Talk:Races of craniofacial anthropology

message: Why is this constantly readded to the article?  Its a religious cite, not a scientific one.  Do we need an RfC? -Psychohistorian 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologetics Press is not a reliable source

message: Negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid are based on all kinds of characteristics, not just the shape of the skull and face. In fact the term Negroid was meant to refer to the black skin of sub-Saharan Africans. And now the terms are commonly used in genetic research and are being validated by more and more studies all the time. So making the title so narrow is misleading and shows a poor understanding of where these terms actually originated.  I think someone's just trying to discredit the concept of race as based on nothing more than skulls.   Gottoupload 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the redirect because it was done incorrectly.  It didn't actually redirect it just sort of went to a dead link which had no content.
I *think* the majority of people here have no problem with changing the title to "Races of Man" (though calling it "Races of Anthropology" is a mistake as mainstream Anthropology has proven that race doesn't exist).  But if that is done, it needs to be done correctly (mechanically speaking).-Psychohistorian 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainstream anthropologists have not proven that race does not exist.  Races very obviously exist, it's just not politically correct to say so.  Besides what do anthropologists know about genetics? Timelist 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, according to the AAA, mainstream anthropology has proven that race does not have a biological basis - this remains true despite your unsourced claims to the contrary. -Psychohistorian 11:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the AAA is not a credible authority when it comes to genetics.  They are experts on skulls, and cultures, but not genetics. Timelist 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Races very obviously exist, it's just not politically correct to say so."  Whatever your personal politics are isn't relevant.  What is relevant is what is verifiable.  What is verifiable is that mainstream anthropology has stated very clearly that race categories are arbitrary, subjective, without biological basis.  Any article called "races of anthropology" must focus on how the concept of 'race' has developed and is used -within anthropology- and since mainstream anthropology states that there is no biological basis for race, the majority of the article will discuss that fact.  If you want to create an article called "race as used in the science of genetics", then it can focus on how the race concept has developed and is being used within the science of genetics (again, dealing primarily with what mainstream genetics says on the issue).  The option I presented is the title "Races of Man" and such a title will expand the scope to include the science of genetics, anthropology, the history of racism, etc.  The AAA is the largest professional organization of anthropologists in the US and covers all areas of anthropology from culture to linguistics to forensics, human biological diversity, ethnomedicine, and paleoanthropology.  They have members who are recognized around the world and have forgotten more about genetics and race than you are likely to ever know.  Saying that the AAA is not a credible authority on genetics is like saying that the American Medical Association is not a credible authority on genetics. -Psychohistorian 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No trust me, the AAA is not taken seriously by people who know anything about genetics.  They should stick to measuring skulls and leave the genetics to the smart people.  But I agree with you that the title should be changed since anthropology is no longer taken seriously in the 21st century. Timelist 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust you??  Why?  Is it because you can't provide a verifiable reliable source that backs you up?  There's no need for trust on Wikipedia.  It isn't required and it isn't desired.  Verifiability from reliable sources is the name of the game here and you've got none.-Psychohistorian 17:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on Earth did you get the ridiculous idea that I have no sources? You need to take your head out of the anthropology text book and explore some modern disciplines. There's a whole world out there. Timelist 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Where on Earth did you get the ridiculous idea that I have no sources?"  From the fact that you've demonstrated an inability to cite any. -Psychohistorian 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources already in the article! Read it! Timelist 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Psychohistorian, you consistently demonstrate an inability to read any sources. If we want to judge the validity of the word "race", we must combine the results of genetic research with classical anthropology. The truth is that the classically understood "Caucasian (Europoid) race" comes from a very distinct genetical lineage characterized by Y-haplogroup F and mtDNA haplogroup N. The "Australoid" populations in South Asia/Australasia again come from a very distinct lineage ("Coastal Clan I") characterized by Y-haplogroup C and mtDNA haplogroup M. It is interesting, that the Asian "Mongoloid race" is an extremely cold-adapted branch of the "Coastal Clan I". The situation in Africa is more complicated; in fact, here we encounter four very old lineages that later more or less mixed and created more or less stabilized racial mixtures.  Centrum99 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who changed the title to craniofacial anthropology?

message: There is another article on this same topic called Craniofacial Anthropometry originally written by Frank W. Sweet.  I think it was a good article.  It was strictly about craniofacial anthropology.  This article currently gets side-tracked into genetics and physical type comparisons.  I think the genetics and the physical type discussion with reference to Blumenbach should not be in the article.--Dark Tichondrias 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who kept changing the title to craniofacial anthropology even though there already is an article on this topic.  You also seem to think that terms like negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid can ONLY be used in a craniofacial context, when in fact those classifications are and always have been broader in scope.  So if you just want this article to be about how race is applied in craniofacial anthropolgy, then as you say, such an article already exists. Timelist 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Article

