Talk:Australo-Melanesian/Archive 1

message: "(The glabella is the smooth area between the eyebrows just above the nose. Infa means below or beneath. So infraglabellar might mean either underneath it or inside the skull. It is not known since infraglabellar is not in the dictionary)"
Shouldn't this be removed from the article? – 84.48.54.134 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infraglabellar

message: Is there any particular reason to refer to "Australoids" as being "black", seeing as how the article already references them as generally posessing dark skin? It's an ambiguous term which can have very different meanings depending on region. Ralphael 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Black"

message: You can't put tamils (dravidians), as australoids. Dravidians look quit different from aboriginies. And compare dravdians with negros is bullshit either, no tamil/malayali/telugu look like an african, they look like an average indian. the broad nose and thick lipp theory is outdated, myself as a tamil haven't seen any dravdians with negroid features. dravdians have straight hair wich is uncommen amongst austros and negros. And the skin color doesn't count for the classification, 'cause there are dark bengalis and gujaratis as well (who are considered as aryans). If north indians are considered caucasian, then you should put the south indians in the same category, 'cause there was a large intermixing amongst both folks.
I never heard a dravidian call himself African, where the f*** did you hear that?
Don't trust this afrocentric bullshit, they even say that the first chinese king were african.
And the Dravidians aren't a african community they are Indians.
and if you still want to put dravidians as austros, then please use the the term DRAVDIANS and NOT TAMILS (?cause tamil is not a race, it's a language) and dravdians includes Malayalis, Telugus, Kannadas and much more)
ŤÀΜÌĹ
:If you find this Afrocentrism on Wikipedia offensive regarding who you are ethnically/racially, then become more active and vocal here to combat it; and get your friends to as well (assuming they feel the same way you do), because much of the postings here by Afrocentrists is tenuous and the "black Dravidian/Tamil" argument seems to be a main component of the movement.  Stick around and talk, Tamil. --Jugbo 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dravidians aren't Australoids 

message: Based on genetic evidence, east Indians are an ancient mix of Australoids from Sri Lanka, Caucasoids from Pakistan and Mongoloids from western Asian countries, but according to their general skull shape, Indians are classified as Caucasoid. Some of you people must remember that racial classification isnt based on skin colour, its based on skull shape.
:That may be but the majority of Indians look predominantly Caucasoid to me Digitalseal 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indians are a mix 

message: Since we are back on the Caucasoid track, I am vaguely aware that there was a theory at one time - I think in the 40s and 50s - that Australoids were closely related to Caucasoids, but I think a better source than something from Apologetics Press is required. If you look at their website it's clear that they are a quite unpleasantly extreme fundamentalist group.  Paul B 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to everyone on making this page the winner of the Talkpage Most Totally Unrelated to the Topic of the Article award. Paul B 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucasoid

message: Again and again you a showing your ignorance.What do you know about Srilankan problem to talk about it here?.Who said Singalese are lighter than the tamils?.
You assumed that they are lighter because they speak an aryan language?.
Singalese eventhough they speak a aryan language the generel population is darker than the general population of south India.This is a fact.Go and have a look if you want to.This is another classical exapmle of the
people getting darker because of the geographical posoition.Here you can see the so called Aryans are darker than the So called dravidians!!!!.But darker or lighter singalese and tamils look the same.
The problem in SL is NOT RACIAL it is just like your hutus and tutsis fighting each other.It is a ETHINICAL violance.It is Minority versus Majority!!!.Even during the civil war lots of tamils pretented as singales and vice versa to escape.They can only identify when they open their mouth.That is when they start talking!!!!.They speak 2 diffent languages thats all!!!!.Did'nt you see my earlier posts???.You are asking again and again why untouchables
became darker from lighter.As I am telling for the 100th time that caste syatem was occupation based.may be  people who were well off might have been able to choose good looking spouses! and where as the ones who did 'DIRTY' jobs could'nt do so!.You black americans look better than your counterparts in Africa.Why it is that?.You are living in better conditions than your counterparts in africa but both of you belong to the same race.If you want ask me again and agin scroll up the archive one and look into my earlier posts.--Vandh 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you must have this idiotic debate can you do so on a relevant page? Paul B 01:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Feb 

message: I read somewhere that states the modern people of europe, the middle east, east and southeast asia, basically the whole eurasia and americas were descendants of australoid type people who adapted to their respective climates into the modern mongoloid and caucasoid people.  Is this true? If it is, it might be worth mentioning  CanCanDuo 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to europeans and east asian?

