Talk:Caucasian race/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Section move proposal

Proposal to rename article from Caucasian race to Caucasoid

I propose that all sections of Caucasian race be moved to Caucasoid. The desired outcome is an article containing this article's current content, with a title that adheres to Wikipedia:Article titles and will not be confused with the American ethnic/racial designation "Caucasian". WP policy specifies titles should be selected based on their fitness to the following criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. As an article title, "Caucasian race" has trouble meeting several of those, and I will demonstrate that "Caucasoid" is a better fit in every category.

Review of current article title to its content

1. Recognizability
   • People who are familiar with anthropology will immediately recognize Caucasoid as an appropriate place to find the information in this article. This is demonstrated by the uncontested existence of Negroid and Mongoloid with equivalent information.
   • White Americans states as of 2019 there are 236,475,401 that self-identify as white/Caucasian, so you have 200 million people that land on a page titled in a way that they think it should describe their self-selected racial designation, and the first sentence tells them they are obsolete.
2. Naturalness
   • It appears to me that we have insufficient data to make a truly informed decision on this particular criteria
   • The evidence we have is a consistent stream of complaints over the course of several years from people who landed here after searching for Caucasian under the American understanding of White.
   • If there is a good source for clickstream data on this page, I would enjoy doing some analysis of what searches lead here, how many end here, and how many ultimately land on another page such as White people or on other anthropological articles.
3. Precision
   • If there were a definition of an imprecise title, I think it would be one that requires a disambiguation page, which is true of Caucasian and all its related terms
   • Caucasoid has only one meaning. Can't get more precise than that.
4. Conciseness
   • Caucasoid (1 word, 9 letters) is demonstrably more concise than Caucasian race (2 words, 13 letters)
5. Consistency
   • The articles Negroid and Mongoloid are the other two titles that form a trio with Caucasian race. ♭One of these things, is not like the others. One of these things doesn't belong!♭
   • If this article were named Caucasoid, it would create obviously consistent naming of analogous articles.

The argument to use commonly recognized names does not supersede these five criteria. It's a guideline that often results in names which "will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." On its own, this guideline cannot be used to override a clearly superior fit for the five criteria.

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems you may not have read the portion of my request below where I state that this request could be executed through content changes instead of a move/rename. I'll just simplify the request to a content change then.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please establish a consensus for this large scale change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss and get consensus before executing any changes, as I had already described. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Should this be changed back to 'Not Done'?

Ongoing complaints and disputes of article name and content

1. There have been five disputes of the article name, all of which have resulted in no action.
2. Between April 2021 and June 2021 three separate contributors raised concerns that the article Caucasian race states "The Caucasian race...is an obsolete racial classification."
3. "Caucasian" is not obsolete as an ethnic/racial identifier in the USA. "Caucasian" was used in the 2020 US Census as a racial/ethnic designation equivalent to 'White' https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219
4. Telling 200+ million Americans that their race is obsolete is an act of disenfranchisement. It reminds me of gaslighting.
5. Caucasian race's current content inhibits readers from understanding that Caucasian/Caucasoid is an outdated racial concept and at the same time Caucasian/White is a current racial/ethnic designation.

Does this propose a move or content migration?

Both and neither. I am adding this section sub-header to draw attention to my suggestion that the logistics can be determined after consensus is gathered. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge the extensive, intertwined history of Caucasoid and Caucasian race. I ask that this request be used to discuss and gain consensus about the merit of "renaming" this page to Caucasoid. The logistics of "renaming" this article could be complicated and involve many different approaches and steps, possibly involving content migration, merging article histories and other activities. Let's reach consensus on the merit of the proposal before digging into the logistics of how it will be done. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone speaks of the "Caucasian (Caucasoid) race", they normally think of races in a biological sense, something that doesn't exist except in the minds of some proponents of fringe theories. Of course, race is a reality, but a social one, not a biological one. For this, the article gives many sources, the best one - in my opinion - being ref. no. 5 (AAPA 2019). --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view. There is a conception that race is rooted in biology when what is more accurate is that Homo sapiens as a species has a biological basis. All the rest is expressions of traits within that species, and (in my opinion) the need for humans to create and belong to tribes. Some of these tribes are based on physcial traits and we call them races or ethnicities. Others are based on ideas and we call them other things (religions, clubs, fandoms, hobbies, etc).

