Talk:Nordic race

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nordic race/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article fails criterias:

• 1a the article is written in choppy prose, no coherence between most of the sentence or between sections.
• 1b - the Lead is not an accurate summary of the article contents.
• 3a - it does not adequately describe the current scientific consensus about the nature of race. It does not describe the most relevant criticisms of the notions of Nordic race theory (generally considered pseudo-scientific racism). Several sections simply summarise specific Nordic theories without providing information about the criticisms levelled against it.
• 3b it goes into lots of undue detail in the sections about specific subdivisions and definitions of the Nordic race e.g. in the section about Coon (which is a completely discredited theory)
• 4. It is not neutral in that it does not adequately present the fact that the theory holds no scientific credibility in current scholarship, it leaves out many of the most vocal critics (the criticism section mentions only Arnold Toynbee and Benito Mussolini!), and it doesn't put the nordicism into its historical context of race based genocide. It refers to Nazi Hans F. K. Günther as a "shining light of nordicism" (no attribution). ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

..........

You are right but in case you have not noticed this article is dominated by a very suspicious bunch. Look luck. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No response. I am delisting.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, some of your comments are valid criticisms of the way this article have been messed up, but I must object to the last statement, which outright misrepresents the article. It says that the Nazis considered Gunther to be a shining light of Nordiciam, not that he was, as a point of fact. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rereading the statemnent about Günther I can see that you are right, although I still think the phrasing invites doubt about the actual sender of the message. "Such views were extreme, but more mainstream Nordic theory was institutionalized. Hans F. K. Günther, who joined the Nazi Party in 1932, was praised as a pioneer in racial thinking, a shining light of Nordic theory." (no source is given) - the point about no crticism other than mussolini and Toynbee also still stands.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete statements (21st century)

"The emergence of population genetics further undermined the categorisation of Europeans into clearly defined racial groups. A 2007 study using samples exclusively from Europe found an unusually high degree of European homogeneity: "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world."

This is just incorrect. Despite the low interpopulation differences, clustering within Europe can be clearly documented. You can start e.g. here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758442 Centrum99 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I second this, Northern European (Nordic) particularism can be clearly seen through the recent mapping of genome in Europe. This sould be refleced in the article. Heinkhel (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I added citation needed to the first sentence (although this edit was already reversed):

The emergence of population genetics further undermined the categorisation of Europeans into clearly defined racial groups.

My reasoning for doing so: the sources in the following sentences demonstrate quite the contrary, i.e., that far from previous theories being "further undermined", population genetics has, if anything, revived and further refined the crude—albeit often sophisticated and geographically precise—human classifications of the early 20th century. Where racial researchers once spoke of the "Nordic race," modern genomics now speaks of the "I1 haplogroup." The two overlap almost perfectly. Furthermore, the cited sources at the end of the paragraph present haplogroup maps which appear to confirm Hans F. K. Günther's European race map (1922). Considering both the 1922 map and a newer haplogroup map are featured in this article, the opening sentence of this section (quoted above) is a contradiction of the information that is presented both in this article and in the provided references. The "21st century" section could use a major overhaul to reflect the current state of population genetics. The NCBI article linked above is an excellent starting point. The excerpt below adds additional support to the idea that genomics and more specifically population genetics is a natural progression from the race theories of the past:

"True, genetics has led to real breakthroughs in medicine, but it is also the latest in a centuries-long effort to understand biological differences. “In a sense, genetics is a modern version of what early scientists were doing in terms of their studies of skulls or blood type,” says Ann Morning, a sociologist at New York University."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/genetics-race-ancestry-tests/510962/

Additional references below which appear to contradict the current population genetics paragraph in this article:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&

BDS2006 (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite this discussion being old and not followed up upon, I'm glad that the above criticism has not been taken seriously. I find it astounding how so many lay-people seem to cling on to these outdated race concepts as if these were actual facts. For a moment I feared that the entire pseudoscientific contents of humanphenotypes.net, theapricityforums or worse, would be emptied out here on wikipedia. Whatever a singular scientist may have stated in an interview to some local newspaper, it's beyond discussion what the overwhelming consensus is among experts in the field. Amphioxys (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Comments about this article: "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758442"

With all my respect but I think that this article is clearly manipulated and it´s absolutely wrong. You only need to see that the map divisions correspond to real countries not to genetic studies, countries division can't be considered as an equivalent to genetic ethnicity. For example: a real person, me, I'm a red hair and my parents looks like what anyone could call Mediterranean race "by the way that is an invented race" and many people like me are red hair in the south of Europe, (I took a genetic test and it proves me that my biological parents are my parents, and the doctors said that this is only an example that in Europe we are very mixed from the north to the south, they included me in a genetic project proving that I'm related with Scandinavian people and other Celtics tribes, it was amazing considering that all of my family ancestors were from Spain). comment added by (David) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problems of Nordic theory.