message: This page is very Indo-centric, focusing on Dalits, Dravidians, light-skinned people and dark skinned people.  The Coon map was removed.  Not only is it ugly and blurry, but it also is rather inaccurate.  From the map, it appears that a huge chunk of mainland Southeast Asia and the Philippines are Australoid, and yet other parts of mainland Southeast Asia and much of Malaysia and Indonesia are under Mongoloid.  All those areas have a few pockets of "Negritos," but the main populations look similar, and appear more Mongoloid than Australoid (they look stereotypically Malay).  Also, today, northern North America is largely of Caucasoid appearance, with much of Latin America also Caucasoid.  Then there's the odd point of at least one editor on Wikipedia to separate Southeast Asians from other East Asians, yet lump Amerindians with Northeast Asians.  Amerindians are largely of Mongoloid extraction with a slight amount of Caucasoid (from Central Asia).  Similarly, Southeast Asians are supposed to be predominantly of Amerindian extraction, with a slight amount of Australoid.  Just looking at a Southeast Asian, a Northeast Asian, and a "Native American" (not Alaskan Native), the two East Asians would probably look more the same than either to the Native American.  And why is Hokkaido and parts of eastern Russia labeled as Caucasoid.  They are predominantly Mongoloid, although they could have a tiny bit of Caucasoid (from the same group as the Amerindians).  Chiss Boy 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Coon map illustrates Coon's theories. That's why it's there. "Southeast Asians are supposed to be predominantly of Amerindian extraction"? What on earth does that mean? Paul B 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indo-Centric "Talk"page

message: How come everything is in past tense? Is this subspecies extinct?69.226.111.151 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prederite Tense? 

message: Corrections/Comments: Balgir (2004) has mismatched the Proto-Australoid and Australoid racial designations. The former should refer to the Gond, Kondh, Kissan, Oraon, Paraja and Pentia Halva tribes; the latter should comprise the Bhumiz, Gadaba, Juang, Kharia, Koda, Kolha, Mahali, Mirdha, Munda, Santal and Saora tribes. Balgir should follow classical usage.
 
The Veddas are a Caucasoid aboriginal hunter people of southern India and Ceylon. The racial constitution of the Veddas is Indo-European (Vedda is Sinhalese for "hunter;" Sinhalese is an Indo-European language), Proto-Australoid, and Australoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cevene (talk • contribs) 
:Language and race do not correspond very well. Sudanese and Syrians speak Arabic, where as most Sudanese are African in origin, Syrians are Caucasian in racial type. Similarly, Veddas along with many aboriginal groups in the world speak the language of the predominant settler communities. Kanatonian (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Veddas

message: EIN (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the file, it's an illustration in a book by Carleton Coon, who states that the man is from Yemen. The point, I suppose, is that he does not look like a typical Yemeni. It's used to illustrate Coon's theories about racial types and their histories. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research into the file history suggests that the claim that he's Yemeni was added by an IP some years after the file was uploaded . It may be accurate, or it may be baloney. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, it appears that Coon did publish a photograph of an "Australoid" man from Yemen in his book The Living Races of Man, 1965. The picture can be seen here . But the person in the photo included here does not seem to be Yemeni. The confusion may be from the juxtaposition of images on this website . Paul B (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What sourced or unsourced evidence is there for the claim that the man depicted in the second picture was from Yemen? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australoid race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612085927/http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/pglossary.htm to http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/pglossary.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612085927/http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/pglossary.htm to http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/pglossary.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Everything in this article that describes this "race" is based on very old descriptions (suborbital brow ridges, etc.), but nothing modern including DNA studies. Is this distinction even supported by modern science? Kortoso (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a page where edits seem to defend a archaic, unscientific concept. This page is entirely unreliable and indefensible. But it's a good example of how racial concepts perpetuate. See earlier comments. 43.243.12.31 (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA studies? 

