| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caucasoid race redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
Should we rename the article?
editI'm thinking we should rename the article to "Caucasoid" given as how every modern mainstream source in the article calls it an "ethnic group" rather than a "race". What's the consensus?-Psychohistorian 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've been thinking the same for some time. Most of the references in the literature are to "Caucasoid" and not "Caucasoid race". Indeed hardly any sources use the term "Caucasoid race" except the Natinal Library of Medicine, and they don't use the term at all any more. Alun 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, because this terminology remains in use by many researchers as cited in the article. Lukas19 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not cite any modern researchers who use the term "Caucasian race". It does mention modern research groups who identify "Caucasian" as an ethnic group.-Psychohistorian 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so there are three major editors working on this article (Wobble, Lukas, and myself). Two of these editors have said its a good idea to rename the article. One has said it isn't, but has given as reason, something that is demonstrably wrong (i.e. that the article cites many modern researchers who use the term "Caucasian race").
- As far as I can see, the consensus is to rename the article. I'll work on that in a bit. However, I am considering merging "Caucasian race" into the article at the same time (with the new article being called "Caucasian" and redirects from "Caucasian race", "Caucasoid race", and "Caucasoid"). Comments?-Psychohistorian 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good plan. This article can easily be merged with a "Caucasian" article. Even if Lukie is right, this article is so small that the "Caucasoid is a bigger group than Caucasian" argument can be made in the "Caucasian" article anyway. They are clearly related/the same concept and do not necessarily warrant seperate articles, at least not on current evidence and content. Alun 12:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Meditation
editDelition
editWhy is this sentence keeps being deleted:
"Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[1] Lukas19 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
question
editThe first paragraph states that there are 5 racial catagories. But lists only 4.
"The Caucasoid race is one of five racial categories as defined by the physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon in 1934. The other four races that Coon defined were the Mongoloid race, the Australoid race, the Negroid race, sometimes refered as Congoid and the Capoid race. These racial classifications were made on the basis of physical features"
Can anyone name the fifth, or do I misunderstand?
69.139.8.126 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Capoid race is the fifth. Carleton Coon referred to Negroids as "Congoids" and the Khoi and San people as "Capoids."
- Cryptico 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)