African types in a lexicon from 1914, which are described as "Negroid" therein.African types in a lexicon from 1914, which are described as non-Negroid therein.
The total population of Africa at the present day is probably something like 151,000,000, and apportioned racially would consist of 120,000,000 Negroes and Negroids, 6,000,000 pure-blooded Europeans (absolute White men of Northern or Mediterranean stock), and 25,-000,000 of handsome, physically well developed, but mentally rather backward, dark-skinned Caucasians—Berbers, Arabs, Egyptians, Galas, and Abyssinians. Quite distinct, from the true Negro is the Bushman of South Africa, a somewhat (but'not always) stunted race, with a yellow skin, very sparse and tightly curbd hair, and other peculiar physical features not ordinarily met with in the Negro, though sometimes occurring in the people of the Mediterranean basin. The Hottentot is nothing but an early hybrid between the true Negro and the Bushman."
So, the accompanying article refers to the people on the picture as Negroids. Notice also that none of the "exceptions" are featured on the image, as these were shown on page two. Funkynusayri14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nonsense source that describes people as "mentally backward", it cannot meet the standard of a reliable source. You are just using this a platform to spread views that may be considered racist. Its also original research because this text is sampled from elsewhere in the book. The caption does not say negroids, neither do we know what the distinction between negroids and negroes is. Your intentions are dishonorable. Muntuwandi14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The pictures are from that particular book, you two want a source that states the people on the picture in question are Negroids. The book is from 1914, when the term was used. I didn't write the book. That some of the book's content is outdated is irrelevant, as we aren't using those segments in the article.
Again, the picture is an example of who scientists meant were Negroids back when the term was used. The book is from 1914, of course there's racist nonsense in it. What's the problem? Funkynusayri14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you aim by using these photos. What good does it do. you are only trying to poke fun at blacks. I am familiar with the way the racist mind works. Muntuwandi14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You are making a judgement that that is what the image represents, when in fact, the caption reads, Natives of Africa. Yes the text in the book speaks of Negroes and Negroids, but also says, "Quite distinct, from the true Negro is the Bushman of South Africa.....The Hotentot is nothing but an early hybrid between the true Negro and the Bushman." Also the text says there are many Natives of Africa, and that is what the caption says on the plate in the book, not Negroid. Sheesh. - JeenyTalk14:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do pictures of blacks poke fun of blacks? You're being overly sensitive. Take a look at the Caucasoid page. I put an extremely similar picture of what people thought were "Caucasoid" back in the days there.
And again, the pictures helps people understand what the article is about. That's what pictures are used for here.
And Jeeny, Bushmen aren't featured on the picture. Look again. I've made sure that the types mentioned as "Negroids" are the only ones on the image. Funkynusayri14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is my point of view? The people on the second image are not Negroid according to the article, they are the exceptions. All the people on the first image are Negroid according to the articles, because none of those peoples are mentioned as exceptions. I only mentioned the Caucasoid article because Muntuwandi accused me for being a racist for adding an equivalent of the Caucasoid picture to this article. Funkynusayri14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR, you say in the second image, "...which are described as "Caucasian" and thus non-Negroid therein" When the book says Hottentot, and Bushman are hybrids. Please stop. You are making interpretations on the text and the images. - JeenyTalk14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funky, you have not even tried to gain consensus on which images should be used, The term caucasoid is not considered offensive, at least not as offensive as Negroid or other related words. It is best not to use photos in this article, there is a black people article that has photos, that were used via consensus. If we decide to use photos, we can always look for photos and agree on which ones are the best. There are plenty on commons. This picture says nothing, it shows pictures of tribal africans from before 1914, how does that help in understanding what "negroid" means. There are plenty of pictures of black people, why this particular outdated one. You don't care because you don't even mind getting blocked, behavior that is typical of trolls. Muntuwandi14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeny: That's irrelevant, as I'm not proposing that the second picture is included. I'm talking about the first one. The second image simply shows the exceptions that aren't Negroids, that's the point. I'll change the caption.
Muntuwandi: This article isn't about black people, but about the term "Negroid" which wasn't synonymous with black people (many black people were not considered Negroid, see image two). I included that picture because the accompanying text states the people on it are Negroids, if we just put in random pictures of black people, it'll be original research, as we don't have sources saying they're Negroid. And please keep those troll remarks to yourself. It's getting old.Funkynusayri14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've already showed you that the article the picture is next to in that old book states the people on the first image are Negroids and that the ones on the second one aren't. What more do you want?
And is there a reason why you have to vandalise the Caucasoid page right now for no apparent reason? I added the picture long time ago, there's a consensus. Funkynusayri14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The old book does not say the images are of Negroids. The text in the books says a lot of things, on how many different types! You are interpreting the image to the text in the book. When the captions reads, ON BOTH IMAGES, I'll say it again... "Natives of Africa". No negroid. Sheesh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeeny (talk • contribs) 14:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Hmmm, these people are the only ones mentioned as Africans who aren't Negroids: Caucasians—Berbers, Arabs, Egyptians, Galas, Abyssinians,Bushman and Hottentots.
Those people are featured on picture two.
On picture one, none of the exceptions are represented. These are people the article refers to as "Negroids". That's not a coincidence.Funkynusayri15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that Muntuwandi, an often-blocked editor who is in conflict or under warning on a number of articles, is accusing another editor of "poking fun at blacks" and "racism" for simple honest pictures of negroes from an athropological book, given the sort of off-topic propaganda images he tries to insert in other articles. What picture do you want on this page Muntuwandi? What's wrong with this one? It's just pictures of people, not selected to unfairly represent them that I can tell. It's quite a broad crosssection of ethnic groups. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fourdee, an even more often blocked editor, my position is that no pictures should be used in this article. The oxford dictionary says this term is best avoided, consequently i believe pictures should be avoided. Muntuwandi12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you are so insistent on introducing your images of negroes to the white people article. There's no reason to not to have a picture for this article and that one looks like an excellent representation of a number of different ethnic gorups. I don't see how you think it "pokes fun at blacks". What on earth do you mean by that? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, are you saying the terms are synonymous? I think the photo should be in the article, it's in no way poking fun at anyone --Phral19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the image from 1914 is racist. This is not the Human zoo ! It does not represent the average black African fairly and we do not live in the colonial era wich is not known for its NPOV on black African. Its hard to assume good faith with editors wich even go to editwar only to push this racist image instead of accepting a neutral one.--Stan talk06:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling editors "racist" or accusing them of some political belief or agenda is a personal attack and may be part of a pattern of harassment. Anyway, what is a neutral image for this article? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the picture racist? To my knowledge that is an accurate representation of negroes. It even includes a number of young women, something Muntuwandi seems to have an issue about. And did you see the nonsense image muntuwandi was trying to insert in its place? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, that it is offensive and dated today is irrelevant. The picture simply shows an example (created back then) of what scientists thought were Negroid in 1914. It's simply an illustration that shows what the term referred to. There are plenty of historical images on Wikipedia that might be offensive today, but then what? Wikipedia isn't censored, this is simply about info, not politics. Funkynusayri10:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sourced definition: "The Oxford English Dictionary defines negroid as the "indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa ..." Seems POV to me only to show what some "scientists thought were Negroid in 1914" because the term itself is not outdated today. I understand that due to the length of this article it is not possible to show every image but the term itself is not dead today and I think editors might think about it to include at least one decent image. In my opinion the most informative solution to this subject would be a contraposition between the outdated view of Negroid's and the modern black african(the term itself makes no difference between it).--Stan talk11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you won't find a modern picture of a person claimed to be "Negroid", because no one wants to use the term to describe anyone anymore. I included the other picture because the book it is from actually mentions that they are Negroids, we can't just use any random picture of an African person without there being some source that states this person is in fact "Negroid". That's the difference. If you can, feel very free to add it though. Also, keep in mind that African, Negroid, Black, Sub Saharan African, so on, aren't synonyms.Funkynusayri11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this page ever since it was brought to my attention a short while ago. The number of reverts in the last two days constitutes an edit war, and thus I have protected The Wrong Version (TM) for a 3 days, or until you guys can work out some consensus. Just some points to note:
If you need external views on the subject, file a request for comment or go through dispute resolution. I suggested this earlier, and no one took up the challenge, instead deciding to edit war.
Thanks Haemo, hopefully by then a consensus to move forward will have been reached, but I don't see Muntuwandi or Jeeny's stance relaxing any time soon, they seem to be trying to delete as much from the article as possible in an attempt to remove the word Negroid from the English vocabulary.
This agenda should be able to be circumvented though, as no-one can fuck[5] with cited information from Reliable sources, and that is exactly what this article needs, and is going to get. --Phral00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Page protected until either the current protection expires or the combatants go through the a dispute resolution procedure. Any premature unprotection will be the burden of the unprotecting admin. I will not give my blessing to unprotection until then. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the editors who have been pushing for the inclusion of photos into this article have been indefinitely blocked, ie User:Nordic Crusader and User:Phral. User:Funkynusayri has also been blocked once before for inserting this photo. This is an indication that the use of photos is done in bad faith.
Secondly what is the obsession with this one obsolete book. I am disappointed with all the images out there, editors have become fixated on this one book written in 1914. I get the impression that some editors are looking for an escape hatch to use the word "negroid" without feeling guilty about it and say okay it "depicts the thinking at the time". I disagree, then or now this picture is irrelevant. At the time of the writing of the book the authors had racist attitudes towards Africans. You can see form the statement where they are referred to as "mentally backwards". Why should we then give credence to such a book. The article should not promoting racist notions.
I am a big fan of using images, I have uploaded a few hundred to wikipedia. If there was a need for a photo, I would gladly search for an appropriate photo for this article. But I have no motivation to find an image for this article and it is my strongest opinion that none is necessary. If one wants to look at pictures of people who were once described as "Negroid" then I suggest looking at the Black people article where the subjects are portrayed with some dignity. There is little controversy on that article with regard to images. But here there is much. Let us quit are racist thoughts and move on. There are other things that can be written about "Negroid" instead of being distracted by a senseless photo taken by racist anthropologists.
Stay cool. I'm having a difficult time doing it though. I've asked for explanations on the talk pages, but I was "accidently deleted" and was told after I reverted my message that he refused to discuss it further, and to comment on the talk page (which I asked him to do, before reverting), and this an is an admin! Yet, he reverted without discussion on the talk page. This kind of thing is very troubling. Double standards? Or POV? MW, stay cool though. - JeenyTalk05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed several times. Its not new. Neither am I for censorship but I am not for untruths. I am also for the use of reliable sources, not ones that have been deemed racist. Muntuwandi06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Not censored does not mean inserting POV and misinformation. And it should not just be in the first sentence of the article stating such, and then continue that this is what is considered Negroid today. Actually the plate says "Native Africans" not "Negroid". In fact, there are some depicted on that "plate" that are now considered otherwise, it should be reinforced that this is outdated information. - JeenyTalk06:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the editors who have been pushing for the inclusion of photos into this article have been indefinitely blocked"? Checking no I do not appear to have been indefinetly blocked. A book written in 1914 would appear to be a great source of what the authors of that book thought in 1914. Includeing the photo does not mean the article promotes the notions in the book.Geni11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember you only edited this article today for the first time minutes before it was protected. One edit does not constitute pushing . If one is interested in what the authors thought then an such photos should appear in the article about the book in question. Not the Negroid article. The photo does not mention Negroid anywhere. In the book the word Negroid is mentioned elsewhere. Some are trying to tie the two together that is WP:SYN and original research. Furthermore there are other more modern studies where the term Negroid is employed, why should we focus on a lousy racist book written in 1914. This article is not about attitudes in 1914. For example I wouldn't object to the use of such a photo negroid skull because it has no racial connotation attached to it. It is a skull so we cannot identify the individual so it cannot be seen as offensive. Lastly the link says that is negroid and provides a brief and objective explanation why it is so. Muntuwandi12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did rather ignore my pas comments on the the talk page. In any case Negroid does have racial connotation attached to it so it makes sense to show what those racial connotations were.Geni13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it does then why should we fall for it. It is my understanding that article should at least try to portray the subjects in question with dignity. I think the skull is that is in the link I provided is not appropriate and would not generate any controversy. Muntuwandi13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quit lying, Muntuwandi, I was blocked for breaking the three revert rule (at the same time as I was blocked for breaking the three revert rule when I removed modern day Egyptians from a list of existing ethnic groups, I'm pretty new on Wikipedia), not for specifically including the photo. I doubt anyone was. As for "fixation on an obsolete book", the term itself is obsolete, so any images of the term in question would most likely be from an obsolete source as well. Anyhow, that picture is perfect for the article, an image in the Negroid article should depict a person described as a Negroid by a scholar, not just some random image of an African. Again, Negroid refers to specific craniometrics, not to a skin colour, so you and I aren't qualified to incorporate pictures of what we believe is Negroid, and especially not when we have a book where the term is used to describe the people on an accompanying photo. Again, I simply found the book and images on Wiki source and Commons, they had been uploaded back in 2005, so I thought it was perfect that we had some expired work we could use. The "bad faith" is all yours. Funkynusayri14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really quite a good photograph, I'm not sure what the problem is. This is what these groups look like. Obviously many blacks are from different groups or mixes of groups than represented here, this article is about the historical categorization of people along cranio-facial features as the image fairly represents. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but shouldn't the mere existence of those revert wars strongly suggest that at least some editors find these pictures wholly inappropriate for the article? I know Muntuwandi can bear a lot, but that I recall, he was far from being the only one who reverted. And if there is significant opposition to the introduction of these pictures, wouldn't a search for another set of pictures that's felt appropriate by all parties be more fruitful than the current debate?--Ramdrake11:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would get concerned by any material that was strongly advocated for by Nordic Crusader, Phral or Fourdee who have been indefinitely blocked. . These photos are inappropriate for use in this article. They mention nothing about what negroid is. The caption says Native Africans, what types are they? The captions read fullah, dinka and Tamberma, giving the impression that everyone in the tribe looks the same. Just because the term was popular in the 1914s does not mean they intended to use it in the photo. Secondly the photo shows bare breasted African women. While this was acceptable for Africans in 1914 it is not acceptable today, so this photo is a poor choice and is the kind of fodder that racist editors enjoy who would want to portray Africans in all their primitive glory.