I think this article is an interesting intersection of a couple of hot point issues. The historical and obsolete conception of the Caucasian/Caucasoid race. The current American use of Caucasian/White as a race/ethnicity. The ongoing anthropological use of Caucasian/Caucasoid as a set of physical traits to classify human skeletal remains. Until the articles can separate them, we will see continued conflict about their content, and alleged socio-political agendas behind that content.

-- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

On their talk page, Austoronesier suggested this discussion should be handled through WP:RM#CM. ScottishFinnishRadish and Rsk6400 also suggested the same in this talk page. In the face of three agreeing opinions from Wikipedians each with more experience than I have, I am inclined to do so. @Maunus:, @Austronesier:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, @Rsk6400: the four of you are the only others involved in this discussion so far. Any objections if I close this request and create a request through WP:RM#CM instead? -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any objection, although I would suggest you just copy the current !votes into polling area. I, of course, only speak for myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No objection to WP:RM#CM. And since you said that I've got more experience than you have, I'd like to add some advice: Please try to be more concise. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Rsk6400. Whatever you do, do it concise, please. –Austronesier (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Three of four who have participated in the discussion so far agree. I'll draft a proposal in my sandbox before sending it to the WP:RM#CM process, unless that is invisible to others. Please let me know. I've heard the the appeal to conciseness, and I welcome suggestions on the draft. I opine this issue is deserving of words both to be written and read before a decision is made. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of section move proposal

Please use this section for arguments for and against the proposal, listing pros and cons, etc

@Rsk6400: Please see above where User:ScottishFinnishRadish already asked the same question and I already answered it. They then updated the request to 'Not Done for Now.' I ask again that you refrain from discussing logistics for now. How it gets done is not a factor for whether it should be done. If we reach consensus that action is needed, we can discuss how to accomplish that action. I also wanted to keep this discussion local to this page to allow those who have been involved to stay involved without moving it up to a different process and audience. If you and others refuse to engage with the discussion here, perhaps it is best to take this request through the article renaming process where we may find a larger, less subjective audience. Please let me know if that is your preference. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: It appears you have declined to engage with any of the arguments I have presented. Rather you have skipped straight to a 'nay' vote. That is your prerogative. It is unclear to me how your opinions stated on 27 Aug 2021 reflect on the core of this proposal. Are you willing to clarify? In the interest of cooperation and open discussion, I suggest it would be very helpful if you were to address any of the critiques presented in my review of WP:CRITERIA. To encourage discussion, I have added my assertions and opinions below for anyone to use while discussing agreement or disagreement. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example argument.

Here is an example response to said example argument.

I opine that multiple requests over the course of multiple years to rename the article are an indicator that this article is likely poorly named. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert that Caucasoid is more fit for article name based on its Recognizability. Please see sub-heading "Review of current article title to its content" above. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

From below, I repeat this statement from @Maunus:: "'caucasoid' smacks of old pseudoscience." The content of this article describes "old pseudoscience" and your statement appears to support the assertion that Caucasoid is a more recognizable title than Caucasian race. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert that Caucasoid is more fit for article name based on its Naturalness. Please see sub-heading "Review of current article title to its content" above. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert that Caucasoid is more fit for article name based on its Precision. Please see sub-heading "Review of current article title to its content" above. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maunus:On 31 August 2021 you stated, "the concept described by the term is not accurate or precise, a term that gives a pseudoappearance of being scientific and precise, is in fact misleading (and less precise precisely because it claims precision that it does not have)" -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you have conflated the Precision of the article title with the reputability of the thing described in the article. It is folly to intentionally deny a precise article title to a concept because "the concept described by the term is not accurate or precise." -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maunus: Can you please comment on the existence of Negroid and Mongoloid in the context of your statement. How are these two article titles proper when Caucasoid is not? What titles would we give to the other two articles to maintain Consistency -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I assert that Caucasoid is more fit for article name based on its Conciseness. Please see sub-heading "Review of current article title to its content" above. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert that Caucasoid is more fit for article name based on its Consistency. Please see sub-heading "Review of current article title to its content" above. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert that guidelines on common names and usage are not definitive, as described in WP:CRITERIA. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

