Talk:Nordic race/Archive 3

Apropos historical portrayal of the concept

The historical portrayal in this article is with no doubt very incomplete. To add some information I will copy an excerpt of William McDougall's "The Group Mind," 1920; Page 317:

"The Gauls were a mixed people of whom the minority, constituting the nobility, were of the tall, fair, long-headed Nordic race; while the majority, the mass of the common people, were of the short, dark, round-headed race. And these, as the numerous observations of the anthropologists show, constitute to-day the bulk of the population, except in Normandy and the extreme north-east of France.

The Teutons or Germans of Caesar and Tacitus, on the other hand, were of the fair Nordic race; and the Anglo-Saxons who overran Britain, together with the Danes and Normans, who, with the Saxons, formed the principal ancestral stock of the English, were of this same Nordic race, or Northmen, as we may call them.

Now, it might seem useless to attempt to arrive at any conclusions as to the influences that shaped these races in prehistoric times. But an attempt has been made by one of the schools of French sociologists, which, in spite of its speculative character, seems to be worthy of attention. This is the school of "La Science Sociale," founded seventy years ago by Frederic le Play and more recently led by Ed. Demolins and H. de Tourville. Aided by a number of ardent disciples, they have made a special study of the influence of physical environment in determining occupations and social organisation, and in moulding indirectly through these the mental qualities of peoples. That is their great principle. ...

Page 318:

And, of all the conclusions of the Le Play school, their account of the origin of the distinctive characters of the Northmen is one of the most striking and satisfactory; ...

Page 327

The modern Frenchman, says Demolins, would regard as the height of folly the enterprises of the old Northmen, who, mounted on their frail ships, quitted each spring the coast of Scandinavia, launched out on the wild sea, landed, a mere handful of men, on the coasts of Germany, Britain, or Gaul, and there with their swords carved out domains and made new homesteads. It was thus that the ancestors of Tancred had acquired the manor of Hauteville, and it was thus that his sons conquered Italy and Sicily.

It was in a very similar way that, in a later age, men of the same breed carried to the new world the same individualistic institutions and the same spirit of independence, and in doing so, laid the foundations of the immense vigour and prosperity of the American people."

So, to give a more complete account of the evolution of the "Nordic race" concept, the contributions of at least the following people should be included:

Pierre Guillaume Fréderic le Play (1806-1882)

Henri de Tourville (1842-1903)

Edmond Demolins (1852-1907)

The fact that the term Nordic "came into vogue rather late" like the article states leaves out a big part of the story - whatever this race was called – the idea of such a race took a rather elaborate shape much earlier. So at its present state this Wikipedia-article sheds a wrong light. 217.236.226.181 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Nordic race into Nordic theory?

Like exposed already before in Nordic Theory is not the Nordic Race (RFC), I entirely disagree to a redirect of an anthropological article to an article discussing racial theories, for being confusing to readers soliciting encyclopedic information on anthropology. This is like redirecting God to Nietzsche, redirecting cars to polution or redirecting President Bush to Human Right abuses. I mean, such a link gives an unsolicited moral lesson to those eager to retrieve neutral encyclopedic information on the subject, and thus would express a NPOV political statement. Also, this would treat links to "Alpine race" and "Mediterranian race" differently, what used to be especially bothersome before this article's creationdate while linking from non-political articles. My opinion is not against Nordic theory as an article, to the contrary, I just completely disagree on the argument conveyed with this proposal to merge: "Both articles contain basically the same thing". I think such a merge, in this direction to Nordic theory, would be basically a political statement, without any additional value to the anthropological context.

Here I quote on Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging: There are several good reasons to merge a page:

1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
4. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Not any of this "good reasons" apply. My arguments against the proposed merge could be defined accordingly:

1. . The two articles are not duplicates since anthropology and politics are two different things
2. . There is not any overlap: in Nordic Theory not one single descriptive word was dedicated to the anthropological features (at the moment of creation). I suspect political activism after a merge would soon result in unworthy edits that mix politics, racism and myth with descriptive and objective features, just like discussed above. Who is going to protect us from this bias within an article on Nordic Theory? What kind of discussion are we going to invite on an anthropological subject, using what political arguments? Will this force into censoring or racial bias? Let us keep this two things separate for once!
3. . The article on Nordic race could still be expanded on and still treats the subject in a comprehensive way already. Lots of valuable information on prehistoric Nordic races and archeological findings could be added
4. . The article Nordic Race could do perfectly without Nordic Theory to understand the basic features and anthropological concepts. As such, such an argument would rather justify a merge the other way round, Nordic Theory into Nordic Race. If the articles would fit together, I would rather suggest this - for the simple reason that there would be no Nordic theory without a Nordic race. To say otherwise would imply a political denial of the anthropological concept Nordic race, and this could perfectly fit and be discussed in a political article like Nordic theory.

I would add another reason not to merge:

1. . Such a merge would raise questions on the political agenda of some.

Rokus01 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, Nearly all of the reasons to merge a page fit this proposed merger. 1. There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject. "Nordic Theory" and "Nordic race" are exactly the same subjects. Nordic theories revolve around the "Nordic race". There is actually no such thing as the "Nordic race" and the Nordic theories article is more encompassing, meaning that the Nordic race article should be merged into this one. 2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. This also fits this scenario. The Nordic race article is an archaic racial term which doesn't deserve it's own article. As a matter of a fact, I would support merging Alpine race and Mediterranean race all into one article possibly called "Historical concepts of Race" since most of the info in this Nordic theory article contains general information about historical concepts of race opposed to "Nordicism" in specifically. This article or merger has absolutely nothing to do with politics but archaic scientific beliefs that have little to do with actual anthropology and can't be merged with any anthropology articles so must be merged with similar articles on archaic beliefs towards race, especially the non existent "Nordic race". Or simply merged into a single article detailing archaic beliefs towards race in general. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So to express it in plain words – you don't want a category:Race(historical definitions) to exist. But guess what – it does not matter at all what you or I or anybody else thinks about the validity of these historical definitions – they played their role in history – that is what matters. Not only some weird fringe considered them valid (which would be a pro-deletion argument), but the leading schools of their day. Without any doubt there shall be separate articles.

Sincerely, 217.236.226.181 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposing merger

I am proposing that Nordic race be merged into this article. Both articles contain basically the same thing and both fit perfectly together. I would have simply merged them myself but I wanted some input before doing so. The Nordic race article says basically the same thing as this one and it doesn't look like it's going to do much growing in the future. It should be condensed and put into a subsection of this article, probably the top or next to the top. The Nordish race article should also be merged into this one as well for the exact same reasons. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. The Nordic race article is a very new ceation by user:Rokus01, though the page as a redirect has been there for years. See the discussion above in the section Nordic Theory is not the Nordic Race (RFC). I thought I would not object its creation, since there were very few other editors who expressed an interest in the subject, despite my RfC. Those who have seem to agree that it should not be :separate. Paul B 14:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Like exposed already before in Talk:Nordic theory#Nordic Theory is not the Nordic Race (RFC), I entirely disagree to a redirect of an anthropological article to an article discussing racial theories, for being confusing to readers soliciting encyclopedic information on anthropology. This is like redirecting God to Nietzsche, redirecting cars to polution or redirecting President Bush to Human Right abuses. I mean, such a link gives an unsolicited moral lesson to those eager to retrieve neutral encyclopedic information on the subject, and thus would express a NPOV political statement. Also, this would treat links to "Alpine race" and "Mediterranian race" differently, what used to be especially bothersome before this article's creationdate while linking from non-political articles. My opinion is not against Nordic theory as an article, to the contrary, I just completely disagree on the argument conveyed with this proposal to merge: "Both articles contain basically the same thing". I think such a merge, in this direction to Nordic theory, would be basically a political statement, without any additional value to the anthropological context.

