This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Negroid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Negroid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Negroid at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
Who keeps adding these racial maps to wikipedia? They seem inaccurate and are very hard to confirm. Also, people keep confusing negroid with congoid. Congoid and capoid are subdivisions within the category "negroid" Bluescientist ( talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"racial maps" obviously can never be more reliable than the concept of "race" itself, which is shaky and fluid to say the least. All these maps can only ever be used to illustrate historic opinion of a given author, not "truth". -- dab (𒁳) 18:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Negroid to Negroid race To fall in line with the other race articles:
-- Hayden4258 ( talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The searches "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" redirect to the articles "Mongoloid Race" and "Caucasian Race", respectively. These and other comparable articles should probably be more standard. Most articles in the series are formatted like Mongoloid, i.e., "-oid Race", so that would be a simple solution. Also, that format seems to be the most consistent with historical use of the terms, the essential idea of the articles. I am not sure what has been said on this topic in the past, but I cannot see anything wrong with adding "Race" to the end of this article's title. On the other hand, people seem to care more about "Caucasian Race" in its discussion; maybe "Caucasoid Race" could be created with some of that page's material to be more in line with "Negroid (Race)" and "Mongoloid Race" while a less similarly entitled article on Caucasians could contain the rest. Really, the terms "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", and "Negroid" seem to actually be the most standard and colloquial, but the addition of "Race" helps to clarify that more than just an analysis of the words themselves, but also the historical concepts behind them is included within the articles. DearthOfMateriel 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The "modern" terms listed on the template at the bottom of the article-- Black people, White people, and Asian people are just the same three terms, Negroid race, Caucasian race, and Mongoloid race under different names. So it is just different terminology for the same concept. Keraunos ( talk) 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding a paragraph where he cites a study by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza as indicating that a) North Africans and populations from the Horn area are Hamitic, and b) the Hamitic race was considered Caucasian but is now deemed Negroid:
The Hamitic race (regarded as being all those native speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages who were not Semitic) in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century was usually included up to the 1950s as a subrace of the Caucasian race (by white people; African Americans had always regarded the "Hamitic race" as part of their heritage), but by the 1960s (largely in response to the black power movement—the Ancient Egyptians were universally regarded as being part of the "Hamitic race" , and black people wanted everyone to recognize their claim of the Ancient Egyptians as part of their heritage) the "Hamitic race" became regarded as being a subrace of the Negroid race--which was itself renamed in the 1960s by black people as the Black African race. According to Cavalli-Sforza, these "individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa" (although he does not use the term "Hamitic", the groups he lists in the text as being closest to each other genetically ( Tuareg, Beja, Tigri, Amhara, Cushitic, etc. -ref- Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza Alberto The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton, New Jersey: 1994 Princeton University Press Page 172—Table 3.6.1 Genetic Tree of Major Populations of Africa -/ref-) are roughly synonomous with the ethnic groups that used to be referred to as “Hamitic”), are genetically 60% sub-Saharan African and 40% Caucasian. -ref- Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza Alberto The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton, New Jersey: 1994 Princeton University Press Page 174-/ref-
The study, however, does not mention Hamites, and clearly indicates that the North African and Horn populations are distinct from Sub-Saharan populations (no mention of any "Negroid race"). Here's what the study does actually conclude on the same page 174 that is footnoted above:
"In summary, the information available on individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa is fairly limited but sufficient to show that they are all separate from sub-Saharan Africans and that North Africans and East Africans (Ethiopian and neighbors) are also clearly separate."
I have therefore removed the paragraph since it is clearly original research. Soupforone ( talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
People when I studied in high school, in the biological textbook were counted Europeoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid races. If the term is obsolete in your country due to polit-correctness, please do not expand these feeling on other countries.-- MathFacts ( talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again it seems that if you don't agree with a certain viewpoint on controversial subject such as this, its automatically labeled "PC". Do people even know what that term means anymore? Anyway, craniometrics (especially the works of Coon) is not considered particularly valid in modern science. I rarely, if ever see terms like "Caucasoid", "Negroid", etc used outside the realm of online armchair anthropology and such in a modern context. Usually terms such as "West Eurasian" or "Sub-saharan African" are used more frequently. The point here is that this topic is strongly associated with 19th century and early 20th century anthropology, and really does not reflect a modern view.