From below, I repeat this statement from @Maunus:: "'Caucasian' is mopre comon" -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I maintain the assertion that common usage is a secondary consideration, and it would be better to address Recognizability and Precision instead. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert that 230 million Americans commonly use the term 'Caucasian' to indicate their self-identified race/ethnicity. Please provide a larger population with a 'common' definition that aligns Caucasian race with the content of this article. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maunus: and @ScottishFinnishRadish:, each of you reference WP:COMMONNAME in your 'nay' votes, and neither of you have addressed the assertion that common name is not part of the five WP:CRITERIA. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that if two titles equally met the five criteria, common name should be used as a tie breaker. I have outlined how Caucasoid fits all five criteria better than Caucasian race, yet neither of you have addressed how badly the existing title fails, instead falling back to common name. Further I have explained that 230 million Americans use Caucasian as a racial/ethnic identifier, which would indicate it is a poor choice for this article which is about something else entirely. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I've read through WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME multiple times while researching the history of this page. I still cannot grasp why common name would supersede the criteria in this instance. I'm not interested in the tangled mess of proper names. Are there examples of other historical or scientific concepts I can review to improve my understanding?

I assert that "Caucasian" is not obsolete as a racial or ethnic designation and is one of the current terms used by the federal government of the USA. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I assert the top hit on Google search for Caucasian is this article Caucasian race. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I opine that when any one of the 230 million self-identified "white" Americans search the internet for information about their race/ethnicity, they will search for the term "Caucasian". , which immediately tells the American, self-identified white/caucasians that their race is obsolete. I opine this results in disenfranchisement of these people. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I opine that the article title Caucasian race leads to unnecessary confusion and regular conflict with any of the millions of Americans who identify as White/Caucasian and land on this page. If the article were titled Caucasoid, these Americans would immediately recognize that this article is NOT the place to read information about their race/ethnic designation and look elsewhere, without feeling the need to complain or request change in the talk page. If they are curious and open to learning more, they may read about the indisputably obsolete term Caucasoid, its relationship with obsolete terms Mongoloid and Negroid, its origin in Scientific racism, and form opinions that "Caucasian" may be a term best stricken from every American's vocabulary, except when talking about the Caucasus region. So long as the article is named using the term 230 million Americans identify with, they will not get past the first sentence which tells them they are a member of an obsolete race. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

• e.g. * '''Agree''' – <insert reason for supporting section mover here> ~~~~
• e.g. * '''Opposed''' – <insert reason for opposing section mover here> ~~~~

• Agree – Refer to above review of WP:CRITERIA which demonstrates Caucasoid is more fit than Caucasian race. Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose What's this ? Is it a proposal to move the article ? But the template says it's a semi-protected edit request that has already been answered. "All sections" is not "a part" of this article. If you want to move (i.e. to rename the article), please follow the correct procedures. Additionally, I already made clear above that I don't agree with you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose nope. "Caucasian" is more comon and "caucasoid" smacks of old pseudoscience.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (See: WP:COMMONNAME, and also since the concept described by the term is not accurate or precise, a term that gives a pseudoappearance of being scientific and precise, is in fact misleading (and less precise precisely because it claims precision that it does not have). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per WP:COMMONNAME. Usage is significantly more common as Caucasian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit to disambiguation hints

There are a lot of complaints about this page, many apparently stemming from US/Americans complaining that the US use of White/Caucasian as a racial/ethnic designation is still a current practice and should not be marked as obsolete. As a simple way to reduce such confusion and complaints, I propose the following edit:

Current:

For the peoples of the Caucasus Mountains, see Peoples of the Caucasus. For other uses of the term "Caucasian", see Caucasian (disambiguation).

Proposed:

For the peoples of the Caucasus Mountains, see Peoples of the Caucasus. For US ethnicity "White" or "Caucasian", see White people. For other uses of the term "Caucasian", see Caucasian (disambiguation).

-- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done (with two minor changes: I added the definite article and changed "White people" to "White Americans" since that article exists and is more specific). But I fear that many complaints really are born out of the desire to belong to a "superior race", so I'm not sure whether those complaints will be reduced by the change you proposed. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the racists will continue to complain as long as this article is about reality instead of their fantasies, but this is a good suggestion anyway. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I am not sure a redirect to White Americans is consistent with the Caucasian disambiguation page. It points directly to White people which is why I used it in my proposal.