Here I quote on Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging: There are several good reasons to merge a page:

1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
4. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Not any of this "good reasons" apply. My arguments against the proposed merge could be defined accordingly: 1. The two articles are not duplicates since anthropology and politics are two different things 2. There is not any overlap: in Nordic Theory not one single descriptive word was dedicated to the anthropological features (at the moment of creation). I suspect political activism after a merge would soon result in unworthy edits that mix politics, racism and myth with descriptive and objective features, just like discussed above. Who is going to protect us from this bias within an article on Nordic Theory? What kind of discussion are we going to invite on an anthropological subject, using what political arguments? Will this force into censoring or racial bias? Let us keep this two things separate for once! 3. The article on Nordic race could still be expanded on and still treats the subject in a comprehensive way already. Lots of valuable information on prehistoric Nordic races and archeological findings could be added 4. The article Nordic Race could do perfectly without Nordic Theory to understand the basic features and anthropological concepts. As such, such an argument would rather justify a merge the other way round, Nordic Theory into Nordic Race. If the articles would fit together, I would rather suggest this - for the simple reason that there would be no Nordic theory without a Nordic race. To say otherwise would imply a political denial of the anthropological concept Nordic race, and this could perfectly fit and be discussed in a political article like Nordic theory.

I would add another reason not to merge: 5. Such a merge would raise questions on the political agenda of some. Rokus01 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is no anthropological concept of a Nordic race any more. It is an entirely historical concept. It was meaningful when models were being developed based on cranial morphology and mapped onto prehistorical population movements, but those models no longer have any currency. Paul B 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about validity or having currency, we are talking about independent subjects being encyclopedic. Listen to what you say here: do you consider Nordic theories to be still meaningful instead? You are completely wrong, cranial morphology and physical phenotypes are still used to study prehistorical population movements, and to study local continuïty as well. The Nordic race model might be too coarse and superficial to be valid to modern investigation of prehistoric graves, however, the other article clearly acknowledge a shift of anthropological interest towards corresponding subtypes. Some of these subtypes are clearly related to specific prehistoric cultures, like Brunn (Linear Pottery culture) and Boroby (Beaker culture). To say measurements of physical differences not to matter anymore is merely a political statement. To say such measurements are obsolete to anthropology is utterly untrue. You have to acknowledge the historical context of Nordic race to have both an anthropological side and a political side. Both are encyclopedic. You could merge with Nordish race, since this article also has a political focus. However, the article Nordic race clearly rejects such a political focus. Rokus01 22:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a political statement. I fully accept that cranial morphology is still used in forensics, but in archaeology it has largely been replaced by genetics. Since DNA has been recoverable from ancient teeth, cranial morphology has become largely obsolete as a means to determine ancestry. The fact is that "Nordic race" means almost nothing these days. That does not, of course, mean that the distinctive morphology of Northern Europeans does not exist. Of course it does, and if the skeleton of a murder victim is found the police can use the classic cranial morphology models to determine "Nordic" origins. That's about it though. Paul B 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making up things. DNA investigation to prehistoric skeletons are science fiction in most cases, since it is hard to find sufficient DNA left. Skeletons that turn up in archeological digs are always measured and investigated on phenotype features, and classified according to type. Human osteology, not DNA investigation, is considered the modern practice of regional morphology. An extensive database, built from studies in many countries on museum material and dental models of living patients, is now available, and has yielded broad morphological groupings that can be interpreted in terms of the migrations and ancestry of human populations (Hillson 1996:289). Please verify archeological reports, primary sources and scientific reviews. Rokus01 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the one making things up. Have you never heard of the disputes about the cephalic index? Can you claim that morphology proves the existence of a "nordic race"? The quotation is specifically about dental morphology, which is affected by specific environmental factors. DNA is increasingly being extracted from teeth [1] [2] [3] [4]. It is used along with oxygen isotope analysis. Obviously, it's expensive, however, which limits usefulness. Paul B 02:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not proclaim te existence of the Nordic race. I proclaim the encyclopedic value of this denomination. The Nordic type is still referenced at in serious anthropological papers. I just expanded and sourced the article a bit more to make this clear. If considered more appropiate I would consider a renaming of the other article to "Nordic type". This should be enough for this discussion to be cut short. Rokus01 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not proclaim te existence of the Nordic race. I proclaim the encyclopedic value of this denomination. The Nordic type is still referenced at in serious anthropological papers. I just expanded and sourced the article a bit more to make this clear. If considered more appropiate I would consider a renaming of the other article to "Nordic type". This should be enough for this discussion to be cut short. Rokus01 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, Nearly all of the reasons to merge a page fit this proposed merger. 1. There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject. "Nordic Theory" and "Nordic race" are exactly the same subjects. Nordic theories revolve around the "Nordic race". There is actually no such thing as the "Nordic race" and the Nordic theories article is more encompassing, meaning that the Nordic race article should be merged into this one. 2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. This also fits this scenario. The Nordic race article is an archaic racial term which doesn't deserve it's own article. As a matter of a fact, I would support merging Alpine race and Mediterranean race all into one article possibly called "Historical concepts of Race" since most of the info in this Nordic theory article contains general information about historical concepts of race opposed to "Nordicism" in specifically. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidude, Nordic theory refers to the abuse of racial schemes to political ends, not to what you think is appropiate to be current among anthropologists. In fact, it is Nordic theory being obsolete, not the anthropological base. The Nordic race (or type) denomination is still used, although distinctions on color are not considered relevant to the investigation of prehistoric skeletons. Other denominations coexist. Don't mix things up. Just concentrate yourself on describing these abuses by fascism and don't pretend proper use of science to be responsable to all mischief. Nationality was all what counted and most people killed by Nazi's for "race" would fit the Nordic umbrella "nicely". Don't insist on the lies of fascism to be true and recognize racial theories do not have anything to do with anthropological differences. An article on anthropology does not belong to the Nordic theory views of a couple of racist madmen. Your political agenda to deny some valuable encyclopedic information will not be contented Rokus01 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't just specifically deal with the use of this theory by fascists. I have no political agenda here. This proposed merger has nothing to do with politics. The Nordic theory article has numerous overlapping aspects with the Nordic race article and that's why it should be merged, There is no need for 2 separate articles. Combining and condensing all of the relevant into into a single article makes much more sense from a pragmatic standpoint. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider the initial and prime statement of Nordic theory, "Nordic theory (or Nordicism) is a theory of racial supremacy", incompatable to all other articles concerning race, including this one. Nordic theory is political and is relevant to fascism. Race should not be subject to political theories. Rokus01 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That could easily be changed. The fact is, If all of the corresponding information in the Nordic theory was removed so it didn't relate much to this current article we would be left with a stub. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidude, the scope of this article is anthropology, and the scope of Nordic theory is racism. Some background information of both articles might correspond, however, the context remains completely different. Maybe you could change one sentence, but racial supremacy, the core argument of Nordic theory, just is not relevant, not even appropiate, to the scope of this article. You'd better try to extend Nordic theory thus to make clear how the racist interpretation of race tends to put the emphasis on nationality instead of anthropology. A "National" race (I mean a human type exclusively confined to a certain nation or linguistic group) do not exist and are the abuse of fascistic racists. I would be grateful if you could concentrate on this instead. Rokus01 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Aryan Race page should be totally overhauled, revised and still posted as an article. There should also be one for Aryan People. There is one for "black people" you know.

You should see what Paul B. posted about you and all of this on the Aryan Race discussion tab.

Gardenersville 05:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC) And Why does Xanthochroic only refer to birds?

The article

There is no reliable anthropology that I can see in this article Rokus. It's a melange of obsolete stuff taken from Deniker and Coon onto which you have grafted very fringe theories concerning Neanderthal admixture and genetic studies which actually say the opposite of what you claim they do. You claim that Coon's concept of Brunn/Falid types have been validated: "Anthropological investigation of the Carpathian Basis reveals a high degree of isolation and local continuity here of this same type, being referred to as a Protonordic-Cro-Magnoid type. This type has proved to be strong in the Central European and Bohemian Linear Pottery populations and only lost its local predominance in the Celtic period at the end of prehistory. The virtual disappearance and discontinuity of the type in Central Europe by the arrival of new immigrants has been confirmed by recent investigations on mtDNA."