The problem of Nordic theory is that it has gone hand in hand with a theory (a cry) of self-proclaimed superiority that is the reaction to an inferiority complex since the XVI century and has a connection with religion and Protestantism. Precisely, if we analyse the peoples with the qualities of leaders, conquerors and builders of empires that this theory so desperately proclaims as typical of this ¨race", and we refer only to Europe, one does not have to have a PHD in History to know that the list of peoples of Europe who created great empires is the following: Ancient Europe: Greek and Romans. Modern Europe: Portuguese, Spanish, English and Russians, being the Russians the only ones that continue to hold on to a major part of their Empire. The French could be discussed as well on a lower level, I think. In short, the peoples who are supposed to belong to that "race" are clearly underrepresented (and so are Protestants). This article should reflect this fact more clearly in a criticism of the theory, especially when a branch of it, headed by the German Nazis, proclaimed the profound inferiority of the Slavs in general and the Russians in particular. I wonder what Hitler was thinking when the Russians invaded and conquered Berlin. By the way: A map showing the cultural and linguistic expansion and areas of influence of the Latin peoples of Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples#mediaviewer/File:Map-Romance_Language_World.png (and it does not take into consideration that more than 50 per cent of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin: In this sentence these word: consideration, per, cent, vocabulary, Latin, origin) PetertheGreat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• No "facts" without reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hitler

"Adolf Hitler read Human Heredity shortly before he wrote Mein Kampf, and called it scientific proof of the racial basis of civilization."

The source states or implies nothing of the sort. Also, since when has a biased source "holocaust studies" been considered a reliable source?

The source not only does not claim that Hitler said it was "scientific proof of the racial basis of civilization." It also does not give sources for it's claim that Hitler used it's 'essential ideas' in Mein Kampf.

Very, very biased and bad for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A source from University of Minnesota is reliable unless we have reason to doubt it. It says what the article says. It does not need to give sources. We give it as a source. There are numerous other sources for the same wholly undisputed point. Here's Guenther Lewy (The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies, Oxford University Press, p. 38):

Hitler's thinking was decisively affected by the teachings of racial hygiene. While Hitler was in jail, serving his prison term for the failed Munich putsch of November 8, 1923, Munich publisher Julius Lehmann, one of his early and ardent supporters, sent him a copy of a textbook on human heredity and racial hygiene by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz. When Lenz later reviewed Hitler Mein Kampf, published shortly after Hitler's release from prison, he correctly claimed that Hitler had incorporated parts of this textbook into his book. Mein Kampf mirrors ideas taken from this and other books on racial topics that Hitler read during his incarceration. He denied the equality of the races, demanded the subordination of inferior and weaker races to better and stronger ones, attributed the decline of civilizations to the mixture of blood, and advocated preventing the reproduction of so-called sickly or criminal elements. Hitler reserved his special ire for the Jews, whom he denounced as the absolute enemy of the Aryan race.

So nothing is really in dispute. As for the phrase "scientific proof of the racial basis of civilization", it's not in quotation marks in the article, as if those actual words were spoken/written by Hitler. It's a summary of Hitler's opinion of the book. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nordicism"

Is this something that exists today? Should its discussion be in the past tense? Why is it in the lede section? At the very least I will change it to the past tense. Dynasteria (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could say it is pretty common among North European neo-Nazis. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it still exists, but it's pretty marginal these days [1]. I think either past or present tenses are acceptable. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This article's name?

This article seems inappropriately named. It is not about people whose ancestry is "Nordic". Instead, it is about outdated racist concepts from the 19th century up through World War II. There is an article titled "Ethnic groups in Europe" that is actually about the people of Europe. In my opinion, this article links being "Nordic" with being a white racist, which in itself is kind of biased against Northern Europeans.

As a historical matter, it is somewhat interesting to review these so called theories, but factually they were never all combined together under the term "Nordic Race" as this article might seem to imply. Thus, Wikipedia is creating a new term for old junk. If the article is about some historical artifact, e.g. a "theory", then it should be titled appropriately. If, on the other hand, Wikipedia is suggesting there is such a thing as a "Nordic Race" then the article should be about living, breathing people and their ancestors. Dynasteria (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Aricles are titled according to WP:COMMONNAME, and the overwhelming majority of sources refer to this racial concept as "Nordic race". That's all that matters, not whether the title is somehow deemed to be unfair to someone, though frankly I fail to see how it is. As for the claim that Wikipedia is "creating" a term at all: there are literally thousands of sources that use this term in the way it is used in the article [2]. Titles should kept simple, with disambiguation only used when necessary. We simply refer to historical concepts, whether discredited or not, by their names: e.g. Luminiferous aether, Phlogisten, Flat Earth etc. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this term was not "created" by Wikipedia, so the point is completely moot. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

FunkMonk: OK, I get your point, creating was not entirely accurate. I was thinking that the term had fallen out of use for several decades and is now being reestablished or perhaps endorsed in a way. I was also thinking that the term was not definitive in the era in which it was in use. HOWEVER, I actually just looked "Nordic" up in my 1969 American Heritage Dictionary and there it is, virtually word for word, the definition given in the WP article here, so I'm somewhat convinced.

