Talk:Negroid/Archive 3

Picture
Again, whether the term is valid today or not is irrelevant, I've added a picture which illustrates the object in question. Funkynusayri 01:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The term is disputed as to what it is so a picture will just cause controversy. If you have read the earlier discussions you can see that there has already been considerable controversy. If you are truly interested in building consensus I would suggest avoiding the use of pictures.Muntuwandi 02:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand that logic. The picture illustrates what the term was used to describe, and when the text clearly states the term itself is outdated, what is then the problem with having a picture that illustrates the object in question as believed back then (the picture itself is from the particular period too, not a new composition, which would had been truly controversial)? A swastika is a controversial symbol too, perhaps more than this, but I still see it here on Wikipedia. Funkynusayri 02:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * apples and oranges. symbols and peoples. The term is now considered overly simplistic and sometimes offensive, adding a picture serves no purpose other than to denigrate the subjects of the photos.Muntuwandi 02:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See, that view itself is not an universal view, but your view. Maybe we should wait for some second opinions. By the way, how are the long dead subjects of the photos "denigrated"? Just so eventual observers know what I'm talking about, I've added the picture here on the talk page.Funkynusayri 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * this is an issue that is encountered very frequently on the web. In order to poke fun, one would select photos of the most aboriginal people in their native habitat or dress. the people will be from remote areas that are least influenced by modern technology. The reason is to use the most stereotypical looks to humiliate the subject or poke fun at the race. You can find such photos on all the racialist web sites. I have assumed good faith on your part, but this is a pattern I have seen all too often, that I already know your intentions from the start. While technically there may be nothing wrong with the photos, the context with which you intend to use them is not aimed at improving the article, and such changes are not sustainable. Muntuwandi 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I take that as an extreme insult. We've already discussed these matters before elsewhere, and nowhere have I expressed anything but interest in anthropology. These pictures were taken in a time where the tribes on the pictures did dress like this, and still do in some areas. I've added a similar image to the Caucasoid page, for the same reasons as here, so accusing me of racism is just beyond disrespectful. I'd like to hear the opinion of someone less biased, because you express extreme POV.

Yet again I'll explain how the image is improving the article: The picture illustrates what the term was used to describe, and when the text clearly states the term itself is outdated, what is then the problem with having a picture that illustrates the object in question as believed back then (the picture itself is from the particular period too, not a new composition, which would had been truly controversial)? Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't censored, therefore there are both images of Muhammad, swastikas, naked humans and so on, I really find your arguments irrelevant. Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Funkynusayri 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not improve the article. I agree with Muntuwandi. The term is outdated. Swastikas, nudity still exists. This is not censorship, it's irrelevant to the article. - Jeeny Talk 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Argument, please? I have so far not heard any arguments for why the article, which illustrates examples of people the term in question refers to, is irrelevant to the article. All I've been told is that it might be controversial. But then I don't see why there are images of Muhammad, erect penises, so on on Wikipedia.

Addition: That the term isn't used anymore is irrelevant, because the illustration itself was made back when people did believe in the term, it simply illutrates what the term refers to. Should this image of a flat earth be removed from the article because no one believes it is flat anymore? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Funkynusayri 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To compare this article with the flat earth article is apples and oranges, come on. The flat earth article shows an image that was made up in one's mind. Your image shows real people. It is your POV that that image represents what Negroid meant way back when, but that image says "African types", not Negroid. So, it's your POV that those people where and are concidered Negroid. There are no images that support the flat earth article, other than an imaginary rendering. - Jeeny Talk 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it all boils down to you saying that it is my POV that the images show Negroids. Easy counterargument, here is the accompanying article from the same book (look under "human population of Africa") where the term is mentioned, and where what it refers to is explained: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work/1-0040

By the way, I just stumbled on those images on Commons today, that have been uploaded long ago, and found them appropriate for these race pages. There is a reason why I only added plate one, because plate two shows members of groups that are not "Negroid" according to the book.

As for people still looking like that... Eh, how is that relevant? I've added an almost identical plate to the page about Caucasoids without anyone of you being offended and taking it down. It all reeks of censorship to me. Funkynusayri 05:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, seems like I should never had mentioned the Caucasoid picture. Well, you removed it as an afterthought, for reasons unknown, as again, the accompanying article refers to the people on the image as "Europoids", which was used as a synonym for "Caucasoids" back then. What more do you want before I can reinsert the images? Funkynusayri 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahum, any news? It has been established that the image shows Negroids, and that keeping it out would be censorship, as the inclusion of the picture clearly helps understanding of what the article is about. Any counterarguments? Otherwise I don't see a reason to keep it out. Funkynusayri 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The term is disputed and discredited so we should avoid using photos. In particular the stereotypical ones you suggest. In any case the caption says African types not Negroid. that is original research.Muntuwandi 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you been following the discussion at all? I quote myself: "Here is the accompanying article from the same book (look under "human population of Africa") where the term is mentioned, and where what it refers to is explained: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work/1-0040"

"THE HUMAN POPULATION OF AFRICA

The total population of Africa at the present day is probably something like 151,000,000, and apportioned racially would consist of 120,000,000 Negroes and Negroids, 6,000,000 pure-blooded Europeans (absolute White men of Northern or Mediterranean stock), and 25,-000,000 of handsome, physically well developed, but mentally rather backward, dark-skinned Caucasians—Berbers, Arabs, Egyptians, Galas, and Abyssinians. Quite distinct, from the true Negro is the Bushman of South Africa, a somewhat (but'not always) stunted race, with a yellow skin, very sparse and tightly curbd hair, and other peculiar physical features not ordinarily met with in the Negro, though sometimes occurring in the people of the Mediterranean basin. The Hottentot is nothing but an early hybrid between the true Negro and the Bushman."