The footnote 8 actually states "The results [of DNA analysis] provide strong evidence that modern Europeans descend mostly from the hunter–gatherers. The evidence hinges on a distinctive genetic pattern that was present in about 25% of the first farmers, but is found in just 0.2% of Europeans today."

In other words there was no displacement "by the arrival of new immigrants", since they have made a tiny genetic contribution to European populations in comparison to the existing pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers. Paul B 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You could read the article on physical type and discover that it has been established that the agricultural population in this region was virtually replaced by Bell Beaker (Borreby) immigrants. Indeed, this people already passed the hunter-gatherers stage. Is this what you mean? The Bell-Beakers are (generally assumed) culturally derived from Corded Ware and there exists strong support for assuming cultural continuity back to Hunter gatherers fore bearers contemporary to Linear pottery. In this context, the Linear Pottery agriculturists, having cultural roots in the Donau region or beyond, are considered opposite to the people deriving from north european hunter gatherers. Indeed, the DNA paper is agnostic to older local DNA. Still both papers say the same: the Linear pottery people (thus also the Linear pottery people of this region) are virtually extinct. If you meant to say the original people where just "swarmed" by immigrants in a natural process of mixing: this theory has been investigated in the mtDNA paper and has been rejected by genetic drift mathematics.Rokus01 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that is what I am talking about Rokus!

Gardenersville 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon -> Protonordic-Cro-Magnoid type (Neanderthal admixture) -> Brunn/Falid types -> Hallstatt type (size decrease)

evolved 1: Cro-Magnon + Neanderthal -> (interbred) -> Protonordic-Cro-Magnoid type

evolved 2: Protonordic-Cro-Magnoid type -> Brunn/Falid types

evolved 3: Brunn/Falid types -> (size decreased) -> Hallstatt type

nagara373 16:37, 6 Aug 2007 (JST)

Hair color

Hallstatt type: light brown (most commmon), blond

Falid type: blond (most common: ash-blond)

Brunn type: blond (most common), light brown

Keltic type: blond, red, light brown

Eye color

Hallstatt type: blue (most common), green, gray, light brown

Falid type: blue (most common), gray, green

Brunn type: blue (most common), green

Keltic type: blue, green, brown

Nagara373 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not an anthropologist, but I think the article is based on problematic claims. For example, the Brunn type of Coon is different from the real Paleolithic Brunn that is bound with the Gravettian culture. I have never heard about "Combe Capelle" in connection with the Gravettian, not speaking about the doubtful dating of Combe Capelle. Centrum99 -- 82.100.61.114 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Coon classification refers to the paleolithic remains that are still "found in solution" elsewhere, not to the neolithic remains in the same aera. The link between the paleolithic Brunn and the conservative proto-nordic neolithic remains in the Carpatian basin is continuity and not the names of the archeological sites. Basically the article tries to stick to the bicultural origins of humans in Europe. You are right that the definition of Gravette is different from Combe Capelle, the gracialization and possible influx involved is better described by Gravette.Rokus01 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For Sports

Hallstatt type: better for basketball player due to athletic body type

Fälish type: better for American football lineman and powerlifter due to very strong

Brünn type: better for American football lineman and powerlifter due to very strong

nagara373 16:04, 6 Aug 2007 (JST)

Nordic Race and R. W. Darré

You apparently insists that you want to remove the sentence "For example, the later Nazi minister for Food, Richard Walther Darré, who had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race, used the term 'Aryan' to refer to the tribes of the Iranian plains." from the article [[Nordic Race}} Your insistence here is coming close to vandalism. That Richard Walther Darré had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race is highly relevant, since he is the most prominent proponent of a theory about a Nordic Race. The difference between concepts of Nordic race and Aryan race is also relevant. THESE STATEMENTS ARE SOURCED TO A STANDARD, ACADEMIC WORK about Darré in English (which is, by the way, written from a rather conservative perspektive.) You will at least have to get "Blood and Soil: Richard Walther Darré and Hitler's "Green Party". Abbotsbrook, England: The Kensal Press. ISBN 0-946041-33-4" from a library yourself and see for yourself. Make sure, that you are familiar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Zara1709 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: since he is the most prominent proponent of a theory about a Nordic Race

A prominent Nazi won't make a prominent anthropologist, all the contrary.

The Nordic race article is not for politically describing or evaluating a theory. This has already been undertaken by the article Nordic theory, listed as a "History" article. All further historical backgrounds, political concepts and abuses could be discussed there and you'll be happy since nazi shit is crawling all over that place. The Nordic race article, however, is a (WikiProject) Anthropology article. The focus will be on relevant anthropological investigation and results on a certain group of people sharing certain anthropological features, no matter how you'll label it. Racialist and racist Nazi contributions do not belong to this category. Moreover, Nazi ideology is anachronistic to the development of the Nordic race concept. Rokus01 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is utter nonsense, unsurprisingly. You say that "historical backgrounds" are not relevant, and you you quote Ripley and Coon who are contemporary with Darre, but you do not quote one single modern anthropologist who believes that the "Nordic race" is a meaningful concept. Paul B (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like always you are distorting my words. I say all further historical backgrounds are dealt with in your Nordic theory article. Indeed, this also means those further historical backgrounds are undue to this article. I don't see any relevance to the specific contributions of this Nazi here, since like I already said: A prominent Nazi won't make a prominent anthropologist. Also, it is not of any interest whether or not Nordic race is a valid concept. Of interest is that Nordic race represents a certain group of people sharing certain anthropological features. This is not a concept, this is an observation, observed in various, also recent anthropological publications. Your kind of people are the ones that try to racialize here. Rokus01 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to determine what "further" material is relevant, and you deleted references to Gunther, who was a prominent anthropologist. This is pure ideology, nothing less. As for your absurd claim that it is not a concept but an observation, that's meaningless. We don't have articles on observations. I may observe that people in Beverwijk are shorter than average, but I have no right to create an article about it unless Beverwijkian shortness is a recognised concept. I may observe that there are often visible characteristic typical of North Europeans, but this becomes a specific concept derived from an observation when I create the idea that this means there is something called the "Nordic race". The idea that such a thing has a meaningful existence was prominent in the early 20th century. I see no reason to believe that it any longer is, and you have provided zero evidence that it is. I'm not sure what "my kind of people" is, but you created an article on race and tried to maintain the claim that such a race exists. To then accuse others of trying to "racialise" is nonsensical. Paul B (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue information is irrelevant, of course I have the right to point this out to people like you: that dare to call Nazi theorists prominent scientists at any time. It is POV to state that only ideology is involved, and since this POV has already found a home in Nordic theory I can see no place for it here, not even within the NPOV policy of representing multiple views. To this has been complied with an explicit reference to Nordic theory. Your racialism impels you to insist on a clear racial concept. There is no concept of the Nordic race, because no clear concept exists of the general denomination "race" to start with. What is the validity of the various races of dogs? The difference between such races lay just in a couple of genes, imagined as "pure". Purity, however, is a human concept, not a concept of nature. There are races of wolves that show much more variability and are mixed like humans, and even though biologists describe these races and draw distribution maps, the underpinning "concept" won't ever be any more than an observation of local variability. You could waist a lot of time in order to plead for or to insist on purity that does not exist (like the nazi's did) or to discuss the validity of the concept of race (politically correct though "maybe" hypocritical), still the real issue should be the encyclopedic importance of the denomination. The "idea that such a thing has a meaningful existence was prominent" in the early 20th century might have some historical importance, though this has been addressed already superfluously in Nordic theory and has no bearing on the current geographical and anthropological interpretation. Within the anthropological concept of multiregionality the local variability is still valuable and cited by prominent scholars. This prominent scholars are not interested at all in the bullshit of Nazi theorists and if they were, they should look for another job and would cease to be prominent by definition. I already offered to look for another name that would be considered politically correct, like "Nordic type" if you think "race" insinuates another thing, even though you insinuate another thing more by quoting Nazi theorists. However, political abuse is not the focus of scientists nor of this article and in my opinion to change the denomination "Nordic race" into something else would be sheer revisionism and dangerous in the hands of racialists, like Nordic theory already gave a new pretext for publishing Nazi bullshit. Not here. Rokus01 (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your obtuseness is of course well known, but you miss the point entirely. Nazism appropriated a belief that was part of widespread anthropological culture, including the ideas about supposed character differences between races. This was what anthropologists wrote at the time, and Gunther was a prominent one at the time however much you splutter and bluster in your attempts to pretend otherwise. You are trying to exclude references to writers who expressed such views to pursue your own contemptible agenda of sanitising and dehistoricising this concept, and then you have the utter gall to accuse others of pushing a racialist agenda, when you are the only one here who insists on the reality of this "race" and who wishes to make comparisons to the concept of race as applied to the animal kingdom. You cannot insist on something that is not accepted by the current scientific establishment however much you was to argue for it. To do so is WP:OR. As usual your hypocricy is breathtaking. It's not what the phrase "Nordic race" 'insinuates'. It's what it actually means. Paul B (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nazism appropriated a belief that was part of widespread anthropological culture. Nazism also appropiated barbed wire, uniforms, Wagner, neoclassicist architecture, art and jewels from murdered jews, Nietzsche, trains, factories, young children from their parents, tomatoes, baked potatoes... I am sure you remember those filthy Nazi's with every potato you eat, and spit it out because your conscience don't permit you to sanitise or dehistoricise the potatoes from those filthy Nazi's that ate potatoes. Sure, I will support your struggle to abolish life itself because the Nazi's abused it when still alive. And don't forget to mention that we can't write a proper article without reminding that once the earth was flat, or burn in hell otherwise. I am not sanitising and dehistoricising a concept, I already explained you that this does not apply to an anthropological observation. There are many ways to avoid mentioning Nordic race and still say the same, so if scholars do and say for instance "people north of the Alps", you can be proud of yourself for not having achieved anything. Please reserve your political POV to political articles, I don't think you are telling the truth about your real political inclinations. And what are you talking about, you ignore good references to non-Nazi sources [5] that would say that Nazism and Fascism are from the same gutter, and not just because they also appropiated the same lies. We already talked it over, you still think your POV is more valuable than sourced scholarly references so don't pretend you have the slightest idea of what WP:OR really is. Or of being obtuse, for that sake. Rokus01 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote that Darré was the most prominent proponent of a theory about a Nordic Race, I of course meant, that he was prominent as a Nazi minister and as accused at the Nuremberg Trials. He was not that prominent as an anthropologists. Anyway, he would be a prime example of a race-theorist who considered the Nordic Race to be different from the Ayran race. Since I had previously thought that the article Nordic theory would debate the theories on the question whether the Ayran race had originated in somewhere in Northern Europe, the articles Nordic Race and Nordic theory would debate two different subjects, as most race-theorists considered the Nordic Race to be different from the Aryan race. This is precisely why I had added the sentences to which Rokus01 is objecting here. Now I don't know if the article Nordic theory has been expanded in the meantime, but in its current state, it mostly debates the Nordic race and overlaps with this article, thus giving us a prime example of a POV Fork. I suppose people like Rokus01 want to have an article about a Nordic Race that doesn't mention that speculation about it was also common in Nazi Germany. But - to comfort Rokus01 a little - Darré wasn't one of 'really evil' Nazis. He alone wouldn't have advocated the destruction of the perceived lower races. According to Bramwell, he would only have advocated public eduction about the dangers of 'interbreeding'. And at the Nuremberg trials he used to annoy the prosecution by referring to that American author who wrote about the Nordic Race.

