Talk:Alpine race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alpine race article.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] no longer generally accepted?

NO LONGER GENERALLY ACCEPTED? SINCE WHEN POPULARITY DECIDES WETEHR SOMETHING IS RIGHT OR NOT. Alpiens today exist such as they have for thousands of years.

"No longer generally" accepted means just that. It's not a statement of right or wrong, but of a modern consensus. Paul B 00:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are about facts not "concensus". --Finalaval 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what we call facts in this context is the distilation of scholarly opinion. Why would you call Coon's work "fact" but other authors not - because of your opinion. Paul B 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts and just that,The Races of Europe is about them. Im not writing what i think of alpines, merely what Coon observed of them.--Sghn 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So Coon's opinions are facts because...he said so? Paul B 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Opinions" is not how you call undeniable observations in the morphology of peoples. A normal person might not recognize a pattern in a coded message while a matematician might, that doesnt mean the code has no pattern, it only means the person doesnt have the capabilities or training. --Sghn 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Our policies clearly state that Wikipedia reports things such as scholarly opinion. If you're not happy with that, you can go use a different online encyclopedia. --Fastfission 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

it's got to be considered here that a huge proportion of europeans- just like other peoples- aren't PURE anything. Gringo300 02:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alpines

i'm curious about which peoples are/were considered to be alpines. i have a pretty good idea of which peoples are considered to be nordic.

of course, there will be "interbreeding" ("miscegenation"), which has always gone on all over the world, so that, of course, complicates the picture any way you look at it. Gringo300 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alpines -> Celtic, Slavic, Greek, Indo-Iranian
Alpines + Nordics + Mediterraneans -> (interbred) -> Irish, Scottish
Alpines + Nordics -> (interbred) -> Slavic, Finnic, Dinaric, Noric, Bergian, northern French
Alpines + Mediterraneans -> (interbred) -> Greek, Indo-Iranian, Welsh
nagara373 17:01, 6 Aug 2007

[edit] Not quite true

Many Nordicist authors actually refer to Alpines as having brought metalwork to Europe, and how manyf the first civilisations (eg Sumer) were of Alpine origin. The "peasant" allegations appear strange, unless one takes the line that Gunther=common thought. Likewise, many leading Nazis were obviously Alpine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Line in article

While it is true that most modern anthropologists do not identify a single "Alpine race", the line about "because genetics..." seems like POV to me. The current genetic data can be read in a variety of ways. The most (in)famous example is a study which was used to state that Greeks and Ethiopians are closely related. http://www.makedonka.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf This is still widely distributed as fact, and is shown to use genetic to show which groups do/do not cluster together. Yet, it has been shown to be a n interpretation of data, that is at best simple error, and at worst deliberate fraud. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/11543891?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/12542743?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/15361127?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi/nlm.nlh.gov/pubmed/14533184?dopt=Abstract The point of all this? That genetics, can and have been read/used in different ways, and quite possibly for different purposes. Stating that modern anthropology does not recognise an Alpine Race is one thing. To state that the genetics upon which this lack of realisation is based is an absolute truth seems shaky at best. Dr Rgne (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dr Rgne", this page is not about Arnaiz-Villiena, so stop fighting totally irrelevant battles, which frankly have no place here and is a tiresome war between white race-obsessives and black-race obsessives. Since I actually created the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page, you are not telling me anything I'm not fully aware of. There is no POV. The concept of an Alpine race is no longer used - not because it is wrong (it's probably unfalsifiable) but because it is no longer useful. Genetics has replaced these categories with different ways of modelling ancient lineage, which are more complex but also more precisely defined. Extrapolating from genetic evidence to make political claims about race categories is precisely one of the problems. Paul B (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand, but perhaps something should be added to state that "genetics" are no more correct/incorrect then the Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean model? Dr Rgne (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounds quite stupid. The point is that the way the article is written could be interpreted by some to mean that genetics is markedly superior or "better" than morphology, when at this stage neither can be shown to be foolproof as such. Dr Rgne (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)