarding Dinarics), the vast majority of hybrids are intermediate, either stable or variable, and a few of the end types will always be present. That is the basic thesis.
It is rather contradictory in Coon's assertion that Neanderthal and sapiens intermixed. Examining the Irish population, in Ch 10, Sec 2 Coon declares: “The living composite Irishman is not a pure Crô-Magnon or Brünn-Predmost man, but it would be no exaggeration to say that, from a metrical standpoint, at least half of his genetic ancestry is to be derived from such a source.” Considering the hybrid principle, and with such a profound influence of Upper Palaeolithic genes manifest in bodily composition of so many Irish, the question remains: why are there not extremely rare examples of Neanderthaloids amongst the living Irish? If rare pure whites and Veddoids are isolated amongst the mixed Somali's (Ch 11 / Sec 8 & Photographic Supplement, Plate 20); if a rare Corded individual can be isolated amongst Danes (Photographic Supplement, Plate 27, fig 3), why not a Neanderthaloid amongst the Irish, as Coon himself professed that the same principle must be followed for "ancient interspecific mixtures" as modern (distant) races? Simply put: the intermixture did not take place. It could not have, if adherence to this principle is to be universally applied. Hybrids likely took place between the two, similar to Mt Carmel and Skhul in gross morphology, but were sterile. All of the hybrid evidence in this book can only be offered counter to, not in support, of Coon's claim of a Neanderthal-sapiens (Combe-Capelle) hybrid, demonstrated by a lack of atavistic evidence amongst the living rather than by skeletal remains that take a supposed intermediate metrical position, followed by mere assumptions. Ledboots (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are trying to prove that the Irish are not in fact descended from Neanderthals, congratulations. Does this help the article in some way? Coon's theories are hopelessly obsolete. We have genetics these days. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: 'Both sides' are what in this case? Can you be more specific about what 'debate' you mean? Paul B (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Neither common sense nor Mendelism suggest any such thing. Your comments are WP:OR.Paul B (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would like to elaborate rather than simply disagree. Ledboots (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:OR. You cannot create your own conclusions on the basis of your own thought processes - or rather you can't include them in Wikipedia articles. You are synthesising your own idiosyncratic interpretation of Mendelian genetics with other evidence to create an assertion that a "Neanderthal"-like individual would at some point be born if humans had inherited a small amount of DNA from an ancient Neanderthal population. That's like saying that an Australopithecus should be born every so often if humans descended from them. DNA constantly undergoes mutation and selection. That's evolution. You seem to be arguing that every so often all the "bits" of Neanderthal DNA floating around would, by chance, join together in a child and a Neanderthal would be reborn. Is that it? Paul B (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  No, no! We are not talkng about the same thing. There was no evolutionary process involved between sapiens and Neanderthal - it was hybridization! Or at least that what was being asserted. And those principles were ignored; it's there black and white. A reference was provided regarding Shapiro's Pitcairn Islanders; he rated them on appearance with "English" and "Tahitians" being the end types; individuals were included within the entire range, of course, most being "intermediate" in phenotypes. There are multiple examples in the book as well, especially regarding the fringe/clinal areas of white settlement, namely Asia and Africa. The intermixture between Combe-Capelle and Neanderthal is clearly referenced by Coon using Mendellian principles; he did not completely follow those principles and only considered the "intermediate" form referred to as Upper Palaeolithic. We see all around us in nature, atavism, ferrel populations (pigs, pigeons, etc) - returns to ancestral types. We are not talking about evolution here, my friend! Ledboots (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not remotely clear what you are talking about. Evolution occurs all the time and phenotype is subject to strong selective pressure. When Coon talks about racial hybrids he is speaking in terms relevant to the models of race existing at the time - in the 1930s. He envisages types emerging at various points in history and then intermingling. This process is supposed to visible in phenotype. All this is obsolete science in any case. If we are to include criticism, it must be from reviewers and commentators at the time, or from modern experts looking back at Coon's assumptions in the light of modern science. In any case we can only include experts, not your own personal theories. Paul B (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that makes two of us, because I'm not remotely clear about what your talking about either. The last 30,000 years or so since the supposed hybridization took place, is an evolutionary blink of an eye. How much change do you think took place since then? And if supposed to be visible in phenotype, then that takes us back to my original point and the principle involving hybridization - two end types reemerging with intermediates predominating. At any rate, we'll leave it as POV. Ledboots (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at how fast dramatic phenotypical changes can occur in dogs, for example. All those dramatically different breeds have occured in very recent history. In humans differentiating 'racial' features such as skin colour and nose shape have probably evolved quite recently. Selective pressure can work rapidly. In any case your opinions are OR. GEDDIT???? Paul B (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  But various breeds of dog are bred-back to produced a wolf appearance - the ancestral breed! For example, Northern Inuit Dog. Your knowledge seems limited in this area. And whether this OR or not, please DON'T SHOUT!! It's rude and only professes ones ignorance. Ledboots (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to shout if you don't bother to read WP:OR. The dogs are not "bred back", a meaningless phrase. The results of selective breeding can also be produced by natural selection if there is strong selective pressure. A feral group of laboradors would not "revert" to a wolf by some atavistic mechanism, but natural selection would soon work to create physical changes advantagous to survival. You simply are not getting the point and it is clearly absurd trying to reason with you. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go back to my comment about being rude; this is the discussion page, free to engage in any type of discourse, correct? Especialy since I already agreed about POV. I recommend you take a look at what Mendel had to say about cross-bred reversions. I also recommend you check out back breeding, although I am referring more to individual ancestral types rather than populations; there is a different mechanism between the two, but the end result is similar. Ledboots (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you get some idea what Wikipedia is about and why. You clearly know nothing whatever about genetics, and I doubt you've ever read a word of Mendel. If you did have a real interest or knowledge in tis area you would be contributing to relevant pages, not archaic musings on race. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  You mean to the degree that you contribute to articles pertaining to archaic notions on race, to the point that you insist on editing the number of colons preceding my comments? And what might your motivation be other than being annoying to people? At least I can say I'm very familiar with this book by a prominent classic anthropologist, well regarded 4 or so decades ago, and still relevant to disciplines such as forensic physical anthropology. Ledboots (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of colons indicates the progress of dialogue. It's part of talk page "etiquette" for clarity. My motivation is to improve the encyclopedia and follow its rules where applicable. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRoE: Upper Palaeolithic conclusions are flawed 

message: This section seems to be advancing some cause independent of the general theme of the article and should be removed. Ledboots (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illyrians as Dorians