The term Negroid is still used today and depending on the context may not pejorative. It is in such context that a photo may be
acceptable. None of the editors advocating the use of these photos has even bothered to explain why diverse groups such as the louango or the fullah or dinka were considered Negroid, they are only interested in sticking the photo in the article with no context. This is why the photo is being used in bad faith.
Yes I have been blocked before, but who nominated me to be blocked, guess who, Fourdee himself who was personally blocked by Jimbo for racist and antisemitic edits. A little bit of context. Muntuwandi20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Secondly the photo shows bare breasted African women. "
Again, Wikipedia is not censored. I suggest you go and complain about the images on the breasts page, or better, the erect penis picture on the penis page or the Muhammad pictures on the Muhammad page, those are far more universally offensive. But I guess it's irrelevant to your agenda. And I already pointed out that the people on the pictures are Negroid according to the book it is from. It's quite simple. Funkynusayri20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not entirely accurate. We do not have screenshots of pornography in the pornography article neither do we have such pictures in the sexual intercourse or the sex article. Instead the editors have smartly gone around this and used some artistic renditions or computer generated imagery. While every person has a naked self, when we portray pictures of individuals on wikipedia we prefer to find ones where they are fully clothed so that we can portray them at least without trying to disparage them. The above articles I mentioned chose to use such images because the editors are fully aware of the sensitivities associated with such subjects. It is in this light that I propose the same for this article. Muntuwandi22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, you ignored my clear examples. A stiff pecker is explicitly sexual. Also, where are the naked breasts? The picture cuts off way above the nipple section. Funkynusayri23:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and not calling each other names. How about a compromise — the article currently makes it clear that the term is:
Outdated and archaic
Often offensive because of the racist ideas attached to it
Why don't we make it clear that the image in question is an example of this archaic typology? For instance, the caption could say "A 1914 plate showing examples of a "negroid" typography. Modern anthropologists reject such racial typing as unscientific and racist." --Haemo00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the term Negroid is still used in epidemiology, non-pejoratively to denote people of ethnic African ancestry (and appropriate features), in a sort of fuzzy definition. So, another possibility would be to have a small collage of modern pictures of "Negroid" people. I'm not saying this is obviously better; I'm saying I think this could be a viable alternative.--Ramdrake00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'd need some rock-solid sources that these images were of "negroid" people, since that was part of the objection to the other image. What would you suggest for the caption instead? --Haemo00:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's important to both (1) be clear that this is outdated and offensive terminology and (2) make sure we illustrate what it used to refer to. We may think that The Eternal Jew (film)'s portrayal of Jews was offensive and wrong, and the images it used absurd and racist — but it's still important to make it clear that was being portrayed in the film. --Haemo00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the photo as an example of what anthropologists thought is back then is sort of an excuse to include a stereotypical photo in the article. I believe that it is possible to find images that are not stereotypical or that will not cause offense. My personal preference is simply either pictures of normal skulls or unexaggerated diagrams as opposed to living humans. I don't think you will publicly hear a living person being referred to as Negroid. But you may hear the term as a substitute for sub-saharan africans, though the latter is the preferred term. So pictures of living black people may not be appropriate. Muntuwandi01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "excuse"; the term is about an archaic term. In fact, the term itself is about the "science" behind the modern "negro stereotype" popular amongst racists. You can't include an image without it being stereotypical in some respect. I don't think pictures of living people are appropriate either, since you're never going to find a reliable source using the term. --Haemo01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer not to use any photos of people. Everybody knows what sub-saharan people look like. I still can't understand what the fixation is with this one book. It seems to have become the single authority on archaic racial terms in several articles. Just because it is free content and was uploaded to commons does not mean that it is appropriate for use in every racial article. Someone went and retrieved this book from the dusty archives of a library. You can tell by the deterioration of the pages. This book is really stifling progression of this article as no text has been added since the introduction of its pictures. Muntuwandi01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Everybody knows" is a fallacious argument, because it's almost certain that everybody does not know. The book is good because (1) it's free and (2) it's from the period and illustrates the outdated racial attitudes. --Haemo02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that it is free so users have not bothered to look for better material. That is why in 2007 after all the years of scientific research that has taken place we are still fixated on one outdated book. I can't believe the amount of energy wasted on one picture that does not even mention the term negroid in the caption or mention what the definition of negroid is, or mention why the people in the caption are negroid. Unfortunately for me I have seen these tricks used on several of the white supremacist websites so I cannot believe that wikipedia is falling for it as well. Why can't we move forward to portraying people in a fair and dignified manner relative to the context. I personally find the use of these images in this particular article as offensive, innappropriate and very amateurish. I consider the insistence of editors on the photo and on nothing else in the article evidence of this. This is WP:UNDUE. Nobody has bothered to discuss recent findings that stipulate for instance
The highest level of variation in skull types was seen in southeastern Africa, the generally accepted cradle of mankind.[6]
With such variation what then is a Negroid skull. Furthermore other populations around the world will sometimes show Negroid affinities, such as some mediterranean populations and some asian populations. All these findings are being ignored to focus on one stereotypical photo written by someone who refers to africans as "mentally backward".
I suggest unprotecting the article, at the moment there is only one established editor who advocates the use of this photo and that is funkynusayri. I don't recall him adding any text to the article or making any discussion other than the use of this photo. Muntuwandi02:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point — "negroid" is an archaic and unscientific term. The concept that there is a specific racial typography which can be identified as "negroid" is pseudoscience, and is no longer accepted. However, in this article, we're talking about was it was seen as — this illustrates that outdated view of "what was Negroid" exactly. The fact that is was pseudoscience is made clear in the article; racist attitudes from the past can be given historical context, and we have done so. --Haemo02:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe the concept but you see it was being jumped on by editors who are known for promoting racist views. The history of using the media to disparage blacks dates back to minstrel shows, black face and other 18th century carricatures of blacks. these were very popular then. Let us not turn an anthropolical term into another article for carricatures. I have already been complaining as to what i see as narrow mindedness on the part of several editors who cannot see blacks or africans in any other light other than stereotypical racial concepts. Why not unprotect the page and can add some of this relevant material instead of keeping it protected till the llth. Haemo you are an admin so you are not supposed to be supporting the use of this photo but you should remain impartial. Your protection of the article with the photo in it is also questionable because clearly you did it to prevent the removal of the photo which it is evident you support. Frankly I am frustrated by your actions and I believe you are abusing your administrative powers. At this stage it should be obvious that the photo is controversial and stereotypical and maybe even racist. Why do you want to side with such. I would not want to be on the side of anything to do with User:Phral , who has 17 sockpuppet accounts[7].Muntuwandi02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm encouraging discussion. I didn't protect this article, someone else did. I'm just telling you what my opinion is. I'm not going to take any action with respect to editing this article when it is unprotected — I'm just telling you my opinion of the usefulness of illustrating outmoded and archaic terminology. Again, you cannot get away from the fact that this is closely tied into racial stereotypes, because it is part of the "science" which led to them. I have not abused any of my powers, and have acted in accordance with all guidelines. I also don't appreciate your attempts to poison the well here. --Haemo03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that is nonsense. Administrators are just regular editors, with a few extra buttons. We're not here to resolve disputes, and we're not content arbiters. You have a seriously confused view of what the role of an administrator on Wikipedia is. --Haemo03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins play an important role in keeping the peace on wikipedia. As such to gain the confidence of us regular editors they need to avoid the some of the mudslinging. That is why it is not or rather should not be easy for someone to become and admin and it needs a serious vetting process. You protected this article before and the person who protected this time did it based on your advice(see above). This admin has since disappeared. Since you have already expressed your opinion then your last protection was biased by your opinion. Muntuwandi03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I have not engaged in any "mud-slinging". I protected the article via a routine request, and have subsequently formed an opinion about the content. Since then, I have not taken any administrative actions with respect to this article. I have not had any prior relationship with the previous editor, beyond griping about the ongoing edit wars here to a general audience, and if they protected it they did so on their own prerogative. I made this section to discuss how to fix the article — I suggest we all use it for that purpose. Comment on content, not contributors. --Haemo03:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the very first time I encountered Haemo you had already developed an opinion. your opinion is not new. If you recall I had an edit war with phral before he was indefinitely blocked. I was complaining that you had sided with him, the discussion is still on your talk page. Your opinion is not new. you entered this article with bias in hand and this has been extremely unhelpful in resolving this dispute. I never expected that I would encounter such from an admin. Muntuwandi03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently untrue. I did not "side" with anyone — I have since formed an opinion about the content here. I did not previously have an opinion. Your assumptions of what I believe are bordering on personal attacks at this point, and I suggest you cease them. Please discuss content here, and stop making frivolous allegations based on what you think I believed and when. --Haemo04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have not edited because half the time the article has been protected. Every time this article is protected it has to do with photographs. Can't you see that the use of photos is ruining the article. Muntuwandi04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that edit warring over it is not very productive. If you have some suggestions about content for the article, you can make them here, and I'll be happy to oblige in making the requested edits when we get consensus for them. --Haemo04:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the consensus of established editors is not to use photos or only to use photos that have been agreed by consensus. When photos are used particularly of race and other controversial articles, common sense dictates that care should be taken when selecting photos because these photos will be seen as representative for the whole group. The various sensitivities should be taken into account if a stable photos can be used that will stand the test of time. If no such care is taken the photos are generally rejected. The photos in question are unstable in that the moment this page is unprotected the photo will be removed. At present only one established editor who supports this photo remains and that is funkynusayri all others have been indefinitely blocked. It seems that editors who regularly edit this article have expressed reservations over the use of this photo these include Dark Tea, Jeeny , Ramdrake and myself. Muntuwandi04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can pretty much settle this issue once and for all here, then. Let's wait for funkynusayri to chime in before we go about declaring consensus. After all, Wikipedia is not a vote. --Haemo04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Funkynusayri's only contribution as far as I can recall is this photo. He has no other interest, reference or text or just any other contribution other than this stereotypical photo regarding this article. Consequently I do not believe his edits are in good faith. Muntuwandi17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I have no specific interest in Negroids, I just found it on Commons by chance and added it to the article. Check my edit history, I don't give a damn about this. Please quit the mud-slinging. I've added a picture of Alfred Adler to his page which I found in the same book on Commons as some of the anthropological plates I've added are from. Now, what the fuck do I know about Alfred Adler? Nada, I just found the picture and thought it would be appropriate for the article.
By the way, I don't care about the caption as long as the picture stays, it is very useful. Plenty of other people have expressed the same view. Funkynusayri22:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption does not say negroid but Native Africans. Plenty of other users who have been blocked for racism and antisemitism have expressed the same views as yours, such as phral and Fourdee. Muntuwandi23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about what your view on Phral and Fourdee, I know nothing about them. It's irrelevant in relation to me. I've only ever been blocked for breaking the three revert rule, not for anything I wrote. Again, check my history. And yes, the text on the image itself doesn't mention Negroids, but the accompanying text in the book does, I've pointed this out ten times now. Funkynusayri23:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but where does the text in the book mention specifically that these people in the photo are Negroids. Because that can be seen as original research on your part if you are the one who is calling them negroids and not the book. Muntuwandi23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the explanation still it does not mention that the fula or lunda woman are negroids. The text distinguishes between negroes and negroids but nothing is indicated in the photo. Muntuwandi23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the other I am just giving you an example of how this photo and others can be misused by people with racial agendas. but you do not seem to care about that. Muntuwandi23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything can be misused by people with agendas. That doesn't give you the right to accuse others of having such agendas. That's bad faith. Funkynusayri23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything can be misused. Certain material is fodder for racists. This i believe is such. I don't know what your agenda is but I believe you are insincere, If you know that this photo can be misused by racists then why do you insist on it. if you were truly interested in improving the article you would acknowledge complaints from other editors which you have not. You were even blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on this very article regarding this very photo.