message: What's up with removing the pictures? You may argue that the term i outdated, but the images were produced back when the term was used, and are therefore valid illustrations for it. Also, Fred, please at least give a reason for your edits, and bring it to the talk page before reverting.Funkynusayri 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not use the term Australoid. It presents a caption and gives weight to the idea that people represented are a type. How would you categorise me? I am finding this very offensive, why the abiding interest in racism and antagonism. Please remove it and try to improve something. There is a word for this.    Fred ☻  03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The highly outdated book called "The living races of mankind : a popular illustrated account" uses a three race system to describe the world. The word "Australoid" does not appear in this book . It is original research to assume these photographs show members of the Australiod race, as the book they are taken from says otherwise. So the pictures have no connection with this article. Out of interest, I have examined the text from the book and it says Aboriginal Australians "are mainly a pure-bred race and if so, there can be no hesitation in classing them as of Caucasian origin, and allied to the Veddas of Ceylon and the Toalas of Celebres" Travelmite (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

text: edit summary: "these photos are stereotypical, hence they are not appropriate". Err, that's exactly why they are appropriate. They represent the stereotypical (or perhaps archetypical) image of the Australoid. Paul B 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fred. this is why the terms were not in use. Pictures in these articles are best avoided. If they are to be used the editors should make the effort to ensure that the pictures do not cause offense or controversy. This is the only way that a picture can have a sustained presence in an article.Muntuwandi 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So your main argument is pretty much based on the idea that censorship should be implemented on Wikipedia. I find that pretty hard to take seriously. Again, we have pictures of Muhammad, erect penises, swastikas, but we can't have a picture of a bunch of people. Strange. I'll direct your attention to this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censoredFunkynusayri 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a soapbox either.   Fred ☻  14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: *Stereotype
:edit summary: "these photos are stereotypical, hence they are not appropriate". Err, that's exactly why they are appropriate. They represent the stereotypical (or perhaps archetypical) image of the Australoid. Paul B 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fred. this is why the terms were not in use. Pictures in these articles are best avoided. If they are to be used the editors should make the effort to ensure that the pictures do not cause offense or controversy. This is the only way that a picture can have a sustained presence in an article.Muntuwandi 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So your main argument is pretty much based on the idea that censorship should be implemented on Wikipedia. I find that pretty hard to take seriously. Again, we have pictures of Muhammad, erect penises, swastikas, but we can't have a picture of a bunch of people. Strange. I'll direct your attention to this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censoredFunkynusayri 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a soapbox either.   Fred ☻  14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stereotype

message: This page has become a joke because of what can only be described as outright lying by some editors. The very first sentence stated that this classification is no longer used except by "racialists" (a highly misleading word) and was supported by a footnote from a page written by someone who supported the use of such classifications. The preposterous claim that Huxley abandoned his classification system after a "peer review" is supported by reference to a website which discusses the evolution of Huxley's views about whether or not physical differences correspond to innate mental differences, a view which in his later life Huxley came to question. This in no way implies that he rejected his system of classification. Indeed the very citation is referring to the actual article in which the classification is laid out! The attempt to delete the section on the first Americans is even more absurd. Nina G. Jablonski's The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World discusses this in some detail. It rejects the argument that Australoid colonisation took place, but uses the term on p137-8. The terms Australoid, Australian and Negroid are all used by Neve, the principal source for the argument that Turner in Jablonski's book discusses. Even more ridiculous is the fact that the real history and debates about the meaning of the term are obscured by the endless POV editorialising and deletion mania. What we need is a clear layout of the history of the concept, the arguments used to support it as a model of racial differences and the arguments that have been developed to criticise it. Ironically there is almost no criticism in the article as it currently stands and no attempt to explain the concept in a meaningful way. Remember, what we are supposed to be doing is building an encyclopedia that explains things. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you look at actual scientific papers using Australoid and add content from them. Many or most of the recent ones are by Indian scientists. --JWB (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should note the gross misuse of scientific papers listed here. There are papers listed that don't mention the term Australoid at all. There are papers that only mention Australoid as a debunked concept. There are papers that are extremely old and outdated. The comments defending this page are breaking wikipedia polices at all levels. 43.243.12.31 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I found the pictures used from books from 1900's years old didn't say Australoid, but described Aboriginal Australians as Caucasian. The map from Meyers describes them as Negroid. Travelmite (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dishonesty

message: The following comments are hidden in the article for some reason:
*!--the "-oid" terms  remain in use in perfectly respectable academic literature, notably in Indian English and in forensic anthroplogy, but it seems they have been deemed unacceptable in US English and are therefore purged from Wikipedia, but also increasingly avoided by academics. It may be advisable to just use the synonyms deemed acceptable in the US instead of insisting on "Wikipedia is not American English only"--
Travelmite (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden comments within the article 

