Talk:Craniofacial anthropometry

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 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too find it interesting that no one has ever gotten around to making a negroid article. It's like you can read up on the caucasoids and mongoloids, but if you want to read up on the negroids, someone has seen fit to just "leave them out" of history on wikipedia JayKeaton 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion is located here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negroids?

message: Why do we have two articles about cranofacial anthropology? This seems like a POV fork to me. I see no real reason to have two articles for what is, essentially a limited subject of little importance. Any reason for these two articles to exist? The Races of Craniofacial Anthropology article is dreadful, badly written with no consistency and full of POV arguments. Alun 06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do we have two articles?

message: Racialreality shouldn't be cited! It's operated by racists/white nationalists!66.65.77.88 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at a loss. Where is Racial Reality cited in the article? FilipeS 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although Racial Reality is definitely a website with an agenda, the quote itself may have come from one of the studies they reference. You should check the ultimate source of the quote. FilipeS 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source I've read that posits this ridiculous crap also acknowledges that shared DNA also and likely could be attributed to the fact that Blacks from the African Horn formed the precursor or parent populations that migrated out of Africa and eventually mutated/branched off into that cluster of humanity known as "Caucasians" -- that they are, in effect, not Caucasoid, but Blacks who are proto-Caucasoid.  deeceevoice (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Racial reality

message: This sentence (and the whole paragraph as well) is a tendentious PC crap that should be removed. It has zero significance for the topic.
 
"Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers."
Of course, the DNA admixture is only "detectable", because it makes up a few percent that can have no influence on the phenotype. 
'And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.'
Another "pearl" of this article, based on an obsolete study from the pre-clustering era. For modern clustering studies, see e.g.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bh077258613343q6/
82.100.61.114 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are facts. What is tendentious crap is to wish to censor them. FilipeS (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you and your Marxist-Leninist colleagues obviously have no problem with the censorship of the newest clustering studies? Alas, you must now rely only on obsolete, outdated crap digged in the internet from sources going to the first half of 90's or even deeper! 89.235.19.204 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PC crap

message: The sources currently cited in this article are not the most recent or most reliable on the subject, and the subject is just a minor part of subjects already covered by other Wikipedia articles? Why not just merge the good parts of this article into one of the more comprehensive articles? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which comprehensive articles do you have in mind? Wdford (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not merge this article to better-sourced articles? 

message: There were no Homo sapiens before the Pleistocene. There is something wrong with the maps. Unsourced, et least. Pomimo (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleistocene races 

message: Not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
"Although the categorization of a skull is clearly given arbitrary parameters, it will not locate the owners geographic ancestry concretely all the time. "
:Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Er..

message: I believe certain parts of the History section are incorrect. This is not true: "Caucasoids were characterized by a doliocephalic shape" and "Negroids were characterized by a mesocephalic head shape."
A number of Central Asian, Caucasion ethnic groups are Broad-Headed. Caucasians can in-fact, have either Doliocephalic, Mesocaphalic or Bracheocephalic skulls and the same holds true for the Negroids. There are also no citations given, and the reference at the end of the paragraph also proves that information to be incorrect. This is what it has to say on the Caucasion race: "The skull presents all varieties of forms, from extreme dolichocephaly to extreme brachycephaly." 
So that particular part of the paragraph should be edited out, or paragraph should be reverted into an earlier version.  Gregjackson112 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History section and description of Caucasoids and Negroids