Jump to content

Talk:Negroid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Khoisan

[edit]

A "new" account added non-consensus, personal commentary on the supposed distinction between "Negroid" and "Congoid", which Stephen Molnar does not make. Additionally, the user tried to append a note on the Khoisan by the late racialist psychologist J. Phillipe Rushton, who is not an authority on human biology. There was also some strange offtopic edit summary remark on Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. Soupforone (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just because you disagree with a source is no reason to call it "racist". We're here to build an encyclopedia, not push a political agenda, and people who go around removing sources just because we disagree with them damage wikipedia. Rushton has published on race in multiple peer reviewed journals making him more of an authority on this topic than most people we cite. And you keep misleading readers by insisting that "congoid" and "negroid" are the same thing. The term "negroid" sometimes includes bushmen and even australoids, while the term "congoid" never does. Deliselectsub (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the late J. Phillipe Rushton was a white nationalist [1]. He was also a psychologist by training. This is inconsistent with both WP:QS and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Your evident high regard for him as a scholar, however, is duly noted. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
anyone who believes in racial differences in IQ will be labeled a racist, so I don't take the Southern Poverty Law Centre seriously. If rushton is racist, coon is even more racist, and yet his views dominate the article. This is an article about an allegedly racist term,who other than alleged racists take it seriously? And a psychologist is qualified to study race, since his whole theory is that race genetically affects behavior. Deliselectsub (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Congoid" should definitely go in the lead as it redirects here and reflects the modern usage of "Negroid"
The difference in the terms should be discussed in the page, and is to some degree under the Physical Anthropology section, perhaps this can be exanded upon to address Deliselectsub's concerns.
I don't see the need for including Rushton as a source, the 3-way system is already described in the article although perhaps we should say that it is still in use in the wider community.
Tobus (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The material is indeed already essentially covered. The association sometimes made between the Negroid and Australoid types is thus explained in terms of the actual physical traits that inspired that occasional linkage. These mainly consist of certain craniofacial plesiomorphic or archaic retentions. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article right now is incorrect. Negroid and Congoid are not the same thing. If they were Coon would never have created the term Congoid, he would have kept using the term Negroid. The term Negroid often includes Khoisan and sometimes includes Australian aboriginals, while the term Congoid NEVER does. This distinction should be clear to the readers. I've provided TWO SOURCES showing Khoisan are still considered Negroid by some scholarsDeliselectsub (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton's not reliable. The Capoid vs. Negroid dichotomy is also already noted. Also, Coon used Congoid to emphasize the fact that the main area of dispersal of this physical type was the Congo region. He drew a distinction between so-called Capoids and Congoids/Negroids. See for example his Origin of the Races, where he explains that "the Congoids were reduced to a small part of their earlier domain, including the Congo forests and the lands to the north, where they later evolved rapidly and spread, as Negroes, over much of Africa" [2]. Soupforone (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
how is rushton not reliable? He was a professor at one of canada's best universities and published prolifically in peer reviewed journals. And I added a second source, not rushton only. Coon may have used the terms Negroid and Congoid interchangeably, but the 2 sources I cited would classify so called congoids and capoidd as sub-races of Negroid. Just because you disagree is no reason to call the sources unreliable and exclude them from the article. That's POV pushing. Some scholars continue to believe Khoisan are a type of Negroid; this view did not end in the 1960s as the article falsely implies. Are you willing to help me correct this error? Yes or No. Deliselectsub (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coon was a mainstream scientist in his day and the President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Rushton was a white nationalist and the head of the Pioneer Fund. Per WP:QS, Wikipedia doesn't use such “websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist”. The other link doesn't mention Congoids. Coon does and that's cause he coined the term. Perhaps User:Dougweller can provide further clarification on website policy. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coon believed Australian aboriginals and other blacks were borderline homo erectus (monkeys). You have a strange idea of mainstream. Rushton's not a white nationalist, regardless of what your extreme sources say. Just the opposite. His research claims whites are less advanced than East Asians. And Rushton was a member of the national association of advancement of science. Anyway, I'm just here to build an encyclopedia. I dont care about anyone's alleged politics, but since you obviously do, I will compromise by editing the article without citing Rushton Deliselectsub (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently do care about politics since you keep alluding to it. Anyway, I've replaced the synthesized Wells and Peter-the-Great links with one source that asserts the same thing. As for Coon, he was a mainstream product of his time, much like Darwin before him. Rushton, on the other hand, was a fringe, white nationalist during his lifetime. That's why he is one of a select few individuals with their own page at the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism [3]. Soupforone (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we reached compromise on the Khoisan issue. Now for the congoid issue. The article needs to say something more nuanced about it. It's too simplistic and dismissive to just say it's a synonym for Negroid because the term Negroid predates the distinction Coon made between Khoisan & other Sub-Saharans. So although we should acknowledge that congoid and Negroid can be used synonymously, we should also point out that Negroid can be used more inclusively than congoid can. Deliselectsub (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added a note that "Congoid" was frequently used interchangeably with "Negroid", with the main difference being that Congoid excluded the Capoid taxon. Also, Australoid skulls are only sometimes pre-identified as Negroid due to shared archaic retentions, as with the Luzia Woman specimen. Soupforone (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Stephen Jay Gould with Samuel George Morton himself, as Gould inaccurately rendered Morton's taxonomy. Gould's work on Morton was also recently disproven [4]. Soupforone (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did Gould inaccurately render Morton's taxonomy, or did Morton revise his taxonomy/nomenclature? Gould writes (pg 85) that Morton published 3 major books on skull size. One in 1839, one in 1844, and one in 1849. You are citing from the 1839 book, while I was citing Gould citing probably from the 1849 book. My guess is Morton originally used the term Negro to describe a sub-family of what he called the Ethiopian family, but then later used it as a synonym of the Ethiopian superset Deliselectsub (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is unlikely since, for one thing, Morton does not mention Aboriginal Australians in his 1849 work. Soupforone (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it also seems unlikely that Gould would so blatantly misrepresent Morton's work. I know Gould's writings on Morton have been discredited, but this was just a simple matter of reproducing Morton's table so I'd be surprised if Gould even screwed that up. But you're right that it's much better to cite Morton himself Deliselectsub (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points, and thanks for de-escalating and pointing out some important things. 2607:FEA8:60DC:1900:0:0:0:3B16 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humankind vs. mankind

