Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Centrum99 (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 5 December 2006 (→For the request of Mediterranean influence in the British Isles and more up-dated sources in general). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

sources

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 Such attributions only serve to qualify much of the racist and outdated material of this article.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)

• Yes, I question the legitmacy of many of the claims and sources. For example, some of the references are from a Geocities website. That's not usually a a sign of academic legitimacy. Scientific topics should be backed up by sources like academic journals or university departments.Spylab 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• What is this? 55% of the world is caucasoid? Italians in the same category with Indians? I think this whole article should be deleted. Thulean 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indians are actually "Caucasoid". If you use the term for people showing the predominance of Caucasid features. The low castes and tribals came into being as a mixture of old Caucasids and Veddid women ca. 30 000 years ago, hence they look less Caucasid,the upper castes are descendants of more recent invaders from Baluchistan (Dravidians) and Russia (Aryans), thus they look more Caucasid. Centrum99 21:29, 2 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)

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 Misplaced Pages- 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)