It appears to me that each of you are separately injecting too much of your personal opinion about American race issues into this talk page, and I believe it may be impacting your understanding for and willingness to work with Americans who have been labeled Caucasian their entire lives, albeit incorrectly. They don't have a lot of choice in the matter. Looking through the pages of talk archive, there is clearly a problem and has been for years with how wikipedia is naming and organizing some of these pages.

One person has taken the effort to comment in the talk section that after a google search for something common in their culture they landed on this article which tells them the only fitting racial designation their government allows for them (which trickles into business and healthcare) is now obsolete. It's jarring. But this isn't even the page where they should be landing after that search. They should be landing on White people or White Americans. Maybe it's a bunch of racist Americans as you claim, and maybe this article is named incorrectly and they're just advocating for their self-selected racial designation not to be called obsolete and associated with racist anthropological theories. If this article weren't squatting on the name space of every white American's ethnicity, they wouldn't be complaining about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If we wrote articles around what people expect to see, rather than what the topic actually is, we'd be quite drastically failing in our core mission of writing an educational resource. Sometimes facts are surprising to (some) people. Sometimes this is jarring an prompts them to vent on talk pages. That does not mean there's anything wrong with the article. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: And sometimes it does. What is the topic of this article? Please check the section at the bottom titled "Usage in the United States." It currently covers both the historical term Caucasoid and the United States' current use of Caucasian as an ethnic/racial identifier. The current title has problems with every single category of WP:Criteria, yet I see so many voices in this talk page intent on inaction while millions of Americans are disenfranchised by the opening sentences of this article and repeatedly make time to voice it here. There is a simple solution to this entire mess. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The article covers both the scientific racist concept of "Caucasian" and everyday American notion of "Caucasian" (also increasingly historical) because they are two aspects of the same phenomenon. And leave the hyperbole aside, please; nobody is losing their right to vote over this article. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:I am not using hyperbole. Disenfranchisement is about more than the right to vote. Are you American? Your opinion "everyday American notion of "Caucasian" (also increasingly historical)" doesn't seem founded to me. Do you have anything to support that position? -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that America's use of 'Caucasian' as an ethnic/racial designation is not part of the same phenomenon as a German scientist's racist musings 300 years ago, but let's just assume it is for a minute. How do you determine which idea gets top billing in the article? The oldest thing? The newest thing? Should it be the thing that has the most search demand in google? We continue to see complaints from "Caucasian" Americans who do not like the idea that their self-identified race/ethnicity is "obsolete" and "disproven." -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The answer to almost all your questions is "whatever the majority of reliable sources say". If you have some reliable sources that contradict something that is written in the article, please, show us them and suggest an improvement. Or just do it yourself. Otherwise, this is not a debate club. Volunteer editors are not obligated to explain the topic to your satisfaction, or to that of your hypothetical horde of upset white Americans. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of reliable sources to answer the question of which topic should be covered at the top of a wikipedia article vs the bottom. Where would you find such sources? -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't do it myself on this page because it is protected. Please refrain from suggesting impossible actions and solutions. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You are right, no one is obligated to explain anything. Lack of response is also implicit acquiescence, especially when you are the one making an unsupported claim that I have challenged. You ask me to stay away from hyperbole, but you refer to 230 self-identified caucasian Americans as my hypothetical horde of upset white Americans. I ask again that you stop condescending to me. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The claim that the caucasian race is a obsolete classification is FALSE, this classification is the only one that exist and still a scientific FACT. 143.0.150.192 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

you guys are a JOKE, this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, you deny the existence of a ENTIRE race, and you wont let people edit the FAKE information you post here, this is NOT obsolete at all! its on my birth certificate and on the birth certificate of a baby borned today here on brazil and most other claims, asking for a source here is beyond pathetic on your part man... you are clearly a left activist. This page is FAKE NEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.0.150.192 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Perhaps this message is better? — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Consensus here is that you are censoring science my friend, and locking the information site that was suposed to be public with a false information, thats the consensus here! i will report this to the news and expose the people who locked this file! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.0.150.192 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

obsolete racial classification?