Anyway, this article needs to be merged into Nordic theory. After that is done, I can write a section there on Darré. But probably I am not cynical enough to keep Rokus01 from reverting here, so let's talk about a the merger later. I am not taking ANY political view here, I am just annoyed about Rokus01 because he keeps deleting relevant and reliably sourced information. Zara1709 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think here you bascally agree with my opinion that your edits essentially belong to Nordic theory. I don't gather what prevents you from inserting your Darré section there and why you would have to wait for a merger first instead (or rather, Anschluss?). Trolling maybe? However, since you went into some effort to make your point, and want to dedicate a chapter in explaining why Nordic race is not the same as Aryan race hmmm. Personally I think it would serve an article more in explaining what it is all about rather than explaining in what it is not. I already took this for granted with a sourced reference that's already there. Remember there is still another article: Aryan race. And really, the Darré denominations are heavily undue to this article. Rokus01 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you opinion that the statement about Darré belongs to Nordic theory. What I said was: In its current state this article is wp:Content forking from Nordic theory. In an article on "Nordic Race" the Nazi theories on "Nordic Race" need to be mentioned. If you want to have an article on a discourse about " North European Phenotypes" that is not connected to the race-theories of a Nordic Race of the first half of the 20th century that would be a different issue. Most likely that would be a case for the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Concerning the article I am going to emphasize it one more time: R.W.Darré had developed a theory of the German peasantry as a Nordic race. This is attributed to a reliable source, and due to the general prominence of R.W.Darré it is in any case relevant. Zara1709 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to repeat your erroneous point of view, I already rejected your personal stance more than once. I don't have to argue with someone that on the one hand AGREES that Darré don't qualify as "prominent as an anthropologists" and on the other hand INSISTS that Darré should be mentioned in an essentially anthropological article. It is clear you are not here for a serious discussion. Please stop trolling and don't create an incident. Rokus01 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You manage to completely twist my words around. I haven't studied the debate on the Nordic Race in the first half of the 20th century in Detail, so I can not say how "prominent" Darré was in this debate. What I said was, that his opinion is already interesting because he LATER made it Nazi minister. Not mentioning Darré in an article on "Nordic Race" would be like not mentioning Lenin in an article on Social Class. I have not intention to debate whether ideas about a "Nordic Race" are actual biology or just ideological pseudo-science, the same way I don't have the intention to debate whether ideas a "proletarian class struggle" are actual sociology or economics. But at some point in history people that had these ideas got into power, with consequences that are well known. So often when someone puts forward socialist ideas, he is faced with a mentioning of Stalin, and often when someone puts forward ideas of white racism, he is faced with a mentioning of Nazi Germany. But I am not even saying here that the Nordic theories of Darré etc. led to the consequence of The Holocaust, as well as I wouldn't say that the theories of Marxled to the consequence of the Gulag. All I am saying is that a prominent politician had written books on the Nordic race before he came into power. You have to accept it and this has to be included in the article, regardless of whether you call me a "Troll" or a "POV-Pusher" or you demand that I should "Go to the nazi pages please" in the edit summary. Zara1709 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This racial concept deserves as much its own article labelled "XYZ race" as do the other historical racial concepts. And then the question is - how far were those specific Nazi ideas accepted in the anthropological scientific community or even had their origin in parts of it? - But it still is only a section in an article on the concept of a Nordic race (as is mentioning Darré whose comparison to Lenin was – I hope not meant seriously or too quick on the trigger).

Otherwise it's acting like - because the Nazis and other Nordic supremacists touched it, it gets special treatment today.

If you absolutely want to delete one of the articles on the Nordic race - take the article "Nordic theory" and put its content into this one - instead of emphasising a detail and blurring the big picture.

The idea of Nordic supremacy is just one aspect of the historical reality.

I added the McDougall quotation to the article "Nordic theory" but did not write its introductory sentence.

McDougall did not talk about a generally "masterly" Nordic race. He simply stated differences between European stocks. I recall that he spoke of higher artistic abilities as a characteristic of the Mediterranean race - doesn't sound like Nordic supremacy to me - and should be hard for you to interpret it in such a way - (if you're a fan of let's say Italian art and not Viking warfare and absolutely want to pick a master race - there you go).

The McDougall quotation makes much more sense in this article - in a neutral paragraph - and mentioning Darré can get its own unimportant section.

217.236.238.88 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS If you still want to delete this article, please provide some arguments that it has less legitimacy than e.g. the articles on the "Dinaric race" and the "Mediterranean race".