AlecTrevelyan402( Click Here to leave a message)
IF ALL RACES OF HOMO SAPIENS HAVE EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTRAL STOCK HOMO ERACTUS THEN DIFFERENT RACES VIZ CAUCASOID, MONGOLOID, DRAVIDIAN AND NEGROID WHY BECAME HAVING DIFFERENT COLOR AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.140.167 ( talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Negrid types.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
A "new" account added non-consensus, personal commentary on the supposed distinction between "Negroid" and "Congoid", which Stephen Molnar does not make. Additionally, the user tried to append a note on the Khoisan by the late racialist psychologist J. Phillipe Rushton, who is not an authority on human biology. There was also some strange offtopic edit summary remark on Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. Soupforone ( talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Andajara120000 was recently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Soupforone ( talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The most important thing today it is considered a racist offensive term. That some how got skipped from the lead. -- Inayity ( talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I find this whole Nilote skull thing quite puzzling. In pretty much every major cranial study, Nilotic populations (as in Nilo-Saharan speakers) have clustered with populations with general "Negroid" skull patterns; it's not just a few unrepresentative samples. This is what is meant by they generally possess the suite of Negroid physical characteristics. For example, in Barry J. Kemp's 2006 study [6] [7]. Soupforone ( talk) 01:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
DuBois was not a trained anthropologist, but rather a pioneering Afrocentrist who claimed all and sundry. Regardless, Carleton Coon and pretty much all of the other actual major anthropologists indeed grouped Nilotes as "Negroid" because that is where their general physiognomies fell - particularly their osteology, which was regarded as the surest indication of ultimate origin. Anyway, per the above, I've replaced it with Ashley Montagu, though the Sharma compendium is certainly good enough [8]. Soupforone ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Are Khoisans Negroid or not? I know that (technically) their skull is different from a 'textbook' proper Negroid skull, so how would a forensic anthropologist classify their skull? Negroid? Just Khoisan? SweetDayfortheMind ( talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources I see mainly mention Coon in relationship to this terminology. [9] [10] and there are very few hits on both words, not all anthropological. [11]. I don't think we should be suggesting that this is a normal synonym. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"the Out of Africa theory,[19] i.e. that all human beings are descended from small bands of people that migrated out of Africa beginning 125,000 to 60,000 years ago" Sorry, doesn't this ignore that others' ancestors stayed in Africa and are still human beings? Proposed correction: "(...) all humans outside of Africa are descended (...)" Lastdingo ( talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate critical review of and improvement on my edits. But if you revert an edit with a summary like first link doesn't mention negroid & second doesn't mention these types while removing references to published literature which contains exactly what the footnote claimed it contained, I have to assume you are being over-zealous. You aren't even applying "isolated demands for rigour" for referenced statements you do not like, you are applying "fake rigour" in claiming something referenced is not in fact referenced. Please restore the referenced material you have blanked in this way.