I've added a similar image to all the race articles. Does it mean that I discriminate against them all? Please use some logic, man, you're paranoid. You were nice when we talked the first time, I have no idea what happened since that. Funkynusayri00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with plenty of racism thats what happened and what I perceive to be the lack of common sense. Personally I wouldn't insist on inserting a photo into a race related article that did not have some consensus. But not everyone thinks like that. Your insistence on the use of photos is in my opinion bad faith. Because you have declared no other interest in the article. Since you have seen that we have wasted much time on this one photo, it would be wise to consider that maybe it is causing more harm than the good which you think it can do. Muntuwandi00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes i am fully aware of the civility guidelines, at the same time if someone walks in to the lion's den, they shouldn't expect to be offered a cup of tea. Muntuwandi00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case how do you know that his efforts were made in good faith. Funky has not bothered to gain consensus from established editors and was receiving support from phral and fourdee. Knowing that this is a controversial article one would expect some consensus building. He has targeted this article and not the other racial articles. He has no contributions to any other aspect of this article. When an article is written in good faith it will have few disputes, when an edit is made in good faith noone will dispute it. Funky knows very well that his photos are annoying but insists on them. Can you blame me for not believinig his edits are in good faith, my mind is already made upMuntuwandi02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith on the part of other editors. You disagree with his edits, this upsets you, and therefore you assume bad faith on his part; disputes can emerge even with everyone contributing in good faith. Simply making an edit which someone disagrees with is not prima facie evidence that it was made in bad faith, as you seem to believe. --Haemo03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the text says Negro and Negroid, but which is which? Who represent Negro and Negroid? You may think they are the same, perhaps? You are WP:SYN to apply the image to Negroid. A skull is better, because it is an archaic term. Here's a skull image- JeenyTalk04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He has targeted this article and not the other racial articles."
Why are you lying? You know very well I added an image to all the other race pages from that old book, you even tried to remove them from there too. Look at Caucasoid for example, where it still is. Also on the race article. Funkynusayri05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quit being a baby. Lying? The Caucasoid article does not have the image (from 1914) you inserted. Gotcha! !05:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeny (talk • contribs)
'Kay, I'm pretty well uninvolved... Muntuwandi, could you tell me why you don't want the image in this article? I'm not taking a side, this discussion is just going in circles and I wanna try to help. So, can we stop repeating the same arguments again and again, and just try to figure this out? I'm aware that I've never even edited this article, but I've been keepin' an eye on it for a while, watchin' all this stuff go on, and it just seems kinda pointless. So, could someone briefly explain this to me, so I know that I'm not misunderstanding anything? LychosisT/C00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To start with the term Negroid is not used to refer to individuals, when it is done it may seem offensive. For example Mr. X is Negroid. The term was used and is still sometimes used in anthropology to refer to sub-saharan Africans, though the term sub-saharan africans is now the term that is preferred for public use. Negroid may be used in certain scientific communities but you will never hear it on the news. The oxford dictionary describes it as a term that is best avoided[8]. With this in mind you can see that this term has a lot of sensitivities attached to it and any photo that is to be used has to take this into account. In fact photos of actual humans are best avoided. Some editors get the impression that wikipedia is free for all and that anything goes on wikipedia. That is not entirely accurate, views that may be construed as racist will harm the image of wikipedia. Now this particular photo was taken in 1914, when the atmosphere was more racist. the book even mentions that africans are mentally backward, why then should we use such a photo. to me this is a step back in time. Muntuwandi00:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my dictionary it says it is no longer in scientific use. Also not all of the people in the collage are Negroid, using the outdated term from anthropology. Especially the Dinka. To use an image of real people when the term is offensive and no longer in scientific use is wrong. The image is inaccurate for the term. - JeenyTalk01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The image should definitely be in the article. It illustrates the historical and current use of the scientific concept.MoritzB03:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a troll, Moritz. It does not illustrate the current use of a scientific concept. In your mind, perhaps. Now go back to homosexuality and pedophilia to spread your pseudoscience. - JeenyTalk03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from uninvolved editor To me, a photo demonstrating the sheer variety of people that were thrown together under the term seems to me to be the best possible method you could use of discounting its legitimacy as a classification. I have no clue where the opposition to the image is coming from, but if their position is based solely on it being offensive, rather than nonillustrative or unencyclopedic, then WP:NOT#CENSORED is the proper answer to that. --tjstrftalk03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that image does not work, because no academic authority ever said those 4 people typify what the term Negroid means. A published expert from 1914 says that the other image does. The point of the 1914 image is that it is from when they were actually using the term, before its basis was disproven, so it shows what the term was actually connected with at the time. --tjstrftalk03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point the image does not mention the word Negroid. It is mentioned elsewhere in the book. The caption says "Natives of Africa". Secondly the term Negroid hasn't been technically disproven but instead anthropologists are using a greater variety of terms to describe human variation. Since the term is now considered offensive it is better not to use it aleast for human beings. I suggest maybe an actual skull would not be offensive. In general photos of Africans in the side profile were the favorite of racists trying to depict africans as Apes. I believe this is one such photo and can easily be taken out of context. Muntuwandi03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says history is truth? One person's history is another's lie. Therefore offensive to some. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about WP:RS. WP:V. etc. A skull would be better. Not a collage of African Natives from a 100-years-old book. That is like propagating a myth. - JeenyTalk04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this article is about history and part of that history is the racial myth which led to the "negroid" typography. Put in proper context, this can be displayed for what it is — an archaic, and outmoded, classification, and illustrated as such. --Haemo04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is not about history, it is still in the present. If you see the n word there are only cartoons or artwork. I think that is more appropriate rather than a picture of a living person. Muntuwandi04:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is — the article clear states that it is archaic. The prime use, and most of the context for this article, is historical. This isn't even remotely comparable to your analogy. --Haemo04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, these words are all very much related, that is partly why the term Negroid has fallen into disuse and it is also why this article has attracted editors with racist agendas in the past. Muntuwandi04:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeny: Applause for creative use of the "verifiability not truth" maxim, but that's inapplicable here as the image is verifiable, and period authorities are reliable sources for the opinions of their period. As for the remainder of your post, do you seriously consider discussing old ideas in their historical context to be the same as propagating them?
Then if a picture is needed then add a skull image. Not real people. Muntuwandiwnandi, although I think your collage it pretty, it is not accurate as the other is not. - JeenyTalk04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had mentioned earlier that there are several potentially graphic articles in all these articles the subjects have been presented as cartoons, artwork or computer generated imagery. simply to avoid making them personal. Now maybe you and others do not feel any offense but you have to understand that others do and take that into account. If there is a photo that everyone agrees on it is better than a photo that only some agree on. Muntuwandi04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the applause *bows* That image is not verifable. It says African Natives, and somewhere in the text states Negro and Negroid, it does not say which is which, only assumed. So it is NOT a reliable source. It is assumption that the author is saying that image is Negroid, etc. Unless you are a Negro, or a scientist than you do not understand that this is not accurate. - JeenyTalk04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the text, as other editors have suggested, it refers to the people in this plate as "Negroid" and the people in the other plate (on this page) as "non-Negroid". --Haemo04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text does not state Negroid, that is funkynusayris personal contribution. If the book does not refer to these people as Negroid in its captions then why should we. Muntuwandi04:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text mentions a distinction between negroes and negroids and some dark skinned caucasians. But it makes no specific reference to the photos as being negroids and non-negroids, that is an assumption by the readers.
I am not for censorship, but sorry to use these examples, there is no screenshot of pornography in the pornography article. There is just some artwork. Why if wikipedia is not censored isn't there some when there is plenty available on the internet. Simply because the editors deemed that it would be in bad taste to have it. Even though wikipedia is not censored there is still common sense and preservation of some of our social mores and a need to keep the article encyclopedic. Text first images later. Muntuwandi04:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can quite easily verify the image by looking at the original text of The New Student's Reference Work, of which we have a copy nicely hosted for us on Wikisource.
Muntuwandi, unless you have a historical cartoon up your sleeve or something, you aren't going to meet the same educational need that way. And even then, some old racist cartoon would hardly get across that this was a pervasive idea in academic texts.
Also, to reply to your comment on the AN/I thread that "The problem with the old photo is that no context is provided.": Then give context! We're a wiki, you can add new text almost as easily as breathe, and it would certainly take a whole lot less effort than this argument has.
For your second comment that you don't think the book is a reliable source because it calls the Africans mentally backwards, you're once again ignoring that this is a historical image. We're not using it to make factual statements about the universe today, we're using it as a source of information about what people thought in the year 1914. It's very much a reliable source of information on people's thoughts back then.
In the end, it seems to me that this entire argument boils down to the following question: Do we present the historical opinions of man as they were, or do we slap a coat of whitewash over them because we don't like thinking about the flaws in our own past? --tjstrftalk04:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me one thing that you have learned by looking at this photo, that you didn't already know. There is absolutely nothing because these are just average african people that you have probably already seen. Muntuwandi04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the text says Negro and Negroid, but which is which? Who represent Negro and Negroid? You may think they are the same, perhaps? The you are using WP:SYN to apply the image to Negroid. A skull is better, because it is an archaic term. Here's a skull image. Also, there are people who still look like those in the image. I tried to change the text in the caption but kept getting reverted by those now banned. - JeenyTalk04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is interested in history they can read the book. If ";Negroids" were no longer in existence then this book may have some use but since they are plenty still around why should we choose to depict them stereotypically when they can be depicted normally. Yes and there is no context provided as to what makes them Negroid. That is why a skull is better because it will show more rounded eye sockets or a broader nasal opening. These are things that are not personal but scientific and we wouldn't be spending time arguing over a photo from a dusty old book. Muntuwandi05:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so now you've switched positions to saying that we don't need to care about putting history in this article, since people could just go "read the book". Well sure, the same is true of any article. Why include the earth's diameter in Earth? They could just go look it up in a book on geology. Why include pictures on homo sapiens? We've all seen a person before. In fact, why have this encyclopedia at all? Every single thing you find here could be looked up in another book someplace.
If you're going to give arguments with that level of reasoning behind them, could you please just drop the issue so the article can be unlocked? --tjstrftalk05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back a couple of hours later and reading this over, I really gotta agree with tjstrf, Haemo, and Funkynusayri. The picture illustrates what the scientific community considered "negroid" in 1914, as stated in the provided text. I believe it should be kept in the article. :3 LychosisT/C05:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also if this image stays, then it needs to be some prose in the article about why this is so. It was to make Negroids less than human to justify slavery and that Negros where less than human. If not, then it should be removed. Not judged by non-scientist and those still in high-school. - JeenyTalk05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we taking this to a personal level now? My opinion is less valid due to my age? I'm simply stating that I read the text provided, which identifies the people in that image as negroid. My opinion about this is just as valid as yours, or anyone else's, 'kay? LychosisT/C05:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry I attacked your age. But, the image says in the caption that they are "African Types" in the text in the book it says "negros and negroid" how is that saying that those images are only Negroid, and not Negro? There is a difference. I guess that may seem to say the same thing, but not from my reading the text. Why would the book say negros and negroid, as two separate classes, but yet the image with the caption stating "Native African types" how is that the book claims all those images are Negroid, and some may be Negro? Serious. - JeenyTalk05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeny keeps mentioning Dinkas as Caucasians, and again, they aren't mentioned among the excpetions on picture two, which are: Berbers, Arabs, Egyptians, Galas, Abyssinians, Bushman and Hottentots. And who added the image on the right? Ethiopians and Bushmen were generally not considered Negroid, at least not in that book on Wiki Source. Funkynusayri05:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^ That's your POV, please cite an author. But for example Alek Wek does not have "Caucasoid features" by any standard, yet she's a Dinka. http://www.imgspeakers.com/_images/speakers/WekAlek.jpg Anyhow, they aren't mentioned among the exceptions, which can be found on image two. But still, if you can find a proper alternative, please do, the thing is that none of you have even tried to come up with anything better than an image of random Africans where half have never been described as "Negroid". Funkynusayri05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an alternative picture which can't be refused, from a German book on Commons, a picture of races, and the accompanying text specifically refers to each person on the picture by race (apart from the Dinka, sadly). See the picture on the right. File:LA2-Blitz-0264.jpgNegride (schwarze) Hptrasse (Haar dicht, kraus, schwarz u. schwarzbraun, Augen dunkelbraun); Unter-rassen: Bantu- (II, 9, 10) u. Sudanneger (II, 11), Melanesier (II, 16,17), Pygmäen, Buschmänner (1,20), Hottentotten. [1]
"Classification of skulls is often ambiguous. In anaylsis of human remains in the United States, skull shape is used to define race. Although race based on skull shape is unambiguous, it will not pin point geographic origins accurately all the time due to skull variation. This method only works well in the US because Americans have origins in distant regions of the world.[6]"
First of all, the source can't be used if it says both classification is "often ambiguous" and that "race based on skull shape is unambiguous" but it says neither. This entire paragraph should be deleted because it's pure crap.
This is what it does say,
"Initially there were a number of forensic studies in which they tried to separate individuals into different so-called races depending on what they were looking at in the bones - size and shapes of skulls mostly. And they thought they had it. But when any of these studies has been replicated, looking at individuals from a different area or a different time, the results, sadly, are little better than random assignment."
And:
"So if you did an initial study on say, bones of so-called blacks and whites in Cleveland, and then do a study of so-called blacks, whites, and Native Americans in Arizona, you actually find that the blacks in Arizona look different from the blacks in Cleveland."
Among other things. A single reading for a copy edit of this article would have shown it is seriously problematic and should not have been locked into this version.
And this paragraph requires a fact tag at the very least, but deleted until referenced would be better:
"Forensic anthropologists identify Negroid skulls by rounded eye sockets, rounded nasal cavity, facial projection and skulls that are long from the front to the back."
Please read articles before you decide to fully protect them, this article should be deleted from Wikipedia rather than protected as it is--this is shameful, however it wound up this way.
Source 7 reportedly says,
"For example, about one-third of people who identify as white in the US have detectable African DNA,[7]"
But this is what the first source actually says:
"Typing studies also indicated that for each of these markers the allele frequencies in African Americans were between the African and European American allele frequencies, consistent with previous estimations (Fig. 1b) (McKeigue et al. 2000; Collins-Schramm et al. 2002)."