No, I did not compare Lenin to Darré. I did compare the situation here at hand. You are claiming that "Nordic Race" is a concept discussed in biological anthropology and not a racist ideology. Well, I can agree that it WAS a concept discussed in biological anthropology (in the first half of the 20th century) and that it was not ONLY a racist ideology. Similarly, social class is a viable sociological concept and NOT ONLY part of the ideology of class struggle. But in both cases you need to mention both aspects. An article that would discuss only one part without mentioning the other would be against wp:NPOV. If you had one article just one the presumed scientific theory and on on the ideology, that would even be wp:content forking. I am under a strong impression that we are dealing in this case (Nordic theory and Nordic Race) with this problem, but I need to take a closer look on it and we can surely discuss it. That is, as soon as User:Rokus01 acknowledges wp:NPOV and wp:Reliable Sources. Zara1709 (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Zara1709, Darré nor any other Nazi source will be considered a reliable source. Neither do Nazi propaganda classify as a valid POV within the multiple points of view meant by NPOV policy. If you want to sell or discuss Nazi stuff and still represent a significant POV, you'll have to find reliable secondary sources of prominent authors and authorities, of recognized institutes like universities or international organizations. If you don't, you'll run the risk of OR or worse, since Nazi propaganda is a serious thing that has to be dealt with. I am open to all kind of discussion, though I don't have the feeling we are on the same level of understanding. You are not familiar to WP policies and don't have any idea of what you have to take into consideration to even propose a merge. You are trying very hard to create some overlap, which would indeed be the minimum requirement to propose such a thing. However, in doing so you are already violating WP:UNDUE to start with, since this article has a clear definition and restriction. There is no case for including content that should be dealt with by other existing articles.Rokus01 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

... depends on what you call a racist ideology. There are people who even consider the mere mentioning of different races or pondering the possibility to be racism. If one says that a race is generally superior and shall have more rights - I would consider that a racist ideology - and many Nazis certainly turned ideas about the Nordic race into such an ideology – I did not deny that.

I agree that one has to mention both aspects – it's important though to try to give them the weight they deserve. At this point I think a wrong light is for example shed on McDougall.

Apropos Darré - I read a lot about that era and am certain that Darré played a very minor role in Nazi ideology. Were his ideas accepted or even taken seriously by Günther et.al.?

Well, I repeat myself – I think this article should be kept and some parts of the Nordic theory article included here. And it should be tried to point out and make clear the difference from the very beginning between those who saw the Nordic race simply as exhibiting certain characteristics and those who saw them as generally superior. And even if one of the early proponents calls them better warriors does not make him a Nordic supremacist.

217.236.238.88 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

@Rokus01: You are not being serious here, are you? I am not taking Darré, nor any Nazi propaganda, as a source for anything. After all, I am very far from proposing that Darré's theory of the German peasantry as a Nordic race is correct (scientifically or factually), I am only insisting that he had such a theory. Do you get the difference? However, since I apparently can not ask you to read Bramwell yourself, here is a weblink to a German library entry for a book of Darré [6]. I know you can read German. If the link for some reason does not work, go to http://p7.gbv.de and search for "Darré, Richard Walther" yourself. Since Darré wrote a book titled: "Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der nordischen Rasse" (The Peasantry as Live-Spring of the Nordic Race), you cannot possibly want to argue about this.

217.236.238.88 (talk, I hope we can discuss the general issue of this article in a civil atmosphere , as soon as this particular issue is over. Personally, I don't think that one can separate theories on the difference between races from theories that presume that one race is superior to other. Because the differences are either totally meaningless (skin colour, hair colour, eye colour) or the bring in superiority in another slight way, which already starts in cases when someone supposes that certain races are better fit for certain sports. Zara1709 (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are taking Darré as a source, albeit indirect for abusing quotes of Bramwell. The quotes are uttely out of context, you don't spent one word on the opinion of Bramwell, or on how she relates the work of Darré to the historical context, and ignore the purpose of the book. If you like to play the game like this, and abuse NPOV sources to convey your nazi POV and then think this article can serve as a platform to such ideas, then you are very naive: WP:RS also protects Wikipedia from extremist sources: [7]. Using reliable sources don't mean abusing reliable sources. Also, quoting sources utterly out of context is a violation of WP:SYN.Rokus01 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Origins"

• What do haplogroups R1b, R1a1, J2, G, F or E3b1a have to do with "Nordic race" or "Nordics"? What does the Ukranian LGM refuge have to do with "Nordics"? This is all off-topic filler to give this article an air of gravity.
• Where do Semino et al talk about "both elements" being "discerned in high concentrations" of H-R1b? Where do they say that one element is "Dalic" and the other is "leptodolichomorph proto-nordic"? This is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
• Kilian is a WP:FRINGE theorist. He is by no means authoritative on "origins", not even of the Germans, never mind "Nordics". This entire section is WP:OR twaddle, if it isn't off-topic. rudra (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The mentioned haplogroups are all found in significant amounts among the people that compose the defined Nordic denomination.
• Compiled background information is relevant to any encyclopedic article. You name here the Ukranian LGM refuge, but why you did not mention the sub-saharian element and still deleted this related information?
• Both elements refer to a robust and a gracile element. The reference to robust Dalic and gracile leptodolichormorph elements is independent to the reference of the robust Aurignacien and gracile Gravette elements. Why would you consider such a simple compilation of information SYN? I do not arrive at any new conclusion here, nor do I crate new facts.
• Kilian Lothar is not a fringe theorist. He is referred to by prominent indo-europeanists and anthropologists.
• You deleted significant sections without proper discussion
• I don't have the impression you intend to forward the new argument required to reopen an old discussion about a merge.[8]
• I don't have the impression you seriously seek to check or discuss your hostile point of view. This impression can be supported by diffs.

Rokus01 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rokus01, yup the haplogroups are found in the peoples that supposedly comprise the 'Nordic race'. However, I agree with Rudrasharman that in this article they appeared to be mentioned to give a scientific veneer to a pseudoscience theory. Also, this theory is usually associated with the first half of the 20th century, and haplogroups studies began in the second half. If you want to reintroduce this content, sources are required that link discussion of haplogroups to the use of the term 'Nordic race'. Also, if Rudrasharman, or any other good faith editor, adds {{fact}} tags, it's usual practice to provide sources, and not just revert. Addhoc (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Addoc, if Rudrasharman wants to throw tags around I would never say no to discussing any issue. However, his disruptiveness rather lays in the countless deletions that where not discussed. I suggest this sections should be reinserted until consensus is reached. I already gave my reasons why I think the edits of Rudrasharman compromise the seriousness of his point of view, and I am not intend to waist much time in solving this puzzle of tags and deletions. Let someone start with the tags, I will do some edits to improve on the current text and please don't just admit deletions without talk.

