Talk:Negroid/Archive 2

message: I removed the  template from this page because the debate that prompted it related to usage of the term "Negroid" in today's professional venues. But the subject text has now moved to the article Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid. Hence, I have left the  template intact in that page, so that discussion can be continued there. -- Frank W Sweet 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> template. 

message: Anthropoloigists such as carleton coon and many others divided the negroid race into subraces (down played by white supremacists) such as bantuid, sanid, congoid, nilotic and many more. This article should include information on this to show the divergence and diversity amongst sub saharan africans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.148.211.189 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negroid Subraces 

message: OK i understand that in today's PC age, some of our self-pleasuring liberal friends are outraged that terms such as negroid are still in use. 
But as a user who wants to learn about "negroids", "black people" or whatever one may deem to be an approppriate term, it will be useful to actually be able to read about it. It is fair enough to state the limitations and over-simplification of such a term, but it should at least endeavour to answer some topics on origins, ancestry, some charecteristic features and cultural values, etc. 
Instead this article waffles on about total and utter crap. After reading this page, i had learnt nothing, instead felt the urge to punch the idiot who wrote this article in the head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.243.246.63 (talk • contribs) 03:59, June 24, 2007 (UTC)
:While I wouldn't state my opinion to such a degree as you did, I feel the same way. I think that this article beats around the bush for the sake of being politically correct and totally misses the point of what it's supposed to be addressing. └Jared┘┌t┐  13:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a piece of crap 

message: Nordic Crusader, please discuss changes before adding content, and be aware that this is controversial subject, hence you must take this in to account when adding material. It is advisable not to add material that is unnecessarily provocative and also unsourced.Muntuwandi 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not discuss changes

message: Can we please stop this edit and revert war, it's not helpful or constructive and gets quite annoying when I am trying to find references, photos, and more good, unbiased information to add. --Nordic Crusader 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: I am going to add an additional definition, from the Collins consise English dictionary. This is to adhere to WP:NPOV as the reader must be allowed to make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions after reading the article. Having only information from one source is seriously unencyclopaedic and infringes the WP:NPOV policy, as well as others. An article, especially one such as this which has a greater potential to affected by bias, must have any trace of bias or POV removed. --Nordic Crusader 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Muntuwandi 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please try to get some third party involved, who may be able to present a fresh perspective on the conflict? I would suggest you give WP:RfC a chance and keep the reverts and changes to a minimum in the meantime. --Asteriontalk 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  what we are dealing with here is trolling. it is not even a genuine dispute worthy of these processes you suggest. Nordic crusader simply wants to poke fun using stereotypes of Blacks. but trolls always look for creative ways to appear to be within the guidelines of wikipedia. Muntuwandi 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let try to assume good faith (as I said before, I am keeping a close eye on this article and would try to avert any revert disruption by any means necessary). On a different issue, I would suggest to Nordic Crusader to rethink his username (i.e. do you want other users to prejudge you for the sake of making a point?), as it could be seen as borderline inappropriate (refer to your talk page for more details, in particular the fact that it could be seen as distasteful and promoting extremist religious or racialist views). Muntuwandi, please try to avoid calling other users a troll. This does not help much when you are having a dispute with someone. Regards, --Asteriontalk 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good faith was already assumed but NC has misused that faith. I don't think it is rocket science to notice that NC is interested in making this article look like the 19th century caricatures of blacks. Its hard enough to assume good faith when one's name is already promoting Nordicism. This is classic trolling, just aimed at disruption. NC himself knows that his edits are ridiculous but as I mentioned before, unlike vandals, trolls use creative methods to appear to be within the guidelines of wikipedia. His determination is completely amusing though.Muntuwandi 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: I am not a troll, or anything even resembling one. The article, in its current state, is absolutely hopeless. 
After reading it, I am left with a feeling of 'now there's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back'. The article is not informative at all, it seems to merely focus on saying that Negroid is offensive, and dismissing all forms of anthropological science. 
I simply want to improve the article, as well as others on Mongoloids and Caucasoids.
I just happened to start with Negroid.
In no way am I trying to disparage the Negro race. If one feels that truthful facts are disparaging or offensive, there is not much I can do about that. 
The fact is that Negroids, Caucasoids and Mongoloids are different. That is not to say they are inferior or superior, as that is a judgement call or opinion. 
What is inferior and incorrect however is to prevent the publication of scientifically proven facts, and not allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions, whatever they may be.
I think this article is becoming confused with articles about racial intelligence. It is a fact that the negroids cranial capacity is on average 3 cubic inches smaller than the caucasoids', that is not disputed. What would be disputable is to imply that has a bearing on mental ability. That is not what this article is about.
This article is about defining the difference between the various human species, and should certainly not be a showground for political or personal agenda pushing. 
The physilogical differences between Negroids, caucasoids etc has never been disputed, only what those differences have been used to imply about ability is disputed. --Nordic Crusader 23: 14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Nordic This is probably not the correct article to discuss these theories. there is the race article or the race and intelligence articles that are more appropriateMuntuwandi 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember no personal attacks. --Ezeu 05:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what you said following that is correct, and is the exact point I was getting across, with regards to where offence may be incurred. So can you please expand on your objections? --Nordic Crusader 01:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I was just having a little fun with your username, I couldn't resist rearranging a few letters. Seriously I have no problems to objectively improving this article. In reality there isn't much to add because the word negroid is simply another variant of black. Negro is from latin Negrum they all mean black. In fact in certain languages such as spanish an portuguese negro is used to mean the color black.  The biggest problem with the word is that it has recently taken on a pejorative connotation. It is still used by some anthropologists simply because it is much shorter, has fewer syllables" than saying "sub-saharan african" which is the preferred term. The real debate is thus one of semantics. If you want to debate skulls, there already have been extensive debates discussing the existence or non-existence of race, for example Talk:Race#skulls. But it seems your only intentions are to add material that is stereotypical and offensive, and in my opinion adds no value. 
this version for instance you added a picture of a black woman labeling her a negress. This is completely pointless and is just meant to offend because you very well know that the word negress is pejorative and sexist. Of all the dictionary definitions available you also cherry picked the most stereotypical 
"denoting, relating to, or belonging to one of the major racial groups of mankind, characterised by brown-black skin, crisp or woolly hair, a broad flat nose, and full lips."
* first of all I cannot verify this definition because harper collins does not have an online dictionary. All the other definitions use less stereotypical language. 
* wiktionary definition
* dictionary.com has defintions from 3 different dictionaries, all are acceptable in my opinion.
* oxford compact dictionary- this definition is already in the article. wikipedia is not a dictionary to be a collection of definitions, one definition will suffice.
It is for these reasons I believe your edits are not in good faith. Your whole tone is one of condescension towards other races, beginning with your username. Earlier on for example you are quoted as saying:
"When on earth did Negro become a slur?? I can see confusion between it and nigger when spoken, but written there is no confusion. We were taught the word Negro at school when I went. --"
* In my opinion this is just a creative way to say the N-word without trying to sound offensive. But 
WP:TROLL says
WP:TROLL#Creative_trolling says about creative trolling:
Muntuwandi 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article