It is beyond doubt that "Africoid" has been used as a synonym for "Negroid" from the 1970s. You may argue that the term isn't notable enough for the lead, which would be fine, but you cannot claim its existence hasn't been established. Otoh, the term "Black race" as synonymous with "Negroid race" is extremely widespread and extremely notable, to the point where it may even be the WP:UCN primary name for the topic. I have no idea how you can argue it isn't notable enough to be mentioned prominently in the lead. -- dab (𒁳) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
To answer your question, the first link does not mention Negroid as a synonym for Africoid. The author just mentions a Charles H. Davis, Jr.'s suggestion, ca. 1962, that Africoid should be used instead of Negroid rather than that Africoid is used as a synonym for Negroid [13]. The second link mentions Africoid and Black but not Negroid [14]. Homfet ( talk) 12:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I detected bias against whites in the article Caucasian Race. Whereas in the articles about the mongoloid race, the negroid race and the australoid race the words "IS A GROUPING OF HUMANS", in the article about the caucasian race "IS" is substituted by "was": "was a grouping of humans". I tried to fix it but I think my edit was not approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castillo2030 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please put sources on "Negroid" being a racist term or remove the detail from the article. Not sourced, it has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. -- Luka1184 ( talk) 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That sidebar is a useful collection of links, but it does look somewhat awkward where it is placed right now - hanging out parallel to the references on desktop view. Wouldn't it be more sensible to rearrange the imagery so that it's further up? Note, that would definitely involve more sandwiching - can't have this ratio of text to image (or box) and keep it all on one side... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Could people please stop trying to "modernize" or "update" or "simplify" the links in the caption to the post-Pleistocene distribution map according to Carleton Coon? The entire point of this caption is that it should represent the denominations assigned by its author; changing entries to read what the modern anthropological assessment would be is a misrepresentation. At the same time, it is desireable that entries are wikilinked to the modern terms, so that each term's history and meaning (as opposed to the actual written term) can be explored by the reader. Please don't rewrite the terms or remove the links because of perceived redundancy. Or if you feel very strongly about it, discuss the matter here. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated? The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.-- Liltender ( talk) 17:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Police also use autosomal DNA, where they can reconstruct the ethnic background.-- Liltender ( talk) 06:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Meyers map based on some imagined linguistical fantasy. For Example, Hungarians the genetically and anthropologically most caucasian people in former communist-block countries are depicted as mongoloids, however the genetically bit less European (more mongoloid) Slavic populations and the genetically and anthropologically more near eastern balkanite people are depicted as Europeans.-- Liltender ( talk) 06:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Once again, @ Liltender: I don't know of any recent scientific source for your statement. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/04/ancestry-warrant-dna-records/
Even in 2007, Police could check the race of the person. Read about it here: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/
Or read this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X19300873
"Forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) technology represents a set of techniques that aim to predict physical features of criminal suspects, such as eye, skin and hair colour, and also ethnicity through the inference of biogeographic ancestry from their biological samples. "
So not only the race, but even the concrete facial features are reconstructable from genetics!!!
-- Liltender ( talk) 09:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Why haven't you read my links?-- Liltender ( talk) 10:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Autosomal genetics, and negroids: Good reading: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+negroid&btnG= Autosomal Genetics and Mongoloids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+mongoloid&btnG= Autosomal genetics and Australoids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+australoid&btnG= .. -- Liltender ( talk) 05:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I proved that population geneticist scientists still use Negroid Australoid and Mongoloid as valid terms. The denial of the existence of such human groups came from powerful politically motivated unscientific pressure groups in news magazines and media. They don't care about science, they care only about political ideologies only.-- Liltender ( talk) 07:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Elmidae: The problems with the section that I see were: "It is a ubiquitous trait among Negroid populations". That sentence clearly assumes that those populations exist. The first sentence was a description of hair of people that are living now, in 2020, based on a book of 1899. The map is a modern map which has nothing to do with an outdated concept. It might be included, if some context were given. So, what I did now, was to change the section to a wording that is safely based on the two sources and to remove the map. I'd still like to delete the section, because I think that these small parts of information have no value without more context. What do you think ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Seguro64: I already warned you on your talk page: Repeatedly changing the article if you see that other editors disagree constitutes edit warring. I cited Oxford Dictionary of English (2010, 3rd ed.). You answered with dictionaries that you thought don't address the problem. That's a strange way of discussing, but additionally you were wrong. Cambridge dictionary says that the use of "man" in the sense of "human being" is "literary or old-fashioned" (see the entry on "man"). Many editors see the generic use of "man" / "mankind" as sexist. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Negroid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Negroid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Negroid at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