This study only looked at individuals from Northern California and made no conclusions on the overall heritage of European Americans. Probably most Americans are quite mixed, certainly in my experience, but this isn't my essay, it's an encyclopedia, and this must be sourced to who actually said it, not just attached randomly to a source that says nothing of the sort.
And:
"'This analysis (Fig. 2) separated the African individuals from the European American individuals without prior knowledge of population affiliation. The African subjects, whether from Zimbabwe or Nigeria, were clearly separated from the European American subjects, with most very tightly grouped, and no distinction was evident Between the Zimbabwe and Nigerian populations."
The second source on admixture mapping and skin pigmentation genes says this in its conclusions:
"However, the admixture in these populations is on average low, with less than 5% estimated non-European admixture in the State College sample."
Again, a single population of European Americans or whites, from which the researchers drew no large conclusions about the ancestry of all whites. While this may or may not be true, it can't be part of this article attached randomly to a source.
In other words, the article appears to be largely made up.
Thank you, a sane person. Yes, we did get caught up with the image, because it was easier, I guess, so I thought, and I think others too, that the image just added to the improper scope of the article and where it was going. - JeenyTalk07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There've been sane people here for the last 7 hours, Jeeny. You should know, you've been arguing with them.
KP, I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding something with your commentary: what parts of the article you're discussing. Is the problem just with source 7 in the Negroid#Challenges section or is it worse than that? --tjstrftalk07:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read four sources attached to this article. Not a single one says anything attributed to it. I'm not going to do any more. This article needs tagged with Verify source for all sources and all statements in the article, every single one. It needs an OR warning for the entire article since it appears that this is simply original research variously attached to distantly related references that don't say what is claimed. And it needs a factual accuracy warning to alert any reader who comes to this article in an attempt to get information. It also needs edited for consistency, because it is internally contradictory. It also needs copyedited because there are spelling errors. In other words, the entire article appears to be pure crap.
"Negroid" is a term that has a good 50 year history of use in the literature for all sorts of reasons, but this article is not attached to the historical term at all, but to modern research on admixture mapping. This should have sent warning bells to everyone concerned that something fishy was going on. KP Botany07:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It did throw me off when I first scanned it, but it looked to just be the apologetic positive POV buffer we get on any controversial topic. (Height and intelligence, for instance, which used to switch tone into "But don't worry short people, we still love you!" about 3 sentences into the article.)
Well, if the modern science references are fake/heavily synthesized throughout, then it sounds like we're going to need a complete rewrite focusing on the historical usage. --tjstrftalk07:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it even needs to be rewritten, I bet we could just dig up an older version of the article, which seems to have been completely watered down. Funkynusayri14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, I have viewed the historical articles there has not been any watering down. I agree with KP botany that this article needs a rewrite, the photo is a major distraction and its removal will help us concentrate on more important matters that is the future of this article. I am interested in an objective article that discusses the term Negroid as is used in anthropology with facts and figures that are presented in an impersonal manner. I am not for this article becoming a tool for editors with racist and stereotyping agendas. Funkynusayri has indicated that he has no interest in this article other than the photo [9]. Consequently you can see that this photo is harmful to the article. Muntuwandi18:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Funkynusayri - factual inaccuracies are present throughout all Wikipedia, badly cited claims are too - that doesn't mean we need to delete all of those articles.--danielfolsom19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Consequently you can see that this photo is harmful to the article. ".
{{Editprotected}}
This page should be immediately tagged with disputed, Verify source, and Original research tags to alert readers of serious problems with the factual accuracy of this article. The entire article appears to be made up--see discussion above. KP Botany17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the sarcasm links. And read what I wrote before you tell me I'm a moron--enough people have done that already that I get the picture: verifiability is worthless. KP Botany20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the text in the book and absolutely nowhere does the text mention that the people in plate 1 are negroids and those in plate 2 are non negroids. There could be Non-negroids in plate 1 and Negroids in plate 2. So it is original research to assume that that is what the author ntended. Secondly the whole chapter is about Africa, eg politics, railways rainfall animals etc and only one paragraph is reserved for the human populations in which the term Negroid is mentioned. Nowhere in the book is it mentioned what the criteria for someone to be labeled Negroid or Non-negroid is. Consequently there is no objective rationale. I prefer to use a skull that has objective definitions that can be used such as the shape and breadth of the Nasal opening. Consequently this does not meat the standard of a reliable source.
The use of this photo is racist and I can see others have began digging up more stereotypical photos. this is not helping the article at all. I would propose that the article be redirected to Craniofacial anthropometry or be turned into a disambiguation page, since this article is a magnet for racism.Muntuwandi18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this has exactly what to do with racism? If you read the text and look at the picture, the correlation is obvious, it's only your agenda which sets limits. Anyway, problem solved, look at my addition to the other discussion. That image is rock solid. If you trust my German skills.
As for your merger proposal, the term is historically significant in itself, no reason to merge it, other than your absurd request for censorship. Funkynusayri18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your agenda is clear to dig up stereotypical photos. In fact you are enjoying the fact that you have managed to enrage other editors. Muntuwandi18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the old image, but another one. Look at what I added. As for Muntuwandi, I'll respond when you have something constructive to add. Funkynusayri18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the conection. In fact the caption does not match the source. Schwarze = Negro. I do not see that under any of the images. Also the source does not mention Schwarze. I'm not understanding English now, I guess. - JeenyTalk19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me translate: "Negroid (black) main-race (hair thick, nappy, and black-brown, eyes dark brown). Sub-races: Bantu - (II, 9, 10) and Sudan-Negro (II, 11), Melanesians (II, 16, 17), Pygmys, Bushmen (1, 20), Hottentots." The text refers to individual pictures on the page. I've collected them on the right image. Funkynusayri19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a question - can we confirm that each of the three proposed pictures (including the one on the page) accurately represent the topic.
Secondly, is there any chance that we could get a labeled drawing of a "negroid" skull? This would be less personal and thus more ideal - especially since we refer to the term as offensive.
Unless we have confirmation of the first, and unless we can assure ourselves that the second is not possible, then this debate is going to become extremely monotonous.--danielfolsom18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Negroid is a broad topic emcompassing craniofacial anthropometry, and other fields of anthropology. In essence there is no one definition of the term Negroid since etymologically it means black, from latin "niger". It is also used in linguistics and epidemiology. Today the preferred term is sub-saharan african. Consequently I do not believe these photos add any value.
It is possible to find a labeled "negroid skull". This in my opinion is suitable alternative and will help us focus on the article and the study of human variation. there are many interesting aspects regarding forensic anthropology that are being ignored only to focus on this one stereotypical photo. Just before this photo was inserted an editor tried to insert a photo of a gorilla into the Negroid article. With such I think we really need to consider what the future of this article is going to be. Muntuwandi19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - what? This is from the article itself: "The Oxford English Dictionary defines negroid as the "indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa...The term Negroid is associated with outdated notions of racial types; it is potentially offensive and best avoided."[5]" In other words, it means central and southern African - not black - meaning just having a picture of black people wouldn't cut it.--danielfolsom19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. No. The picture "Afro diversity" does not represent the topic well. A reliable source should say that the people in the picture are Negroid.
The problem is that there are no free alternatives to the pictures I've proposed. File:LA2-Blitz-0264.jpgNegride (schwarze) Hptrasse (Haar dicht, kraus, schwarz u. schwarzbraun, Augen dunkelbraun); Unter-rassen: Bantu- (II, 9, 10) u. Sudanneger (II, 11), Melanesier (II, 16,17), Pygmäen, Buschmänner (1,20), Hottentotten. [2] So the discussion is actually about whether we should have pictures or not. I think we should. By the way, the image on the right contains Negroids, sourced and all. If no one objects, I'll crop the picture so it only displays the Negroids, and then I'll of course translate the caption, or simplify it. Funkynusayri19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not accurate, the photo shows a bushman, a papuan, and and australian mixed with africans. Maybe german does not have a one to one translation of the term Negroid. In English Australians are not considered Negroid. They have more unique cranial features such as a more pronounced supra orbital taurus. Muntuwandi19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, Muntuwandi, the term was even broader in 1932. Many scholars had their own definitions, the one used in the lexicon is one of them. Funkynusayri19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose both, first one (current) is disputed because it is only indirectly stated in the source that they are Negroids, and second one (Afro diversity) is simply useless, because we have no sources at all claiming they're Negroids.File:Negroids.JPGNegroid (black) main-race (hair thick, nappy, and black-brown, eyes dark brown). Sub-races: Bantu - (II, 9, 10) and Sudan-Negro (II, 11), Melanesians (II, 16, 17), Pygmys, Bushmen (1, 20), Hottentots. [3] I propose the one on the right, it's sourced. Funkynusayri19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The translation from German is flawed. The german language has totally different meaning of the term Negroid. There are serious problems with what you want to introduce. It is not a reliable source. Sources should be in English. Muntuwandi19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is original research, they were considered Australoid for which there are some more photos that need to be removed. these are all from the same book. Original research!!!!. Muntuwandi19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit trolling. Get another person to translate it if you don't trust my translation. The term was never standardised, Australians were classified as both Negroids, Caucasoids, and Australoids at different points. The picture of the Australians was from an entirely different book, by the way. I mixed them up myself. The german book is from the 30s. Funkynusayri19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your same old book says "quite distinct form the true Negro is the bushman". Why now is the bushman being considered Negroid. This is the bad faith and lack of knowledge that I am talking about. Muntuwandi19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you never notice that the other book was in English? The image I'm talking about is from a German book. Again, the term was never standardised,sometimes the Bushmen were Negroids, sometimes they were not, and sometimes they were Capoid. Try to read the discussions before making false allegations. Funkynusayri19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are running all over the place. This is fraudulent. The forensic anthropologists have plenty of information regarding the differentiation of the various skull types. Muntuwandi19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the caption could be along the lines of "While disputed as to whether they actually are or not, at one point or another these peoples were considered Negroids" ? --danielfolsom19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but yet again, the terms were never standardised, every author had his own definition. It applies to East Africans too, sometimes they were Negroid, sometimes they were Caucasoids, depending on author. The caption should simply state that they were considered Negroid in that particular book. Remember, the term is obsolete, inconsistency is one of the reasons why. Funkynusayri19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone here ever read a book about human skull variation. If you haven't then maybe you shouldn't be making your assertions with this confidence. This article will become a laughing stock to real scientists. Africans and Melanesians and Australians have very divergent skull types. The only thing they may have in common is a more prominent alveolar prognathism aside from that the skull shapes are more closely related to caucasoid and east asian skull shapes than they are to Africans. So the inclusion in this category is fundamentally flawed and illustrates some of the ignorance about the term Negroid. Muntuwandi19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it illustrates why the term is obsolete. Everyone had their own definitions, especially in the early days. Everyone is familiar with the Coon typology, but that's not the only one, it's just the most popular one. Don't patronise us, Muntuwandi. Funkynusayri19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is way off tangientially and is original research. The same book you quote from 1914 has a distinction between negroids, bushmen and Australoids. now you say in 1930 they were considered the same. This is false. Muntuwandi19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The images are from different books. Wake up, man, they're even in different languages. Explain your problem and let's get back to work. Anyway, your problem can be very easily solved. Remove the people you don't think are Negroids and upload it again, or get another guy to translate the text. Otherwise, please stop making baseless allegations. Funkynusayri19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - if every single author had a different definition then how is anything acceptable? I still think the best solution would be to have the caption I mentioned above--danielfolsom20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was never any disagreement that the West Africans were Negroid when the term was used. Disagreements related to borderline populations which are not relevant now. MoritzB20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel why are you showing bias already. Is it that you want to have the photo at all costs. This is sidetracking from the main issue. There is an article Black people that includes all people who are identified as blacks, including Melanesians , Australians, Negritos, Bushmen , Sub-saharans and Nilotics. This article is about Negroid, the Negroid skull, not about other dark skinned people. Muntuwandi20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remain civil - accusing other editors of bias violates policy, and I never that I want ot have a photo at all costs - please read my comment. The fact is there is no absolute definition of "Negroid" - thus if we are to have a picture, I just proposed that we shoudl be sure to state that.--danielfolsom20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is evident that the book the picture is from uses that particular typology, thus it could simply state something similar to what you can see on the caption to the Caucasoid picture from the same book, included on the right. File:LA2-Blitz-0263Cauc.JPGMeyers Blitz-Lexikon (Leipzig, 1932) divides "Caucasiod types" into: Nordic, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic, Turks, Bedouins, Afghan.
Then for the sixth time, get another German speaker to translate it for you again. If you don't do that, you don't have a case. Please quit the personal attacks, or I'll complain to an admin.