"is an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race" - On what basis? The links contain only some opinion polls of anthropologists, not facts, with a lot of ideological crap about "privileges" and representation. What of it isscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.54.167.213 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, those darn experts disagreeing with stuff EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, nice sources: "Essays on Biology and Society","national survey of anthropologists" and "AAPA Statement on Race & Racism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.244.5 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@80.221.244.5: @EvergreenFir: "Caucasian" is absolutely a current race/ethnic designation in the United States, and that use is neither obsolete nor disproven. This poorly titled and constructed article will continue to generate commentary like this. The more appropriate title Caucasoid does indeed refer to an outdated and disproven racial theory. Go check out Negroid and Mongoloid. In the 1700's a racist German scientist came up with an idea that led to the modern uses of White, Black, Brown, Yellow and Red to refer to races, along with the more problematic terms Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If you really think that there are scientifically supported definitions of "race" amongst humans, see Historical_race_concepts#Disproof_by_modern_genetics and if you're still not convinced then start adding to the talk page there with references and discussions about scientific evidence to support racial delineations among humans. America may have been called Melting Pot, but the whole world has been a melting pot ever since world travel was more about money than about surviving the trip. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the IP commenting above does not realize that biological anthropologists are biologists, and that the AAPA is their professional association in the United States. Statements by professional associations of scientists are among the sources we consider most reliable here on Wikipedia, per e.g. WP:MEDRS. Now that that's cleared up, hopefully we can all move on. Generalrelative (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I came to this page specifically because the line caught my attention also. Caucasian is still used globally in forensic anthropology. I can't see how it could be universally considered obsolete while still being used to reconstruct the faces of corpses. 100.2.240.163 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Globally? WP:PROVEIT. Forensic anthropologists have to provide clues that are meaningful in the societies that they work in. In the US, they have to present their result in the framework of the social constructs within that country, not as absolute biological categories, but mapping with the categorizations that US society uses. In the UK and Continental Europe, if forensic anthropology lumped e.g. Northern Europeans, North Africans, West Asians etc. into a single category for the purpose of identifying a dead person, it would be a useless joke. –Austronesier (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

As required, this is a request to be able to edit the Wikipedia entry for "Causcasian". Thank you. Brabtastic (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Unballanced

"In the United States, the root term Caucasian is still in use as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry,[16][17][18] a usage that has been criticized"

May be so, but, it has also been supported as this page demonstrated. This should either be deleated or ballanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2040:7F:2:91A5:C7C7:F2E1:9EDF (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Skull and teeth

@AlexEng: I removed two paragraphs. The one starting with "Variation in craniofacial form ..." is sourced to two studies by the same research team. If the studies have been presented correctly (which I didn't check), they are advocating a fringe theory. According to WP:DUE, we cannot present them here. Furthermore, studies are primary sources in this context (see WP:PSTS). The fringe problem also applies to the sentence "Caucasoids have small teeth".

The other paragraph is based on several sources, the youngest of which is from 2000. The only thing we can reasonably claim based on those sources is that forensic anthropologists still used the concept 20 years ago. And that seems pretty irrelevant to me. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly... I don't know. This is such a mess of an article, and I don't have the mental bandwidth or fortitude to fix it. The historical division of races that included "caucasians" is mentioned explicitly in the lead and body as a discredited and obsolete theory. The prose in the section that you trimmed, if we're going to keep it, should be rewritten to not use Wikipedia's voice to endorse any of those statements, but put them in historical context like those in Lamarckism or Geocentrism. If you don't want to do that and nobody else does either, then I guess it's fine to delete the text altogether. Not worth fighting about. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the "Other meaning" category

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no need for an RfC, see WP:RFCBEFORE. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the sentence "This article is about the outdated race concept." in the "Other meaning" category be deleted? Reasons why: 1-) This sentence has no contribution on stating other meanings of "Caucasian race" 2-) This sentence contains incorrect knowledge and denies what today's science suggests therefore being a reactionary statement 3-) This sentence seems to be used in order to support certain political ideologies Hasan Basri Bozkurt (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

obsolete term?

oh yeah? Says who? What else are we supposed to call white people then? --2600:6C65:773F:F680:5E4:BDDC:DB6D:582E (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

How about "white people"? Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists stated: "The belief in 'races' as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past." Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

this is some guys opinion though. race is a real thing caused by genetic differences. 192.161.222.7 (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to express your personal views on race and dismiss the American Association of Physical Anthropologists as "some guys opinion". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Which articles specifically are obsolete?