Who keeps adding these racial maps to wikipedia? They seem inaccurate and are very hard to confirm. Also, people keep confusing negroid with congoid. Congoid and capoid are subdivisions within the category "negroid" Bluescientist ( talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"racial maps" obviously can never be more reliable than the concept of "race" itself, which is shaky and fluid to say the least. All these maps can only ever be used to illustrate historic opinion of a given author, not "truth". -- dab (𒁳) 18:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Negroid to Negroid race To fall in line with the other race articles:
-- Hayden4258 ( talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The searches "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" redirect to the articles "Mongoloid Race" and "Caucasian Race", respectively. These and other comparable articles should probably be more standard. Most articles in the series are formatted like Mongoloid, i.e., "-oid Race", so that would be a simple solution. Also, that format seems to be the most consistent with historical use of the terms, the essential idea of the articles. I am not sure what has been said on this topic in the past, but I cannot see anything wrong with adding "Race" to the end of this article's title. On the other hand, people seem to care more about "Caucasian Race" in its discussion; maybe "Caucasoid Race" could be created with some of that page's material to be more in line with "Negroid (Race)" and "Mongoloid Race" while a less similarly entitled article on Caucasians could contain the rest. Really, the terms "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", and "Negroid" seem to actually be the most standard and colloquial, but the addition of "Race" helps to clarify that more than just an analysis of the words themselves, but also the historical concepts behind them is included within the articles. DearthOfMateriel 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The "modern" terms listed on the template at the bottom of the article-- Black people, White people, and Asian people are just the same three terms, Negroid race, Caucasian race, and Mongoloid race under different names. So it is just different terminology for the same concept. Keraunos ( talk) 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding a paragraph where he cites a study by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza as indicating that a) North Africans and populations from the Horn area are Hamitic, and b) the Hamitic race was considered Caucasian but is now deemed Negroid:
The Hamitic race (regarded as being all those native speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages who were not Semitic) in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century was usually included up to the 1950s as a subrace of the Caucasian race (by white people; African Americans had always regarded the "Hamitic race" as part of their heritage), but by the 1960s (largely in response to the black power movement—the Ancient Egyptians were universally regarded as being part of the "Hamitic race" , and black people wanted everyone to recognize their claim of the Ancient Egyptians as part of their heritage) the "Hamitic race" became regarded as being a subrace of the Negroid race--which was itself renamed in the 1960s by black people as the Black African race. According to Cavalli-Sforza, these "individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa" (although he does not use the term "Hamitic", the groups he lists in the text as being closest to each other genetically ( Tuareg, Beja, Tigri, Amhara, Cushitic, etc. -ref- Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza Alberto The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton, New Jersey: 1994 Princeton University Press Page 172—Table 3.6.1 Genetic Tree of Major Populations of Africa -/ref-) are roughly synonomous with the ethnic groups that used to be referred to as “Hamitic”), are genetically 60% sub-Saharan African and 40% Caucasian. -ref- Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza Alberto The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton, New Jersey: 1994 Princeton University Press Page 174-/ref-
The study, however, does not mention Hamites, and clearly indicates that the North African and Horn populations are distinct from Sub-Saharan populations (no mention of any "Negroid race"). Here's what the study does actually conclude on the same page 174 that is footnoted above:
"In summary, the information available on individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa is fairly limited but sufficient to show that they are all separate from sub-Saharan Africans and that North Africans and East Africans (Ethiopian and neighbors) are also clearly separate."
I have therefore removed the paragraph since it is clearly original research. Soupforone ( talk) 13:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
People when I studied in high school, in the biological textbook were counted Europeoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid races. If the term is obsolete in your country due to polit-correctness, please do not expand these feeling on other countries.-- MathFacts ( talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again it seems that if you don't agree with a certain viewpoint on controversial subject such as this, its automatically labeled "PC". Do people even know what that term means anymore? Anyway, craniometrics (especially the works of Coon) is not considered particularly valid in modern science. I rarely, if ever see terms like "Caucasoid", "Negroid", etc used outside the realm of online armchair anthropology and such in a modern context. Usually terms such as "West Eurasian" or "Sub-saharan African" are used more frequently. The point here is that this topic is strongly associated with 19th century and early 20th century anthropology, and really does not reflect a modern view.
