Jump to content

Talk:Caucasian race

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

Second about classification

[edit]

In continuity to the previous classification topic, I think that it could not be presented only one theory, so: The subcategory "Hamitic" could be in "Negroid", the term "Aryan" must be removed as controversial pseudoscientific and be replaced by the terms "Nordic" and "Mediterranic". DimitriosGeo (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

[edit]

Hi Laterthanyouthink, it seems we are already working towards a solution, but perhaps I might remind you of WP:ONUS. Since this article is about the obsolete concept of a Caucasian race and not about the term Caucasian, I don't think we should give to too much prominence to the latter. That one study used the term is surely not relevant unless discussed in secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too fussed about whether the study is mentioned or not (and haven't gone looking for others), but I do think it is necessary to distinguish the use of the term in Australia, which appears to be different from usage in the US, so I don't think that the lead is quite correct as it stands, and nor do the citations support what it says there. In Australia, Caucasian is not used as a definition of race in any census, nor by anyone to denote a concept of race, only by the police forces as a descriptor of appearance. I am making this point in the article to demonstrate that the term is not obsolete nor criticised in Australia. In my opinion the whole article needs to be restructured per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but I don't have the time nor will to do that now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]