Jump to content

Talk:Caucasian race

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

[edit]

Caucasian is NOT an obsolete term. It is used as a check box on ever police report in the USA. I just saw a friends sons state college application and it lists an option of caucasian as well. This page IS false information and is of opinion, not fact. 2601:8C:4B81:6AD0:CDF7:AAF1:27B6:5644 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go. Random application. See #5
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/23103629/final-report-forms-mission-college
and here on nature.com see figure 2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49202-0 2601:8C:4B81:6AD0:8486:5513:F6F8:E18D (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Please use the form "Change X to Y" to specify the change you want to have made (but please read the hatnote first). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disproven versus Discarded

[edit]

I recently edited the first sentence of this article to replace "now-disproven" with "discarded". This change was reverted. Let me argue why the change to "discarded" should stand. I begin by quoting from the three sources currently cited at the end of the first sentence.

From footnote 3: "the answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no."
From footnote 4. "Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races" 
From footnote 5. "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters."

Therefore, given that race is purely a social construct with no basis in biological reality, it would be incorrect to claim that any particular racial classification system had been proved correct. It is equivalently and equally incorrect to speak of any racial classification system as having been proved incorrect. As the citations above make clear, racial classification systems are simply not susceptible to proof or disproof (unless, indeed, we are to consider them all equally proved false). Thus, "discarded" is a better word choice in the first sentence than "now-disproven." Cahoot (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very wise words, indeed. How is a scientific construct disproven, but a social construct is not? The former is a organizational tool for convenience that reflects history and biological reality - the latter simply the worst of lay ideology (light skin, blue eyes), with poor taste. Race has always been a construct, but there is a difference between summarizing facts (scientific) vs summarizing beliefs (lay-thinking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ba11boyz (talkcontribs) 15:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All racial classification systems have been proved incorrect, because all assume the existence of biologically different races. The disproof of the Flat-Earth theory doesn't mean that only the "Earth-is-a-disc" theory has been disproven, but also the "Earth-is-a-square" and "Earth-is-a-pentagon" theories. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great! I agree! But the current first sentence implies that this specific racial classification system has been disproven while others have not been.
So may I suggest this improvement:
The Caucasian race is an obsolete classification of humans based on the now-disproven theory that there are biologically-identifiable human races. Cahoot (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]