message: I used the following policies in my edit summaries to justify my edits: WP:NOR, WP:TOPIC and WP:BETTER.  First, the better article consists of a short article which my version faithfully demonstrates.  My version is straight to the point.  My version says Australoid is disputed, based on skulls and variously refers to South Asians, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians and indigenous Austrlians.  Much of the bulk of the previous version consisted of off topic racial classifications of non-Australoids in famous peoples' racial classification systems.  This is not those anthropologists' articles, so the inclusion of their non-Australoid ideas are off topic.  Although probably verifiable, the statement that the Australoid race is discredited by genetics and that the Gond people are Australoid is uncited original research.  I don't know about the appropriateness of the picture.  The person who uploaded it tried adding similar pictures to the other racial articles, but other editors claimed they didn't actually say, Australoid, Negroid, etc. in the original source.  The picture may be original research in this article.--DarkTea© 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter dross and misrepresentation of policy as usual. No article is better short - that's a stub, and the policy is to expand stubs. Specific sentences are better in concise rather than prolix form, but there is no policy to simply cut out great chunks of relevant information. The picture is clearly not original research as it illustates the topic. Paul B 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubs aren't good but shorter articles are better, since they make the article concise.  The picture is synthesis if it says that it represents Australians and another source says Australians are Australoid.----DarkTea© 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture simply illustrates what was meant by the term. You know this, but you prefer to engage in wikilawyering rather than including material that informs the reader and add meaninf=fulk content. All models of the category Austaloids include native Australians. An article is best which clearly expains and discusses the content for the reader rather than one that tries to repress or hide information. Paul B 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures are taken from a 1902 book which is presently online about the races of mankind. Anyone can check that these books, despite being from a period which believed in scientific racism and directly describing the races as biological, do not use the term Australoid. These >100 year old book describe the pictures as related to other races. Australoid was never a useful theory, as can be shown from books 100 years ago, yet alone today. Travelmite (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Barlow

message: Add Category:Obsolete scientific theories?
:Kortoso (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes 43.243.12.31 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete theory? 

message: There is an anonymous user who repeatedly makes the same edits, to stop presenting information available in any modern anthropological text about the current status of this concept. It is likely to be the same person who was blocked by an administrator a few months ago. They have a IP based user name: 2601:CB:8200:15B6:98E2:EF2F:776C:A01F. These can be reverted as soon as they occur. Travelmite (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous user 

message: This whole section seems to use modern genetic ideas, with no reference to 19th century race categories. Also there is a link to a online forum, which is not valid as a source:
A 2006 CFSL research article which assessed "3522 individuals belonging to 54 (23 belonging to the Austroasiatic, 18 to Dravidian, 7 to Tibeto-Burman and 24 to Indo-European linguistic groups) endogamous Indian populations, representing all major ethnic, linguistic and geographic groups" for genetic variations to support such classifications found no conclusive evidence. It further summed that "the absence of genetic markers to support the general clustering of population groups based on ethnic, linguistic, geographic or socio-cultural affiliations" undermines the broad groupings based on such affiliations that exist in population genetic studies and forensic databases.
Australoid components present through Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia is genetically closest to Negrito Andamanese Islandershttp://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html though still divergenthttp://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4846429/11/ however some Indians also have genetic links with Australian Aborigenes, though mixed with Caucasoid or Mongoloid genes as well.http://www.nature.com/news/genomes-link-aboriginal-australians-to-indians-1.12219
Travelmite (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a race category, it says so in the title and in the category :Category:Historical_definitions_of_race. Information above not based on reliable sources and contradict sources from linked on this page and the article page. You've including a reflist-talk, but seems not in support. Please refer to Wikipedia:Core_content_policies. Travelmite (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant section 

message: As per references in the main body, this outdated classification has common origins with racist/pejorative terms. Physical anthropologists classify skulls in relation to ancestry and Australoid was one of the classifications discussed, however the anthropology field has adopted better and more accurate ways to discuss hereditary differences in human variation with geographical correlation. Material from living persons exists that omits any explanation of the social implications of physical anthropology ancestry classification. If source material is taken out of context and/or presented in a way that implies support for pejorative use of terms, then it wouldn't just be bias, but also fall under Wikipedia policy on how we treat living persons WP:BLP. Travelmite (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "interfere" appears several times in the above comments. Please refer WP:OWN before further discussion.  Travelmite (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate within physical anthropology on social implications of pejorative terms  