To answer your specific inquiry, the validity of the denomination "race" has been discussed many times, and neither do I think the Nordic types actually comprise a "race". For instance, the deleted Bell Beaker problem- part goes into detail to explain the dificulties related to stable physical characteristics. Hence, this article does not discuss (or comprise) the race but the people. This people are comprised of widely different elements. There is no purity, and any insinuation to purity can be refuted by investigations on the people (however people like to delete such kind of information). Hence, I don't see why insistence on the (invalid) concept of race has anything to do with describing the geographically defined people according to what we know. Actually, this is called encyclopedic compilation. I repeat, this compilation is not designed to prove the Nordic race, as you erroneously suggest. Rokus01 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but for the moment, based on Paul B's last edit summary, there appears to be a working consensus not to just revert all of Rudrasharman's edits. 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addhoc (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)As usual you provide acres of pure OR by personal argument to obfuscate the fact that you have not provided modern scientific sources that use the concept of a "Nordic race". Either this is a meaningful concept in current anthropology or it isn't. We can all invent "races" based on the argument above. The people of Liverpool no doubt are "comprised of widely different elements", but there are also no doubt distinctive genetic features characteristic of the area's population. That fact would not justify my creating an article on the "Liverpudlian race" and defending it against all criticism. Of course if someone has proposed the idea that there was a meaningful "Liverpudlian race" at some point then we could have an article about it, but only about the concept as proposed by the writers who used it in a particular historical context. That's what's at issue here. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why this article is a POV-fork and should be merged into Nordic theory. The only "new" stuff here is some terminology (Hallstatt, Falid, Dalic, Brunn, Tronder, Borreby, yada yada yada) which might be worked into a new subsection there on classifications that went nowhere. rudra (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this "working consensus" is not workable. Why this article should be reduced to the same scope as Nordic theory? What happened to the anthropological scope of the article? Why this undue attention to the concept of race? I can't detect any idealism or polical correctness in the issue. Rather this display of hostility against this article has an analogue in Nazi defeatism against the unachieved purity of the masterrace. Since masterrace nor purity was intended to be the scope of this article, this article does not need to be a platforms to Nordic race theorists. Balance should be restored, and the anthropological character of this article recovered. The non-anthropological and racialist issues have all been addressed in another article already (Nordic theory) and we don't need so much a copy of this. To continue deleting sections without good reason nor intention to talk it over is still vandalism, if you want to have this done in a coordinate action or in a single action. Rokus01 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01, your accusations of vandalism are completely absurd. Also, your "analogue in Nazi defeatism" comment is just weird. Addhoc (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts without proper intentions to participate in a decent discussion are vandalism. Please come up with valid material to support your point of view and refute mine before you recur to reverting. I note that none of my questions and remarks above are answered yet. Anyway, this discussion on Origin can't be continued before we resolve the discussion on the race or population issues below first. Please act like an adult. Rokus01 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01, you obviously don't understand WP:VAND. Also, if you have a look at WP:V, the burden of evidence is clearly on the editor wanting to retain content, which in this case is you. In addition, you should carefully read WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. Finally, I agree with Rudrasharman's suggestion of merging this article into Nordic theory.--Addhoc (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not concerned about loopholes or gaming the system. All changes have to be supported by evidence from reliable sources, not by the jeers of hostile supporters. I reject any kind of disruptive editing that ignores arguments or explanation, no matter how you will call this otherwise. We don't have to agree on everything, in which case we have to be especially careful to NPOV policy. In a constructive dialog we have to correct each other in giving due attention to all relevant points of view. I don't agree with merging with Nordic theory for one very simple reason, that has nothing to do with WP:OWN: Nordic theory does not intent to cover an anthropological point of view since it focus on obsolete concepts concerning race. By focussing on this obsolete concepts it ignores concepts that are still current or new, and thus effectively leaves this issues without being covered. Also my point of view is simple: Nordic population is an encyclopedic subject that still has currency. Our consensus may lie in Nordic race being an obsolete denomination having (in my opinion undesirable) connotations to racism. The burden of history might indeed be too heavy to facilitate an article that will never cease to raise questions of abuse. You have to assume good faith concerning my intentions to focus on anthropological issues that move away from considerations of a masterrace, that are of no anthropological concern and UNDUE to this article. Don't mix up the different scopes of two different articles. To solve this eternal question I propose a change of name of this article to Nordic population, and leave the link of Nordic race to the anthropological interpretation since the Nordic race denomination is originally proposed by anthropologists and not to suit racist ideology. Rokus01 (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the anthropological point of view

If according to some all hinge on the perceived concept and validity of the word "race" and the "Nordic" denomination, why we don't we just introduce a clear lead circumscribing the "racial" definition and move the detailed concept-discussion to one single section to have it done with? Let's take it easy and please concentrate on NPOV. We have to restate our consensus on the concept of race versus the current anthropological value of different visible traits. Invalidity of the concept of race does not imply the invalidity of anthropological research, nor the cease of significant investigation departing from earlier observations. There is no use to transform this issue into a war and call each other names. To clarify my point of view I quote anthropologist Markku Niskanen:

This traditional classificatory approach has been largely abandoned because of several factors: disagreements as to the classification criteria and the number of existing races; difficulties in drawing racial boundaries due to the graded distribution pattern of most biological traits; the lack of objectivity on the part of researchers; and wrong-doings performed in the name of race. However, the study of the geographic distribution of visible “racial” traits, such as skin color, nose shape, hair form, etc., was not entirely wasted effort because this information has helped to discover how such variation has emerged as a result of environmental (especially climatic) selection.

If all of us agree this quote makes sense, I propose to accept that there is no such thing as a complete departure of certain anthropological observations, including rough geographical ("Nordic") distribution patterns conceived as traditional. Other modern reliable sources can be cited to suggest this information, is also significant to evolutionary assessments, like the Multiregionality hypothesis. I can't believe that people that show themselves so unforgivable when censorship of Nazi-POV is concerned, would proclaim censorship against the results of anthropological investigation, even though these investigations don't (nor shouldn't) seek the proof of the Nordic race concept.

Please show yourself capable of good faith edits and discussion. Rokus01 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just another smokescreen - either you have sources that demonstrate widespread current use of the term, or you don't. Addhoc (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What smokescreen? Do you seek to violate WP:AGF and launch a personal attack? The current use of the term is "Nordic". Do you want all race articles to drop the race-extention? Not Mediterranean race, but Mediterranean, not Alpine race but Alpine, etc... Do you think this will contribute to clarity? Or will it be censorship? I already proposed a rename a long time ago, so please don't put a smokescreen. Rokus01 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To this discussion I found some interesting recent material, for instance here: [9].

An accessible overview is supplied in "Artificial Classification and the Study of Human Variation by Goran Strkalj" [10]

Some relevant quotes:

Traditional division into races alone is, as has been recently observed, “both too broad and too narrow” (Feldman et al. [2003], p. 374). However, a fuzzier approach and application of different systems of infraspecific classification may be of some use in research on human variation precisely because biological reality is fuzzy and resists simple compartmentalisation.

Population, therefore, not race, becomes the basic unit of classification. Lieberman and Jackson ([1995], p. 34) observed that “nothing is gained by the use of race that the term population cannot serve equally well”.

All these scientists (e.g. Dobzhansky, Diamond) recognized that any classification of the human species would inevitably be arbitrary. This seemed acceptable to them, as they understood it only as a convenience, i.e., a device that would help researchers to organize their data. Infraspecific classification is, therefore, only an expedient research tool.

Mayr ([2002], p. 262) recently observed that “the major reason for the existence of a race problem is that so many people have a faulty understanding of race”. This faulty understanding of race, according to Mayr, is based on reliance on the typological approach.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a need for a classification that would enable scientists to work with a wide range of relevant data. Homo sapiens is a species with a global distribution, consisting of a great number of individuals and populations inhabiting many different environments. One must therefore subdivide the species into smaller units, simply to be able to process a large amount of potentially relevant information.

It is my observation that "Nordic population" is the term currently in use. You can google on this string and find for instance this: [11] To solve this detail, I suggest to change Nordic race to Nordic population.