message: This article needs a clear, concise first sentence that includes the title of the article in bold. As of now the intro is very convoluted. I'd help instead of complaining but I know nothing of the subject. -Emiellaiendiay 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Why is there a Caucasoid race article, a Mongoloid race article, but no real Negroid article?  This is a major oversight and a minor outrage.  Was this a conscious decision, or is simply because no one has gotten around to writing such an article?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, after discovering that, did you not set about creating such an article instead of complaining about it?  The fact that people would rather bitch than do work is the real major oversight and minor outrage.-Psychohistorian 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  To answer your question: first of all, I don't know anything about the subject.  Secondly, I am a fat, lazy SOB (see my user name).  Thirdly, further research has led me to discover that there originally was a semblance of a Negroid article that has since been reduced to stubby disambiguation page.  Far be it from me to step on the toes of those who made this horrible editing decision.  I leave that corrective task to Wikipedians bolder and more industrious than yours truly.  Love, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been my unfortunate experience that not knowing anything about a subject does not prevent many people from adding content on that subject.-Psychohistorian 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, there exist no "Negroids". The Sub-Saharan population consists of four very distinct and old lineages that separated as early as 60-80 000 years ago: 1/ Khoisans, 2/ Nilotes, 3/ Pygmies and 4/ the Saharan creators of the Aterian industry, for which I use a partial neologism "Neo-Negrid". The traditionally understood "Negroid type" with thick lips and a wide nose originates in Western Africa and is a result of a relatively recent mixing between Neo-Negrids and Pygmies. Centrum99 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not concerned whether the term is obsolete or inaccurate--it would just be nice if the quaint term had a serviceable article where one could, provided you had sources for the above claims, read about the distinctions you've described.  The article could discuss the term itself; it wouldn't necessarily have to posit the existence of an actual "Negroid" race.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do rather agree. It doesn't matter if negroids don't exist, or have been backlashed against by modern concept or anything, the other articles go into explain the findings of the three races. I want to read about negroids just as much comparitively as I do about the caucasoids and mongoloids. As I understand it, it was found that there were three of these 'oids, it would be nice to be able to read about all three of them, not just two of them. Even if it is now, in fact, innacturate, it should still be up there, it is a founding "theory" about human kind and there is no good reason for it to be not up there. "Negroid" could be completely wrong, they could have discovered just this last decade that there is no such thing, but that should not change a thing. It should all still be up there as well as sourced text explaining how they got it wrong and links to pages going into detail about what negroids actually are. And am I to understand that a negroid is meant to have thick lips and wide nose, or "more rounded eye sockets; broader, more rounded nasal cavity; a forward-slanting facial profile". Because I am getting confused now, I thought the negroid type was about the cavities and shape of the skull, rather than living facial features JayKeaton 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negroids?

message: This section is extremely poor. There are several problems with it. The most obvious is that it lacks any sort of objectivity. The title of the section is misleading in the extreme, it states that genetics has categorically confirmed the existence of "race", but this is not true, it is a lie, there is no consensus in the field of genetics. Some geneticists see the geographical distribution of genetic variability within the human population as confirmation of the idea of "races" existing from a biological point of view. Other geneticists claim that this is an erroneous observation, and that genetic variation cannot be explained by "race". It is important to put this into context, all science is based on observing natural phenomena and trying to explain them by constructing models. One such model is that human variation can be explained by the existence of biological "races". There is no consensus in the field of genetics or biology that this model accurately represents the observed variation seen within the human species. So in truth the section can at best claim that some geneticists see human variation as confirming the existence of race, while others see no confirmation. This would be a neutral way of expressing this. I am quite fed up with the rampant POV pushing on articles about "race", I have seen numerous examples of one-sided arguments like that given here. I really don't understand why anyone would want to edit on Wikipedia if they cannot stick to one of the most important policies, that of neutrality. Furthermore the section comprises of long sections quoted from a single source, more than 50% of the section is quotation. What's that all about? The use of two very long quotations from a single source displays very poor editing skills IMHO. Please also see WP:QUOTE: Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. I think this section should be completely removed, there is already a whole articles on Genetic views on race, I fail to understand why we need to repeat ad nauseum in every single article on race one-sided POV and selective edits about genetics. As far as I can see these edits serve no purpose other than to try to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by deliberately breaching one of the fundamental cornerstones of Wikipedia policy, that of neutrality. I'm going to remove this section unless someone can furnish me with a good reason not to. Alun 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic confirmation section

message: Wobble, first let me say "thank you" for your recent work.  While I have some objection to deleting the content from Cavalli-Sforza which I added yesterday (especially in light of the fact that Cavalli-Sforza is often used to support racist ideology and I believe that more content will be added in the near future stating that Cavalli-Sforza has proven the existence of race), I'm willing to go with the group consensus on this.
However, I would like you to review the intro as well because, for some reason, it contains a lot of content which should have properly gone to the genetic confirmation section (and, thus, been deleted when you removed that section).
Again, thanks for all the work.-Psychohistorian 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have a good look at the intro and the genetics section soon (when I get a bit of time). It's always good to do a copy edit every now and again, and of course it's policy to include all points of view when making an edit, a policy that seems often to be inadvertantly overlooked by many editors of articles associated with "race", I can't imagine why. One might even suspect that certain editors are trying to introduce bias and One-sided argument into wikipedia, but of course that can't be true as we are all bound by the policies regarding neutrality, verifiability (with reliable sources) and no original research. I changed the genetics section for an earlier version that was somewhat more neutral in tone, but it's far from ideal, I think we can keep some of the info that was there untill recently, but I don't think it is at all good to have huge quotes in articles. I also think that the NPOV policy is of paramount importance, and get quite anoyed when I see massive POV in an article, even the title of the section was incorrect. So I think some of the section as it was should remain, but we need to make it more neutral by including the some of the masses of evidence that indicate that geographically distributed genetic variation is not universally seen as correlating with "race". Sorry for removing your images.  Alun 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: As I said, I'm going to change the title to Races of Traditional Anthropology if there is no objection. Lukas19 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Races of Traditional Anthropology