From here on out there will be no more uncivil comments - you guys some of this is getting ridiculous. No telling users that they don't know how to read, no telling users to wake up, no accusations. Stop.--danielfolsom20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the users are clearly trying to provoke. Look at all the photos of "primitive" peoples they have fished out. Negroids still exist, why are they trying to equate Negroid with primitivity. I am sorry but isn't anyone seeing that the contributions to this article by a handful of editors are nothing scientific. Muntuwandi20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this your first warning for being uncivil - no accusations such as "the users are clearly trying to provoke" - and that's unfounded.--danielfolsom20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not fish for more, I found both at the same time. Second one didn't come in handy until now, in relation to this page. And if you want to know more about the German book, I suggest you click on the image. It's very easy to check sources on Wikis. Funkynusayri20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be wiser just not to have the photo so the bickering can end. Then we would see who is truly interested in improving the article. Muntuwandi20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You're the only one who's arguing against including the picture, even Jeeny seems to have deserted the cause after the bullet-proof German picture was brought in. Why should we bow down to your POV? Funkynusayri20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Funkynusayri - Muntuwandi it appears you are the only one in favor of removing the photo, everyone else except one user supports the newest photo, and the one user supports the current photo.--danielfolsom20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did it because they are not Negroids. If the author wants he should upload it under a different name. It is factually incorrect to refer to australians and melanesians as Negroid. Muntuwandi20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Daniel, the photo is innacurate. I know you disagree with me and others do. and I have tried my best to explain that this photo is not Negroid. I contains a bushman and Australoids. even in the early 20th century these groups were not considered Negroid. To be considered Negroid the requires features such as Alveolar prognathism and dilocephalic head. The bushmen have almost no prognathism and have considerable facial flatness quite similar to east asians. So to refer to them as Negroid is factually incorrect. This is basically steam rolling over the truth. Muntuwandi20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless Muntuwandi - consensus seems to have overruled you here. Perhaps at a later date a better picture will be found - but currently, the community says that this is the best we have.--danielfolsom20:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, you picked and chose which ones, and that image Moronitz uploaded is of "savages". It is original research to use those images, when many anthropoligists used different terms. You're cherry picking here. Get rid of the photos and let's work on the article. - JeenyTalk20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he has mistranslated from German. You see the terms Negro, black and Negroid all mean different things in English. We do not know how they have been constructed in German unless we have an expert in German. but in any case wikipedia says we should use sources in English so that all editors can verify. I cannot read german but I can tell they are referring to papuans and Melanesians but I have no idea of the context. It is in everyones best interest that the information contained is factual. Yes Australians and Melansesians are black, but they are not Negroid by craniofacial anthropometry .Muntuwandi20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negrid/Negroid is not a German word. You're trying too hard. By the way, if you don't like the Dinka on the current image, why don't you just change the caption so it states he isn't Negroid? Funkynusayri20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Funkynusayri's translation - there's really no reason not to - he says he understands German - and I believe him. Muntuwandi the article's opening paragraph explains that the definition of Negroid is not clear - and Funkynusayri said it varied from author to author when the term was in use, so your definition is no more significant than the book's definition - except the book definition is citable, and consensus agrees with it.--danielfolsom20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be about trusting fellow wikipedians. We need verifiability. I would trust funkynusayri if he had provided any edit with regard to the technical definitions of Negroid ie skulls. He has not, his only contribution is the photo. Anthropologists made distinctions between other sub-saharans and the bushmen. wikipedia citing sources says:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article,
there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
Where is the source. If he can provide it we can independently have it translated. But the problem still remains that the defintion that is in german is not consistent with the english definition which excludes bushmen and australoids from the definition of Negroid. But why should we go so far anyway. Why don't we just concentrate on the text and finding sources and making a better article instead of showing pictures of people in their primitive form. People who have negroid skulls are still alive today so there is no need to fish out old photos that will just upset some reader such as myself when we can create an article that does not upset anybody at all. Muntuwandi21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the term is defined as archaic - and anyways - the term is also described as possibly offensive - so it's not like we can use just any modern day person with a negroid skull.--danielfolsom21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "English definition". There are different authors. Coon's terminology is just the most well known one. As for sources, look at the caption. The source has been there since I added the pictures. We can't use a picture of any modern day person, chances are that we don't have a source which states it's a Negroid, and it most likely won't be free either.Funkynusayri21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no english definition and a universal definition instead then your source is wrong since all definitions must be consistent with one another. Muntuwandi21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no universal definition, there are different authors with different terminologies. It's pretty simple. East Africans, Bushmen, Australoids, and Melanesians were always classified in different ways by different authors.Funkynusayri21:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The skull features of the Australisoid race are very characteristic. With a squared jaw, very pronounced brow and unique dental features, this race is possibly the easiest to distinguish. [15]
The Negroid race originates from sub-Saharan Africa. The skull of this race typically possesses a projected facial profile, a squared eye orbit and a wide rounded nasal opening[16]
There are some very objective traits that are used. I think you are disagreeing with me because it is me. The sources speak for themselves. Muntuwandi21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I can feel consistent hostility even when I have provided external unbiased sources. Even administrators are only human like the rest of us. They are subject to biases. I only ask that we put away our biases and first impressions and try to hear both sides of the story. Here is another article that discusses negroid. race determinationMuntuwandi21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have both provided sources, articles by different authors. Again, different authors had different definitions. I don't see your problem. Use the current picture and explain that the Dinka isn't Negroid, if that makes you happy. Or simply reupload the other picture without Melanesians and Bushman. Funkynusayri21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of undue weight - it's a matter of different people believed a Negroid to be different things - thusly there is no absolute definition barring the modern definition that it is people of sub Saharan africa - and that should be noted in the image caption.--danielfolsom23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image with the caption "Uomini Fang del Gabon con caratteri della razza Negride silvestre" is not German! It translates to "Fang men of the Gabon with savage characteristics of the Negride (black) race" - JeenyTalk18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after some double-checking, it actually says: Fang (tribes)men of Gabon with (or showing the) characteristics of the tree-dwelling Negro (or Negroid) race. I'd say that's as unflattering and demeaning for a description of a human population as one could possibly come across. Jeeny, not wanting to nitpick your translation, but I think this one is even more aggravating.--Ramdrake19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nit-picking is good. :) I just read it as that. By all means the correct translation should prevail, not my interpretation. I just wanted to point out that both images where in different languages, not just German. - JeenyTalk19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, that's not the picture I'm referring to when I refer to the "German picture". It's the one with the German caption, funnily enough. Funkynusayri22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why was this article protected after all of two (2) reverts? Protection is harmful, we have WP:3RR for that, block the revert-warriors, not the articles. dab(𒁳)19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page was fully-protected from August 23-28, and as soon as it was unprotected, there were more revert-wars. Let's give this article a couple of days to cool down. I'll reduce the protection from expiring on Sept. 11 to expiring on Sept. 7. Cheers. --MZMcBride20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KP Botany. The text is sheer fantasy and the semi-random references don't give any support to the substance of the article. Please immediately delete it. MoritzB20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be quite so drastic as that, Moritz. There actually used to be a decent length article here. See this revision, for instance, which has sources that actually do seem to support the statements they are attached to (well, except in one case I saw, but I think that was just misplaced since it supports stuff earlier in the paragraph). --tjstrftalk20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above (in KP's section) I concur - plenty of articles have inaccurate information - the fact that this article has some accurate information means that there's room for improvement - not deletion.--danielfolsom20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the information in this article is not just inaccurate. It is in logical contradiction with sources or original research. The article should be reverted back to a better version. MoritzB20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moronitz, you are all over the place with your POV, OR, and logical contradiction with sources. You are a troll. I will not feed you after this. - JeenyTalk21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the images, please. Let's work on the article. Also, your image and German translation does not support the article. And Daniel, the image of real people is not a good idea, because there are people who still look like that. There are images of negroid skulls, I posted one last night. - JeenyTalk21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained why my translation doesn't work. It has already been verified by a native German and Babelfish. Only you and Muntuwandi are against it, for whatever reason. Funkynusayri21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a personal attack. If you don't like him, get another German to translate it. Muntuwandi didn't dare, as he was probably afraid that the new translation would be identical to mine. Funkynusayri21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not a personal attack, just racism against the Germans. Anyway, how does including one image preclude putting in another? If we can find useful free images of skulls and people and drawings and maps, then the only thing stopping us from adding them all would be page layout. --tjstrftalk21:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the text that you refer to. Could you provide a link. I am not afraid of it because I can already tell from the photos that whatever it is, it is not consistent with the definition of Negroid that is used in english. Muntuwandi21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no one definition of Negroid in English, but definitions. East Africans were classified as Negroid by some, Caucasoid by others, and Bushmen were classified as Negroid, Capoid, or both. Funkynusayri21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious, without an explanation. You want us to take a caption alone to the bank. Is this grade school. This is an encyclopedia, we need to know why so and so was labled Negroid and why so and so is not. A caption without an explanation is terribly insufficient. Are you really interested in this article. Please find some information from physical anthropology and established science, not random photos. Muntuwandi21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. There is a LINK to the goddamned BOOK in the CAPTION. It is not THE caption itself, understand? There is a LINK! Seems like I'll have to spoon feed you, now see if you can find it in the caption on the picture to the right.File:Negroids.JPGNegroid (black) main-race (hair thick, nappy, and black-brown, eyes dark brown). Sub-races: Bantu - (II, 9, 10) and Sudan-Negro (II, 11), Melanesians (II, 16, 17), Pygmys, Bushmen (1, 20), Hottentots. [4]Funkynusayri21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that link goes to something like an encyclopedia or dictionary, the page is
M. Maybe because I don't understand, but I cannot see any connection with the photo. Muntuwandi21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the article says Negride(Schwarze)- this means black. It seems they are implying the word black as in Black people. this is referring to black people not to Negroids. This is well covered in the black people article. Muntuwandi21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. No. Negrid is referred to as the black race. Still is. Just like "Caucasoid" is referred to as the white race. I don't see how you can be confused by something so simple in such an extreme way. Even Coon used such terminology. But keep it coming, it's mildly amusing.
Again, Negrid means the same in German as it does in English. It is neither a German or English word, I thought you were aware of that. I hope you understand the id/oid suffixes, otherwise you're not qualified to edit these race articles. Funkynusayri22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is referring to black people, not to the term Negroid. In brackets it says schwarze meaning black. There is no mention of the skull types in this definition. Surely we cannot go by one-liner definitions. We need discussions from physical anthropology as to what is Negroid. There is a separate article for black people that deals with all the definitions that is mentioned in the source. This article uses the definition of black people as having dark skin and curly hair. this is not the definition of Negroid but of black people. negroids were stereotyped as having certain features of the skull. Muntuwandi22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that the word "Negrid" is used in the text? What is it that you don't understand? It says "Negrid (black) main race", simply because that's what Negrid/oid referred to back then. The black race. Europäid (Caucasoid/white) and Mongolid (yellow) are used too.
I'm out, the ignorance is astounding, Muntuwandi has managed to bore me out of this discussion with ant-fucking. Hope someone else will keep up the work. Funkynusayri22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it did not and it does not. Negroid is in reference to certain stereotypical facial features that were found among some populations. Since the bulk of African Americans were descended from Africans from the west coast. Negroid came to denote the physical appearance that was associated with some of the west africans. However as many africans live in central, northeast, east and southern Africa who have a variety of different appearances. Consequently several other terms were used, semi-negroid, non-negroid, capoid or pygmoid at various times. To describe the physical appearances of other Africans some times relative to Negroids. However all these people are and were collectively referred to as black. This article should primarily concern itself with the skull features that were most stereotypically used to define Negroids. But today we known that there is considerable phenotypic diversity in skull shapes in Africa. So this is the way to move forward in the article. We should forget about the photos that convey no information but that are personal and depersonalize the article to make it more professional. If such is done, you will not have any trouble from me. I oppose efforts to use this article as opportunity to portray africans or others as primitive people, instead we should just focus on one thing and that is "negroid".
there is no consensus, other editors have expressed reservations about the use of the photo KP botany , Jeeny, Dark Tea and Ramdrake. And most of these editors have been editing this article for much longer as opposed to a few passersby who will disappear after this is over . Muntuwandi22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he mentioned that article is even a much bigger problem than the photo. I agree but first we have to remove the photo so that we can work on the text and the overall future of what the article should be. Muntuwandi22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, though. There are several people who disagree with you. Can't you accept that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong? LychosisT/C22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first things I do in any dispute is question myself. I am my own biggest critic. And the answer is no. the reason is simple. Funky the main protagonist in this has not attempted to edit anything else of siginificance except the photo. You can check the edit history to confirm this. As long as the focus is on the photo instead of the article it will not progress. A user blocked for racism tried to insert a photo of a gorilla in to this article. See User_talk:Nordic_Crusader#Image:Negroid_Caucasoid_Gorilla_Comparison.jpg . A few days later guess who pops up with photos of "primitive" africans, funky. I thought this was in very bad taste after all the stress that was caused earlier on. Muntuwandi22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, he shows up acting in what seems to be good faith, soon after someone who was acting in bad faith. I don't see your point. Adding a picture of a gorilla is an obvious attack, whereas adding a picture of "negroid" people, primitive or not, to the "Negroid" article, seems to be good faith by me. Regardless of whether or not he has added text, he's still attempting to contribute to the article, and I don't understand why you feel the need to fight every step of the way, rather than at least attempting to reach an agreement. It's been suggested multiple times how you could help end this dispute, "ask someone else to translate the German", "Remove the disputed peoples from the image", but you've completely ignored these suggestions. Why? Please, help me to understand why you feel the need to perpetuate this issue. Is someone placing a picture from 1914 of a "mongoloid" into the Mongoloid article acting in bad faith? If I were to put a picture of a white person from 1914 on the White people article, is that poking fun at whites? No. So, please. Please, please, please. Give us better reasoning than you have been. LychosisT/C23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in german does not meet the standard for use in this article because it is a one-liner definition. I have had it translated using the translation software and it is very much like a dictionary definition than an anthropological study. there is no mention of skull types, which is what principally Negroid is about. Absolutely non. Is this the definition you want us to take to the bank regarding the term Negroid.