Rokus01 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On Darré, continued

I appreciate the efforts to work on the "Origin"-section (whatever that section is supposed to be), but I personally would approach the problem here step by step. If another editor disagrees about one sentence, you can't really expect to find and agreement on a whole section. Especially if the case is as clear as this; As I have just written on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (and Rokus01 can expect that I mention the issue there if he accuses me of conveying "Nazi POV"): "Usually there should not be an argument about whether it is appropriate to mention a known politician who has written a book on a topic WITH ONE SENTENCE in the article on the respective topic." I can not understand the objection to this by User:Rokus01. His argument doesn't make any sense. If any depiction of Nazi ideology would be considered selling Nazi ideology, then Wikipedia could obviously not have an article on Nazism, not to mention the articles on Mein Kampf and on The Myth of the Twentieth Century.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist sources precisely says: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution", despite the attempt of Rokus01 to modify it. Secondary literature is not an extremist source. But we don't even need Bramwell as source. We could just say,"The Nazi minster R.W.Darré has written a book "the Peasantry as Live-Spring of the Nordic Race" and source this to a German library catalogue. Or is Rokus01 of the opinion that German library catalogues are put together by extremists? Zara1709 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong to suggest that the point of view your were trying to insert was not a Nazi point of view. The article was not designed to be a platform of Nazi-POV, especially since this particular nazi never was a significant authority on anthropology. I answered your alert here [12]. Rokus01 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01, on your talk page a WP:WQA clerk, User:Cheeser1, has warned you about this. Addhoc (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking about a smokescreen: where all of you are so afraid of? Read my anwer, and find out that assuming good fate is your obligation no less than mine. Rokus01 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More original research

This link [13] is seriously being used to assert that current researchers refer to 'nordic races', while in actual fact, the article contains a single mention of 'Nordic countries', which is obviously completely different. The second link is unrepresentative of mainstream research, which can be seen by this google scholar search - it's the only result. Addhoc (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like she invented the term. If it hasn't been discussed elsewhere, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE would apply. (The English is pretty turgid throughout the article, actually, but that's understandable.) rudra (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you are committing this same logical failure. Moreover, you are distorting my words. In no way I suggest that current anthropological research refers to 'nordic races'. Current anthropological research refers to the nordic distribution of physical traits. This nordic distribution is related to previous investigation, though it doesn't subscribe to the previous concept of a nordic race. Please read well and assume good faith in evaluating my edits.Rokus01 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there are abundant hits on "Nordic population" meant in a taxonomical sense. You should google on this and not try to invalidate scholarly and published research. You don't make the impression that you are open to arguments. This tend to invalidate your point of view, whoever you want to invoke for helping you out. Rokus01 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the article on the demographics of Scandinavia. Get a grip. dab (𒁳) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are "abundant hits on 'Nordic population'" you should be able to get better references.

Your first one ([14] Artificial Classification and the Study of Human Variation - Goran Strkalj, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 99 (2006), pp. 14-20;Mayr, E. - What Evolution is. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London., 2002, p. 262) does not actually use the term "Nordic". In general terms that article suggest that it would be preferable to speak of "Forms" instead of "Races":

"Finally, in light of the fact that classification is artificial, it would be appropriate to use new neutral term to name the groups into which humans are classified. ‘Form’, defined as “a neutral term for a single individual, phenon, or taxon” (Mayr and Ashlock [1991], p. 416), is one such possible term (S&trkalj [2000a, b]). By its usage, confusion with old systems of racial classification would be avoided. ‘Race’ would then cease to exist in biological anthropology either as a term or as a concept."

Only the study which is cited suggest that the term "population" would be preferable to the term "race". This pdf can only be used as a reference for the point that scholars discuss an alternate term for "Race". It can not be used at all as a reference for "the denomination 'Nordic population'".

Your other two references have already been mentioned here. Concerning the second one, I agree with Addhoc. Concerning the third one: The author does use neither the term "Nordic race" nor the term "Nordic population" explicitly. I don't know what one should make of the term "Protonordic-Cro-Magnoid". However, this author also writes:

"It can be supposed, accordingly, that the Celts significantly mixed with the local populational groups (the Nordic, Mediterranian and Cro-Magnoid types must have characterised the autochtonous populations, the Alpine and the Taurid were the features of the Celts), and passing over their culture, they themselves became gradually assimilated."

To me this appears to be the old Nordic/ Mediterranian/ Alpine classification. To me this also appears to be wp:fringe, although I would not consider it WP:UNDUE to use this pdf as a reference for the point that there are still authors that use that classification. Zara1709 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article were about the historical concept of a "Nordic Race" it wouldn't be too much of a problem - even if it included the very few modern authors who still used the concept. The problem is that it is saturated with Rokus's idiosyncratic personal theories which integrate early 20th century thought with modern research: based entirely on Rokus's personal claims. No-one disputes that there was once a theory that a Nordic Race existed. Equally, no-one disputes that modern writers discuss the populations of Nordic countries. The question is whether there is any meaningful connection between these two concepts. If you read Ripley, Grant, Coon or Günther you have a clear sense that there is a distinct physical entity called the "Nordic race" that can be identified by analysing skull shape. It may have been present at one time in non-Nordic areas of Eurasia, or even, in the wilder versions of the theory, in Africa. Discussion of "Nordic populations" is something quite different. It is simply an account of the history and demographics of people who currently occupy Nordic countries. Paul B (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of this debate. It has long become clear that Rokus' only mission on Wikipedia is sneaking in difficult to spot conflations of crypto-racism and bona fide population genetics research. He is doing it rather well, so that a lot of time is wasted spotting his WP:SYN. Why wasn't this editor permabanned a long time ago? He is doing damage to the project where it is vulnerable, and is much more costly to babysit than straightforward vandals. I don't think anything new will come of this, it's just going in circles from here. Time has been wasted in talking sense to a problem editor. The editor has't reformed. The time for a community ban is here. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rokus01 should be permanently banned from Wikipedia as he has been spreading a strange mix of homecooked racial theories with cherry-picked and/or misrepresented references to scholarly works for far too long.--Berig (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too.Paul B (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one disputes that there was once a theory that a Nordic Race existed. Equally, no-one disputes that modern writers discuss the populations of Nordic countries. The question is whether there is any meaningful connection between these two concepts. The concept of "Nordic population" is not co-terminous to the populations of Scandinavia. However, it seems some very destructive vandal removed the information on this subject. My fault, I should have attended this discussion before it went out of hand. By now, the sourced information I gathered on the historical shift from race to population in the thought of anthropologists is irretrievably lost and should be compiled again. All that is left of this article now is a freeplace for Nazi propaganda. My previous concerns against the usurping article that replaced the Nordic-population article are still the same: it describes cunningly, though supplies not any indepth criticism concerning the racist abuses that hound this subject. Rokus01 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Baloney, and disingenuous baloney at that. No one other thsn you seriously belives that historicising ideas makes them propaganda. In fact, the opposite is true. You de-historicise ideas and thus naturalise myths. Your sancimonious faux-modesty deceives no one. Paul B (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Same as above, the old time studies of craniometrics have absolutely nothing to do with the modern studies of populations. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should explain to the world how you can publish quotes like Franklin that believed the white Europeans to be more "lovely", at least to his taste, or William McDougall characterizing the race or type "mentally by great independence of character, individual initiative, and tenacity of will" WITHOUT an indepth section explaining the nonsense of such anthropological extrapolations. And what does craniometrics have to do with this? The section I compiled on the craniometric flexibility of people has been removed, so stop insisting I believe in the genetic or racial differences of cranial indexes (IF you are serious in talking sense and renounce your WP:AFG violating rhetorics for once). Rokus01 (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01, your comments, as Paul correctly noted, are disingenuous. There is no link between genetic studies, and the older racist theories, and removing this original research wasn't vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Phil, disingenuous means: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere [15]. You will need more than rhetorics on what I never said - and what already has been disingenuously deleted as part of a hysterical fight of unclear political signature - to accuse people. Most people here talk like if they would have died for burning even mother Theresia for all the things she never said: HOW DISINGENUOUS SHE MUST HAVE BEEN! (???) To the contrary to what you so falsely insinuate, the genetic studies I compiled attested to mixtures and were not designed to link to obsolete racial theories. I would like to remember you that I quoted recent investigation that even proved important sub-saharan BLACK influences to the Nordic populations. Knowing this, a SINCERE person would recognize how DISINGENUOUS are people that DELETE this information and try to justify this by telling just the opposite to what they mean. In other words, here you say "since we deny any genetic link between BLACKS and Nordic Race, removing this reference to scientific research is NO vandalism." No, probably you are right. Such a removal is disingenuous crypto-RACISM. Rokus01 (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• The old concept of a Nordic race (based on physical features) has nothing to do with modern genetics. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am "Phil", but the rest of your comments are so obscure it is virually impossible to respond to them, and almost certainly not worthwhile. I have no idea what this means: "Most people here talk like if they would have died for burning even mother Theresia for all the things she never said." Paul B (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Move

