Talk:Caucasian race

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.

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)

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 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.

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)