AlecTrevelyan402( Click Here to leave a message)
IF ALL RACES OF HOMO SAPIENS HAVE EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTRAL STOCK HOMO ERACTUS THEN DIFFERENT RACES VIZ CAUCASOID, MONGOLOID, DRAVIDIAN AND NEGROID WHY BECAME HAVING DIFFERENT COLOR AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.140.167 ( talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Negrid types.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
A "new" account added non-consensus, personal commentary on the supposed distinction between "Negroid" and "Congoid", which Stephen Molnar does not make. Additionally, the user tried to append a note on the Khoisan by the late racialist psychologist J. Phillipe Rushton, who is not an authority on human biology. There was also some strange offtopic edit summary remark on Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. Soupforone ( talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Andajara120000 was recently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Soupforone ( talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The most important thing today it is considered a racist offensive term. That some how got skipped from the lead. -- Inayity ( talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I find this whole Nilote skull thing quite puzzling. In pretty much every major cranial study, Nilotic populations (as in Nilo-Saharan speakers) have clustered with populations with general "Negroid" skull patterns; it's not just a few unrepresentative samples. This is what is meant by they generally possess the suite of Negroid physical characteristics. For example, in Barry J. Kemp's 2006 study [6] [7]. Soupforone ( talk) 01:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
DuBois was not a trained anthropologist, but rather a pioneering Afrocentrist who claimed all and sundry. Regardless, Carleton Coon and pretty much all of the other actual major anthropologists indeed grouped Nilotes as "Negroid" because that is where their general physiognomies fell - particularly their osteology, which was regarded as the surest indication of ultimate origin. Anyway, per the above, I've replaced it with Ashley Montagu, though the Sharma compendium is certainly good enough [8]. Soupforone ( talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Are Khoisans Negroid or not? I know that (technically) their skull is different from a 'textbook' proper Negroid skull, so how would a forensic anthropologist classify their skull? Negroid? Just Khoisan? SweetDayfortheMind ( talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources I see mainly mention Coon in relationship to this terminology. [9] [10] and there are very few hits on both words, not all anthropological. [11]. I don't think we should be suggesting that this is a normal synonym. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"the Out of Africa theory,[19] i.e. that all human beings are descended from small bands of people that migrated out of Africa beginning 125,000 to 60,000 years ago" Sorry, doesn't this ignore that others' ancestors stayed in Africa and are still human beings? Proposed correction: "(...) all humans outside of Africa are descended (...)" Lastdingo ( talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate critical review of and improvement on my edits. But if you revert an edit with a summary like first link doesn't mention negroid & second doesn't mention these types while removing references to published literature which contains exactly what the footnote claimed it contained, I have to assume you are being over-zealous. You aren't even applying "isolated demands for rigour" for referenced statements you do not like, you are applying "fake rigour" in claiming something referenced is not in fact referenced. Please restore the referenced material you have blanked in this way.