This article should be moved back to "Nordic race". The current headline is a misnomer. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

this was an undiscussed move executed by a well known racialist editor. I have no idea why he is still allowed to edit. His edits are closer to vandalism than to "mere" WP:POINT these days. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab, as I already pointed out, you don't have any idea what is a racialist. Do you have a dictionary or do you only read your own tampered information on Wikipedia? By using the word "racialist" you suggest an attitude of superiority and contempt with respect to race that, even though I repeatedly asked you kindly to supply diffs to support your continuous and disgusting rhetorics, is not mine. By moving and merging away my contributions concerning the modern developments of thought on the subject, information that could have contributed to a valuable section in this article became irretrievable. I wonder if this is just sheer vandalism or administrator abuse. Please show your good faith, if any, and try to recover the sourced information on the population-issue that you threw away without discussion. Rokus01 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A racialist is someone who considers humans to be separable into different races. The problem here is not that you are a racialist, Rokus01, but that you fail to see that (your) racialist POV is not the only POV and that there are other POVs to consider (like that of the Nazi minister for food Richard Walther Darré, e.g.) Of course, insisting that all POVs are incorporated into an article does not mean that one shares this POV, and regardless of what I, Dbachmann, or any other editor personally thinks about race, your inability to handle even the possibility of someone disagreeing with your views has disqualified you from working on this topic. If you, for whatever reason, would still like to discuss something here, you should consider a full apology for your allegations. Otherwise, please leave. Zara1709 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Please verify the words you use i a dictionary, for instance here: [16] A racialist is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others; that gives an emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events; that subscribe to a policy or practice based on racial considerations.

Obviously you never thought in making the destinction between policy and clear facts. On the other thing: you are referring to a situation when indeed there were two articles for making this difference. By purpose you violated this design and inserted Nazi views in an article that clearly persued a different focus and scope. Now you can congratulate yourself, politics have won and there is one article left (except for Nordish race that I think would be redundant as well). So now, dear Z, you'll have to bow to MPOV policy yourself within the broader scope of this new design. Still I can't see that now all POVs are incorporated into one article.

Of course the allegations are all yours (racialist??? against MPOV???) and I won't accept this cheap way to shut other opinions up. Before, there was an extremist corner all for yourself that nobody even bothered to enter, you even could kittle yourself usurping the Good Article status. Maybe I am wrong, for instance we could ask the opinion of a respectable jew among the WP editors, though I am sure such a person would prefer to stay far away from such a subject (although I admit it is better now than it was) and I would not like to drag people either to take a look. Still, I think the "Good Article" denomination is worthless, even more now since the editors showed themselves a select party and prone so obviously to have their opponents destroyed by all faul means. Rokus01 (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ahem, if you do not claim "Nordic populations" is synonymous with "Nordic race" then why did you feel compelled to move "Nordic race" to "Nordic populations"?? "Nordic populations" in the sense of Demographics of Scandinavia is perfectly fine, and if you are interested in the demographics of Scandinavia, feel free to create that article. dab (𒁳) 11:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nordish merge

• Shouldn't the "Nordish race" be merged into this one as a sub-section? I know it has been discussed before, but that was in relation to the Nordic race article. Now when this article is about both the race and the affiliated supremacy theory, shouldn't the Nordish article be incorporated as well, as that article is pretty tiny anyway? Funkynusayri (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Without having taken a look at that topic in detail, I would say that is not connected enough. Nordic though in Germany and Nordicism in USA were, at that time, considered scientific. I don't think that the Nordish race stuff nowadays is. Zara1709 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, "Nordish" is based on the old Nordic idea, and I don't think it is notable enough for its own article. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Nordish race should merge with this article. The concept is clearly political and fits well with the political scope of this article. Although maybe suprematist hardliners would prefer as many articles as possible on the specific abuses to publish and boost political ideas. Rokus01 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brown eyes

the nordic-celtic type and the nordic-halstatt type could also have brown eyes. i will insert this information into the text. the most important thing of being a nordic type or not was the form of the head and the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.143.146 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nordics are light eyed per definition, I believe people with brown eyes but Nordic cranial morphology were labeled as "North Atlantids". Funkynusayri (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

and what, if someone had a narrow, oval face, blond hair, a tall stature and brown eyes? was this type not nordic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.141.70 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• We're not exactly dealing with rock solid science here, and I doubt everything was taken into consideration when these terms were invented. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

of course, but there was a great difference between brown and light-brown eyes. "north atlantids" had light eyes and predominantly dark hairs. it was a fact that the nordic-halstatt race (the most common type of nordics in middle europe) could have light! brown eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.159.180 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Well, according to what? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IQ results

No citation=no evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.245.100 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nordic Race vs. Nordicism

I realise this has been run into the ground in the 'discussion' above, but I still find myself wondering why Nordic Race has been merged with Nordicism. As a random passer-by, merging the two seems less-than-neutral. For example, if anyone were to merge Scientism into the article on Science - two articles that definately have a good deal of overlap as well - people would scream "Religious Fundamentalist POV" and revert instantly. As I understand it, a 'thing' and its '-ism' are two different subjects, and should be treated separately. (Tradition vs. Traditionalism; Morality vs. Moralism; Liberty vs. Liberalism; etc.) Could someone please give a lucid and succinct explanation for the merge without going into hysterics? Thanks. Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientism and Science are two entirely different things, whereas the theory of the very existence of the Nordic race always intertwined both the physical and supposed mental characteristics of the "race". If one is to narrate the history of these ideas it is important to show the link between the science and the isdeology, because the two can't be simply separated out. We have the same policy with other articles such as Mediterranean race for example. It's only when the articles become too extended that it becomes unwieldy to keep them merged that there is an argument for separation. If the concept of the Nordic race existed in modern science completely divorced from the ideological ideas of the 1880s-1940s, then the situation would be different. That's true of race concepts like "Caucasian", for example, that are still used (though disputed). Paul B (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested to know Talk:Nordish race justifies not merging on the grounds that Nordic race is legitimate and Nordish race is not. Personally, I think it should be merged into this article. --JWB (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the concept of a 'Nordic Race' is no longer tenable in modern anthropological discourse should have no bearing on the question as to whether it deserves its own article. 'Nordic Race' is clearly an antiquated term, and its article should say so. That 'Nordic Race' and 'Nordicism' are, in fact, separable, is advocated by the lead itself, which makes the difference between them explicit, and thus makes it all the more apparent that, while the article promises to discuss 'Nordic Race', it is actually discussing 'Nordicism' as an outgrowth of that concept. The 'Nordic Race' article should be entirely analogous in length and treatment to Alpine race, with this article being re-framed under 'Nordic Theory'. If not, then the only reasonable solution is to put the information from the article on all three of these 'types' back to where they actually belong: in a single article describing the whole theoretical framework and its academic and political reception. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was not in favour of the recent name change, though I didn't feel strongly about it. Most of this article is about Nordicism and I think the best title would reflect that, but it doesn't really matter all that much. It's just that there's no point in having a separate stubby article on the Race concept as such if it contains no significant information that is not also here. That's pointless duplication that does nothing but remove ideas from their cultural context. It's also worth noting that Nordicism is not really an "outgrowth of the concept" of the nordic race. A good case can be made that the ideas that are central to 'Nordicism' actually helped to create the concept. If you read Vacher de Lapouge, the central concepts that make Nordicism are already present, but the definition of a specific Nordic race by anthropologists had yet to be made. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with you on not needing a stub. I was also reading up on the history of this article (particularly this bit), and I agree with much of what was said there. But I also see the potential merits in (re-)integrating the Alpine and Mediterranean information. Those articles are just as connected to this one as Nordic race and Nordicism are to each other, and in precisely the same ways. There is an unbalanced treatment in the status quo, and if splitting isn't an option, then merging would be the best way to remedy it, IMO. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with merging the Alpines and Meds would be that logically we'd have to merge all the other supposed sub-races too (Dinaric race, Noric race, East Baltic race and whatever others there may be). We'd have to have a new name that reflected that and the article would really come to be about something altogether different ("Supposed European sub-races" or whatever), whereas Nordicism is a clear and historically significant concept, and is linked from many other articles. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)