Negride (black) Hptrasse (hair thickly, curly, black and black brown, eyes dark brown); under-races: Bantu- (II, 9, 10) and Sudan negro (II, 11), Melanesian (II, 16,17), pygmy, shrub men (1,20), Hottentott
Or what about this one. [17], which definition is more comprehensive. I know you disagree with me and my edits. But honestly which definition is more comprehensive and which is a more reliable source. Muntuwandi23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lychosis when you first started editing I had some confidence in you as an independent editor, unfortunately that has been lost. I suggest reading a couple of books and race to catch up a little. The definition from Moritz is junk. It characterises Negroid as having steatopygia when everyone knows that steatopygia is characteristic of the bushmen and not other sub-saharans. You have taken a stance against my edits but don't let it cloud your judgement. Muntuwandi23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just basing my opinion on what I'm given. I've taken a stance against your edits because many of them are senseless, and contain baseless accusations against other editors. This casts you in a bad light. As for this discussion, Moritz, Funky, and Daniel have provided point after point, which you have responded to with the same things you've been saying since the beginning. This is not constructive. If you want to resolve this issue, help us help you. Provide us with a usable, suitable image. LychosisT/C23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said one word about the image, except to say that I have not said anything about it. I have said the article is pure crap, and I have explained why. I believe that the lines were added simply as a hoax, and connected arbitrarily with unrelated research. Every thing I have done to get this taken care of has been clouded by every one of you hijacking my posts to argue about the image. As not a single one of you appears to have read the article sufficiently to realize what is being said in the article, and the crappy nature of it, I don't believe any one of you is qualified to judge what picture, if any, should go in this article. This is the type of crap that stains Wikipedia's reputation, and badly. As it should. This article should never have gotten this way, much less been ruthlessly preserved like this just because no one is willing to bother reading either it or what I had to say.
To be fair, I read what you said. I just think that we should think about fixing the article, once it's possible to fixs the article. How does that earlier version that was provided a while ago look to you? LychosisT/C22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KP Botany sorry for speaking "for you". I did read the article, I've tried to make changes to it, but kept getting reverted. I read your post on this page about the article being a hoax ...crap. I 100% agree. That's what started this, then the image was added to make it worse, and things just went down hill from there. - JeenyTalk23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, looks to me like they were just referring to the fact that some people, (not necessarily themself) view the picture as a problem, and they were trying to call attention to the larger problem at hand. I could very well be wrong in my interpretation of their words, but that's what I got out of it. LychosisT/C23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to let others no that it is not myself and Jeeny alone who have expressed reservations about the photo.
Note: This is a note to let people know that those comments were regarding a completely different picture than the one that was added later. The one these comments refer to received support from one person, whereas the other had the support of four. Just so people aren't mislead. :3 LychosisT/C23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty obvious that the latest photo is bunk. It refers to australoids and bushmen as Negroids, This is confusing this article with the black people article. If these two words mean the same thing then this article should be merged into the black people article. Negroid is a different kettle of fish and it relates primarily to craniometry. Muntuwandi23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However: I was under the impression that we were discussing the new photo, not the old one. Which seems like it'd make those comments kinda irrelevant. Also, could you explain what you just said again? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Specifically, "This is confusing this article with the Black people article". LychosisT/C23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, old discussions are now past - there's a new photo that we're discussing. However, KP, first of all, I did respond to your thread a while ago, and the idea that you proposed was reintroduced by another user and more people responded there - that was when it was decided to switch to an older version, I imagine that will be done when the article is unprotected. Second of all, while you accuse us of only focusing on the iamge, how is that any worse than only focusing on deletion? --danielfolsom23:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new photo has bushmen and australoids. Please you cannot take one sentence from a german language dictionary and attach credibility to it when there have been mountains of studies in English.Muntuwandi23:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
the oxford dictionary defines black people as[reply]
relating to a human group having dark-coloured skin, especially of African or Australian Aboriginal ancestry. [21], Negroid is defined as
relating to the division of humankind represented by the indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa[22].
there is a clear distinction in that Negroid only refers to sub-saharan Africans whereas black refers to any dark skinned people including australians. So it is factually incorrect to state that australians are considered negroid. this photo you propose is cleary innaccurate and very poorly sourced and as such I question the continued motivations for its use. Muntuwandi00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you insisting on using it when I have provided several sources that provide a clear distinction. It seems to me, I could be wrong, that some editors want to use the photo regardless of whether it is factual or not. Muntuwandi00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go back to what I said earlier. It was suggested that you remove the offending parties from the image. Why not do so? Are you saying that if I removed the Australoids and bushmen from the image, it would be fine for use? LychosisT/C00:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is only one criticism of the photo, My main criticism is the intention of the person who sought it. He was so eager to find a picture that had a caption with negroid that he didn't even bother to do any research. I am not personally attacking anyone but this is the bad faith that I mean. You very well know where I stand and that is to use only impersonal photos, such as a photo of an average Negroid skull or a diagram of a skull. I will be happy with that, and there will be no trouble from me only peace. This is the compromise that I extend to you all. And if you are sincere you will atleast consider it. It is far much better to educate than to offend. Muntuwandi02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By what criteria is it the best. I can see it is from 1955. You know computers have been developed since. Skulls are now analysed using multivariate analysis. So I am sure we could find something more up to date. Muntuwandi23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I can see we have a couple of sources to get started:
[23]: Says that "[Negroid is] a presumed human "race" consisting mostly of sub-Saharan Africans. This classification is based on the discredited typological model. The term "Negroid" was derived from the Latin word for the color black.*
From this, we can draw the following conclusions:
Negroid is a racial classification of human beings, which consists of mostly sub-Saharan Africans.
Negroid is based on discredited science (the typological model).
Note here that "sub-Saharan Africans" is a consequence of the model, not a definition.
[24]: This source has very little to do with the term Negroid, and basically explains that racial typography is a loosely based method of characterizing human beings based on rough locales, and that it does not support the notion of "race".
Currently, the article does not clearly define what "negroid" is; instead, it starts attacking racial categorization based on skull type without ever explaining that "negroid" is based on the typological model. We have an article on this model in Wikipedia already, so we definitely need to link to it. We also need to mention the emergence of the typological classification "Negroid" and who was responsible for it — and what it entailed.
I think that a clear historical basis for explaining what negroid used to mean will give this article the foundation it requires, before we move on to criticism or modern uses. Can anyone suggest some sources to help with this? --Haemo00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry),it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity conclusions.
""Classification of skulls is often ambiguous. In anaylsis of human remains in the United States, skull shape is used to define race. Although race based on skull shape is unambiguous,"
So, which is it, "ambiguous" or "unambiguous?" Or is it both? Or is the reader just supposed to know.
are not extreme, confusing, or crappy, they're just misunderstood. Not to mention the fact that you have not read the sources, because if you had, you would know they don't say what is assigned to them in this article. I care that Wikipedia looks like a fool by maintaining crap like this, internally inconsistent, nonsense, that is only passed and kept because people haven't bothered to check the sources, or can't read them. And people get away with gaming Wikipedia and making Wikipedia look foolish, because other people won't bother to take the time to actually read what our text says. This article makes no sense. It's original research unrelated to the subject tied to unrelated modern research that doesn't say what this article claims.
This article is crap. And if you had read it, and read the sources, you would know that what I say is correct, and that it is very important to immediately remove crap of this nature from Wikipedia, rather than preserving it and the ignobility attached to it.
Just read it before you keep worrying about what I am saying. If you read it and the sources, you will not be pleased to have ignored my attempts to get this changed. KP Botany00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG! The article was read, and I know the sources did not match the statements made. Over and over I've argued this but the racist trolls were in a mob constantly using WP:SYN and WP:OR. But most have now been banned. But, the friggen article is LOCKED!!!! No one can change it! I've asked it to be unlocked in order to change the absurdities in the article, but even the admins don't care nor want to get involved. This sucks. Wikipedia is a big joke. And fuck you saying I nor others have not read the article and the sources. I have, and KNOW they don't match. Good riddance. Wimp out while sockpuppets create more and more nonsense on this project. Go on. I'm right behind you. - JeenyTalk00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we can resolve this issue, though, we can get it unlocked/fixed sooner. I read the article, I looked at the sources, and it should be changed, but how does that old version suggested... um... somewhere up there, look to you? Whatcha think of it? (Also, WP:DR? Is that maybe an idea?)LychosisT/C00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a dangerous precedent to establish on Wikipedia that hoaxes, phoney comments, and bogus articles get kept alongside what people are really trying to write as an encyclopedia. I'm off from watching this and discussing it. Not one of you has read the article or the resources. KP Botany00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's posted this three times already. It's borderline trolling. KP - you started sections on this - if you wish to discuss it stay in those sections - don't repeat the same thing multiple times--danielfolsom00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd question for late in the game, but I only came to the article after it was blocked. What is the purpose of the article? Is there any agreement on that? Bielle02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are not late in the game. The game has a long way to go before its over. In my opinion it should mainly be discussing the cranial features that are stereotypically called Negroid. The traits that would allow a forensic anthropologist try to attempt to determine the race of a skull. There may be a brief discussion on its etymology as well. Muntuwandi02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the article be limited to "cranial features" and etymology? I am not trying to stir up a fight here, but there is a lot more to the word than "cranial features" even if we limit the article to physical anthropology. Both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid artciles, for example, discuss skull charateristics, along with skin colour, hair texture, etc. If the information and POV of these other similar articles are accurate and neutral, why wouldn't this one just follow the pattern? (Mongoloid even deals with the negative aspects of the term in a short paragraph.) Bielle02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other characteristics can be discussed as well. However the concept was that not all black or dark skinned frizzy haired people were considered negroid. the Bushmen or Khoisan were not because the have facial flatness, Certain nilotics were considered "caucasoid" though they have dark skin and sometimes frizzy hair. This was the case in the hutu/tutsi conflict because the the belgians labeled the tutsis as caucasoid and they were stereotyped as having "caucasoid aquiline noses", and the hutus the broad noses characteristic of other sub-saharans. The term came to symbolize the features stereotypical of West Africans in the US, such as alveolar prognathism and dilocephalic heads. In general usage it can simply refer to sub-saharan africans without any distinction since the term is derived from the latin term niger for black. Muntuwandi02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Kagame a tutsi, with features some consider non negroid such as a narrower nose.
There seems to be a bit too much discussion on which species are not Negroid, and not enough on the Negroid species itself. Also, there are many other skeletal and body features unique to the Negroid other than mere Cranial classification, though it often is the first point of examination by a forensic anthropologist when determining race. --Common Sense Prevails10:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, species? And I thought we were all members of the subspecies H. Sapiens Sapiens. What do you mean by "Negroid species"?--Ramdrake10:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to discuss it objectively, without the more emotional 'people' factor. Perhaps 'species' gave an unintended effect. Subspecies or Infraspecies would be a more correct term? --Common Sense Prevails11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can classify lower also, Infrasubspecies is next down on the hierachy of Biological classification, but how tongue-tied need we get on the talkpage? Let's get on with the issues and leave the semantics for the trolls to squabble over --Common Sense Prevails11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, re: your comment, Ramdrake, that we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens, I treat that with a great deal of skepticism. It seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon that every human is grouped into the same subspecies. You only create subspecies when there is more than one subspecies to classify. If we are all infact the same, then it is not just unecessary to classify us into a subspecies, but redundant. It is my opinion that is was more a politically motivated move than a scientific one. Infact, I feel there is a quote that outlines what I am saying I shall find it --Common Sense Prevails11:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is. Darwin states that '..the varieties of mankind are so distinct that similar differences found in any other animal would warrant their classification in different species, if not different genera'. If one of the greatest scientific minds in history believed this, then it is surely only politics preventing a difference in classification, even at the subspecies level. --Common Sense Prevails11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question simply, all humans are grouped in a single subspecies on the basis of the amount of genetic variation between all humans. It is also considered a subspecies because other subspecies (such as Neanderthal) are also close enough to us genetically speaking that we also form a single species. Darwin was speaking of phenotypic variation when he said those words you quoted; today, phenotypic variation has much less weight than it used to have in delimiting species; in fact, the lines between many species have been recently reevaluated in the light of DNA evidence. Hope this answers your point. The choice of words has nothing to do with politices, but it has everything to do with modern biology.--Ramdrake13:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neanderthals were in the same genus, not species (Homo neanderthalis). There are other human subspecies other than sapiens that simply died out, like Homo sapiens idaltu. All living Homo sapiens belong to the same subspecies sapiens (hence H. sapiens sapiens), and socially constructed "races" do not delineate species at all. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Negroid is an academic term, used by many academics.[25] For instance: http://racialreality.110mb.com/racesofman.html If some self-offended Wikipedian has issues with this article's title, then that's too bad, but Wikipedia is not supposed to cater into objectionable protests. Stop edit-warring over this. This article, with the current title, is here to stay. And negroid is certainly not archaic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:04 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
:Agree completely. No-one ever has, or ever will call individuals Negroids, just as no-one calls people Caucasoids or Mongoloids. The terms for the individuals are Negro, Caucasian and Mongol, the first and latter being met with objection by some. Negroid is certainly not archaic, this is not only proven by its contemporary usage in the scientific field, but by the lack of those above whom object to its usage to provide its 'successor' or 'replacement' term. --Common Sense Prevails10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this article for a few days now without commenting, and the one thing that strikes me about the photo debate is that people seem to be conflating definitions. The definitions that supposedly accompany the picture to be included actually talk about the different aspects of "Black people", not necessarily "Negroid" people, as Muntuwandi and Jeeny have been trying to point out. If we push to accept these pictures as those of "Negroids", then we are in fact affirming that "Negroid" and "Black people" are in essence one and the same, in which case this should be turned into a redirect to the "Black people" article, and no more. If, on the other hand, we say that the terms aren't entirely synonymous, then Muntuwandi's and Jeeny's objections are indeed perfectly valid in the sense that the basic definition supplied with the picture either fails to make a difference between "Black" and "Negroid", or is from an author who thinks these are one and the same; in either case, it makes the picture inappropriate for the purpose of the article, not to mention the fact that it carries a highly stereotypical view of "Negroids": Razza negride silvestre; not sure if it properly translates as "wild black men" or "black men of the trees", but in any case it evidently carries a heavy stereotype that these people have no culture, possibly worse, that they might live in the forest (or "trees") like our simian ancestors might have, millions of years ago. I'd say this picture should be avoided solely on the basis of it being needlessly inflammatory.