I was trying to do some research on why the US Census uses certain terms for certain races. I came across this phrasing in this article

> The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race

There are three sources cited for this, but none of them specifically talk about "Caucasian" nor any of the classifications specifically mentioned in this article. Because the citations discuss how race in general is discredited, this sentence is much better suited for placement in Race (human categorization). Also I also think we should find a different term than "disproven" because the sources more closely resemble a consensus opinion, rather than a repeatable scientific experiment that proves or disproves a claim.

If Caucasian race is specifically intended to be obsolete as opposed to other terms, let's find some sources to that effect. -Awwright (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it could be worded better, but most of what you're talking about is explained in the first footnote and the first linked Wikipedia article. There's no indication in the opening statement that "Caucasian" is the only obsolete racial classification. However, Caucasian is perhaps the most outdated racial classification, as it groups together the most disparate groups of people out of the old racial groupings. This is practically common knowledge. I think some of the editors are getting confused and thinking this is a political statement that "white people don't exist." I think you're looking for white people, not Caucasoid, the idea that closely follows Aryanism. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Advanced geography

Characteristics of the major human races in the world in pointwise 223.238.105.85 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Can you please write in clear English language prose? Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete?

"an obsolete racial classification of human beings"

When did the "Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid" classification become obsolete? It was taught to me at a rather progressive high school in 1985. And if it is obsolete, why are the terms Caucasian/Caucasoid used extensively in the Tarim mummies article? That scholarship is relatively recent; Victor Mair has not yet even retired from his professorship.

If it is obsolete, the article should inform us, in specific and straightforward terms, what non-obsolete classification system has replaced it. 2601:281:D480:47F0:3D5A:F58E:C8B8:92B8 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• You should try reading the article, which covers this. It was considered obsolete by many even in the 80s. That other articles still use it doesn't mean it is the best system to categorize humans. And yes, it is still used in other places, it is simply not a scientific classification. It is a subjective categorization based on the opinion of the observer, not an objective classification. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown: You still don't answer why this classification is obsolete, your answer was generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.162.232.193 (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not obsolete, just nobody in science dares to openly use the concept of race publicly, besides laypeople. The original, Blumenbach conception of "Caucasian" is still used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:1A0:68F3:F004:35CE:40DA (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's all a vast conspiracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

“Outdated” statement is not correct

People are classified in many ways. All things can be classified, including by size, height, age, shape, race or ethnicity. Not sure when this became outdated. So that statement is subjective and not necessarily the truth. 173.218.57.90 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Disputed edit

This edit by 021120x represented a decisive POV-shift. It was misleadingly summarized as follows: Adding note on Russian usage of term Caucasian. While the edit did add a note about Russia, it also changed the short description from:

Outdated classification of humans

to:

Historic human taxonomic classification

Further, it changed the article text:

an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.

to:

a historical race concept of human beings.

Finally, this edit removed a reliable source for no apparent reason, along with its substantial in-ref quotation.

Each of these edits can of course be discussed on their merits. But discussion will be required in order to alter the consensus version of the article this drastically. I suggest that 021120x engage in discussion here and attempt to persuade others rather than edit warring over this content, as they are now doing. Generalrelative (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

021120x's edits were surely not improving the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If "Caucasian" is used a race classification in Russia, it wouldn't be crazy to re-add that material. It needs better sourcing, and less on who English-speakers call "Middle Eastern". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the bit added by 021120x was about Peoples of the Caucasus, not about the outdated race concept at all. And there is already a disambiguation header here linking to that page. We do discuss Peoples of the Caucasus in the "History of the concept" section, so mentioning them in the lead isn't out of the question. But the way 021120x had presented it was confusing at best –– and this was the least problematic part of their rather extensive edit. Generalrelative (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The word "Caucasian" has other uses outside of the United States that are not considered controversial. Even in the US, the term is used on nearly all government documents that describe or inquire about race/ethnicity. A term that is still currently very much in use is obviously not "obsolete", although a certain sense of the word may carry negative connotations. Perceptions of the term will vary by country and culture. "Historical" is more accurate and injects less POV than "obsolete". 021120x (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Source for “the term is used on nearly all government documents that describe or inquire about race/ethnicity”? It’s not a classification in the US census although if someone adds it to other they tally it as white. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The term is far from being obsolete. Many people still use the term to refer to people with white skin and European decent. Master106 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

