Talk:Nordic race

GA Reassessment

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

The article fails criterias:

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

..........

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

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

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

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

Obsolete statements (21st century)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

"Xanthochroi" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Xanthochroi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 10#Xanthochroi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Xanthocroi" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Xanthocroi and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5#Xanthocroi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)