Talk:Negroid/Archive 4

message: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work/1-0040"
"THE HUMAN POPULATION OF AFRICA 
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. Funkynusayri 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Muntuwandi 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is your point of view. Do not compare the Caucasoid with this one, as other things exist. So what. - Jeeny Talk 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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). 
*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.Funkynusayri 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Muntuwandi 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  There are pictures on the black people article. Muntuwandi 13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 --Phral 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  talk 06:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I didn't call you a racist. I said the image is and you shouldn't have started an editwar to protect it.-- Stan  talk 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  talk 11:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for picture (again) 

message: 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 Botany 17:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See meta:The Wrong Version. Also, please place editprotected requests near the actual request or it makes it very difficult to figure out what's being requested. --MZMcBride 20:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Botany 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immediate edit requested

message: 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.Muntuwandi 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some context on MoritzB  Muntuwandi 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your agenda is clear to dig up stereotypical photos. In fact you are enjoying the fact that you have managed to enrage other editors. Muntuwandi 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  You enjoy causing offence. This is against the spirit of wikipedia. Muntuwandi 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does German have to do with this image? I can understand German too. I do not see the connection. - Jeeny Talk 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. - Jeeny Talk 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist photos

message: I support the current picture. Others are not appropriate.MoritzB 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Current Picture

message: No, wait.  Everyone should be happy with this one.  :3 Lychosis T/C 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support [[:Image:Negroids.JPG]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --MZMcBride 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: protection

message: 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. MoritzB 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discussion above--danielfolsom 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). --tjstrf talk 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.MoritzB 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--danielfolsom 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. MoritzB 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. - Jeeny Talk 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.MoritzB 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's the native German? Moronitz? - Jeeny Talk 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *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. --tjstrf talk 21:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have nothing personal against Germans. Some of my best friends are German. Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Muntuwandi 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: where is the link to the article. Muntuwandi 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Muntuwandi 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntuwandi - WP:AGF - don't ask someone if they're "really interested in this article". If there is a link in the book then it's fine--danielfolsom 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: For the last time - consensus has been established - Muntuwandi you can't over ride 4 people by yourself.--danielfolsom 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 . Muntuwandi 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is NO consensus! Sheesh. This is trolling. - Jeeny Talk 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let funky keep thinking that. It's working. Keep up the good work. lol. - Jeeny Talk 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Did KP Botany even mention the photo? Even once? I can't quite remember that happening, though I could be wrong. Lychosis T/C 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He said the whole article is foolish. And we're agruing over a photo, which is foolish. - Jeeny Talk 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that their whole issue was with the text.  Did they comment on the photo at all? Lychosis T/C 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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? Lychosis T/C 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Lychosis T/C 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, looking at that image added below, that chart thing, that German definition seems kinda acceptable... Lychosis T/C 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.  Lychosis T/C 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The text

message: "Negroid" is an anthropological concept and it is appropriate that we don't neglect to give a better typological definition to it. thumb|1000px|MoritzB 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this article about a "historical" racial concept? MoritzB 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Negroid is still used being used. Muntuwandi 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and this is the best definition for the concept. If you disagree cite studies. MoritzB 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Muntuwandi 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite studies. Craniometry is only one aspect of this. MoritzB 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical anthropology

message: So far, I can see we have a couple of sources to get started:
:: 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.
:: 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? --Haemo 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the article about the typological model on Wikipedia? MoritzB 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typology (anthropology).  --Haemo 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a stub though. MoritzB 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, but we can still link to it.  --Haemo 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggestions

message: Yes, and of course, articles that say:
""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 Botany 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - Jeeny Talk 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an admin had looked at the lock of this article, and shortened it by... I think it's four days.  Lychosis T/C 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Ok, does that mean it's not unlocked? It's still locked! - Jeeny Talk 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?)Lychosis T/C 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as bad. It need a total re-write. - Jeeny Talk 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremism 

message: 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 Botany 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HEY.  YOU.  Look upwards, we have already suggested rolling it back.  Did you take a look at that one? Lychosis T/C 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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--danielfolsom 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the article 

message: 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? Bielle 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Muntuwandi 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.) Bielle 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Muntuwandi 02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Prevails 10:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, species? And I thought we were all members of the subspecies H. Sapiens Sapiens. What do you mean by "Negroid species"?--Ramdrake 10:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Prevails 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Prevails 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.--Ramdrake 13:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 • Ethiopia 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: The term Negroid is an academic term, used by many academics. 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 Prevails 10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negroid is an acceptable term

message: Another possible solution is simply to create this article into a disambiguation page with the following
* Definition of the term as found in a dictionary
* Link to Craniofacial anthropometry
* link to historical Race (historical definitions)
* link to Black people
* link to Negro
In that way everything is covered and the article will become less attractive to editors with xenophobic views. Muntuwandi 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Links can be at the end of this article. MoritzB 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose. That's a cowards way out of creating an article. --Common Sense Prevails 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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? Funkynusayri 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Muntuwandi 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you point to a specific revision so that we can all look and comment on the same material?--Ramdrake 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Earlier disambiguation page Muntuwandi 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  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. Muntuwandi 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  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.  Muntuwandi 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Muntuwandi 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  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. Muntuwandi 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: They are two different subjects. Now stop being a troll - Jeeny Talk 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funkynusayri, You should probably stop the profanity and accusations. They won't help resolve any dispute. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: That's the spirit! Soldier on Funky. Ignore those accusations of trolling, they fail to recognise your prestige as an edit warrior :P    Cygnis insignis 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's look at what Wikipedia is not, Although, please read acquiring consensus. - Jeeny Talk 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.  Muntuwandi 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carleton Coon didn't place the Senegalese to the Caucasoid race. MoritzB 11:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  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. Muntuwandi 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  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. Muntuwandi 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguations page

message: 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.) -- Hoary 01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - Jeeny Talk 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Totally disputed"