In America, yes and we mention that. As a scientific classification it's obsolete. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Although, in scientific classification, the term or the use of the term may have changed, it is still used consistently in legal and colloquial English, and is therefore a valid and current term in the language. TRINITYNTB (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Caucasian race" was originally used in scientific classification of human races, so the MOS:LEADSENTENCE describes the subject of the article (which is obsolete scientific human classification). Lead already contains its usage in the US as a synonym for white, so I don't see any issues in the current revision. 021120x's changes does not improve the article. --WikiLinuz {talk} 22:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me add that the colloquial use of "Caucasian" in the U.S. normally doesn't add the noun "race", while this article is about the obsolete concept of a biologically distinct race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@TRINITYNTB I see that of your 7 edits your first was Aug 13 2021:"This is absolutely ridiculous. Changing Caucasian to and “obsolete” term is completely incorrect. Letting people with obvious race issues edit a term used by the entire world in an attempt to change culture and negate western culture is unacceptable". Your next edit accused Fauci of lying. Then a really weird one on Nov asking for protection of "#BLMMassacre" (not an article anyway) because "This was not a crash, it was an intentional terrorist attack by a racist BLM black supremacist islamist terrorist. MSM is trying to cover it up because it goes against their narrative. Get the facts". This was about the Waukesha Christmas parade attack. I'm guessing you were one of the IPs editing it that day. Right about it not being a crash, But the perpetrator was a criminal who had used the same car to run over a woman 3 weeks ago, and who seemed to support some "conspiratorial, Black nationalist and antisemitic beliefs" and the view of Black Hebrew Israelites. He had nothing to do with BLM, was certainly not a terorist nor an Islammist.

Then one on Nov 24 202i on a Trummp article. Nothing more until today with this one and two on a Trump article. You clearly don't know much if anything about our policies and guidelines and appear to have an agenda. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not have an agenda Doug but I can make mistakes, although the information I commented on was in the mainstream media and not considered incorrect. If you dislike my opinions, welcome to the club because I probably dislike yours, but that has no bearing on facts. Don’t accuse me of having an agenda when you offer no proof other than you disagree with my comments. 23.112.104.11 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make comments or edits while being logged out. See WP:LOUTSOCK.

Assuming good faith, I assume you accidentally logged out and didn't notice. --WikiLinuz {talk} 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@TRINITYNTB Are you saying that mainstream media said he was "a racist BLM black supremacist islamist terrorist" while at the same time "MSM is trying to cover it up because it goes against their narrative. Get the facts." Because that makes no sense. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

Obsolescence of term Caucasian can be easily disproven by search of pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=caucasian&sort=date), review of Singapore census (p.70; an English speaking country), etc. it is a false statement. It has both current and historical meaning. 24.246.137.99 (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please note in addition that many of the papers flagged in the search you linked actually use the term 'white', as well as this statement from the article lead: In the United States, the root term Caucasian is still in use as a synonym for white of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry, a usage that has been criticized. The term being used colloquially by some does not negate its obsolescence. Irltoad (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I redid search and filtered out 'white'. This disproof satisfies your concern https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Caucasian+NOT+%28white%29&sort=pubdate