So, the accompanying article refers to the people on the picture as Negroids, end of story. Notice also that none of the "exceptions" are featured on the image, as these were shown on page two. As for the "discredited" and "stereotype" arguments, I can only say: keeping them out would be censorship. As easy as that. As I mentioned earlier, there are still images in the flat earth article even though the idea is discredited. You're being silly.

As for me suggesting that the image should be used, that kind of picture was used in scholarly books up until the 90s, that's just how racial types were portrayed. Funkynusayri 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, more creative trolling. Those are some of the most ignorant statistics I have ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs)


 * What the heck? That's what people thought in 1914, and that's the book the image is from, a book which has been on commons since 2005. I have provided a historical image of what people believed to be "Negroid" back when the term was used, and I have verified that the book it is from describes them as such. Why all this desperate, childish nonsense? Lack of arguments? Are you really that riled up that you forgot to sign your message?Funkynusayri 04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is disappointing to spend wikitime dealing with trolls.Muntuwandi 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we please discuss like normal people without you getting hysterical? I didn't write that book, someone uploaded it to Commons back in 2005, it is a lexicon from 1914, therefore it presents science from that era. Any sane person knows that century old science is most likely wrong. But we're not including the text from the article, we are showing a picture of what people the term this article is about was supposed to describe. Again, there is a page with a picture of Muhammad, one with an erect penis, and one with a flat earth. What exactly is it that you have against this particular picture that qualifies as being part of Wikipedia policy, and not just your own POV? Funkynusayri 04:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need a picture to show what Negroid represents. It is your POV that thinks the image reflects the article. There is no need for pictures in this particluar article. It's plainly in the text. It does not help the article at all. I don't understand your reasoning that the image needs to be in the article to help people understand the term, and to leave it out is censorship? And please be civil and not call people hysterical, not normal, and insane for not understanding your POV. - Jeeny Talk 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is helpful because it illustrates the term in question. That's the norm on Wikipedia, the subject of the article usually has an image which is relevant to the article. The image I've found on Commons is pretty much synonymous with this article. The accompanying article describes the people on it as "Negroids", it is not "my POV" that they are described such. The only reason I can see for not including it is because it might be offensive. But then again, Wikipedia isn't censored. What is your agenda? What does this mean: "There is no need for pictures in this particluar article. It's plainly in the text." Should "plain" Wikipedia articles be image free?

As for civility, did you just ignore Muntuwandi clearly calling me a troll, posting two pictures of "trolls", without even signing his post? That's why I called him hysterical, could you please try to be objective? Who called anyone "insane" and "not normal"? Could you please stop accusing me of saying things I never did? Funkynusayri 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line:

I find aforementioned picture on the left on Wikipedia Commons. The accompanying text, which is from a Lexicon from 1914, states that the individuals on the image are "Negroids". This is the most fitting image which could be found anywhere, it is the only one which has an expired copyright, and it is the only one which has been created by old physical anthropologists to illustrate the term Negroid, back when the term was still in use.

This is thus a clear parallel to the "flat earth" article.

This article is about the term "Negroid", and makes it very clear that the term is defunct.

I add the picture to the article, and all hell breaks loose. I am called a troll and accused of saying things I never did. Why is that? Funkynusayri 05:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Muti removed it again. Let me direct your attention to these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

The picture stays per those policies. If you want to control a page and direct it towards your own personal POV, create your own Wiki. Funkynusayri 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture says african types. What that means with regard to this article I have no ideaMuntuwandi 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That has already been explained. Please read up on previous discussions before making blind reverts. Or at least ask me to explain it again. Or read the image caption, for starters.Funkynusayri 23:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The image should be included along with a statement about it's historical context.Genisock2 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

They're not blind reverts. The image/plate plainly states they are Africans. Viewing the "plate" I can see that they include Caucasoid (yet dark skin) types too. It is not relevant, Funkynusayri to this article. Unless you can provide the page that supports that statement that it is in the book they are refered to as Negriod. Anyway, the image is over 100 somewhat years old. So I agree with Genisock, that if the image is to stay it include its hisorical context, if that is in fact what the "book" says. Do you have a copy, Funkynusayri? If so, then produce the evidence. It's on you. The image get's cut, until you find an appropriate source. I will not take your word nor anyone else's. Show the proof. The onus is on you! - Jeeny Talk 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've aready pasted the segment of the article which states they're Negroids. I've even linked to the damn page it's on. I can't make you read it, but you should. Funkynusayri 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then clarify it in the caption. Or it's out again. - Jeeny Talk 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do it yourself. The relivat pages are here and here.Geni 13:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)