It is beyond doubt that "Africoid" has been used as a synonym for "Negroid" from the 1970s. You may argue that the term isn't notable enough for the lead, which would be fine, but you cannot claim its existence hasn't been established. Otoh, the term "Black race" as synonymous with "Negroid race" is extremely widespread and extremely notable, to the point where it may even be the WP:UCN primary name for the topic. I have no idea how you can argue it isn't notable enough to be mentioned prominently in the lead. -- dab (𒁳) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
To answer your question, the first link does not mention Negroid as a synonym for Africoid. The author just mentions a Charles H. Davis, Jr.'s suggestion, ca. 1962, that Africoid should be used instead of Negroid rather than that Africoid is used as a synonym for Negroid [13]. The second link mentions Africoid and Black but not Negroid [14]. Homfet ( talk) 12:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I detected bias against whites in the article Caucasian Race. Whereas in the articles about the mongoloid race, the negroid race and the australoid race the words "IS A GROUPING OF HUMANS", in the article about the caucasian race "IS" is substituted by "was": "was a grouping of humans". I tried to fix it but I think my edit was not approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castillo2030 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please put sources on "Negroid" being a racist term or remove the detail from the article. Not sourced, it has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. -- Luka1184 ( talk) 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That sidebar is a useful collection of links, but it does look somewhat awkward where it is placed right now - hanging out parallel to the references on desktop view. Wouldn't it be more sensible to rearrange the imagery so that it's further up? Note, that would definitely involve more sandwiching - can't have this ratio of text to image (or box) and keep it all on one side... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Could people please stop trying to "modernize" or "update" or "simplify" the links in the caption to the post-Pleistocene distribution map according to Carleton Coon? The entire point of this caption is that it should represent the denominations assigned by its author; changing entries to read what the modern anthropological assessment would be is a misrepresentation. At the same time, it is desireable that entries are wikilinked to the modern terms, so that each term's history and meaning (as opposed to the actual written term) can be explored by the reader. Please don't rewrite the terms or remove the links because of perceived redundancy. Or if you feel very strongly about it, discuss the matter here. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated? The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.-- Liltender ( talk) 17:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Police also use autosomal DNA, where they can reconstruct the ethnic background.-- Liltender ( talk) 06:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Meyers map based on some imagined linguistical fantasy. For Example, Hungarians the genetically and anthropologically most caucasian people in former communist-block countries are depicted as mongoloids, however the genetically bit less European (more mongoloid) Slavic populations and the genetically and anthropologically more near eastern balkanite people are depicted as Europeans.-- Liltender ( talk) 06:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Once again, @ Liltender: I don't know of any recent scientific source for your statement. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/04/ancestry-warrant-dna-records/
Even in 2007, Police could check the race of the person. Read about it here: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/
Or read this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X19300873
"Forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) technology represents a set of techniques that aim to predict physical features of criminal suspects, such as eye, skin and hair colour, and also ethnicity through the inference of biogeographic ancestry from their biological samples. "
So not only the race, but even the concrete facial features are reconstructable from genetics!!!
-- Liltender ( talk) 09:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Why haven't you read my links?-- Liltender ( talk) 10:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Autosomal genetics, and negroids: Good reading: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+negroid&btnG= Autosomal Genetics and Mongoloids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+mongoloid&btnG= Autosomal genetics and Australoids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+australoid&btnG= .. -- Liltender ( talk) 05:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I proved that population geneticist scientists still use Negroid Australoid and Mongoloid as valid terms. The denial of the existence of such human groups came from powerful politically motivated unscientific pressure groups in news magazines and media. They don't care about science, they care only about political ideologies only.-- Liltender ( talk) 07:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Elmidae: The problems with the section that I see were: "It is a ubiquitous trait among Negroid populations". That sentence clearly assumes that those populations exist. The first sentence was a description of hair of people that are living now, in 2020, based on a book of 1899. The map is a modern map which has nothing to do with an outdated concept. It might be included, if some context were given. So, what I did now, was to change the section to a wording that is safely based on the two sources and to remove the map. I'd still like to delete the section, because I think that these small parts of information have no value without more context. What do you think ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Seguro64: I already warned you on your talk page: Repeatedly changing the article if you see that other editors disagree constitutes edit warring. I cited Oxford Dictionary of English (2010, 3rd ed.). You answered with dictionaries that you thought don't address the problem. That's a strange way of discussing, but additionally you were wrong. Cambridge dictionary says that the use of "man" in the sense of "human being" is "literary or old-fashioned" (see the entry on "man"). Many editors see the generic use of "man" / "mankind" as sexist. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)