24.246.137.99 (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

in terms of corrections, Caucasian is a valid and active demographic race label. It is not obsolete. It is primarily used by scientists in hispanic and non-white countries but not exclusively. I will simply add the phrase: "Caucasian is a race label with both active legal and demographic meaning as well as historically obsolete meaning" you can help here if you are satisfied point is proven. 24.246.137.99 (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, a database search is not a reliable source. As I said, colloquial use does not negate obsolescence. The article has many sources supporting the obsolescence of the categorisation, and indeed much of the article is a discussion of such. It also goes into more detail into its current usage as a term, particularly in the US. If you want to add content that disagrees with the consensus provided, you will need to provide at least one reliable source that actively argues such, not just uses the term. Irltoad (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the original poster. So here is the proposal, Change The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. to The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) is a racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. Rationale 1 for change is that it is an active legal racial term in in Singapore and perhaps other countries "Other Ethnic Groups -This comprises all persons other than Chinese, Malays and Indians. They include Eurasians, Caucasians, Fillipinos, Burmese, Arabs, Thais etc." definition from Singapore Census https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/cop2020/sr1/glossary.ashx. Rationale 2 There are at least 5,000 recent scientific articles that can be cited as using the word Caucasian in reference to an ethnicity, originating from at least 4 countries https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Caucasian+NOT+%28white%29&sort=pubdate. Mrdthree (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The adjective "Caucasian" may simply mean "White" or "of predominantely European descent" in non-scientific language. But "Caucasian race" is a combination of an adjective and a noun which was intended to have a scientific meaning (but was never more than pseudo-science). Rsk6400 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pubmed is a scientific journal index. I dont disagree with your synonyms but I would say they are equally valid and are all in use. Take one such article as an example,"Subgroup analysis suggested a remarkable role for this SNP as a risk factor in the Caucasian ethnicity and the chronic subtype. Conclusion: TNFα 308G/A polymorphism can be an ITP susceptibility factor in the Caucasian population and the chronic subtype. " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38368694/ Also the redirect is not to White or European, the redirect is to White American.Mrdthree (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted the question on the reliable sources noticehboard for feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Caucasian_Races--_claim_of_obsolesence Mrdthree (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

AND/OR change redirect from For the US racial classification "White" or "Caucasian", see White Americans. tp For "Caucasian" ethnicity see White People. Mrdthree (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

satisfied adding redirect to White People to caputer non-US meanings. However it should be noted that the term is growing in usage and often in the context of diversifying medical sampling. Mrdthree (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Two edits have been proposed. (1) change obsolete race classification to race classification (2) add redirect for Caucasian ethnicity to white people. Regarding (1) Perhaps 3 of 5000 current scientific articles using caucasian as a race/population/ethnicity can be cited along with glossary to singapore census. Regarding (2) the use of Caucasian as a race label outside the US has been presented (Singapore). The responses to the first point seem unaware of what Pubmed is ( scientific publication index). No one has addressed the second edit and supporting reasoning; if you go to sg and are 'white' you must put 'caucasian' on you visa. Mrdthree (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@User:Mrdthree as you have semiprotected editing rights, this does not fit the criteria for an edit request. Edit requests should also be uncontroversial or based on consensus. A simple talk page section or potentially an RfC would be a more appropriate forum for the discussion; it does not need to be tagged as an open edit request. Thank you. Irltoad (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion I should close this section and repost the comment in a new discussion? Mrdthree (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@User:Mrdthree There is nothing to stop you adding the use and meaning of this term in Singapore after the section called "use in the US", or even renaming that section as "modern non-scientific usage" and adding the information there. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is my edits are reverted. Irltoad suggests closing this section and reposting in new conversation. Also I disagree that it is nonscientific unless White is also not scientific. I presented a list of 4000 peer reviewed scientific articles using the term in the last 20 years. Mrdthree (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"White" is also not a scientific term, in the sense the lead means. Both "white" and "Caucasian" are social categories which are related, to some degree, to ancestry from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Some scientific papers use the terms, either because belonging to the social group is relevant to research, or as an imprecise synonym for "largely of European descent".Boynamedsue (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

change redirect to White People

Caucasian is an active legal label in many countries. Proposed change: add redirect for Caucasian ethnicity to white people. Evidence: Singapore uses Caucasian as legal term for ‘White people’ "Other Ethnic Groups -This comprises all persons other than Chinese, Malays and Indians. They include Eurasians, Caucasians, Fillipinos, Burmese, Arabs, Thais etc." definition from Singapore Census https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/cop2020/sr1/glossary.ashx. More evidence can be produced as if you go to sg and are 'white' you must put 'caucasian' on you visa. Mrdthree (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Singapore Census is a primary source, and while primary sources can be used, secondary sources are normally preferred, see WP:PSTS. I think it's difficult to establish notability without primary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that a neutral comment or a request for something more? IMO Having lived in Asia 6 yrs I think they would rather call people from Europe, etc. Caucasian than white for their own cultural and linguistic reasons, which is why you see an increase in its use from researchers in Asia (e.g. this researcher complains 70% of genetics labs use Caucasian https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02288-x). My point is it’s not a North American phenomenon. Mrdthree (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)