Paul Barlow: As to whether the "overwhelming majority of sources" use(d) the term, I don't know. The article doesn't support that contention but it doesn't deny it either. It was in use enough to warrant the title of this article, I suppose. On the other hand, it is possible for an outmoded term to be offensive to the ethnic group to whom it refers. I am offended by the automaticity with which anything to do with Nordic people becomes linked to racism. The irony here is that most Nordic people aren't very worked up about it and so there is no "National Association for the Protection of Nordic People" out there to demand victim's rights. ;-)

Dynasteria (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In my experience there is no "automaticity with which anything to do with Nordic people becomes linked to racism". The most common use of 'Nordic' in modern English is roughly synoonymous with 'Scandanvian'. When people refer to the supposed 'Nazi' racial ideal they tend to use the word "aryan" rather than Nordic in modern English. I think your notion that North Europeans are "automatically" linked to racism is frankly rather idiosyncratic. As for the claim that the article "doesn't support that contention" that sources use the term, what evidence do you want exactly? There are numerous souces cited, and you can read them for yourself. Paul B (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. B you are not making sense. The operative words were that the "overwhelming majority" of sources did not use the term. The article supports your view more or less and I agreed it was an appropriate title under the circumstances. What else do you want from me?

So, OK, your experience with linking "Nordic race" automatically with racism differs from mine. We can deal with that. Once again, the difference here is that there are living, breathing Nordic people, and then there is this outdated, outmoded, defunct, archaic ideology that drags around its baggage from a century ago like some grotesque zombie. But, if in your mind, "Nordic" is synonymous with Scandinavian, then having an article on Wikipedia that links the "Nordic race" with racist attitudes is in itself a racist sleight against Scandinavians. It is tantamount to calling Scandinavians racists. Do you really not see this? Thanks for responding, BTW. I left a somewhat challenging message on your talk page. Dynasteria (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what I am saying. In standard usage in modern English "Nordic" typically means "Scandanavian", and 'Nordic people' would refer to them. But this article is about a racial concept that was influential in the early to mid 20th century. Other racial concepts of the period have similar names, like "Alpine race". It's just called that, and has nothing to with attitudes towards modern people who live in the Alps. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• The article should be titled with the name used most commonly in contemporary sources, not in antiquated sources. I think it would be a good idea to rename all of the old school racial anthropology articles to reflect that they are not currently consider to have any empirical validity. Indeed it should not be the case that the article on "nordic race" cover content related to people with scandinavian ancestry as those two things are clearly separate topics in the literature with very different scientific status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the most common name in contemporary sources, as I've already pointed out. There are numerous contemporary sources cited which use the term. You are confusing the terminology of contemporary science with contemporary reliable sources on this topic, which is part of the history of ideas. As I said, the article on phlogisten is called phlogisten, even though it's not a concept that exists in contemporary science. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope the article on Phlogiston is called phlogiston and not phlogisten. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, "Nordic race" refers to a distinct, "metrical type", which is not synonymous with Scaninavian. Some Scandinavians are supposedly of the "Nordic type", others not. It doesn't simply mean blonde and blue eyed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear the term doesnt refer to any actual in objective reality but is a pseudoscientific grouping that has been used in very different and mutually contradictory ways by different writers. Sometimes blond and blue-eyed has been enough, at other times it hasnt.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nordicism should have its own page. "Nordic race" should only discuss like the Dinaric race. FossilMad (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's been tried, but it's pointless. Nordicism is only intelligible in the context of the definition and wider debates about the history of the 'race'. An article just on the race-concept would be redundant. All the race-concept articles include the ways in which these races have been characterised in terms of supposed temperament, history etc, where that is significant. The only reason there is little to say on that subject as far as so-called Dinarics are concerned, is that little has been said. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of "Nordics" in Sweden and Germany

• Sweden - 10%
• Germany - 6-8%

"According to an examination of army recruits undertaken in the years 1897-98 to analyse the racial make-up of the Swedish people, only 10% of them were classified as examples of the [pure] Nordic type." - Dahlberg, Gunner. (1942). Race, Reason & Rubbish: a Primer of Race Biology. (1942). Columbia University Press. p. 202.

"When Guenther informs his followers that in a 'Nordic nation' such as Germany but 6 to 8 percent of the population display the morphological traits of the 'pure Nordic,' he condemns the 'movement' to the fate of an exclusive sect outside of which remain over 90 percent of the population." - Gregor, Anthony. J. (1961). "Nordicism Revisited". Phylon. 22(4). pp. 351-360.

This is why the late 19th century and early-mid 20th century race typologists had to introduce countless "mixed" sub-racial types with Nordic:

• Ireneusz Michalski: Northwestern (= Nordic + Mediterranean), Dinaric (= Nordic + Armenoid), Teutonic (Nordic + Cromagnonoid)
• Jan Czekanowski: Northwestern (= Nordic + Mediterranean), Dinaric (= Nordic + Armenoid), Subnordic (Nordic + Lapponoid) FossilMad (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)