message: While I would continue to insist, here as at Mongoloid, that the "-oid" suffix has not pejorative implications whatsoever, 
I recognize that it is certainly so perceived among non-anthropologists, apparently primarily in the US.
Since language on Wikipedia is heavily dominated by US English anyway, it may make sense to move this away from the faux-controversial "-oid" name to what appears to be more common in US literature today, Australo-Melanesian.
The problem is, however, that "Australoid" is far more common than Australo-Melanesian (about 30k vs. 2k hits on google books). It seems to me that Australo-Melanesian was mostly introduced in recent decades just to avoid this very debate. It's just a label, after all, and the article should focus on the concept instead. 
I will continue to dispute that the term "Australoid" on its own is in any way objectively pejorative, as it continues to be used in perfectly scholarly literature, but I will concede, of course, that "some commentators" have claimed it has such connotations. 
--dab (𒁳) 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment that "I will continue to dispute ..." is a cause for great concern. Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. You've expressed yourself in terms of your own opinion, rather than arguments from reputable sources. Please review Wikipedia:Core_content_policies Travelmite (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NAME]]

message: A large number of changes have been made to the material with no edit summary (see Help:Edit_summary). Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit. The net result has obscured understanding of what is happening to this page. It is unresponsive to the comments on the talk page. Proper use of edit summaries and talk page is critical to resolving content. We also see that the Talk page and Article page redirect to other pages, so this big change has not been taken undertaken with due care. We have a page about one thing, but still primarily discusses the other, and links elsewhere to "Australoid" now refer to a redirect.
The article appears to be have been completely rewritten on 9-Oct, to present a unified, uncritical point of view, which ignores the discussion and analysis in the source material that refer to a range of scientific debates from various disciplines, including how terms should be used. In each of the texts referenced, there are pages suggesting caution and explaining the limited scope of the material, so to provide context for understanding the later presented information. The whole article has been vastly rewritten over a few hours. Further effort needs to be made on collaboration. The rushed manner of editing has also resulted in numerous typographical errors. The name changed, but the article content refers to the old name, without explanation. Travelmite (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to follow edit policy / Bold rewrite 

message: The organisation of a chapter on terminological history is essentially an essay, based on the talk page opinion. None of the sources provide a "terminological history". We need to go back to the basics with this article Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. WP:OP includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Travelmite (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminological history chapter is an essay

message: If anything demonstrates the attempts to wind back current knowledge on this page, there are references being added citing Carlton Coon from 1939 who was a proponent of scientific racism. Travelmite (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to 1939 

message: In reference to the ancestry groups mentioned in Black, Sue; Ferguson, Eilidh (2011). Forensic Anthropology:
:You changed Caucasoid to European and Mongoloid to Central Asian. This is not correct. Europeans are Caucasoid, but not all Caucasoids are European. That is a higly eurocentric claim. Arabs are not a European group, they are a West Asian Caucasoid group. Also the Central-Asian group is nonesense. Central-Asians are Turkic peoples, Iranian people, Mongolians and Russians and various other ethnolinguistic groups. They are Caucasoid and Mongoloid. Please change this back. Even the source say (Negroid, Australoid, Caucasoid and Mongolid). I agree with your other edits. 212.241.98.39 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia follows what is written by reliable academic sources. I compared the source and the text, and they said something totally different from each other, to the extent that the source said there were four ancestry groups, and the text said there were five. Your disagreement is with the forensic anthropologists who wrote the source, or the editor who first inserted the source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources Travelmite (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: The population groups listed in the source from Forensic Anthropology: 2000 to 2010 are found in the quote: "There are considered to be four basic ancestry groups into which an individual can be placed by physical appearance, not accounting for admixture: the sub-Saharan African group, the European group, the Central Asian group, and the Australasian group." Travelmite (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense, and you take the quote out of context. It is Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negroid. What is "Central-Asian"!? Central-Asians are predominantly Mongoloid with Caucasoid admixture... Your edit is highly eurocentric. It is not European... what are Arabs? What are Indians? Stop your eurocentric nonesense!212.241.98.39 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, 212.241.98.39. Scheridon (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  setting aside the question of whether we use geographical origin or "Caucasian", etc., the IP tried to add capoid which the source only mentions in saying that Coon tried to split Negroid into Capoid and Congoid, so that was inappropriate. But what really is inappropriate is the whole sentence, which I've removed. It doesn't add to the article and in a controversial subject which should be treated elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Particularly, I consider the Khoisan peoples so different from the rest of the Sub-Saharan African peoples, but it seems that only Carleton Coon has considered Khoisan as a distinct human group. Scheridon (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjusting Sources