Now, for KPBotany's comment, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly: this article makes no heads or tail, possibly because it got stretched between point and counter-point of racialist and anti-racist POVs (if this sounds familiar to some of you, well it should). All things considered, what I suggest might be the best thing to do for now is to rewrite the article completely from scratch (or nearly), or to AfD it with no prejudice against recreation, which might cause the very same problem to reappear.
However, for starters, it is only common sense that that picture should go; there are very few good reasons to keep it (curiosity being a weak reason), and many, many strong reasons not to keep it (the racist, stereotypical nature of the characterization of Blacks in the source is just one).--Ramdrake11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way I'm getting involved in the picture debate. However it needs to be made clear that Black People and Negroid are not at all synonymous. All sorts of 'colored' people may be called Black People, from Australian Aboriginals, Islanders, to the various types of colored person in Africa. However, only a select group is Negroid. --Common Sense Prevails11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That,s a common view, and I don't dispute it (in fact, I think it makes a lot of sense). However, based on this, one should reject the proposed picture. That's my point.--Ramdrake11:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you don't need to know German to see that the article refers to the people as "Negrid main race". Black is only mentioned because Negrid is referred to as the "black race", just as Caucasoid is referred to as the "white race". A couple of editors want to go to extreme lengths just to keep pictures out of the article, which isn't of some cherry picked modern day people. But that simply has nothing to do with this term. I give up, the POV is too immense. Funkynusayri14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's Paleonegrid' or something that basically translates as tree-dwelling black race doesn't change the fact that just the designation should sound all sorts of alarms on the racist aspects of this ancient classification. There is a legitimate, modern sense to the word "Negroid" in both forensic science and also in epidemiology (even though it's falling into disuse in epidemiology). Why don't we start off with a picture related with a current, legitimate use of the word (I'm thinking along the lines of a skull, much like MW's suggestion) rather than an illustration of a previous, obsolete and quite racist illustration of another meaning of the word?--Ramdrake14:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Do you even know which picture I referred to? We had a perfect picture with a source stating the people on it were Negroids, then Muntuwandi starts doubting my translation, even though he has every German Wikipedian to verify it. That's why the picture isn't already on the page, Muntuwandi will do anything to push his POV (that any old picture of Negroids is "racist). Same with Jeeny. Funkynusayri15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Razza negride silvestre" is not German! Sheesh, even the supposed "Native German" speaker doesn't realize this. Sneaky sneaky to use other languages to try to confuse people to push a POV. - JeenyTalk19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we start with something everybody agrees on:
Most of the usages of "Negroid" are obsolete and could be considered racist
However, "Negroid" is still used in a few places, such as in forensic science
Therefore, wouldn't it be better to start off the article with an illustration of one of the current, legitimate uses of "Negroid"?--Ramdrake15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the definition of Negroid has changed a lot and is not universal. One picture is not enough. But nice that a free image of the skulls can be found. What's the source? Funkynusayri15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, I vote for this one. Let's see what Muntuwandi and Jeeny can come up with now. They're getting creative with their objections. Funkynusayri16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get involved in this debate but the two skull images uploaded by MoritzB are copyright and there's no way that you can argue that the images are irreplaceable. I can't imagine that these will survive deletion. Pascal.Tesson17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images of equivalent osteological specimens have not been found. There is a consensus that such a picture is needed in the article. MoritzB17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a way around the copyrights, which I think is possible, I have no objection to the use of the skulls and the removal of the obsolete picture. Muntuwandi18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not "did I find free pictures of skulls that were as good as these?". The question is "can it reasonably be expected that such a free equivalent could be created?". I don't see how one might hope that it's impossible to create an image of a skull when such skulls are on display in countless places. Pascal.Tesson19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that Jeeny claimed I said the Italian picture was described in German, which is obviously a lie. Read the previous discussions before making false accusations, I clearly referred to another picture which was from a German book. Funkynusayri20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Negroid is not synonymous with any of the mentioned terms, and is very historically significant in itself. No. That this article might attract "xenophobic editors" is extremely irrelevant, I regularly edit the Arab article, and that might be the most frequently vandalised Wikipedia article of all, do you think we should delete it because of that? Funkynusayri20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, then why is there so little text. Apart from craniometry, there isn't much to write other than the definition. All other elements are found in other articles, such as the article on race. I favor a disambiguation page, but I don't mind an article simply because there is a caucasian and a mongoloid. Muntuwandi21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot, it has just been removed. Just check some of the earlier, more elaborate versions. It's almost as if it has been watered down just to justify a deletion. Funkynusayri21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation really helps in avoiding duplication of information, It simplifies all the work that most be done to this article by simply redirecting to the articles that have already given a more detailed analysis. Muntuwandi16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's collect all articles on Wikipedia into one single, huge article. Good idea. I advise you to look at the earlier revision I mentioned. It seems to have unique content. And no, don't just copy that content into another article, I know you're willing to do anything to get this page deleted after your desperate attempts yesterday. Funkynusayri16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article has a lot of inforamation that is not relevant to Negroid but that is relevant to other articles. As a topic there isn't much that is unique to Negroid that isn't found in other topics. Muntuwandi17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then add some. There is plenty of literature on the subject. You can't just cut an article down to nothing and then say "hey, there's nothing on here, let's delete it!" That's stupid. Unless you have a hidden agenda. If you really want to improve the article, read some Coon books and add something. Funkynusayri17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me yes the article would be deleted my agenda is not hidden at all, but that wouldn't work because someone would instantly recreate it. There are many other topics that discuss human variation more adequately, scientifically, objectively and in a less racialized manner. We could look at race, race and genetics, craniofacial anthropometry, physical anthropology, human anatomy, human skeleton and Recent single origin hypothesis. The only reason that some people want to keep this article because it is a proxy for the n word. Because the n word is taboo but many people would love to use it but can't, they view Negroid as the next best alternative to express their racialized fantasies. Surely Funkynusayri, you have no real interest in this article, you said it yourself. Looking at your contributions most of the topics you edit are quite unrelated to this subject. Muntuwandi17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always assume good faith, but after a few edits, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck...WP:DUCK. Even though we are online, it still just takes a few edits to know something about other editors, about their personality and their intent. Sometimes I have been said to fail to assume good faith, but I don't believe I have been mistaken yet. Muntuwandi17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully you see I say "some people" which could mean one or two or 10 people. Nowhere have I mentioned everyone. but yes there are editors who have racist intent on wikipedia just like in everyday life. And we just have to deal with them as we do in everyday life. Jimbo Wales the founder of wikipedia is against using wikipedia as a tool for spreading racism, that is why he blocked fourdee for racism, who incidentally is one of your supporters. So it is clear that yes there are some racists who have been on wikipedia before. Muntuwandi18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo Wales himself? Are you sure about that? Anyway, there is an actual Nigger article, I don't see you complaining about that. If that isn't deleted, there's no reason to delete this one, if the justification is that it is almost as bad as having the "Nigger" article. Why use this article as a "proxy for the N word", when that word already has its own page? Your logic is quite flawed, reeks of desperacy. Funkynusayri18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Funkynusayri, try not to turn this page into a shock site, if you do I will have to report you. This is the intent that I was talking about. Yes Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo [26]. So for others interested in continuing being a wikipedians, should take note that wikipedia is not stormfront, a place for xenophobic bashing. It is a resource for education and an encyclopedia. Muntuwandi18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop manipulating my messages from now on? That's pretty damn annoying. Anyhow, how can you object to me referring to an article here on Wikipedia with the name Nigger, while not complaining about the article itself? I don't see the logic at all. By the way I'll report you next time you change my messages on a talk page.
Next time I'll get you blocked. You've completely shattered your reputation numerous times on this very talk page. Good you have Jeeny to support you. Funkynusayri18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE STOP! This is a talk page to help better the article, to comment what is wrong with the article, not the subject and not a back and forth of personal agendas and threats. Please stop. - JeenyTalk18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I quote you, Jeeny, from this very page: "Moronitz, you are all over the place with your POV, OR, and logical contradiction with sources. You are a troll. I will not feed you after this." So please, don't accuse others when you're one of the worst offenders.
Anyway back to work, why should this article be deleted again? Because it is a "proxy for the n word", even though that word already has its very own article? I don't see the logic in that. At all. Have the "Nigger" article itself deleted first, then we can talk. The arguments on this talk page are getting more and more bizarre by the day, in tandem with the fact that Jeeny and Mutu are getting more and more desperate. Funkynusayri18:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There goes Jeeny's reputation too. That was Mutu's argument, for God's sake, not mine, hence the citation marks. Anyone who wants to have a proper discussion about this? Or is it only Mutu and Jeeny who want to ant-fuck the Negroid page into deletion?
Of course. But I find it odd that you ignore the far more serious profanities and accusations uttered by Mutu and Jeeny. "Moronitz"? Constantly calling other editors "trolls"? Laughable. Funkynusayri19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore it, It's just that you were the last one to do it. No one should use profanities needlessly or make accusations or resort to name calling. It doesn't help. Wikidudeman(talk)19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, when did others than Jeeny and Muntu agree on making a disambiguation page? Revert war is coming up, unless we have a vote. It is heavy POV that Negroid could mean just about anything, it had a specific metrical definition. Funkynusayri05:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only two people voted, and they were against. So let's discuss this further, or wait for more votes. Or maybe you don't care about votes, you certainly didn't care about the image vote. Funkynusayri06:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To start with KP botany was complaining that the material in the article did not reflect what was in the citations. So there is no need for a vote on that, material in the article must reflect what is in the citations. So I have provided some citations on that. I don't feel there is need to discuss issues that are already well laid out in other articles. Since this term is not in use there is tons of modern studies for anyone interested in race or human variation. Muntuwandi06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about a modern term, that's the point. There's no need for all this disclaimer crap if we state from the beginning that the term is obsolete. Then we can go on to cite outdated sources, if we really have an interest in expanding the article and explaining the term. If you want to merge, merge it with Congoid and expand from there. Those are really synonyms. Heh, already did, it seems, then merge with Africoid and make it a sub-section there. I'd agree with that. Funkynusayri06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just interested in citing outdated sources. Congoid used to be a separate article but was merged into this one. But not much difference, they are still archaic. Muntuwandi06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is outdated, then we have to use outdated sources to explain what it refers to. I'm baffled that you object to this. Anyhow, merge this article into the Africoid article, you have my blessing for that. The terms aren't exact synonyms, but almost, and you could just make a sub-section for this one. Funkynusayri06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well a discussion on why it is outdated is explained. Since race is clinally distributed and most variation occurs within a race, anthropologists could not agree what the true Negro race was. Sometimes it was West Africans, but carlton coon later placed senegalese into the caucasoid race. Sometimes bantu were considered Negroid, other times semi Negroid. Nilotics were considered caucasoid, sometimes hamitic Negroid. Simply because in each population there was considerable variation it was not possible to rubber stamp one race over everyone. Muntuwandi06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is; do you agree with my proposal? Africoid is a rather non-notable term already, and much of the article discusses the term Negroid, so we could fuse the two under the title "Negroid/Africoid". What do you say? It's win win. Funkynusayri11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is need for a merge, Africoid is a more recent term and has taken on newer meanings, since it sometimes includes non-africans. Muntuwandi16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a merge? You want this entire article deleted! Better merge the two to have it make more sense, much of the Africoid article discusses the term Negroid anyway. Either we merge or we have a normal Negroid page, no disambiguation. I don't know why you object to every damn proposal I make, am I "racist" for proposing this merger as well? Funkynusayri16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in opposition to any changes, as long as they are made in good faith. Even this could still be an article, the problem with an article is that it will attract vandals and content that is unencyclopedic, and this article could deteriorate in quality. I prefer redirecting to other articles that are harder to vandalize and less attractive to stereotypic and unencyclopedic edits. Muntuwandi16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is an extremely bad argument, I don't understand why other editors aren't stepping in. Controversial articles aren't simply merged, what the heck is that for a thinking pattern? Again, why don't you go and destroy the Nigger article instead of trying to disrupt a relatively sober article like this one? Funkynusayri16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in that article. Since wikipedia depends on consensus, it is up to what others think. I believe that people who are truly interested in race or human variation will have time to read the other articles that better describe these topics. This is more of a derogatory term used to describe what can be described scientifically and impersonally. for example if interested in skin color, you can read Human skin color. There is no point in overemphasizing that africans have dark skin in this article. Muntuwandi17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not what it should be about either, this should first discuss the origin of the term, the proper definition of the term, skeletal and so on, then it should discuss its use and significance, then there should be a section critical of it, and a section discussing alternative terms or similar. Your argument that it "attracts vandalism" is ridiculous, as this article is actually rarely vandalised compared to many articles, for example the Arab and Islam articles. But what do you care, your agenda is strictly connected to this specific term for some reason, rather than the greater good of this Wikipedia organisation.
there is a slight difference articles like Arab and Islam have a large following of dedicated editors. Vandalism to those articles probably lasts just a few seconds. Essentially each time you click on them, you will find a fairly decent article. Since it is an archaic term this article does not have such a following, editors can insert inappropriate material and it can last for days before anyone notices. My only interest here is to try to ensure that this article is not abused. Otherwise, it is of little value since it is just about terminology rather than anything scientifically concrete. Muntuwandi17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, why don't you complain about the Nigger article? You complained about me even mentioning the page, instead of complaining about the page itself. I don't get you at all.