[edit]

@Seguro64: I already warned you on your talk page: Repeatedly changing the article if you see that other editors disagree constitutes edit warring. I cited Oxford Dictionary of English (2010, 3rd ed.). You answered with dictionaries that you thought don't address the problem. That's a strange way of discussing, but additionally you were wrong. Cambridge dictionary says that the use of "man" in the sense of "human being" is "literary or old-fashioned" (see the entry on "man"). Many editors see the generic use of "man" / "mankind" as sexist. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rsk6400 is completely correct here. Seguro64 appears to be making these changes across a variety of articles and to be persisting despite warnings. Thanks for your diligence, Rsk6400, and for your patient explanation of the issue. Generalrelative (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a) The terms are synonymous, one of them comes with a possible negative association (not for me, but it evidently does for some people), so let's just stick with the alternative that has no baggage. b) Unless there's sufficient cause, don't mess with the established chosen style or consistent word choice in any given article; and I can't see sufficient cause here (admittedly I'd be equally annoyed if someone replaced all "mankinds" with "humankinds" just to tiptoe). In other words, leave well enough alone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is the principle established by MOS:VAR. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400: There was no need to pollute my talk page with this inconsequentiality but alright. The British 'Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary' and the 'Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus' both define "mankind" as "the whole of the human race, including both men and women", as well as suggesting it's a prefectly valid synonym to "humanity". The American 'Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary' defines it as "all people thought of as one group" and 'Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary', their online variant, defines it as "the human race: the totality of human beings." It makes perfect sense within the context in which I was using it and I'm going by the two English variants here. Furthermore, there is no consensus among the major dictionaries that the term is "sexist", as most view it as another synonym to humanity. You see, the term being discussed here is "mankind", which refers to both men and women, not simply "man", like you senselessly claim, which is a different term altogether. One can't simply split a word into pieces and then claim to discuss a single fractured piece as if it referred to the whole. Not only is this fracturing approach unequivocally misguided, it's also short-sighted and anti-linguistic. There is absolute nothing wrong with this word as it (once again) refers to humanity, whether that is male or female. Next thing you'll have problems with established scientific terms like 'homo sapiens' as well, without understanding them. --Seguro64 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again - these are synonymous; going onto the barricades trying to swap in one for the other, just to "stick it to the snowflakes"/"stick it to the sexists" (if I may parody the positions here) is a waste of time and disruptive. Leave the choice at what is established in the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:VAR favours retention of what was there before (so humankind). Beyond that, the less gendered term is more in keeping with Wikipedia's general style. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guettarda:They're arguably equally as "gendered". "Human" comes from "man". It quite literally means "related to man." The word "man" can mean all homo sapiens ("homo" means "man" in Latin as well). I'm not sure one can really get away from "man" either way, it's synonymous with "human" or "human being". Otherwise, agree that the older term in the article should stay if that's what the rules/suggestions say, although the new term used fewer letters and meant exactly the same. -Seguro64 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term by UK government departments in the news today

[edit]

Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Negroid&oldid=1285773802"