There is nothing bizarre about that you are and were simply being gratuitous with the use of the word. Just as I said earlier, some people get a high on using such terms. Muntuwandi17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection may suggests to the reader that there is something contentious about an article that is otherwise OK. However, this suggests that the article is a worthless pile of garbage.
Of course, it's imaginable that, on the contrary, KPBotany is lying: that every source says what it's claimed to say, and that KPBotany has some evil "agenda" that involves falsification of sources.
We'll see, won't we. (Everyone head off to the library, please.) In the meantime, the "TotallyDisputed" tag that I have just now added seems amply justified. (If there were a PossiblyPileOfCrap tag, I'd have used that; but there isn't.) -- Hoary01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have nothing against KP Botany at all, just his tone. Alhough I too have a problem with "tone". I do not think he/she was lying at all. I had a problem with his accusations that none of us had read the article or sources, which is false. Not lying, just assumption, is all. - JeenyTalk01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No where in the web page cited does it say that negroid features include "rounded eye sockets," in fact, is says mongoloid features include "rounded eye orbits," and negroid features include, "square or rectangle eye orbits."
11. eye orbit shape
caucasoid: angular and sloping
negroid: square or rectangle
mongoloid: rounded and non-sloping
I don't really know what is going on here, but I think the totally disputed tag should remain until all resources are checked. It would help if people went through their resources and line by line copied and pasted the exact quote from the resource, so that I can merely go and click on the link and copy and paste what you say it says to a find window to locate it. I think that doing this might also show people that the article does not say what it says it says.
Also, when selecting information like this out of the context of a long line of information, some source justifying exactly why these particular features are selected should be included. The problem is not really the misquote (although this should not be in Wikipedia), but, again, the weight applied to selecting this feature out of others. Does the other article state that this is one of the most important features for identifying skulls? And does it say "rounded" eye sockets while this other source says "square?" This information should be included in the article.
The article still makes the mistake of highlighting the definition, so that it is prominent and could be the one thing people take from the article, without its disclaimer. The disclaimer carries strong weight in the way it is presented in the OED, and it should not be given greatly different weight on Wikipedia, as this constitutes OR. This article must not be presented in a way that gives false weight not given by the researchers, either in eye sockets or in a partial defintion that highlights one part and hides the other.
Thanks for pointing out the mistake about the eye sockets. But surely there isn't much in the article, so there isn't much to be disputed. If you have any concerns let us know. We can correct them right away. Muntuwandi19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the same carelessness that went into writing the old piece of crap are included in this article. I think that copying and pasting and asserting the reason for each source could help in creating a credible article. KP Botany19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it is carelessness, In this case the material in the article is from the sources. In the previous article it was hard enough to even find the word negroid in any of the citations. What should be copied and pasted?Muntuwandi19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit war with any of you about this. When I go to an article and every time I check a source it is incorrect, the burden is upon the editors to establish that they have corrected the issues. The article looked fine at a glance, but as soon as I started checking sources the same problems arose. Is it really too much to ask you, as an editor, to verify that you've actually checked the sources rather than having me check every single source and find it incorrectly referenced?
In addition there are now copyvio issues. These must be in quotation marks, and you have not established the relevancy of these particular features. KP Botany19:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kp Botany, your intentions are in good faith and will definitely help to improve the article, at the same time you are focussing very much on the technicalities, such as quotations and so on. Dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Ofcourse for a good article this would be necessary, but the most important issue is that we have an article that is backed by sources. Wikipedia is a corroborative effort, so if we can work together to clean up the article, that is fine with me. I do not have a rigid single view of what this article should be, my chief concern is that it should not be abused. Other than that, I won't dispute any edits made in good faith. Muntuwandi19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to move forward not backwards. Moritz is trying pushing a pov that the mongoloid caucasoid negroid model is still recognized by scientists. When in fact it is not. Muntuwandi23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On earlier versions. I'm not editing the article, I'm just monitoring it. There are a lot of people who already have vested interests in this article, too many. As long as a version is referenced, it doesn't matter to me. It's an archaic subject, but it's also very controvorsial, so every sentence must be supported, and it must be presented in a neutral point of view. Muntuwandi, the article is not backed by the sources, that is the problem I keep encountering, the major problem I keep bringing up. There are other issues, and I have no intention of letting this argue slide on any of them. As long as there are issues I will continue to bring them up. KP Botany23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that we need to recognize is that what has changed is only the terminology. The people who were referred to as Negroid are still in existence. So if anybody has an interest they should view the other pages that deal with the people who were referred to as Negroid. Muntuwandi23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the article says that this is not so, "While acknowledging the existence of human variation, anthropologists have abandoned the view that discrete racial entities exist, since there is considerable overlap in characteristics between the populations.[4]" That the people once identified as "negroid" are not a discrete racial entity. So, either this statement is another statement not backed by sources, or your assertion that the people referred to as "negroid" is original research.
One thing this source does say is, "So it's not that we're reading natural patterns of variation and simply extracting this idea from nature, but what we're doing is we're deciding that certain patterns of variation are less important that others, and certain patterns of variation are more important that others." So, if the article says things, supported by references, that are different from your personal assertions Muntuwandi, that means you are simply offering up your OR or your opinion. This article is about neither your research nor your opinion, so this issue should not be discussed on this talk page.
Note also that this article, with its description of "negroid" reduced to a handful of characteristics ("These feature include square or rectangular eye sockets, a broad nasal opening, more prominent alveolar prognathism and a dolichocephalic skull.[6][7]") from an article and referencing a sales brochure (please don't make me delete stuff like this anymore, sales brochures as references, simply don't use them), is doing precisely what this one source quotes as wrong with these past racial types and why they aren't used anymore, "it's not that we're reading natural patterns of variation and simply extracting this idea from nature, but what we're doing is we're deciding that certain patterns of variation are less (or) ... more important that others. Let's also simply not do this. If scientists studying these racial types decided that certain features were more important than others, quote them. But let's not wikiresearch the issue originally.
Quote your sources, and make sure they say what you claim, don't add your own original weight to the sources, and sales brochures are not verifiable references. KP Botany23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract for this article is available on line, the title, the abstract and the key words do not discuss the term "negroid" at all.[30] As you claim that this reference gives the information that "Though the term Negroid is still used in certain disciplines such as craniometry and epidemiology, its usage is in decline," please quote the exact line in the article or couple of lines that supports your reference. Also, you must elaborate a bit on this reference, since the title, abstract and key words are not about the term "negroid." In what context do the authors bring this term up, do they discuss also the history of the term "negroid" in their article and at what depth? If they reached conclusions about the history of the term, why do they not discuss these conclusions in the abstract? KP Botany00:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search shows that it says, "The racial classification Negroid is also no longer widely accepted. .... The term Negro/Negroid should be avoided in scientific writings because of its ...." This is not the same as "its usage is in decline" as one discusses the decline, the other admits to its already not being used. This article also appears to emphasize the same point that OED emphasizes, but that the Wikipedia article on negroid appeared to be specifically de-emphasizing, namely that the term is offensive and not in use and should be avoided. KP Botany01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article basically says this: on page 1016 that "The term Negro was widely used by White Europeans as a shortened form of the racial classification Negroid to describe people of Sub-Saharan African heritage. [...] Today it is universally considered inappropriate and derogatory, although it is still used in research reports. [...] The racial classification Negroid is also no longer widely accepted."
The article also urges to avoid using either Negro or Negroid. So, this article doesn't really back up the cited statement. That is, it doesn't:
Say that Negroid is still used; rather, than Negro is use.
Regardless, it never says in which disciplines.
It also does not that the usage is in decline; it advises against using it, and says it's offensive.
In short, the article says nothing to support the statement it "reference". This is clearly inference from the source. --Haemo01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a copy of the full article. This is what it says, "Considered inappropriate and derogatory. Abandon in scientific writings." under recommendations.
It also says, "The term Negro was widely used by White Europeans as a shortened form of the racial classification Negroid to describe people of sub-Saharan African heritage. Until the mid-20th century the term Negro was widely used for African Americans, but fell out of favour in the late 20th century. Today it is universally considered inappropriate and derogatory although it is used occasionally in some research reports.... The racial classification Negroid is also no longer widely accepted."
And, "The term Negro/Negroid should be avoided in scientific writings because of its association with racism and race science."
Nowhere in the article does it say "Though the term Negroid is still used in certain disciplines such as craniometry and epidemiology, its usage is in decline[4]."
In fact "craniometry" is not used in the article, and nowhere in the article does it say that "usage" of the term "negroid" is "in decline." And nowhere does it admit that the word is still used in epidemiology, but rather seems to be saying that it should not be used in scientific writings, and the classifications underlying "negroid" are also "no longer widely accepted." It says about "negroid" only what I have quoted here. Please confinse your use of this reference to what it actually says. KP Botany01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is still used in medical circles unfortunately. a google search confirms this[33]. There is no need to find a new source on craniometry since it is present in the Ancestry determination article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then source these journals and their usage and tie it in to the article. But don't say something the journal doesn't says, and this journal does not say its usage is in decline, the unsupported point in your statement that needed referenced. KP Botany01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Negro means the colour black in Spanish. The term Negro was widely used by White Europeans as a shortened form of the racial classification Negroid to describe people of sub-Saharan African heritage. Until the mid-20th century the term Negro was widely used for African Americans, but fell out of favour in the late 20th century. Today it is universally considered inappropriate and derogatory although it is used occasionally in some research reports.35 In its current use, the term is generally considered acceptable only when used by African origin people, in historical context, or in the name of organisations. The racial classification Negroid is also no longer widely accepted.
The problem is the journal gives some useful information on the history of racial classification, So it need not be removed if the statements are not one to one. There is nothing inconsistent between what is written and what is sourced. The article treats Negro and Negroid as the same word, since it says that Negro is a shortened form of Negroid. It says that it is still used occasionally in some research reports. But once again we are trying to dot the I's and cross the T's.
Most importantly is that Negroid is still used but scientists are advocating that it should not be used. Many scientists are taking heed. If you read most of the latest books on race you actually find that scientists avoid the term Negroid. So it is factual to say that it is still used occasionally but is in decline. Muntuwandi01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia Encyclopedia (2001-2005) definition of "Negroid
Muntuwandi claims that it is obsolete although it is not.
I added it to the article but M. undid this version:
In physical anthropology most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups that when racial classification is done on the basis of physiological traits like skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose,: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid. Some anthropologists have abandoned the view that discrete racial entities exist although the race concept is defended by others[1][2] For further information see Race and Race (historical definitions).
The Negroid race is characterized by brown to brown-black skin, usually a long head form, varying stature, and thick, everted lips. The hair is dark and coarse, usually kinky. The eyes are dark, the nose bridge low, and the nostrils broad. The peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia belong to the Negroid race.[3]
yes it would be ridiculous, if the text wasn't referencing materials from 1943. In any case it is a commercial site with copyvio issues. Muntuwandi18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was hasty when adding the information and didn't paraphrase it properly. The source is good and recent (2005 encyclopedia) so can you help to paraphrase it or shall we make it a direct quotation? MoritzB18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can. However, their article is poorly written and appears to be saying something different in the introduction. I would also want to review their sources, in particular if the latter sources say pretty much the same thing as the part you quoted, they would be usable in this article. However, some of the anthropology texts they use have been discredited in the later scientific literature, so finding which source they use would be useful. Before adding or paraphrasing it I would like to understand the reason for the discrepancies in their article, in other words. KP Botany18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing would be several sources, why pick one when pretty much every author had their own definitions? And I don't see why "outdated" sources should be excluded, when the subject of the article itself is an outdated term. Funkynusayri18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you're using it to describe the use of the term today. Obviously outdate sources for its historical context are just fine. But when you use outdated sources to describe its use today you run into problems. KP Botany18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that Muntuwandi already reverted my contribution. The article about "natural hair" is sociological, not anthropological. I doubt that the view of a FBI laboratory specialist would be appropriate there. So please don't revert again.MoritzB19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negroid is an adjective that can go with any noun. So we do not need to add every term that the word negroid was affixed to. There are already subjects that deal with individual traits. Negroid eyes, Negroid skin, Negroid height, etc. Muntuwandi18:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is a "negroid computer" or a "negroid car" but all information about various "Negroid" anthropological attributes definitely belong to this article.
No they do not. The term negroid should be on its way out. Unfortunately the folks at the FBI may have been hired by j edgar hoover so they don't know that the term is obsolete. The other article recommends that the term should not be used. Anyway the article mentions African. Muntuwandi20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Negroids.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=155477745){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ANegroids.JPG&diff=7365759&oldid=7365511){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Negroids.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=155483503){kind=link}
